Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1986-10-07 minutesPLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION Regular Meeting DATE: October 7, 1986 AT: Village Hall COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Simmons, J, Anderson, H. Bayer, R. Neely, W. Schempf, J. Sobkoviak. EX-OFFICIO PRESENT: D. Gullicksen, R. Russ, M. Gehrke, J. Bostjancic. Chairman Simmons called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. Roll call was taken. D. Anderson, W. Sharp, D. Almon, A. Atbo, Janet Anderson, J. Eichelberger, J. Wilson were absent. J. Bostjancic noted a.correction to the minutes of the September 16, 1986 meeting:- Page 3, 4th paragraph - strike the word "Plainfield" and change to "Naperville." There being no other additions or corrections to the minutes, Chairman Simmons declared the minutes approved as presented. OLD.BUSINESS There was a short discussion regarding Case No. 150-81962, Leonard Kubinski, requesting rezoning of property at 2523 N. Van Dyke Road from Residence A to B-4. D. Gullicksen stated this case was before the Village Board and he feels it was the consensus of the Board that they wanted Petitioner to come back to the Plan Commission and see if we can work out something on that piece of property regarding kennels. There was a,motion that further filing fees would be waived. In our present zoning we have nothing for kennels.. M. Latta stated the Village Board had two questions. One was did B-4 zoning belong on that piece of property. The Village Board agreed with the Plan Commission that B-4 does not belong on that lot. Secondly, dog kennels do not fit into B-4. Would dog kennels belong on that piece of property no matter what it is zoned? The real question is do dog kennels belong in the Village.of Plainfield, since they are not in our Zoning Ordinance at this time. Another concern is if the property were to be rezoned anything in that zoning could go in that property. PLAINFTELD PLAN COMMISSION October 7, 1986. Page Two A. Simmons stated that if we ever had kennels there would be restrictions on how far the kennel would have to be from the lot line. Put it in industrial zoning where it wouldn't bother people at night. A. Simmons announced there will be further meetings on boundary agreement with Naperville. Adjourned: 8:05 p.m. Kay ia,,Oa, Secretary PLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATE: October 7, 1986 AT: Village Hall COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: J. Anderson, H. Bayer, R. Neely, W. Schempf, J. Sobkoviak. D. Anderson was absent. Chairman.Simmons called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Chairman Simmons announced there will be a public hearing at the next meeting on October 21, 1986. A request for a sideyard variance to construct a 1-car garage at 1209 North College Street. PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 151-9586V, Svornik petition requesting minimum sideyard variance to 12 feet with a minimum sideyard of 6 feet on each side on property at 910 Penn Road. Petitioner Steve Svornik was sworn in by Secretary. A. Simmons asked Petitioner the reason for requesting this variance is to allow him to build a 2-unit Duplex on the property, and asked what is behind the property now. Petitioner believes the church owns the property right behind his, which is vacant, and right behind that is the DuPage River. He feels this property would not be developed because it is on a flood plain. Petitioner stated he has a. letter from Beiling Consultants stating his property is not in a flood plain. Petitioner stated there is a single-family home to the south of his property, and a 5-unit to the north. All property there is zoned A-2. J. Sobkoviak stated there is a driveway on the north side of the property which is kind of narrow already. REPORT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October. 7, 1986 Page Two Petitioner said he would be.anothex 6 to 8 feet from that driveway. He said. he would not have any-thing behind th.e building so that would all be grass. The problem he ran into on this particular.lot is that it would be hard to put something there and park behind the building because the lot is so narrow. That is why he tried to find something with parking in front, front garages. A. Simmons stated we have granted a few variances in our multi-family ordinance.. There are about three variances on Penn Road. This was done for parking. We could not have them parking in a flood plain. In looking at this variance, we're looking at density where you're increasing density by decreasing the sideyard requirement. Petitioner was asked if he had any other plans that could be developed. He stated there is another option to put a 4-unit townhouse there which fits within the guidelines. Then it would be 8 cars which would fit, but it would be tight. Square footage-wise could put a 4-unit in. R. Russ asked Petitioner if he could change the plan and narrow it down a little. Petitioner said he took the plans from a book and does not want to draw up new plans. A. Simmons stated he would like this plan rather than building parallel to the existing building. Petitioner stated that if he had the plans redrawn to meet the existing standards the whole building would have to be redesigned. Would not be able to have 2 full garages. A. Simmons stated that when we grant.a variance from our regulations there has to be extenuating circumstances or hardship to grant that variance. The Board asked if Petitioner would like.to come back with a modified plan, and Petitioner said no. H. Bayer moved to deny the petition as it stands. Seconded by R. Neely. Vote by roll call. J. Anderson, No; R. Neely, Yes; H. Bayer, Yes; J. Sobkoviak, Yes; W. Schempf, No; A. Simmons, Yes. 3 yes, 2 no. Motion carried. Adjorned: 7:50 p.m. Kay &tar/la, Secretary U STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF WILL SS: October 7, 1986 VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD Case No. 151-9586V Location: 910 Penn Road Petitioner: Steve Svornik Request: A minimum sideyard variation of 12 feet with a minimum sideyard of 6 feet on each side. Discussion: Petitioner requested a sideyard variance to allow construction of a 2-unit Duplex on the property at 910 Penn Road. He stated the church owns the property behind his, which is vacant, and behind that is the DuPage River. He feels the property behind his would not be developed because it is in a flood plain. Petitioner has letter from Beiling Consultants stating his property is not in flood plain. Because of the narrow lot, petitioner wants to construct building with parking in front. He would not have anything behind the.building, it would all be grass. Petitioner stated he took this plan from a book and would not want to draw up new plans. Petitioner was asked if he had any other plans. He stated his other option would be a 4-unit townhouse which would fit within the guidelines. Then it would be 8 cars which would fit but it would be tight. The Board stated that when they grant variances from our regulations there has to be extenuating circumstances or hardship to grant the variance REPORT OF October 7, Page Two ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1986 Petitioner was asked if he would like to come back with. a modified plan. He said he would not. No objections were received nor were any objectioners present. Recommendation: By a vote of 3-2, the Zoning Board.of Appeals recommends that the Village Board of Trustees deny the request for sideyard variance. Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting 161,�46 please sign this sheet for our official records. / ADDRESS REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS FIRST AND THIRD MONDAY EVENINGS OF EACH MONTH