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