Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2007-01-02 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION RECORD OF MINUTES DATE: January 2, 2007 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel, Henry, McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Chairm an Sobkoviak, and Fire District Absent: Commissioner Murawski, Park District, School District, Library District, and Police Department Also Present: Jonathan Proulx – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Carol Millan – Secretary Village of Plainfield, and Ne il Eicholtz – Baxter and Woodman MINUTES: The minutes from the December 19, 2006 meeting were accepted as amended. Commissioner Renzi made a revision to the last sentence on Page 2. It should read: “Commissioner Murawski felt that it could be handled a dministratively, and Commissioner Renzi felt the first lot must allow the second lot an opportunity for signage.” Also, a correction was made to Page 3, Paragraph 2, Sentence 6 to read: “Commissioner Renzi asked if the Village could just calculate the pe rcentage based on the number of votes, and Ms. Chrisse said that this requested change would put the Plainfield Historic Preservation in line with other historic preservation ordinances.” DEVELOPMENT REPORT Jonathan Proulx stated that due to the Holidays there were no Village Board meetings since the last Plan Commission so there is no Development Report. OLD BUSINESS: CASE: 1283 -112006.AA/RZ/SU 2824 DIVISION STREET PP/FP/SPR (Continued from 12/19/06) Request: Annexation, Rezoning, Special Use (Public Hearing) Preliminary/Final Plat, and Site Plan Review Location: 2824 Division Street Applicant: Brian Lane LaneMark Investments Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 2 of 16 Jonathan Proulx reviewed the staff report and said that this requires a public hearing . This is a continued publi c hearing from the December 19, 2006 meeting of the Plan Commission and the appropriate notice s have been posted and published in accordance with State Statute and local regulations. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neil Eickholtz from Baxter and Woodman if there were any engineering issues that have been identified . Neil responded that there are no major concerns. The plans have been reviewed and all engineering comments are minor. Commissioner Henry asked if that included the detention pond, assuming the Home owners Association from Eagle Chase agrees with the parcel using their detention pond. He asked if there was sufficient capacity to add additional land. Neil Eickholtz responded that they had talked to the Eagle Chase Homeowners Association people living in the subdivision and they have not had any problems whatsoever. He agreed there would be no problems. Jonathan Proulx stated that there is an improvement underway to 143 rd Street, including some substantial storm sewer improvements that are going to g reatly benefit the Eagle Chase Subdivision. He stated they received input from the Public Works Director and he cited the 143 rd Street improvement as something that gave staff a level of reassurance and it was with his direction that staff identified that they were comfortable about proceeding with the project Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neil Eickholtz from Baxter and Woodman if the property to the south were to develop commercially in a similar fashion how would the parking lot access be accomplished. Jona than Proulx showed a slide showing where he believed a 27 foot cross -access easement would be dedicated on the final plat. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the petitioner or his representative was present. Brian Lan e, LaneMark Investments, responded as the p etitioner and gave his testi mony. He stated they will be moving the trash enclosure to the Northwest corner. Commissioner Henry asked the petitioner what the rationale was for creating Outlot 2 for the landscape buffer. He didn’t understand the reason ing for that. Brian Lane stated the rationale was to provide the additional screening. Commission er Henry said he understood , but wondered why it was made a separate outlot. He asked who was ultimately going to be the owner of that outlot. Brian Lane stated the ultimate ownership and upkeep of the facility would be the petitioner’s responsibility . Commissioner Henry stated that basically this outlot was remaining R -1. Brian Lane concurred that it would remain R -1. There was discussion about a berm that Commissioner Henry believed was at this site. John Wieffenbach of 13634 S. Route 59 (owner of the property two parcels south of the site) introduced himself and said that he believed Commissioner Henry was thinking of a berm south of the area and po inted it out on the aerial map. Mr. Wieffenbach said his son lives at 13630 S. Route 59 (property immediately south of the subject site). He was representing his son, his wife, and himself. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 3 of 16 Commissioner O’Rou r ke wanted to go back to Commissioner Henr y’s poin t about what the logic was for two lots. He wanted to know what was the reasoning for two lots and why does it need to be kept at two lots. Brian Lane replied the biggest concern was to address the setback requirements and also additional land scaping that would be utilized on that particular parcel to offer screening to those people to the west. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that the business can never go into that lot. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if that could be accomplished with just an easeme nt. Jonathan Proulx replied that if this was a larger site and detention was going to be handled onsite, a case could be made for either approach. Onsite detention is not required for projects of one acre or less. Commissioner O’Rourke was concerned th at if lots to the south were potentially developed as commercial and they would not be able to work out an agreement with the Eagle Chase Homeowners Association to handle stormwater because there is not capacity within that pond , c ould they use the R -1 lot as a retention pond. He didn’t think that was the intent to leave that lot open for future development, but is more of an easement for landscaping and not really stormwater detention at this point. Jonathan Proulx replied that the project would have a l andscape plan in place that they would need to comply with. So, the Village would have an avenue in which to have them be in compliance with the landscape plan with respect to the landscaping and fence if the Plan Commission and Village Board identify tha t a fence is appropriate. On the final plat there would be the ability to designate what uses are included in that outlot. A discussion ensued regarding the second lot. Commissioner Kachel said he would like to have the use included on the recorded fin al plat as a safeguard. Commissioner McKay stated she did not want this lot to be sellable in the future with an option for rezoning. Jonathan Proulx stated it could be transferable. If it was plotted as an outlot with a landscape easement over it, i t could not be developed with a structure. It could not be used for anything other than landscaping. When the process was first started the applicant was in discussion with the Homeowners Association and one of the options at that time was whether the Ho meowners Association would actually want to take ownership of this parcel and by having it mapped as an outlot that would really facilitate that . As the applicant mentioned previously , those discussions are more advance d now and the intention is for the a pplicant to retain ownership . M aintenance of that lot would be completed in con junction with maintenance of this proposed development lot. Brian Lane advised that one of the concerns about ownership of the lot the Homeowner s Association had expressed to him was a liability issue . There is quite a bit of foot traffic from the subdivision up to the strip mall and the Homeowners Association did not want the added liability of someone slipping/falling, etc. Commissioner O’Rourke raised concerns that if the petitioner did not take care of this property and pay the taxes, etc. that it could be sold for delinquent taxes and possibly rezoned for something else. Jonathan Proulx said that the Village works with the Tax Assessor to identify the assessed value at zero as is done with some detention ponds. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 4 of 16 Commissioner Renzi asked if there should be a 7 th stipulation where Lot A would be created with a limiting easement for landscape purposes only , or would that be something that would be deferred to staff to ensure that it gets done. Jonathan said that would be an appropriate condition for the final plat. It can be added to the final plat stipulations . S tipulation 3 would be Outlot A would be restricted to landscaping and open space. Commissioner O’Rour ke asked if it would be appropriate to add public utilities as well. Jonathan Proulx replied he would confer with the consulting engineer. Neil Eicholtz, Baxter and Woodman, said there is a storm sewer crossing that easement into the detention pond , so there would need to be some easement for that if there would be a separate outlot. Commissioner Henry said it could be called a landscape/utility easement. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to make a comment or ask a question regarding this entire project. John Wieffenbach, 13634 S. Route 59, introduced himself and was sworn in. Mr. Wieffenbach wanted to congratulate the Village and staff on having resolved many of the issues beforehand. He is extremely concerned about the trash location. Chairman Sobkoviak mentioned that the petitioner has already agreed to move the trash enclosure to the north end of the parcel. Mr. Wieffenbach said he just wanted to make the point that for the people who are residents in the a rea they are concerned about the trash location. They support it being moved , and insist that it be moved. Brian Lane , the petitioner , replied that they are looking at moving it to the northwest part of the parcel. Commissioner Henry would like to make that stipulation #7 in the site plan review. Mr. Wieffenbach said he would appreciate that. Mr. Wieffenbach’s next question concerned where the piles of snow are going to be moved to during snow removal. Brian Lane replied that would be a question bes t answered by a snow removal firm. He said it could probably be done along the west side of the property and certainly not piling it up along Route 59 or anywhere to the south. Mr. Wieffenbach stated that if it is all going to the west that would suit hi m just fine because the topography is going to carry it away from the residences . Both of the residences to the south are served by septic systems. Mr. Wieffenbach went on to say that the next issue is along that south line, he would like to see somewha t of a living berm along that south property line. He said there is going to be a number of parking spots where the headlights from the cars will be going right into his son’s bedroom at 13630 S. Route 59. Brian Lane replied that most of the people at th is medical office building would be leaving around 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. He talked about a 6’ cedar fence that would run along the property line. Jonathan Proulx stated that the Village Landscape Code gives preference to landscape plantings to achieve the sc reening. A discussion ensued regarding the living berm. Commissioner O’Rourke asked that the proposal is to have a solid fence in addition to a solid landscape planting on the south side or no fence. Jonathan replied that it is appropriate to achieve 10 0% screening with landscaping with evergreens and things that grow year round. If that can’t be done , the petitioner is proposing a fence. A discussion ensued regarding the height of the fence and the property. Mr. Wiffenbach also had concerns about the security lighting around the building itself and shining into the adjacent properties. He suggested it should be low profile and directed at the Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 5 of 16 subject property itself. He commended the petitioner on the parking lot drainage plan in terms of what it i mplies. He just wanted to make sure that the final plans included this drainage plan. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if anyone else cared to make any comments or have any questions. No one in the audience responded. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if anyone had thought of moving the building further south and the parking lot in the northeast corner. Jonathan Proulx replied that the petitioner had met with staff and this lot layout and configuration was identified as preferred or ideal from staff’s perspective. Chairman Sobkoviak asked about the living berm. A discussion ensued regarding the living berm. Commissioner Renzi was concerned about the flow of water on the property. Discussion ensued regarding drainage of the property. Jonathan Proulx stated that the southernmost area that is subject to this 15’ landscape easement will be primarily permeable. The portion that doesn’t infiltrate into the ground would have the opportunity to drain to the south just as it does today. So, the property to the south i s required by State Drainage Law to accept whatever drainage is required today. Jonathan felt that in the post development condition there would actually be less water going to the property to the south than there is today. Neil Eicholtz concurred with J onathan. Commissioner Henry asked if the petitioner knew what the elevation change will be along the south property line. Brian Lane said they do. Neil Eicholtz said the parking lot is going to have to be designed so that in a large storm event there is an overland drainage route to the detention pond. That is the way it will need to be designed. Commissioner Kachel was concerned that the runoff from the parking lot in a large rainstorm would affect the septic systems of the residents to the south. Neil Eicholtz said no. He said the parking lot will be designed to flow to the storm sewers. If the storm sewers cannot handle the flow, it will get to a certain elevation, get to a settle point, and get to a point where it overflows and goes toward the detention pond and not to the property to the south. Mr. Wieffenbach pointed out that for the drainage in the front part of property that is coming towards his property there is a huge interceptor right now sitting right at the end of the subject property ’s driveway and he presume d that will continue to be maintained. He felt that i f it is maintained it would take care of most of the normal overflow that is not in the parking lot so if the parking lot at the south edge is high enough to facilitate what th e engineer is referring to , of natural overflow towards the pond , that will probably take care of it. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there was any reason the Plan Commission should be looking at a less intense zoning, such as B -1 in this situation know ing what the proposed use is and it falls under that category. Jonathan Proulx stated that B -3 generally corresponds with the general commercial land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. B -1 is your neighborhood convenience and is really more intende d for a trip to the grocery store f or a gallon of milk type of use . A discussion regarding the possible B -1 zoning instead of the B -3 zoning ensued. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 6 of 16 Commissioner McKay asked the residents if they would prefer B -1 instead of B -3 or were they comfortable with B -3. Mr. Wieffenbach stated he did not know the difference between B -1 and B -3 except that B -3 can be more intensive. Commissioner McKay inquired that along Route 59 the zoning is B -3. Chairman Sobkoviak pointed out that this was a Highway Zoning District. Commissioner McKay wanted to keep consistency along Route 59 with the B -3 zoning. She also wanted to make Mr. Wieffenbach aware that B -3 does allow businesses with hours other than 9:00 to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Wieffenbach said he appreciated her co mments, but also wanted to go on record to say although the present project allows for 9:00 to 5:00 p.m. usage , the zoning that is being proposed does allow for things that would significantly run into the evening hours. Commissioner Renzi stated that is why the Plan Commission is making sure there is a 100% shielding to the south. Another discussion ensued regarding the B -3 zoning and uses. Jonathan Proulx made a comment that staff wants to note that B -3 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but given the site -specific location the plan development process does allow the Village to prohibit uses within the development and so staff would have the opportunity to work with the petitioner to identify a body art service (for example) as a prohibit ed use that through this PUD the petitioner agrees this will not be developed on the site. Commissioner O’Rourke said he just wanted to raise the question about the B -1 zoning to make sure it wasn’t overlooked and it doesn’t appear the other Commissioners are concerned about the higher uses or the more intense zoning. He didn’t believe it was an issue at this point. Commissioner Renzi asked the petitioner a question about the elevations. He asked the petitioner if he was able to resolve the elevation is sues with staff. Brian Lane replied he did not have any problems with staff’s suggestions in regards to elevations. It was noted there were dormers on the west side and not on the east side. Chairman Sobkoviak commented that this was so the Eagle Chase Homeowners would have a better view. Commissioner O’Rourke suggested the easement location be noted on the recorded plat and also have on the recorded plat that there will be no access allowed off of Route 59 so there is no confusion in the future. Jon athan Proulx said that was correct. Staff would look for a blanket landscape easement over the outlot and a 15’ landscaping easement along the south property line. Regarding access on Route 59, this has been discussed with the consulting engineer and it may be appropriate to have a note that states “right to restrict vehicular access direct to Route 59.” Chairman Sobkoviak said the State would have to approve that also. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the question – is this a logical extension of the Village m unicipal boundaries? He also asked if the commissioners wanted to amend the zoning from the default R -1 to B -3 with Outlot A remaining R -1. He also asked if the development should proceed under the Planned Unit Development guidelines and ordinance. The commissioners agreed. At 8:58 p.m. Commissioner Renzi moved to recommend approval of the annexation of the 1.2 acre parcel located approximately 835 feet south of 135 th street and west of Illinois Route 59 , commonly known as 2824 Division Street. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 7 of 16 Commiss ioner Henry seconded the motion . Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Henry, McKay, Sobkoviak Renzi, O’Rourke Kachel Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0. At 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Henry moved to adopt the findings of fact presented in the staff report and recommend approval of the requested map amendment to rezone from R -1 to B -3 Lot 1 of the LaneMark Subdivision, generally located west of Illinois Route 59 and south of 135 th Street and commonly known as 2824 Division Street. Commi ssioner McKay second the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : McKay, Sobkoviak , Renzi, Kachel, Henry Nay : O’Rourke The motion is carried: 5:1 At 9:01 Chairman Henry moved to adopt the findings of fact presented in the staff r eport and recommend approval of the requested special use for planned development to permit construction of a 10,000 square foot medical/professional office building at the property commonly known as 2824 Division Streets. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : Sobkoviak , Renzi, O’Rourke, Kachel, Henry, McKay Nay : None The motion is carried: 6:0 At 9:02 Commissioner Henry moved to recommend approval of the preliminary/final plat of subdivision of LaneMark Subdivision, subject to the following (3) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer; 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; and 3. Outlot A should be identified as being us ed as a landscape and utility easement. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 8 of 16 Aye : Renzi, O’Rourke, Kachel, Henry, McKay, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried: 6:0 At 9:03 Commissioner Henry r ecommended approval of the site plan review for the proposed 10,000 square foot medical/professional office building at the property commonly known as 2824 Division Street, subject to the following 8 stipulations. 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer; 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; 3. Submittal of a definitive access agreement for use of the Plainfield Commons shared access drive: 4. Submittal of a definitive agreement for the right to release stormwater from the site into the adjacent Eagle Chase subdivision detention pond; 5. Submittal of a revised landscaping plan subject to the approval of the Village Planner; 6. Submittal of a photometric plan per the requirements of the Village Pla nner; 7. Relocation of the trash enclosure to an area towards the Northwest corner of the subject property; 8. Sidewalks to be installed along the north and east side of the property lines as noted in the staff report. Seconded by Commissioner O’Rourke C hairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : O’Rourke, Kachel, Henry, McKay, Sobkoviak, Renzi Nay: None The motion is carried: 6:0 At 9:05 p.m. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a brief recession. The meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m. CASE: 1287 -121106.SU.SPR. TCF BANK Request: Special Use for Drive -Through Operation (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review Location: Meijer Outlot (Lot 7), East of Illinois Rte. 59 and south of 135 th Street Applicant: TCF Bank (Laura Young, agent for the applican t) Jonathan Proulx mentioned that he wanted the record to reflect that the special use request requires a public hearing and the appropriate notices have been posted, mailed, and published in accordance with State Statute and local requirements. Jonathan Proulx reviewed his staff report. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 9 of 16 Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neil Eicholtz, Baxter and Woodman, even though they hadn’t done a full analysis yet, did they notice any problems. Neil Eicholtz mentioned that this is part of an engineered subdivision so he di dn’t feel there were any engineering concerns . Chairman Sobkoviak asked if a representative from the petitioner was present. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioners. Laura Young, the petitioner, gave testimony. She brought brick samples and materia l samples for the Commissioners to view. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there was any proposal for any monument sign. Jonathan Proulx replied that there was a monument sign for the Meijer store at this location. The bank is entitled to and is going to be proposing signage on the west elevation. They are also entitled to signage along the south elevation of the building , which is currently not shown on the site plan, but signage typically is not covered during site plan review. Commissioner O’Rourke q uestioned that there would be no separate monument for this proposal. Jonathan replied he didn’t believe one was proposed. Laura Young replied that she would have to go back and look at the development standards that they had received from Meijer and bel ieved that TCF Bank could not have a monument sign. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if they were going on the existing sign. Laura replied they would not and that there would be signage on the building itself. Commissioner Renzi asked that they were not goin g to be asking for a variance to have signage put on the north side of the building. Laura Young replied – not at this time. Commissioner O’Rourke asked Jonathan Proulx if he had slides showing the adjacent property to the north of the project site. Jon athan Proulx believed the outlots to the north were of similar size and configuration to this parcel with no access to Route 59, and no internal access drive to the north. One of the things that drove this access point was the desire of staff to have as m uch stacking and separation from this intersection at the southeast corner of the property. Staff believes that given this access point and the cross access location here, there will be sufficient flexibility to provide adequate access to the outlots to t he north. Jonathan Proulx also advised that the Traffic Committee also reviewed this site plan. Staff is comfortable with the access points. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that would care to ask a question or make a comment regarding this parcel. Mr. John Wieffenbach, who was previously sworn in, commented. Mr. Wieffenbach just wanted to congratulate staff and TCF on doing a beautiful job. He had many concerns when he first heard TCF was going in at Meijer. He was worrie d about all of th e headlights, but he feels this is a beautiful building and good traffic flow. There were no further comments regarding the project. Commissioner O’Rourke asked about the photometric s . Laura Young stated they hired the consulting engine er. Unfortunately, staff had been supplied with an updated copy of the photometric plan just before the Plan Commission meeting and the Plan Commissioners did not have a n updated copy of the photometric plan . A discussion ensued regarding the photometric plan. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 10 of 16 Commissioner Renzi asked about signage. He felt that signage followed what was talked about at a previous meeting . Meijer got their sign basically in the sign easement area and by size of the sign it precluded the other parcels from coming in sub sequently and being able to get that area. Commissioner Renzi agreed with Commissioner O’Rourke that adjacent property to the north would be impacted by the drive -through. Laura Young commented that one of the things they try to do when they lay out o utlot situations is line up the access points with the main parking in the overall development so that cars are not trying to zig and zag into the entrance way. A discussion ensued regarding access points. At 9:40 p.m. Commissioner Kachel moved to recomm end approval of the requested special use to permit a drive -through window operation as part of a financial institution on Lot 7 of the Meijer Plainfield Subdivision. Commission Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call . Aye: Kachel, Henry, McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Sobk oviak Nay: None The motion is carried: 6:0 At 9:41 p.m. Commissioner Kachel moved to recommend approval of the site plan review for the proposed TCF bank located on Lot 7 of the Meijer Plainfield Subdivi sion, subject to the following (4) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer; 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; 3. Submittal of a revised photometric plan per the requirements of the Village Planner; and 4. Submittal of a cross -access easement agreement. Seconded by Commission er Renzi. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : Henry, McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Kachel, Sobkoviak Nay : None The motion is carried: 6:0 CASE: 1285 -112806.SPR THE CROSSINGS SHOPPING CENTER Request: Site Plan Review Location: Lot 2 – Menards of Plainfield Subdivision (Interior Anchor Lot north of 135 th Street, East of Route 59) Applicant: Randall Bees Architects, Inc. Randall Bees, AIA, Agent Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 11 of 16 Jonathan Proulx reviewed the staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neil Eicholtz, Baxter and Woodman, if he saw any problems and Neil advised that the final engineering has not yet been completed, but no major site plan issues are expected. The grading of the site could be a challenge, but more will be known when the engineering submittal is received Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the petitioner or his representative was present. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Randall Bees from Randall Bees Arch itects. He represents the owners of this parcel. Mr. Bees commented that he has been working with staff and appreciate s staff working with him on such a tight schedule. He commented that landscaping had been added around the islands at the crosswalk. I t was decided not to put anything too tall to obstruct the view because it is between two drive aisles. They have also widened out at each end of the center island so that it goes all the way across the island concrete so a number of people could stand th ere. Landscaping was also added across the front of the building. The building was flipped so there is no parking on that side and a couple of trees were added and a row of honeysuckle across the front. Where the crosswalks go to the center of the park ing lot, they have added a 5’ wide sidewalk across the front of the island again so as people cross they are not actually walking through the landscape island. The islands are wider. He believed 12.5’ or 15’ wide so they have the ability to put a sidewal k in front and still be able to get some trees growing. The petitioner is going to work with staff in trying to get some trees along the east side a nd at the truck dock so there are no lights or visual impact to the neighbors. Mr. Bees commented on the elevations. He said the Menards building is a red brick with no variations in it. T he brick they are proposing is smooth cut with a little bit of a richer looking brick with some variations in color. It is all in the red character of the Menards building , but some little bit darker and lighter bricks so it gives a little bit more texture to the walls. The height has been increased of what they call the water table of the brick on all of the elevations except the so -called pet store. All of these were at 5.5’ and they have been moved up to 10’. The petitioner said t he whole idea of the precast walls is that it is an economically efficient way to build a building. It goes up quickly and is load -bearing. There are no columns on the outside walls to in terfere with racking. Mr. Bees went on to say they do not like using EIFS (Exterior Insulating Finishing System) if they don’t have to. The only EIFS proposed right now is the top band and a bump -out. Otherwise, all of the walls are a flat stained prec ast. T he petitioner like s the look of the precast. Mr. Bees said t hey can put more medallions in it to dress it up if that’s the desire of the Plan Commission , but t hey would like to leave the brick as it stands right now and have a little more of the pr ecast showing. They feel it makes a nice contrast between the two. Staff is asking the petitioner to add a little more brick to a couple of the units, Staples being one and the second large tenant from the end. The petitioner has already acknowledged wi th staff that the back wall on the small building will be brick. On the rear buildings there is a reveal line in the pr ecast. The upper portion will m atch the color of the precast and the lower portion will be matched to the brick. So, from a distance it will look the same. That will be done on all of the sides where precast is shown. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 12 of 16 Commissioner O’Rourke asked what the height of the brick will be at that point. Mr. Bees went on to comment the brick in that location would be 10’. It will match the 10’4 ” line across the back, but there is no brick on the back wall. It is precast and the bottom of the wall will be painted or stained to match the brick. Mr. Bees commented that when you do a precast wall you want consistency with the medallions. Commissioner Renzi asked if they could go back to the view that just had the Staples with the north view. He stated that signage is not discussed, but he felt it looked to him that the petitioner was trying to balance the Staples with whatever you are calling them. Mr. Bees called them reveals. Commissioner Renzi asked if the Staples sign was not there would you be able to put a reveal there then. Mr. Bees commented yes. Commissioner Renzi just wanted to make sure if the Site Plan was approved and t hen signage was discussed and a Staples sign was not allowed there, what would go there so there would not be any dead wall space. Mr. Bees said he didn’t have a problem with another panel with the reveals in it. Commissioner Henry asked Jonathan Proulx if what the Plan Commission is seeing tonight, the proposal is for 40’ in height. Zoning calls for 35’. Jonathan Proulx said that was correct. Commissioner Henry asked if Jonathan knew what the height of Menards is at its highest point. Commission O’Ro urke asked if the petitioner had a problem with reducing it 5’. Randall Bees said he thought Menards was 53’ at the top and asked if that sounded right. Jonathan stated there are a few different challenges. First off Menards was approved und er a differ ent zoning code and staff believe d the re were not any substantial changes to the height regulations, but height is determined differently for different roof types . Jonathan was not sure where the height measurement was taken from Menards. There is an exc eption for architectural elements. Commissioner Henry stated that if a person were to go to any other town , this is what you would see for the Staples store. He also said his first impression was to cut it down 5’ to be in compliance with the zoning ordi nance . A discussion ensu ed regarding the elevations. Commissioner Henry felt there were prominent architectural features that he did not want destroyed. Randall Bees said he would try to reduce the high elements 5’ and not try to reduce all of the wall s becaus e he felt that starts to throw off the proportions of the walls. Mr. Bees designed according to what Staples wanted. Staples wanted a certain height. Commissioner Renzi felt the vertical elements make the desi gn look nice and he felt that if the Plan Commission starts chopping 5’ off of it simply because of the magnitude of the width of the building there need s to be some height to maintain proportionality. He felt that Menards has to be higher than 35’. Commissioner Renzi said he would not hav e a problem with giving the petitioner a variance. Commissioner O’Rourke said looking at the elevation on paper , it is showing it straight across , and actually in reality the way it is goin g to be Staples is way up front. T he other north retail building is also forward as well. So, it is not strictly a straight line shot. Commissioner Renzi said the far retail is going to come back out. He thought about one -half as Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 13 of 16 far as the Staples. Randall Bees said he thought it was about 8’ or something like th at bumping out. Commissioner McKay felt that if the Plan Commission was going to chop off 5’ it should be chopped off in are area that did not affect the height of the brick. Staff is asking for more brick and not less. She also commented that sign s need to be in earth tones and she did not see how that could be a possible thing for a national franchise. She stated she has never seen a neutral Staples. Commissioner Kachel agreed. He stated the Village is getting too many neutrals in some of the b uildings. It is nice to have a little color. Commissioner O’Rourke asked that this would be discussed during the sign time since he didn’t feel it was part of the review being done tonight. Chairman Sobkoviak said it was something that needed to be disc ussed to examine t he Plan Commission’s position . Jonathan Proulx commented that in terms of signage , unless the petitioner is looking for a variance or some other upon development type approval per our comprehensive sign package, the sign permitting would be handled administratively at the staff level. So, the Plan Commission would not have an opportunity to provide input for particular signage. A discussion ensured regarding signage. Commissioner Kachel said sometimes signage also deals with elevations . Commissioner O’Rourke stated that sometimes when you get into registered trademarks or logos, which some of these signs are for national tenants, he didn’t know if you can preclude some of those colors. Commissioner Renzi said he was not that upset wit h the red color , and some design colors were set that the red could be an architectural enhancement. Commissioner Henry suggested because of the time of night continuing the case. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the Commission did not want to continue talkin g about the case a little longer in order to take a vote. Commissioner Kachel had one question on traffic. He wanted a parking area closer to the store. Randall Bees said they widened the drive aisle. He believed there were 33 stalls that would be lost . Commissioner Kachel said he wouldn’t want to see that all taken out. Commissioner Henry asked how wide was the aisle and Randall Bees replied he thought it was about 30’ or 32’. Commissioner Kachel asked if that was acceptable to staff. Jonathan said it would be something staff would be comfortable at taking a look at . H e believed through striping there would be a circulation pattern that works. Jonathan said the most pressing issue for the petitioner is to fix the foundation location so it would al low them to start construction. Commissioner O’Rourke asked about deliveries. Randall Bees said these are small tenants so there are usually UPS deliveries. There is a door on the rear side and the petitioner’s hope was that this would be used by truc k traffic. Commissioner O’Rourke had concerns that other people would use this as a drive aisle. Commissioner Renzi agreed with Commissioner O’Rourke. Jonathan Proulx stated that by widening the drive aisle that may address the concerns of the Traffic C ommittee. If the Plan Commission has concerns, staff can get that resolved and it would be reflected in plan revisions or the report to the Village Board or a report to the Plan Commission if bringing the case back to the Plan Commission. Commissioner He nry asked Jonathan if he would like to see this approved and moved forward tonight. Jonathan Proulx stated that the Village of Plainfield has stringent design requirements Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 14 of 16 and to the question whether it inhibits commercial development he wanted to make su re that , at least at the staff level , we do everything we can to help commercial projects along. It is unfair to the Plan Commission tonight because you are seeing things that were not included in your packet, did not have a chance to review them thoroug hly so in a way staff is placing you as Plan Commissioners in a di fficult position of suggesting staff would like a motion. Commissioner Henry did not necessaril y disagree with the direction, he just want to make sure the Plan Commission didn ’t sho o t it self in the foot either. Commissioner Henry asked Jonathan that based upon what he had heard from the Commission tonight what specific information he would like to help move this forward. Jonathan Proulx said he felt he had received reasonable direction in terms of the materials and he ight issue. The consensus he heard was that the Commission was fairly comfortable with the materials. Chairman Sobk oviak stated that from what the Plan Commissioners have said nothing has to be reduced in height. Commissi oner O’Rourke disagreed. He would support the ordinance of 35’. The architect said it is something he would probably work with. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that most of the Plan Commissioners felt that would have a detrimental affect on the rest of the ar chitecture. Commissioner O’Rourke sai d even the architect wasn’t saying that. Commissioner Kachel said if you have too high of a building and then go down in height on the next building , it is like putting a two story house next to a ranch house. Menard s was built during a time when we we nt up that high, but now if you are going to build next to it , you don’t want to go down real low either. You want something that will blend in. Randall Bees said they designed this property so it could be seen from R oute 59. A discussion ensued regarding the elevation of 40’ instead of the ordinance of 35’. Commissioner Henry was concerned about the height of the building being 40’. He wondered because it is a variance from the zoning code, doesn’t it have to go th rough the variance process. Staff submit ted that there are times when elements of the site plan review do n ot meet the strict letter of the zoning ordinance Commissioner Henry stated the Traffic Committee made modifications to the one main aisle and the applicant has met that modification. He asked if there were any other modifications that the Traffic Committee recommended that the Plan Commission hasn’t addressed yet. Jonathan Proulx stated that a corner could be cut off or pushed back in such a mann er as to achieve the required site distance. Those are the two areas touched on by the Traffic Committee. Commissioner Henry asked the applicant how he felt about those two modifications. The applicant said he had no problem with doing this. A discussi on ensued about crosswalks. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Jonathan about the inverted islands to help with water flow. Jonathan talked about inverted islands. The petitioner was willing to work with the idea of the inverted islands. Commissioner O’Rourke as ked if there could be a rear corridor to service delivery trucks on the east side, etc rather than on the north side. The applicant said they have done that in the past. He said he supposed he could do that. Chairman Sobkoviak asked what would be achie ved from this and Commissioner O’Rourke said you would be moving the delivery trucks from the main drive aisle from the north side to the east side of the building. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 15 of 16 Commissioner McKay asked about cart housing. The petitioner said the parking lot is ove r parked by about 65 cars so they could put in 3 or 4 cart stalls and make it work. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there were any thoughts or plans for a traffic light out in front of the shopping center. Jonathan said there would be a right -in -right -o ut so the sole signal access would come at 135 th Street. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if this was consistent with some of the other big boxes. Commissioner Henry felt that the applicant is providing 155,000 sq. ft. of new commercial business to the Villag e of Plainfield. He felt the Village needs to provide some kind of signage for them somewhere along Route 59. The applicant said most of the mid -size and large tenants will want a sign on the street. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the a udience that cared to make a comment or have any questions. There was no response from the audience. Commissioner Renzi asked about the height differential. Is there something the Plan Commission should say that we will approve it, but subject to the ap plicant coming back to seek a variance for the extra 5’. Jonathan Proulx said his recommendation would be that the Plan Commission could support the site plan as proposed and not identify the need for a variance keeping in mind that the Village Board is u ltimately the decision maker and staff could very clearly identify this as part of the Village Board’s consideration and seek input from the Village Attorney beforehand. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the Pla n Commission could just approve the foundation layout so they could get a permit to start a foundation and then come back and work through the other details. Commissioner McKay commented that a lot is done to accommodate residential developers with a PUD that deviates from the code and that the Plan Commission should also help commercial developers. This will be a great sales tax generating project in our community and that is very positive. At 11:12 p.m Commissioner Henry moved to recommend approval of the site plan review for the proposed the Cro ssings Shopping Center located on Lot 2 of the Menards of Plainfield Subdivision, subject to the following (7) stipulations : 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer; 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; 3. Submittal of a revised site plan and elevations to incorporate the recommendations of staff and the Plan Commission; 4. Submittal of a revised landscape plan consistent with the final site plan and incorporating the recommendations of staff an d the Plan Commission; 5. Submittal of a revised photometric plan consistent with the final site plan and incorporating the recommendations of staff and the Plan Commission; 6. Submittal of the product specifications for the parking lot lighting, wall ligh ting, pedestrian bollards, pedestrian benches and other site furnishings subject to the review and approval of the Village Planner; and Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 16 of 16 7. Submittal of revised traffic flow and parking conditions per Plan Commission directives. Second by Commissioner Ren zi. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : McKay, Renzi, Kachel, Henry, Sobkoviak Nay: O’Rourke The motion is carried: 5:1 The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. ___________________ Respectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secreta ry – Village of Plainfield