HomeMy Public PortalAbout2008-10-07 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RECORD OF MINUTES DATE : OCTOBER 7, 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 Ka chel, Renzi, Bonuchi, Sanders ; Peck ; Chairman Sobkoviak ; e x officio Commissioner Fremarek ; and Plainfield Fire District Absent: Commissioner O’Rourke , Plainfield School District, Library District, Park District, and Plainfield Police Department Also Pres ent: Michael Garrigan – Village Planner Village of Plainfield, Jonathan Proulx – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Sara Javoronok – Planner I Village of Plainfield, Carol Millan – Secr etary Village of Plainfield , and Neal Eickholtz – Village Engineer Baxte r and Woodman Chairman Sobkoviak presented a service award to Linsey McKay for her service to the community as a Plan Commissioner from 2005 to 2008. DEVELOPMENT REPORT: Village Planner Garrigan summarized the results of the cases brought before the Vill age Board at their meeting on October 6, 2008. He also informed the Commission that Planner Sara Leach has left the Village of Plainfield. He commended her on her hard work. Chairman Sobkoviak wanted the Commission Secretary to draft a letter of gratitu de to Sara Leach from the Commission and a commendation for the Rt. 30 Guidelines. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the Commissioners to check over the 2009 Commission meeting dates to see if there were any objections. The Commissioners agreed with the dates. M INUTES: The minutes from the Plan Commission Meeting of September 16 , 2008 were accepted as amended . Commissioner Sanders wanted the word costs added to the sentence on Page 4, Paragraph 2 to read - He did not feel the maintenance costs on the exterio r would be the same for each product. He also wanted on Page 4, Paragraph 3 words added to Sentence 5 so that it would read – There would not be an equitable way of deciding the amount of assessments if assessments were simply divided by 133. He also wan ted a sentence added on Page 7, Paragraph 8 to read – Shutters would enhance the first floor exterior on side elevations, and second floor exteriors on front elevations. Commissioner Kachel wanted to clarify his statement on Page 7, Paragraph 7 to read – He was concerned there would not be enough room for vehicle maneuverability with the increased density.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes October 7, 2008 Page 2 of 15 OLD BUSINESS: CASE: 1420 -082008.PP.SPR.SU FAIRFIELD RIDGE Request: Special Use/Major Change to Planned Development Location: East of Rt. 30 , west of Van Dyke Rd., and North of Rt. 126 Applicant: McNaughton Builders Steve Gregory TIME: 7:10 p.m. Planner Proulx stated this is a continuation of a public hearing from the Plan Commission meeting on September 16 th . He stated all notices have b een published and posted. He gave a review of the project. The petitioner is asking to substitute a combination of duplex units and townhome units for a portion of the single family homes that were previously approved. Since the existing approved project is well below the appropriate density identified by the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan the proposed PUD application would move the project much closer to the type of development called for by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has played an act ive role in encouraging this. This project was the subject of some consideration by the Village Board at the Committee of the Whole meeting earlier in the year. There was some support at the Board level for the proposal. Planner Proulx stated it was sta ff understands there were 3 or 4 main areas of discussion at the last meeting. He went on to summarize how those issues have been addressed, • Analysis of the detention capacity – whether the existing detention pond has sufficient capacity to accept the add itional stormwater runoff that would be generated by changing some of the housing types. The developer’s engineer did conduct a stormwater management analysis and concluded that there is sufficient capacity in the detention pond for the proposed developme nt. Planner Proulx corrected the staff report and stated the high water level of the pond would be raised 0.01 of a foot . • Whether the detention pond could be modified in the event some pending civil litigation would result in the need to eliminate a retai ning wall on the southern property boundary. The developer’s engineer has provided a letter stating that the retaining wall could be removed and the pond re -graded to still provide the required detention capacity without the need for the retaining wall. • Questions regarding the Homeowner Association structure and how the various dwelling types would be represented equitably in the maintenance costs of commons areas, landscaping. The developer did submit an outline of the Homeowners Association structure that would have a master association to be responsible for maintaining aspects such as the private alleys, common elements, common area landscaping. T hey are proposing sub -associations for each of the three dwelling types. The developer is interested in minimizing the costs, so there might be a way to combine these functions into one structure that would not require separate management and maintenance fees for each of the four associations. This will be reviewed by staff at the time of Final Plat. • Discus sion of the product types, densities, the mix of units between single family detached, duplex, and townhomes and what level of support and comfort there is for the land plan as presented. Staff sees the key issue for this case is the dwelling types, and w hat the appropriate mix of dwelling types is. There was discussion at the last meeting of the proposed impact of the changes to the existing residents in Fairfield Ridge. Staff looks to the findin gs of fact to support this issue, specifically the finding that pertains to whether the special use would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of public property in the immediate area nor would it substantially diminish property values in the neighborhood. Staff submits there is no inherent conflict between the residential housing types. Staff believes single family detached homes are compatible with duplex homes , and both of these home types are compatible with townhomes. There are many developments within the Village that contain a combination of two or more of these dwelling types , and further the Zoning Code permits two or more home types in the various Zoning Districts. The Design Guidelines has identified that a distributive mix of housing types is a goal that can achieve a density bonus. It is not only acceptable, but it is something incorporated in the Design Guidelines. Lastly, staff points out the Historic Downtown Core does include a combination of these dwelling types in close proximity.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes October 7, 2008 Page 3 of 15 Staff believes the proposed amendment would no t result in a substantial negative impact on property values. Part of this analysis is staff’s belief that the amendment would provide the petitioner with an overall project that would be more aligned with current market conditions and market acceptance o f the existing proposed home types at this location. This would be more consistent with our Comprehensive Plan and gives the project a better chance of success. Whereas, staying with the detached single family project , as currently approved , may have les s chance of market acceptance ; and ultimately, that might be less beneficial to the existing homeowners. Staff believes the findings of fact have been met for this project Staff recommend s approval of the requested major change to the PUD, preliminary pl at, and site plan review for the townhomes. Planner Proulx concluded his report. He stated he had consulted with the homeowners, the Goss Family, and they provided him with some concepts of alternatives and how to address the mix of dwelling types. He h ad included these concepts in the PowerPoint presentation in case the Goss’ wanted to use them. Chairman Sobkoviak reminded the petitioner that he was still under oath from the previous meeting. Steven Gregory spoke. He is the President of James McNaugh ton, Construction, Inc. He gave a summary of what had transpired at the previous Commission meeting on September 16, 2008. He stated they also heard the comments from the Plan Commission and identified about 3 or 4 main concerns. He stated they prepared the Homeowner Association outline that could be used , which delineates a master association with three individual associations for each of the three product types. They believe there i s probably a more efficient way to handle this should this project be approved , and that would be to create three ownership classifications within the framework of the existing Homeowners Association , whereby eliminating some duplication of insurance and management fees, which would ultimately benefit the homeowners. That w ould be subject to legal review. He stated as far as the storm water management concerns, their engineers have calculated the stormwater detention requirements based on the proposed density. They have submitted those calculations to Baxter and Woodman, bu t he did not know if the Village Engineer has had a chance to review those calculations and if they agree with the accuracy . Thirdly there was a concern expressed with the existing detention facility versus the ongoing litigation with the adjacent propert y owner pertaining to the location of the retaining wall. He thought it was important for everyone to realize that regardless of the outcome of this proceeding, the possibility of having to do something with that wall, should the Courts ultimately rule ac cordingly, exists today. Action or inaction today does not either enhance or eliminate the probability of having to do something with that pond and removing the wall. He stated their engineers stated if the Courts ruled in favor of removing the retaining wall, the detention pond could be reworked , and they are comfortable with that. It was after lengthy review by the Village and their consulting engineers that the construction of that wall was approved. It was only until then, that they proceeded with t he construction of the wall. It was alleged at the September 16 th meeting that perhaps they proceeded with the construction of the wall without regard for the adjacent homeowner. He stated they have invested over 3 years of time and literally millions o f dollars into this project. They can sympathize with the situation of the existing homeowner. The decision to change course and come before the Village with a request for a modification in the plan is not a decision tha t was made lightly. It has been given a lot of consideration and has been discussed with staff, and any change is certainly not without cost to the developer . He feels the market has sent a loud message, and that is the wrong land use, the wrong location, and at the wrong time. Market acceptance is a force that should be given i ts due consideration. He went on to talk about the present economic situation and the present housing crisis. They are of the opinion that multi -family is at a lower price point; and therefore, more appealing to a larger segment of the buying public. They believe the market will eventually return and conditions will improve, but they also believe that time has run out on this particular project and land use. They believe t hey must offer a diversity of product and a diversity of price range that will appeal to a broader segment of the market. If this proposed project succeeds, it will benefit the Village with the potential downtown expansion and the existing homeowners in Fairfield Ridge certainly much more so than if this development fails. They believe this more closely reflects the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he has served on the Plan Commission in the community where he lives for 5 years. He feels they are fortunate, as is the Vill age of Plainfield, to have a hard working, dedicated staff that counsels developers and the Commission on appropriate land use decisions. He stated he has learned during his tenure on the Plan Commission, at times you have to set aside personal opinions a nd listen to the recommendation of the educated, trained, and experienced professional staff who have been trained in appropriate land use. He thanked the Commission for their time and made himself available for questions from the Commission.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes October 7, 2008 Page 4 of 15 Commi ssioner Sanders spoke first. He stated the Commission recognizes the change is prompted by significant changes and financial pressures in the housing market, but there would be an impact on all the stakeholders including the developer, the residents, and the Village. He stated originally there was an “L shape” of single family detached homes. He wanted to propose 27 of the single family detached homes put all around the square, plus the 4 behind those on Gartner Street. He proposed an alternative mix of 27 single family detached homes, 54 duplex homes and 37 townhomes. He stated the benefits of this proposal. He stated it utilizes the original concept of a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) as the key feature of t he Fairfield Ridge Community. It addresses the current housing market dynamics. It complies with the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for the multi -use development west of Plainfield’s Historic Downtown. It also meets the nine Finding s of Fact required as i dentified by the Planning staff, specifically finding “f”. Commissioner Fremarek asked if the developer has other projects with a similar mix. Petitioner Gregory stated this is the on ly development of this type currently. They have other smaller “in -fill” developments on a smaller sca le east of the Village, which are traditional single family attached homes. There has been an impact to these developments given the present economic climate, but not as significantly as this development. Commissioner Fremarek had a concern that the Co mmission would be setting a precedent in accepting a major change in this development. He felt there was no guarantee , even with making this change that it would help to overcome the market conditions. Commissioner Kachel also agreed with both Commissi oners Sanders and Fremarek. Commissioner Kachel was not sure if the number of single family detached homes should be as many as Commissioner Sanders was proposing, but he felt there should be more single family detached homes than what is shown in the pre sent proposal. He stated the housing market i s down all over. He wanted to see more of a mix. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Commission is sympathetic to developers. These are troubled times. He stated it is the Commission’s responsibility and the V illage Board’s responsibility to look at what they want the Village to be , a nd what it will be 50 years from now. He stated the biggest single objection of the Commission is the mix. He also felt there was consensus from the Commission for a larger numbe r of single family detached homes, as Commissioner Sanders suggested. Given market conditions, the developer might not be able to sell those properties; however, they still need to be zoned single family. We can’t zone for market conditions. We cannot p lan the Village around market conditions. The Commission not only represents the people that presently live here, but also the people that will live here in the future. Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the meeting for public comment. He asked if there was a nyone present who would like to ask a question or make a comment. Jeannine Goss spoke. Chairman Sobkoviak reminded her that she was still under oath from the previous meeting. She lives at 14921 S. Gartner Street in the Fairfield Ridge Subdivision. She stated she met with Petitioner Gregory on October 3 rd . She thought there would be revisions to the plan and the plan would look more along the lines mentioned by the Commission. She brought sketches of ideas she had for the land plan to make it more equ itable between the single family detached, duplexes, and townhomes. She gave Petitioner Gregory a “wish list” of things they would want. She stated the first thing on her list was just a more fair plan that the neighborhood look like it had been planned that way from the beginning. She had asked Petitioner Gregory if they had done any market research to see if the townhomes would sell better, and he stated he had not. Ms. Goss met with a real estate friend who said her personal view was that she is havi ng a little bit more trouble selling the townhomes than the single family. Ms. Goss’ real estate friend stated 97% of her buyers were within a 10 mile radius of the marketed a rea. They were people who had ties to the community and wanted to stay there. She feels that the unbalanced land plan will work against the developer in the long run and will take away from the neo -traditional land plan. She stated some statistics from the Plainfield townhome market. Ms. Goss stated there are different things a de v eloper can do to get the word out so that people know what the developer is planning. She feels a development should be planned right from the very beginning. She just asks that they are treated fairly. Rich Olson was sworn in by Chairman Sobkoviak. H e lives at 13420 Rivercrest Drive, Plainfield. He stated he is involved in the litigation with the petitioner. He felt there is a lot of time being spent on detention areas and setbacks and things wh en should the litigation go his direction, the wall al ong the property would have to be moved 15’ and as it is a structure it would have to be moved an additional 30’ from the property line. So, the wall would probably have to be moved to the north probabl y 45’ from where it is right now. That would probabl y impact the design or layout of the subdivision should that happen as the detention area would be made considerably smaller. He requested copies of the engineering letters submitted from the
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes October 7, 2008 Page 5 of 15 developer to staff. He stated he didn’t understand where h igher density housing and lower costs would benefit the people of Plainfield. Chairman Sobkoviak reminded the Commissioners that the Village Attorney has advised the Commission that the Commission should not delay a vote, decision, or recommendation on the basis of impending litigation. The Commission should go forward. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Engineer Eickholtz if they have had an opportunity to review the stormwater detention calculations. Village Engineer Eickholtz replied it should be fin e. When it proceeds to Final Engineering, they will probably ask for more detail. Keith Lang was sworn in by Chairman Sobkoviak. He lives at 24709 Hanover Court, Plainfield. He is a full time realtor in Plainfield and is presently marketing Fairfield R idge. He has learned that the current buyer population is demanding a different product. To achieve having a thriving downtown, it would be his professional opinion to allow the developer to address the density to fit today’s marketplace. Chairman Sobko viak stated as far as the Commission’s discussions, density has not been the question since the Comprehensive Plan actually allows for a much higher density than as proposed. The question here, from listening to his fellow Commissioners, he believes is th e mix of the product. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone else in the audience who cared to ask a question or make a comment. There was no further response. Commissioner Renzi had a question about the re -calculated high water line of the detent ion. Village Engineer Eickholtz stated what he understands is they have an extra cushion of storage available in the detention pond as it is built. He stated from what he is seeing and understanding, there is an insignificant change in imperviousness as it relates to the volume of the detention pond . Planner Proulx stated to raise the whole pond a significant amount requires a substantial amount of runoff. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the amount of water a basin will hold is usually calculated in acre inch es . There was a discussion about the detention storage. Commissioner Kachel asked if the homeowners would have to pay for the deepening of the pond and the moving of it, or would the developer if the litigation was settled in favor of the adjacent proper ty owner. Petitioner Gregory stated currently 71 lots are represented by the current developer under one ownership and there is only 1 homeowner. So, James McNaughton Fairfield Ridge is the defendant in the litigation. So, ultimately should a judgment o r a Court Order be entered, it would be against James McNaughton Fairfield Ridge and not the single homeowners. Commissioner Renzi did not have any issue with the density. If the Commission had received this plan the first time through, it would have mad e sense. He wanted a plan that looked like it was planned that way from the beginning and was not a retrofit. He felt there should be a mix of townhouses, duplexes, and there should have never been single family residences from the sta rt because these sh ould not be put that close to the city core, to a train station, or to retail. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he is getting a consensus from the Commission that the problem lays in the mix of product. Village Planner Garrigan stated he philosophically belie ve s in this project and has consistently pushed for this project, but he also fundamentally believes that the project a s proposed is not working. P ushing or endorsing additional single family homes will not work on this project. He pointed out some succe ssful new urbanist projects with a diversity of product. It is not a question of percentages, but it is the diversity of product. The fact that this current project is not working speaks volume s about what the appropriate diversity of this project is. C learly, the density is required. As a professional planner, additional density is needed in this project. By adding more single family homes, the problem with density is not being addressed. Commissioner Peck stated he really appreciates Village Planne r Garrigan’s passion. Looking at this and looking at the comments of the other Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, and the residents, our staff, “once we build something it is here.” As this is proposed, he would not support this. He would second what Commissi oner Sanders stated, possibly decreasing the amount of the duplexes and townhomes, but as it stands his vote would be “no”.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes October 7, 2008 Page 6 of 1 5 Commissioner Kachel asked if presently there are 6 homes already built. Petitioner Gregory stated that was correct. Commissi oner Kachel stated if they really want to make this all multiple family, forget the other 8 lots. There is one house already built there. The other homes could be sold by the developer. Commissioner Bonuchi stated this is kind of a conflicting situati on. She looked at some of the notes from the last meeting and the direction given to Petitioner Gregory and stated it kind of referred to 12 single family homes, which is similar to what he has done. She put the water issues aside because she did not kno w how that would be resolved, but she had to say she did not know if pushing the developer to put in more single family homes is going to change this very much. She felt it would probably be better to go with the townhomes and duplexes and trust the peopl e that are putting this together. She stated she would trust Village Planner Garrigan’s judgment on this. Commissioner Renzi stated he did not have a fundamental disagreement with what Village Planner Garrigan stated. He said he believes it to be absolu tely true and correct. His problem in this situation is he feels there is a retrofit being done. He did not see where the Commission was demanding more single family, but instead are allowing substantially less single family to be built. He did agree th at there should not be 72 single family houses built here. He felt there should be townhouses and duplexes also built in this project. It should not look like at a retrofit, which is the fundamental problem he has with thi s plan. He felt after listenin g to Mr. Garrigan’s statement about New Urbanism Planning that it looks kind of strange to have single fami ly on one side of this open park and then have the other types around the park elsewhere. Planner Proulx stated the single family should not stand out as a sore thumb. The proposed duplex architecture is entirely compatible with the single family homes so that someone driving down the street would not necessarily know the difference. All the units are alley loaded. You will not see two garage doo rs facing the street. Staff also submits the two housing types are the same. Staff feels it is important to recognize that this is a multi -family residential designated parcel. Planner Proulx referenced the Plainfield Village Center project, which is a less intense land use designation, and stated there is no single family detached component to that project. Commissioner Kachel stated if the 8 units he mentioned earlier were made multiple family units and they sold out easily, t he developer would not be stuck with 8 more lots that would be single family. There is only one homeowner right now . S omething could be worked out with them. The rest of the 5 houses could be sold off however the developer wanted to. He stated if he had a project like this , he would probably take a loss on 5 houses and stop right there and make the rest of the project blend in as a multiple family unit . He felt it should look like a true PUD development. Commissioner Sanders went back to the basis for his opening remarks ab out building the Town Square Park in the middle and retaining some single family homes. The scenario lends itself to also come back with another major change to the PUD if that doesn’t go over, but still allows them to construct duplexes and townhomes in other than those lots. Those would be protected lots under the scenario also if the market conditions are there. He stated no one knows for sure what will happen with the market. He stated having 27 single family detached homes retained, and having 54 d uplex and 37 townhome sites available gives 118 possible units. He felt it complements the development across the street, as well as what is emerging west of the Historic Downtown. He asked if it would be a workable scenario at this time. Planner Proulx stated staff is of the opinion the development is at nearly one -half of the minimum density called for by the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Sanders stated he was just proposing this project be moved forward with a major change to a PD by retaining 2 7 homes around the courtyard. It is not a question of density as much as how can this be moved forward to benefit the stakeholders. He also believes it is to the benefit of the current homeowners also. He asked if it would be a workable solu tion. Plann er Proulx stated it is staff’s recommendation to have a level of density as close to keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning for this parcel is actually R -3 residential. There is quite a bit of history to this project. Staff’s position relative to single family detached was such that staff actually considered recommending denial of the original 72 unit project just becau se it was so far from what the Comprehensive Plan called for. In review of the Plainfield Village Center, there was an impact s tudy and there was a question about the viability of the commercial there and how much could be supported with the residential component of the Plainfield Village Center itself. He stated there is clearly a need for additional population w ithin this area to support the 167,000 sq. ft. commercial.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes October 7, 2008 Page 7 of 15 Commissioner Fremarek stated staff’s passion is well understood. He questioned though where was that level of passion 3 or 4 years ago when this plan was approved. He thought this could set the precedent to a single family developer to convert to multiple family homes. He further stated decisions are made not only for the current residents, but for the residents of the future. He did not want the Commission to make a decision just to get Plainfield out o f a bad situation because of the present market conditions. There are no guarantees that these units will sell. Village Planner Garrigan stated from history you learn that a failed project can become a wonderful project. He stated the o nly regret he h as is not being straight forward 4 or 5 years ago . He supported the original development plan, but it was not supported by the Village Board. Staff basically supported the project based on the fact that staff believed that they wanted to work with the de veloper, but his biggest regret was supporting the single family product on this project. The property h as not worked and will not work. H e was stating this as a professional planner. It is a question of density and product. Staff does not believe the additional single family product will work. He referenced new urbanist projects that have single family homes right next to a townhome, next to a duplex. He referenced some of these new urbanist communities that are beautiful. Petitioner Gregory stat ed it is important that the Commission recognize the plan presented here this evening was developed through consultation with staff . He stated the Commission has commented they are not sure of the mix. It is not a density issue. He submitted that there is a varied opinion as to what the proper mix is. He asked how do they rationalize and come to some sort of agreement as to the number of single family detached homes. Petitioner Gregory stated that the 27 single family homes that Commissioner Sanders me ntioned would encircle a public park. In essence, are you saying if you buy a single family home, you can have direct access to the park. He believes the planning guideline s , which speak to density credit s , talks about adding an element of affordable hou sing within existing developments conceptually so that it is interspersed and not segregated. He felt by adding the single family homes around the public park, it would favor one housing type of a resident over another. Commissioner Sanders stated with the scenario he created he was looking to engage a dialogue with the developer. This is not a “take it or leave it” scenario that he created. He is looking at what is going to be best for the Village of Plainfield, c onsistent with the surrounding neighb orhoods, and the plan for the rest of downtown. He wanted Petitioner Gregory to state what could be an alternative to his scenario. Petitioner Gregory stated there is an infinite number of possibilities as it relates to the number of single family home s. He stated he was not ashamed to say that one of the reasons they were before the Commission is to increase the density to lower the cost. That is to appeal to a broader segment of the market to hopefully jump start this community to ultimately be succ essful. He stated Commissioner Fremarek is worried about setting a precedent in approving this request. He felt it was an appropriate concern; however, his answer would be that this request, and its proposed densities, is supported by the Comprehensive P lan. . Instead of standing by and letting this subdivision fail, and the lender sell it off to someone else in a couple of years, they are trying to be proactive and come up with an alternative plan that hopefully works for all concerned. Petitioner Gre gory stated they sympathize with the resident. They are one of their customers. He stated the investment of the Goss family is better protected by this project succeeding. Chairman Sobkoviak pointed out to the Commission that a request for a major cha nge to a PUD is not a precedent setting event and is not unusual. It does not occur that often with residential projects, but it does occur. The fact that it is occurrin g now should be of no consequence. Commissioner Kachel stated in the past he had wor ked for developers and the models were usually sold off at discounts. He did not know what the developer would do with the 5 houses. If you pick up densities on the other 5 lots, the cost would be probably taken care of putting townhomes or duplexes on t hose lots. Petitioner Gregory said he did not want to put words into Commissioner Kachel’s mouth, but asked if when he said work something out with the existing resident was he proposing buying them out of their existing home. Commissioner Kachel stated either that or make some type of reduction equivalent to what the other models would be sold at. At least all of the houses would be on the same plain. The project would be more uniform with all townhomes and only 5 single family homes. There was a disc ussion between Petitioner Gregory and Commissioner Kachel in this regard to clarify Commissioner Kachel’s position.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes October 7, 2008 Page 8 of 15 Chairman Sobkoviak did not know if Commissioner Kachel’s idea would be supported by the rest of the Commission. Commissioner Kache l stated he was just stating an idea. Commissioner Renzi stated the plan looks like the single family residences are segregated. From previous comments by Village Planner Garrigan about new urbanism , it sounds like it would not be uncommon to have townho uses, duplexes, single family interspersed. He felt the proposed plan looks like a retrofit. He would like to have the different mixes intersperse d through out the development. Planner Jon Proulx stated relative to the combination of all dwelling types, staff would submit that the proximity of duplexes and townhomes as represented in this proposed plan have a higher degree of distribution of dwelling types than most other projects that have come through the process. Commissioner Renzi asked about intersp ersing the single family and duplexes. This could make it look like t his was the type of community that was planned in the beginning. Planner Proulx stated staff would support that . H e felt the orientation as shown here was done in an attempt to mitigat e potential concerns from the existing homeowners. If the Commission finds it more acceptable to distribute some of the single family that have not been built yet into other locations, that would be supported by staff . Commissioner Fremarek agreed with C ommissioner Renzi. about interspersing the types of product. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was support from the other Commissioners in regard to interspersing single family with the duplexes. Commissioner Bonuchi asked where the single family homes are located currently in the development. Petitioner Gregory pointed out where the models are on Lots 1, 2, & 3; a spec home on Lot 6; the Goss residence on Lot 8; and another spec home on Lot 10. Certainly, they would have no objection to working with staff to try to intersperse the product. They could intersperse single family and duplexes . That way the overall effect of density is close to what it is now, but it is interspersed and balanced throughout the whole development. Chairman Sobkoviak ask ed if there was support for that among the Commissioners. There was general support. Commissioner Sanders stated there was dialogue tonight that has created a lot of scenarios. It is all in the interest of rea ching an imperfect solution that best meets the needs of all the stakeholders. He was open to anything, but was not too enthusiastic about interspersing and things like that, but he respects staff. He also respects what the developer is trying to bring to the Village of Plainfield and he felt the diversity of comments that came from the Commission should work well to move this project forward for consideration to the Village Board if the Commission chooses to do so. Chairman Sobkoviak asked how this would be accomplished. Planner Proulx stated st aff would propose working with the developer and the Village’s design consultant, Duane Linden, to come up with a recommended land plan that would distribute the housing types. Staff would also like to involve the Goss family in the process so that they c an give input. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if this could be accomplished with a stipulation in the preliminary plat. Planner Proulx stated it could go under both the PUD amendment and the Preliminary Plat motions. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the stipulation would then read – “Petitioner and staff would work together to develop a change to the plan to involve interspersing single family with the duplexes. The exact number of units will be left open. The Commission does not want to dictate the exact number. Commissioner Sanders asked if it was being limited to interspersing rather than any scenario that they come up with . Petitioner Gregory responded by saying they have dealt with staff long enough to recognize that when a better plan or option is identifi ed staff will certainly pursue it , and they feel the same way. So, through this exercise should some plan come forward that maybe makes sense and does not intersperse one product type within another, they would have no objection to taking a serious look a t that and pursuing that further. Commissioner Sanders wanted to make the stipulation a little broader than interspersing.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes October 7, 2008 Page 9 of 15 Petitioner Gregory wanted a point of clarification if the stipulation of interspersing of housing types was meant to be limit e d to only the single family and duplex products. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that was how it was worded and asked Petitioner Gregory if he wanted it worded for all three types. Petitioner Gregory stated they certainly do not have any objection to th at. Ch airman Sobkoviak then directed the secretary to change the stipulation to not just duplexes and single family, but to all thr ee housing types. He stated that gives it the greatest amount of flexibility. He stated the Commission is trying to work with the developer as they agree in principle to what they are trying to do. It is just that the Commission is sensitive to not only the present owners, but also to the future residents. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Commission can come up with a plan that is gr eat in their mind s , but if it is difficult to sell , the Commission has accomplished nothing. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the Commission if there was further discussion. Commissioner Sanders wanted to comment on the site plan. He proposed a stipulation for the inclusion of accent shutters on the duplex units facing second floor side elevations to complement the use of shutters in the architecture of the single fami ly detached homes and on the front elevations. Shutters should be considered on not all of the windows, but some of the windows, which would complement what was shown of the elevations for the single detached homes that had the use of shutters in their architecture. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if that was agreeable with the rest of the Commission. H e stated that would be stipulation #3 for the Site Plan Review. Commissioner Renzi asked if another stipulation should be added in terms of the duplexes and single family having enough design similarities to look seamless . Planner Proulx stated he heard Commissioner Sanders loud and clear about the shutters and intends to work with the developer on that. The Site Plan Review pertains to t he townhome products. Duplexes are not subject to Site Plan Review. It is something that could be incorporated into the PUD amendment as the duplex units will be permitted by the PUD if supported by the Commission and Board. Petitioner Gregory stated he had raised this with their architect and he said there are some limited areas on the duplexes wh ere it would be arc hitecturally appropriate to include shutters. They certainly have no objection into looking at that. He did submit that on the side elevations between units, the setbacks are such that really the shutters would only benefit the adjacent homeowner looking out their window. He would submit that it would make sense to limit it to the front elevation or to side elevations that are either on a corner lot or adjacent to open areas. Commissioner Sanders stated that was his intent. Chairman Sobkoviak stated th e Commission has added a stipulation to both the Major Change to the PUD and the Preliminary Plat regarding the interspersing of the three product types. The Commission had also added to the Site Plan Review a stipulation regarding shutters. He asked if the Commission was all together on that. They agreed. At 8 :55 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission adopt the findings of fact presented in the staff report as the findings of fact of the Plan Commission and further move to recom mend approval of the requested major change to the PUD, subject to the 2 stipulations in the staff report and the 3 rd stipulation as added by the Commission. 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer, 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District, 3. Petitioner and staff would work together to develop a change to the plan to involve interspersing the single family, duplex, and townhome product types. Commissioner Bonuchi seconded the motion. Chairman Sob koviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Renzi, Bonuchi, Sanders, Peck, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes October 7, 2008 Page 10 of 15 At 8 :56 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat of subdivision/PUD Plat for the revised Fairfield Ridge development, subject to the three stipulations found in the staff report and the 4 th stipulation added by the Plan Commission. 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engin eer, 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District, 3. Revision to the preliminary plat and/or preparation of the final plat in conformance with the recommended traffic improvements, if any, pursuant to the revised traffic study, 4. Petitioner and staff would work together to develop a change to the plan to involve interspersing the single family, duplex, and townhome product types. Commissioner Bonuchi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call . Aye: Renzi, Bonuchi, Sanders, Peck, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 At 8 :57 p.m. Commissioner Bonuchi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Site Plan Review for the townhome/duplex comp onent of the revised Fairfield Ridge development, subject to the following two stipulations found in the staff report and the 3 rd stipulation added 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 inclusion of accent shutters on the duplex end units’ first and second floors’ side elevations and on the second floor of the front elevations (to complement the use of shutters in the archite cture of the single family detached models. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Bonuchi, Sanders, Peck, Kachel, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 Chairman Sobkoviak stated these recommendations will go forward to the Village Board for their consideration at the next scheduled meeting. CASE: 1414 -071608.SPR.SU HERITAGE WOOD S SUPPORTIVE Request: Special Use (Public Hearing) LIVING Site Plan Review Location: NEC of Steiner & 143 rd Street Applicant: Plainfield Supportive Living, LLC John Argoudelis Chairman Sobkoviak stated the petitioner has withdrawn the application for this action and the Plan Commission will not be acting on this. At 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion t hat the Plan Commission accept the withdrawal of this petition for Case: 1414 -071608.SPR.SU. which was withdrawn by the developer. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes October 7, 2008 Page 11 of 15 Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Sanders, Peck, Kachel, Renzi, Bonuchi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 NEW BUSINESS: CASE: 1421 -082208.RZ 15124 S. ROUTE 59 Request: Rezoning to BTD (Continued to 10/21/08 Location: 15124 S. Route 59 Applicant: Rick Sexton Chairman Sobkoviak stated it has been requested that this case be continued to October 21, 2008. At 9:01 p.m. Commissioner Bonuchi made a motion that the Plan Commission continue the public hearing for Case: 1421 -082208.RZ to Octob er 21, 2008. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Peck, Kachel, Renzi, Renzi, Bonuchi, Sanders, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 Chairman Sobkoviak stated interested part ies should be advised that the rezoning of the BTD site has been continued to the October 21, 2008 meeting. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a 10 minute recess at 9:01 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 9:13 p.m. CASE: 1425 -091708.SPR .SU DIAGEO GLOBAL SUPPLY Request: Special Use (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review Location: 24440 W. 143 rd Street Applicant: Dennis Group TIME: 9:15 p.m. Village Planner Garrigan summarized the staff report. He stated this is a public hearing and all notices have been posted and published per Village Ordinance and State Statute. The applicant is proceeding with a major expansion of their facility. They are proposing to proceed with a 44,000 sq. ft. addition to the Diago plant. The applicant is r equesting a special use due to the fact that they are proposing to construct a building with a predominance of metal and are seeking relief from the Village’s S ite Plan Review Ordinance. He went on to state the two findings of fact that need to be met in order to grant a Special Use. He stated 2 of the 2 findings of fact are favorable. The proposed structure is a simple expansion of the existing facility and in order to provide a cohesive design to the subjec t facility, the applicant will be required t o construct a predominantly metal building. It will incorporate a series of brick sections along the elevations to break up the façade and this is consistent with the existing building along 143 rd Street. There will be no change to the existing access po int , with the main access off of Coil Plus Drive and the secondary access off of Van Dyke. There is an extensive surplus of parking. The applicant is requesting relief from the landscape ordinance in order to procee d with the addition. They do not plant foundation plants along their buildings for sanitary and health purposes (rodent control). The addition would require a total of 180 shrubs and 12 shade trees of which the applicant has agreed to donate to the Villag e to
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes October 7, 2008 Page 12 of 15 be planted throughout the Vill age. As far as engineering is concerned he deferred to the Village Engineer, but it was his understanding the final engineering basically has been reviewed and is getting close to final approval. Staff is making a favorable recommendation. The applicant wishes to start moving dirt in the next week. There is a very aggressive timeframe. This matter will hopefully be scheduled for the Village Board for next week. Staff is making a favorable recommendation for the Special Use with 2 stipulations and also the proposed Site Plan with 3 stipulations. Village Planner Garrigan concluded his staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Engineer Eickholtz if there were any concerns. Village Engineer Eickholtz stated their review comments were very minor and the design team has addressed those comments. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the representative for Diageo. Angela Campisi spoke. She thanked staff and the Village of Plainfield for working so quickly and helping them fast track this project. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Commissioners were free to ask questions. Commissioner Renzi referred to the expansion of the Eich’s facility and there was extensive discussion about them having to modify the front of their building because of the roof and the visib ility from 143 rd St. He asked if there was any discussion about having a modification to the entire front of this expansion that faces 143 rd Street. Village Planner Garrigan stated there was never a serious discussion about modifications to the façade ba sed on the fact that the majority of the building is consistent with the construction of the present building. Also to accommodate Diageo , staff believes it is appropriate that the same type of material continues. Commissioner Renzi asked if there was so me sort of material that could enhanc e the view from 143 rd Street. Village Planner Garrigan stated the applicant will be incorporating brick columns to break up the metal façade. Thi s is also consistent with the present building. He also stated there is some existing landscaping there. Not all of the landscaping will be removed. That will help to soften the somewhat industrial look of the building. Commissioner Renzi asked if there could be some sort of ornate fencing running along 143 rd Street. Peti tioner Campisi stated there is an existing fence there today, but it will come down to accommodate the expansion. She further stated the fence tod ay runs right up to the existing plant. Commissioner Renzi asked if there would be any room then to run it a long the entire 143 rd Street. Petitioner Campisi did not believe there would be enough room there. Tim Murphy, also representing Diageo, stated there is an emergency egress along there. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who cared to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response. Chairman Sobkoviak pointed out that Diageo has been in Plainfield for about 50 years. He stated in the old days they used to leave the lights on in the big tall building and you could se e the stills in there. That has not been done for quite some time. Commissioner Kachel also stated these lights gave a good architectural look. He stated some Corporate facilities put some ty pe of sculptures or a fountain feature to the outside of the ir building. It might be something Diageo would want to do in the future. It’s a good way to put your corporate name out there. At 9:28 p.m. Commissioner Sanders made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Special Use for the Diaego expansion 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. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak cal led for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Renzi, Bonuchi, Sanders, Peck, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes October 7, 2008 Page 13 of 15 At 9:29 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Site Plan for the Diageo e xpansion 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 applicant donates to the Village 12 shade trees and 180 shrubs. Commissioner Bonuchi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Bonuchi, Sanders, Peck, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 Chairman Sobkoviak stated this will go forward to the Village Board for their consideration at their next meeting. CASE: 1424 -091108.SU BOUNCE U UP, INC. Request: Special Use (Public Hearing ) Location: 14411 S. Coil Plus Drive Applicant: Martha P. DeHoyos TIME: 9:30 p.m. Planner Javoronok summariz ed the staff report. This is a public hearing and notice has been published and poste d per Village Ordinance and State Statute. The applicant is proposing an inflatable play structure facility. It is approximately 4,700 sq. ft. A similar facility was a pproved in 2007, Pump It Up, in the adjacent building, but did not end up locating there. Bounce U Up is classified as a private recreational facility and requires one space per 600 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The building has approximately 31,500 sq. f t. and 43 parking spaces, and Bounce U Up would require 8 parking spaces. The peak hours for the business would be in the evenings and weekends when the adjacent properties are likely to have less traffic. This facility w as rezoned from I -2 to I -1 on Aug ust 15, 2007. Planner Javoronok went through the 2 findings of fact for a special use. She stated 2 of the 2 findings of fact are favorabl e to the applicant. Staff would recommend the approval of the Special Use for the proposed Bounce U Up inflatable p lay structure facility subject to the 2 stipulations in the staff report. Planner Javoronok concluded her report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Engineer Eickholtz if there were any engineering concerns. Village Engineer Eickholtz stated there are no engineering aspects to this project. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner. Martha DeHoyos spoke. She represents Bounce U Up, Inc. She stated she appreciated the work staff has done. She believes this is something that the Village of Plainfield n eeds. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if this was a party type of facility and not an open door to just come in off the street. Petitioner DeHoyos stated that is the main focus of the business, but they do want to also have this open to the public at all ti mes. She stated they don’t have that much parking, but at the same time when the children are out of school to use the facility, everyone else is closing for the day so they can use the whole parking lot. During the week ends, most of the businesses will not be open either. Commissioner Fremarek voiced support for this type of business. He liked to see the physical aspect of this activity rather than children sitting and playing video games, etc. He wished the applicant luck. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished to make a comment or ask a question. There was no response.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes October 7, 2008 Page 14 of 15 Chairman Sobkoviak stated previously a similar type of operation was approved, Pump U Up, and now there is Bounce U Up. The Commission has fou nd that the recreational uses are compatible in industrial uses partially because they need the height requirement for their activities; whereas, commercial buildings generally have a much lower ceiling. Commissioner Renzi asked how the parking was resolv ed the first time. Planner Javoronok stated she believed for the larger facility none of the units in the building were occupied at that point. So, that was a factor. The applicant also had a committed number of spaces that would be available for their business. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Planner Javoronok if this was a multi -tenant building. Planner Javoronok stated yes it was. Chairman Sobkoviak stated a certain number of spaces are already theirs anyway. Commissioner Renzi just wanted to make sure i f there had been anything else the Commission had previously done to ensure the number of the parking spaces that would also be done in this case. At 9:42 p.m. Commissioner Bonuchi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Special U se for the proposed Bounce U Up inflatable play structure facility 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. Commissi oner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Bonuchi, Sanders, Peck, Kachel, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 Chairman Sobkoviak stated this would go forward to the next Village Board meeting and the applicant should check with staff. CASE: 1428 -092908 ROUTE 30 ENHANCEMENT GUIDELINES Request: Rt. 30 Corridor Enhancements Location: Rt. 30 Corridor Applicant: Village of Plainfield TIME: 9:43 p.m. Chairman Sobkoviak stated this was prepared by Planner Sara Leach. He asked if the Commissioners have had a chance to read through it. He stated if they had not had a chance to completely read through it that was okay. He wanted to delay the discussion of the guidelines until everyon e has had an opportunity to thoroughly read it and get a good grasp of it. He asked if there would need to be a public hearing to accept these guidelines. Village Planner Garrigan stated staff is looking for the Commission’s comments and input before it is taken to the Village Board for their input. There would not be any resolution adopted until the input is gathered from both the Plan Commission and t he Village Board. It is not per se a text amendment. Commissioner Sanders stated he had read the guid elines, but would like to continue this to the next meeting. He stated it is exceptionally well done . It is a well crafted document. Commissioner Bonuchi agreed with Commissioner Sanders . She stated to really give this just review; they need more time to be able to do that. Chairman Sobkoviak was also in agreement. The Plan Commission can resolve to accept this as the guidelines for future development in that corridor and the Village Board would probably do something similar.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes October 7, 2008 Page 15 of 15 Commissioner Ka chel asked Village Planner Garrigan if the Full Circle Planning that came out in Will County was used in this document. Village Planner Garrigan stated he did not think it was used . Commissioner Kachel asked if the Village is doing anything with that. V illage Planner Garrigan stated staff is looking at it. Commissioner Kachel stated Planner Sara Leach had done an excellent job. At 9:48 p.m. Commissioner Sanders made a motion that the Plan Commission continue the review and discussion for the U.S. Route 30 Corridor Enhancement Guidelines, Case 1428 -092908 to October 21, 2008. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Sanders, Peck, Kachel, Renzi, Bonuchi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is c arried 6:0 Chairman Sobkoviak mentioned in reference to residential mixes in developments, he grew up in a neighborhood where there were single family houses next to two flats, next to three flats, next to four flats, etc. Nobody thought it was unusual . All of them grew up hoping that some day they would be able to own a house. There was every different mix you could think of. Commissioner Kachel asked if whoever builds, whether it is commercial or industrial, that they have to pay for sidewalks, e ven if they didn’t go in right away. He asked if there was something on the books regarding this. He stated in DeKalb they even have sidewalks along farm fields. Village Planner Garrigan stated with each new development that comes in, the Village tries to get sidewalks, but there are gaps. Commissioner Kachel stated there are no sidewalks on the north side of 143 rd Street. Everybody would have to pay a sidewalk fee regardless of which side of the street it is and so the whole community would tie in. T here are some communities that have actually “bit the bullet” and put sidewalks in. When an applicant would come back for annexation, etc. the Village would require sidewalks. Village Planner Garrigan stated in theory the Village could have an impact fee , which would subsidize a program to construct or fill in the sidewalk gaps. Obviously, as the Village proceeds with constructing sidewalks, there would be some type of fee collected from developers to pay for the sidewalks. As a general rul e of thumb mo st residential and commercial developers that come into the Village will have to put in a sidewalk. He further stated there may be something under the Home Rule policy, but it is a question for the Board . W hether there is any support for additional impac t fees right now would be questionable with the downturn in the economy. Commissioner Sanders asked if Planner Javoronok could put together something for the Commission in regards to the actions of the Historic Preservation Commission. He asked if ther e could be a brief overview o f the Historic Districts , both commercial and residential , and the potential for considering Lockport Street , and Main Street. He was looking for possibly something no earlier than November 18 th . Planner Javoronok stated that was something they could do. She asked if Commissioner Sanders had a chance to look at the urban survey for the historic area. Commissioner Sanders stated this would give the Plan Commission some sensitivity for some of this as they look at the Comprehe nsive Plan, Rt. 126 , and other areas and how the Plan Commission could complement the Historic Preservation Commission. Since there was no further business for the Commission, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Re spectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary Village of Plainfield