Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2006-02-21 PC MinutesVillage of Plainfield Planning Commission Record of Minutes Date: February 21 , 2006 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:10 . Roll Call Present: Commissioners Kachel, Henry, Renzi , Fazio, McKay, Lucenko, Sobkovia k, Ed O’Rourke , David Murawski, Park District, Library District Absent: School District, Fire District, Police Department Minutes The minutes from February 7 , 2006 meeting were accepted as presented . Development Report None Miscellaneous Chairman So bkoviak said that the commissioners received a booklet, and the Staff needed it back. On August 15, 2003, the Plan Commission debated and discussed the rules at length and voted to adopt them as an operating procedure. New Business CASE: 1232 -021606.CP PRAIRIE CREEK BRIDGE Request: Concept Plan Approval – Bridge Construction Location: East of Route 59, north of Chicago Bridge & Iron, South of Meijer Applicant: Prairie Creek Development, LLC Time: 7:12 pm Jonathan Proulx read the staff report. Ch airman Sobkoviak swore in Doug Carroll with Prairie Creek Development. He had nothing to add except that the bike path would cross the bridge to the west side of the East Normantown Drain, so the Park District would not have to build another bridge. The Park District was okay with this. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 2 Commissioner Henry asked if there were any engineering issues. Mr. Eicholtz said that their problems were minor, and they would need to follow the guidelines. Mr. Proulx said that he would make a point to get public work s to sign off on the plan at the Plan Comm ission’s request. Commissioner Renzi had some concerns about the bike paths meeting the roads and sidewalks and asked if they were okay with distinguishing marks. Mr. Proulx said that Staff wa s comfortable with the crossing as proposed as it wa s conventional . Commissioner Renzi said that in the initial report, he said that the developer wa s looking at options and asked what the zoning was. Mr. Proulx said that the interior was ORI . Mr. Carroll said that i n th e fall of 2004, they were looking for a PUD and rezoning on the east side to R -4. The P lan C ommission accepted this, and the Board wanted more details . T hey did not have the info rmation then, so they decide to t ry to c ome back when that information wa s a vailable. Mr. Proulx said that the developer plan ned to seek rezoning . Chairman Sobkoviak said that a couple of them that ha d seen these cases kn e w the history, and there was a desire to rezone the eastern -most portion residential . T his would most likel y happen in some form , and he gave the brief history. Commissioner Henry asked so meone to describe the materials. Mr. Carroll said that the dry stack was flagstone, and there was a wrought iron black railing with prairie style light s. Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public c omment. There was no response. At 7:22 pm, Commissioner Renzi moved that they approve the Prairie Creek Bridge Concept Plan, subject to the following two (2) stipulations : 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village En gineer ; and 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Township Park District . Commissioner Lucenko seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Fazio, Henry, Kachel, McKay, Lucenko, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7 :0:0. This would probably go forward on March 6. CASE: 12 2 5 -122205.SPR/PP/SU VILLAS OF PLAINFIELD Request: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Public Hearing); Special Use (Public Hearing); Site Plan Review; Preliminary Plat Location: East side of Route 59, west of Arbor Drive, PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 3 South of Cahills Way, north of the ComEd right -of -way Applicant: Wilcox Development Group Time: 7:23 pm Mr. Proulx announced that this was a public hearing being held in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations of the Village of Plainfield and the State of Illinois. He presented the Staff report. When asked if there were any engineering issues, Mr. Eicholtz said that he supported Mr. Proulx’s comments, especially his approach regarding private s treets. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioners. John Argoudelis , on behalf of petitioner , addressed the commission . He pointed out that t he w ater table issues in this area required them to raise the grade of the site by two feet, and this was cost -prohibitive. It was a ha ndicap of this property. This wa s a 23 -acre site and ha d unique water table issues that ma de it impossible to put in basements. Wilcox Development wa s coming forward with a high -quality product without a basement. He also asked them to keep in mind that some of the standard items , like internal buffering, were applicable in larger sites; but there wa s not a lot of room internally for buffering. He said a PUD wa s to make a unique plan, and he thought that sometimes modifications need ed to be made. As it sits, the commercial area wa s not going forward (except that it was platted); however, it wa s zoned this way. So, he noted that the Board had already approved this. Chip Kruzmar addressed the commission and said that they had co me up with this plan over 8 months ago . He g ave a brief personal background and history of Wilcox Development Group. - He showed the location of this propert y and the adjacent properties. T hey had beg u n speaking with Staff on this site and wanted to purs ue a PUD at Staff’s recommendation due to the uniqueness of the site . - He showed the proposed site layout and said that they added amenities , like the multi -purpose and bike path, brick pavers, and entry features . They took out the full guardhouse. The pr oduct itself wa s all ranch homes . The l andscaping would be handled by an Association. - He g ave a short description of the project and showed the layout of homes . - The Product wa s from Epcon in Columbus, OH, and they ha d th e market area around Chicago. A su rvey wa s required to be reported back to Epcon on a regular basis, and he gave the statistics of the site. He n oted that they will be catering to older adults so they will not add to the congestion or school districts. - He s howed the clubhouse and pool pro posed and gave information on this. - He g ave Plainfield Population Data and noted the older population as part of this group (approximately 21,000 in the area). - He s howed the c hange in p opulation by a ge (the 55 -64 age group increasing by 52.2%). PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 4 - He s howed t he n et c ost/b enefit to the Plainfield School District (they would generate a net $3,725,000). Commissioner Kachel confirmed that the other project that they worked on, in Timber Ridge , was on the southwest corner of Essington and F iday . Scott Shreiner (D esign Tech Engineering) was introduced and sworn in. H e had been involved in the project since it started and was hired by the initial landowner. The original plan was approved, and the revised plan was approved. They went through the final engineering approval at that time, and during that review process, a lot of issues arose regarding the ground water table. That is what ended up failing that project. He noted that the amount of fil l required was in excess of $1 million . Two other issues he wanted to talk about were: 1) The private road which would be the built per the V il l a g e ordinance. 2) The sidewalks on Route 59 – he said that IDOT planned to call for the road to be raised three to five feet. Because of that, they were not able to make a formal conne ction to Route 59 when the proposal was made for Crystal Lakes. That road was going to be three feet above for future developments. So, when considering sidewalks, he asked them to consider the grade changes. Commissioner Kachel asked, o n the water tabl e , if the level was that much lower. Mr. Shreiner said that the property wa s generally the same elevation to the eas t of them and west of Route 59. B ased on issues occurring to the east , they were asked to raise this. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in and i nt roduced Randy Metz (Landscape Planner) who address ed concerns regarding landscaping on the multi -family product proposed. He f elt that this was a good use for the property because they were using it as a buffer for commercial. He said that Route 59 as ma jor arterial and south of property was a factor as wa s the ComEd easement. The V il l a g e ha d used multi -family as a buffer in situations such as this. Regarding the c oncern that Staff had regarding the connections to the south – he said that back when they started, they had kept the same concept as the original plan (the loop road). He still felt that they we re following what was approved on previous occasions. They we re tying this to the north and east and lining up to the curb cut to the west. Mike Mar ynowski was introduced and sworn in as they marketing coordinator and principle of 24 -7 Real Estate. He said that t hey had a lot of potential customers asking about Plainfield, and they regularly had the type of customer that th is product would serve. Th ere wa s a large market for a condo minium , but this type of customer d id not want stairs (and like d the feel of a home). He a lso clarified that this wa s not a 55 and older home – it was just adult -oriented. Judy Phanenstiel was introduced and sworn in as a resident of a home built by Wilcox. She had w anted a home -feel with no stairs. She said that it was b eautiful , and she received a lot of positive feedback on it . She l iked the size of the community and said it PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 5 was easy to get around. The landscaping was maintenance -free, and the community included a community pool, workout room, and community room. They also had an a ctive Homeowners’ Association . She th ought this wou ld be an asset to the community. Mr. Kruzmar said that they were looking for input and a positive recommendation. They c ame in as a PUD due to the unique product and the great dem and for it. Regarding density, they had a number a little less than 4.3. However, using 4.3, the density could also be measured by traffic impact. He noted the t rips per day would be less than a normal use. Regarding garage doors, he thought the architecture was competitive. Regarding private roads, the whole project usually ha d this; however, this wa s unique situation, and they connected the major streets and kept the loop street private . They like d th e security of the private road and also allowed the houses to be closer together to give the community a quaint Village feel. This also would not have the Village maintain it, and it would probably last lon ger as a private street. The Homeowners’ Association would be responsible for the maintenance, and a p rivate contractor would take care of this and the landscaping . Regarding a few other m atters, he said that they came in with a plan that overcame some o f the issues Staff had raised . Chairman Sobkoviak said that there we re some very nice and beautiful features to the development and we re attractive. However, he f ound the pages of issues to be problematic. Commissioner Henry wanted to hear from the eng i neering perspective . Steve Amann said that as far as the ground water issues, they we re familiar with the issues. There had been some ground water issues that could pose problems to neighboring properties. When a project came in earlier, they raised the basements and were unable to excavate the detention pond because of the water. So, they could not generate the fill to elevate the balance of this site. These were significant issues, and he agreed that it was cost prohibitive. Commissioner Henry agree d that on -grade construction wa s a good workaround, and Mr. Amann said that it would be . Commissioner Kachel asked about the commercial area , and Mr. Amann said that the Village B oa rd was comfortable with this. However, Commissioner Kachel asked if with the ground table on level ground, they could make the site commercial . Mr. Amann said that it was a valid point, and Commissioner Kachel said that he liked the concept but there we re so many issues that we re not resolved. Mr. Argoudelis wanted to go thro ugh a few hot spots . Commissioner Henry said that conceptually , he did not have a ny big issues . He thought that they need ed to be worked out at a Staff level with some feedback. Mr. Argoudelis said that it was n ot the intention to address every issue , h e just wanted to clarify that some of the things we re incomplete and need ed clarification. A large part of the staff report deal t with density, and the site per the Comprehensive P lan, currently wa s 35% V il l a g e residential (allowing for density up to 6 or 7). He said that t he northern two -thirds parcel wa s medium -residential. When you blend ed those densities and use the lower numbers, it wa s not in compliance. However, if they blend by the higher end of the ranges, their density fe ll below the PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 6 requireme nt . He s aid that the zoning wa s always different until it came forward to be developed. Commission Renzi asked if it was an argument for density or not putting single -family homes. Mr. Argoudelis said that the single -family ring wa s not feasible on 23 a cres. He said that s omewhere a single family home wa s going to abut a multi -family home , and in their proposal, the idea wa s to put a buffer on the east side (by the bike path) and on the north side (by landscaping ). Chairman Sobkoviak thought they wou ld get an argument as they we re not sympathetic to the size of the parcel. Mr. Argoudelis said that the buffer as proposed by the landscaping would have the ring of homes also having the same water table issues. Commissioner Renzi asked if it was the sta ff’s intention to require basements . Mr. Proulx said that Staff did not propose any requirements for basements . Chairman Sobkoviak said that if they we re to build single -family homes without basements, they would have trouble selling them. Commissioner Renzi thought t hat the issues were not with the water but with the single -family homes. Commissioner Kachel said that they did not have any slab homes in Plainfield , and there had to be a market for this . Mr. Argoudelis said that they did have a realtor to address that, but it wa s his experience that people looking for single -family homes want ed basements . Mr. Argoudelis said that the product being brought forward wa s not that . I n the PUD, they ma d e variances and changes to make the project work , and th ere we re benefits to both parties. They had an extremely high -quality product , and he said that if someone were looking out the back window of a single -family home, they would want to see this instead of a vinyl -clad home . Commissioner Henry said that th is wa s a unique product and an exciting high -quality development. He j ust question ed how it was being applied. There wa s a lot of “noise ” in S taff’s report to get their hands around it. Commissioner Lucenko asked if, in respect to the soil issues, the y could build a home if it was lifted. Mr. Amann confirmed this, and Commissioner Lucenko said that if the density would be the same, then he did not think this was cost -prohibitive to raise the price of the home. Mr. Argoudelis thought the $1 million es timate was low. They we re trying to buy this land and make it economically feasible to build the product, but t his add ed to o much of a cost to the home. Commissioner Kachel asked, regarding the lo oks of the home, if the public felt that they would rather see this there as that ha d issues to bear with it as well. Mr. Kruzmar said that they had talked to the neighbors to make them aware , and a great majority did not have a problem with it. He noted that a few declined to speak with them. Commissioner Kac hel said that they ha d had homeowners sign something to this reg ard in the past. Commissioner McKay liked the computer generated pictures and asked if they ha d any pictures of developments as they we re now. Mr. Kruzmar showed photographs of these. Commi ssioner McKay asked if, being that this wa s a new home, their base price include d that exterior. The developer said that there were no exterior extras. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 7 Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public comment. Ronald Labadie (from Parkview Meadows) lik ed the idea of a buffer as either single -family homes or more extensive landscaping. He was w orried that they would pick up more traffic because there we re not a lot of connections. They d id not have a traffic light , and he was worried about congestion. Jeff Valente (from Arbor in Plainfield) met with Mr. Kruzmar, and when he initially looked at the plan , he thought about what would be there if this did not go through. H e realized that he did not want to see commercial and would rather see a high qualit y product like this. As a homeowner , he thought that they ha d had several proposals that people walked away from. He t hought every property had its ups and downs, but when he look ed at this property, he believed that if it could meet the needs of the com munity they should put the “we don’t norma lly do this” issues aside. It wa s a unique parcel of land, and it ha d issues that impact ed a lot of people . He said that i t came down to money, and he felt that safety and aesthetics should be taken into account as well. He t hought that there was some give and tak e on either side of the fence, and i f it looked good and did not detract from his property value, he did not care about the buffer. He thought that they had a lot o f work to do, and with the bigger pict u re, they had to decide what fit s the needs of the land. He supported the project if it met the needs of the town and did not detract from the property value . He thought commercial would detract from the value . Dennis Garr (from Arbor of Plainfield) sai d that his main issue wa s that he live d in the water issue. If they built this subdivision, he wanted to know where the emergency runoff was going to go. He t hought that they need ed to look into this. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was any o ther publ ic comment. There was n one . Commissioner Henry asked Mr. Amann if this would be a similar situation like north of town that this might help the neighbors . Mr. Amann did not think so based on the flow in this are a – the ground area surface went north to south . However, he said that the drainage plans continued the flow north to south (the main pond is to the south and would continue to discharge to the south). Chairman Sobkoviak asked if it would be slowed down at all. Mr. Amann said that the peak rate would be reduced . Commissioner Henry asked if there was anything they could do with this development to make it help , and Mr. Amann said that he had looked at this in the past and did no t believe so. Commissioner Renzi said that the road grade would rai se the far west side 4 to 5 feet and asked what that would do to the water flow. Mr. Amann said that when the state makes the improvements, they need ed to follow the draining guidelines. Generally, they would need to impact the amount of the run -off or c hange its direction. Commissioner Renzi said that the subdivision grade would change this and asked if that would change . Mr. Amann said that, with the temporary pavement, that would only impact the last few hundred feet of road. The run -off would be ac commodated in a detention pond. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 8 Commissioner Henry asked if sufficient dedication of right -of -way had been secured . Mr. Proulx said that it wa s one of thei r stipulations with the P reliminary P lat. Mr. Kruzmar said that a deceleration lane wa s proposed . Commissioner Kachel asked if the roadway to the north had signalization . Mr. Amann anticipated that a signal would be warranted at some point. Commissioner Kachel asked if there was a nything planned to the south , and Mr. Amann said that there may be nor th of Rolf R oad at some point. Commissioner Kachel said that sidewalks were proposed along the street, but they did not like this . He asked w hat they were d oing in other subdivisions , and Mr. Kruzmar said that it was a variety of no sidewalks, sidewalk s on one side, and sidewalks both sides. Commissioner Kachel asked about the greenway , and Mr. Kruzmar said that a carriage walk would only be on the private road. Chairman Sobkoviak asked what the timetable w ould be for the work on Route 59 versus the s idewal k as they m ight be able to require this. Mr. Amann said that a flexible approach could be considered, but IDOT’s policy wa s not to pay for sidewalk as part of the improvement . If there wa s one there, they would replace it though . A discussion ensu ed regarding this. Mr. Murawksi saw a lot of obstacles (like density, setbacks, and buffers). He noted that they said that they had one in Joliet (as well as other locations) and asked if they ha d put the same setbacks there. Mr. Kruzmar said that each community wa s different, and they were recently approved by Woodstock for a compromise. He said that Joliet ’s setback was 55 to 60 feet. They ha d seen a range and promote d community cohesiveness. Chairman Sobkoviak felt strongly about the stub street to the south to promote connectivity and community. He asked w hat the basis of their reluctance was, and Mr. Kruzmar said that it was the loss of units . Commissioner Kachel asked if they could make it work out behind a commercial district , and Mr. Metz sai d that to the south wa s the ComEd easement . Chairman Sobkoviak said that they had never had that problem before , but Mr. Metz said that they need ed to meet a warrant . Commissioner Henry said that they need ed to include a cross -access easement on the sout hern -most property . Mr. O’Rourke asked if the stub street off the private road cause d a problem , and Chairman Sobkoviak said that it was another problem . Commissioner McKay thought that they need ed to represent futur e homeowners that this road would n ot be a private, quaint street. Mr. Argoudelis said that Route 59 wa s a north -south street , and east of t here wa s Howard . He knew that the Village want ed these cross streets, but because it was a small site, it did not make it far to drive to get to either north -south street. He thought that they need ed to break with the standards on unique projects , or smaller projects. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the reason for connectivity was to get from one neighborhood to the next without having to go out on Route 5 9 . They did a study , and the engineers showed this to keep the traffic off of major arterials to prevent problems . He said that s mall subdivisions we re subject to the same rules as the large ones. A d iscussion ensued regarding traffic patterns and drivi ng fr om neighborhood to neighborhood. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 9 Chairman Sobkoviak said that he did not hear anything moving into the recommendation of an approval and wanted to take a poll of every member to see what they need ed to work on. They liked the product and saw a need for it , but they need ed to work on problem parts. - Commissioner Fazio had a problem with the water issue and buffering . - Commissioner Renzi said that they had been asked to do a lot of conceding (regarding setbacks, right -of -way , and no connectivity’s ). Hi s major concern was losing four lots to the south of the stub street; he said that if that would put the project over the edge, he was not sure it was worth it. He was also w orried about the sidewalks near the street and the street width. Re garding helpi ng school district, he wanted to see where the numbers came from. Conceptually, he thought this was a good idea. - Commissioner Henry thought that, generally, it was a great subdivision and quality of housing. It was t he quantity of exceptions that he did not like, and he quest ioned why they were doing it. - Mr. Murawski had nothing more to add than was already noted (regarding density, buffers, setbacks, and exceptions). - Mr. O’Rourke did not like the zero set backs and the need for a private drive. He also thought that parking was an issue for visitors in the past . - Commissioner Lucenko had all of the same issues (water table, setbacks, road connections, etc.) - Commissioner McKay said that they had many unique aspects and commended them on the plan. Her issue was with them asking for changes in a C omp rehensive P lan that they had spent a lot of money putting together. She said that the homeowners were wondering about property values. She d id not agree with all of the stipulations but liked the project . She t hought that m aybe with some changes, they could create more community. - Commissioner Kachel said that everybody said what he thought . He thought there were too many issues to take the project further . He thought that they should take it to staff. He al so clarified regarding the commercial issue that this would be a better buffer than commercial. However, he noted that they ha d had good commercial with good buffers. He noted that t he homeowners seem to like it, and if they talk ed to them about what the y want ed for a buffer. - Chairman Sobkoviak said that his problems we re the lack of stub street s and the whole concept of a private street . He thought that the V il l a g e wa s goi ng to end up with this problem. He also did not like tinkering with the Comp rehen sive Plan. Chairman Sobkoviak wanted the commission to continue the case until a meeting in March . Mr. Argoudelis requested the first meeting in March , and Commissioner Henry thought this was okay if they came back with meaningful change s. Chairman Sobk oviak underst oo d the construction season and deadlines and asked that they meet with staff and make meaningful progress. Mr. Kruzmar noted that each resident received a certified letter, and they did not come to the meeting because they had their approval . Chairman PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 10 Sobkoviak said that the Village appreciated their efforts . Mr. Proulx felt that they had direction to work with the petitioner on. However, he d id not hear anything regarding the overall number of units . He was not sure if that wa s acceptabl e. R egarding density , Mr. Proulx said that the Comprehensive Plan dictate d how to calculate this , but it was possible to move up from that. The petitioner want ed to “borrow” from the V il l a g e density in the south. Commissioner Henry thought that they wer e close but thought there wa s room for improvement . At 9 :26 pm, Commissioner Henry moved they continue Case No. 1225 -122205.TA/SU/SPR/PP to March 7, 2006 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to coordinate with staff regarding the direction provided by th e Plan Commission and/or the public and revise the development plans accordingly based on this input and coordination . Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Fazio, Renzi, Henry, Kachel, McKay, L ucenko, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7 :0:0. The public hearing was to be continued to the March 7 meeting. CASE: 122 4 -122005.AA/SU GRANDE PARK SOUTH Request: Annexation Agreement (Public Hearing) Special Use (Public Hearing) Concept Plan Location: South of Cherry Road, North of Wheeler and West of Ridge Road Applicant: MPI Partnership Time: 9 :41 pm Mr. Garrigan announced that this was a public hearing being held in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations of the Villag e of Plainfield and the State of Illinois. Chairman Sobkoviak reminded the commission that different protocol would be followed in this case. They we re going to hear the proposal first, then hear from planner, and they hope d to have time cross -examine. Because this case wa s large, they were not going to get through it in one night. They we re looking at three nights to hear the proposal and concept plan. In the end, they we re just voting on an annexation plan. The preliminary plat would determine more details, like the streets, and each neighborhood would be a public hearing. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 11 Chairman Sobkoviak swore in three petitioners. Mike Martin (405 Main Street, Plainfield) was the attorney for the developer (MPI). He said that e ach entity ha d been in developme nt for many years. In Plainfield, they ha d developed Grande Park , and they had developed Grande Reserve in Yorkville. He said that t hey do an excellent job. In July of 2004, the developer asked for his assistance on this project. One of the goals of th e Village had always been to move Route 126 north to 143 rd Street as per the V il l a g e ’s Comprehensive P lan. They wanted to help with this goal and would help solidify their western boundaries. They had been working with staff through 2004 and were looking at conservation plan development. It identifie d and preserve d the current features. They came to the V il l a g e on November 8, 2004, June 13, 2005, and February 13, 2006 to the C ommittee O f the W hole meetings. They had met monthly with Staff and had met w eekly since November. They we re trying to present this in conjunction with staff. They had met with the Oswego School District as well as the Park District and Aux Sable organization. They were trying to accommodate and incorporate suggestions based on the organizations’ desires. There were 95 adjoining land owners that were sent letters inviting them to the meeting and to the Grande Park clubhouse to meet and address issues to minimize conflict. The client came in with a road idea for a mile and a hal f of highway. They did not expect pricing to be any less than that at Grande Park ($389 ,000 – $894 ,000). He noted that the a verage pricing was mid $300 ,000 to mid $500 ,000 . It wa s 1100 acres, so there wa s a problem with scale . T hey ha d divided this int o north, central, and south partitions . As they s aw the various neighborhoods, they would see slides of the product (s) being proposed . He introduced Mike Schoppe and gave his background. Mr. Schoppe w ent through the overview, existing conditions, and pr oposed neighborhoods. - He s howed the 1,113 acres – 3 miles north to south , and 1.5 miles wide. They touch ed Plainfield Road/WIKADUKE. - He s howed the overall plan (land use & dwelling units) and broke this down . - He s howed the flood plain of the overall exhib it (Aux Sable Creek & tributary), wetland, topography (for drainage, open space, etc.), soils, open space (of which he explained the system, corridors, and parks), and trail system . - He s howed the n orth overview (neighborhoods 1 and 2 had 12 ,000 sq uare -f oo t lots and neighborhood 3 had a mix of 8,000 and 10,000 sq uare -f oo t lots). He highlighted other items and showed sample products that would be put on this part of the parcel. He also showed the north section of the Aux Sable Creek (of which he explained t he flood plain and drainage of the creek – as well as environmental controls that they would do as analysis dictate d ), and existing hedgerows . - He s howed the central overview – the alternate Route 126 (120 -foot right -of -way corridor and proposed new alignme nts), 28 -acre commercial site, 10 -acre elementary school site, 2 park district park sites, central clubhouse/aquatic center, and neighborhoods 4, 5, 6 and 8 (which had 6 ,000 , 8 ,000 and 10,000 sq uare feet – all alley loaded), courtyard townhomes (neighborho od 7 – also alley loaded), paired villas (neighborhood 9), preservation of farmhouse, hedgerows, and common areas/greenspace. They were a lso creating boulevards and roundabouts. He showed PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 12 the best management practice highlights and the central section of Aux Sable Creek (showing improvements/restoration). - He s howed the south overview – over 45 acres to be used as part of a future high school site, 10 -acre commercial site, neighborhood 12 (courtyard townhomes), neighborhoods 10 and 11 (6 ,000 , 8 ,000 and 10,000 sq uare foot lots), Aux Sable Creek preservations, 3 park district sites, and boulevards. He s howed the South section of Aux Sable Creek and e xplained that a “green street” was the width of street but with no pavement . He noted that some houses would open to that “street”. Mr. Martin said that they did have engineers, traffic planners, and fiscal impact planners to testify at the next meeting. He then introduced Randall Arndt and gave his background. Mr. Arndt w ent over the design features which were a hybrid of conservation design and new urban development . He had consulted on many projects and was not aware of any project that ha d as much as this offers. He w ent over: - T he conservation of existing natural and cultural features (showed the John son farm as a possible single -family home or part of a park site) - enhancements of existing natural features - conservation and enhancement of existing natural features (and showed pictures) - The quality of the built environment (showed pictures of alleys and green streets) - The provision of numerous neighborhood parks and greens (and showed how homes front ed to these as well as terminal vistas) - The hierarchy of open space – he went over the different g reenways and showed pictures. He also showed the proposed g reenways/trails . - closes – the alternatives to the standard cul -de -sac - traffic calming measures (and showed pictures) - project edges (and showed examples) - townhome streetscapes and multifamily streetscapes - The r elocation of Route 126 that would restore Main Street Mr. Martin asked when they see a mix of lot sizes, which seemed unusual , what the thinking was on this. Mr. Arndt said that it wa s not done much in subdivisions but was done in urbanism developments . T hat wa s the way the traditional towns were do ne and could improve home s and communities. Mr. Martin asked if it was his experience that this appreciates at a higher rate . Mr. Arndt said that it wa s the result of studies because there wa s more to enjoy ... Mr. Martin was not sure how to proceed, and Chairman Sobkoviak confirmed that they should have various gov ernment entities testify. Chairman Sobkoviak asked what gov ernmen t entities we re present , and the P ark District was in attendance. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 13 Cameron Bettin from the Plainfield Park District addressed t he commission and said that he had been working with MPI and Staff throughout the process. They had also been working with the school district as the two school district sites would be made into school park sites. On top of the park sites, they would be taking the floodway areas and some additional land along with the pathway. The total required donation was 80 acres; they were taking half in land and half in donation. He was n ot sure of the total acreage. Commissioner Renzi confirmed that the design o f the greens where the houses we re on them would be going to the homeowners. He asked if the park district would have an asphalt area with parking, but Mr. Bettin said that they had not gotten into the plans . Commissioner Renzi asked, in terms of parks, if there were any concept of fields. Mr. Bettin said that the 11 -acre site by the high school would be, and there would possibly be a 6.5 and/or a 5.5 acre site . Commissioner Henry asked if the Park District ha d considered any interest in expressing a de sire for the Johnson house. Mr. Bettin said that they ha d not taken a look at it but we re going to see if there wa s a possible use for it. The satellite recreation centers were being looked into. Cindy Ellis from the Aux Sable group addressed the commis sion and said that they had met with MPI to express their concerns and state their objectives. They we re primarily concerned about the water quality and quantity discharged. They were s eeking infiltration to protect it . If the current development practi ces continue, the Aux Sable would be degraded in 10 to 15 years. She said that t his plan incorporate d many designs and best m ana g e m ent practices . The plan enhance d the creek , and where it ha d been altered , it will be restored. She said that i nfiltration ha d bee n enhanced by 43% open space, vegetation and bio -swales. She w ent through the ground water stati stics and compounding problems and reiterated that the practices in this plan would promote infiltration. She said the o pen space offer ed many benefits and wa s possible because of the layout of the homes/density. Her recommendations were to note that conservation design principles did not seem to be planned for the commercial and school sites and that the ASCWS allow ed a water quality monitoring section . They ha d reviewed over 20 plans, and the developments that they see do not incorporate conservation (and certainly not to this extent ). She said that if development wa s going to happen, they would like t o endorse conservation design. She said that peo ple like d t o live in these types of areas. She also a nnounced and invited everyone to a seminar on March 23 on conservation design. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there were any other government entities present. Commissioner Kachel asked if there was any discussion on making a nature center. Mr. Button said that they had n o t looked at it yet . Chairman Sobkoviak entered into record a petition signed by 14 homeowners who object ed to the development and request ed 2/3 of the voting body to deny this. He als o PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 14 acknowledged into record the Conservation Foundation ’s supporting of the methodology of the principles used. Chairman Sobkoviak wanted to cross -examine witnesses. Commissioner Henry first asked how the shore line of Aux Sable Creek would be stabilized, and it was determined that this would be a combination of everything – like vegetation and minor grading. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was any p ublic testimony. Carl Buck (of 618 West Main Street) was sworn in. He said that the lawyers d id not wan t to do the cross -examination at this point and would like to do it at a later date. Gary Davidson also thought that in fairness to the panel and homeowners to digest information , they should postpone further testimony. Chairman Sobkoviak asked them to w ork with Mr. Martin to schedule an appropriate time . Mr. Davidson said that one of the issues wa s that they fe lt confident in speaking with Mr. Martin and Staff and that they might be able to work out a lot of issues . Mr. Buck said that they would agree on a schedule . Mr. Martin said that Mr. Schoppe would be t here for every meeting, and Mr. Arndt would be t here for the second meeting in March. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was any purpose in continuing , and Mr. Garrigan said that the requested to continue seemed reasonable . Chairman Sobkoviak want ed to make sure that everyone ha d an opportunity to speak and confirmed that this should continue March 7. At 11 :21 pm, Commissioner Henry made a motion to continue the public hearing to the March 7 meet ing. Commissioner Lucenko seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Fazio, Renzi, Henry, Kachel, McKay, Lucenko, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7 :0:0. Commissioner Kachel made a motion to adjourn at 11:22 p .m. Seconded by Commissioner Renzi. Motion Carried unanimously. __________________ Respectfully submitted, Laura Griffith PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 15 -Recording Secretary Karick & Associates, Inc.