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.