HomeMy Public PortalAbout2007-07-03 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RECORD OF MINUTES DATE : July 3, 2007 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the m eeting of the Plan Commission to order at 7 :06 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners McKay, Renzi, Bo nuchi and Chairman Sobk oviak, Ex Officio Commissioner Cox. Commissioner Kachel arrived later after roll call. Absent: Commissioner O’Rourke, Murawski, and ex -officio Commissioner Sanders, Park District, School District, Fire District, Library District an d Police Department Also Present: Michael Garrigan – Village Planner Village of Plainfield , Jonathan Proulx – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Mike Schwarz – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Sara Leach – Planner I Village of Plainfield, Sara Javoronok – Planner I Village of Plainfield, Carol Millan – Secretar y Village of Plainfield , and Steve Amann – Baxter and Woodman MINUTES: The minutes from the Special Plan Commission meeting of June 26, 2007 were accepted as presented. The minutes from the June 19, 2007 meeting were amended. Commissioner Renzi made an addition to Page 13, Paragraph 3. He added the sentence, “A clarifying discussion occurred among commissioners, staff, and applicant.” DEVELOPMENT REPORT Michael Garrigan gave the development report . The following items were brought before the Village Board at their 7/2/07 meeting: o The Shops at the Polo Club – Annexation, Special Use for Planned Development, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat were approved. The Village attorney was directed to go ahead and draft the various ordinances. This should come back to the Village Board approval at their next meeting. o Grande Park Neighborhood 10 – Special Use and Preliminary Plat were approved. o Text Amendment – Auction Houses were added as a special use in the B -3 Zoning District. Michael Garrigan introduced Sara Javoronok as new Planner I. She will be the staff liason with the Historic Preservation Commission.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 2 of 21 OLD BUSINESS: CASE: 1312 -041307.PP.SU. SPRING KNOLL RESUBDIVISION Request: Special Use for a Planned Development (Public Hearing) Preliminary Plat of Subdivision Location: Northeast corner of Spring Hill Lane and Eastern Ave. Commonly known as 14829 S. Eastern Ave. (formerly 813 N. Eastern Avenue) Applicant: Edward Kelly, acting as ag ent for Donald and Shirley Milliron TIME: 7:10 p.m. Mike Schwarz stated this was a continuance and the public hearing has remained open. Applicant is requesting a 3 lot subdivision. The developer is requesting a planned development with two variances b eing requested (1. to reduce the minimum lot size from 12,000 to 10,192 sq. ft ,. and 2. to reduce the minimum front and corner side setbacks from 30 feet to 25 feet.) A pattern book has now been received from the developer. He is proposing approximately 10 different types of architectural styles. Because it is a Planned Unit Development, it should be creative and innovative. S taff is focusing on architecture. There has been a verbal commitment from the developer to amend the PUD agreement for the corne r lot to reflect a more traditional building form. Staff is comfortable with the language being provided for tree preservation. This will be incorporated into the PUD Agreement and the developer has also verbally committed to written covenants that will govern these three lots. Staff recommends approval of the special use request for a Planned Development with 3 stipulations and recommends approval of a preliminary plat of subdivision subject to three standard stipulations. Chairman Sobkoviak took issue with one of the findings of fact. He referred to Page 8 and read, “……to reduce the required front and corner side yard setbacks from 30 feet to 25 feet due to allow covered porches to encroach into the required yards and due to the dept h of the proposed lots.” He referred to the adjacent existing townhouses and stated he believed a variance had been requested and approved for two of the townhouses to allow the porches to encroach into the side yard setbacks. He went onto to say that since the porches fo r this project encroach into the required yard setback they become compatible to existing conditions in the surrounding property. He argued that 5 of 7 findings of fact are favorable, rather than the 4. Mike Schwarz stated town homes generally have diffe rent setbacks; staff was comparing the proposed single family lots with the existing single family lots. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the petitioner to come forward. The petitioner had been sworn in at a previous meeting so he did not need to be sworn in a gain. Geoff Schrock stated after the last Plan Commission meeting he sat down with staff and they arrived at a compromise. He didn’t have any further comments. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who cared to ask a question or m ake a comment. There was no response from the audience. C ommissioner Renzi stated before it was his understanding from the previous Plan Commission meeting that all three lots were to be key lots and now there is to be only one key lot. Mike Schwarz sta ted initially staff did identify that they would like the plat designed as all three lots being key lots. It is required that key lots be designated on the plat and then at building permit time, staff gives a key lot a higher level of scrutiny to make sur e there are additional brick elements on the back of the building, such as a wainscot, shutters on the windows, window grids or muttons. Mike Schwarz stated that works well for these more contemporary
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 3 of 21 interpretations of historic styles, but in terms of true historic building form, which didn’t necessarily have brick, staff did not want to tie the hands of the developer to be so strict on those two internal lots and wanted to focus more on the corner lot to really try and get both the traditional form and materials and then transition to the more contemporary interpretation of traditional architecture. There was a discussion about key lots . At 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion to adopt staff’s findings of fact and recommend approval of a Speci al Use for a Planned Development for Spring Knoll Resubdivision, located at the northeast corner of Spring Hill Lane and Eastern Avenue, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Subject to the requirements of the Village Engineer, 2. Subject to the requir ements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District, 3. Subject to staff’s review and approval of the Statement of Intent and Agreement. Commissioner McKay seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : Renzi, McKay, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 Abstain: Bonuchi The motion is carried. At 7:31 p.m. Commissioner McKay recommended approval of a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision for Spring Knoll Resubdivision, located at the northeast corner of Spring Hill Lane and Eastern Avenue, s ubject 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 technical review and approval prior to Village Board consideratio n. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Aye: McKay, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 Abstain: Bonuchi The motion is carried . NEW BUSINESS: Chairman Sobkoviak stated there are two cases on the agenda that involve the same parcel. Th e first case is the concept plan review and the second is a major change to a PUD. He stated because the outcome of the major change to a PUD could affect the concept plan review, he would call the major change to the PUD first.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 4 of 21 CASE: 1322052907.SU HERON POINT OF PLAINFIELD Request: PUD Amendment (Public Hearing) Location: SE Corner of Rt. 30 and Renwick Rd. Applicant: Paul Hemmer Companies John F. Argoudelis, - Representative TIME: 7:35 p.m. Jonathan Proulx stated this is a public hearing and th e appropriate notices have been posted and published in accordance with State Statute and local ordinance. Applicant received approval from the Village Board for a Plat of Consolidation to consolidate the parcels and also received approval of a Planned Un it Development. The applicant was then before the Plan Commission for a Plat of Subdivision to subdivide the consolidated parcel into multiple parcels and for consideration of a Site Plan Review for a multi -tenant building. The Plan Commission did make a favorable recommendation on the multi -tenant building, which is now attemp t ing approval from the Village Board. The original PUD agreement did prohibit a gas station use directly on the corner of Rt. 30 and Renwick. In addition, there were specific limi tations on what fuel dispensing use could entail for the interior lots or on the balance of the property. The fuel dispensing use was limited to not more than 2 acres and was also limited to not more than 8 pump islands. These were put into the PUD agree ment to ensure the hard corner would be developed with a use and building that incorporates architectural significance that the Village Board feels is appropriate for this prominent gateway location. The Lake Renwick Nature Preserve is to the north, wh ich is co -owned by the Will County Forest Preserve District and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. There are miscellaneous commercial businesses to the south. Staff has identified this as a major change and the zoning code sets forth a handful of criteria that would trigger a major change review. Staff strongly opposes the requested major change based on four fundamental objections: 1. Staff feels the gas station would be incompatible with what the Village Board has identified and what the C omprehensive Plan has identified as a desired goal for this gateway location. 2. Staff believes there is a potential for environmental impacts close to Lake Renwick. 3. Staff believes there are not adequate benefits or concessions to maintain the PUD agree ment as a balanced and equitable agreement. 4. Staff feels there are deficiencies with respect to the concept plan for Gas City. Commissioner Kachel arrived while Jonathan summarized his staff report. Staff recommends denial of the request for a major ch ange to the Heron Pt. of Plainfield PUD Agreement. Jonathan stated there were two letters of objection – one from William J. Krump, owner of Plainfield Express Car Wash; and one from William Avery. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in John Argoudelis and Matt Gau ntt. John Argoudelis spoke first. He is the attorney for the applicant for the major change. He gave a history of the site. He stated he believes the change is consistent with the SIA. He stated the existing PUD Agreement allows for two fast food rest aurants, a gas station, and other such retail uses. They are asking that the gas station be located on the hard corner, where it is currently prohibited under the SIA. He stated Paul Hemmer Companies have been
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 5 of 21 trying to market this site for about 2 ye ars and it is very difficult to get certain retailers to locate on the site because of the existing area around it. He stated Gas City going in at that corner might alter the original idea, but it still might be where we want to go. He stated it would be the most significant development in this corridor in some time . It will lead to the retail strip center that Paul Hemmer has already brought before the Commission. Matt Gauntt spoke second. He is a representative from Paul Hemmer Companies. He stated t hey have partnered with Gas City. He feels Gas City would be a great addition. He wanted to talk about the objections of staff. He wanted to talk about the environmental issues, the traffic and right of way, the PUD Agreement and the architectural issu es and the setting of the project. John Argoudelis passed out a letter from the Will County Forest Preserve. There has been a lot of discussion back and forth between Paul Hemmer Companies and the Forest Preserve. At least at one of those meetings rep resentatives were present from Gas City. One of the issues brought up was water quality. The main issue the Forest Preserve was worried about in terms of water quality really had to do with the out fall from the pipe that goes underneath Renwick Road tha t spills out onto the property. The problem the Forest Preserve has right now is that the pipe is kind of cantilevered out over the top of the ground, the water spills onto the ground and it has been eroding that area right underneath the pipe. They had discussed the possibility of helping them fix that out fall. Throughout the discussion, the main thrust of the engineer’s analy sis from the Forest Preserve had to do with how much water is coming out from the site to the Forest Preserve. Matt Gaunt went on to say t he same amount of water will be coming from the site no matter what is located on the site. He stated they will be doing several Best Management Practices that will improve the water quality. First off, the detention pond on the site will be planted at the bottom with wetland plants. Wetland plants have the tendency to clean up water as they remove nutrients from the water flow and that will help clean up the water that is going over to the Forest Preserve. He stated there was an item bro ught up by staff and the Village’s engineer, to provide infiltration from the storm sewer system as it goes through the site so that it will recharge the ground water and so that there will be less runoff to Lake Renwick because some of the storm water is percolating down into the ground. Immediately below their site there is a layer of sand and gravel that will facilitate that infiltration and reduce the amount of water that will be running off to the Forest Preserve site. He stated that on Gas City’s site since it is a petroleum facility, they will have oil water separators on their site that will collect that spillage or any contaminants that come from the site. He also stated a gas station is permitted per the PUD on the site. So, whether the gas s tation is on the hard corner or whether it is 300 feet away to the south, that impact is not going to change. It will still be the same issue. He further stated that it was mentioned in the staff report about lighting and this was something they had spec ifically discussed with the Forest Preserve. The Forest Preserve had issues about the impact of headlights and lighting on the nesting area for the birds. From the northern part of their site to the southern tip of the nesting area, it is over 2,000 feet away. The Forest Preserve’s general comment was that they really were not concerned about the lighting as it relates to the nesting area because of the dense vegetation that is between the site and the nesting area. They had asked the Forest Preserve wh at lighting they should use and the Forest Preserve supplied them with a light pole specification and that has been incorporated into their design. Leaking underground storage tanks are not a problem today as they were many years ago.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 6 of 21 Paul Hemmer Compan ies will own a good portion of the rest of the facility, and they would have the same concerns about ground water and any contaminants that a petroleum facility might pose to their property. He talked about traffic and the right -of -way. The issue of righ t -of -way had been discussed at a previous Plan Commission meeting to some length. The discussion was that whatever IDOT said that they wanted that would be what they would be required to live with. Since that meeting, new documents have been submitted to IDOT and correspondence has been received back from IDOT. He read a statement from an IDOT letter, “The plans show a proposed right -of -way line of 50 feet from the centerline of U.S. 30, which should incorporate our future widening project.” He showed some slides showing pictures of businesses in the area. He stated their development will be an improvement and he is excited to have Gas City as a mini -anchor to their development . He stated they have tried for 2 -1/2 years to attract retailers to the sit e. He talked about the differences in location between their location and the N. I. Hiffman project location. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in th e audience that cared to ask a question or make a comment. William Avery of 954 E. Renwick Ro ad was sworn in by Chairman Sobkoviak. Mr. Avery felt this was a waste of good property. There was no further public comment. Chairman Sobkoviak closed the public hearing. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Steve Amann if there are any engineering issues. Ste ve replied with a PUD plan change there is not much engineering involved. He stated as far as the right -of -way dedication on Route 30, the applicant has indicated that IDOT has agreed more or less on the 50 feet right -of -way. He has not seen the Route 30 study for some time, but the last time he saw the study it essentially ignored Route 30 north of Renwick Road and went with a simple resurfacing. He stated staff doesn’t expect ultimately that to be what is going to happen on that section of Route 30, so staff would anticipate that there would be additional lanes on the south leg of Route 30, south of Renwick that would entail additional pavement widening and additional right -of -way beyond of what IDOT is contemplating right now in their studies. Chairma n Sobkoviak asked Steve if ultimately more than 50 feet would be required. Steve answered yes. Commissioner Renzi mentioned that in the exhibit that was given by the applicant, they cited Paragraph 2, but if you turn the page and get to #5, it states, “P rovide an additional 10 feet of proposed ROW on the corner to incorporate future traffic signal modifications for the ultimate improvement project.” He then asked Steve Amann if that was what he was talking about. Steve replied that was probably a small corner clip type dedication for a signal, equipment box, maybe a signal post, not much right -of -way. The improvement that he was referring to would be an actual full two lanes, with two or three lanes going all the way across that intersection. John Argo udelis responded that the existing SIA states that the applicant will dedicate 60 feet. The purpose of the dedication was to make sure IDOT had an appropriate right -of -way. At this time, it appears to his client that they only need 50 feet and they will continue to work with IDOT. Commissioner Renzi asked if the development would not be pushed east or west depending on the additional 10 feet. Jonathan Proulx stated that in terms of the PUD Agreement, dedication was required by village staff as part of t he original
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 7 of 21 PUD. Our Village Engineer and Traffic Engineer believe that 60 feet is required so staff would counter that the intent of the PUD Agreement was to meet IDOT’s needs. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if that was in the SIA. Jonathan Proulx stated the SIA is quite clear on the matter and, in fact, this was a rather detailed discussion at the Village Board. There is an exhibit that graphically shows a representation of the right -of -way to be dedicated. Furthermore, there was not a request to amend that portion as part of this Special Use amendment. Commissioner Kachel stated the Village believes this is a prime location. There was a restaurant that operated for 30 years. He stated buildings are being improved along Route 30, it might be a little bit slower; but the petitioner bought that property knowing that at that time. When the property was bought the Conservation Area was a concern of the Planning Commission and the Village Board. He felt it would be a good location for a restaurant with t he Rookery next to it. He feels things could be done more creatively. He stated it was brought up to the petitioner 3 years ago that this is supposed to be creative. He did not see too much creativity. He did not feel this was fitting in at all with th e Village’s plans. Matt Gauntt stated they are very cognizant of the Rookery and are trying to be a good neighbor in terms of some of the Best Management Practices that were mentioned earlier. In regards to what could be on that corner, they have had two individual retail brokers work for 2 years on that site. John Argoudelis talked about what is feasible for the corner. After 2 -1/2 years Paul Hemmer Companies has bumped up to the economic reality that despite their best efforts, despite two realty fi rms, and despite their efforts in LaVegas and all the retailer shows, right now this seems to be the most viable option. It does not match the vision, but it may be the catalyst to get to our vision originally stated in the SIA. Commissioner Kachel state d the retail center that was previously approved could be a catalyst for the corner. He stated there has not been anything developed on that corner for 2 -1/2 years. Matt Gauntt stated to that regard if you look at the infrastructure costs they have to put in with all the requirements that IDOT has put on them in terms of the improvements to the right -of -way, to a much lesser degree, putting in the requirements for the detention pond, the storm sewer system, there is a tremendous infrastructure cost and it will probably be fin anci ally infeasible for them to just build that strip center without having Gas City there. Commissioner Kachel stated when the applicant had come before the Commission with the strip center; the applicant did not know what would be developed at that corner at that time. Matt Gauntt stated it was definitely in the staff report that Gas City was coming forward. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the point of the matter is that the applicant entered into this agreement with the full knowled ge of economic conditions. The applicant entered into this agreement and signed it. The Village signed in good faith. The Village is a stakeholder in this. The Village has offered the applicant incentives to help clear the corner. The applicant attemp ted to market this property for 2 -1/2 years and were unsuccessful. This happens all the time in the real estate market. There are times when the amount of money you need to recover from the project cannot be had immediately and you need to wait for the m arket to come up. I suggest this is a case where somebody needs to wait for the market to come up. If you are not successfully able to develop this property, then perhaps you should find someone to sell it to for further development at a later time. He stated he sees no reason to change the SIA that was signed in good faith.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 8 of 21 This was worked on for many months to come up with an agreement that everyone could live with. He sympathized with the applicant’s dilemma that they cannot find a tenant at thi s time, but he feels that is the risk that real estate developers take. Commissioner Renzi stated it is clear there is a contract and people are contractually bound. He went on to say a gas station had been approved for the site , but not at the corner . T he Gas City proposal basically is a 50% increase over the approved site. Also, while it is only 300 feet closer to the nesting area , 300 feet represents about 15% of the distance . He went on to say there are 8 lights that are going to be fluorescent lig hts that will be on 24 h ours per day facing due north. These 8 lights have not yet been addressed. He stated from information the Commission had received regarding the proposed Bus Barn regarding diesel fuel, underground fuel tanks, truck fumes, and nois e , putting anything next to a fragile environment, such as the Rookery, requires far more than what was submitted. When the agreement was negotiated, an “out clause” could have been put in the agreement, but was not. His thought was that a motion be made and the Commission deny it and let it go to the Village Board for their consideration. John Argoudelis stated as suggested the developer could take a “wait and see” approach, but there also is the potential that it will never be feasible. Commissioner McKay asked for the car count on the hard corner. Matt Gauntt stated they completed a traffic study. He did not recall the specific figures, but was looking on IDOT’s website and he guessed it at 21,000 vehicles a day going both ways south of Renwick, a nd 26,000 vehicles a day going north of Renwick. Commissioner McKay asked what the change in car count would be moving these 300 feet to one side or the other to abide by the PUD. She asked if Gas City would be willing to move it from the hard corner. M att Gauntt stated he would let Gas City articulate their vision for the corner. Gas City’s business is primarily drive -buy. The corner would give them the opportunity to attract business from both Renwick and Route 30. He stated they had entered into an agreement and there were certain assumptions made on both sides. There were certain assumptions made in terms of what the roadway expenses would be. He stated he believed at that time the roadway costs were estimated to be around $250,000. Now those ro adway costs are around $750,000 or $800,000 and if IDOT gets their way with the letter they just wrote, they will add another $200,000 to $250,000 to that cost. He believes that having Gas City on the corner is best for this development and for the Villag e. Commissioner Bonuchi stated what makes Plainfield unique is the way citizens speak up and protect certain things and one of them is the Heron Preserve. She stated she had ecological concerns. She referred to the letter the applicant had handed out fr om the Forest Preserve and stated it cites several issues. She stated there also was a letter in their packet from the Forest Preserve District stating they do not have enough information to really identify all of the potential impacts , and go es on to con tinually cite their concerns. It sounds like there are still unresolved concerns. Her biggest concern is the location for Gas City. She stated the corner ha s such a potential for elegance and does not feel Gas City is a good fit for the corner. Commiss ioner Cox stated the petitioner has spent 2 -1/2 years marketing this corner and have had an uphill battle with regard to finding a suitable candidate for that corner. He stated the petitioner had mentioned a lot of negatives with the surrounding parcels a nd the area itself, and asked what it is that attracts Gas City
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 9 of 21 to that particular parcel, with exception of obviously the traffic flow. He stated it will not just be a gas station, but a family pantry and a car wash. Matt Gauntt stated it is probabl y those types of uses. He stated each retailer will look at a different set of demographics. He stated it is probably the volume of traffic that attracts Gas City. At 9:06 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend denial o f the request for a major change to the Heron Point of Plainfield Planned Unit Development to allow a gas station as a permitted use on the basis that not all of the required findings have been met and the proposal is not consistent with aspects of the Vil lage of Plainfield Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. He reminded the commissioners that a vote of “yes” would be a vote for denial. Aye: Kachel, McKay, Renzi, Bonuchi, Chairm an Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion for denial is carried. Chairman Sobkoviak suggested to the next petitioner, Gas City that they continue the case since the major change to the PUD to allow Gas City at the corner was denied. Chairman Sobkov iak talked to David Webster, the representative for Gas City’s concept plan. Chairman Sobkoviak again recommended to continue the case to see what happens at the Village Board level with the major change to the PUD. If the Village Board does not recommen d the Commission’s recommendation, then it could go forward just like nothing had happened. He stated another scenario would be the Village Board makes some kind of accommodation in a different portion of the site in which case you would be able to go fro m there. He stated if the Commission goes forward with this it is about a mute question. Chris Kalischefski, representing Gas City, stated it was in their best interest to continue tonight. There were a number of questions asked, that he felt he could s hed some light on; and in terms of the contractual timeframe with the developer, they need to stay on this track. He wanted to proceed. Chairman Sobkoviak called a ten minute break at 9:10 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:20 p.m. CASE: 1321 -050707.CP HERON POINT GAS CITY Request: Concept Plan Review Location: SE Corner of Rt. 30 and Renwick Rd. Applicant: Corporate Design and Development David Webster – Representative TIME: 9:20 P.M.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 10 of 21 Commissioner Renzi stated since they already had heard ab out 1 hour discussion about Heron Point and the Commissioners have read the staff report, he wondered if t he staff report could be waived and let the applicant do their testimony and then staff could state some points they want to emphasize. Jonathan Prou lx requested the ability to highlight a few key parts of the report. Staff is opposed to the gas station use. Staff has identified some deficiencies, but even if these recommendations we re incorporated staff would not change their position on the use. I n the event there is support for the gas station, it is staff’s hope that some of these recommendations would be incorporated. Jonathan stated there are some site plan issues. There is a 10 foot right of way dedication that was discussed previously. In addition, the Village’s Traffic Committee met and reviewed the access points and there is a “right -in right -out” access point proposed from Rt. 30, as well as from Renwick Road. The chop islands, the dividers, for those limited access points are proposed with mountable curbs. That would allow the truck traffic to turn in. The Traffic Committee has identified a strong recommendation for that to be barrier curb to prevent an illegal turn movement. By converting those “right -in right -out” access points to barrier would really require the site plan to be reconfigured to allow this circulation and staff believes would require some potential significant changes to the site plan. Jonathan talked about the elevations. He showed some slides from the Visual Pref erence Survey. Staff certainly shares the Commission’s respect for Gas City and that certainly there are locations within the Village where that use would be appropriate. It is because of the prominence of this corner that staff is identifying some archi tectural concerns. Staff feels that with a PUD, they would strive to have an above average architectural standard for all development within a PUD. He showed a slide that depicted the type of architecture staff would strive for. The type of architecture that is being proposed did not score well on the Visual Preference Survey. He then talked about the PUD. He stated Gas City is proposing 12 pumps islands, 10 for regular cars and 2 for trucks. The PUD limits that to 8 pump islands. There is the requi rement for 30 feet green space around the perimeter of the project to be in compliance with the PUD design guidelines, which are attached to the PUD agreement. This is not reflected in the conceptual site plan. The building setbacks for the supporting co lumns for the canopy would need to meet the setback requirements. This was not on the concept plan. Jonathan stated the proposed lighting under the canopy is of an extremely high intensity. It is approximately 75 foot candles. The Site Plan Review Ordi nance limits light spill at the property line to .5 foot candles. The photometric plan demonstrates the light will dissipate at the property lines, but staff notes that 75 foot candle is a significant intensity. Much of the lighting discussion so far has referred to the birds and the adjacent environmental impacts. Staff believes the lighting as requested would not be in keeping with the character of the area. Staff remains opposed to the gas station use and would be seeking an unfavorable recommendatio n with respect to the concept plan. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Steve Amann if there were any engineering issues. He stated he really did not have anything to add to Jonathan’s report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Mr. Webster to come to the podium and swore in both the petitioners. David Webster was the first to speak and he turned it over to Chris Kalischefski.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 11 of 21 Chris Kalischefski stated Gas City is a family owned business and located in Frankfort, IL. He stated there are 3 elements, the strip center beh ind them, the car wash, and the family pantry. He wanted to point out the high quality of materials, in terms of the masonry and cornice details. It is a design creating the whole development and not just Gas City’s parcel. He stated they had a meetin g with the Forest Preserve and there was a presentation made about the detention water, as well as run off water. There is a double filtering system. The Forest Preserve’s concerns were addressed at that time. He stated they are an acute angled site. It has different properties than a 90 degree site. They have a 5 gasoline island auto dispensing facility in the front; the family pantry, a 4,700 sq. ft. building; the single island truck canopy with two lanes; and then the two bay rollover style car wa sh. He stated you have to offer the accessory uses to make a petroleum facility work. He stated when a customer is under the canopy, they consider the customer is in the store. The canopy is closely integrated with the building. He stated from a safe ty perspective it is important that the facility be at the corner, 1) on site circulation standpoint, and 2) an offsite visual standpoint. He stated there are trench drains on either side that capture any spills. There is shutoff equipment. He stated al l of the water that falls on the pavement goes into a cyclone style oil water separator. The rest of the water goes into a catch basin, which is filtered. He stated any water on their site is actually being filtered twice through the manholes and then go ing into the detention pond, which is filtered once more. The water reclaim on the car wash is 70 to 80% water, depending on the type of wash . So, basically 30 to 20% of fresh water is used each day. There is less water used than when you wash your own car in your driveway. They will meet the ordinance in terms of signage. He stated Gas City’s are known for their landscaping. They have a two -sided landscape design, internal and external. He stated the light bulb is up into the canopy. Their yard l ights also match what the developer is showing and that is all IESNA (Illuminated Engineering Society Of North America) rated for 100% cutoff. The average foot candle recommended by IESNA for a canopy is 50 foot candles. That is for safety and so people can read the instructions on the pumps. He stated they can reduce the foot candles a little bit. He stated Gas City has a history of placing sites at intersections which later draw very good tenants. The Chicago Area is the most restrictive in terms o f monitoring the tanks. He stated a petroleum based use is the highest tax generating use per square foot for development. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who cared to ask a question or make a comment. Chairman Sobkoviak s wore in the following: Angela Wehman – she would like to see Gas City at this location. Jeff Valenti – asked about the car wash spillover. Chris Kalischefski stated there is a 4,000 gallon reclaim system. It is distributed by a trench drain along the whole length of the car wash with a 500 gallon catch basin at the end of the car wash. This flows into a 2,000 gallon tank. It gets filtered and then goes into the last tank and is filtered and then the majority of water is pumped back and reused. This is pumped out every quarter to pump out the remaining material.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 12 of 21 Bob Wehman – asked if there are any other locations in Plainfield and if this was identified as the best location for Gas City or whether there are other future locations that could be deve lop ed . He felt they would be a great addition. Jonathan Proulx mentioned there were two letters of objection. Chairman Sobkoviak read the names of the people writing the letters of objection, William Avery, and William J. Krump. Since there was no furt her comment, Chairman Sobkoviak closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commissioner Kachel felt it would be a great addition to have Gas City in Plainfield, but not at this particular corner. He had concerns with the amount of lighting. Chair man Sobkoviak mentioned since the Commission had recommended to the Village Board that the PUD agreement not be changed to allow a gas station at the corner this cannot go forward. David Webster stated they would like some feedback on the conceptual site plan review. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he would poll the commissioners: Commissioner Bonuchi stated she thinks the building is nice, but it is not in the right place. She can never support that. Commissioner Renzi stated he thinks there are too many pump islands. He agrees with staff’s concerns about water going out into the street from the car washes. He thinks the site configuration has issues. Commissioner Kachel stated the original intent was not to have a gas station at this corner. Commi ssioner McKay stated the benefit of the PUD is having a conclusive plan. She feels there is a need for a gas station on the corner and it does fit into the neighborhood. However, she stated when the PUD was brought forward, it was noted that the corner l ocation was suppose to be something that would fit as a gateway to the community, something unique and with character. She said she would love to see Gas City in Plainfield, but not at that hard corner. She stated that when the strip center was brought i n there was a lot of time devoted to headlights, etc. David Webster stated they have been working with Paul Hemmer and the Forest Preserve. They are trying to do their due diligence as well as meeting all of their requirements. He stated one of the re asons the canopy is set up this way is so when the cars are parked at the islands, they are not facing the Rookery. Chairman Sobkoviak stated should this go forward with the site plan review, the lighting could be looked at more closely. Commissioner Cox asked if this was going to be a proposed 24 hour facility. David Webster answered yes. Commissioner Cox concurred with staff, as well as the rest of the commissioners he loves the station and the look of it. He had higher hopes for this corner though. Chairman Sobkoviak stated staff issues would need to be addressed before he approved. He stated based on the previous case, he didn’t see how the Commission could do anything, but deny this petition.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 13 of 21 At 10:10 p.m. Commissioner Renzi moved that the Plan Commission recommend denial of the proposed concept plan for Gas City on Lot 1 of the proposed Heron Point of Plainfield subdivision on the basis that the concept plan is inconsistent with certain aspects of the Heron Point PUD, Village ordinances, and Vil lage policy. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call and reminded the Commissioners that a “yes” vote is a vote for denial. Aye: McKay, Renzi, Bonuchi, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion for denial is carried . CASE: 1329 -060607.SU VILLAS AT FOX RUN Request: PUD Amendment (Public Hearing) Location: East of IL Rt. 59, south of Cahills Way Applicant: Wilcox Development Group John F. Argoudelis, representative TIME: 10:10 p.m. Jonathan Proulx stated this case requires a public hearing and the appropriate notice has been posted and published in accordance with State Statue and local ordinance . In pursuing the final plat of subdivision, staff and the petitioner both recogni zed a few specific areas of the original PUD agreement that would benefit from some clarification and some further refinement. The petitioner has also made a request for some marketing signage due to the fact that the residential portion of this pro ject i s located on the interior. T here is actually 7 acres of commercially owned property that is under separate ownership on Route 59, so the residential portion has no frontage to Route 59 with limited access and visibility. The 3 aspects of the PUD amendment are to provide a commitment for the Village to assist the Wilcox Development Group in obtaining the necessary permits through IDOT for their construction access from Route 59, as well as the permanent access at Dayfield Drive that will include certain pro visions on the final plat for future right -of -way dedication along Route 59. There have been discussions with the commercial property owner and pursuant to this PUD amendment those discussions would allow IDOT to take that right -of -way in a negotiated tra nsaction separate from this final platting process. The second point clarifies the responsibility and timing for improvements to Dayfield Drive or Dayfield Court. This roadway currently stops short of the property line and Wilcox Development Group is p roposing to agree via this PUD amendment to complete some off -site road improvements. The third aspect is to allow the Wilcox Development Group rights for some o ffsite marketing signage and on -site signage which will , for the most part , be consistent wi th a proposed text amendment that is coming through the process.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 14 of 21 Jonathan also stated there are two property owners in this case, Wilcox Development Group owns the residential portion, and the previous landowner retains the ownersh ip of the commercial p roperties. S taff understands there has been some coordination with the mapping and final plat that Wilcox is presenting and that coordination has taken place. Staff asks for a formal acknowledgement from the commercial property owner that the final plat is acceptable. Staff is proposing a 4 th stipulation, submittal of concurrence from the commercial property owner to the proposed PUD Amendment. Staff feels this meets the original intent of the PUD Agreement and is seeking a favorable recommendation Cha irman Sobkoviak asked Steve Amann if he saw any engineering problems. Steve Amann stated he did not. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that cared to ask a question or make a comment. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the following p eople who gave testimony: Robert Enriquez – He is representing National Sign Plazas in rel ation to the offsite signage requested by Wilcox Development Group. A discussion ensued regarding offsite signage. Since there was no further response from the a udience, Chairman Sobkoviak closed the public hearing. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in John Argoudelis, the attorney representing the petitioner. He stated the petitioner is in complete agreement with staff’s report and the additional stipulation. He also w anted to state they have worked very hard with staff. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the commissioners had any questions. There were none. At 10:29 p.m. Commissioner Kachel moved that the Plan Commission adopt the findings of fact of staff as the finding s of fact of the Plan Commission and, furthermore, move that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the request for a major change to the Planned Unit Development for the Villas at Fox Run to modify/add provisions for IDOT coordination, future right -of -way platting, and temporary signage and sales trailer rights, 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. Submittal o f a revised Statement of Intent and Agreement subject to the review and approval of the Village Planner, 4. Submittal of concurrence from the commercial property owner to the proposed PUD Amendment. Commissioner McKay seconded the motion.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 15 of 21 Chairman Sobkoviak called for the vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Bonuchi, Kachel, McKay, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried . CASE: 1268 -090106.FP VILLAS AT FOX RUN Request: Final Plat of Subdivision Location: East of IL Rt. 59, south of Cahills Way Applicant: Southern Land Development, LLC, Wilcox Development Group, LLC John F. Argoudelis, representative TIME: 10:30 p.m. Jonathan Proulx summarized the staff report. The developer is proposing 23 lots of four unit, ranch style town homes . These will be age targeted, active adult population. There will also be 2 commercial lots on Route 59 and there will be 3 detention ponds for stormwater detention, as well as the extension of a bike path along the east property line. A 24 f eet landscape buffer is provided along the north property line and along the east there is a 30 feet easement that includes landscaping, as well as the bike path. A landscape buffer easement is established between the proposed residential and the proposed commercial development as well. Dayfield Dr. will be extended through the site to connect to the Arbor Subdivision to the East and the two street stubs from the Parkview Meadows Subdivision to the north will be extended. There will be provisions made fo r cross -access between the commercial parcel to the south and the residential. Cross access will be feasible between this proposed development and any developments south of the Commonwealth Edison right -of -way. This is an important cross -access. Staff h as been consistently supportive of the proposed architecture and believes it is a high quality residential product. There are two building types which should provide some variety, as well as some commitments the developer made in the PUD Agreement with re spect to color variations and anti -monotony, and the requirement for garage door windows in all of the garage doors. A landscape plan has been provided and does meet the requirements of the applicable zoning code. The project is in the Plainfield Park District. The developer and the Park District are working on an agreement and it is pending formal adoption and execution. There will be no park dedication as part of the project. The Park District obligation will be met primarily through cash in lieu; however, the cost of constructing the bike path will be a credit against that up to a certain limit . The project is in School District 202, but given the age targeted nature of the project, the developer suggested that there should be a nominal impact to the school system. The development will be required to pay the land cash fee as part of the building permit so there will be some revenue to the school district. Since the project was annexed some time back, the development will not pay any transition fe es or facility impact fees.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 16 of 21 The area of greatest interest is stormwater management. Staff has given a thorough review of the development in terms of its impact on the adjacent properties. There is a situation with high ground water in the area. Thes e ranch style town homes are on slab without basements, which would be more suitable for the ground water situation. The Village’s engineering staff has given a close review to the proposed engineering and the developer has responded to some recommendatio ns from staff and actually hired a soil testing consultant. Based on those recommendations, the developer is placing a clay liner into the detention ponds. There is an existing dormant Special Service Area for the project from the prior development. Tha t DSSA will need to be modified or replaced with a new DSSA. The developer is proposing decorative lighting throughout the development. They have proposed a fixture and Village staff indicated a preference to use one of the Village’s decorative fixtures. There is a private street, the loop street that serves the majority of the residential homes. The developer and staff are trying to determine who will maintain the street lights on the private street given that the Village staff is identifying a preferr ed fixture. Staff is comfortable waiting for this to go to Village Board until that matter is resolved. There is an existing recapture liability associated with both the commercial and residential properties. The Village will be seeking payment at time of the building permit. Staff believes that the proposed final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat and meets the requirements of the Village’s codes and ordinances. Staff is seeking a favorable recommendation. Chairma n Sobkoviak asked Steve Ama nn if there were any engineering issues. Steve Amann stated the developer and his engineer have spent a lot of time and effort looking at the ground water issues. There are high ground water elevations in this area. These homes will have no basements so they will not have the sub surface drainage issues that are being encountered in the nearby subdivision. They have proposed a clay liner for the detention pond. Normally through Best Management Practices, we encourage infiltration of surface water into the ground to recharge the ground water to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and to reduce water pollution as a result of that runoff. They are trying to reduce the total amount of infiltration from this project so that there could be a positive i mpact in the Arbors of Plainfield. The clay liner will hold the water in the detention pond. It was also designed to address potential uplift if the ground water were to be elevated for an extended period of time and try to push that clay liner up. He w ent on to say the net amount of water that falls on this 23 acres is not going to change. The only thing that will change is where it goes. Right now, a good amount of that water falls on a farm field, infiltrates into the ground. When this project is d eveloped there will be streets, houses, and sidewalks and such that will not allow that infiltration and it will be directed overland into storm sewers and into the detention ponds. The detention ponds all join together and end up out falling into the sou theast corner of this site, which is the southwest corner of the Arbors. From there it flows generally east and into an existing wetland area that is south and east of the Arbors. He feels the developer has really stepped up to the plate in trying to add ress these issues and mitigate any potential impact they might have on the adjoining residents. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he had visited the area. He stated he saw some violations, (three fences blocking the drainage swale, looked like the drainage swa le had been partially filled in, and another place there was an above the ground pool where the drainage swale should have been located.) Commissioner Renzi asked how the water will be filtered with the clay bottom. He asked if there would be a fountai n or something of that nature. Steve Amann stated he believed there were aeration fountains proposed for the lakes. He stated they are also proposing aquatic emergent plantings around the banks of the lake which helps to filter the runoff. Commissioner Renzi also asked how much rain the ponds will be
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 17 of 21 able to absorb. Steve Amann stated it is designed for what is considered a 100 year storm. In Plainfield, over a 24 hour duration, that is about 8.3 inches of rain. That is the standard design for a dete ntion pond in Plainfield. Jonathan Proulx stated storm water will be collected in the 3 detention ponds and ultimately will be discharged at the southeast corner of the development. The aspect of the clay liner is to prevent the water from percolating in to the ground. Chairman Sobkoviak invited the petitioner John Argoudelis to speak. He swore in all of the representatives for the petitioner. John Argoudelis spoke and stated they have th e Engineer, and the Hydrologist present to answer any questions. Chairman Sobkoviak asked John Argoudelis about the restriction that needs to be included in the Final Plat before recording regarding direct access from the commercial lots to Route 59. John Argoudelis had no objection. Chairman Sobkoviak opened the me eting up to public comment. He swore in the residents wishing to give their testimony. Jeff Valenti – Arbor of Plainfield, Phase 3 (16516 Arbor Dr.) Thinks this is a nice project. He agrees that the people here have done due diligence in trying to limi t the amount of water that flows into Arbor of Plainfield. He stated the clay liners were proposed by him and not by the engineers. He stated the parties that are at fault for the stormwater problem in his neighborhood is the Village of Plainfield. He s tated his neighborhood has had no code enforcement. Village has not lived up to their commitment so that the new development compliments his development and his development compliments the new development. The developer for his development has filled in the swale with dirt to hardly any swale. Steve Amann stated the swale on the west side and part of the south side was surveyed and found differences between the proposed grades and the present grade around 8 inches. Jeff Valenti stated the Village needs to act and the grade needs to be corrected. He stated Doug Kissel of the Village of Plainfield Public Works stated the drain tiles that run toward the tributary that run into Lily Cache and the DuPage River do not work appropriately. Jeff Valenti stated the detention pond in Arbor is not built correctly. The pond was pumped and it took 8 days to pump it 18 inches. It filled back up in 3 days an d there was no rain during that period. Steve Amann clarified that the pump was shut off every night. Mr. Val enti asked for a Tas k Force to deal with this issue and asked that any land clearing be held off on this project until the July 9 th COW meeting. Bob Wehman – had a question about the bike path. He wanted to know the distance between his rear lot line and the bike path. Chip Krusemark from the petitioner stated the bike path easement is 30 feet wide and it goes from the eastern edge of their site and then west 30 feet. Within that 30 feet will be the bike path. Bob Wehman asked if there would be any lan dscaping or bushes between the bike path and his property or if it would be open. Chip Krusemark stated there is a full landscape plan and there is landscaping around the whol e site that will include bushes and trees. Bob Wehman asked if he could put up a fence. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was a drainage swale. Bob Wehman replied yes. Chairman Sobkoviak stated Mr. Wehman would have to check with the Building Department about a fence. Leona Mitchell – 16629 Arbor Court. She stated she did not kn ow about the water issues before building her home. She was concerned about the 3 feet of water in the swale behind her home. She was concerned about her grandchildren falling into the water in the swale. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he did not think the s wale was completed by the developer in the southeast corner of the Arbor Development. Jonathan Proulx stated the Public Works Department is taking lead on this problem and it will be discussed at the July 9 th COW meeting.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 18 of 21 C ommissioner Kachel asked Mr. Valenti if a petition had been sent around. Mr. Valenti replied there had been no petition. Commissioner Renzi stated the Commission has received information on fence issues, swale issues, drainage issues, but the Commission is an advisory body and this will still have to go to the Village Board for resolution. Commissioner Kachel questioned if there could be a stipulation that stated subject to the Village Engineer approval and also subject to the fact of looking into the problems of adjacent property o wners so that the Village Board knows the Commission would like them to look at that issue. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that would be appropriate, but the Village Board is aware of the water issue problems and there is going to be a special workshop on this matter. Commissioner McKay stated all of the testimony will be part of the public record. The safety of children needs to be addressed regarding the standing water. John Argoudelis stated the petitioner has been sensitive to the water table issue fro m day one. They have worked a long time on the water issue. Since there was no further public comment, Chairman Sobkoviak closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Jonathan Proulx stated he had received an objection from a resident about the t ime of the meeting tonight, being the eve of a holiday. At 11:29 p.m. Commissioner Renzi moved that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the final plat of subdivision for the Villas at Fox Run, subject to the following six (6) stipulations: 1. Compl iance with the requirements of the Village Engineer; 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; 3. Submittal of proposed Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for review by the Village Planner and Superintendent of Pla nning for the Plainfield Park District prior to recording of the covenants and prior to recording of the final plat; 4. Formation of a new Dormant Special Service Area (DSSA) or modification of the existing DSSA No. 31 for the former Crystal Lake Estates p roject, prior to issuance of first residential building permit (excluding clubhouse and any model home); 5. Payment of recapture obligation that is due at the time of building permit for each residential and commercial development lot; and 6. Compliance wi th the stipulations of the PUD approval, as may be modified from time to time. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : Bonuchi, Kachel, McKay, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carri ed .
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 19 of 21 CASE: 1330 -060807.FP CREEKSIDE CROSSING UNIT 1 Location: Final Plat for revised property line Between Lots 1171 and ll72 Location: Creekside Crossing, Unit #1 Applicant: Tom Baumgartner TIME: 11:30 p.m. Sara Jaronovok summarized the staff rep ort. The petitioner is requesting a final plat of subdivision to address the south lot line of Lot 1172 and the north lot line of Lot 1171. This is necessary to allow for a side setback of at least 10 feet on the south side of the lot per the annexation agreement. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Renzi asked if the problem was because someone dug a hole in the wrong location. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that cared to make a comment. There was no response. Pet itioner Tom Baumgartner had no comment. Commissioner Renzi asked about the grading and if the lot would be re -graded. Sara Jaronovok stated there is a stipulation that it complies with the requirements of the Village Engineer and she assumed it would be addressed at that point. Tom Baumgartner responded that it was correct that someone dug the hole in the wrong place. He represents American Classic Homes and they own both lots. Commissioner Renzi asked if the drainage flow would be shifted. Tom Baum gartner stated they could shift the ditch over slightly between the houses and grade it to the property line. At 11:35 p.m. Commissioner McKay moved that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat of Subdivision for Lots 1171 and 1172, Cre ekside Crossing Unit 1, subject to compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bonuchi Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, McKay, Renzi, Bonuchi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried . CASE: 1326 -060107.TA TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XI, SEC. 9 -101 Request: Text Amendment ZONING ORDINANCE (SIGN CODE) Location: Village -wide Applicant: Village of Plainfield TIME: 11:36 p.m.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 20 of 21 Sara Leach summarized the staff report. She stated this is a public hearing and it has been posted and published as required by ordinance. It is the intention of this text amendment to make the sign ordinance easier for staff to administer, enforce, and easier for builders a nd developers to understand the signage options available to them, as well as promote their model homes. Builders and developers have expressed concerns that the present ordinance is too restrictive in order to promote new subdivisions and model homes. S taff recommends approval. Chairman Sobkoviak opened the public comment. John Philipchuck, a representative for MPI, was sworn in and gave testimony. He voiced issues that custom builders have had with code enforcement. Code enforcement has requested the builders take down signs and have issued violations and fines for some of the builder model signage they have on site. He is in favor of the text amendment as written. Commissioner Renzi asked what the penalties were for sign violations. Sara was not s ure of the specific amount, but knew that Code Enforcement has been issuing more tickets recently. John Philipchuck stated when the notice comes up, it states fines can be up to $750.00 per day. Commissioner Renzi asked if that amount was every reached. Michael Garrigan stated yes. Commissioner Renzi wanted to know what the Village was getting back in return for the free advertising. Michael Garrigan stated the spirit of the proposed ordinance is based on the fact that it is a very difficult market wit h a significant down turn . S taff recognizes that the development community is a major industry in the Village of Plainfield and the text amendment is based on that . A discussion ensued about the text amendment purpose. Commissioner Renzi proposed possib ly a developer could post a bond regarding signage. Michael Garrigan said this could be looked into. Michael Garrigan stated hopefully this amendment to the sign code will alleviate some of the pressure on code enforcement. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it would be nice if the Commission could help the developers market their homes. Chairman Sobkoviak closed the public hearing since there was no further response. At 11:47 p.m. Commissioner Bonuch i moved that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the pr oposed text amendment to Article XI of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the amount of model home signage developers/builders are able to utilize as highlighted in this report. Commissioner McKay seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote b y roll call. Aye: McKay, Renzi, Bonuchi, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried . DISCUSSION: Commissioner Kachel asked if the Com Ed sub -station on Route 30 is part of the Village. He asked if there could be some scree ning. Michael Garrigan stated it could be looked into.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 3, 2007 Page 21 of 21 Commissioner McKay asked if the public hearing notices could be larger. Michael Garrigan stated this has been discussed internally and there are pluses and minuses. Other communities basically req uire the developer to retain the services of a sign contractor to put up the notices. He also stated sometimes it is just a resident that wants a variance on their property and this could cause a hardship on the individual. Commissioner McKay asked if th ere could be some kind of requirement based on the size of the development. Staff controls the signage with the present approach. Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m. _________________________________________ R espectfully Submitte d Carol Millan Planning Secretary – Village of Plainfield