HomeMy Public PortalAbout1993-03-02 PC minutes��'
D A T E : M a r c h 2 9 1 9 9 3 A T : P l a i n f i e l d L i b r a r y
C O M M I S S I O N E R S P R E S E N T :
W . S c h e m p f H . B a y e r
E . F o r t i n M . K r i p p e l
D . N o r r i s A . C o n s o l a
E X - O F F I C I O P R E S E N T : J . R a y M . G e h r k e
G . K r a h n J . E i c h e l b e r g e r , r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
A L S O P R E S E N T : P e t e r J . W a l d o c k , V i l l a g e P l a n n e r
S . H a r t , S e c r e t a r y
A n t h o n y C o n s o l s c a l l e d t h e m e e t i n g t o o r d e r a t 7 : 0 0 p . m . R o l l c a l l w a s t a k e n . G . B o t t , R .
Z i m m e r m a n a n d t h e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t R e p r e s e n t a t i v e w e r e - a b s e n t .
A n t h o n y C o n s o l a d e c l a r e d t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e l a s t m e e t i n g , F e b r u a r y 1 6 , 1 9 9 3 , a c c e p t e d a s
a m e n d e d .
O L D B U S I N E S S :
N E W B U S I N E S S : 3 7 3 - 1 1 1 8 9 2 . A A A M A T E R I A L S E R V I C E C O R P O R A T I O N
T h e s u b j e c t s i t e i n t h i s c a s e i s a 4 3 a c r e s i t e , o w n e d b y M a t e r i a l S e r v i c e C o r p o r a t i o n . L o c a t e d
a l o n g b o t h s i d e s o f E s s i n g t o n R o a d ( 2 2 4 t h ) b e t w e e n I l l i n o i s R o u t e 1 2 6 a n d 1 3 5 t h S t r e e t . T h e
a p p l i c a n t s a r e h e r e a t t h e V i l l a g e ' s r e q u e s t , t h e V i l l a g e i s s e e k i n g a n n e x a t i o n o f t h e s i t e , t o
p r o v i d e f o r c o n t i g u i t y b e t w e e n t h e L a k e l a n d s a n d T O P E C o r p o r a t i o n p r o p e r t y .
T h e A n n e x a t i o n A g r e e m e n t p r o p o s e s t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f R e s i d e n t i a l A - 4 f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 6
a c r e s o f t h e s u b j e c t s i t e , t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e p r o p e r t y ( 5 a c r e s ) i s p r o p o s e d f o r B - 4 , H i g h w a y
B u s i n e s s Z o n i n g . D u e t o t h e l a r g e a m o u n t o f w e t l a n d s a n d h e a v i l y w o o d e d a r e a s , t h e s u b j e c t
s i t e d o e s n o t h a v e a g r e a t d e a l o f d e v e l o p a b l e a r e a . F o r t h i s r e a s o n , t h e a p p l i c a n t s a r e p r o p o s i n g
M u l t i - f a m i l y i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 0 r e s i d e n t i a l d w e l l i n g u n i t s , w i t h n o m o r e t h a n
4 u n i t s p e r b u i l d i n g . O v e r a l l t h e r e s i d e n t i a l d e n s i t y f o r t h e p r o p e r t y i s n o t e x p e c t e d t o e x c e e d
1 . 5 u n i t s p e r a c r e . A l s o p r o p o s e d i s a c o m m e r c i a l a r e a a l o n g t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f E s s i n g t o n
R o a d a n d R o u t e 1 2 6 . T h i s c o m m e r c i a l a r e a w o u l d s e r v e t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d a s a c o n v e n i e n c e
c e n t e r . I t w o u l d b e c o n c e i v a b l e t o s e e s u c h b u s i n e s s e s a s a c o n v e n i e n c e s t o r e , d e l i , a n d p e r h a p s
a g a s s t a t i o n a t t h i s l o c a t i o n . T h e r e w o u l d b e s u f f i c i e n t a c r e a g e t o a c c o m m o d a t e a s m a l l s t r i p
s h o p p i n g c e n t e r w i t h a v a r i e t y o f u s e s . T h e a g r e e m e n t a l s o c a l l s f o r t h e e x i s t i n g u s e s t o r e m a i n
i n e f f e c t i n c l u d i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l , h u n t i n g , f i s h i n g , g u n c l u b , a n d t h e r a i s i n g o f c r o p s , b u r n i n g o f
b r u s h , t r e e s a n d g r a s s ; g r o w n o n t h e s i t e . N o f e e w a i v e r s a r e p r o p o s e d w i t h t h i s a g r e e m e n t ,
t h e r e f o r e a l l a p p l i c a b l e a n n e x a t i o n r e z o n i n g a n d b u i l d i n g p e r m i t f e e s s h a l l a p p l y .
T h e a g r e e m e n t c a l l s f o r t h e i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n o f t h e V i l l a g e a g a i n s t l i a b i l i t y a s a r e s u l t o f i n c i d e n t s
r e l a t e d t o a c t i v i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h u n t i n g , f i s h i n g , a n d t h e d i s c h a r g e o f f i r e a r m s . T h e o w n e r s
a r e i n a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n o f e a s e m e n t s a c r o s s t h e s u b j e c t s i t e t o a c c o m m o d a t e u t i l i t i e s
b e t w e e n 1 3 5 t h S t r e e t a n d t h e T O P E p r o p e r t y o n e R o u t e 1 2 6 .
PLAN COMMISSION MMJUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 2
The applicants have indicated concerns with regard to the status of Essington Road (224th Street)
through the subject site. Due to the low density, the cost of improvements to Essington Road
is seen as quite high per unit. Therefore the applicants are reviewing this issue and may seek
relief from the Village Subdivision Ordinance requirements for Urban Profile street through this
area at a collector street width. Staff has no objections to a rural cross section through this area
due to the sensitive environmental nature of the site.
Staff recommends approval of the annexation of the 43 acres Material Service Corporation site,
and the establishment of Residential A -4 Multi - family zoning for approximately 38 acres and five
acres of B-4, Highway Business Zoning.
After discussion regarding the status of Essington Road as a rural profile status; the accessibility
of the townhome sites to roads, via driveways; the water easement from Lakelands, which is
down 135th Street, and along the western border of the annexation site, and cross into the TOPE
property, the TOPE property adjoins Material Service property at the spot where the residential
zoning meets the commercial zoning.
M. Krippel made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board the
approval of the Annexation Agreement and Zoning for Material Service Corporation area per
request. Seconded by E. Fortin.. Roll call vote: H. Bayer, yes; E. Fortin, yes; A.
Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, no; W. Schempf, yes.
Motion carried. 5, yes; 1, no.
DISCUSSION: ROD BAKER LIGHTING
At the last review of this matter, in November, the Plan Commission asked that the property
owner, within the next 90 days, meet with a lighting engineer, and determine whether additional
or different light design would gain compliance with the glare and screening requirements of the
Site Plan Review Ordinance. The applicant expressed objection to that request at that time, we
have had no further information from the applicant since that time. I believe he objected to the
cost, the applicant chose not to do additional engineering design work. There is really no new
information to report on this topic, we have held discussion on at least three prior occasions on
this topic, May, June and November. Property owners are reporting problems with glare from
the free standing lights located on the east and west perimeter of the property, and that is the
nature of the complaint. The applicant was originally approached by Staff, in the Spring of
1992, he immediately took steps to angle down the lights from _where they were previously
installed. The lights were screened and shielded and the shut off time of the lights in the
evening, was adjusted to turn them off around 9:30 p.m. The neighborhood property owners
have indicated that this has been insufficient to rectify the glare problem.
Staff is seeking the Plan Commission to reach a final disposition of this case, one of three
options either approve, approve with stipulations, or reject the lights as they presently are, and
must be removed, or changed to meet the Site Plan Review Ordinance.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 3
After discussion by the property owners; that the Site Plan as approved, had no perimeter lights
approved, the light glare into their homes, property owners have to pull the drapes in the
evening or there is glare on the windows.
After discussion by the applicant; that the timer change has caused him a security problem, the
changes that he has made; the screening that has been done, and the lights angled down, the
applicant felt there was nothing more to be done, and no more money to be spent. The applicant
did not know that the lights would not be acceptable, he was simply providing contiguity.
After a long discussion by the Plan Commission regarding among other things, the necessity for
the pulling of drapes in the evening, the total number of homes that made complaints, (4).
Staff is seeking the Plan Commission to reach a final disposition of this case, one of three
options: either approve, approve with stipulations, or reject the lights as they presently are, and
must be removed, or changed to meet the Site Plan Review Ordinance.
M. Krippel made a motion to find that there is glare and that the lights do not conform to the
letter of the ordinance, but that there are extenuating circumstances, it wasn't unreasonable for
Mr. Baker to assume that he could continue on with the existing lighting plan and fixtures, and
that he has made reasonable accommodations to try and rectify the situation, and the lighting as
it stands is probable as good as it will get, and short of removing and replacing them, we are
as far as we can go. Therefore, I would recommend that we do not require any additional work
be done, and while I am not sure we can approve, I recommend that no further action be taken.
Seconded by E. Fortin. Roll Call vote: H. Bayer, no; E. Fortini, yes; A. Consola, yes;
M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, no; W. Schempf, yes. motion carried 4 yes, 2 no.
FRY ANNEXATION SITE WALKERS GROVE SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN
This is a Concept Plan at this stage, providing 453 single family residential units, on 210 acres,
proposed density is at 2.81 units per acre, the park donation provided with this plat will be 7.79
acres, the average lot size is 11,822 sq. ft. and the minimum lot size will be 10,000 for this
proposal. Staff has not done an indepth review, initial reaction is that the plan generally is
suitable in terms of land use, and layout, curvelinear design is acceptable, the lot areas do not
meet the 12,000 sq. ft. standard, but we are finding that market conditions are requiring
developers to look to smaller lots, and the Village generally has been agreeable to lots in that
size area. The biggest negative in terms of Staff s reaction is the number of cul- de- sac's, the
Village has historically been resistant to large numbers of cul -de -sac's in subdivision areas, this
plat has 17, this is a complicated site in terms of its geometry, it wraps around a school site, and
tries to avoid a future commercial site, it has to deal with some rather large detention areas, and
accommodate a park and a small acre farm, which is being reserved out of the subject site.
Generally is is well received by Staff. Now that the Burkitt property has been annexed, the Fry
property is contiguous, and we have an annexation agreement in effect today. Realities of
banking today have made the Golf Course Community, impossible. That' is why the plan is
being revised to go to an entire subdivision.
I uMyI k" (0000) 11 YM ,
March 2, 1993
Page 4
Sewer and water extensions will be necessary to fully serve the site. Walkers Grove presently
has sewer and water, but the eight inch line along 135th is undersized to serve the entire
subdivision this large. Development of the Fry piece will ultimately require extensions of
sanitary sewer and water main along Route 30.
The Applicant's lawyer spoke regarding the site, the Village did enter into an Annexation
Agreement, subject to Birkett's annexation, the main thing new about this plan besides the Golf
Course, is a considerable park site, just shy of 8 acres. Another difference, is these two
considerably large lakes, previously there were several smaller lakes. The commercial hasn't
changed from 1991. Some of the design features, overall minimum lot size is 10,000 sq. ft. the
average lot size is 11,822 q. ft. There are two stub streets, on both the north and the west to
provide flow to future subdivisions. Also two means of ingress and egress on the south on 135th
Street. There is no Residential access to Route 30.
The Applicant spoke regarding the sewer line, they want to start building, then after a few
houses, bring the interceptor up.
After discussion by the Planning Commission regarding, the road that must be built to service
the area, and who would pay for the road, the water table being 5 1/i - 6 ft. down, the need for
an outfall for stormwater. The placement of the Park, by the creek. The price range of $150,
180,000.
Adjourn: 8:50. _
Secretary, Sharon Hart
all
r
I : aazs VILLAGE OF PLAINFIEL]Pr
WILL COUNTY'S OLDEST COMMUNITY
Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting 1993.
Please sign this sheet for our official records.
At: 11-11
Address
7SI
1400 NORTH DIVISION STREET • PLAINFIELD, ILLINOIS 60544 • (815) 436-7093 • Fax (815) 436-1950