Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2012-09-18 PC minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION RECORD OF MINUTES DATE: September 18, 2012 Chairman Sobkoviak called the Plan Commission meeti ng to order at 7:05 p.m. and led the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL Commissioners Seggebruch, O’Rourke, Kiefer, Fulco a nd Chairman Sobkoviak and the Fire District were present. Commissioner Heinen was absent. The Par k, School, and Library Districts were absent. Commissioner Renzi arrived at 7:07 p.m. Also present were Michael Garrigan, Village Planner , Jonathon Proulx, Planner II, and Merrilee Trotz, Recording Secretary Approval of Minutes: The Plan Commission minutes from September 4, 2012 were accepted as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There was no response. DEVELOPMENT REPORT Mr. Garrigan indicated the Village Board directed t he Village Attorney to draft ordinances for the Spe cial Use for the Easter Seals group home on Apple Tree L ane and for the annexation of the Osborn property on 135 th Street. OLD BUSINESS: Case No. 1586-070112.AA/Z/SPR Collins Property Mr. Proulx stated this is a public hearing continue d from the September 4 th meeting and the appropriate public notices were published and posted in accorda nce with state statute and local ordinances. Mr. Proulx indicated the two requests this evening are a request for annexation of a 32 acre parcel locate d in the southwest corner of I-55 and Renwick Road and t he request for rezoning from what would become the default R-1 zoning upon annexation to Village o f Plainfield I-1 zoning. The applicant has withdra wn the application for site plan approval which would have permitted the construction of a new access roa d extending eastward and then north along the ComEd R OW. Mr. Proulx reiterated the findings that were found at the September 4 th meeting. Staff believes annexation of the parcel would be a logical extension of the village’s municipal boundaries; the property is within our Facility Planning Area and within th e village’s Comprehensive Planning Area; this is a va luable parcel and there would be an advantage to bring this into the village’s corporate boundaries at this time. Mr. Proulx indicated there was extension discussion and comments from adjacent property owners and residents at the September 4 th public hearing; staff reviewed the minutes and not es and feels the majority of those comments were related to the access connec tion. The applicant provided additional informatio n to support their request. Michael P. Collins VILLAGE PRESIDENT Michelle Gibas VILLAGE CLERK TRUSTEES Margie Bonuchi Paul Fay Bill Lamb Garrett M. Peck James Racich Dan Rippy Plan Commission Minutes September 18, 2012 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Proulx stated Staff feels the information in th e record is sufficient to support the findings in f avor of the annexation and the rezoning at this time. Pend ing any additional input during the continued publi c hearing or prior to discussion by the Plan Commissi on Staff is in a position to submit a favorable recommendation. Chairman Sobkoviak informed Michael J. Martin, atto rney for the applicant, Joe Hammer, engineer from Ruettiger and Tonelli, and Pat Collins, owner, that they remain under oath from the previous meeting. Mr. Martin explained that by removing the site plan for the new access may have satisfied most of the adjoining landowners concerns; if this property rem ained in Will County the applicant would not need site plan approval. Commissioner Seggebruch asked if there were going t o be improvements to the existing access. Mr. Martin replied they have forwarded their request to the Will County Highway Dept. as this access would be under Will County jurisdiction. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Steve Mackiewicz, owner of the excluded lot. Mr. Mackiewicz stated he received a copy of a letter from Will County indica ting a violation of running a truck terminal on the property under I-2 zoning and must apply for a spec ial use permit or rezoning to come into compliance within 14 days from the date of the letter. Mr. Ma ckiewicz did not understand how the applicant could ask for annexation with the existing use as the exi sting use was not permitted with Will County. Mr. Martin explained the history this property has with the county; they could contest, go to hearing and go to court; they could agree with the county’s com plaints and file a special use permit, hold the pub lic hearings and go through the long, expensive and bur densome process and compromise the uses on the property; annex to the Village of Plainfield and ti tle the property. Mr. Martin advised his client to annex into the Village as this would enhance the market v alue of the property, brings the property into the Village, gets rid of the County which has a history of filing a lawsuit over the floodplain and then 5 years later after the lawsuit is resolved citing them aga in for the same violation; the county is bringing back use issues when the county has twice dropped the proper ty from the county zoning map and made the applicant reapply for the zoning; the county issued building permits for the caretaker residence and n ow is citing the applicant again for the caretaker reside nce and container storage (which was a permitted us e 10 years ago under the county zoning ordinance.) Mr. Martin indicated trucks have been parked on this si te since the early 1980’s, it was a permitted use when it was started; the county has evolved their ordin ances and are now citing the applicant for a permitted us e that has been ongoing since the early 80’s does n ot change the position that the applicant has to get a special use permit. Mr. Martin said they want to annex into the village and enter into a contract for the permitted uses. Mr. Mackiewicz presented some pictures of a truck t urning into the site and a copy of the letter from Will County (said pictures and letter have been added to the case file.) Chairman Sobkoviak mentioned the applicant proposes to make improvements to the access from Renwick Road. Commissioner Renzi asked if this improvement could be made part of the annexation agreement. Mr. Proulx indicated there have been improvements tied to annexation agreements. Commissioner Kiefer suggested any stipulation would be contingent upon county’s approval. Plan Commission Minutes September 18, 2012 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Mackiewicz thought the reason for the access dr ive was because not enough could be done with the existing access. Chairman Sobkoviak indicated the applicant dropped the site plan with the new access due to the objections. Commissioner O’Rourke thought the coun ty wanted the applicant to close the existing acces s. There were no other public comments. Commissioner Renzi asked if the caretaker residence is the guard shack that is rented and if this was allowed under the village’s I-1 zoning. Mr. Martin said yes the guard shack is rented and the caretak er lives on site. Mr. Proulx indicated this would be included in the annexation agreement. Discussion was held as to whether a truck terminal is operated on the premises. Mr. Martin explained a truck terminal is a place where there is usually a storage facility for trucks to unload, reload, park overnight and there could be stacking of containers constituting a more intense usage than just parkin g trucks overnight or for a day or two. Discussion was held regarding the storage container s and the difference between the county zoning of I -2 and the village zoning of I-1. Mr. Martin indicate d the storage containers are rented to other indivi duals and are not used by the trucks; the county has indi cated now that storage containers would not be permitted under the I-2 zoning; the first storage c ontainer was placed on this property more than 10 y ears ago by a landscaper and at that time it was a permi tted use under the ordinance. Commissioner Renzi asked if the storage containers would be automatica lly acceptable or would we be grandfathering the us e in if we allow them with the I-1 zoning. Mr. Prou lx indicated the annexation agreement would stipula te specifically that this list of uses is permitted. Mr. Proulx reviewed the permitted uses under the vi llage’s I-1 zoning as permitting vehicle parking, and conta ined storage. Mr. Proulx reiterated the Plan Commission is consid ering annexation, whether this parcel is a logical extension to the village boundaries; and whether th e I-1 zoning is the most suitable, if the findings can be demonstrated for any I-1 use in the zoning code; th e Plan Commission is not being asked to take up leg al non-conformities as these will be addressed in the annexation agreement. Commissioner Seggebruch mentioned this case is some what similar to a previous case for I-1 zoning but with a special use and asked if this case could be handled in a similar manner whereas the special use would essentially cover the uses, write in the care taker residence, but defining that what is there no w would be the most intense use that could ever be th ere. They cannot intensify the use under I-1 once it is annexed beyond what is there now. If the property sells we are hoping it would be something different than it is now. Further discussion was held with regard to the curr ent use, possibility of current use being extended by the annexation agreement; possibility of re-develop ment of the site; and if there was an existing annexation agreement; and if a variance was needed to allow the on-site residence. Chairman Sobkoviak explained the village has annexe d other properties that have non-conforming uses; often when the property changes hands the annexatio n agreement could require that the non-conforming uses be eliminated; the Village Board will broker t he terms in the annexation agreement. Staff sugges ted the focus of the Commission is whether I-1 zoning i s the appropriate zoning. Mr. Martin indicated zon ing law is different from contract law and the annexati on agreement is a contract. Plan Commission Minutes September 18, 2012 Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Renzi made a motion to recommend appro val of the requested annexation by annexation agreement of the property commonly known as the Col lins parcel at 22419 W Renwick Road as a logical extension of the Village’s municipal boundary. Commissioner Kiefer seconded the motion. Vote by r oll call: Seggebruch, yes; O’Rourke, no; Fulco, yes; Kiefer, yes; Renzi, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. Moti on carried 5-1. Commissioner Kiefer made a motion to adopt the find ings of fact of staff as the findings of fact of th e Plan Commission and, furthermore, move to recommend approval of the requested map amendment/re-zoning of the subject parcel from R-1 to I-1. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Commissioner Renzi asked a point of order question that to maintain the current business operations based on these discussions that an affirmative vote would not simply grandfather in everything but it would still be subject to either approval in the an nexation agreement or them having to come back for a special use permit. Mr. Proulx agreed that was cor rect. Vote by roll call: O’Rourke, no; Seggebruch, yes; F ulco, yes; Renzi, yes; Kiefer, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried 5-1. NEW BUSINESS: Case No. 1595-091112.SPR V & E Properties (Dent al office) Mr. Garrigan stated this is a request for site plan approval of a 6,100 square foot medical office bui lding on Lot 5 in the Meijer Subdivision located east of Route 59 and south of 135 th Street. Mr. Garrigan summarized the staff report stating the site is loc ated within the Planned Unit Development for the Me ijer Subdivision and this building must incorporate a un ified design with the overall project; described th e cross-access points, and indicated there is no sepa rate access from Route 59 to this site. Mr. Garrig an described the proposed 56 parking spaces including 2 handicapped spaces which is in excess of the 31 required spaces and described the drive aisles indi cating that both the parking and drive aisles meet the requirements of the Village. Mr. Garrigan suggest ed the applicant provide 2 additional landscape isl ands to meet the requirements of the Village. Mr. Garr igan reviewed the elevations and indicated the applicant proposes to construct a building with a p redominance of face brick on all four elevations an d described how the hip roof will match the hip roof colors on the Meijer building. Mr. Garrigan reviewed the landscape plan and indica ted additional shrubs would be required and staff i s requesting the planting of a shrub hedge along the northern and southern perimeter of the subject site ; reviewed the photometric plan and indicated it meet s with the Village’s minimum requirements and the fixtures will incorporate the same color as the oth er fixtures within the Meijer’s Planned Development ; stated Staff is asking that all meters within this structure be fully concealed or be painted an earth tone color to blend into the face of the elevations and be 100% screened with landscaping; stated the appli cant has submitted a trash enclosure plan and Staff is a sking for clarification that the trash enclosure wi ll match the existing building. Mr. Garrigan indicated the applicant’s site plan ge nerally meets the requirements and Staff recommends a favorable recommendation with the additional stipul ations as noted in the staff report. Plan Commission Minutes September 18, 2012 Page 5 of 6 Chairman Sobkoviak sworn in Brett Karson, architect for the project. Mr. Karson indicated they have n o problem with the additional requests for landscapin g; described how the utility meters would be mounte d on the wall of the building, painted to match the b rick color; described the trash enclosure; and indi cated they will give up some parking spaces to provide th e extra islands. Chairman Sobkoviak asked for any public comments. No one approached the microphone. Commissioner Renzi asked the applicant if they were in agreement of the request for the variety of sha de trees in lieu of the 2 foot berm. Mr. Karson agree d they would add the shade trees. Commissioner Seggebruch indicated that the staff re port should be corrected to show 4 handicap spaces; indicated the engineer and architect need to agree with each other and correct the plans. Commissione r Seggebruch indicated some of the entrances do not m atch on the plans. Mr. Karson indicated they are working out of two separate offices and the enginee r has not had an opportunity to catch up on the additional entrance. Discussion was held regarding the service entrance and the public entrance; possible location of the handicap parking spaces; sidewalk widths; curb ramp s. Commissioner Seggebruch presented a portion of the 2003 ANSI A117.1 standards. Commissioner Segg ebruch asked about the handicap parking space and whether it was to be van accessible. Commissioner Seggebruch stated for a side flare cur b ramp you need a minimum of 9 feet, assuming a 6 inch curb height, you need 6 feet of ramp, 3 foot l evel ending at the top so you need 9 feet perpendic ular from the edge of pavement and you cannot do this in a 5 foot apron; another option is to depress the sidewalk and ramp up each way depending on how it s its. Mr. Karson indicated they will conform to code. Chairman Sobkoviak indicated one of the standard st ipulations is compliance with the requirements of t he Village Engineer and we could add that the Village engineer review the layout of the parking lot and t he handicap ramps per Commissioner Seggebruch’s commen ts. Commissioner Renzi asked if this handicap ramp chan ge impact the additional landscape requirements. Mr. Karson did not think the handicap ramp would ha ve any effect; they would reduce the number of 56 parking spaces to make room as needed. Commissioner Kiefer asked if the landscape plan alo ng the eastern elevation would cause any safety issues, plants go in small but grow and it becomes an issue of reducing the sight lines. Mr. Garrigan indicated they would work with the applicant. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there would be light ing on the building elevations. Mr. Karson indicated the lighting would be on the underside of the canopies; there would be down lighting at the areas of the building entries and along the window wells, there would be recessed can light (probably LED type or CFL) and security lighting for the rear access doors as mandated by code. Commissioner O’Rourke asked about the signage shown . Mr. Karson indicated signage would be a separate permit application. Plan Commission Minutes September 18, 2012 Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Renzi made a motion to recommend appro val of the Site Plan for Dental Care Center located at Lot 5 subject to the following stipulati ons: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer and that the Village engineer review the layout of the parking lot and the handicap ramps pe r Commissioner Seggebruch’s comments. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfi eld Fire Protection District. 3. That the applicant submit a revised landscape p lan as per the comments of staff. 4. That the applicant identify how any exterior me ters on the elevations will be concealed as per the comments of staff. 5. That any trash enclosure be constructed with fa ce brick consistent with the elevations of the buil ding. Commissioner O’Rourke seconded the motion. Vote by roll call: Kiefer, yes; Fulco, yes; Seggeb ruch, yes; O’Rourke, yes; Renzi, yes; Sobkoviak, ye s. Motion carried 6-0. DISCUSSION Some discussion was held regarding the annexation c ases the Commission had seen recently. Commissioners Fulco and Kiefer commended Jonathon P roulx on his work on the River Days and the Brew Fest. Adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted by _________________________ Merrilee Trotz Recording Secretary