HomeMy Public PortalAbout2012-09-04 PC minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION RECORD OF MINUTES DATE: September 4, 2012 Chairman Sobkoviak called the Plan Commission meeti ng to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Seggebruch, O’Rourke, Renzi, Kiefer, Heinen and Chairman Sobkoviak were present. Commissioner Fulco was absent. Park, School, Fire and Library Districts were absent. Also present were Michael Garrigan, Village Planner , Jonathon Proulx, Planner II, and Merrilee Trotz, Recording Secretary Approval of Minutes: The Plan Commission minutes from August 21, 2012 were accepted as amended with the addition of “The initial testimony was com pleted and Mr. Nelson was allowed a second opportunity to speak.” on page 7 in the sixth new p aragraph. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There was no response. DEVELOPMENT REPORT Mr. Garrigan indicated the Village Board has not me t since the last Plan Commission meeting. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: Case No. 1586-070112.AA/Z/SPR Collins Property Mr. Proulx stated this is a public hearing being he ard pursuant to public notice in accordance with st ate statute and all applicable ordinances. Mr. Proulx summarized the staff report indicating the applican t proposes to annex approximately 32 acres located in the southwest corner of Renwick Road and I-55; re-zone said property from the default zoning of R-1 t o I-1 (currently zoned Will County I-2); and is ask ing for site plan approval to permit a new driveway/acc ess connection using the ComEd ROW from Renwick Road and passing behind the housing fronting Renwic k Road. Mr. Proulx explained the adjacent zoning uses as sh own in the staff report. Regarding the annexation, contiguity comes via the Lake Renwick Nature Preserve and Renwick Road ROW north of Renwick Road; village utilities are lo cated in Renwick Road approximately ¾ of a mile to the west at Heron View Subdivision. Staff submits the property is clearly a logical extension of the Village boundary. Regarding the map amendment (re-zoning) the propert y would default to Village of Plainfield R-1 upon annexation. The applicant proposes to rezone the p roperty to I-1 (Office, Research and Light Industri al.) The applicant is simply proposing to continue with the existing uses that have been permitted under th e current Will County I-2 zoning. Michael P. Collins VILLAGE PRESIDENT Michelle Gibas VILLAGE CLERK TRUSTEES Margie Bonuchi Paul Fay Bill Lamb Garrett M. Peck James Racich Dan Rippy
Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2012 Page 2 of 14 Mr. Proulx reviewed the five (5) findings of fact a s noted in the staff report. With regard to a. - S taff believes that the requested Village I-1 zoning gene rally corresponds with the existing Will County I-2 zoning for the subject property. Staff finds that t he existing uses – including leased industrial buil dings, parking for approximately 50 semi truck trailers, a nd additional container storage – does provide for a public need and is located in close proximity to ma jor roadways. However, staff also notes that the requested I-2 zoning does not correspond with the “Greenways” future land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Construction of the new access drive may be detrimental to the public health, safety and convenience of the adjacent properties. With regard to b. - The subject site is a transitio n point between two extreme land uses. To the north is the Lake Renwick Nature Preserve, one of the most sensi tive land uses in the Village. To the east and sou th are I-55 and the ComEd and CN ROW’s and to the west and north, there are also estate and single-family residential uses. Staff believes that the size of t he subject parcel allows for the potential of appro priate buffering and setbacks of existing and potential fu ture uses to allow for some Village I-1 uses in thi s transitional area. With regard to c. - Staff also notes that the entir e parcel is currently zoned Will County I-2 and tha t the requested I-1 zoning generally corresponds with the existing County zoning. With regard to d. - Staff submits that it would be difficult to use the vast majority of the property for detached single-family residential uses, while a sm aller portion of the property between the lake and existing homes may be suitable for residential or l ess-intensive (non-industrial) commercial or institutional uses. With regard to e. - One consideration is what limit ations or protections can be imposed on the propert y immediately adjacent to the existing residential to mitigate potential negative impacts for the adjace nt homes. Examples of protections include one or more of the following: (1) suggesting an alternate zonin g (other than the requested I-1) for this area, (2) e stablishing only a limited set of permitted I-1 use s via the annexation agreement, and/or (3) determining specif ic plans for setbacks, landscaping and buffering to protect the existing residential character while al lowing more intense commercial or industrial uses w here appropriate. Mr. Proulx described the proposed site plan to cons truct a new access driveway along the north propert y line extending west to the ComEd ROW and continuing north within the ComEd ROA to Renwick Road. The proposal would also include converting the exis ting full access point near I-55 to a right-in/righ t-out access. This existing access point is not fully imp roved, has a steep decline in elevation immediately south of Renwick Road, and creates safety concerns with limitations in sight distance and high vehicle speeds on Renwick Road, in particular when consider ing the heavy truck traffic that utilizes the subje ct site. Staff would look for a detailed landscaping plan if this site plan were approved. Staff is ant icipating a continuance of the case to allow for additional t ime for discussion, coordination and negotiation between staff, the applicant and adjacent residents . Staff is aware that several adjacent property owner s are interested and may have concerns about the proposed project – particularly with respect to the new access driveway. Several neighbors have contac ted staff and visited Village Hall to review the plans and express their concerns. Staff is recommending a continuation of the case following the public heari ng and discussion. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Michael J. Martin, atto rney for the applicant; Joe Hammer from Ruettiger and Tonelli; and the applicant Patrick Collins. Mr . Martin explained this property was zoned in 1968
Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2012 Page 3 of 14 under Will County I-3 zoning; in 1971 Will County d ropped the property – it was then rezoned to I-2; i n 1984 Will County again dropped the property; in 199 8 there was a question about the care taker residen ce which was moved onto the property in 1994 and a bui lding permit was issued and the electrical was permitted by Will County; recently the County thoug ht the parking for the trucking area was in the floodplain and we did not have a special use permit for the care taker trailer. Mr. Martin indicated he has the documentation showing the care taker residence was permitted in 1994. Mr. Collins was in the process of marketing the property; Mr. Hammer was h ired to prepare a floodplain delineation which shows the parking lot is five feet out of the flood plain. Mr. Martin suggested Mr. Collins annex into the Village rather than go through a special use for th e care taker residence. Mr. Martin indicated the intention right now is to continue the current uses on the property; the big change is the entrance dr ive; the plan is not to redevelop but to resell to someo ne who will basically redevelop the property to wha t the Village is seeking for that area. Mr. Collins noti ced other business park on the ComEd easement and found ComEd was willing to give a 99 year lease and the County Highway Dept is willing to issue a permit if they close the existing access. Current ly there are 46 trucks parking on the property on a month to month basis, two masonry companies, three landsc ape companies who store on the property; Mr. Collins has a storage unit on the property and this generates a significant rental income every month. Mr. Martin said basically the request is for annexa tion and continue all the existing uses. Mr. Hammer described the proposed drive to be reloc ated to the west and possible landscaping of pine trees to provide protection and some type of buffer ing between the residential lots and the drive; a b erm was considered but this would probably block some o f the runoff. Commissioner Renzi asked about the water and runoff from the berm. Mr. Martin indicated the houses si t higher than the road. Mr. Hammer stated there is n o berm on the site plan as this could block water runoff from the residents. Commissioner Heinen sta ted there were ways of opening the berm so the wate r could flow through the berm; the limitation seems t o be the distance from the property line to the proposed roadway line or edge of pavement. Commissioner Renzi asked about the property that is excluded from annexation. Mr. Martin stated it is a residence. Discussion was held regarding utilities versus well and septic. Mr. Martin indicated the properties would remain well and septic; the variou s properties have their own well and septic, Mr. Collins has 5 septic fields and 1 well. Commission er Renzi asked if that excluded residence was self sufficient. Mr. Martin indicated they have their o wn well and septic. Commissioner Heinen asked if the residences to the north were in the village or unincorporated. Mr. Proulx indicated they are unincorporated. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the agreement with C omEd was a 99 year lease or a limited license; is i t cancellable at any time. Mr. Martin indicated the y have approval from ComEd to enter into a lease agreement for the entrance way; indicated the agree ment would be good for 99 years. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there were pipes in the ground wh ere the drive is proposed. Mr. Martin and Mr. Collins indicated there were no pipes under the pro posed drive. Chairman Sobkoviak opened the meeting for public co mments. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Ed Serdar, 22519 W Renw ick Road. Mr. Serdar asked if this annexation included the residences. Mr. Garrigan stated no th ere is no impact on your properties.
Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2012 Page 4 of 14 Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Jim Besch, owner next t o ComEd ROW. Mr. Besch stated there is a pipeline that is monitored by-weekly; expressed con cern with the access drive running along the power lines and along the backs of the houses; if the dri veway agreement goes through then the semis would b e less than 100 feet from his house; expressed concer n with property values; safety concerns for the you ng children in the area; and the landscape buffer or l ack of a buffer along the ComEd ROW. Mr. Martin di d not think ComEd would allow any plantings; clarifie d the ComEd agreement is not a lease it is a permanent easement 33 feet by 350 feet and a lump s um dollar amount which is subject to their internal engineering review. Chairman Sobkoviak asked whic h side the pipeline was on. Mr. Besch indicated it on towards Bill Avery’s driveway. Commissioner O’Rourke stated the reason for asking is if you are putting in a permanent driveway in an easement and ComEd needs to go in and work on their pipelines, ComEd could shut off your access. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Steve Mackiewicz, owner of the excluded lot. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the distance between the proposed driveway and his house. Mr. Mackiewicz stated it would probably 100 feet. Mr. Mackiewicz indicated he has an easement from Jim Besch to use the driveway along the side o f Mr. Besch’s lot and also from Pat Collins to use hi s driveway for access to his property. Mr. Mackie wicz stated the trucks will cross that driveway and it i s a blind corner; indicated there is only 40 feet b etween his lot and Mr. Besch’s lot; asked what happens to the septic fields in the back of the houses when th e ground starts vibrating from the truck traffic. Mr. Mackiewicz asked why Mr. Collins is asking for annexation. Mr. Martin replied they thought it was a good thing for the property owner and a good thin g for the village; the county thought the parking a rea was in the floodplain, the applicant did a floodpla in delineation which found the parking is 5 feet ou t of any floodplain and the existing detention pond has enough storage to handle any runoff from the parkin g area; the other issue was the caretaker residence; felt this was a much better entitlement of the prop erty to be in the Village of Plainfield to be designated as an office park with the proper zoning to attract a buyer for the property. Mr. Mackiewicz asked if there wa s a complaint about container storage. Mr. Martin said yes. Mr. Mackiewicz expressed concern of 50 d iesel trucks leaking fuel and oil into Mink Creek; asked if zone I-1 allowed for a trucking terminal. Mr. Proulx stated a freight terminal or a truck te rminal would require a special use in the I-1 District. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Roxanne Munch, 22505 W Renwick. Ms. Munch stated she walks the gravel path every day; stated the distance between the backyards and the path is less than 10 feet; fe lt an environmental impact study should be completed; obj ected to the truck traffic that will be in their backyards every day. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Jeff Sniegowski, 22525 W Renwick. Mr. Sniegowski is concerned with the truck traffic and possible damage to the septic systems; just replaced his septic system and does not want to connect to sewer lines; did not think trees would stop any pollution; concerned with children playing in the yard; concerned with the environment al pollution and asked the composition of the proposed road. Mr. Hammer described the current pr oposal has an asphalt apron along Renwick Road which would transition into a gravel drive. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Bill Avery, neighbor to the west of the ComEd ROW. Mr. Avery stated this property flooded in 1996 and no additional sto rage has been provided; indicated Tom Collins moved the Creek along I-55 and across the property; indic ated there are tank cars in the creek used as culve rts and truck beds in the creek so they can walk back a nd forth. Mr. Avery said it needs to be cleaned ou t.
Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2012 Page 5 of 14 Chairman Sobkoviak reminded Steve Mackiewicz that h e is still under oath. Mr. Mackiewicz stated his property is in Zone A for flood zone; indicated his home is a raised ranch and is at second story heig ht. Chairman Sobkoviak closed the time for public comme nts. Commissioner Kiefer asked what the estimated daily truck traffic is currently. Mr. Martin said there are currently 46 trucks leasing space. Mr. Collins sta ted about ½ of the trucks leave Sunday and return o n Friday while the other half leave every morning and return between 1 and 2 p.m. Commissioner Kiefer mentioned you plan to increase that number to 50 tr ucks. Mr. Collins indicated they set a limit at 50 . Commissioner Kiefer asked if a traffic study was re quired. Mr. Proulx indicated we did not; thought h e might be able to obtain existing traffic counts, Wi ll County might have a specific truck count. Commissioner Renzi mentioned this could be added to the packet for the next meeting. Commissioner Kiefer asked if the applicant could clarify the loc ation of the gravel drive. Mr. Hammer explained t he proposed gravel drive. Commissioner Heinen said since this property is ask ing for annexation and we have standards for drives , curbs and gutters, would they be held liable to mee t these standards, adding a curb system and an asph alt roadway system to meet our standards. Mr. Proulx i ndicated those things would be subject to the annexation agreement; zoning or a special use could be determined in the agreement; this would be at t he Village Board’s choosing. Commissioner Heinen as ked if this could be a stipulation. Mr. Proulx rep lied yes and indicated the Village Board will make the f inal determination. Commissioner Heinen asked if they are asking for I-1 zoning because of the stora ge containers. Mr. Proulx indicated he does not ha ve these details of the annexation agreement. Mr. Ma rtin thought with I-1 zoning they would not have to ask for outdoor storage as sit was included. Commissioner O’Rourke asked how the applicant descr ibed the current use. Mr. Garrigan indicated outdoor storage is not a special use, a transportat ion or freight terminal would require a special use ; initially Staff agreed to treat this property as le gally non-conforming under the annexation agreement and would negotiate those provisions with the applicant . Commissioner Heinen asked if a new owner would have the same rights because it was in the annexati on agreement. Mr. Garrigan said yes if they have t he same type of uses. Commissioner O’Rourke asked the current county zoning. Mr. Garrigan said Will County I-2. Commissioner O’Rourke asked how we wou ld describe that under our zoning code. Mr. Garrigan said this would be identified as a storage facility, not a freight terminal or intermodal. M r. Proulx stated the applicant identified the principa l use as parking of the truck in their initial appl ication, parking is identified as a permitted use; explained outdoor storage of contained materials. Commissioner Renzi suggested they are questioning t he 4 identified storage containers. Mr. Martin sai d initially they asked for the existing uses be allow ed to continue including a caretaker residence, par king for up to 50 semi-tractor trailers and the eleven c ontainer storage units and the buildings with the commercial tenants (the two masonry companies and t he three landscape companies.) Mr. Martin said a buyer would not continue the existing uses as that is not financially feasible; they are selling the p roperty for redevelopment along with what the Village is lo oking for in the I-1 category. Commissioner Renzi suggested we ask for an itinerar y to learn exactly what the others are storing whether it is product or equipment is being stored there. Chairman Sobkoviak reiterated the concerns addresse d by both the public and the commissioners i.e. the amount of truck traffic on a gravel road, the possi ble pollution from the vehicles and the transfer of fluids;
Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2012 Page 6 of 14 the inadequate buffering; the runoff water and cont rol of the storm water; and the commission has aske d for a traffic count. Commissioner O’Rourke felt the identified uses bett er fit in I-2 District than I-1 District or maybe i t is I-1 with a special use. Mr. Martin suggested if the Boulevard project proce eded then Staff would prefer I-1District. Mr. Garrigan reminded the Commission of the Four Se asons Corporate Plan which identified this area to incorporate some different types of uses and I-1 is generally consistent with this plan. Commissioner Renzi suggested continuing the road so uth 150 feet to run along the lake. Commissioner Seggebruch would like some kind of eng ineering study about the water on this site; indicating there are a lot of manmade limitation on this site that could be changed. Commissioner Heinen asked if the pond was a borrow pit for I-55 or was this constructed within the las t 20-30 years. Mr. Hammer did not know when it was c onstructed. Commissioner Seggebruch also wanted to know why thi s property was landlocked requiring him to have easements from two properties for access to a publi c road. Commissioner Heinen asked about the improvements. Mr. Hammer stated the floodplain elevation is contained within Mink Creek and the pond on site; t he gravel area that drains to the lake is for storm water management purposes. Commissioner Heinen asked if stormwater management was required for these improvements. Mr. Proulx indicated there is a mini mum acreage where stormwater management is required. Commissioner Heinen asked if the applica nt was above this threshold so you do need to provide stormwater detention. Mr. Hammer indicated the area south of the lake goes above that threshold. Commissioner Heinen mentioned it looks like they are utilizing the pond for stormwater storage also. Mr. Hammer replied that is correct; this has been submitted to the Village for review b ut as of this date no comments have been received. Commi ssioner Heinen said if it is existing floodplain yo u cannot get credit for stormwater. Mr. Hammer said they are not asking for credit for what is there no w; they are modifying the release for that structure t o make it bounce higher within the banks of the pon d to allow it to hold back more water. Commissioner Hei nen said essentially you are increasing the water surface elevation above the 100 year flood to get c redit for that volume. Mr. Hammer said yes in the pond only. Commissioner Heinen suggested the Vill age engineer would need to look at this to make sur e they are meeting code requirements. Chairman Sobkoviak reviewed the concerns, the volum e of truck traffic, the proximity of the traffic to the residences, the truck traffic will be on a gravel d rive, air and soil pollution, buffering, runoff wat er control and floodplain; traffic count; site line issues due to the turning radius on the gravel road; clarific ation of the ComEd lease/license agreement; water issues; po tential alternate drive location; and clarification of the storage and usage versus I-1 or I-2 zoning desi gnation. Several of the commissioners indicated t hey were comfortable with the annexation. Commissioner Kiefer made a motion to continue Case No. 1586-070212.AA/RZ/SPR to the September 18, 2012 meeting of the Plan Commission.
Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2012 Page 7 of 14 Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Vote by ro ll call: Heinen, yes; Seggebruch, yes; O’Rourke, yes; Renzi, yes; Kiefer, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. Moti on carried 6-0. Chairman Sobkoviak called a 10 minutes recess at 8:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:35 p.m. Case No. 1592-081612.AA/Z/SU Sabadosh Family L imited Partnership Mr. Garrigan stated this is a public hearing for an nexation being heard pursuant to state statute and applicable village ordinances with regards to publi cation and certification letters. The applicant is seeking to annex approximately 234 acres; seeking t o rezone the property to I-1 Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow light industrial, commer cial and single-family and multi-family housing. The site is bordered by Route 30 on the west, the C anadian National railroad on the east 111 th on the north and Route 30 to the south; there is currently no la nd plan as the applicant is looking for input from the Plan Commission regarding the proposed uses. Mr. G arrigan explained the Comprehensive Plan shows the whole property as light industrial; there have been several attempts to modify the Comp Plan to al low some different uses. Mr. Garrigan explained how th e property is contiguous to the east; is within the Village’s facility planning area; there are utiliti es to the east and would be a logical extension of the municipal boundaries. Mr. Garrigan reviewed the required standards for re zoning. With regard to standard a. - Staff believe s that a residential component on the triangular parc el that is bordered by the CN railroad would be appropriate and provide the applicant with the dive rsity of uses that they are seeking. With regard to standard b. - The site’s location be tween Route 30 and the Canadian National railroad makes it appropriate for light industrial in view o f the importance of rail service and intermodal tru ck traffic for potential light industrial uses. With regard to standard c. - The subject site and r equested zoning is clearly more appropriate for lig ht industrial uses when compared to the current agricu ltural uses of the subject property. With regard to standard d. – The subject use of the site for farming does not constitute the highest a nd best use of the subject property based on the Villa ge’s long term plans to create a new light-industri al or business park node at the northwest boundary of the Village. With regard to standard e. - The subject site is se parated from the single-family neighbors to the eas t by the CN railroad and with sufficient buffering there will be no negative impact on the character of the area. Staff suggests a favorable recommendation as to the rezoning of the property. Mr. Garrigan reviewed the required the findings of fact for the special use from the staff report. Wi th regard to finding of fact a. - The requested zoning to light industrial is consistent with the officia l land plans of the Village of Plainfield and will not hav e any negative impacts on the adjacent property. Mr. Garrigan indicated any future development of th is property would require a site plan so the Plan Commission would have an opportunity to review the site plan. A bubble plan would be submitted at the time of annexation. With regard to finding of fact b. - The proposed sp ecial use for a Planned Unit Development is consist ent with the trend of development along the Route 30 co rridor and the Village’s long term plans for the
Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2012 Page 8 of 14 subject area. This is one of the few areas that ha ve been identified for light industrial use in the Village of Plainfield. The applicant has outlined that they believe that t here is currently a bigger demand for residential property versus light industrial property and there fore is seeking a diversity of uses. The request to add commercial and residential compo nents to this 234 acre site is consistent with the mixed use component that has been identified in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. A commercial node at the northwest corner of 119 th Street and Route 30 would be appropriate based on the future plans for 119 th Street. In addition, a multi-family or single-fami ly neighborhood south of 119 th street and west of the CN right-of-way would generally be consistent w ith the patterns of development seen along 119 th street. Since the applicant did not present any type of bub ble plan Staff prepared and is offering two concept plans merely for discussion. Staff suggests making a favorable recommendation fo r the annexation as it is a logical extension of th e Village’s boundaries, and making a favorable recomm endation for the rezoning to I-1District, and makin g a favorable recommendation for the special use for the Planned Development with at least the first two stipulations in the staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak advised the Commissioners that i f development were to proceed on this parcel that a preliminary and final plat and site plan would be f orthcoming to the Commission. Mr. Garrigan indicat ed also a concept plan might be brought to the Commiss ioners for review. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Bruce Goldsmith, attorn ey for the applicant. Mr. Goldsmith stated this i s the forth of fifth time this property has been subm itted to the Village; previous requests have includ ed single family with some multi-family request and th en a mixed use with commercial and single family and each time there were told the Comp Plan shows I -1 and these plans have failed. Another time Opus North spent several years looking at the site, mark eting the property and working with the Village but never has a single prospect for the site. Mr. Gold smith indicated the industrial users want to be alo ng the I-55 corridor and then you have the Wikaduke to the west and this will be a better route for future tr affic flow. Mr. Goldsmith explained this is a difficult parcel even with the Canadian National tracks right there. Commissioner O’Rourke asked about the thoughts or v ision for the component of the mixed use. Mr. Goldsmith suggested a percentage of the site to be limited for the non-industrial type commercial uses , this could be done as staff did by identifying a po d for residential on the south forty and it is more likely to be mixed in with commercial, on the north it cou ld be pod of the overall development that could be available for residential. Mr. Goldsmith said it is a white slate because other than the residentia l developers, they have not seen any development prop osed for this with the exception that one had a commercial component for neighborhood commercial. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there was any specific interest for this parcel. Mr. Goldsmith i ndicated as long as this property sits in unincorpo rated area no developer will take a serious run at it; th ey are trying to preserve the village’s goal with s ome I-1 but have the flexibility to recognize the market ma y not but into that. Commissioner Kiefer asked about improvements to the intersection at 119 th and Route 30; would this be something that could be done with the annexation ag reement. Mr. Garrigan indicated none that we are aware of; sometime the village may improve that lik e we did at 127 th ; thought it was safe to say there
Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2012 Page 9 of 14 would be no commercial development here until there are intersection improvements but the Village does not have this intersection identified on the capita l plan. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the annexation would have any influence on the state as to improvi ng that intersection. Mr. Garrigan did not think the state had anything planned for 127 th ; the village received a grant for the improvements at Route 30 and 127 th . Mr. Garrigan indicated we would work with the a pplicants and they would be required to make certain improvements on 119 th Street and potentially on 111 th Street which would be part of the annexation agreement but would be somewhere in the future. Mr. Goldsmith thought there would need to be something more that this development to get warr ants for improvements. Commissioner Heinen asked the reason for the specia l use. Mr. Garrigan said the Planned Development requires the special use. Chairman Sobkoviak opened the meeting for public co mments. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Jerry Leonard, resident living on Mr. Metrou’s property. Mr. Leonard indicated stores are leaving the areas; concerned w ith the number of accidents in this area on Route 3 0; the amount of traffic; felt traffic control devices would be necessary; and suggested e-commerce was more attractive to shoppers. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Scott Knopp, resident a long Route 30. Mr. Knopp stated additional driveways would create problems; concerned with tra ffic and accidents; indicates he has problems backing into his drive and did not want a stop ligh t at the intersection. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Sue Schaller, resident at 119 th west of Route 30. Ms. Schaller expressed concern with annexation with a blank slate; the acc ess to this development; and any improvements to th e intersection would take some of their properties. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Martin Holm, resident a long Route 30. Mr. Holm owns a horse farm; concerned with any improvements to Route 30; decrea se in property value; felt improvements to Route 30 would cause water problems and possibly contaminate his well. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Andrew Bos, 25529 W. R oute 30. Mr. Bos expressed concern with the industrial zoning between the residential areas; fe lt the Comp Plan should be changed. Commissioner O’Rourke indicated the industrial zoni ng is part of our Comp Plan and the applicant wants the flexibility to come away from that by having a mixed use. Chairman Sobkoviak asked for additional comments; t here were none. Chairman Sobkoviak closed the time for public comments. Commissioner O’Rourke asked with the annexation wou ld contributions or property be going toward the effort of improving the intersection and recapture from other benefiting properties. Mr. Garrigan indicated these improvements would be looked for in the negotiation of the annexation agreement, the village will be flexible on the timing of the futur e development, and this development could include improvements to 119 th Street and potentially 111 th Street. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if land ownership would be to the center of the road and would the dedication be included with this annexation. Mr. G arrigan said yes.
Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2012 Page 10 of 14 Chairman Sobkoviak felt this was a logical extensio n of the Village boundaries; it is within our plann ing area. Commissioner Renzi felt it was a logical ext ension also; but was concerned with the zoning. Mr . Garrigan indicated I-1 would be the more intense zo ning with a planned development to incorporate some type of residential and commercial. Commissioner R enzi asked if stipulation number 3 infers that whenever this is built out the project would need t o comply with the Comp Plan or does number 3 mean as the Comp Plan exists now. Mr. Garrigan said he was looking for input from the Plan Commission, it the Plan Commission stated tonight that the Comp Pl an makes complete sense then the motion makes sense. Discussion was held with regard to the mixed use in Wolf’s Crossing and the fact that this works very good. Chairman Sobkoviak suggested warehouses tend to like other warehouses while car dealers like other car dealers and fast food likes locations whe re there are other fast food places. Commissioner O’Rourke felt it was ok to transition away from the I-1. Commissioner Heinen stated he has spoken with other s trying to develop this piece and they all agreed it is a tough piece for industrial property primarily because of access to I-55 and it was not an ideal p roperty for them to develop as industrial; indicated he was open to the flexibility of incorporating more resi dential into this piece; normally he has a problem changing zoning to residential as Plainfield is very intens e on residential but he would like to incorporate more b usiness into the community but does not feel this i s the right piece for that business component. Commissio ner Heinen indicated he was more in favor of a diverse zoning. Commissioner Seggebruch suggested you could split t he zoning at 119 th with one zoning to the south and a different zoning to the north so you could live u p to the Comp Plan with some industrial here; if t his comes in as R-1 then you do not have a chance to go with a higher zoning. Commissioner Renzi did not want to zone one more pi ece R-1until we get the available lots developed; understood a certain number of rooftops are needed to develop anything; felt this was a nice strip of roadway where we could have a commercial type node. Commissioner Kiefer asked about the mixed use and i f we run the risk of the developer building some warehouses and come back with a request to put in a church or recreational facilities (gymnastics or volleyball court.) Mr. Garrigan indicated there c ould be some use perimeters in the annexation agreement as to what would or would not be acceptab le with the PUD. Commissioner Kiefer liked the mixed use but was concerned with just industrial fo r others to come in to get around our zoning. Commissioner Renzi liked the way 143 rd Street developed with all the recreational uses. Commissioner O’Rourke felt the wording of the third stipulation was probably not getting where we want to go. Mr. Garrigan indicated without total suppor t of the Comp Plan then the third stipulation makes no sense and could be removed. Commissioner O’Rourke suggested replacing the third stipulation with working with staff to determine the appropriate bub ble plan. The commissioners indicated support of t his change. Commissioner Seggebruch asked if it could be concept plan. Commissioner Renzi made a motion to recommend appro val of the proposed annexation as a logical extension of the Village’s municipal boundaries. Commissioner Seggebruch seconded the motion. Vote by roll call: O’Rourke, yes; Kiefer, yes; Heinen, yes; Seggebruch, yes; Renzi, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried 6-0.
Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2012 Page 11 of 14 Commissioner Heinen made a motion to recommend that the subject property be zoned I-1 (Planned Development). Commissioner O’Rourke seconded the motion. Vote by roll call: Renzi, yes; Kiefer, yes; Seggebruch, yes; O’Rourke, yes; Heinen, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. M otion carried 6-0 Commissioner Seggebruch made a motion to recommend approval of the special use for a Planned Development subject to the following two stipulatio ns in staff’s report and the third stipulation chan ged by the Commissioners. 1. Compliance with the requirements o the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfi eld Fire Protection District. 3. Work with staff to determine the appropriate co ncept plan. Commissioner O’Rourke seconded the motion. Vote by roll call: Heinen, yes; Kiefer, yes; Renzi, yes; O’Rourke, yes; Seggebruch, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. Mo tion carried 6-0. *** Case No. 1579-041612.AA/Z/SU Metrou Property Mr. Garrigan stated this is a public hearing being heard in accordance with state statute and all appl icable ordinances of the Village of Plainfield. The Villa ge Board has approved a pre-annexation agreement to include rezoning the property to B-1 including a fu el station with a car wash and drive thru. The Sabadosh property would provide contiguity so t his applicant proposes to rezone approximately 3.4 acres located at the southeast corner of 119 th and Route 30 adjacent to a vacated E J & E ROW to B-1 (Neighborhood Convenience District) and seek approv al of a special use for a fuel station/car wash alo ng with a drive-thru. This property is adjacent to a number of unincorporated homes and parcels to the w est of Route 30. Mr. Garrigan reviewed the finding of facts required by the rezoning. With regard to a. - The Village’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject site for mixed use and the applicants proposed use is genera lly consistent with the language within the mixed use s ection of the Comprehensive Plan that identifies re tail clusters as being appropriate. The subject site wit hin the planning area for the Village of Plainfield and Village policy has generally promoted the developme nt of commercial nodes at important intersections along major collectors and future arterials. Route 30 has been identified as a major collector and 119 th Street has been identified as a future SRA (strateg ic regional arterial). With regard to b. - The proposed use of the subject site is generally consistent with the future trend of development along the Route 30 corridor. There is currently a need for a fuel station on Route 30 and staff believes that the subject location would be a ppropriate for a fuel station and car wash. With regard to c. - The proposed use of the subject site for a fuel station with car wash is more suit able when compared to the existing R-2 (single-family zo ning) under the Will County jurisdiction that the property is currently under. The subject site is l ocated at a major future commercial intersection al ong 119 th Street and would potentially support a fuel statio n once the intersection is signalized. With regard to d. - A commercial B-1 zoning would b e more appropriate and would allow the applicant to proceed with their eventual plans for a fuel statio n.
Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2012 Page 12 of 14 With regard to e. - The proposed use will have no i mpact on the existing character of the area or the surrounding properties. Mr. Garrigan reviewed the two finding of facts requ ired by a special use. With regard to a) - The proposed special use for a fuel station, car wash a nd drive-thru will have no negative impact on any o f the adjacent parcels and specifically have no impact on any of the property values of the adjacent parcels . The subject corridor along 119 th Street will attract future commercial development as certain future improvements are made at the intersection of 119 th Street and Route 30 and when new roof-tops are introduced to the subject area. With regard to b) - The future trend of development along Route 30 will be a series of commercial node s at the major intersections including 127 th Street and 119 th Street. Staff anticipates that once new roof-tops are developed in the area west of Route 30 that new commercial interest along the corridor will develo p. The site is appropriate for commercial development and specifically a fuel station based on the projec ted long term growth around the subject site. The proposed use will be one of a number of future commercial uses at the intersection of Route 30 and 119 th Street based on the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Sabadosh annexation calls for the development of a future mixed use light industrial/business park and this type of development would he lp support a fuel station at the subject intersection. Any future development would require a site plan an d this would be reviewed by the Plan Commission. Mr. Garrigan indicated improvements to the intersec tion of 119 th Street and Route 30 is not in IDOT’s five year plan. Staff suggests a favorable recommendation for the B -1 zoning and the special use for the fuel station/car wash with a drive-thru subject to the stipulations identified in the staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked about the timing of the ne w pre-annexation agreement. Mr. Garrigan indicated the Village Board approved the agreement at their last meeting. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Michael J. Martin, atto rney for the applicant, and Panagiotis Metrou, the applicant. Mr. Martin explained they were present as this property will be contiguous upon annexation of the Sabadosh property; and explained they are now r equesting the zoning per the annexation agreement. Mr. Martin indicated they do not expect any changes to the site at this time; agreed they would need t he intersection improvements at 119 th in order to market this to a gas station. The gas station would probably only use about 1 acre of the 3.2 acre site so they would return for site plan and likely preliminary and final plat. Mr. Martin explained currently their only access is to 119 th but the attorney for the property to the west (owned by a sign compa ny) called Mr. Martin and indicated they have no objection to this and offered the possibility of ge tting access through their site. Mr. Martin expla ined Mr. Metrou has owned the property for 8 years, currentl y leases property to the person who sells the picni c tables and sheds. Will County has sited this comme rcial use and also the residence use is not allowed if you have a commercial use. Mr. Martin stated the B -1 district permits a garden center; explained provisions in the annexation agreement. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if B-1 zoning was in th e annexation agreement and if it included the special use. Mr. Martin stated yes.
Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2012 Page 13 of 14 Chairman Sobkoviak opened the meeting for public co mments. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Scott Knopp, resident a long Route 30 to the west of this property. Mr. Knopp indicated he did not want a gas station close to his house; the propane place is right next to t his site; expressed concern for the many bicyclists tha t travel 119 th Street; flooding issues; lights and speaker noise; traffic and accidents. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Jerry Leonard, resident on the Metrou property. Mr. Leonard asked if utilities were part of this agreement. Mr. Garriga n indicated there is a general provision in the ann exation agreement which would require connection upon futur e development; currently the property is well and septic and there is no requirement to connect to vi llage utilities which are currently located east of the CN railroad ROW. Mr. Garrigan believes to the best of his recollection that once the utilities are exten ded to the west and adjacent to this property, the applica nt would be required to connect. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Sue Schaller, resident west along 119 th Street. Ms. Schaller asked about the utilities. Mr. Garrigan indicated the utilitie s would go under the tracks when there is future development. Ms. Schaller stated she had the same concerns as she previous noted; if Route 30 is improved, they will all loose part of their propert y; the lights; and indicated she did not want a gas station in this vicinity. Commissioner Renzi mentioned the Village Board has already approved the annexation agreement. Mr. Garrigan said the Village is obligated to approve t he terms in the annexation agreement; indicated he was not aware of IDOT planning phase one or phase two f or acquisition any improvement to the intersection; it is not a given that anyone will lose right-of-wa y property, Route 30 could be shifted to the east; further indicated there is nothing in the annexation agreem ent outlining the right-of-way for Route 30. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Martin Holm. Mr. Holm suggested any improvements to Route 30 be taken from the property to the east (owned by the s ign company) rather than from all the other individ ual properties. Chairman Sobkoviak asked for additional comments; t here were none. Chairman Sobkoviak closed the time for public comments. Commissioner Renzi expressed concern with findings of fact lettered a and e due to the nature of the s ite and the nature of the site and any improvement. Chairman Sobkoviak indicated should any development materialize they would be required to return to this Commission for review. Commissioner O’Rourke asked for an explanation of t he difference in the procedure of the last case coming in for annexation, zoning and special use ve rsus this case. Mr. Garrigan indicted the Sabadosh property is contiguous so they came in with a strai ght annexation and they requested zoning and a spec ial use while the applicant Metrou could not come in wi th zoning or a special use because they were not contiguous and the village does not have jurisdicti on of the property but they can submit an annexatio n agreement. Commissioner Kiefer expressed disappointment that t hey were not able to debate the merits of this case ; felt this does affect the character of the neighbor hood whether they are in the village or not; felt t his
Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2012 Page 14 of 14 would affect property values; this is the third cas e where the applicant has issues with the County an d they seek annexation to mediate their problem. Commissioner Seggebruch explained that three corner s at Heggs and 119 th Street have been landmarked and this area cannot be changed now; expressed symp athy with the public but indicated there are other government agencies (the state and IDOT) involved w ith the intersection. Commissioner Seggebruch said everybody knows it is a dangerous area; if any thing is going to be done there it will be because the Village is being proactive to make it safer and som etimes the only way to make that happen is with development; agreed the improvements should go to t he east. Commissioner Heinen made a motion to recommend appr oval of the proposed B-1 (Neighborhood Convenience) zoning for the subject site. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Vote by ro ll call: Kiefer, no; Renzi, yes; O’Rourke, yes; Seggebruch, yes; Heinen, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. Moti on carried 5-1. Commissioner Renzi asked if the improvements would fit in with the stipulation compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Village Engineer. R esponse was yes. Commissioner Seggebruch asked if development could be built without water and sewer. Mr. Garrigan said you will probably be looking at a gas station at the corner of Drauden and 126 reques ting well and septic. Commissioner Heinen made a motion to recommend appr oval of the proposed Special use for a fuel station/car wash with a drive-thru subject to the f ollowing stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Commissioner Seggebruch seconded the motion. Vote by roll call: Kiefer, no; Renzi, no; O’Rourke, yes ; Seggebruch, yes; Heinen, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. Moti on carried 4-2. Mr. Garrigan forwarded an email to the commissioner s (a copy of which is included with the minutes in the minute book) clarifying the Metrou c ase public hearing was before the Village Board not the Plan Commission for annexation. DISCUSSION Commissioner Renzi stated the bike trails around th e north side of town have been designed nicely. Adjourned at 10:30p.m. Respectfully submitted by _________________________ Merrilee Trotz Recording Secretary