Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1993-08-03 PC minutesDATE: August 3, 1993 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Flu Chairman Sobkoviak Plainfield Library M. Krippel A. Consola D. Norris W. Manning L. Kachel W. Schempf Fire District Representative Park District Representative Joe Ray, Trustee Peter J. Waldock, Village Planner John Djerf, Village Engineer S. Hart, Secretary Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken, the Library, School, and Township Representatives were absent. Chairman Sobkoviak declared the minutes of July 20, 1993 approved as amended. The Planning and Development Committee report was presented by Trustee Ray, Planning and Development Committee report was given by Joe Ray, The Lakelands Unit #1 -A passed with no discussion, the Bed and Breakfast Ordinance created discussion, and was tabled by a vote of 6 yes, 0 no, for the workshop meeting on August 9, 1993. The Final Plat for the Reserve of Plainfield was also passed, conditionally upon annexation. The Arbor Place multi - family units on Renwick were denied, 6 yes 0 no. There was some discussion regarding the long term and short term goals that were decided upon at the previous Village Board Workshop. CASE NO: 401- 063093.TA TEXT AN ENDNIENT Planner Waldock summarized his report as follows: The Village has received interest in Related Living, or more commonly known as mother -in -law apartment arrangements for single - family areas throughout the community. Staff felt this was best addressed through the Special Use permit process, similar to what the Plan Commission had discussed with the bed and breakfast issue. The Village has received application for a building permit which is intended to accommodate expansion of the single - family home to include a related living unit within the home. This Text Amendment is not site specific, but there is a specific family interested in following through with applications, if this ordinance is adopted. Due to the aging population in America, we will see greater interest in "in home care" being provided for our elderly relatives. One means by which families can care for elderly relatives is through the related living unit in ones own home. Appropriately, this can be accomplished in a manner that is not visible as a two unit building, it need not provide a great deal of impact on the neighborhood, in that these houses could be occupied by the same number of persons without modification. The need for Text Amendments arise when building modifications are necessary to fully satisfy the needs of the family. PLAN CONMSSION MII TUTES August 3, 1993 Page 2 Staff is of the opinion that demand for this type of living unit will increase as time goes on. If the Plan Commission feels that "mother -in -law" apartments are appropriate in Single - family zoning areas, it is felt the best method to accommodate this, is through a Text Amendment which would then, if adopted, require site specific Public Hearings, following this amendment. We are not looking to authorize the permit immediately for a related living unit in the community, by the passage of this ordinance. Additional hearings would be required for site specific requests at which time you will review site plans and construction plans. Tonight we are focusing just on the concept of the related living, and seeking direction from the Plan Commission as to how much interest the Commission has to pursue this matter. Some of the basic conditions in the present draft, include limitations on the type of occupancy permissible, the occupants must be related family members; must not exceed 25 % of the total floor area; the unit should be on the first floor; and to the rear of the home in order to maintain the secondary nature of the use; the appearance must remain in character with single - family units; the home must be restored to Single - family use upon the vacancy of the related living unit, the unit must not be converted for rental income or used for occupancy by persons not related to the occupants of the single - family home; and, no more than two occupants of the secondary dwelling would be permissible. The Plan Commission questions included: 1) At what point does the building become out of compliance with the Zoning Ordinance? 2) What are we trying to control by this Text Amendment? The Plan Commissions concerns included: L. Kachel spoke of his concern, should not be the unit should not be designed as two separate units, and should not be able to be converted. Commissioner Krippel said his opinion was that you would have to go out of one dwelling and into another dwelling before it would be considered two family dwelling. Planner Waldock answered the questions of the Commissioners: 1) The issue is a technical legality, any home can be converted to an unlawful two family dwelling, this is an attempt to limit that conversion, and provide mechanism to accommodate a homeowner who has a specified family need, and to protect the integrity of the Village's single family Zoning Districts. 2) Duplexes in single family zoning. We have to take the use limitations seriously in all categories of the Zoning Ordinance. Comments from the audience were as follows: Mr. Rafacz's spoke of his father -in -law's diabetes, and he has moved here from Florida, they know that at sometime they will have to take care of him, this was a good way, he will be near so they can do whatever is necessary. They are applying for a permit because they want to live by the rules, they are willing to redraw their plans if necessary, but they are running out of season, Mr. Rafacz said he had applied for the building permit almost 3 months ago. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 3, 1993 Page 3 L. Kachel asked is it your position that we could not grant their permit, given the state of the ordinance now? Mr. Waldock answered yes, two steps are necessary, one, passage of the Text Amendment under the Special Use category, and two, the public hearing requirement of 45 days that is site specific. L. Kachel, so until we take action on the Text Amendment, he can't do anything. M. Krippel, what in the Ordinance precludes someone from having their parents live with them? Planner Waldock, simply the list of permitted uses in Ordinance 674 that specifically lists single family only for a dwelling unit. L. Kachel, that is a single- family, what is the difference if it is children or parents? Planner Waldock, the problem is not so much the definition of the Single - family, but the modification of the home, the construction of a second unit. W. Schempf cited the high cost to keep someone in a nursing home, and said that related living is a good way to care for your family. Chairman Sobkoviak asked, was anyone against this concept? The consensus of the Plan Commission was that no one was against it. M. Krippel, was not convinced that these people could not do what they want to do within the present ordinance. Planner Waldock, the main thing an ordinance like this does is spell out clearly that the Village is concerned about the establishment of unapproved two family dwellings, and provides a mechanism to track the reconversion. L. Kachel, what is the easiest thing to do to get them going so they can start to build right now. Basically that is what it comes down to. M. Krippel, if you have questionable application of the ordinance, or can't give a clear interpretation, the burden is on the Village. Planner Waldock, I feel Staff has been very clear in our interpretation, and it is no. The Development Committee also felt that a Text Amendment was necessary. Staff feels this is the clearest and best way legally, that is a planning opinion not a legal opinion. From a Code Enforcement stand point this is the best approach for the Village to take. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 3, 1993 Page 4 W. Manning, what is your estimate of the time table to get the Text Amendment done? Planner Waldock, next Planning meeting, then next Village Board meeting, then 45 days after that for Special Use approval. M. Krippel, wouldn't a different approach be to look at the present ordinance and clarify to preclude the types of uses we don't want to exist. Rather than developing a whole new ordinance, with a whole set of provisions that we are going to "what if" to death, this will not go through in a month. For people to try and take care of elderly relatives, why can't we work on the present ordinance and prevent unrelated people from living in the same dwelling in a Single- family Zoning. We could just write that clearly into the ordinance and these people could go ahead with their lives. Planner Waldock, one possible alternative to this type of Special Use Amendment would be an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would define Single - family to include related living units. The consensus of the Commission was to let them get started, and follow up with a an interpretation of the Zoning Code. A clear definition of what is a single family residence and what is a duplex is needed. A. Consola moved to recommend to the Village Board that The Planning Commission find that the present Ordinance does not preclude occupancy of a Single - family home by related individuals, (parents, children and in -laws) in circumstances where the home does not provide separate front outdoor entrances is limited to a single utility bill for Village utilities and local utilities, and the interior of the home is provided connecting doors between living spaces.. Seconded L. Kachel. Vote by roll call: W. Schempf, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel,yes; A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried 7 yes, 0 no. CASE NO. 403- 063093.PP WALKER'S GROVE SUBDIVISION Planner Waldock summarized his report as follows: The site is adjoining the Walker's Grove Elementary School, at the northwest corner of the intersection of 135th and U. S. Route 30. The subject site contains approximately 195.99 acres, not including the Bretweiser farm stead. The proposal is for the Preliminary Plat approval which would establish 485 single - family home sites. A development yield of 2.47 units per acre, park sites of approximately 15 acres, average lot area is 11,767 sq. ft. with a minimum lot size of 10,000. Access is provided via 135th Street (Filcher Road) to the south and Round Barn Road no access is provided from U. S. Route 30. The subdivision is designed in a curvilinear street fashion. The plat includes four cul -de -sacs. A number of minor residential streets are proposed as part of this subdivision. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 3, 1993 Page 5 The Staff report indicates a 37 foot pavement with 66 ft. right -of -way is sufficient to accommodate traffic on Round Barn Road. However, the Transportation Committee, seeks a 100 ft. right -of -way and a tree planted median for Round Barn Road in accordance with the Transportation Plan. Staff was not aware of this until this week, after the report was written. Storm sewer systems are provided through out the subdivision, Village utility systems are accessible to the site, via 135th Street and extensions down Rt. 30. The west half would require the extension of an interceptor system south through the Birkett Farm. The developers have agreed to an impact fee of $325 per lot, payable at time of building permit issuance, that fee is intended to reimburse the Village for ancillary costs related to revenue time frame shortfall. Generally houses are occupied for eighteen months prior to the Village receiving its first dollars in tax revenue. The Village has asked the developer to contribute to the extension of the West Norman interceptor, extending south along the West Norman Drain, and ultimately back to Rt. 30 through the Birkett property. This cost is expected to be in the $600 to $1,000 per lot range. The Village would install the West Norman interceptor off -site, and seek to recapture the cost and secure easements through adjoining properties. Pilcher Road (135th St.) improvements will be required from the School site to the east end of the Bretweiser Farm, this would be a full width urban profile improvement. The Preliminary Plat is consistent with the Concept Plans reviewed by the Plan Commission, it is anticipated by Staff that the housing prices will range from $150,000 to $250,000. Staff is recommending approval of the Walker's Grove Subdivision subject to the stipulations listed in the report. 1. Provide a 37 ft. pavement width back to back for Round Barn Road, with increased pavement capacity to accommodate the extra traffic loads. 2. Provide impact fees of $325 per unit at the time of building permit issuance for each lot, to cover ancillary costs incurred by the Village during the interim period to prior receipt of property tax revenues. 3. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 4. Compliance with the provisions of the Plainfield Fire District. Chairman Sobkoviak questioned the Planner: What is the reason behind the 100 ft. right -of -way, that close to Rt. 30? PLAN COAINMSION NENUTES August 3, 1993 Page 6 Planner Waldock, answered: The 100 ft. right of way will be necessary to provide the tree planted median. We are looking for a grassy landscape median. Sobkoviak, will that connect with the subdivision to the south? Waldock, it does not connect with Highland Meadows. Consola questioned: Who will maintain these trees in the middle of the street? Waldock, the Street Department, as it is public property. Krippel questioned: What is the purpose of the Boulevard "look "? Waldock, the character intended to be achieved by the Transportation Committee, is a shaded boulevard, for aesthetic and environmental purposes. Sobkoviak, what is that going to do to our lot sizes? Waldock, we may lose some lots, I would not anticipate that the lot sizes would be any smaller. Kachel, what about sidewalks? Waldock, sidewalks would still be required on both sides of the street. Steve Roake, Engineer and Planner spoke: The last Plan Commission meeting, we discussed Round Barn Road as a neighborhood collector street. The direction we had received from you was to provide one through street through the site. The idea of going to a 100 ft. right -of -way within a half a mile of Rt. 30, I think really requires a lot of thought both by the Plan Commission and the Traffic Committee. The idea that you want to attract as much traffic as you see on Rt. 30, rather than pressing to improve Rt. 30, where you can control access. It makes more sense to direct your traffic to Rt. 30, rather than try and provide a major arterial street through here, further, the idea of a median parkway is not only a nightmare to maintain, it physically eliminates having driveways. What you are really saying here, by creating this 100 ft. right -of -way you have created a thoroughfare that is of greater importance than 135th Street. We will need reverse frontage on these lots, because no one will be able to back up into the street. Planner Waldock, the Transportation Committee does not see this as a major arterial, it is designated a neighborhood arterial. They are looking for a parkway. Consola, I understand what the Transportation Committee is trying to do, creating a different kind of street, but I agree with the developer, in essence you are splitting the subdivision into two separate neighborhoods. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 3, 1993 Page 7 Kachel, I would rather see it more accessible, from Indian Boundary all the way up there, with standard street, proper sidewalks, and landscaped, you wouldn't end up with a thoroughfare, that will be real busy, which you will with the boulevard. Sobkoviak, I have to agree with the developer's engineer, I don't think this would be in the best interest of that development, or the best interest of the Village. Waldock, then before the Plan Commission makes a final determination, I would ask that you continue this request and hear from the Transportation Committee. I am unable to answer some of your questions. Sobkoviak, I think we should also hear from someone from the Village Board level, because what we would be doing then, if we approve this parkway thing down the middle, we would be committing the Village to maintenance. The Fire District representative spoke, Of course the Fire District is totally opposed to any kind of median, to limit our access to houses on the left hand side of the road. It doesn't make sense. Norris, I don't think this parkway is necessary, I have always been an advocate of larger lots, but I don't think this is necessary at all, not with Rt. 30 so near. I don't think you want to encourage higher speed traffic. I don't think this is safe. Waldock, before we make a final decision, the Transportation Committee should be given a chance to state their case fully. I don't want to continue this meeting, the applicants don't want to continue, but in all fairness and in deference to the Transportation Committee, we don't have enough information, we need to hear from them before we can make an informed decision. Unless the Plan Commission is willing to agree with the Transportation Committee and recommend approval. Steve Roake spoke, The dedicated park site is 8.66 acres which meets the park requirement. We have provided an additional 15.5 acres of private open space. The total open space on the project is about 24 acres. This site is providing sufficient storage to meet the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission model ordinance requirements which I understand the Village is planning to adopt but has not adopted yet. Every house will have access to the storm sewer for sump pump connection. Everything from Round Barn Road to the east will drain to the east sanitary sewer at 135th, and will allow the project to get rolling while the Village develops the West Norman Interceptor, and the balance of the project will flow there. We are proposing a 10 inch sanitary sewer in Round Barn Road with additional depth to serve the properties to the north of the project. There is a standard 8 inch water main through out the site, the original engineering report from the Village indicated they wanted a 12 inch water main up Rt. 30, right now the 12 inch water main ends here at 135th Street. The school did not extend it across their frontage. Because there is no frontage along Rt. 30 on the east side, and because we have reverse frontage on this side, we felt it was more appropriate to extend the water main through the site, where there is some benefit derived from it. There will be a sidewalk on the north side along 135th St. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 3, 1993 Page 8 M. Krippel questioned, is any of the park area outside the flood plain? Roake, some is outside the flood plain, along the stream itself, which is narrow and intermittent, it was my understanding that the Park District had an interest in developing a linear green space along West Norman Drain. G. Bott spoke, we also did suggest that the Park District should have some open space adjacent to the school. Roake, I spoke to the school about that, and they didn't want it. Bott, they never indicated that to me, they have always been very much in favor of it to me. Roake, I have talked to Dr. Stanfield and Roland Smith both, what I said was, can we use that as part of our school contribution, land in lieu of .... and they said no, we would like to have the money. I am still not convinced that we can't work something out, because Dr. Fleming would like a park there. J. Djerf, Our letter indicated; the off -site storm sewer must be sized to properly convey all tributary runoff. The developers for both Walker's Grove and Highland Meadows should work together on this topic as they are each required to provide this pipe. Maintenance access should be provided to each storm water detention pond. We recommended that Round Barn Road, 135th Street and Blakely Drive be constructed to 37 ft. back to back to a collector status. The pavement should be a minimum of 8" bituminous base course and 3" bituminous surface. The Subdivision Control Ordinance places a block length limit of 1,500 feet, and Vermette Road is 2,690 between cross streets all of which fail to meet the requirements and would require variance. A 12 inch main along 135th Street from Rt. 30 to the southwest corner of the property, a 10 inch main along round Barn Road, and a connection to a future 10 inch main in Highland Meadows are necessary for Units 6 -9 to have acceptable pressure. Roake spoke, there is only an eight inch main in front of the school, we are going to extend the twelve and stub it to the south side of the road, because we had assumed that the 12 inch would be looped around the commercial portion of Highland Meadows, for fire protection. Waldock spoke, the Village Administrator also asked for two other stipulations to be added, one, costs provided on a per unit basis for the West Norman Drain, costs to be determined later based upon actual costs, and two, Clarifications on 135th Street improvements, improvement to collector status, between the west property line of Walker's Grove school and the east property line of Bretweiser Farm, (west side of Lot 335). After discussion, the developer agreed to a compromise regarding Blakely, to keep the road width the same, and thicken the base course. PLAN COMMISSION AMNUTES August 3, 1993 Page 9 There was also discussion regarding access to the school property, the developer said that adjacent landowners would not like a sidewalk through their property to the school, it was suggested that they should contact the School District, about access to the school. The Park District representative said the Park District was interested in park land adjacent to the school. There was discussion regarding the Transportation Plan, whether it has been finalized, Planner Waldock asked the Plan Commission to continue the case until the Commission could hear the Transportation Committee members, then make a decision. Questions were raised, why wasn't someone here tonight from the Transportation Committee, the thinking was that the Transportation report would carry only minimally more weight than public comment, if the Transportation Committee had a problem with it, they should have said something before the day of the meeting. Another issue discussed, was the school donation and park donation, and the difficulty in setting requirements for them. Again, the feeling was: why wasn't the School District Representative present? The Park District Representative is here, and the Fire District is here every week, if they want things done, they should tell us. We are assuming what is best for the School District, why aren't they present at our meetings. It was decided to add two stipulations, one, to comply with the requirements of the Plainfield Township Park District and the Plainfield School District, and two, a stipulation to include provisions for a waiver of maximum block length requirements regarding Vermette Rd. and Round Barn Road. After a long discussion regarding curvilinear streets and the county numbering system and the confusion that sometimes ensues. A. Consola made a motion to recommend to the Village Board the approval of the Preliminary Plat for Walkers's Grove Subdivision, with the following stipulations: 1. Provide a 37 ft. pavement width (back to back) for Round Barn Road, provide 66 ft. Right -of -way and 40 ft. front yard setback. In addition, sidewalk easements shall be provided along the front property line (to permit construction of sidewalks in the required front yard area). 2. Provide impact fees of $325 per unit at the time of building permit issuance for each lot, to cover ancillary costs incurred by the Village during the interim period to prior to receipt of property tax revenues. 3 Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 4. Compliance with provisions of the Plainfield Fire District. 5. The construction costs incurred by the Village for the West Norman Drain interceptor shall be repaid by the developers at the time of building permit issuance. Such costs shall amortized by dividing the total cost of construction by the total number of lots within the subdivision. PLAN COMNIISSION NIINUTES August 3, 1993 Page 10 6. 135th Street shall be developed to a full width urban profile, from the west property line of Walker's Grove Elementary School to the west property line of Lot 335 as shown on the Plan dated June 28, 1993. 7. Comply with the requirements of the Plainfield Township Park District and the Plainfield School District. 8. This approval shall include provisions for a waiver of maximum block length requirements regarding Vermette Rd. and Round Barn Road. Vote by roll call: W. Schempf, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel,yes; A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, no; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried 7 yes, 0 no. CASE NO. 407- 072793.FP WINDING CREEK SUBDIVISION UNIT #5 Planner Waldock summarized his report as follows: This plat establishes 22 Single - family homesites, it is the next phase of a seven phase subdivision for Winding Creek. This phase provides the extension of Spangler Road from its terminus in Phase One to Bussey Drive. The Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat. The plat does require a waiver of the minimum number of lot requirement per plat that is set in the Subdivision Regulations. After a short discussion, M. Krippel moved to recommend to the Village Board the approval of Winding Creek Subdivision Unit #5, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Provisions of surety in the amounts approved by the Village Engineer and as required by the Subdivision Regulations. 3. Upgrade Lift Station pump capacity at the time of Final Phase approval or earlier if determined by the Village Engineer to be needed. 4. Provide provision of water main loop extending along Rt. 30 and down Spangler to loop into the subdivision. 5. Provide EPA permits for sanitary sewer and water. 6. Letter of Credit. Vote by roll call: W. Schempf, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel,yes; A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried 7 yes, 0 no. PLAN COADUSSION AUNUTES August 3, 1993 Page 11 CASE NO. 406- 071493.FP CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON Planner Waldock summarized his report as follows: This is a combined Preliminary and Final Plat, it is simply a lot split, to establish three lots and a storm detention outlot. Lot 1, containing 2.44 acres is located in the south center area of the subject site. Lot 2, containing 20.04 acres is located in the central portion of the tract. This lot contains the main buildings, including the new office building and the original office section. Lot 2 also contains the 300 car parking lot. Lot 3, containing 117 acres is presently undeveloped, no immediate development plans are provided for Lot 3 at the present time. Outlot A containing .99 acres is located in the central portion of the tract, and is intended to accommodate the storm detention area and is not available for development or further improvement of any kind. The reason that this comes before the Plan Commission, is because it creates a lot smaller than 5 acres, and the Subdivision Ordinance requires subdivision approval for the establishment of any lot smaller than 5 acres. The proposal does not involve the extension of new streets, or private access easements. No major issues are associated with the subdivision request as presented, therefore, staff finds no objection with the subdivision plat for C B & I Industries, Inc. Subdivision Unit #1. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat for C B & I Industries, Inc. sub Unit #1 as proposed. The Plan Commission asked the secretary to make a note stating: It should be noted, that the Plan Commission is interested in provisions for a future parkway along the Du Page River at the time of continued development. After a short discussion L. Kachel made a motion to recommend approval of the C B & I lot split to the Village Board. Vote by roll call: W. Schempf, yes; W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes; A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried 7 yes, 0 no. Adjourn: 9:45 Sharon Hart, Secretary PLAINFIELD wit . cl—tYl . JLUCt . COYYUNT Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting on August 3, 1993. Please sign this sheet for our official records.