Will County Planning and Zoning Commission met March 15.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Barbara Peterson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Chairman Stipan said Dawn is not here?
Marguerite Kenny said no.
Chairman Stipan said who is doing roll call?
Lisa Napoles said, I am Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stipan said okay, thank you.
Chairman Hugh Stipan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Michael Carruthers | Commissioner | Present | |
| Kimberly Mitchell | Commissioner | Present | |
| Hugh Stipan | Chairman | Present | |
| Barbara Peterson | Commissioner | Present | |
| John Kiefner | Vice Chairman | Present | |
| Roger Bettenhausen | Commissioner | Present | |
| Matthew Gugala | Commissioner | Present |
Land Use staff present were Adrian Diaz, Lisa Napoles, Marguerite Kenny and Brian Radner.
Chris Wise present from the Will County State's Attorney's Office.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES FROM JANUARY 4, 2022
1. WC Planning and Zoning Commission - Public Hearing - Jan 4, 2022 6:30 PM
Roger Bettenhausen made Motion to approve. Barbara Peterson seconded the Motion.
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0, with no additions or corrections.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
V. ZONING CASES
Chairman Stipan swore in the public present in the gallery and announced to make sure their cell phones do not interrupt the meeting.
1. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF VARIANCE AMENDING THE WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS ZONING ORDINANCE Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as amended, for Case ZC-21-093, Robert Warkocki, Owner of Record, requesting (V-21-119) Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,800 sq. ft. to 2,210 sq. ft, for PIN # 19-09-23-203- 001-0000, in Frankfort Township, commonly known as 20759 S 84th Ave, Frankfort, IL
Chairman Stipan announced the case.
Adrian Diaz presented the case.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Zoning Case ZC-21-093 is for 20759 S 84th Avenue. It's a Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,800 square feet to 2,210 square feet. The owner and applicant is Robert Warkocki. The reason for the request is to add on to an existing building for more storage.
The subject site is 46,275 square feet, or a little bit over an acre. It has 247 feet of frontage along 84th Avenue and is zoned R-1. As R-1 districts require a minimum lot area of 60,000 square feet, the parcel is deficient in minimum lot area. However, this was remedied by the applicant in 1996 through zoning case 4287, which approved a variance for minimum lot area. The parcel is lot 1 in the Benner’s Subdivision. The parcel is improved with a one-and-a-half-story single family residence with an attached garage of 640 square feet and a detached garage 1,040 square feet. This was confirmed from the information gathered from the Frankfort Township Assessor. The residence was constructed in 1996 and the applicant is the original owner of the house, having lived there since 1996.
The site plan and survey were displayed.
There are no identified floodplains or inventoried wetlands located on the property. There are no sudden or abrupt changes in elevation. Staff could not find any physical hardships present on the property. The applicant’s parcel is surrounded by agricultural parcels to the west and residential zoned parcels to the north, east, and south. The applicant wishes to construct a 507 square foot addition to the existing detached garage as outlined on the screen in red. The addition would not encroach into any setbacks. This is just a Variance for accessory building area.
Photos of the subject parcel and adjacent properties were displayed.
Staff recommends denial for maximum accessory building area from 1,800 square feet to 2,210 square feet.
The plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances. The applicant wishes to exceed their accessory building area preference. It is Staff’s professional opinion that the addition will alter the essential character of the area. Per the Frankfort Township Assessor, there are 18 residential properties located between North Avenue and Lincoln Highway along the 84th Avenue corridor and none of them had an accessory building area that surpassed their maximum allowance.
There are no issues present on the property itself that would prevent the applicant from complying with the regulations outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Because there are no hardships present on the property, Staff finds that if approved, it would be applicable to other properties within the Zoning District because the owner has been on the property for 26 years Staff does not believe he is pursuing this Variance to make more money out of the property. And that the Variance request stems from the applicant desire to have more storage space. Staff's finds the addition would not be detrimental to the public welfare or unduly injurious to other property in the area. Staff believes that the variances would not impair an adequate supply of air to adjacent property or have any detrimental effects to surrounding properties.
Thank you.
Lisa Napoles said did you say, this concludes our presentation.
Adrian Diaz said, oh, I'm sorry, this concludes our presentation, I'm sorry. Chairman Stipan said okay, does anyone have any questions?
Kimberly Mitchell said I have no questions.
Barbara Peterson said I have none.
Chairman Stipan said okay thank you very much.
Adrian Diaz said thank you very much.
Chairman Stipan said is the owner Mr. Warkocki available or present? A man raises his hand in the gallery.
Chairman Stipan said before you come up, are there any concerned citizens or objectors?
No answer.
Chairman Stipan said okay would you please come up? Please introduce yourself and give your address. Thank you.
Robert Warkocki introduces himself to the Commission.
Chairman Stipan said you see they offered you a denial? Is there anything you would like to say that might mitigate that?
Robert Warkocki said I didn't recognize they offered a denial.
Chairman Stipan said it says denial maximum accessory building.
Robert Warkocki said well I guess my first thing I would think is, I've done the process. I've gone through with the different things I had to do according to the rules to try to get the variance. It was stated by the County here unless I heard it wrong, that there is no impact to the neighbor and/or impede on any of the rules as far as setbacks and that sort of thing. So, I don't know why I would be denied.
Chairman Stipan said because you exceed the maximum square footage for a storage for the R-2 which you are zoned in.
Robert Warkocki said but that's the reason to ask for a variance from my understanding That is why we come and do this. I knew last year when I applied for the permit that I was over on square footage. I said what's the process and they said oh you follow these rules, and you get a variance. You got to go before a board and state your case and whatever and it always works out. So, I done that and that's why we are here. I paid all the fee and jumped through all the hoops.
Chairman Stipan said what we're asking is what is your reasoning for needing more storage.
Robert Warkocki said the reason for needing more storage is I'm a retired carpenter, a do-it-yourself kind of guy. I built the house that we live in, as you seen in the pictures. I have a lot of different hobbies, including wood working, fixing on old tractors, or working on cars, whatever. One of my future projects coming up is I want to redo my kitchen. It's a 26-year-old house and I want to try to make my own cabinets. I have outgrown the original shop that I built for myself with all the tools, and everything acquired to make things with. So, I am actually renting a storage building right now to put other stuff in right now, I thought if I extend my shop a little, I can make room for that storage and stop paying that rent. I can continue to live here and build what I need to build right here in my shop. So that is the reason for the extra storage.
Chairman Stipan said okay, is there anything else you'd like to add?
Robert Warkocki said if you can answer what the next steps are. It's apparent it’s been denied so I don't know what to do now.
Kimberly Mitchell said we'll vote
Robert Warkocki said oh okay, I'm sorry.
Chairman Stipan said that's why we are asking. We get the official side and your side. We want to balance.
Robert Warkocki said that's it, that's all I got.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much sir.
Mike Carruthers said Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I know you're asking a for an additional 410 square feet. The Village of Frankfort is asking will you be matching the existing detached garage with current materials and colors.
Robert Warkocki said yes, identical. I am no sure if you have a copy of my blueprints that I drew up and I actually offset the front of the new addition with a foot setback. That way it doesn't look so bad from the street, so it doesn't look like one big ugly piece of siding.
Chairman Stipan said are there any other questions?
No Answer.
Chairman Stipan said thank you sir.
Robert Warkocki said thank you
Motion to Approve Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,800 sq. ft. to 2,210 sq. ft (V-21-119)
Mike Carruthers made Motion to approve. Kimberly Mitchell seconded the Motion.
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
Chairman Stipan announced the case.
Lisa Napoles presented the case.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Zoning Case ZC-22-001 is for a Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,800 square feet to 2,637 square feet. The owner is Adam Donley. The owner is seeking this Variance to obtain a building permit to construct a pole barn for personal storage. I wanted to take this opportunity to correct a typo on page two of the staff report. Under Staff recommendations, the requested variance reads 2,620 square feet and it should read 2,637 square feet. Staff regrets the error.
The subject property is located on the south side of 145th Street, northwest of S. Archer Avenue/Route 171 in Lockport Township. The parcel is Lot J in County Clerk’s Subdivision and measures approximately 1.70 acres in lot area with 120 feet of lot frontage and is zoned R-2. The parcel meets the lot area standard for the R-2 zoning district but does not meet the minimum lot frontage requirement. Because the parcel was platted as part of a subdivision in 1942, it is deemed legal, nonconforming. The property is improved with a house with an attached garage and has a driveway with access to W. 145th Street to the north.
The maximum accessory building area permitted in the R-2 district is 1,800 square feet. Per Lockport Township Assessor records, the existing attached garage is 693 square feet. The site plan submitted for this case shows a proposed pole barn measuring 36 feet by 54 feet, or 1,944 square feet. The total accessory building area proposed for the parcel is 2,637 square feet, which exceeds the maximum accessory building area permitted by 837 square feet.
The owner submitted the application for this zoning case in January of 2021. The owner has not yet submitted a building permit for this property.
The subject property is located within the Lockport Facility Planning Area as well as within the Des Plaines River Watershed. The soil present on the property is Markham silt loam, 4 to 6 percent slopes, eroded. There are no identified floodplains or inventoried wetlands located on the property.
As mentioned, the parcel is zoned R-2 and so are the propertied east, west, and south. The property to the north is zone R-1.
The Plat of Survey was displayed.
I provided full details in your Report but to summarize, in regard to criterion (a) by which Zoning Ordinance evaluated variances, Staff finds that the plight of the owners is not due to unique circumstances. The owners have the option to construct a 1,107 square foot pole barn which would meet the 1,800 maximum accessory building area permitted in the R-2 district. It is the owners’ preference to construct a 1,944 square foot pole barn for personal storage, which exceeds the maximum accessory building area permitted by 837 square feet
In regard to criterion (b), Staff finds that variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. While there are several properties with attached garages as well detached accessory buildings ranging between 800 square feet and 1,100 square feet, the largest accessory building in the area is approximately 1,200 square feet. The pole barn proposed by the applicant would be approximately 744 square feet larger than the largest accessory building in the area.
Photos of the subject parcel and adjacent parcels were displayed.
Staff is recommending denial of the request. Of the agencies that were notified and provided comments, none objected.
And this concludes Staff's analysis. Thank you.
Chairman Stipan said okay, does anyone have any questions?
No answer.
Chairman Stipan said is the owner, Adam. Donley present?
A man raises his hand in the gallery.
Chairman Stipan said just one second. Are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this case?
No answer.
Chairman Stipan said okay sir would you please come down? Please give your name and address for the record sir.
Adam Donley introduced himself to the Commission.
Chairman Stipan said you see they recommended denial? Would you care to tell us why you believe you need this?
Adam Donley said yes, so we do have right now a two-car attached garage which is noted. We also have two children that we try to keep out of the house as much as possible. So, we have quads, dirt bikes, a boat, and a RV. So, a lot of this stuff is not able to be stored at our location right now. I would like to do that. Also, we have three vehicles. My lovely wife right here has her vehicle and I have a work and personal vehicle. None of these are able to be parked in the garage because of said toys. What I would like, and I do appreciate the beauty of this subdivision. I would like to be able to put these vehicles inside. I would like to empty that garage into an accessory building. To keep the neighborhood looking good. As well as it is a shade under two acres which requires a lot of lawn maintenance equipment which I also have to store.
Chairman Stipan said n the report it said you maybe closer than your site proposal to your septic field.
Adam Donley said no, I actually spoke to someone, I can’t remember his name from the Health Department. I actuallly supplied him with the permit drawing in an email and he replied to me that there was no issue with it. He was going off of an aerial photo. I supplied him with the current drawings submitted to the County when I had my septic system redone. Which gives me ample room. I actually have 11 feet on the side of the building, and I'm only required to have 10. I have this here if you guys would like it.
Chairman Stipan said is it something we can take with us.
Adam Donley said absolutely.
Adam Donley handed drawing to Lisa Napoles.
Lisa Napoles said thank you.
Chairman Stipan said has anyone else any questions?
Kimberly Mitchell said I just have one.
Chairman Stipan said yes.
Kimberly Mitchell said did you talk to your neighbors?
Adam Donley said yes, my neighbor across the street, he's completely fine with it. My neighbors nextdoor Jackie and Nick they have not issues with it. I sent out all the letter certified mail. I don't believe we had any issues come back.
Kimberly Mitchell said okay.
Michael Carruthers said Mr. Chairman, I have a question, again. Chairman Stipan said yes, please.
Michael Carruthers said the residence, Lockport Township. Is this going to be residential or business?
Adam Donley said completely residential, it's for storage.
Chairman Stipan said you're not going do any business out of that building. Adam Donley said no sir.
Chairman Stipan said okay, thank you.
Michael Carruthers said thank you.
Chairman Stipan said alright sir, I think you've answered our questions. Thank you very much.
Barbara Peterson said who is going to handle all the paperwork? Lisa Napoles said I am.
Barbara Peterson said for all the cases?
Lisa Napoles said Dawn is going to handle them when she gets back on Thursday. Barbara Peterson said thank you.
Motion to Approve Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,800 sq. ft. to 2,637 sq. ft (V-22-001)
Kimberly Mitchell made Motion to approve. Barbara Peterson seconded the Motion.
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
Chairman Stipan announced the case
Adrian Diaz presented the case.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Zoning Case ZC-21-104 is for 18224 Thornton Road in Wilmington Illinois. The property is located in the Wesley Township. The owners and applicants are Shawn and Donna Matthuis. It is to bring a non-conforming structure into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance.
The site plan was displayed.
The applicant's parcel is outlined in red. They also own the parcel to the east, which has no lot frontage. The applicants are not interested at this moment in consolidating the two parcels. The second parcel is a legal non-conforming because it is landlocked and has no frontage. There are no inventoried wetlands or any sudden or abrupt changes in elevation of the property The applicants acquired the parcels in 2020. The applicants' parcel is surround on all sides by A-1 parcels.
In June 2021, the applicants applied for an ag-exempt permit 2101583 to construct a pole barn. The survey submitted by the applicants and reviewed by Staff showed that the pole barn meeting the minimum 50-foot side setback required of the A-1 zoning district. The pole barn was approved for its final building inspection on September 2, 2021. In October 2021, the applicants submitted a permit application to construct a new house. Per Staff’s review of the site plan, the actual location of the ag-exempt pole barn was shown to be located 41.9 feet from the side property line. Staff found that the pole barn was constructed within the side setback requirements. The applicant is pursuing this variance request in order to be able to obtain a building permit for the residence.
Photos of the subject parcel and neighboring properties were displayed.
Staff is recommending denial for minimum side yard setback from 50 feet to 41.9 feet.
Staff finds that the plight of the owners does not qualify as a hardship. The pole barn, completed in 2021, was built within the west side setback requirement and was allowed to become a condition of the property. The applicants were aware of the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and should have followed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, Staff notes that it is possible that the pole barn was constructed within the setback due to construction error.
It is the Staff’s professional opinion that the pole barn does not alter the essential character of the area. During a site visit on February 23, 2022, Staff observed that the area is agricultural and that several properties near the applicants' parcel maintain similar pole barn structures. Also, per County GIS, Staff notes that several parcels in the immediate vicinity of the applicants’ parcel have structures encroaching into a setback requirement.
Staff finds that the location of the completed pole barn is an inconvenience and not a hardship. There are no issues present in the property itself that would have prevent the applicants from constructing a pole barn within the regulations outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Because there are no hardships present on the property itself, conditions upon which the variance application is based, would be applicable to other properties in the Zoning District.
Staff finds that the hardship was created by the applicants. The applicants applied for a building permit for the pole barn, however, again, staff notes the possibility that it was constructed at its location due to construction error.
Staff finds that this variance request if granted would not be detrimental to other properties in the neighborhood. It is Staff's profession opinion that the grant of this variance would not impair the adequate supply of air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger of fire.
This concludes my presentation.
Chairman Stipan said the only thing I can say in my personal opinion is that owner of a property depends on the site supervisor and the construction company to put this thing where it's supposed to be. They had them the permit papers and say here this is what you got to build. I don't think the owner said, hey, move that thing nine feet that way. I just have a feeling; it was construction error. I can't prove that of course but it is just my opinion. I have no questions of you because I'm sure you do not know the answer, I'm sure. Has anyone else any questions of Adrian.
No answer.
Chairman Stipan said okay, thank you sir.
Adrian Diaz said thank you.
Chairman Stipan said is the owner here?
A gentleman raises his hand.
Chairman Stipan said okay. Is there any concerned citizens or objectors to this case here?
No one answers.
Chairman Stipan said okay, could you please come up sir? Please state your name and address for the records.
Shawn Mattuis introduced himself to the Commission.
Chairman Stipan said I'm going to ask you that question directly sir. Did you ask your contractor to move those 9 feet away?
Shawn Mattuis said no, this was truly construction error. We dealt with Morton Builders on this building, and they have been amazing to work with. They hit all their marks and times, no delays but obviously missed this one. We were totally unaware of it until we went for the house plan, and we had to have a new survey made for this box and that's when it showed up. We were all like, oh no! So here we are.
Chairman Stipan said with the amount of acreage you had, they could've put it anywhere and no problems, correct?
Shawn Mattuis said there is actually a bit of a hill and I think that's what threw them off. When you're at the back property line, you can't see the front stake and when you're at the front stake, you can't see the back one.
Chairman Stipan said I'm not trying to denigrate your contractors but with electronics and the laser stakes today, there is no reason it should be in the wrong place.
Shawn Mattuis said I wish the builder was standing here now instead of me.
Chairman Stipan said it's the only question I have. Does anyone else have any questions?
Michael Carruthers said the septic was answered, right?
Chairman Stipan said yes.
Shawn Mattuis said there is no septic and there is no home at this time.
Chairman Stipan said yes, that's all going to be added. You'll be on a well also I presume?
Shawn Mattuis said yes.
Chairman Stipan said make sure the well and septic are separated so you don't have any problems later.
Shawn Mattuis said yes sir.
Chairman Stipan said thank you sir
Motion to Approve Variance for side yard setback from 50 feet to 41.9 feet (V 21-129)
Matthew Gugala made Motion to approve. Kimberly Mitchell seconded the Motion.
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
Chairman Stipan announced the case.
Marguerite Kenny presented the case.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Zoning Case ZC-22-006 as you can see is a map amendment and variance request. This case will continue on to the Land Use and Development Committee on April 12, 2022, in this County Boardroom. This property is located in Homer Township. The property owner is Leon Krol, Janina Krol and Daniel Krol each are 33.3% interest in the property. The agent who is here tonight, Joseph Pizzuto of Landworks Property LLC is the applicant. The attorney is Patti Bernhard of Rosanova & Whitaker Ltd.
The subject property is located on Gougar Road, in Homer Glen. It is directly north of a property has come forward before this Commission a few times in the last couple of years, it is Wingren Landscape. So, this property is developing that northern property adjacent to it. Like Wingren Landscape this agent is requesting a map amendment from A-1 to I-2. With a variance for fence height in the setback to develop the land for a landscape business. They are planning an office building, some maintenance storage, a storage yard, and a fence to match the existing fence line of the adjacent property.
The agent is currently under contract to purchase this property and will be closing within the next month or two. In doing so, we be submitting the permits when he actually owns the property if all goes as desired with the approvals.
The property to the immediate south has a 6-foot-tall wooden fence on concrete blocks. The applicant is purposing a straight up 6-foot solid wooden fence from ground to the highest point. The intended use would be the contractor's office, which would contain the landscaping architect firm, the business, mechanics shop, storage building with outdoor related storage for vehicles, equipment, and nursery stock. The property currently is in operation on a property in Bolingbrook. So, he is looking to relocate it to unincorporated Will County. Hours of operation will be Monday through Saturday, 6:00am to 6:00pm. There will be 10 employees working on the site which will generate roughly 20 daily vehicle trips. Since the property is currently vacant, there will be a slight increase in the noise occurring from the property.
The subject property is currently zoned A-1 and has about 360 feet of frontage. It is only 7.3 acres, and the parcel was created at a time when A-1 typically requires 10 acres. So, it is deemed to be an illegal lot. In order to correct some of the noticeable violations, they would need to pursue some type of zoning action. The applicant is willing to come into compliance by developing the site for the landscape business and address the existing conditions through those permits. There is a Zone X floodplain, which is a 500-year floodplain indicated by that row of trees. Per our GIS records, we do not indicate any wetlands but the Will-South Cook Water Conservation District, tends to show with there data, that there may be a wetland within the tree line as well. If there are any wetlands be cautious and take appropriate action. The NRI Report was produced after the Staff Report was published, so it is the memo you all received at tonight's meeting.
Aerial maps were displayed.
As you can see, the subject property is farmed on the western side of the property and uses an outdoor storage on the eastern side.
The site plan was displayed.
The applicant is proposing a principal structure that will have additional phased developments with a second building and additions on to those two structures along the western side of the property. There will some landscaping along Gougar and along the existing parking. In the center there will be some above ground fuel tanks which would require permits from the State's Fire Marshall's Office as well as a couple of hoop structures, where the nursery stock will be kept. And behind the existing tree line, in that 500-year floodplain would be the outdoor storage area where the vehicles will be kept, additional landscaping materials and things like that. Just as a reminder to the Commission, any outdoor storage needs to be screened from all property lines. The Land Use Staff will take a look at the existing vegetation like the tree and shrubs that exist. But there needs to be a solid screen so that you can not see into the property from adjacent properties. The applicant is also proposing two cargo containers on the property. That would be permitted as an accessory structure for the I-2 Zoning District.
Photograph of the subject property and adjacent parcels were displayed.
The criteria by which the Staff, Commission, and County Board reviews map amendment criteria, Staff used a one-mile radius to look at the existing uses within the Village of Homer Glen, City of Lockport, and unincorporated Will County. Uses in closest proximity are industrial, agricultural, and public. The existing zoning within that mile include we have a mix of industrial, agricultural, residential, and commercial. In the City of Lockport, it is mainly industrial but there is some multi and single-family residences in the area. Homer Glen is more rural in field. So, you have some A-1, estates residential and other residential zoning districts, with a small C-2 local business within the edge of that one-mile radius. In incorporated Will, we have a combination., A-1, A-2, estate residential, single family residential, commercial, and industrial.
Looking at the suitability of the subject property for uses permitted under the existing zoning classification as I previously mentioned, this site is considered an illegal A-1 lot. In order to get any sort of building permit or uses related to agricultural, it would need some type of zoning. As the surrounding area is zoned industrially, it makes sense to rezone industrial. For what the applicant is proposing to develop the site for, which is landscape business and a nursery with accessory outdoor storage. The nursery greenhouse would be permitted by right in I-2. As is the landscape business as long as there is a permitted principal structure. So, if there is the office associated with it, that use would be permitted. Outdoor storage as an accessory to does uses would be permitted as well.
Moving on to the trend and development. There has been a lot of industrial development within the last 5-6 years. Especially with the Heritage Crossing going in directly adjacent to this property. With the Wingren Landscaping directly south. The request is in conformance with the County's Land Resource Management Plan. It falls within the Suburban Communities Form Principles, Free Industry and Office is a permitted development use concept.
Looking at the future land use plans for the surrounding municipalities. It is not seen to be compatible to the 2005 Homer Glen plan which predates the industrial developments that the City of Lockport has taken along I-355 Corridor. It is seen to be compatible with land use in the City of Lockport to the west.
In terms for the LESA score, the calculation was 152 total points which places it in the country areas and productive farmland category.
With regards to the variance request of the fence. Staff finds that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Mainly due to the fact, to develop a compatible development within the existing sites, the applicant is looking to continue the existing fence line of the property to the south. The fence will encroach into the street setback for I-2, the setback I believe is 50 feet from the right-of-way line. So, to have the fence closer, they are requesting the variance. This variance was granted under the previous zoning for that southern parcel back in 2000. So, they are just looking to keep the similar development pattern consistent.
With regard to if this variance would alter the essential character of the locality, Staff finds this would not, it would actually add some conformity and compatibility to the area. Denying the variance could potentially alter the character of the locality. The remaining criteria can be found in your Staff Report.
With regard to agency comments, nobody has objected. The City of Lockport mentioned it's been nice working with the agent on the conceptual site plan. And the appreciate the ability to provide comments and suggestions early on in the phase. If they should annex into this property or vice versa with the Village of Homer Glen. Homer Glen also commented regarding the landscaping in the right of-way. Typically, that is something they would not approve if it was annexed. Screening needs to be installed along the eastern property line or at least enhanced so that it does provide a solid screen. Typically, the Village would not permit cargo containers, but they understand with the property to the south, that is something the County does permit. The asked if they would match the existing southern fence.
Staff is recommending approval of both the map amendment and the variance. And I am happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Stipan said I have no questions for you, does anyone else have any questions?
Vice Chairman Kiefner said I see there have been some violations. Are those violations against the current property owner or the agent who is trying to purchase, do you know?
Marguerite Kenny said it's the current property owner. The agent acknowledges that there are uncorrected violations, and he is willing to bring them into compliance with the site development permits.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said thank you.
Chairman Stipan said any other questions?
No one answers.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much. Can I have the attorney representing the people come down. If the owner is here?
A man from the gallery says, I am the purchaser, I do not have an attorney present.
Motion to Approve Map Amendment from A-1 to I-2 (M-22-004) John Kiefner made Motion to approve. Kimberly Mitchell seconded the Motion.
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: John Kiefner, Vice Chairman SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
John Kiefner made Motion to approve. Kimberly Mitchell seconded the Motion.
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: John Kiefner, Vice Chairman SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
Chairman Stipan announced the case
Marguerite Kenny presented the case.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like the previous case, this case will advance on to the Land Use Committee on April12, 2022 in this County Boardroom. So, this Zoning Case ZC-22-007 takes place in Joliet Township. The subject property is 2019 Chicago Street, in Joliet. The owner is CT Land Trust No. 8002382413 under trust agreement dated 12/10/2019 where Bipin Sharma is the sole beneficiary, and the Agent is Dr. Bipin Sharma. The applicant is seeking to renovate the existing commercial building which was formerly the Eagles Club and a tavern into an in patient drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility. Under the Will County Zoning Ordinance, this use is classified as a halfway house. Halfway houses provide temporary residences for patients receiving medial counseling treatment for a variety of reasons whether it be work release or trying to find a way to be re established into society or dealing with substance abuse. Halfway houses have a residential component to the use classification, which requires residential zoning as well as a special use permit due to the nature of the use. The applicant is requesting the special used be applied to the entire property and transferable to future property owners. The applicant has another facility located 2 1/2 miles due east of this property which was previously approved for rezoning and a special use back in December 2015.
Photos of the subject property were displayed.
The property is currently zoned C-4. The request for R-2 zoning is due to the halfway house needing residential zoning. The property has 42,975 square feet and 228 feet of lot frontage which meets the minimum requirements for the R-2 Zoning District. You can see the surrounding area is A-1 to the north, south and west. Directly east in the City of Joliet is Laraway Crossings Business Park and it is Industrial I-1 zoning. Other requirements within the Zoning Ordinance that there be separate distances between these types of uses. Based on GIS measurements, the closest other halfway house is the Hope and Divine Purpose Transitional Living Home Inc. which is located over 1,800 linear feet northeast.
The site plans and the plat of survey were displayed.
The hours of operation will be a 24-hour operation, Monday through Friday. There will be eight employees working on shifts. Generating an average of eight daily vehicle trips. The employees will be coming and going but there will be no expected to increase of noise level occurring from the site. If anything, from the former site being an Eagle Club and a tavern, it might actually be a lesser impact to the surrounding area. There will be 13 beds available in a dormitory type of room on the northern side of the building. There is a requirement where there is 50 square feet per occupant of the sleeping area. The purposed site plan does show conformance with that requirement. Patients will typical enter a 30-day treatment program and be residing at the facility during that treatment time but also taking different counseling and group programs.
More photos of the subject property and adjacent properties are displayed.
Again, with map amendments using a half mile radius due to the extent of the development in this area. Uses of the property include agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial within City of Joliet and unincorporated Will County. Its mix of uses including industrial warehousing to the east, residential to the north, and agricultural the west, and commercial are intermixed along Chicago Street.
The City of Joliet zoning map was displayed.
The zoning districts within a half mile radius of the subject property, include agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial. Within unincorporated we have A-1, A-2, single-family residential, varying densities. We also have R-6 which is multi-family residential which is that Pheasant Run Apartment complex you saw in the photos. We also have a mix of commercial uses. Within the City of Joliet, there is a mix of residential, general business, and light and general industrial.
As previously mentioned, the suitability of the property is zoned C-4 and is considered a conforming C-4 lot. The site could be repurposed for a new commercial use such as daycare, animal service, and an eating/drinking establishment. I believe a nursing home or assisted living facility. With regard to trending development, this area like the last one is seeing a large increase in commercial and industrial developments. Mainly to the east, west and south.
With regard to the City of Joliet’s Southside Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, this property is shown as being commercial. It terms in of type of use proposed, it does need to re-zoned to residential which would be incompatible with the future Land Use Plan. So, you will see in your Staff Report that City of Joliet did comment regarding that.
A LESA score was not calculated.
Moving on the special use the criteria based for review of special uses and their requests are contained in your packets. To summarize, drug and alcohol recovery homes defined as halfway houses in our Zoning Ordinance, provide care to individuals within the community. The purpose of recovery homes is intended to benefit the public’s health, safety, morals, comfort, and general welfare. The most desirable location of a recovery home is within close proximity to established residential uses as providing a safe environment to the residents receiving care.
As previously mentioned, the subject property is intermixed with residential, commercial, and industrial uses. There will be no expansion to the existing footprint of the building. The proposed renovations will occur mainly on the interior of the existing building. Exterior, like previously mentioned will be mainly cosmetic to give it a face-lift to make it look more newer constructed and cared for. It would have considerably less occupancy requirements than when it was the Eagle Club and tavern. Adequate utilities, access, and drainage exist on the property because it is improved with a building and a parking lot. The applicant is applying for a remodel permit to make sure that everything is brought up to the correct commercial codes.
With regards to the appropriate access and minimized traffic congestion in the public streets, again the site has an existing parking lot, the purposed use actually meets the existing parking requirements. Typically, group living situations are one space per 1,000 square feet. With the building 38,000 square feet, it would require a minimum of 4 parking spaces and one accessible. with the 22 parking spaces I believe that is shows, that would be in conformance.
With regards to the last criteria, the applicant does need the map amendment for this special use to be considered an approved. Aside from that the subject property would meet the R-2 area setbacks and lot area lot frontage requirements.
Of the agencies contacted, nobody objected except the City of Joliet mentioning that the zoning would be considered incompatible with the future land use maps
Staff is recommending approval of both requests. With the special use, Staff is recommending 3 conditions.
1) The standard site inspection.
2) The building permit be completed for the new use
3) Copies of all the required license, insurers, and certifications from the federal, state, or local agency pertaining to the recovery home, shall be submitted as part of the building permit process.
Just making sure there is some oversight with the care being provided at this facility.
With that, I am happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Stipan said any questions?
Barbara Peterson said is this a private facility?
Marguerite Kenny said I do believe so. I do know the applicant is here as well. Chairman Stipan said anyone else have any questions?
Vice Chairman Kiefner said so, it’s safe to assume that there is served by municipal sewer and water and there is not a private well and septic on this property? I am assuming they are not tied into Joliet.
Marguerite Kenny said I believe the Health Department did an investigation into the property and they have signed off on the building permits, so I believe it served by well and septic.
Chairman Stipan said anyone else have questions?
No answer.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much.
Chairman Stipan said are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this case? No one answers.
Chairman Stipan said would the owner of the Land Trust, Bipin Sharma come down? Please give your name and address for the record.
Bipin Sharma introduces himself to the Commission.
Chairman Stipan said sorry for the way, I pronounced your name. Bipin Sharma said no problem, I get it all the time.
Chairman Stipan said okay, it looks like everything is in order here. The only question I have for you is you've read the three conditions?
Bipin Sharma said yes.
Chairman Stipan said the third condition will probably be the most tedious to comply with. I presume you do it, right sir?
Bipin Sharma said absolutely.
Chairman Stipan said okay, are there any other questions?
Michael Carruthers said sir, you own the one on Manhattan Road also, right? Bipin Sharma said yes. I was here in 2015.
Chairman Stipan said that's it?
Chairman Stipan said Mr. Brooks, County Board Commissioner, Reverend Herbert Brooks. You have anything on this case you'd like to comment on?
Hebert Brooks said no Committee, I had talked with some residents out there and I told them if they have any concerns to meet me on tonight. They said if they had concerns, they'll be here. As you can see from your call, no one is here. So, I have no concerns at all. No problems.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much.
Herbert Brooks said thank you.
Chairman Stipan said thank you sir.
Bipin Sharma said thank you.
Motion to Approve Map Amendment from C-4 to R-2 (M-22-005)
Michael Carruthers made Motion to approve. John Kiefner seconded the Motion.
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: John Kiefner, Vice Chairman AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
Michael Carruthers made Motion to approve with 3 Conditions. John Kiefner seconded the Motion.
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: John Kiefner, Vice Chairman AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
None.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
None.
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to Adjourn Meeting
John Kiefner made Motion to Adjourn the meeting at 7:42 PM.
Matthew Gugala seconded the Motion.
Voice Vote was taken Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: John Kiefner, Vice Chairman SECONDER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala |
Alerts Sign-up