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