HomeMy WebLinkAboutJPZ - 03/22/1989 - MORGANFIELD II SUB/MDM CONSTRUCTION MINUTES
JUDICIARY, PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE
Elk Grove Village
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 1989
Location: Trustees' Conference Room
Municipal Building
901 Wellington Avenue
The meetng was called to order by Trustee Petri at 7:02
p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: James Petri, Chairman
Joseph Bosslet , Member
Edward Hauser, Member
STAFF PRESENT: Alan Boffice, Village Engineer
Thomas Rettenbacher, Building Commissioner
Earle Kracht, Plan Reviewer
Julie Carius, Administrative Assistant
OTHERS PRESENT: Rolando Acosta, Attorney representing
petitioner
Tony Bonavolonta, Owner of subject
property
Representatives from MDM Construction
and Rogers Radiocall Inc.
MCRGANFIRLD II SUBDIVISION
Members reviewed the Plan Commission 's recommendation
to approve the nine (9) lot subdivision.
It was the consensus of the Committee to concur with
the Plan Commission 's recommendation.
!IDN COfPSTRUCTION - ROGBR'S RADIOCALL, INC.
Docket 89-1 Special Use Permit (Bonaventure Drive)
Members reviewed the Plan Commmission recommendation
to deny a Special Use Permit as it applies to Section 3.32
of the Zoning Ordinance in order to construct a 100-foot
self-supporting telephone transmission tower. The petitioner
has also requested a Special Use permit as it applies to
Section 5.52(F) to conduct an accessory warehousing operation
in a B-2 zoning district.
The Building Commissioner began by reviewing MDM's request
and noting that warehousing is not an accessory use to
a permitted use in the B-2 zoning district. Rettenbacher
noted that the petitioner had submitted a revised set of
plans which are merely clarifications to those presented
to the Plan Commission.
continued next page. . . .
-2-
Rolando Acosta stated that the petitioner does not sell
anything. The only supplies stored in the shop would be
those articles loaded in a truck to be taken to a job site
the following day. Acosta stressed that the rear portion
of the subject building would never be used for warehousing.
Tony Bonavolonta listed several construction companies
similar to MDM which are currently located outside of an
industrial area.
The petitioner stated that the shop area of the building
would primarily be used to store two trucks. The trucks
would be stored inside for aesthetic reasons as well as
to protect the tools and equipment kept on the trucks.
Members inquired whether the petitioner plans on
submitting anything different from what was submitted to
the Plan Commission.
Acosta stated that they are merely clarifying their
request, noting that they have requested a special use
so that members can impose conditions on those facets of
the petition which do not meet Village requirements.
Members then questioned the telephone tower.
The petitioner stated that Rogers Radiocall is MDM's
major client and that the building would not go in without
approval of the tower.
Acosta pointed out that the tower is needed in this
location in order to provide the area with adequate telephone
transmission coverage.
The Village Engineer reinforced his position that the
proposed use is best suited in an industrial district.
Acosta stated that the entire issue came about when
the petitioner's architect mislabeled the rear portion of
the building as a warehouse.
Members then stated that this matter will -be taken under
advisement and a recommendation will be submitted to the
Village Board on 3-28-89.
Members then discussed the proposal, noting the number
of incremental changes made to the petition. Members also
expressed concern over expansion of the business as well
as the inappropriate location of the tower. The need for
a clear and concise definition of warehousing was also
discussed.
continued next page. . .
-3-
It was noted that the petitioner could, according to
ordinance, construct an office building with indoor parking
and a 35-foot telephone transmission tower.
Members summarized their concerns by stating that a
100-foot telephone transmission tower is not an appropriate
use in a B-2 zoning district not only for aesthetic reasons
but because of the proximity of the proposed tower to
apartment buildings and a day care center.
In reference to the office/warehouse, members noted
that the proposed office, shop, and storage area would be
better suited in an industrial district.
Following further discussion, it was the consensus of
the committee to concur with the Plan Commission 's
recommendation to deny the petition. There being no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m
Respectfully submitted,
atit-Gc.C�
!/JULIE A. CARIUS,
Administrative Assistant
mw
c: President and Board of Trustees
Village Manager
Assistant Village Manager
Building Commissioner
Village Engiener
Village Clerk