HomeMy Public PortalAbout1995-11-21 PC minutesPLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
DATE: November 21, 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
School District representative
Fire District representative
J. Durbin, Planner
J. Djerf, Village Engineer
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, School and Fire district representatives were absent. There were no
minutes, November 7, 1995 minutes will be presented with the December Agenda.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT:
Pioneer Lanes was approved, and continued construction will go on. The Board has been
continuing with Text Amendments, Bed and Breakfast Amendment was approved by the Village
Board. The Comprehensive Plan will go before the Village Board on December 4, 1995.
OLD BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. 507- 102395.SU
The applicants in this case are requesting a Special Use Permit to operate a Day Care facility in the
structure previously occupied by Bad's Express. The applicants propose to operate a Day Care
facility designed for two to five year old children, with a maximum capacity of 40 children. The site
is, currently zoned B -4 which does not provide for Day Care facilities as permitted uses, however,
the Zoning Ordinance does provide for Special Use approval of uses not identified as specifically
permitted.
Day Care centers are classified as permitted uses in the B -1 zoning district and special uses in other
districts. The B -4 district is intended to accommodate those retail and wholesale commercial
activities which are considered roadside commercial uses. Permitted uses within the B -4 district
include animal hospitals, commercial recreation, greenhouses, auto service, restaurants, and other
uses which are of the same general character.
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. The Village Board, after receiving a report from the Plan Commission
containing it's findings and recommendations, may allow a special use in a particular zoning district.
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:
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
November 21, 1995
Page 2
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 forthe 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 following is an analysis in terms of these three conditions:
The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to, or
endanger the public health, safety, and general welfare:
It is clear that the establishment of a Day Care facility in this location will comply with this
condition. Day Care facilities do not present any negative externalities effect the public health,
safety, and general welfare that are not already present in this location. The traffic generated by this
use will have minimal impacts on traffic in the area. While traffic generation will be higher during
peak periods of the day (morning and evening), no negative impacts on the traffic in this area are
anticipated. The site provides adequate vehicular access to address any traffic concerns.
Health and safety issues in this case are more significant for the children that will be present. These
concerns are addressed in several ways; the children are dropped off inside the front door; the
children remain indoors for the majority of the day; only 25% of the children are allowed outdoors
at any period of time (ten children in this case); and outdoor activities are supervised in the outdoor
play area which will be entirely enclosed with a stockade fence. The children will only leave the
secured area when dropped off or picked up by their parents.
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.
The proposed use will be entirely enclosed within a secure area and separated from the residential
uses behind by a substantial distance. Children will not be running throughout the area, crossing
Route 30, visiting adjacent businesses, or any other such activities. Staff would suggest that a greater
concern is the impact of other existing uses on the proposed use. Staff discussed this issue with the
applicants who indicated that this concern will be addressed by providing a stockade fence for the
outdoor play area (visual and sound screen), a security system is under consideration, and the
children will be within the secure area at all times and under supervision.
The impact of this use on adjacent properties will be lower than other uses that are permitted within
the B -4 district.
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.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
November 21, 1995
Page 3
The establishment of this use will not impede the development and improvement of adjacent
property. Provision of Child Care facilities may in fact encourage additional development in the
area. Child Care facilities often play an important role in site selection for new or relocating
businesses.
Staff would recommend that the Plan Commission Concur with the following findings:
The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to, or
endanger the public health, safety, and general welfare; and
2. 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
3. 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.
While the use itself may not present negative impacts to development in the area, the site and
associated structure must also be considered as important contributing factors to the impact of the
use on adjacent properties. As mentioned above, the site was previously occupied by Baci's Express.
At the time of development of Bad's Express, the project proceeded through administrative Site Plan
Review and ultimately was approved with stipulations and conditions. Several of these were never
fulfilled during the short period of time that Baci's Express occupied the structure. Because the
proposed use will occupy the existing structure and include minor alterations, the conditions of the
Baci's Express administrative Site Plan Approval must be addressed. These include the following:
Existing signage must be removed. New signage must comply with the Sign Ordinance.
Boxcar in rear yard must be removed.
Site lighting improvements must be completed.
4. Front yard landscape improvements must be completed.
5. Parking lot must be repaved.
Additional site improvements have been discussed with the applicant including shade trees in the
rear yard play area and curb protection /planters in front of the structure to avoid tragic vehicular
accidents. While staff recommends this additional improvements, we do not recommend them as
requirements.
Due to the importance of completion of the Baci's Express site improvements to the impact of the
property on adjacent properties, staff would also recommend that the Plan commission concur with
one additional finding:
6. The site improvements as required for the Baci's Express administrative Site Plan
Approval are important to how the property impacts adjacent properties. Without these
improvements, findings 1 through 3 must be reconsidered.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
November 21, 1995
Page 4
The Planning and Development Committee considered this application at the November 15, 1995
Workshop. The committee was supportive of staff's recommendation and felt that completion of the
Bad's Express site improvements was important. .
The committee also recommended that the applicants consider connecting the facility to Village
Water and Sanitary Sewer.
The Planning and Development Committee recommended forwarding the case to the Plan
Commission for consideration.
Staff and the Planning and Development Committee recommend that the Plan Commission
recommend that the Village Board approve the Special Use request subject to the following
stipulations:
1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer.
2. Compliance with the provisions of the Plainfield Fire Protection District.
3. Completion of the requirements and conditions of administrative Site Plan Review
approval for Bad's Express.
4. Applicant must receive all approvals and permits required for operation of a Day Care
facility, these include approvals from the Department of Child and Family Services, the
State Fire Marshall, the County Health Department, and others as required.
Questions of the Plan Commission included, why were the conditions that were imposed on BACI's
Express not met; the amount of grass on the site; the hours of business; which was said to be 6 to
6. One of the Plan Commissioners asked how these requirements will be forced to be followed.
Planner Waldock, said since this was a Special Use Permit, they would have to be followed. The
Plan Commission wanted to know who was responsible to clean up the property, Planner Waldock
stated that the owner had the obligation, and the leasee also has leverage through their lease. The
Plan Commission decided to add a stipulation:
5. An escrow account should be established to ensure compliance with staff
recommendations regarding site improvements. This escrow to be forfeited if
compliance is not achieved by June 1, 1996, paid by BACI's and forfeited by BACI's.
Joy Darnell and Lisa Nico answered questions of the Plan Commission regarding the height of the
fence, which was 6 ft. They said that the removal of the box car in the back of the property was to
be part of the lease.
After discussion, L. Kachel made a motion to recommend to the Village Board the approval of the
Special Use for the Children's Gallery, CASE NO. 507- 102395.SU, subject to the stipulations of the
Planner and the stipulation of the Plan Commission. Seconded by R. Schinderle. 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 to 0.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
November 21, 1995
Page 5
OLD BUSINESS: 461-091294,AA 8WEETWOOD
The subject site in this case is approximately 205 acres of vacant agricultural land, located between
Pt. 120 and 143n] St., approximately 1/4 mile west of U.S. R1' 30. The subject site ispresently used
agriculturally. There is no substantial vegetation found except surrounding the existing farmsteads
on the property. Drainage for the property flows toward the southwest. The site is relatively flat
with no substantial topographical features. Existing farmsteads and multiple agricultural buildings
are located in the mouth and north portions of the site. Mature trees are found along the farmsteads.
PROPOSAL:
The applicants propose an Annexation Agreement with R-1, Single-family zoning to accommodate
aresidential subdivision with ofullydeveloped park site, including ball fields, soccer field and tennis
courts, atnail system along the storm water detention areas and a man made wetland area. Also
included with this project is a privately maintained swim club on 5 aCnuy located at the intersection
of Meadow Lane and "K" Street. /\ 12.03 acne school site contribution (up from 10 acres in the
previous plan) is proposed for an area centrally located in the subdivision, north of "K" Street and
west ofMeadow Lane. The development includes 718 total dwelling units (down from 750 units
in the previous plan).
As with previous development proposals the 285 acre site is divided into four individual
neighborhoods. Each neighborhood has slightly different lot area averages or nninirnunn lot area
provisions.
Planning area A, will have atOtal of 87 lots. k4inirnun) lot area in this section will be 8/400 Sq. ft.
average lot area is proposed at 9,324 sq. ft.
Planning area B, will have 324 lots. Minimum lot area is 8,400 sq. ft. average lot area for this
section is proposed at 9,188 sq. ft.
Planning area C, has 127 lots. Minimum lot area is 8,750 sq. ft. average lot area for this section is
10, 175 eq. ft.
Planning area [1 will have atotal of 100 lots. Minimum lot area in this section is 10,000 sq. ft.
with an average of 11/453 sq. ft.
Planning areas A 8, 8' C all have 70 ft, nninirnunn widths and a 30 ft. rnininourn front yen].
Minimum interior side yards for these three sections will be 7ft. KAinirnunn rear yard in these three
sections will be 30 ft. each. Planning area [}, proposes and OO [t. noininouno lot width and 30 ft.
front and year yard areas and O ft. minimum interior sideyard setback.
Overall the subdivision will produce a gross density of2.5] dwelling units per acre (down from 2.64
units per acre in the previous plan). Total open space provided is 35.01 acres orabout 12.32% of
the total site (up from 33.84 acres or about 11.90% in the previous plan). Open space areas are
preserved along R±. 126 and along 143rd Street which can be used as east west pedestrian and
bicycle pathways.
Street systems throughout the subdivision will encourage two connections at the west property line
and two connections ot the east property line. Meadow Lane is extended from Whispering Creek
Subdivision through the site to 143nj 5t. No additional north/south thoroughfares are proposed.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
November 21, 1995
Page
Staff prefers to use the term "concept plan" instead of Preliminary Plat as stated in Paragraph 2. The
documents submitted with this Annexation Agreement are not sufficient to be considered a
Preliminary Plat. Mat!iriala submitted however are sufficient for concept plan analysis. This section
provides for Standard N,1, Single Family District Zoning. There are number of bulk requirement
deviations. Those deviations vary between neighborhoods, for this reason, Staff has considered using
a PUD process for this project. The applicants do not prefer the PUD procedure in this case. Staff
would not object tostandard zoning, but itis felt that one of the studies required for a PUD will still
be necessary here, to properly analyze the project impact. We would specifically request atraffic
study for this project to determine siAnulization and turn lane warrants for Rt. 126 in particular. An
analysis of Meadow and 143rd will also be of intenayt.
Paragraph 3 refers to the "Preliminary Plat" and stipulates that the preliminary plat presented with
this agreement shall constitute and satisfy all of the requirements of the preliminary Subdivision Plat
as defined in ordinances of the Village. However, au indicated, the preliminary plan associated with
this Annexation Agreement io not sufficient in detail to meet the requirements of the Preliminary Plat
as specified in the Subdivision Ordinance. Additionally the Village Engineer has not completed a
review of the Preliminary Plat as necessary. Sufficient time must be given to the Village Engineer
to complete admtai|ed review ofthe Preliminary Plat. This becomes even more essential if the plat
istobeconsidered to satisfy requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. No formal Preliminary Plat
application has yet been made. The Preliminary Plan however in sufficient for concept plan or
preliminary PUD plan approval.
Paragraph 4, provides for an Impact Fee of$1,75D per net developable acre ofland. The school
site, park site and perimeter streets have been excluded from the impact fee calculations. This
exclusion is a policy matter. If this is acceptable, the agreement then satisfies the Villages current
policy for annexation impact fee levels.
Paragraph 5 of the agreement provides for a guarantee of capacity for up to 300 units for water and
sewer capacity. The remaining 420 units must prepay tap on fees to be given guaranteed capacity.
Paragraph 9 discusses the developers obligation to oversize any water lines to accommodate
adjoining properties. Typically the Village has considered oversized lines required within Village
subdivisions part of land development costs associated with subject site. Reasonable recapture
provisions for Ovemizingare not objectionable to Staff.
Paragraph lOof this section sets forth ri8ht- parameters for Rt. 126 and 143vdSt. The right-of-
way widths specified in the agreement are satisfactory at 50 ft. from center for Rt. 126 and 40 ft.
from center for 143rd St. However, this section further goes on to provide for 4% annual interest
for cost recapture for improvements to 143n] 5t. The agreement discusses the accrual of interest
beginning two years after completion of roadway improvements. No specified time limit isincluded
in this section. Typically, the Village vvil I require ten year total time frame after completion of said
roadway improvements for the availability of cost recaptures. Therefore, no coot recapture would
be available beyond ten years from the date of completion. Language to this effect should be
considered for this paragraph.
Staff would have no objection to the suggested number O{model hornSS within each subdivision unit
at 20, as stated in Paragraph 11. However, Staff has some concerns with regard to construction of
model homes with access only from a temporary gravel road. Current Village policy for typical
residential construction requires that ata minimum, a permanent gravel road base be constructed
for the public street accessing the home to be constructed. Without such permanent gravel road
base no construction permits can be issued for the homes.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
November 21, 1995
Page 7
Paragraph 12 calls for all minor residential streets to be built at 28 ft' pavement width. Village
subdivison regulations allow 28 ft. width pavements on cul-de-sacs only' Staff has no major
objection to this provision in the Annexation Agreement as long as the 2U ft. widths are on streets
that do not access into adjoining properties. Any streets with stub connections to adjoining
properties should be constructed to the full 31 ft. width. Meadow Lane is considered a
neighborhood collector and therefore should be constructed with an 80 ft. right- and 37 ft.
of pavement back to back. This paragraph also provides that no Letter of Credit would be provided
for parkway trees, seeding and restoration. This provision is contrary to subdivision regulations.
Staff feels that Letter of Credit parameters established by current subdivison regulations should be
met by this development, or other suitable surety provided to cause the installation of trees even if
lots remain undeveloped. This is of particular concern ifnoconstruction occurs for many years on
vacant lots.
This section provides for 2" parkway trees. The Ordinances and Subdivision regulations require 3"
caliper trees. This provision should be amended for public trees. Private trees are []Kat2". Staff
has noobjection to landscaped cul-de-sac islands used within this project. Such cul-de-sac islands
must be designed to meet the "tear drop" style design. This standard allows for 31 ftofpavement
surrounding the cul-de-sac island. This allows for adequate emergency vehicle access even with
vehicles parked in the terminus areas. The agreement as presently written calls for only one shade
tnao to be planted in the cul-de-sac island. Staff feels that an assortment of shrubs and approved
ground cover should also be provided, as well as the shade tree. The forestation requirements of
the text include one tree per lot and two trees for corner lots. Staff feels that forestation standards
consistent with the Wallin Farm Agreement should be implemented. This section also calls for
detailed landscaping plans at the time of Final Platting for the pathways located along Ht. 126 and
143pd St. This provision is acceptable as written.
Paragraph 13 allows that no surety be provided for public sidewalks. Similar to parkway trees, the
applicants believe this can be handled at the time of occupancy cf the lot. The problem enidentified
by 5taff, relates to lots not developed in etinoely manner. This issue should be addressed. How
does the Village get the sidewalk installed with out surety if e home is not constructed on the
property?
Paragraphs 15 and 16 call for a contribution of ten acres of land for aschool site. Any additional
cash contribution required beyond this acreage shall be given credit for the cash value associated
with this acreage asestablished bv the School District, through Village Ordinances. This section also
discusses that the fees applicable for School District Impact shell be those lawfully adopted by all
municipalities which have jurisdiction within the School District 202 boundaries. Paragraph 16
should be modified slightly to specify justifiable Impact Fees for the benefit of the school district.
Current language talks about construction fees. However, construction fees are considered by Staff
to be covered under paragraph 15. Impact Fees, are above and beyond school site donation fees.
Paragraph 19 of the Annexation Agreement specifies 1,500 sq. ft. for one story residences, and 2,000
sq. ft. for multi-story homes. These minimum sizes exceed Village Zoning Ordinance standards and
are acceptable.
Paragraph 20, suggests that covenants be established to control facade materials, accessory structures
and other building restrictions at the time of Final Plat submittal. Staff believes specific facade
controls should be written into the text of the agreement to call for a minimum number of homes
with brick facades. This can be established on a percentage basis for the overall subdivision, or on
a per units basis percentage. Likewise, Staff believes that landscaping requirements for private
property should also be considered as part of these covenants.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
November 21, 1995
Page
It is felt advisable that minimum landscape foundation plantings and perhaps sodded front, side and
read yards should be mandatory. Other types of facade regulations that can be considered for this
paragraph include, anti-monotony requirements and multiple roof peak stipulations. Those types uf
development criteria have been established on other similar Annexation Agreements and should be
provided for here.
Paragraph 22 of this section sets forth afnanze on Village ordinances applicable to development
within this subdivision. Staff does not support afreeza on Ordinance controls. Staff believes that
development within the subdivision should be in accordance with development regulations such as
building codes, subdivision controls and storm water detention regulations in effect et the time of
building permit or Final Plat applications.
Paragraph 25 states the Annexation Aonacnnnnt shall have a 20 year term. This is customary for
many Annexation /\gnamrnents and is acceptable.
Annexation Aornmrnantn have recently included provisions for floor area ratio standards. An
appropriate ratio would be3O% floor area to lot size ratio. This would be consistent with the Wallin
Farm Agreement and new zoning codes.
Generally, Staff has no major objection to the lot sizes and lot widths proposed in the Annexation
Agreement and concept plan. It is Staff's opinion that the lot size deviation as presented with this
agreement is acceptable asa trade off to the benefits associated with the major innprovennents in the
form of the recreation facilities (both public and privato). The concept plan if approved ospresented
would allow for 14 to 16 ft. separation between houses. Current zoning regulations will allow for
a minimum of 7ft. building setback for side yards, with a nninirnunn sum total of side yard area of
20 ft. In this way, if side yards are provided at 7 feet on one side of the house, o noininnunn of 13
ft. must be provided on the other aide of the house.
The primary issue for the Planning Commission will be the logical extension of Village boundaries
to accommodate annexation of the subject site. Establishment of Res. /\ Single-family zoning for the
property is also a primary focus for the Plan Commission. Staff believes that the subject site is
logical extension of the current Village boundaries.' Contiguity to the site occurs from Whispering
Creak Subdivision along N1. 120. Res. /\ Single-family zoning also appears to be consistent with
current and proposed Comprehensive Plans for the Village and is consistent with surrounding land
use in Whispering Creek Subdivision and proposed land uses asshown on the Comprehensive Plan
for areas north, oast and west of the site. Staff believes that the issues associated with the analysis
of the Annexation Agreement, must beaddressed. Therefore the Annexation Agreement should be
revised prior hoVillage Board consideration. However, the general layout of roadway systems and
development concepts are found tobeacceptable. Design changes have been undertaken toreduce
the number of dwelling units per acre Additionally, an increase in park area and repositioning the
school site have been beneficial. The project now meets the provisions of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends approval of the Annexation of the 285 arna site, based upon the finding that the
property isa logical extension of the current Village boundaries. Likewise, Staff would recommend
approval of establishment of Res. /\ Single-family zoning over the site, based upon the finding that
this zoning is consistent with the Villages' Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with current
surrounding land uses.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
November 21, 1995
Page 9
The SAVES Program shows this project will make more money for the Village than it will cost, and
we have found that there will be a positive revenue balance for the school district. Open for
consideration tonight is the Concept Plan and the Annexation Agreement. (Contrary to paragraph 3)
Planner Waldock also mentioned the Agreements applicability to adjoining properties. This project
if successful, will cause a trend in the area, to bring in other sites that are similar.
Staff recommended approval of the Annexation and Concept Plan, for Case No. 461- 091294.AA.
The petitioners stated their names, John Phillipchuck, Steve Roake, and Bill Haider.
One of the Commissioners wanted the sidewalks to be finished, as each section was built. (Page 5
Paragraph 13), another Commissioner wanted the houses in the smaller lot area ( Area B) to have
the same facade treatments as the larger lot areas, (C, D and A.) One Commissioner asked about
the bike path through the Subdivision. One of the Commissioners asked about the seven ft.
setbacks, and why they were granted a variance. There was some discussion regarding this. There
was a lot of negative discussion of the lot sizes.
John Philipchuck said there are many places where we have exceeded the Ordinances of the Village.
As the park area, the buffer areas, and the school site. He felt there was a benefit to the community
because of the amenities of the subdivision.
The Planner was asked what is a SIA, and he said he would bring our sample to the next Plan
Commission Meeting.
After discussion, R. Schinderle made a motion to recommend to the Village Board the approval of
the Annexation for, CASE NO. 461- 091294.AA, as it is a logical extension of the Village, approval
of the residential R -1 zoning, and approval of the Concept Plan. Seconded by W. Manning. K.
O'Connell, no: L. Kachel, abstain; T. Spika, no; R. Schinderle, yes; W. Manning, yes; A.
Anderson, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried, 4 yes to 2 no and 1 abstain.
CASE NO. 505- 101195.AA ENSURE BUSINESS PARK
Ensure Properties has submitted an Annexation Agreement for a sixty acre parcel located along the
east side of Van Dyke Road, west of the E. J. & E. Tracks between 143rd Street and Lockport Street.
The property is at the north fringes of the western downtown area as designated on the Planning
Department's recent sketch plans. The subject site is vacant at the present time. The site has access
on Van Dyke Road as well as access to the E. J. & E. Railroad spur line. A summary of the
Annexation Agreement is as follows:
The Annexation Agreement proposes an Industrial /Commercial PUD with use provisions as allowed
in the 1 -1, B -4, and ORI zoning categories. The development standards as established within this
PUD will provide for setbacks and lot coverage requirements as established in the covenants for the
project. Those covenants are included as exhibit N in the Annexation Agreement and shall be made
part of the agreement.
The applicants are requesting the Village to guarantee as yet unspecified quantities of water and
water pressure to the subject site. The Village will look to establish reasonable figures for this
section however, typically we have not provided for guarantees for Annexation Agreements other
than the Fox Valley Press.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
November 21, 1995
Page 10
The Agreement sets forth waiver of recapture fees assessed against the subject property. It appears
that the Indian Oaks water main extension established a recapture fee in the amount of $15.92 per
linear foot of frontage for adjoining properties that connect to the water main. The subject site has
approximately 2831 ft. of frontage along Van Dyke Road, therefore, a recapture fee of just over
$45,000 would be required. This fee is to be waived in accordance with the Annexation Agreement.
The Annexation Agreement allows for the construction of private water wells for exterior irrigation
of landscape materials on the site. The Village has on occasion allowed for use of private wells in
some Annexation Agreements. This is a policy issue to be determined by the Village Board. In no
event would cross connections be permitted between the private wells and the public water supply
system.
Sanitary Sewer Maps show a ten inch sewer line approximately 400 ft. north of the subject property.
The agreement also calls for assurance that adequate sanitary sewer plant capacity is available to
serve the subject site. Although the Village sewer plant is presently at approximately 50% capacity,
without knowing the specifics of the land uses and their sewer demands it is difficult to provide any
assurances.
The Annexation Agreement provides for a five day turn around time after requests by the applicant
for a Final Inspection. The Village must within that time period complete a Final Inspection and
issue an Occupancy Certificate or state the reasons of denial in writing. The agreement provides for
Temporary Occupancy Permits in accordance with current Building Department policies regarding
such permits. The agreement does however include language that provides for a cash escrow as a
condition of a Temporary Occupancy Certificate if such requirement is made applicable Village
wide.
The Annexation Agreement provides for not less than six driveways for the portion of the owners
land lying east of the right -of -way to this parcel. This driveway access shall apply to Van Dyke
Road. The intent is to avoid making Van Dyke Road limited access.
The Annexation Agreement provides for a twenty year term as allowed under state statute. Many
of the Annexation Agreement provisions are intended to provide economic and development
incentives from the Village to potential occupants of the Industrial Park. The agreement includes
provisions such as Village construction of Van Dyke Road and abatements of real estate taxes by
both the Village and the School District. The Agreement establishes a Planned Unit Development
format for regulation of the development of the property. It is the applicants intent to provide a
"park like" industrial setting for their business park. The land use mix is intended to provide a range
of development options to satisfy market demand within the Village.
This information is submitted for your review and consideration for the Public Hearing at Village
Board level. The applicant wants to hear your comments and suggestions regarding this plan. The
proposal is looking for approval of the extension of the Village Boundaries, and the approval of the
B -4, ORI and 1 -1, PUD.
Mike Guinta, developer spoke. The type of users currently committed are some local business in
town with unsightly sites. Our covenants will not allow outside storage visible from the curb. All
building will have brick, block or pre cast facades. Garbage will be stored in enclosed areas, similar
to Chicago Bridge and Iron. There will be a landscape architect for each site. Our Business Park
will maintain the common areas and they will always be well taken care of and green. Two users
plan to use 10 acres, and use one entrance off of Van Dyke Road, a "Corporate" look.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
November 21, 1995
Page 11
Concerns of the Plan Commission included, steel buildings, trucking concerns, the Commissioners
asked for acomparison of Industrial area It was said it would be similar to Meridian in Aurora,
than Wolf Creek, ' he felt itwould besinoilar0o what you would see inOak Brook,
One of the Commissioners wanted the names of the streets changed.
After discussion, W. Manning made a motion to recommend to the Village Board the approval of
the appropriateness of the extension of Village boundaries, and the approval of the zoning to B-4,
|, and C)R| PU[) for CASE NO. 505-1011195.AA/Z. Seconded by R. Schindarin. K. O'Connell,
yes: L. KacheL yes; T.Spika, yes; R.Schinderle, yea; W. Manning, yes; A. Anderson, yes)
Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried, 7 yes to 0 no.
CASE NO. 508-102695.TA
REQUEST: Zoning Text Amendment as follows:
1. Amend garage heights per accessory structure provisions.
2. Amend B-5 rear yard requirements.
3. Amend street narnca defining the R,l Overlay District.
4. Amend non-conforming accesmoryusa'proviniony.
The Text Amendments enclosed with this report are a continuation of the corrections found over the
last several months after adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance. A summary of the individual
revisions area as follows:
GARAGE HEIGHTS:
The need for this Text Amendment was identified (within the core area also known as the R-1
Overlay District) when a property owner noted a conflict between their desired, architecturally
designed garage and the height limitations as set in the Zoning Ordinance. Section 9-15, Paragraph
4, of the General Provisions Section (Article 2) limits garage heights to no more than fifteen ft. This
limitation also applies to storage shed and other similar accessory structures. Staff believes it was
not the intent of the ordinance to preclude creative architectural designs that would allow for steeply
pitched garage roofs in order to accent or coordinate architecturally with the house (typically historic
residences). When the Planning Commission was recently asked, by one of its members, to consider
an interpretation to allow architectural freedom toextend beyond the fifteen ft. height limitation, this
consideration was granted unanimously.
staff has prepared a Text Amendment to address this issue. The amendment would apply
to the R-1 Overlay District and would allow garages designed to bo architecturally compatible with
the associated residences on site to simply meet the fifteen ft, height limitation measured to the
bN±ono of the eaves. Garages exceed fifteen ft. in height must be designed by an architect of
professional designer. Plan submittal must include a brief statement from the architect ordesigner
including information as to the type of design and its connection to the architectural design of the
principal structure.
8-5 DISTRICT REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:
The current text of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 75 ft. setback for properties located within this
zoning category. Staff has found that some of the existing lots in the downtown area are actually
80' in total depth. Therefore, the 75 ft. setback is overly restrictive. Staff suggest 25 ft. minimum
rear setback or 30$ of the lot depth, whichever is greater,
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
November 21, 1995
Page 12
STREET NAMES DEFINING R -1 OVERLAY DISTRICT:
This amendment was found to be necessary to correct some inconsistencies between the Official
Zoning Map and the Zoning Text which lists the specific streets which are included in the Overlay
District. The ordinance should be amended, therefore, to expand the list of streets within the R -1
Overlay District to coincide with streets shown on the Official Zoning Map that are architecturally
within the district.
NON - CONFORMING ACCESSORY USE PROVISIONS:
This Text Amendment is simply required in order to address a typographical error found in the new
ordinance, Section 9 -15, Paragraph 7 should be revised as follows: "Existing accessory structures
or accessory structures having received permits issued on or before the adoption of this ordinance
shall be regulated by Article 19, "non- conforming uses" where applicable ".
No major issues are associated with any of the proposed text revisions. Again, these are simply
housekeeping items necessary to de -bug the new zoning ordinance.
Staff recommends approval of proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as summarized
in this report.
After discussion, A. Anderson made a motion to recommend to the Village Board the approval of
the Text Amendment. Seconded by R. Schinderle. 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 to 0 no.
ADJOURN: 10:45
S aron Hart, Secretary
PLAINEIELDD
Will • COUNTYD - OLDEST . COMMUNITY
Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting on November 21, 1995.
Please sign this sheet for our official records.
Name Address