HomeMy Public PortalAbout2006-06-06 PC MinutesVillage of Plainfield Planning Commission Record of Minutes Date: June 6 , 2006 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:0 5 . Roll Call Present: Commissioners Renzi , Henry, McKay, Sobkoviak , Ed O’Rourke, Fire District , Library District Absent: Commissioner Kachel, Fazio , Lucenko, David Murawski , Park District , School District, Police Department Minutes The minutes from the May 16 , 2006 meeting were accepted as presented. Development Report Mic hael Garrigan read th e Development Report: - The Site Plan amendment for the new Firestone Store was approved. - The Board directed the attorney to draft a variance for the garage at 23001 Pilcher. Chairman Sobkoviak said that there were only four regular members present, which represented a quorum; however, Commissioner Renzi had to leave early. So, the commission would only hear the Villas of Plainfield case. Immediately following the case, the commission would adjourn, and the Grande Park South case would not be heard. He s tated that there would be an opportunity for the public to speak o n this case at the next meeting Old Business CASE: 1224 -122005.AA/SU GRANDE PARK SOUTH Request: Annexation (Public Hearing) Special Use (Public Hearing) Concept Plan Location: So uth of Cherry Road, North of Wheeler and West of Ridge Road Applicant: MPI Partnership Time: 7:10pm 1
Mr. Garrigan said that next scheduled meeting for this would be June 20. At 7:10pm, Commissioner Renzi moved to continue the Grande Park South annexat ion and special use public hearing to June 20. Commissioner Henry seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Henry, Renzi, McKay, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 4:0:0. CASE: 12 25 -122205.SPR/PP/SU/TA VILLAS OF PLAINFIELD Request: Special Use (Public Hearing) (aka THE VILLAS AT FOX RUN) Location: East side of Rt. 59 at Dayfield Applicant: Wilcox Development Group Time: 7:1 1 pm Jonathan Proulx read the Staff report. John Argoudelis remained under oath and sa id that Jaime Wilcox was also present . He said that w hen he came before the commission previously, there were 13 outstanding items still being worked on. He was pleased to report that this had been narrowed down to one issue. The toughest issue left was because in the interior , behind the homes in the middle, a wet bottom detention pond was planned with extensive landscaping. It had been argued that it was an important amenity, so these residents would have this ae sthetically pleasing area. This amenit y had dictated the setback reduction request. The developer had asked the engineer what the maximum setback was for this , and the engineer said it was seven feet. He asked the commission to weigh the i mportance of the wet bottom pond . Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Jaime Wilcox who talked in more detail about the project and overall concept. He showed pictures of the conceptual architecture and went over some of the details of the architecture. He also said that there was a 3 ,000 sq uare foot clubhouse pla nned that included a pool, party room , and exercise room. He said that the development cat er ed to “empty -nesters” and he other people in a similar market. He said that there was 360 -degree architecture , which was an important amenity, especially around t he pond area. He further detailed some amenities within the homes. He went over the demographics of the people in Plainfield, as well as the statistics for this subdivision. Looking at the previous site plan, he went over some of the issues raised and r eiterated that the issues had been narrowed down to setback reduction. The plan had received support at the Village Board level due to the merits of the project. He said that this represented a quaint, community feel. He went over the statistics of the property based on space. He said that t he ranch style home show ed why the plan was at the low 2
end of the density scale and more of a setback was required. He said that ranch homes were needed, and with th e amenities being provided, the developer had over come all of the issues save one. Commissioner Renzi asked how many units would have to be taken out to k eep the wet bottom detention and keep the setbacks at 30 feet . Mr. Argoudelis said that the site would lose at least six or eight units of a 23 -unit s ite . Commissioner Renzi said that Mr. Wilcox gave a reference to the Abby model being 2 ,100 sq uare f eet; he asked if the other models were smaller or larger than this. Mr. Wilcox said that the 2,100 square feet included garages; the model was 1 , 700 witho ut the garage . H e went over the other unit sizes, and Commissioner Renzi asked if this was roughed out as far as percentage of models. Mr. Wilcox said that a mix was assumed, and Commissioner Renzi said that he just wanted to make sure that there would n ot be extra green space because the smaller models would be built . Commissioner Henry wanted clarification on what was being asked for. On Dayfield Dr ive, the 66 -f oot right -of -way asked for would be given ; however on Dayfield Dr ive, instead of the 30 f ee t setback, the developer was asking for 15 f eet. Mr. Proulx said that the setbacks we re correct ; there was a chance that the right -of -way may be 60 -feet , and St aff would be supportive of that. Mr. Wilcox agreed, and Commissioner Henry confirmed that on t he loop street, it was not 66 feet. He also confirmed that the developer want ed the variance to be 54 -feet , and Staff agreed to a llow it to be private. Commissioner Henry also confirmed that, on the loop street, the setback would be changed from 30 feet to 7 feet. The developer also confirmed that on Fairfield Drive, there was a 66 -foot right -of -way. Mr. Argoudelis said that, regardin g the loop street being private or public, at the Board level, the d e v e l o p er agreed to make it public. However, later St aff wa s supportive of a private street because the stub street was moved. Mr. O’Rourke asked what was on the south side of the d e v e l o pm ent, and Mr. Argoudelis said that this was a large dry detention care, that was large and could not be moved, because of the low w ater table. Mr. O’Rourke asked what was on the west side, and Mr. Argoudelis said that this was a wet pond that filled in space and had the same problem. Mr. O’Rourke confirmed that the proposed stub street had a 30 -foot ingress/egress, and Mr. Proulx added that it was 30 -feet within the commercial and 20 -feet i n residential for a total of 50 -feet with cross -ac c ess of approx imately 24 -feet. He noted that this was reviewed by the traffic committee . A d iscussion ensued re garding the landscaping requirement in this area and a cross -access agreement with the adjacent owner. Mr. O’Rourke said that one of the original concerns was parking, and the current plan showed 25 -feet between the garage and street. Mr. Proulx said that there wa s the ability to park in the driveway and garag es . Chairman Sobkoviak confirmed that there was parking on one side only of the loop street. Mr. Wilcox confirmed that cars could stack side -by -side . Mr. O’Rourke asked if the parking was okay for the 3,000 square foot c lubhouse, and Mr. Wilcox said that there was . He said that it could be adjusted if needed , but this was not typical. Commissioner Henry asked, if on -street parking was provide d, if the Fire Dep ar t ment could get through. Mr. Proulx said that the Fire Dep ar t ment had suggested one side of the street parking , on the side with hydrants . Mr. O’Rourke asked if the 3
Village could restrict parking on a private street , and Chairman Sobkoviak said that this came through the Fire Department. Mr. Proulx said that th is could also be restricted through covenants, and a contract with the Police could be signed. Mr. Wilcox was comfortable with this. Commissioner McKay asked about the pond in the center of the plan, and if there was some concern regarding stormwater and the high water table. She asked if the pond was a necessity. Mr. Amann said that the detention ponds were required by ordinance, and the size of the site determined the volume. The style of detention was left up to applicant, and the concern early on w as the type of detention. He said that the south end will function as dry bottom and the two on the north end would be wet bottom. He elaborated on each of the functions. He said that detention ponds were designed to handle surface water, not ground wat er. The understanding was that the outfall would be separate from the Arbors. Chairman Sobkoviak, referring to the drawing, asked if there would be monument signs on Fairfield Drive where it came in from the north and Dayfield Drive where it came in from the east. He thought that the Village was discouraging these when coming in from another subdivision. Mr. Proulx said that there was no signage approval conferred with this and should not be on the Preliminary Plat. Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the flo or for public comment. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Stacey Hagner (Fairfield Drive) who said that when he was contacted about this last fall, he was on the Association Board for Parkview Meadows. He said that the Association had only been contacted once a bout this meeting since last fall. The Association was concerned about multi -family to the south, partly because of traffic. Regarding setbacks, he said that this closed in the subdivision surrounding their homes. With the amount of traffic flowing thro ugh the area, he felt that this was a detriment for their children. Commissioner Henry said that this particular site had discussion because it was more of a transitional type of property. If the multifamily did not go in as proposed, he wanted to know h ow people felt about commercial. Mr. Hagner said that it was zoned for single -family, and this was the understanding of the homeowners when the homes were purchased. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Anthony Ruffino (Deer Ridge Drive) who contested that there would only be one child in this development. If this was not the case, and there were more children, he was worried about the amount of kids in the neighborhood park. He said that removing four units would solve this. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Olga Go nzalez who was on the Board for the Homeowners A ssociation. When the homeowners moved there, this was sold as a family community. There were 5 2 homes in the adjacent subdivision and most had children. The subdivision had only one park that abutted the t ownhomes, and now there would be townhomes on all sides. She felt that this would depreciate the value of the homes. It sounded like a lovely community, but the developer could not guarantee that it would be 4
older individuals. She said that a cross Route 59, there was more acreage that the development could go on. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Ronald Labadie (23835 Cahills Way) whose one issue wa s the parties. He had a quiet neighborhood now , and he is on the border of Cahills and Deer Ridge. He had n o p roblem with the townhomes but wanted a border to block the noise. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Rich Kohlmann (Parkview Meadows) who reiterated that this looked like a fine development but would have a negative impact on the single -family development. Chai rman Sobkoviak swore in Karen Russman (16301 Fairfield Drive) whose question on the proposed plan, was regarding the exit out to Route 59. She asked if this was proposed to be built at the same time as the subdivision and light. Mr. Argoudelis said that the road would be built immediately before the homes were built, and the light was proposed but was subject to IDOT approval. Mr. Proulx said that, in reviewing this with the traffic engineer , there was a 90 -acre parcel to the south, and the belief was th at IDOT would support one location to the south of Feeney and Fraser. He reviewed where this might go, and a discussion ensued regarding the possibility of commercial development south of the ComEd easement. Ms. Russman asked when this might come through as the developer would not be getting a light nearby until then. Mr. Proulx said that this was dependant on the use of the property to the south. Chairman Sobkoviak said that a certain traffic number was needed. Mr. Amann said that Route 59 was designa ted a strategic major arterial, so it was difficult to get a signal on this road. The traffic had to be there already to allow installation of a signal. Other intersections could be done at the same time as the development, though. He also said that the Village Traffic Engineer used the Village’s traffic counters to monitor intersections throughout the Village and analyze warrants. Once Dayfield Drive went through, he said that the Village would probably track this. Ms. Russman said that part of her co ncern was that if there was a signal at Renwick (and maybe Feeney); people getting out of there might go through the subdivision to go north (or south eventually) to exit. Regarding homeowner notification, Commissioner McKay wanted to ensure that the pr oper people were notified. Also, because of the water table, the developers were saying that single -family homes could not go in this area, so it was proposed as either multi -family or commercial. Chairman Sobkoviak said that this matter came before the Plan Commission a couple of weeks ago, and it was sent forward with a recommendation of denial. Since the Village Board requested it to go back, the commission was just asked to reconsider the decision. He noted that this case was not a public hearing. Commissioner McKay just wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of what had happened at the prior meeting and the position that the commission was in. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Aa ron Hampton (Parkview Meadows) who said that it was unfortunate that t his wa s the first time certain parties were notified. I f this d e v e l o pm e nt was proposed, it would be a major cut -through trying to get to Route 30 or Renwick. He 5
asked what would happen if increased traffic was seen and what options there were for traffic calming. Chairman Sobkoviak said that people taking short cuts were a problem throughout the V il l a g e, and the Police and V il l a g e Admin istration tackle this on a case by case basis . Mr. Hampt on saw the potential for this with a stop light b eing proposed and said that there were a lot of children in the neighborhood. He said i t was also disappointing that he purchased his home to stay there for some time with single -family homes to the south. There was no fur ther public comment . Commissioner Henry asked the applicant if it would be okay that a fifth stipulation be added for landscape buffering to the property to the north and east. Mr. Proulx said that there was a 20 -foot landscape buffer on the north boundary, but this case was for Special Use only . C ommissioner Henry’s fear was that while there were some concerns, he felt that this was the best use for the site. He was worried that it would go commercial otherwise, so he was inclined to approve it. Commissioner Renzi said that one of the major conce rns he had was that the commission would have engaged in policy making if the proposal had been approved previously, but he would concur about agreement on this project. Commissioner Renzi had a concern regarding the precedence being set with setbacks. H e was worried about another developer coming in and matching this, and he went through some of the other concerns (children, detention, and architecture ). Regarding precedent setting, Chairman Sobkoviak said that this was a unique circumstance and did not bind the Village to a future request. Mr. O’Rourke understood and appreciated the concerns as he investigated this when he bought his home. However, this parcel had two different zonings and several owners. Mr. Proulx said that the property had consist ently been zoned R1, and there was a single -family plot approved in 2002. However, those development proposals were infeasible or impractical due to water table issues. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan did indicate two different uses. Commissioner M cKay had concerns about other developments in a similar situation. Attorney Jim Harvey said that the commission was not setting a precedent as the Village had to look at zoning, adjacent land uses, water table, and the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Mc Kay said that the setback was a definite concern and thanked the developer for coming back with an altered plan. She said that the Village did stay on top of the developers, and there was a potential for commercial to go in. Chairman Sobkoviak said that there had been a similar situation at Renwick & Route 59 because the corner was empty and zoned Agricultural, and, when it was rezoned, people on the last street of the subdivision were upset. At 8:24pm, Commissioner Renzi moved to recommend to the Board of Trustees that the special use for planned unit development for the proposed Villas at Fox Run (formerly Villas of Plainfield) be approved, subject to the following four (4) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 6
2. Complian ce with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 3. Dedication of right -of -way for a future street or cross -access drive as shown on the preliminary plat dated May 26, 2006. 4. Inclusion of disclosure and notice requirements regarding the roa d connection or cross -access drive for each home -purchaser in the subdivision, to be recorded on the title of the property. Commissioner Henry seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Henry, Renzi, McKay, Sobkoviak Na y: None The motion is carried 4:0:0. This would go forward to the Village Board on June 19. At 8:25, Commissioner Renzi left. Mr. Garrigan invited everyone to the Edward Hospital hearing on June 13 at 9am. A brief discussion ensued regarding this. Cha irman Sobkoviak asked that pressure be put on r egarding being short a commissioner . Mr. Garrigan said that he would communicate the commission’s concerns to the Community Development Director. Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 8 :28 p .m. __________________ Respectfully submitted, Laura Griffith -Recording Secretary Karick & Associates, Inc. 7