Loading...
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