HomeMy Public PortalAbout2006-03-21 PC minutes Village of Plainfield Planning Commission Record of Minutes Date: March 21, 2006 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:02. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Kachel, Henry, Renzi, Fazio, McKay, Lucenko, Sobkoviak, Ed O’Rourke, Library District, Fire District Absent: David Murawski, Park District, School District, Police Department Minutes The minutes from February 21, 2006 meeting were accepted as presented. Development Report Michael Garrigan said that several matters were considered by the Village Board: - The Site Plan and Special Use for First Midwest Bank was approved - The Villas of Plainfield was continued Mr. Garrigan introduced Kelly Runkel, a graduate of the University of Illinois, who joined the Village from White & Associates. Chairman Sobkoviak said that their work load was increasing and had talked with staff about additions of special meetings for certain cases (like Grande Park South). Commissioners Henry and Kachel supported this; however, Commiss ioner Lucenko had some conflicts. Chairman Sobkoviak suggested planning on this even though some commissioners could not make it. Commissioner Renzi said that he might have conflicts in late April. Chairman Sobkoviak said to notify the secretary if they could not make it. He wanted everyone to have an opportunity for a fair hearing and would let the attorney who represented Grande Park work with Staff. Commissioner Henry was open to idea of addressing other cases if it would help the scheduling proce ss. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the problem was that they needed to advertise ahead of time but could consider this.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 2 of 18 Old Business CASE: 1224 -122005.AA/SU GRANDE PARK SOUTH Request: Annexation Agreement (Public Hearing) Special Use (Public H earing) Concept Plan Location: South of Cherry Road, North of Wheeler and West of Ridge Road Applicant: MPI Partnership Time: 7:08pm Mike Martin (405 Main Street, Plainfield) addressed the commission and said that the conservation foundation would b e addressing them. He said that they also had witnesses who would review Best Management Practices. He also wanted to address the landscape buffers for some of the neighborhoods. Chairman Sobkoviak wanted to wrap up the applicant’s presentation by 9:00p m and would continue the case to April 4. Mr. O’Rourke wanted to talk about transportation, and Mr. Martin said that the traffic engineer was here at the last meeting and would be back on April 4 with Mr. Arndt. To represent the Conservation Foundation, Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Stephanie Sheetz. She thanked them for having her talk briefly about the stormwater best management practices. She said that the development was large but was consistent with the vision in Plainfield’s Comprehensive Plan. It allowed for cohesive planning and could protect larger natural areas – as well as create more community amenities. She went over some of the best management practices provided: 1) Restoring/Protecting Creek Banks (she showed the conventional method versus best management). She showed the erosion that occurs with the conventional approach. 2) Improving Floodplain (she showed the existing condition versus best management). Best management practices would improve the creek area and encourage native vegetation t o come back. She noted that they could thin the trees and allow the best vegetation to grow better. 3) Discharge to Creek (she showed the conventional versus best management). She said that the conventional method releases the pipe right into the creek vers us releasing it into the vegetation around the pond. 4) Native Plant Root Structure. She went into detail about the larger root structures on native plants (versus turf grass) that increase infiltration. She noted that they could have shorter native grass w ith a root structure. 5) Stormwater conveyance (she showed conventional versus best management). She said that turf grass could not hold water, so a drain would be installed to pipe this in. However best management practices infiltrate the water and use it.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 3 of 18 6) Detention Basins (she showed conventional versus best management). This was not just a “window dressing” but would promote bio -diversity. The conventional method causes problems with the Homeowners Association, and the community at large. Ms. Sheet z said that Plainfield’s ordinance encourages best management practices as does their organization. The commission had no questions for Ms. Sheetz. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Dawn Brook and Mike Schoppe who addressed the commission. Ms. Brook went thro ugh the Best Management Practice Highlights: bioswale (or vegetated swale), rain gardens, naturalized stormwater basin, naturalized drainage (grass swales), and filter strip. Mr. Schoppe went over the locations of each of the Best Management Practice’s in this project (the bioswales along the green streets; rain gardens in the open space areas; naturalized stormwater basins in the neighborhood 3 basin, in the drainage corridor, and along the roadway; vegetated swale in wider pieces of green area like along Route 126, realigned Johnson road, and north and south side of Johnson; and filter strip primarily along the Aux Sable channel). Mr. Schoppe went into the landscape issues on Neighborhoods 1, 2 and 10. He showed the locations of each neighborhood and said that the landscape buffers would be put up along the property line of the homes and existing residences. He gave the exact measurements and specifications of the buffer. Mr. Martin confirmed that the specifications showed the two homes that were the closest to Neighborhoods 1, 2 and 10, but most of the other homes were farther away. Mr. Martin said that they were about a football field away from the closest homes. Commissioner Henry said that he was worried about what happened with the plants some that were part of the rain garden in a drought. Ms. Brook said that the native plants were able to pick up water from the ground. Mr. Schoppe said that they were selected to live in this native environment Mr. O’Rourke asked who sets the Best Management Practices, and Ms. Brook said that it was a common term around NIPSE and other organizations. They basically involved characteristics of water conservation. Mr. O’Rourke noticed that there were not a lot of local pictures and asked if some of this was n ew. Mr. Schoppe said that there were a lot of these projects locally. Most of the communities in 10 to 15 miles used some of these practices (like naturalized stormwater basin). He gave some other examples and said that within the last 10 years, these s tarted to be used locally.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 4 of 18 Commissioner Kachel asked if, in the garden area, they were going to be planting these areas specifically. Ms. Brook said that there would be some type of mix but as they go through the process and final design, they could pinpoint which areas would have each type of plant/mix. Commissioner Kachel asked what happened with silting over 10 to 15 years. Ms. Brook said that there should be some type of maintenance program on this that would be part of the Homeowners Associa tion. Mr. Schoppe said that this would not include the areas around the Aux Sable Corridor. Mr. Martin said that a backup SSA would come in too, but none of the areas in the past eight years required this. Mr. O’Rourke asked if bioswales would be on re -aligned Johnson Road and if this would this replace curbs and gutters. Ms. Brook said that they would be together as there would be curbs and gutters on Johnson road. They were still working on this, and she said that it would either be a berm or a bio -s wale. Mr. O’Rourke asked if salting in the winter had an effect on this. Ms. Brook was not sure how much it would affect it, and Mr. Schoppe said that if the proper selection was not made, it could affect it. However, he said that there are a variety of plant materials that would be applied based on factors like these. Mr. O’Rourke asked what the timing would be of the plantings with the construction of the ponds. Ms. Brook said that they were probably done at the same time or close to it. Commissioner Kachel asked if the landscape buffer was acceptable. Mr. Martin said they had met with homeowners by Neighborhoods 1 and 2, but they were not in any sort of agreement with them yet. They brought up this concept, but they had not met with the attorney or resident regarding Neighborhood 10. He spoke about the difference in slopes between Neighborhoods 1 and 2, and the flat land on Neighborhood 10. Commissioner Henry asked at what time they would see the final landscape plant selection – if it would be on the Final Site Plan on each unit. Mr. Martin said that some of this needed final engineering, but they wanted to show the type of practices they wanted to use throughout the subdivision. Regarding the mixture of plants, aesthetic, ground condition, and financial decisions, Commissioner Renzi wanted to know which was going to be given the determining factor for prioritizing. Mr. Martin said that they would determine what worked best for each area. Commissioner Renzi said that there was testimony regardi ng silting still being present in open water areas. He wanted to know how much silting the Best Management Practices would reduce. Ms. Brook said that for calculation purposes, there was a general consensus that it would be anywhere from 40 to 80% based on other factors. However, she could not give an exact number. Commissioner Renzi asked if it would be affected if the pipe was 15 to 20 feet versus 50 feet over a 5 or 10 year span. Ms. Brook said that the further back it is placed, the more the water is allowed to percolate into the ground. Commissioner Renzi said that if the only way that repairing things would work was based on distance, there was no flexibility. He said that if there was room to push the pipes
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 5 of 18 back further, it might change lot configurations and open up space. Ms. Brook said that these were the concepts they were introducing and could not give this until final design. Commissioner Henry asked if they would know when the engineering was complete. Chairman Sobkoviak said that t he length needed to be looked at, and Mr. Martin said that they could answer this at final engineering. Mr. Schoppe said that there was flexibility based on the surrounding vegetation. Commissioner Renzi asked if there was a preferred “pecking order”, an d Ms. Brook said that they all help with the water quality aspect. It was just a matter of how much space they had to work with. A discussion ensued regarding this. Commissioner Renzi just wanted to know if one Best Management Practice was better than a nother, but Mr. Martin said that this was site driven. Mr. Martin said that they did not draw a plan and put a bioswale in an area. They looked at the land as it is now to determine where a Best Management Practice should be used and built the neighborho od around those. They did this in conjunction with staff and engineers. Commissioner Renzi asked if the Johnson Road curbs and gutters would be going into conventional draining or Best Management Practice. Ms. Brook said that, at this point, the intent was to route through some type of vegetative swale. Commissioner Henry confirmed that at no point would anything be drained directly into the Aux Sable. Mr. Martin clarified that it would eventually go into the Aux Sable after natural filtration Commiss ioner Renzi asked what the distinguishing features were of filter strips. Ms. Brook said that this allowed ground water to recharge, and Mr. Martin further clarified that this would occur along such amenities as a bike path. Commissioner Renzi said that regarding root structures, the diagram had a detailed root structure, and he asked how long it would take to get that and if watering would be required until then. Mr. Schoppe said that the roots would take a long time, but the plants would take a 3 to 5 year program. Commissioner Renzi asked if the needed to be watered during years 1 and 2. Mr. Schoppe said no, that if there was not enough rain, the development would just be delayed - it would not stop. Commissioner Henry said that, typically, a wet bo ttom retention pond with a vegetation bank required a burn off after a certain amount of years. He asked if anything like that was required here. Mr. Schoppe said that there were managements of these landscapes that were ongoing – either by burning or mo wing, to keep out invasive plant material. Commissioner Henry asked about the frequency of this, and Mr. Schoppe said that some areas would be done every year - but the other would need to be done at least once every two years.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 6 of 18 Commissioner Kachel as ked if, without putting silt into the drainage, there would be deeper areas in a larger detention area. Mr. Schoppe said that even though it takes 3 to 5 years for the plants to come in, there was some vegetation that would come in very quickly. If it wa s in area where velocities of water eroded the soil, those areas would need to be identified to provide an additional level of security (like mats) to prevent erosion. Commissioner Kachel wanted this to be brought back. Commissioner McKay asked if, in th e long -term, this proposal was going to be more cost -effective, and Mr. Schoppe said that the amount of effort and money involved to manage landscaping would be less than with conventional practices. Commissioner McKay asked if, within the first 5 years, this was going to be the Homeowners Association responsibility. Mr. Martin said that the Homeowners Association would not get involved until it was 80% filled, and they expected that to be in 8 to 10 years. Until then, the developer would be responsible. Commissioner McKay said that the examples cited were golf course communities with larger budgets, and her concern was that after the developer turned this over that the cost would be significant to the Homeowners Association. A brief discussion ensued r egarding this, and Commissioner McKay just wanted the Village to be cautious in 10 years after the developer was gone that this was still going to be maintained by the responsible party. Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public comment. Carl Buc k (on behalf of the residents adjacent to neighborhood 10) asked Mr. Garrigan about the residence 225 feet from neighborhood 10. Mr. Garrigan said that they always refer to buffers to property lines when dealing with commercial properties. Mr. Buck said that they indicated this was 225 feet, but if they looked at plan, there was a strip of houses along a certain line where there were 125 feet on their side and 225 feet on the resident’s side. He wanted to bring this up as a consideration for Special Use. Chairman Sobkoviak said that there would be hearings for Preliminary Plats and Final Plats for each neighborhood. Mr. Buck asked if this was going to be a 15 -foot landscape buffer, and Mr. Martin confirmed that it would be 15 -feet wide and be composed 5 0 to 75% of evergreen. Mr. Buck asked who would maintain this easement, and Mr. Martin said that it would be the responsibility of whosever lot this was on. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Luciene Baroney who had a question regarding the naturalized storm ba sin on the north side of new Johnson road. Her driveway would probably run into that basin, and she wanted to know if a berm was proposed. She also wanted to know how deep this would be as they had small children along this road – or if there would be a safety ledge. Ms. Brook confirmed that there would be some type of safety precautions, and the depth depended on the type of feature being used. She said that no berm was proposed.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 7 of 18 Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Kurt Pflederer who worked for a landscape design and management company involved in native vegetation. He asked what their intent was regarding seed grown vegetation versus plugs. Ms. Brook said that in the Aux Sable Creek area, there were talks of plugs in those instances, but they were not sur e at this point. Mr. Schoppe said that in the larger areas, he expected this to be seeded. There might be areas in basins that were visible that they would use plugs. Mr. Pflederer asked if they had in -house experts to design and specify plant materials and - if not - what type of organization would be hired. Ms. Brook said that their firm was a natural resources group that specialized in wet land. Mr. Pflderer thought that this was an appropriate time to question as it is critical that this be install ed and managed properly in the first five years. He encouraged them to look at the Chicago Botanical Gardens. He also asked if there was any type of matrix for installation. Ms. Brook said that those were details that they would coordinate with End Cap, and they would make sure this was addressed. Chairman Sobkoviak also confirmed that they had someone on staff who specialized in landscaping. The time for public comment was closed, and Chairman Sobkoviak instructed interested individuals to note that e ach neighborhood would have separate public hearings for Preliminary Plat and Final Plat. He asked people to be in touch with staff on when those individual meetings would occur. Commissioner McKay asked if the green belt common area would have a waterwa y, and Mr. Schoppe said that some of the green streets would be areas to use the bioswale technique. He said that this was not a permanent stream of water, but after a storm event, it was designed to carry water. Commissioner McKay asked if there were an y adjacent parks to these green streets. Mr. Schoppe said that the green streets do lead to parks, and they would note this. Mr. O’Rourke asked what the Village standards were for safety. Mr. Amann said that the standard for a detention pond was a safe ty ledge 10 -foot wide (2 to 3 -feet below water level) as well as side slopes, and 5 horizontal boards to each 1 vertical. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the weedy areas tend to discourage kids (and geese), but Commissioner McKay was worried about kids playi ng in an area that may be uncertain whether it is wet or dry. Mr. Amann said that wet bottom ponds would always have water, but the marsh -type of pond would have a small amount of water all the time by design. Commissioner Kachel asked if, before a devel oper turned a project over, there was anyone who checked the ponds for silting. Mr. Amann said that, typically, they did not go under water, but there were equations to determine how much silt was there.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 8 of 18 Commissioner McKay asked if there would be fe ncing requirements, and Mr. Martin said that they pick a standard for the fence that must be uniform throughout the subdivision. Commissioner Henry said that the commission had concerns regarding how the Homeowners Association would function and suggested bringing with them what they proposed for covenants. Mr. Martin said that it was difficult to submit a final draft, but they could bring forth what they had. A discussion ensued regarding this. Commissioner Renzi asked if he had read something alrea dy regarding this, and Mr. Martin said that a lot of this was in the pattern book. Chairman Sobkoviak said that each neighborhood might have different covenants, and a discussion ensued regarding what types of things would come under general guidelines. Commissioner Renzi asked when they deal with the pattern book, and Mr. Garrigan said that they could discuss this after the land plan. A discussion ensued regarding this, and Mr. Martin said that the could ask Mr. Arndt questions regarding this. At 8:36p m, Commissioner McKay moved that this matter be continued for further discussion and consideration for the Plan Commission meeting of April 4 th , 2006. Commissioner Lucenko seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renz i, Fazio, Henry, Kachel, McKay, Lucenko, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0:0. The Planning Commission took a 10 -minute break at 8:37, and reconvened at 8:50. New Business CASE: 1230 -021006.AA/PP PLAINFIELD WEST Request: Annexation Agreem ent Preliminary Plat Location: South of 127 th Street at Gilmore Road Applicant: MPI -7 Plainfield West, LLC Time: 8:50pm Mr. Garrigan said that this case was requested to be continued. Chairman Sobkoviak said that all interested persons should note t hat this was being postponed to May 2. John Phillipchuck announced that this would be a residential development. At 8:52pm, Commissioner Henry moved that they continue Case No. 1230 -021006.AA/PP, including the public hearing, to the May 2, 2006 meeting o f the Plan Commission.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 9 of 18 Commissioner Kachel 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. CASE: 1227 -010306.SPR/SU THREE N ON E CHILD CARE CENTER Request: Special Use (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review Location: 127 th Street, just east of Gilmore Road Applicant: Willie and Shenita Johnson Time: 8:53pm Jim Donahue announced that this was a public hearing being held in accordan ce with all applicable rules and regulations of the Village of Plainfield and the State of Illinois. He read the staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in John Argoudelis (on behalf of the petitioner) and Eric Carlson (the architect). Mr. Carlson addres sed the commission first and said that staff covered everything well. They were utilizing the detention pond from the fire station. There were some catch basins funneling water from parts of the site into the pond. He went over the trash enclosure and e levations and the specifications of the architecture (including materials and roofing). He showed where there would be can lighting along the façade and proposed signage. They exceeded the landscape requirements with some nice decorative plants and scree ning. He showed the screening along the fence line of the playground area for safety. He went over the other plantings proposed to match the style of the building. He confirmed that the exterior lighting would be at 22 -feet, and the peak of the building would be 25 ½-feet, and the adjacent residents would not be able to see the lighting. He stated that the size of the playground area was regulated by the state. Commissioner Henry asked where all of the mechanicals would be, and Mr. Carlson said that ap proximately 1,000 square feet of attic space would be used for this, and they would put condensers on the side and would bring the landscaping out to screen. Commissioner Henry asked what type of fencing would be along the north property on the playground . Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Willie Johnson who said that they had planned to have a hard plastic -type rod fencing that was 4 -foot high. Mr. Donahue added that it would have a full iron appearance, and a discussion ensued regarding the type of fence req uired by state. Commissioner Henry wanted to add a stipulation regarding this. Commissioner Kachel asked how durable it was, and Mr. Argoudelis said that they wanted this to fit into the residential environment. Commissioner Kachel asked how safe a viny l fencewas, and Mr. Carlson said that they had no problem dealing with Staff on this.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 10 of 18 Mr. O’Rourke said that they were going to have more than 100 cars on the property in the morning and evening. Chairman Sobkoviak said that there were usually only fiv e cars there at one time, and they were not all there at the same time so it is usually not a problem. A discussion ensued regarding architecture and landscaping. Mr. Carlson said that they were looking at rubberized mulch on the playground, and the area between the two playgrounds would be grass. Commissioner Renzi asked if they resolved all of this when the fire department came in, and Mr. Amann said that this was a dry bottom detention pond. Mr. O’Rourke said that when Staff talked to the applicant a bout the elimination of a curb cut, he asked if they could keep the eastern curb cut instead to share with the property to the east. Mr. Donahue said that the Preliminary Plat for the adjacent property was a residential entrance. Mr. O’Rourke asked if th ere could be another entrance on this street. Michael Schwartz, who was working on the adjacent property, said that most likely, they would not have an access onto that street because that would end up being a collector for where they were trying to share to the property to south. He also said that there would be some type of residential building there. Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public comment. There was no response. At 9:20pm, Commissioner Henry moved that they recommend approval of a special use permit for 3 N 1 Daycare located on Lot 2 in Oswego Fire Protection District Station 4 Subdivision. Commissioner Kachel 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. At 9:20pm, Commissioner Henry moved that they recommend approval of the site plan for 3 N 1 Daycare located on Lot 2 in Oswego Fire Protection District Station 4 Subdivision, subject to the following thre e (3) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Oswego Fire Protection District. 3. Compliance with staff’s request to keep the height of the light standards equal to or below the overall h eight of the building. 4. Fencing subject to Staff approval.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 11 of 18 Commissioner Kachel 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. T his would probably go forward the first meeting in April. CASE: 1229 -020706.SU/SPR/FP MCDONALDS Request: Special Use (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review, Final Plat Location: Southeast corner of Route 59 Applicant: Jeff Cermak Time: 9:22pm Mr. Dona hue 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 read the staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there were any engineering conce rns regarding detention, and Mr. Amann said that this was one of the better systems on the market. Chairman Sobkoviak had a problem with the grandfathered sign as these were pre -existing non -conformances. Commissioner Fazio asked what the future plans we re for Lot 1. Mr. Donahue said that Lot 1 was McDonalds, but there were no plans yet for Lot 2. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the group of petitioners. Henry Stillwell (300 E. Roosevelt Road), the attorney for the applicant, addressed the commission. The y had a total of 13 exhibits and gave an abbreviated presentation of each (the site plans, landscaping plans, etc.) He showed Exhibit 1 which was the aerial photo of the B -3 district along Route 59. They believed that the trend of development promoted th is, and they pointed out that there was a plan to put a restaurant on this lot. He introduced three witnesses to cover specific information: 1 - Jeff Miller (consulting team for engineering) 2 - Libby Fisher (employee of McDonalds Corp in the construction field) 3 - Greg Schneider (employee of McDonalds Corp in the operations area) He identified that McDonalds had not purchased the land and would be doing this as a ground lease with the existing owner – which is why they did not have control over the billboard sign. He also mentioned the access scenarios.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 12 of 18 Jeff Miller addressed the commission. He brought up two separate site plans that were looked at. Originally, Staff wanted a driveway to be shared on Industrial Drive, and when they looked at the details, they came up with a second site plan to accomplish the intent. So, stacking on Industrial Drive would not block the ability to get in and out of the facility. They set it so the outbound lane was beyond stacking and allowed for better truck circulation – for delivery and emergency vehicles. They felt that the second scenario was the better alternative – to better one -way circulation. The first scenario forced people to be coming at each other - as well as having the deliveries go around to get into the site . Mr. Miller went through the other plans that they were responsible for, but there were no issues with these. Water storage was not a problem, and they satisfied the requirements. They felt that they had addressed landscaping requirements and lightin g requirements. With what they were proposing, they did not have any adverse affect on the surrounding area. Chairman Sobkoviak said that they had a couple of major issues, but the subdivision and special use were not a problem. They were down to a sign and curb cut problem Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Len Monson, the attorney for the property owner, GNS Land Development, LLC who received a request for removal of the billboard. The area that the base of the billboard is on is not on the McDonalds lot bu t on Lot 1. Unfortunately, neither the petitioner nor the landowner had an immediate ability to remove this. The property was on lease to Viacom, and while they contacted them, Viacom said that they would not allow this and were prepared to take legal ac tion. The 1998 ordinance and Annexation Agreement did not mention an intention to have the sign removed. Now his clients were saying that they were responsible for this, and they were interested in removing it. He proposed to add a modification to the z oning to terminate the lease in 2011 to provide a notice of intention to remove the sign. Commissioner Fazio thanked him for the good explanation. Mr. Donahue said that there was no documentation of removal of the sign, but the zoning ordinance spoke to the removal and enforcement that all non -conforming signs could be removed if the use of the property changed. Mr. O’Rourke confirmed that the original term of lease was until 2011. A discussion ensued regarding this. Commissioner Renzi asked, if the wh ole lot was changing, they could invoke that clause. Since they were not transferring the property by sale, he wanted to know if the use of the southwest corner could be treated separately. A discussion ensued regarding how to treat a legal non -conformin g structure.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 13 of 18 Mr. Stillwell said that if they follow the rigid requirements of the ordinance, then the McDonalds application would have to be withdrawn because they did not have the legal right to interfere with this. It seemed more beneficial to move forward with the use and then to have a commitment from the landowner to remove the sign upon end of use. Commissioner Renzi said that this sign was on the lot, so the Planning Commission could require this, but no one could comply since it was not econom ically feasible to deal with the law suit. Commissioner Fazio said that they could let McDonalds develop the property now, and in 2011 the sign goes away. Commissioner McKay said that the gentleman who owned this was a business savvy man and asked if McD onald could rent the sign. Mr. Stillwell said that they had no intent to do so. Commissioner McKay said that they were glad to see them here, and 2011 was not too far away. Commissioner Henry said that they had a lot more billboards in town than one and what they did tonight set a precedent. He felt sorry for McDonalds and the current landowner. Mr. O’Rourke asked if it would be wrong to get a copy of the lease to the Village Council for review. Commissioner Renzi thought this was a good idea as the re might be a condemnation clause or other stipulations that could be affected. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if they could move this along with the request that they add language to remove the sign in 2011 and let Staff worry about the lease contracts. Mr. O ’Rourke asked about the curb cuts. Commissioner Lucenko asked if there would be a problem with stacking on Route 59 with the first access. Mr. Miller said that the Village Ordinance required 50 -feet, and that’s what they show but it was in -bound only. C ommissioner Lucenko said that it was sometimes a problem when those kinds of access were that close to a major thoroughfare. Mr. Miller said that there was an existing right -turn lane into Industrial and mentioned a possible traffic light in the future M r. Donahue said that from East to West there was 350 feet and an additional curb cut. A discussion ensued regarding which was more detrimental to traffic movement. Mr. Amann said that they might have significant stacking at the traffic light to turn left , so a curb cut further from Route 59 would be better. A discussion ensued regarding truck traffic. Mr. Miller submitted a circulation report and showed how this moves better. Mr. Amann though this was a good approach, but with the secondary access at R hea, he did not understand why they could not use this as an exit and move the second access on Industrial. A discussion ensued regarding moving the curb cut to the east, and Mr. Miller explained that a truck could not make a 180 -degree turn. They talked about the two scenarios.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 14 of 18 Libby Fisher addressed the commission and clarified that the egress on Rhea would be additional and not sole egress. Mr. Miller showed the two curb cuts on Industrial and discussed further flow problems with peak drive -thru traffic. Commissioner Kachel had a question regarding accessing through Lot 2. Mr. Donahue said that without knowing what was going to be on Lot 2, it was hard to say. Commissioner Renzi asked if they could make the ingress/egress on the property line a s he could not imagine that there were going to be a large amount of people trying to exit. He said that the only way was to give them a curb cut further down off of Industrial. He asked if they could lose the two top parking stalls in the northeast corn er and push out the ingress/egress on Lot 2. This would restrict Lot 2 so they could only have an exit onto Industrial. A discussion ensued regarding this. Mr. Stillwill said that this was an area designed for this type of development, and whether peopl e were accessing this site or the adjoining site, the access was not the same as a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Kachel asked about access to the adjoining property. Mr. Stillwell thought that there was a serious distinction in uninterrupted traffic on a major artery versus this type of small drive. He was not sure of the type of volumes, but did not think this was like a Route 59 or Ogden. Commissioner Renzi asked if they were talking about 50 -feet from the west curb cut to the intersection, plus a n extra 20 -feet for the turn. They were going to have three cars turning left in the scenario with one curb cut, and he thought that this was a significant matter for ingress/egress as this was going to conceivably back up to the drive -thru. Mr. Stillwel l said that Staff wanted a sidewalk along the site to promote pedestrian access as well, so if they put the curb cut within the cue, it would interfere. Ms. Fisher said that they had found the easiest way to prevent problems was to get people out of the parking lot quickly. They wanted to keep a one -way travel path along the same route as the drive -thru path to keep people from going the wrong way. It was their belief that people could get off the lot onto Industrial and Route 59, so they wanted to pus h this as far to the east as possible. They felt that this was the best and safest solution. Commissioner Henry was worried about what was going to happen with Lot 2. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the only argument was the number of curb cuts on Industri al and that could be resolved; however the shared driveways could be problematic. Mr. Stillwell said that they would not be looking for more than one curb cut on Lot 2 based on its possible use, and they should be able to work with that. A discussion ens ued regarding the traffic committee review of this. Commissioner McKay confirmed that when coming off of Industrial, you could turn left onto Route 59. Mr. O’Rourke asked if they could slide the second curb cut a little further to the east. Mr. Miller s aid that they could slide it over, but Mr. Amann was not sure what that would gain you.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 15 of 18 Commissioner Kachel confirmed that the McDonalds logo was not over and above what they would normally allow as the elevations showed different signage. Commissioner Renzi asked if the roof was an issue, but Mr. Donahue said that they were looking into accomplishing this request. Ms. Fisher added that they had agreed to use the same masonry on the trash enclosure Mr. O’Rourke asked about Walmart installing a traffi c signal, and Mr. Garrigan confirmed that Walmart was installing this at their cost. The commission reviewed the motions and added a fourth stipulation to the final plat that Lot 2 would have no more than one curb cut on Industrial Drive. At 10:46pm, C ommissioner Renzi moved that they recommend approval of the final plat of subdivision of the property located at the southeast corner of Industrial Drive and Route 59 subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village En gineer. 2. The inclusion of the thirty one (31) foot wide Cross access easement along the south property line. 3. Removal of the forty (40) foot tall, eight hundred (800) square foot billboard sign located on the newly created Lot 1, when the current lease expir es in 2011, or sooner, if Staff finds such language in the lease that would cause the current lease to terminate before 2011. 4. Lot 2 will have no more than one curb cut on Industrial Drive Commissioner Henry 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. At 10:47pm, Commissioner Fazio moved that they recommend approval of the Special Use for a Planned Unit Development including a re staurant with a drive through on Lot 1 of the Patterman’s Resubdivision, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Attaching a Statement of Intent and Agreement prior to Village Board consideration. 2. Removal of the forty (40) foot tall, eight hundred (800) squ are foot billboard sign located on the newly created Lot 1, when the current lease expires in 2011, or sooner, if Village Staff finds such language in the least that would cause the current lease to terminate before 2011. Commissioner Lucenko seconded the motion.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 16 of 18 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. At 10:48pm, Commissioner Henry moved that they recommend approval of the site plan for McDona ld’s Restaurant located on Lot 1 of the Patterman’s Resubdivision, subject to the following nine (9) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 3. Remova l of the forty (40) foot tall, eight hundred (800) square foot billboard sign located on the newly created Lot 1, when the current lease expires in 2011, or sooner, if the Village Staff finds such language in the lease that would cause the current lease to terminate before 2011. 4. Implementing the double curb cut scenario as discussed. 5. The inclusion of a cornice or similar treatment to the flat roofline sections of the building. 6. Having the trash enclosure match the building and be made entirely of brick or fa ce brick to match the building. 7. Compliance with the signage elements as identified by staff. 8. Payment of any and all fees as identified in the annexation agreement and any outstanding recapture fees that may be due with the development of the site. 9. Installa tion of the thirty one (31) foot wide cross access along the south property line connecting Lot 1 to Rhea Drive. Commissioner Kachel 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. This would go forward the first meeting in April. CASE: 1231 -021506.SPR/FP MENDARDS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Request: Site Plan Review/Final Plat Location: 13441 S. Route 59 Applicant: Menards, Inc. (Brando n Wilmer) Time: 10:50pm Mr. Schwarz presented the Staff report.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 17 of 18 Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Brandon Wilmer (of Menards) who said that his only concern was regarding the subdivision. It said that Lots 18 and 19 were listed, and it was currently Lots 1 and 2 to be re -subdivided into 18 and 19. Mr. Schwarz said that it was just a technical requirement that Staff could resolve. Commissioner Renzi asked what the modification was to include the 45 degree angle at the stair steps. Mr. Schwarz said that toward the east edge of the Menards lot, the property line steps to the north and jogs to the east, and paralleling that was a 20 -foot wide access easement. Depending on what happened to Lot 2, he said that theoretically someone could put a fence to that easement line which would inhibit vehicle movement. So, they were suggesting adjusting the easement to make sure the sight lines were okay, and Mr. Wilmer did not have a problem with this. At 10:57pm, Commissioner Henry moved that they recommend approval of the site plan prepared by Menard, Inc. dated March 15, 2006, and the Development Plan for “Menards of Plainfield Yard Access Improvements” prepared by Intech Consultant’s Inc., dated February 8, 2006, subject to the following two (2) stipulations: 1. Comp liance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Commissioner Lucenko seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Fazio, Renzi, Henry, Kac hel, McKay, Lucenko, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0:0. At 10:58pm, Commissioner Henry moved that they recommend approval of the Final Plat of Subdivision Lots 1 and 2 Menards of Plainfield Subdivision, prepared by Intech Consultants, Inc., dated February 7, 2006, subject to the following three (3) conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 3. Submittal of a revised Final Plat of Subdivision w hich complies with all staff -stipulated technical review comments. 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.
Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 18 of 18 This would go forward the first meeting of April. Commissioner Kachel asked if they should keep the binder, and Mr. Garrigan said that they could keep it for review and consideration. Mr. Schwarz said that they had an Open House scheduled at the Village Hall, and there would be a presentation in the Board Room for Riverwalk. They would have a consultant and Staff available for questions on the concept plan. Commissioner Kachel asked if the golf course would show on the draft of the concept plan , and Mr. Schwarz said not at this time. It might be included, but they would be discussing it in its entirety on this day. Commissioner Henry said that on the Zoning Commission schedule, it showed a March 27 Committee of the Whole meeting to have a join t meeting regarding new zoning ordinances. He asked if that was still planned, and Mr. Garrigan said that Mr. Hoffman was working on something for a Village Board meeting. He did not think it was a joint meeting, but he would check and let the commission ers know. Commissioner Henry asked there was going to be a special meeting on March 28, and Mr. Garrigan said that it would not be on that date. A discussion ensued regarding whether this should be a joint meeting or not. Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m. __________________ Respectfully submitted, Laura Griffith -Recording Secretary Karick & Associates, Inc.