HomeMy Public PortalAbout2008-04-15 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RECORD OF MINUTES AMENDED DATE : APRIL 15 , 2008 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, M cKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Bonuchi, and Sanders ; ex -officio Commissioner Peck; Chairman Sobkoviak; and the Representative from the Plainfield Township Park District. Absent: Plainfield School District , Plainfield Fire Protection District, Library District, an d Plainfield Police Department Also Present: Mike Schwarz – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Sara Javoronok – Planner Village of Plainfield, Carol Millan – Secr etary Village of Plainfield, and Nea l Eickholtz – Baxter and Woodman MINUTES: The minutes fr om the Plan Commission meeting of April 1 , 2008 were accepted as presented. DEVELOPMENT REPORT: Planner Schwarz summarized the results of the regular business meeting of the Village Board on 4/7/08. He also summarized what had taken place at the 4/14/08 Board Workshop. OLD BUSINESS: CASE: 1324 -043107.CP LA BANCZ PROPERTY Request: Concept Plan Review Location: North & South sides of Rt. 126 East of County Line Road extended Applicant: Lakewood Homes, Inc. Kurt A. Wandrey TIME: 7:05 p.m. Planner Schwarz summarized the staff report and gave a brief history of the site. He listed the (11) significant changes to the previous concept plan as related in the staff report .
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes April 15, 2008 Page 2 of 13 The applicant is requesting some variances: • Reduction of the minimum lot size from 12,000 sq. ft. to 9,375 sq. ft. • Reduction of minimum lot width from 85’ to 75’ only for single family lots • Allowance for building envelope lots for townhome buildings • Lesser building -to -building setbacks • Relief from setback requirements for town home buildings along County Line Rd, as well as a 5’ setback reduction along the internal street for several of the townhome buildings • Reduction of the street width from 66’ to 60’ for the R.O.W. Planner Schwarz summarized the streetscape design. Accordi ng to the Residential Design Guidelines there is a requirement for 35% of the homes to include side and/or rear load garage s so that the streetscape does not get dominated by garage doors. Based on the proposed 165 single family homes , approximately 57 of those would need to have the side or rear load garages. Since re ar load garages are not feasible in this case because there are no proposed alleys , the applicant will need to make up the 35% on the corner lots . S taff believes this requirement can be met . Planner Schwarz summarized the architectural design scheme. There is a Pattern Book on file with 8 examples of single family homes. Special attention should be given to homes that will front the park/school site. The applicant has submitted prelimina ry building elevations for the townhomes , and exterior materials and design details are consistent with the Village’s requirements for these types of buildings. All townhome end units will feature front porches and will reflect typical exterior aspects of a detached single family home. Earlier comments from the Commission have been addressed. There will be some commercial development in the future on the property. There is a small 1.3 acre triangular commercial parcel located at the southeast corner of Rt. 126 and County Line. The applicant has indicated that parcel will likely be combined with an adjoining property as part of a future commercial development. Staff would suggest that part of the negotiation of the pre -annexation agreement would be a commitment from the applicant as far as the commercial architecture and design standards that would be an obligation for this developer or a future developer. Planner Schwarz summarized the comments of other Village departments and outside agencies. • Vi llage Engineer – some floodplain mitigation for a portion of the County Line Rd. extension; • Public Works Department – raised concerns about the County Line Rd. extension and the intersection improvements at Rt. 126 and County Line Rd. • Plainfield Fire Pro tection District – standard fire hydrant spacing and two fire department access roads must be maintained during construction • Plainfield Park District – school/park site at the northeast corner may satisfy the needs of the school district; however, it does not create a viable neighborhood park based on the typical elementary school site plan template – Park District requesting an all cash contribution. • Plainfield School District – configuration, location, and size of the school site is acceptable. The estim ated school requirement is 9.82 acres, assuming “worst case” scenario. The 15.42 acre school site exceeds the minimum required school land donation by 5.6 acres. As proposed , the School District would be obligated to purchase the additional 5.6 acres ba sed on the desire of the Park District to not accept a park site.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes April 15, 2008 Page 3 of 13 Planner Schwarz stated staff generally supports the concept plan in terms of the mix of housing types, internal street lay out, lot sizes, and land uses; but is looking for additional des ign features that will help balanc e the relief being requested fro m Village Standards as part of a Planned Development. Staff has indicated they will accept a density bonus for the project in accordance with the Village Density Bonus System in order to ac quire unique features. Planner Schwarz stated staff wishes to solicit comments from the Plan Commission and provide feedback and direction to the applicant. He concluded his summary. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Kurt Wandrey, Sr. Vice President Lakewood Homes. He gave a history of the project and showed a slide presentation depicting the plan. He stated presently the site is not contiguous , so they will be dealing with a pre -annexation agreement . He showed some slides showing the refinements to the con cept plan. He stated they picked the area they did for the school site because , as the area around it develops, there is the possibility of expanding that site into a larger tract of land. He showed a slide showing the impact of the floodplain that they subsequently realized was there . It made a significant im pact on the concept of the earlier plan , which resulted in the present concept plan . He stated the only minimum lots are the 9,300 sq. ft. lots and pointed them out on a slide. He also showed the slide depicting the lots with a minimum lot width. He stated they have provided for single loaded streets all the way around the school site. He pointed out a pocket park and a small tot lot, which would be part of the Homeowners Association. He stated the most dynamic public open space will be everything that will front on the extension of County Line Road going north of Rt. 126. That will become a rather major and important traffic arterial for the community . He stated the highway going through the m iddle of the site originally was moved over to the west. He also showed slides of the elevations, entry features, landscaping features, BMP’s, etc. He stated the garages are now actually pulled in which hides the garage s from the streetscape. He stated the product line runs from 2,300 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft. Any lot backing up to the highway has rear yard architecture with landscaping to help soften the impact of the rear elevation. He stated they want to get the Commission’s feedback, as well as the Village Board ’s feedback, before it is taken to the final plat or preliminary plat process. He ended his presentation. There was a discussion between Planner Schwarz and the commissioners regarding the setback variance of 20’ instead of 30’. Planner Schw arz stated the applicant has indicated they would be willing to increase the green space for the corner buildings, but that would take away from the separation in the interior. Commissioner Renzi stated it made sense to him in terms of the setbacks by g etting a little bit more green space . There is good spacing between the townhouses. He pointed out the long strip of the north/south road along the east side. He wondered if something could be done with the streetscape in this area . Planner Schwarz sta ted the Subdivision Ordinance does have a maximum block length, which he believed was 1,500 feet in length. He stated these blocks are less than 1,500 feet so t hey do comply with the Village requirement. Planner Schwarz stated the applicant indicated som e traffic calming measures could be used, such as the chokers, etc. Commissioner Renzi stated that should be done beforehand . It was pointed out the houses along County Line Road will have their backyards facing County Line Road. Commissioner Renzi had some concerns about side -loaded garages. A discussion followed between the commissioners regarding garages. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Commission will have another opportunity when this plan comes back to the Commission to set details. He asked the C ommission if they were generally pleased with the overall plan.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes April 15, 2008 Page 4 of 13 Chairman Sobkoviak asked the commissioners if they were comfortable with the requested relief from the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Peck asked staff if this plan was always medium . Planner Schwarz stated the Comprehensive Plan has always been medium density residential with a range of 2.1 to 3.0 du/acres for this area . The previous iteration of the concept plan had a higher unit count and the applicant was seeking a 50% density bonus, which is authorized under the Planned Development regulations. Commissioner Peck asked the applicant the approximate starting price for the townhomes and the single family homes. Kurt Wandrey stated prices for single family homes would range from $265,000 to $350,000 and prices for the townhomes would range from $170,000 to $180,000. Commissioner Peck had a tax base concern and felt there would be a shortfall in funds for the schools of $3 million per year subsidized by oth er homeowners and businesses in Plainfield as a result of this development . Commissioner O’Rourke had a question about the relief being requested for the minimum lot sizes and widths. Planner Schwarz stated each property is different and there are enviro nmental constraints on the western boundary of this property because it is floodplain. He further stated the relief is not excessive. It is actually less than previous iterations. The Planned Development Ordinance is to allow the kind of flexibility the applicant is seeking. For a trade -off for some of the relief, the land plan can be more creative. Density bonuses are sometimes granted to get certain amenities. Staff was actually supportive of the previous iteration, which actually had more units. T hat plan had a park in the middle of the project framed by single family homes . The applicant was willing to work with staff and create front porches that all faced the park. That would not be seen in a conventional subdivision. Planner Schwarz stated t he proposed density is 1.8 du/acre and the range of the Comprehensive Plan is 2.1 -3.0 du/acre. Commissioner O’Rourke asked the applicant if they are comfortable with the Park District asking for an all cash donation. Kurt Wandrey stated it came as a su rprise, because he thought the configuration they came up with was a combined facility that could easily grow as other property comes on line to create a community asset in this area. He stated with an all cash donation what would happen to the recreation al opportunities that would normally be provided for a neighbor hood of this size. He also wondered if the School District is going to step up and pay for the extra land that the developer is not obligated to give the School District. All of the negotiat ions still have to be completed with the Park District and School District. He stated from a policy issue, it is not a big issue to them. He felt they could react with some planning issues as it is brought forward to the next step. This will probably al l be sorted out in the annexation agreement. Cameron Bettin, Superintendent of Planning for the Plainfield Township Park District spoke. He stated typically when they do a school/park site they will take 5 -7 acres , and then the School District has their 15 acres for an elementary or 20 acres for a middle school. The Park District plans to work with the School District. There may be a possibility that the School District might want additional land for a middle school site as well. The Park District does foresee a community park site in that area. He stated the first priority is to develop something for this site . A ny cash -in -lieu that is left would be put towards a proposed community center at Renwick, possibly a joint facility with the Library Distric t. Planner Schwarz stated that the School District is aware they might need to consider the acquisition. There has been no decision by the School Board.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes April 15, 2008 Page 5 of 13 Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Engineer Eickholtz if there were any engineering issues. Villa ge Engineer Eickholtz responded the biggest issue is the sewer and water connections would have to be extended to serve this property. Commissioner Kachel reiterated that staff would like to have some type of commitment for the commercial architecture for the small pie -shaped area. He asked if anything like that had ever been done before. Planner Schwarz reminded him that this is a pre -annexation agreement. He stated this has be en done before. Minimum commercial design guidelines are already incorporat ed into the Zoning Ordinance. The Village always has the opportunity to “raise the bar” and ask that the commercial tie in architecturally or stylistically with the rest of the development. There was a d iscussion regarding this aspect among the commissio ners. Planner Schwarz stated there is a benefit to both the applicant and the Village regarding a pre -annexation agreement. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who cared to ask a question or make a comment. There was no respon se. Commissioner Sanders asked about the proposed intersection at County Line. He asked if all of that would be annexed into the Village of Plainfield per the pre -annexation agreement or annexation agreement. Planner Schwarz stated staff would look favo rably upon intersection and signalization improvements of County Line Road and the existing Route 126 by some date certain before development of the project commences. Commissioner Sanders wanted to make sure that all of the intersection is located within the property. He felt that was not shown on the plans. Planner Schwarz stated the property line does jog around the intersection, but staff could address the intersection improvements as part of the pre -annexation agreement. Kurt Wandrey responded that this particular part of the area is actually highway R.O.W. that is available for development. Commissioner O’Rourke asked Kurt Wandrey what his position is on the signalization, etc. Kurt Wandrey stated bring ing sewer and water into the area and beco ming contiguous is key. He stated they have been talking to staff about coming in and working with IDOT on a temporary left turn lane and a temporary traffic signal. He stated this could be some time. Commissioner O’Rourke felt it would rank high on his list that this be part of the agreement. Commissioner Kachel asked about the detention pond for the school area. He asked if that was the best area for drainage . A discussion followed between Commissioner Kachel and Kurt Wandrey about the drainage in the s chool site area. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the petitioner if he was amenable to the additional design features staff has requested to balance relief being requested, such as brick or cobblestone round -abouts or crosswalks in key locations. The peti tioner, Kurt Wandrey stated conceptually that is part of the overall neighborhood amenity package that they will be working with. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that is something the Commission will be looking at when the petitioner comes back with the prelimi nary plat. Commissioner Kachel a sked if a better look could be accomplished on the sides of buildings that do not have side -loaded garages. Possibly more windows or some features. Kurt Wandrey stated they have key lots through out the development. He stated that is a way to enhance the character of the entire neighborhood.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes April 15, 2008 Page 6 of 13 Kurt Wandrey made comments relating to the architectural design of the commercial areas. He stated he could not see how the triangle of land could work commercially today. He di d not know what could be put there other than a coffee kiosk. He stated it will probably reach its maturity when County Line Road is extended. He stated the Commission really needs to focus on the large trac t of land and not the little sliver of land. Commissioner O’Rourke stated on the plans the top northwest corner of the property is depicted as future R.O.W. Planner Schwarz explained. He stated t he north property line of this property is approximately the half mile separation between existing Rout e 126 and the future extension of 143 rd Street. Staff was looking at crossing the creek that runs along the west property with a future local connector bridge connection. Staff is asking this developer to provide a 40’ half R.O.W. dedication to the Villa ge . That would also be asked of the property owner to the north when that property annexes. That 80’ total R.O.W. would give the Village enough room to put in an unloaded, local connector type of street with a bike path on one side and a sidewalk on the other . T hat would connect this neighborhood, the neighborhood to the north, and adjacent neighborhoods to enable them t o cross that creek line that runs along the west property line. Staff would then ask, as part of the pre -annexation agreement, a fair s hare contribution from this developer to fund the Village coming in and building that road in the future. Staff thinks it is important to have a local, neighborhood type of connection between neighborhoods so that everyone is not forced to use the County Line Road extension. Commissioner O’Rourke asked the petitioner if parking was an issue and if additional parking should be considered because of the density. Kurt Wandrey stated the product is unique because there is a 4:1 ratio, which is almost the sam e as a single family house with a two car garage and two cars in front of it. That usually is satisfactory. Guest parking becomes the issue. He showed on a slide where additional guest parking could be. Commissioner McKay had a concern in the townhom e area about guest parking, especially on the week -ends. She stated she had concerns because the petitioner is deviating from the standard and asking for 60’ wide streets. Planner Schwarz explained the Village requires a 66’ R.O.W. for a local roadway. Generally, the Village allows, in most cases, a reduction to 60’. The roadway pavement width remains the same. It is 28’ back -to -back, in terms of the roadway pavement. He stated that would not change and the only difference between the 66’ R.O.W. and t he 60’ R.O.W. is the grass parkway is slightly narrower . Commissioner McKay agreed it was a standard deviation, but stated there is an opportunity to squeeze in a few extra spots when the site plan comes in. The petitioner, Kurt Wandrey , stated that woul d be very easy to do. Chairman Sobkoviak stated parking is a big concern throughout the Village and the Commission pays a lot of attention to parking. Commissioner McKay commended the developer stating that the movement of the road is fantastic, as tha t was an issue for the Commission the last time. She further stated the plans look innovative. She also asked that the developer work with the Park District to finalize plans before coming back to the Commission. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Planner Schwa rz if he wanted a motion. Planner Schwarz stated the Commission is welcome to make a motion, but they are not obligated to make a motion. He stated the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to provide feedback and direction to the applicant before he moves for ward to the Village Board. Chairman Sobkoviak then asked the petitioner if he had what he needed from the commissioners. Kurt Wandrey stated absolutely.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes April 15, 2008 Page 7 of 13 Kurt Wandrey addressed the comments made earlier from Commissioner Peck. He stated it has been h is lifelong struggle to figure out how to get single family housing to pay for itself. That is why they rely on the commercial and industrial tax base in communities. He stated construction financing needs to be looked at in Springfield because it doesn’t really work. He felt the school officials would confirm this. At 8:30 p.m. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a 10 minute recess. At 8:40 p.m. Chairman Sobkoviak reconvened the meeting. CASE: 1381 -122007.CP MAIN -ARNOLD DEVELOPMENT Req uest: Concept Plan Review for an Office Bldg. Location: Southwest corner of Main St. & Arnold St. 24029 & 24031 W. Main Street Applicant: Bart Development, LLC Tom Bart TIME: 8:40 p.m. Planner Schwarz summarized the staff report. The applicant is req uesting feedback from the Commission regarding the concept plan before going to the Village Board. The proposed site consists of two lots totaling .34 acres. The development is predicated on the applicant’s ability to obtain rezoning from R -1 to BTD fro m the Village Board. This would be a policy issue as the Future Land Use Map identifies the property as Village Residential. The BTD historically has not been approved on streets other than Rt. 59 and Rt. 30. The applicant is also requesting demolition of the two existing houses to accommodate a new office building. This also is a policy issue as the request conflicts with the Village Board’s adopted BTD policy as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed demolitions also raise a Historic Preserv ation issue. A final plat of subdivision is also requested to consolidate the two existing lots into a new lot of record. A site plan review is also requested. The concept plan depicts a 2 -story, 5,760 sq. ft. office building. According to the Future L and Use Map, Village Residential would be in the range of 4 -6 dwelling units to the acre. The applicant has submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed office building. According to the applicant, the proposed architectural style is consist ent with the Greek Revival Style of the historic Flanders House, which is located on the north side of Main Street across from the subject property. The proposed office building requires one parking space per 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area. In this case the proposed office building is 5,760 sq. ft., which requires 19 spaces and the concept plan only reflects 16 on -site spaces. This is deficient by 3 spaces and would not comply with the Village requirements. The Zoning Ordinance does allow for any on -s treet parking within 150’ of the front door. Therefore, along Arnold Street there may be an opportunity to count 1 or 2 spaces toward the parking requirement. The concept plan reflects vehicular access on Arnold Street generally in the location of the e xisting residential driveway. It serves a small parking lot on the south side of the building. Additional access is provided to a row of parking stalls from the alley. The Zoning Ordinance provides that when vehicle access is provided via an alley, impr ovements may be required to the alley. Such improvements may include asphalt surfacing, lighting, and stormwater management controls. Site access shall be designed to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. Staff believes the proposed direct access par king stalls from the alley do not allow for the required screening. Further, the parking areas are separated form one another, which may confuse visitors and require unnecessary traffic flow attempting to park at the site. Staff
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes April 15, 2008 Page 8 of 13 recommends that the par king spaces be consolidated into a single parking lot with access provided from both Arnold Street and the alley. A formal landscape plan has not been submitted. However, the concept plan does reflect a handful of trees and shrubs around the perimeter of the new office building. The required BTD 10’ landscape buffer is also shown along the south property line. The Zoning Ordinance does require a 100% year -round visual screening of the parking areas that are adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity, of residential uses. The stormwater ordinance does not require detention for non -residential development that is less than 1 acre. This site is exempt from the stormwater detention requirements. A lighting plan has not been submitted, but would be require d as part of the site plan review process. Trash enclosure is not identified on the concept plan and staff notes that the location should be delineated at the time of site plan review. It also must be constructed of material matching the building. A sig nage plan has not been submitted and would also be approved through a separate permit review process. Planner Schwarz stated because of the demolition of the two houses, the applicant did submit a demolition permit for both structures, which triggered a r eview by the Historic Preservation Commission. He summarized the action of the HPC. As identified by the HPC survey, 24029 Main Street is identified as contributing to a potential historic district, and 24031 Main Street is identified as non -contributing to a potential historic district. The HPC can recommend a Community Impact Study if the property meets one or more of six findings of fact. The HPC determined that 24029 Main Street met two of the six findings of fact, and recommended a Community Impact Study. The HPC determined that 24031 Main Street met one of the six f indings of fact and recommended a Community Impact Study. The recommendation from the HPC will dovetail with the feedback from the Plan Commission so that the Village Board will effect ively have one staff report with the recommendation of the HPC, as well as any feedback from the Plan Commission on the proposed concept plan. Planner Schwarz summarized feedback from other department and outside agencies. • Village Engineer – Unable to pro vide detailed comments until preliminary and/or final engineering plans received – no stormwater detention required. • Pu blic Works – recommends replacement of existing sidewalk along Main Street and Arnold St. • Plainfield Fire Protection District – fire spri nkler system and alarm system will be required • Plainfield Park District – exempt from any park donation requirement • Plainfield School District – exempt from any park donation requirement. Planner Schwarz identified 5 issues regarding the concept plan. He summarized per the staff report. • Village Board historically has not allowed BTD zoning off of Route 59 , has not allowed the encroachment of commercial uses off of Rt. 59 in downtown area, BTD is intended to provide opportunities for the preservation of re sidential structures while permitting conversion to a limited range of commercial uses. • Future Land Use Map designates use as Village Residential – TENG plan does not indicate any land use changes • Alley access parking does not afford provision of required screening from residential • Number of parking spaces does not comply with requirement • 15’ front yard setback from Main St. does not comply with 30’ required front yard setback and is not consistent with adjacent property setbacks.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes April 15, 2008 Page 9 of 13 Planner Schwarz stated s taff requests feedback and direction to the applicant from the Plan Commission regarding this concept plan. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner, Tom Bart. Tom Bart gave reasons why he feels this is a good use. He stated it would increase real est ate taxes from about $5,000.00 to about $25,000.00 or more, which would help schools, etc. He feels it is not well suited for residential. He stated there is a lot of traffic and it is hard to rent out the properties for residential use. He stated his r esidents have been complaining about diesel fuel smell going in their windows, the noise from the trucks, etc. He stated the historic Plainfield House and Flanders House are across the street. He stated some people really marvel at those buildings, and some people feel they are in disrepair and need some work. He would simulate the architecture with the Flanders House. He is a residential builder, so he feels this building would have more of a residential flare than commercial. He would like to make t he proposed building feel like part of the area. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Plan Commission and the Village itself have to decide where the line needs to be drawn in order to stop tearing down old buildings. Commissioner Sanders stated he didn’t want to draw a line or even recognize this as a dilemma right now. He felt the building s’ history and their historical significance can be chronicled and recorded. H e didn’t know if the building s and their preservation does much to address the economics of a deteriorating building. Main Street cannot be an entire historic district because of the buildings that go west of thi s property are a conglomeration and an eclectic mix . Commissioner Bonuchi stated she can see both sides. She stated this site is prob ably not a good spot for residential with the amount of traffic, etc, but she did not know the historic value of the buildings themselves or possibly moving them. She stated she would like to see something that fits into the overall continuity of the old style building . Commissioner Kachel referenced that originally it was g oing to also be Rt. 126 for BTD; but then it went back to the Board , and the Board said it would just be Rt. 59. Since that time, there have been other developments that were really close to Rt. 59, but were denied the BTD. He stated he felt it is very important that Plainfield keep its history. It would be nice to move some of the historical buildings to one location similar to what has been done in Naperville at the Naper Settlem ent . Commissioner Sanders stated that the policy of BTD just along Rt. 30 and Rt. 59 should be re -evaluated. Commissioner O’Rourke questioned whether the Plan Commission should be held before the impact study is completed. Planner Schwarz stated tha t was a good question. He stated the recommendation of the HPC is a recommendation to the Village Board to require a Community Impact Study for both properties. That meeting has not occurred yet. The Plan Commission is being asked to weigh in on the iss ue of changing the zoning not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He further stated the question is whether the Plan Commission is comfortable with the zoning request to BTD when historically that has not been approv ed and some of the site plan issues (parking, setbacks, etc.). When it goes to the Village Board, they will have the final say. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he believed that where the Flanders House was moved there was another office building built in its place. Planner Schwarz agreed. Commissioner O’Rourke further stated that was along Rt. 126 and then next to that is an office (orthodontist or dentist) facility along Rt. 126 as well. He asked what was the zoning on those buildings. Planner Schwarz stated he would have to check the
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes April 15, 2008 Page 10 of 13 zoning, but believed it could be B -1. Commissioner O’Rourke further asked if the Flanders House is now being operated as an office and asked if that was not BTD. Planner Schwarz stated he would have to check the Zoning Map. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the halfway house was always there. He stated the Flanders House was relocated. That was done as a one time only thing in order to preserve the Flanders House because if it was not moved , it would have been destroyed. Commissioner Kachel stated the develop er owned both properties and he moved the Flanders House. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if even before the Flanders House was moved had it been operating as an office, BTD. Commissioner Kachel stated no, it was a commercial rating. Commissioner Kachel referenced the Riverwalk plan and stated there are a lot of changes that are going to happen to the area. He stated a BTD had been set up before which actually included Rt. 126. That stretch should be looked at to see what is going to be done and whether a BTD will be allowed in that particular area. Commissioner McKay stated as she drives down Rt. 126, she sees historic structures that are functioning as businesses right now. She stated according to the Riverfront Plan, there is hope some of the area around the River , where these multi -family apartment buildings are right now, might be changed in the future as well. She referenced the re -work of the corner at Rt. 30 and Rt. 126. She felt Rt. 126 should be considered to some degree as a potential, if it has not been looked at in the last couple of years, for extending some BTD possibilities because it is in the works in the form of the Riverfront Plan. She felt the present legislation seems a little outdated. She felt without the Community Impact St udy it would be hard to make a determination whether the house is just “old” or is it “historic.” Commissioner Sanders felt there is an opportunity for all of the Commissions to look at how the area is going to develop along Rt. 59 and west of Rt. 59, and that includes going to Lockport Street, the Riverfront, and definitely Main Street . He referred to Commissioner McKay’s comments and stated this is something that is not going to be easily resolved in one meeting. He felt they need to look at how to mo ve forward not in bits and pieces, but look at the whole Main Street section and possibly make it BTD if it is appropriate. Commissioner Kachel stated people living in the Historic District were upset when the BTD included more area. Then the Village Boa rd reduced the size of the BTD District. Commissioner Kachel stated this area now is an area where the Village is looking at redevelopment from the bridge all the way to Rt. 59. He stated in that particular sector, the Village Board should look carefully at BTD. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the audience if there was anyone who wished to make a comment or ask a question. Michael Lambert, Chairman Historic Preservation Commission, talked as a resident rather than the Chairman of the HPC. He had a concern a bout the BTD process request. He stated the neighbors in that area do not want BTD. He feels this project does not fit the scale of the neighborhood development. He had a concern about the requested variances and felt this could unravel the BTD process. He stated the BTD is a compromise use. He also feels there is not a demonstrated n eed for office use in this area and cited open office spaces in this area. There was no further response from the audience. Chairman Sobkoviak wanted the Commission to f ocus on the 5 issues brought up by staff. He stated if this location was on Route 59, it would not go forward.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes April 15, 2008 Page 11 of 13 Commissioner O’Rourke stated he did not feel technically i t falls within the BTD. He felt it is closer to the B -1 request. Commissioner Kachel had a concern about bigger office buildings next to existing homes. He stated there is no screening available to screen a two story building when you have windows in that area. This particular building would be large in relationship to existing ho uses all the way around it. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he did not believe it was fair to use the Flanders House as a comparison. The Flanders House was done for the sole purpose of saving the building. Either the building was moved, or it would have been demolished. The people living on the street were not very happy at all. Commissioner Renzi was not sure if he agreed with the Chairman that if this was on Rt. 59 that the Commission would immediately say, no. He agreed with Mr. Lambert that as the buil ding is designed, he is not sure that 5,000 sq. ft. sitting that close to the street could actually be BTD as configured. He felt that was a design problem that could be scaled down. He felt that was what the Commission is being asked regarding feedback. He did not particularly like the setback. He felt the question is, what is the land use for that road that makes economic sense, and what is the true reality of what is going on. He also felt it should be determined what is the cost to maintain and fix up these houses and keep them. What is the likelihood that they will stay rented. He felt Commissioner Kachel was correct in his statement that this is an opportunity to take a look at the street and expand the BTD classification . He stated when you co ntinue to look backwards, you cannot move forward. We end up with hodgepodges ; and at some juncture , you do have to take a look at land use. Commissioner Renzi went through staff’s discussion items. He mentioned that the parking lot abuts to an apartm ent building so it does not abut to a house. He was willing to listen to what alleyway improvements the developer is planning on doing and how they will make it look nice. He stated if street parking is counted, maybe they are not short. If the size of the building is cut down a bit, then the site will not be short on parking. He also stated if the building is scaled down and the setback is increased, he was not sure he would vote no. There was a discussion between Commissioner Kachel and Commissioner Renzi about the scale of the building to the area. Commissioner Renzi reminded everyone that this is a concept plan and the applicant can come back with some redesign . He felt the bulk of what the applicant has said makes sense to him from a visioning ec onomic reality and what the Commission feels the Village should look like. He feels the Commission should send this forward and have the Village Board tell the Commission one more time, that under no circumstances should a BTD ever be considered other tha n on Rt. 59, or that there should be some fluidity to the zoning and that there can be some continuity that can be gained through design and planning. Commissioner O’Rourke disagreed with some of Commissioner Renzi’s comments. He did not feel it was the responsibility of the Commission to make sure that developers are on the right side of their economics. Mr. Bart stated this property could be B -1, BTD. He stated residential is not working. There is a big turnover. He stated it needs to be determined what the Village wants Rt. 126 to look like 5 or 10 years from now. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if this Commission meeting was noticed as a public meeting. Planner Schwarz stated a public hearing was not required for the concept plan . Commissioner O’Rou rke stated he was not in favor of what the applicant is looking to do. He stated in order for his opinion to be changed, he would like to make it a public opinion, getting the residents and neighbors in and listening to their thoughts. Planner Schwarz wa nted to clarify that the public hearing would come if the applicant decides
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes April 15, 2008 Page 12 of 13 to proceed with a rezoning request. A public hearing and public notice would be required for the rezoning request , as well as the variances requested. Chairman Sobkoviak polled the Commission about this concept plan to give the applicant feedback. He asked if they were amenable to a BTD at this location and the destruction of the two houses. • Commissioner Sanders was amenable to rezoning either BTD or some other zoning • Commissi oner McKay felt a little at a loss for an answer to the question because she felt that the Commission needs to look more closely at the policy. She needs more information before making a decision. She abstained. • Commissioner Kachel stated he knows what t he BTD represents and what has been turned down. He knows that the area should be changed somewhat, but he didn’t know what it should be changed to. He was not amenable to BTD without going on something more from the Board. • Commissioner Renzi agreed with Commissioner McKay regarding distinguishing old buildings from historic buildings. He was amenable to the concept. • Commissioner Bonuchi stated she has a great passion for the older parts of town and believes everything should be in balance. She felt th e whole strip along Main Street needs to be re -evaluated. It is a very unique situation and there is not a clear cut answer at this point given the information they have. • Commissioner O’Rourke was not amenable without more information. • Commissioner Peck stated the Commission needs to look at other communities at their successes and mistakes. He felt the applicant has done a good job in trying to make his place blend in with what is around it, but he was also very hesitant intruding on historic Plainfiel d. He stated he would not support this. • Chairman Sobkoviak stated he will not support demolition of any more old buildings in the downtown area. Chairman Sobkoviak stated they are waiting for a Community Impact Study and he does not know how that will in fluence the Historic Preservation Commission or the Village Board. Most of the commissioners are afraid to go against the Village Board policy of limiting BTD to areas other than Rt. 59. If the Village Board were to change that, that might influence some of the members of this Commission. The Community Impact Study could possibly influence some of the members of this Commission. A good workable site plan sounds like it could also influence members of the Commission. Chairman Sobkoviak told Mr. Bart tha t with information available tonight, this is probably as good as it will get. Mr. Bart thanked the Commission. Planner Schwarz stated the previous conversation was on just the first point. He asked if the Chairman was going to go through the remaining issues. Commissioner Kachel stated why even go through that right now. The building does not fit the character of the area. Chairman Sobkoviak stated there is a good deal of opposition at this point. If staff is looking for a vote to approve or disappr ove, you will probably get a disapprove tonight. All of these issues weigh heavily on the members ; and from what he is hearing from the members, they are reluctant because of the 5 issues. All of these are significant issues, especially when it gets to t he buffering and screening. The size of the building is totally out of character. When the BTD was approved, they did leave room for demolition of an unsafe, unsound structure as long as it was replaced with something that was in character, not identical to what was there, but something in character with the remainder of the neighborhood.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes April 15, 2008 Page 13 of 13 Planner Schwarz stated these are all comments that will be summarized. The Village Board will be provided with a transcript of the minutes from both the Plan Comm ission and the Historic Preservation Commission. Commissioner McKay asked Mr. Lambert if it was not true that if Mr. Bart comes in and he wants to do a renovation of these homes as they are, he could feasibly come in and say he was not going to do a hist oric -looking office building anymore, but instead he is going to build a modern day brick Georgian on the corner that would go more in line with the Walgreens as opposed to what he is proposing right now. Is it right to say he would be okay with the permi tting and all that stuff for the residential use. Commissioner Kachel stated that could be done. Planner Schwarz stated ultimately the Village Board will weigh in on the demolition permits for both structures. Commission McKay stated it would not be a d emolition. Planner Schwarz stated there are no restrictions. Planner Schwarz commended the Historic Preservation Commission on their work. Commissioner Sanders stated he found the packet from the Historic Preservation Commission extremely helpful. He s tated everyone needs to look at what each individual piece of property’s future role is in creating this new heart of Plainfield that is bounded by the River basically on one side and Rt. 59 on the other. DISCUSSION: Michael Lambert sugge sted a joint workshop between the Historic Preservation Commission and the Plan Commission regarding mixing old and new together. Commissioner McKay reminded everyone to shop and dine Downtown Plainfield during the Lockport Streetscape Construction. The merchants need you now more than ever. Commissioner Bonuchi stated maybe school and churches that have received donations from the Downtown merchants should find ways to shop downtown to pay back the merchants for their support. It cannot be one way. Co mmissioner Kachel wanted to point out that possibly a sign could be put up to discourage engine braking along Rt. 126. He stated a crossing should be looked at on this side of the River so someone could cross at Rt. 126 in any direction. Planner Schwarz stated they did look at that, but it would require IDOT coordination and approval. The Village acquired the property to the east. That building would be removed ultimately after the re -route of Rt. 126 to make a safe intersection. That would ultimately be where the crosswalk would be located. Since there was no further business for the Commission, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 10:11 p.m. _________________________________________ R espectfully Submitted Carol Millan – Planning Secretar y Village of Plainfield