HomeMy Public PortalAbout2009-02-03 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RECORD OF MINUTES AMENDED DATE : FEBRUARY 3, 2009 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the m eeting of the Plan Commission to order at 7:11 p.m. after the conclusion of the Zoning Board o f Appeals Meeting. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel, Renzi , Bonuchi, Peck, Chairman Sobkoviak ; ex -officio Commissioner Fremarek; and Plainfield Fire Protection District Absent: Commissioner s O’Rourke and Sanders , Plainfield School District , Libr ary District, Park District , and Plainfield Police Department Also Present: Mike Schwarz – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Sara Javoronok – Planner I Village of Plainfield, Carol Millan – Secr etary Village of Plainfield , and Neal Eickholtz – Baxter and Woodman Village Clerk, Michelle Gibas, swore in the new ex -officio Plan Commissioner, Richard Kiefer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the January 20 , 2009 meeting were accepted as amended. Commissioner Renzi made a correction to Page 7, Paragraph 4. The word “raised” should be changed to “razed” so the sentence reads – “……… Village will allow houses to be razed . . . .” DEVELOPMENT REPORT: Planner Schwarz summarized the outcome of the Village Board meeting on February 2, 2009. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: CASE: 1440 -123108.AA.CP HARVEST CHURCH Request: Annexation (Public Hearing) Concept Plan Location: 13013 S. Van Dyke Road Applicant: Pastor Nolan McCants, Harvest Church Plainfield, Inc. Carl Buck - Rathbun, Cservenyak & Kozol, LLC . TIME : 7:15 p.m. Planner Schwarz summarized the staff report. He stated this is a public hearing regarding a request for an annexation. Ther e also is a request for the approval of a concept plan for a proposed religious institution located on the east s ide of Van Dyke Road, approximately one -half mile north of 135 th Street. The subject property is 4.3 acres in unincorporated Will County . The site is contiguous to the Village of Plainfield on three sides. At some point, the Church will request approval of a special
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 3, 2009 Page 2 of 17 use for a religious institution, as well as the formal site plan review . A formal public hearing process will need to take place. Depending on the applicant’s timeframe for commencing construction, they may want to consider applying for that special use in the very near future, possibly with this concurrent case . The applicant is considering that option and that would mean amending the current case to come back through with the special use request, site plan review, and the single lot p lat of subdivision to create a “lot of record”. The site is designated as a greenway on the Future Lane Use Map. Staff is not sure why this particular parcel was designated as a greenway. In some of the adjacent residential subdivisions the greenways we re noted as the dedicated park sites. Staff thi nks it is probably a graphical error that it is noted as a greenway. The use that is proposed is consistent with a residential land use. The site is 4.3 acres surrounded on three sides by residential land u ses. A one -story, 12,247 sq. ft. church building is proposed. The initial proposal consists of 109 total parking spaces, of which 5 are handicap accessible. A future phase would include building and parking lot expansion. The site has generally flat topography and does not contain any mapped floodplain or mapped floodway. The subject property would be serviced with Village sewer and water. Staff believes the requested annexation is a logical extension of the Village’s municipal boundarie s . The mai n entrance for the church building would be on Van Dyke Road, facing west. The parking complies with the Village parking requirements and the Illinois Accessibility Code for handicap accessible parking spaces. Access is provided on Van Dyke Road by one f ull access point and one right -in/right -out access point. The northern access would require minor adjustments. The existing median break provides full access to the site from Van Dyke Road. Internal circulation is provided in a two -way drive aisle loca ted around the building. The Village’s Traffic Committee h as advised , and staff is requesting , a driveway connection to link the parking lot with Sheffield Lane, which was stubbed at the eastern boundary of the site. Staff believes signage, pavement mark ings, and additional design changes to the pavement, such as crosswalks in the parking lot, can preclude the potential for any unnecessary cut -through traffic. It will allow emergency access, which is strongly requested by the Fire Department. Stormwater management would be accommodated on site in two separate stormwater detention basins, one located along the south property line and one located at the northwest corner. Planner Schwarz summarized the requested revisions to the architectural site plan as noted in the staff report. The Church’s plan reflect s an interpretation of modern architecture, with a flat roof, horizontal lines. The predominant material is horizontal metal siding and glass. Accent materials would include a limestone wainscot and an aluminum storefront window frame system. The Zoning Ordinance does provide development standards for non -residential buildings, including exterior materials. The ordinance states that any exterior façade shall incorporate a predominance of high quality materials that may include, but not be limited to, brick, sandstone, native stone or glass. The applicant is proposing metal siding as the predominant material above the limestone wainscot. Those elevations would require the approval of the Village Board through the exhibits that would be attached to the Annexation Agreement. Due to the overall modern style of the building and the incorporation of limestone and glass elements, staff does not have any objections to the use of the horizont al metal siding. Planner Schwarz summarized the revisions to the building elevations as noted in the staff report. Generally, the overall landscape plan meets Village requirements. There are a few areas where the applicant has an increase in plant materials above the requ irement of the ordinance and there are a few areas where the plant material is short of the requirement. Planner Schwarz summarized the revisions to the landscape plan as noted in the staff report. The photometric lighting plan complies generally with Village requirements. The lighting is side -shielded so there is no off -site glare. The requirement of the Village is that light levels are at zero foot candle readings along the perimeter propert y lines. The plan generally reflects that. There are a fe w readings just inside the southern property line which are .01 foo t candles. Staff is requesting that the light fixture locations be a little bit more clearly labeled on the plan. Staff has not identified any significant unresolved issues. The applican t has been advised that the subject property is un -subdivided ; and therefore, a single one -lot subdivision to create a “lot of record” must be processed and platted at some point in the future. That could be accomplished concurrently with the formal site plan review process, but it must be accomplished prior to issuance of a building permit. The application is necessary to grant and record any necessary public utility and drainage easements on the property. The applicant will need to file the application for a special use for religious assembly and an application for site plan review prior to the issuance of a building permit. Staff recommends that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the annexation of the subject property and the concept plan revie w documents subject to various technical revisions outlined in the staff report . Planner Schwarz stated the applicant will give a brief overview of some of the changes to the plan which the Commission has not seen . Planner Schwarz concluded his staff rep ort. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Engineer Eickholtz if he saw any problems. Village Engineer Eickholtz stated conceptually they do not have any additional concerns other than those outlined in the staff report. They concur with the
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 3, 2009 Page 3 of 17 need to connec t the site with Sheffield Road. A fair amount of expense was made to construct the left turn lane on Van Dyke Road and it would be beneficial to provide , at a minimum, access for fire and safety east to Sheffield Road. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the pet itioners. Carl Buck, 618 W. Main Street – Plainfield, spoke first. He stated the petitioner has been working on this plan for several years. He stated Pastor Nolan McCants from the Church and several of the elders were present. He stated they meet all of the standards for the annexation. He stated the petitioner does not have any objections to staff’s comments. He stated with respect to the impervious surface, he felt they would be about 12% over. They would be about 47% impervious, which is more tha n a standard R -1, but certainly much less than a typical business or industrial type use. He stated the petitioner does want to file the application for special use concurrent with this. They did want to come in to get the Commission’s comments with rega rd to the concept so they can incorporate some of those terms into the Annexation Agreement. This property has a fairly significant recapture for the size of the property , which has been one of the stumbling blocks . They will have to work that out with t he Village. Dennis Ehrman spoke next for the petitioners. He stated they have reviewed staff’s comments and they are working diligently to make those changes. They didn’t find anything that they really objected to or have a problem with other than possi bly one issue concerning the recommendation for a one -way drive lane connecting to Sheffield. They will make the connection to Sheffield, but they would prefer that it be two -way. Staff’s recommendation that it be one way was to limit cut -thru traffic, b ut that would only limi t cut -thru traffic from one direction. They think they could introduce a couple of stop signs along that drive lane and possibly e ven a bumper strip of some kind to cut down on cut -thru traffic. They did not expect that to be a pro blem. That was the only objection that they saw. They have not gone through all of the civil engineering comments, since they just received them Monday morning. Everything does seem to be reasonable, but there will be some things their engineers will be discussing with the Village Engineers as well. They want to make the rest of the request concurrent with this . They will be before the Commission again before they go to the Village Board. Petitioner Ehrman showed some slides of the new submittal. H e stated there will be glass and aluminum curved curtain wall elements in the front facing Van Dyke. There will be two elements – one at the front entry and another at the corner. It will be a very hi gh quality curved glass element . There will be natura l stone wainscot and more natural stone around the front entryway. There will be some wrapped columns. The metal siding is actually a granite -looking clad metal siding in horizontal partitions of different widths. He showed some samples of the product. They also had a sample of the metal that will be at the fascia at the perimeter at the top of the wall. They will be coming back again for the special use review and will go through this in more detail. They are in the process of revising the plans. Th ey are going into their Phase Two expansion. The submittal is a little bit smaller than what they are planning. They are going to be adding about 2,000 sq. ft. to the building and 17 additional parking spaces to the plans. There will still be room on th e site for future expansion of the building for classrooms and offices. There is also a bit of room left for some parking expansion in the future. All of thes e revisions will be made accessible to the public . Petitioner Ehrman went on to say they have h ad a few discussions with neighbors concerning landscaping and they are willing to work with the neighbors. They are planning on a perimeter cedar fence along the back and two sides of their lot and also extensive landscaping around the fence as well. Pa rts of the perimeter already are fenced with a cedar fence . T hey will be completing that perimeter. He showed some elevations and stated the colors have not been finalized yet. The building will be very attractive, very modern looking and will have the glass and aluminum elements. It is going to be a very high quality looking building. There will be a nice sign in front calling attention to the Church’s location. He showed a s lide depicting the expansion. The sanctuary will seat 500 with 126 parking spaces. They have made revisions to the plan that show the connection to Sheffield. Petitioner Ehrman concluded his presentation. Chairman Sobkoviak opened the meeting to public comment. He swore in each resident before they gave their comments. 1. Sa tyajit Deb – house backs up to Church . When purchased house he was told a greenway would be in that location. Concern about large structure, traffic, lights from vehicles coming into site, water, and sewage. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Planner Schwarz to state the Village requirements regarding lighting. Planner Schwarz stated the Village requires that a photometric plan be submitted from non -residential development. The light readings have to be zero foot candles at the surrounding property lines. He a lso stated the fixtures have to have shielded lights so that the light source is not seen.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 3, 2009 Page 4 of 17 Chairman Sobkoviak then asked either the petitioner or Village Engineer Eickholtz to comment on stormwater management. Village Engineer Eickholtz stated the p etitioner is providing detention on the north and south. The release from the site will be significantly less than what is now seen. They seem to be following the Village requirements quite well. Satyaijit then asked about the future expansion plan. He asked if they are going up in elevation or extending the side. Petitioner Buck stated there is detention in two separate areas because about one -third of the way through the property, there is an elevation change. They should manage detention with a bsolutely no problem. The height of the building is only 18’. It is lower than most of the adjacent two -story houses. The expansion will not raise the height of it at all. It will only increase the footprint. The building will be extended. Commissio ner Renzi asked about the flow of the stormwater. Village Engineer Eickholtz stated there is a storm sewer system on the north side of the property line and the release that will be coming out of the detention pond will be very small. The storm sewer wil l be sized to accommodate that. The same thing exists on the south side as well. Commissioner Renzi asked if they were wet bottoms. Village Engineer Eickholtz stated they are called a wetland bottom. It is not a deep bottom. It is about one -half foot deep of water so that the wetland plants can germinate and grow. He stated there are some details that the petitioner still has to provide. Commissioner Renzi asked if the adjacent residents are going to have two lakes on the property. Petitioner Buck s tated he did not think either of the detention ponds is designed to hold water. Petitioner Ehrman agreed with Petitioner Buck. Mr. Deb wanted a clarification about the detention ponds and wanted to know if there would be water present in the detention p onds. Petitioner Buck stated they will be dry. Chairman Sobkoviak stated during a storm event, there may be water in the ponds. Satyaijit stated the detention pond for Kensington Club floods during heavy rains and had a concern these would flood during a heavy rain event. Chairman Sobkoviak stated if there is no problem now, there probably will not be any in the future. Petitioner Buck stated their plan is designed to handle their stormwater. 2. Desmond O’Neill – lives on the corner of Sheffield. C oncerned about traffic. Petitioner Buck stated the Village had proposed one -way traffic, but the petitioner was looking to have two -way traffic with speed control and possibly a speed bump. Mr. O’Neill had concerns about traffic because of the children p resent. Petitioner Buck stated their original plan was to not have a connection at Sheffield. After the Village’s review, both by the Fire Department and the Village Engineer, they required that the connection be made for a number of reasons. There was discussion about having a barrier there, but the Village wanted it open to traffic. For the traffic pattern around the building, the petitioner would like to keep it two -way circulating the building. Mr. O’Neill preferred it to be one -way. 3. Paul McNai r – lives directly behind the site. He stated part of the reason he bought his house was because of the greenway depiction on the Future Land Use Map. He had concerns that the greenway was considered a mistake. He felt the front of the church looks grea t, but wanted to see some pictures of the back of the church. He felt the landscaping of trees would not block the view from the 2 nd story of his house. Planner Schwarz explained that he had discussion s with Village Planner Garrigan and he was not sur e why this area was designated as a greenway. He stated one option would possibly be that maybe the Park District was interested in that site at some point. Chairman Sobkoviak gave a history of the parcel. Planner Schwarz stated of all the greenway repr esentations on the Future Lane Use Map , he cannot think of any other one that is rectangular in shape. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there were any slides of the rear elevation. Petitioner Buck stated there were no slides of the rear elevation, but the rear elevation has the stone fascia siding across the block. It is not cinder block. They carry the siding around the back. Chairman Sobkoviak asked what the general plans were for the perimeter fence and buffering. Petitioner Buck stated they just recently talked to some of the neighbors about that before they came in. There is intermittent fencing on adjacent properties right now. They will work with the adjacent property owners .
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 3, 2009 Page 5 of 17 Mr. McNair stated the lowest point near the subject site is his window well for his basement. He asked if the existing storm drains would be utilized. Petitioner Ehrman stated their plan is intended to capture all of the water that lands on their property in their own stormwater system. They will not be forcing any water over land to anyone’s property. Mr. McNair had concerns the water would come into his backyard. Petitioner Ehrman stated one of the requests of the Village Engineer was that they identify the elevation of the water within the retention basins at t he highest recorded level of rainfall. The height of the retention is designed to be above the 100 year storm. The engineering requirements today are more stringent than the engineering requirements were when the Kensington Club subdivision was planned. Almost all of the parking spaces will be using a very “green” pervious stone material that as the rain comes down it will not be running across the surface of the parking lot, but it will go down into the ground directly through the previous stone. Almos t all of the parking spaces will be that way. The drive lanes will be asphalt. Commissioner Renzi asked if there also would be berms. He stated the berm would also be a n increased elevation. Petitioner Ehrman stated the berm is actually undulating, which means it rises and falls. So, it is really not designed to retain water. It is just intended to be more of a visual barrier. A discussion followed regarding the stormwater. 4. Cary Landholt – expressed concern about the greenway issue. He also h ad a concern about the rapid expansion, and lights from vehicle traffic. He wanted to know what the process was for re -designating a greenway to something that can be built on. Is it simply saying it was a mistake. Planner Schwarz stated the Comprehens ive Plan is a policy document adopted by the Village Board . T here is a public hearing process involved every time that plan is amended. Generally it is amended on an annual basis. It is a plan and is not a binding document. In terms of the zoning chang es that are reviewed on a case -by -case basis, each time a case comes through, staff, the Plan Commission, and the Village Board look back at that Future Land Use Map to see if it is generally consistent, is it reasonable, and what are the surrounding land uses. The predominant land use in this area is residential. Churches and religious institutions are consistent under the Zoning Ordinance with residential uses. They are generally in residential settings. Chairman Sobkoviak stated when the Kensington Club subdivision was first platted the stub street was included because the vision at that time was that there would be about 8 houses in the site with no connection to Van Dyke Road and access would be through the stub street. The goal was to have no dr iveways from any residence connect to Van Dyke Road. Mr. Landholt asked if it was not intended then to have a religious institution there or any other business. Chairman Sobkoviak answered “no”, but his worst fear was that someone would come along and try to put a strip mall in that site. He further stated churches, firehouses, police departments, schools, etc. are appropriate uses within a residential neighborhood. Mr. Landholt also asked how quickly this is going to grow. Petitioner Buck replied th at the only expansion from what was shown tonight was the addition of classrooms. Planner Schwarz showed a slide depicting the plans originally submitted and the plans the applicant brought to the meeting. He further stated there would be a 15’ landscape buffer on the east, north, and south sides that has to be fully landscaped. Whether it is a berm, fence, or a combination of the both, staff has stated whatever pleases the neighboring area would be fine. If a fence is proposed, the applicant is permitt ed under the ordinance to reduce the landscape quantities by 30%. Staff prefers a berm and landscaping because they think it is a softer look, but staff would certainly abide by the wishes of the neighbors. Planner Schwarz also showed some slides of the elevations. He further stated staff does not have any objections to the architectural elevation revisions that are currently being proposed. Staff would not object to keeping this public hearing open until such time as the revised drawings come through c oncurrent with the special use. Mr. Landholt wanted a clarification of the 15’ buffer. He asked if that would be 15’ from the barrier to his lot line. Planner Schwarz stated 15’ is required inside the petitioner’s property line. They would have to reta in a landscape setback. The parking lot edge, the curb of the parking lot, would have to remain 15’ off of the petitioner’s property line. Since there were no other public comments, Chairman Sobkoviak closed the public hearing. Commissioner Peck had a c oncern about stormwater. Petitioner Buck stated right now the engineering meets the standard to keep all of the water from the subject site on the subject site. It should be good.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 3, 2009 Page 6 of 17 Commissioner Kachel asked Planner Schwarz if staff could look into why th is area was depicted as greenway on the Future Land Use Map rather than saying it was a mistake. Planner Schwarz stated that can be done. Commissioner Renzi stated possibly staff could also check with the Park District to see if that area at one time had been meant to be a neighborhood park. Chairman Sobkoviak felt that was not the case because this site is outside the development and usually the developer deeds land in the interior of a development to the Park District in lieu of their contribution. Co mmissioner Kachel also made mention of the stub street. A discussion followed between the Commissioners in this regard. Commissioner Renzi asked if the parking spaces would be permeable pavers. Petitioner Buck stated not the driveways, but the parking s paces would be permeable pavers. Commissioner Renzi asked if that was okay with staff. Planner Schwarz stated that was welcome to staff. He further stated staff has reviewed the set of drawings that were distributed to the Commissioners and that number was around 40% impervious. The maximum number under the R -1 Zoning District is 35%. Any increases above that would be negotiable through the Annexation Agreement. Since this is a concept plan , it would be important that the Village Board hear the though ts of the Commission on this matter. Commissioner Renzi stated according to his math, the applicant will be asking for 47% impervious area . The applicant will be asking for a relatively significant deviation. He felt the permeable pavers in the parking spaces would definitely soften the amount of impervious area. The petitioner stated they could bring in samples of the pavers. Commissioner Renzi would like to have the engineers say how they can handle the water runoff regarding a certain percentage o f impervious area at the time of site plan review . Planner Schwarz stated that would be something that would come in at time of final engineering. Commissioner Renzi would also like the petitioner to give a demonstration of the type of pavers being used, life span, replacement issues, etc. A discussion followed regarding pavers. Commissioner Kachel had a concern about the metal siding on the building. He did not want to set a precedent using it. Petitioner Ehrman stated the metal siding is on a steel frame. Commissioner Kachel felt rather than looking like granite, it looks more like a precast material with a granular material to the outside. Commissioner Renzi echoed that concern. Commissioner Kachel asked for information on the material be prese nted to the Commission when the petitioner comes back before the Commission. Petitioner Ehrman stated it is a good quality, heavier gauge material than what is seen on other industrial buildings. It has a very rough texture, stone chip application with a 25 to 35 year guarantee on the life of the material. It is better than an EIFS ext erior insulated finished system.. It will retain color much longer. Commissioner Kachel asked as far as the addition, will they be able to match the material. Petitione r Ehrman stated they will do the best they can to complement the architecture at that time. He could not guarantee that the exact colors would be available. There was a discussion between Commissioner Kachel and Petitioner Ehrman in this regard. Commi ssioner Renzi asked if it was one -way in or one -way out. Planner Schwarz stated staff wants to avoid any potential unnecessary cut -thru traffic. The Fire District wants to see the connection. They do not want to have a “knock down” barrier. They prefer to have a physical open connection to that stub. Staff is open to one -way as one potential option. Staff is not mandating one -way. The Traffic Committee wants a connection. Staff suggested alleviating the potential for cut -thru traffic; it could be on e -way in either direction. Staff wants to make sure there is a physical connection to connect the two pa rking lots for emergency access . It is not designed to be a very convenient cut -thru. Generally speaking, it is there for emergency access. Staff is not mandating one -way traffic internal to the site. It is just one option. Commissioner Renzi did not have a problem with it being two way traffic. Commissioner Kachel felt if it were two way traffic people, especially children, would be more likely to be alert to traffic . Commissioner Kachel asked the petitioner to work with the neighbors before this comes back before the Commission. Planner Schwarz stated there are two motions before the Commision. He stated one motion is to recommend to the Vill age Board approval of the annexation. There will be another public hearing in the future at the Village Board on the terms of th e Annexation Agreement itself. There is also a recommendation to approve in concept the drawings that are provided in the Comm issioners’ packets knowing that there may be additional architectural and site plan changes that increase the amount of parking. At 8:39 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the annexation of the subject te rritory located on the east side of Van Dyke Road, approximately one -half mile north of 135 th Street, commonly known as 13013 Van Dyke Road.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 3, 2009 Page 7 of 17 Commissioner Bonuchi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Bon uchi, Peck, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 5:0 At 8:40 p.m. Commissioner Bonuchi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Concept Plan Review documents for Harvest Church located on the east side of Van Dy ke Road, approximately one -half mile north of 135 th Street, commonly known as 13013 Van Dyke Road, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer, 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fir e Protection District, 3. That the Concept Plan Review documents be revised in accordance with staff’s review comments as provided in this memorandum. At 8:40 p.m. Commissioner Peck seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Bonuchi, Peck, Kachel, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 5:0 At 8:41 p.m. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a recess At 8:50 p.m. Chairman Sobkoviak reconvened the meeting CASE: 1442 -010709.SU WILD WHEEL CYCLE STUDIO Request : Special Use (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review Location: 24026 W. Lockport Street Applicant: Katie Kulak Richard Forbes TIME: 8:50 p.m. Planner Javronok summarized the staff report. She stated this is for a Wild Wheel Cycling Studio, which is a spin ning studio on the second floor of the building at 24026 W. Lockport Street. R etail will be on the first floor. This is classified as a Health Club under the Zoning Ordinance. This would require a special use in the B -5 Zoning District. The modificatio ns on the eastern and northern elevations have required a site plan review. This is located in the downtown. Planner Javoronok summarized the findings of fact for the special use. Two of the two special use findings of fact are favorable to the applica nt . This two -story, gable front wood -frame commercial building was constructed in 1869 with a historic storefront on the first floor of the front façade. There are two windows on the second floor of the front façade. As far as the side façade, there are 4 windows on the second story and also 4 smaller windows on the first story. The applicant is proposing the addition of storefront windows on the side façade, a second story addition to the rear, replacement storefront windows on the front façade, replac ement windows on the side façade, and the elimination of the existing smaller windows on the side façade, as well as replacement siding. This building was included in the Village’s Urbanized Core Study and historically is one of the oldest, if not the old est, commercial buildings in the Village. The survey stated the building is highly significant and was recommended for local landmark status , and that it would be a contributing building to the National Register or local Historic D istrict. Planner Javoro nok stated there is a design manual for the Lockport Street Business Corridor and went through the various provisions of this manual in reference to the work the petitioner wishes to complete on this property. • Maintain Existing Site Development Patterns – proposed changes will not affect existing site, • Maintain Original Character of the Façade – historically significant façade will be altered rather than maintained,
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 3, 2009 Page 8 of 17 • Preserve Architecturally Significant Components of Historic Commercial Building – proposed changes do not preserve architecturally significant components of building, • Align Architectural Elements – proposed changes will not align architectural elements, • Incorporate Pedestrian Oriented Design Elements at Sidewalk Level – proposed changes will not add to or detract from pedestrian oriented design elements, • Utilize Storefront Awnings and Shutters Appropriately – plans indicate applicant will replace existing shutters, staff recommends retaining shutters, • Install Appropriate Signage – signage is a se parate review and permitting process, • Parking – building is located within downtown parking zone and is exempt from Village’s off -street parking requirements. Planner Javoronok stated staff believes the applicant has complied with the required findings of fact for a special use. Staff also believes the proposed changes to the facades of the building will negatively affect the historic significance of the building and recommends a more historically sensitive approach. The applicant is proposing wood sidin g and wood windows which are somewhat sensitive to preservation; however, staff believes that the rehabilitation of the original materials is mo re sensitive and appropriate. Any issues with the building can be addressed while still preserving the building ’s integrity and significant architectural features. Staff recommends approval of the special use with two stipulations and approval of the site plan review with 4 stipulations. Planner Javoronok concluded her staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Vill age Engineer Eickholtz if he had any comments. He had no comments. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the representatives for the petitioner. Pattie Bernhard, attorney, spoke first. She introduced everyone for the petitioner - Richard Fobes, the owner of the building ; Katie and Brian Kulak – business owners; Dan Kittilsen, DJK Builders, and Shayne Rosenberger, DJK Builders. Petitioner Bernhard went on to say their request is for site plan approval for a building renovation and also a special use for the cycli ng studio, which is designated as a Health Club. They are going to be doing the cycling studio on the second floor and having the first floor as retail. The square footage i s approximately 1,700 to 1,800 sq. ft. per floor. It is the A.C. Steiner Buildin g located at 24026 Lockport Street, which is on the northwest corner of Illinois and Lockport Streets. It is surrounded by B -5 Zoning uses. The petitioner purchased the building after coming in and meeting with staff about the building as to what options they had and what they would be able to do with the building. They did their homework. They had a commercial company come out and do a building inspection for them prior to purchasing the building. The building has sat vacant for quite a while and has deteriorated quite a bit due to water damage. The wood is pretty rotten on the exterior of the building causing a lot of water to come into the building. A lot of band -aid repairs over the years have been done to this building, rather than actually havin g the building properly taken care of. The building has deteriorated quite extensively. The building was found to have significant age and wear and rot o n the exterior walls. The foundation had deteriorated. There was extensive water damage to the buil ding, improper wiring, improper breaker capacity, improper electrical system. The basement had significant water damage as well. In spite of that report, the petitioner was still quite enthusiastic about purchasing this building and bringing business to downtown Plainfield. Dan Kittilsen presented a PowerPoint presentation of what they plan to do to the building. He stated their focus is to bring new business to the downtown Plainfield Area. He stated they are maintaining the existing character, same style windows on the first and second floor, as well as using the same gable pieces, corbels, and the gable decorative piece. The windows are going to be the same style windows, with m atching header pieces. They are using today’s energy efficient, envir onmentally safe products, which will include wood siding, wood windows, bringing the building up to current building codes, and maintaining its existing character and preserving its architecturally significant components. There will be an addition to the first floor area on the north side. They are re -using the gable piece at the backside of the building and moving the corbels to the back of the building. There will be four new windows on the east side as the current windows are extremely deteriorated. They will match the header pieces, the complete window detail, on all four sides of the windows. They will re -use the shutters and restore them. The current windows on the front of the building will be wrapped around the side to open up the building and make it more inviting and consumer friendly. Currently, the building is not energy efficient at all. The walls and windows are leaking water and air into the interior. The building is not insulated. It has a very old HVAC system and a ll of the electric al is non -complying. The building is not structural sound. There is rotted framing, rotted exterior siding, rotted non -operational windows, which are allowing water intrusion into the building creating more damage. It is not environmentally safe. There is continuous moisture intrusion causing mold and continued rot problems. It is not tenant or consumer friendly with the lack of proper window placement. It makes the interior of the building extremely dark and uninviting. They have actually demolished the interior of the building after receiving a demo permit from the Village. He showed slides of the shape of the building. They propose to remove all of the siding off the building and then wrap the
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 3, 2009 Page 9 of 17 building with a commercial house wrap bringing it u p to today’s building codes. This commercial house wrap will keep water from intruding through any of the new siding. The new siding will be the same profile, same exposure so that it maintains its existing character. The entire building will be insulat ed. The present building had no insulation at all. The basement walls have deteriorated allowing water to intrude through the stone walls. The stone will be kept in place. They will tuck point the entire stone foundation wall. They will put a water dr ainage system into the floor and waterproof the walls so that there is better air quality in the building. He gave a recap of their plan. He showed a sample of the siding and windows. Katie Kulak and Brian Kulak spoke. They are residents of the Wilding Point Subdivision in Plainfield. They are family of the building owner, Richard Fobes, and future business owners of Wild Wheel Cycling Studio. She gave a presentation of their business. They are presently both educators in District 204 . Their vision is to bring a business that they are passionate about to Plainfield. Her father purchased the building with the idea that they would own their business and run it out of th e second floor. They visited the Village of Plainfield and talked to them about th eir vision. There would be options on the building on how they would go about renovating. Therefore, their plans have been submitted and they are hopeful to run their business on the second floor. She stated indoor cycling is stationary bikes as a form of exercise. That is why they require a special use in the B -5 District for what is considered a Health Club by definition. She stated indoor cycling is an efficient cardio -vascular workout using stationary bikes, low impact exercise. It is fun and moti vating classes through music and visualization. It is an upcoming, very successful form of exercise for different age groups. She stated they hope to attract people to downtown Plainfield. It is hope d they will have 31, high quality, well -maintained spi nning bikes. They are non -electric. They are stationary bikes. There will be an audio -visual system and a unique friendly location. They have highly trained motivated staff ready to inspire their clients from surrounding areas. There are no contracts or commitments. Clients can guarantee their bikes in a class by reserving on -line. This is the only form of exercise that will be offered. They will attract many different age groups. They feel people will be attracted to downtown Plainfield. They hav e the capability of doing fundraisers for projects. Pattie Bernhard spoke. She stated there are special findings that must be met to obtain a special use. She reiterated the findings. She stated bringing people downtown will actually benefit the other properties in the immediate area. They disagree with staff on how to renovate this building and bring this building back to Plainfield as a viable business. She stated they do meet the site plan review approval standards, but because this is located on L ockport Street they did go through the Lockport Street Guidelines. She did not think they will affect the character of the building. She stated the renovation will be very similar to the existing building. They are going to maintain the shutters, the co rbels, and the gables of the building. She stated the addition meets the standards. Much of the wood on the building is rotten and they will replace this with the same size and look of wood. She went through the aspects of the Lockport Street Guidelines . Some guidelines are not met, but a lot are met. She stated her clients have worked very hard to try to balance the commercial aspect bringing in tenants to this building with the historic aspect of this building. Richard Fobes spoke next. He state d they are very enthusiastic about investing in the Village of Plainfield . He felt this will help revitalize the downtown. With the new streetscape in the downtown, he wanted to be part of the downtown. He stated they do not know the name of the retail business. They cannot market until the building is completed. They tried to meet as many of the present storeowners as possible. On the advice of someone, they put together a petition from store owners in the downtown. He said they want to make this bu ilding something the city would be proud of. They want it to be a nice showcase for the city. They hope that the Commission will vote in favor of their plan so that they can get started and bring business to that building that has sat vacant for some tim e. He thanked the Commission. Patti Bernhard also thanked the Commission. They also requested time for rebuttal if there are any public comments. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Commission is in receipt of a petition to support the 24026 Lockport Street building renovation plans. It is signed by 16 individuals. He wanted it to be part of the record (a copy is attached). Chairman Sobkoviak opened the meeting to public comment. He swore in the people giving testimony. 1. Heath Wright – Bartlett Avenue, Plainfield. • He asked if the rear of the building, the part that will have a second floor added to it, goes over the property line. Pattie Bernhard nodded her head saying yes. He stated he was a landlord down the street from this building and would love to have a little extra space in the alley. He did not feel it was a hardship. There are buildings to the lot line. It is the only place in town where that is allowed. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that was probably a pre -existing non -conformity. Mr. Wrig ht stated he understood, but if they are going to build
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 3, 2009 Page 10 of 17 the second story on it and if part of the building is going to be removed , he would ask that the Village monitor that and get it back into the property lines. • He stated they welcome new business and new business owners downtown. They also certainly welcome building maintenance. He stated it is a little different being a landlord versus being a tenant. The landlords want to see the rents go up so they can put the new roof on, etc. Tenants want to see the rents be decreased so they can make more money and so they can keep their business going. • He stated the Historic District has been in the works for a long time; 20 years it has been talked about. There is the pending approval of the Certified Local Government status for the Village. Historic Preservation coupled with CLG is a great tool. He stated preservation, especially in the downtown, works when everyone is together. If the Historic District is put together along with the CLG, there wil l be Federal tax relief. Local grants are available. He stated as he understands it, the TIF Grant has a historic component. That is available to everyone right now who wants to do a Façade Grant. There is a Rehab Grant, not currently funded, but times will get better and the Village will re -instate that grant. That is good for windows, paint, rotted siding. • He had a concern with the large windows on the east and stated they could be a problem for the Historic District. He asked if possibly the buil ding owner could make their renovations in a different way and preserve more of the building. 2. Michael Lambert – speaking as a resident, living on Eastern Avenue. • He had a concern over the non -conforming use going over the property line. He stated hi s concern that while the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance allows for the perpetuation of non -conforming uses and actually allows for the extension vertically or horizontally of a non -conforming use , that assumes that non -conforming use exists on the person’s pr operty. In this case, a building extends on three sides into the public R.O.W. and the property of a private property owner. He stated other cases had to get a variance. In two cases, they could not do any foundation that supported the extension of a se cond floor. In an other case they could not even put brick veneer on an existing brick ledge that was installed 30 years prior to the renovation of the building because it was on a neighboring property. He was afraid the Village was opening up a very dang erous precedent. In other communities when he has run into a situation such as this, it has been turned down by every Zoning Board to extend a property that is on either a public R.O.W. or on private property. He s trongly urged the Plan Commission and Vi llage Board to look at what kind of precedent the Village is setting. He felt this was a serious issue that has been overlooked in this discussion. • He wanted the building to be known properly as the Chittenden -Steiner Building . • He stated one of the Greene st things about preservation is utilizing the existing materials in the building. To tear all the material off and take it to a dump is the most un -green thing you can do. You cannot replicate the very thin muttons or grid patterns in the windows and use insulated glass. There are ways to make a historic window energy efficient. He felt the idea that the only way this could be accomplished is tearing everything out and taking it to a dump is an erroneous position. • His understanding was that if all of th e wood siding is removed from the building the Plainfield Fire Department and Building Codes are going to suggest that the wall should be turned into a 1 hour rated wall on the left side of this building. They will not be able to return that back to its o riginal character. Fire Standards need to be upheld and that needs to be included in the proposal being made. 3. John Bates – Lockport Street business owner to the west of this property. • He enthusiastically supports all aspects of this project. He fel t the changes in the windows are important elements in maximizing the rent for the property. The windows wrapping around the front will help in marketing to the public. He believes the windows are a main marketing tool or advertising tool. He gave an es timate of how much money in sales the storeowner would have to make a year to make it profitable. He stated the sign ordinance is very strict for the downtown and the windows on the side would help alert possible customers to the type of business in the s pace. The changes described by the petitioner will help improve the building , the marketability of the building , and provide a real advantage to bringing a retail business into downtown. • The encroachment from this property onto his property does exist. It is very clearly described in the title. His building encroaches one inch on this property line at the front and two inches at the back . Their building encroaches about six inches in the middle on his property line. He did not feel this was an issu e at all. He needs development and hates to see the Village put entitlements in front of somebody that is willing to come and spend this type of money to improve downtown Plainfield.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 3, 2009 Page 11 of 17 4. Susan Prock – friend of applicant . • She stated she bought her wedding dress at the Steiner Building 20 years ago and wished that they had had the windows on the front at that time. She stated these are good people. She hopes that the Village will not let their enthusiasm, their energy, their financial resources go to waste. She asked that the Commission approve the applicant’s plan. Since there was no further public comment, Chairman Sobkoviak closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commissioner Kachel asked Planner Javoronok about the fire wall where t hey were taking down the siding between the two buildings. Planner Javoronok stated she did not have much informati on on that. She would d efer to the Fire Department. She further stated the plans have been submitted to the Building Department and she did not think they have completed their review of them at this point. Commissioner Kachel stated possibly a remedy would be cement -based siding. Commissioner Bonuchi asked Michael Lambert if he was bringing forth the issue of the lot line. From the email s she had received she knows there are more concerns out there. She attended the informal meeting that the Planning Department hosted where representatives from the applicant and Historic Preservation Commission were present. She had asked if the applica nts were notified this was a historic building and were told, “No ”. Yet, when she read the staff report it clearly identifies that the applicant is in a historic building. She stated she loves the corner and would like to see som ething better for the bui lding. She totally unders tands the Historic Preservation Commission wanting something be done a little more historic with the building. She felt the applicant should have known this would be a huge issue with the historic value of that particular buildin g. Michael Lambert responded as the Historic Preservation Commission Chairman. He stated the decision lies in the Plan Commission’s hands. There is no historic district application filed. They have been working on it for several years. In 19 82 is wh en it was first stated there should be a historic district downtown , and the Village Board at that time put up road blocks so that it did not go through. The Committee tried to work towards a Historic Preservation Ordinance and get a Commission named. Wh en the Historic Preservation Commission was set up , the Village Board agreed that the one place in town where there should be a historic district was in the downtown. The Board was not sure about the residential areas, but they were sure about the downtow n area. This is a site plan review in f ront of the Plan Commission. Michael Lambert was hired to write the design guidelines for the downtown. He knows what the guidelines say and the intent of the guidelines. He also knows what the Village Board’s dir ection to him was when they asked him to prepare those guidelines. There is no Historic Preservation case in front of the HPC right now . The reality is it is a significant building not only because of its early architecture , but it is called a landmark . By definition a landmark is something that is a keystone element or a recognizable element. The Historic Preservation Commission has had this as a very significant building. Michael Lambert further stated thi s case is coming in as a site plan review and it is up to the Plan Commission to decide if it meets Site Plan Review. Commissioner Bonuchi then asked Michael Lambert if he was in agreement with the changes that the applicant is intending to do to the building, other than the addition. She asked i f the façade renovation is within the guidelines . She stated the applicant has made some concessions in keeping some of the key pieces. Michael Lambert then responded as an architect who has made his living at historic preservation. He stated the shor t answer is “no.” The general motto in preservation is “it is better to preserve than repair, repair than replace.” He stated “the petitioner is giving the Village a cubic zi rconia rather than a diamond.” Chairman Sobkoviak asked if in fact there is no legal basis to compel the petitioner to do anything more than to meet code. Michael Lambert stated he is not a lawyer, but again as he stated earlier, he recognizes that this is not a historic preserva tion case, it is a site plan review. You have to meet the intent of that , and part of the site plan review is the design guidelines that were created for the downtown specifically to retain its historic character. He further stated the Plan Commission has to decide what retaining the historic character mean s to the Plan Commission. Commissioner Peck asked Michael Lambert a question and wanted him to answer it as the HPC Chairman. Commissioner Peck asked if this building is on a National Register of Historic Places. Michael Lambert responded “no”, but he b elieved it was determined eligible at one time. Commissioner Peck reiterated that it is not currently on as a historic building in the National Register. Michael Lambert stated that was correct and started to explain. Commissioner Peck interrupted and s aid the question required just a yes or no answer. Michael Lambert asked Chairman Sobkoviak if he could explain. Chairman Sobkoviak asked him to please proceed. Michael Lambert stated the determination of eligibility is a legal phrase that gives
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 3, 2009 Page 12 of 17 the same protection for a building that is listed in the National Register and it is an official determination. He wanted to clarify his answer because it is not just a simple yes or no. Commissioner Renzi asked staff about Page 4 of 5 of the staff report in regard to the sentence, “The proposed changes will not align architectural elements.” Planner Javoronok explained basically it means to keep the rhythm of the façade consistent with the pre -existing rhythm of the facade , the placement of the windows a nd the balance between the windows and the rest of the façade on the building. By adding the 4 windows on the storefront in places where there were no windows before , they are not keeping the architectural elements aligned on the façade. Commissioner Ren zi went through the guidelines. Chairman Sobkoviak stated there is no legal basis to compel performance to the guideline standards. Commissioner Renzi felt Wild Wheels Cycling Studio would be more of a point of origin and exit rather than keeping people in the downtown. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that was a matter of opinion. Commissioner Renzi stated it would have been nice for the applicant to submit the commercial inspection to the Commission. He went through alternatives that the petitioner could do to help preserve some of the historic aspects of the building. Commissioner Fremarek disagreed. He stated “preservation for the sake of preservation so we can preserve some buildings that can sit empty does not make any sense.” He stated the Village just spent $7 -1/2 Million to redo downtown. There is no destination. We need somebody that is willing to take a risk to go down and start a business before other businesses are willing to go and follow. He stated there are a lot of great old buildings o ut in the west; they are called “Ghost Towns.” He did not want to watch Plainfield become one of them. He applauds everything the petitioner is willing to do. T hey are going to spend money, and take a risk, especially in this economic climate, to try to bring business into the downtown. He stated the petitioner has his support. Commissioner Kachel felt as far as the petitioner trying to keep the historic look, they are doing a good job. He was curiou s if the petitioner got a comparison cost to remove the paint on the outside, do abatement on the windows to repair the windows versus new siding and windows. He felt they could get a Façade Grant to help with the repairs. Petitioner Kittilson stated they did get the cost to preserve the windows. It wil l cost $6,600 more to do preservation on the windows, He quoted what the preservationist wrote, “they looked at the siding on the project and it is in their opinion not feasible to remove and salvage. They feel that due to the amount of fasteners and th e current state of the siding, during the removal process, however careful you may be, it will be rendered useless and needs to be replaced.” Commissioner Kachel asked if it was cedar or pine siding. Petitioner Kittelson stated it was pine siding. Com missioner Kachel again asked if the petitioner had applied for the Façade Program for this project. Petitioner Kulak stated they did not. Planner Javoronok stated she had talked to the petitioner about applying for a Façade Grant. She state d the Façade Program would encourage preservation, or rehab as opposed to replacement. That is one of the things that is basically outlined in the program description, but it would be up to the Village Board. There was a discussion about the Façade Program between Co mmissioner Kachel and Planner Javoronok. Commissioner Kachel stated the Façade Program could possibly help the petitioner financially complete some of the preservation work. Commissioner Kachel stated that the pine in the windows from the past is much be tter than the pine in the windows today. He felt the look the petitioner is going for is a good look. He asked the petitioner if they ever though t about going with 3 windows to the front and maintaining the transom look going across to bring light into t he rest of the building . Petitioner Kittelson stated they could not see how the transoms made sense in the design of the building. The y thought possibly the transoms were put in some time after the building was new working around what they had on the int erior of the building. Right now, the interior of the building is completely blank. A discussion followed between the petitioner and Commissioner Kachel in regards to the transoms. Planner Javoronok stated another option talked about with the property owners was extending the transom windows down to give them more area on the windows, but keeping them in the same location as where they are right now. Petitioner Kittelson stated it didn’t make sense to the interior of the building. They were trying to create something for a retail space on the first floor. Having storefront windows wrapping the corner makes more sense than having windows on the second floor continue down to the first floor. The first floor windows do not line up under the second floo r windows as they start right now. He felt if they did do that, it would really disturb the look on the side of the building. Commissioner Renzi agreed to keep the transoms. He felt possibly stipulation #4 could be amended to take this into account. He felt he could vote “yes” then.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 3, 2009 Page 13 of 17 Commissioner Peck apologized to Michael Lambert. He said he was looking for a black or white answer and Michael Lambert had more information than he was expecting to hear. He said the Commission has an opportunity to bring possibly an extremely successful business to the downtown to bring more traffic downtown that will help the other businesses downtown. He agreed with Commissioner Fremarek that the Village has spent all this money on the downtown and now they are g oing to micro -manage these people who have invested and put all of this money into this opportunity. He disagreed with micro -managing it this far. He would like to see that the Commission approve this and take off stipulations 3 and 4 in the second motio n in the staff report. He said they have to give the businesses the tools they need to be successful. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Commissioner Peck if this was what he was recommending. Commissioner Peck stated he was recommending that the Commission not i nclude stipulations that restrict the petitioner being able to put the extra windows in. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that was something the Commission would have to discuss. Chairman Sobkoviak polled the other Commissioners in regard to Commissioner Peck’s suggestion to remove stipulation 3 and 4 of the site plan review. Commissioner Fremarek wanted to look at a compromise. He would agree with removing the 3 rd stipulation because the definition of maintaining the existing character is extremely too vague. He agreed with Commissioner Renzi with some of the tinkering to stipulation #4. Commissioner Renzi felt stipulation #3 should be removed, but because of different reasons than Commissioner Peck. He felt modifying stipulation #4 would take care of it. He revised stipulation #4 to read “that the applicant work with staff to reasonably preserve as many of the architecturally significant components of the building as are economically viable.” He stated the goal would be to maintain as much of the existi ng character of the front and side facades as possible, but he would look to do it under the revised stipulation #4. Chairman Sobkoviak asked how the other Commissioners felt about Commissioner Renzi’s wording for stipulation #4 of the site plan review. Commissioner Peck stated if that would allow the applicants to build as presented, he would agree that would be a good compromise. Petitioner Kulak addressed a few issues. In revising some of the stipulations, she wanted to address some of the concerns . She wanted to address Commission er Bonuchi’s comments. The building had been for sale for over a year, vacant, and deteriorating. T hey talked to Planning at the Village . T his building is technically not being historically landmarked at all. The peti tioner did not understand what the difference is between landmarking and not landmarking. They went into this with an open mind as far as what this means. After the inspection was completed, they sought advice from the Planning Department on how they cou ld proceed . It was Planner Javoronok’s suggestion to move on the historic landmarking. Therefore, they looked into exactly what that means in terms of façade grants. They received several siding estimates and just recently got a preservationist company to come out and talk about the siding. As far as going into this, they asked specific questions on how the façade grant works. They were told if you do a façade grant, you do not have to be historic, you do not have to be landmarked, and you can use the façade gran t. They do not go hand -in -hand. It will be on Planning’s recommendation to go before the Village Board, or you can just go by building code since it is not a landmarked building at this point. With all the research they did, the replacement o f siding is what they came up based on several reports on the recommendation for this building. There is a time factor to take off each particular board. They had met with Michael Lambert and they were told they would have to take off each particular boa rd. Michael Lambert stood up in the audience and interrupted the petitioner stating that was not what he had said, and asked to not be mis -quoted. They sought advice, and it was explained that typically preservation , from what she understands , is once y ou are landmarked the preservation committee recommends what is going to be able to be preserved, etc. They decided that replacement was what they wanted to do, to duplicate and replicate. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that was not an issue. The Commissio n is not arguing whether the petitioner needs to replace the siding or not. They are trying to give the petitioner some flexibility. Petitioner Kulak stated Commissioner Bonuchi had brought up a point on the preservation aspect of this. Petitioner Kulak just wanted it to be known that they did do their homework on this and just didn’t blindly walk into this. She stated the Historic District has been brought up several times . It is a concern because regardless of what happens tonight if the application goes through for the Historic District , building permits will not be able to be issued on any buildings in the proposed district. The planners told the petitioner that as far as the faç ade grant, t he petitioners were not able to use the façade grant based on the proposed items because they did not go along with historic preservation. So, that is the reason the application for a façade grant did not go in. Commissioner Kachel asked if they actually applied for it or just asked about it. Petitioner Kitt elson stated the façade grant is meaningless because of the fact that the last preservationist told them that the siding cannot be preserved. It is so far be yond that. A discussion followed about façade grants on Lockport Street. Petitioner Kulak stated they had received information
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 3, 2009 Page 14 of 17 stating it would be staff’s recommendation against a façade grant based on replacement of materials. Planner Javoronok stated it was stated by staff that the ultimate decision would be up to the Village Board, but that st aff, if they were to replace basically the things that they were originally talking about , would not recommend approval of the façade grant. Staff did not stop the petitioner from applying. There is always the possibility that they could have received t he façade grant. Commissioner Peck stated personally if he was told he was not going to get something, he would not apply. Commissioner Fremarek agreed with Commission Peck. He felt it was important when new businesses and individuals come into the Vill age and approach staff that staff makes sure they understand that the final approval is done by the Village Board. Petitioner Kittelson stated the windows they would wrap around on the east side could be reduced to three. Commissioner Kachel stated if it goes through tonight, they might want to figure out something on the windows and the transom. Maybe the historical people will like it, or the Village Board may like it. Planner Schwarz added that when people come to staff, staff basically gives them a professional, honest opinion, but at the end of the day the decision for all of these cases lies with the Village Board. The Plan Commission is a recommendation body, and staff gives a recommendation to both bodies. Planner Javoronok gave her advice, a nd honesty is always the best policy. Planner Schwarz further stated when he has a zoning case and someone says what are my chances, he does not give them odds, but if it is really against them and it is something that we don’t want to waste their time, s taff will say this will probably not get staff’s approval, but you can still do it. I just want to be honest with them. Commissioner Kachel stated he was not trying to point fingers when he brought this up. He was just curious if the petitioner had a pplied for the façade grant. A discussion followed. Chairman Sobkoviak recommended that the Commission not change the stipulations in the staff report. He felt the applicant had enough latitude to do what they need to do by following these stipulations. The Commission is not trying to compel them to save the siding, nor blocking them to put windows on the east side. Commissioner Kachel said stipulation #3 should read, “That the applicants maintain the architectural character of the front and side facad es.” Commissioner Fremarek reiterated that he wanted to remove stipulation #3 and adopt Commissioner Renzi’s revisions to stipulation #4. Chairman Sobkoviak felt stipulation #3 should be left in. Commissioner Fremarek disagreed, and Commissioner Peck ag reed with him. A discussion followed between the Commissioners regarding stipulation #3 and #4 in the staff report. At 10:50 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the special use for the Wild Wheel Cycling Studio 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. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called f or a vote by roll call. Aye: Peck, Kachel, Renzi, Bonuchi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay 0 The motion is carried 5:0 At 10:51 p.m. Commissioner Peck made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Site Plan Review for Wild Wheel Cycl ing Studio at 24026 W. Lockport 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, 3. That the applicants preserve the architecturally si gnificant components of the building Chairman Sobkoviak asked for a second to the motion. Since there was no second to that motion, Chairman Sobkoviak asked Commissioner Peck if he wished to withdraw the motion or have it rule d “out -of -order”. Commissio ner Peck stated he would let the motion fail and the Chairman could rule it out. Chairman Sobkoviak ruled the motion as presented by Commissioner Peck “out -of -order”.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 3, 2009 Page 15 of 17 At 10:51 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend ap proval of the Site Plan Review for Wild Wheel Cycling Studio at 25026 W. Lockport Street subject to the following stipulations. 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer, 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protecti on District, 3. That the applicants work with staff to reasonably preserve as many of the architecturally significant components of the building as are economically viable. Commissioner Peck seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by ro ll call. Aye: Kachel, Renzi, Peck, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: Bonuchi The motion is carried 4:1 DISCUSSION: None Since there was no further business before the Commission, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Re spectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary Village of Plainfield