HomeMy Public PortalAbout2008-09-02 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RECORD OF MINUTES DATE : SEPTEMBER 2, 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, Ren zi, O’Rourke, Bonuchi, Sanders and Peck ; Chairman Sobkoviak ; Plainfield Park District; and Plainfield Fire District Absent: Ex -Officio Commission er Fremarek , Plainfield School District, Library District, and Plainfield Police Department Also Present: Micha el Garrigan – Village Planner Village of Plainfield, Mike Schwarz – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Sara Leach – Planner I Village of Plainfield, Carol Millan – Secr etary Village of Plainfield , and Steve Amann – Engineer Baxter and Woodman MINUTES: The minutes from the Plan Commission Meeting of August 19 , 2008 were accepted as amended . Commissioner Bonuchi stated that Todd Morris should be corrected to read Todd Morse. Commissioner Renzi wanted to state a clarification. He had stated that he wanted staff to look into auto repair facilities being a second tier use in the B -3 Z oning District. He wanted that treated as a text amendment initiative. Chairman Sobkoviak agreed that the requirements for PD’s should be changed to reflect that automotive use s be a second tier location. DEVELOPMENT REPORT: No Report NEW BUSINESS: CASE: 1414 -071608.SPR.SU HERITAGE WOODS SUPPORTIVE Request: Site Plan Review LIVING CENTER Special Use (Public Hearing) Location: NEC of Steiner & S. Rt. 59 Applicant: P lainfield Supportive Living, LLC At 7:03 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion to continue the public hearing for the Heritage Woods Supportive Living, Case: 1414 -071608.SPR.SU until October 7, 2008 . Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. Chairman S obkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, O’Rourke, Bonuchi, Sanders, Peck, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 7:0
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 2, 2008 Page 2 CASE: 1415 -071808.SPR.RZ MERLIN FACILITY Request: Site Plan Review Rezoning (Public Hearing) Location: West side of Rt. 30 north of 143 rd Street Applicant: Ionia Real Properties, LLC TIME: 7:05 p.m. Village Planner Garrigan stated this is a continuation of a public hearing being conducted pursuant to Village Ordinance and State Statu te. He summarized the staff report. There were 4 fundamental issues presented at the Plan Commission meeting of August 19, 2008. • Materials – whether the applicant complied with the Village Ordinance with respect to masonry requirements. Staff has had a chance to work with the applicant. The elevations have been changed to comply with the Village Ordinance with regard to the masonry requirements. The applicant is now proposing to use Interstate Brick, which complies with the Village’s Site Plan Review O rdinance. • Landscaping Requirements – some additional buffering requirements on the proposed western side of the property. The applicant has added some additional landscaping to provide a future 100% buffer between this commercial site and the future and e xisting residential area to the west. • Request by the Plan Commission to incorporate a future stub street to the north for any future commercial development. The applicant has incorporated that stub street in the most recent plans. • Landscape Islands – Staf f requested some additional landscaping islands. The applicant has addressed that in the new Site Plan. Therefore, staff believes that all four previous stipulations that were requested by staff have been addressed by the applica nt. The applicant conti nues to submit the prototypical proposed buildings. Those elevations have not changed, only the proposed materials have changed. Staff believes the materials are consistent with the Site Plan Review Ordinance and the Village’s emphasis on Economic Develo pment. The findings of fact for the rezoning were presented at the last Public Hearing and staff believes the applicant has met the require d findings of fact to rezone this property to B -3. Staff is making a favorable recommendation of the Site Plan an d rezoning. There are 3 stipulations for the Site Plan Review. The 3 rd stipulation of recording a ten foot roadway easement for future expansion of Route 30 is consistent with what the applicant has done for the balance of the Dayfield Project. Village Planner Garrigan concluded his staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak reminded Petitioner John Argoudelis that he remains under oath from the previous hearing. Petitioner Argoudelis did not have anything to add to the staff report. He showed samples of the m aterial to be used on the building. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if this was the same material used on the strip center. Petitioner Argoudelis stated that mater ial used on the strip center is a real brick, a thin brick. There was a discussion about the types of brick materials used on the other buildings within the site. Commissioner Renzi asked if the parking is still okay once the stub street and islands are added, and the future retail is ad ded. Village Planner Garrigan stated they will comply with the Village’s requirement for parking. Commissioner Renzi also asked the petitioner if the additional screening on the west side of the site is 100%, virtually 100%, etc. Petitioner Argoudelis stated it is to be 100% screening and it is his understanding they are above the landscape requirements of the Village. Commissioner Renzi questioned whether the brick is going around the north side where the future retail will be. Petitioner Argoudelis stated the future retail will have the same material. The fu ture retail is not for certain, so the building could stay this way forever. Commissioner Kachel had concerns about the trees that could possibly be lost along Route 30 when Route 30 is widened. Village Planner Garrigan stated the worst case scenario is there may have to be some removal or relocation of some of the landscaping if there is an improvement of Route 30. There is a 30’ buffer, so there is some opportunity for some relocation of landscaping. Commissioner Kachel suggested that maybe the larger trees should be moved inward and some landscaping could be placed to the outside that would be easier to move around. Village Planner Garrigan stated staff can work with the applicant’s landscape architect to try to minimize any future impact to the land scaping. Commissioner Kachel asked if there will be no outside storage of cars here at any time. The petitioner stated that was corre ct.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 2, 2008 Page 3 Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who cared to ask a question or make a comment regarding this case. He swore in the residents that gave testimony. Bob Kaysen – 14205 Chalk Hill Road, Dayfield Subdivision. He read a statement in protest of the Merlins from Brian Seeley (copy attached to minutes). He cited: I nappropriate position for the Mer lins Facility, D oes not blend into the surrounding homes and businesses, S afety issues regarding test driving vehicles into the Dayfield Subdivision, U nattractive buildings with poor maintenance . Bob Kaysen then proceeded with his own statement. He ask ed several questions of the Commission and Petitioner Argoudelis. • He asked at the time of the annexation agreement was it presented that this site would be an auto -related business. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it was zoned B -3 and this is an appropriate use within the B -3 Zoning District. • He asked Petitioner Argoudelis if he or Ionia Properties manage any sites that have a similar auto -related kind of business. Petitioner Argoudelis stated no. • He asked the representative from Merlins, Mike Haymeister, if this site would be company owned, or franchised owned. Mike Haymeister replied he was not sure at this time. Mr. Kaysen also asked the failure rate or success rate of a Merlins in the Chicagoland Area. Mike Haymeister did not have the statistics with h im. Mr. Kaysen asked if it is franc hise owned, what is the percent of owners that are active in the day -to -day operation of the center. Mike Haymeister stated all of the owners are active. Mr. Kaysen asked how the traffic counts from other Merlin sites relate to this site. Mike Haymeister stated they do a business study. There is no way they would invest in a site without doing the study. He stated they are looking at a 15 year lease. There was a comparison between this site and the present Eola Road site. • Mr. Kaysen asked about the water runoff plan. Village Engineer Amann stated the present detention ponds within the Dayfield Subdivision were designed for the commercial property on Route 30. Mr. Kaysen wanted to know who is responsible for the pav ement maintenance and repair for this site. • Mr. Kaysen stated the residents of the Dayfield community have many concerns. They want successful businesses. They want the revenue, the jobs they bring, but more importantly they want good neighbors. They want business owners who are responsible, considerate, and maintain the appearance of their property. Mr. Kaysen showed slides depicting weeds that need to be mowed since t hey are higher than 8 inches . This is in violation of Village Ordinance and has not been addressed. He visited three Merlin shops in the area to get an idea of how they are positioned and maintained. He showed slides with pictures of these locations. He stated the location on the NEC of Eola and Ogden Avenue is clustered with other auto -related businesses, is adjacent to other commercial real estate property, and is more than 300’ from any residential development. The Merlins at 1460 Douglas Rd is located in a building that is part of and next to a large commercial property. The p roperty is very well buffered from residential development, and the building is at least 250’ from the nearest residence. There is a Merlins at 1100 Lake Street, Aurora , which is adjacent to residential property, which is only 50’ away. There was referen ce to an incentive to the shop owners from Merlins to maintain the site with an attractive appearance. He showed slides of the three Merlin locations and mentioned and showed outside storage of cars, barrels of unknown materials, etc. He showed a site wh ere a van seems to be parked regularly as a form of additional advertising. He pointed out customer vehicles that were stored on the property waiting to be serviced or picked up. He showed a slide depict ing some cars that were stored at one facility and stated it appeared they have been stored there for over a year because the Google map he used was one year old and these same vehicles were present on the map. He stated the Merlin facilities rely regularly on the use of banners, temporary signs, and penn ants to attract customers, which he did not think was consistent with the residential neighborhood character. He also had concerns with the traffic and congestion this facility will create. He felt the market value of the Dayfield Subdivision would be diminished with this facility. He stated Fieldbrook is a residential street and not an arterial highway. This is compounded by the opening of the bank. He also had concerns that the employees from the Merlin Facility would use the Dayfield Subdivision a s a testing ground for vehicles they are repairing. He felt planning for this parcel should not include access to Fieldbrook Drive. It needs to be developed in combination with the property to the north, with access to and from Route 30. It is a bad sit e, poor plan, and the wrong business. The Dayfield residents are virtually unanimous in opposition to this application. He presented a petition signed by over 100 residents of the Dayfield community. Only one resident refused to sign because he felt pet itions didn’t do any good (copy of petition attached to minutes). Commissioner Renzi stated Mr. Kaysen’s presentation was one of the most thorough presentations that he has sat through. It shows that he has put a lot of thought into it and done a lot of work. He stated Mr. Kaysen presented his argument very well. Commissioner O’Rourke agreed and asked if it would be appropriate for the petitioner to comment.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 2, 2008 Page 4 Petitioner Argoudelis stated the traffic may be exaggerated. This business is allowed in the B -3 Zoning District. As far as the use of Fieldbrook Drive, IDOT will not allow another access off of Route 30. Fieldbrook Drive is the only access point. The re was a discussion between Mr. Kaysen and Petitioner Argoudelis about the slide depicting the tr affic flow into and out of the site. Petitioner Argoudelis stated there would be the same amount of traffic no matter what commercial use was on this site. Mr. Kaysen asked if the Planning Division envisioned this kind of traffic on Fieldbrook. If so, h e asked why wouldn’t Fieldbrook have been widened to accommodate. Village Planner Garrigan stated there are certain uses allowed in the B -3. In fact, a gas station would be allowed. He believed when the original annexation agreement was negotiated for D ayfield with Mr. Mitchell, a gas station was actually identified at the corner, not at Fieldbrook, but at the hard corner. Some of the B -3 uses are convenience uses, retail uses, a bank with a drive -thru, commercial uses, retail, including some type of au to -oriented business. He stated the original Dayfield Ann exation Agreement identified the property as B -3. It did not identify a specific use for this Lot 1. It was not identified as an auto -oriented business at that time. Commissioner Kachel stated th at was basically before the houses were built. Village Planner Garrigan stated that was correct. He further stated that was during the original annexat ion agreement for the overall Dayfield Project, but again a gas station was identified as a permitted u se under that annexation agreement at the corner. Mike Haymeister stated that the Aurora Merlins location is an old building and Merlins is just waiting for the lease to run o ut. As far as the Eola location and the outside storage, he stated he would loo k into the matter. Commissioner Kachel clarified that outside storage is not allowed in the Village . Village Planner Garrigan stated that was correct. Commissioner Kachel also stated there would be restrictions as far as signage. Village Planner Garrig an stated the Village would have control over these issues. Petitioner Argoudelis stated this would a code enforcement matter . Nancy Kilsdonk – She is a resident of the Dayfield Subdivision. She moved to Plainfield from Joliet and since then they have b een at meetings regarding the School District Transportation Barn, Yorkville Landfill, CN Purchase, and now the Merlins Facility. She stated many of the issues raised regarding the School District Bus Barn Facility are also in question here: n oise and en vironmental hazards. She lives on the cul -de -sac nearest to Fieldbrook Drive . She also has concerns that the employees from Merlins would be test driving the repaired vehicles in their subdivision. She felt a more appropriate location should b e consider ed for this Merlin Facility. James Barkach – 14116 Thornberry Circle, Dayfield Subdivision. Echoed most of the concerns of Mr. Kaysen other than the traffic use because he felt any commercial use would generate traffic. He also had concerns about the me chanics using the Dayfield Subdivision to test drive vehicles. He felt there are environmental issues regarding the runoff from Merlins since this is tied directly to the sewer system that goes into the Dayfield ponds. He stated the children from Dayfiel d fish in these ponds, etc. Every one of the pictures of Merlin locations that Mr. Kaysen showed had barrels sitting outside , and he wondered what they contained. Even the Merlin representation, Mr. Haymeister, who is there to enforce their agreements wi th the franchisees, does not know what is in the barrels. He wondered what the maintenance record of Merlins was and referenced the location in Aurora that has been there for 30 years on Lake Street. He stated Lake Street looks horrible. He wondered wh at would be the maintenance record going forward , so in 15 years, his neighborhood will have a Merlins that looks like that. He also had a concern with cars sitting outside waiting for service. This does not meet what the rest of the commercial businesse s look like along Route 30 in front of his subdivision. He suggested a better location would be off of 143 rd Street on the east side of Route 30, or on Route 59. There was no fur ther response from the audience so Chairman Sobkoviak closed the public comm ent portion of the meeting. Commissioner Sanders felt additional trim work or aesthet ics need to be done. He felt it still is a rather sterile look even though it has been warmed up with the color. The landscaping and irrigation would basically be the s tandard ordinances including the berm and trees on the backside. He stated these are things that staff needs to get into the agreement if this is an approved use, but he still would support that this is the entrance into a residential development and this might not be an appropriate u se in this location even though it may be allowed in the B -3 Zoning District. Village Planner Garrigan stated staff has outlined that they believe this is a utilitarian design, which reflects the applicant’s prototypical des i gn. The applicant has made no major modifications other than the material and that has been a major concession. With respect to the architectural form, it is prototypical of their stores. There have been previous discussion s about perhaps changing the r oof line to be more consistent with the residential character of the area, and the petitioner has made it quite clear that it is very important for their corporate identification to have this architectural elevation ; and in light of the emphasis on economi cal development in this Village, staff is trying to be sensitive to balancing some of the character issues and allowing the applicant to go with their standard prototypical utilitarian design.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 2, 2008 Page 5 Commissioner Renzi stated previously for this area there was a long discussion about some unification of the planned development to have some sort of architectural integrity or consistency throughout the development. He asked if there could be some form of lighting or awning or something else added to this building that would not terribly impact their cost, but could make it part of a unified development. Planner Schwarz stated there ha s been a lot of discussion in this planned development, as well as other planned developments throughout the Village as far as enfor cing what is already in the Zoning Ordinance that all planned development should be architecturally consistent. The difficulty is when lots are sold off and different develop ers and different architects come along, it is hard to put the “genie back in the bottle”. Unless you have very tight controlling guidelines, it is diff icult. Staff does the best they can as far as trying to make sure the architecture, in terms of the color, materials, are consistent, but as you can see the Family Video was the first lot in. It is not the same type of architecture as the strip center and also not the same type of architecture as the bank. Each lot sort of stands on its own. Commissioner Renzi stated they are in a sense unified. They do not look alike, but they d on’t look different either in terms of the strip mall. He asked if there was not some lighting, some awning, some color that can still allow them to maintain their branding. He went through the issues concerning the Merlins stating there is a legally def ined use that is allowable under the B -3, that provides less traffic than what other uses could be, that it has more limited hours than other allowable uses, and ev en if it does have outside parking it’s probably going to be a later model vehicle that need s brakes, etc. that people driving by will notice but will not be unduly offended by. He stated it is a “yes” vote that is disconcerting because of the previous discus sion. Commissioner Kachel agreed, but wanted to add that there should be something in the zoning ordinance about sound transmission. His biggest concern with this being close to residential is the noise factor. He stated as far as the archite cture brought before the Commission , it is a “yes” vote, other than the two back elevations are n ot sho wn. His concerns were the sound factor. I t does not blend in with the surrounding buildings, but the Commission’s hands are tied. It was approved for a B -3 Zoning even before this project was built out. He felt for building s of this type , becaus e of the possible noise factor, there should be something in the Zoning Ordinance stating they have to be at least a certain distance from residential. Chairman Sobkoviak stated sound levels are generally governed by OSHA. Petitioner Argoudelis stated th e Merlin Facility would not be open later than 6:00 p.m. He further explained the features that are consistent throughout the strip mall, the bank, and the Merlins. Commissioner Peck asked what the set schedule of operation is for the Merlins. He aske d if there was a set schedule for the franchisees , as well as the corporately -operated facilities. Mike Haymeister explained there are store hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, Saturday they close at 5:00 p.m., and are closed on Sunda ys. Sometimes they stay later when they are very busy. Commissioner Peck stated he has looked at other communities with similar situations and they have put stipulations on the applicants asking for the garages to be shut when they are using impact guns or loud tools. That does put a burden on the business because they have to have an air conditioner going in their service garage, which is very expensive. He was just pointing that out and was not specifically asking for that. He was concerned though wi th the safety of the residents in the adjoining subdivision. He wanted to know if the Commission could ask for a stipulation that Merlin employees cannot test drive their vehicles through the subdivision. Chairman Sobkoviak stated Commission er Peck could ask for that, but it would depend on whether the rest of the Commission agrees. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he would go one step further and ask for a “no right turn ” out of the Merlin driveway. There was a discussion among the Commissioners regardin g this suggestion. Commissioner Peck asked the representative from Merlins if the franchise owner or corporately -owned store manager could tell the employees they cannot test drive their vehicles through the subdivision. He asked if it was out of the que stion. Mike Haymeister, Merlins, stated it was not out of the question, but he felt they would more likely get out on either Rt. 30 or 143 rd Street to test drive the vehicles . There was a discussion between the Commissioners and Mike Haymeister whether t hey would even test drive vehicles for most services. Commissioner Peck felt it would still be a good idea to have the stipulation that Merlin employees cannot test drive their vehicles through the subdivision. Commissioner O’Rourke favored something tha t could be enforced. Commissioner Bonuchi asked the distance between the building and the subdivision. Village Planner Garrigan stated it was approximately 80’. Commissioner Bonuchi asked if the property would be leased or owned. The representative f rom Merlins, Mike Haymeister , stated it would be leased. She also would like to see something that can be enforced as far as test driving vehicles in the neighborhood. She disagreed that they would not go into the neighborhood. Petitioner Argoudelis sta ted he did not know if the Village had any legal right to keep anyone from using a public street . A discussion followed between the C ommissioners and the petitioner regarding the issue of mechanics test driving vehicles through the subdivision .
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 2, 2008 Page 6 Commis sioner O’Rourke asked Village Planner Garrigan to explain staff ’s favorable recommendation. Village Planner Garrigan stated that historically staff has required these uses to be second tier uses, but there has been a change in the pa st two years with the Zoning Ordinance, which now allows this type of use as a permitted use. Historically staff has always been able to work with the applicants to basically put auto -oriented uses, the majority of them, as second tier uses. The applicant stated it was impera tive for visibility to have a pr i mary site on Rt. 30. Staff’s position has been consistent that the ordinance does allow it as a permitted use. There is no legal basis to refuse this use regardless of what staff feels good planning dictates. Commissio ner O’Rourke asked if the landscaping on the west side was a berm; and if so, what is the height. Petitioner Argoudelis stated it will be a 12’ berm. Commissioner O’Rourke stated presently the plan shows no lights on the rear of the building and wondere d if there are any plans for wall lights in the rear. Village Planner Garrigan stated typically there is a service lane behind the service door s and the Village requires lighting with any type of service lane or service bay doors. Staff will work with th e applicant on this. There could be the opportunity to do some type of security lighting or decorative lighting with a very subtle lighting. Commissioner Renzi concurred. Commissioner O’Rourke recommended a stipulation for a cross access easement to the north. Petitioner Argoudelis stated that will be done when the property comes in to the north. A discussion followed on how this could be accomplished. Commissioner Sanders asked what could be another use for this building. Village Planner Garrigan st ated the functionality of the design of this building dictates auto -oriented uses, or future demolition. Commissioner Sanders stated then the historical practices should be reinforced to keep any use for something which is auto -oriented away from where si gnificant residential development has occurred. Commissioner Peck asked if there has been any discussion with the applicant about any future request for a variance for outdoor storage. Village Planner Garrigan stated no. Commissioner Renzi stated his th oughts on the “right turn only ” sign. He stated he only knew of places in town where you are restricted from making a left turn, and did not know of any that restrict a right turn. He felt the Village Attorney could inform the Village Board of the merits of a “no right turn” or the posting of a sign strongly discouraging test driving vehicles through the neighborhood. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Commission needs to realize that people will drop off their cars on the way home from work to be worked on t he following day necessitating the vehicles sitting there overnight. Also, sometimes it is hard to get parts and cars have to sit until the parts are delivered to complete the repair. Commissioner O’Rourke reiterated his suggestion to post a “no right t urn” sign when exiting the facility onto Fieldbrook Drive. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was support from the other Commissioners regarding this sugge stion. Commissioners Peck and Bonuchi, agreed with Commissioner O’Rourke. Commissioner Kachel felt the Commission did not have the legal authority to make that request. Commissioner Renzi felt the Village Board could make that determination. Commissioner Bonuchi referenced the slide Mr. Kaysen presented depicting the Aurora Merlin location. She sta ted the applicant referred to this location as an older building where they are waiting for the lease to expire, and the building is getting run down. She asked if there are things in place to kind of manage something like that so if they lease a building and decide it is not as profitable as it should be and time goes on, what happens. Village Planner Garrigan stated that cannot be regulate d. There is no recourse the Village would have. Village Planner Garrigan stated the Village could regulate the out door storage, and temporary signage to prevent the kind of scenario that was shown in the slide of the Aurora Merlin location. The Village would have the power to regulate that . At 8:37 p.m. Commissioner Sanders made a motion that the Plan Commission re commend approval of the proposed rezoning to B -3 zoning. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call Aye: O’Rourke, Bonuchi, Sanders, Peck, Kachel, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay 0 The motion is carried 7:0
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 2, 2008 Page 7 Chairman Sobkoviak called for a motion regarding the Site Plan Review. Commissioner O’Rourke wanted to add a 4 th stipulation adding the cross access easement to the north that allows access from the north to the south through the parking lot, and a 5 th s tipulation to add a “no right turn ” out of the parking lot onto Fieldbrook Drive. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was agreement among the other Commissioners for these stipulations. The Commissioners agreed with adding a 4 th stipulation regarding cross access easement. At 8:38 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Site Plan Review with the 3 stipulations in the staff report and the 4 th stipulation as proposed by the Plan Commission. 1. Compliance with the Requirements of the Village Engineer, 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; 3. The recording of a ten (10) foot roadway easement for future expansion on Route 30, 4. The recording of a cross access easement to the north that allows access from the north to the south through the parking lot. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call Aye: Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: Bonuchi, Sanders, Peck, Kachel, O’Rourke Th e motion failed Commissioner Sanders stated he v oted no because this is the entry to a residential subdivision. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he voted no because he felt there should be a no right turn out of the facility onto Fieldbrook Drive so that me chanics do not test drive vehicles in the neighboring subdivision . Chairman Sobkoviak asked the petitioner if he wished to go to the Village Board with this negative recommendation. Petitioner Argoudelis stated he would like to go forward to the Village Board. Commissioner Kachel stated his no vote was because basically the Commission’s hands are tied. He stated it is up to the Village Board to make a decision regarding if this is a second tier use. They will have to make some changes if they want this to be a second tier use. Commissioner Renzi stated that is why he voted yes, but other than that they are on the same page. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a break at 8:40 p.m. and then reconvened the meeting at 8:50 p.m. CASE: 1392 -022808.AA.SU.CP HARMONY RIDGE Request: Petition for Annexation (Public Hearing) Special Use for Planned Development (Public Hearing Concept Plan Location: NWC of Ridge Road (future WIKADUKE) & Walker Road Applicant: MAF Developments, Inc. Mr. Bill Haider TIME: 8:50 p.m. Planner Leach summarized the staff report. She stated this is a public hearing and it has been posted and published per State Statute. This is a 159.53 acre parcel. The Coogan Property, owned by the Plainfield Park District, is adjacent to this sit e. The property to the south would be under the jurisdiction of Joliet in the future. The property is contiguous to the Village and is located within the Village’s Facility Planning Area. Staff believes the annexation is a logical extension of the Vill age’s municipal boundaries and is consistent with the current trend of development in the area. The two bordering roadways, Walker & Ridge Road, are in need of much improvement and require substantial right -of -way dedication. The applicant is requesting a special use for a Planned Development. They are requesting exceptions to the Vil l age’s development standards: Reduced minimum lot sizes to 6,000 sq. ft. Reduced lot widths to 60’ Reduced setbacks
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 2, 2008 Page 8 Planner Leach went through the 2 findings of fact for t he Special Use and found 2 of the 2 findings as favorable. She also went through the 7 findings of fact for the Planned Development and found 7 of the 7 findings as favorable. The applicant is eligible for the Density Bonus. Staff would support a dens ity of 5.24 du/acre for the subject property, which is 681 dwelling units. The applicant’s current proposal is at a density of 5.32 du/acre, which is 691 dwelling units. There is an opportunity for the applicant to gain the 10 extra units by revisiting t he density bonus system. Staff would encourage the applicant to consider additional BMP’s or enhanced land plan elements. The inclusion of at least one of these elements could increase the density bonus enough to achieve the proposed unit yield. The con cept plan consists of 5 different neighborhoods and a commercial portion at the northwest corner of Ridge Road and Walker Road. There is a 4.62 acre central park along with various water features and trail connections throughout. There ar e two main boule vard entrances into the development, one off of Walker and one off of Ridge Road. The entrance from Ridge Road will be aligned with the entrance to the Vista Pointe Subdivision, which is the Wiseman Hughes property on the east side of Ridge Road. The app licant has included trail connections for pedestrians and bikers into the Plainfield Sports Complex, as both the developer and Plainfield Park District agree a vehicle connection would be of little value. The commercial part of the site shows right -in a nd right -out entrance points off of both Walker and Ridge Road . The apartment/condo units will be up to 5 stories and up to a 72’ mean roof height. Staff suggests this might not be consistent with what has been envisioned for this area. The applicant ha s incorporated the WIKADUKE Trail Design Guidelines in the pattern book to cover the commercial portion of the site. Being that the commercial part of the property will not develop for severa l years, it is difficult to identify conceptual building footpri nts. There is a landscape plan of high quality, which includes: A 30’ landscaping buffer along Ridge Road and Walker Road Boulevard entrances from both Ridge and Walker Road Landscaped round -about in the center of the development Plants that prov ide y ear round visual benefits Two rain gardens Parkway trees, as well as private trees in both the front and rear yard Landscaped boulevards and pocket parks throughout There will be a large recreational lake, a central park, as well as smaller pocket parks within each neighborhood of the development. There is an extensive trail system. The developer has agreed to enhance open space areas with at least two rai n gardens and naturalized detention ponds. No school site has been identified by District 202 with in the site. The applicant will be providing cash -in -lieu to District 202 instead. There is a future school site immediately north of the site. The applicant is proposing numerous stormwater detent ion ponds throughout, of which the largest incorporates a sedimentation basin. Staff suggests the establishment of a Special Service Area for the maintenance of the detention ponds. The applicant will be required to pay recapture fees for two sanitary benefit areas, as well as the planned construction improve ment of Ridge Road. Staff recommends approval of the requested entitlements. Planner Leach concluded her report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Engineer Amann if there were any issues. Village Engineer Amann stated the only potential issue they had w as the alignment of the entrances on Ridge Road, but as staff indicated this has been aligned with the entrance for Vista Pointe and satisfies the WIKADUKE requirements. So, at this point there are no issues. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioners. Paul Mitchell, MAF spoke first. Also, Bill Haider from MAF was present. Paul Mitchell referenced the Springbank and Shenandoah projects in Plainfield, which MAF also developed. He presented a PowerPoint presentation. He gave a brief description of wh at the petitioner is requesting. He showed a little section in the middle of the project and stated the people MAF bought this property from are still in the 1 acre farmhouse. The petitioner anticipates that ultimately that one acre site will be develope d as an outlot as part of the commercial development on this project. The Park District owns 80 acres to the west. The petitioner has had meetings with representatives form the Park District. The Grande Park South project is to the northwest. Immediate ly to the north is the 80 acres that District 202 purchased. Directly to the east across Ridge Road is the Vista Pointe subdivision, which was recently annexed . F arther to the east of County Line Road is the Creekside Subdivision and the Springbank devel opment. Walker and Ridge Roads will be a major intersection. They are developing in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. It shows this site as residential, 4 to 6 units per acre, and there is commercial on the corner. Neighborhood One , at the north west corner , is the only detached, single
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 2, 2008 Page 9 family development , which would be abutting Plainfield Park District’s Sport Complex to the west. Neighborhood two , to the northeast, is a townhome development. Neighborhood three is row homes. Neighborhood fo ur , to the southwest , is townhomes. Neighborhood five is the apartment/condominiums in the middle of the project. This project has been evolving for about one year. Paul Mitchell stated the petitioner has virtually agreed to everything that staff has re quested. He stated they will be dedicating to the Park District the large detention pond along the western boundary , the 4.6 acre park site to the north . The Park District has requested two changes to the Site Plan and he pointed them out on the slide of the concept plan: The Park District would like the trail along the northwest to be re move d in order to separate the Sports Complex from those residences. The Park District requested that the one small detention pond be combined with the larger pond . Gr egg Bott from the Plainfield Park District spoke and agreed with combining the large pond with the small pond and with the trail network described by Paul Mitchell. He stated they are in agreement with the concept plan as presented and the way it works wi th the Sports Complex . Commissioner Kachel stated he knows that the Park District usually does not want to assume detention areas because of the liability issues and wanted Gregg Bott to expand on that. Gregg Bott stated typically the Park District doe s not accept retention ponds. The only way the Park District is interested is if they are of a larger size and designed with natural shorelines and different features. They have to have a recreational value. This pond does have that recreational value. Commissioner Renzi asked if it would be for walking, or fishing, etc. Gregg Bott state d it could be used for fishing or walking along the path. There will not be boating or anything like that. There will be passive recreational uses that incorporate th e water views. Commissioner Renzi stated there was reference that the Park District did not need parking for the regional park, but asked where people would park. Gregg Bott stated the 4.5 acre park site will be designed to be a neighborhood use. There usually is not parking, other than the few people in the neighborhood that may drive to the park and park on the street. These parks ar e typically designed to be a “walk -to” park that serves a neighborhood use. There are in excess of 600 parking spaces a t the Sport Complex ; and by utilizing the trail connections folks may walk over to the pond and utilize that. Commissioner Renzi asked if possibly this would be a good location for some emergency phones. Gregg Bott stated they are looking into that some where along their more regional bike trails. They have not discussed that at this site. He stated they can take a look at i t. Commissioner Peck asked what was the thought process behind the removal of the trail along the northwest corner. Gregg Bott st ated the Park District did not want to encourage folks from getting off of the public park site onto the Homeowners Association Area. Bill Haider stated in addition to the connections to the west, the trail will continue around. The trail continues all the way around the Park District. Commissioner O’Rourke asked what the idea was of a public park next to a private park. Paul Mitchell stated it is more of a clubhouse or a meeting area for a Homeowners Association . T he parking lot will be unused 99% of the time. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who cared to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response. Paul Mitchell wanted to address some issues in the staff report. Building Height – The apartment condomini um building would be a 4 story building that has parking on the lower floor. He stated this is a good location . They are in the middle of the site and buffered with a great deal of landscaping, and landscape easements. You virtually cannot see these apa rtments. It will be very unobtrusive. They are within the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. There is only one private alley in Neighborhood 3. These are row houses with parking in the rear. They are very slightly above the density that is allowed with the density bonuses , and they have agreed to work with staff to get those extra BMP’s . Commissioner Sanders asked if the topography is generally flat through the area where the commercial is located adjacent to the apartment and condos. He stated in a previous project there was going to be a change in elevation on the rear of the commercial, so there would be some kind of wall. He asked if the detention areas would change to facilitate restaurant site s, etc. He asked if they would be aesth etically and architecturally integrated with the commercial area. Petitioner Haider stated generally the detention basins follow the natural grading of the property. He stated the majority of the property flows to t he
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 2, 2008 Page 10 large lake. There was a discussi on about the location of the detention basins. Petitioner Haider stated at this point in the concept plan process very little engineering has been completed. Petitioner Haider stated the site needs to be more level, more conducive for a commercial site. To dig these ponds an enormous amou nt of earth needs to be moved . The entire site has to flow towards the ponds. Commissioner Sanders asked if there would be a retaining wall which would have a line of demarcation basically for the elevation. It would be completed when the earth moving is completed. Petitioner Haider stated he could not answer that question because they have not gone that far with the engineering. There was a discussion about the height of other buildings within the Village. Commiss ioner Renzi stated as long as the buildings and parapets for the commercial are approximately the same height as the condos, then you are creating a sort of skyline as you go between the condos and commercial. He did not want to see the condos raised up t oo much to make them higher than the commercial. There was a discussion of the topography of the site. Commissioner Renzi asked what the height of the row houses would be. Petitioner Haider stated MAF does not build houses. They build subdivision s. Th ey then market to various builders. The concept of row houses was added at the request of staff to give an additional use. Generally a row house is designed that you have significant steps going up to the first floor area, and have more or less a garden effect on your lower level or walk -out basement level. It is a neotraditional design. Commissioner Renzi stated probably 35 to 38 feet would be a projection. Petitioner Haider stated the row houses screen the commercial from the other residential area. So, you want the row houses higher. Commissioner Renzi asked what size houses are envisioned to be put on the 60’x100’ lots. Petitioner Haider referenced the Lakeland Clubs. Commissioner Renzi asked if the price range would be $350,000 - $450,000 or something like that. Petitioner Haider stated possibly in that range. Commissioner Renzi stated it would be nice if the homes were priced such that school teachers, etc. would be able to live in Plainfield. Petitioner Haider stated this would probably b e for “empty nesters”. Commissioner Kachel asked Greg Bott if tennis courts would be included i n the lighted Sports Complex. Gregg Bott indicated there would be baseball fields, concessions, playgrounds, etc. Commissioner Kachel wondered since this coul d possibly be for “empty nesters” if there could be some activities for these people to do. Petitioner Haider stated they do not mandate to th e Park District what to build on their sites . Commissioner Kachel added that this is not the typical subdivision and would possibly require different types of activities to suit the age of the residents. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the Commission was comfortable with the exceptions to the Village’s Development Standards that are requested by the developer. Commis sioner Renzi would prefer 7 -1/2’ to 6’ between the houses Commissioner O’Rourke asked how the density was calculated. He stated typically we start with gross acreage and then take off R.O.W., easements, floodplains, etc. He asked what the net would be af ter removing those items. Petitioner Mithcell stated they take the gross acreage, 159.53 acres, subtract the commercial area, divide the units into that, which equals 5.32 units/acre. There was a discussion about figuring the density with using net acrea ge versus gross acreage. Commissioner O’Rourke asked for the breakdown of homes Planner Leach stated the breakdown is: Neighborhood 1 = 96 units Neighborhood 2 = 112 units Neighborhood 3 = 46 row houses Neighborhood 4 = 117 units Neighborhood 5 = 320 apart ments and condos Commissioner Kachel asked Planner Leach what would happen if the developer cannot build on these size lots. He asked if they would have to come back in . Planner Leach stated they would have to come back or do a major change to the Plann ed Development. Petitioner Mitchell stated the Village of Plainfield has more control over development than other towns. Petitioner Haider talked about the densities that they need for this space. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the Commissioners if they agree that this is a logical extension of the Village’s municipal boundaries, and if there are any arguments against the Special Use for a Planned Development. The Commissioners agreed it is a logical extension of the Village’s municipal boundaries, and there were no arguments against the Special Use for a Planned Development.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 2, 2008 Page 11 Chairman Sobkoviak then asked if the Commissioners were comfortable with the concept plan or if there needed to be more discussion. Commissioner O’Rourke had a problem with the dens ity bonus and that it was not intended to give a density bonus to a development with 46% apartments. He also had a concern with the height of the apartments. Petitioner Mitchell stated the density bonus system is relatively new, but the Comprehensive Pla n states 4 to 6 units per acre. He stated before the density bonus system , they could have come in and asked for 6 units per acre because that is what the Comprehensive Plan stated. Commissioner O’Rourke asked the petitioner with the Comprehensive Plan a nd the setbacks would that number of units fit. Petitioner Mitchell stated they would not fit because you need variances . He was stating that previously you could get more density before you even went to the bonus plan. Commissioner Renzi asked if Buildi ng 1 and Building 2 could change locations. By doing this, the access road would drop down and there would be a shorter commute to the houses. Petitioner Haider stated that could be done. Commissioner Renzi asked if there was a definition of monotony . Village Planner Garrigan stated the Annexation Agreement has a very simple description of what constitutes monotony . Com missioner Renzi asked staff if there was a need to have the footprints for commercial. He referenced another project along the WIKADU KE. Planner Schwarz indicated it is not required it was just something he asked for in another development along the WIKADUKE. Planner Leach stated there are certain design guidelines in place for commercial along the WIKADUKE. The developer has agreed to these guidelines. Petitioner Mitchell stated there will be a Site Plan Review for the commercial. At 10:05 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend that the annexation of the proposed property is a logical extension of the Village’s municipal boundaries. Commissioner Bonuchi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call Aye: Sanders, Peck, Kachel, Renzi, O’Rourke, Bonuchi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 7:0 At 10:06 p.m. Co mmissioner Sanders made a motion that the Plan Commission adopt staff’s findings of fact and recommend approval of a Special Use for a Planned Development for Harmony Ridge. Commissioner Peck seconded the motion Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by ro ll call Aye: Peck, Kachel, Renzi, O’Rourke, Bonuchi, Sanders, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 7:0 At 10:07 p.m. Commissioner Bonuchi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the proposed Concept Plan for Harmony Ridge , subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the recommendations of the Village Engineer; 2. Compliance with the recommendations of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; 3. Incorporation of additional BMP’s and/or land plan elements to ac hieve an increased density bonus, consistent with recommendations of staff and the Plan Commission. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call Aye: Kachel, Renzi, Bonuchi, Sanders, Peck, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: O’Rourke The motion is carried 6:1
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 2, 2008 Page 12 CASE: 1404 -052108.SU.FP LIFESPRING COMMUNITY CHURCH Request: Site Plan Review Preliminary/Final Plat of Subdivision Location: East side of Wood Farm Road, north of Lockport Applicant: LifeSpring Co mmunity Church Represented by Bill Inman TIME: 10:08 p.m. Planner Schwarz summarized the staff report. The property is currently zoned B -5 (Traditional Business District). The Comprehensive Plan actually designates the property as a greenway, but the existing zoning would override that. The applicant proposes to build a 7,564 sq. ft. church building with a total of 96 parking spaces to service the church. Future phases wo uld include building and/or parking lot expansion, which would come back to the Plan Commission at a later date. They are not part of this case. The property is generally flat and slopes toward the south and east property lines. There are mapped floodplain and floodway areas, as well as mapped wetlands. The property will be servi ced with Village sewer and water. The subject property is currently unsubdivided so the Subdivision Code requires that a lot of record be plotted for the purpose of creating one lot of record, dedicating additional R.O.W. along Wood Farm Road, and recordi ng any necessary public access, utility and drainage easements on the property. Three new lots are proposed (Lot 1 8.557 acres for the church, Lot 2 8,762 s q. ft. to be conveyed to the Plainfield Historical Society for future expansion of the historic tra in depot and museum facility, Lot 3 1.888 acres for potential conveyance to the Village of Plainfield for a potential sh ared stormwater management basin . The plat shows R.O.W. dedication to the Village for future roadway, parking, parkway, and public side walk improvements along the east side of Wood Farm Road. Staff is requesting the plat be revised to show any necessary public utility and drainage easements around the perimeter of the overall parcel and to provide a corresponding easement statement. The main entrance of the church building would be at the southeast corner. There are a total of 96 parking spaces, 4 of which are handicap accessible. This complies with the Village’s minimum requirement, which is 50 spaces. There will be one full access p oint on Wood Farm Road. Internal circulation is provided by the two -way drive aisles within the parking lot. The stormwater management would be accommodated on site in a stormwater detention basin located east of the church building. A bio -swale is a BM P for the stormwater management and is integrated into the Landscape Plan. One trash enclosure is provided as required near the northeast corner of the building. Staff and the Traffic Committee are requesting the following revisions to the Site Plan: 1. Southern access for the initial phase should be shifted slightly to the north to align with the future expansion of Soldier Drive. 2. Future Circle Drive should be removed from the plans at this time since it does encroach into the required minimum 75’ foo t setback from the edge of the wetland. The applicant would need a variance if they wish to construct that Circle Drive in the future. The elevations reflect an interpretation of a residential style of architecture. The predominant material is stucco on four sides of the building. There are accent materials which include a stone wainscot, stone sill above the wainscot, stone trim and keyst ones above all lower windows, and wood trim around all upper windows. Asphalt architectural shingles are used as th e roofing material. Staff did request that the applicant show the location of any utility meters, which need to be screened either loc ated within the building or in a recessed area within the rear or interior side façade. A screen wall to match the build ing would be acceptable. The applicant has indicated those areas will be landscaped. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to ensure the screening provisions are met. Staff has suggested the applicant consider eliminating the steeple above the main entrance and making the main steeple above the sanctuary more slender and prominent so that it may be seen above the existing tree line. Staff has asked the applicant to explain the proposed architectural style to help staff understand the design phi losophy. A concept plan was brought to the Commission in 2007 that was more of a modern style of architecture, more streamlined style of architecture. Staff was curiou s as to why that style changed. The applicant has stated their church building has an inviting community center look that does not speak institutional and that material, scale, and vernacular are consistent with surrounding examples. Staff pointed out that on the north and east elevations the predominance of material is the stucco material . The way that the Zoning and Site Plan Review Ordinance is written it specifically states that high quality materials, including brick, stone, and glass are required. It does not give a percentage, but it uses the term “predo minance”. Also, it states t hat “buildings that are primarily EIFS, or manmade stucco, shall be discouraged.” The way the Code is written, it is intended that Church buildings would fall under what commercial and office buildings would be required to do. Staff points this out to ma ke sure that the Plan Commission is
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 2, 2008 Page 13 okay moving forward to the Village Board with the building elevations that are shown. The applicant did work with staff to incorporate additional masonry material on the west and south elevations, which would be highl y visible from Wood Farm Road. There will be six parking lot lights mounted on 24 foot poles. This complies with Village requiremen ts. The landscape plan complies with Village requirements. The Landscape Ordinance is currently written to require a mi nimum 2 foot undulating landscape berm along Wood Farm Road to help screen the parking lot. Staff believes this type of berm is not appropriate or should not apply in the Downtown B -5 District. Staff is recommending that the Plan Commission initiate a te xt amendment where staff would modify the language in the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the berm requirement in the B -5 District. Staff is recommending approval of the Site Plan Review and Preliminary/Final Plat of Subdivision. Planner Schwarz concluded his report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Engineer Amann if there are any issues. Village Engineer Amann stated they have done a comprehensive review of the site plan and the associated engineering. They have just received the revisions addressing th ose on Friday and have not had a chance to go through those comprehensively, but it appears the applicant has attempted to addres s all of the outstanding issues. He wanted to bring to the Commission’s attention that the site is in the floodplain and there will be some filling in order to develop the site. The applicant has suggested to staff that the Village work cooperatively with them to allow the compensatory storage for the floodplain filling to be developed on the Village owned property. Planner Sch warz wanted to clarify it would be to the north, or one of several other Village owned properties in the vicinity. Village Engine er Amann stated this will be probably be a Village Board policy decision as to whether that is the best use of the Village pro perty. They can work with the applicant to develop whatever criteria is necessary for the compensatory storage and make sure it gets addressed from a technical standpoint. Commissioner Kachel asked how high the site would be as he notic ed there is a larg e pile of fill already at the site . Village Engineer Amann stated he did not believe the building itself is going to be significantly above Wood Farm Road. The parking areas and such is where they are trying to level that off so it is more easily accessi ble from Wood Farm. It is not so much the height of the fill as the extent of the fill that is requiring the compensatory storage. Planner Schwarz stated it was his understanding that the number he recalled was roughly 16,000 cubic yards of fill are need ed to eventually be leveled out and create the building pad for the building and parking areas. They are coming close to reaching what they need for that fill amount. Commissioner O’Rourke asked what options the petitioner has if they cannot go offsite w ith the compensatory storage. Village Planner Amann stated at this point they might have to reduce some of the size of the development because there is some fairly extensive floodplain that encroaches into the site. There is not a lot of usable area. Th ey have pretty much maximized the use of the area that they have to work in. He stated just glancing at the grading plan, the filling is generally about 4’, but i t is over almost the whole parking lot. Commissioner Kachel wondered with the fill under the parking lot, if there was a chance of the water under washing the parking lot in that area. Village Engineer Amann stated probably not. Generally it would be a concern if there were a lot of high velocities. This area is generally the backwater of the DuPage River. There is a tributary that comes from the west, crosses Wood Farm Road, and goes to the northern part of the site. The actual floodplain from the river backs up to the railroad. The parking lot with the fill is further away from where the t ributary comes through. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioners. Fran Leeman spoke. He is the pastor at LifeSpring Community Church. He did not have anything to add to the staff report. He stated Bill Inman could not be present and he is their e xpert when it comes to the site plan engineering. He recognized that this is a difficult piece of property. He pointed out that the circular drive at the south end of the site is on the property that would be deeded over to the Plainfield Historical Soci ety and that was something that they wanted as sort of a circular parking area or turnaround area for their future museum. So, as far as removing that from the plan, the petitioners do not have any problem with that. Plainfield Historical Society would h ave to come back later and address that. Commissioner O’Rourke wanted a little background on the change of architectural design. Petitioner Leeman stated they could not figure out where the drawing that came back to them ever came from. He stated their building has gone through some evolution from the early conceptions of it. LifeSpring is a community of faith that connects with a lot of people who come from a wide variety of religious traditions and from no traditions at all. They want their building to look like a building that has a community faith in it hence the steeple and the cross, but they also place a high value on the idea that they want the buil ding to feel warm and inviting and a pla ce that does not feel churchy. T hey want to shoot for s omething that is a mixture of faith with warmth, kind of an inviting feel for people who might be coming back to a community faith from no faith , or being away from something like that for a long time in their life. They have already gone ahead after staf f’s recommendation and removed
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 2, 2008 Page 14 the front steeple in their design. The issue of the height of the main steeple with the cross on it at the center of the hig her portion of the building, he wanted to defer to the engineer, Bill Inman, who was not present. He stated the engineers probably did measurements and stated it is visible from Lockport Street over the tree line, but they could talk with staff about that as the process goes forward. Commissioner Kachel asked if the architect could take at look at th e east and north elevations to try to give a little more character in that end of it, either with windows, etc. He had concerns because the upper portions of this would be seen from the future Riverwalk. Petitioner Leeman stated being a community of fait h they are really stretching financially to try and pull all of this together and actually be able to build this building. They have tried to put the money, the stone and what not, more on the parts of the building that would be more visible right now. It had been said the east side of the building will be seen from the Riverwalk, and he wondered if that is true given the tree line along the railroad tracks, unless the Village has plans to have that tree line either thinned or drastically removed. Plann er Schwarz stated there is a tree line on the west of the railroad and also a tree line currently on the Northwest Riverwalk parcel. A lot of activity will be taking place on the Northwest Riverw alk A discussion followed regarding this subject. Petitione r Leeman said they need to go back with their architect. Hopefully, staff would be willing to flexibly work with them so it can be something they can afford to do to the building. He stated th e thought into not putting a lot of money into the north side of the building is they will eventually expand this building and that would be an expansion wall. Chairman Sobkoviak asked how far away was the Riverwalk. Planner Schwarz stated it was adjac ent across from the railroad. He stated if you don’t include t he railroad or the ComEd overhead wires, the Riverwalk would be the next parcel to the east. He further stated there is a tree line along the petitioner’s property, with some of t he tre s actually falling on the railroad R.O.W. The majority of the trees t hat are on the Village property are along the river itself, and some of those will be removed because of the types of trees that they are. Petitioner Leeman had a comment about the switch from a more contemporary to a little bit more traditional. The ear lier concepts did not fit in as well with some of the adjacent buildings. Chairman Sobkoviak, and Commissioners O’Rourke and Peck did not have any problem with the materials on the east side of the building. Chairman Sobkoviak reiterated that the petiti oner has agreed to remove the circle drive. He also asked if the petitioner was in agreement with realigning the south access with Soldier Drive. Petitioner Leeman did not see why they couldn’t do that. He felt it made sense. Chairman Sobkoviak asked i f there was anyone in the audience that cared to ask a question or make a comment regarding this case. There was no response. Commissioner Kachel wanted to clarify his thoughts regarding the architectural element. He stated it was not so much just fo r the Riverwalk, but the redevelopment of the Downtown portion at a later date. At 10:44 p.m. Commissioner O’Rourke made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Site Plan Review for LifeSpring Community Church, located on the east sid e of Wood Farm Road, north of 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 Protection District; 3. That the plans be revised in accordance with staff’s review comments as noted in this memorandum. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, O’Rourke, Bonuchi, Sanders, Peck, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The moti on is carried 7:0 At 10:45 p.m. Commissioner Bonuchi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat of Subdivision for LifeSpring Community Church located on the east side of Wood Farm Road, north of Lockport Stree t 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 plat be revised in accordance with staff’s review comments as noted in this memorandum.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 2, 2008 Page 15 Commissioner O’Rourke seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: O’Rourke, Bonuchi, Sanders, Peck, Kachel, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 7:0 DISCUSSION: Commissioner Kachel asked Village Planner Garrigan if there is anything that can be done early on when commercial comes in, say with a PUD, to state you do not want to have a particular use facing a main street. Commissioner Renzi stated it was mentioned earlier about a text amendment initiative to cover this issue. Village Planner Garrigan stated you can have the Planned Development permitting certain uses and the Design Guidelines which would avoid that scenario. Planner Schwarz stated that can also b e accomplished through the annexation agreement. A discussion between staff and various Commissioners ensued. Commissioner O’Rourke suggested making it a special use and then there is more control. Commissioner Renzi stated automobile use could be a spe cial use in first tier, and otherwise make it permitted for second tier. He said maybe that would be the way to treat the proposed text amendment. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he has seen other collection boxes appear in various places throughout the Vil lage and wondered if that was allowed. Village Planner Garrigan stated staff is looking at that at the present time. S ince there was no further business for the Commission, Chairman Sob koviak adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. R espectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary Village of Plainfield