Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1993-06-15 PC minutesPLAINMLD PLAN COMMISSION DATE: June 15, 1993 AT: Plainfield Library COMN]QSSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Sobkoviak M. Krippel A. Consola D. Norris W Manning L. Kachel EX- OFFICIO PRESENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Peter J. Waldock, Village Planner Michael Lambert, Trustee S. Hart, Secretary Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken. W. Schempf was absent. None of the Representatives were present. Chairman Sobkoviak declared the minutes of June 1, 1993 approved as presented. OLD BUSE4ESS: The Plan Commission discussed July 6, 1993, the Tuesday following the Holiday. It was decided to cancel the July 6, 1993 Meeting. M. Krippel was concerned with the Winding Creek SPR denial, his recollection of the Site Plan Review - Ordinance did not stipulate different roof designs or style of the structures; His concern was for the developers need to know the ground rules, he questioned, did the Plan Commission not do its job? • • 1 '1 • Trustee Lambert stated the reason for the report, is to facilitate communication between the Plan Commission and the Village Board, to inform the Plan Commission of the ideas of the Village Board, and to let the Plan Commission know what happens to projects after they go to the Village Board. River View Estates FP: The V.B. required the developer to install sidewalks. This is a direct response to the Transportation Plan. This is an effort to connect all outlying parts of the Village to the Central Core. Winding Creek SPR: The V.B. approved the FP, but on the SPR, the Board decided that because this is the first townhouse development of this magnitude proposed, it was necessary to ask for changes to the facade. The Board is interested in a Monotony Code for the Village, in the future. PLAN COMIVIISSION MINUTES June 16, 1993 Page 2 NEW BUSINESS: CASE NO. 392- 051393.AA VINTAGE HARVEST ANNEXATION AND CONCEPT PLAN The subject site is approximately 72.7 acres, the site is contiguous to the Village Limits at the north, and the east. Located on the north side of Fraser Road, and the west side of Rt. 59, and adjoining Commonwealth Edison on the west on the site. The development plan included with this project, proposes the development of 148 single - family homesites, all of 12,000 sq. ft. in area. The subdivision Concept Plan is in substantial compliance with Village bulk and subdivision standards. The exception, relates to lot width provisions for Lots 30 through 42 and Lots 93 through 101. These lots are about 80 ft. to 83 ft. in width along Vintage Drive. Those amendments were done, as a result of discussions with Staff. Their original plan had been prepared with every lot at 85 and 12,000 sq. ft. After discussions, it was decided that there was some merit, (as long as each lot is 12,000 sq. ft. in area) to accommodate narrower lots, to facilitate a broader off -site improvement along the Church frontage. However, all lots in the subdivision are designed to meet or exceed the 12,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area standard. The specifics of the Annexation Agreement, discuss the parameters of the Residential Development and does not focus on the Commercial Development, because there is no specific proposal has been made for the 9 acre tract in the northeast corner of the property. It is proposed for B -4, Highway Business Zoning, this designation is not out of character with the adjoining use to the north. The property fronts along Rt. 59 and therefore the Highway Business District designation is seen as appropriate. Existing county land uses to the south of the commercial area (an established garden center) are also consistent with the B -4 Zoning proposal. The covenants and restrictions of the subdivision include provisions for one story dwellings of no less than 1,600 sq. ft. in area, bi -level dwellings of no less than 1,800 sq. ft. and two story dwellings of no less than 2,000 sq. ft. These provisions exceed current Village bulk requirements. The covenants also include provisions for masonry or other upgraded facade styles. Portland cement driveways are specified in the covenants rather than asphalt or crushed stone. Two by. six wall construction is specified as well as cedar siding. Hardboard, vinyl, or aluminum siding are not permitted. Anti - monotony provisions are also included in the covenants. Controls on satellite dishes, television and radio towers are provided. Such appurtenances can only be installed with the subdivisions development committee's approval. Only attached garages are to be permitted. Only split rail open fencing for property perimeters is permitted by the covenants. No metal, plastic, fiber glass or other non wood fences are permitted by the covenants. In analysis, the subdivision Concept Plan is in substantial compliance with Village bulk and subdivision standards. The exception to this relates to lot width provisions for Lots 30 through 42 and Lots 93 through 101. Village Zoning Ordinance requires 85 ft. of total width at the building setback line, these lots are about 82 ft. to 83 ft. in width, but the width allows the developer to gain an extra lot and expose more families to the park site, Staff felt this was a worthwhile advantage. However, all lots in the subdivision are designed to meet or exceed the 12,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area standard. PLAN COMMISSION 1VInqUM June 16, 1993 Page 3 The developer's original goal was to seek Preliminary Plat as part of the Annexation Agreement. On June 29, 1993 we will see the Preliminary Plat Application along with B -4, Highway Business re- zoning request. The Annexation Agreement does not address Fraser Road, because it is a Chip & Seal rural township roadway. Some requirements for the road, are: 80 ft. of right -of -way and a minimum of 37 ft. of pavement, measured from the back of curb. Sidewalks and parkway trees along Fraser Road should also be considered as part of this project. In previous Annexation and Subdivision proposals along rural road systems, such as Van Dyke Road and 135th Street, have been required to provide at least 3/ pavement width and curb and gutter and sidewalks on the side of these roadways adjoining the development area, without recapture. This would be the minimum improvement necessary to Fraser Road as well. An alternative in this case is to consider a 100% improvement of Fraser Road with the allowance of the recapture from the landowner to the south at the time of development. The cost recapture would be 50% of the costs for the public improvements as provided. This is the approach the Staff recommends. Staff recommends approval of the Annexation and Subdivision Concept Plan for Vintage Harvest Subdivision subject to the following stipulations: 1. Preliminary Plat designs shall meet with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Provisions for utility extensions under Rt. 59 will be the responsibility of the developer. (Sewer and water is located on the east side of Rt. 59, to get service to this subdivision, the sewer and water need to cross Rt. 59 and be extended to the site. That would customarily be done by developers, but, the Village is obligated through Annexation Agreements with Gary Lichtenwalter to run sewer and water across Rt. 59, this is an opportunity for both the developer and the Village to save costs. Provisions for Village responsibility for over sizing costs should be negotiated with the Village. 3. Fraser Road shall be improved to a collector street status in accordance with Village development policy. A portion of Fraser Road along the south property line of the Plainfield Congregational Church site and Rizzi Garden Center properties along Fraser Road, should also be developed in conjunction with this project. 4. All Stipulations must be in compliance before the case goes to the Village Board Some concerns of the Plan Commission were as follows; there being so many B -3, and B -4 parcels, there may be difficulty in controlling them in the future. A further concern was the right -of -way along Fraser Road. PLAN COMMISSION X N[ T ES June 16, 1993 Page 4 The Planner suggested that the Plan Commission in its recommendation, recommend a provision be included in the Annexation Agreement for a requirement of a unified development for the B -4 site. That development occurring on that site must be compatible with one another, or must be a unit development (such as a shopping center), if they so wish. Concerns of the adjacent landowners included, entrances to the project, traffic, lighting, crime, and police protection. The landowners own the property under the road, according to their Plat of Survey, and they are concerned about their rights. The direction the houses in the new development will face on Fraser Road, and the setback was also of concern. The potential for sidewalks on the south side of Fraser Rd, taking up even more of their property. Mr. Lichtenwalter, the adjacent property owner to the south, spoke about the Village's obligation to bring sewer and water over to the west side of Rt. 59, to service his farm, he said he would be willing to work with the developer on the positioning of that crossover and possible lift station locations, so it would benefit all parties concerned. He had concern that there should be storm sewers in place to protect the area. He felt that a bike /foot path from Fritz farm to the High School, along the power lines, would be a good idea. The owner, Michael Guinta, discussed complying with proposed walk ways and bike paths, security lighting, (street lights, the entries into the subdivision will be lighted pillars) and the maintenance of the subdivision roads. After discussion, W. Manning made a motion to recommend to the Village Board the approval of the Annexation for the 72 acres site for Vintage Harvest Annexation. Seconded by D. Norris. Vote by roll call: M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes; A. Consola, yes; J. Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried. 6 yes 0 no. A. Consola made a motion to recommend to the Village Board the approval of the Concept Plan for Vintage Harvest. Seconded by L. Kachel. Vote by roll call. M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes; A. Consola, yes; J. Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried. 6 yes 0 no. PLAN COAUMSION AlUiUTES June 16, 1993 Page 5 CASE NO. 395 - 051093.2 ARBOR OF PLA + + LD.RE -ZONING The applicant was not present. The Plan Commission decided to hear the case, because of all of the adjacent landowners that were present. Planner Waldock did not present his Staff report in full. He did state his recommendation as presented on the Staff report. Staff recommends denial of the requested re- zoning from Res A, Single - family Residential to Res A -2, multi family residential based upon the findings as presented in this case. He reached that conclusion by reviewing the minutes of the previous meetings on the case, and the Plan Commission's response. The first Public Hearing, in 1989, the Plan Commission recommended denial, the concern related to the Spires property, a narrow strip of farm field, located between the Mc Mullen piece and the rezoning site. The Plan Commission expressed concern over the intrusion of multi - family into an area between two Single - family areas, the Commission recommended denial. In January 1990 the Plan Commission recommended denial, it was felt that the use should be determined prior to rezoning of the subject site. The attending adjacent landowners concerns included: the type of housing; the price range; which streets will go through to Peerless; the increased traffic; the location of other property in the area that is zoned A -2; and that the property all around the subject site is residential. After discussion, M. Krippel made a motion to table the case until the first meeting in July, second L. Kachel. Vote by roll call. M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes; A. Consola, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried, 6 yes, 0 no. CASE NO. 398- 062393.PP RIVIERA ESTATES The applicants wish Annexation and a Preliminary Plat Approval for a 10.68 acre site located approximately '/a north of 135th Street along the west side of Rt. 59 in Wheatland Township Section 33. The subdivision included the extension of Douglas Drive which aligns with the main entrance of Graver Estates Subdivision, also with a stub street to the north adjoining the Francis Reibel property. The Preliminary Plat presents 25 single - family lots, and one outlot for storm detention. Minimum lot width is 85 ft. at the setback line, minimum lot size is 12,000 sq. ft. All of the lots are in conformance with zoning standards. Staff recommends approval of the Annexation and Preliminary Plat for Riviera Estates, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Meet all stipulations and requirements of the Illinois Department of Transportation, including, but not limited to possible right turn lane requirements for south bound traffic from Rt. 59 onto Douglas Drive. (85 ft. from center) 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer, as specified in his letter of June 4, 1993. Have a second review of S.E. corner, check surface water does go into detention area. PLAN COMMISSION MQNUTES June 16, 1993 Page 6 3. Utility extensions through Golden Meadow Estates Unit IV must be coordinated between the two subdivision developers. Easements will be required prior to Final Plat Application. 4. Compliance with provisions of the Plainfield Fire District. 5. All Stipulations must be in compliance before the case goes to the Village Board. Comments and concerns of adjacent landowners were as follows, Mr. Reibel suggested the stub street to the north, go straight through to his property, and he was concerned about his 8" storm sewer in the northeast corner, that it should not be disturbed. Mr. Neumann was concerned about storm water also, he requested that the storm water overflow routing be very closely coordinated with Golden Meadow Estates Unit 4 & 5. After discussion, A. Consola made a motion to approve the Annexation and Preliminary Plat for Riviera Estates, subject to the stipulations as discussed. Seconded by L. Kachel. Vote by roll call. M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes; A. Consola, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried, 6 yes, 0 no. CASE NO. 394.051793.TA FRONT YARD FENCE TEXT ANI ENDAIENT The Village Board have indicated an interest in a Text Amendment to allow for front yard fences. Presently Village ordinance limits front yard fences to 3 ft. The draft ordinance, relaxes the height limit for front yard fences, in the Central Core area of the Village. Would allow front yard fences up to 48" in height, at the gate or posts, an average of 40 ". The ordinance also addresses solid fences, but limits the height of those to two feet, (50 % Opacity, the ability to see through at least 50 % of the fence). The Boundary of the overlay is as follows: The area commencing at the intersection of Fort Beggs Drive and James Street then East along Fort Beggs Drive as if extended to the East Village Limits at the approximate center of Plainfield Township Section 15. Then north along the east Village Limits to the north Village Limits at the approximate center of Plainfield Township Section 10, then west along the Village limits to Main Street (Rt. 126) then southwest along Rt. 126 to the DuPage River, then south with the DuPage River to south Village limits at the approximate center of Plainfield Township Section 16. Then east with the aforesaid south Village limits to James Street, then south with James Street to .Fort Beggs Drive and the point of beginning as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A. Residential Properties along the north side of Main St. between the DuPage River and Rt. 59 are also included. Subdivisions Platted after January 1, 1960 are excluded from the provisions of this paragraph. PLAN COND41SSION MIlVCTTES June 16, 1993 Page 7 Front yard fences of wrought iron, wood, or masonry are permitted for properties within the above described area. Steel woven wire fences shall be prohibited. Front yard fences shall not exceed 48" in height at corners, columns, posts and gates. Average fence height shall not exceed 40" overall. Front yard fences shall be an open design providing no less than 50% opacity. Solid fences may be permitted up to 24" in height between the posts or column. A one ft. setback from the public walk shall be required. In no event shall front yard fences block sight lines for traffic at street intersections or driveways. After discussion by the Plan Commission regarding, the reason for the Text Amendment, rather than variances on a case by case basis, and the reasoning of the 2 ft. high solid fence (50 % Opacity), questions as to whether the allowance of front yard fences along Rt. 59, Rt. 30 and Rt. 126, was addressed in the Zoning Ordinance Update. The Plan Commission was also interested in a review of fences, such as the Special Sign Review (no charge), and added a third paragraph as follows: Permits for front yard fences shall be reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission and the Village Board of Trustees. L. Kachel made a motion to recommend to the Village Board the approval of Text Amendment to accommodate front yard fences, as amended by the Plan Commission. Seconded by D. Norris. Roll call vote. M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes; A. Consola, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried, 6 -yes, 0 -no. Adjourn 10:10 p.m. ;i Secretary, Sharon Hart PLAINFIELD mn . n.'"I . at 'jttr . nnkVURM Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting on June 15, 1993. Please sign this sheet for our official records. Name Address j,L ,a.- e,%-'v L- I ".,.) -13 J `1 ,,,f' & e