Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-20-2000 Public Hearing (2)Plainfield Village Board of Trustees March 20, 2000 9 PLAINFIELD VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 20, 2000 AT: VILLAGE HALL BOARD PRESENT: R. ROCK, R. SMOLICH, J. CHERRY, M. COLLINS, S. RATHBUN. TRUSTEE O'CONNELL AND CALABRESE WERE ABSENT. OTHERS PRESENT: D. BENNETT, CHIEF OF POLICE T. L. BURGHARD, ADMINISTRATOR J. REGIS, ENGINEER S. JANIK, CLERK C. MINICK, FINANCE DIRECTOR J. DURBIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT J. HARVEY, ATTORNEY A. PERSONS, PUBLIC WORKS L. VAUPEL, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT J. TESTIN, VILLAGE PLANNER PULTE. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. Planner Testin stated that the subject site is located at the northwest and southwest corners of 127th Street and Route 59. The applicant has requested annexation, special use permit for a Planned Unit Development, preliminary plat approval, and site plan review of the townhomes. The property consists of 189.32 acres. The applicant has proposed single family, townhome, and commercial area on the plan. The site is located in the Estate district in the Comprehensive Plan, which suggests residential zoning in the range of 1.11 to 1.75 dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot size proposed is 9,200 square feet and the proposed density is 2.41 DU/Acre. The applicant proposes the following variances from Village Code: Side yard setbacks of 7 feet, total of 15 feet; Minimum lot sizes of 9,200 square feet; ROWs of 60 feet; Pavement widths of 28 feet; and 25 foot front yard setbacks for the townhomes. Staff does not support the current annexation agreement which includes the variances identified above, locks in-sewer fees, guarantees capacity, allows the developer to make plat modifications, and does not allow for the completion of Van Dyke in the short term. Staff recommends approval of the zoning but does not support the plat or the site plan due to concerns outlined in their staff report and ask that the case be remanded back to the Plan Commission to allow for modifications. A letter from Riviera Estates Homeowners Association dated March 15, 2000 from Mr. Paul J. Seiler; President of the Association has been entered into the record and made a part hereof. _The letter represents 25 owners of parcels of property in Riviera Estates who have concerns regarding the proposal by the Pulte Company regarding street traffic and the value of the homes they will be building. Plainfield Village Board of Trustees March 20, 2000 10 Trustee Cherry discussed the small lot sizes and questioned why they were that size if they are in the Estate district in the Comprehensive Plan. Trustee Smolich who was part of the discussion with the Concept Committee and he told the developers at that time and he made it clear that there was nothing in the proposal that he could support. Trustee Rathbun would not find this acceptable, the property is in the Estate area, and he will only support 12,000 sq. ft. lots. Mr. Jack Weber, Pulte Home Corporation talked about their Concept plans and various changes: the additional full access off Rt. 59 through the commercial area to the townhomes; additional overflow parking in the landscape pods through the townhome community; an increase in the landscape buffer by Riviera Estates Lot 15; added detail in the recreation area and he also described their provisions for anti-monotony. They increased their lot sizes throughout the development, they now have a minimum average of 10,200 sq. ft. The right-of-ways are proposed to be 60 ft. in width. Open space has been increased fi.om 39.19 acres in the concept plan to 46.85 acres, which includes park space and stormwater facilities. This represents 28.4% of the residential area. We have three different product series; neighborhood 1 & 4 has an anticipated sales price of $200,000 plus; we also have in neighborhood 2 & 3 a little larger product and we anticipate sales prices there to be about $240-$250,000. Our townhome component will have an anticipated sales price to be about $170,000. Attorney Richard Selfridge who represents Pulte addressed the issue regarding the fact that this property did not add anything unique to the Village. Two letters, one written by Director Waldock and one by President John Peterson were presented to the Board and made a part of the record in which both talk about the value these properties bring to the Village. Mr. Selfridge requested that they be given 24 months for improving Van Dyke Road. Administrator Burghard stated that they would not be willing to wait 24 months. Staff has requested that Van Dyke be completed as part of the first unit regardless of location. Another issued raised was ROW width on Van Dyke Road at 50' and that is something that is realistic. One concern in getting the project up and running is the ability to get in the ground early with foundations before the final plat/final engineering is in place. We had suggested that upon submittal of our final plat that we be given the opportunity to place foundations in those lots that would be used as models. We would be prepared that once we have mass grading approved and submittal of final plat then they could selectively choose several lots for the models to get foundation permits on. We would be willing to specify and identify a handful of lots for foundations to place models on. The commercial component is important both for Plainfield and to make this project work. There were other issues of importance, but mainly that this is a PUD that we are looking at tonight. Mike Collins stated that he hopes to support the Estate District with the larger lots. With regard to Mr. Selfridge's wish list, he is not in favor of most of the items. Mayor Rock suggested that we would be able to go over the agreement at least a week or 10 days Plainfield Village Board of Trustees March 20, 2000 11 before this comes back to our desks. Trustee Smolich has no real objection to the lot sizes, but the project does not meet the Estate zoning looking at it from a density level. I need to look at this in more depth. I have concerns on the commercial development along Rt. 59. Jay Darnell, 23762 Douglas Drive, talked about the density at the Ponds Development, which is also an Estate District. The Ponds has a density of 2.1 and we looked at it as a whole sector. The Mary Kelley property was also in that same sector and it has a lot of floodway, which is unbuildable land, so the Ponds got a 2.1 density which would in mm give the same thing to Mary Kelley and wouldn't impose anything on her property, and in that sector the density would be 1.7. That fits into the Estate District. Angelo built the neighborhood with pavers and also placed 18,000 sq. ft. lots. The market is there for the bigger lots, for estate style and it fits right into where are estate is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Paul Seiler, President of the Riviera Estates Homeowners Association, speaking as a representative of all of the owners of the Riviera Estate Homeowners Association. We have concerns regarding the proposal by the Pulte Company in regard to street traffic and we also have fears concerning the value of these homes, which are adjacent to ours. E. J. Hunts, resident, requested what the protocol for the density of townhome developments was? Planner Testin stated that there is no specific policy to just the townhomes. Ruth Hanson, resident, stated that the Ordinances say 12,000 sq. ft., it is not something to barter with. Dennis Link, resident, is getting tired of hearing about the Board making the lots smaller. He wants to see the lots stay large. The record states that there are no other public comments. The meeting was closed at 8:40 p.m. S(JSAN JANIK, V~LAGE CLERK