HomeMy Public PortalAbout1992-05-19 PC minutesPLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
DATE: May 19, 1992 AT: Plainfield Library
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Sobkoviak, A. Consola,
M. Krippel, D. Norris, W. Schempf,
H. Bayer, E. Fortini.
EX-OFFICIO PRESENT: J. Ray, G. Krahn, M. Gehrke.
ALSO PRESENT: P. J. Waldock, Village Planner
S. Hart, Secretary
Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll
call was taken. G. Bott, R. Zimmerman, the School District
representative, and J. Eichelberger were absent.
Chairman Sobkoviak declared the minutes of May 5, 1992 approved,
with a correction, first page, line three, delete the words "wood
frame".
OLD BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS: CASE NO. 344-042492 TA
REQUEST: Text Amendment to the Zoning Code to include all uses
in the B-1, B-2, and B-3 Zoning Categories in the B-4
Highway District.
LOCATION: Village Wide
Mr. Waldock summarized his report as follows. The attached
amendment is intended to correct what the applicant feels may have
been an oversight in the current B-4, Highway Business District
text. our other zoning categories are the pyramid style, as they
include the lower categories, B-4 was not drafted in that manner.
It did not include B-1, 2, and 3. This Text Amendment would
provide for that. The B-4 District has a limited number of
specified permitted uses. Copies of the ordinance Establishing the
B-4 and the B-3 were attached to the staff report. Staff would
agree this Text Amendment is practical in its application, Village
Wide, and no detrimental impacts are foreseen by this change.
Staff is recommending approval of a Text Amendment to include all
uses permitted in the B-1, B-2 and B-3 Districts as permitted uses
in the B-4, Highway Business District.
CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: As it stands now, Pete, B-3 includes
everything in B-1 and B-2? it is logical to assume that B-4 would
include everything in B-3, 2 & 1, except it doesn't say that.,
P. WALDOCK: The Text Amendment that Mr. Davis drafted and is
proposing tonight, is for a pyramid style, and B-4 will include
B-1, B-2 and B-3. The applicant Mr. Davis is here tonight.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
May 19, 1992
Page 2
Mr. Davis spoke to the Commission, he mistakenly thought the
pyramiding of our ordinance began in Residence A, and ran to 1-2.
M. KRIPPEL: B-Business zoning does not pick up A-Residence zoning.
P. WALDOCK: Not any more. It did in the original text, and there
has been a recent amendment to eliminate the residential.
CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Will I-Industrial still continue to exclude
B-4, but include B-1, B-2 and B-3?
P. WALDOCK: The I-Industrial District will have to be amended also
to include the B-4 Zoning category. But, that will be another
case.
There was some discussion as to; what was the original thought.
It was decided that it was an oversight; the location of B-4, most
of them along Route 30; and it was decided that it was practical,
because without the change, it limits the scope of the uses
allowed.
CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Is there any further discussion? If not, the
Chair will entertain a motion.
D. NORRIS: I move that we recommend approval of this Text Amendment
to the Zoning Code to include all the uses of B-1, B-2 and B-3 in
the B-4, Zoning District.
M. KRIPPEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: A motion has been made and seconded to
recommend to the Village Board, a Text Amendment to the Zoning Code
to include all uses in the B-1, B-2 and B-3 Zoning Categories into
the B-4, Highway Business District.
Roll call: A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, yes;
W. Schempf, yes; H. Bayer, yes; E. Fortini, yes;
Chairman Sobkoviak, yes.
7 yes, 0 no.
CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: The motion is carried, this case will go
before the Village Board, June 1, 1992.
CASE NO. 345-042492 Z
REQUEST: Rezoning of Lots 9 and 10 of Sandhurst Subdivision.
LOCATION: South side of Renwick Road east of U.S. Route 30.
Mr. Waldock summarized his report: First, he pointed out the
location of the subject site on the map. Then he stated, the
Village Board of Trustees approved the Final Plat for Sandhurst
Subdivision on July 1, 1991.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
May 19, 1992
Page 3
The rezoning site involves Lots 9 and 10, these lots are currently
bisected by a zoning boundary line of B-4 and B-3. To rectify the
situation, the applicants are requesting the rezoning of all of
Lots 9 and 10 to B-4 Highway Business District. The rezoning
proposal results in a minor expansion of the B-4 zoning category
north of its projected location on the Comprehensive Plan's Land
Use Map. Highway Business designations are appropriate for
properties located along a high traffic "Highway" classified
roadway systems. Route 30 is a designated Highway and B-4 zoning
is appropriate, a more difficult question is raised by Lot 9 which
only has frontage along Renwick Road. Although Renwick Road is
classified by the County Highway Department as a County Highway,
Staff feels there is not sufficient traffic generated on this road
to justify Highway Business Zoning alone, but when viewing Lot 9
as part of a larger picture, one can see that B-4 zoning at this
location would not be a spot zoning situation, but an extension of
an adjoining zoning classification. The balance of the property
with the zoning classification of B-3 can provide sufficient
transition between the Single-Family residences east of McClellan
Avenue and the B-4 zoning on Lot 9 and along Route 30. If Lot 9
were an island, it would not be appropriate to be rezoned to B-4,
however because it is adjoining an existing B-4 category, I don't
object to the zoning extension into Lot 9. Therefore Staff is
recommending approval of the zoning from B-3 to B-4 for both lots
9 and 10 of Sandhurst Subdivision as requested.
CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Mr. Davis do you have anything to add
regarding this case?
N. DAVIS: The obvious benefit to the owners, would be that it
increases the use to which the property could be put. Lot 9,
because of its proximity to Lot 10, which does have B-4, we felt
was appropriate to have Lot 9, and only Lot 9 be changed to B-4.
CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Do any of the Commissioners have any questions
of the Planner or the Petitioner at this time? Is there anyone in
the audience who wishes to make a comment? or has a question of
the Planner or Petitioner?
P. WALDOCK: We have received correspondence from the Forest
Preserve District, they do not object to the rezoning, they ask
that we be sensitive to land uses, and not provide a harmful impact
on Lake Renwick and the Bird Habitat.
Chairman Sobkoviak suggested that the Commission should be sure of
the change, because once it is rezoned, we relinquish all control.
Mr. Waldock reminded the Commission, that some control is used
during the Site Plan Review process, for each Lot.
There was some discussion regarding the differences between B-3
and B-4; the severity of land use between B-3 and B-4; the land
use in effect now on the corner of Renwick and Route 30; Gasoline
Stations are allowed in both, Restaurants are allowed in both, but
a drive up window only in B-4, a Body Shop only in B-4.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
May 19, 1992
Page 4
CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Do any of the Commissioners have any questions
of the Planner or the Petitioner? Is there any one in the audience
that has anything to say either for or against this petition? If
not, the Chair will entertain a motion.
A. CONSOLA: I make a motion that we accept the requested rezoning
of Lots 9 and 10 for Sandhurst Subdivision.
H. BAYER: I will second it.
CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: A motion has been made and seconded to
recommend to the Village Board the rezoning of Lots 9 and 10 of
Sandhurst Subdivision from B-3 to B-4 Highway District.
Roll call vote: M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, no; W. Schempf, yes;
H. Bayer, yes; E. Fortini, yes; A. Consola, yes;
Chairman Sobkoviak, yes.
6 yes, 1 no. Motion carried.
Chairman Sobkoviak: The motion carried, this recommendation will
go before the Village Board on June 1, 1992.
CASE NO. 346-042692 TA
REQUEST: Text Amendment to the sign regulations of the Village of
Plainfield regarding development signs for subdivision
projects.
LOCATION: Village Wide.
The draft ordinance provides a Text Amendment to the sign
regulations to allow a subdivision project identification sign of
up to 200 square feet in area and 20 feet in height. Subdivision
projects of up to 80 acres or more in area and having a frontage
along Interstate Highway may further be permitted a sign area of
up to 300 square feet in area and 25 feet in height with Village
Board Approval. This amendment is brought forth as a result of a
previous variance request by Golden Meadows Development along Route
59 and now a present request by Winding Creek Subdivision. During
the hearing for the Golden Meadows variance request, Plan
Commission and the Village Board indicated that they were
interested in considering modification of the Sign Ordinance to
allow a larger Project Identification signs for subdivisions. This
ordinance amendment would also accommodate signage presently in use
for Lakelands Project as well.
Surrounding communities allow large project identification signs
for their developers. Therefore, Plainfield developers are also
seeking a similar competitive condition. Staff is recommending
approval of the Text Amendment for subdivision project
identification signs as presented.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
May 19, 1992
Page 5
Some discussion followed, regarding the 40 acre or larger size, it
was the consensus of the Commission that:
The Text Amendment should cover 20 acres or larger.
With a time limit of 2 years renewable without a petition, through
the Building Department.
Review criteria for renewal an maintenance would also be needed.
These modifications will be made to the Text Amendment, and then
it will be considered at the next meeting June 2, 1992.
Adjourn 9:15.
'j-
Sharon Hart, Secretary