HomeMy Public PortalAbout2009-06-16 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RECORD OF MINUTES DATE : JUNE 16 , 2009 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the m eeting of the Plan Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel , Renzi, Sanders. Kiefer; Seggebruch; ex -officio Commi ssioners Schrack and Heinen; Chairman Sobkoviak ; and Plainfield Fire Protection District Absent: Commissioner O’Rourke , Plainfield Park District, Plainfield School District, Plainfield Library District, and Pl ainfield Police Department Also Present: Mike Schwarz – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Carol Millan – Planning Department Secretary Village of Plainfield , and Neal Eickholtz – Baxter and Woodman . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The June 2, 2009 minutes were appr oved as presented . DEVELOPMENT REPORT: Planner Schwarz summarized what had transpired at the 6/16/09 Village Board meeting. OLD BUSINESS: CASE: 1440 -123108.AA.SU.SPR HARVEST CHURCH Request: Special Use for Religious Assembly (Public Hearing) Preli minary/Final Plat of Subdivision Site Plan Review Location: East side of Van Dyke Road, north of 135 th Street Applicant: Harvest Church Plainfield, Inc. Represented by Pastor Nolan McCants and Attorney Carl Buck TIME: 7:03 p.m. Planner Schwarz summariz ed the staff report. He gave a brief history of the project. He went through the two findings of fact for a Special Use and found that two of the two findings are favorable to the applicant. He further stated the applican t is now proposing a one story, 12,883 sq. ft. building. There are 100 parking spaces, which complies with the Village parking requirements. The majority of the traffic will enter the site from Van Dyke Road. The Plainfield Fire Protection District h as indicated the proposed internal circulation is acceptable. There is a drive aisle connection to connect the parking lot with Sheffield Lane to the east. This connection was requested by the Village Traffic Committee. There will be two detention basins, one at the north end and one at the south end of the site. Staff has recommended native plantings be used around the edges of the basins. Trash enclosures are provided. The Landscape Plan complies with Village requirements. There will be a 6’ high board -on -board cedar fence along the north, south, and east lot lines to screen the site from adjacent properties. There will be modern building elevations with horizontal metal siding along with limestone and glass elements. Staff has requested material samples. The applicant has submitt ed a preliminary and final plat of subdivision to create a lot -of -record from an unsubdivided tract of land in order to grant and record the necessary public utility and drainage easements on the
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 2 of 6 property. There are no unresolved issues and staff recom mends approval of the special use, preliminary/final plat of subdivision, and site plan review. Planner Schwarz concluded his report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Engineer Eickholtz if there were any concerns. Village Engineer Eickholtz stated they had just received the plan, but did not anticipate any problems. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioners. Carl Buck, attorney for the petitioner, spoke first. He did not foresee any cu t -through problems on Sheffield Lane. Chairman Sobkoviak inform ed the new Commissioners that the concept plan of this project was before the Commission previously. He summarized what had previously transpired. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who cared to ask a question or make a comment . Those making comments were sworn in by Chairman Sobkoviak. Paul McNair – 13040 Bradford Lane spoke first. He stated he did like the improvements to the plan over what was presented during the concept plan review. He had concerns over possible floodin g as he stated one of his window wells is at the lowest point. He would be in favor of a landscaped perimeter berm. He felt the plantings would provide a noise and light barrier for the residents. He had traffic concerns with the opening up of Sheffield Lane for possible cut -through traffic. He also felt there would be parking problems when the expansion of the building takes place in the future . Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Plainfield Fire Protection District had asked for the opening up of Sheffield Lane. When the Police or Fire Department asks for something, they are usually granted what they wish for safety reasons. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Engineer Eickholtz to address Mr. McNair’s water drainage concerns. Village Engineer Eickholtz r esponded there is a small 1’ lip along the edge of the applicant’s property which prevents the drainage from going in the direction of Mr. McNair’s property. He stated Mr. McNair’s home is located approximately in the high point of the property so the dra inage will split basically from one pond to the other pond. That area is essentially the higher part of the property. The design engineer is required to not only provide storm sewers and detention, but in a “worst case” scenario if the storm sewers fail , the petitioner is required to provide overland drainage that safely allows the water to drain to the pond. What they have reviewed so far shows that this is being followed. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Planner Schwarz to address the fence versus berm decisi on. Planner Schwarz stated the Village Zoning Ordinance does require buffer landscaping when a non -residential type of development is adjacent to residential. It is a minimum of a 15’ yard area . In this case, it would be along the north, south, and east perimeters . The Zoning Ordinance does allow options for how you plant or buffer the area . It allows a fence with a combination of landscaping, a berm with landscaping, or a lot of landscaping. The planting quantities are different for each of those sc enarios. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if other residents surrounding this property were consulted as to their preferences as to how the property is separated. Planner Schwarz stated in a review letter it was indicated to the petitioner that it would be wis e to contact the adjacent owners and see if there was a n overall consensus. Attorney Buck stated at the concept plan review, the applicant had a chance to speak to some of the neighbors that were present. There did not seem to be a general consensus. Th ey tried to do the most consistent thing and since there was fencing already out there, they went with that design. Commissioner Seggebruch stated the site is pretty tight and if the site is expanded in the future, they will have to deal wit h the increase d impervious. He felt it appears that berms would probably not be practical. He also stated if there were a berm, half of the water on the berm is going to drain toward the property line. Engineering will not allow the water from this sit e to drain onto an adjacent site. He felt if the neighbors were concerned with buffering, the landscaping could possibly still be changed. Satyajit Deb – 13022 Bradford Lane spoke next. His property is on the north end of the subject property . He has a concern about overall water. He asked what the future plan was for the open area by the pond on the north side. Dennis Ehrman, President of Church Building Architects, responded to Mr. Deb’s question. He stated this would be a potential future parking area. He state d they are expecting it to be paved with pervious pavers. Mr. Deb stated currently there are no flooding problems to the surrounding properties. He asked how this would be taken care of if there were water problems in the future. Petitioner Ehrman state d they have designed a 1’ berm around the perimeter that will prevent water from flowing out of their
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 3 of 6 site onto any of the neighbors ’ properties. It is sloped inward from there. Mr. Deb asked if there were plans. Petitioner Ehrman stated the plans ind icate the contours of the proposed grading and they have to build according to those proposed contours. The Village will be inspecting. They also will be inspecting. Mr. Deb also inquired about the space from the fence to where the parking lot starts. Petitioner Ehrman stated it is within 15’ from the fence. Planner Schwarz stated required buffer is a minimum of 15’. Mr. Deb also had a question about the lighting. Petitioner Ehrman stated they are usin g light fixtures that have proven engineering sta ndards about the direction of the light. It is engineered so there is no light spilling from any of the parking lot lights onto any of the neighboring properties. Planner Schwarz referred to the photometric drawing. There was no further response from th e audience. Commissioner Kachel asked if a gate could be placed on Sheffield Lane and opened up at certain times. Planner Schwarz stated the Traffic Committee reviewed the traffic pattern and found that a connection would make sense from an emergency acc ess standpoint. The Committee did not find, based on the street pattern in the area, that there would be a huge demand to either exit or enter the site from within the neighborhood based on the non -direct routing of Sheffield Lane. The connection would o nly be 24’ of pavement. Commissioner Kachel reiterated that it could be gated and used only for emergency purposes. Planner Schwarz stated it was brought up and it was his understanding the Fire Department frowned upon a gate at this location. Commissio ner Heinen asked about grass pavers at this location. Planner Schwarz stated that has not been discussed, but would be something they would be willing to look at. They would like to provide the pedestrian access to the site from the neighborhood. There is a sidewalk on the south side of Sheffield Lane to get to the building site. There is also a crosswalk in the public right -of -way to link the existing sidewalks on Sheffield Lane. Vehicle access is more of an emergency issue providing access to the sit e. There might be a neighbor that would like to go to the site and to force them to go all the way around to Van Dyke would not necessarily be the best idea. The Traffic Committee did not see a cut -through issue. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it is highly r ecommended that projects built on a major street have a rear entrance to allow cars from the neighborhood to enter. If a car from the neighborhood wanted to get to this church and had to go out to the highway or main street and then pull in, they represen t a slow -moving vehicle, which constitutes a hazard. Commissioner Kachel cited some projects where gates were used to eliminate cut -through traffic. Commissioner Sanders asked if permeable pavers have been considered for Sheffield Lane to designate th at it is not a continuation of Sheffield Lane into the site. Planner Schwarz stated that at this point in time the architectural site plan does not illustrate permeable pavers. It is an asphalt parking lot. The overall site plan is now in compliance wit h being under the 35% impervious maximum. As they grow and add parking or expand the building and expand the drive aisle around the building in the future , they will need to consider a variance or some type of engineering method, permeable pavers, of maki ng the rest of the site comply . Currently, the access point at Sheffield is standard asphalt. Commissioner Sanders asked if that was something that staff could work with the applicant on. Planner Schwarz stated they could. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Fire Department should weigh in on that also . He believed s ome years ago there was a case where permeable pavers were proposed for an access road and the Fire Department did not have a positive view of that. Commissioner Renzi felt if at all possible permeable pavers would be a good idea . He wondered when Phase II would be coming forward. Attorney Buck did not have the timeframe for Phase II. He stated part of the reason this was scaled back is because of the economic realities. There is a signific ant recapture on this property that the Church will have to work with the Village on. He stated permeable pavers are an extra thing ; and since they are in compliance with the Statute , he would be hesitant to commit to them . Commissioner Renzi didn’t like the idea of building something and then tearing it up to put in something else. He felt it would be better to do it now than later. Attorney Buck said if the petitioner is as successful a s they hope they will be back to the Commission sooner than later. They want to build something now that they know they can actually build. Commissioner Renzi stated it was his understanding that ultimately the north side is where the parking lot would be expanded. He wondered about the potential build -out in the futu re. Attorney Buck stated the elevations depict how the building will be built.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Renzi wanted clarification on the berm location and fencing. Planner Schwarz stated it was his understanding the fence would be just inside the property li ne because there will be other fences that adjacent properties already have. Inside that fence is landscaping on the petitioner’s side of the property on top of the 1’ berm. A 15’ landscape yard is required, even with a fence, within the perimeter of the ir 3 sides (north, south, and east). Commissioner Renzi wondered who would mow the area outside the fence. Planner Schwarz stated there is no landscaping outside the fence. Commissioner Heinen asked Planner Schwarz to explain what was mentioned in the staff report about a one -way sign for eastbound traffic and/or pavement markings at the southeast curve around the building. Planner Schwarz stated he thought that was a carryover from the previous report. Staff is not requiring the sign. He brought it up as an option in the previous report. Chairman Sobkoviak felt people would not be likely to exit through the neighborhood. Planner Schwarz agreed. Chairman Sobkoviak felt the mention of the sign should be removed from the staff report. A discussion followed. Planner Schwarz stated the engineer has pointed out there is a sign reflected on the engineering plans stating “Do Not Enter”, which is for the traffic exiting the site toward the neighborhood. Staff would be open to removing that sign. It was the consensus of the Commission to take away the sign. Commissioner Kachel felt if there was a problem in the future th e n a sign could be put up. Commissioner Seggebruch wanted to see the building material samples. The Petitioner showed samples to the C ommissioners. Commissioner Seggebruch asked if the wainscot is proposed only on the west (front elevation) of the building, and the other three elevations have the metal panels all the way to the ground. He assumed that was for the future expansion. Pet itioner Ehrman stated that was correct. Planner Schwarz stated it was his understand ing on the back side (the east elevation) there would not be any future expansion. He stated it would certainly be the option of the Plan Commission t o request that there be wainscot on the other elevations. Commissioner Seggebruch had questions about the floor plan of the building. He had questions about egress from the building. There was a discussion between Commissioner Seggebruch and Petitioner Ehrman about the m eans of egress. Commissioner Seggebruch felt this could alter the site plan. He also had some questions about the sprinkler room access. Chairman Sobkoviak reminded the Commissioner that these items would be reviewed by the Village Building Department b efore issuing a building permit. This does not fall under the authority of the Plan Commission. Commissioner Kachel asked if the siding was a standard steel siding. Petitioner Ehrman stated it was an architectural sidin g. He would not call it a stan dard siding . Commissioner Kachel wanted to make sure that the siding would stand up to time, especially with the residential homes surrounding the building. Petitioner Ehrman stated there is a 21 year warranty on the siding. Planner Schwarz stated he ha s not seen the materials. Staff is not necessarily opposed to the material, but would like to see a sample. Planner Schwarz further stated the Plan Commission does have the right in the Code to make recommendations to the Village Board. The materials an d elevations that are proposed are part of the site plan review and also they would be exhibits to the Annexation Agreement. Staff indicated in the staff report that the Code requires high quality materials. Generally, that means brick, stone, etc., but it does not preclude glass. The metal siding is something that was pointed out in the report that generally is not typical of a Church Building, but because of the modern style of architecture, staff was not objecting to it. Petitioner Ehrman stated th e product is a relatively expensive product . It is at the higher end of expensive. Commissioner Kachel mentioned the warranty information represented a number of types of product. Commissioner Seggebruch felt this material would be more interesting th an just building in painted precast. He felt at least the metal gave some articulation on the surface and some relief. He asked if other exterior materials were considered other than the metal material siding. Commissioner Kachel stated the warranty d id not cover hail and wondered if hail hit this material if it would dent. Petitioner Ehrman stated if the hail is big enough and the wind is blowing strong enough, it would dent the material. He stated it is a relatively high gauge metal. They did cons ider several other materials at one time. Commissioner Renzi stated there were problems with painted precast in the past. He did not particularly have a problem with the metal. He felt it would be a Board decision. He did share Commissioner Kachel’s concerns. He wanted material that would hold up to the weather and time. He wanted to make sure that staff takes a thorough look at the grade. Petitioner Ehrman stated most masonry and precast concrete buildings have a one year warranty. They will l eak. This type of metal siding application is much more waterproof than a masonry or stone wall would be.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Commissioner Seggebruch stated typically more masonry would be expected. Planner Schwarz stated the Annexation Agreement itself will have a Publ ic Hearing at the Village Board level. The Commission ’s comments regarding the elevations will be conveyed to the Village Board. Staff’s recommendation is for approval of all the related drawings. He further stated the future expansion elevations do not reflect the wainscot. He wondered before this is moved to the Village Board if the Commission had any thoughts about the back elevation (the east elevation). Commissioner Renzi stated if this was not a Church, but a commercial development; he would be far more concerned of the absence of wainscoting on the east elevation. Planner Schwarz stated on the future expansion staff would look to mimic the wainscot on the north and the south sides. Commissioner Renzi felt a note could be made that the Commi ssion did not require the wainscot at this time, but when the building comes through for expansion the Commission had contemplated wainscot would go in. This would make the Church aware that they would need to match the front side of the building rather t han the back side of the building when they expand. Petitioner Ehrman stated the request would be reasonable. They want the building to look as good as possible when it is built out. Commissioner Kachel has noticed that a lot of the detention ponds wi th natural plantings have not been maintained, especially when they are smaller detention ponds. He wondered how the Village can control these ponds. Planner Schwarz stated there are maintenance requirements by the HOA or the developer. There was a disc ussion about native landscaped ponds. Commissioner Sanders felt the landscape plan calls for large shrubs along the east side to break up some of the verticality. He was comfortable with the east side being the steel. Planner Schwarz stated there are al so perimeter foundation plantings. There is a 5’ landscape bed around the perimeter of the building. There are shrubs within that 5’ bed which go around the perimeter of the building. Commissioner Heinen asked if there would be any public notice given t o the owners of two adjacent lots where the utility plan shows connections to existing inlets that are located in public utility easements on private property . Planner Schwarz stated the applicant was not required to provide notice since the property is in a public utility easement. However, staff will take that under advisement. Commissioner Heinen asked Village Engineer Eickholtz about the overflow for Pond #2. Village Engineer Eickholtz stated the overflow does not go onto Van Dyke. The subject sit e had drained previously without a detention pond. They had to design their subdivision to accommodate the offsite flow from the property. At 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Sanders made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Special Use for Religious Assembly for the subject property located on the east side of Van Dyke Road, approximately one -half mile north of 135 th Street, commonly know as 13013 Van Dyke Road. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Sanders, Kiefer, Seggebruch, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 Commissioner Renzi wanted stipulation #3 under the [Preliminary and] Final Plat to be amended. At 8:36 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a mot ion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the [Preliminary and] Final Plat of Subdivision for Harvest Church Subdivision, located on the east side of Van Dyke Road, approximately one -half mile north of 135 th Street, commonly known as 13013 Van Dyk e Road, 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. Subject to the Site Plan Review documents being revised in accord ance with staff’s review comments and modified by the Plan Commission.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 6 of 6 Commission Kiefer seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Sanders, Kiefer, Seggebruch, Kachel, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is ca rried 6:0 At 8:37 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Site Plan Review for Harvest Church 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, 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. Compliance with all Building Code requirements, 4. Subject to the Site Plan Review documents being revised in accordance with staff’s review comments as modified by the Plan Commission. Commissioner Seggebruch seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kiefer, Seggebruc h, Kachel, Renzi, Sanders, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 DISCUSSION: Planner Schwarz reminded the Commissioners that there is a Joint Meeting with the Village Board on Monday night at 7:00 p.m. to continue the discussion regarding moving forward in terms of retrofitting some of the subdivisions that have not already been built out. Commissioner Kachel felt it was almost too soon to make any changes without knowing what way the economy is going. A discussion followed in this regard . Chairman Sobkoviak stated he had read an article stating that some of the HOA’s were not being funded due to foreclosures, etc. Commissioner Renzi again asked for a map showing the approved and platted subdivisions that have not been built out and the status of those projects. Planner Schwarz stated it was his understanding this is being worked on. Since there was no further business before the Commission, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Re spectfully Submitted Carol Millan Recording Secretary