Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2010-08-17 PC minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION RECORD OF MINUTES DATE: August 17, 2010 Vice Chairman Renzi called the meeting of the Plan Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. and led the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners O’Rourke, Sanders, Kiefer, Heinen and Vice-Chairman Renzi; Fire District Absent: Chairman Sobkoviak; School, Park and Library Districts Also Present: Jonathan Proulx, Planner; Merrilee Trotz, Secretary Approval of Minutes: The June 15, 2010 minutes were accepted as presented. DEVELOPMENT REPORT Mr. Proulx indicated there was no development report. NEW BUSINESS: Case No. 1517-070710.SU/SPR SHELL STATION Planner Proulx stated this case requires a public hearing and the public notices have been posted and published in accordance with st ate statute and local ordinance and was carried forward from the previous meeting at which there was no quorum. The app licant is proposi ng to redevelop the site with a Shell gas station, it was previously a Marathon and prior to that a Clark station. It is located on approximately 1 ac re at the northwest corner of Route 30 and McClellan Street. The request is for a special use for a Planned Deve lopment to allow for some flexibility in some development standards. For the Planned De velopment there are two findings of fact: a) The Special Use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate area for the purposes already permitted, no substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood; and b) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvements of the adjacent properties for uses permitted in the subject zoning district. Staff does not foresee any negative impact on the surroundi ng parcels as this was previously a gas station. The site is surrounded on three sides by commercial prope rty. The proposed redevelopment of this site is consistent with the Village’s long term goals of revitalizing the Route 30 corridor. Michael P. Collins VILLAGE PRESIDENT Michelle Gibas VILLAGE CLERK TRUSTEES Margie Bonuchi Paul Fay Larry Kachel Bill Lamb Garrett M. Peck James Racich Plan Commission Minutes August 17, 2010 Page 2 of 8 Page #2 of 8 Regarding the site plan review, the specific proposal is to construct a convenience store of approximately 2,400 square feet along with a service station that will contain 8 gasoline pumps under a new canopy. Access would come from Route 30 and the applican t is proposing to consolidate two existing access points into one and to maintain an additional access point from McClellan Avenue. Staff notes that the consolidation of access points on Route 30 would be a significant benefit to clean up the curb cuts and safety and mobility along Route 30. One item for relief under the Planned Development woul d be the parking requirement. The zoning code calls for eight parking spaces, the applicant is propo sing five spaces. Staff feels the parking would be sufficient. With regard to the setbacks, the bu ilding meets the front and side required setbacks. They are asking for relief of the rear setback from 30 feet to 5 feet. Th e site is contiguous with a parking lot from Rod Baker Ford. There is extensive unoccupied space in the rear. Staff is comfortable with the proposed setback. The nearest residence is approximately 200 feet from the rear property line. The building is proposed to be constructed of utility brick and cast stone on all four sides. The front elevation incorporates some double pane windows and an awning to provide visual articulation. The columns that will support the canopy will be the same utility brick used for the convenience store and the canopy will incorporate the Shell’s corporate co lors, a yellow band with red lettering. The applicant has provided a land scape plan which incorporates a two foot berm on Route 30 with a certain ratio of plantings. The applicant has submitted a photometric plan. St aff welcomes discussion with the applicant on some alternative that might allow for lowering of the overall light intensity. It is staff’s recommendation that the required findi ngs can be met for the Planned Development and taking into account the recommendations that have been id entified we file the site plan is consistent with the Site Plan Review Ordinance. We w ould be seeking a favorable recommendation. Vice Chairman Renzi sworn in Eric Eriksson, architect for this project. Mr. Eriksson indicated they have submitted an updated corrected landscape plan. Mr. Er iksson believed that is why Mr. Garrigan removed the stipulation from the recommendation in the staff report. They added a tree and increased the landscaping on the northwest side on the side yard. They are putting in LED lighting on all the outdoor lighting on the building and canopy. Led lighting gives lower numbers than foot candles but it is more effective light where it is aimed. They have flush lenses rather than dropping down below the canopy. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if it was possible to reduce the foot candles under the canopy. Mr. Eriksson stated 29 under the canopy is not cons idered a high number, it is in mid-range. Mr. Proulx stated in comparison this is lower lighting th an a few gas stations that have been considered in the past. Our lighting ordinance is minimizing light spill at the property line. We currently do not have an ordinance for the maximum. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if they were over in th e rear of building as well. Mr. Proulx said Staff thought the light spill at the property line could be remedied. Plan Commission Minutes August 17, 2010 Page 3 of 8 Page #3 of 8 Mr. Eriksson said they exceed 0.05 is incredibly low light at the property line. Along a major road like Route 30, you want lighting from the street lights to light the road. The street lights are going to far exceed what we have at the property line. Vice Chairman Renzi indicated the two car dealerships have to have good lighting too. Mr. Eriksson stated we are looking at the back and the few areas i ndicated could be brought back to staff. Under the canopy if the 29 foot candles is the result of that be ing focused on the pumps, it will be focused lighting. Mr. Eriksson said there is a pole light at the drive on McClellan and one other by the second drive. If you want we can reduce some of the lighting on the back side. Commissioner Heinen said the .05 maximum is a very stringent requirement. Mr. Proulx indicated this is a typo in the zoning code; it should be 0.5 which is still a low number. Commissioner Heinen said based on his experience he has seen it range from .2 to .5. If you look at the photometric plan on the back of the building you are not even close to the requirement. Mr. Eriksson said they can adjust the lighting at the re ar of the building. Vice Chairman Renzi asked the applicant to work with staff. Commissioner Sanders asked if there was lighting on th e rear of Rod Baker parking lot. Mr. Proulx was not familiar with the parking lot lighting. Commissioner Heinen asked in the applicant’s opinion what was normal lighting for a gas station. Mr. Eriksson stated if gas stations are left unchallenged th ey hit 40 – 60 foot candles. They try to keep it down and put it where they need the light. With th e nearest house 200 feet away, the residence will not see the light as LED is very focused. The light should not be challenging to the commercial properties. Vice Chairman Renzi asked the location of the pumps to the convenience store a nd the residents to the north. Any bouncing light will hit the convenience stor e. Mr. Eriksson said they put the convenience store between the bulk of the housing and the pumps. Commissioner Kiefer asked about the parking requirement s. Mr. Eriksson stated most towns consider the fact that people pull up, buy gas, a nd walk in to buy something or pay for their gas and walk back out so in essence the eight pumps provide us with 8 add itional parking spaces. Some people will pull up after pumping their gas and park in one of the five but most leave their car at the pump. Commissioner Heinen asked with regard to the setbacks – is the front 5 feet. Mr. Proulx said the front is 30 feet and the proposed site plan meets that re quirement. Commissioner Heinen asked if there was a landscape setback. Mr. Proulx said typi cally we would look for 20 foot landscape strip. Commissioner Heinen stated with regard to the required 30 foot set back in the back, the applicant proposed 5 feet. Mr. Eriksson said this is a common size site for a gas st ation. Mr. Eriksson said for the flow of the gas station, you want movement around the canopy and the pumps and that pushes the building to the back of the site. Since they are facing another parking lot a nd a vast distance to the nearest house, the applicant felt this did not call for a huge buffer. Commissioner O’Rourke asked how many pumps. Mr. Eriksson explained there are four islands with a pump on each side making eight pumps. Then there are pillars at the sides holding up the canopy. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there was discussi on to add a fence to the perimeter. Mr. Proulx indicated the code would dictate if this site were im mediately adjacent to a residential property then there Plan Commission Minutes August 17, 2010 Page 4 of 8 Page #4 of 8 would be a 10 foot buffering requirements which could be met with either landscaping or fencing or a combination. In this case where it is a commercial u se abutting a commercial use or at least a parking lot that requirement is not in play. Staff would defer to the commission as to what you feel is the most aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Eriksson said there is a fence on our property. The applicant presented samples of the bricks that are to be used in the construction of the building. Commissioner Heinen stated a grading plan was not su bmitted. Commissioner Heinen visited the site and stated the existing grade appears to fall from the ex isting parking lot of the gas station down to the dealership parking lot. It looks like the applicant is planning to drain towards Route 30 so the building is going to be sitting high. Mr. Eriksson said there is approximately 18-24 inches drop. Mr. Eriksson explained there is existing stone work and they intention of continuation of the stone work. The applicant proposes to let the five foot area continue to drain as it does. There will be no sidewalk in the rear – it is all landscaping. Mr. Eriksson indicated the lighting of the rear of the building is for security. Vice Chairman Renzi asked about the color on the canop y. Mr. Eriksson stated the applicant prefers the standard Shell station colors. Commissioner Sanders asked if it was a yellow ba nd back lit all the way around the canopy. Mr. Eriksson described the yellow is painted solid around the canopy, the canopy is about 30 inches in height, fifteen foot clear to the underside of the canopy for minimal for truck clearance. We have the accent lighting that comes from the red band that goes around the yellow. That is the classic Shell approach. There will be two Shell signs on the canopy. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if we were approving si gnage at this time. Mr. Proulx said signage is not considered part of the site plan review. The only s ituation we would review is if they were asking for relief. Commissioner Sanders said this is architectural. Vice Chairman Renzi stated he understands that there will be basically a banner of light that is red and will go around the painted yellow canopy. Mr. Erikss on said on three sides only primarily facing Route 30. Mr. Proulx stated this would be allowed or at l east addressed in the zoning code. Staff would submit that that is part of your purview for site plan cons ideration. The banding is fair game for discussion. Vice Chairman Renzi said if we say okay to go ahead with the red banding, then Staff would look into the effect of the lighting such as the foot candles etc. Commissioner Sanders asked if Shell ever used a neutra l color that compliments the texture soft colors of the brick and the stone with a paint color that woul d allow for the red and yellow to be minimized on the canopy. Mr. Eriksson said not that he knew of, She ll is rather particular in their color standards. Commissioner Kiefer indicated he did not have a proble m with a Shell station looking like a Shell station. We have a Shell station in town with the Shell colors and it looks okay. Commissioner O’Rourke asked how many Shells have the illumination. He does not have trouble with it looking like a Shell station but was concerned about the lighting. Plan Commission Minutes August 17, 2010 Page 5 of 8 Page #5 of 8 Vice Chairman Renzi sworn in Mir Khan, owner of the property. Mr. Khan said the one at 119 th is illuminated. It is not a rotating light. Commissioner Heinen said he lives near th e Shell and has not noticed the light. Vice Chairman Renzi said normally for Planned Deve lopments we are generally getting something in return. Mr. Proulx indicated consolidating the access point s is a benefit. With the relief we are granting, Staff’s opinion is we are comfortable with the parkin g relief; granted the setback relief is significant on a statistical basis going from thirty feet to five feet but we feel there are not significant impacts. Staff feels that the relief that is being requested is not over a nd above either so we there is a relative balance. Commissioner Sanders asked if the additional landscapi ng would be considered into this. Mr. Proulx said yes. Vice Chairman Renzi opened the meeting for public comments. Vice Chairman Renzi sworn in Don Ardaugh, 23162 W. Lincoln Highway. Mr. Ardaugh asked if there was going to be a berm on McClellan; will you keep the present entrance on McClellan the same size as it is. Mr. Eriksson said it is basically the same just slightly moved over. There is a pole light there and we are going to keep the pole light. What you are used to now is kind of what you are going to get lighting wise. Mr. Ardaugh was given a copy of the landscaping pl an. He said the landscaping would slow down the traffic into and out of the site on McClellan. He said w ith the last tenants there was a lot of trash blowing. He asked about the location of the pumps. Mr. Eriksson explained the pumps are generally in the sa me location but they are tu rned opposite to what they are now. Mr. Ardaugh asked if the pumps would have constant music. Mr. Khan said they do not have any sound outside the building. Mr. Khan said their newest st ation was finished 3 months ago located at 659 S. Washington in Naperville and they do not have any sound outside. Mr. Khan said they are use to working in these types of neighborhoods and the keep it low. Commissioner Heinen indicated they might want to take into account the light at the edge of the property. Mr. Ardaugh said the existing light pole has not been a problem. No one else approached the microphone. Public comments were closed. Vice Chairman Renzi stated there are two issues specia l use and site plan. There did not seem to be any problems with this being a gas station. Commissioner Heinen asked if they needed to pr ovide any stormwater management. Mr. Proulx said final engineering is deferred to until after Plan Co mmission. Commissioner Heinen said this drains to IDOT essentially. Plan Commission Minutes August 17, 2010 Page 6 of 8 Page #6 of 8 Mr. Eriksson stated he investigated this and spoke wi th Baxter and Woodman. A site this small is below the threshold for any detention design and the grading is similar to what it is currently. There is a catch basin at the intersection and we would simply maintain this. Commissioner Heinen said in working with IDOT you need to adhere to the existing flows of this development as you are adding quite a bit of impervious area. Right now that back end is pervious and drains to the north so be careful about that, you w ill need an IDOT permit for the connection. You may need some detention so that you are exceed ing existing flows to the IDOT right-of-way. Mr. Eriksson said they have been in contact with ID OT and IDOT had sent their drawings showing what their plans are. From an engineering point of view we do not intend to change anything as far as where the water goes. If anything we have made it better fo r them with the removal of the one curb cut. Commissioner Heinen said he was confident that IDOT and Baxter and Woodman would review the drainage and make sure we are not impacting any downstream properties. Commissioner O’Rourke asking about the landscaping re port. Mr. Proulx stated it was his understanding the applicant submitted a new landscape plan. Th is will be confirmed with Mr. Garrigan. Commissioner O’Rourke asked about the site lines and saf ety issue with the signage. It was mentioned in the site plan that the new sign will be closer to the st reet and taller. Maybe the curb line comes closer to Rt. 30 when the widening takes place. Mr. Eriksson i ndicated the signed may have to be moved when the road is widened. Commissioner Kiefer made a motion that the Pl an Commission recommends approval of the Special Use subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Seconded by Commissioner Heinen. Vote by Roll Call: Commissioner Sanders , yes; Commissioner O’Rourke, yes; Commissioner Heinen, yes; Commissioner Kiefer, yes; Vice Chairman Renzi, yes. 5 yes, 0 no. 1 absent. Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. Commissioner Sanders made a motion that the Pl an Commission recommends approval of the Site Plan Review subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Seconded by Commissioner Heinen. Vote by Roll Call: Commissioner O’Rour ke, yes; Commissioner Heinen, yes; Commissioner Kiefer, yes; Commissioner Sanders, ye s; Vice Chairman Renzi, yes. 5 yes, 0 no. 1 absent. Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. Plan Commission Minutes August 17, 2010 Page 7 of 8 Page #7 of 8 Case No. 1518-070810.SU/SPR BARTEL’S AUTO CLINIC Mr. Proulx stated this case requires a public hear ing and the public notices have been posted and published in accordance with state statute and local ordinance and was carried forward from the previous meeting at which there was no quorum. The proposed project is to be located on a 1.0 acre site within the Prairie Creek developmen t south of Meijer development and north of Chicago Bridge and Iron. The adjacent property us es are B-3 to the nort h, I-1 to the south and R-1 to the west and east. The subject’s site will have one access point located on a north-south drive-aisle that will be constructed by the deve loper of the Prairie Creek development. The proposed access point will be a full access poin t and there will be two way circulation around the whole site. If this project is approved the petitioner would inte nd to return and request to subdivide this specific lot. For the Planned Development there are two findings of fact: a) The Special Use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate area for the purposes already permitted, no substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood; and b) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvements of the adjacent properties for uses permitted in the subject zoning district. Staff feels the auto repair and service use is appropria te and consistent with th e zoning; it is compatible with the other auto uses in the ar ea; and this usage would not lead to any negative impact on surrounding properties. The applicant proposed to develop a 5,100 square foot auto clinic with eight service bays, four on each side. The building would be oriented with the pr imary entrance facing Rt. 59 while the bay doors would face north and south. The site plan currently proposes one access point from the shared drive. The Fire Protection District would request a second access which could be accomplishe d by extending the drive aisle that crosses in front of the Meijer store to the south which would re quire removal of a minimum of four parking spaces. There is sufficient parking with 24 parking spaces being required and 40 spaces proposed. The proposed structure is a mid-century retro style that will be constructed with pre-cast concrete panels. The western elevation facing Route 59 will incorporate a series of windows and the front entrance. This would also include an aluminum canopy and a pre-case monument tower which would include the signage for the building. Staff would request that th e bay doors be adjusted to reflect the motif of the design and would be seeking an aluminum canopy above the bay-doors to provide some additional interest. The west elevation has a maroon background that Staff proposes could be replaced or eliminated to soften the visual impact. Staff proposes the teal colored downspouts be replaced with a more neutral color. There are a few minor suggestions in the staff report i.e. additional shrubbery or hedges along the west elevations to provide some screening for the parking and a two foot berm along Rt. 59 in lieu of a 20 foot landscape buffer. A photometric was not submitted but would need to be submitted prior to going to the Plan Commission Minutes August 17, 2010 Page 8 of 8 Page #8 of 8 Village Board. Staff would be seeking additional info rmation for the location and materials to be used for the construction of the trash enclosure. Staff is recommending a sidewalk along Rt. 59. Staff feels the special use can be readily supported; that there are no negative impacts that would prevent the Plan Commission or Village Board to recommend appr oval. In relative to the site plan review, Staff feels the proposed project meets the requirements of site plan review with the handful of recommendations that have been identified. Staff w as contacted by the applicant tonight indicating he was unable to attend the meeting. Vice Chairman Renzi asked if the applicant was okay with the stipulations. Mr. Proulx expressed some comments indicated the color i ssues were readily addressed. Commissioner Kiefer stated he had hoped the photom etric, trash, and landscape plans would have come in during the past two weeks. He could support the special use. Commissioners Kiefer and Sanders agreed they could support the special use but felt a need to continue the meeting with regard to the site plan. Commissioner Heinen said his biggest concern was th e landscape buffer and the setbacks. He compared these with others in Meijer and Menards subdivisions. Vice Chairman Renzi stated with the extra parking spaces what was th e planned use of the building. Were they looking for storage of vehicles? Mr. Pr oulx indicated there is a time limit for how long a vehicle can be parked. Mr. Renzi said it would be nice to get some development in this area. Commissioner O’Rourke suggested it be continued. He was also concerned with the tower; and the cross access that the Fire Department preferred. Commissioner Sanders made a motion to continue Case No. 1518-070810/SU/SPR to the September 7 th meeting of the Plan Commission. Commissioner O’Rourke seconded the motion. Vote by Roll Call: Commissioner Kiefer, yes; Commissioner Heinen, yes; Commissioner O’Rourke, yes; Commissioner Sanders, yes; Vi ce Chairman Renzi, yes. 5 yes, 0 no. 1 absent. Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. DISCUSSION: None Adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted by _________________________ Merrilee Trotz Recording Secretary