Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2006-04-04 PC MinutesVillage of Plainfield Planning Commission Record of Minutes Date: April 4 , 2006 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:0 4 . Roll Call Present: Commissioners Kachel, Renzi , Fazio, McKay, Lucenko, Sobkoviak, Ed O’Rou rke , Park District, School District Absent: Commissioner Henry, David Murawski, Fire District (arrived later), Library District, Police Department Minutes The minutes from March 21 , 2006 meeting were accepted as presented . Chairman Sobkoviak announced that the Normantown Prairie case would be continued. Development Report Michael Garrigan read the Staff report: - The Village Attorney was instructed to draft a Special Use ordinance for the Villas of Plainfield on a vote of 4 -3. - 3 in 1 Day Care was suppo rted. - A Special Use would be drafted for McDonalds. The Bo ard had discussed the billboard extensively, and Staff would continue to work with the applicant. - The Site Plan modification for Menards was supported, and the Final Plat amendments were approved. Commissioner Kachel asked if, on the Villas, anything was done with North -South streets. Mr. Garrigan understood that no major modifications were made. Old Business CASE: 1224 -122005.AA/SU GRANDE PARK SOUTH Request: Annexation Agreement (Public Hea ring) Special Use (Public Hearing) Concept Plan Location: South of Cherry Road, North of Wheeler and West of Ridge Road PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 2 Applicant: MPI Partnership Time: 7:08 pm Mr. Garrigan started with a hearing from Mr. Murphy of Oswego School District. Chairma n Sobkoviak swore in Mr. Murphy and Wendy Yaksich . Joel Murphy addressed the commission to talk about the planning and calculations on the Grande Park South project . They had worked closely with the developer on where the site would be placed. He s poke briefly about the high school site and said that the adjacent property still needed to be acquired. He a lso spoke about the 10 -acre start of an elementary school site that woul d total 15 -acres when completed. Mr. Murphy s poke about the population calcula tion for schools and noted that this site was within the ranges of the Illinois calculation. Mike Martin said that the school was located on the site as per the school district’s request. Commissioner Fazio asked why the school district want ed the school s in these areas. Mr. Murphy said that they wanted the high school location so they could expand to the west, and the 10 -acre school site would include l and to the east as well and would be “walkable”. Commissioner Fazio asked about roads that would serv ice the school, and Mr. Murphy said that they like to put the schools on one major road . However, they like d to have two -road access , and this wa s the opportunity they ha d to the west. Commissioner Fazio asked about the adjacent land donation, and Mr. Mu rphy said that they were working with the land owners . Commissioner Kachel asked if they had looked at other locations, but Mr. Murphy did not see any from their development. They have had a conversation to the property owner to the west, but they were n ot sure that they could get the land elsewhere. Commissioner Kachel asked if Oswego had approximated certain locations, and Mr. Murphy confirmed that this was one of those locations. Commissioner Lucenko asked about the review on a distributed report. C hairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for p ublic comment for Mr. Murphy. Carl Buck (who remained under oath from a previous testimony) asked if the applicant had had any conversations with the land owner immediately west to obtain that land . The School D istrict had not. Mr. Buck asked, if they move d the site to the north to Neighborhood 10 if they would have two accesses . A d iscussion ensued regarding moving this to Neighborhood 10 and the willingness to w ork with the adjacent landowner. Mr. Martin cla rified the location and access . Commissioner Renzi asked the location of the stub street . Mr. Martin said that that there was a plan ned street , but it was 2 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 3 not a named street . It went from ex isting Ridge to Neighborhood 10. Commissioner Renzi asked if t his was a bioswale , and Mr. Martin said that it was a good location for it but would depend on drainage . Jim Hugenon said that neithe r one of the sites was acceptable to build as they were and would require them to add on. He asked if they had asked the developer to consider using the current property as they were t aking on a lot of extra money to purchase this land on their own instead of as a donation. Mr. Murphy could not comment on this as the Board of Education makes this call . A d iscussion ensued regarding asking them for more. Commissioner Renzi asked about the fiscal impact study noting that there were approximately 1 ,193 students generated from this subdivision. He asked h ow many school sites they would be looki ng for. Mr. Murphy said that th ere would be one elementary school and a third of a junior high/middle school and a portion of a high school. Commissioner Renzi said that they were getting two school sites for a subdiv ision that only require d one. Mr. Murphy said that this end ed up bei ng a better deal than acquiring the land themselves . Commissioner Kachel asked w here Oswego was looking f or another middle school site. Mr. Murphy said that t hey would probably be looking for a more interior site that could still service the area to the south . Mr. O’Rourke asked, based on current requirements, how the donation fit into their requirement. Mr. Murphy said that this was based on, and exceeded, the or dinance . Mr. Randall Arndt addressed the commission (still under oath) and set content for questions by recapping some of the points made previously. This development wa s a hybrid of conservational design and new urbanism. He g ave some details on what they hope d to accomplish with this community. Mr. Arndt went over the framework of the la nd use, especially the open space exhibit. They ha d 43% open space in this development , and i t consist ed of unbuildable wetlands and flood plains – as well as greenway and school open space. There wa s a trail/bike path system as well. He went over the A ux Sable Creek North Section and how it can be protected and enhanced, as well as the existing hedgerows in the north section. He went over the architectural standards for the community. He also went over the best management practice highlights; they wer e aiming to achieve high r atings on what the village wanted to encourage. He thought that with all the thin gs being done, this project would be visited by many to learn how things should be done. The existing condition along the Aux Sable would be improv ed to stabilize it, and they fou nd conservation and enhancement of existing natural features. He spoke about reduction of asphalt wherever 3 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 4 possible and mentioned the provision of numerous neighborhood parks and greens as well as terminal vistas. He showe d the hierarchy of open space and the greenways and trails proposed. He spoke about closes – alternatives to the standard cul -de -sac. He showed the project edges. Mr. Martin said that it had been suggested that they go to larger lot sizes and asked wha t the conseque nces would be of this. Mr. Arndt said that the consequences would be that a lot of land would be consumed for a small number of houses . He said that large lot zoning wa s what wa s responsible for sprawl . This proposed subdivision would make the most efficient use of land and found that these edge areas could be properly buffered , and the distance be tween homes and landscaping would be substantial. Mr. Martin asked why they had a mix of lot sizes in a lot of the neighborhoods . Mr. Arndt sai d that he designed it as a healthier development to reflect the reality of how the historical towns developed. This provided a sense of community and no house would be inexpensive ; it wa s just the land economics. These developments we re golf course devel opments without the golf course. The l ot price wa s about location , and if they built houses in a good location, they had amenities that people were willing to pay for. Wendy Yaksich presented the pattern book – which was mostly design criteria. She f irs t went through the single -family detached design guidelines (building materials, monotony controls, massing details, garage location and design, 360 degree architecture, porches, landscape treatment, and fencing – among others). She then went through the single family attached design guidelines (building materials, massing details, garages, 360 degree architecture, and landscape treatment). Finally, she went through the commercial design guidelines (general site design, street orientation, building materi als, architectural style, entryways, pedestrian and bicycle access, landscape design, and public space requirement). Commissioner Fazio asked if they had gone o ut to see the proposed property and asked w hat they could tell him about the neighborhood 1 and 2 location. Mr. Arndt said that this was the northernmost site, and it wa s nice an d had water and rolling land. This was a s mall corner of the property . Commissioner Fazio asked about the look of the first Grande Park and h ow far they went onto this pr oposed development - because if you stand on the edge of the proposed property, you have to look up to see Grande Park . He said that he could see the top of a retention pond and high elevation. He asked i f they go further south on the ridge, if this woul d be excavated to fill down. Paul Leeder, the engineer, said that the drainage from the north came through this area. They had done a detailed study on potential flooding and the proposed home sites were located outside of that area. Commissioner Fazio asked if the ridge would be excavated to make it even. A discussion ensued regarding drainage into the Aux Sable and preserving the natural ridge lines. Commissioner Kachel asked about open space and if the greenspace would be developed early on. Mr. Ar ndt said that the larger projects we re usually phased , and they had not 4 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 5 had this conversation with MPI but would expect it to be phased. Ms. Yaksich said that they would do the Aux Sable corridor early on; the rest would be phased. Commissioner Kachel as ked if, regarding the greenspace a s a collector , if that was for small famili es or senior citizens. Mr. Arndt said that the ones from Florida were young families . Commissioner McKay wanted to take a look at a development where this ha d worked . Mr. Arndt said that they could get a “flavor” of this from Prairie Crossing in Grayslake . Commissioner McKay asked if they were familiar with a conservation subdivision in Liberty, Missouri as people who want ed to live there said that the landscaping left somethin g to be desired . A discussion ensued regarding other areas with similar features . Mr. Martin said that they planned to build the Aux Sable Creek corridor first, and this would be five -year grow out process of which the developer would be there. Af ter th at, the Park District would take over care of this land. Ms. Yaksich said that Mill Creek in Geneva wa s also conserv ation designs. The Glen in Glenview wa s a more urban development with neo -traditional housing and setbacks . Commissioner McKay said tha t Mill Creek wa s a golf course community , and she did not recall 6 ,000 or 8 ,000 sq uare f oo t lots . Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Emo Furfori of Schoppe Assoc iates who lived in southern end of Mill Creek (which was single -family) and had a lot that is 7,000 s q uare f ee t. Ms. Yaksich said that none of those subdivisions were duplicates; they just show ed different aspects of this one. Commissioner Renzi asked where these people would be going to shop. Mr. Arndt said that they would go to their own preferences , and there would be shopping on property, as well as the commercial property . Chairman Sobkoviak said that the WIKADUKE would be developed as well . Commissioner Renzi clarified where the residents in Neighborhoods 9 and 7 would shop and said that this wa s not a community feel if there we re no neighborhood shops . Mr. Arndt said that the urban idea and urban reality we re different , and they would be closer to commercial . Commissioner Renzi said that Route 59 and Caton Farm wa s the only commercial node b ecause there wa s nothing else in the area ; this wa s going to be the same situation with Route 126 to WIKADUKE . Mr. Arndt said that neighborhood shops we re not the answer ; there wa s a multiplicity of choices to get to the major commercial area . Commission er Renzi said that they designed a nice landscape for homes, but if they tak e th e other road, the residents would complain about cut -thru traffic . Mr. Arndt did not think that this would be a problem as there was a multiplicity of ways to travel so there was not one cut -through route. 5 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 6 Commissioner Renzi asked if, for the clubhouse, the greenspace could be another commercial area to service several neighborhoods. Chairman Sobkoviak said that there would be commercial at Route 126 and County Line Road. Mr. Arndt said that commercial in that area would be more accessible but most people would not walk to shops. A discussion ensued regarding this. Ms. Yaksich said that the locations of commercial were consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. Co mmissioner Renzi did not think the commercial ratio was the desired one. Chairman Sobkoviak said that they could discuss with Staff what the realistic commercial was. Commissioner Renzi was worried about that and funneling of traffic. Commissioner Renzi asked why they could not have any above -ground swimming pools. Ms. Yaksich said that this was an aesthetic issue. Commissioner Renzi asked about portable basketball hoops, and Ms. Yaksich said that they could not have mounted hoops, and they could not h ave advertising . Commissioner Renzi asked about having one standardized mail box type, and Ms. Yaksich said that this adds to the streetscape . Commissioner Renzi asked how prescribed the landscaping was. Ms. Yaksich said that the intent wa s to control p lanting amounts, not the locations . Wh ere corner lots abu t a street, clustered trees would be put up by the developer . Mr. O’Rourke asked about the city’s requirements for fences by pools . Mr. Garrigan said that a 5 -foot high perimeter fence was require d . Ms. Yaksich said that the V il l a g e requirement would apply , and a d iscussion ensued re garding fencing. Commissioner McKay was puzzled that the larger sizes on the periphery would ruin the concept of this plan. I n the true fashion of merging two though ts , she asked w hy this was not beneficial. Mr. Arndt said that the consequences to putting large lots on the perimeter was that it consumed a lot of land for less , and t he greenway system would shrink - which would take away from the park land. Commissio ner McKay said that the park district would benefit because they would still pay higher taxes . Mr. Arndt said that they would be converting park space to lot space . Commissioner McKay asked if he had done these figures, and Mr. Arndt said no, that if he was going to be building a four -season vegetative screen around it, he did not see the net benefit of reducing the houses . Commissioner Kachel said that 300 -feet incorporates the 200 to 250 feet on the existing homes . Mr. Arndt was not using greenspace; he was just talking about the visual impact . Commissioner Kachel asked what the difference was elev ation wise. Mr. Arndt said that this was not completely flat , but it was fairly even ground . Commissioner Kachel said that this was walking distance fro m the schools but asked if there was any talk of plans regarding walking over Route 126 . Ms. Yaksich said that they were discussing this with Staff now . 6 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 7 Commissioner Fazio read the information from the National Association of Realtors regarding the benef its of conservation design and read a quote from the article. He said that there lots on a golf course that people were willing to pay more. There were people willing to pay more to have true open space. It was mentioned that this contributed to “sprawl ”, but Commissioner Fazio did not think that conservation design or country homes was sprawl. Mr. Arndt said that “sprawl” was seen as inefficient use of land. He said that to take 100 acres of land and build one -acre lots would be wise. In a major metr opolitan region, they look at “smart groves”. Mr. Arndt spoke about promoting efficient use of land and stood by the statement that houses in conservation subdivisions that abut open space sell for more money. This was based upon many studies. Commissio ner McKay asked if it was unfair to say that it was to the developer’s benefit to put more homes on smaller lots. Mr. Arndt said that this all was a very neatly balanced package, and it made more sense for a Village in a metropolitan area with water and s ewage to build 2.2 dwelling units per acre in a compact fashion to get quality open space. An appraiser could speak to this issue. Commissioner McKay did not think that every lot should be re -designed but thought that there were key lots that should be l ooked at. Chairman Sobkoviak said that this was misleading because density needed to be calculated on the overall development. Mr. Martin said that they had proposed 2,400 units consistently from the beginning, and they seized upon the idea of the Route 126 realignment. They required a certain den sity in order to pay for this, and h e defended the system that they developed in order to meet the goals of the ordinance. They purchased residential land on the Comprehensive P lan for a residential development and we re spending the money to take a chance on better development. Commissioner Renzi referenced the planning of urban versus unincorporated and asked if that was because if they were in the county zoned areas, it was well and septic. Mr. Arndt said th at typically lower densities we re associated with areas without water and sewer. When areas incorporate d , they ha d those urban services and the dynamics change d . Mr. O’Rourke asked what they do when the two meet. Mr. Arndt said that buffering wa s usuall y done to separate incompatible uses (like commercial from residential). This had changed over the years, but he did not subscribe to buffering between residential. He b rought up some of the positives of the developments – miles of bike trails, shops, sc hools, etc. Mr. O’Rourke asked if the 43% open space include d water and schools. Ms. Yaksich said that it included flood plain (11%), storm water m ana g e m en t, and parks; however schools we re separate . Mr. O’Rourke said that based upon the book they we re exceeding the school donation and asked if MPI needed to work with the school . Mr. Martin said that they m ight be looking to get an additional eight acres for the school from the townhomes . 7 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 8 Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public comment. Gary Davidson addressed the commission and welcomed Mr. Arndt to the community. He confirmed that t his wa s part of a PUD with special use. He asked if a special use wa s a better use , which seemed to be the case, why it was not a permitted use. Ms. Yaksich s aid that the special use allowed the Village of Plainfield to control the features. This allowed for open spaces, best management practices, design features, etc. Mr. Davidson said that it was his understanding that there were numerous consolations that the developer was asking for like drastic reduction in setbacks. Ms. Yaksich said that they were asking for reductions but not drastic; the new guidelines for PUD’s ask them to bring some of these designs. Mr. Davidson said that a setback requirement of 30 -feet was required – and theirs was 12 -feet. In reviewing the case concerning Wilcox Development Group, the Village determined that 20 -feet was not acceptable. Ms. Yaksich said that 30 -feet was for a building setback, and 20 feet was their request. Th e 12 feet was for the porch setback. Mr. Davidson said that asked if the re -routing of Route 126 was part of this development. Mr. Martin said that this was in response to the economics of the development. The Village had not set a plan for doing this o ther than an “idea”. Economically, they did not have enough units to do this if they reduced the number of lots. Mr. Davidson asked if they had indicated that 12,000 square foot lots would create a problem with the plan. Mr. Arndt said that one -acre lot s would not be faithful to the spirit of this plan. They wanted to meet the goals of the Village of having walkable lots. Mr. Davidson asked if he believe d that the V il l a g e’s standard of 12,000 feet for R -1 to be unacce ptable. Mr. Arndt had no opinion on that because they we re trying to promote the V il l a g e ’s own standards and this would not achieve the goals . Mr. Davidson said that he had worked with Tom Cross with the surrounding communities to establish a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet and a sked if he saw that as improper standard. Mr. Arndt said that the purpose of the standard wa s density control. However, he felt that u sing lot size to establish density shoots the community in the foo t because the community’s goal wa s to promote open spa ce. Mr. Davidson said that this wa s commonly referred to as “cluster”. Mr. Arndt said in the 6 0’s, yes - but this evolved to conserv ation design and urbanization. Mr. Davidson asked if he would you agree that this site was a resource -restricted site. Mr. Arndt said that every site wa s somewhat r esource restrictive. Mr. Davidson presented his Exhibit A – a picture of a resource restri cted site and a “regular” site. He said that, specifically , with a resource restricted site , it was a similar depictio n of Neighborhoods 1 and 2 to the north (with 12,000 square f oo t lots). Mr. Arndt said that to the extent that they had the Aux Sable going through it that they had to plan around , it was. Mr. Davidson asked if the Aux Sable Creek could be built upon, an d Mr. Arndt confirmed that the flood plains we re not considered to be built upon . 8 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 9 Mr. Davidson asked if they suggest ed, in calculating density , that they shou ld take out detentions. Mr. Arnd t encour aged more progressive detention, like having density cal culated using density bonuses. Ms. Yaksich said that the Villa g e of Plainfield require d density to be determined by floodway and wetland be ing removed from the gross density before beginning to work on density calculations. Mr. Davidson asked if it would be a fair statement to say that currently the detention ponds and Aux Sable we re included as part of the density bonuses. Ms. Yaksich said that this was one of the bonuses requested . Mr. Davidson asked if the detention areas we re considered “waste” by a developer , but Ms. Yaksich said that this was not “waste”. Mr. Davidson asked if they could develop Neighborhoods 1 and 2 without the detention, but Ms. Yaksich was not sure. Mr. Davidson said that a developer’s goal was not always the same as the Villag e’s, but Ms. Yaksich said that they were working within the Village’s guidelines. Mr. Davidson said that he had had an opportunity to meet with John and Mr. Martin regarding potentially increasing the lot sizes of Neighborhoods 1 and 2 to 25,000. Ms. Yak sich said that no commitment had been made as to whether this was possible. She said that anything was possible, but the entire development was a system, and a project was seen as a total volume. Mr. Davidson said that this was probably because everyone was counting votes, and they did not want to do anything until someone told them to do so. Mr. Martin said that they were trying to develop a unique subdivision that Plainfield and the developer could be proud of; they had done extra in many aspects. He thought that they would all profit, and they were trying to develop a community that everyone could be proud of. Mr. Davidson said that the developer had indicated that it was not possible or feasible to do one -acre lots, and several commissioners asked f or an analysis that the developer was unable to provide. He noted that there are one -acre lots in Barrington and South Barrington that are desirous. These lots maintain their lot sizes and were doing well; he asked why this could not be done here. Mr. A rndt said that they were trying to be consistent with a principle of planning and the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. They had done all of these things consistent with the codes. In order to reach 43% open space, the lots had to be balanced in size and dis tribution; the village wanted something special. Mr. Davids on said that it was frustrating for his clients and some Planning Commission members to hear that the developer could not do something but did not say why. He asked a t what point, they could not make this profitable. Ms. Yaksich said that t hey need ed to achieve a density of around 2 ,400 units as a goal. All of these different pieces fit together, and if they increase the lot s izes, certain other aspects had to change to work together in the syst em. Mr. Davidson asked how many lots they were off . Mr. Garrigan said that there was not a definite number, but they we re less than 50 off that they need to determine by density 9 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 10 bonuses. Mr. Davidson said that there being total agreement was not accur ate, and they we re still trying to convince the Village of certain calculations. Ms. Yaksich said that they were working out certain bonus criteria . Mr. Davidson asked if it would be wise to address some of the planning and zoning concerns regarding Ne ighborhoods 1 and 2 to keep the density of those in other neighborhoods. Ms. Yaksich said that they would be looking at commen ts raised and opportunities would arise ; however, at this point, their response wa s no t to increasing lot size. Mr. Davidson ask ed if it was traditional to have a truck route run through a n urbanized development, and Ms. Yaksich said probably not. Mr. Davidson asked if this has been done before, and Mr. Arndt said that this include d re -development of urban land along major arteria ls. Seaside Florida wa s bisected by a major highway between the north and south side s of an urban development. This was not som ething that they relished to do, but they recognized this as a better idea to address now than hoping someone would do it in th e future. Mr. Davidson asked if it was advantageous for a community to approve this truck route through a dense residential area . Mr. Arndt said that if the truck route ran by anyone’s house, they would not like it. They were at least going to put it in a corn field; however, one way or the other, it would still be in the middle of an urbanized area. Mr. Davidson said that studies suggested these types of developments have 50 to 60% open space and asked why this was not the case for this development. M r. Arndt said that when dealing with water and sewer areas, 25 to 40% was a reasonable amount of open space. Fifty to sixty percent was from “Growing Greener” where there was no infrastructure. A discussion ensued regarding different zoning in different areas. Mr. Davidson asked what, if anything, Mr. Arndt would change on this plan. Mr. Arndt said that he was always changing the plan , but if the parameters changed, there would be a lot that could be done. He w as intrigue d by the additional commercial and was just worried about small shops not doing well. He was a lso intrigued by the pedestrian underpass and went through several other possible changes . However, with reality, he said the plan wa s well thought out. Mr. Davidson asked, with respect to c ommercial, if the commercial was sufficient to support the residential and what analysis was done. Ms. Yaksich said that they used the V il l a g e ’s residential plan and did not do their own . Mr. Davidson wanted to turn the questioning over to Mr. Buck but w anted to come up for additional questions if need be. At 9:47 pm, the commission took a 10 minute break . The meeting reconvened at 9:57pm. 10 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 11 Carl Buck addressed the commission and asked Ms. Yaksich if the pattern book for Ne ighborhood 10 could be modified to eliminate the vinyl . Ms. Yaksich said that she could take this back for consideration . Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the Village would entertain this. Mr. Garrigan said that it would have to be a part of the A nnexation A greement. Mr. Buck said that t he applicant testified about what items were removed from the total area when calculating density . Ms. Yaksich said that they remove d the floodway, wetlands, planned commercial, and land within permanent easements . The land l eftover wa s the buildable are a , and the calculation wa s applied to that . Mr. Buck said that, at a previous meeting, they gave them a map with the site data that the gross density was calculated differently. Ms. Yaksich said that gross density was a typical item (that included everyt hing minus commercial); the other calculation was applied to buildable acres. Mr. Buck felt that this was a confusing number , and Ms. Yaksich clarified that the density wa s 2.29 . Mr. Buck said that when they started to testify that their review of this p lan was a hybrid , he confirmed that this was a hybrid of new urbanism and conservation planning. He asked if Mr. Arndt was familiar with a group called the Congress of New Urbanism . Mr. Arndt said that he was a c harter member . Mr. Buck broke down some o f the principles and said that they believe d, as a “Conservation planner”, greater densities could result in a superior development. He confirmed that part of the developer’s goal wa s to try and build a complete community. Mr. Buck said that Mr. Arndt had referred to this area as metropolitan and asked how they define this. Mr. Arndt said that there was not a lot of agreement on this as what used to be called a metropolitan area was different and changing. With every census, they found its boundary ex panding. Mr. Buck said that, in this case, the homes to the north and adjacent to Neighborhood 10 were well and septic; he asked if Mr. Arndt would characterize this as rural. Mr. Arndt said that it used to be but had developed to suburban; it was surrou nded by farmland, but things had changed. It had a rural feel, but he would not characterize it as rural. Mr. Buck confirmed that Mr. Arndt did not believe that this was a rural area. Mr. Buck confirmed that Mr. Arndt recall ed writing an article on “ope n space zoning”. In the article, he r eferenced a township in Pennsylvania in the article and gave specifications of these half acre lots. Mr. Buck read several quotations from this article, and also referenced “clusters”. In this area, Mr. Buck said tha t this was part of the Kendall Land Use Management Plan . Ms. Yaksich said that she had l ooked at this, but Mr. Arndt had not. In reviewing this and Plainfield’s plan, Mr. Buck gave the densities required. He asked about a quotation regarding not allowin g the developer to decide whe re “clustering” should occur. Mr. Arndt clarified his thinking that conservation design s hould be allowed and encouraged and should not make things consistent with the 11 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 12 Comp rehensive Plan difficult to do. A d iscussion ensued r egarding open spa ce not decreasing building land. Mr. Buck asked if he s till believe d that single -family detached home s should be used for clustering. Mr. Arndt said since then the new urbanism had happened , and he modified his thinking. Mr. Buck said that in Neighborhood 10, there wa s a mixed use (villas and single family residential). He said that this area was well and septic, and asked if, in that section, it should be all single family. Mr. Arndt said no, that this was a thoroughly modern approa ch. They had progressed sinc e then, and his experience had two -acre zoning at the time of original publication. Mr. Buck said that the article suggested creating a buffer strip 75 to 100 feet wide in order to decrease the impact. Mr. Buck had done a moc k -up of Neighborhood 10 that created a buffer strip along the edge. However, Mr. Arndt said that since the writing of that article, h e had matured, and t he buffer should be for visual impact. He felt that i f they built architecturally better buildings cl oser to the road, it wa s better than building “rubbish” a certain distance away. Mr. Buck did not understand how they recognized an impact in 1992 that wa s not there now . Mr. Arndt said that this was in a different context, and one was for an area with n o public sewer or water . Mr. Buck said that Mr. O’Rourke had asked what to do with areas that abut this, and Mr. Arndt want ed an effective buffer . Mr. Buck said that i f they put trees up, the neighbors could not see further . Mr. Arndt said that they put up a buffer becaus e the neighbors wanted it , and Mr. Buck pointed out that Mr. Arndt said that there should be a substantial buffer. Mr. Arndt clarified that a “substantial ” buffer should be effective – not necessarily dense. With a different zoning sit uation, Mr. Arndt said that they would have had more room for a larger buffer. Mr. Buck confirmed that Mr. Arndt had written a book, “Conservation Design for Subdivision s ”, in 1996. Mr. Buck gave specifications on some suggestions for environment con si deration, but Mr. Arndt said that the examples cited were examples for houses built at a different density . Mr. Buck asked if Mr. Arndt believed that the cost to road, sewer and water lines were a benefit to the developer, as stated in the article. Mr. A rndt said that it depended on the layout; the gamble was that people would like this subdivision. The developer gambled that it would sell well, and many lots would create premium prices. Mr. Buck said that, in Mr. Arndt’s book, “Conservation Design for Subdivisions”, he had a calculation for creating the conservation process. He took the total area, removed the unbuildable area, and created 25% for undisturbed open space, 25% for recreation, and 50% at twice the regular density. Mr. Arndt said that thi s was a generalized density to 12 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 13 use as a starting point. Mr. Buck said that out here they had no sewer, no water, and five -acre lots; he asked if the formula had changed as a global formula. Mr. Arndt said that it changed as a starting point but depended on the context. Mr. Buck applied this for mula to this development, but the total went up from his st atement of 43% open space . He said that w ith the inclusion of 8.1 acres to the school, it would go up again. When applied to this formula , Mr. Buck said that he calculated 1,540 d welling u nits . Mr. Arndt said that the global formula was for communities with no public water or sewer; they we re building in the V il l a g e’s incentives. This plan wa s consistent with the V il l a g e codes. Mr. Buck noted that Mr. A rndt said that creating one -acre lots was not responsible plan ning . He s howed a plan of Henneberry Woods and gave the open space specification s (with a d ensity of 1.02). He asked if this was i rresponsible as it was about 1.5 miles west of the proposed de velopment. Mr. Arndt said that the developers could only do what the ordinances permit ted, and sometimes the communities did not agree with certain philos ophies. To the extent that Henneberry Woods meets every requirement in that community, it wa s respon sible. Mr. Buck said that there was nothing that wa s saying that Grande Park could not do this. Mr. Arndt said that the Henneberry Woods project did not have highway dedication or school dedication . Mr. Buck said that, when breaking down Gr ande Park S outh into its parts, he looked at Neighborhood 10 , but Mr. Arndt said that this was not the same. Mr. Buck said that he just wanted to show an example of someone who made a decision to develop differently . Mr. Arndt said that this was partially an econom ic decision. Mr. Buck said that, when looking at the plan to the north , they had 12,000 square f oot lots at a minimum, but this transitioned into a higher density around Route 126. There was some discussion regarding Route 126 impacting homes and the den sity around the schools. Mr. Buck said that the people liv ing next to Neighborhood 10 would no longer have open space next to their property . Mr. Arndt said that they would have a park system and bike trails. Mr. Davidson said this witness was given two hours, and he had 45 more minutes left of questions. Mr. Martin said that they were at the pleasure of the commission and hoped to finish Mr. Arndt’s testimony. Chairman Sobkoviak confirmed that they still had three additional cases and everyone was wil ling to stay. I f a case that followed chose to continue, he instructed them to inform Mr. Garrigan. Commissioner Renzi said that if they were pursuing new areas, it wa s fine ; he just did not want to re -address questions already answered. After some disc ussion, Commissioner Kachel asked if they could finish the case at the end of the evening. However, this was not the procedure. 13 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 14 Commissioner Fazio asked if the Village had talked about having a meeting every week . Mr. Davidson added that the developer h ad had over four hours, but the lawyers and public had only had a small amount of time to ask questions . He d id not want the V il l a g e to be prejudiced. Mr. Davidson asked if the developer had pin ned down what actual percentage of open space was in this pl an as buildable open space. Mr. Arndt looked at the figures , and Mr. Martin said that the flood plain did not contain drainage . Ms. Yaksich said that the floodway and wetland totaled 67.4 acres . Mr. Davidson asked if a new urbanize d development and B est M anagement P ractices could be achieved under the current zoning ordinance of the V il l a g e of Plainfield . Mr. Arndt deferred this to staff, and Mr. Garrigan said that under the current ordinance, they could not but under the new zoning ordinance, they coul d. Mr. Davidson said that it appeared that there were at least 11 items that the developer wa s requesting relief from and asked if it was necessary to achieve those 11 relief standards or if they could ac hieve that without the 11 items. Mr. Arndt did not believe so and noted that relief was requested from the square footage and a lot width of 85 feet. Mr. Davidson specifically questioned item five (regarding interior side yard set backs) and referred to Mr. Proulx that the side yard setbacks were not des irous when considering a nother request. Ms. Yaksich said that a 7 -foot setback was required, and they meet that with all but the interior measurement. Mr. Davidson asked what t he net square footage was of areas that we re deemed buildable . Ms. Yaksich di d not know the answer. Mr. Davidson asked what the cut off point was on Neighborhood s 1 and 2 . Ms. Yaksich said that the lot sizes were 12,000 square feet. The developer had not done any drawi ng of anything other than that; they had just had conversat ions about buffers and opportunities . Mr. Davidson said that they would not be going through this if the developer had looked at some suggested lot size changes and asked why this was not looked at. Ms. Yaksich said that the entire plan worked as a syste m, so they could not just increase that one Neighborhood . Mr. Martin asked what Staff’s response was to this suggestion, and Mr. Davidson said that Staff indicated that if the developer made an agreement with the other homeowners that Staff would not stan d in the way of this . Mr. Garrigan said that staff wa s comfortable with Neighborhoods 1 and 2 but would not oppose some variation based on what the Village consistently approved. Commissioner Renzi asked about drainage from the Aux Sable and what could o r could not be done with the lots up north . Mr. Davidson said that the Village Staff in a report on February 17, regarding the Villas of Plainfield, said that the land use of adjacent properties should be considered when considering a land use request. H e asked if this analysis was done by the developer, and Mr. Arndt said that wherever they had lots adjoining other properties, they were 14 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 15 cognizant of the need to buffer with new development. He noted that this would be a vast change in their view, so they recognized the need to allow for planning strips. He said that this would be far more effective than a deeper buffer. Mr. Davidson said that the adjacent classification was consistent in use and found it an important component. He asked if Mr. Arndt be lieved the adjacent classifications were important. Mr. Arndt said that the whole idea of buffering had changed over the years; it was extended to buffer shopping centers and high -intensity roads. At some point, he said that offices were considered neede d for buffering, even though they were quiet especially on weekends. At some point, Mr. Arndt said that people wanted to buffer multi -family and single family homes. Mr. Davidson said that, with respect to the setbacks, the staff indicated that a reduced setback was not desirous and established a precedent. He asked why this was should be allowed in this case. Commissioner Renzi said that the Village Board already approved the previous project, and Jim Harvey said that Mr. Davidson was picking and movin g between two separate cases. Commissioner McKay said that there was a density issue that kept coming up and asked if there was any way to take the higher density project and shift it north as this might attract more buyers. She noted that a retirement s ection was missing. Mr. Martin said that Neighborhood 10 was against basements because of the soil conditions, which is why they did not look into single -family homes in this area. They were not opposed to looking into something and working with Staff on it, though. However, he said that this type of redesign would set back the plans several months. They had designed this with Staff’s input. Mr. Davidson said that he had instructed his clients to limit comments to areas not yet addressed . Mr. Martin s uggested that take other owners , not represented by the lawyers. Mr. Davidson noted that his frustration was that they had sat down wit h the developer and been told certain things could not be done without any investigation. Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor to other public comment. Jim Hugenon asked if he could get pictures on screen from a disk that show s a row of where they were putting hedgerows in but were taking existing vegetation out. He sh owed pictures of Grande Park North and drainage int o a retention pond . He asked who manage s this when it is exposed. Mr. Arndt said that this was an engineer’s question . Mr. Hugenon did no t feel that this was true of Mr. Arndt’s work as conservation development concepts we re b uilding to the land. Mr. H ugenon noted that Mr. Martin had said that they were planning to do stormwater m ana g e m en t and restoration and need ed to get water and sewer from Grande Park North. He wanted to know how they would protect the standards when they did a mass grade. Mr. Arn dt said that the engineers need ed to speak about this as well as if the contractors are following the plan . 15 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 16 Mr. Hugenon asked if there were d ifferent standards that prevented and minimized this and showed the plans for Grande Park South. A discussion e nsued regarding the conservation idea. Mr. Hugenon said that with all of the drainage and bioswales, the Best Management Practice was to utilize the lay of the land to drain the land into the detention ponds, dry holding bins, swales, and water shed. A d iscussion ensued regarding drainage. Mr. Hugenon asked if it would be a smart practice to leave in all of the key areas which had vegetation there already, but Mr. Arndt was not sure that he would agree with all of the information presented. Mr. Hugenon said that natural drainage already existed and asked why they would take these out and put them back in. Mr. Arndt said that this was a hybrid of open space and conservation that was brought together. A discussion ensued regarding this. Mr. Hugenon as ked if a client had 800 acres of top soils exposed, if Mr. Arndt would recommend handling the project as Grande Park South was being handled. Mr. Arndt said that, in this development, he was a conservation designer and the engineers handled the engineerin g. Mr. Hugenon said that he was a site planner for concept plans, not details, and asked how water was transported. He also said that the developer had to put in 2,400 homes to get their money back and asked if they had explored the recommendation of gra ss swales versus curb and gutter system. Mr. Arndt said that Paul Leeder had testified to this as this was not his specialty; however, many times municipalities require curb and gutter for ease of maintenance. Mr. Hugenon asked if this was a Best Managem ent Practice. Mr. Arndt said that swales were, but they could not do all grassy swales. An extensive discussion ensued regarding his expertise of the Best Management Practice. Mr. Hugenon asked if it was the best practice , or smart , to use the natural f eatures that we re t here initially before advancing. Mr. Arndt said that he did not preach that in all his works because this wa s different than a more open land . Mr. Hugenon noted that it was what is there now, and Mr. Arndt said that this wa s going to b e part of the Village . Mr. Hugenon asked, when the term “urban sprawl” is used, what a simple person would say was open space. He said that a truck route and a clubhouse was not open space. A d iscussion ensued regarding Aux Sable problems. Mr. Hugeno n said that the developer’s process for defining open space wa s eliminating what they could not build on and put open space on that. He asked if it w ould be a wise idea for the develope r to consider rural development, but Mr. Arndt said that this was an o pportunity for doing something special. He said that the reality wa s that this land wa s an urbanizing area, and there we re land values and problem s associated with that. There we re school pressures and transportation and Aux Sable issues addressed as wel l . However, it took more density to address these issues, and it made a logical annexation. Mr. Hugenon said that the rural development/conservation costs were substantially 16 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 17 lessened than the development to the north. Mr. Arndt disagreed and spoke on th e differences. He said this was a state of the art for its time. Mr. Hugenon said that, with the exception of the commercial, it looked the same to him and gave the prices that were recorded. Mr. Hugenon asked about the economics of this and how it fit in with the conservation plan. He went over the calculations, but Ms. Yaksich could not speak to this. Mr. Hugenon said that the Village would be getting $31,000 in impact fees and wanted to know where the impact fees were going. He also noted that the reason he seemed short was that Mr. Martin sent a letter that the developer and staff were not willing to look at one -acre lots. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Kurt Pflederer who asked Mr. Arndt about the north end of the property. He showed the portion of the adjacent property and asked what size lots they were. Mr. Arndt w ent over the lot sizes. Mr. Pfl ederer said that when mentioning ideas for change, he mentioned some ideas and asked how he saw the “L” shaped piece fitting in if there were no constrain ts. Mr. Arndt said that a long -range visionary plan must be used to estimate what would be adjacent to the Village of Plainfield in 20 to 40 years. He thought perhaps the best would be to take the best of the development and mirror it. Over time, Mr. Ar ndt thought that this area would probably be urbanized, and he anticipated greenway corridor development. A discussion ensued regarding gradual tapering philosophy and defined edge philosophy. Mr. Pflederer said that, because of this density, they were r equesting a buffering. He asked how a vertical buffer fit in the plains of Illinois, and Mr. Arndt said that a planting palate had not been determined. Mr. Pflederer confirmed evergreens were not native to this area, but Mr. Arndt said that these were de veloped because of the neighborhood. Mr. Pflederer said that if the transition was gradual, he would not be against having barriers. Mr. Arndt said that the visual barriers were because of density, but he could not speak to the economics of this. He jus t felt that this was greatest good for the greatest number. Mr. Pflederer asked what he could do with the money if the req uirement f or Route 126 was gone. Mr. Arnd t said that a lot of things could change if that was n o t part o f the process. A discussion ensued regarding this. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Lucian Barone who had a house on Johnson Road with nine acres and a beautifully stocked pond. She noted that a plot in front of there wa s a field of wildflower s. She understood conservation but was con cerned about closing off Johnson R oad , and the two ponds on the west side of the subdivision. Her concern was that her driveway came down onto Johnson Road by two driveways. She wanted very thick continuous screen along that road. Mr. Arndt said that sh e was ad dressing a public safety issue, and cars could be prevented by going into the pond by having a low profile visually non -intrusive guard rail. He said that they could install something low that could 17 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 18 be see n over to keep cars out of water and so it could be a view shed for the preserved house and park land. A d iscussion ensued regarding possible trees to plant . Ms. Barone said that today when she sits on her front porch, she can see down to Route 126 and anything that could be done to hide that vi ew would be appreciated. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Biff George (1378 Cherry Road ) who asked if Mr. Arndt was familiar with the Barrington and South Barrington area. Mr. Arndt s aid that he was not, and Mr. Geor ge said that Mr. Arndt had called this “spr awl” up north and was not sensible. However, he wanted to know why it worked up there. Mr. Arndt said that it was a very inefficient use of land and that meant for the privileged few that could live there people had to commute further and further because the wealthy we re consuming the land. He said that planners do not generally recommend cutting the density in half for every community in the metropolitan region. Mr. George said that Mr. Arndt had mentioned a Detroit example earlier and asked about th e surrounding area of that. Mr. Arndt said that the homes were ranch houses built in the early 70’s, and he thought it would be see n differently when/if it became a reality. Mr. George said that he had referred to the “walkability ” of the site and asked if the homeowners would be walking. Mr. Arndt said that they could walk to parks and schools, but they would probably not walk to sho ps. He thought that they would do this for exercise if the amenities we re there . Mr. George said that Mr. Arndt had refe rred to balance , and he was just worried about their balance. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Robert Blomquist who live d on Ridge Road (his lot backed up to Villas); his concern wa s horse safety. When Liberty Grove was subdivided next to the Steiner Horse fa rm, the V il l a g e required substantial buffering. He asked what would prevent kids from the villas from coming into this. Chairman Sobkoviak said that separation would be accomplished and buffering would be addressed. He said that Mr. Blomquist would be i nvited when the plats c a me forward . Mr. Blomquist also said that he would hate to see homes on slabs in case of a tornado and invited th e developer to come out and see his home. He asked Ms. Yaksich what percentage would be ranch home. Ms. Yaksich did a nticipate some ranch homes but did not have a percentage. Chairman Sobkoviak s wore in Jim Konowalik who had a 14 -acre parcel . H e was concerned with sections one and two and refer red to severe flooding in Naperville. He said that t here wa s a valley betwe en sections one and two and s howed pictures of the flooding in this area . He gave the dimensions of the past flooding and thought high density would contribute to the problem. He suggested the entire Plan Commission tour the area to get a better idea of what problems they would have. Mr. Arndt said that the ponds should be sized considerably for storm events , and Mr. Konowalik said that this wa s one of the highest areas . A d iscussion ensued regarding density, a ngle, and altitude of this area. 18 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 19 Mr. Kon owalik again invited the commission to view the site. Mr. Arndt said that might be an engineering question to be re -addressed. However, he felt that the engineering would be sufficient to capture the run -off. Chairman Sobkoviak closed the time for publi c comment. Chairman Sobkoviak asked what kind of schedule they were looking at, and Mr. Garrigan said that they solidified the first and third Tuesdays to be Grande Park, and the second and fourth Tuesdays being other business. At 12:26am, Commissioner K achel moved that this matter be continued for further discussion and consideration for the Plan Commission meeting of April 18 th , 2006. Commissioner McKay seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Fazio, Kachel, McKay, Lucenko, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0:0. New Business CASE: 1234 -030306.AA.PP.SU NORMANTOWN PRAIRIE Request: Annexation (Public Hearing) (CONTINUED) Special Use (Public Hearing) Preliminary Plat Location: North of 127 th St reet and West of Rt. 30 Applicant: Alexander & Astor, LLC – David Rasmussen Time: 12 :27a m The petitioner requested that this be continued to April 18, 2006. At 12:28am, Commissioner Lucenko moved that they continue Case No. 1234 -030306.AA.PP.SU, to the published date. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Fazio, Renzi, Kachel, McKay, Lucenko, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0:0. 19 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 20 The Planning Commission took a break at 12:28am, and reconvened at 12:35am. Commissioner Renzi requested that the pictures that the gentleman submitted of Grande Park and Grande Park South were identified appropriately. CASE: 1222.113005.AA/FP SPRINGBANK, UNIT #6 Request: Annexation (Public Hearing) Preliminary/Final Plat of Subdivision Location: Northwest of Indian Boundary Road, East of County Line Rd. Applicant: MAF Development, Inc. – William Haider Time: 12:37am Jonathan 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 read the staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak said that in the Staff report, Staff found two concerns about access easements to County Line Road and identif ication of key lots. He confirmed that these were the only issues. Mr. Proulx said that he just wanted to make sure that the correct information was on the Final Plat. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there were any engineering issues, and Steve Amann confir med that there were not. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Paul Mitchell (representing the petitioner) who agreed with the Staff’s report and stipulation. Commissioner Fazio said that on January 17, he had asked Mr. Mitchell about land acquisition . Commission er Fazio asked that Mr. Mitchell just be honest in the future . Chairman Sobkoviak confirmed that there were no access easements recorded. Commissioner Renzi asked if this needed to be a stipulation, but Mr. Proulx said that this was a matter of engineeri ng. Commissioner Renzi just wanted to be sure that this happened. Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public comment. There was no response. At 12 :44a m, Commissioner Renzi moved that they recommend approval of the annexation of the 10.246 -acre p arcel shown on Exhibit “B” and identified as Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 03 -19 -100 -013 as a logical extension of the Village’s municipal boundaries. Commissioner Lucenko seconded the motion. 20 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 21 Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Kachel, McKay, Lucenko, Sobkoviak Nay: Fazio The motion is carried 5 :1 :0. Mr. O’Rourke wanted to know about different widths. Mr. Proulx said that there will be a full landscaped median. A discussion ensued regarding right -of -way sufficiency. A t 12:46am, Commissioner Luc e nko moved that they recommend approval of the preliminary/final plat of subdivision for Springbank of Plainfield – Unit 6, subject to the following three (3) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer . 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 3. Approval of street names. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Kachel, McKay, Lucenko, Sobkoviak Nay: Fazio The motion is carried 5:1:0. CASE: 1235 -030606.RZ/SU/SPR FAIRFIELD RIDGE COMMERCIAL Request: Rezoning (Public Hearing) PUD Amendment (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review Location: North of Lockport Street, East and West of Van Dyke Road Applicant: McNau ghton Builders – Steve Gregory Time: 12 :47a m 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 read the staff report. Chair man Sobkoviak confirmed that Staff raised some issues that had since been resolved. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there were any engineering issues, and Mr. Amann said that the only issue was the northern access, and the developer had said that they would w ork with the engineers. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the group of petitioners. 21 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 22 Steven Gregory (from James McNaughton) addressed the commission but had nothing to add. He pointed out that the Preliminary Plat was originally approved in January 2004 and th e Final Plat in October 2005. Nothing was meant to change the geometry of the plat or engineering, the request was strictly to clarify and memorialize their intended B -5 use on two commercial lots. He added that the three concerns were addressed, and the petitioner would abide by this. Mr. O’Rourke asked if this was a continuance of the downtown with zero setback and pedestrian access. Mr. Proulx said that this was the intent. Mr. O’Rourke asked if it would make sense to have access on that side of the building. Mr. Proulx said that this was proposed as a medical office, so it would be a destination use. Mr. O’Rourke said that it seemed like this was sending mixed signals. Commissioner Renzi asked if, with the bike path running by the building, the b uilding should have a five foot setback. Mr. Proulx said that it was proposed by five feet. Commissioner Kachel confirmed that this was adjacent to Patriot Square. Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public comment. Commissioner Renzi asked abou t the monument sign, and Mr. Proulx said that the sign would identify the development. Mr. Gregory said that they do not anticipate each individual site having a sign – just a sign with the development name and address. Mr.Proulx confirmed that one sign would be on Van Dyke and one on Solder. Commissioner Renzi asked if this would be four identical buildings. Mr. Proulx said that Staff had requested some enhancements to the ends and high quality building materials. He also said that there would be some design definitions when other buildings came in. Commissioner Renzi said that parking aisles and buffers had been reviewed lately and asked how much the developer was giving on trees on the west side. Mr. Proulx said that the flexibility being asked was similar to other plans. Commissioner Renzi asked how much of a concession was made on parking, and Mr. Proulx confirmed that all parking islands were required to have trees. Commissioner Kachel confirmed that the detention pond was a wet bottom. Mr. Pr oulx said that he would look into a ny aeration to keep it from drying out . Commissioner Kachel said that it would be nice to give each building a di fferent character or a doorway in front on some. Mr. Gregory said that he would be willing to work with st aff on changing two of the four buildings as far as the shades of brick. Chairman Sobkoviak said that this would probably come up at the V il l a g e B oa rd level . Commissioner McKay said that, regarding retail spaces acros s the way, he wanted to plant the see d that there wa s a committee being formed to help them find tenants . 22 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 23 Chairman Sobkoviak s wore in Richard Olson , the adjacent property owner, who wanted to advise the commission that the concept plan will not look like what they are proposing. Mr. Proulx s aid that when the project was originally proposed, they discussed detention. The final plat does not encroach on the property line. Commissioner Kachel asked what the V il l a g e ’s feeling s were on this, and Mr. Proulx said that they would have the option to develop a shared detention if desired in the future. At 1:18am, Commissioner Luc e nko moved that they recommend approval of the request to rezone Lots 74 and 75 of the Fairfield Ridge final plat of subdivision from R -3 PUD to B -5 PUD. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Fazio, Renzi, Kachel, McKay, Lucenko, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6 :0 :0. At 1:19am, Commissioner Renzi moved that they recommend approval of the request for mino r amendment to the Fairfield Ridge Planned Unit Development to allow reduced front building setbacks, one additional monument sign, and certain relief from the landscaping requirements, for Lots 74 and 75 of the Fairfield Ridge final plat of subdivision an d the retail parcel at the northeast corner of Lockport Street and Van Dyke Road, subject to the following one (1) stipulation: 1. Submittal and recording of an amended Statement of Intent and Agreement, in compliance with the requirements of the Village Plan ner. Commissioner Fazio seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Fazio, Renzi, Kachel, McKay, Lucenko, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0:0. At 1:20am, Commissioner Fazio moved that they recommend approval of the site plan review for the Fairfield Ridge professional buildings on Lot 74 of the Fairfield Ridge final plat of subdivision, subject to the following two (2) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 23 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 24 Commissioner Lucenko seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Fazio, Renzi, Kachel, McKay, Lucenko, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0:0. All three motions would go forward on April 17 . CASE: 1238 -032006.SPR GRANDE PARK Request: Site Plan Review ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Location: East side of Grande Park Boulevard, West of Stewart Road (a.k.a. Ridge Road) And north of Paydon Road (135 th Street) Applicant: Oswego School District Unit 308 – Joel Murphy Time: 1 :22 am Michael Schwarz read the Staff report . Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there were any e ng ineering issues. Mr. Amann said that there were no significant engineering issues at this point in time . Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the group of petitioners . Joel Murphy, the Assistant Superintendent of Oswego School District , addressed the commission and said that, currently, they did not have a landscape plan . He said the school district would look at this as the building progresse d . They wanted to see how things went with this; the school district also had a budget issue. As far as fencing in the play area, Mr. Murphy said that the School District could address this. The School District w ou ld also be happy to provide fencing to screen the dumpster and recycling dumpster. As far as adding anything to the building, Mr. Murphy said that the school district did not have any money to do so. The job was bid, and they did not have any architectur al money. However, he noted that they worked with the Village Engineer and Oswego Fire Protection District. Commissioner Fazio said that Items 4 thru 8 were okay with him if they could work with what ha d been done in the past . Mr. Murphy said that thi s was not a bad looking building. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the trash enclosure should be a safety issue , but Mr. Murphy said that this would be the first school with this in their district. 24 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 25 Commissioner Renzi said that when he was on a School Board, they had talked about enclosures; he asked if something is s upposed to be enclose d. Mr. Murphy said that t hey like d to be able to drive and see as much of the building as possible . Commissioner Renzi confirmed that the wing wall would partially obstruct the view. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the other commissioner s’ feelings and w ent through the list of stipulations . Regarding landscaping, Commissioner Renzi said that a lot of times students and parents finish the landscaping , and Mr. Murphy said that somet hing should be started. Chairman Sobkoviak said that a plan was required. The f encing sti pulation was ta lked about in a traffic committee for safety, and Mr. Murphy said that, typically, the school district did not have fences around this area. A d iscus sion ensued re garding kids crossing the street versus cars coming onto the lot. Commissioner McKay said that they should have a teacher out there supervising , and Mr. Schwarz asked if there was any issue with the size or location of the fencing. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if he could make a good case for this, and Mr. Schwarz said that there would be a storm drain and sloped service . Commissioner Kachel referred to s oggy and mud area in Plainfield South , and Mr. Murphy clarified that, typically, the playgr ound ha d an underground drainage s ystem. Mr. O’Rourke asked if the fencing issue was just a money issue, and Mr. Murphy said that he had no problem looking into this . Commissioner McKay asked if there was a way to leave in a recommendation for a fence . Chairman Sobkoviak confirmed that this was not a money thing , and Mr. Murphy said that he was willing to look into it. Commissioner Renzi said that there wa s a bike path and open space buffering on a 20 mph street . Commissioner McKay said that once the p roject is at that point, it should be re -evaluated . Regarding landscaping and the planter boxes , Mr. Murphy asked if they wanted him to handle this as part of the landscaping plan. Mr. Schwarz said that this was not really landsca ping, it was a part of t he building . Mr. Murphy did not understand wha t Staff would like him to do , and Commissioner Renzi said that Staff wanted this to be p ut in as part of the building. Commissioner Lucenko and Fazio felt that this should be left out . A d iscussion ensued re garding how the school fit into this. Commissioner Fazio thought the building looked fine and there we re financial constraints . He said that this building already existed and wa s a good looking building . Commissioner Kachel asked if this was going to be an identical building or if would be a cookie cutter footprint with different architectural styles . A d iscussion ensued regarding design issues. Commissioner Renzi said as far as stipulation 8 , he wanted this to be blended as part of the landscaping pla n . Commissioner Kachel asked if they had t alked to the architect and 25 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 26 w hat they had come back with. Mr. Murphy said that this would be $100,000 in change orders , and the picture wa s not going to be exa ctly identical. The developer looked at Grande Park t o try and match what wa s there. Commissioners Fazio, Renzi, and Lucenko agree d to strike stipulation 8 . Regarding the drive aisle addition, Mr. Murphy said that Plainfield and Oswego do drop -offs differently. Oswego d o es a serpentine type of arrangement . They do not do two or three stack -ups; i t is a single lane with teacher aides helping. Mr. Schwarz said that this was bro ught to the traffic committee, and from the committee’s experience, they we re anticipating 180 to 200 cars stacking so they would n ot stick out on the street. A d iscussion ensued regarding drop -off problems. Mr. O’Rourke agreed with Mr. Schwarz’s comment and asked that four feet be give n for future systems . Mr. Murphy said that he could i nvestigate the cost of this. Commissioner F azio felt that the stipulation should be left out , and Commissioner Kachel felt that it should be left in . Mr. Murphy said that parents needed time to strap the kids into chairs . Commissioner Kachel suggested the li ghting be Prairie style, and Mr. Schwar z said that he ha d not receive d a photometric plan but got light pole locations. He said that the Village could a sk for photometrics at a later date. Chairman Sobkoviak asked that a photometric plan be submitted before going to the V il l a g e B oa rd . Commis sioner Renzi asked if there would be ball fields, and Mr. Murphy said no, the only possible ball field would be in back of the junior high . Commissioner Kachel asked if there was a proposed bike path, and Mr. Murphy said that this was in already . Mr. O’R ourke confirmed that the north entrance allow ed a left and right turn out. At 2:10am, Commissioner Renzi moved that they recommend approval of the Site Plan and Building Elevations for Grande Park Elementary School subject to the following conditions: 1. Com pliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Oswego Fire Protection District. 3. Submittal of a Landscape Plan for staff review and approval prior to building occupancy. 4. Addition of a wing -wall or other compat ible fencing along the east side of the loading dock to screen the dumpster and other delivery activity from the street. Dense landscaping may be installed in lieu of a wing -wall. 5. Screening of all rooftop mechanical units via parapet walls or individual e nclosures that are consistent with the design and color of the building. 26 PLAN COMMISION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAG E 27 6. The applicant shall make any and all necessary technical revisions to the associated drawings and plans as determined by staff, prior to Village Board consideration of this case. Com missioner Fazio seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Fazio, Renzi, Kachel, McKay, Lucenko, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6 :0:0. Chairman Sobkoviak advised the petitioner to b e in touch with Staff to fi nd out what night they are on the agenda. Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 2 :13 a .m. __________________ Respectfully submitted, Laura Griffith -Recording Secretary Karick & Associates, Inc. 27