HomeMy Public PortalAbout2008-12-02 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RECORD OF MINUTES DATE : DECEMBER 2, 2008 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the m eeting of the Plan Commission to order at 7:25 p.m.. after the conclusion of the Zoning Board of Appeal s meeting . ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel, Renzi , O’Rourke, Sanders, Peck, ex officio Commissioner Fremarek; Chairman Sobkoviak ; and Plainfield Fire Protection District Representative Absent: Commissioner Bonuchi, Plainfield School District ; L ibrary District; Park District ; and Plainfield Police Department Also Present: Michael Garrigan – Village Planner Village of Plainfield, Sara Javoronok – Planner I Village of Plainfield, and Carol Millan – Secr etary Village of Plainfield APPROVAL OF MIN UTES: The minutes from the November 18 , 2008 meeting were accepted as amended: Commissioner Sanders made sentence structure changes to Page 3 in the third and fifth paragraphs. He wanted to clarify the intent of the observation he made in the last senten ce of the 4 th Paragraph on Page 5. He also wanted to clarify the end of the last sentence in the 7 th paragraph on Page 5. Commissioner Renzi wanted to clarify what the discussion consisted of between the commissioners on Page 8, 5 th Paragraph. DEVELOPME NT REPORT: Village Planner Garrigan presented the results of the Village Board meeting on Monday, December 1, 2008. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Planner Garrigan what seemed to be some sticking points for the Heritage Woods Sup portive Living Facility project . Village Planner Garrigan stated there was major concern specifically expressed by a number of Trustees about the proposed extension of Village utilities. The applicant has requested that the Village, at the Village’s expense up front, extend uti lities from Creekside all the way up to Rt. 126 in excess of approximately $1 million. There was extensive discussion about that. That did not come into the Commission’s consideration because it was a proposed annexation term. Staff is currently working with the applicant to see if we can try to address that challenge . There was some discussion about access points, but generally they were consistent with what the Commission had discussed. Commissioner Peck wanted it to be put into the minutes that the Plan Commission did not vote on the issue Village Planner Garrigan just discussed about the utilities. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that was not part of the Commission’s function. Chairman Sobkoviak was curious because he wondered if possibly there was some thing the Commission should have covered more intently. OLD BUSINESS: CASE: 1421 -082208.RZ 15124 S. ROUTE 59 Request: Map Amendment (Rezoning) from R -1 to BT (Public Hearing) Location: 15124 S. Route 59 Applicant: Rick Sexton TIME: 7:30 p.m.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 2 of 6 Planner Javoronok summarized the staff report. The applicant rents the property and is proposing to rezone it from low density residential single family to business transition. The applicant has an intuitive consulting and crystal therapy busi ness, whic h the applicant submits is an office use. Planner Javoronok summarized, from her staff report, the business transition standards. She stated this residence is one of seven structures in the core of the Village recommended for listing in the National Regi ster of Historic Places. It also is recommended for local landmark status. The applicant has expressed an interest in applying for local landmark status. She also reviewed the site plan . She stated signage is a separate review and permitting process an d is not part of the site plan. Planner Javoronok reviewed the findings of fact for a rezoning and stated 3 of the 5 findings are favorable and 2 are neutral . Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. Planner Javoronok concluded her staff repo rt. Chairman Sobkoviak wanted to add two stipulations to Planner Javoronok’s stipulations involving compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer and compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Planne r Javorono k agreed. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the representative for the petitioner. Mr. Bob Gebel from United Architects, spoke. Commissioner Fremarek asked what this business does. Petitioner Gebel stated that it was explained to him that it is consultin g and crystal therapy. They have an office. They schedule appointments. They are considering it as an office type of classification. Commissioner Fremarek asked if there would be any sales being done aside from any consulting. Petitioner Gebel did not believe there would be any type of retail sales. Commissioner Fremarek wanted a definitive answer . Chairman Sobkoviak stated actually as far as the zoning is concerned the actual physical use of the building is irrelevant. Commissioner Fremarek stated he felt one of the issues was whether it is an office use. In his mind an office use is considerably different than retail sales. Chairman Sobkoviak agreed, but stated even when they have approved general office use in the BT designation, incidental reta il sales are still allowed. Commissioner Fremarek stated the use would dictate the amount of traffic generated. Petitioner Gebel felt the use was similar to a chiropractor’s office where they would meet with the person. The crystals are involved. He di d not know if the applicant actually sells the crystals or if they use the crystals to help that person with their problem. He did not believe it was retail sale s . Commissioner O’Rourke stated if the Commission does not know what the use is how do they know whether it is an approved use within the District. Village Planner Garrigan stated there have been extensive discussions with the applicant, and it has been made quite clear that fortune telling is not an identified use in the Business Transition Di strict. There might be an interpretation issue. The applicant has made it quite clear that it is not a fortune telling business. Commissioner O’Rourke felt it would be helpful for the Commission , and to get it into the record , if the applicant would t al k to give a description of the business. He told the applicant the Commission is just trying to get an understanding of what her business is , or service it provides to people. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner. Lilly Evans spoke. She state d she is an intuitive consultant. She helps people in all walks of life with love, marriage, career. She uses crystal therapy also. Commissioner O’Rourke asked her how she uses the crystals. Petitioner Evans stated hematite is a magnetic stone. It hel ps people with their blood, and things like that. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if people wear the crystals or walk on them, etc. Petitioner Evans stated they wear them, walk with them. She stated she does consultations with the crystals. Commissioner O’Rourke asked the petitioner if she massages someone with the crystals. Petitioner Evans stated she does not do massages. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the petitioner was licensed to do this; and if so, is it from the State, etc. Petitioner Evans stated she is licensed with the Village of Plainfield. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if it was a business license. Petitioner Evans concurred. Commissioner Kachel gave an explanation of the BT District. He stated by businesses needing to get a business license from the Village, the uses can be controlled. Village Planner Garrigan stated there is a potential code enfor cement issue if in fact they do not comply with the usages that are allowed by the Village’s Zoning Ordinance. He further stated if they were op erating a fortune telling business that would be a code enforcement issue because they are not allowed to have a fortune telling business in the BT District. They cannot advertise for a fortune telling business. The petitioner has continually represented that it is not a fortune telling business. Commissioner Kachel felt it is better to have the BT, especially with the widening of Rt. 59 in that area, than possibly having it torn down later for commercial. It can be enforced.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 3 of 6 Commissioner Peck aske d the petitioner if she could define fortune telling versus what she is doing so the Commission can better understand. Petitioner Evans stated she did not know what fortune tellers do. That is not her business. She is an intuitive consultant. She is mo re like a love coach, for instance, a marriage coach , s omebody that consults people with her own intuitions. Commissioner O’Rourke asked the petitioner the name of her business. Petitioner Evans stated it was Intuitive Consulting. Commissioner Sanders asked staff with the widening of Rt. 59, would the alley that provides access to the proposed parking be covered under the two added stipulations by Chairman Sobkoviak . Village Planner Garrigan stated that was correct. Commissioner Sander s asked staff w hat the access is currently. Planner Javoronok stated it is full access. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it would be difficult to turn north out of there, but theoretically it is full access. Commissioner Renzi stated he did not understand the differences between fortune telling and intuitive consulting, etc. It still sounds like the same thing. He agreed with Commissioner Kachel that it makes sense for this property to be zoned BTD . He felt intuitive consulting sounds like “sugar coated” fortune telling . Village Planner Garrigan stated the use is pertinent to the discussion. There is a grey area as far as this use. The applic ant has filed an application and it is their prerogative to bring it to the Plan Commission for consideration and discussion. The applicant has consistently stated they are not a fortune teller. It has been made clear that fortune telling is not a permit ted use in the Business Transition District. Commissioner Kachel asked if the petitioner can give the names of any other busi nesses like this in other towns. Petitioner Evans stated they are in Chicago and Naperville. It is in the downtown area of Naperville. She stated she is trying to do a consultation business. Commissioner Fremarek asked where the petitioner’s business w ould be found in the yellow pages. Petitioner Evans stated she is not in the yellow pages. Commissioner Fremarek asked if she were in the yellow pages where would she be located. Petitioner Evans stated she would probably be underneath consultations, co nsulting. Commissioner Fremarek asked if there would be any retail sales of the crystals. Petitioner Evans stated she would deliver. Commissioner Fremarek asked the petitioner if she would not be selling crystals. Petitioner Evans stated no type of ret ail. Commissioner Fremarek wanted a clarification, but Chairman Sobkoviak stated BT does not prohibit incidental sales. Petitioner Evans stated for her past clients she would do sales for them and deliveries. Commissioner Fremarek asked if a new custome r came in and she suggested they should wear a crystal bracelet, does she have anything there to sell them. Petitioner Evans stated no. Commissioner Peck did not want the petitioner to be set up for failure. He did not want to see code enforcement inter pret what she does as something else. He was concerned about the enforcement of it and the interpretation of the business. He asked if there had been any consultation with code enforcement. Village Planner Garrigan stated there has not been any consult a tions because obviously there has not been any violation yet. Planner Javoronok read the definition of fortune telling from the Zoning Ordinance . She stated it is an “establishment providing advice, predictions, or interpretations of planetary effects on or about future human affairs.” Commissioner O’Rourke stated it sounds like this business does not fit that definition. Commissioner Renzi stated a palm reader could come in, but not a fortune teller. Commissioner Renzi suggested that the definition be looked at in the Code. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there were any water concerns as far as the impervious area for the parking. Planner Javoronok stated the Village Engineer did not have any concerns regarding the water. Commissioner O’Rourke as ked if other BTD rezonings had been done with the primary access off an alley as opposed to a street. Chairman Sobkoviak and Commissioner Kachel stated there had been other rezonings with the same type of access . Commissioner O’Rourke asked if staff is comfortable with the fence ending on the west side of the property and adding an additional landscape buffer for the property to the west. Planner Javoronok stated staff was comfortable. The cedar is on t he north side and on the west side there are pres ently some mature trees. There will also be some additional landscaping on the west side . Commissioner O’Rourke asked about the photometrics. Planner Javoronok stated it is .5 at the lot line. Commmissioner Kachel felt there should be some type of arch itectural effect added to the cedar fencing. Planner Javoronok stated the applicant has submitted an example of what they want to do for the cedar fence and it will most likely meet what Commissioner Kachel is looking for.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Renzi followed u p on some of Commissioner O’Rourke’s previous questions. He asked if the re were water issues as far as the asphalt for the parking lot was concerned . Planner Javoronok stated it has been looked at. Commissioner Renzi also felt the pole lights , unless th ey are looking downward , could have an effect on adjacent property. Commissioner Kachel also felt when a BTD is a two story the lights within the building can also be a problem for the adjacent properties, not just the outside lights in the parking lot. Commissioner Renzi asked if it was a one story. Planner Javoronok stated it was a one story. Commissioner Renzi felt the cedar fence should be all the way around the property. Commissioner Renzi found 3 favorable findings, 1 neutral finding, and 1 unf avorable finding. He felt it still is favorable for a BTD regardless of the use . Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who cared to ask a question or make a comment regarding this case. There was no response. Commissioner O’Rourk e asked if the applicant has applied for local landmark status. Petitioner Evans stated no. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if she was just renting the building. He stated the owner would apply for the local landmark status. Commissioner O’Rourke stated the o wner could apply for the BTD. Planner Javoronok stated the owner has signed off for a BTD use and the owner could sign off on the landmark status if the applicant wanted to proceed with that. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if that would be something the Vil lage would like to see . Planner Javoronok stated as far as the HPC that would be a favorable thing. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if it goes to BTD can it still go to landmark status. Planner Javoronok stated the BTD zoning would not affect it going to la ndmark status. Commissioner Fremarek agreed with Commissioner Renzi’s findings of fact tally. He would support it being rezoned to BTD at this time. Commissioner Kachel asked if the Commission wanted to go with the cedar fencing all the way around. Com missioner Fremarek felt that would add continuity and agreed with Commission er Renzi that it would help to cut down on headlight traffic. Petitioner Gebel felt it would be difficult along the side because there are mature tress along the west side. He as ked if they did that could they eliminate the landscaping. Commissioner Renzi was looking to see if there was consensus to modify one and permits for a fence along the north and west and simply leave everything thing else for staff. Staff could look at t he landscaping plan and see what plantings could be done. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if that met with everyone’s approval. There was consensus from the Commission. Commissioner Renzi modified stipulation #1 by deleting the word “proposed”, and adding “al ong the north and west property lines” to the end of the stipulation. At 8:10 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the proposed map amendment (rezoning) for the property at 15124 S. Rt. 59, from R -1 to BT, s ubject to the following stipulations: 1. Attainment of appropriate building permits for a fence along the north and west property lines, 2. Attainment of appropriate building permit for proposed parking area, 3. Attainment of a sign permit for any signage, and a maximum signage area of 20 square feet, 4. Attainment of business license through the Plainfield Police Department, 5. That the existing architecturally significant structure is not altered, 6. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Enginee r, 7. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Chairman O’Rourke wanted it confirmed that it was noticed and there was a sig n posted. Planner Javoronok stated that was correct. Aye: O’Rourke, Sanders, Peck, Kachel, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 5 of 6 DISCUSSION: Commissioner Kachel felt there should be a text amendment regarding zoning changes alon g Rt. 59. He stated when Rt. 59 is widened and a lot is on Rt. 59, even if there is no driveway on Rt. 59, they should be eligible for BTD. This would make it easier for them to sell. He said if Michael was in favor of it, he should pass it along to the Board. Village Planner Garrigan asked Commissioner Kachel if he was looking for a comprehensive rezoning of the corridor along Rt. 59 from where to where. Commissioner Kachel stated all the way through town on Rt. 59. Commissioner Renzi said it could b e from Rt. 126 all the way down to Renwick. Village Planner Garrigan asked if they were referring to both sides. Village Planner Garrigan stated that has been attempted before. Village Planner Garrigan stated at the corner intersection of Rt. 30 and Rt. 59 there is interest for commercial zoning, obviously more intense than BTD. Commissioner Kachel was not talking about that area. He did state though if that was also BTD it could be rezoned later to commercial also. Commissioner Renzi stated they c ould talk about expanding the commercial aspect of that also. He agreed with Commissioner Kachel. He felt it was a fundamental conceptual change because the front yards will not be there anymore once the roadway goes to 4 lanes. Village Planner Garrigan asked if there was a consensus. Chairman Sobkoviak gave support. Commissioner Sanders added that the area is from the north end, which is deemed to be Rt. 126. He stated there are different uses and it is not consistent all the way through that corrido r as you go from Rt. 126 up to the plaza on the west side of Rt. 59. Village Planner Garrigan stated there will be certain areas, such as the intersections of Lockport Street and Rt. 59, Rt . 59 and Rt. 30, which are currently either B5 or B -3. Commission er Sanders stated the Commission is discussing the “infill” between those areas. Commissioner Sanders was for turning staff loose to look at the “infill” for that entire area up to the west side across from the cemetery and anything on the other side for “infill”. He thought that fit with what Commission er Kachel had mentioned last week . We need to look at this as a forward looking planning perspective. Commissioner Fremarek agreed as well. They should be looking at anything that is currently zoned R -1 and changing it to a BT. Chairman Sobkoviak stated they really do not have to change it . All they have to do is announce they are amenable to someone that wants to change it because even with BT people are still allowed to live in the structure. Villag e Planner Garrigan asked the Commission if they were looking for a comprehensive rezoning across the board of the “infill” areas of this corridor. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if they should wait until there is a request from someone that lives in that a rea. Commissioner Kachel stated presently you have to have an access to Rt. 59 to be rezoned to BTD . There are corner lots that do not have access to Rt. 59, but rather to a neighborhood street. Originally , when it went to the Village Board, the Board o pted to do it for the entire city, which included Lockport Street, DesPlaines Street, etc. Everybody was up in arms at that time and said they did not want BTD in their neighborhood. It came back to the Village Board and they decided on Rt. 59. Later on , it included Rt. 30. Village Planner Garrigan stated the Vi l lage Board has never suppo rted a comprehensive rezoning of that corridor. Chairman Sobkoviak did not think they would in the future either. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he will support the Comm issioners in this regard though. Commissioner O’Rourke did not support it. Commissioner Kachel explained how the BTD District came to be. There was a discussion between Commissioner O’Rourke and Commissioner Kachel regarding BTD. Commissioner Renzi st ated there have been some significant changes since the last try at rezoning this area to BTD. Commissioner O’Rourke stated part of his concern is not just wasting staff’s time, but also what the neighbor s of the neighborhood had previously expressed. Co mmissioner Sanders stated he felt the Commission needs to revisit what has happened in light of salient points. He s tated let’s give people who own these homes some kind of indication that we are going to look at this. There should be a determination of what is BTD and how it can be used effectively when there is this depth and breadth of information with Lockport Street , what has happened on Rt. 59 , and what will happen on Rt. 59 and Rt. 30. Village Planner Garrigan stated if it is the favor of the Plan Commission, staff can explore this and propose a comprehensive text amendment for rezoning. He did want to forewarn the Commission that there is a potential of having a number of residents along the Rt. 59 corridor, just based on historical precedent, co ming out to the Plan Commission and articulating strong opposition. That has happened before. This matter has not been considered by this Board. Commissioner Sanders stated the dialogue could be healthy for the Village. Village Planner Garrigan stated dialogues are often healthy, but they can also be controversial.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Kachel reminded the Commissioners that when you have someone that wants to buy your house you do not want to go through the complete process before you sell the house. You co uld lose the buyer in the process if you cannot get it through the process soon enough . Commissioner Kachel stated his sole purpose is to make it easier when Rt. 59 is widened for the properties to be rezoned BTD so the properties can be more easily sold if desired by the owners . Village Planner Garrigan was looking for a consensus. He stated he heard 4 yes’s and 1 no. Commissioner Peck stated he would be a no. So there would be 2 no’s. Chairman Sobkoviak said make it 3 no’s. He had changed his mind. Village Planner Garrigan stated staff would talk about it internally and bring it back for further discussion in the future. He did not feel there was a consensus yet, and felt there should be a consensus before it went further to the Village Board. Co mmissioner Peck asked Chairman Sobkoviak if it was beyond the scope of the Plan Commission to tell the Village Board they think there needs to be a text amendment. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it was not. Commissioner Kachel asked when Rt. 59 goes through will the State have to comply with the sidewalk width, or will they be putting in the narrow sidewalks again on Rt. 59. He further stated right now the Village has an ordinance to have 5’ wide sidewalks. Village Planner Garrigan stated staff has been wo rking with IDOT and he believes the current plans do show the Village’s standard 5’ sidewalks. Village Planner Garrigan polled the Commissioners if they wished to continue subscriptions to the Planning Magazine. They did. Chairman Sobkoviak gave the Com missioners instructions on what to do if he did not come to a meeting. • Any Commissioner can call the meeting to order from any position. They do not have t o be in the Chairman’s location, • That Commissioner would note the absence of the Chairman and ask for nominations from the floor for a Chairman pro tem, • A second would need to be made to the nomination, • A voice vote to affirm that blank Commissioner was nominated and selected to be Chairman pro tem • The Chairman pro tem would conduct the meeting per the agenda. Chairman Sobkoviak’s preference would be Commissioner Renzi or Commissioner Sanders run the meeting, but it is up to the Commissioners in attendance to decide . Since there was no further business before the Commission, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourn ed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Re spectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary Village of Plainfield