HomeMy Public PortalAbout2007-03-20 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION RECORD OF MINUTES DATE: March 20 , 2007 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the meeting to order at 7 03 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel, Renzi , Murawski , and Chairman Sobk oviak . A representative from t he Fire District came after the start of the meeting. Absent: Commissioners McKay, Henry, and O’Rourke ; Park District; School District ; Library District; and Police Department Also Present: Mike Schwarz - Planner II Village of Pla infield , Carol Millan – Secretar y Village of Plainfield, and Nea l Eicholtz – Baxter and Woodman MINUTES: The minutes from the March 6, 2007 meeting were accepted as amended . There was a change on Page 5, Paragraph 9 – the wording was changed from “would be a traffic calming device” to “would be a traffic planning device.” DEVELOPMENT REPORT Mike Schwarz presented the development report. He stated the following items were acted on at the March 19, 2007 Village Board meeting. 1. Office Max/Open Retail – Site plan was approved. 2. 2824 Division Street – ordinance assigned for annexation agreement, annexation, special use for a Planned Unit Development, rezoning of Lot 1 from R -1 to B -3. Site Plan Review and Final Plat were approved. 3. Grande Park South – ordinances were approved for annexation agreement by a 6:1 vote, annexation by a 6:1 vote and special use for a Planned Unit Development by a 5:2 vote. 4. 15008 Division Street – ordinance approved for a rezoning from R -1 to BT by a 6:0 vote. 5. Lot 6, Crossroads Business Park – site plan review approved. 6. Weinhold Annexation Agreement – Village Board did not approve. 7. 2007 Zoning Map was approved. 8. Auction house was determined to be an appropriate use in the B -3 commercial district with a special use permit.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 2 of 9 OLD BUSINESS CASE: 1298 -022007.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 I llinois Route 30 and 143 rd Street (west of Family Video) Applicant: Ionia Real Properties, LLC TIME: 7:10 p.m. Mike Schwarz summarized the staff report. He stated this case was before the Commission on March 6, 2007 with a public hearing , and the publi c hearing was kept open to tonight’s meeting. He stated there are a number of variances being requested. The architecture of the building is the key issue. He displayed samples of the building materials. He stated the project was approved with more bri ck material in 2004. He stated since staff is considering a major change to the PUD, staff believes the bar should be raised a little bit in terms of the architecture, especially now that there is a site plan review ordinance that requires 360 degree arch itecture. Mike Schwarz stated that because the drive -through is proposed to face 143 rd Street, which is prohibited under the zoning ordinance, staff would be able to support the drive -through facing the street as long as there is a short ledge wall, decor ative wall integrated in with the landscaping, to further conceal the drive -through window. The landscaping does meet code, but staff is looking for something to mitigate the fact that 6 variances are being requested. There also will be a 2 foot berm wit h landscaping on top of the berm. Staff feels the wall would be a nice feature to tie in with the building. There is a favorable recommendation with a number of stipulations, which a lot of these could have been eliminated with revised drawings. Staff i s at a position that if the applicant is not willing to address the 11 unresolved stipulations, staff would consi der altering its recommendation from the favorable recommendation. The traffic engineer would allow the petitioner to move the pork chop islan d further west allowing the full access in the interim which would better serve the store front. In return for that there would need to be some kind of written acknowledgement to be placed in the file. Staff would like to have something more concrete, su ch as something recorded against the title of these properties since ownership may change. A future owner might want to challenge IDOT or the Village. This remains to be worked out, such as a “right to restrict access easement agreement” or some type of recordable document that would show up on a title report for not only Lot 1, but the other lots in the Dayfield Subdivision so it is very clear there will be a barrier median and that there will be restricted “right -in, right -out” access on 143 rd Street in the long term. Staff would prefer that this be worked out before going to the Village Board, but it may remain as a stipulation if this matter goes to the Village Board. John Argoudelis gave testimony. Since he had been sworn in at a previous meeting he was not sworn in again. John Argoudelis talked about the recordable document. He agreed with staff that a recordable document would be binding on a future owner. He would like to work with staff as far as the wording was concerned. He stated maybe it could be added to the Statement of Intent and Agreement, which would be recorded. Chairman Sobkoviak agreed that recording the document with the Recorder of Deeds would be the best way to go. John Argoudelis stated they were in agreement that there wou ld be some type of document recorded, but he felt he and staff need to work together to find out the best way to accomplish that. Mike Schwarz reiterated that this would need to include all of the properties in Dayfield Commercial. The Plan Commission wa s in agreement that this document should be recorded against all the lots in Dayfield Commercial Subdivision.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 3 of 9 John Argoudelis mentioned the area along the north side of the Family Video where the curb and parking was put in pursuant to the 2004 approval. I t was completed with a 3 foot area rather a 5 foot area . S taff has agreed that curbs should not be ripped out . T he goal would be to make up some of that landscape some place else. J ohn Argoudelis stated there really are only 3 or 4 major issues as som e of the architecture issues can be lumped together. He wanted to address the architecture. John Argoudelis stated that basically what happened between the approved 2004 building and the present building, there was a change of architects. Michael Lamber t is the architect for the second building and he did some tweaking of the first building. The overall thought of Michael Lambert in designing the building was that the architect ure consists of more than just form, or material. He designed a building tha t would be less obtrusive to the neighbors. The architect was trying to mix the materials and not have all solid heavy red brick , which he feels makes the building disappear more on the horizon. The developer for the residential lots in back of the comme rcial wants the building lines softened. John Argoudelis stated that with having a 40 foot area of landscaping and a lighter color building with less red brick on the back, still of solid masonry construction, it is going to soften the effect of this buil ding on the residential. He stated the residential developer for Dayfield agrees with him. He stated red pilasters were added at the suggestion of staff. John Argoudelis stated that in order to get the drive -through, the project was subject to the new landscape ordinance. The new landscape ordinance requires much heavier plantings than the old landscape ordinance. He feels the new landscape plan represents a big concession on the part of the development because the development is adhering to a much h igher standard with regard to landscape. John Argoudelis stated that with regard to the architectural comments, they considered each of the suggestions brought forth and went over some of the suggestions. He stated the standard seam metal roof was part of the original building and it was their intention to tie this into the seam metal roof on th e Family Video store . T hey are going to spend a little more money to do that. He stated the architect felt that stipulations 12 -16 on Page 13 of the staff repo rt did not add to the building in any way. He and the architect do not feel that these items make a more attractive building. He feels the building looks better aesthetically the way it was designed by the architect. The architect had a problem with the rear of the building where he would add additional brick. He also felt it would detract from the design of the building rather than add to the design. He referred staff and the Commission to the slide containing a picture of the Plainfield Township Buil ding. The front of that building is what is proposed for the back of the building at Shops of Dayfield. He referred to the architectural screen at the top of the Plainfield Township building to hide the utilities on the top of the building. He stated th ey looked at all of the architectural suggestions and it didn’t make sense to make the changes when they believe they designed a good looking building. He again referred to the 40 foot area of landscaping at the back of the property and stated that would screen the building. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the landscaper, Steve Bos. He stated there would be a double row of large evergreen trees and felt probably in the span of 5 to 10 years these trees will grow so large that the people living in the adjac ent residences will probably never even see the building. Closer to the detention area there will be a uniform wall of evergreen trees, also with some ornamental trees in the front . The island provided for the drive -through has been planted quite heavil y and will provide additional screening. In regards to the south side, he felt that if he interpreted the Village Code correctly , if there is a 2 foot elevation difference from the street to the parking lot a berm was not required. He estimated from a vi sual observation that it was probably around 2 feet and upon receiving final engineering it will be determined whether or not a berm is needed. He stated directly across from the drive -through area, three large evergreens will be planted, which will provi de screening for the drive -through facility. In addition to that some lower deciduous shrubs will be planted, which will grow from a range of 30 to 36 inches and will be taller than any 2 foot masonry wall. They would hide the wall.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 4 of 9 A discussion ensued about the landscaping between Steve Bos and the Commissioners. John Argoudelis stated that the petitioner feels landscaping more effectively will screen the drive -through than the 2 foot masonry wall. Commissioner Murawski asked Steve Bos about the size of the evergreens he would be putting in. Ste ve Bos responded they are 6 feet tall. Commissioner Murawski stated the evergreens would then be about 8 to 9 feet in about 5 years. Steve Bos responded yes they would. Commissioner Murawski asked if the p etitioner would put in additional landscaping to take over that berm area. John Argoudelis responded they are proposing that because they believe it makes a more effective screening. Commissioner Murawski stated that if the 2 foot wall is sitting on a be rm it is more effective than if it is not sitting on a berm. Michael Schwarz stated this would be an additional feature built into the landscaping. There would be a berm with a wall integrated and landscaping on each side of the berm. Chairman Sobkovi ak stated that the reason for a PUD is for both sides to gain something. So far, he just sees a gain for the petitioner and nothing for the Village. He wanted to know what the payback was for putting a drive -through facing a public street, which is expre ssly prohibited. John Argoudelis disagreed with the Chairman. He stated the petitioner has opened itself up to a more stringent landscape requirement than what was required when the building was originally approved in 2004. He stated the Village is gett ing a lot more landscaping. A discussion ensued regarding the landscaping. Commissioner Renzi stated the petitioner is asking for credit for simply living up to the ordinance that the petitioner subjected itself to , and there would not be the discussion if the building was built that was approved in 2004. He stated it is a fundamental shift in what the petitioner is requesting. It is a major revision of a PUD. He felt it was a better idea for the 2 foot wall. Commissioner Murawski stated if the petiti oner was not willing to put up the wall, but willing to put more landscaping , why wouldn’t the petitioner just go along with staff and put up the 2 foot wall. John Argoudelis stated he didn’t have a cost comparison, but chances are the wall will cost more than adding more landscaping. He felt it was more cost effective to add more landscaping than to put up the 2 foot wall. Commissioner Kachel stated that the PUD was previously approved and under a PUD there are certain things that are given up to the Vi llage and vice versa to the developer. It was approved and everything went through. It is a PUD that has come back to the Plan Commission with a lot of modifications and changes. Other facilities are requiring full brick. He stated he felt the brick ve neer was also a cost savings. The drive -through is an add -on onto the building, elevations have changed. He felt it was almost like a brand new PUD. John Argoudelis stated the changes to the building design were 100% driven by architectur e and appearanc e, not cost. He did not believe the previous building would have been a more expensive building to build. Commissioner Kachel was concerned how the building will look years to come. Michael Schwarz read the new zoning ordinance site plan review. It s tates “any exterior building façade shall incorporate a predominance of high quality materials that may include, but not be limited to, utility brick, sandstone, other native stone or glass. Utility brick, sandstone, or other native stone shall at a minim um extend from ground level to the top of windows with minor accents allowed in place of utility brick, sandstone, other native stones.” “Buildings of concrete block, split face block, precast panels and/or primarily EFIS construction, or its equivalent, are strongly discouraged.” Staff is not opposed to a precast type of construction; however, staff feels because the petitioner is using the thin brick veneer on the front, staff would like additional thin brick veneer on the rear in addition to the cornic e lines and some of the roof lines, the parapet walls specifically. The screening of rooftop units is required by code. Whether or not it is done by metal screening or
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 5 of 9 a parapet wall that is debatable because it is a PUD and certain variances are bein g requested. Staff is requesting the parapet wall as opposed to just the standard mechanical screening. Commissioner Kachel asked about the thickness of the veneer brick. Mike Schwarz explained it was about half the size of a standard brick in terms of thickness. It is applied with a mastic material, a glue. A discussion ensued about the thickness of bricks. John Argoudelis pointed out that this was the type of brick used at the Plainfield Small Business Park. Commissioner Kachel again stated staff w ants more brick veneer on the back of the building. Michael Schwarz stated staff is not opposed to the brick veneer material which was approved on the Plainfield Small Business Park. It is just a different construction method. Michael Schwarz stated o n the sides of the building where the brick just stops and then there is a precast panel, staff would recommend to just finish that out on the sides and on the back side. S taff would be looking at coming up to the height of the pilasters so that the major ity of the material is the brick veneer and the top upper portion of the building would be similar to the front where there a re the sign bands that have like an EIFS material. Staff is looking to continue the roof line on the front onto the back of the bu ilding. As proposed the back roof line is just a straight line. The roof is sloped so you will be able to see a lot of the metal screening on the back side of the building. Staff is looking for more of a parapet wall in the back to screen the units and a cornice line along the roof. He referenced the 360 degree architecture. John Argoudelis stated it is hard to design buildings in the Village of Plainfield. He suggested that maybe the Village needs to have an official Architectural Review Committee. Commissioner Renzi stated that the Commission, staff, and the petitioner were at a log jam that requires a vote of yes or no. He stated they need to find out if there is some kind of a middle ground. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Commission was at an i mpasse. Michael Schwarz stated staff wants to recommend a favorable recommendation. If there is an impasse and no agreement, staff recommends denial of the project. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that cares to ask a questio n or make a comment. There was no response. Commissioner Kachel stated that the 360 degree architecture was developed by an architect. The architect sat down with the Board, staff and the Commission and came up with the things that the Village wanted to see to get the right kind of growth. An architect led the Village in this direction. Commissioner Renzi questioned what would be the problem with a contingency plan that in the event any or all landscaping is removed or otherwise modified within the lan dscape easement the 6 foot masonry screen wall would be built . It was his understanding this would apply only if the landscaping fails. He felt that would be something the applicant could agree to without much problem. John Argoudelis replied that when the permanent landscape easement was granted , it was decided the commercial will maintain landscape on the other side of the boundary and be required to maintain it. The residential developer does not want any type of masonry wall. They want natural land scape. The Commission took a break at 8:40 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 6 of 9 The Commission went through the points in the staff report so the Village Board will know exactly where staff, Plan Commission, and applicant stand on each issue. 1. Staff recommends a stipulation that an easement be recorded against the title of all 3 Dayfield Commercial lots restricting the proposed full access point – The petitioner has agreed to that stipulation . John Argoudelis clarified that the petitioner ag reed that some sort of recording will be made, but the petitioner wants to make sure the language is agreeable. 2. Site plan be revised to reflect a 2 foot masonry wall on top of a 2 foot berm located within the south side yard opposite the drive -through. - Plan Commission in agreement with staff. Applicant did not agree with that, but wanted to add additional landscaping instead. 3. Site Plan revised to reduce wi d th of the drive aisle located along the front of the building from 29 feet to no more than 25 feet to provide space to incorporate planter boxes and/or planter beds at regular intervals. - A compromise was reached between staff and the petitioner . 4. Proposed standing seam metal roofing replaced with architectural shingles – Staff stated this is not a major issue and is consistent with the Family Video store. 5. Five Architectural issues ranging from east building elevations to be revised to replace the EIFS material above the si gn bands with thin brick veneer; height of the parapet wall be i ncreased to the height of any proposed rooftop mechanical units; west, north, & south building elevations be revised to reflect additional thin brick veneer as the majority material; west building elevations be revised to reflect a cast stone wainscot simi lar t o the front and side elevations; west building elevation be revised to incorporate one or more wall sections that include a cornice along the roof line consistent with the front elevations. – Plan Commission supports staff. Petitioner stated they tr ied to incorporate some of these items and architect could not find a desirable way to include these techniques. Mike Schwarz stated as far as the building elevations that additional brick be provided above the sign bands, staff would be looking for addit ional brick. Staff still feels that is important, but staff would be willing to concede if the applicant is agreeable to completing the sides with brick veneer and then around the back bringing the veneer basically level with the pilasters so that there w ould be some lighter material above. 6. Internal Site Circulation – Staff supports the proposed one -way drive aisle which now flows to the west. The petitioner agreed with this . 7. The 6 foot masonry wall that would run along the west property line in cas e the landscaping fails. Commercial properties would maintain landscape screen. Michael Schwarz stated this stipulation could be incorporated into the SIA document, which needs to be negotiated before it goes to the Board. - Plan Commission agrees with this. At 9:22 p.m. Commissioner Murawski moved that the Plan Commission adopt staff’s finding s of fact and recommend approval to the Village Board of the request for a Special Use for a drive -through facility, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Su bject to the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Subject to the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 3. Subject to staff’s technical review and approval prior to the case being forwarded to the Village Board for consideration. 4. T hat a revised PUD Statement of Intent and Concept for Lot 1 be submitted prior to the case being forwarded for Village Board consideration. 5. That the applicant must obtain a permanent landscape easement from the property owner to the west and provide som e of the required rear yard landscaping off -site such that the total amount of landscaping provided both on and off -site in the rear yard complies with all Village requirements. A Plat of Easement Grant for the landscape easement must be submitted for sta ff’s review and approval prior to this case being forwarded to the Village Board for consideration.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 7 of 9 6. That in the event that any or all landscaping is removed or otherwise modified within the landscape easement located off -site to the west, that the owne r of the subject property (Lot 1 in Dayfield Commercial Subdivision P.U.D.) is obligated to construct a minimum 6 -foot tall masonry screen wall along a portion of the west lot line, subject to staff’s review and approval. Said masonry screen wall shall ma tch the colors and materials of the building and shall include pilaster details with decorative caps at regular intervals, consistent with the architecture of the building. This provision will be folded int o the Statement of Intent Agreement. Commissione r Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call Aye: Kachel, Renzi, Murawski, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay : 0 The motion is carried 4:0 At 9:24 p.m. Commissioner Renzi moved that the Plan Commission adopt staff’s finds of fact and recommend approval to the Village Board of the request for a Major Change to a Planned Development, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Subject to the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Subject to the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Pro tection District. 3. Subject to staff’s technical review and approval prior to the case being forwarded to the Village Board for consideration. 4. That a revised PUD Statement of Intent and Concept for Lot 1 be submitted prior to the case being forwarded f or Village Board consideration. 5. That the applicant must obtain a permanent landscape easement from the property owner to the west and provide some of the required rear yard landscaping off -site such that the total amount of landscaping provided both on and off -site in the rear yard complies with all Village requirements. A Plat of Easement Grant for the landscape easement must be submitted for staff’s review and approval prior to this case being forwarded to the Village Board for consideration. 6. That in the event that any or all landscaping is removed or otherwise modified within the landscape easement located off -site to the west, that the owner of the subject property (Lot 1 in Dayfield Commercial Subdivision P.U.D.) is obligated to construct a minim um 6 -foot tall masonry screen wall along a portion of the west lot line, subject to staff’s review and approval. Said masonry screen wall shall match the colors and materials of the building and shall include pilaster details with decorative caps at regul ar intervals, consistent with the architecture of the building. This provision will be folded into the Statement of Intent Agreement. Commissioner Murawski seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : Renzi, Murawski, Ka chel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay : 0 The motion is carried 4:0
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 8 of 9 At 9:25 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission deny the request for a Site Plan Review due to the level of disagreement that exists on exactly what the site will consist o f and exactly what architectural features will or will not be included in the site. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Murawski, Kachel, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carri ed 4:0. At 9:26 p.m. Commissioner Renzi moved that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board approval of the request for Plat of Easement Vacation, subject to the following stipulation. 1. Subject to the requirements of the Village Engineer. Com mission Murawski seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : Kachel, Renzi, Murawski, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 4:0 DISCUSSION: Chairman Sobkoviak asked Mike Schwarz to check on the procedures for evacuation in case of bad weather, fire, etc. Chairman Sobkoviak stated in the past a police officer came to the Board room to inform everyone to take cover because of bad weather. There was some confusion getting people down into the basement and then when it was all clear to come back upstairs . Chairman Sobkoviak was more concerned with the Tornado threat. Commissioner Kachel asked if there was a cell phone number the Commissioners could call if they were going to be late or if something comes up las t minute and they are not able to attend the meeting. Commissioner Kachel brought up the issue of using grey water for lawn sprinkling, etc. He stated lines are put in and people pay to use these lines for lawn sprinkling systems, etc. Other communitie s are using these types of systems. Mike Schwarz stated this idea was discussed with Baxter and Woodman regarding the Riverfront master planning process. He stated it was his understanding there has been stringent EPA standards as to where you can do tha t. Commissioner Kachel stated since a new sewage treatment plant is going to be built now would be a good time to take a look at using the grey water. He stated there are warnings in these other communities stating this is not potable water; this is used for sprinkling only. The Commissioners decided they would like something about this program brought back to the Plan Commission possibly by Public Works. Trustee Lamb, who was present in the audience, suggested that the Plan Commission bring this to the Village Board and he would be happy to bring it to the Board for the Commission. Mike Schwarz suggested the Commissioners email him their ideas and he could put them into written format for the Village Board.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 9 of 9 Commissioner Kachel stated he would like the Village Board to take at look at what the feasibility of using grey water for sprinkling systems throughout the Village would be in the future. He was talking about actually putti ng in sewer and water systems and lines. The Village is then paid back tha t money by people that use the system to water their lawns. He stated right now potable water from Lake Michigan is being used to water lawns , flowers, etc. and he feels this is wrong. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. __________________________________________ R espectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary – Village of Plainfield