Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1986-03-18 minutesVILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION Minutes of March 18, 1986 meeting. PRESENT: Arlo Simmons, Chairman ABSENT: Walt Schempf Herb Bayer, Vice-Chairman Rich Neely Don Anderson Gene Cline, Don Pearson Ex-Officio James Anderson Avon Arbo, M. Latta, Village President Ex-Officio D. Gullicksen, Trustee Liaison Si Hjemvick, K. Callanan, Trustee Ex-Officio .Bob Russ, Ex-Officio John Meyers, James E. Sobkoviak, Ex-Officio Ex-Officio Steve Manning, Planner Sobkoviak introduc6d as newest appointee to the Plan Commission. U541101MM Minutes of March 4, 1986 meeting were not in packets and will be approved at April 1, 1986 meeting. CASE NO. 143-220862 - Baish Rezoning 605 W. Main St. Requesting A-3, Currently A Larry Kubinski representing Baish Construction Company stated about 150 feet of that property is usable as you go towards the river. Department of Waterways permit needed before Village permit. Number of units constructed would depend on when we actually get the topo taken and check with the Department of Waterways on how far back we can go. Minimum of 6 to make it feasible with the value of the land, maximum 8. They will be townhouse style similar to what we built down Main Street. Will have own entrance. The drive would be on west side so that the two drives would be adjoining each other. The front would be facing east. The drive would be to the back door or side entrance so you would have common drives. If we get kind of an indication from you that we can go with the zoning then our engineers would send information to Department of Waterways. When we hear from them that will tell me if we can go to 6, 7 or 8. SIMMONS - We're looking for some low density growth on Main Street. Decision will have to be made. Do we gradually want to go down from what we have now. Say to a two-family, come back down to residential rather than go up to an 8-unit versus 6-unit? Plan Commission March 18, 1986 Page 2 PEARSON - I'd like to see a layout of how the townhouses will look. BAYER - We have not passed on many requests without a plan as to where the building was going to be in relation to the lot, shrubbery,, floor plan, et cetera. Mr. Kubinski was asked to bring in some drawings. The Plan Commission could not make a decision without the proposed plans. This-hearing continued. to April 1 meeting. Donald Anderson left meeting. CASE NO. 146-21986 - Business Transition District Zoning Text Amendment MANNING - Business Transition District ordinance has been in hands of Plan Commission for a month now. I have put together a report on how the District has been implemented in three different towns: Hinsdale, Burr Ridge, and Naperville. I've described how it was used there and what kind of success they've had and made some conclusions on why it would be appropriate for Plainfield. The strategy that I thought would be appropriate here would be to set up the District, make it possible for different property owners to apply for it. Then as each request comes in decide if it's an appropriate location. That would be something that could be done until a plan is done showing appropriate locations. I feel the ordinance can be passed at this time. SIMMONS - We should have some discussion on where it should start and where it should end. We should also have some real input from Village Board. J. ANDERSON - only reasonable thing to do is pass the ordinance to cover ourselves. If we have the text, description of business district on record then we can apply it. SIMMONS - We can pass the ordinance but we do need a map. MANNING - I prefer a land use map instead of a policy plan. it's much more.clear and simpler to read. People understand it better. Plan Commission March 18, 1986 Page 3 BAYER.- Asked S. Manning if in his past experience with other towns that have set up Business Transition Districts has there been a huge throng of people coming in for changes. MANNING - In Hinsdale and Burr Ridge there were a lot of developers who came in once they heard of the District because they wanted.to have an office that had residential character to it, locate in a quietcentral area. Word passes quickly in the development community when they see something unique. There will be those developers who are attacted to it. The number of developments depends more on market. I think it is very important not to allow any residential uses in the Business Transition District but to make it possible by a Special Use Permit to allow a home occupation in residential districts. Residential character will be protected by standards that you can place on a home occupation such as signs. CALLANAN - I think it's important influx of people. We have plenty We should consider parking also. D. Anderson returned to meeting. we protect ourselves from an of rental space available now. MANNING - Under Section N, "Procedures" everyone would have to bring in a site plan. You would review the site plan to make sure it conforms to all standards and your approval would be for that site plan only. RUSS - More definition should be made as to what is required other than site plan. It would help expedite the process. People should know what is required. It would save the Plan Commission time. MANNING - Information required changes from case to case. Essential in every case is the site plan. J. ANDERSON motioned that we recommend the Village Board adopt the Business Transition District ordinance. PEARSON seconded. D. Anderson, aye; D. Pearson, aye; H. Bayer, aye; J. Anderson, aye; A. Simmons, aye. Motion carried. Plan Commission March 18, 1986 Page 4 CASE NO. 147-22086 - Sign Regulation Zoning Text Amendment MANNING - Last discussion on sign ordinance was to find some ways to graphically represent these standards. I've attached graphic portion of Lockport ordinance as an example. Will get together with Bob Russ to draw up some graphics to illustrate'Plainfield standards. In the att.ached.cover letter there are 13 changes that were discussed at last meeting. The ordinance can be adopted and graphic illustration can come later. Graphic illustration would not change. or add anything to the ordinance. Research revealed that maximum height in neighboring communities varied.. The height of signs should be what you feel is appropriate for Plainfield. Question was raised as to safety factor on a 'lower sign such as, 4 feet when pulling out of a ,lot t or drive, or a density situation .where they would be stacked every,30 or 40 feet. Another safety factor of a 4 foot sign is that it keeps people from looking up to read signs. MANNING -.Picking the height of signs should be a compromise between community appearance and what you think most advertisers want. If you set low standard be willing to hear a lot of requests for variations. RUSS - We should set the sign standard for the good of the community, for good aesthetic design and for what we really want this community to be. I'd like to see 4 feet. D ANDERSON motioned to recommend approval of the draft ordinance as presented with the addition of a 4 foot height limitation to ground signs. BAYER seconded. J. Anderson, nay; H. Bayer, aye; D. Pearson, aye; D. Anderson, aye; A. Simmons, aye. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS GULLICKSEN - Commented that Village Board would like some input from the Police Department on cases where traffic problems might arise (such as Avery Car Wash) in case of litigation it would be a matter of record. Meeting adjourned.