Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2009-07-21 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RECORD OF MINUTES DATE : JULY 21 , 2009 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the m eeting of the Plan Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel, O’Rourke , Sanders , Kiefer , Seggebruch, ex -officio Commi ssioner Schrack ; and Chairman Sobkoviak Absent: Commissioner Renzi, ex -officio Commissioner Heinen, Plainfield Park District, Plainfield School District , Plainfield Library District, Plainfield Fire Protection District, and Plainfield Police Department Also Present: Michael Garrigan – Village Planner Village of Plainfield and Carol Millan – Planning Department Secretary Village of Plainfield APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The July 7, 2009 minutes were accepted as prese nted . DEVELOPMENT REPORT: Village Planner Garrigan summarized what had transpired at the 7/20 /09 Village Board meeting. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: CASE: 1475 -070209.RZ.SU.SPR.PP/FP PLAINFIELD DENTAL ADDITION Request: Map Amendment (Re -Zoning) and Special Use for Planned Development (Public Hearing ) Site Plan Review Preliminary/Final Plat of Subdivision Location: West of IL Rt. 59, north of Commercial Street Applicant: Peter Muraglia, D.D.S. At 7:04 p.m. Commissioner O’Rourke made a motion that the Plan Commission continue Case: 1475 -070209.RZ.SU.SPR.PP/FP – Plainfield Dental Addition to the August 4, 2009 Plan Commission Meeting. Commissioner Seggebruch seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. AYE: Kachel, O’Rourke, Sanders, Kiefer, Seggebruch, Chairman Sobkoviak NAY: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 Village of Plainfield Plan Commis sion Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 2 of 5 CASE: 1472 -062509.CP PLAINFIELD WEST Request: Concept Plan Review Location: 127 th Street, west of Ridge Road Applicant: MPI -7 Plainfield West TIME: 7:05 p .m. Chairman Sobkoviak explained the Concept Plan Review process for the benefit of the new Commissioners. The applicant will be seeking input from the Commission. Village Planner Garrigan summarized the staff report. Plainfield West was originally app roved by the Village Board in 2006 and the applicant is proposing to change the basic plan. The plan now contains 310 single -family lots instead of the original 240 single -family lots. The minimum lot size would be 7,317 sq. ft. and 80% of the lots will exceed 9,000 sq. ft. Average lot size would be 10,319 sq. ft. This is based on the current market conditions. The geometry for the plan has not changed. The engineering and design of this subdivision is primarily the same. Initially, the proposed gr oss density was 1.96 du/ac. This proposed site is within the medium density residential district, which is 2 .1 to 3.0 du/ac. The original plan approved in 2006 was below the Village’s Comp Plan density . The applicant is now requesting a gross density o f 2.6 du/ac. Staff is very supportive of the applicant’s request as it relates to the additional density. Because of the additional requested density there may be some opportunities to incorporate some elements from the Village’s Design Guidelines. Staff is looking for feedback from the Commission as it relates to the staff report. Village Planner Garrigan concluded his report. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioners. Tom Small, representing MPI, spoke first. He also introduced Wendy Yaksich, also from MPI. He stated MPI is the developer of Grande Park. Plainfield West is the continuation of Grande Park. He stated everyone is facing a lot of challenges at the present time. He indicated they are developers and not builders. Th ey sell to builder s. They have to develop and deliver a product that the builders can utilize. He stated they feel this plan is a great continuation of Grande Park. In Grande Park they have townhouse sites, apartment sites, duplex sites, and sites for larger houses. The y do not have a product type for something below an 11,000 sq. ft. lot. He explained the proposed plan. They did not think it was appropriate at this time to discuss any changes to the annexation agreement . They are trying to get a segment of the market that they presently cannot get. There is a continuation of the street configuration with Grande Park. They want the Plan Commission’s input before they proceed any further . Chairman Sobkoviak asked if this subdivision would be organized with a Homeowne rs Association. Petitioner Small stated it would become part of the Grande Park Association. Chairman Sobkoviak also asked if the open space in the center would be retained by the HOA or deeded to the Park District. Petitioner Small stated it would be r etained by the HOA. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if Petitioner Small had any reluctance to incorporate any of Village Planner Garrigan’s design elements. Petitioner Small did not feel the modified grid network would make sense and would not be appropriate fo r this site. He further stated if this was a raw piece of ground and was being started from scratch he felt the grid network would be something that they would look at. He stated as far as pocket parks, there is a lot of open space already in this plan. Wendy Yaksich spoke. She showed a slide of the existing Grande Park. She stated the concept being talked about is located adjacent to Grande Park. She showed the open space network, the southern trail that leads right into the Grande Park center open space. She stated the geometrics of the street system are very consistent with the existing Grande Park Development. Plainfield West was designed as an extension of this larger, master planned community. The park in this development is over 100 acres i n size in the center of Grande Park. Commissioner Sanders had a question as to what the markets are in general. He asked Petitioner Small if he felt the approved Plainfield West plan does not meet the present market price points whereas the concept plan does . Petitioner Small replied that was correct. He further stated they do not have lots of this size. It is another niche for them. Commissioner Sanders further stated people purchasing housing will be held to higher credit standards. There is a new definition of housing needs. A discussion followed between Commissioner Sanders and Petitioner Small in regards to what house prices would be affordable at present with the higher credit standards. Commissioner Sanders asked staff if the proposed concept plan would require less public service infrastructure. Village Planner Garrigan stated the infrastructure improvements as they relate to utilities remains the same . Village Planner Garrigan stated with more lots theoretically there are more residents an d there would be more tap on fees . T here would actually be Village of Plainfield Plan Commis sion Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 3 of 5 more revenue to the Village. He further stated he has been closely conferring with the Chicagoland Home Builders Association. He thought there was a general consensus the price points will b e a lot more sensitive in the future market to more conventional financing approaches. Therefore, the price points will not perhaps be the same as they were 3 or 4 years ago during the “boom” period. Commissioner Sanders felt this type of housing lends i tself to all types of people in all stages of life who would be attracted to single family homes. Village Planner Garrigan stated one of the things staff has consistently pushed for , and the applicant has addressed in his overall master plan ned communit y, is diversity. This proposed development does provide an opportunity to have the diversity of price points. Commissioner Kiefer asked the applicant if they had envisioned Plainfield West to be more of a modest home size and lot size than to be a cont inuation of Neighborhood 13 of Grande Park. Petitioner Small stated it was intended to go with upper end houses . Commissioner O’Rourke asked the petitioner if this was considered the lower end. Petitioner Small stated when he had said the upper end; so me of the homes originally were $600,000 to $700,000 and maybe more. He stated if there are any of these homes in the future, they will probably be built in the existing Grande Park custom area. He did not envision them being built in this area. Chairma n Sobkoviak felt they should avoid using the terms “high end” and “low end”. They are misleading. What might be “high end” to one person might not be to another. He felt they should use the actual number brackets. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the petitione r what he envisioned as the price range for this neighborhood. Petitioner Small was reluctant to say, but then said it would probably be starting in the high $200,000 to $400,000 range . Chairman Sobkoviak asked the price of a lot. Petitioner Small state d he could not tell the Commission today. He stated today, the lot would be worth nothing. Commissioner O’Rourke stated if the petitioner did not know what lots are going to sell for, why are they before the Commission. Petitioner Small stated one of th e big issues they have is getting another niche for Grande Park. Commissioner O’Rourke inquired as to what Petitioner Small meant by niche. Petitioner Small replied by saying he meant niche to mean a product type that they can sell to a builder. A discu ssion followed between Commissioner O’Rourke and Petitioner Small in this regard. Commissioner Kachel asked the petitioner if there was any thought that a modular type home could be built instead of a custom type home. Petitioner Small stated they have not had any input from anyone. He reiterated that they are a developer and they supply building sites to builders. He did not have a problem with that though. Commissioner Kachel felt the dust has not yet settled and was concerned about changing concep ts without knowing the pricing, types of houses, etc. Commissioner O’Rourke had a concern saying “reduce the price point and someone will buy.” He did not know that anything is working today. Petitioner Small reiterated that they came in for a product that would support and complement the existing Grande Park. They tried to be sympathetic to the plan and how it reflects and relates to Grande Park. Petitioner Wendy Yaksich stated in terms of the existing Grande Park Development there are many differ ent types of neighborhoods. There are neighborhoods with varying lot sizes from 10,000 to 12,000 sq. ft. There are townhouses, duplexes, and apartments. Each neighborhood is different, yet they are all compatible as part of the overall master planned co mmunity. The intent of bringing in Plainfield West with smaller lot sizes is to complement the overall development. So, it would be a new neighborhood type. They would be different in terms of size, yet consistent with the overall development. Lot size s in Grande Park South, which was approved after Plainfield West, ranged between 6,000 and 40,000 sq. ft. The diversity of product type was already built into the plan. When Plainfield West was originally approved, the diversity ranged from 10,000 to 12,000 sq. ft lots . Commissioner Seggebruch felt it made sense to keep the engineering and just change lot sizes. He was wondering if they could explore the possibility of putting in some duplexes in one area. That could help with the density, but might open up some space. He also felt staff’s ideas in the staff report should be looked at. Petitioner Small clarified that there are a lot of houses in Grande Park, excluding the custom homes, that could be built on these lots depicted in the concept plan. Village of Plainfield Plan Commis sion Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 4 of 5 Commissioner O’Rourke did not understand why the petitioner had cut down the sizes of the lots. Petitioner Small stated he needs more density for the project to make financial sense. Commissioner O’Rourke wondered why the petitioner felt a $200,000 home is the magic number. Petitioner Small explained that the only thing selling across the country is in the $200,000 or less range. That is where the marketplace is today. Village Planner Garrigan concurred. He quoted some experts that stated in th e foreseeable future, 5 years out, the North Plainfield price point market will be between $250,000 and $350,000. This is substantially different than the price point window from 2 years ago. There is complete consensus that is what the future price poin t will be when the market comes back. Commissioner O’Rourke felt no one could accurately predict the future. He had a concern that if the Commission approved this today it might not be developed for 3 to 5 years and then the whole market could change aga in. Village Planner Garrigan stated there is no market today. Commissioner Kachel added we are presently in a recession and it is close to a depression in the housing market. He stated there were a lot of small, inexpensive homes built up around Plain field and it took years to get to where Plainfield is today . He had concerns about going backward s . Commissioner Seggebruch stated they could be a little too hung u p on the idea of just cost. He stated in the future it is not going to be just the cost of the house, but also utilities, etc. Not everyone wants to do the maintenance associated with a large lot. He stated his guess would be when the market does come back, probably what will come back first will be the smaller homes. He stated smaller hom es could also be a high quality house, but it might be a high quality 2,200 sq. ft house instead of a 3,500 sq. ft. house. He would like the petitioner to talk to staff a little further about fitting in some duplexes usin g the same street layout and engin eering, etc. Commissioner Sanders stated this concept plan is from a developer that is trying to market this plan to a builder based on th e changing demographics and credit markets. Commissioner Seggebruch made a comparison to the Lakelands on the ea st end where there are high quality homes on smaller lots. Commissioner O’Rourke questioned the petitioner about the 2,000 sq. ft. homes in Grande Park. Petitioner Small stated he doubted if they had any that are 2,000 sq. ft. His guess would be the a verage size home in this development would be 2,500 sq. ft. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the Commissioners to look at the issues that staff brought up in Page 3 of 4 of the staff report. Commissioner Sanders wanted clarification as far as the amenities. He asked if the island areas in the cul de sacs, boulevards, etc. had been removed. Petitioner Small stated they have not been removed. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the Commission was comfortable with the change in density: o Commissioner Kiefer was supp ortive of the revised plan o Commissioner Sanders was comfortable o Commissioner Kachel would like to know what the housing mix is before he makes any decision. He also wanted to make sure there would be no additional changes when going to the Village Board o C ommissioner O’Rourke was not in favor of the increased density because he did not feel a strong enough argument has been made as to why it is needed. He did not feel it should be done just to reduce the price point of homes. He didn’t know where you woul d stop. He had heard there was a 10 year supply of homes. He felt maybe they are going through this process too early. o Commissioner Seggebruch overall did not have a problem with the increased density. He felt the petitioner was reducing the sizes of the lots a little bit, but still keeping them complementary to the adjacent Grande Park. o Commissioner Schrack had no problem with the increased density. He felt a 65’ lot is an adequate lot if it helps keep the price point of the homes down. He was sure the petitioner would not degrade the community since they have another development right next door. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the proposed street layout and everything is essentially the same. He asked the Commissioners if there is an adequate balance be tween the additional density and the amenities being offered. Does the increased density require some additional amenities: o Commissioner O’Rourke had an issue with the density bonus o Commissioner Sanders asked staff if the Village has anything to say about landscaping amenities to the front yards. Village Planner Garrigan stated it was his recollection in the annexation agreement there was an Village of Plainfield Plan Commis sion Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 5 of 5 exhibit which outlined a general landscape package. There are general guidelines in regards to architecture. Co mmissioner S anders asked if there would be more trees with there being more lots. Village Planner Garrigan stated there would be more parkway trees because there will be more units. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the Commissioners if any future residential mar ket would support the amenities outlined in the design guidelines. Village Planner Garrigan stated that is a philosophical question. He asked if the future market would support the residential design guidelines. Commissioner O’Rourke felt when the marke t comes back there will be a balance of everything, whether it is residential, commercial, etc. He felt the future would support some of those amenities. They need to identify those areas and address them accordingly. Chairman Sobkoviak wanted the recor d to show there was no one in the audience so there was no response from the audience. o Commissioner Seggebruch stated if there was a proposed reduction of amenities with the increased density that could be a problem, but as long as the same amenities are being maintained , he did not see a problem . Chairman Sobkoviak thought the Park District donation would increase. He also thought the School District donation will go up. o Commissioner Sanders supports the proposed concept plan. Chairman Sobkoviak told the petitioner there is a general consensus on the Commission that they can live with the density. There is consensus that the graphic layout of the streets and the location of the open spaces are appropriate. Village Planner Garrigan stated the petit ioner will go before the Village Board and get their input based on the input of the Plan Commission. At that point, the petitioner will make a decision if they want to proceed with amending the annexation agreement as it relates to the land plan and come back to the Commission with the revised preliminary plat. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the street names have been set. Petitioner Small believed they had been. There was no vote of the Commissioners. They just gave their input on the concept plan. DISCUSSION : None Since there was no further business before the Commission, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Re spectfully Submitted Carol Millan Recording Secretary