Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2006-12-19 PC MinutesVillage of Plainfield Planning Commission Record of Minutes (Amended) Date: December 19 , 2006 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:0 4 . Roll Call Present: Commissioners Henry , Kachel, Murawski , O’Rourke , Renzi, Sobkoviak Absent: Commissioner McKay, Park District, School District, Fire District, Library District, Police Department Minutes The minutes from the December 5 , 2006 meeting were accepted as presented Development Report Michael Garrigan went through the Development report: - The Annexation Agreement, Rezoning, Special Use, and vacation of Rhea Drive were approved for the Sohol Professional Center. - The Special Use ordinance would be drawn up for Lifespring Community Church. NEW BUSINESS: CASE: 1283 -11200 6.AA/RZ/SU. 2824 DIVISION STREET (PUBLIC HEARING) PP.FP.SPR (CONTINUED TO 1/2/07 ) Request: Annexation, Rezoning, Special Use, Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Site Plan Review Location: 2824 Division Street Applicant: Brian Lane Time: 7:06pm The c ase was requested to be continued. At 7:07pm, Commissioner Kachel moved to open the public hearing for annexation, rezoning and special use for the proposed medical/office building at 2824 Division Street and continue the public hearing to the January 2, 2007 meeting of the Plan Commission . Commissioner Murawski seconded the motion. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes December 19, 2006 Page 2 of 7 Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: O’Rourke, Renzi, Kachel, Murawski , Henry , Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6 :0:0. CASE: 1282 -111506.TA 2006 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Request: Text Amendment Location: Village -wide Applicant: Village of Plainfield Time: 7:08pm Mr. Garrigan reviewed the Staff report. Regarding Section 9 -99 (page 4) sub -paragraph 2, Commissioner Renzi asked about allowin g no more than one menu board as he thought there were two regularly. Kelley Chrisse said that McDonalds asked for two recently, but the intent was to monitor this through the Site Plan Review Process as she did not think this was an industry standard . C ommissioner Renzi compared this to bank requests , and Mr. Garrigan said that the language could be changed. T he Village just wanted to address and regulate this . Commissioner O’Rourke asked how a menu board was defined as there were sometimes preview men u board s. Ms. Chrisse said that all menu boards were considered so as not to let advertising get out of hand. Commissioner Murawski said that a preview board could speed up people within the drive -thru, so a lot of variances would probably be reques ted f or a preview board. The commission supported a preview board and a menu board . Commissioner O’Rourke asked if menu boards were considered as part of the signage allowed , and it was determined that it was not currently but the revised ordinance was to add ress this . Commissioner O’Rourke stil l wanted some regulation on the size, and the commission agreed. Ms. Chrisse said that it currently was allowed to be proportionate to the monument sign , and a discussion ensued regarding this. Ms. Chrisse suggested allowing the preview board to be half the size of the menu board . Regarding ground signs being a minimum separation of 30 feet (on page 3) Section 9 -93 , Commissioner Renzi fe lt that the first person in an area got the better placement. Ms. Chrisse said t hat the intent was to protect flag lots with smaller portion s fronting the street and adjacent lots putting a sign too close. A d iscussion ensued regarding possible situations, and it was determined that special sit uations could request variances. Commis sioner Renzi suggested addi ng that adjoining landowners might be p recluded from building within five feet depending on the size of the adjacent lot. Chairman Sobkoviak said that Site Plan Review could take into account future development of adjacent prope rties . A discussion ensued regarding working with Staff on sign permits. Commissioner Murawski felt that it could be handled administratively , and Commissioner Renzi felt the first lot must allow second lot an opportunity for signage . Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes December 19, 2006 Page 3 of 7 Regarding 9 -17 an d 54 (on page 2), Commissioner O’Rourke asked about garage door size, especially with three -car garages and thought that nine feet for an extra door was not enough. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the standard garage door was eight, nine, and eighteen feet. Commissioner Henry asked about the designation of a historic district as the first bullet point on the first page. Ms. Chrisse said that the HPC was suggesting that people who did not understand or did not care about a historic district, would not vote . The new process would allow homeowners to submit consent forms after a Q&A session. If more than 50% object, the district would go nowhere. She clarified that a “no -show” was not being counted. Commissioner Renzi asked if the Village could just calcu late the percentage based on the number of votes, and Ms. Chrisse said that this requested change would put the Plainfield Historic Preservation in line with other historic preservation ordinances. Commissioner Kachel asked if this was sent out registered , and Ms. Chrisse confirmed it was sent out registered ten days after the Neighborhood Q&A . Commissioner Henry confirmed that t his session was included in the ordinance. Commissioner O’Rourke asked about driveway width . Mr. Garrigan said that this was i n the ordinance now but was put in to avoid large driveways that took up the entire lot width at the lot line. He said that the driveway could flare out between the sidewalk and garage and was done by the request of the b uilding dep ar t ment. Commissioner Murawski asked about the sideyard projections in Section 9 -14 . Mr. Garrigan explained that this was in the old zoning ordinance , and the building dep ar t ment wanted to add this into the new ordinance to prevent variance requests for minor projections . Com missioner Kachel confirmed that this was for projections encroach ing in a person’s own yard. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if Section 9 -94(5) (c) on page 3 was for h omeowners or commercial, and Staff confirmed that it was for both. Chairman Sobkoviak did not like the idea of o nly one flag per pole as several other flags were often flown. Ms. Chrisse suggested keeping this as three flags . Commissioner Henry still only wanted to allow one corporation flag pole per site where there we re two or more poles . Chai rman Sobkoviak did not like limiting the number of flags per pole, especially with homeowners . Ms. Chrisse said that the current regulation wa s for one American flag and one corporation flag with a limited size . Commissioner O’Rourke confirmed that there was no language about the quality or condition of a flag, and that no maintenance was required on other signs as well. Chairman Sobkoviak asked about wall signage permissions on page 4 , Section 9 -99 1 B i . Ms. Chrisse said that there were some exempt si gn s for safety/emergency vehicles. Commissioner Renzi asked that informational signs be specifically excluded , and Ms. Chrisse clarified that these are usually not on the wall . Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes December 19, 2006 Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Kachel asked about the nine inches on the awning sign in Secti on 9 -99 4 b as he did not think that this seem ed large . Ms. Chrisse clarified this , and Commissioner Kachel said that, at area malls, some other cities had signs that seem ed easier to read . Mr. Garrigan said that Plainfield had a restrictive sign ordinan ce, but the commission determined that this should be kept as is. Chairman Sobkoviak asked about the perimeter of a subdivision on page 9, and Ms. Chrisse said that Staff just did not want signage between subdivisions . Chairman Sobkoviak asked why “surg i cal facility” was removed from the term “medical clinics”. Mr. Garrigan said that there was some discussion recently about a surgical center, and the Board had decided that it was not allowed in B -3 but rather in Industrial . Chairman Sobkoviak understood the intent but asked if a G eneral P ractioner could perform minor surgical procedures in the office . Mr. Garrigan suggested that the definition be clarified through Teska , and Chairman Sobkoviak suggested asking a doctor to clarify what types of things ar e considered surgery . Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public comment. Bill Lamb said that the intent of the Board was for facilities whose primary function w as surgery . Chairman Sobkoviak said that he just wanted to be accurate in the desc ription . Commissioner Henry asked how to make the motion with stipulations . Ms. Chrisse reiterated the changes: - The first lot must allow a second lot an opportunity for signage. - Section 9 -94 (5c) to eliminate the restriction of o ne flag per pole and iden tify that one corp orate flag was allowed where there we re two or more poles . - Section 9 -99 would be changed to allow one menu board and one preview board (and define the preview board at 20 feet ) - Include the d efinition of medical clinics At 8:01pm, Commiss ioner Henry moved to make a favorable recommendation to the Village Board approving the amendments to the updated Zoning Ordinance as highlighted tonight, including the five items requiring further definition District. Commissioner Murawski seconded the m otion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: O’Rourke, Renzi, Kachel, Murawski , Henry, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6 :0:0. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes December 19, 2006 Page 5 of 7 This would go before to the Village Board at the first meeting in January . CASE: 1278 -101306.TA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – FUTURE LAND USE MAP (PUBLIC HEARING) Request: Text Amendment Location: Various Parcels of Land within Village’s Planning Area Applicant: Village of Plainfield Time: 8:02pm Michael Schwarz reviewed the Staff report. C ommissioner Henry asked if the Village had included the area north of Route 30 but west of I -55. Mr. Schwarz said that this was considered along with several other areas. Mr. Garrigan said that there was a current pending development on that property, an d while there was some potential, it would not be appropriate to change it at this point. Commissioner Kachel asked if Joliet was proposing that, and Mr. Garrigan said that most of the parcel was in Joliet but behind it was Plainfield. Commissioner O’Rou rke asked if part of the analysis was the WIKADUKE. Mr. Schwarz did not recommend office/research on the WIKADUKE because it was considered residential with commercial nodes at major intersections. He said that Staff was looking at areas like along I -88 as the market dictated, but the land adjacent to I -55 was limited. Commissioner Kachel asked about the Park District property along Lockport. Mr. Schwarz said that he had been in close contact with the Park District regarding that property, and there wer e no plans for that. However, if an interchange took place, that area would change. Commissioner Kachel s a id that, even with the Lockport interchange, it was still feasible. A d iscussion ensued regarding comparing this to Bolingbrook and the amount of l and being dedicated to Office/Research & Development. Commissioner Renzi said that, right now, that Park District land was heavily used. He d id not want to rezone it as that property would be worth a lot if the Lockport Interchange went in. Mr. Schwarz wanted to discuss this with the P ark D istrict. Chairman Sobkoviak liked starting with the small step . Commissioner O’Rourke asked how Plainfield compared to neighboring communities. Mr. Schwarz said that the Comp rehensive Plan was done in 2002 and updat ed in various sections (the last of which was done in late October 2005 ). He said that the Comprehensive Plan contained recent policy direction including residential use in lower density with areas of commercial and medium residential interspersed. Commi ssioner Henry said that it was a discussion point during the last update, and percentage -wis e, the differences were nominal. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes December 19, 2006 Page 6 of 7 Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public comment. Bill Lamb said that t he Board was looki ng at educational institutions and asked if this should be c onsidered as a new category too. Mr. Schwarz said that this was a po licy document that could change if the Village w anted to include it . He said that I -1 would be an appropriate land use currently, so a college would not be a llowed. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the educational institution could purchase the land and work with the Village for rezoning . Commissioner Henry wanted to welcome certain types of businesses , and a d iscussion ensued regarding the possibilities to addr ess this. Commissioner Renzi wanted to discuss this in the future , and a further discussion regarding how to redo other uses. Commissioner O’Rourke suggested bringing this forward, and Commissioner Murawski liked the baby steps in taking the idea forward . Mr. Schwarz explained the intent of the Comp rehensive Plan . At 8:31pm, Commissioner O’Rourke moved to recommend approval of a text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to create a new future land use category to accommodate offices, corporate headquarte rs, research and development, and other compatible uses, as well as to amend the Future Land Use Plan map to designate certain areas for the new land use category, as depicted on the attached exhibit. Commissioner Henry seconded the motion. Chairman Sobk oviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: O’Rourke, Renzi, Kachel, Murawski, Henry, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0:0. Commissioner Renzi asked how hard it would be to give a history on land use percentages since 1995 and/or 2000 to see if the Village was on track. Mr. Schwarz said that he could bring this back, but 1995 was the first Comprehensive Plan, so there is nothing beforehand. Commissioner Kachel noted that, in 1995, the Village did not worry about land west of Route 30. Mr. Sch warz also said that there would not be a long history of future land use, especially since some categories have come up since then. A discussion ensued regarding zoning category percentages. Mr. Schwarz agreed to look into seeing if the numbers show ed th e direction the Village is heading . Chairman Sobkoviak wished everyone a Merry Christmas and thanked everyone for the hard work throughout the year . Commissioner Murawski asked if there were any corporations with an interest or that were investigating th e corporate opportunity. Mr. Garrigan said that he had heard of one p otential user but nothing since, and a brief discussion ensue regarding the procedure. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes December 19, 2006 Page 7 of 7 Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 8 :4 3 pm. __________________ Respectfully submitt ed, Laura Griffith -Recording Secretary Karick & Associates, Inc.