Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1993-07-20 PC minutesPLAINFI m PLAN COMMISSION DATE: July 20, 1993 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: EX- OFFICIO PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: AT: Plainfield Library M. Krippel A. Consola D. Norris W Manning L. Kachel W. Schempf G. Krahn, Library Park District Representative John E. Peterson, Village President Joe Ray, Trustee Michael Lambert, Trustee Jack Heimerdinger, Trustee Peter J. Waldock, Village Planner John Djerf, Village Engineer Joe Regis, Engineer S. Hart, Secretary Vice Chairman Consola called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken. Chairman Sobkoviak was absent. The School District, Township, and Fire District representatives were absent. Vice Chairman Consola declared the minutes of June 29, 1993 approved as amended. The Planning and Development Committee did not have a report. CASE NO. 395 - 051093.2 ARBOR OF PLADUMLD RE- ZONING Planner Waldock reported that the subject site in this case is a 9.7 acre out lot along the west - property line of Arbor of Plainfield south of Renwick Road. '/a of a mile east of Rt. 59 and 1/a west of Howard Avenue. This site has had two previous re- zoning hearings, one in January 1990 and the second in June, 1990. Both of those requests were denied by the Village Board, at the Plan Commission level, the January consideration was recommended for denial and the June consideration recommended approval. The original request was for re- zoning to accommodate 72 town home units, the development proposal has been reduced to 57 units, and a reduction in density to 5.4 units per acre. In analysis, Staff notes that the Comprehensive Plan, shows single - family residential development, the B -3 Commercial site is 350 ft. away from the subject site. North of Renwick, the Plan shows Moderate density residential, but the Annexation Agreement limits the land uses to Single - family, no other locations in the immediate area have been projected for Moderate density. No land use approval has been requested for the Spires property immediately adjoining the site along the west side. However, further to the west on the Mc Mullin Farm (at the corner of Rt. 59 and Renwick Road) B -3, General Business Zoning has been established by the Village. No development plans have been announced for the Mc Mullin property at the present time. Staff no longer believes that all of the Mc Mullen piece is likely to be developed commercially. Some interest has been expressed from various developers for residential uses on this site, and Staff is anticipating that down zoning will ultimately be requested. PLAN COMNIISSION MINUM July 20, 1993 Page 2 In previous reports, Staff had indicated that today's rezoning site was acceptable for moderate density residential, based upon lost moderate density land area, due to Annexation Agreements or zoning contrary to the Comprehensive Plan had called for. The conclusion today is not consistent with the 1990 finding. Staff now finds that the Spires property poses a significant impact on the re- zoning site. The interest in down zoning the Mc Mullin property further influences the ultimate development potential of the Arbor re- zoning site. So it is Staff s conclusion today that the re- zoning request causes an intrusion of dissimilar land uses into a single- family zoning area. In looking through the 1990 minutes and analyzing the discussions that took place, we found that the Plan Commission had initially expressed a concern with regard to the Spires property, as well as the other side of the Arbor property and its influence on the re- zoning site. The Plan Commission found that the re- zoning was premature and incompatible with current zoning categories on either side. The Mc Mullen property is a better candidate for moderate density residential than the Arbor site is. It is anticipated that at least 20 acres of the Mc Mullen site will remain commercial, the 40 acre balance would be some form of residential development, if single family were to develop there, a townhouse block on the Arbor site would be less compatible. Findings of Staff are: 1. The Comprehensive Plan calls for single - family residential development for the entire Arbor of Plainfield site. 2. Surrounding land uses are projected for single - family residential development to the east and west. 3. Moderate density residential uses inserted in an area surrounded by single - family development would be out of character with those surrounding land uses. 4. Parcels along Rt. 59 or immediately adjoining commercially zoned properties are better suited for moderate density development. Staff recommends denial of the requested re- zoning from Res A, Single - family Residential to Res A -2 Multi Family Residential based upon the finding as presented in this report. Mr. Koop, and his associates spoke of the development plans, the need for townhomes in the Village for empty nesters and childless professional people. Units are 1400 - 1700 sq. ft. ranging in price from $110,00. to $130,000., the exterior maintenance will be taken care of by the Association. The concerns of the adjacent landowners included; Objections by the owners of the Mueller property, the high density (5.5 units per acre), the lowering of the property values of the surrounding property, the traffic at two cars per unit, Arbor Drive will dump on to Renwick, causing heavy traffic problems. Concerns that the units will end up as rental units, and not be kept up as single family owner occupied houses and, the unreliability of Homeowner Associations PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES July 20, 1993 Page 3 to keep the property values high. One of the main objections was that this proposal has been before the Village two times before this, and the adjacent landowners have came to the meetings, and protested each time. Those in the audience expressed concerns of over crowding on the School District; concerns of traffic on Renwick Road; flooding in Lily Cache Acres; and, the storm sewer on Renwick Road. The concerns of the Plan Commission members included; the timing of the project, the feeling was that it was premature, and the reluctance to create an island of Multi - family. After short discussion by the Plan Commission members, W. Schempf made a motion to deny the petition to change the zoning from Res. A to Res. A -2 with the findings of the Staff Report, for the Arbor of Plainfield. Seconded L. Kachel. Roll call vote. D. Norris, yes; W. Schempf, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes; A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes. Motion carried, 6 yes, 0 no. The Comprehensive Plan calls for single - family residential development for the entire Arbor of Plainfield site. 2. Surrounding land uses are projected for single - family residential development to the east and west. 3. Moderate density residential uses inserted in an area surrounded by single - family development would be out of character with those surrounding land uses. 4. Parcels along Rt. 59 or immediately adjoining commercially zoned properties are better suited for moderate density development. CASE NO. 399- 061893.FP LAKELANDS UNIT I -A Planner Waldock reported that, in February of this year, the Lakelands Corporation requested an amendment to their Annexation Agreement to accommodate Luxury two family dwellings in the south west corner of their development. Public hearings were held to consider an Annexation Agreement Amendment which would recognize Two - family dwellings in the same category as Cluster homes for the purpose of density limits on unit types. Plans were provided at that time for locating two- family units in the southwest corner of their development, along Lakeshore Drive and 135th Street. The plans called for replacement of single - family lots with the luxury two unit buildings. The original Master Plan called for Clusters along the entire length of Lakeshore Drive and Townhouses along 135th Street. The Village Board ultimately approved the Annexation Agreement Amendment for two family dwellings at the proposed location. The re -plat of Lakelands, Unit 1 -A and the Easement Vacation Plat are presented to accommodate correct lot alignments for the new two unit dwellings. The Plat provides 18 units (9 buildings), seven outlots are provided to preserve common areas for lake access, maintenance and common driveways. PLAN COMNUSSION NIQNUTES July 20, 1993 Page 3 to keep the property values high. One of the main objections was that this proposal has been before the Village two times before this, and the adjacent landowners have came to the meetings, and protested each time. Those in the audience expressed concerns of over crowding on the School District; concerns of traffic on Renwick Road; flooding in Lily Cache Acres; and, the storm sewer on Renwick Road. The concerns of the Plan Commission members included; the timing of the project, the feeling was that it was premature, and the reluctance to create an island of Multi - family. After short discussion by the Plan Commission members, W. Schempf made a motion to deny the petition to change the zoning from Res. A to Res. A -2 with the findings of the Staff Report, for the Arbor of Plainfield. Seconded L. Kachel. Roll call vote. D. Norris, yes; W. Schempf, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes; A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes. Motion carried, 6 yes, 0 no. 1. The Comprehensive Plan calls for single - family residential development for the entire Arbor of Plainfield site. 2. Surrounding land uses are projected for single- family residential development to the east and west. 3. Moderate density residential uses inserted in an area surrounded by single - family development would be out of character with those surrounding land uses. 4. Parcels along Rt. 59 or immediately adjoining commercially zoned properties are better suited for moderate density development. CASE NO. 399- 061893.FP LAKELANDS UNIT I A Planner Waldock reported that, in February of this year, the Lakelands Corporation requested an amendment to their Annexation Agreement to accommodate Luxury two family dwellings in the south west corner of their development. Public hearings were held to consider an Annexation Agreement Amendment which would recognize Two - family dwellings in the same category as Cluster homes for the purpose of density limits on unit types. Plans were provided at that time for locating two- family units in the southwest corner of their development, along Lakeshore Drive and 135th Street. The plans called for replacement of single- family lots with the luxury two unit buildings. The original Master Plan called for Clusters along the entire length of Lakeshore Drive and Townhouses along 135th Street. The Village Board ultimately approved the Annexation Agreement Amendment for two family dwellings at the proposed location. The re -plat of Lakelands, Unit 1 -A and the Easement Vacation Plat are presented to accommodate correct lot alignments for the new two unit dwellings. The Plat provides 18 units (9 buildings), seven outlots are provided to preserve common areas for lake access, maintenance and common driveways. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES July 20, 1993 Page 4 The latest revision of the plat would incorporate 37 -A and 38 -A into Outlot E and Outlot A is incorporated into Lots 39 & 40. Lots 37 and 38 are single- family homesites, they remain single - family homesites, but slightly reconfigured and incorporated into the two family neighborhood, by the provision of the common area on Outlot E into their back yards. Outlot E becomes a recreational space, providing access to the Lake for the owners in this neighborhood. The unusual geometrically shaped outlots along the road system are shared driveways for the duplexes. The replat is consistent with the Annexation Agreement Amendment, it is consistent with the overall concept of the Lakelands, Staff is therefore recommending approval of the replat for Lakelands Unit 1 -A as revised July 1, 1993. After discussion regarding the surface drainage system, and the routing of drainage to the Lake. M. Krippel made a motion to recommend approval the re -plat for Lakelands Unit 1 -A and the Easement Vacation Plat subject to the recommendations of the Staff report and resolution of the surface drainage issue to the Engineers satisfaction. Seconded W. Manning. Roll call vote: D. Norris, yes; W. Schempf, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes; A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes; Motion carried. 6, yes - 0, no. CASE NO. 400- 062293.TA BED AND BREAKFAST Planner Waldock reported that Bed and Breakfast proposals have come before the Plan Commission and Village Board on two different times , one in 1989, and one 1991. In 1989 Ms. Mc Gowan purchased the property on Joliet Road, and expressed an interest in a Bed and Breakfast ordinance. Staff had evaluated the request and felt it was appropriate for a Conditional Use permit for the Village that would be effective in .various zoning districts, the Plan Commission voted to approve a text amendment and had recommended that the Village Board approve the Text Amendment to establish a Conditional Use permit process in the Village and specified uses. The Village Board did not act on the amendment. Later, in 1991, Ms. Mc Gowan organized a rezoning and text amendment for her neighborhood, which would establish a Business Transitional overlay zoning, for the Joliet Road area between Division Street and Lake Renwick. The Plan Commission considered that request. That request ultimately was rejected by the Village Board by a vote of 4 - 1, due to concerns with location of the transition area being inappropriate and inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in that it was too far from the Central Business area of the Village. This present request will be limited to the Bed and Breakfast issue. The draft Ordinance proposed with this case will provide an amendment to the current Zoning Ordinance #674, simply to add Bed and Breakfast facilities as item "O" on the list of Special Uses currently available in the Residential Zoning Districts of the Village. PLAN COA1NMSION AKN TrES July 20, 1993 Page 5 The Draft Ordinance in your packet, was based on the Ordinance drafted by Mayor Peterson. There are provisions for three levels of bed and breakfast establishments, which identify the size in various categories; criteria is established for Inns through out the Village and a set of conditions that must be met for approval. Hours of operation are limited, the number of parking stalls are regulated, cooking is limited to kitchens, and premises must be occupied by the proprietor. There is a long list of limitations. Licensing is also considered, and would be conducted by the Village Clerk and must be renewed annually. President Peterson spoke of his interest in abed and breakfast ordinance for the Village, and his purpose in proposing the bed and breakfast ordinance. He felt that definitions were needed, a simple one or two guest bedroom that would provide an ancillary income, called a Bed & Breakfast Home Stay. The second level is a Bed and Breakfast residence which may or may not provide major income, and the third is the Bed and Breakfast Inn which be a large operation. In each case they are limited, the Bed and Breakfast Inn for example is limited to only Business zoning areas. The Bed and Breakfast residence is limited to highways, and the Bed and Breakfast Homestay is allowed in Residential areas. The conditions section of the Ordinance is the first check/balance. The applicant must come to the Village and get it approved by the Plan Commission and Village Board. That deals with issues such as parking spaces, length of stay, method of operation. The second check/balance is annual licensing. Many of our old large homes could be upgraded if they were allowed to have Bed and Breakfast Inns, and make show places for this Village. All applicants would have to upgrade their houses to current electrical and plumbing standards and must provide fire alarms. Concerns of the public included: parking problems, and the need for regulations for Bed & Breakfast establishments. They felt that there should not be a restaurant incorporated into a Bed and Breakfast in a residential area. Many of the adjacent landowners feel trapped on Rt. 30, they cannot sell their homes, because of the traffic and noise. An adjacent landowner felt that this would be a spot zoning, and the whole street should be able to change the zoning so they could use their homes to the highest and best use, also, or be able to sell. Some concerns of the Plan Commission, were: the exact formula for Special Use request; the definition of historic; questions were raised, as to whether a bed and breakfast would need to comply with the American Disabilities Act, and the possibility of gravel driveways and parking lots. Ms. Mc Gowan was asked if there were annual inspection by qualified State inspectors, and answered that most of the concern is for the food preparation. PLAN COMMISSION MIlNIU July 20, 1993 Page 6 Other concerns of the Plan Commission included: gravel parking spaces were seen to be a problem to any adjacent landowners, adding an annual inspection, by the Village Building Official to the licensing process; questions were raised, should there be a limit of the number of Bed and Breakfast establishments allowed in a given area, was there a need to keep the establishments in the Historical District, and a question of the eighty year old criteria was a concern of the Plan Commission. It was felt there was a need to define the term "historic significance ". It was the consensus of the Plan Commission to open the Ordinance to "Village Wide" and fifty years. After discussion, W. Manning made a motion of approval of the Text Amendment, incorporating the changes made by the Plan Commission. Second L. Kachel. Vote by roll call: D. Norris, yes; W. Schempf, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes; A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes. Motion carried. 6 yes, 0 no. CASE NO. 402- 063093.PP HIGHLAND MEADOWS Planner Waldock reported that the subject site in this case is also known as the Birkett farm, located on the west side of Rt. 30 and the south side of 135th Street. The applicants propose 240 single - family lots, on 104 acres, and a 12 acre park and storm water management area. The subdivision provides a curvilinear roadway system, the average lot size is 12,000 sq. ft. or more. Significant open area is provided in the south east corner of the site, much of it is flood plain, a portion of it is also a park site. Access is provided between Lots 73 and 72, to Route 30, about 1/4 mile south to the intersection with 135th Street, and to 135th Street near the west property line. There are no specified collector streets in the subdivision, although, stronger pavement base should be considered for Ranchland Drive, Madison Street and Savanna Drive, that will be the main routes in and out, and therefore will see higher traffic numbers. Storm water detention is in the southeast, along the West Norman Drain. A portion of the site is impacted by the 100 year flood plain, Lots 58, 59, 60, 227 and 228. Those lots would be precluded by their location from having basements. Compensatory storage shall be required, and this storage area shall be located in the stormwater detention area if filling is provided on these lots. The site provides some community benefit, via the extension of storm sewers along the commercial perimeter to accommodate run off from the farm fields north of the property. The developers have agreed to extend the storm sewer, so that we can extend our sewer management plan for the northwest area of the community. The development as proposed does not meet the minimum of 12,000 sq. ft. requirement for every lot. When comparing this layout to a straight grid system, a similar development density is found. The curvilinear design is expected to improve property values through out the subdivision, slow traffic, and fit better in the price ranges of $180,000 to $225,000. The curvilinear design will also reduce the linear footage of public improvements, such as sidewalks, streets and utilities. PLAN COND41SSION AI NVUTES July 20, 1993 Page 7 These are some of the reasons why Staff prefers the curvilinear design to the straight grid system. Average lot size is in excess of 12,000 sq. ft. when comparing block by block analysis. The project provides substantial public benefit via the extension of an interceptor sanitary sewer along the south property perimeter which does not benefit the Highland Meadow's project directly. The developer has agreed to provide a $325 per lot impact fee to cover interim costs to the Village and costs of signalization at 135th Street and Rt. 30. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for Highland Meadows Subdivision, subject to the 8 stipulations of the Planner. J. Djerf spoke regarding his report, the sanitary sewer should cross Rt. 30 near the south edge of the property to allow interceptor sewer to follow an easement along the south property line, and to allow the interceptor to start at the lowest invert elevation near this property. The water system was analyzed by computer model to determine requirements. It was assumed the minimum size water mains would be 8 inch diameter throughout the subdivision. Our recommendation is that 10 inch diameter connection from the existing 12 inch water main on Rt. 30 along Lots 64 - 65 common line to those proposed on Ranchland Drive. We also recommend a 10 inch water main be extended from that point west on Madison Street and north on Savanna Drive to 135th St. We recommend a 12 inch diameter water main on 135th Street as required by the master plan. Concerns of the Plan Commission members included, would the cul -de -sac on Katlyn Drive be a problem in the future to the Fire District. Planner Waldock felt that the benefits of the subdivision out weighed the extra 100 ft. of cul -de -sac. The need for a sidewalk to tie the subdivision to the school, using the interior sidewalks to tie the subdivision to the school, and the subdivision to the south, without walking on Rt. 30. The possibility of using the impact fee to help with the costs of sidewalks was raised. There were also concerns that so many of the parks in the large developments seem to be in the detention areas, and the access to the park from the subdivision. More concerns about the lot sizes, and two Commissioners asked for a change in the Zoning Ordinance to set lot sizes. After discussion, W. Schempf made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for Highland Meadows, subject to the stipulations of the Planner Second L. Kachel. Vote by roll call: D. Norris, no; W. Schempf, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes; A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, no. Motion carried. 4 yes, 2 no. PLAN COMMISSION 'I'1 - I W July 1 19 ,,g. . CASE NO. 404- 070193.FP THE RESERVE OF PLAINFFIEELD PHASE I Planner Waldock reported that Phase One of the Reserve Subdivision is located south of Rt. 126, in the Parcel Two area as depicted in the Preliminary Plat. The Final Plat is consistent with the parameters of the Preliminary Plat. The phase included 46 single - family home sites, they range in size from small lot of 8400 sq. ft. to 12,000 sq. ft. Lot areas, roadway alignment and general layout is consistent with the Preliminary Plat approved as part of the Annexation Agreement. Access to Village utilities is to be provided via the extension of Sanitary Sewer and Water mains along 135th Street south along Material Service's east property line and across Rt. 126 into the subject site. Annexation has not been accomplished to date. Storm water detention must be constructed with Phase One. Sidewalks do not seem to be feasible here along Rt. 126. Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat for Phase One, subject to the stipulations of the Village Engineer, the Fire District, and the Planner. J. Regis, Village Engineer spoke of his engineering review, we requested the developers that no construction be done in this area until a request by the developer to re -map the flood plain is done by FEMA, and this has been complied with. The engineering is acceptable and in substantial accordance with Village Code, and it is approvable. The applicant was agreeable to the engineering requests, a conditional letter of map revision was submitted for review in March, and is being modified at this time. W. Manning made a motion to approve the Final Plat for The Reserve of Plainfield, Phase One, subject to the stipulations of the Village Engineer, and the Planner Second L. Kachel. Vote by roll call: D. Norris, no; W. Schempf, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes; A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes. Motion carried. 5 yes, 1 no. This case will go the Village Board upon completion of Engineering. PLAN COAINMSION Xfflq 'ES July 20, 1993 Page 9 1 4 ► The applicants in this case are requesting a Special Use approval for the establishment of an attorneys office at the home that they own adjoining their residence on Rt. 59 just south of 119th Street. Village Zoning Ordinance allows for professional office use in homes occupied by the professionals. This is a modification of that theme. This is a home adjoining the residence of the proprietors, it is a rural setting. It is not 100% in compliance with requirements of the Village, if the site were in the Village. But because the applicants own both sites, we found there was not a negative finding. Staff recommends that no objection be filed regarding the Special Use Permit request of Robert and Claudia Kramer for 12100 S. Rt. 59 in Wheatland Township Section 28. W. Schempf made a motion not to file an objection regarding the Special Use Permit request of Robert and Claudia Kramer for 12100 S. Rt. 59 in Wheatland Township Section 28. Second D. Norris. Vote by roll call: D. Norris, yes; W. Schempf, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes; A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes. Motion carried. 6 yes 0 no. Adjourn: 10:45 JkA"-,) HAot- Sharon Bart, Secretary PLAINFIELD M•1 . . OWter . OnY"4N Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting on July 20, 1993. Please sign this sheet for our official records. LC--;6— �1& Air Z! 41A 3 °(, Gc� l