HomeMy Public PortalAbout2007-09-04 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RECORD OF MINUTES DATE : September 4, 2007 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the m eeting of the Plan Commission to order at .7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel, McKay , Renzi, O’Rourke , Murawski, Bonuchi, Chairman Sobkovi ak, and ex -officio Commissioner Sanders . Absent: Ex -officio Commissioner Cox , Park District, School District , Fire District, Library District and Police Department Also Present: Michael Garrigan – Vil lage Planner Village of Plainfield , Mike Schwarz – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Sara Javoronok – Planner I Village of Plainfield, Carol Millan – Secretary Village of Plainfield, and Neal Eickholtz – Baxter and Woodman. MINUTES: The minutes from the P lan Commission meeting of August 21 , 2007 were amended and accepted as follows: 1 Page 4 of 16, Paragraph 4 – the word aluminum was removed and the word steel was added. 2. Page 4 of 16, Paragraph 7 – a sentence was added to read: Due to the cemetery bein g across the street form the Latter Day Saints’ site, staff will look into any potential R.O.W. issues on the north side of the road to ensure there will be no impact with ultimate expansion of the road. 3. Page 11 of 16 – Stipulation #4 was amended to rea d: Subject to staff’s request that the applicant incorporate language that a 10’ public utility and roadway easement will be incorporated along 143 rd Street consistent with staff’s request. DEVELOPMENT REPORT Since there had been no Village Board meeting since the last Plan Commission meeting there was no development report. OLD BUSINESS: CASE: 1348 -071207.AA.RZ.SU.CP RIVER VILLAGE Request: Annexation (Public Hearing) Rezoning (Public Hearing) Special Use (Public Hearing ) Concept Plan Review Locat ion: West of IL Rt. 59, south of Fraser Rd. Applicant: Patti Bernhard At the applicant ’s request, Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission continue this case to the September 18, 2007 Plan Commission meeting.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 2 of 24 Commissioner Murawski second ed the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Murawski, Bonuchi, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 7:0 CASE: 1341 -062907.SU PUMP IT UP Request: Special Use (Publi c Hearing) Location: 14407 S. Coil Plus Dr., Lot 16 Applicant: LeSaut, LLC TIME: 7:13 p.m. Sara Javo ronok summarized the staff report. She stated this was a public hearing and notice has been published and posted as required by the Zoning Ordin ance. T he applicant is proposing an inf latable play structure facility. The owner of the property requested rezoning from I -2 to I -1. The Plan Commission recommended approval on August 7, 2007 and the Village Board directed the Village attorney to draft the ord inance rezoning the property on August 20, 2007. Pump it Up is best described as a private recreation facility. It will occupy two buildings. The western building has 40 parking spaces and the eastern building has 43 parking spaces for a total of 83 spa ces on the property. The proposed square footage of Pump It Up would require 22 parking spaces and the applicant has verified that it has a commitment of 30 of the 83 available parking spaces. Sara stated 2 of the 2 findings of fact for a special use p ermit are favorable and staff would recommend approval of the special use. Chairman Sobkoviak added a third stipulation to the motion: Plan Commission accepts the findings of fact as presented in the staff report. He swore in the petitioners. Cass Wenn lund – attorney for the applicant Doug Gilman – owner of Pump It Up in Lisle and Plainfield Cass Wennlund stated he felt Sara covered everything pretty well. He did want to make it clear that the Village Board did approve the rezoning of the map amendmen t to I -1. He stated Doug Gilman runs another facility in Lisle and is fairly comfortable with the numbers , as far as parking and the amount of employees that he has to cover these parties. The numbers in the report should be fairly accurate. He stated t he applicant feels it will be a great addition to the Village and fit in with the surrounding uses. Commissioner Murawski asked the applicant if this was a franchise. The applicant stated it is a franchise and that there are about 160 locations nationwid e. Commissioner Kachel asked if there was a restaurant . The applicant stated they bring pizza in from a local pizza vendor.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 3 of 24 Commissioner Murawski stated the average parking is expected to be 8 cars per party. He asked if that was an average from th e Lisle facility or overall from the franchises across the country. The applicant stated it is both. He stated generally most of their parties are drop -offs. The average age is 8 or 9 years old . Most parents drop of f their children and only a few paren ts stay for the actual party, plus whatever staff cars are present as well. Commissioner Murawski also asked whether there is a restaurant, snack bar or vending or anything else and also asked whether everything is brought in. The applicant stated the on ly vending would be a pop machine. Commissioner Renzi asked the applicant if there would be no more than 3 parties at one time. The applicant stated between 3 and 4. He stated they are very conscious of parking. He has entered into negotiations with th e owner to purchase additional spaces. There is more land to the east of the building that the owner is looking at also to convert to parking. Commissioner Renzi asked if there would be some kind of marking indicating additional parking some where else. The applicant stated yes. The applicant went on to say the majority of their parties are in the evenings and week ends. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response . Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the applicant ever had what would be considered an “open time”. The applicant stated generally they will have an “open time” twice a week for one and one -half hour between 9:00 and 11:30. In Lisle they have this “open ti me” on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings for children under the age of 6. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if parking was not an issue at this time. The applicant stated normally it is not. The applicant stated other than the times he referenced; all of the par ties are by reservation. They are very much private. At 7:26 p.m. Commissioner McKay made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the special use for the proposed Pump It Up inflatable play structure facility subject to the following stip ulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer, 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; 3. Plan Commission accepts the findings of fact for the special use as presented in the staff report. Co mmissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, O’Rourke, Murawski, Bonuchi, Kachel, McKay, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 7:0 Chairman Sobkoviak mentioned that a lo cal jurisdiction is finding itself in some litigation over an inflatable structure over a swimming pool. Apparently people have spent a good deal of money on an in -ground pool and in order to extend the amount of usage, they were going to put an inflatabl e structure over it to keep out the elements and allow them to use it during more mont hs of the year. Apparently, this Village disagreed with the wording in their ordinance. He stated recently a very large subdivision was approved in the Village of Plain field which would restrict above -ground pools , so all pools will be in the ground. So, no doubt there
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 4 of 24 will be people with the same idea to have an inflatable structure to extend the usage. He asked staff if there is any ordinance that the Village of Pl ainfield has, maybe in the Building ordinance , that addresses this. Michael Garrigan stated staff can look at this. He was not aware of any specific ordinance. Chairman Sobkoviak stated most of the discussion in the paper revolved around safety , and he felt that should not be an issue. He asked staff to look into this matter to see if any of the Village ordinances address this or can be interpreted to address this issue. NEW BUSINESS: CASE: 1356 -081007.RZ NW CORNER OF RT. 59 & 143 RD ST. Request: Rezoning to B -3 Location: 1500 N. Route 59 (Old Ball Glass) Applicant: Dayfield Properties, LLC. Clayton Olsen TIME: 7:27 p.m. Mike Schwarz summarized the staff report. He stated this is a public hearing and all notice has been given to adjoining parties, as well as being published in a local newspaper and posted on the property itself. The applicant is requesting the rezoning from R -1 to B -3. The property was annexed into the Village on August 6, 2007. Currently there is a one -sto ry industrial building that is currently used for warehouse purposes. The Southeast corner of the site is currently leased for retail purposes. The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan does designate the property as general commercial. The Thor oughfare Plan designates Route 59 and 143 rd Street as major arterial s . Staff believes each of the 5 findings of fact that are required to rezone the property from R -1 to B -3 are met in this case. Staff is requesting a favorable recommendation. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner. Paul Mitchell is representing Dayfield Properties. He stated this property was annexed by the Village Board and came in as an R -1 default zoning. He also stated this is one of the premier commercial sites. They are as king for a B -3 zoning and a site plan will be coming through at a later date. When the petitioner has their potential uses and have people to develop this property, they will submit a PUD application and/or site plan. The public notices were sent out to adjoining property owners 18 days prior to the meeting. Commissioner O’Rourke asked staff if there are any Industrial properties left that can be developed within the Village. Mike Schwarz noted a parcel on the north end of town that abuts the railroad . Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was any Industrial designated property on the WIKEDUKE. Mike Schwarz stated no. The WIKADUKE generally is residential with commercial at each node of cross street. Commissioner O’Rourke stated that goes back to when the Comprehensive Plan was created. The thought was more of a retail -oriented community rather than an Industrial community. Mike Schwarz stated yes. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the last update to the Comprehensive Plan was completed subsequent to the rem oval of Ball Glass. It was a vacant parcel at that time. A previous Comprehensive Plan showed the parcel as Indu strial property. Commissioner O’Rourke stated as 143 rd St. is extended east and is opened up to I -55, that will allow more access for trucks and Corporate Headquarters, more of an industrial office use. Commissioner Renzi stated he shares Commissioner O’Rourke’s concern. He also stated there is a railroad line there. Mike Schwarz stated the railroad seen on the graph is actually not there an ymore. It was
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 5 of 24 removed by the previous owner some time ago. He also stated the B -3 District does allow some office uses. So, if the market is there certainly under a PUD there potentially could be a mixed use. Commissioner Renzi referenced Route 30 where the fabrication plant is in the back and then there is development going up that is mixed commercial with some industrial transitioning to commercial retail abutting Route 30, which is a nice mix. He wanted to see if there would be any potential for that mixed use at this location. Commissioner Renzi aksed if it was the same group. Paul Mitchell stated Commissioner Renzi was correct that his client did do that development. He stated this is a 42 acre site. Most big boxes are 15 acres or it can be expanded to 20. He stated they probably will be coming in with a PUD because there is a good chance this will be a mixed use, with retail on the corner and some other type of office, bus barn, or whatever. Commissioner O’Rourke mentioned that Mr. Mitc hell had stated his client had developed another parcel in the town. Paul Mitchell stated his client had developed the Plainfield Small Business Park, southeast of 135 th Street. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if Mr. Mitchell’s client also had the piece sout h of Meijers. Paul Mitchell stated that was a related entity. Commissioner O’Rourke asked how far back that parcel goes. Paul Mitchell stated that goes back to the river. That was envisioned to be retail west of the Norman Drain and residential, either townhomes or condos, back by the river. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if any of it had been started. Paul Mitchell stated the retail portion is ready to go, but nothing has been done for the residential in the back. Commissioner O’Rourke stated nothing h as been started yet. Mr. Mitchell stated correct. Commissioner Renzi questioned whether the bus barn would be a B -3 zoning as well. Mike Schwarz stated no. It would be an industrial zoning. Commissioner Renzi mentioned the condemnation proceedings on this property. Mike Schwarz stated he did not have any information on that. Paul Mitchell stated the applicant was served with condemnation on the 27 th by the School District for a bus barn and a storage facility for the buses. He stated this is totally unrelated to this condemnation. Paul Mitchell stated condemnations can go on for years , and at any time the public body can move forward with it or decide to not go forward. He stated the applicant will own this property shortly , and they believe the hi ghest and best use is retail and are asking that this be rezoned to B -3. It is unrelated to when or if the School District ever acquires this site. Chairman Sobkoviak reminded the commissioners that one of the reasons the bus facility was not approved in the previous case was because of the proximity of residential. The entire north side of this site is also residential. Using the same reasoning, if the bus barn was not appropriate on 143 rd and Rt. 30, the same reasoning would apply here. Commissioner Renzi stated that the Commission never voted on it because the applicant withdrew their application. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response. Commissioner O’Rou rke stated he looked at it as a historical industrial use, but if the previous Commission and Board decided it to be business, he felt their wishes should be honored and follow the Comprehensive Plan which shows general business. He stated while he did no t agree with it not being industrial, he felt he had to follow what is in the Comprehensive Plan.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 6 of 24 At 7:47 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission adopt staff’s findings of fact as those of the Plan Commission, and recommend to th e Village Board approval of the request for rezoning from R -1 (Low Density Single Family Residential District) to B -3 (Highway Business District) for the subject property located at the northwest corner of Illinois Route 59 and 143 rd Street in the Village of Plainfield. Commissioner Bonuchi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : O’Rourke, Murawski, Bonuchi, Kachel, McKay, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: Renzi The motion is carried 6:1 Mike Schwarz asked Commission er Renzi what findings he felt were not met to account for his vote. Commissioner Renzi stated he did not have a problem with the findings of fact, he wanted the Village Board to vote the way they wanted to on this regarding the issue with the School District and the R -1 zoning and B -3 zoning. He stated Mr. Mitchell covered that with the condemnation. It has nothing to do with the staff report. Michael Schwarz stated so it is outside the scope of the findings. He wanted to make sure he conveyed it properly to t he Board CASE: 1347 -071107.SPR CHESTERBROOK ACADEMY Request: Site Plan Review @ CROSSROADS BUSINESS CENTER Location: Presidential Ave., east side of Rt. 30 Applicant: Steve Qualkinbush TIME: 7:50 p.m. Mike Schwarz summarized the s taff report. The proposed site plan reflects a 10,650 sq. ft., one -story, daycare building facing Presidential Avenue. There are 46 proposed parking spaces, 2 of which are handicap accessible. Parking spaces are adequate. There are 2 full access poin ts on Presidential Avenue, located on either side of the subject property. Internal circulation is provided via a two -way drive aisle within the parking lot. Stormwater management will be accommodated off -site in a stormwater detention basin located on t he property to the east. There is one trash enclosure identified on the site plan near the southwest corner of the building. Staff does not recommend any revisions to the site plan at this time. Staff did ask the applicant if it would be possible to ext end or continue the white stockade vinyl fence around the west side yard and to connect that to the same type of fence at the northeast corner of the building to be consistent with the fence along the rear lot line. As a compromise , the applicant is propo sing two types of fences. It may be possible to provide brick piers at regular intervals to achieve some consistency where these fences transition. Staff is suggesting a stipulation that the applicant provide an elevation detail for each type of fence pr ior to Village Board consideration.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 7 of 24 Staff does not have any significant issues with the building elevation. Staff is recommending that the building elevations be revised to reflect the Federal style envisioned for the overall development. Staff is req uesting additional muntins on the lower window panes, window shutters consistent wi th Citizens First National Bank; stone lintels above the doors and windows on the north, west, an d east elevations; and replacing the green trim with white on all door and w indow casings, including muntins, meeting rails, sashes, stiles, sills, and top rails. The landscape plan complies with the Village of Plainfield requirements. The proposed photometric plan exceeds 0.5 foot candle readings along the south and east lot li nes and does not comply with Village requirements . Staff has requested the applicant submit a revised photometric plan. Staff recommends approval of the request of the site plan review subject to 7 stipulations. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neal if there we re any concerns. Neal Eickholtz stated they have not received enough information to do their review. Based on Mike’s report , the final engineering should be forthcoming. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neal if he had a chance to review the parking lot circulat ion. Neal stated that would be one of their comments if the fire trucks would have access in and out of that site. They also have an issue with the sanitary and the water mains. It was his understanding that these lines would have to be brought in offsi te to the site. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner, Steve Qualkinbush. The petitioner stated staff has done a good job and they have worked well with staff. The petitioner will be signing a 15 year lease commitment to this property. They operat e 150 schools in the US – 15 in Illinois. He stated this would be the only school in the 150 with a different elevation in regards to the school colors. He talked about stipulation #4 in the staff report. He stated all of the other stipulations are acce ptable. He stated there is not enough room for shutters, but will put shutters if that is what is needed in Plainfield. Doors are exits for emergencies and they do not want to accentuate these ; they would like to keep the green color. The petitioner wou ld like to dispute the part of the stipulation regarding the green trim. Green is their school color. He stated it was not clear on the stipulation where to put the lentils. They would certainly work with staff. They would like to begin construction th is year with an opening in time for the 2008 School Year. Commissioner Sanders stated the curb and gutter does not continue around the property on the site plan. He felt curb and gutter would be desirable to have around the property. He asked if that wo uld be part of the development for the next building. He stated if that were to be a play yard, it might be better to have gutters along the back side. He also felt the play yard does not app ear to have any shade coming fro m the southern exposure. He wa s wondering if the applicant would consider planting trees along the north wall to shade that area. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if this facility was classified as a daycare. Steve Qualkinbush stated it was a daycare and a preschool. Chairman Sobkoviak stat ed they would then be governed by strict regulations and guidelines from the State. Steve Qualkinbush stated there will be shade structures, which are not shown on the site plan, tent -like structures that will provide shade in all three of the play yards. Commissioner Sanders asked Mr. Qualkinbush if there would be value in having the curb and guttering go around the entire perimeter given that there will be a fence along the one side . I n the future there will be construction of another building and a ro ad back there. Mike Schwarz stated there will be adequate circulation through the site with this project. He stated Commissioner Sanders did make a good observation on the north property line. The curb and gutter would come in with the future developmen t to the north. As
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 8 of 24 far as the fence, staff does not object to the two styles of fence that are proposed. Staff feels that as long as the piers can be brick or something substantial it will provide a little bit of safety measure, but will also aesthetic ally tie the two types of fences together. Mike Schwarz stated this is off -site of this property, but if the Commission wanted to make it a stipulation, it would be part of the engineering review that could be explored. Steve Qualkinbush stated the petit ioner would have no problem with that stipulation. Commissioner McKay asked how many of the 150 locations come in under the PUD. Steve Qualkinbush stated in the Chicago Area nearly all of them. Commissioner McKay stated the green color seems to be kin d of their logo or trademark. Commissioner Kachel asked about the colors in the PUD. He asked if other buildings in the PUD would have to come in if they wanted to change their colors. Mike Schwarz stated they would have to come for a minor change th rough the process spelled out in the zoning ordinance. The Village Planner has the authority under the Zoning Ordinance to approve minor modifications. Mike Schwarz stated in a PUD they try to find common elements that tie the buildings together. He sta ted it is questionable sometimes what the benefit of having a PUD is if the buildings are not going to somehow relate to one another. Mike Schwarz stated the only real issue is the trim color. He stated staff is not objecting to the green shade of shingl es. Commissioner Murawski asked if staff confers with an architect to see if certain elements, such as shutters, will fit on a building. Mike Schwarz stated some of staff have some architectural background, so they are somewhat qualified as well. Staff does discuss with the applicant some options to achieve the color scheme that they are looking for. Staff is not requiring shutters, but did ask that the applicant consider shutters if they wanted to achieve that green color. Staff is only opposed to the green building trim around all of the window casings. It really provides a darker building . I n an individual site that may be perfectly fine, but since it is a PUD staff wants to carry that white trim, true Federal style, throughout the development. Commissioner Murawski referred to Commissioner Sanders ’ comment about guttering. He stated there was talk about a stipulation for the guttering and asked if that was really needed since it would probably be covered under the stipulation stating , subject t o the requirements of the Village Engineer. Neal Eickholtz stated that would be one of their concerns looking at the drainage, making sure that everything functions either through a storm sewer or over land drainage . Steve Qualkinbush stated they will ha ve downspouts that go into the storm sewers because they do not want water going over the sidewalks and making it slippery for the children. Commissioner Sanders stated his question was more directed toward a white vinyl fence not being protected by some kind of gutter or curbing. There could be construction equipment working on the next parcel . He further stated a play yard not protected by something that would be like a demarcation line would not be the best environment . He felt there was not enough protection for the play area around the whole rear area. Steve Qualkinbush stated they would be pleased to do that. Mike Schwarz stated the area to the north at the present time is undeveloped. He was not sure that extending the curb immediately with th is development would handle any water coming off of the undeveloped grassy area. Mike Schwarz asked Commissioner Sanders if he was interested in creating more of an interim barrier between the back of the fence and future development to the north. He poi nted out that the landscape plan has a number of trees and landscaping outside of the fence. So, there will be some protection. Commissioner Sanders did not want this to be a stipulation, but merely that it is part of the record. Commissioner O’Rourke w as concerned because he felt there were a number of outstanding issues . He was wondering if it should be considered this evening. He stated the engineer had issues – fire truck access, sanitary sewer line, and also what staff has suggested in some of the ir requirements. He asked if there was a reason that these items could not have been worked out before the meeting. Steve Qualkinbush stated the
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 9 of 24 short answer is as far as the engineering is concerned is that they dropped the ball. He also stated most of the other issues that staff recommended have been resolved . H e felt it was just a disagreement. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the only item is there is a disagreement with the green trim requested by staff contained in Stipulation #4, but the remainder o f the issues has been agreed upon. Commissioner O’Rourk e felt it could be beneficial if some of the issues could be worked out with staff before coming to the meeting rather than during the meeting. Mike Schwarz stated staff has worked closely with the a pplicant and staff is comfortable with all of the stipulations . T he only area of disagreement is the trim color of the building. A discussion ensued about PUD uniformity. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it was not that any engineering has been completed on this project. This is part of a larger parcel where considerable engineering has already taken place to determine the ground water runoff and the underground runoff detention areas and basic layout of the driveways and parking areas. There are a few spe cific items that Neal Eickholtz needs to verify, but it is not as though nothing has been completed. Commissioner Renzi referred to stipulation #4. He asked the petitioner if he was agreeable to the muntins to the lower window panes. The petitioner re plied yes. Commissioner Renzi stated the petitioner had said yes to the shutters if need be. The petitioner had stated he felt it would look busy, but they could do that. Commissioner Renzi stated as far as the lintels he heard the petitioner say two do ors. The petitioner replied yes. Commissioner Renzi stated as far as the roof shingles, staff will live with the green. Mike Schwarz stated staff is talking about the lintels on the north, east, and west. Staff believes there are adequate lintels on th e south elevation. Commissioner Renzi stated the big issue is staff is requesting white building trim instead of green. Mike Schwarz stated that was the only issue. Commissioner Renzi had no problem with the green trim especially since the building is n ot overlooking Route 30. It is the lot which is overlo oking the townhouses . S o in terms of driving by , he felt there was not the same drive by issues. He stated he might feel differently if it was the lot directly north of the two buildings. Commission er O’Rourke asked Commissioner Renzi if it was an aesthetic issue for him. Commissioner Renzi stated not at this time since he felt the applicant is close enough t o the design. He felt because this building is off of Presidential Drive there would be les s traffic to be detrimental to the PUD scheme. Commissioner Kachel stated that since it is a PUD and the Commission grants one variance then they might have to grant that to other buildings in the PUD. Commissioner O’Rourke agreed. Commissioner Renzi stated if somebody comes in with a good reason, negotiates with staff , and it looks nice and it looks like it fits, then he would not require it to be a picture puzzle thing where they all interplay. There was a discussion about the green paint trim. C hairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to make a comment or ask a question. Tracy Balbort – She resides in the Winding Creek Subdivision. She is a licensed real estate appraiser. She talked about PUD’s. She did not un derstand all of the talk about the green trim . There was no further response from the public.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 10 of 24 Commissioner O’Rourke asked about the parking setback. Mike Schwarz stated the parking setback covered this lot plus the lot to the west. Commissioner O’Ro urke asked if there was enough room between the new parking area and the curb or the R.O.W. to accommodate the landscape. Mike Schwarz stated yes. Commissioner O’Rourke stated the west access point indicates a direction al sign. He asked if there was a reason for that . I f it was going to be a one -way in or a one -way out. Mike Schwarz stated no. It was a two -lane drive aisle to approach the building either from the west or east. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the Traffic Engineer, Eric Gallt, looked at the parking lot and the entrances and exits. Mike Schwarz stated he was copied on the plans, but did not know if he has looked at it or not. Chairman Sobkoviak stated if there was something wrong, Eric would have stated that. Mike Schwarz stated he did not believe there was any concern. Commissioner Renzi stated that would be his major concern, the fire trucks going in and out. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Fire Department and Police Department reviews all of these parking lot s and driveway s ahead of t ime. If they had an objection, they would let it be known. Mike Schwarz stated he had not received any correspondence from the Fire Department and generally if there is a glaring issue, they will let staff know right away. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Mike Schwarz if staff was comfortable with the photometric plan. Mike Schwarz stated it currently does not meet the Village requirements. Some minor adjustments need to be made and the applicant has stated they will revise the drawing to comply with Village r equirements. Staff will work with the applicant. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the petitioner has agreed to stipulations 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, & 7. He asked the petitioner if that was correct. The petitioner said yes. Chairman Sobkoviak stated stipulation #4 h ad the only open issue, which was the color of the trim. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he thought there was talk about the additional curb. Commissioner Renzi stated that was not part of the recommendation. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that was an off -site improvement. There was a fence totally enclosing that portion of the parcel and there also is a small landscaping area outside the fence. Steve Qualkinbush stated if it was the Board’s desire and the engineer’s desire that this curb be installed, they wi ll construct it as part of their project. He stated he would defer to their engineer and the Village engineer to decide if this is a necessary item given the grading and the future roadways. If it is a requirement, they will install the curb at their cos t. Mike Schwarz stated that staff believes stipulation #1 covers that. Commissioner Renzi stated line 5 and half of line 6 of stipulation #4 should be stricken. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he also did not have any problem with the color of the trim. Chai rman Sobkoviak took a poll of the other commissioners to see if they agreed with Commissioner Renzi’s suggestion. They all concurred. Mike Schwarz stated that covers both the building trim and the door and window casings. At 8:40 p.m. Commissioner made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the request for Site Plan Review (including Site Plan, Building Elevations, Landscape Plan, and Photometric Plan), 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 review and approval of a revised Photometric Plan that complies with all Village requirements, prior to the case being forwarded to the Village Boar d for consideration;
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 11 of 24 4. Subject to staff’s review and approval of revised Building Elevations as outlined in this memorandum (adding muntins to lower widow panes; consideration of adding window shutters consistent with those on the Citizens First Nati onal Bank; adding stone lintels above the doors and windows on the north, west, and east elevations where possible prior to the case being forwarded to the Village Board for consideration; 5. Subject to the applicant providing an elevation detail for the d umpster enclosure. Materials should be consistent with those used on the building , as well as with the master trash enclosure detail for the Planned Development. Note: An elevation detail for the dumpster enclosure was shown on the initial Building Elev ations, but was not shown with the most recent Building Elevations dated 8/17/07); 6. Subject to the applicant submitting a revised elevation detail for the base of the proposed ground sign, to be coordinated with the sign base provided by the owner/develo per of the overall resubdivision; 7. Subject to the applicant providing an elevation detail for each type of fence for staff’s review and approval prior to the case being forwarded to the Village Board for its consideration. Commissioner Murawski seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Murawski, Kachel, McKay, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak , Bonuchi Nay: O’Rourke The motion is carried 6:1 Commissioner Renzi stated this is another case where there are the parking requirem ents and staff doesn’t want to go with those because staff is thinking they are not accurate. He asked if there is a better way for recommending parking requirements. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the parking requirements can always be relaxed, but they cann ot be added. The individual application has to be considered. A discussion ensued about parking requirements. At 8:45 p.m. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a break. At 8:55 p.m. The Commission reconvened. CASE: 1350 -071607.AA.RZ.SU THE BOULEVARD Request: Annexation (Public Hearing) Rezoning (Public Hearing) Special Use (Public Hearing) Location: NW Corner of I -55 & Rt. 30 Applicant: Riordan & Pinta, LTD. Mary Riordan TIME: 8:55 p.m. Michael Garrigan summarized the staff report. H e stated this was a public hearing being held pursuant to the Village Ordinance and State Statute. The applicant wants to develop a commercial retail center on approximately 85 acres. Currently approximately 21 acres of the subject property is located in the City of
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 12 of 24 Joliet. The applicant has already gone before the City Council for Joliet in July and the project was approved. The site is currently located in unincorporated Will County and is zoned A. The site is located in the Village’s Facility Plan ning Area and the Village has the sanitary capacity to service the subject site. The proposed annexation of the subject property is a logical extension of the Village’s municipal boundaries. A number of previous projects failed because of the challenges of this site. Michael Garrigan stated 2 of the 2 findings of fact for a special use for a Planned Development are favorable. He also stated 5 of the 5 findings of fact for rezoning are favorable. A parking ratio of 4.8 parking spaces per 1,000 square fe et would be used through out the center. The applicant has submitted conceptual architectural elevations for this proposed development and has submitted a highly detailed set of Design Criteria. There is no site plan at this ti m e. There will be administr ative review just like the previously approved Polo Club for site plan review. There will be one full access point into this development, which will align with the existing Frontage Road. The main access boulevard will contain a five lane profile with tw o lanes of traffic in each way along with a dedicated turn lane. In addition to the full access point at the Frontage Road, the applicant is proposing one additional right -in/right -out on Route 30. Staff believes, after consultation with the Village Traf fic Engineer, adequate plans have been made with regards to transportation improvements with respect to the future village boulevard, that the future access points service this property adequately, and that the parking ratios are basically adequate to serv ice the commercial needs of this project. The applicant has submitted a series of conceptual architectural elevations for the facades that will be developed within this development. Staff is generally comfortable with what applicant is proposing , as far as elevations , per a meeting this afternoon. Overall, staff supports the architectural approach that is being taken by the applicant and the applicant’s conceptual elevations appear to be generally consistent with Village ordinance. Special attention nee ds to be given to the sidewalks and type of lighting that will be used along the sidewalks in front of the storefronts. Hardscape areas should be incorporated along sidewalks, etc. Additionally, the applicant has identified a monument sign that would be fifty feet in height and this sign would be adjacent to I -55. The ap plicant is asking for relief fro m the height of this proposed sign along the interstate. Staff is favorable with this request. The applicant will incorporate extensive landscaping throu ghout the project site. They will be submitting detailed landscape plans as each component of the project come through the process. An extensive landscape buffer along Route 30 will consist of shade trees every 40 feet on center and the construction of a two foot berm. The applicant is proposing a series of bioswales within the parking lots, which will be planted with native trees, shrubs and grasses. These proposed bioswales will help mitigate stormwater while also providing pedestrian connections. Twenty -five acres of the site are not useable because of the extensive flood plain and limited amounts of wetland along the Mink Creek corridor. The applicant is proposing a minimum 50 foot buffer from the wetlands. The 50 foot variance is consistent wit h the standards of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The Village’s Stream and Wetland Protection Ordinance requires a buffer of 75 feet. The applicant is proposing to plant the proposed 50 foot buffer with native plantings, which exceeds the Village’s min imum requirement of 25 feet. Existing areas along the wetlands will be restored and extensive native plantings will be introduced along the perimeter of the wetlands.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 13 of 24 Staff is seeking a favorable recommendation. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Preliminar y Plat, Final Plat and Site Plan Review for various portions of this development will be coming forward to the Commission. Michael Garrigan stated the applicant is proposing that the site plans be handled administratively. So consistent with the outcome of the Polo Club, the applicant is proposing the actual individual site plans would not actually come before the Commission. This conceptual review would be the Commission’s review of the project. The administrative Review proposal would be part of the a nnexation agreement. Commissioner Renzi stated it was his recollection that when the Commission concurred to have these plans reviewed administratively for the Polo Club, that there was a provision that the applicant was then going to pay for any addition al help or expertise that was required in the evaluation to ensure that staff was not overwhelmed. He asked if there was a corresponding oblig ation to go with the request fro m this applicant. Michael Garrigan stated there has not been that detailed discu ssion with the applicant at this time. He stated that might be a prudent request and he was confident that those details could be worked out if there is support for administrative review. Commissioner Renzi stated he was not going to vote for administrat ive review if the taxpayers are going to have to hire a separate person to be watchdog over the applicant because they are not going before the Commission for public hearings. He would be voting no in that regard if there was no agreement with the applica nt in that regard. Commissioner Kachel made mention of the previous name for the project, The Avenue of Plainfield. He asked if the property was going north to Renwick Road. Michael Garrigan stated the proposed property is not going to Renwick Road, wit h the exception of the proposed roadway. Eventually, the overall project will go to Renwick Road. The applicant is basically developing in phases. The first phase splits the property generally south of Mink Creek. There have been discussions with staff as to what the developer will do with the northern property. They did conceptually consider residential, but nothing has been solidified and nothing is coming before you for consideration. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neal Eickholtz if there were any issu es. Neal stated since this is a concept plan, engineering is ongoing. He mentioned ther e are some challenging aspects with this project. Neal Eickholtz stated the big issue was drainage and the appli cant has already submitted their study to the Departme nt of Natural Resources. It is under review. They do not anticipate any big issues with that. Commissioner Renzi asked staff about the 50 foot sign. He asked if that was going to be in the City of Joliet. Michael Garrigan stated no. Commissioner Renz i then asked how high the Clark sign is. Michael Garrigan stated he did not know. Michael Garrigan stated he would let the applicant outline that. Commissioner Renzi talked about Route 30 being grandfathered in with the other signs. Michael Garrigan st ated yes. Michael Garrigan stated the Clark sign is being demolished . S taff feels the sign is necessary along the I -55 corridor. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner. Mary Riordan is the attorney with the firm of Riordan and Pinta and represents the applicant. She wanted to highlight a few key features of the development. She stated they had a previous meeting with some of the residents. She stated the road north of the creek has been changing. T hey are going to build it, and then they are not going to build it. They have agreed at this point that it makes no sense to build the road and then get a development and then relocate the road. So, the developer has agreed, at the request of the Village, to build the road. When the Village asks to h ave the road built, the developer will build the road. The road will be built, but not part of this phase 1. She wanted to clarify that point.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 14 of 24 Commissioner Renzi asked how that would be guaranteed. He asked if a bond would be posted for the development . Mary Riordan stated that would be in the annexation agreement. Commissioner Renzi stated since sometimes developers come and go; he wanted to know what the collateral was for the guarantee. Mary Riordan stated some of the improvements along Route 30, really they are building the IDOT plans and the expense is somewhere between $1.5 and $2 million dollars. They are also building the Boulevard. They have asked the Village to help them to a certain extent and pay for some of the costs on Route 30. So, i f the Village would say build the road and the developer did not, the Village would not pay the developer anymore money. She wanted to introduce her team. Henry K lover – Architect; Dave Weber – Engineer; Wendy Schulenberg – Landscape Architect; and Bil l Westphal – Traffic Consultant; Ryan Murphey – Part of Development Team; Joy Pinta – Mary’s partner; Ed McGowen – owner; John Palmer. She stated this is a hybrid project. There will be some big boxes, pedestrian areas and smaller areas that are lifestyl e -like. So, it has been a real challenge putting this together. The site plan will be di fficult because of the wetlands and the flood plain. Also to have the PUD from one community, Joliet, come to another community, Plainfield was a challenge . All of the project will be consistent, so a person would not know if they are in the Joliet portion or the Plainfield portion. The intent is to close down the truck stop as soon as possible and demolish it before they start construction or anything else. She st ated they are requesting administrative review and they will pay for whatever consultants are needed. Because the center is so large and there are going to be so many buildings, they would be before the Commission very often for site plan approval. They have tried to make the design criteria as s tringent as possible so that in order to comply with the design criteria, staff knows what they are getting. There is a little bit of room so that different kinds of buildings can be accommodated. This group did the Promenade in Oak Brook at Meyers Road and 22 nd Street. She stated they have put together a real quality center that will be a tremendous revenue generator for the Village of Plainfield. Henry K lover, the architect, gave testimony. He stated the s ite plan is unique. They tried to do a hybrid center. He talked about the site plan. The biggest challenge was locating the road itself. There are access issues, stacking issues, and alignment issues, to cause the minimal amount of effect to the wetlan ds and the creek. There will be entrances in a streetscape type environment. The design criteria was established to develop different levels. The more intimate buildings, the restaurants and smaller buildings have requirements for entrance features, tow ers. In a center like this , the biggest thing you try to do is create a skyline and vision. You do not want it to be the same material all the way through to a certain extent. You want it to look a little more urban, similar to Plainfield’s downtown. T here is a palette of materials and textures, inland brick and stone as accent elements, inland tile in areas as well, arcades, canopies, second story elements. They are used in different ways. Dave Weber, the engineer, gave testimony. He stated two de tention ponds will contain all of the water on the site that runs off. Those detention ponds are designed in accordance with the Village ordinances. In addition to that there is floodplain along Mink Creek. That floodplain storage volume will be maintai ned at what it currently is. Along Mink Creek there is an essential amount of wetlands. The area between the two detention ponds is also wetland areas. All of those wetland areas will be avoided. Th ey are preserving natural areas. T he trees and the Li ly Cache Creek will shield the area from the adjacent residents. The staff report indicated there will be no adverse effects as far as that is concerned. There were a number of questions that were asked from residents of the Lily Cache neighborhood befor e the meeting. He pointed out that the detention that is provided should improve any of the situation that is occurring on Lily Cache, which is somewhat removed from this project. The preliminary hydraulic study that was completed of the
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 15 of 24 adjacent creek s showed that there is no increase in the water surface elevations . So, when you add the fact that detention ponds are being added, which is going to retain that water and not let it run off as fast as it currently does on undeveloped land, it should help . He stated this development is going to improve the Lily Cache neighborhood situation. Mary Riordan wanted to clarify that the 50 foot sign was approved in Joliet so there will not be a sign in Plainfield along the highway. She indicated that the tra ffic study the commissioners had received was an older traffic study and it has been revised and reviewed by Eric Gallt and Baxter and W oodman and submitted to IDOT. Sh e apologized that the commissioners had the older version. Commissioner Renzi asked if they could get a copy of the newer traffic study with their next packet. Michael Garrigan stated yes . I f the case is continued, it would be given to the commissioners. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if it was possible they could see it tonight. The petition er did not have any copies for the commissioners. Mary Riordan stated they had been working very closely with Baxter and Woodman and with Eric Gallt because of the complexity of the site. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the revised traffic study showed an access point up to Renwick Road. Mary Riordan introduced Eric Russell, the applicant’s traffic consultant. He clarified the differences in the traffic study. The previous study looked at the larger property, which included the parcel to the north of Mink Creek as a residential development. The revised study broke that parcel out separate from the south part of the parcel. It does discuss the extension of Village Boulevard when both properties are developed and the intersection with Renwick Road. Th e road improvements on U.S. 30 and ultimately at the intersection of Renwick Road are the same in both reports. The improvements to the U.S. 30 intersection will accommodate the traffic demands of the south parce l w ithout the extension to Renwick. U ltima tely when it is extended to Renwick and the property to the north develops , the proposed improvements to U.S. 30 intersection will accommodate the traffic demands in that area. Wendy Schulenberg – landscape architect for the project, gave testimony. The goal is to keep the project looking the same from the City of Joliet through the Village of Plainfield areas. There will be an entry feature on Route 30, which is the main entrance. There will be landscape elements that will lead into the site. Village Boulevard will be the major bisector of the site. The Route 30 frontage and the Village Boulevard both become public R.O.W, basically front yards, as far as the landscape requirements. In both locations there will be parkway trees and perimeter landscape that would include more shade trees, shrubs, and there would also be additional perimeter plantings. The wetlands and the detention areas will be developed with nativ e grasses, wetland grasses. T he parking lots will be meeting the codes. There will be some foundation plantings and curb plantings. There will be decorative lights used intermittently along the store frontage areas, as well as some additional planters to tie all of this together. This would also include some of the special paving . Chairm an Sobkoviak opened the meeting to Public Comment. The following residents gave testimony. Don Nelson – 1465 N. Garden Drive. He lives west of the development. He was concerned with two issues. The first was stormwater and the second was the use of th e unbuildable area. He read a prepared memo. Mary Riordan stated the applicant would be glad to work with Mr. Nelson. If a third party could manage the open space that would be ideal. She stated they are trying to work with the college on managing the wetlands. She stated the village wanted them to commit to how they are going to manage the wetlands. Mr. Nelson stated the Park District and Forest Preserve would be the two entities that would have a possible interest in this sort of project. Mary Rior dan stated they are very open to that.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 16 of 24 Mary Riordan stated she would leave the storage of the runoff water to Neal from Baxter and Woodman. Mr. Nelson stated they had spent time with Neal already on this issue. He felt the petitioner could meet the Villa ge’s requirement for 1 -1/2 times the compensatory by utilizing more of the area north of Mink Creek. Dave Webe r stated they are trying to do no impact from compensatory storage and that ratio is 1:1. Eventually, whatever they do along the floodplain will have to be permitted by FEMA . FEMA will ensure there is no impact and they require a ratio themselves of 1:1. Neal Eickholtz stated the 1.5:1 is basically a thing of the past, but the 1:1 is the ultimate requirement that has to be followed. Michael Gar rigan stated there is an ordinance. He stated generally the Village adheres to the 1.5 compensatory requirement with exception to those unique developments which basically provided extensive BMP’s. The applicant is proposing extensive BMP’s, which allows them to come down to the 1:1 ratio. Tracy Balbort – Resident of the Winding Creek Subdivision. She asked if the Frontage Road was governed by IDOT. Michael Garrigan stated the Village of Plainfield now has jurisdiction over the Frontage Road south of Route 30. He stated not all the way to Caton Farm Road, but a good chunk of the roadway. When you get to Caton Farm Road it is under City of Joliet jurisdiction. She stated the site plan shows the Boulevard as a four lane road, but coming up to the sto p light intersection for Route 30 it will be 5 lanes . A s you cross Route 30 to the Frontage Road, there are 4 lanes on the Frontage Road side. She asked if there were plans to turn the Frontage Road into 4 lanes. Eric Russell stated the Village Bouleva rd from Rt. 30 north will be a 5 lane roadway . As you get a little further north of Rt. 30 into the site, there will be two lanes in each direction with a center left turn lane. T he boulevard will actually be wider, that is 3 entrance lanes and 4 exit lan es onto Route 30, including dual left turn lanes, a dedicated through lane that will extend south onto the Frontage Road , and a separate right turn lane. There are no plans to widen the Frontage Road to a 4 lane roadway. There are plans to improve the in tersection of the Frontage Road with Route 30, including providing a separate right turn lane on the Frontage Road approach to Route 30. There will be some widening of the south approach as it approaches Route 30 . T here will be some significant improveme nts, including a second left turn lane in each direction for Route 30. Tracy had concerns that the widening of Frontage Road would require additional property. Eric Russell stated right now they are in the process of preparing an intersection design st udy to look at the R.O.W. issues at the intersection itself. They are uncertain whether additional R.O.W. will be required for that separate right turn lane. He stated they would not be taking private property from homeowners to do that intersection impr ovement. Bill Testa – 22864 Charlotte Rd. He had concerns about flooding in the area. He backs up to the BP Amoco station. Dave Weber stated basically runoff which is north of Route 30 will be captured and taken to the detention ponds to be release d at a lesser rate. He stated it will not worsen the drainage problem. He stated currently there are no improvements to the south side of Route 30. That may be addressed with IDOT plans that are performed along Route 30. Chairman Sobkoviak stated this is offsite and you cannot saddle the next guy with the problem. He stated the petitioner’s engineer and the Village’s engineer state this will not worsen the problem.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 17 of 24 Rosemary Pruss – 16160 S. Ward Street – Lily Cache Subdivision. She stated the resi dents of this subdivision did not have enough no tice. She had concerns about retention runoff bothering their wells, flooding and decreased property values, birds being bothered by the development, the compensatory wa ter amount from 1.5:1 to 1:1, and who has responsibility if adverse affects. She stated presently Lily Cache is built on gravel and they have excellent drainage. She asked who would be responsible for damages and if it is the Village’s responsibility. Michael Garrigan stated if the develop ment has a substantial impact on the stormwater perspective , he felt the law would basically implicate no responsibility. At the end of the day, the Village would work in good faith and due diligence to address any resident’s concerns either in the Villag e of Plainfield or potentially in unincorporated areas. He would submit that it would be the developer’s responsibility if someone could factually show that their development does not comply with stormwater requirements. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the a pplicant could ease the resident’s concern about the stormwater runoff contaminating their wells. Dave Weber stated this goes back to the BMP’s. The bioswales in the parking lot filter the initial contact out of the runoff. So, measures like those and t he wetlands themselves help filter the runoff. He said this development would have significant improvements over whatever oil is currently there considering the condition of the current truck stop . Commissioner Kachel asked about the bioswales. Wendy Schulenberg talked about bioswales. She stated y ou want water to flow through different materials before it gets into the detention. So, water can flow into the bioswale. It doesn’t have to all be gravel. There can be an overflow or catch basin in the bioswale to catch a major storm so the water goes through, but most of the bad things are taken out of the water before it reaches the detention system. She stated it would be helpful if the material was gravel. All of the water flowing through the grave l takes out a lot of the pollutants. A discussion ensued about bioswales. Commissioner Renzi stated it looked as though the water circulation would be counter -clockwise. The petitioner said that was correct. Commissioner Renzi then asked Neal if the s ite could be excavated to do that. Neal stated the lower detention pond is directly connected with a pipe to the upper one and that it is directly connected to pipe into the creek. So, they are all interconnected. You provide a bioswale system within th e parking lot, but you also have some wetland plantings around the detention ponds themselves that will also provide some filtration. Commissioner Renzi stated it was his recollection that in Grande Park the conservationist stated a pipe should not be run directly into the creek, but there should be 50 or 100 feet where the water would be deposited from the detention pond into the wetland and let the natural plants then furth er filter the water as it flows into the creek . Neal stated they are proposing so mething like that. Commissioner Renzi asked if the pipes then are not going to run directly into the creek. The petitioner stated that was correct and that there would be buffers with the bigger pond having a longer buffer. That BMP will be implemented. Commissioner Kachel asked if the ponds are going to be aerated. Wendy stated they will be aerated. Rosemary Pruss then asked if the road to the north is actually built, will it take more wetland and floodplain. Mary Riordan stated that is one of the m ajor reasons it is not going to be built right now. To the extent that anything is done on the north side, the whole process will have to be gone through again. The Army Corps of Engineers, the Village, and FEMA all have to be satisfied. Rosemary also a sked the hours of operation. Mary Riordan stated there will not be any 24 hour operation. Rosemary asked if a plan had been submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers. Mary Riordan stated they are not building in the wetland, nor are they minimizing them. In fact, they are actually enhancing. They are not disturbing the wetlands at all. The Army Corps of Engineers is not involved because nothing is being done at this time to the wetlands.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 18 of 24 Rosemary Pruss stated she knew part of this project is filling in wetlands. Mary Ri ordan stated no. I t is filling in floodplains. It is not touching the wetlands. David Nelson who previously gave testimony had a question about the drainage from the bioswale. Wendy stated the bioswales are not designed yet a s far as they relate to the overall engineering system. A bioswale can be engineered to have an overflow in the bioswale so that once the water gets to a certain elevation, it can flow into the pipe and into the storm system during a heavy rainfall. She stated normally there would not be a pipe. David Nelson stated the detention ponds might not actually collect any water. Wendy stated there will not be bioswales available for all of the parking areas. Dave Weber stated the detention ponds will handle t he entire water running off of this site. David Nelson stated he did not receive his packet until Friday (4 days notice of the meeting). Joy Pinta clarified what had happened with the notices. They relied on a title company to do a property search for t hem for the legal notifications. They asked for homeowner’s names within 300 feet of the property. Unfortunately, there was a mistake made in the case of Mr. Nelson and they assumed that Mr. Nelson’s property was actually part of their property. As soon as they were made aware of the mistake , they immediately sent Mr. Nelson a notice via Federal Express. Commissioner O’Rourke asked what the standard policy was for notification. Michael Garrigan stated notice should be sent to adjacent property owners . In accordance to State Statute they should be mailed 15 days prior to the public hearing. Mary Riordan stated the Statute does require and the Village Ordinance does require 15 days, but as Michael said the law holds that if you have constructive notic e that is sufficient and one of the ways that you demonstrate constructive notice is by showing up at the meeting. Mr. Nelson stated he was the one who informed the Village that he had not received notice and then the Village informed the petitioner . So, he did have constructive notice. It was talked about with V illage staff in depth last week and it was decided this was the way to go. Charles Lysek – McCollum Street. He lives in back of Rod Baker Ford. He was concerned about the additional traffic . They have people trying to avoid the stoplight at Route 30 and Renwick. He wanted to know the impact on streets. Eric Russell, traffic engineer for the petitioner, stated that when the Village Boulevard is extended to Renwick it will be a minor collector road in the Village’s classification system of roadway s , which will draw traffic on Renwick Road from either east or west into this project and it should draw any traffic that might be cutting through that neighborhood as well. Michael Garrigan stated up on the Village’s request, the applicant is obligated to proceed with the construction of that roadway. Commissioner Sanders asked if this would be in the annexation agreement. Michael Garrigan stated it would be in the annexation agreement. The roadway, timing, construction will all be in the annexation agreement. Mr. Russell also asked the hours of operation for this mall. Mary Riordan stated probably the biggest stores will be 9 -10 and the restaurants will go from 9 -11 and maybe midnight on the weeke nds. Jodi Ackert – 2284 Charlotte on the Frontage Road. She had concerns about the additional traffic on the Frontage Road. Eric Russell agreed that the traffic on Frontage Road is very heavy. He reiterated that they were proposing to improve the inter section of Frontage Road and Route 30. These improvements will make conditions better from what they are today. The petitioner is proposing to create dual left turn lanes westbound on U.S. 30 onto the Frontage Road. T he approach of the Frontage Road wil l be widened to have a dedicated
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 19 of 24 through lane that will continue north into this project, a separate right turn lane that will turn right and not be delayed by any through or left turning traffic to get to the Interstate, and a separate left turn lane. It should improve traffic flow to and from the Frontage Road, but they are not proposing to widen the Frontage Road to four lanes as you continue south around the bend. That is an additional problem that will need to be addressed by the Village. IDOT has a plan for the widening of Route 30 that extends from the interchange west to Route 59 that needs to be funded. When this does get funded the interchange and sections of Route 30 to the west of this project will ultimately get widened and provide that 5 lane roadway. Rosemary Pruss who spoke earlier made further comments. She stated no one in the Lily Cache Subdivision had received notice. She stated there was a notice published in the Herald News rather than the Enterprise. She felt the developer sho uld have been made to wait until the next meeting so that everyone could be notified. She was not happy with the 300 feet notice area. She felt the law should be changed to include a wider area. Since there was no further response from the audience, C hairman Sobkoviak closed the public hearing. Chairman Sobkoviak polled the commissioners as to the suitability of the annexation of this property. There was no discussion. He then polled the commissioners as to the special use for the PD. Commissioner Renzi had a concern about the finding, not injurious to adjoining property. His initial response is that it is suitable for a special use. He just had issues of parking, traffic, and flooding that he woul d like to have more information; but assuming all of those questions could be answered , he would not have an issue with the special use. Chairman Sobkoviak then polled the commissioners as to the rezoning of the property. Commissioner Renzi reiterated his concerns with traffic, flooding, and parking. H e stated conceptually with what is proposed, he felt this is a neat project. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the commissioners if they are comfortable with the administrative review agreement, which is similar to the Polo Club agreement. Commissioner O’Rourke wanted to hear from the petitioner the reasoning for the request. Mary Riordan stated because of the number of buildings that will not be developed at the same time, the petitioner would probably be before the commission once a month. She also stated th e other problem would be securing retailers and having to say to them it is subject to Village approval. She felt this would have a real chilling effect with the retailers. It is important that they can go ahead and say to retailers that they have approv al. Commissioner Renzi stated that with administrative review it would also be subject to Village approval. Michael Garrigan stated they would still have to comply with the Village ordinances and the annexation agreement. Mary Riordan stated it would be easier to make an appointment with Michael Garrigan and staff than go through the whole process. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if this was going to be the procedure for the Joliet portion of the project. Mary Riordan stated yes. Mary Riordan stated every thing was subject to the approval of the Village Engineer. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Mary Riordan if the petitioner was comfortable with the 6 stipulations. Mary Riordan stated they were in agreement. Commissioner Bonuchi asked who is responsible if th ere are problems with additional flooding or contamination to the adjoining property owners’ wells. Mary Riordan stated the petitioner has to meet all of the codes and requirements of the Village, FEMA, and Natural Resources ; and if they comply , they are not responsible. If the petitioner violates the code, etc., then the petitioner is responsible. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the petitioner is asking for a variance to the code. Mary Riordan stated yes they are.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 20 of 24 Commissioner McKay had questions ab out the bioswales. She wondered about filtration and the maintenance of the bioswales. She felt as though there are a lot of holes in the plan. Wendy Schulenberg stated the engineering has not been finalized. She stated the petitioner is working with s taff and these are not necessarily holes, but issues that are being finalized. It was the goal that all of these issues will be cleared up by the time the plans are approved. Mary Riordan stated it is very important that the petitioner get s this right. Mary Riordan stated the only thing the petitioner is asking a variance on is the compensatory storage. So rather than providing 1.5:1, the petitioner will be providing 1:1. She asked Neal Eickholtz what impact that would have. Neal Eickholtz stated the compensatory storage that the petitioner is asking for a variance would have very little impact on the flow of the stream. The conveyance of the stream is what FEMA regulates rigidity and the floodplain itself relies on the towns to approve those changes. FEMA is very strict about things that you do in the floodway because that does have an impact upstream and downstream. If you fill in floodplain, it has very little impact on the surface elevation of the flooding. It really is not going to have an effe ct as it relates to flooding and elevations to give the petitioner a variance for the compensatory storage. Mary Riordan stated an association will be created to own the common areas. All of the retailers and commercial users will contribute their pro -rat a share to hire a manager. Someone will be hired to take care of the wetlands and to take care of the maintenance of the detention ponds. Commissioner Kachel asked the petitioner to look at the water level in the detention ponds. Commissioner Sander s asked Neal Eickholtz if they look at the flow rate according to the Army Corps of Engineers. Neal Eicholz stated this is a very complicated scenario to the extent that they have to send this to the Department of Natural Resources to get their sign -off. FEMA will also have to sign -off as well. There are several agencies involved besides the Village of Plainfield. Commissioner Kachel asked about the acreage that will always be in the wetlands. He stated possibly there could be a detention area there to take some of the water. Commissioner O’Rourke asked again about the 1.5:1 compensatory storage versus the 1:1 compensatory storage. Mary Riordan stated it would have been easier to come in and not ask for the variance. Commissioner O’Rourke wondered if this would be less expensive for the petitioner. Mary Riordan stated if they had not asked for the variance it would have made an extreme impact on the project and it would not have been viable. Michael Garrigan reiterated in consideration for the v ariance, staff has required the applicant to do extensive BMP’s. This is truly the first major commercial project that has done extensive BMP’s in the Village of Plainfield. It usually is very difficult to get commercial developers to do BMP’s. Comm isis oner O’Rourke asked if the C ommission would hear what BMP’s the petitioner is doing. Michael Garrigan stated the conceptual landscape plan has already outlined extensive restoration of wetland areas, native plants and restorations. Those are all best man agement practices, which are consistent with the treatment train of stormwaters. These will be detailed as the final engineering evolves. Commissioner O’Rourke still had concerns if the 1:1 compensatory storage would be sufficient. Neal Eickholtz stated there would not be much difference as far as flooding. He explaine d FEMA has two areas of concern , floodway (the area where the stream will convey its flow), and the flood fringes. FEMA identifies the floodway as if you were to fill in the flood fringes , you would only ra ise the elevation of the flood 0.10 of a foot That would be the maximum impact you would have if you filled in all of the flood fringes up to the floodway. The petitioner is providing 1:1. They are putting back in what is being taken o ut. The impact is so minimal; he did not believe there would be an impact at all. Commissioner Bonuchi stated she felt more confident knowing that there is going to be some type of management group in place that is going to oversee the area.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 21 of 24 Commissio ner Renzi asked if there was any tax abatement or TIF contemplated. Michael Garrigan stated there is none requested . Commissioner Renzi also asked why the internal signs need to be 17 feet instead of 15 feet. The petitioner answered it is a compromise b etween what is allowed in Joliet and Plainfield so that the height can be consistent throughout the development. Commissioner Renzi asked about the planting of the median. Wendy Schulenberg stated the requirement is that the median needs to be 30 feet wi de. Their median ranges from 8 to 20 feet wide. A variance is being asked there. T he code states the trees need to be spaced at 30 feet on center. Where the islands narrow down , the petitioner would prefer not to have trees. The trees are being groupe d where the islands are wider. As a result , the tree spacing is further apart than required by code, so a variance is being asked for a minor reduction from the code. Commissioner Renzi asked if the petitioner would be hiring someone with expertise in restoration and enhancement of wetlands. Wendy Schulenberg stated there is someone working on the project. Commissioner Renzi asked what time will the creek restoration take place. The petitioner stated essentially they will not be doing restoration of the creek. They will not be affecting t he creek whatsoever. The mass grading will be performed and prior to that erosion control measures will be implemented to ensure that there will be no silt and other things coming off the property. Once the mass gr ading is complete , topsoil re -spreading will take place in the area nearest the creek. Commissioner Renzi asked if there would be reforestation and introduction of native species along the creek. The petitioner stated that is what he was referring to whe n he stated they will be re -spreading the topsoil and doing the plantings at that point. Commissioner Renzi asked what measures will be taken in case there is a heavy rainfall before the detention ponds are in place. The petitioner stated there is a slig ht window of construction, but the volume of earth from the detention ponds is needed for the rest of the site. The detention ponds will be one of the very first areas that will be excavated. The site will be excavated such that when the mass grading tak es place it will run to the detention ponds. Commissioner Renzi asked if there was a plan in place to preserve as much of the natural tree coverage already present. Wendy Schulenberg stated most of the trees on the site are not of good q uality. The peti tioner will look at the trees on the site and try to save quality trees. They will remove the trees in the center of the site and look closely at the quality of the trees along the perimeter. Commissioner Renzi asked if the petitioner is waiting on IDOT for Route 30. Mary Riordan stated all of the road improvements will be completed. Commissioner Renzi asked if that would also include the intersection at Frontage Road. Mary Riordan replied yes. Commissioner Renzi asked about the right -in/right -out for the second entrance. Commissioner Kachel asked if the issue of the Frontage Road was brought up by any of the residents at the Joliet hearing as far as what might be done at Caton Farm. Mary Riordan stated no. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he did not h ear any objections from the commissioners about the B -3 rezoning. There was no problem with the commissioners. Commissioner O’Rourke stated there was a new traffic study issued to Eric, but they have not seen it. He stated the petitioner had stated all of the improvements on Route 30 would be completed when the project starts , including what IDOT has proposed. The petitioner will take on these improvements. Mary Riordan stated that was correct and the petitioner will pay for these improvements. Commis sioner O’Rourke asked if the Village is contributing. Mary Riordan stated they are asking the Village to help with the costs. She
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 22 of 24 stated the cost for Route 30 will be $1.5 Million. The petitioner is asking the city to participate in the $1.5 Million b ecause it will benefit more property than just their property. The petitioner does not want the Boulevard, but the Village does and wants it to be designed to the Village standards. The petitioner is also asking for assistance with the cost of the Boulev ard as well. Commissioner O ’Rourke asked about the extension of Renwick Road. He asked if that section of the petitioner’s property was not going to be annexed in at this time. Commissioner O’Rourke asked since the Village would not have jurisdiction over that property could they require the petitioner to build that road. Mary Riordan stated that the petitioner would be required to annex that strip that goes from the creek up to Renwick and then the road could be built on that strip. Commissioner O’R ourke stated that was not being done during this process. Mary Riordan agreed . Commissioner Renzi stated it was his understanding that it was part of the annexation agreement . W hen the Village says build the road, it will go from the end of the Boulevar d and will at some point juncture with Renwick Road. Mary Riordan and Michael Garrigan agreed with Commissioner Renzi that it would be part of the annexation agreement . Commissioner O’Rourke had concerns that the traffic report showed some of the traffic off of Route 30 being able to enter and exit basically off of Renwick through the project. He would lean towards having the road built sooner as opposed to later because later may never happen. Commissioner O’Rourke asked how many people were sent notic es. Mary Riordan stated the code requires that all adjacent property owners be notified. They notified everyone within 250 feet. The only error was Mr. Nelson’s property. Commissioner McKay asked if there was a sign out on the property. Michael Garr igan stated there was. He had posted it himself. At 11:29 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the proposed annexation of the subject site into the Village of Plainfield. Commissioner McKay seconded the m otion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Murawski, Bonuchi, Kachel, McKay, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 Abstain: O’Rourke The motion is carried 6:0 Commissioner Renzi wanted to add a 7 th stipulation stated Plan Commission acce pts findings of fact to the next motion. At 11:30 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Special Use for Planned Development subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of th e Village Engineer; 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; 3. Incorporating some additional face brick and stone on the conceptual elevations as outlined in this staff report;
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 23 of 24 4. Submitted conceptual rear and side elevations and complying with the Village’s commercial requirement of 360 degree design approach for these rear and side elevations; 5. Adding some decorative crosswalks along key areas within the proposed plan. 6. Incorporate a sidewalk along Route 30 an d sidewalk connections along Village Boulevard; 7. Plan Commission accepts findings of fact for the special use as presented in the staff report . Commisisoner Bonuchi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, M cKay, Renzi, Murawski, Bonuchi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 Abstain: O’Rourke The motion is carried 6:0. At 11:31 p.m. Commissioner McKay made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the proposed rezoning to B -3 (Business Highway District). Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : McKay, Renzi, Murawski, Bonuchi, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 Abstain: O’Rourke The motion is carried 6:0 Commissioner O’Rourke wanted to give his r eason for abstaining for the record. He stated he had concerns about the mistakes with the notice going out to the property owners. He felt possibly a vote should be postponed so more notice could be given to the property owners. He also thought it was i mportant that the commissioners have a list of the BMP’s versus the variances requested. He suggested in the future that the Commission get a summary from the Traffic Engineer, Eric Gallt, if he is unable to attend the meeting. Commissioner Kachel stated it would be nice during a public hearing to have the Fire Department, Police, Park District, Traffic Engineer, etc. present to answer questions. Commissioner O’Rourke wanted to state he felt this would be a great project for the Village of Plainfield, bu t he just felt the Commission needed more information. Chairman Sobkoviak agreed that the Commission should have a list of the variances that are being requested. Commissioner McKay talked about the benefits of the PUD, but would like to know what the tr ade off is for the variances.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 24 of 24 Commissioner Kachel asked that before this goes to the Village Board , someone should talk with Eric and discuss the Frontage Road issue. He stated just for an economic reason, it would be nice to get people coming from Sho rewood or Joliet. That side of I -55 will be one of the main roads that will be used. Since there was no further business before the Plan Commission, Chairman Sobkovia k adjourned the meeting at 11:36 p.m. _________________________________________ R es pectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary – Village of Plainfield