Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1989-11-21 PC minutesPLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION DATE: November 21, 1989 AT: Village Hall COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice - Chairman Sobkoviak, R. Mentzer, J. Anderson, W. Schempf, M. Krippel. EX- OFFICIO PRESENT: M. Gehrke, G. Krahn, D. Norris, E. Schrader, Fire District Representative. ALSO PRESENT: P. J. Waldock, Village Planner K. Jania, Secretary J. Djerf, Village Engineer Vice - Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Chairman Simmons, L. Kelly, J. Wilson, and J. Eichelberger were absent. Route 59 Annexation Agreements for: Marilyn Gehrke, Mary Stephens, Bernard and Rosemary Hayes, Friendship Partners, Gary Lichtenwalter. Mr. Waldock reported the overall area is included in a petition approved by the District Court for annexation. The annexation agreements mostly cover large agricultural tracts within the 675 -acre overall annexation area. The agreements are basically consistent with recent agreements approved by the Village. Some of the key features in the Gehrke, Hayes and Stephens agreements discuss the development and establishment of an agricultural zoning district at a future date; ten year length of the agreements; abatement of one tap -on for Hayes and Gehrke, and other benefits. The Friendship Partnership agreement is a little more complicated. It discusses two different forms of annexations, one court approved and one voluntary. Both parcels would get the same benefit under the agreement. The agreement also includes a provision for sewer and water line access to be provided by the Village within two years. This annexation agreement is for 20 years. The Lichtenwalter parcel, a 188 acre site, is similar to the Friendship Partnership agreement, but goes on to include commercial zoning: B -3 along Frazier Road to the west and along Route 59 on the south, and B -4 for the northeast corner of the subject site. The Comprehensive Plan for this area shows low density residential. The applicant is looking at blending the commercial development with associated residential developments in order to make the character of the property compatible as much as possible with the Comprehensive Plan. There are no development proposals for the subject site at this time. PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION November 21, 1989 Page Two Staff recommends approval of each of the annexation agreements. Discussion followed regarding the Lichtenwalter agreement. Mr. Waldock stated the proposed commercial zoning is B -3 for 17.97 acres along Frazier Road, B -3 for 18.92 acres along Route 59, and B -4 for 17.7 acres on the northeast corner of the site. There was a long discussion regarding commercial development along Route 59. The Board expressed concern that the Route 59 corridor we are going to have is drastically different than the 59 corridor the Comprehensive Plan shows. It was suggested the Village might call the consultants back in to re- evaluate the Route 59 corridor development. Mr. Lichtenwalter was present and stated the agreement with the commercial zoning has been worked out with the Village of Plainfield. He does not anticipate any development taking place right away. Mayor Latta commented on the negotiations regarding this agreement. If the people in this Route 59 area had not been able to come to any agreement, either this petition would still be in court, and if thrown out of court, this area would then be Joliet and Plainfield would have no control. Because development has come upon Plainfield in such a fast pace certain compromises were necessary. W. Schempf moved to recommend to the Village Board that they approve the annexation agreements and establishment of zoning for Marilyn Gehrke, Mary Stephens, Bernard and Rosemary Hayes, Friendship Partnership, and Gary Lichtenwalter. There being no second, Mr. Schempf withdrew his motion. M. Krippel moved to recommend to the Village Board to approve the annexation agreements and establishment of zoning for Marilyn Gehrke, Mary Stephens, Bernard and Rosemary Hayes, and Friendship Partnership. Seconded by R. Mentzer. Vote by roll call. Bayer, yes; Mentzer, yes; Anderson, yes; Schempf, yes; Krippel, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. 6 yes, 0 no. Motion carried. M. Krippel moved the Plan Commission finds that the zoning request of Gary Lichtenwalter in the annexation agreement as presented is inconsistent and in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, but that annexation of the parcel is in the best interest of the Village of Plainfield and therefore recommend approval of the Lichtenwalter agreement; also add a strong recommendation that a consultant be brought in to re- evaluate the Route 59 corridor in light of the annexations that have taken place along Route 59 to come up with a plan for future development along Route 59. Seconded by H. Bayer. Vote by roll call. Bayer, yes; Mentzer, yes; Anderson, yes; Schempf, yes; Krippel, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. 6 yes, 0 no. Motion carried. PLAINFIELD PLAN COM14ISSION November 21, 1989 Page Three Case No. 245- 111089S CK Design Requesting Sepcial Sign Approval for 604 N. DesPlaines Street. Mr. Waldock reported the proposed sign is a 12 square foot projecting sign. It projects no more than 3 feet over the sidewalk and is 4 feet in height. The sign face appears tastefully constructed and the design is compatible with the character of the downtown area. Colors will be similar to building exterior. Lettering will be painted. No illumination is proposed. Staff recommends approval of the sign with the note that the sign must be 9 feet above the grade of the sidewalk. The Board agreed the sign is tastefully done and in character with the downtown area. J. Anderson moved to recommend to the Village Board to approve the Special Sign request for 604 N. DesPlaines Street as presented with the stipulation the sign must be 9 feet above the grade of the sidewalk. Seconded by W. Schempf. Vote by roll call. Bayer, yes; Mentzer, yes; Anderson, yes; Schempf, yes; Krippel, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. 6 yes, 0 no. Motion carried. Case No. 246- 11789PP Arbor Place Preliminary Plat review. Location: South of Renwick Road between Route 59 and Howard Avenue. Mr. Waldock reported the subject site is approximately 89 acres. It is vacant agricultural land at the present time. The Preliminary Plat includes 194 single - family residential lots. It also includes two outlots for future development, and the rezoning proposed would be for a townhouse style development. The subdivision plan as presented meets the ordinance repirements for lot area and frontage width. Street dimensions are�in accordance with subdivision regulations. The lot layout for the most part is a grid layout. In review, the proximity of the cul -de -sacs in the lower portion of the project were examined closely. Previous concerns were noted regarding emergency vehicle access and snow plowing. Suggestion was made that the cul -de -sacs could be linked. This would provide for ease of maintenance for plowing and emergency vehicles. The development is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. John Djerf, Village Engineer, summarized his review of the project with his letter dated November 21, 1989. Several items should be addressed before he recommends approval such as street right -of -ways; improvements to Feeney Drive, consider Arbor Drive as a collector street, and sidewalks; Storm Water System; Sanitary Sewer System; Street Lighting and Street Trees are not shown on the plat. PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION November 21, 1989 Page Four Mr. Bruce Peel, developer, briefly addressed some of the concerns of the Village Engineer. He stated that since he just received the Village Engineer's letter tonight, some of the items would have to be discussed with his engineer. E. Schrader, Fire District representative, briefly commented on the Fire District's concerns as stated in his letter of November 15, 1989. Several adjoining landowners were present expressing concerns mainly on drainage, storm detention, and water and sewer. (J. Anderson left the meeting at 9;25 p.m.) After some discussion it was the consensus of the Board to table this case to give the developer time to address the concerns of the Village Engineer and Fire District. H. Bayer moved -to continue discussion of this petition to a later date. Seconded by W. Schempf. Vote by roll call. Bayer, yes; Mentzer, yes; Schempf, yes; Krippel, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. 5 yes, 0 no. Motion carried. County Case - Plough Variance Lots 42 and 43 of Plainfield Acres Unit No. 4 on Frederick Avenue in Plainfield Township. Mr. Waldock reported the subject site are Lots 42 and 43 of Plainfield Acres Unit 4. The site is unincorporated Plainfield Township. The Village limits are within 120 feet when measured from the south property line of the subject site. The applicants desire to develop the lots as two single - family residences. The site is approximately 2.7 acres in area currently vacant. Although the site is comprised of portions of two lots, there is only 66 feet of frontage on Frederick Avenue. Lot 43 has no frontage at all. The proposal would reserve 33 feet of frontage as access to each residential lot. The parcel would then be divided accordingly. It appears that the layout of the site was intended to accommodate future extension of Norman Avenue. This site is very close to sewer and water lines running along Renwick Road. The site is capable of being developed in accordance with the Village Subdivision Regulations and accommodating six residential lots and a 66 foot wide right -of -way. Staff's findings are that the subject site is aligned with Norman Avenue in a manner which could facilitate right -of -way extension to the east; lot area is sufficient to accommodate six residential lots and street right -ofway which would meet Village standards; subject site is within 240 feet of Renwick Road in which sanitary sewer mains are located; and the proposal is not in compliance with current Village policy or standards for development. PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION November 21, 1989 Page Five Attorney Kurt Carlson was present on behalf of petitioner and stated two families want to put their homes on these two lots. The difficulty has to do with the frontage. They each want to construct a 2200 to 2500 sq. ft. single- family home on the site. They do not intend to develop the-site-any further. Mr. Carlson presented letters from the County and Township Road Commissioner. He stated the County is basically in favor of the variance but is concerned with Norman Avenue being extended. County feels this would bring traffic in from Renwick Road. Also with regard to the density issue, Mr. Carlson stated they are putting two homes on 2.7 acres. This fits in with the units to the north. In terms of cutting it into six lots, under the County's zoning it could not be done. Minimum lot size for county zoning is 20,000 sq. ft. so they would still need a variance. Mr. Carlson stated his clients are willing to do whatever is needed. They would be willing to either put the homes in the center of the lot so no other homes can be built, or the homes can be placed to allow for future development. Mr. Waldock stated he would not object to one single- family residence with well and septic being placed on the lot. The Village has supported this in a previous case. Also, would not have a professional objection to development with two houses on the site if you could get sewer and water there and possibly place the homes to allow for future development. This case has been informally discussed at Village Board level. At that time, discussion of the proximity of sewer and water system to the site was mentioned. Comprehensive Plan for water extension in this area calls for immediate construction of a 6" water main along Frederick Avenue. The master plan for sanitary sewer has not yet been completed. Mr. Waldock stated he would also agree that Norman Avenue should not be used as an escape route off of Renwick Road. Long discussion followed on the placement of one or two homes on the site. Fire District representative, E. Schrader commented on access to the site and stated the Fire Department needs room to maneuver the equipment in case of fire. R. Mentzer moved to recommend to the Village Board that they not object to the variance request as presented with the stipulation that the houses be centered on the lot close enough so there will not be any further development of the parcel. Seconded by M. Krippel PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION November 21, 1989 Page Six Vote by roll call. Bayer, yes; Mentzer, yes; Schempf, yes; Krippel, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. 5 yes, 0 no. Motion carried. Adjourn: 10:15 p.m. Kay Jani' , 61 ecretary Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting please sign this sheet for our official records. NAM L' tr REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS FIRST AND THIRD MONDAY EVENINGS OF EACH MONTH ADDRESS } f „ Yew... t kl �f r ; ice. t o- f. tr REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS FIRST AND THIRD MONDAY EVENINGS OF EACH MONTH