Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2007-03-06 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION RECORD OF MINUTES DATE: March 6, 2007 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the meeting to order at 7 02 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel, Henry, McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Murawski a nd Chairman Sobk oviak . The Fire District came after the start of the meeting. Absent: Park District, School District, Library District, and Police Department Also Present: Michael Garrigan - Village Planner Village of Plainfield, Jonathan Proulx - Planne r II Village of Plainfield, Mike Schwarz - Planner II Village of Plainfield , Eric Gallt - Traffic Engineer Village of Plainfield, Carol Millan – Secretar y Village of Plainfield, and Nea l Eicholtz – Baxter and Woodman MINUTES: The minutes from the February 20 , 2007 meeting were accepted as presented . DEVELOPMENT REPORT Michael Garrigan read the Development Report. He stated the Village Board approved the following items at their March 5, 2007 meeting : 1. Grande Park South – directed the Village Attorne y to draft an ordinance annexing the property. 2. Grande Park South – directed the Village Attorney to draft an ordinance for the approval of the annexation agreement. 3. Grande Park South – supported by a vote of 5:1 the ordinance for a Planned Developmen t 4. Grande Park South – supported by a vote of 4:3 a recommendation for the Concept Plan OLD BUSINESS CASE: 1290 -122206.AA.RZ.SPR PLFD. SCHOOL DISTRICT 202 TRANSPORTATION FACILITY (Continued to April 17, 2007) Request: Annexation (P ublic Hearing) Rezoning (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review Location: Southwest corner of Illinois Route 30 and 143 rd St. Applicant: Plainfield Community Consolidated School District 202 Represented by Dr. John Harper Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 2 of 17 Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Com mission had received a letter from Diane Cooper of Plainfield School District 202 requesting a continuance of the public hearing on this matter to the April 17, 2007 Plan Commission meeting. At 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Henry made a motion to continue the Plainfield School District 202 Transportation Facility public hearing to the April 17, 2007 Plan Commission meeting. Commissioner Kachel seconded the vote. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Henry, McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Mu rawski, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay : None The motion is carried 7:0 CASE: 1298 -020207.SU.MC.SPR SHOPS OF DAYFIELD Request: Special Use for a drive -through facility (public hearing), Major change to a Planned Development (public hearing ), Site Plan Review Location: Northwest corner of Illinois Route 30 and 143 rd Street (west of Family Video) Applicant: Ionia Real Properties, LLC TIME: 7:20 p.m. Michael Schwarz read the staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Eric Gallt if he had a ny problems with the “right -in, right -out” on 143 rd Street. Eric responded that all the current access points are already in place and operating. He went on to say that in the future there will be some limitations on movements out of there that will be d irected by the roadway improvements themselves, not due to the access locations, i.e. most likely there will be a raised median when this becomes 5 lanes in each direction on 143 rd Street. Eric said the first concern of the Village is safety and the secon d concern is operations or the overall characteristics of these two roadways, which will be major roadway segments. Commissioner Henry asked Eric Gallt if the one directional lane to the south of the building is okay. Eric Gallt stated the single lane is based on the geometric limitations of the building location and the existing right -of -way through there , and is basically a compromise due to the use of the drive -through. It does work for the overall traffic flow on the site , and to add additional lan es would require the building to be moved significantly to the north. Commissioner Henry stated that the building had not been built yet. He asked Eric if it would be more appropriate for traffic flow for two lanes of traffic in addition to the drive -thr ough. Eric stated he didn’t feel it was necessary given the long term improvements in the area, which will provide sort of a limited access to that because of the proximity to Route 30. He stated i f there was a two way access out there, you still would o nly be able to head to the west once the median on 143 rd Street is constructed. A discussion ensued about the drive aisle. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 3 of 17 Commissioner O’Rourke ask ed what the timing was for that and felt as long as the Commission is planning for the future, why not ju st make the access a “right -in, right -out” at this time. Eric stated this arrangement was based on the original application that came in and the purpose is changing a little bit at this time, but it will effectively only be a “right -in, right -out” in the future. Commissioner Renzi asked Er ic Gallt when there would be 5 lanes on the roadway. Eric replied it was outside the 5 -year plan. Commissioner Renzi stated that when this project gets built there will be no way for anybody who is going to be travelin g up the reconfigured Route 126 to turn into this commercial project. Eric Gallt stated in effect the traffic pattern would be very similar to anything you see along Route 59 where you do not have unlimited access to all 4 corners because of the shear tra ffic volumes. The traffic volumes on 143 rd Street long term will reach the levels that we see presently on Route 59. Commissioner Renzi was concerned about the traffic pattern. Commissioner O’Rourke asked Mike Schwarz if the driveway had been moved ac cording to the drawing on the screen. Mike Schwarz said it had been moved. He stated the drive -through lane runs along the back side of the building. Commissioner Henry asked how to get to the drive -through. Neil Eicholtz stated the engineering is no t complete. The auto turns have not been submitted yet. Commissioner Murawski had concerns about the stacking for the drive -through. He asked if cars and trucks could get through. He referenced the stacking problems with the Starbucks on a Saturday mor ning. Mike Schwarz stated there could be stacking problems during peak times, but the petitioner will use directional signage. A discussion ensued between the Commissioners and Mike Schwarz regarding stacking and signage. Commissioner Renzi was concerne d that customers might have to loop around the building at peak periods. Mike Schwarz stated the code minimum for stacking is 5. He said if the Commission feels there should be more or adjustments should be made to the site plan, the applicant should hea r that. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the petitioner to come forward. He swore in John Argoudelis. John gave a brief history of the site. He stated it was originally approved for a similar site plan as is presented tonight back in December, 2004. He starte d working with the Village in June of 2006 on the drive -through concept and some modifications to the architecture. He stated although there are many stipulations, many of them are being or have already been addressed. He stated a revised site plan and l andscape plan were submitted late Monday . He felt really 3 issues remain: 1) the proposed reduction of the drive on the front side of the stores - s taff and the pe titioner disagree on that issue; 2) t he 2 ft. masonry wall on the south side to scree n the drive -through; and 3) a rchitectural items, some of which have been addressed. John went on to say the revised landscape plan does comply with the ordinance in providing all of the requested plantings and requir ed plantings. It also addresses the scree ning on the west side along the pond, which will lie on the property of the Dayfield Residential Subdivision. There will be an agreement in writing so that maintenance of that landscape will be completed between the commercial and residential properties . Chairman Sobkoviak asked if this landscaping was agreed to in the annexation agreement , and now it is just being moved offsite. John Argoudelis stated that the original plan had the 40 ft. buffer along the west side of the commercial property. The drive -through lane is invading that 40 ft. buffer so the landscaping is actually being put on the west side (on the residential side) of the line. Chairman Sobkoviak stated his point was that this was landscaping that was agreed to in the annexation agreement, which is a binding document. Mike Schwarz stated the landscaping was part of the previous site plan approval for Lot 1 ; and at that time , code required a 40 ft. landscape b uffer along the commercial side. N ow , that requirement is 15 feet with much more plantings. John Argoudelis stated at this point, the residential development has agreed to allow the commercial to locate Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 4 of 17 their required landscaping on the residential property. The pond services both the residential and commercial properties. There i s an existing written and recorded agreement that spells out the duties of each party to maintain the pond. John Argoudelis stated the commercial property will have to provide to the Village a copy of a recorded agreement that states who w ill maintain the landscaping. Commissioner Kachel stressed that there will have to be an agreement in place to determine who will take care of the landscaping. Commissioner Kachel asked if there will be staggered streets into the commercial property to the south or wi ll they be lining up at that point where the full access is located. Eric Gallt stated the full access for the property to the south would be located at a minimum 660 feet south of the intersection , or to the west of the intersection would be a more appro priate distance. By the time the improvements are completed on this intersection, they will be under the jurisdiction of IDOT . IDOT will not allow a left turn and that is pretty standard practice for IDOT. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Michael Lambert, Ar ris Architects. He talked about the 3 points John Argoudelis had mentioned previously in his statement. 1. Width of drive aisle in front of building – staff is requesting the drive aisle to be reduced in width for the purpose of putting in an additional planter in the front of the shopping area. The Fire Department does not have an issue with the width being reduced. He said the greater issue was: the purpose of adding the planting area is for aesthetics. He felt that after a few years the only thing left in those planters is a mound of mulch. He feels the drive aisle the petitioner has submitted is appropriate. 2. 2 ft. masonry wall – Michael Lambert felt a masonry wall would be lost in this location. There is a grade difference between 143 rd and the site. He felt a 2 ft. masonry wall would not add anything to present visual lines to prevent someone on 143 rd Street from seeing the drive -through. 3. Architecture of the building – Michael Lambert stated originally the building was proposed as all m asonry with some EIFS bands on the building and the green metal roof. He felt all brick would be rather boring , and a sign being placed on brick would leave holes as tenants come and go. Brick is a very hard material to patch. Brick is integrated and i t matches the tower of the Family Video. Staff recommended architectural shingles. Michael Lambert said that would be cheaper for the petitioner. He stated he feels the green metal roof ties the buildings together. Michael Lambert mentioned that he wa s trying to make the back of the building a non -building. He referenced the Plainfield Township building. He felt the addition of cast stone on the base of the building would be a maintenance issue. He felt it would turn black over time. He talked abou t adding numbers to the doors in the back of the building. He felt a stencil or vinyl type of member on the door would be a better solution. Commissioner Kachel asked about the thin brick veneer that is being considered for essentially all elevations. M ike Schwarz stated that staff is not necessarily stating that the entire rear façade has to have the thin brick veneer, but staff would like the majority material on the back of the building to not be precast painted concrete panels. Mike stated this buil ding is a significant departure from the 2004 approval. The approved 2004 building had utility brick on the entire back of the building and now the finish is going down a notch to the precast. Staff does not object to precast materials as long as that ma terial can be integrated with more of the veneer brick that is proposed on the front of the building. Mike Schwarz made a comparison to the Plainfield Small Business Park on Route 30. He stated precast is kind of a newer construction method. The panels are manufactured in a warehouse and brought on site and fastened together. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 5 of 17 Commissioner Kachel pointed out that most of the developers that have come before the Commission have had full brick on the outside. He stated the back of the building nee ds some type of relief. Commissioner Kachel asked if Family Video had full brick on it. Mike Schwarz stated it has utility brick on the back, which is another issue because this building was intended in 2004 to be part of a cohesive unified development. Staff is not against the precast, but is saying the back of the building needs to be dressed up to be more consistent with the Family Video . 360 degree or four -sided architecture is now the code , and this is less than that; and on top of it , there are so me variances being sought. Commissioner Kachel felt the veneer brick looks different over a period of years in comparison to the full brick. Michael Lambert disagreed with Commissioner Kachel about the brick veneer . Commissioner Murawski agreed with sta ff as far as the addressing of the doors at the rear of the building with signage, brass lettering, or placards. He felt the back of the building should be dressed up a little and stenciling did not fit the bill. Michael Lambert stated if the numbering w as a big issue, the petitioner could deal with that. Commissioner Renzi was concerned about the architecture of the back of the building. He felt staff had a valid concern. John Argoudelis again mentioned the Plainfield Township building and that the front and sides of the building are the precast material, with the ornamentation that Michael Lambert talked about. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if John Argoudelis had any photos of that building. John Argoudelis reminded the Commissioners this was a shop ping center and not the Oakbrook Mall . Commissioner Kachel stated with the drive -through around the back of the building people will be driving through t here. It is not like the normal back of buildings where deliveries are just made. Mike Schwarz sta ted staff is not saying there is anything wrong with the Township building, staff is saying this should be consistent with the Family Video more so than it should be with the Township building. This is a PUD and all of the building should relate to one an other architecturally. Commissioner McKay asked about the 3 lots that are adjacent to this development. Mike Schwarz pointed them out on the site plan. Commissioner McKay had concerns with stacking for the drive -through. She had a concern that UPS or F ed Ex would go to the front of the building and leave the truck parked in the drive aisle. Mike Schwarz stated the building is not built yet and there is only some curb work and some underground utilities on the site. The previously approved plan had 29 ft. 2 inches, which is a wide two -way. The minimum is 24 feet in the Village according to the Code . Mike Schwarz stated staff suggested shaving 2 or 3 feet out of the square footage of the building and maintaining the 5 foot required landscape bed requir ed by Code. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who wanted to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response. Commissioner Renzi asked if shrinking the size of the lane in front of the stores would be a traffic planning device. Mike Schwarz stated staff is trying to achieve greenery in front of the building that code requires. Commissioner O’Rourke stated his concern was not necessarily with the rear; however he would follow staff’s recommendation with the architectu re. His bigger concern was the drive -through and the one lane traffic. He felt the developer should shrink the square footage of the building and create two lanes. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he didn’t think the Commission should work through the stip ulations . He felt the Commission should have the pertinent information when they review the case. He directed the comment toward the Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 6 of 17 petitioner. He felt a motion should be made to delay the case or continue it to the next public meeting so that the Co mmission has more of the information. Commissioner Henry agreed. He went on to say the petitioner did not record the original final plat and it expired, site plan for Lot 1 was approved in 2004, but expired due to the fact there were no building permits issued , and then there are 46 stipulations in the staff report. He was not comfortable that the issues contained in the site plan are resolved. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the Commissioners what their concerns were:  Commissioner Henry – better traffic plan  Commissioner Renzi – traffic configuration and traffic flow – not a cohesive commercial development and not most efficient use of the land.  Commissioner O’Rourke – for a drive -through he felt there needs to be two lanes, two directions, plus the drive -t hrough lane  Commissioner Henry – had some reservations taking some steps backwards to what was originally agreed to in PUD. Hold firm to what was originally agreed to.  Commissioner McKay – architecture in rear of building.  Commissioner Kachel –PUD’s are designed originally to work for the Vil lage and for the developer both . An agreement was previously made. Most of the items in the original PUD should stay. Hold the line and follow through.  Commissioner McKay - landscaping back easement. Mike Schwarz stated there was a letter from Freemark Homes, adjacent property owner, indicating that they will work with the developer to reach an agreement. Staff would like something more concrete in terms of a natural landscape easement. Commissioner Hen ry stated the Commission needs more updated information. What they received is more conceptual. John Argoudelis stated that this was originally approved in 2004 and the permit was not pulled and the building built prior to the two year time. The reason was because the market forces did not allow for that. At 8:43 p.m. Commissioner Henry made a motion to continue the case and public hearing for the Shops of Dayfield to the March 20, 2007 Plan Commission Meeting. Commissioner Murawski seconded the mot ion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Henry, McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Murawski, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay : 0 The motions is carried 7:0 Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 7 of 17 At 8:45 p.m. the Commission took a ten minute break. At 8:55 p.m. theCommission reconven ed. NEW BUSINESS: CASE: 1297 -012207.RZ 15008 S. ROUTE 59 Request: Rezoning from R -1 to BT for Real Estate Office (Public Hearing) Location: Route 59 just south of the War Memorial Applicant: HomeAngel Property Management Group, LLC TIME: 8:55 p.m. Jonathan Proulx gave the staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neal Eicholtz if he saw any problems at this point. Neal did not have any additional comments. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Eric Gallt if he saw any problems. Eric’s major concern was with t he future streetscape project that is targeted for 2009. He stated that it seems from Jonathan’s report; the petitioner has agreed to cooperate with the Village with regards to the streetscape. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner. Dan Haumann is the petitioner. He stated he has a couple of building s that he owns that are around 100 years old that he has rehabbed. He actually had people driving by complementing him on how nice the property looks. He feels the Village will be pleased with his pla ns for this property and there will be minimal disruption to the surrounding area. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Dan Haumann if he had a copy of the staff report. He stated he did have a copy. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Dan if he had any problems with the stip ulations in the staff report. Dan stated he did not have any problems. Commissioner Henry asked for a small modification. He asked that the product that is being proposed for the fence be submitted to staff prior to this going before the Village Board . Dan Haumann did not have a problem with Commissioner Henry’s request. Commissioner Murawski asked what will be the hours of operation for the commercial property. Dan Haumann stated currently he is there from 8:30 to 4:30 Monday through Friday and a nticipate s that they will be open Saturday for a shorter day, but no later than 6:00 if he extend s the hours at all. Commissioner Murawski stated no lighting was proposed for this project and during the winter months it is dark at 4:30. He suggested ther e should be some kind of lighting. Commissioner Renzi concurred with Commissioner Murawski. Dan Haumann stated he would definitely be open to that. The BT property right across the street has something similar, bullet shaped lights. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 8 of 17 Commissioner K achel asked Jonathan about the landscaping that might be in the adjacent owners property that Jonathan ha d mentioned in the staff report. Jonathan mentioned that the buffering for the BT District is provided primarily via landscaping. 100% lands caping is the first alternative. Due to the narrow width of the lot, the petitioner has indicated there really is not the ability to provide that range. Commission Kachel asked Dan Haumann if the chain link fence was on his property. He responded it was and it w ould be taken down. Commissioner Henry felt it was important to have the fence issue worked out before the Village Board meeting. Commissioner McKay asked if the 14 parking spaces were sufficient. Jonathan stated staff completed a parking analysis using the maximum area that could be developed on this lot and 14 spaces would be sufficient. Depending on the types of uses and the hours of operation, staff feels the 14 spaces may be in excess of the amount required. There may be a desire to provide more t han 1 handicap accessible space, which could surpass the total number of spaces provided. Commissioner Kachel asked if the proposed addition would come before the Plan Commission. Jonathan stated that staff has proposed that would be handled at the staff level. Commissioner Kachel stated that other BTD’s brought the whole thing to the Commission at one time. Commissioner Henry stated he would p refer the Historical Society have an opportunity to look over the plans to make sure it is consistent with what presently is at the location. Commissioner Renzi asked if the landscape island would be curbed or would it be recessed. Dan Haumann stated it was not planned to be curbed. Commissioner Renzi stated there was a lot of impervious surface there , and it wo uld be a good idea to maximize as much as possible of the runoff to go into the vegetation area. He also asked about pavers. Jonathan stated the parking lot would drain essentially into the center into a dry well. Jonathan stated staff had indicated sho uld the Plan Commission and Village Board approve the site plan; no work would be completed without the approval of the final engineering. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished to make a comment or ask a question regardi ng this project. Mr. Harold Pemple, an adjacent property owner , talked . He stated he had talked to Dan Haumann about the type of fence, but he would like to have something in writing as to what type of fence it would be. He stated these are older homes. H is is 160 years old, and it is very narrow between the property lines . H e didn’t want the fence put between his house and Dan Haumann’s driveway. There is only 3 feet from Dan Haumann’s property line to Mr.Pemple’s house. Chairman Sobkoviak asked i f Mr. Pemple’s concerns could be addressed. Jonathan asked for Mr. Pemple’s contact information so he could provide him with information. Commissioner Kachel asked what type of fence Mr. Pemple preferred and he stated he would like a dog ear or shadow ty pe of fence. He would like a wood type of fence. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the ordinance would specify 100% opacity. Commissioner Kachel stated that the applicant would have to put the fence 1 foot into his property line. Mr. Pemple stated he believed Dan Haumann was going to tie the fence into the property line and not go down between the houses with the fence. Mr. Pemple just wanted to make it public record about the fence. Commissioner Renzi stated according to the blueprint it looked like the d riveway went up to the property line. Mr. Haumann stated they would make that adjustment. Commissioner Renzi asked Mr. Haumann if he had enough room to slide the driveway over a foot or so. Mr. Haumann responded that he did. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone else in the audience that wished to make a comment or ask a question about this case. There was no further response. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 9 of 17 At 9:24 p.m. Commissioner Henry made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval to the Village Board of the requested map amendment to rezone the property commonly known as 15008 S. Route 59 from R -1 – Low Density Single Family Residence District to BT – Business Transition District. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak asked for a vote by roll call. Aye : McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Murawski, Kachel, Henry, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried: 7:0 At 9:25 p.m. Commissioner Henry made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval to theVillage Board of the site plan r eview for the proposed business transition development located at 15008 S. Route 59, 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 building elevations for the proposed building addition subject to the review and approval of the Village Planner; 4. Submittal of a revised landscape plan incorporating revisions as directed by staff and/or the Plan Commission, s ubject to review and approval of the Village Planner; 5. Granting of a public easement for sidewalk and streetscape improvements; 6. Submittal of the product specifications for the proposed fence prior to submittal to the Village Board and a commitment on the part of the applicant to install a fence in the initial phase of construction. 7. Submittal of a lighting plan for the parking lot prior to submittal to the Village Board. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : Renzi, O’Rourke, Mura wski, Kachel, Henry, McKay, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay : None The motion is carried 7:0 CASE: 1291 -010207.SPR.SU.MC.FP.SPR FIRST COMMUNITY BANK OF PLAINFIELD Request: Special Use for a drive -through facility (Public Hearing Major change to a Planned Development (Public Hearing Preliminary/Final PUD and Subdivision Plat Site Plan Review Location: Northwest corner of Illinois Route 30 and 143 rd Street (north of Family Video) Applicant: Plainfield Banc, LLC TIME: 9:28 p.m. Mi ke Schwarz gave the staff report. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 10 of 17 Chairman Sobkoviak asked Eric Gallt if he saw any problems with staff’s suggestion of flip -flopping the building and putting the drive -through facility on the south rather than on the north. Eric Gallt responded he didn’t have any issues with that . He stated there was a concern with the “right -in, right -out” and the State has expressed a concern with that also. He did recommend removal of the “right -in, right -out” on U.S. 30 to be consistent with other access. Chairman Sobkoviak then asked Neal if there were any problems. Neal stated this information had just been received , as well as some incomplete information , so he did not have any comments at this time. Chairman Sobkoviak did not swear in John Argoudelis, repres enting the petitioner, si nce he had previously been sworn in. John Argoudelis stated the bank is presently operating in a temporary space at the Plainfield Small Business Park on Route 30 just south of 135 th Street. He stated this bank is a local bank to serve the needs of local people. He stated the one significant issue is the location of the drive -through. He was going to refer to the architect for the safety issues and traffic flow. He stated there was a misreading of the ordinance, but the petitio ner will comply with all of the landscape requirements except for some of those areas along the foundation. He stated the architect will also talk to tha t issue. He stated the petitioner will comply with screening on the backside of the development to separate it from the neighborhood. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the architect Brian Reno, VRA Architects in Park Ridge , and he gave his testimony. He handed out brochures to the Plan Commissioners about security of the drive -through and renderings of th e building . He stated according to the ordinance, the drive -through should be placed where it cannot be visible from the street. He stated the drive -through was placed to take into account the welfare of the users and to eliminate pedestrian and automobi le traffic conflicts. He stated the petitioner has allowed additional stacking. He stated they have submitted their “right -in , right -out ”, but IDOT has not responded to his knowledge yet. They want to keep the drive aisle clear for ingress and egress. They organized their site to take the entrance as far away from the intersection of 143 rd and Rt. 30 as possible. One of the guidelines of the new ordinance is to put the building as far forward on the site as possible and organize the parking to the rea r or interior of the site. Staff asked the petitioner to investigate the drive -through on t he south side of the building . T he petitioner feels there is not enough room for acceptable stacking. He stated to the south of the petitioner’s property there c ould be a future restaurant . In most shopping center s they like to have pedestrian connect ions between each shopping area so the customers do not have to get into their cars and drive to the next store. He stated you would never want a pedestrian to cros s a 5 lane drive -through. He stated it is unsafe to put the ATM there , and that it should be visible from the street. He felt it didn’t make sense to have a 5 foot landscape area next to the interior drive -through lane. He stated they have taken a lot of care and time to make an attractive structure. Commissioner Murawski stated if the drive -through was on the south side, pedestrians would have to cross traffic into the drive -through and as you came outbound you would have to cross traffic again. He mentioned there is a bank at 135 th and Rt. 59 that has the same design. He wondered if there had been any problems at that location. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if Eric had a comment about that location. Eric Gallt mentioned to the best of his knowledge, and he corresponds with the Police Department on a regular basis, that particular site has not had an issue. A discussion ensued between the Commissioners and Brian Reno about the traffic flow patterns. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 11 of 17 John Argoudelis addressed the IDOT question of “right -in, right -out”. He stated the original commercial development showed two “right -in, right -out" on Rt. 30. There was one on the south and north sides. At the time, IDOT issued the permit for the one on the south because that had gone to final site plan . IDOT indicated they had no problem with that “right -in, right -out”; however, they would not issue a permit for it at that time because there was no final site plan. He stated from all indications they have, IDOT has not had a problem and will appr ove it. He went on to say it meets IDOT requirements of spacing between “right -in , right -out ”. They have not received any indications that there is a problem with the “right -in, right -out”. John Argoudelis stated he believes the purpose of the ordinance , as far as the drive -through is concerned , is aesthetics. Brian Reno stated the petitioner did not feel the drive -through should be facing the residential development ; and secondly , Fieldbrook is the better street to align with so it makes an easy exit out of the site so when people leave the drive -through they do not have to drive entirely through the site. He stated an ATM should be put in a visible place. Mike Schwarz stated he had inquired at the Village of Plainfield Police Department if they had any problems with security as far as ATM’s being located on the back side or interior side of buildings . He stated there is not a track record of crime statistics in Plainfield that would support the ATM on the south side of the building. With a restaur ant possibly coming in on the south side, there might be more visibility of the ATM. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who wanted to make any comments or ask any questions. There was no response. Mike Schwarz stated the code w as written to have buildings hold street corners as opposed to canopies, drive -through lanes, and cars being visible in those lanes. Commissioner Renzi stated that 5 drive -through lanes seem to be a bit much and asked if that was a common number. Mike Sc hwarz stated the code is 4 per lane or a total of 5 for the facility , and in this case there are 5 lanes of 4. Commissioner Kachel felt that it is nicer to have a canopy rather than cars just sitting there. He referred the Commission to the Harris Bank which is also on a corner. Mike Schwarz reiterated that staff has not been convinced that the drive -through does not work on the south side of the building. Commissioner Murawski stated he would rather have the drive -through the way it is rather than "f lip -flopping" the drive -through. Commissioner Kachel felt it is a whole different look when you are looking at a bank versus a restaurant, etc. Commissioner Kachel liked the architecture of the building. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he would have to a gree with staff and their recommendation to deny it based upon the discussion. At 10:10 p.m. Commissioner O’Rourke made a motion that the Plan Commission deny the request for special use for a drive -through facility, a major change to the Planned Developm ent, Preliminary/Final PUD and Subdivision Plat, and Site Plan Review. Commissioner Henry seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : O’Rourke, Henry, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay : Murawski, Kachel, McKay Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 12 of 17 The motion i s carried 4:3 John Argoudelis stated the petitioner feels strongly that the drive -through should be on the north side of the building. He felt that by continuing the case before the Plan Commission they would come back to where the case presently is . S o , he would like to go ahead and move onto the Village Board and remake the same argument ; and hopefully , get the result he is looking for. Mike Schwarz asked for direction on the one architectural feature, the windows on the office so they would reflect t he Federal style. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if that was supported by the Commission. Commissioner O’Rourke, and Commissioner Henry stated they support staff’s recommendations. Commissioner Kachel stated he didn’t have a major problem with it. Commission er McKay stated she thinks it is a beautiful building. She wanted it to be put in the public record that this has been in the works for some time, for over a year was her understanding. She stated the real issue was the traffic and the traffic engineer s tated he saw no great problems. Commissioner Henry stated that was not accurate. He stated Eric indicated there was a need to coordinate the two curb cuts. Eric stated that from a traffic standpoint, he did not review the mirror image of the project. H e was strictly commenting on circulation. He deferred to the comments of the Planning Department with regards to how the ordinances were set up with regard to a drive -through facing the street. He did not know if there would be a traffic issue with the m irrored image. The only issue from a traffic standpoint to the present drive -through location was the “right -in, right -out” access. Commissioner McKay was concerned that the commissioners voted on something where they did not have the traffic information. Commissioner Renzi stated he would much rather look at the bank building as he was turning into Dayfield , coming from the north, than the drive -through. He held up the rendering of the bank. He did not like the giant fence in the front of the building. He was not convinced that the traffic pattern will not work if the drive -through was put on the south side. He agreed with Commissioner McKay that he would like to have the bank at this location, but he would rather see the drive -through on the interior where also the restaurant will be. He stated there will probably be far more people going in and out of the restaurant to watch the ATM than going down Dayfield Drive. Commissioner McKay stated because they did not have the mirror image information that was an issue. Mike Schwarz stated the Commissioners were only presented with what staff was present ed with. Staff indicated an idea that they believe would work. Staff has not seen that plan and it has not been reviewed, but staff believes it would wor k. CASE: 1299 -012907.AA.RZ.SU.PP.SPR GRACE POINT CHURCH Request: Annexation (Public Hearing) Rezoning (Public Hearing) Special Use (Public Hearing) Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Location: Northwest Corner of 127 th Street & 248 th Avenue Applicant: Grace Point, Inc. TIME: 10:20 p.m. Michael Garrigan gave the staff report. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 13 of 17 Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neal Eicholtz if he had any comments. He stated the engineering plans have been reviewed and he has no significant issues with t he development. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner. Patti Bernhard was representing the petitioner. She wanted to introduce Pastor John Bell, Jim Caneff , site plans and engineering; Robert Nackola the architectural plan; J. D. Rock, Fry Properti es contact, for expert testimony and to answer any questions the Commission might have. She stated the uses are very consistent with the area with residential uses to the north, west, and to the south. A church is always a very good fit in a residential neighborhood. She stated possibly with the commercial area to have some medical uses, retail uses, office uses there that would coordinate and compliment that other facility, but also work with the neighborhood surrounding that commercial property. She s tated this is a logical extension of the Village since it is surrounded on 4 sides by the Village of Plainfield. Pastor John Bell was sworn in by Chairman Sobkoviak and gave testimony. He gave a brief history of the church. It began as the Naperville B ible Church. It is committed to young people and is very open to the community. There are approximately 300 -400 people. They are going to be a multi -site church. The Church is currently meeting at Plainfield North High School. Jim Caneff, Roake En gine ering, was sworn in by Chairman Sobkoviak and gave testimony. He stated it took 5 years of work to get to this point. The previous case was a much larger facility. Originally the project was located 50 to 70 feet to the north lot line and now they are a bout 164 feet from the north, which is a benefit to the existing residential communities. The detention was originally a wet bottom facility with wetland plantings and is now a multi -functional detention facility. The proposed parking lots will drain to the center islands into the natural wetland type plantings and provide water quality benefits before it ge t s to the detention facility. He stated the petitioner has worked with Michael Garrigan extensively on the landscaping. There will be a berm to help screen the parking. Robert Nickola, Nickola & Associates Architects – Park Ridge, IL. was sworn in by Chairman Sobkoviak. He stated the building was composed of 4 major building block components, which consist of the large worship room, adjacent from th at is a small chapel component almost free -standing, education component which is primarily classrooms for the youth and adult programs, and there is a multi -purpose fellowship space that would support everything from auditorium functions to basketball, vo lleyball, fellowship dinners, etc. There are various roof lines, 36 corners in the building, which will break up a large volume of space (53,000 sq. ft. in the ultimate build out ). It is a one and two story structure and is located in the middle of the p roperty and is buffered with landscaping . Parking is distributed around the building. He stated the masonry has been extended to almost the full height of the building. Parapets will hide the mechanicals. There is a support structure on the north end of the property and also a brick structure there to support the athletic facilities. The front entrance is off of 127 th Street. Patti Bernhard stated there were a number of supporters in the audience and she asked that they stand up to show their support. Commissioner O’Rourke asked about the future expansion and asked if it could be shown on the drawing. Robert Nickola stated that the plans the Commissioners received show the total build out . Commissioner O’Rourke confirmed that the project would be bui lt in phases. Commissioner O’Rourke then asked Michael Garrigan about the B -1 parcel if it was standard to identif y the driveway cuts before there is a site plan. Michael Garrigan responded the access points correlate with what is happening with the Edwa rds facility and it is not unusual to do that. The annexation agreement makes sure the petitioner makes a commitment to basically make sure the commercial is developed in a comprehensive cohesive unified manner. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 14 of 17 Commissioner O’Rourke asked about the opti on of a deceleration lane to help alleviate some of the traffic at the entrances. Michael Garrigan stated he can work with Eric Gallt and the petitioner’s engineer, but at this point nothing has been identified. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he was thinki ng about this lane on both 127 th Street and 248 th Street. Commissioner Renzi also was concerned about the traffic. Commissioner Henry also stated that 127 th Street is quickly becoming another 135 th Street . He stated it might be a good idea to look ahead before a problem exists. Commissioner Renzi questioned the applicant whether the two stipulations that consist of additional shrubs on 127 th Street, and a couple of lighting standards being relocated on 127 th Street are acceptable. Patti Bernhard respon ded that was acceptable. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that cared to make a comment or ask a question about this case. There was no response. At 10:56 p.m. Commissioner K achel made a motion that the Plan Commission make a favorable recommendation to the Village Board of the annexation of the subject site into the Village of Plainfield. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Murawski, Kachel, Henry, McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0 At 10:58 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission make a favorable recommendation to the Village Board of the Special Use for Planned Development (PD) with the followin g stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Commissioner Henry seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : Kachel, Henry, McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Murawski, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay : None The motion is carried 7:0 At 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval to the Village Board of the requested rezoning to B -1 (Nei ghborhood Commercial) for the 6.44 acres of commercial property at 248 th Avenue and 127 th Street. Commissioner Henry seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 15 of 17 Aye : Henry, McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Murawski, Kachel, Chairman S obkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0 At 11:01 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission make a favorable recommendation to the Village Board of the Site Plan Review for the proposed Grace Point Church subject to the followin g 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 adds some additional shrubs along 127 th Street in accordance with the Site Pla n Review Ordinance; 4. That the applicant works with staff on relocating the two proposed lighting standards along 127 th Street. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Mura wski, Kachel, Henry, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0 At 11:02 p.m. Commissioner Henry made a motion that the Plan Commission make a favorable recommendation to the Village Board of the Preliminary Plat with the following stipulatio ns. 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : Renzi, O’Ro urke, Murawski, Kachel, Henry, McKay, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0 . At 11:05 there was a brief recess. At 11:10 the Plan Commission reconvened Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 16 of 17 CASE: 1301 -021607.SPR OFFICE MAX/OPEN RETAIL Request: Site Plan Review Lo cation: Lot 8 of Meijer Development Applicant: Gries Architecture Jay Johnson TIME: 11:10 p.m. Jonathan Proulx gave the staff report. He mentioned he would be brief as this case was before the Plan Commission previously with a Concept Plan. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neal Eicholtz if there are any concerns. He stated he had reviewed the engineering plans and there are no major concerns with the site plan. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Jonathan if he had any open issues remaining. Jonathan stated staff is satisfied. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in both the petitioners at the same time , Joe Gegare, Commercial Horizons, the develop er ; and Jay Johnson, Gries Architecture, the architect. They had no comments to add to Jonathan’s report at this time. Commiss ioner Henry asked if the petitioners were aware that staff is asking for a revision in the site plan, photometric, and landscape plan. They answered they were aware of the request. Commissioner Henry also asked if they were in agreement with the revision s that need to be made. They answered they were in agreement with the revisions. Commissioner Renzi stated that possibly the petitioner would want to put some bike racks in front of the building. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audie nce that cared to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response. At 11:25 p.m. Commissioner Henry moved that the Plan Commission recommend approval to the Village Board of the site plan review for the proposed Office Max/Open Retail developmen t on Outlot 8 of the Meijer of Plainfield Subdivision with the following 3 stipulations. 1. Compliance with the Village Engineer 2. Compliance with the Fire Protection District 3. Submittal of a revised site plan, photometric, and landscape plan before goi ng to the Village Board. CommissionerMcKay seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : Murawski, Kachel, Henry, McKay, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak (O’Rourke had left earlier) Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0 Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 17 of 17 DISCUS SION: Commissioner Kachel suggested to staff in the future to remove the stipulations that have been resolved before the meeting rather than discussing them at the Plan Commission meeting . Michael Schwarz reminded the Commissioners that the reports are prepared by what staff has in front of them at the time. Sometimes things are verbally agreed to on the telephone, but generally everything on the list for the case Commissioner Kachel was referring to has been made according to the plan s that were provi ded. These items were identified two weeks ago, so there was an opportunity for the applicant to make the changes or reduce the number of changes before the meeting. Mike Schwarz agreed that staff does not like to bring this many stipulations before the Commission and that was why staff asked for a continuance two weeks ago. A lot of the plans did not change according to the request, so moving forward at the request of the applicant we bro ught it forward with the laundry list of items. Commissioner Henr y agreed that this happens from time to time where the applicant is not willing to make some of those go away, but would rather see it go forward as is. A discussion ensued regarding the number of stipulations. Mike Schwarz stated when staff reaches an i mpasse , which is rare, staff does want to get the case before the Commission soon so that the Commission can weigh in on it and send their thoughts on to the Village Board. Chairman Sobkoviak mentioned about a lawsuit a few years ago. Some individuals alleged that the Village did not afford them due process. During the litigation, the people pursuing the lawsuit attempted to require the Chairman to divulge why he had voted the way he did. The Judge made a ruling that the Chairman did not have to divul ge why he voted the way he did. Chairman Sobkoviak stated to the Commissioners that in no case do they have to explain why they vote the way they do. When you leave this room it is over. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. __________________________________________ R espectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary – Village of Plainfield