HomeMy Public PortalAbout2007-06-19 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION (AMENDED) RECORD OF MINUTES DATE : June 19 , 2007 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the Plan Commission meeting to order at 7 :05 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel , Renzi (he arri ved at 7:17 p.m.) O’Rourke,Murawski , Bonuchi and Chairman Sobk oviak , Ex Officio Commissioners Sanders and Cox, and Fire District Absent: Commissioner McKay , Park District, School District, Library District and Police Department Also Present: Mike Schwarz - Planner II Village of Plainfield , Sara Leach - Planner I Village of Plainfield, Carol Millan – Secretar y Village of Plainfield , and Steve Amann , Baxter and Woodman MINUTES: The minutes from the June 5, 2007 meeting were accepted as presented. Chairman Sobkoviak made mention of the Plan Commission Annual Report covering the dates of June 6, 2006 through June 1, 2007 . He stated by his count the Commission had handled 56 cases. The Chairman asked for a motion to send this report to the next meeting of the Village Board. The motion was made and the Commission voted unanimously to send this report to the Village Board ’s July 2, 2007 meeting . DEVELOPMENT REPORT Mike Schwarz presented the Development Report. He mentioned the cases that were brought before t he Village Board on June 18, 2007. Special Use permit for the Fraternal Order of Moose - a motion was made for the Village attorney to draft the ordinance for the special use subject to 4 stipulations and it was denied by a vote of 2:4 Fence variance for 14502 Capital Drive – approved 6:0 Fence variance for 25541 Gateway Circle – approved 6:0 Sign variance for Panera Bread Company – approved 6:0 Sign variance for Office Max – approved 5:1 Grande Park Neighborhood 10 – a motion was made to direct the Villag e attorney to draft an ordinance for the Special Use for a Planned Development and it was approved 5:1
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 2 of 19 OLD BUSINESS: CASE: 1290 -122206.AA.RZ.SPR PLFD. SCHOOL DISTRICT 202 Request: Annexation, Rezoning, Site Plan Review TRANSPORTATION FACILITY Lo cation: Southwest corner of IL Rt. 30 & 143 rd St. Applicant Plainfield School District 202 Chairman Sobkoviak stated this case was withdrawn, but as a legal matter he still had to call the case and asked for a motion to withdraw this case per the petition er’s request. At 7:09 p.m. Commissioner Bonuchi made a motion that the Plan Commission withdraw Case 1290 -122206.AA.RZ.SPR. Commissioner Murawski seconded the motion Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: O’Rourke, Murawski, Bonuchi, K achel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motions is carried 5:0 CASE: 1324 -041307.CP LA BANCZ PROPERTY Request: Concept Plan Location: North & South sides of IL 126, East of County Line Rd., extended Applicant: Lakewood Land, LLC Jim T ruesdell Chairman Sobkoviak stated this case also was being withdraw at the request of the petitioner. Mike Schwarz clarified that this case would come before the Commission again in the future with a revised concept plan.. At 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Kac hel made a motion that the Plan Commission withdraw Case 1324 -041307.CP Commissioner Murawski seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Murawski, Bonuchi, Kachel, O’Rourke, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carr ied 5:0
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 3 of 19 CASE: 1305 -031907.TA SUBDIVISION CODE TEXT AMENDMENT Request: Text Amendment Location Village -wide Applicant: Village of Plainfield At 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Murawski made a motion to continue Case 1305 -031907.TA Subdivision Co de Text Amendment to July 17, 2007. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, O’Rourke, Murawski, Bonuchi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 5:0 CASE: 1303 -03 0507.MC.SPR PLAINFIELD BUSINESS PARK, LOT I -6 Request: Major Change to a PD (BRENTWOOD CIRCLE) Site Plan Review Location: East side of IL Rt. 59, North of W. Industrial Dr. South Applicant: Michael LaCoco Michael Schwarz summarized the staff repor t. He stated this is a public hearing and the public is welcome to make comment. The petitioner has provided notice to surrounding properties. A sign was posted, as well as the publication in a local newspaper. This is a continuation of the original pu blished hearing date of April 1, 2007. This has been continued several times due to some unresolved cross access issues with the property. Mike stated this is a major change to a planned development, as well as a site plan review. The property is locate d on the east side of Route 59 just north of West Industrial Drive. The applicant also developed the building just to the south of the subject property. That was approved by the Village Board in 2001. The major change is approval of a new site plan for Lot I -6. The original plan showed a gas station on Lot I -7, just to the south of this property. The canopy for the gas station actually encroached onto this site. A major change is required under the ordinance because a new site plan is being proposed. There is space for 5 -7 businesses, depending on how the tenant space would be divided in the new commercial building. There are several exceptions to Village standards requested. Reduce the B -3 front yard setback from 30’ to 20’ Reduce the interior, or n orth side yard, from 15’ to 13’ Reduce the width of the required foundation plantings from 5’ to 4’ on one façade. Staff has no issue with any of these requested deviations. T here are 7 findings of fact required. Staff feels 6 of the 7 findings are favo rable to the applicant’s request. The purpose under a PUD is to encourage creative and innovative design. Staff feels the objectives are met.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 4 of 19 Mike Schwarz talked about the Sit e Plan. He stated the building meets the minimum parking requirements. Ac cess and circulation is provided throughout the property. There is cross access to the east onto an existing access drive. The primary issue is the access that is proposed to the north. The applicant is currently in discussion with the property owner to the north to provide cross access. There is some disagreement over the use of the existing easement that shows up on the original subdivision plat. The original recorded subdivision plat did not indicate any easement provisions on the face of the plat. Normally you would see language pertaining to the easement, explaining who has the right to use it or if there are any restrictions. This issue is holding up the physical parking lot connection that is proposed to the north. Approximately 5 or 6 parking spaces would have to be removed for this parking lot connection to happen. Staff is recommending a stipulation that the applicant continue working with the owner to the north pursuing that connection ; and if they cannot agree , staff would want to recomme nd a stipulation that the building be allowed to stub the parking lot to the north with the hope that it will be connected one day. One day when the property to the north comes in for some type of approval, staff would then work with them to make that con nection. The Village does not arbitrate or get involved in this type of disagreement. Staff recommends approval with the 5 stipulations in the staff report . Commissioner Renzi arrived. Commissioner Kachel asked staff about the one unfavorable Planned D evelopment requirement. Mike Schwarz explained that the finding was open spaces and recreational facilities are provided and in this case it is somewhat not applicable because that would have been taken care of in the original Planned Development. This i s simply a change that affects one lot within the overall planned development. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Steve Amann if there were any obvious engineering issues. Steve stated there is nothing really significant. They did a complete review in May and it was his understanding that the developer is waiting on Plan Commission approval before he instructs his engineer to make modifications. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Steve if there was any problem with the alternate parking connection. Steve stated there was no problem as it would be just a very minor change to the plans at that point. Mike Schwarz stated staff is seeking through the engineering r eview a sidewalk along Route 59. This is not reflected on the site plan , but that is in the engineer’s review com ments. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the petitioner was in the audience. He swore in the petitioner Michael LaCoco. He stated they are looking for approval. He is trying to work out the access issues. Commissioner O’Rourke asked the petitioner to explai n his relationship to the project. He asked if Mr. LaCoco had developed the whole site. Mr. LaCoco responded he had just bought the lot next door where Vito and Nicks is located. He built that building and he bought the Lot I -6. Mr. LaCoco thought he h ad the access already, but there was a mistake made by his lawyer looking over the documents. Mike Schwarz stated the petitioner owns Lot I -6 and Lot I -5 to the south. He is providing the cross access between the two properties that he owns , and he is providing the access to the existing paved access drive that serves the larger shopping center. The issue is the connection to the parking lot on the north. There are a number of parking stalls that were developed about 5 feet of f the property line. For this connection to work, several of those spaces will need to be removed. Staff believes it is mutually beneficial to have parking lots
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 5 of 19 connected within the overall development. There is a 50 feet wide access easement that is parallel to Route 59 an d then takes a turn and heads to the east parallel with the north lot line. It is staff’s opinion that the existing cross access does provide the legal right to cross access; however, he stated he is not an attorney and the involved attorneys are workin g through and debating that issue. Chairman Sobkoviak asked where the stub would be. Mike Schwarz explained there would be two access points, one to the south through the existing property, which also exits out to the east onto the access drive. The oth er access for the proposed building is to the east onto the existing access drive. If the petitioner is not successful in discussing this issue with the property owner to the north, then staff is suggesting that he be authorized to place a stub with the h ope of one day connecting. Commissioner O’Rourke questioned if there had been a site plan with the original project. Michael Schwarz stated there had been several site plans with that project. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if any showed the cross connec tion. Mike stated they do show the connection. He stated it is sort of complicated because of the history of all the changes that have been made over the years to the original project. He stated the first building that came in was the Car Care building at the far north end of the plaza. A discussion ensued between the Commissioners about cross access. Mike Schwarz stated an excerpt from the sales agreement clearly indicates cross access from Lot I -1 through I -5, but it does not say where. Commission er O’Rourke asked the petitioner why he needed the variance for the north side yard from 15’ to 13’ to allow the building to encroach into that area and why the building just couldn’t be smaller. Mr. LaCoco stated the cost of the property dictates that ki nd of square footage , otherwise it would not be financially feasible. Commissioner Murawski asked that this variance mirrors the other buildings. Mr. LaCoco stated it does. Michael Schwarz stated the building is very similar and the architect worked ve ry closely with staff to emulate the existing corner element. Commissioner Sanders stated there was a covered walkway on the existing building and this building has planting boxes right outside of the store front. Mr. LaCoco stated yes and it is suppo se to have awnings over the planting boxes. Commissioner Sanders asked who is responsible for maintaining the plantings. Mr. LaCoco stated it was the landlord’s responsibility. Commissioner Sanders asked if the petitioner thought about the setting sun i n the west and the impact on planting boxes. Michael Schwarz stated staff reviews the landscape plan. He stated that if the Commission wanted to they could add a stipulation that the landscape plan be subject to staff’s review. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he didn’t think it needed a separate stipulation. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the petitioner had a problem with any of the stipulations that staff has added. Mr. LaCoco stated he did not have a problem. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that desired to ask a question or make a comment regarding this case. There was no response.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 6 of 19 At 7:40 p.m. Commission Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission adopt staff’s findings of fact and recommend approval of a major change to a planned development for the Plainfield Business Park Lot I -6, for a project referred to as Brentwood Circle, located on the east side of Illinois Route 59, north of W. Industrial Drive South, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 3. All exterior building materials and colors shall match the existing building located immediately south of the subject property. 4. All exterior building lighting shall match the light fixtures used on the building located immediately south of the subject property. 5. The applicant shall continue to pursue a formal cross -access easement with the property owner to the north to facilitat e the proposed off -site curb and pavement modifications, and if the applicant is not successful in obtaining a cross -access easement with a period of 180 days following Village Board approval of this major change to a planned development, the applicant sha ll hereby be authorized to submit revised engineering plans for administrative review and approval, said revised engineering plans reflecting a parking lot stub which terminates at the lot line with the hope of future connection. Said revised engineering plans shall be subject to the approval of the Village Engineer. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, O’Rourke, Murawski, Bonuchi, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay : 0 The motion is carried 6:0 At 7:41 p.m. Commissioner Murawski made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the site plan review for Plainfield Business Park, Lot I -6 for a project referred to as Brentwood Circle, located on the east side of Illinois Route 59, n orth of W. Industrial Drive South, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 3. All exterior building materials and co lors shall match the existing building located immediately south of the subject property. 4. All exterior building lighting shall match the light fixtures used on the building located immediately south of the subject property. 5. The applicant shall contin ue to pursue a formal cross -access easement with the property owner to the north to facilitate the proposed off -site curb and pavement modifications, and if the applicant is not successful in obtaining a cross -access easement with a period of 180 days foll owing Village Board approval of this major change to a planned development, the applicant shall hereby be authorized to submit revised engineering plans for administrative review and approval, said revised engineering plans reflecting a parking lot stub wh ich terminates at the lot line with the hope of future connection. Said revised engineering plans shall be subject to the approval of the Village Engineer. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 7 of 19 Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Ay e: O’Rourke, Murawski, Bonuchi, Kachel, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 Commissioner O’Rourke stated the site plan reflects 9,285 sq. ft. and the report is 9,210 sq. ft., 55 cars versus 56. Mike Schwarz stated there was a typo graphical error. It should be 9,210 sq. ft. and the car amount is 55. A discussion ensued regarding parking requirements. CASE: 1312 -041307.PP.SU SPRING KNOLL RESUBDIVISION Request: Special Use for a Planned Development Preliminary Plat of Subdivision Location: Northeast corner of Spring Hill Lane and Eastern Avenue, Commonly known as 14829 S. Eastern Ave. (formerly 813 N. Eastern Ave.) Applicant: Edward Kelly, acting as agent for Donald and Shirley Milliron Mike Schwarz summari zed the staff report. This project is located in the R -1 Overlay District . The intention of the developer is to demolish the existing structures on the property and to resubdivide the property to create three buildable lots. The lots range from 10,192 s q. ft. to 11,006 sq. ft. The average size is 10,484 sq. ft. The average lot size in the adjoining Springhill Estates to the south and to the east of the property is 13,269 sq. ft. and the smallest lot in Springhill Estates is 12,155 sq. ft. As part of t he Planned Development, the applicant is seeking several exceptions to Village Standards. Variance to reduce minimum lot size from 12,000 sq. ft. to 10, 192 sq. ft. Variance to reduce the minimum front and corner side setbacks from 30’ to 25’ Waiver of the requirement to submit a pattern book in accordance with the Residential Design and Planning Guidelines for Planned Developments and Annexations. The Historic Preservation Commission conducted an informal non -public hearing review of the proposed building demolition on May 10, 2007 to consider if there was any merit in conducting a formal public hearing pursuant to the Village’s Preservation Ordinance. They did tour the structures and did not find that there was any need to preserve the existing building. They recommended to the Village Board that they approve the demolition permit. The developer has not provided any graphic examples, but is proposing to set the minimum architectural standards through language in the Statement of Intent and Agreement. M ike Schwarz stated as far as the findings of fact for granting a special use for a planned development, staff believes that all 3 of the findings are favorable for a planned development special use. As far as the purpose and objectives of a planned develo pment, the planned development is provided to allow flexibility in the zoning ordinance to promote innovative and creative land development that achieves the community vision outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mike stated of the 3 objectives of a planned development, staff believes one of the three objectives is met. That objective is that the developer has submitted a tree survey and tree preservation
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 8 of 19 plan that will be incorporated into the planned development. The developer has indicated that the s ales contract for each lot shall include a provision that requires compliance with the tree preservation plan. As far as the 7 findings of fact for a planned development, staff’s opinion is that 6 of the 7 findings at this point in time are unfavorable. Staff would request that all 3 lots should be key lots, which means they will receive extra attention when the house plans come through for building permit review. No building elevations have been provided. The developer is proposing to handle that w ith language in the Statement of Intent and Agreement. No materials or colors have been specified. The building height will not be an issue. The tree survey and preservation plan is an attempt to satisfy the provision for outstanding environmental desig n suggested under the planned development regulations. There are a total of 56 trees with a trunk size of 8 inches or greater on the survey. Of those trees 15 were diseased or will be removed because they are unwanted or in a driveway location. Forty -on e of the 56 trees will be preserved. Mike discussed the tree survey further. No landscape plan has been submitted at this time and the developer has proposed language in the SIA that would establish minimum planting requirements for each of the 3 lots. This is a small parcel of land and it is sometimes difficult to meet the findings on such a small parcel. Staff continues to work with the developer and believe s that with additional information, in terms of architecture or outstanding building design, staff thinks some of the findings could in fact meet a PUD. There are several items that the developer is proposing which exceed the Village requirements. They are: Vinyl and/or aluminum siding would be prohibited All cedar and cement board materials w ould be installed with a reveal of no more than 4 -1/2 inches All windows will incorporate mullions Eaves will be required on all elevations and will be a minimum of 12 inches in width Freeze board will be required on all elevations Driveways will be made o f concrete or pavers Chimneys will be constructed of brick or stone All homes to incorporate a front porch that is a minimum of 8 feet in width Chairma n Sobkoviak asked Steve Amann if there were any engineering issues. Steve Amann stated this project fal ls below the threshold requirements for storm water detention. In reviewing the preliminary set of plans, he has a couple of concerns about the intended tree preservation. There is a sanitary sewer proposed across the Springhill Lane frontage which would impact the vast majority of the trees identified on the lot line. Also, there is a rear yard drainage system as required by ordinance and that would impact some trees back in that area also. The arborists had made some recommendations as far as tree pr otection measures . I f the goal is to preserve trees, those measures should be incorporated into any construction plans a nd specifications and an alternate to the new sanitary sewer be considered. There is an existing sanitary sewer across Springhill Lane and that could be accessed. Chairman Sobkoviak stated there is no guarantee that a tree will remain. A discussion ensued about tree preservation.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 9 of 19 Commissioner O’Rourke stated the tree preservation is being presented by the petitioner as outstandi ng environmental design. Mike Schwarz stated tree preservation is included in the Zoning Ordinance and it does call for tree replacement provisions. There are some measures in place already. Staff is looking for above and beyond what the minimum zoning ordinance requirements are since the planned development is asking for several variances and architecture is one item staff feels they could receive some additional information on. Staff asked that the tree survey be completed. The issue is how to accomp lish that with such a small development without a Homeowners Association. There will be no covenants. A Statement of Intent is between the developer and the Village . O nce the developer sells the lots to the homeowners, they would be free to cut the tree s. A discussion ensued about the means by which to preserve the trees. Staff is not recommending approval at this time because of unresolved issues, but would work with the petitioner. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioners. Ed Kelly represents th e homeowners Don and Shirley Milliron. Geo ff Schrock is the developer and the builder. Ed Kelly spoke. He stated they have met several times with staff to work out some of the issues. He stated they also met with the Historic Preservation Commission and they did not find any historic significance to save the building. They will be re -using some of the stone that came from the Spangler Quarry. They plan to save as many of the trees as possible and to make the development look consistent with the exis ting property. They hosted an open house with the adjacent landowners. He stated there are some poor quality trees in poor condition , and some trees are trash trees. They have received several offers on this property and agreed to sell to the developer who agreed to put in single family homes. It is the intention of the developer to develop these properties consistent with the existing residences that come along Springhill Drive . A s the property is divided property lines to the south will be matched . Geoff Schrock gave an overview of the project. He stated they have been working on this for a number of months. The property is basically an island, an old farmhouse with development around it over the years. He viewed the property as somewhat of a tran sitional property and the most important thing would be to have a high degree of architecture, but make it fit in with the adjoining properties. He stated the difference in lot size will come in the depth of the lot. The reason for the setback request is he wants to design the homes with front porches. The minimum porch widths are 6’ to 8’. The houses will be in line, or possibly setback a bit from the present homes in Springhill. He thinks if trees are properly pruned and trimmed a poor formed tree ca n look very nice. If he used 2 lots instead of 3, the pricing for the homes would be too high. He wants to minimize the impact to the neighborhood. He wants to be able to improve the land and then market the lot s, and build a unique custom home for a bu yer. He feels a reasonable control mechanism is that staff will review each home to be built. Two curb cuts are proposed onto Springhill Lane and keep the existing curb cut on Eastern instead of three on Springhill Lane. The water lines are on the prope rty side of the street. He is trying to run sewer lines on the property so they don’t have to cut streets. He stated the present farmhouse has served its purpose , and it would be too expensive to rehab. He feels this is the best for the Village and the residents in the area. He believes single family is the best for the area. He asked for the support of the Plan Commission. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the commissioners were free to ask questions of the petitioner or staff. Commissioner Sanders asked the petitioner if he had done footprints of what could possibly be placed on the site. He asked how much of the property would be used by porches or decks in addition to the footprint of the building. Mr. Schrock stated he is not at that point. Commissi oner Sanders asked how much of the lot would be covered. Mr. Schrock stated the lot size is 10,000 sq. ft. plus. T he footprint of the house may be as much as
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 10 of 19 2,500 sq. ft. He stated if you have a 2,500 sq. ft. home on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot, including porches and garages , you still are not covering a large percentage of the property. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was an ordinance that governs maximum impervious soil. Mike Schwarz stated yes. He went on to say it is 65% for residential. Commissi oner Kachel stated he liked the petitioner’s concept with a better transition. Commissioner Bonuchi asked as far as the asbestos siding is concerned would every care be taken to safely take it down. Mr. Schrock stated they are committed in order to get t he demolition permit to take it off in accordance with all laws and regulations of the State of Illinois and Plainfield. Commissioner Murawski stated any architecture would have to come through staff. He stated it comes down to the size of the lots. H e agrees with Commissioner Kachel that it is a great concept in developing the single family homes. Commissioner O’Rourke asked staff if there was some kind of criteria for approval of the plans for the houses. Mike Schwarz state the nature of a planned development is that it is planned in advance , and staff would have advance notice of building elevation. It is difficult later on, and somewhat can be subjective later on, to review homes. The developer usually proposes a pattern book of architecture and that is required under a new PUD or a new annexation. When the house plans come in at time of permit, staff has something to go back to for review. Without a pattern book it is somewhat more difficult. It is not impossible, but it is more difficult for staff to review. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if staff was looking for that tonight so they would know what the standards are going to be. The petitioner is asking for a waiver to submit a pattern book as part of the PUD. Commissioner Renzi asked if the re were not examples of architecture in the Subdivision Pattern Book. He asked if it would not be possible for staff and the developer to look at the pattern book and establish what styles to be built. Mike Schwarz stated staff does not want to be the on es to pick the architecture. Staff w ants a visual commitment and is asking for something that is required. A discussion ensued about the Pattern Book. The petitioner was open to the suggestion of Commissioner Renzi. Mike Schwarz stated staff is not obj ecting to the SIA. There are a lot of good ideas incorporated into that document. Staff is looking for the balance of a PUD. Commissioner Murawski asked if staff had stated those options to the developer. Staff brought up these ideas in the initial mee tings. Visual examples are more of a commitment. Staff is not objecting to the written narrative. It makes it easier later when there is a pattern book. There is no guessing later. When staff reviews the plans at time of building permit, someone has a lready decided on that style of home and invested a lot of time into that design . T here cannot be a lot of questions at that time from staff to say, well we don’t think that fits the intention of the PUD. Staff is really just looking for a commitment to a style of architecture and visual examples. The pattern book is a requirement of the PUD , and the petitioner is asking that it be waived. Staff could revise their findings to be a little more favorable if they had the visual commitment to style. Commis sioner Kachel felt that staff should state there should be 3 different styles of house on these lots and leave it to the developer . Michael Schwarz stated there could be 3 different homes that are not necessarily of a historic nature. Commissioner Kachel stated the homes across the street are not historic. He stated on the corner lot he could see something of a historical nature. He felt it was too small to be a PUD.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 11 of 19 Commissioner O’Rourke felt there should be some kind of standard that staff can review when the plans come forward. He asked the petitioner why he has not agreed at this time to set those standards. Mike Schwarz stated staff is not asking for this; the Village ordinance requires it. Mr. Schrock stated he wants to improve the land , market the lots, and build custom for a unique buyer. He stated if he has a commitment for the three homes it might not work. He wants to be specific on the exterior materials and architectural detail, which he feels is greater than many of the homes con structed in the community, and then have the control of having the planning staff look at the plans before permits are issued. He stated they can come up with something that resembles a pattern book that has different styles, but amongst those styles need s to be homes like the ones already existing in Springhill. Mike Schwarz stated the pattern book is part of the SIA Agreement and the developer can select from that pattern book and state which types of styles they are going to commit to. There needs to be some sort of visual commitment. Commissioner Kachel stated in the past there were no pattern books. If 3 lots would have come up at that time, the developer would build whatever. He stated this developer has offered a lot more than what previous de velopers had offered before the pattern book. He stated he agrees with the pattern book for a PUD on a larger unit, but he did not feel it was necessary for three lots. The developer is stating the materials he will use, the fact there will be porches, a nd that there will not be duplicate elevations. Commissioner Kachel felt that should be enough. Mike Schwarz stated maybe this should not be a PUD. The issue is the PUD is requested for 3 variances – lot size, lot setback, and waiver of the pattern book . Commissioner Kachel felt a pattern book on this does not make a whole lot of sense. Mike Schwarz stated the Commission is always welcome to adopt staff’s findings or disagree and make their own findings. Commissioner O’Rourke liked the idea of the p reservation of the trees. He felt without a footprint, with driveways in place, how do you know that all of the trees will be saved. Mr. Schrock responded they know the setbacks, and they know where the trees lie. Mr. Schrock stated there would have to be groups of trees that would come down to accommodate the driveways and this is reflected in the tree summary. Commissioner Kachel asked if the Village had a tree ordinance so trees of a certain size could not be cut down. Mike Schwarz stated the only t ree preservation language incorporated in the zoning ordinance is for new developments. For people who just want to cut a tree down on their property, there is no ordinance preventing this. Under the zoning ordinance there is some language that talks ab out replacement based upon the size of the tree. If you tear down a tree that is so big, you have so many new additional trees that have to be planted. That is for a development like this. Mike Schwarz read the tree ordinance that is part of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner O’Rourke asked the d eveloper about the driveways. He stated the developer had mentioned three homes, but two driveways. Mr. Schrock stated to lessen the impact on traffic going into Springhill Lane, the one driveway located on Ea stern will be maintained. The other two lots driveways will go onto Springhill Lane. Chairman Sobkoviak opened the meeting to public comment. He swore in the following witnesses. Carolyn Piechocinski - She stated her property is in Vintage Knoll and b utts up to where the tree s that are in poor condition are located. She lives in the townhouses. She had concerns about the trees and would like to see the trees in bad condition removed. Mr. Schrock stated that if there are dead areas but the tree can b e saved; they will save it and remove the dead areas. Everything basically will be trimmed up. A copy of the tree survey was given to the witness. Mr. Schrock stated they
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 12 of 19 will work with the property owners to take care of trees. The developer and wi tness exchanged phone numbers. Mark Szafranski – His biggest concern is the variance the developer is asking for to build three homes on this piece of property. He would like to see just 2 homes. There would be little or no yards and they do not look li ke the rest of the homes in Spring Hill. He did not feel the lots, homes, etc. would fit in. There were no further comments from the public, so Chairman Sobkoviak closed the public comment portion of the case. Commissioner Bonuchi mentioned she is an ad jacent homeowner living in the Springhill Subdivision. She asked the developer if it was his initial intent to try to build custom homes to the point where instead of putting up a spec. house, he would work with finding a potential buyer first and then wo rk the plans through that way. Mr. Schrock stated h is plan is to market the lots and then build custom homes. However, he may build a spec home, but it would conform to everything being talked about tonight. Chairman Sobkoviak clarified a previous com ment about setbacks. He listed the variances being requested for this development. The first is to reduce minimum lot size from 12,000 sq. ft. to 10,192 sq. ft., which amounts to 15 or 16 across the back of the yard. The second is to reduce minimum fron t and corner side yards from 30’ to 25’. The developer is proposing a porch on the front of the house to be 6’ to 8’ in width so that would put the house proper at approximately normal setback. Thirdly, there is the wavier of the pattern book. Commiss ioner Murawski stated the depth of the yard is what is taken out of the equation. The petitioner agreed. He asked the petitioner if his homes were going to be the same cost structure as the homes across the street in Springhill. The developer stated tha t was the case or even higher in price. Commissioner Sobkoviak reminded everyone that the back yard depth is very ambiguous. He stated when you drive down the street, all of the front setbacks are the same. You do not know what is behind the house. Com missioner O’Rourke stated that the last witness was concerned the size of the lots would bother the value of his home. Commissioner Kachel stated right now the Village is building lots that are 10,000 sq. ft. to 12,000 sq. ft. His feeling is the owner is trying to make the best they can and still maintain property values for the homes across the street. Commissioner O’Rourke stated his feelings are that staff needs some kind of criteria in order to judge the permits coming through. If the trees are go ing to be held up as a big part of the benefits to having the PUD in place, he thinks that there needs to be some kind of penalty clause so that the tree s do not disappear as the lots get built. Those were his main issues. He liked the idea of three home s. Commissioner Bonuchi stated she was not against three homes and the smaller lots. She felt the quality of the home is more important. She spoke as an adjacent homeowner. Commissioner Sanders asked the developer if one of the design objectives was to create with the trees and everything else that transitional side of the street. Mr. Schrock stated when he previously talked about transitional; his intent was to have this developed parcel look very much like it belongs in Springhill.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 13 of 19 Commissioner M urawski asked the developer if he was in agreement to provide some kind of architectural style, i.e., pattern book, to staff. Mr. Schrock stated if that was what the Commission would like; he was willing to do that. Chairman Sobkoviak reiterated that sta ff has recommended that all three of these lots be key lots. He asked the petitioner if that was agreeable with him. The petitioner had no problem. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he is hearing mainly favorable comments from the commissioners, except the findi ngs of fact will need to be gone through and point out where the Commission differs with staff, or the Commission can go with staff’s recommendations to continue this so that staff can work with the developer to change staff’s recommendation to more favora ble. Commissioner Renzi felt that after all of the discussion Mr. Schrock had a pretty good idea where the Commission stands and he really didn’t want to vote on this right now because his vote would be contrary to what he is looking for. A clarifying di scussion occurred among commissioners, staff, and applicant. At 9:08 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission continue the meeting to July 3, 2007 for Case No: 1312 -041307.PP.SU, Spring Knoll Resubdivision. Commissioner O’Rourke se conded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Murawski, Bonuchi, Kachel, Renzi, O’Rourke, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 At 9:10 p.m. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a recess At 9:20 p.m. Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting back to order NEW BUSINESS: CASE: 1318 -060107.SU.SPR DAYFIELD COMMONS Request: Major change to a planned development (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review Location: Northwest corner of IL Rt. 30 and 143 rd St. (No rth of Family Video) Applicant: Ionia Real Properties, LLC Represented by: John F. Argoudelis Mike Schwarz summarized the staff report. He stated this is a third major change or third amendment to the original planned development for this site. It is located on the west side of Route 30, just north of 143 rd St. The Shops of Dayfield Development is to the south of the site and the 1 st Community Bank of Plainfield is to the north of the property. Several variances are requested in conjunction with the planned development. The first variance is to waive the required foundation plantings along the east façade and along portions of the west and
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 14 of 19 north facades of the building. The other variance is to allow some paving and parking to encroach into the required 5’ landscape setback. There are 7 criteria for determination of a major change to a planned development. The applicant is proposing a 5,960 sq. ft. restaurant building with a 1,200 sq. ft. outdoor dining area adjacent, as well as a one story 6 ,000 sq. ft. multi -tenant commercial building connecting with the shops fronting Route 30. Mike stated of the 7 findings of fact that are outlined for the Plan Commission to tender a favorable recommendation, 6 of the findings are favorable to the appl ica nt. The unfavorable finding is the requirement that there be common open space or recreational facilities that are intended. This portion of the PUD did not have any common open space set aside, so that is somewhat inapplicable or in this case we found i t unfavorable to supporting. Storm water management is accomplished offsite in the Dayfield Subdivision. There are two access points. The northernmost access point straddles the lot line to the north and that was previously approved by the Village Boa rd through the 1 st Community Bank project, but the decision to authorize that is up to IDOT. IDOT demanded a deceleration lane of the Bank along Route 30 in return for IDOT’s approval. Trash enclosures are provided. Staff is looking at the site plan being adjusted to reflect all existing and proposed easements, that it include the pressed curbs and stamped concrete or smooth decorative paver brick for the internal crosswalks. That would be consistent with the shopping center to the south. Staff is requesting that a sidewalk be provided and properly aligned along Route 30 and that the site plan be revised to show any monument signs. The building is of precast material. One inch thick or so bricks are glued on with a mastic material to the building. It is consistent with the Shops of Dayfield to the south, which was recently approved. A small amount of the man -made stucco or E.I.F.S. is located along the sign band above the retail portion of the building. There are horizontal reveals or seams in t he faux medallions in the columns and there is a cast stone veneer proposed around the base of the building. There is a cornice proposed along the roof line of the restaurant portion of the building on the back. Staff is recommending approval with 5 st ipulations. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Steve Amann if there were any concerns. Steve responded that to date they have not received an engineering submittal for this site plan. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that would need to be accomplished before going to the Village Board. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Michael Lambert from Arris Architects, who is representing the petitioner. Chairman Sobkoviak referred Michael Lambert to the staff report, Page 7 of 9 and stated staff is requesting 5 revisions to the site p lan and asked if there were any problems with the petitioner completing the revisions. He stated these were Nos. 2, 3, 4, & 5. Michael Lambert state d Item #2 was no problem at all. Item #3 everything will be matching with what was approved for the Shops of Dayfield as far as the details for the pressed curb and a crosswalk. Item #4 there will be a sidewalk provided along Route 30 if that is a requirement. Item #5 a monument sign would be in the upper right corner of the parking lot.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 15 of 19 Chairman Sobko viak asked Michael Lambert about staff’s request for colored building elevations and material samples. He asked if those can be provided. Michael Lambert stated those can be provided and they are an exact duplicate of what was supported already to staff for Shops of Dayfield. Chairman Sobkoviak referred to the next page under Site Plan Review and Landscape Plan. Staff mentioned 7 requirements and Chairman Sobkoviak asked Michael Lambert if there was any problem with any of those. Michael Lambert stat ed he had spoke to John Argoudelis during the day and on Item #1 it was his understanding that with the Shops of Dayfield project that cash was provided in lieu of trees because of impending construction along Route 30 , and it was Michael Lambert’s underst anding that John Argoudelis would like the same provision for this project. Michael Lambert went on to say Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are all acceptable. Michael Lambert questioned if Item #7 regarding the irrigation system was a Village requirement. Ch airman Sobkoviak asked Michael Lambert about the Photometric Plan. Michael Lambert stated if they need to they will put a shield on the light fixtures that will be in strict compliance. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Michael Lambert about on the last page of the staff report about more information on exterior materials and colors. Michael Lambert stated the drawings will be corrected and amended. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the last issue was parking. Commissioner Renzi asked staff if irrigation is a requi rement or if that was an additional step asked of each developer. Mike Schwarz stated it was required in the Landscape Ordinance of the Village. Chairman Sobkoviak again asked about the parking being justified. Michael Lambert stated this is a restaur ant that has been in business for 15 or 20 years at other locations. He asked for more parking to the site because he did not feel it was sufficient. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Michael Lambert if he was at liberty to say who the proposed tenant will be. M ichael Lambert stated as the architect, he did not feel comfortable doing that. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he believed it was on one of the drawings and it said Fox. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he believed there was a similar request from Red Robin for a dditional parking. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he tends to go along with the business man because they know if they have too much or too little parking. Commissioner O’Rourke asked Mike exactly where the site begins and ends. He stated if you count the nu mber of parking spots within that area, it is not 120. It is exactly 64 spaces. Mike Schwarz stated the parking that is proposed for this project falls on the subject parcel, as well as offsite. He pointed to some parking spots offsite that were not pro posed with the Shops of Dayfield parking. It was a green area. So, even though they are offsite because the lot line remains where it is, staff counted all of the newly proposed parking spaces as part of this project. So, it amounts to 160 parking space s. Commissioner Kachel asked staff what kind of green area they wanted in lieu of the parking. Mike Schwarz stated staff does not want to design the site. Staff just wants to raise the issue there is quite a bit of additional parking above and beyond the code. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he did not see that number of parking spaces. He stated even if those spaces are included , he counts 94 parking spaces on the plan he was looking at.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 16 of 19 Commissioner O’Rourke had a question about the state req uiring a deceleration lane for the proposed right -in, right -out. He asked if there is one for the existing right -in, right -out. A discussion ensued about IDOT’s request for a deceleration lane along Route 30. Michael Lambert stated it was his understand ing from talking to John Argoudelis as of 6/19 the right -in, right -out has been orally secured. It was Michael Lambert’s understanding that the deceleration lane had fallen by the wayside. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if they had come up with a number f or the parking spaces. Michael Lambert stated he counted 96 parking spaces. There was a discussion among the commissioners and Michael Lambert and it appears the number of parking spaces is around 96, and not 160. Mike Schwarz stated normally there is a parking table on the site plan and it was not provided. A discussion ensued about the number of parking spaces. Commissioner O’Rourke believed the 30 parking spaces to the south of the lot were approved previously from the lot before as open space. Mich ael Lambert clarified when they came in with the Shops of Dayfield that was originally shown as parking and they were not sure what the configuration of the Dayfield Commons would be, so the petitioner agreed with staff at that time that part would be left vacan t. Th ey would determine the parking configuration once the Dayfield Commons parcel was designed. It was never proposed as open space. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that was his recollection also. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there was a variance fo r the setbacks for the building. Mike Schwarz stated the subdivision plat for the original subdivision, which was approved in 2003 and then re -approved several months ago by the Village Board, has yet to be recorded. That needs to be recorded and then th e resubdivision, which actually creates the subject property, also needs to be recorded, and then there is a dedication along 143 rd Street that also needs to be recorded. There are 3 plats outstanding . He stated his direction was to proceed through the Plan Commission phase, but not schedule it for the Village Board until those plats are actually recorded. There are plats that need to be recorded in order to legally recreate the Dayfield Commons project. Mike Schwarz stated staff did recount the park ing spaces and counted 94 parking spaces for this project, including those off -site. He apologized for any confusion. Staff is not opposed to 94 parking spaces. Commissioner Murawski stated that the 5 th stipulation regarding parking would be a mute poin t. Mike Schwarz agreed and stated stipulation #5 could be removed from both motions. Commissioner Sanders asked about snow removal and asked if there was any snow removal and relocation plan associated with a commercial development. Mike Schwarz stated he had seen that before on site plans. Generally, the snow will be piled in the parking areas that are least used. A discussion ensued about the possibility of this being shown on site plans. Commissioner Kachel stated you could possibly consider the ou tdoor eating area for the restaurant as open space. He stated he would like to see more outdoor dining within the Village. He was making light of the idea. Mike Schwarz stated some towns require a special use for outdoor seating, but the Village does not . It is listed as a permitted use in the B -3 and the parking is not counted for the outdoor seating, but just for the building area. Outdoor seating is encouraged. A discussion ensued about additional parking that might be needed for the patrons using t he outdoor seating at the restaurant and if any other restaurants open in the site. Mike Schwarz stated that in the B -3 Zoning District there is maximum lot coverage of 80% and a 0.4 floor area ratio. Staff would ask that would be included on the next drawing. There was no public comment.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 17 of 19 At 10:10 p.m. Commissioner Murawski moved that the Plan Commission adopt staff’s findings of fact and recommend approval of the request for a Major Change to a Planned Development, subject to the following stipulat ions: 1. Subject 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, including submittal of a revised Photometric Plan that complies wi th all Village requirements, prior to the case being forwarded to the Village Board for consideration. 4. That a PD Statement of Intent and Concept for the subject property be submitted prior to the case being forwarded for Village Board consideration. Co mmissioner Kachel seconded the motion Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Renzi, O’Rourke, Murawski, Bonuchi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 At 10:11 p.m. Commissioner Murawski moved that the Plan Commis sion recommend approval of the request for Site Plan Review, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Subject to the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Subject to the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 3. Subject to staff’s tec hnical review and approval, including submittal of a revised Photometric Plan that complies with all Village requirements, prior to the case being forwarded to the Village Board for consideration. 4. That a PD Statement of Intent and Concept for the subjec t property be submitted prior to the case being forwarded for Village Board consideration. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, O’Rourke, Murawski, Bonuchi, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Na y: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 CASE: 1323 -052907.TA TEXT AMENDMENT Request: Amending Article II – Zoning Ordinance (Public Hearing) To allow auction houses as a special use in B -5 Zoning District Location: Village -wide Applicant: V illage of Plainfield
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 18 of 19 Sara Leach summarized the staff report. She stated this was a public hearing. The revised Zoning O rdinance has not addressed auction houses as a special use. Staff is bringing forth a restructured version of Article II, General P rovision. It is staff’s intention to expand on the limitations of Article II and the special use restrictions to allow auction houses as a special use in the B -3 Zoning District. Each case needs to be considered as to the impact on adjacent properties. Case by case review needs to be conducted. The Village Board responded to an applicant’s request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance at their 3/19/07 meeting to permit an auction house as a special use in the B -3 Highway Business District. The Vil lage Board agreed to amend the Zoning Ordinance subject to the staff initiating a proposal. Chairman Sobkoviak called for discussion. Commissioner Renzi asked why an auction house could not also be in an industrial area. Sara stated this proposal ca me pursuant to the direction by the Village Board after a concerned auctioneer brought up the fact that our previous ordinance had allowed auction houses in the B -3 District and it had been overlooked and not written into this ordinance. Chairman Sobkov iak stated an auction house is occupying a vacant commercial building at this time. He stated the Village has very little industrial property. Commissioner Renzi questioned if this was the only area staff wanted an auction house to be located with a spec ial use permit, or was it just because someone had come forward with this request in the B -3. Mike Schwarz stated that primarily this does accommodate one particular user, but also the B -3 is also going to be parked at a retail rate, which would accommoda te the auction house. Most of the industrial areas were probably built at a lower parking rate. He also stated the Plan Commission at any time can compose a text amendment. Commissioner Sanders asked if there was a formal definition of an auction ho use of what they can auction . He asked if anything can be auction ed in B -3. Sara Leach stated that is the reason why each case would need to be addressed separately because cases could arise in the future with outdoor storage, noise, or lighting on the l ot. Commissioner Sanders asked if an auction house excluded automobiles, livestock, etc.; those types of things. Mike Schwarz stated there is an annual review of the Zoning Ordinance and these types of text cleanups are completed. If there is a need to add another definition, staff can do that. Mike Schwarz stated probably anything that you could not sell in the B -3 District would be precluded. Chairman Sobkoviak did not feel there would be a rush of people to open auction house s . He felt that gener ally this type of business takes place in a vacant building and at the price of real estate in Plainfield; there are not too many buildings that you would want to use only one day a week. Mike Schwarz stated this would need to be conducted within a buildi ng; you could not just use a yard. You could not perform this in the back of a building, etc. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if it was all special use. Sara Leach stressed again that being a special use, each case would have to come through Plan Commission for a public hearing and address all of these issues. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was any public comment. There was no response.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes June 19, 2007 Page 19 of 19 At 10:24 p.m. Commissioner O’Rourke made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the proposed text amendment Case No. 1323 -052907.TA. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: O’Rourke, Murawski, Bonuchi, Kachel, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0 DISCUSSION: Commi ssioner Kachel mentioned he had traveled to Oswego on Rt. 34. He mentioned that at a crossing they had placed a sign stating, “State of Illinois requires all motor vehicles to stop for pedestrians.” There are no lights, no stop signs, or anything else. He asked if something like that could be put in our downtown area to make crossing the street a lot easier. He stated he had asked for it before, but was told it could not be done because of a State Law, but they do have it in Oswego on Rt. 34. Mike Schw arz stated he would follow -up with Eric Gallt on that issue. Mike Schwarz commented that there is a special meeting of the Plan Commission scheduled for June 26 th at 7:00 p.m. Being there was no further business ; Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 10:26 p.m. _________________________________________ R espectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary – Village of Plainfield