HomeMy Public PortalAbout1995-07-18 PC minutesPLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
DATE: July 18, 1995 AT: Plainfield Library
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Sobkoviak
K. O'Connell L. Kachel
T. Spika R. Schinderle
W. Manning A. Anderson
ALSO PRESENT: P. J. Waldock, Development & Zoning Director
Fire District representative
School District representative
J. Durbin, Planner
S. Hart, Secretary
Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and led the pledge to the flag. Roll
call was taken, The Park and Library District representatives were absent. The June 20, 1995
minutes were approved as presented.
Planner Waldock suggested amending agenda to include consideration of rezoning for Pioneer Lanes
as this has been omitted from Agenda, Plan Commission amended Agenda accordingly.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT:
Pioneer Lanes, discussion on Annexation Agreement. Predominate concerns from the citizens
present at the Village Board were noise, and traffic.
NEW BUSINESS: 493-062395.Z CENTENNIAL FARM
494-062395.SU CENTENNIAL FARM (Bowling Alley)
495-071295.SPR CENTENNIAL FARM
Planner Durbin summarized his report as follows: The Village approved an annexation agreement
with the Muellers in January of 1989 which provided for B-3 zoning on that portion of the property
that was within 300 feet of U.S. Route 30 (Joliet Rd.). The remainder of the property was zoned R-1.
As you may recall, on several recent occasions the applicants have discussed the proposed
development of a 25,000 square foot bowling center on the Centennial Farm with the Village Board.
The bowling center was proposed for the 300 foot deep portion of the property which was zoned
B-3 per the annexation agreement. While discussions have focused on the bowling center, the
applicants have also demonstrated interest in the future development of the remainder of the
property.
During these discussions, the Village Board suggested that they would support approval of a special
use permit for the proposed Bowling Center. This would be required as a Bowling Center is only
permitted in the B-3 zoning district with special use approval. The Board expressed concerns,
however, related to the siting of the Bowling Center and the other commercial uses due to the
proximity of the Centennial Farm to existing residential developments. Because of these concerns,
staff studied various alternate locations on the Centennial Farm to determine the best location to
avoid negative impacts on adjacent properties while maximizing the development potential of the
Centennial Farm.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
July 18, 1995
Page 2
This proposal is not consistent with either the 1988 nor the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plans,
however, no uses permitted within the B -3 Zoning District are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plans. As the Village has entered into an annexation agreement that provides B -3 zoning in this
location, the concern with regard to the Comprehensive Plan must be handled through careful site
planning.
Staff presented concept plans to the Plan Commission and the Village Board who agreed that the
north portion of the property was the best location for the commercial uses, as indicated in the prior
annexation agreement, while the southern portion should be single family residential. There was
also agreement that the 300 foot deep portion of the property would not provide for an effective site
plan to address various concerns including the proximity to existing residential uses, proximity to
the Lake Renwick Heron Rookery, and proximity to other commercial uses.
The concept plan developed by staff increased the acreage dedicated to commercial uses. In the
original agreement, approximately 10 acres were zoned B -3, while the concept plan increased this
to approximately 16 acres. The Board supported increasing amount of commercial zoning to best
situate the commercial use so as to avoid conflicts with existing uses in the area and the Lake
Renwick Heron Rookery. Accordingly, staff and the Board suggested that the applicant revise the
annexation agreement to address these issues.
The applicants have worked with staff throughout this process and have developed a plan that is
consistent with the concept site plan that was supported by the Plan Commission and Village Board.
Copies of the concept plan have been included for your reference. You will note that the site plan
has changed from the concept plan due to the incorporation of additional property in the
development proposal, however, the plan is consistent with the goals of the concept plan.
SITE PLAN REVIEW:
The applicants have submitted preliminary site plan review information to allow the Village to
consider site plan issues while considering the annexation agreement and special use permit and
rezoning. This information will be helpful in considering the annexation agreement and special use
permit and rezoning, however, the materials submitted are not adequate to complete the formal Site
Plan Review process. Materials yet to be submitted include engineering details (site grading,
stormwater detention calculations, etc.) and complete building elevations. The applicants have
submitted enough information to begin preliminary consideration of the Site Plan.
The Village Engineer has conducted a preliminary review of the site plan and has identified some
minor concerns. The Village Engineer has discussed these concerns with the applicants engineer
and determined that they can be addressed and will not substantially alter the site plan.
While the applicants have not submitted building elevations, they have submitted a perspective
rendering of the building which demonstrates the character of the building as well as general
building elevation and design information.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
July 18, 1995
Page 3
Accordingly, staff recommends proceeding with a preliminary Site Plan Review or Concept Plan
review. This will not provide the applicants with a formal approval. This will, however, provide
the applicants with a consensus of opinion regarding the preliminary site plan or concept plan which
will allow them to complete the site plan Review submittal requirements and proceed towards
formal approval without undue expense or time considerations.
Staff would recommend this approach as it allows the Village the opportunity to consider site plan
issues in conjunction with the special use permit and annexation agreement discussions.
Staff briefly summarized the Preliminary Site Plan.
SPECIAL USE:
The Village of Plainfield Zoning Ordinance recognizes that there are certain uses which, because
of their unique characteristics, cannot be classified in any particular district without consideration,
in each case, of the impact of those uses upon adjacent land and of the public need for the particular
use in the particular location. "Amusement establishments including, but not limited to, bowling
alleys, billiard halls, dance halls, and skating rinks" may be permitted in the B3 district as a special
use.
The Zoning Ordinance specifies that the Plan Commission shall not recommend, nor shall the
Village Board grant a special use unless it makes findings based upon the evidence presented to it
in each specific case that:
a. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to, or
endanger the public health, safety, and general welfare; and
b. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate area for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair
property values within the neighborhood; and
c. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the adjacent property for uses permitted within the district.
The Village has worked extensively with the applicant to ensure that the development proposal will
meet the first and second criteria and the applicant has modified the proposal to address Village
comments and concerns. The development proposal addresses the first and second criteria through
the site plan by use of careful building siting considerations, berming, landscape plantings, and
sensitive lighting plans. Staff and the Planning and Development Committee are confident that the
proposal as presented meets the first and second criteria. The proposal, by complying with the first
and second criteria, clearly complies with the third criteria in that it will not impede the normal and
orderly development within the district. Indeed the proposal may enhance the development
potential in the area.
Based upon these criteria, staff and the Plan Planning and Development Committee recommend
approval of the special use permit.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
/
(
July 1Ei 1995
Page 4
Staff and the Planning and Development Committee recommend approval of the special use permit
and rezoning.
Staff and the Planning and Development Committee also recommend approval of the Preliminary
Site Plan/Concept Plan subject to the following stipulations:
1. Completion of the Site Plan Review submittal requirements and completion of the formal Site
Plan Review process.
2. Modify the landscape plan as discussed.
3. Trash enclosures must beprovided.
4. The locations of site lighting fixtures must be provided along with a glare study.
5. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer.
6. Compliance with the provisions of the Plainfield Fine Protection District.
7 Compliance with conditions agreed upon with the Will County Forest Preserve in regard to the
Lake Renwick Heron Rookery. This includes provision of evergreen plantings across from Arbor
Drive, a berm along Joliet Road with plantings, a sight lighting plan that ovoids glare on the
Rookery, construction timing noncanla to avoid disturbing the nesting cycle, and careful site
planning. The applicants have already agreed to these provisions in discussions with the Forest
Preserve.
Concerns of the Plan Commission included the aignage for the building, the different acreage from
the Annexation Agreement, and the concept plan. From lD acres tOl6acres. Exactly what iobeing
rezoned, from Will County Agricultural to Village of Plainfield 8-3, General Commercial for the 16
acres as opposed to the previously designated 300 ft, wide strip along Lincoln Highway that was
previously included in the original agreement.
Tom Wilson, attorney for the applicants, and owners, Dave Mueller, Norman and lone Mueller and
Jean Seneca. They plan to annex the entire 5| acres with the exception of the portion in the south
west of the tract, marked exception, which is the original hornestead. The landscaping on the east
will go in right away, because of the Rookery. The landscaping on the west will go in when there
ia further development. The building when expanded will be 237 ft. from the west property lino.
The building will be 20 ft high in the front and 12 ft. in height in the back. The Annexation will
include Kt. ]O vvhenm it adjoins the property, and Howard and Renwick will be in the Village.
Asking for 16,21 acres if B-3 Zoning, a5pooial Use permit for the bowling alley site, and for 34.18
acres R,1 Single-family Zoning.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
July 18, 1995
Page 5
Concerns of the Commission members included, plans for Robert Street. There were no plans,
because it is not contiguous to the tract. The present use of the property to the north, was a
concern, was said to be all commercial. Was the homestead an exception from the Annexation
Agreement from 1989. The reason for the exception of the homestead. The applicants said that they
were willing to annex to the Village. It is expected that the bowling alley will be busy during the
fall and winter. The bowling alley leagues will be over by 11:00 p.m. The berm being put in later,
was a problem with one the Commissioners. One of the commissioners suggested that the
stormwater detention would be put in at the time of the building being built, the berm should be
put in at the same time. A possibility of a fence was also suggested.
Concerns of the public included:
Menzie Pusateri, 206 Getson. Resents the fact that she did not get any information. Has been in
the Village for 9 months. Would like Getson to go through to Renwick or Rt. 30. Asked what kind
of homes might be build on Getson cul -de -sac.
Paulette Young, 109 Benson, Is totally against the bowling alley. Wanted to know where will the
dumpsters be, and where is the fence. Was answered that dumpsters will be required and that will
be decided with the Site Plan Review. Was concerned about exhaust from traffic and delivery
trucks.
Sarah Mc Bride, 200 Julie Ave. Concerned with proposal, liked her quiet, safe residential
neighborhood. Felt this would effect their property values. Would rather see nice field, rather than
a bowling alley. Suggested putting the bowling alley on the east, rather than the west. Suggested
that the Village is more interested the birds than the residents.
Dawn Georgakas, 101 Benson. Wanted to know; why reconfigure the Commercial area, from Rt.
30, closer to the residential area. Concerned with the persons looking for trouble. Would like the
parking lot to be more visible from Rt. 30. Asked the Board to stick with the original agreement.
Tom Carey, 205 Robert. Asked where will the water main come from, for this new development?
Roberts or Renwick. He said they did not have enough water presser on Roberts at present. He was
also concerned that if they don't expand their bowling alley, can they then build any other
commercial buildings there, along Getson. Asked about the landscaping.
Bob Russell, 209 Getson, was concerned that Getson should go through to Renwick, did not like
Getson being a cul -de -sac, did not want the berm to block Getson from being a through street. If
the cul -de -sac is curbed, guttered and have sidewalks, will the rest of Getson also have curbs, gutters
and sidewalks?
Planner Waldock spoke. This is a concept plan, it can be made part of the Annexation Agreement.
A stub in street to a cornfield is not a proper terminus for a street, we like to address these issues
when we can. This concept plan will, we feel, be the best way for the terminus of this street. The
applicants in this case are not proposing any residential development at this time. Village policy
requires notification of rezoning from applicant.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
July 18, 1995
Page 6
Daisy Georgakas, 101 Benson. If there is berm, will there also be also a fence? She was answered,
not necessarily, that it is yet to be decided if there will be a fence.
Lee Legler, Benson, if the bowling alley goes out of business, who will take care of the property.
As far as the water retention pond; he said they get water on Benson in the front yards ever since
the Church was re built.
Shirley Stofko, 121 Benson. Was concerned that their yard is lower than the field, concerned with
water.
Barbara King, 107 Benson. She preferred the bowling alley face on Howard. Twice.
Tom Carey, 205 Benson, wanted to know if at a future date could the applicant petition the R -1 to
B -2. Was answered that anyone could petition anything, but not necessarily get it.
Tom Spika, Commission member, reminded the audience, that the petitioner was requesting this,
not the Village.
lone Mueller, applicant asked to speak, she said: Their family allowed the sewer and water to go
across their farm, in 1989, and they were allowed a business zoning. A retention pond is not a
pond or a lake, it is a gravel dip, where the water will go on through to the base. Times change,
they don't feel their farm can stay farm always. There have been seven subdivision go in around
their farm. They feel they must move on, with phase one. A bowling alley will be a nice place for
seniors, and families. They felt it would be a asset to the community, and a needed tax increase.
Planner Waldock said that what was needed was three motions, either combined or separate.
A motion with regard to rezone per the request.
A motion for approval of the Special Use.
A motion for Preliminary Site Plan approval.
Ed Schrader did not object to zoning or special use. Length of cul -de -sac in center of project. Cul-
de -sac on Getson was a improvement.
Commissioners discussion:
Chairman Sobkoviak, asked did any of the Commissioners have a problem with the rezoning?
Commissioners wanted the exception included. Is the Bowling Alley an acceptable B -3 Special Use.
Is the Site Plan acceptable. Commissioners wanted the building and retention area and the berm
done at the same time.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
July 18, 1995
Page 7
After discussion, Walter Manning made a motion to recommend to the Village Board, the approval
of the Rezoning as requested, the Special Use to allow a bowling alley in this location, and the
Preliminary Plan approval subject to the stipulations of the Planner and the Commission for Case
No. 493-062395.Z, 494-062395.SU and 495-071295.SPR. Seconded by L. Kachel. Roll call vote.
K. O'Connell, yes; L. Kachel, yes; T. Spika, yes; R. Schinderle, yes; W. Manning, yes; A.
Anderson, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried. 7 yes 0 no. The two additional
stipulations of the Plan Commission were:
8. The applicants must include the property exception in the annexation
9. The berm along the rear of the houses on Benson Street be constructed simultaneously with the
building and parking lot.
Adjourn 9:15
Sharori-Hart, Secretary
PLAINFIELB
WNI • COUNTY. • OLO..* • -- -,
Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting on July 18, 1995.
Please sign this sheet for our official records.
9(1,11
kA,
IVY
�24
F63 - lei rc� 6v
(,4f t c-I