Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1986-10-21 minutesPLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION Regular Meeting Date: October 21, 1986 Commissioners Present: Ex-Officio Present: At: Village Hall H. Bayer, W. Schempf, J. Anderson, J. Sobkoviak. D. Gullicksen, W. Sharp, M. Gehrke, R. Russ. In the absence of Chairman Simmons, Vice-Chairman Bayer called the meeting to order at 7:46 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Simmons, R. Neely, D. Anderson, J. Bostjancic, J. Eichelberger, Janet Anderson, J. Wilson, A. Arbo, D. Almon were absent. There being no additions or corrections to the minutes of the Plan Commission meeting of October 7, 1986, Vice-Chairman Bayer declared the minutes approved as presented. There being no additions, the agenda was declared closed. Unfinished Business Leonard Kubinski, Case #150-819862, requesting rezoning of property at 2523 N. Van Dyke Road from Residence A to B-4. Mr. Kubinski has a prospective buyer for the property who wishes to train seeing-eye dogs and board dogs. Mr. Kubinski was present and stated he appeared before the Village Board of Trustees on October 16, 1986 requesting this rezoning of his property. The Village Board said they do not have zoning to fit this request; that Mr. Kubinski should go back before the Plan Commission and that they try to help him find the proper zoning for his property. The property is presently surrounded by industry and multi-family. Vice-Chairman Bayer asked if the dogs would be housed in an open area or in a building, and would they be audible to the outside. Mr. Kubinski stated the dogs will be housed inside. There is an existing building there in addition to the home, and he feels they would not be that noisy. Mrs. Connie Tippett, the propsective buyer, was present and stated the dogs they have now will be housed in the existing building temporarily. She plans to put up another building. The boarding of dogs comes in because they cannot charge for the training of seeing-eye dogs and they need to generate some income. She operates a guard dog service in the city now. They have 6 guard dogs who work at night and generally rest during the day. Would like to phase out the guard dogs because it would be too far to go into the city four times a day. They would do this if they could have a small boarding kennel and train the seeing- eye dogs. As far as noise, she said she couldn't say it would be totally peace and quiet - dogs do bark. Mrs. Tippett said they would have indoor runs if the Village required. To operate a boarding kennel you have to be state licensed, and they have strict requirements. PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION October 21, 198.6 Page Two Mr. Kubinski stated there is considerable noise there now with the industry. Mrs. Tippett further stated she presently resides in Lyons, Illinois and have the guard dogs there. Any of her neighbors would give a high recommendation. The dog pens are kept clean, and they have never had a complaint to the town or themselves about the dogs. J. Sobkoviak stated we have two questions: one is the rezoning of the property, and the second question is the kennel. J. Anderson questioned if we could go to special use and revert back. Vice-Chairman Bayer said he feels we can't do that. The Board wanted to do that in some other cases but could not. Mrs. Tippett said the Village Board did not want B-4 because then anything zoned under B-4 could go in there. Mr. Kubinski stated he would hope he would be entitled to something more than just residential because of the surrounding area. J. Sobkoviak said he does not argue that point, but the issue is the zoning and how we can handle it. Vice-Chairman Bayer stated he feels it would be a step in the right direction to have the Planner's input on this matter, and would like to continue this matter to another meeting. Mr. Robert Graham, owner of the property contiguous to Mr. Kubinski's property, was present and stated he would object to this rezoning request. Mr. Graham presented a sketch showing the surrounding areas and said that generally when zoning changes are being considered there is a fair amount of due consideration given to the interests of the people who live next door. Mr. Graham stated his property is contiguous in terms of the north boundary line of 460 feet and the east boundary line of 260 feet. He stated that it is his position that any use other than residential, any business use whatsoever, is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood established out there eight years ago when the decision was made that 40 acres lying due north of Normantown Drain, east of Van Dyke Road would be zoned and developed residentially. Mr. Graham stated he is here representing his 40-acre parcel, the homeowners that live in Pheasant Chase, and the people that will live out there tomorrow. He feels that the subject property should remain R-1 residential or R-4 multi-family which is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION October 21, 1986 Page Three Mr. Kubinski responded that he was not included in the zoning for that area. He feels his property would be a barrier between the industry and multi-family. He also responded to Mr. Graham that this case was published in the newspaper and at the previous meetings there were no objectors present. Mr. Graham stated that when his property was zoned R-1 and R-4 that Mr. Kubinski did not own his property on Van Dyke Road; that he purchased it subsequent thereto, and in doing so he accepted the risk that perhaps his property would not become B-4. Mr. Graham said, in his opinion, we do not need a business in there, period. We would resist - we're talking about a business in what we consider a residential neighborhood. Mr. Kubinski stated he would be in there before Mr. Graham does any developing. Once it's developed, the people buying the homes would know the animals were there, and if they were against animals they would not buy there. Mr. Graham stated he merely wanted to indicate to the Board that as an adjoining property owner, and who has a substantial investment out there, what his attitude was. J. Anderson moved to table this matter to the next meeting. Seconded by W. Schempf. Voice vote. 4 yes 0 no. Motion carried. On motion meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Kay JaWia,61 Secretary Date: October 21, 1986 At: Village Hall Members Present: H. Bayer, W. Schempf, J. Anderson, J. Sobkoviak. In the absence of Chairman Simmons, Vice-Chairman Bayer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Simmons, R. Neely, and D. Anderson were absent. There being no additions, the agenda was declared closed. New Business Case No. 152-92486V, Earl F. Otto petition for a variance to 3 feet on side lot to construct a 1-car garage attached to house. Public Hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees. Petitioner was sworn in by secretary. Mr. Otto, owner of the property, was present and stated he would like to put an addition onto the garage that is already there. The addition would be 13 feet by 34 feet. It would be attached to the garage that is attached to the house right now. He would like to put it right alongside the present garage and connect it with the back shed to keep it tied in with the roof line. It would blend in and not look like a garage. The building Petitioner calls a shed was once a 1-car garage, and is now being used for storage. The shed was built about 10 or 12 years ago, and a variance was required to build it. Petitioner stated he talked to his neighbor who has no objection to the construction of the garage. The Board stated, generally there is a hardship in requesting a variance and asked Petitioner in what way does our present ordinance present a hardship. Petitioner responded he has city water, but has a septic in the back yard, so he cannot do much in the back. Petitioner said he will be using existing driveway. Wants to put a small door in between the front door of the new building, because he has no way to get into the house other than through the front door or open the big garage door. Petitioner asked the Board to verify what his property is zoned as. The Board stated the zoning map shows his property is zoned I-1. W. Schempf moved to recommend that the Village Board not object to the request for variance to 3 feet on side lot to construct a 1-car garage attached to house. Seconded by J. Anderson. Vote by roll call. J. Sobkoviak, yes; W. Schempf, yes; J. Anderson, yes; H. Bayer, yes. 4 yes, 0 no. Motion carried. On motion meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. I 74��61(d 9V,"A� Kay jadfa,�/Secretary U_ STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF WILL SS: October 21, 1986 VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD REPORT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Case No. 152-92486V Location: 1209 N. College Street Petitioner: Mr. Earl F. Otto, owner of the property. Request: A variance to 3 feet on side lot to construct a 1-car garage attached to house. Discussion: Mr. Otto, owner of the property, was present and stated he would like to put an addition onto the garage that is already there. The addition would be 13 feet by 34 feet. It would be attached to the garage which is attached to the house right now. He would like to put it right alongside the present garage and connect it with the back shed and keep it,on line and tied in with the roof line. It would blend in and not look like a garage. The building Petitioner calls a shed was once a 1-car garage. Is being used as a shed now. The shed was built about 10 or 12 years ago, and a variance was required to build it. Petitioner stated he talked to his neighbor who has no objection to the construction of the garage. The Board stated generally there is a hardship in requesting a variance and asked Petitioner in what way does our present ordinance present a hardship. Petitioner responded he has city water, but has a septic in the back so he cannot do much in the back yard. Petitioner will be using existing driveway. Wants to put a small door in between the front door of the new building, because he has no way to get into the house other than through the front door or open the big garage door. Petitioner asked Board to verify what his property is zoned as. The Zoning Map shows his property to be zoned I-1. No objections were received nor were any objectioners present at the hearing. Recommendation: By a vote of 4-0, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommends that the Village Board of Trustees approve Petitioner's request for variance to construct a 1-car garage attached to house. mik NAME ADDRESS F 7W (4) 1 z" 0 9 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS FIRST AND THIRD MONDAY EVENINGS OF EACH MONTH ,4O ��Z&6