HomeMy Public PortalAbout2007-11-06 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RECORD OF MINUTES DATE : November 6, 2007 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the m eeting of the Plan Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel, McKay, Renzi; O’Rourke, and Sanders; Chairman Sobkoviak; and Cameron Bettin, Plainfield Park District Representative Absent: Commissioner Bonuchi , ex -officio Commissioner Cox , Plainfield Fire District, Plainfield School District, Library District, and Plainfield Police Department Also Present: Michael Garrigan – Village Planner Village of Plainfield, Jonathan Proulx – Planner I I Village of Plainfield, Carol Millan – Secretary Village of Plainfield, and Neal Eickholtz – Baxter and Woodman MINUTES: The minutes fro m the Plan Commission meeting of October 16 , 2007 were accepted as amended. Page 6 of 7, Paragraph 2, last sentence: stipulation #6 was changed to stipulation #5. DEVELOPMENT REPORT Michael Garrigan gave the development report. He stated the Village Boa rd directed the village attorney to draft the ordinances for the annexation agreement, annexing the property, rezoning the property to B -3 and approving a special use for a PD for the Boulevard project at their November 5, 2007 meeting . The ordinances wil l come back to the Board at their next meeting. NEW BUSINESS: CASE: 1348 -071207.AA.RZ.SU.CP RIVER VILLAGE Annexation (Public Hearing) Rezoning (Public Hearing) Special Use (Public Hearing) Concept Plan Location: West of IL. Rt. 59, south of Fra ser Rd. Applicant: Patti Bernhard At 7:04 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion to continue this case to the 12/4/07 Plan Commission Meeting. Commissioner McKay seconded the motion.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2007 Page 2 of 16 Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: McKay, O’Rourke,, Sanders, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion carried 5:0. CASE: 1360 -083107.AA.RZ.SU.PP VISTA POINTE Annexation (Public Hearing) Rezoning (Public Hearing) Special Use (Public Hearing) Preliminary Plat Location: East of Ridge Rd., South of Wheeler,and North of Walker Rd. Applicant: Wiseman Hughes Enterprise, Inc. Patti A. Bernhard, Attorney TIME: 7:07 p.m. Michael Garrigan summarized the staff report. He stated this is a public hearing being held pursuant to public notice a nd in accordance with all State Statutes and Village ordinance. He stated the applicant is proposing to develop a total of 717 residential units south of Wheeler Road, east of Ridge Road, and north of Walker Road. There also is a 18 acre commercial site at the northeast corner of Ridge Road and Walker Road. Approximately 215 acres were previously annexed into the Village in 2005 and according to the approved annexation agreement, the owner is entitled to a gross density of 3.26 dwelling units per acre. At the present time, the Plainfield Park District and the applicant have petitioned to annex approximately 87 acres at the northeast corner of Ridge Road and Walker Road. This site was originally identified to be a regional lighted park for the Plainfield Park District. The Plainfield Park District and the applicant have entered into an agreement to swap this 87 acres for a new regional park site on Walker Road, just west of Ridge Road. Staff believes this is a logical extension of the Village’s municipa l boundaries. Michael went on to say the 2 findings of fact for a special use permit for a PD have been met. He went on to say that the 5 findings of fact for a rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of Ridge Road and Walker Road to a B -3 have been met. He also stated the project encompasses approximately 302 acres and contains 717 dwelling units, of which 297 will be single family homes and 420 will be townhomes. There will be a proposed density of 2.53 units per gross acre. There will be a full access provided from Ridge Road and one full access is provided from Wheeler Road. There also is one full access on Walker Road. Consistent with the annexation agreement the applicant is responsible for making interim improvements along the WIKADUKE , which will contain two lanes and a landscaped median. They also will be responsible for improvements along Wheeler Road and Walker Road and will also be responsible for 25% of the cost for the signalization of the intersection of Ridge and Wheeler , and Ridge and Walker Roads. There will be a centrally located 5 acre park. The site will contain an additional 40 acres of stormwater management areas. Also there will be a 40 acre school site , which will contain some athletic fields and open space. A bike path will be const ructed along the south side of W heeler Road. An internal bike path will be located along the new north/south boulevard within the right -of -way, which may require dimensions of 8 feet versus the Village’s standard 10 feet.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2007 Page 3 of 16 There will be the introduction of large clusters of native plantings and a more naturalistic design approach for the retention ponds. The subject site contains an extensive stormwater management system, which the Village Engineer is in the process of reviewing. Staff would be looking for some modifications to the plan. Staff would like to see a landscape plan for the proposed retention ponds with extensive native plantings. Staff would also like to see additional through -lots adjacent to the new north/south boulevar d consistent with the PUD Design Guidelines. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neal Eickholtz if there are any issues. Neal stated the preliminary engineering plans have been reviewed . T hey have met with the developer’s design team to go over the more significan t issues. It was his understanding that the applicant is in the process of addressing the concerns. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neal if he expected any issues that have been raised to be resolved before the case proceeds to the Village Board. Neal replied he felt it was a question the developer should answer. He stated they do have some concerns and have not had a response from the developer on those concerns. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Cameron Bettin to give a background of the land swap between the Park D istrict and the developer. Cameron Bettin, Superintendent of Planning for Plainfield Park District talked. He stated when the developer was going through the concept approval process, they approached the Park District about the Park District’s 80 acres. For the last 2 to 2 -1/2 years the Park District has been working on an agreement with the developer in order to get the land swap approved. The developer is going to make improvements to the 80 acres. They will be doing mass grading, and earth work. Th e developer will put in parking lots for the Park District and do all of the native landscaping, stormwater management, and seeding. Basically, the developer will get the site ready for the Park District so when the Park District is ready to go in and bui ld the ball fields, the Park District does not have to do any earth work, except for the in field areas. Once the improvements are completed and the Park District approves of the improvements, the land swap will then take place. Cameron stated the land s wap will probably not occur for a couple of years. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Cameron if the Park District was satisfied with the performance and the arrangements made with the developer. Cameron stated the Park District is satisfied , and at this point the y are just working on a few minor details with the actual plan of the sports complex, which is an exhibit to the agreement. The actual agreement is the park dedication agreement for this particular project , and then the land swap agreement is actually an exhibit to that. He stated the Park District is hop ing to have their Board approve this on November 14 th . Commissioner Kachel asked Cameron about the bike trail tie in. Cameron stated any development that would be coming in directly west of this develop ment on the other side of Ridge Road and Walker Road is connected to the proposed sports complex. Commissioner Kachel was concerned about the downturn in the economy and that it could be a while before something was built there. Cameron stated the Park D istrict could take a look at that. Commissioner O’Rourke asked Cameron if there were any problems created for the Park District with being off of Ridge Road, as far as designing the layout of the fields, etc. Cameron stated it basically is the same lay out that was originally planned for this area. It actually is a better layout than previously planned. He stated the Park District is actually gaining property because with Ridge Road, The WIKADUKE, the Park District would have lost a lot of right -of -way . It would have been more costly for the Park District. Commissioner Renzi had concerns that since the lighted field was further out that there was something that needed to be done to make sure the Park District could get lights. It was his understandin g that in some
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2007 Page 4 of 16 areas it is more difficult to get lights if the sign is not up early enough. Cameron stated he did not know if there was anything the Commission needed to do. The area to the west where the sports complex is being moved to is unincorpora ted; and once the agreement is in place, the Park District is going to start the Special Use Permit process with Kendall County. It was his understanding there would be no issues with a lighted sports complex going up there. Commissioner Kachel believe d there was a sign up which stated “future home of lighted sports complex.” Cameron stated they would probably move that sign. He stated they need to work with the developer since it is still their property. Commissioner Kachel stated that at least peop le will know when they buy a piece of property about the location of the sports complex. Commissioner Renzi agreed. Commissioner McKay asked Cameron if the sports complex will be developed right after the land swap. Cameron stated the Park District is hoping to get in there soon after the agreement is signed . He stated the Park District’s main focus will be the softball fields, 5 baseball fields that are proposed. He stated the softball fields will be completed first. He stated a couple of the fields will be completed fairly quickly, within a year after the land swap. They probably will not get used for a couple of years because they want to get the turf established. He stated if funds start coming in through development, they can get more fields co mpleted at that time. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the people representing the petitioner. Patti Bernhard is the attorney for the applicant, Wiseman Hughes. She introduced the ot her people present: Cary Hanse n, Wiseman Hughes; Mike Schoppe, Schoppe Desi gn Associates; Chris Funkhouser, Schoppe Design Associates; Todd Roberts; and Jim Meyers, Merit Engineering. Mike Schoppe gave a presentation. He is the land planner and land architect. He talked about changes since the original concept plan was appro ved as part of the annexation agreement. He stated there were three parcels that were not annexed with the annexation agreement. He showed on a slide the piece of property that would be the land swap area . He stated there are 4 single -family neighborhoo ds, just as on the previous concept plan . There is a north/south spine road, as well as the east /west connection into WIKA DUKE. He pointed out the layout of the stormwater management system. There are a series of lakes moving through the property. The retention areas are a type of basin that has permanent water to them and they will be landscaped accordingly. There is a right -in, right -out access. They are looking at some additional access to the commercial property as well. The access will come into the commercial from within the neighb orhood, as well as from the WIKA DUKE Trail. That will be accomplished by a full access off of Walker , right -in/right -out off of WIKA DUKE , and another full access coming in off of the east/west internal street. There will also be pedestrian access to the commercial areas, as well as vehicular access. He stated there are three major access points. All three will be a major entrance into the development. All of these entrances will have a water feature, signage, a bou levard entrance, and landscaping. There will be a clubhouse with a pool, tennis, and sand volleyball. Cary Hansen then spoke. She stated the garages will be non -dominant. There will be six different product types. She talked about the architecture a nd the fact that Plainfield is very committed to 4 -sided architecture. She stated there will be porches on each dwelling , and that the townhomes will be rear loaded. She stated there is a 25% non -dominant garage requirement in the Village of Plainfield. She talked about the Pattern book.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2007 Page 5 of 16 Chairman Sobkoviak asked the petitioner if staff’s requests for the submittal of a landscape plan for the proposed retention ponds with introduction of extens ive native plantings, submitall of a revised landscape p lan consistent with staff’s recommendations in the staff report, and the introduction of additional through -lots adjacent to the new north/south boulevard remained as open issues. The petitioner stated they are working with staff trying to get the revised landscape plan, and are willing to work with staff to get some additional through -lots. Commissioner Kachel stated there is an access point off of the commercial on the WIKADUKE, basically two access points. He wanted to know if that would be a right -in /right -out only. He thought he remembered during the talk about the WIKADUKE if there was a major arterial, there would be an attempt to get some type of an access road in front on some of the commercial on the WIKADUKE so there would not have to be anoth er turning point. He referenced some areas south on Rt. 59 there is a roadway in front of the commercial where you follow it down. He stated this is something that could be thought about. He said it was something like a service road. Commissioner Renzi mentioned the right -in/right -out in the center of the commercial to the full access point in the community. He stated that might be a nice place to have a lane so it could be an acceleration lane coming out of the commercial node going north, and then als o deceleration for people turning in. The flow can then stay toward the center of the WIKADUKE. Commissioner Renzi had questions about the bike path. He asked if it could be more of a meandering bike path. Mike Schoppe stated the location of the bike path. He stated it will continue all the way down to Walker Road. He told Commissioner Renzi they would look at opportunities . Commissioner O’Rourke asked why the bike path was 8 feet instead of the 10 feet. Cary Hansen stated they listed the number o f opportunities along both the east and west side of the north/south spine , and it was requested to be installed in lieu of a sidewalk on either side. The petitioner was working with the perimeters of the existing right -of -way that had been identified as part of the plan requirement. She stated she thought there was some flexibility relative to the location of the utilities to be able to either widen out the bike path and reduce the parkway a little bit, but it seems to fit more consistently in lieu of th e sidewalk at the 8 feet. She stated they were trying to fit everything within the specified right -of -way. Commissioner Kachel stated the reasoning behind the 10 feet instead of 8 feet is there are walkers, bikers, and you also have Seniors. He would li ke the bike path to stay at 10 feet if possible. The petitioner stated they would look at this. Commissioner O’Rourke stated the distance was set at 10 feet for a reason. There was a discussion about bike paths. Commissioner Sanders had a question rela ted to the organization of the Homeowner Association. He asked if there would be multiple associations. He assumed each one of the detention areas would be a separate recorded plat. The petitioner agreed. Commissioner Sanders asked if the Village ordin ances for natural landscaping, etc, would be given to the Homeowners Associations so that they would know how to maintain these areas. Cary Hansen stated that Wiseman Hughes will be handling this for quite some time. They will hire a management company t hat comes in and maintains all of the common areas. Before that can be turned over, the homeowners will elect a Board. The management company has several meetings with the new association to identify what the maintenance responsibilities are. There will also be signage, if it is a “no mow” area, etc. There is an education to the Homeowners Association.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2007 Page 6 of 16 Commissioner McKay wanted to make sure the engineering is in place. Todd Roberts spoke for the petitioner on this matter. He stated they have work ed extensively with the engineering staff ; and as they submit revised plans , the petitioner will address all of the comments of the Village engineer. There are a host of comments from stormwater to utility pipe sizes. All of these issues will be worked out. Commissioner Renzi asked if the engineering that was designed was accounting for future development or does it also include the non -permeable surface that would result from a school. Todd Roberts stated the detention is designed to cover everything on the plans, including the commercial site. Commissioner Renzi asked about the open space across from the school site and if it was going to be a passive area, with trees being planted there, etc. Mike Schoppe stated this is a pocket park that will be owned by the Homeowners Association, but it is not intended to have any type of active recreation to it. Commissioner Renzi asked why Elm trees. Michael Garrigan stated staff is pushing for the introduction of Elm trees. He stated the legacy of the Ame rican Elm speaks for itself. Commissioner Renzi asked about the percentages for garages, side -loaded, dominant, non -dominant. He asked how this would be enforced. Michael Garrigan stated staff is working on a tracking system with the Building Departme nt. Commissioner Renzi asked if there would be a penalty. Michael Garrigan stated no building permit would be issued without the correct configuration for the garage. There was a discussion about the garage loading. Commissioner Kachel asked if the ber ming, etc. for a commercial area could be done at first so the people living around the area would be shielded from the construction rather than having a stripped site sitting there empty . Commissioner O’Rourke had concerns about the density and wondered why there were so many townhomes. Patti Bernhard stated the original annexation agreement approved a larger density. Michael Garrigan stated when this concept plan had previously come forward, there was no boundary agreement with Joliet. At that time, l arger densities were adjacent to the Joliet Area. Prior to the annexation agreement, the Joliet Boundary Agreement was secured. Chairman Sobkoviak opened the meeting to Public Comment. Mr. Bodner who resides on Walker Road gave testimony. He had concer ns about traffic. He sta ted he has lived at his residence for 37 years. He also asked how people would cross Ridge Road with the park being put on the west side of Ridge Road. He felt with all of the retention areas, there will be a problem with geese. He also asked what would go into the commercial area. He was concerned that the developer would sell off the property. He stated the land has been up for sale for the last 6 months. He stated there is property to the south of his property where the top soil has been stripped off and it has set empty for about one year . Chairman Sobkoviak closed the public hearing since there was no further public comment. Commissioner Renzi asked if there was a traffic study. He asked how the people will get east and west. Michael Garrigan stated Renwick Road, Wheeler Road is an issue because of the bridge. Long term plans will make Renwick a major east/west arterial. He further stated the WIKADUKE corridor is the main north/south route to connect to Route 126. He stated the main east/west corridor will probably be Route
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2007 Page 7 of 16 126. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if that has been approved. Michael Garrigan stated that has not at this time been approved by the Village Board. It has gone before the Village Board , and they are making revisions to that plan. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that would extend County Line Road west to 143 rd Street. Michael Garrigan stated that was correct. Commissioner Kachel asked whether there was anything on the books that would not allow developer s to just strip the land and then just let it sit. He wanted to know if there were any ordinance s that require land be built up in a certain amount of time. Michael Garrigan stated Restoration Bonds are issued. They can be used to restore the land if it remains undeveloped for a certain period of time. Commissioner O’Rourke stated the setbacks are different than what typically is required. Patti Bernhard stated the setbacks were established in the annexation agreement previously approved. Commission er O’Rourke stated 80 acres were new. Patti Bernhard replied 87 acres were new. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the developer took the formula from the original annexation and applied it to this 87 acres. Patti Bernhard replied, yes. Commissioner O’Ro urke asked why there needs to be another cut on the WIKADUKE for the commercial. He stated since there is full access off the residential, why does there need to be one off of the WIKADUKE. Patti Bernhard stated a commercial user is going to want to have that access. Michael Garrigan stated Erik Gallt, the Village Traffic Engineer, has reviewed this plan and is comfortable with the proposed right -in/right -out. This is consistent with the WIKADUKE Plan. Commissioner Kachel asked about the 30 feet land scape buffer in the commercial area. He asked if it would be best to include on the plan the wording “100% screening”. He would like to see that on the prints. Michael Garrigan stated he would work with the applicant on that. At 8:49 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the proposed annexation of approximately 87 acres as being a logical extension of the Village’s municipal boundaries. Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called f or a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, O’Rourke, Sanders, Kachel, McKay, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 6:0. At 8:50 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Special Use for a Planned Develo pment 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. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2007 Page 8 of 16 Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call Aye: Sanders, Kachel, McKay, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: O’Rourke The motion is carried 5:1 At 8:51 p.m. Commissioner McKay made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the rezoning of approximately 18 acres l ocated at the northeastern corner of Ridge Road and Walker Road to B -3 (Business Highway District). Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Sanders, Kachel, McKay, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: O’Rourke The motion is carried 5:1 At 8:52 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat with the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer, 2. Complian ce with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District, 3. Submittal of a revised landscape plan consistent with staff’s proposed modifications as outlined in this staff report; 4. Submittal of a landscape plan for the retention ponds within t his development; 5. Introduction of additional through -lots within the plan. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, McKay, Renzi, Sanders, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: O’Rourke The motion car ried 5:1 Commissioner Renzi thanked the applicant for the good job done on the Pattern Book. At 8:55 p.m. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a 10 minute break. At 9:05 p.m. the Plan Commission reconvened.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2007 Page 9 of 16 CASE: 1368 -101807.SU.SPR HO PE BUFFET/CHINA BUFFET Request: Special Use/Major Change To a Planned Development (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review Location: 13610 S. Route 59 (west of IL Rt. 59, south of 135 th St. Applicant: Joyce Lee (Brian Lane, representing the applicant) TIME: 9:05 p.m. Jonathan Proulx summarized the staff report. He stated this is a public hearing and the appropriate notices have been posted and published in accordance with State Statute and local ordinance. A planned development and a site plan review were p reviously granted for this site earlier this year for construction of a medical/professional office building. The applicant is seeking a major change to the PD and site plan review to allow construction of a 7,000 sq. ft. restaurant. The petitioner is se eking a variation from the required 30 foot front yard setback to allow a 20 foot building setback and to allow required parking of 65 spaces in lieu of the 70 spaces required by code. The prior PD did allow for a 10% parking flexibility with the approval of the Village Planner. The proposed parking would be compatible with the prior PUD approval. John Proulx stated the elements that are consistent with the PD design guidelines, exceed the minimum ordinance requirements, and provide enhancements that p rovide balance for the requested relief. He stated this will be a front loaded building with parking in the rear; sole access will be from the existing Plainfield Commons access drive, which will eliminate the present driveway on Route 59 , there will be c ross access to the property to the south to facilitate potential future redevelopment, and there is a high quality architectural design compatible with adjacent development. He further stated the 2 findings of fact for the special use. Staff believes it would be appropriate to establish restrictions on hours of operation and hours of delivery/servicing of the building primarily to restrict or prohibit servicing of the building late in the evening, overnight, and in extremely early morning hours. Staff al so believes that the trash enclosure should be located in the far northwest corner of the lot as proposed in the prior site plan approval. Staff has reviewed the additional 7 findings of fact for a Planned Development and believes the findings can be met. John Proulx further stated vehicular access will be provided at one location via the shared access drive that currently serves the Plainfield Commons commercial subdivision. Parking will be located on the west and south of the building . The building wi ll be front loaded and located on the northeast corner of the lot. Staff believes the relief from the front setbacks is required in order to configure the site and achieve the parking that would be needed for the restaurant. A new sidewalk will be constr ucted on the west side of Route 59 and on the south side of the access drive. A pedestrian connection would be made from the Route 59 sidewalk into the development. He stated since he wrote his staff report the Fire District has required a “turn -around” area in the parking lot to avoid backing out. Staff believes that could be achieved by stripping out some of the parking as a “no parking” area. The petitioner has agreed to relocate the trash enclosure to the northwest area of the site consistent with t he previous approval. As far as parking, to accommodate the Fire District’s request for a “turn -around” area, the proposed 66 parking spaces may be reduced to 64 or 63. There is no on -site detention proposed. The development is below the 1 acre threshol d that would require on -site detention. The current property owner has obtained an easement agreement to allow the site to drain into the adjacent Eagle Chase Homeowners Association pond. The Village Engineer did review and stated there is sufficient cap acity in that pond for the proposed project. Staff has a few recommendations regarding the elevation of the building, (the roof material above the entrance be consistent with the principal roof material, all horizontal banding and
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2007 Page 10 of 16 molding be carried aro und all 4 sides of the building, the south elevation be consistent with the other 3 elevations to avoid a blank wall and also incorporate some faux windows to the south elevation.) The applicant needs to submit landscape plans and photometric plans. The a pplicant has stated those plans will be in conformance with the previously -approved plans. Staff believes the major change to the planned development is acceptable and the findings can still be based on the new development proposal. Chairman Sobkoviak talked about Stipulation #2 regarding the major change to the PD. He felt snow removal should be removed. He asked the other commissioners if they were in support. Commissioner O’Rourke disagreed. The rest of the commissioners were in agreement. Commi ssioner O’Rourke questioned whether the petitioner could be asked if he could abide by this before it be stricken from the stipulations. He then asked Jonathan why it was in the stipulations. Jonathan Proulx stated there is a problem with a certain site in town where the lot is cleared very early regularly when it snows. He did not foresee it being a significant problem. Chairman Sobkoviak stated they would leave “snow removal” in stipulation #2 and when the petitioner comes up, he can answer if it woul d be a problem. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neal Eickholtz if there are any engineering considerations that need to be discussed. Neal stated the engineering was not submit ted as part of this application. T hey did not anticipate any problems because the fi rm that designed the previous site, has designed this site as well , and there have not been a whole lot of changes made. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Brian Lane. He is representing the petitioner, Joyce Lee. He stated the petitioner, Joyce Lee, is very p roactive and sensitive to the adjacent property owners. He stated the previously -approved landscaping plan will not be altered. It provided for 100% screening both to the west and to the south. He stated there will be additional landscaping along the Ro ute 59 parking lot to provide some sort of visibility buffer that will add to the aesthetic value. This will be addressed with bushes between 4 to 5 feet high, along with ground cover to fill in the gaps. There will be 100% coverage and will be year -roun d with items, such as evergreens, bushes, etc. Chairman Sobkoviak questioned the petitioner whether any changes had been made to the landscape buffer on the west side or the south side from the original proposal. The petitioner stated no changes have been made. Brian Lane stated the engineering plan would be forthcoming, but the only anticipated change would be drainage downspout connections. Perhaps a couple of additional manholes that the additional parking will require will be added. That will al l tie in with the previously -submitted engineering and drain to the Eagle Chase subdivision. Commissioner Sanders asked what the height of the berm is on the west and south side. Brian Lane stated he did not have the landscaping plan present. He asked J onathan Proulx if he had the information available. Commissioner Kachel asked if that property was higher. Jonathan Proulx stated the the property slopes generally from north to south going downhill. The prior plan had the south end of the parking lot w ith a slight berm or lip. Brian Lane stated the hours of operation. They are Sunday thru Thursday 11:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. and Friday and Saturday 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Service delivery vehicles will be between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. He stated in regards to snow removal and potential landscaping, Joyce Lee will make every attempt to work with a contracted firm based according to bids to get the appropriate hours being sensitive to the adjacent homeowners.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2007 Page 11 of 16 Commissioner Renzi asked a bout the recommendations for the elevations. He asked if the petitioner was in agreement or disagreement. Brian Lane stated the elevations are currently being addressed with the architect. The architect is in Beijing, China so there is some sort of a lo gistic challenge in getting that all coordinated. The commissioners all agreed there should be some architectural detail along the south side of the building. Chairman Sobkoviak suggested a stipulation #7 be added to the site plan review approval to addr ess this issue. Jonathan Proulx suggested that could be included as additional language in stipulatio n #4. The commissioners agreed , and also added that the horizontal banding shall continue on all four sides. Commissioner Sanders asked Jonathan Proulx if the property immediately to the south was zoned B -3. Jonathan Proulx stated currently it is zoned R -1. Commissioner Sanders asked if there was any need to have any easement there to continue in case it becomes developed. Jonathan Proulx stated there is proposed, both in the annexation agreement and in the current site plan, a cross -access easement. Brian Lane pointed this out on the slide and stated this will run straight south. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if that easement exists t oday. Brian Lan e stated, yes. Jonathan Proulx clarified that the easement has been identified on a final plat that the Village Board and Plan Commission reviewed. He asked Brian Lane if that plat has been recorded. Brian Lane replied he has not received recorded copie s back yet, but it has been submitted. Commissioner Renzi asked why there is a sidewalk on the west side of the drive, and asked where the sidewalk will go. Jonathan Proulx stated it will terminate into the detention area where that transitions into the Aldi parking lot. He stated there are residents of Eagle Chase that go to Aldi and walk through this area without a sidewalk. Staff feels the are a would benefit from a sidewalk extension in the future. Chairman Sobkoviak opened the meeting to public com ment. James W. Schinski was sworn in and gave testimony. He is a resident of the Eagle Chase Subdivision and President of the Homeowners Association for Eagle Chase. He stated currently there is an agreement between the developer and the Eagle Chase Hom eowners Association for stormwater drainage . They entered into the agreement with the understanding that the development would be a medical office center. He had concerns about the location of the trash enclosure and the amount of trash being generated f rom a restaurant use. He asked if there was sanitary sewage by the trash enclosure. Brian Lane stated he did not have the engineering plans with him to identify where the connections are located . Mr. Schinski was concerned about the runoff from cleaning the trash enclosure area going into the detention pond for Eagle Chase. He stated their easement agreement was based on the use being a medical office building. He stated their detention pond has potable water in it and fish . T he residents use the area for fishing. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the easement agreement was use specific ; and if the use is being changed, is the easement agreement still agreeable with the Homeowners Association. Mr. Schinski stated that would have to be reviewed by their attorney. He also had concerns with the amount of traffic that would be generated , and if the applicant would be granted a liquor license. Brian Lane asked Joyce Lee if there would be liquor service. She stated there would not be any liquor service. He stated the Eagle Chase Homeowners Association is taking the position that they are not in favor of granting an easement. Jonathan Proulx stated it was an important consideration to understand whether the easement that is in place is transferable or can accommodate a restaurant use. It is staff’s intention to have that question answered before the project goes to the Village Board.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2007 Page 12 of 16 Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Homeowners Association needs to have the easement contract reviewed by an attorney and see what rights they have. Commissioner Kachel asked if there was any way there could be underground detention for this area. Mr. Schinski stated he had been involved somewhat with the Jewel building and stated there is a sanitary sewer near the trash enc losure so when the area is washed down the runoff goes into the sanitary sewer rather than the storm sewer system. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if this is a common problem with restaurant sites throughout the Village. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he didn’t be lieve the Commission had all the information they need to make a decision. Commissioner O’Rourke agreed. Commissioner Kachel stated this site is different because it has a retention pond right next to it where the runoff is suppose to go. Brian Lane s uggested that there are companies that dry clean these trash enclosures. He also stated that the runoff from the parking lot, which could contain oil from cars, etc., could pose an even greater problem than the soap used to clean the trash enclosures. He stat ed the soaps break down and do not pose a hazard to the environment , marine life, or aquatic life. He stated he would prefer to complete more research on this. Jonathan Proulx stated as far as potential concerns over a liquor license, given that thi s is a PUD, the Plan Commission would have the ability to either propose a restriction on a liquor license or just propose project specific permitting requirements. In other words if a restaurant in the future would pursue a liquor license, the PUD could require notice as is done with the zoning cases, for example, and there would be a public hearing. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he did not see a liquor license as being a detriment one way or another. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there would be the opport unity to go back and say rezone this to BT, where this would be a special use under that. Jonathan Proulx stated the Comprehensive Plan identifies the area as general commercial, and the BT zoning is not compatible with that . The Village has generally sh ied away from involuntary rezoning. It is within the Village’s power, but it is a practice the Village has chosen not to implement. John Weiffenbach was sworn in and gave testimony. He stated this is definitely a major change to the PUD. He stated one of the major changes is the proposed hours of operation . T he previous facility hours were stated to be ending around 5:00 p.m. With a restaurant use , they will be going strong at 5:00 p.m. He stated the outlot A was created to keep the development lot u nder the requirement that would require its own detention , and that was done with the idea this was going to be a business/professional building and not a restaurant. It was proposed to not be a super high traffic area. The trash enclosure was relocated in that plan to the northwest corner of the parking lot specifically because of the issues that were raised. He would encourage that the trash enclosure be kept in the northwest corner. He stated that snow removal was an issue that was brought up at the original hearing , and that was probably why it was kept in the notes. He appreciated the planner doing that and thanked him . He was concerned that the snow would be dropped into the septic field of the property to the south . He would encourage keeping t he provision for snow plowing in stipulation #2. O ne of the things that was discussed and acknowledged by t he petitioner was that they would have whatever snow plowing that was done set up so that the contractor would not push it off to the south into the adjacent back yard to the south. There was 100% screening to the south to create a living barrier to save the septic field. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it can be required that the snow removal be pushed to the west side of the lot. Mr. Weiffenbach sugges ted even pushing the snow to the east side because there is a huge sewer interceptor at the southeastern corner of the property. He felt there is not enough information at this time. He is not against commercial, but has a problem with this project becau se this is a change from what was originally approved .
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2007 Page 13 of 16 Brenda Santore was sworn in. She lives behind the project in the Eagle Chase Subdivision. She asked if there was going to be a berm in back of her property. Brian Lane stated there will be a berm w ith 100% screening. Brenda Santore then stated she has a swale in the back of her yard and wondered if the drainage from the parking lot would go into the swale. She is not in favor of the restaurant use. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the plan being shown was the present landscape plan since it was titled prior landscape plan on the slide . Brian Lane stated the landscape plan would not change other than adding the additional plantings. Chairman Sobkoviak stated a building was approved. It just ha ppened that they were going to put a medical facility in it. The Commission has no control over who the developer rents the building to. Brian Lane stated they fully intended to build a medical office facility. The Illinois Health Facilities Planning Bo ard denied the user twice. He hired a realtor to try and find other tenants who were interested in medical space. He could not get a signed letter of intent to go ahead and build the medical office building. Brenda Santore asked if there wasn’t a buildi ng like this down near Renwick that is now vacant. Brian Lane stated that was a lease situation. Brian Lane stated the very last thing he wanted to do was build a building and have it sit vacant. John Weiffenbach stated the benefits of a PUD. He stat ed since it is a PUD, you can put any requirements on it that you want to. He asked that what was talked about would be put in the PUD as restrictions on that property so that the residents will be protected. Brenda Santore had a question about the snow removal. She was wondering how it would be guaranteed that the snow removal would not be placed on the south. Ms. Santore also wanted to know when she would know how high the berm would be. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Jonathan Proulx to give Ms. Santore hi s business card. Jonathan Proulx stated the plan would be available at the Planning Department. James Schinski stated they received a letter from the developer informing them of the meeting . I t was also indicated they would receive some sort of plans fo r their approval , or at least they would be able to see what was planned. He stated there is concern among the residents that this is a “done” deal and that this is just a formality and there is not any concern as to what the residents feel. He stated th e residents feel like they were kind of “sold down the river” with their opinion not really mattering. He stated the purpose of the meeting is should the zoning be changed. If the zoning is changed, th en the building can go forward. Chairman Sobkoviak s tated he felt there is a misconception here. The zoning is not being changed. A restaurant is an approved use within this zoning category. The petitioner is asking for a change to the PUD. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he takes his duty serving on the C ommission very seriously and comes to each meeting with an open mind without a predetermination. He stated he takes exception to the idea that the Commission has already made up its mind before coming to the meeting. Mr. Schinski apologized if anyone too k his statements the wrong way. Commissioner McKay asked if there was a precedent in the direction of times of operation. Jonathan Proulx stated on a limited basis there are some restrictions primarily for the “big box” stores that were planned commercia l lots within an overall subdivision that back up to residential uses.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2007 Page 14 of 16 Commissioner McKay stated the petitioner is not prepared because certain plans are missing, such as engineering. She stated the zoning is B -3 and this building fits into that. Th e petitioner is changing the building, the architecture, etc. There is a listing of uses for each zoning classification that anyone can look at to see what is allowed. She felt updated plans would help alleviate some of the anxieties of the residents. T he Commission would also have a better perspective. Commissioner Kachel also felt this should continue for lack of information. Chairman Sobkoviak stated another large issue is the possibility of tainted water getting into the retention area. He also st ated the agreement between the Eagle Chase Homeowners Association and the developer is now in question. The Commission will need to see, through the engineer, some confirmation that some accommodation has been made for this runoff water. The possibility of the water becoming contaminated by food products and byproducts will have to be addressed. He stated possibly there would need to be the addition of a sanitary sewer line in the neighborhood of the dumpster. He would like to know how other restaurants in town clean their trash enclosures and where the runoff goes . Commissioner O’Rourke stated in this case it would be draining into a neighbor’s retention pond instead of into their own retention pond. Chairman Sobkoviak wanted to know if other restaura nts could be draining the runoff into the sanitary sewer. He would like staff to investigate. Commissioner O’Rourke addressed his concern to Mr. Lane. He stated there is no landscape plan, the photometric plan is not complete, the elevations are not com plete, the easements are not here , the dumpster location is not fully identified in the drawing, and there is no engineering about hooking up the sanitary sewer, whether that could even be done. There was talk about hours of operation, locations of plowed snow, timing of snow plowing, and there really was no commitment on the petitioner’s part. Mr. Lane stated they would make every attempt to work with different people to see if that could happen, but there was really no commitment on the part of the appl icant to alleviate the concerns of the neighbors, as well as staff and the Board. Commissioner O’Rourke wanted to make a motion that they continue the case. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Commissioner Renzi asked the petitioner what his commi tment was in terms of timeframe because the Commission might be costing the petitioner 6 months. He also wanted to know if the Eagle Chase Homeowner agreement with the petitioner is specific or not. He felt on the sanitation issue and the location of the dumpster either they need to run sanitation or they will find some alternatives, but eithe r way staff will look at that. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the Commission could vote on his motion. Commissioner Renzi stated “point of order” and stated he coul d be heard. He was going to vote no to the continuance as it stands right now, but he would like to hear from staff when the next continuance meeting would be. Jonathan Proulx stated the agenda for November 20 th is currently filled. So, staff would subm it the next available meeting would be December 4 th . Staff would request that the motion contain a date and that the public hearing also be continued. Commissioner Renzi asked the applicant what that date would due to his development. Brian Lane stated they would be delayed 4 or 5 months. Chairman Sobkoviak had a question before he asked for a vote. He asked if the questions brought up tonight are addressed is there a reasonable chance that this project will go forward. Commissioner O’Rourke stated there are a lot of issues. Commissioner Sanders felt it could move forward and that the Village Engineer and the engineer for the property can work together to make sure that a lot of things that are identified are solved by solid engineering solutions. Commissioner O’Rourke asked the petitioner if he had to wait until the December 4 th meeting would he miss the winter construction season. Brian Lane stated
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2007 Page 15 of 16 that was his feeling. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there were drawings completed for the build ing at this point. Brian Lane stated they will be completed in about two weeks potentially. Commissioner O’Rourke stated that realistically that even without a continuance, the petitioner is probably into Spring. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that was a goo d point. Commissioner McKay stated if things are not done correctly it will cost the homeowners a lot of money later to fix the problem. She felt things could be fixed before potentially happening at a later date. She felt caution is the better thing ri ght now. Chairman Sobkoviak reiterated that if the concerns are addressed does this project have a reasonable chance of going forward. Commissioner Sanders stated if staff can address them, he believed the case could go forward. Commissioner Kachel agre ed. Chairman Sobkoviak stated a motion has been made and seconded to continue the public hearing and discussion on this case until the December 4 th meeting. He asked for a vote by roll call. Commissioner Kachel asked staff if there was a cancellation pr ior to December 4 th for the November 20 th meeting, could this possibly be put on that agenda. Staff stated it could be set for November 20 th and then continued if there was no room for discussion. Commissioner Kachel asked why not do it that way. Chairm an Sobkoviak stated because the motion was made and seconded for December 4 th . Commissioner Kachel stated December 4 th was decided after the motion was made. The date came up after the fact. Chairman Sobkoviak asked that the motion be withdrawn and star t all over. Commissioner O’Rourke withdrew the previous motion. At 10:40 p.m. Commissioner O’Rourke made a motion to continue Case: 1360 -083107 to December 4, 2007. Commissioner Kachel stated staff said it could be put to November 20 th . A s long as the homeowners know if it cannot be heard , it will be continued to December 4 th . Commissioner O’Rourke asked are we going to ask the residents to come back twice if we know that it is already booked for November 20th . Commissioner Kachel stated it was okay t o leave it at December 4 th . Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: McKay, O’Rourke, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay : Renzi, Sanders The motion is carried 4:2 Chairman Sobkoviak stated the motion to continue is carried. Discussion and public hearing of this case will be continued on December 4, 200 7 . P ublic comment will be taken regarding any changes that have been made from tonight’s meeting.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2007 Page 16 of 16 DISCUSSION: Commissioner O’Rou rke asked that when the traffic engineer reviews a case, the commissioners receive a copy of his report. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Commission use to get letters from the Fire Chief to say, no objection , no comment , or whatever. He felt what Commissio ner O’Rourke is asking for is a good idea so the Commission has confirmation. Commissioner Kachel had a question about Drauden Road from Renwick Road to Rt. 126 . He asked why did they go from Drauden Road all the way to Rt. 126 without some sort of a c urve for people to turn around. He stated if someone makes a wrong turn on there, there is absolutely no where to make a turn -around and come back. He felt there should be a cut -through somewhere along there. Michael Garrigan stated he would confirm wit h the engineer. Commissioner Sanders asked staff if an overview could be given sometime in the future about the regulation of stormwater management and the terminology that is used so that the Commission can have a briefing on compensatory s torage, flowra te, etc. He felt it impacts small and large developments. He felt it would also be helpful to the public to hear what that rationale is. Michael Garrigan stated they could do that. He stated the Village Engineer can come in and provide a brief workshop or a presentation. Commissioner McKay asked how the Commission could legally give the petitioner permission with the stormwater management without having the document between the developer and the Eagle Chase Homeowners Association.. Commisisoner McKay felt the Commission should see a copy of the agreement. Jonathan Proulx stated previously it was taken to the Village Board . I t was about a month later that he received the signed copy of the easement. There is a copy in the file. He stated Public Work s and staff had previously met with the Homeowners Association. Commissioner Kachel asked staff if they had checked on the Commission tabling a matter. Michael Garrigan stated the Village attorney stated the Commission could table a matter, but cannot de ny due process. Since there was no further business before the Plan Commission, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. _________________________________________ R espectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary – Village of Pla infield