HomeMy Public PortalAbout2007-05-01 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION RECORD OF MINUTES DATE : May 1, 2007 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the meeting to order at 7 04 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel, McKay, Renzi Chairman Sobk oviak , and a rep resentative from t he Fire District. Absent: Park District, School District , Library District, and Police Department Also Present: Michael Garrigan – Village Planner Village of Plainfield, Jonathan Proulx - Planner II Village of Plainfield , Carol Millan – S ecretar y Village of Plainfield, and Nea l Eicholtz – Baxter and Woodman DEVELOPMENT REPORT There was no development report since there had not been a meeting of the Village Board since the last Plan Commission meeting. MINUTES: The minutes from the April 17 , 2007 meeting were accepted as presented. OLD BUSINESS: CASE: 1303 -030507.MC.SPR PLAINFIELD BUSINESS PARK, LOT I -6 (BRENTWOOD CIRCLE ) Request: Major Change to a Planned Development (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review Location: East Side of Illinois Route 59, north of W. Industrial Drive South Applicant: Michael LaCoco The applicant requested that this case be continued to the May 15, 2007 Plan Commission meeting. At 7:06 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion to continue the public hear ing for Case #1303 -030507.MC.SPR to the May 15, 2007 Plan Commission meeting. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes May 1, 2007 Page 2 of 8 Aye: McKay, Renzi, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 4:0. C ASE: 1305 -031907.TA SUBDIVISION CODE TEXT AMENDMENT Request: Text Amendment (Public Hearing) Location Village -wide Applicant: Village of Plainfield Staff requested that this be continued to the June 19, 2007 Plan Commission meeting. At 7:07 p.m. Co mmissioner Renzi made a motion to continue the Public Hearing for Case 1305 -031907.TA for an amendment to the Subdivision Code text to the June 19, 2007 Plan Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kachel. Chairman Sobkoviak called fo r a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Kachel, McKay, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 4:0. NEW BUSINESS: CASE: 1257 -071806.SPR.PP/FP HERON POINT OF PLAINFIELD Request: Site Plan Review Preliminary;Final Plat Location: SE Corner of Rt. 3 0 & Renwick Road Applicant: Paul Hummer Corporation Matt Gauntt TIME: 7:07 P.M. Jonathan Proulx reviewed the staff report. The p etitioner would like to create up to 5 development lots, plus a lot for a shared water detention. The petitioner is also s eeking site plan review approval for a multi -tenant building that will be constructed on a portion of the site. Future development of the remaining outlots will be subject to future site plan review approval by the Plan Commission and Village Board. An a ccessory drive -through window operation would be permitted per a prior PUD approval for the multi -tenant building. Overall, staff considers the project to be a redevelopment project. It is being asked that two different site plan alternatives be approved by the Plan Commission tonight which would allow for the flexibility to construct a larger multi -tenant building on both Lots 4 and 5, or a smaller multi -tenant building allowing Lot 5 to be developed with a free -standing building subsequent to a future s ite plan review.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes May 1, 2007 Page 3 of 8 A right -of -way dedication has been granted on the Plat of Consolidation that was approved previously by the Village Board and was not recorded. Prior to recording staff has noted that the right -of -way dedication as identified in the p rior PUD will need to be made on the Plat of Consolidation and that includes an additional 10 feet of right -of -way along Route 30. The landscaping will be reviewed on a lot -by -lot basis as part of the site plan review. The bulk of the storm water will be handled in a shared detention pond. Prior to completion of the project or sale of one of the parcels to a third party, it will be appropriate to enter into a reciprocal easement agreement or some other legal mechanism to share the responsibility of maint enance of the detention pond. Site Plan Review: Developer has incorporated many of staff’s recommendations regarding building architecture. Elevations generally consistent with requirements of the site plan review ordinance. Per PUD approval, unifying ar chitectural elements will be established with first building to be incorporated into future buildings. The approved PUD established the right for the accessory drive -thru on the multi -tenant building without a separate special use approval, but a modified site plan would need to be submitted to staff showing the proposed north elevation with drive -thru prior to Village Board approval. Multi -tenant building will have access from Route 30 and Renwick Road via a shared cross -access drive. Plat of consolidatio n has not yet been recorded, but completion of a 60 foot right -of -way dedication is a requirement. A 12 foot sidewalk is proposed along the front and south side building elevations. Staff requests the sidewalk be narrowed or reconfigured to allow for requ ired foundation plantings. If no drive -thru is proposed, staff recommends sidewalk be provided along north elevation to provide a safe means for pedestrian access . Staff believes the amount of proposed parking is sufficient. Staff is generally comfortable with quantity of landscaping proposed, but recommends areas for foundation plantings, including trees, be created along the 12 foot sidewalk at the front building elevation. Petitioner would like to meet requirements via portable planters or potted plant ers. Staff feels it is important to incorporate a series of at -grade foundation landscaping areas. Staff would like to have incorporated a bike path on the south side of Renwick Road, which is consistent with the Village Open Space Plan. This could be co nstructed on a lot -by -lot basis. Staff recommends storm water best management practices (BMP’s) be included in the on -site engineering to improve the water quality, and potentially reduce the quantity and velocity, of runoff entering Lake Renwick. Forest P reserve has informally indicated no objection to proposed lighting. Staff proposes developer look at a more decorative parking lot light fixture that also meets the Forest Preserve requirements. Trash enclosures should be constructed of same material as t he principal building. Openings are required to have gates or doors that achieve 100% screening. Staff recommends site plan be revised to show location of utility meters. At a minimum, staff notes that the plat of subdivision should include an easement to encompass the sign location. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neal Eicholtz if he had any issues. Neal stated they also recommend that the BMP’s be provided as suggested by staff. The IDOT right -of -way on Route 30 will need to be dedicated the full 60 feet in stead of the presently shown 50 feet. There is not a clean approval from IDOT or the County as it relates to access permits. In fact, there are some significant concerns from IDOT that the applicant will need to address. On the east property line there is a 9 foot wall that butts up to an access drive to the adjacent drive and there is a drop -off area for that building. There needs to be some kind of protection along the top of that wall, such as a fence or some structure that identifies there is a wall there.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes May 1, 2007 Page 4 of 8 Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the people representing the petitioner and asked as they came up to testify that they give their names. First to speak was John Argoudelis who is representing the petitioner, Paul Hemmer Company. He thanked Jonathan f or his report and for his hard work on the project. Paul Hemmer came into the Village and removed the old buildings and is now ready to redevelop the site. He introduced Matt Gauntt, Senior Acquisitions Manager for Paul Hemmer Company. Matt Gauntt gave his testimony. He stated they are happy to be in the Village. Their project will help to improve a very important corridor for the Village. He stated they appreciate staff’s hard work and working with staff. He stated t he site has been cleaned up and t hey look forward to providing a project that will have significant architecture and landscaping to help improve and beautify the corridor. He stated Jonathan did an excellent job describing the project and what the components of the project are all about. He wanted to clarify a few minor issues. In relationship to the storm water detention pond, they have met with the Forest Preserve District . In the engineering plans that have been submitted so far, there are BMP’s. One of the items that will be inclu ded in the project is the detention pond itself . I t should be noted the area is at the lower end of the storm water shed. One of the elements that are being incorporated into the design is that the bottom of the detention pond will be planted with wetlan d plants, which will have significant impact in terms of cleaning up the water and providing improvement to the water quality prior to it entering the Rookery. He stated they believe that , along with the other BMP’s that have already been incorporated int o the plan , should provide an improvement to the water quality going into the Rookery. He stated they are working with IDOT staff. Two submittals have been made so far to IDOT , and they are well on their way to receiving an approval. In concept IDOT has approved and has no problem with the access points , and the petitioner is confident they will be able to achieve approval from IDOT for the points shown as full access and “right -in ”, “right -out ”. He stated they have no problem incorporating the reciproc al easement for circulation into an easement document. He also stated the reciprocal easement to cover the maint enance of the detention pond will be part of the purchase of any portion of the project . The y also would have no problem including that in the development and plat document . He stated they have no problems in regards to the elevations as they relate to the drive -through window. They also have no problem with the architectural elevation items that Jonathan mentioned. In terms of the sidewalk s and plantings and the landscaping in front of the building, he stated they believe having mov eable planter boxes would be a better fit for the site because of winter weather . In the winter there is significant salt that is put down on sidewalks to preve nt slippage. They believe that having the “at -grade” planter boxes that incorporate part of the sidewalk would actually be worse for plants in terms of receiving the salt from those applications. Moveable planters that can be taken away from the site wil l actually result in a better lo oking product throughout the yea r . The planters can be brought back in the spring and replenished. He stated Jonathan and he had spoken several times regarding the utility meters. They propose to place an indentation on the backside of the building and that is where all the meter boxes would be located. In general, ComEd does not allow for internal meters inside the building. He also stated they have met with the Forest Preserve and had discussions regarding the lightin g. The Forest Preserve has concerns about headlights going into the mating area in the Rookery and disturbing that process. There is a significant amount of foliage in between their project site and the primary mating area in the Rookery. The Forest Pre serve also has concerns
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes May 1, 2007 Page 5 of 8 about the amount of lighting coming from the lighting fixtures. He stated they intend to have lighting similar to recessed lighting where the light is up into the shroud so that the light goes down instead of out. He talked ab out the fence on top of the retaining wall. He stated the fence is actually shown on the landscape plan. He stated in regard to IDOT and the right -of -way, they have submitted to IDOT several times and received comments back from IDOT . O n their plans t hey have a 50 foot right -of -way from the center line to the property line. He stated at this point IDOT has not expressed any concerns in regards to the 50 foot right -of -way and they would prefer to m ove along that path; but stated if that becomes an issu e and IDOT expresses a concern that a 60 foot right -of -way is necessary then they would comply with that request. He also mentioned the bike path on Renwick and sidewalks along Route 30. He stated that Route 30 is slated for reconstruction at some point in the future . He felt it was important to point out that any sidewalk construction that would occur now on Route 30 would certainly be damaged and ripped up and need to be replaced during that construction. In terms of the bike path on Renwick , he wante d to note that in looking at this site in comparison to the rest of the surrounding neighborhood, the closest sidewalk to this site is over one -half mile away. He felt at this point it would be a very short segment of sidewalk or bike path that would be i n a very isolated condition and the nearest sidewalk would be one -half mile away from the project. Matt Gauntt ended his comments and stated he and the rest of the staff could answer any questions or comments. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyo ne in the audience who cared to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response. Commissioner Kachel had a question about the bike path. He questioned Matt Gauntt if he had talked with the Park District and Will County as far as what their plans are and future plans for bike paths across the street. Matt responded that they had not spoken to them about that. Staff stated in terms of plans with the Park District, the Village Open Space Plan does show future paths along Renwick Road leading towar d the Lily Cache Creek just east of the site. Commissioner Kachel asked if an escrow statement could be put on this project in regard to the bike path and sidewalks being put in at a future date. Jonathan stated that certainly would be an alternative. T his could be explored more fully. Commissioner Renzi agreed with Commissioner Kachel about the escrow account. Chairman Sobkoviak mentioned there will be a future commercial site east on Renwick Road. There are projects that although they are not goin g to happen tomorrow , they are on the radar. Commissioner McKay also concurred with the other commissioners. Commissioner Renzi asked about the sidewalks. It was his understanding they were to be on the north side of the building. He stated that wa s not addressed by Mr. Gauntt, but instead he talked about sidewalks on Route 30. Commissioner Renzi asked if Mr. Gauntt was agreeable to putting a sidewalk to get the people parked just off of Renwick to the stores. Mr. Gauntt was agreeable to that. Chai rman Sobkoviak stated he believes the petitioner makes a good case for the mov e able planter boxes pointing out that salt used in the winter would probably, not only kill any plants in there, but would also pollute the soil to the point where it would have to be removed in the spring in order to put additional plants in there. Commissioner McKay had some concern with removable planter boxes. She felt they would look great the first year, but as time goes by and they have to be transported back and forth th ey could start to look bad or even
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes May 1, 2007 Page 6 of 8 disappear. She also had concerns about the maintenance of the planters. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he was talking about something larger, mov e able but with heavy equipment. Commissioner Kachel stated there c ould be som e kind of a raised planter. He felt after a planter would be moved several times there is the potential of it being damaged. He would prefer to see some kind of a raised planter instead of the mov e able planters. Chairman Sobkoviak stated there would be the same maintenance issues whether it was in -ground landscaping along some sort of structural setting or the moveable planters . You would have to rely on the building maintenance department. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Jonathan to identify the issues in the staff report. The petitioner has already agreed to several items. He asked Jonathan what issues remained open. Jonathan stated the 4 primary points that he was seeking direction upon are: 1. The right -of -way 2. The storm water best management prac tices 3. The foundation plantings 4. The sidewalk and bike path He also stated there are a handful of minor issues that appear to be technical type corrections that can be incorporated into the final set of plans, including listing the detention lot as an outlot as opposed to a numbered lot for development. Also, the CC&R’s should address the reciprocal access and shared maintenance responsibilities. A drive -through operation would require revision to the plan to reflect the drive -through operatio n . Com missioner Renzi mentioned the sign easement. He did not hear that mentioned. It was stated part of the plat would be assigned easement. Mr. Gauntt addressed a few issues. The ongoing maintenance of the planters would be covered in the CC&R’s. There is annual maintenance. He stated in terms of the other issues as far as the bike path and planter boxes, they probably had enough information and direction from the Plan Commission and were very confident they could work with staff. In regards to the signa ge on the hard corner and the easement , part of their understanding was that they would come back with a master sign plan that would address overall those issues. If there needs to be an easement on that corner, he didn’t feel that was a concern at all. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the Commission had come to a conclusion as far as the bike path and sidewalk that the monies should be placed in an escrow account. He asked if that met with approval from staff. Jonathan stated that was acceptable. Matt Ga untt stated he did not believe staff and the petitioner had had enough time to think about that issue in terms of how it would be worked out. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it would be left in the Commission’s stipulations. Commissioner Renzi asked if there could be a stipulation to have written feedback from the Forest Preserve District that they like the BMP’s, etc. Staff stated the petitioner has been working with the Forest Preserve and staff will be getting some formal input from the Forest Preserve. Commissioner McKay wanted to applaud the petitioner for taking so much time to educate themselves on the Rookery . Commissioner Renzi asked if there could be something as the first building comes through as far as the landscaping. Staff stated that make s sense.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes May 1, 2007 Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Kachel asked if the monument sign was going to go on the future developed site or on the present site before the Commission. Jonathan stated the monument sign is proposed for the hard corner right at Rt. 30 and Renwick. Commiss ioner Kachel stated it would be nice to have something special there rather than just a monument sign, such as extra landscaping, etc. He further stated there is a gateway right in that area to the Village. Mr. Gauntt stated initially they had prepared a n overall landscaping plan because they wanted to show the Village they wanted to have the whole site compatible as one outlot to the other. In that landscaping plan they had showed a fairly significant landscaping feature on that corner. Chairman Sobk oviak asked if the Commissioners were comfortable with both Plan A and Plan B. Commissioner Kachel asked staff about the screening for the utility meters. Jonathan stated the most practical approach would be to recess the meter a little bit. Commissio ner Renzi had concerns about the developer putting 50 feet as the right -of -way and staff putting 60 feet as the right -of -way. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the p etitioner stated he would agree to 60 feet if the State asked for it. Jonathan stated the prior P UD speaks fairly clearly to the right -of -way issue. Staff is comfortable with that and does not feel it is necessary to require a stipulation specifically regarding right -of -way. At 8:05 p.m. Commissioner McKay made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Board of the Heron Point Final Plat of Subdivision, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer to include a fence or structure at the top of the retaining wall ; 2. C ompliance with the requirem ents of the Plai nfield Fire Protection District; 3. Submittal of a revised final plat showing the required right -of -way dedication along U.S. Route 30 per the requirements of the State of Illinois ; and 4. Submittal of a reciprocal easement agreement or ot her document establishing cross access; shared detention, including assignment of detention maintenance responsibility; and shared parking. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, McKay, R enzi, Chairman Sobkovia k Nay: 0 The motion is carried 4:0 At 8:07 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Board of the alternative site plans for the proposed multi -tenant building on Lots 4 and 5 of the Heron Point Sub division subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requi rements of the Village Engineer; 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plai nfield Fire Protec ti on District; 3. Submittal of a revised site plan showing the addition of a sidew alk on the north elevation (Site Plan A) and the location of th e utility meters and method of recessing/screening (both site plans); 4. Submittal of a revised landscaping plan incorporating the direction of staff and/or the Plan Commission; 5. Submittal of a revised photometric plan incorporating a decorative parking lot light fixture as approved by the Village Planner and the Will County Forest Preserve District; 6. Make p rovision for a bike path/sidewalk along Renwick Road to be satisfied through an escro w account.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes May 1, 2007 Page 8 of 8 Commissioner McKay seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : McKay, Renzi, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay : 0 The motion is carried 4:0 . DISCUSSION: Commissioner Renzi talked about a handout “Elements of t he Planning Commission Annual Report”. He stated there were some nice ideas in there about using continuity. He felt that was something that could be used to help plan the agendas. Commissioner Kachel stated at the end of the meeting ideas and thoughts are brought up by the Commissioners. He felt sometimes these ideas do not go forward. He wanted to know if there was some way to make a “wish list” to keep track of the ideas and follow up later on. He stated he knew the Board had their “wish list” and the Plan Comm ission is a planning body. The Plan Commission review s everything. This consists of looking into the future and what things are going to happen. Michael Garrigan stated an idea, concept, or proposal could be forwarded to the Board. Commiss ioner Kachel felt even if there were concerns with the Comprehensive Plan it could be brought up at this point. Commissioner Renzi stated he felt intersections should be re -identified as commercial and should be removed from residential as soon as possi ble. Even if the Commission could not do this, they could get the ball rolling and get it to the Board. The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Sobkoviak at 8:10 p.m. _________________________________________ R espectfully Submitted Carol Millan Plannin g Secretary – Village of Plainfield