HomeMy Public PortalAbout2006-06-08 PC MinutesVillage of Plainfield Planning Commission Record of Minutes Date: June 8 , 2006 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:0 4 . Roll Call Present: Commissioners Renzi , Henry, McKay, Sobkoviak , Ed O’Rourke, Absent: Com missioner Kachel, Fazio , Lucenko, David Murawski , Park District , School District, Fire District, Library District, Police Department Annual Report The Plan Commission reviewed the annual report, and Chairman Sobkoviak said this was low because the Villag e had been working under the moratorium. He congratulated and thanked the commission for diligence and commitment on behalf of the Village. At 7:06pm, Commissioner Henry made a motion to accept the annual report for the Plan Commission and Zoning Board o f Appeals for June 15, 2005 thru June 1, 2006 to forward to the Board of Trustees. Commissioner McKay 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. Cha irman Sobkoviak had talked to Michael Garrigan regarding the number of people required to make a quorum. Michael Schwarz said that he spoke to the attorney, and he did confirm that it was the majority of the current membership. So this meeting with four commissions constituted a quorum. The commission was down to five members, but one still counted without a formal resignation. New Business CASE: 1243 -041406.AA/PP/RZ/SU/SPR GRANDE VIEW PLACE Request: Rezoning/Special Use (Public Hearing) Preliminary Subdivision Plat
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 PAGE 2 Location: 825 Simons Road, Oswego Applicant: Alexander Homes Time: 7:08 pm Mr. Schwarz read the staff report. Commissioner Renzi did not believe that guidelines applied for density calculations and asked if Staff thought that there wou ld be analogous or subjective decisions. Mr. Schwarz said that Staff had struggled with this, as he did not know the intent when the guidelines came through originally. The Village was working on guidelines for this type of project, but – in the meantime – Staff would take a recommendation. A discussion ensued regarding the planners working on the guidelines for townhomes and condominiums. Chairman Sobkoviak said that usually a project would come in with some multi -family but mostly single -family homes. Jonathan Proulx said that some aspects of the single -family guidelines were transferable, but some were not. Staff was still working on these. Commissioner Renzi asked where the townhomes were referenced for Grande Park South, and Mr. Schwarz indicated that these were immediately across the street in what was known as Neighborhood 11. Commissioner Renzi asked if an SSA was proposed. Mr. Schwarz said that this would be worked out as part of the annexation agreement and would be ironed out with the Fina l Plat, as would the covenants. Commissioner Renzi asked about the four -story townhomes reported as being a normal/orderly form of development and if Staff saw any signif icant difference between the s e and the two -story. He d id not think that there was an ything four stories in town . Mr. Schwarz said that Staff’s position was not opposed to it , as density was the issue, but this could be achieved in a number of ways (like with designs and removing buildings). He said that the c ontext wa s in an agricultura l transitional area , and this wa s in the Plainfield and Oswego Comp rehensive Plans. With commercial coming in this area, he said that there would be additional density. Commissioner Renzi said that as it built out, commercial would make it more appropria te . Commissioner McKay said, regarding the 80 -acres to the east being commercial, it was in the Village’s best interest to fight for this to be commercial. Regarding the density bonus system, she said that there was a lot of subjectivity to the bonus sys tem and wanted to know if a meeting with the Staff or trustees could be held to refine this. Chairman Sobkoviak said that this was tried, and there was significant matter of opinion. In the end, everyone agreed to disagree and left the guidelines subject ive and flexible. Commissioner McKay wanted to include some members in the negotiation process. Mr. Proulx said that, in the single -family bonuses, there were some numbers assigned. However, Staff was looking to apply the rules objectively, and a discus sion ensued regarding forming a committee to review PUD’s. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Staff to check into this, and Mr. Schwarz said that this was a policy decision because presently there was just one document. He said that this particular project was uni que because 2
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 PAGE 3 there was not a mixed use. Commissioner Henry said that, until such time this was ironed out, it wa s still subjective . Commissioner McKay said that there were a lot of V il l a g e’s who had tried this and found it to be counter -productive . Mr. S chwarz asked for a continuance because, while there were a lot of great features, Staff and the developer wanted direction from the P lan C ommission as to how to proceed and apply the proper criteria. If the commission wanted him to break thi s out into a t able as it appeared in the guidelines now, he said this could be done. Mr. O’Rourke asked about the building setback standard. Mr. Schwarz said that the standard wa s 30 feet , so the relief would be from 30 to 25 for the townhomes and 37 to 30 feet for th e condo miniums . Commissioner Henry asked if Staff was okay with the height, and Mr. Schwarz said that this was compliant with the R -4 district . Mr. O’Rourke asked what the Village residential in the area was, and Mr. Schwarz said that the r ange anticipat ed by the Comp rehensive Plan was four to six du/acre. Depending on the residential, there wa s different gradiation. He r ead the V il l a g e Residential Land Use definition. He also re v iewed the Future Land Use Plan and showed th e V il l a g e Residential adjacen t to the high -intensity commercial . Commissioner McKay confirmed that the acr eage on this project was 73.5. She asked how it was optimistic to find 80 acres . Mr. Schwarz said that a few things we re close to that in the Comp rehensive Plan on Route 59, an d a lot of the large “box” projects we re already in the V il l a g e along Route 59 . Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the group of petitioners. Rene Martens (Director of Construction for Alexander Homes) addressed the commission and said that the Alexhander Homes had already established the location and site plan. He went over the land use for this site and proposed use, and h e touched on the land plan as it was currently proposed , as well as the applicant’s residential design goals. He listed out the features th at would be included in this development and went over the townhome area goals. He showed the examples of the three different townhome facades and went over this area on the plan. He then showed t he townhome renderings. He also went over the condominium area and showed the condominium proposed architecture elevations. He listed out information regarding the condominium buildings. Finally, Mr. Martens went over the commercial sites by showing examples of the architectural style. He listed out the infor mation available for the commercial nodes and went over the landscape treatment proposed David Rasmussen (principal of Alexander Homes) went over the site data, like the density calculations and calculation of open space. He touched on the proposed densi ty bonuses (neighborhood design approaches, land planning design amenities, and architectural design amenities). He noted that the applicant was not asking for a bonus for urban clustering; however, Staff was objecting to coving. He said that if 2/3 of t he bonus points would be thrown out, the applicant would still get the 36% requested. He noted that he was involved with discussions on the residential design guideline review, 3
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 PAGE 4 and he did not believe that it was ever mentioned that this did not include mu lti -family. He briefly elaborated on other comm unities that he had worked with. Commissioner Henry asked for elaboration on coving and conservation design. Mr. Rasmussen said that coving was defined on page 6 as a use of voidance of 90 -degree corners th at allow ed the units to be spread out. Conservation design was the applicant using land design practices that promoted open space, wet bottom detention, water fountains, etc. Commissioner Henry said that this was counting Best Management Practices, resto ration, and open space in several different places (under neighborhood design and land planning design). Mr. Rasmussen had no problem editing some of this; he just wanted to hit as many of the design goals as possible. He said that the guidelines were am biguous and confusing and went over the architectural design guidelines. Commissioner McKay said that, under land planning, a lot of this was f alling under one heading , and Mr. Rasmussen said that some of this wa s listed in the guidelines in a confusing w ay . Commissioner Henry said that, in the pattern book, the guidelines specifically state that storm -water m ana g e m ent should not be included in density . Commissioner McKay said that the multi -family situation needed to be specified in the guidelines becau se there would naturally be open space , and Mr. Rasmussen elaborated on how this had been done. A further discussion ensued regarding this. Mr. Rasmussen said that s ubjectivity was brought up in discussions on the guidelines last year . Commissioner Henr y said that, at the same time, there was an understanding that every piece of land was different, and the development was different. So, it was difficult to apply an objective set of guidelines. A d iscussion ensued regarding the challenges of this case a gains t the guidelines. Emo Fufori told the commission that he was just available for questions and handled the land plan design on this project. Commissioner Renzi confirmed that the land planning include d landscape and B est M anagement P ractices for wate r retention. Commissioner Renzi said that two wet based detention ponds were proposed – one to the north encircled by condominiums and a large one to the south directly north of the commercial area. There was also some reference to dry bottom draining in to the grassy retention area, but this was incorrect; both were wet bottom. Commissioner Renzi said that there was some confusion about water channeling through a combination of wet detention and sedimentation basins; he also mentioned swales. Mr. Rasmus sen showed the areas and went over the engineering and how the detentions would work. Commissioner Renzi was concerned that he had seen this done poorly in other municipalities. Mr. Rasmussen went over the land grading and drainage on the site and said t hat t here was natural grading that allowed for this . Commissioner Renzi asked if this would be conducive to rain gardens, and Mr. Schwarz confirmed that there was an opportunity that could be look ed into. Commissioner Renzi said that rip rock or natural vegetation could be used as well and went over some ideas on how the pond could be handled and configured. He just wanted something that would last a long 4
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 PAGE 5 time. Mr. Rasmussen knew that this would be the first time this type of plan was brought to the V il l a g e, and the intent was not to disagree. The commercial property would be there as the market and the V il l a g e demanded it. Chairman Sobkoviak asked who decide d this. Mr. Rasmussen read the A nnexation Agreement and said that it was 80 acres zoned commer cial with language that stated that part of it could change . Chairman Sobkoviak asked who would petition this, and Mr. Rasmussen said that the plan showed a mixture of both on the plan . Chairman Sobkoviak confirmed that this would probably be sold to a t hird party to petition to the Village as required. Mr. Rasmussen said that, in two years, he expected small commercial to be needed . Commissioner McKay was confused about the density bonus issue and asked if conservation meant incorporating what wa s ther e now and preserving it . She said that there wa s nothing there to preserve, and Mr. Rasmussen said that he was willing to stand up to scrutiny . A d iscussion ensued regarding some parcels of land that d id not have anything to preserve and creating bodies of water and hills. Further discussion ensued regarding open space versus conservation. Mr. Schwarz wanted to have a general discussion as Staff was in support of a density bonus; he wanted to come back with a table or analogy as the single -family guidel ines might apply. He said that he could give a br eakdown of how this should work. H e also reviewed that conservation design include d preserv ing natural features there now; B est M anagement P ractices wa s creating something that perhaps might not be there. Chairman Sobkoviak noted that some of the larger B est M anagement P ractices might not be large in a small case , and Commissioner Renzi said that there were opportunities to create a hedgerow by the commercial area. Commissioner Henry said that the lan d us e made sense and the architecture wa s great; however, he had concerns regarding how the bonuses were figured . Mr. O’Rourke said that, with the open space, there should not be a problem with setbacks , and Mr. Rasmussen said that he could look into this . M r. Schwarz had no problem with relief being requested as this was part of the PUD process; it was standard for them to have a 60 -foot right -of -way request. He wanted clarification from the commission if the density bonuses for the current guidelines shoul d attempt to be applied for now. Further discussion ensued regarding the bonuses. Commissioner Renzi wanted a third column for percentage of open space for a multi -family use. Mr. Schwarz added that there was a zoning ordinance in R -4 for a minimum land requirement per unit (4,500 square feet were needed for a townhome; 3,000 square feet were needed for a condominium). Twenty -nine acres were required when calculating this, and typically a building on a lot would have to be a specific size; however, he w ould create a chart for what the actual open space was. Commissioner Henry said that based on the homework the applicant had already done , objectivity was important. Chairman Sobkoviak said that, as specifically as possible, the Village should know what they are giving and getting . 5
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 PAGE 6 Mr. Schwarz said that there were smaller issues in the report. For instance, regarding the townhome product , he had a question regarding the same product in the vicinity. He asked if the comm ission had a problem with that. If so, he suggested the approx imately ten homes backed up to Gi lmore add gables or wall projections on the condo minium b ui ld ings. Commissioner Renzi said that coming down Gilmore Road would be the backs of all of the units , so he would like to see some di fferent architectural elements. A discussion ensued regarding the similarity in architecture . Mr. Rasmussen said that, in other projects, the townhomes had been requested to be similar . Mr. Schwarz asked if there was a limit as t here wa s a variety of ma terials and colors, and the roofline on the rear needed to be examined on Gilmore Road . Chairman Sobkoviak said that gables might be more appropriate . Commissioner McKay asked if the color packages in Grande Park were the same, and Mr. Rasmussen said no – that one townhome p acka g e wa s the same . Commissioner Henry said that he was concerned with the roofline now but was worried about making it too busy . Mr. Rasmussen said that sun arbors over the patio, chimneys, massive rear windows, and recessed patios would be incorporated ; he also noted that this product tended to attract empty nesters. Commissioner Henry asked about affordable housing, and Mr. Rasmussen said that the condo minium portion me t affordable housing, but the townhome wa s probably a little mo re expensive than the average. He took this out as a bonus . Commissioner McKay asked about swing sets in the backyards, and Mr. Rasmussen said that swing sets were not allowed due to the common element . Commissioner McKay asked about park land or a fi eld, and if there were a ny pocket park s near the condominiums. Mr. Rasmussen had no problem including a neighborhood park in some of those spaces, but Oswego has not told them the requirements yet . The c onnectivity of the bike paths was also mentioned. Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public comment. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Don McGuire who went back to the two ponds and the water; he was not clear on how that would be there. The smaller pond wou ld be piped to the bigger pond, and because of his scenario, the commercial with a flexible zoning would entitle him to have condo miniums and multi -family homes. His problem wa s if the water would be dumped on his property because he anticipated this to be commercial. Mr. Rasmussen said that the n ortherly pond would collect water and if it overflowed , it would go to the southerly pond . Neil Eicholtz said that there were some grassy swale channels that meander off -site that this would connect to . Engineering would ensure that this did not over -bur den the neighboring properties. Mr. McGuire said that last summer, the storm sewers were put in designed to handle the drainage of this area. He thought it would be practical to run this to Simons Road where the drain tiles went down. Mr. Eicholtz said that the water drained in the direction of the P reliminary P lat, and a discussion ensued regarding this. Chairman Sobkoviak said that engineering would take care to make sure that no more water would encroach than what is there now . 6
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 PAGE 7 Chairman Sobkoviak swo re in Phil Koukol (1690 Collins Rd, Oswego) who was concerned about the west portion of that property. At the present time it drained to the west and there were two large culverts. He owned property west of Gilmore and was worried that any additional ove rflow would go into his property. Also he said that the applicant failed to show where the houses were on Gilmore Road, so he did not know where this came out in relation to the farmhouses there now. Mr. Rasmussen showed the area of drainage of concern a nd said that no additional water would be put there. Mr. Schwarz said that aerial photography cut off at the county line, but the next plan would show perimeter issues. The road proposed would fall between the farmhouses. Commissioner Henry said that th e applicant understood that as a standing stipulation that the development had to meet the requirements of the Village Engineer. The applicant would have to provide sufficient evidence that no additional stormwater was being contributed. Chairman Sobkovi ak said that the Village would make sure the water did not come on to his property . Mr. Koukol said that he had not been notified through the proper channels on this , and Mr. Rasmussen recognized his name as someone mailed to . There was no further public comment. Mr. O’Rourke suggested that, r egarding Staff not having an issue with the setback , maybe the Village should look to change this. He said that i f the policy should be 25 -feet, the ordinance should be changed, and Mr. Rasmussen said that it becam e more maintenance that way. Mr. O’Rourke understood the variance as a PUD , and a further discussion ensued regarding this. Mr. Schwarz said that the right -of -way was in the subdivision code, and setbacks we re in the zoning code . Mr. Proulx said that th is was something periodically reviewed with public works and had been kept because some cases require d this still with the understanding that it could always vary. Commissioner Renzi asked that the record be updated . Mr. O’Rourke asked about parking for the condominiums, and Mr. Rasmussen said that there would be 2.5 spaces per unit. There would be underground parking with 20 spaces inside and 12 outside , per the building. A discussion ensued regarding the potential clubhouse , and Mr. O’Rourke asked abo ut other local projects done by this builder . Commissioner McKay asked if there was any way to get an amended map with the farmhouses to have at the Village. Mr. Schwarz said that there was a list of adjacent property owners, and the homeowner in questio n was not on this list. He suggested that perhaps the owner was not directly adjacent, but the Village would send proper notice in time for the July meeting . Mr. Koukol said that there were two acres on Gilmore Road that he owned that was connected to th is (1690 Collins Road). Mr. Rasmussen said regarding the commercial node on Collins and the WIKADUKE , Collins wa s not dealt with in Plainfield as much as in Oswego . Oswego plan ned to widen Collins and make it a primary east -west street - which lent to the commercial 7
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 PAGE 8 development. Having the density aro und the commercial development wa s exactly what would bring it to the area. Mr. O’Rourke asked if the c ommissi on answered Staff’s question regarding density. Mr. Schwarz said that he would creat e a table for the next meeting, and the consensus was that architecture was not an issue. He w anted to modify the plans and see about fixing some issues and getting more information. He w anted three weeks to do this, and there were meeting s on June 20 and June 27 . He said that anything before July 18 would have to be a special meeting, and Chairman Sobkoviak said that this would be a realistic date . Chairman Sobkoviak wanted to let the Staf f and petitioner know where the commission stood on the issues being addr essed : - He confirmed that there was consensus on Annexation . - Rezoning – There was no resistance to the default zoning of R -1 being changed to R -4/R -2. Commissioner Henry said that with the WIKADUKE so close, he believed it was appropriate . Commissioner R enzi and McKay agreed, and Chairman Sobkoviak felt that this would even create a buffer. - Rezoning – There was consensus regarding the two B -2 areas on the plan. Mr. O’Rourke asked about some language regarding flexibility , and Chairman Sobkoviak said that the petitioner would ha ve to ask for downzoning if something else was desired. Mr. Schwarz was not opposing this but said that the Village could set a definitive timeframe in the A nnexation A greement. Commissioner Renzi said that, looking north, it migh t turn out to be how the other streets connect ed ; for the south, he was not sure about the two units that abut it . Chairman Sobkoviak said that this would be neighborhood commercial , and a discussion ensued regarding the redesign. Overall, there were n o objections . - There were no objections to the Special Use for PUD. - The commission agreed that all of the issued revolved around that P reliminary P lat that would be addressed for further proposal . At 9:39pm, Commissioner McKay moved to keep open and continue the public hearing for Grande View Place to July 18, 2006 and direct the applicant to revise the plans and provide additional information to address staff’s and the Plan Commission’s concerns. Commissioner Henry seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak c alled for a vote by roll call. Aye: Henry, Renzi, McKay, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 4:0:0. At 9:40pm, the commission took a 10 minute break. The meeting reconvened at 9:50pm. CASE: 1245 -042606.SPR SIXTEENTH ELEMENTARY 8
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 PAGE 9 SCHOOL R equest: Site Plan Review Location: Northwest Corner of Heritage Meadows Drive And Linden Drive Applicant: Plainfield Community Consolidated School District 202 Time: 9 :5 1pm Michael Schwarz read the Staff report . Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the peti tioners . Scott Anderle (Healy, Bender & Associates) addressed the commission. He said that o ne of the concern s was traffic stacking, and the school had proposed single -line stacking. He elaborated on the types of stacking and that the school was at a ma ximum (with 144 proposed). He d id want to increase the width because as a student got out , the student would have to walk between cars. Regarding closing off the connection, Mr. Anderle said that it would be monitored and there would be cones. He elab orated on this, as well as adding the sidewalk. The school district had a policy not to enclose the trash and HVAC/electrical transformers. Regarding recycling containers, he said that not all schools do this, but the PTA/Administration would determine i t. Regarding striping the bus turnaround area, he said that this was typically not done as it was used for overflow parking and park surface area. The schools had not done this in other areas. Commissioner Renzi noted that Walkers Grove was striped for play area, and Diane Cooper said that the two newest elementary schools were using some of that space for basketball hoops and striped play areas for recreation and PE. So, that is why they do not stripe for vehicles. Mr. Anderle said that, regarding the size of the site sign, the school was taking care of this. Regarding bike rack detail, the school would get this and would also provide a landscape plan before occupancy. Chairman Sobkoviak said that, generally, the commission lenient with schools as it was saving the taxpayer to allow the PTA to handle this. Mr. Anderle said that, regarding reflective surfaces, the product was spun aluminum. The school did look into galvanized product, but it was not available for all of the products. He said that th e school could do this for some of the products. Chairman Sobkoviak went over the stipulations: - A landscape plan would be submitted upon occupancy. - The school agreed to an addition of a sidewalk. - Regarding the curbed landscape island, Mr. Anderle said tha t the district did not do that for snow removal purposes. Commissioner Henry said that part of the Plan Commission’s responsibility was to look at the implication on the neighbors and asked if the school could supply trees along the east elevation to scre en from homes. Ms. Cooper clarified where this would go along the lots, and Mr. Schwarz said that this was required on all other non -residential development in the Village as it created 9
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 PAGE 10 a less impervious surface, as well as screening. Ms. Cooper said tha t the people supporting snow removal and landscaping were taxpayers, so the cost needed to be watched. Chairman Sobkoviak had no preference. Commissioner McKay said that the trees on the periphery would make sense and could only have low to the ground to allow for line of sight. Mr. O’Rourke asked about traffic flow with curbed islands and if it helped to control traffic. This was reviewed, and the commission determined that the school knew what was needed for traffic flow . However, the commission want ed a couple of trees w ithin the next planting season following . - Regarding screening, Commissioner Renzi did not like this, and Mr. O’Rourke confirmed that this included cycl one fences. Commissioner Henry said that something tall was requested to soften th is at Plainfield North , and Commissioner Renzi requested that this be remove d based on the understanding that the peti tioner would handle it. - Regarding the provision for low -reflectivity, Chairman Sobkoviak said that some could be adjust ed and others could not. Commissioner McKay said that this never caught her eye, and it was determined that this be stricken . - Regarding s creening for the rooftop, there was one small unit that wa s not visible due to the size of the building , so this was stricken . - Regarding d um pster screening, a discussion ensued regarding this and that it was not done at other schools . This was p ointed out on the map , and the commission agreed to strike it. Mr. O’Rourke confirmed that there was a way to move it back to where the receiving wa s and still have truck s get to . - The commission agreed to keep the t ech nical revisions. Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public comment. There was no response. At 10:26pm, Commissioner Renzi moved to recommend approval of the Site Plan (inclu ding Building Elevations and Landscape Plan) for the Sixteenth Elementary School subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 3. Sub mittal of a Landscape Plan for staff review and approval prior to building occupancy. 4. The addition of a sidewalk along the west side of the bus entrance and a striped crosswalk to connect it with the sidewalk behind the dumpster location. Or, as an altern ative, the addition of a sidewalk on the east side of the bulb of the bus turn -around (at least ten feet from the curb) which will connect the public sidewalk to the curved sidewalk at the southeast corner of the building. 5. The addition of a number of trees along the northeast parking lot in the first planting season after occupancy, the number to be determined by the staff and petitioner. 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. 10
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 PAGE 11 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. This case would go forward on July 10, and Ms. Cooper noted that this was the first building built off of the referendum . CASE: 1247 -050306.FP CHATHAM SQUARE, UNIT 2 Request: Final Plat of Subdivision Location: North of 127 th Street, west of Heggs Road Applicant: Gladstone Homes Time: 10:28pm Mr. Proulx read the Staff report Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there were any engineering issues, and Mr. Eicholtz said that there was n othing to hold this up . Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Adam Dontz (526 Sycamore, Aurora) who said that he enjoyed working with the V il l a g e and Staff. The developer had reached an outcome of benefit and value to the V il l a g e . Chairman Sobkoviak confirmed that the key lots would be on the final drawing. Commissioner Renzi asked about the three concrete monume nts on the plat, and Mr. Proulx said that these were survey monuments for boundary markers. A short d iscussion ensued regarding signs. At 10:36pm, Commissioner Henry moved to recommend approval of the Chatham Square Phase 2 Final Plat of Subdivision, sub ject to the following three (3) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield and Oswego Fire Protection Districts. 3. Approval of street names by the Village prior to recording of t he final plat. Commissioner McKay seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Henry, Renzi, McKay, Sobkoviak Nay: None 11
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 PAGE 12 The motion is carried 4:0:0. This would g o forward June 19 . Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meetin g at 10 :37 p .m. __________________ Respectfully submitted, Laura Griffith -Recording Secretary Karick & Associates, Inc. 12