HomeMy Public PortalAbout2008-09-16 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RECORD OF MINUTES AMENDED DATE : SEPTEMBER 16 , 2008 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the m eeting of the Plan Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kache l, Renzi, O’Rourke, Bonuchi, Sanders ; Chairman Sobkoviak ; ex officio Commissioner Fremarek, Jim Harve - Village of Plainfield Attorney, Plainfield Park District; and Plainfield Fire District Absent: Commissioner Peck , Plainfield School District, Library D istrict, and Plainfield Police Department Also Present: Jonathan Proulx – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Sara Leach – Planner I Village of Plainfield, Sara Javoronok – Planner I Village of Plainfield, Carol Millan – Secr etary Village of Plainfield , an d Neal Eickholtz – Village Engineer Baxter and Woodman MINUTES: The minutes from the Plan Commission Meeting of September 2 , 2008 were accepted as presented. DEVELOPMENT REPORT: Planner Proulx summarized the results of cases that went before the Vill age board since the last Plan Commission meeting. At the September 8 th COW meeting there was a brief presentation on the Village’s efforts with regard to the Canadian National acquisition of EJ&E. He further stated what cases had gone before the Village board meeting on Sepgember 15, 2008. NEW BUSINESS: CASE: 1420 -082008.PP.SPR.SU FAIRFIELD RIDGE Request: Special Use/Major Change to Planned Development (Public Hearing) Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Location: East of Rt. 30, west of Van Dyke Rd., and North of Rt. 126 Applicant: McNaughton Builders Steve Gregory TIME: 7:07 p.m. Planner Proulx summarized the staff report. He stated this is a major change to a planned development and requires a public hearing. All notices have been pu blished and posted per Village Ordinance and State Statute. The applicant wishes to substitute duplex units and townhome units for a portion of the previously approved single family detached homes. The current plan retains 12 of the detached single famil y home lots, of which only a handful have been constructed to date. The applicant is proposing 38 duplex buildings and 11 townhome buildings. The total would go from 72 detached home units to 133 total units made up of 12 detached lots, 76 duplex units a nd 45 townhome units. This major change would also require a site plan review for the townhome component and a preliminary plat of resubdivision which would reconfigure the prior final plat to accommodate the current land plan. He gave a brief descriptio n of Fairfield Ridge. The site has been improved. The stormwater detention pond network has been constructed and a centrally located approximately 2.25 acre public park has been constructed in accordance with the park agreement with the Plainfield Park D istrict. Site development work is generally
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 16, 2008 Page 2 complete and the proposed plan would only require some minor modifications to the utility connections, the service laterals, as well as some minor re -grading around the foundations or home sites . This reques t is classified as a major change because of the increase in the number of dwelling units. The number of dwelling units would increase from 72 du to 133 du. The R -3 District is intended to provide areas for a variety of housing types at medium density, w ith residential density intended to be a maximum of 6 du/acre as part of a Planned Development. The proposed density is 5.29 du/ac . The property is zoned R -3 and partially B -5. The applicant is providing a high quality of residential architecture, which is consistent with the Village’s Residential Design Guidelines. There is a combination of residential dwelling types distributed within the neighborhood. There will be neo -traditional homes with alley -loaded garages with 100% of the garages being non -do minant . There is extensive landscaping and a dedicated public park which previously was in excess of the park obligation. In order to develop the land as proposed, the applicant is seeking some exceptions to the Village’s development standards. Some of the relief that is identified was previously approved as part of the approved Planned Unit Development: • Front setbacks – 25’ (previously approved) • Side setbacks – 5’ with building separation of 10’ (previously approved) • Rear setbacks – 20’ • Corner side setb acks - 25’ • Minimum lot size – 2,513 sq. ft. for smallest townhome unit • Minimum lot 2,700 sq. ft. for the smallest duplex unit • Minimum lot area/dwelling unit – 2,750 sq. ft. • Maximum dwelling unit s per building – 5 (one building only) • Minimum lot width – 25’ Staff looked at the major change and evaluated the findings of fact required for any Planned Development. Planner Proulx summarized the findings of fact for special use and stated 2 of 2 are favorable. He then summarized the findings of fact for a Plan ned Development and found 7 of 7 to be favorable. Planner Proulx stated staff’s argument for finding (f). He stated the future land use designation calls for a multiple family residential and staff would submit that the most appropriate zoning i s R -4 and if R -4 development standards were applied , in terms of minimum lot area per dwelling unit, most of the requested relief would not be required. Planner Proulx stated open spaces and recreational spaces are provided. The park donation did exceed the ori ginal requirement for the 72 unit development. Preliminary indications are that the excess improvement still satisfies the Park obligation eve n given the change in the mix of units and unit count. Staff finds the Planned Development, as amended, is compat ible with the adjacent properties. The land use and land plan is consistent with the original approved land plan. Regarding street access and circulation, the roads have been constructed and access is provided through the development with a combination of public -dedicated streets, as well as private alleys. There is an access point from Van Dyke Road on the east side. There are two commercials lots, one right -in/right -out off of Van Dyke. There is a right -in/right -out access point from Old U.S. Rt. 3 0. This is presently a local street and staff believes it would be possible to remove the “pork chop” island to make this a full access point. Staff believes in the long term Soldier Dr, the east/west road, may be extended to old U.S. Rt. 30 and extended westward past U.S. Rt. 30 through the Keller Property to connect with Soldier Drive in Liberty Grove. The Village Engineer has given a review to the preliminary engineering and made a few recommendations. They recommend a traffic study be updated and po ssibly add a second egress lane at Van Dyke Road. This would provide a separate left turn lane to go north and a separate right turn lane to go south. A second improvement would be striping on Van Dyke Road of a north -bound left turn lane into the develo pment. Staff suggests that these be required as a stipulation. Planner Proulx showed slides and went through the architecture. He stated the architecture is consistent with the architectural style of the single family detached homes that have been const ructed. Three different elevations have been submitted. The landscape plan was updated to provide prototypical landscape plans for the duplex and townhome sites and the balance of the landscaping was previously approved. There is a detention basin in p lace for stormwater management. It was designed to accommodate off -site runoff from adjacent property owned by the developer so there is excess capacity in the pond for the residential portion of the development. Anot her recommendation of the Village Eng ineer was to verify the capacity of the detention pond and the stormwater infrastructure of the pipes. That would be addressed at final plat and engineering stage. There is a Dormant Special Service Area in effect. All recapture has been satisfied for t his development. There is sufficient parking
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 16, 2008 Page 3 Staff supports the requests by the applicant. Planner Proulx concluded his report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Engineer Eickholtz if he had anything to add. Village Engineer Eickholtz stated as was mentioned , they recommend updating the original traffic study to determine if existing access points into the subdivision need to be modified. There are other minor engineering items including sanitary water and storm and adjusting the lot grades. Inter nal road improvements will remain as is. They did not see any issues. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Cameron Bettin from the Park District to give his comments. Cameron Bettin stated previously the size of the park met the total required donation. The applic ant was also making improvements above and beyond that as far as putting in a gazebo, putting in some landscaping, etc. The actual park donation now has gone up, but he felt based on the improvements the applicant is making and with the cash -in -lieu, it w ould probably be a “wash”. The Park District is okay with that. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioners. Steven Gregory spoke. He stated they are seeking a favorable recommendation on the Major Change. He gave a history of the site. They want to change the land use to be a more appropriate land use. He stated the townhomes will be adjacent to Rt. 30 and the duplexes will be on the east and north side s of the property. From mid summer of 2006 to present, they have actively marketed the Fairfield Ridge development with an on -site sales staff, a sales office, and 3 fully furnished models. They unfortunately have had only one sale to date. They cannot continue to absorb the care and costs of this development too much longer. He stated the message that the market is sending is that the current development plan is the wrong land use, at the wrong place, at the wrong place in time. They must change course to a more appropriate land use for the benefit of all concerned. The proposed plan would retain 12 of the existing single family detached homes, would add 38 duplex homes and 45 townhouse units for a revised total of 133 units. They believe the duplex use is an appropriate transitional use. Their challenge was that since the improvements are nearl y 100% complete, the proposed redevelopment plan had to employ a “best -fit” scenario, o ne that would minimize the need for reworking the existing infrastructure. As such, the proposed plan utilizes the existing alley and road layouts. It utilizes the exi sting sewer and water mains, with the exception of providing and reworking the individual services required for the reconfiguration of the land pla n. There would not be any significant changes required to the existing public improvements. He stated they have received and had their engineers review the letter from the Village Engineer and do not foresee any difficulties in adequately addressing the concerns and comments outlined in the letter. It would be their intention to update the traffic study previo usly provided should they move on to Final Plat and final engineering. Any recommendations cited in the updated traffic study would be incorporated into the final engineering plans. Petitioner Gregory showed some slides of existing architecture depicting the features of the architecture. The duplex plans are 2 stories and are approximately 1,925 sq. ft. That would be excluding the two car garage. There are three distinctly different elevations. There are a total of 4 parking spaces minimum provided, t wo within the garage and two on the driveway. Outdoor living space would be provided by means of a balcony accessible off of the 2 nd floor master bedroom. The townhouse plans are also a rear -load design. There will be 3 finished levels, totaling approxi mately 2,370 sq. ft., excluding the two car garage. Both the duplexes and townhomes will be fully landscaped in accordance with the Village’s landscape requirements. They believe the redevelopment reflects the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the TENG Downtown Redevelopment Plan. He further stated before the commercial can be built, you need enough residential to support the commercial. The density of thi s development is 5.2 du/acre. He further stated the lack of market acceptance for the curre nt development should not be ignored in order for this project to be successful and a benefit to the future expansion of the downtown business district. It is im perative that the Village approve this change and allow the increased density it provides. Th e Comprehensive Plan provides for the higher residential densities in this specific area of the Village and they believe this change is in the best long term inter est of the Village. He stated they are presently in civil litigation with the property owner to the s outh, but that should not be debated tonight. He concluded his comments. He thanked the Commission for their time. He stated both Jim and Ryan McNaughton were in attendance at the meeting. Chairman Sobkoviak opened the meeting up to the Commis sioners to ask questions. Commissioner Sanders asked if the petitioner has done something similar to this development. He further asked how many Homeowner Associations and DSSA’s will be established. Steven Gregory stated they have been in business ne arly 30 years , and over the years they have developed a large number of attached housing developments that have had both duplexes and 5 and 6 unit buildings, privately owned streets, etc. They have had experience with this type of development. The curren t development plan has another association that has been formed since the alleys are privately owned and need to be plowed by
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 16, 2008 Page 4 the association. The other aspect of the current development is that common area lawn maintenance and individual lawn maintena nce for each unit is provided by the Association for which a monthly assessment is charged each homeowner. The shift from the current plan to the proposed plan really amounts to just an increase of the additional units. The mechanics o f the Association, in terms of its managing responsibilities, really for the most part would remain unchanged. Commissioner Sanders asked how many Associations would be established. He asked i f there would be an umbrella one, one for the common areas, one for the townhome s, one for the duplexes, and one for the single family. He did not feel the maintenance costs on the exterior would be the same for each product. Steve Gregory stated the initial thought is that they believe one Homeowner Association should be able to pr ovide for the maintenance of the entire development, as is the case now . T he Fairfield Ridge Homeowners Association is an existing non -profit Homeowners Association entity manage d currently by the developer . Certainly, as they get into it further if circ umstances were such that it would better serve the residence ultimately to form individual Homeowners Association under a master association to address the needs of the townhouses separately, the duplexes separately and the 12 single family home separately , they could do so. Initially, their belief is that there is economy in scale , and it would be best to have just the one association. Commissioner Renzi felt the 12 single family residences would get out voted in the Homeowners Association by everything that has to do with a townhouse and a condominium. He agreed with Commissioner Sanders that it needs to be set up right now. There needs to be some sort of umbrella and differentiation to protect the rights of the minority single family homeowners. Steve Gregory stated that if that was included in a recommendation from the Plan Commission, they certainly would have no objection in pursuing that further. Commissioner Sanders stated he felt it would help with marketing to have those questions answered befo rehand. There would not be an equitable way of deciding the amount of assessments if the assessments were simply divided by 133 . He further stated there might need to be one DSSA or possibly two DSSA’s. He had a concern that the Homeowners Associations would not be set up properly. Chairman So bkoviak stated it was his understanding , and asked the petitioner if they would have no objection to a stipulation to have three separate Homeowner Associations with an umbrella Association . Steven Gregory stated that was correct. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that question would then be settled. Comm issioner O’Rourke had a concern how this development would impact the single family detached homes. He had concerns this would have a negative impact on the existing si ngle family detached homes. Steven Gregory answered while they have been working on this proposal they have been actively marketing the 5 homes that have been completed and are for sale. They did have one party interested in one of the existing homes , an d he viewed the new proposal as somewhat of a positive that the 12 single family homes kind of took on an element of uniqueness within the development. Commissioner O’Rourke asked what the present pricing is versus what the pricing was at the time the pre sent homeowner purchased their home. He asked if those units have been discounted because of the market , and possibly the person looking at the units now is basing his comment on today’s pricing and not the previous pricing. Steven Gregory stated the pri ces have been discounted so it is quite possible that the comments were made on that basis. Commissioner O’Rourke asked what happens to the existing owner, and Steven Gregory replied that he felt the interests of the existing owner are best served by the successful completion of the development. Commissioner Renzi asked if there had been conversation with the existing owner. Steven Gregory stated they have had no specific discussions with the existing owner. Commissioner Kachel also expressed concern s that the existing homeowners purchased their home with the assumption the subdivision would be built out as designed. He wondered what would happen if the developer found that this new proposal also did not develop the property. He wondered if the deve loper would come back again for another major change. Commissioner O’Rourke had a concern about the townhomes. He mentioned that previously there was a developer that converted townhomes into duplexes because the townhomes are not selling. He stated h e was not so much concerned about the density, but the mix. He wondered if possibly there should be more duplexes and more homes, which could make it more palatable for the existing homeowner. He did not want Plainfield to have the reputation that if som eone buys earlier in a subdivision they may not get what was proposed. Steven Gregory stated that was a concern worthy of consideration. He stated the need to address the land use and product type is one that is purely driven by market conditions. He st ated they have to be proactive in order to find a way to complete the subdivision. It is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the densities that were originally identified. Commissioner O’Rourke felt it is very important that the existing home owner be considered in how this development goes forward.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 16, 2008 Page 5 Commissioner Kachel asked about the pending litigation. Steven Gregory stated it was not that he did not want to talk about it, but since the adjacent property owner is in attendance tonight his comments would in large part be consistent with his opinions and perspective. He stated he did not want to go into detail, because in fairness if he would speak to the matter, the Commission would have to offer the adjacent property owner a chance to also speak. Commissioner Renzi stated there has to be some commonality between the two . He wanted to know what was alleged in the complaint so the Commission would have some conceptualization as to whether or not this affects the proposed conceptual plan being discussed. Petitioner Gregory stated he would be happy to provide some insight. It surrounds the area paralleling the detention pond to the south. Initially, this PUD was approved subject to final engineering. Final engineering plans included a retaining wall that transitioned between the detention pond and the property to the south. It was asserted by the property owner to the south th at a retaining wall was technically, in their view, a structure; and therefore, was subject to the bulk regul ations of the R -3 District. The petitioner’s belief is t hat even if it was subject to the bulk regulations if it is viewed as a structure, which the petitioner believes it is not, the Village Planner, who under the ordinance is the person charged with the interpretation of the Village’s Zoning Ordinance, believed that it is not to be considered a structure. In the event it was considered a structure, by virtu e of the PUD the retaining wall was allowed as a permitted use. Subsequent to that, the property owner to the south has completed some survey work and now believes there is a boundary line issue. The boundary line issue is something the petitioner is protected by under the terms of the title policy that was provided by the seller of the property. Ch icago Title is now in the mix working on this. Commissioner Kachel stated there was relief given for the previous PUD. Commissioner Sanders had a concern that the monthly assessments be equitable between the different types of product. Steven Gregor y stated currently the alleys are an outlot. The individual lots are owned by each resident. There is a public dedicated right -of -way along the dedicated streets. The property line extends from the public right -of -way in the front of the building to wit hin a foot of the alley pavement in the rear. Currently snow removal of the individual driveways and alleys, and lawn maintenance for the individual homes are provided. The cost is divided 72 ways. He stated there is approximately the same amount of yar d space, the same amount of alleys to plow, a few more driveways, but the cost would then be divided by 133. They believe there is economy in scale to the point the interests of the homeowners are not adversely affected. He further stated that with th e d ifferent building maintenance requirements, that is certainly worthy of builder review, and if it is determined that separateHOA’s are appropriate for the different housing types, they certainly have no objection in setting it up accordingly. Chairman Sob koviak opened up the meeting for public comment. He swore in each petitioner before they spoke. 1. Jeannine Goss – 14921 S. Gardner St. – Fairfield Ridge Subdivision. She stated she and her husband, Dick, are the sole homeowners in the Fairfield Ridge S ubdivision. She read a prepared statement (statement attached to the minutes). 2. Jeff Tomczak – attorney for the Olsen’s, property owner to the south of the Fairfield Ridge Subdivision. He reported on the pending litigation. He stated the status of the litigation began as a Zoning violation. A survey was completed by Ruettiger and Tonnelli and they have taken the position that the southern border and the existing Intech survey utilized by this builder are incorrect. It utilized an improper border a nd because of that , the lawsuit expanded from a Zoning violation into a trespass violation. He and his client felt it was relevant to come to the meeting because the remedy they are seeking in this litigation is removal of the wall, which is the southern border of the detention pond. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the wall exists. Mr. Tomczak stated it is existing right now. I t is 1,000’ long and in several areas towards the end of the lot, it is at least 15’ on Mr. Olsen’s property, which is the certif ied finding of Ruettiger and Tonnelli. They feel it is important because not only as the remedy they are seeking is the removal of that wall, but the removal of that wall would require a reconfiguration of the detention pond; and in essence it would rende r the plans being reviewed by the Commission unrealistic and unusable. He stated their claims have been found to have merit by the Court. The motions for summary judgment by McNaughton were denied by the Judge. That basically means that this Court has f ound the claims to have merit and they will proceed forward. They are confident that the removal of that wall will be a remedy that Judge Kenny or a jury will order. He stated Village Planner Garrigan was deposed and testified an opinion of this type had never been rendered before, not only in Plainfield and the State of Illinois, but anywhere in the U.S. Mr. Olsen had sent letters to th e Village informing them of what was going on and asked that the Village take this into consideration before making any
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 16, 2008 Page 6 decisions in regards to this lot. His inquiry was ignored. He stated there were no inquiries of adjacent landowners regarding this proposed change by the Planning Department. He stated his clients ask the question “who does the Planning Department re present, the people or the builders”. He also mentioned the experiences Mr. Olsen had with the developer. He stated it is quite simple; it has been “litigation, expense, and inconvenience”. He also stated Mr. Gregory had stated that Mr. Olsen’s comments were meaningless to him. The approval of the previous plan was due in part to the absence to the items that now the Commission is being asked to add. There was no further response from the audience, so Chairman Sobkoviak closed the public comment portio n of the meeting. The commissioners were free to ask questions. Commissioner Bonuchi stated the Village Engineer had stated minor issues with stormwater management, but the staff report had stated a complete stormwater management analysis be completed as part of the final engineering for the final plat stage. She also asked depending on the outcome of the litigation and possible changes to the stormwater management segment, what does it do to the entire development. Planner Proulx st ated it is staff’s estimation that the total change in impervi ous surface area would not be dramatically different so that the detention pond would not be able to handle changes in runoff. Part of that comes from the fact that this detention pond is sized to accommodate ru noff from the commercial site also. If more detention area is needed for this proposed change, then the developer could have a separate detention area for the commercial property on that property. Staff would defer to the engineering review, which staff feels would be best accomplished at time of final plat. If the developer cannot demonstrate that the detention is sufficient at the final plat stage, then staff would then not be in a position to approve the final plat. Commissioner Renzi was confused about the detention storage. Planner Proulx explained the developer owns all of the property, including the adjacent commercial lot. So, if additional detention capacity were needed to accommodate the propose d plan, detention for the commercial lot could be handled separately. Planner Proulx stated the detention could be handled in a number of ways. Commissioner Renzi asked what if the litigation was not successful for the developer and the wall needed to be moved. Planner Proulx deferred to the Villag e Attorney, Jim Harvey. Village Attorney Jim Harvey stated there is pending litigation of both parties. The Village is not a party. The litigation has not been resolved which the Village had hoped it would be resolved between the parties, but the Villag e does not have control of it. The Courts have jurisdiction over it and when it is either settled or a Court order is entered, the Village will be notified by the parties. He stated both sides have articulat ed their claims and their positions very well. The decision is before a Will County Judge and not before the Plan Commission. Commissioner Kachel felt nothing should be changed until the legal matters are resolved. He felt a site layout should not be approved until the matters of the detention area are resolved. Chairman Sobkoviak stated what the objections of the Commission are. • Concerns for single family homeowners • Capacity of detention pond, especially if the boundaries change • Staff has identified the additional density, setbacks, etc. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the Commissioners their concerns. He stated his concern is that they are the recommending body and not the final word; often times cases go forward from the Commission and are decided by the Village Board. Some times stones are not turne d over well. He stated the Commission should examine all aspects of this and identify what the Commission objects to and what the Commission considers as appropriate. He asked the Commissioners to comment on the setbacks, densities, layout of the streets , location of the park site, etc. Commissioner Renzi asked the location of the minimum lot width of 25’. Planner Proulx explained the duplex building itself would have a 50’ width lot with each unit having a 25’ width. Steve Gregory explained in the cas e of the duplex there is a common wall, and the lot line runs down the common wall. He also stated the street and alley configuration, and park configuration are as currently constructed, as are the proposed setbacks. The relief that Planner Proulx ident ified in his staff report are as they currently exist. Commissioner Renzi also asked if the duplexes and townhomes have the 25’ lot width. Ste ve Gregory replied the duplexes are 25’ and the townhouses range from somewhere in excess of 25’ for the end uni ts, with the interior units being 21’. Commissioner Renzi asked which townhome building would have 5 units. Steve Gregory pointed out the location on a slide.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 16, 2008 Page 7 Commissioner O’Rourke had a concern with the mix. He did not have concerns necessarily a bout the setbacks and densities. He felt the densities help the downtown area, staff is in support of it, and it helps the developer. His concern was for the existing resident and the neighboring residents. He felt the mix should be looked at as far as single family homes versus duplexes and/or townhomes. He wondered since a previous developer had removed townhomes if they should even be a part of the mix. The existing resident and the developer need to have conversations ; and if there are real damages , then it needs to be resolved. Commissioner Renzi agreed with Commissioner O’Rourke. He also felt the developer should have conversations with the existing homeowner. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it appears a large number of objections center around the s mall number of single family homes and the negative impact that it has on the existing owner and even the future owners of the property. Planner Proulx stated there are potential differences between the Chatham Square development that removed townhomes to build duplexes and this development. The Chatham Square development has a more distant location from the downtown area than this development. There are different p rice points . He cited the townhome project to the north has been accepted very well. Sta ff s upports multiple product types a s it allows for responses to market conditions as they change over time. Commissioner Bonuchi asked how the litigation would impact the homeowners. Steve Gregory replied the developer would be responsible. He stated it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate that the existing pond has the capacity for the change in use, or that they can accommodate the additional retention that is required by the change in use. It would be short sided of them to go through the process and the time and expense to only find out at final plat engineering that what they are proposing cannot be accomplished . He also wanted to go on record that he was careful to not impugn the reputation of the adjacent property owner and Mr. Tomczak made c omments about his deposition that were taken out of context. He explained his position. Chairman Sobkoviak responded to Commissioner Bonuchi that typically when there is common property, the developer maintains responsibility for the entire thing until a t least 75% of the units have been sold . At that time, the developer turns over the responsibilities to the Homeowner Association. Commissioner Kachel had a question about the setbacks and alleyways. He was concerned there would not be enough room for v ehicle maneuverability with the increased density . Steve Gregory stated these setbacks were previously approved , and they are not proposing to undo what was previously approved. Commissioner Sanders stated possibly shutters could be placed on the duplexe s to match what has been used on the single family homes to keep a consistency. Shutters would enhance the first floor exterior on side elevations, and second floor exterior on front elevations. Petitioner Gregory stated the decision to come before the C ommission with the change in the PUD has been in the works for a long time. They had held out hope that this project would gain the market acceptance that it needs. The most profitable scenario for them would have been if these unit s , as designed and app roved , would have sold, but they have not. If the Village should ask them to continue on with the present development proposal and the market acceptance is never realized, they cannot continue to go on indefinitely. This is a unique situation. At issue for them in the very beginning was their inability to obtain approval or support for a development plan initially that was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. When they initially purchased the property, there were densities identified in the 7 to 24 range on a lot of this property. The current Comprehensive plan on the multi -family is 10 to 15. They were approved for slightly more than 3. The change is more consistent with the guidelines and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. They own several c ommercial properties adjacent to this site, and also one at the northeast corner of Lockport and Van Dyke Road. When anyone expresses an interest in that property for commercial or retail development , they look to the surrounding area for the density and the population that will support the retail. The two work hand in hand , and that is one of the reasons staff has been supportive of this proposal. It addresses the need to find a land use that will allow this development to be completed and move forward, and also serves the purpose of providing the population density that will promote the expansion of the Downtown Business District. They are asking for density that was clearly delineated in the Comprehensive Plan and for a variety of reasons was never in itially realized. Commissioner Renzi had four points that he would like to have. Chairman Sobkoviak mentioned that if a motion to approve the major change would not be carried; there would be no need to go forward with the Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review questions. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there was any benefit to the petitioner working additionally with staff and the resident to see if this plan could be tweaked a little bit. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that is another option, aside from mak i ng a negative recommendation. The Commission could continue the case and give the developer direction as to what the
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 16, 2008 Page 8 Commission would like to see or what changes the Commission would like to incorporate. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he would be in favo r of that. Petitioner Gregory was not opposed to talking to staff and Mr. and Mrs. Goss to discuss this further. He stated although a personal contact was not made with Mr. and Mrs. Goss, they did send a letter inviting them to contact him if they had an y specific concerns or questions about the proposal. There was no attempt on their part to contact him . Aside from that, they would be receptive to sitting down with staff and Mr. and Mrs. Goss. Chairman Sobkoviak was disturbed by the fact that only 5 s ingle family homes have been built. He asked if the petitioner would continue to build the 12 single family homes. Steve Gregory stated they have the 5 spec homes. Until something happens with those 5 homes, in terms of sales, they certainly have no int entions of starting anything else. Chairman Sobkoviak suggested that should the Commission grant them a continuance, he would like to see one full block of single family homes, however, he would not force them to build them today, but at some po int when t he market recovers. It would add to the mix. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the Commissioner s for their final comments. • Commissioner Renzi - Soldier Drive going through - F ull block of single family homes - Street connectivity - Adequate stormwater storage - Multiple H omeowner Associations • Commissioner Sanders - Covenants and By -laws for 4 separate Homeowner Associations - Maintenance –Professional management firm or self managed by homeowners Petitioner Gregory stated the Homeowner Association is presently in existence . There are covenants that have been recorded and do exist. He asked that the time and expense of creating a master Homeowner Association and 3 subsidiary Homeowner Associations and the covenants and by -laws be invested after the preliminary approval stage , but before the final plat. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the petitioner should the Commission elect to continue the case how much time they would need to assess the objections and incorporate any possible changes. Petitioner Gregory stated they would atte mpt to address them as quickly as possible. He stated the detention calculations could be provided rather easily. They could be submitted to Jacob and Heffner for review. They know that there certainly is not going to be anymore units than is currently proposed, so they can base the detention calculations on the 133 units. He felt they could have something tangible in two weeks. Commissioner Kachel asked if anything could be done to speed up the court decision regarding the detention area. Steve Gre gory stated the “wheels of justice” sometimes move slowly so he was not optimistic that any resolution will be reached in the foreseeable future. He stated they could provide a letter from their engineer stating that if the Courts ultimately dete rmine tha t the wall is a structure and needs to be removed, he believed they could provide a statement that indicates: • The detention can be accommodated within the existing detention outlot; and • How that would specifically be accommodated. Commissioner Sanders wan ted to emphasize that they should include something showing what makes the 4 different Homeowner Associations unique from each other , how the costs will be equitably spread, and what the monthly assessments would be. At 9:06 p.m. Commissioner O’Rourke m ade a motion that the Plan Commission continue the public hearing and Case No. 1420 -082008.SU.PP.SPR to October 7, 2008. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 16, 2008 Page 9 Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, O’Rourke, Bonuchi, Sa nders, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 Chairman Sobkoviak called for a break to return to the meeting at 9:20 p.m. CASE: 1417 -072508.PP RIVERSTONE Request: Preliminary Plat of Subdivision Location: South of 12 7 th St. and west of the DuPage River Applicant: The Macom Corporation TIME: 9:20 p.m. Planner Javoronok summarized the staff report. This is a proposed 162 lot, typically 12,000 sq. ft., detached single family residential development. The property is 89.42 acres and was annexed to the Village as part of Farmstone Ridge in 1994. The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan designated the majority of this area to be low -density residential, with a small portion adjacent to the DuPage River as green way. The annexation agreement provided for a right -of -way along Book Road. The Thoroughfare Plan designates Book Road as a major collector with a 100’ of R.O.W . There are two entrances into the subdivision from 127 th Street, Wabash Road and Riverstone D rive. The Village’s pumping station lies directly south of the current terminus of Book Road at 127 th Street. There potentially could be access to the subdivision through the Village’s Lake Michigan Pumping Station. The Police Chief and staff recommend the elimination of Wabash Road due to its proximity to the bridge and DuPage River. Riverstone Drive is a local street just west of the current terminus of Book Road. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that Book Road is to run south from 127 th Street to 13 5 th Street as a major collector. The Traffic Committee supported the terminus of Book Road at 127 th Street. It is a policy question for the Plan Commission and Village Board as to the necessity of Book Road continuing south of 127 th Street as a major col lector. Staff recommends additional street connections, possibly through the addition of pocket parks connecting the existing cul -de -sacs. There is a single stub street connection from Riverstone Drive to any future d evelopment to the south , and staff re commends the addition of another stub street to the west that could align with Douglas Drive in Graver Country Estates . This stub street could be developed as the last residential lot in the subdivision if there is no development or planned developme nt to the west. There will be a bike path that runs along the eastern perimeter of the subdivision that will enable pedestrian acc ess to the subdivision from 127 th Street. Staff recommends the following for building architecture: • Addition of fiber cement boar d as a siding material waiving the 50% masonry requirement for the front elevation with this material, • Encourages 25% masonry on the side and rear elevations of buildings having more than 50% masonry on the front elevation, • Incorporating eaves on all four elevations having a min imum width of 12 inches or a widt h consistent with the architecture. There are two detention areas within the subdivision. Lot 164 is a 9.89 acre detention/park that the Plainfield Township is interested in, along with Lot 115. Lo t 164 is expected to satisfy the park donation requirement. The petitioner will be required to enter into a dormant special service area (DSSA). There is recapture for this property. The property benefits from two public improvements, a 20” water main a nd 18” sanitary sewer main. The exact fair -share calculation will be determined at the time of final platting. The annexation agreement stipulates that recapture may be collected, while a corresponding credit would be granted to offset the cost of utilit y connection fees. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Subdivision subject to the stipulations listed in the staff report. Pla nner Javoronok concluded her report.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 16, 2008 Page 10 Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Engineer Eickholtz if there were any issues. Village Engineer Eickholtz stated after a review of the project, they have identified items that need to be addressed, which the developer has agreed to complete. The y do not anticipate any of the items to impact the presented preliminary plan. They were looking for: • Supporting documentation to verify the floodplain elevation • Compensatory storage • Wetland delineation Chairman Sobkoviak called the Village Engineer’s attention to the staff report where staff and the Police Chief recommend the elimi nation of Wabash Road. He asked how the engineer felt about that. Village Engineer Eickholtz stated the main purpose of having the second access is for emergency vehicles. If Police and Fire are comfortable with removing that access, than they would hav e no problems either. Chairman Sobkoviak was guessing that the Police and Fire don’t want to just remove the access, but replace it. He asked Planner Javoronok about that. Planner Javoronok stated it was planned to have emergency access only through the Village’s Pumping Station. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there would be a trail or something that would cut through the pumping station . Commissioners Sanders stated they would probably want to eliminate an intersection right before the bridge. Any emer gency vehicles would have access through the back end of the water storage facility. Sara Javoronok stated the emergency vehicles would have access through the back of the water storage facility. There was a discussion among the Commissioners and Plann er Javoronok about Wabash Road. The policy issue question was whether Book Road should go through or not. There was a discussion among the commissioners as far as Book Road from 127 th to 135 th St. Commissioner Sanders wanted the staff report clarifi ed. It had stated staff recommends the addition of another stub street to the east that could align with Douglas Drive in Graver Estates. Planner Javoronok stated the staff report should read, currently there is one stub street that connects to the south and staff is requesting a stub street to the west that could align with Douglas Drive in Graver Country Estates. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Cameron Bettin from the Plainfield Park District to come to the podium. Chairman Sobkoviak asked him if the Park D istrict was okay with the park donation. Cameron Bettin wanted to make a clarification from the staff report. He stated the Park District does not want the detention area to go as a credit towards the park donation. Instead they will be looking at the g reenway and Lot 115 and give the developer a credit towards cash -in -lieu. They are presently working with the developer on this matter. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the representative for the developer. Mike VanPoucke, VP of Planning for the Macom Corpor ation. He wanted to discuss the segment of Wabash Road along the eastern edge of the development. The developer had been approached a few years ago about the Village acquiring the 4 acres for the water tanks. They had moved that 4 acres to the west in o rder to allow sufficient room for this road. They received the staff report Friday afternoon suggesting that the Police Chief wanted to have that road removed. Their planners are looking at it right now as it will change some things. They will be build ing an 18’ bike path that could eliminate the segment of Wabash and could satisfy the police chief as emergency responders could use the bike path in case of an emergency. The Macom Corporation has been evaluating that. They have not approached the Fire Department yet. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Commission would need the approval of the Fire Department as they normally want two access points into a subdivision. The developer is willing to work on that with the Fire Department and staff. The Park Di strict would need to agree also. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it would be beneficial if they did not have to cut through Village property. Chairman Sobkoviak then asked about the extension of Book Road. Petitioner VanPoucke stated when they brought in th e plan the Boughton Farm to the north was not on the books yet. Staff had suggested that Madonna Development bring their road over to Book Road. The road actually goes through and continues to the south , but it is just not as substantial of a road. Co mmissioner O’Rourke asked if it could be a major collector. Petitioner VanPoucke stated it could be. He passed out an aerial map and a map of the floodplain. There was a discussion for the stub street going west. He pointed out the floodplain area to the west of the property. He stated if the stub street was put somewhere in that area, it is very unlikely that it would be extended due to the fact that the floodplain is in that area. He stated it was his understanding that the owner immediately to th e west of the Riverstone development was not
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 16, 2008 Page 11 interested in developing his land and may never be. There would need to be a bridge over this large area of floodplain. He stated the stub to the south will also serve the purpose of anything going to the west. Commissioner O’Rourke pointed out another stub street of the development to the west. Petitioner VanPoucke stated they had stopped there because of the floodplain and the need for the road to be bridged. He further stated at some point in the fu ture if someone were to say they were going to bridge tha t , they would most likely come down south and hit that creek at a 90 degree angle. Commissioner O’Rourke asked Petitioner VanPoucke if he was just showing Book Road going south through Riverstone as a minor collector. Petitioner VanPoucke stated that was correct. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if that could be a major collector per the Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner VanPoucke stated it certainly would not help the design of Riverstone. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the rear yards would have to face that street then. Petitioner VanPoucke stated that was correct. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if they had looked at that. Petitioner VanPoucke stated they have not looked at that because they felt this c onfiguration would work. There is not a lot of room along 135 th Street for Book Road to come in. Commissioner Renzi asked instead of making it a big road, could it be made something along the lines of Meadow Lane, which runs from 127 th Street all the w ay to Indian Boundary. He referred to how Meadow Lane is crafted through Dayfield Subdivision with different setbacks, etc. and wondered if Book Road could also be configured in this manner. Planner Javoronok stated Meadow is designated as a minor collec tor with a width of 80’ and Book Road , proposed as a major collector , would have a width of 100’. Commissioner Renzi stated he sees where Book Road could be brought down to either Naperville/Plainfield Road or 135 th Street. He felt any road north/south would be a good thing. Commissioner O’Rourke asked Petitioner VanPoucke if that was something he felt could be accomplished. Petitioner VanPoucke stated they would look into that. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Commission realizes they are not going to get an arterial out of Book Road, but would settle for a collector. Commissioner Fremarek agreed with Commissioners O’Rourke and Renzi. Commissioner Sanders stated he did not see this getting as much traffic as a Meadow Lane. Commissioner Bonuchi state d she could see this as a minor collector. She would like to see Book Road go through and not become a local street. There was a discussion between the Commissioners about a north/south road. There was a consensus of the Plan Commission that Riverstone Drive should be widened as a minor collector status so that ultimately it could be extended to the south. Commissioner Renzi was curious as to why this was not developed since it was annexed in 1994. He wondered if possibly when a development is annexed and there is no development within so many years, that the developer should be held to the present standards when they want to develop the property instead of the standards at the time of annexation. Chairman Sobkoviak stated sometimes there are concessio ns made in order to annex property to solidify the Village boundaries. Petitioner VanPoucke stated this property was annexed in order to stop Bolingbrook. The Village came to the property owner for annexation. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the 40’ R.O.W. dedication along 127 th Street was consistent with future plans for 127 th Street. Planner Javoronok stated she believed so, but would have to check on that. Commissioner O’Rourke also asked if there should be a right turn deceleration lane on 127 th Str eet for Riverstone Drive. Planner Javoronok stated staff has not requested that at this point, she would look into that. Petitioner VanPoucke stated traditionally that is done along busier streets. Chairman Sobkoviak stated staff is leaving open one lot on the west side for a stub street and wondered if Petitioner VanPoucke had an objection to that. Petitioner VanPoucke stated yes given the location of the lot. They do not think there is going to be a road going through there. You would potentially ha ve two corner lots with different setbacks. He guessed if it were to be required , they would prefer to have 5 years from the date the final plat is recorded. Planner Javoronok stated it is staff’s opinion that this could be done as the last lot instead o f during a specific timeframe, but they would work with the developer on that. Commissioner Kachel referenced the plan for Book Road to the north. Planner Javoronok stated she was not familiar with Naperville’s plan for Book Road to the north. Petition er VanPouke explained.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 16, 2008 Page 12 Commissioner Sanders stated Graver Estates is in unincorporated Will County and stated the probabilities of annexing and extending the road over the floodplain is improbable . He felt the southern stub street would be adequate. Commission Fremarek agreed. A discussion followed. After a lengthy discussion, it was the opinion of the Commission that they agreed with the applicant and decided it would not be a good idea to leave the lot open on the west side for a stub street. The y decided to go with a stub street to the south. Commissioner O’Rourke reiterated his comments about a deceleration lane on 127 th Street and asked if the petitioner could look at that. Petitioner VanPoucke stated they could look at that. Chairman Sobk oviak asked the petitioner about staff’s stipulations in the staff report. • Fiber Cement Board – The petitioner had no problem with this . • Incorporating eaves on all four elevations with a minimum width of 12” or a width consistent with the architecture – Th e petitioner had no problem with this . The Commission removed stipulation #3 from the staff report (regarding the inclusion of a stub street to the west that could “sunset” as the last lot developed if there is no development or planned development to the west. The Commission added a new stipulation #3 (Redesign Riverstone Drive as an extension of Book Road as a minor collector status.) Commissioner O’Rourke wanted to add a stipulation to add a deceleration lane on 127 th Street. It was decided not to m ake this a stipulation, but staff would pass on to the developer. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who cared to make a comment or ask a question. Michael Rollinger was sworn in and spoke. He lives at 23625 Andrew in Wolf C reek Subdivision. Addressing area north of property they would like this development more in line with the Macom development, Riverstone, in terms of density, with larger lots. There were no further public comments. At 10:16 p.m. Commissioner O’Rourke m ade a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approved of the preliminary plat of subdivision for Riverstone, located on the south side of 127 th Street, and west of the DuPage River, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Subject to the requirements of t he Village Engineer, 2. Subject to the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District, 3. Redesign of Riverstone Drive as an extension of Book Road as a minor collector status, 4. Subject to the fiber cement board as a permitted siding material, 5. Subject to incorporating eaves on all four elevations with a minimum width of 12 inches or a width consistent with the architecture. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: O’Rourke, Bonuchi, Sanders, Kachel , Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 CASE: 1416 -072408.TA TEXT AMENDMENT Request: Text Amendment to Sign Code to address SIGN CODE new technologies (Public Hearing) Location: Village -wide Appli cant: Village of Plainfield TIME: 10:18 p.m.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 16, 2008 Page 13 Planner Leach summarized the staff report. She stated this is a public hearing and all notices have been posted and published per Village Ordinance and State Statute. This is a text amendment to address new technologies that have been developed in regards to signage. It is recommended that the Village develop a policy on LED and Video Display signs. Staff has recommended guidelines for animated signs, although several professionals recommended prohibiting these types of signs. Planner Leach went through the various sections of the o rdinance that are to be revised. Staff recommends approval. Planner Leach concluded her staff report. Commissioner Sanders wanted a clarification of what an animated sign is. He stated some towns do not allow them within 200’ of a traffic control device because they are distracting to motorists. Planner Leach stated these are characterized as any sign that can change on its own. Commissioner Sanders asked if automated would be a better description. Planner Leach stated if it was the pleasure of the Commission to change animated to automated, she could do that. Commissioner Fremarek wanted the terminology to be what is accepted by the Industry to avoid any confusion. Plan ner Leach stated animated would be the accepted terminology. A discussion ensued between the Commissioners. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that cared to as a question or make a comment. There was no response. Commissioner O’Rourke asked the definition of residential signs. Planner Leach stated that would be subdivision entrance signs, etc. Chairman Sobkoviak referenced the backlit sign for the Playa Vista Subdivision and stated that previously that type of sign would not have been permitted. It was approved though by the Commission and then ultimately by the Village Board. Commissioner O’Rourke verified that it was no t on a house. Signs are not permitted for a single residence within a subdivision. There was a discussi on about the intensity level (NITS) of illuminated signs between Commissioner Renzi and Planner Leach. Planner Leach stated each color is at a different level. Commissioner Renzi asked if there was a provision for a dimmer control. Planner Leach stated that was included in the revisions to the Ordinance. She stated dimmer controls are used for LED signs as it would not be appropriate to have a dimmer control for animated signs. Commissioner O’Rourke had a question about spill -over from residential sign s. Planner Leach stated it is indicated throughout the Sign Code that the illumination for a sign must be focused directly toward the sign with no spill -over. Commissioner Sanders asked if something should be put in the code to limit how close an animate d sign is to a traffic control device. He stated other communities have incorporated this into their sign code. Planner Leach stated staff did consider that. She further stated it could potentially be a problem enforcing if, for example, a gas station wa nted an LED sign at a corner. At 10:35 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the proposed text amendments to the various sections of the Village’s Sign Code as highlighted in staff’s report. Commissioner Bon uchi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Bonuchi, Sanders, Kachel, Renzi, O’Rourke, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 16, 2008 Page 14 DISCUSSION: Commissioner Kachel asked Planner Proulx if the re was a change to the compensatory storage for a PUD for a subdivision, etc. would it have to come back to the Plan Commission for public input. Planner Proulx stated he believed the change would have to come back to the Plan Commission. Commissioner Bo nuchi commented that she was grateful for the cross connections of driveways from one commercial unit to another. It makes it easier to get around. Planner Proulx reminded the Commission about the Transit Planning Community Workshop on Thursday, Septembe r 18, 2008. He also commended both Sara Leach and Sara Javoronok on their hard work. Since there was no further business for the Commission, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 10:41 p.m. R espectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planni ng Secretary Village of Plainfield