HomeMy Public PortalAbout2008-11-04 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RECORD OF MINUTES DATE : NOVEMBER 4, 2008 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the m eeting of the Plan Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel, Renzi, and O’Rourke ; Chairman Sobkoviak ; and Plainfield Fire Protection District Representative Absent: Commissioners Bonuchi, Sanders, Peck, and ex officio Commissioner Fremarek; Plainfield School District ; Library District; Park District ; and Plainfield Police Department Also Present: Michael Garrigan – Village Planner Village of Plainfield, Sara Javoronok – Planner I Village of Plainfield, Neal Eickholtz – Baxter and Woodman, and Carol Millan – Secr etary Village of Plainfield APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minute s from the October 21 , 2008 meeting were accepted as presented . DEVELOPMENT REPORT: Village Planner Garrigan gave the status of cases that were presented to the Village Board at their meeting on Monday, November 3, 2008 . OLD BUSINESS: CASE: 1421 -082208.RZ 15124 S. ROUTE 59 Request: Rezoning to BTD Location: 15124 S. Route 59 Applicant: Rick Sexton TIME: 7:09 p.m. This case is to be continued to the next Plan Commission meeting on November 18 , 2008. At 7:09 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a moti on that the Plan Commission continue Case: 1421 -082208.RZ (15124 S. Route 59) to the November 18, 2008 Plan Commission meeting. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, O’Rourke, Kachel, Cha irman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 4:0
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 4, 2008 Page 2 of 10 CASE: 1427 -091708.TA TEXT AMENDMENT Request: Various Changes to Zoning Ord inance . Location: Village -wide Applicant: Village of Plainfield TIME: 7:10 p.m. Planner Javoronok gave the staff report . She stated this is a public hearing and it was published and posted per State Statute. She summarized various changes to the Zoning Ordinance regarding Auto Body and Repair being a Special Use in the B -3 Zoning District instead of a permitted use; chan ging the child care facilities section of the permitted and special uses table; various changes to the Residential Districts section, the fence section, the temporary sign section, changes to definitions within the Historic Preservation section , and the Si te Plan Review section of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Sobkoviak stated in the staff report there is no distinction made between auto body and repair. He stated those are two extremely different types of businesses. He fu rther stated auto body will be bringing in wrecked or partially destroyed vehicles for painting, etc. that completely separate it from a repair shop. A repair shop would be something more on the order of Rt. 59 Auto Repair or Me r lins, where strictly mecha nical work will be the principle ac tivity. Vehicles will be mobile and not entirely unsightly. They are presently being lumped together and wondered if that was best. Village Planner Garrigan stated the intent was to make both an auto body shop, as Ch airman Sobkoviak defined it, and also the auto repair shop, as defined, special uses in the B -3 Zoning District . Commissioner Renzi stated possibly it could be stated auto body and/or repair. Chairman Sobkoviak stated usually in the auto body shop the holding area for work in process is usually screened. Whereas, at a Merlins, there was no screening required. He felt there seems to be some separation between the two. Generally, the two activities are not held in the same place. Village Planner Garr igan stated those could be distinguished. He further stated s taff is bringing this back to the Plan Commission pursuant to the Commission’s previous direction to make auto repair facilities a special use. A discussion followed. Commissioner Renzi stated the Commission’s concern was traditionally the front tier of business spaces was not for auto repair. It was discussed to have some sort of a special use that would say basically they are prohibited in the front. He w as not sure the verbiage in the staf f report addresses that concern in the sense it really does not delineate front and back. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he did not think the Commission cou ld prohibit them in the front. A discussion followed. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who cared to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response. Commissioner Renzi stated it was his understanding that the limitation would be taken off of political signs. Commissioner O’Rourke asked why that was being done. Villa ge Planner Garrigan stated it is case law. He further stated political signs can be regulated the same way temporary signs are regulated. Commissioner Renzi asked if the time limit for temporary signs could be 21 days instead of 20 days. Village Planner Garrigan stated that would be fine. Commissioner Renzi asked if the 32 sq. ft. was 4 x 8. Planner Javoronok stated that was correct. She further stated temporary signs could be banners, trailer signs, etc. Commissioner O’Rourke had a concern about the quality of material for temporary signs. There was a discussion among the commissioners about the type of material for temporary signage and the wording of the signage. It was decided this should be taken into consideration at the time of permitting. T here was a discussion about the temporary signage permitting process. Commissioner Kachel stated sandwich signs can be a chalkboard. Planner Javoronok stated sandwich signs have a separate permitting process. The fee for a temporary sign is $25.00. Com missioner O’Rourke asked if there were restrictions for the placement of temporary signs. Planner Javoronok stated they cannot be in the R.O.W . and must meet setback requirements .
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 4, 2008 Page 3 of 10 Commissioner O’Rourke suggested that it might be beneficial to have mor e permanent signage versus a “hodge podge” of temporary signage. Planner Javoronok stated there is only one temporary sign allowed at a time per block. Village Planner Garrigan stated previously there was no consensus to change the Sign Ordinance by the Village Board on a large scale. Commissioner Renzi had a question about the HPC District definition changes. Planner Javoronok explained that a structure could be in a Historic District even if it were not contiguous, but related by a common theme. Comm issioner Renzi was satisfied by Planner Javoronok’s explanation. Chairman Sobkoviak asked that staff revisit the Sign Ordinance per comments from the Commissioners and bring it back to the Commission in another proposal . At 7:45 p.m. Commissioner Renzi m ade a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the text amendments to Article II: General Provisions, Article V: Residential Districts, Article X: Fences, Article XI: Signs, Article XIII: Site Plan Review, Article XV: Historic Preservation, Ar ticle XVI: Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance as outlined in the staff report. Commission Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: O’Rourke, Kachel, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 4:0 CASE: 1414B -101408.SU.SPR HERITAGE WOODS Request: Special Use for a supportive Living facility (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review Location: Drauden Road, south of IL 126 Applicant: Plainfield Supportive Living, LLC John Argoudelis TIME: 7:46 p.m. Planner Javoronok summarized the staff report. She stated this is a supportive living facility. The property is not current ly annexed and presently is not contiguous to the Village. She stated the 2 findings of fact for a special use and found 2 of th e 2 findings as bei ng favorable to the applicant. She further stated the density is consistent with the medium density residential classification in the Future Land Use Map. The applicant has not submitted all of the necessary information, but wishes to continue with the case. Staff recommends fiber cement board siding instead of vinyl siding. Brick veneer, which is used on the exterior of the building, is recommended for the material to be used on the trash enclosure. Staff also recommends that the ga te material be solid wood or opaque metal rather than chain link with filled slats . There are gables on the roofline to break up the façade. The drive through entry has a small cupola with a larger cupola on the center portion of the building. The pro posed landscape plan generally complies with the Village’s Landscaping Ordinance, but the plans do not indicate a two foot undulating berm or two -foot drop along Drauden Road. Because of the lack of information on the site plan, staff cannot determine if the property will be adjacent to vehicular areas and, therefore, it is difficult to determine if the plan meets all of the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance. There are two access points from Drauden Road. The north access is a modified right -in/r ight -out, and there is full access from the south. Staff does not know if these align with adjacent development or if there is sufficient space between these access points because of the lack of information. Staff recommends a cross access point to conne ct to adjacent properties. The applicant has depicted a sidewalk around the front façade and staff recommends extending this on the northeast to provide access for parking on the north side of the building. A five foot sidewalk is required along Drauden Road , and staff also recommends a sidewalk connection from the entry to the sidewalk on Drauden Road. The photometric plan appears to be consistent with the Village Site Plan Review Ordinance.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 4, 2008 Page 4 of 10 Signage for this facility will be reviewed through a permit ting process. Staff is not approving the location for the sign, but recommends brick veneer for the base of the sign. Staff generally supports a supportive or assisted living facility at this location, but there is not enough information to recommend app roval of a site plan review. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use, but is not comfortable recommending approval of t he Site Plan Review at this time due to insufficient information. Planner Javoronok concluded her staff report. Chairman Sobkov iak asked if the Special Use was good for one year and was renewable. Planner Javoronok stated it was. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Villag e Engineer Eickholtz if there ar e any issues. Village Engineer Eickholtz stated they have not received engineering at t his time, but he listed some of the possible concerns: • Full entrance along Drauden Road – there is a median along Drauden Road so there would have to be improvements along Drauden. • Cross access easement to the development to the north • Traffic study needs t o be completed. • No utilities to the site so expensive improvements would be needed. Commissioner Renzi felt without engineering the case should be continued or deferred until a more appropriate time especially since it cannot be annexed right now. Villag e Planner Garrigan stated staff is meeting with the property owner to the east , and there hopefully should be continuity within 6 months. Commissioner O’Rourke also requested the engineering be presented before proceeding. Village Planner Garrigan state d there is some limited engineering. Chairman Sobkoviak stated staff is not recommending approval of the Site Plan Review at this time. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioners. John Argoudelis introduced the group. He spoke first. He gave a histor y of the project and stated the applicant has been searching for the right site. The applicant has received a license from the St ate of Illinois to build a supportive living facility in Plainfield, but there are time constraints with the State. The goal of the applicant is to get this approved and break ground in spring. Petitioner Argoudelis further stated that the petitioner agrees to the stipulations in the staff report under the Site Plan Review. He further stated the engineering will be submitted s hortly. He pointed out there will be 108 units. George Dinges spoke. He stated for the original Ewing location there was support for the concept of a support ive living facility, but the location was not right. He stated a female, with an average a ge of 84 , would be the average occupant . She probably will be frail. He stated they have vans to transport the occupants to doctors, etc. Meals are prepared and served on site. This is not a nursing home, but an affordable assisted living facility supported by the State of Illinois. He gave locations for other facilities. There is a 99.1% occupancy rate , and it is well received by the senior community. They typically employ 55 to 60 people. They are the largest developer , owner, and operator of this type of facility. The y received approval from the State of Illinois to build this facility in Plainfield. The State only allows so many of these facilities to be built . Rent is governed by the person’s ability to pay with the rest being paid from Medicare. Commissioner Kachel wondered if there was a screened -in area for the residents to enjoy the outside. The applicant responded there are covered porches and a nice gazebo. He stated he would look into the idea of screened -in areas. Commissioner O’Rourke asked about the deadline. Petitioner Dinges stated that the shovel should be in the ground in spring. They need to show good faith to the State of Illinois , otherwise the permit will be rescinded . Sven Jonsson – Gleason Architects spoke. He stated ther e will be 54 – 1 bedroom, and 54 studio apartments. This will be a 3 -story building. There is a canopy over the drive -through for drop offs. He stated the fire lane wraps around the building. He gave the features of the architecture. He stated the par king is based on the use patterns for a building of this type. Only 10% of the residents will have automobiles. There is a service area to the south where the trash enclosure and kitchen are located. Commissioner Kachel asked if the drive -thru was the o nly entrance. Petitioner Jonsson stated each building has exits, but they are not used as entrances. The front entrance is the only one used for entry into the building for security reasons. There is a 24 hours security person at the front desk to keep track of who is entering and leaving the building.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 4, 2008 Page 5 of 10 Commissioner Renzi made mention of the southwest area of the building and asked if it was for expansion; and if so, what would be put there. Petitioner Jonsson stated this area is a one story dining ar ea and kitchen. Commissioner Renzi asked if it would not be used for expansion. Petitioner Jonsson stated it would not. Commissioner Renzi asked if the water shown on the west side was for the building or drainage for the entire site. Petitione r Argoud elis stated it was detention and drainage for the 16 acres. Commissioner Renzi stated there was an opportunity for landscaping, gazebos, walking paths, and possibly a screened -in area around the detention. He asked if there would be a way for the residen ts to get to the pond. He wanted the detention pond to have a residential feel rather than an industrial feel. Commissioner Kachel referred to the future addition show n on a plan . Petitioner Jonsson stated that would most likely be residential rooms. C ommissioner Renzi then questioned if the parking would be adequate with an expansion. Petitioner Jonsson stated the parking would be adequate. O’Rourke wanted clarification if the possibility of expansion existed. Applicant Dinges stated they have no int ention of expanding. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Planner Garrigan if the Plan Commission approved the Special Use and continued the Site Plan Review if it would be detrimental. Village Planner Garrigan stated there are some time constraints of the developer closing on the property . Chairman Sobkoviak stated he was not comfortable approving the Site Plan Review without the engineering. He asked the petitioner how long it would be before the Commission would receive the engineering. Petitioner Arg oudelis stated the petitioner’s first choice would be to have the plan approved by the Commission, but he would make sure the engineering was available for the next Plan Commission meeting. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who cared to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response. The commissioners gave input to the petitioner as to what they would be looking for: Commissioner Renzi would like to see some beautification of the detention pond area to make it more re sidential in character than industrial, possibly i ncorporating a garden into the landscape plan Commissioner Kachel would like to see some screened -in area for residents to enjoy the outdoors and also w ondered about fencing for the detention pond. Village Planner Garrigan stated there did not need to be fencing around the pond. Commissioner O’Rourke would like to see a Traffic Study completed, how this site ties into the Gas City site, deceleration lanes on Drauden Road, improvements to Drauden Road, etc. P etitioner Argoudelis explained there is no full access north of the site per staff’s recommendation. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there should be a left turn lane on Drauden and if one curb cut was enough. Wanted information about the access and how this site ties to the north and south. Village Planner Garrigan stated it would be difficult to have a traffic study completed by the next Plan Commission meeting, but that there could be a special meeting of the Traffic Committee to discuss this development. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it appears there is support for the special use. Generally the Commission is in support of the Sit e Plan Review, but there is not enough information at this time. At 8:41 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Comm ission continue the public hearing and all aspects of Case: 1414B -101408.SU.SPR to the November 18, 2008 Plan Commission meeting. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Renzi, O’Rourke, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 4:0 Chairman Sobkoviak called for a recess at 8:45 p.m. He then reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 4, 2008 Page 6 of 10 CASE: 1430 -101408.AA.SU.SPR.PP/FP GAS CITY Request: Special Use for a Drive -through (Public Hear ing) Annexation (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review Location: Southwest Corner of Drauden Road and Route 126 Applicant: Ionia Real Properties, LLC TIME 8:55 p.m. Village Planner Garrigan summarized the staff report. He stated this is a public hearing an d all notices have been published and posted per Village Ordinance and State Statute. He stated the applicant is seeking to annex 16 acres at the southwest corner of Drauden Road and Rt. 126. 1.84 acres will be used for Gas City. It is a logical extensi on of the Village municipal boundaries. Village Planner Garrigan went through the 2 findings of fact for the special use and found 2 of the 2 findings o f fact favorable to the applicant. He also went through the 2 findings of fact for a PD and found them both favorable to the applicant. The Gas city will consist of a convenience store, two bay car wash, and an outdoor landscape use. There is one full access point off of Rt. 126 and one right -in/right -out on Drauden Road proposed for this development. I DOT has control of Rt. 126 so they will need to approve. Staff requests that the Village Engineer look at a full access on Route 30 since it appears it may be too close to the Rt. 126 and Drauden Road intersection to meet IDOT standards for safe distances . Village Planner Garrigan went through the architectural features. There is a Landscape Plan that complies with the Site Plan Ordinance. Staff does request some spirea along the perimeter of the site be replaced with a higher shrub in order to provid e some height and landscape softening. Staff requests that the metal columns of the canopy be replaced with brick consistent with the Rt. 30 and Renwick Gas City proposal. The photometric plan and the trash enclosure comply with Village ordinance. Preli minary engineering needs to be submitted to the Village Engineer so he can review. Staff recommends approval. Village Planner Garrigan concluded his report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Engineer Eickholtz if there were any issues. Village Engine er Eickholtz stated they have not received engineering, but have the following concerns: IDOT permit Location 1 st island Right -in/right -out and bypass lane for pantry run into each other Improvements to Drauden Road Utilities not at site and could be expe nsive to bring to site Chairman Sobkoviak reminded Petitioner John Argoudelis that he was still sworn in from the previous case. Petitioner Argoudelis stated there was concept plan approval from IDOT for the plan. He showed the preliminary plat of subdi vision to clarify the location of the site. He stated there are 16 acres to be annexed. The northern 10 acres will be zoned B -3. Lot 3 for the supportive living facility will be zoned R -1. Lot 2 will possibly have a daycare, bank, and doctor facility. Discussions are ongoing. He stated it is a good mix of uses to create jobs. He further stated Gas City received a concept p lan approval for entry from IDOT. He went through the 5 stipulations in the staff report: #3 – the applicant will replace the st eel columns under the fueling canopy with brick columns #4 - the applicant will replace some of the perimeter shrubs with red twig dogwoods #5 - the signage will be similar to the previously -approved Rt. 30 Gas City. The petitioner will work with staff on this stipulation. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the other petitioners. Commissioner Kachel asked if the full access on Drauden will be cut through before the project is started. Village Planner Garriga n stated he could take that to the Traffic Committee. Petitioner Chris Kalischefski gave a PowerPoint presentation. He stated this Gas City consists of three main elements: family pantry, 5 lane fuel canopy, and a 2 bay roll -over car wash. It is missin g the truck canopy that was approved at the Rt. 30 site. He also showed and explained the site plan, elevations, and landscape plan.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 4, 2008 Page 7 of 10 Commissioner Kachel suggested that the exterior canopy sign could have the same cornice at the top that exists on the exterior of the building. Petitioner Kalischefski stated that was a good idea. Commissioner Renzi stated conceptually he has no problem with the special use. He just wants to see how it will all go together. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Planner Ga rrigan if the Commission continued the previous case because final eng ineering was not accomplished would it not be appropriate in this case also to delay final recommendation until the engineering is received. Village Planner Garrigan stated the same re asoning applies. Petitioner Kalischefski stated they have done all of the preliminary engineering and shown all the main aspects of all the sanitary connections, the water connections. This is such a simple engineering site; there is nothing in the Vill age’s engineering code that will prohibit us from doing this site. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he felt it would make a lot of sense to see both of the cases back again to see how they do tie together and connect. Petitioner Argoudelis pointed out ever ything the Village Board approves is always subject to compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer . He felt there was no reason why the Commission could not follow the recommendation of staff and go ahead and approve this tonight. The petiti oner will continue to work with staff to resolve whatever issues there are. Many times these issues of compliance, etc. that need to be worked out go on for several months. Commissioner O’Rourke’s concern was that he would like to see how they will be ti ed together. He understood that the petitioner was under time constraints, but he didn’t feel the petitioner could do anything until the site is contiguous to th e Village and that is possibly 6 to 12 months away. Petitioner Argoudelis stated he didn’t kn ow if it was 6 to 12 months away. He was not sure, but he did know that the Village and the adjacent property owner have been in discussion. He stated for their contractual purposes they need to know where they are with the Village as far as pre -annexati on. With things approved, they know they can move forward. Petitioner Argoudelis stated Gas City’s ability to purchase the land is contingent upon getting their site plan approved. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Planner Garrigan if they could make a recommendation on the annexation, the special use, the site plan, but not the preliminary plat and final plat. Village Planner Garrigan stated it was the pleasure of the Commission . Commissioner Renzi stated then the Commission could have it go forward, but would not be bound to platting it out the way it is configured. Petitioner Argoudelis stated with regard to the platting it is just simply separating the lots. He was not quite sure why the Commission would want to do that. Commissioner Kachel stat ed the architecture is there; pretty much the engineering is there. Everything is there. If this was a separate lot somewhere else, the Commission would be taking it right straight through. It is not part of the Village right n ow. The faster it can be approved, the faster it can get built. The Board will have the last say. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he did not feel it would actually hurt this project if the Commission delayed it . That way the two projects could be brought forward together to show how they match . The e ngineering and concerns could be addressed in the staff report. Petitioner Argoudelis stated they have shown how the two projects work together in that the Gas City and the assisted living facility, per staff’s request, will have interconnecting access points. Everything will connect together. He stated they would like to move forward tonight on getting the recommendations on this part of the project. Commissioner Renzi stated his concern is that the drawings do not match. H e stated the drawing for the prior case does not have an access road. He stated the drawing will have to change. He further was not sure if the detention area was large enough. He asked what would happen if it had to be relocated. He also had concerns about the cut -in lane and future “head -on” collisions. He also wanted the traffic flow pattern. He liked the building and thought it was a good concept. At the present time he would have to vote “no”, but if the case continues and the Commission receive s the information they need, he will most likely vote “yes”. He stated he needs to see the design in black and white on paper. Petitioner Argoudelis responded by saying the detention area was designed based on their engineer’s calculations of what is n ecessary for all of that. He further stated t he internal traffic flow for this site was submitted to the Village over a month and a half ago. Commissioner Renzi stated there is nothing in the report though that gives the Commission any indication that
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 4, 2008 Page 8 of 10 those have been addressed and they are not an issue. He further stated it would be nice if the Commission would get some report, an addendum to this, which says it will work fine. Petitioner Argoudelis stated as far as the curb cut on the sout hern lot an d connecting them up, t hey have been addressed and they can address them further. They would like to go forward, but it is the pleasure of the Plan Commission though. Commissioner Kachel asked Village Planner Garrigan if he felt comfortable with everythi ng the Commission has. Village Planner Garrigan stated he generally feels comfortable with the proposed site plan. With regard to the access points, there might be a potential to tweak that right -in/right -out or shift it a little bit to the south, but he felt that was a minor detail where staff could work with the applicant. He asked the Commission to remember that is a bypass lane for a drive -through. He was not sure how much traffic there would be through a bypass. He stated he was generally comforta ble with the architecture, the site plan, landscape plan, and photometric plan Commissioner Renzi reminded the Commission that continuing the case to November 18 th is only two weeks. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who car ed to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response. Petitioner Argoudelis stated continuing something to November 18 th is just a couple of weeks and not a lengthy time, however, between now and spring there is a lot to get done. There are all sorts of plats that have to be drafted and recorded. There is the other annexation agreement that has to be completed. There are IDOT issues that need to be flushed out. Commissioner O’Rourke also stated he felt the Commission needed more information before this project goes forward. Chairman Sobkoviak wanted the Commission to state their concerns for the petitioner so the concerns can be met. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the R.O.W. has been considered for both Rt. 126 and Drauden as far as any future potential R.O.W. that the IDOT or the Village may want for intersection improvements, widening, etc. Petitioner Argoudelis stated with regard to Drauden Road and the right -in/right -out, the right -in/right -out was designed per the Village’s request. Commissoner O’Rourke asked about the R.O.W. width that is existing today. Village Planner Garrigan stated it was his understanding that there is sufficient R.O.W. along Drauden with regards to any future improvements. Commissioner O’Rourke had the same question for Rt. 126, which is a State road . Village Planner Garrigan stated there is the potential for the need for a right turn lane, which might encroach in some of the landscape buffer, worst case scenario, but that is down the road. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if it would be prudent for the Village to be asking for that R.O.W. as part of the plat dedication knowing that it might be needed in the future. Village Planner Garrigan stated that would be prudent at least for the right turn lane, but he w ould verify that fact with the Village Traffic Engineer and identify that there is not sufficient R.O.W. He was not sure. Commissioner O’Rourke asked the petitioner to consider that with their design to make sure that the current site plan and flow woul d accommodate that additional R.O.W. that might be needed in the future. Petitioner Chris Kalischefski commented the IDOT R.O.W. can be depicted on the exhibit so everyone is comfortable with that. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if he could confirm with I DOT that the R.O.W. is for that turn lane. Chris Kalischefski stated they did not ask IDOT if that R.O.W. is for a right turn lane, but instead IDOT told them what they wanted for a R.O.W. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the right turn lane would go the w idth of the property. Petitioner Kalischefski stated the right turn lane would probably be a combination of a deceleration lane and then the right turn lane. Commissioner Kachel asked if IDOT is taking into effect the fact that Rt. 126 could become a Vil lage Street. He asked the petitioner to check that out with IDOT. Commissioner O’Rourke asked the petitioner to clarify the two plans that were submitted. There was a difference in the landscape plan and the site plan . Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the brick elevations could come up higher on the outside landscape area. This could cover some visibility of the outdoor storage. Petitioner Kalischefski stated it was a high quality, aluminum coated fencing with brick accents. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if this was a seasonal use. Petitioner Kalischefski stated it was, but it would be used each season. Each season will have a different element in it. Commissioner O’Rourke stated it is almost like outside storage.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 4, 2008 Page 9 of 10 Petitioner Mc Enery responded that this is the most aesthetically pleasing way to store outside storage items. He stated they want to contain those items in an area that the Village would accept, but they also want people to be able to see that they h ave those items. To raise up the bric k to the point that you cannot see inside the building is really counter -productive to what they are trying to do. In older locations, they are able to merchandise out in front of the location and around the islands for those impulse purchases. Today, wi th some of the outside storage requirements, this is an adequate way to work around that and get a good compromise between them and the Village. Commissioner O’Rourke stated outdoor storage is prohibited in this use. He did not think it was to put up a f ence screening and now call it enclosed indoor storage. He would look for some way of improving the screening and/or a brick combination to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Petitioner Argoudelis stated his client would take a look at that point. He wanted to clarify though that this is in compliance with the ordinance. This is not outdoor storage. Village Planner Garrigan stated it is consistent with the ordinance in that it is enclosed. The question mark raised tonight is if things are stacked up and there is not 100% opacity then there is a factual question whether it is in compliance with the ordinance. He would like to have an opportunity to work with the applicant on this and work with some of the other existing stores to see how they store t heir garden items. There was a discussion about the other businesses in the Village with garden centers. Petitioner Argoudelis stated the petitioner would work with staff on this. There is a balance between visibility and screening such that it is not a n aesthetically unattractive thing. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the neo -traditional design is looked at in commercial products. Village Planner Garrigan stated he does, but the applicants generally do not. It never came up for serious discussion. Petitioner Argoudelis stated they understand from Commissioner Renzi and O’Rourke there are questions about traffic flow, the overall connectivity of the uses , questions with regard to architecture and aesthetics. He asked if there were any other question s. Commissioner O’Rourke stated it seems like there is a lot of signage on the property. He stated the Commission is not there to talk about signage, but the petitioner asked for comments and his concern would be is all the signage appropriate. Commissi oner Renzi stated some of the signage could be directional. He did not think there was a need for a separate monument sign for the car wash. Commissioner Kachel stated it would be nice to actually show the signage and locations. At 10:20 p.m. Commissi oner Renzi made a motion to continue the public hearing and all aspects of Case: 1430 -101408.SU.SPR.AA.PP.FP to the November 18, 2008 Plan Commission Meeting. Commissioner O’Rourke seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, O’Rourke, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 4:0 Petitioner Argoudelis stated this will be a good place for Gas City for revenue for Plainfield. This could be a bit of a “to ll booth” for people traveling through the Vill age. DISCUSSION: Commissioner O’Rourke suggested that the signs put up for public hearing need to be larger. He did not feel people driving by could read the signs. He thought maybe the Village Hall telephone number could be highlighted so people could call the Village for more information. Something different should be done. If a property is fronting two streets maybe a sign should be placed on both streets so if one does blow over, the other one might stay up. Village Planner Garrigan stated this w as something taken to the Village Board and there was no support to change from the Board. He did state many of the adjacent communities require much larger signage, which is installed by commercial sign companies. There is a cost to the developer to do that. He stated staff can look at that again. Staff installs the signs. Commissioner Kachel felt something should be set up so that Commissioners would have the ability to call in right before the meeting if they are going to be late. That way, if ther e was not a quorum at 7:00, but the Commission knew someone was in route but just delayed in traffic, the Commission could wait and not cancel the meeting. Commissioner O’Rourke suggested that possibly the commissioners could just call the Chairman.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 4, 2008 Page 10 of 10 Co mmissioner Kachel stated he saw a sidewalk was put in on Renwick Road. Commissioner Renzi suggested that maybe the notification sign process doesn’t need to be completely redone, but maybe have something in red letters that has the meeting date. There was a discussion among the Commissioners. Since there was no further business before the Commission, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Re spectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary Village of Plainfield