HomeMy Public PortalAbout1988-10-04 PC minutesPLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
DATE: October 4, 1988 AT: Village Hall
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Simmons, H. Bayer, R. Mentzer,
J. Anderson, W. Schempf, J. Sobkov.iak,
M. Krippel.
EX-OFFICIO PRESENT: L. Kelly, M. Gehrke, D. Norris, G. Krahn,
E. Schrader, Fire District Rep.
ALSO PRESENT: Peter J. Waldock, Village Planner
K. Jania, Secretary
Chairman Simmons called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll call
was taken. R. Russ, A. Arbo, and J. Wilson were absent.
There being no additions or corrections, Chairman Simmons declared
the minutes of the September 6, 1988 meeting approved as presented.
County Case - Robert F. and Geraldine Zeh
Petition for rezoning from A-1 to E-2 with Special Use Permit to allow
business office of owner and continued indoor storage of farm equipment
used in occupation.
Mr. Gregory Fix, Attorney, was present on behalf of petitioner.
He stated all adjoining landowners have been notified by certified
mail of this hearing and presented the Board with receipts of the
notice of mailing.
Attorney Fix stated they are requesting a zoning classification of
E-2 with special use permits for the business office of the petitioner
and special use permit for continued indoor storage. Will County
advised petitioner E-2 is the best classification, which is very
restrictive. Regarding the request for special use permit for continued
indoor storage of farm equipment, Attorney Fix stated the equipment is
essentially six trenchers which are generally kept on the work site
during the year. They are stored indoor during the winter. Under the
A-1 classification they are allowed to store this equipment.
The only real change with regard to the application would be to allow
the business office of the petitioner. The office building will be
centrally located on the property. As far as the activities of the
business office, there will be no retail type of trade. It's merely
a building where the petitioner could place the office of his business
and get his office outside of his home. Under the E-2 classification,
the business office is a permitted special use.
Mr. Waldock summarized his report to the Board: The subject site
is a remnant parcel left out after the creation of Renwick Park Estates.
It is located between Route 59 and River Road on Renwick Road along the
south side. In examining the area in conjunction with the surrounding
land uses, it is out of character. The 2 3/4 acre lot is too large in
comparison with the lots created by Renwick Park Estates and the
surrounding R-3 area. The concern with this particular request is that
PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
October 4, 1988
Page Two
it creates an extension of this nonconforming situation by the
new construction or new improvements specifically of an office
building on this site. The zoning would be out of character. Does
not see the nonconforming status as a problem, it allows the property
owner to continue to use his property agriculturally. Primary concern
is with the business use and the cessation of the nonconforming status.
Attorney F ' ix stated they are requesting a less intense use than what
is in the area. As far as the nonconforming nature of the business
office, there is a frame barn on the property which is 28 feet by
58 feet which burned down last winter. We are entitled under..-the
County ordinance to replace it. By placing the office here it would
be too close to residences. If the office was placed here it would be
too close to residences, we are trying to keep it centrally located
on the property. Petitioner just wants to get the office out of his
home.
M. Krippel commented that it just doesn't appear in the long-range
plan of the Plainfield area that this type of use is really going to
fit in.
Attorney Fix stated the developer of Renwick Park Estates has no
objection to this request.
Chairman Simmons stated his main concern is just the zoning itself.
E-2 would be surrounded with more restrictive zoning.
M. Krippel moved to recommend to the Village Board that they concur
with the Planner's recommendation to deny the petition of Robert F. and
Geraldine Zeh'for rezoning from A-1 to E-2 with Special Use Permit
to allow business office based on the following findings:
1. The area is within the 1.5 mile jurisdiction of the
Village.
2. Proposed rezoning and special use permit is not in accordance
with current and proposed Comprehensive Plans of the Village of
Plainfield.
3. The proposed rezoning does not follow established planning
principles.
4. The proposal is out of character with surrounding zoning
designations.
Seconded by J. Anderson. Vote by roll call.
Bayer yes; Mentzer, yes; Anderson, yes; Schempf, yes; Krippel, yes;
Sobkoviak, yes; Simmons, yes. 7 yes, 0 no. Motion carried.
PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
October 4, 1988
Page Three
Case No. 170-0105882 - Zoning Amendment to establish a Transition
Zoning District as an overlay in specified areas zoned Residence A.
P. Waldock reported. the Business Transition-District has b6en,
discussed at various levels in the Village for the past two years.
The Commission recommended approval of the BT zoning classification
to work as an overlay of Residence A zoning along the south side of
Main Street west of the tracks and each side of Division from Main to
Plaza Drive. Since the time of the original Plan Commission hearing,
substantial concerns and opposition has been voiced by affected
property owners. For this reason, the case is being brought back for
further hearings at Plan Commission level.
Basically, what the gist of the discussion for tonight should be
is a way in which we can improve the current text of the ordinance
and arrive at something that satisfies the concerns of affected
property owners and satisfies the needs of the community as a whole
as well as allowing for controlled growth in a manner in which the
Village is interested in accommodating.
The intent and purpose of a transition zone would be as a protection
for the existing properties. Protect the character of the neighborhood
by observing the structures located in a designated overlay area,
protect the area through stringent controls related to landscaping
and so forth, allowing for some flexibility in terms of adaptive reuse
or creative reuse of the very low intensity nature which is a use that
may be compatible to the existing residential uses in the area, and
generally a protection by offering areas that may be absentee owner or
investment properties today and may be experiencing some decay
through the absentee owner.
The name of the District does not promote the intended purposes of the
zoning classification. Buffer zone, Transition District, or
Residential Transition District are suggestions. These names better
emphasize the residential aspect of this district. After all, the
district remains Residence A classification. Transition District is
an overlay and special use within the Residence A district.
A long discussion followed. Several residences expressed their
concerns and opinions. Mr. Chuck Zimmerman stated in speaking for
his area, Division and Bartlett Streets, they feel the area is
residential and they want to keep it residential. Suggested the
Village try BT in an area that is already changing.
M. Lambert talked about historic preservation, and maybe we should
work on areas that are in transition already. other residents stated
they prefer the word "residence" rather than "business" transition
district.
PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
October 4, 1988
Page Four
Chairman Simmons explained the zoning overlay is intended to prevent
business uses from creeping into a residential area parcel by parcel.
A letter from Frederick and Carolyn Martens dated October 3, 1988
stating their position regarding the BT district was read into the
record. The letter referred to their property at 819 Division Street
where they request that this parcel be zoned business.
P. Waldock, in summary, stated we need to change the name
"Business Transition zoning" to better emphasize the residential
character of the district; that the Division Street area north of
Lockport Street and areas currently in transition need to be examined
for inclusion in the ordinance; that historical areas in the Village
need to be identified and an ordinance needs to be developed to protect
these areas; and a more specific text related to the concerns of each
neighborhood needs to be developed.
P.-Waldock stated that throughout the process we encourage input from
the residents. It is very important for us in writing -a code which
adequately satisfies the residents needs.
J. Sobkoviak moved to table discussion on the proposed Business
Transition District until at least 30 days after the Comprehensive Plan
is approved by the Village Board. Seconded by W. Schempf. Voice Vote.
7 yes, 0 no. Motion carried.
Adjourn: 9:45 p.m.
Kay JqyiaVSecretary
��d
% r X X j X a A 0 j 6 V w E 0 1 r 3 P X j A 1 % , . X Z 4 1 P X E X a X )
1 4 0 0 [ D I V I S I O N S T P L A I N F I E L O , I L 6 0 5 4 4
P H O N E S I S - 4 3 6 . 7 0 9 3
W o u l d e v e r y o n e a t t e n d i n g t h i s P l a n C o m m i s s i o n m e e t i n g
p l e a s e s i g n t h i s s h e e t f o r o u r o f f i c i a l r e c o r d s .
1 4 A t ' ! : . '
J ( i ,
A D D R E S S
( E / ( : ) ��_
4
P ��,
b u
C / 4 , 5 7
7 z _ 1
R E G U L A R C O U N C I L M E E T I N G S F I R S T A N D T H I R D M O N D A Y E V E N I N G S O F E A C H M O N T H
Would everyone attending this
Plan
Commission meeting
please sign this sheet for our
official
records.
N A-MIL
ADDRESS
n
4v
_V k
r.
-A . .....
3
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS FIRST AND THIRD MONDAY EVENINGS OF EACH MONTH