Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2006-08-01 PC MinutesVillage of Plainfield Planning Commission Record of Minutes Date: August 1 , 2006 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at approximately 7:0 5 . Roll Call Present: Commissioners Renzi , Mc Kay, Murawski, Henry, O’Rourke, S obkoviak , Park District, Fire District, Library District Absent: Commissioner Kachel, School District, Police Department Minutes The minutes from the June 27, 2006 and July 18, 2006 meetings were accepted as presented. Development Report No report OL D BUSINESS: CASE: 1224 -122005.AA/SU GRANDE PARK SOUTH Request: Annexation (Public Hearing) Special Use for PUD (Public Hearing) Concept Plan Location: South of Cherry Road, north of Wheeler, And west of Ridge Road Applicant: MPI Partnership Time : 7:06pm Chairman Sobkoviak said that the commission had been taking public comment and would continue to accept public comment from those who had not yet had an opportunity to address the commission. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Denise Phillips who read a prepared statement regarding homes built to certain standards and the impact of the proposed development .1 She had two issues: the d ensity and transition space (especially in Neighborhood 2). She welcomed the development, but the neighbors just want ed consideration and compromise. She appreciated the 50 -foot buffer but wanted the green space in the 1 On record from court reporter notes. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 2 northeast corner preserved . She said that this should be owned and maintained by an organization and not the individual homeowners. Commissioner Henry as ked about Neighborhood 2, and Ms. Phillips said that the gree n space was removed with a change. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Tracy Raskevicz (1016 Plainfield Road, Oswego ) who read a prepared statement . 2 She r ead and commented on excerpts from the Staff Report. She q uestioned statements regarding negative impacts on the surrounding areas and general welfare. She m ade comments on open space and traffic and said that adding homes added to the traffic problems. She made comments on the concept plan and wh at was there currently. She also c ommented on the Findings of Fact; Staff did not find any economic impact , but she disagreed. She w ent through the PUD Variance requests. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Diane Rousonelos who thought that the outstanding comp laint against the development was density. Because of the nature of the property and drawbacks, she did not feel that variances should be granted for self -induced hardships. However, she did not feel that the new route was through a property – because th is could have been built by two developers. She said that s pecial attention should be taken to provide plenty of open space between highway and lots. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Pete Pasteris (1998 Johnson Road ) whose farm was adjacent to Neighborhoods 5 and 6 . He e choed what others said about density. He noted that Commission er McKay had said that progress was being made, but he did not think that this was consistent. The developer was working with attorneys, and – while the developer’s att orney was p leasant, he had said that it was not the developer’s intent to increase these lot sizes. He said that Johnson Road wo uld be traveled extensively but this was happening already. He was confident that there would be a back -up at Plainfield and Johnson due to this development specifically. He also did not know how this road would be maintained. Commissioner O’Rourke had asked (at a previous meeting) how the development would impact other property, and he was concerned about his property value. He had no i ntent to sell it, and he wanted to keep his property as it was. He said that 6,000 square foot lots were there. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Nancy Wheeler (7557 S. Plainfield Road) whose property was adjacent to Neighborhood 8. On the northwest boundary, there was a hedgerow of trees that she wanted to be preserved. Michael Martin confirmed that this would be done. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Al Raskevicz (1016 Plainfield Road ) who said (at a previous meeting) that Commissioner McKay had asked if there were any one acre lots annexed into Plainfield . He passed out a list of developments from surrounding areas from the past five years that were surrounded by five -acre lots. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if Mr. Arg oudelis had ask ed to address commission. Mr. Garrigan said that he was not present . 2 On record from court reporter notes. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 3 Chairman Sobkoviak said that the public testimony wa s concluded . A resident asked about adding additional testimony and evidence , and Chairman Sobkoviak said that he had addressed the commission several times . A di scussion ensued, and Chairman Sobkoviak said that the ruling was that further discussion would be redundant and repetitive . The homeowner said that he represented a substantial set of people, and he had new information to provide . Chairman Sobkoviak aske d the basis of this, and Commissioner Henry requested that he be cut off if anything stated wa s already submi tted. The homeowner wanted to reference c ertain aspects already covered but wanted to go over the second half of the updated Staff report and cond itions. He especially wanted to discuss t he density section and the conditions. Chairman Sobkoviak felt that this was redundant and repetitive . After some further d iscu ssion, Chairman Sobkoviak asked him to take his seat . Chairman Sobkoviak reiterated that the public testimony was concluded and asked for the developer ’s closing remarks . Michael Martin said that he was proud to represent this project and proud of the commission for a thankless job. He also thanked his client for the opportunity to repr esent the project . He said that i t was two years since the first COW meeting, and this was not a project thrown together . He said that t he client waited for the drafted Comp rehensive Plan and tried to implement plans into the project. He noted that t he objectors did not have anything against the developers , as the developers c ame forward with a development that met the needs of the Village. He said that t here was n o other opportunity to do this, and any other way would involve several land owners. He s aid that e verything proposed was within neighborhoods, and the Park District would develop and maintain a lot of this land. He said that the developer had donated more to the School District , and even though the BMP ’s were questioned, Mike Schoppe would b e sure to implement this properly. He said that there was an over focus on homeowners on the north end of the project. The developer had worked with some homeowners and tri ed to work with others. Mr. Martin said that this area was in the Village’s plan, so it was an extension of the Village. He went over Neighborhood 10 and said that with the interest in the Pearson Farm, the developer wanted to move the house as an entry feature in the neighborhood. He noted that he redid the Flanders House. The cl ient had worked with the residents on this, and he said that an open house was held. He passed out a plan showing the lot sizes; he said that the green strip that was in the northeast corner was removed because of the 50 -foot buffer being maintained by th e Homeowners Association. He noted that the developer removed nine lots from this neighborhood, and Mr. Buck had written a letter to Staff indicating an agreement. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 4 Regarding density, Mr. Martin had asked Staff to do an analysis on Neighborhoods 1 and 2 . There were 80 acres, 7.26 were in the floodway, so there were 72.74 buildable acres. He said that this was in the low -density residential district allowing 1.4 dwelling units per acre – which would be 102 homes. The developer was requesting 94 units. He said that the density comments did not apply to Neighborhoods 1 and 2, and the density bonuses did not apply here. He said that the developer revised the plan, and there were many points he could cover. He had staff here to answer questions. He sa id that, regarding e very other category of density bonuses, page 3 showed 844 units allowed with the bonuses; the proposed additional units were 767. He said that the developer was r equesting 77 less than what was allowed. He noted that Staff said that t he developer could have 812 units, so, with that calculation, the developer was asking for 45 units below what was allowed . He said that with the moving of the Pearson house, the developer might be entitled to an additional bonus. He wanted to see some c ondos put in the commercial area at Ridge and Johnson , and that might be something for the future. He said that there was some commerci al requested by the clubhouse; this could not be done, but seven acres were added to a different location. The develope r thought a strip center might be better suited by the school. He went through why the developer went with Randall Arndt. He also went through the density bonus and residential guidelines. Mr. Martin knew there were questions about the financial repor t and impact study. When this study was done, the developer had asked who the V il l a g e wanted to do this and how it should be done. The School District confirmed and accepted this. He did not feel that there would be a negative financial impact. The dev eloper did the best they could and hired the best they could. The developer tried to incorporate suggestions and tried to work with neighbors. They tri ed to develop something that me t the plan and the Village could be proud of. Chairman Sobkoviak said that this concluded the evidentiary/testimony portion of the hearing. He said that the commission had three questions in front of them. He was n ot asking for a vote but wante d to ask about annexation. The commission was in agreement on this. The commis sion was also in agreement regarding the i ssuance of a S pecial U se for PUD. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the only question wa s the acceptance of the Concept Plan. He s uggested some type of or derly discussion by beginning with the south ern neighborhoods a nd working north . Commissioner Henry suggested a broad line of questioning first, and Commissioner Renzi also wanted to ask some generic questions to Staff about the School . Chairman Sobkoviak said that the commission would start with general questions . Commissioner Renzi understood that Mr. Martin was correct that the financial impact study was done as requested with today’s dollars. He did not have a problem with the messenger but with the ultimate conclusion which did not take into account financial increases. He asked if the Oswego School District still supported this. Mr. Garrigan said PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 5 that, as of that afternoon, Dr. Murphy had advised that the Oswego School District’s position had not changed. The school district was generally acceptable with th e land cash and legal requirements. Regarding the reconfiguration of Route 126 to 143 rd Street, Commissioner Renzi concurred that this wa s a logical place for this and a good time to do it. He was concerned abou t this being a road to nowhere and asked, once it got to Ridge , when it would be connect ed to Route 30 or Route 59. As a supplement question , Commissioner Henry said that, on page 10 of the July 18 minutes , there was a conversation regarding this development , money , and timing. He said that t ra nsportation needs did not look to the future. Erick Gallt spoke about where Route 126 could go and the pitfalls ; one of the pitfalls wa s that if this development did not move forward, it had an impact on Route 126. He said that this would be a major setb ack as the largest independent source for the reroute wa s from the development. If this development did go on, and this continued, the section immediately to the east (for approx half a mile) had already been agreed to through a previous A nnexation A greem ent. This was moving forward, and the majo r hold in the entire alignment was a half mile east of this to Steiner. H e said that V il l a g e B oa rd made a commitment to Drauden , and this would be a logical section for the Village to cover. He anticipated the B oard expediting the connection. He noted that i t would take several years before G rande P ark S outh would constru ct the segment , but it would b e consistent with development. Commissioner Renzi confirmed that Plainfield Road to the clubhouse would be one y ear fr om recording of the plat. Mr. Martin said that the clubhouse would be built out , and this road would be built first. A d iscussion ensued regarding land developme nt and timing. Mr. Gallt wanted this connected as soon as possible and the timing wo uld depen d on how this project progressed . Commissioner Henry said that the specifics might be included in the A nnexation A greement as to when these would be put in versus building permits issued. Mr. Gallt noted that IDOT wa s also important. Mr. Gallt said that Phase 1 would be complete d in March of 20 07 from Rout e 59 to Route 126, and Phase 2 wa s anticipated to move forward. He went through the timing and put this completion at around 2010. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if t he road to the clubhouse was just three lanes. Mr. Gallt said that he was still in discussions with the timing on these improvements ; he had discussed the possibility of phasing lanes in based on demand. The earlier years would not require five lanes, but these improvements were ul timately anticipated. Mr. Gallt said that the Village might find it wa s more cost -efficient to build this with the initial road , but this was still being discussed. Mr. Gallt said that the WIKADUKE still had some unknowns; Kendall County said that the co nnections were a priority and had tried to o btain funding for various links. He noted that many of these we re part of G rande P ark S outh, like the inter section improvements . He noted that the intersections were generally what failed, not necessarily the s traight roadways. The Village had recognized some of the concerns of residents PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 6 regarding Plainfield Road and Route 126. Some improvements were scheduled for next year, regardless of the outcome of this project. Commissioner Renzi asked if there was su pposed to be a connecting road, and Mr. Gallt said that this was a priority project with Kendall County and wa s currently outside of Plainfield ’s jurisdiction. Commissioner Renzi said that t he little piece of road co uld solve a myriad of headaches, and a d iscussion ensued regarding neigh boring residents on these roads. F rom a transportation angle, Commissioner McKay asked what Mr. Gallt’s prof essional opinion was on timing, and if this was an a ppropriate time to add 2 ,300 homes to the Village. She also a sked what the Village should do with the cars without the hypothetical WIKADUKE. She was concerned about making the problem worst instead of better. Mr. Gallt said that the Board had constantly expressed their opinion s to have traffic improvements ahead of development whenever possible. He used Drauden as an example of the Village addressing traffic impact. He said that the expedited completion of this corridor ha d b ecome a priority. This provided a vital connection for Plainfield , Oswego, Yorkville, a nd Joliet ; he felt that the timing was not only appropriate but critical. He said that the c onnection would allow the Route 126 -143 rd Street reroute to help keep cars out of Plainfield. Commissioner Renzi asked, by year 3 , how many houses would be up and occupied in Sections 1 and 2. Wendy Yaksich said that a bout 100 homes per year would be built, starting with the central area (Neighborhood 4) and then mo ving north. So, 300 homes would be built in three years (by about 2010). Commissioner Henry said t hat there was an article in the newspaper about residences on Weber Road indicating how wide and spacious Weber Road was. Residents then did not understand why until now. Commissioner Renzi estimated several thousand trips per day on roads that were alre ady overburdened . Mr. Martin said that the roads would be developed as the building moved along , and the roads had to be completed before final plat. Commissioner Henry said that this was what he wanted to see , and Chairman Sobkoviak said that this was p art of the standard A nnexation A greement. A d iscussion ensued regarding specific roads to be com pleted. Regarding upfront road improvements, Mr. Gallt was not worried about these roads but the outsi de roads that would be impacted. He said that this woul d require right -of -way acquisition. The Board had expressed similar concerns. Commissioner Henry said that he would not approve this unless there were assurances that adjoining roadways would be complete . Mr. Gallt said that the transportation improveme nts were above and beyond what was requested. Commissioner Renzi understood that these roads would be there , but people would take the se exterior roads. A discussion ensued regarding this. Mr. Gallt could not guarantee that from his position as it would be up to the Village Board to allocate funds . A d iscussion ensued regarding what could be done . Mr. Gallt said that this wa s not the development’s required improvemen ts, it would be the exterior improvements , and the commission could stipulate this in t he recommendation. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 7 Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the improvements had been identified. Mr. Gallt said that there were three major improvements: the completion of Plainfield/Stewart intersection; the Plainfield Road/Route 126 improvements; and the 143 rd Street corridor linked to at least Route 59 . The biggest stipulation would be the 143 rd Street extension. Commissioner McKay asked if there was a way, when a developer came in to the C ommittee of the W hole, that the V il l a g e Traffic Eng ineer could make a list of things that need to happen and the timeframes. Her p roblem was that these things appeared as a bargaining chip that the developer wa s holding. She said that there had to be a way to negotiate this. Mr. Gallt said that the improvements would be p art of the A nnexation A greement, and the developer might not be held accountable for some of these. He said that there was s imilar language with the Springbank improvements. Commissioner Henry asked if the Village could limit the number of homes until of f -site improvements were made, and Mr. Gallt said that the Annexation Agreement was being worked on but wa s not specifically discussed at the Concept Plan level . Chairman Sobkoviak said that the situation of the re -routing as a bargaining chip wa s unfair as it was the only way to develop these roads. Commissioner McKay wanted it in the language that the V il l a g e required it . Mr. Gallt said that the developer would love to do this without the road improvements , but th e developer was told to do this. I t wa s the developer’s right to put a positive spi n on it. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the commission could recommend that the V il l a g e B oa rd put timing constraints on this. Commissioner Renzi said that the interior roads needed to be built and the exterior r oad improvements would be made . Chairman Sobkoviak said that the commission could suggest this stipulation . R egarding the 143 rd Street connection, Commissioner Renzi asked if the area that wa s open between Ridge and Steiner had any right -of -way issues or sign ificant wetland issues that would prohibit this. Mr. Gallt said that, in the segment that was not accounted for, there were no significant issues. There were some issues immediately east of that r egarding preserving areas, so the Village was trying to do some unconventi onal things to work with this. Commissioner Renzi said that the configuration might not be a straight linear connection . O n page 3 of Staff report , Commissioner Henry said that there was a d ensity bonus table showing the developer ’s perceived bonus v ersus the S taff ’s perceived bonuses. T he developer believed some bonuses were owed based on on -site transportation improvements. He asked w hat these were , and Mr. Martin said that the r e -route of Route 126 was his client’s idea when this was purchased . He thought the developer was entitled to density bonus that was 17 acres dedicated to Route 126. He said that the V il l a g e wa s not giving a density bonus for this. Commissioner Henry wanted to clarify that there were no off -site transport ation bonuses, and Mr. Martin said that there not at this time . A d iscussion ensued regarding the legal obligation and annexation approval at the Board level . Commissioner Henry confirmed that the developer was exceeding the required school contribution and that the guidelines stipulated that the developer was ineligib le for density bonuses. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 8 Commissioner McKay said that Staff wa s requesting a pedestrian overpass over the re -aligned R oute 126 and asked if the developer had agreed to this. Mr. Martin said that this negotiation had not been finalized. If the developer agree d to that, he asked what the timing would be . He said that t his wa s part of the negotiation , and he anticipated this would be resolved. A discussion ensued regarding the cost. Commiss ioner Renzi said that if there was a three to five year build -out, the developer need ed to have a crossover . A d iscussion ensued regarding providing a stipulation. Commissioner Murawski said that this was a safety issue , and Mr. Martin said that this was not a question of if it would go in ; it wa s just a scope and timing issue. Regarding testimony on impact and fees, Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the money was going to be used just for on -site improvements. Mr. Garrigan said that this had not been reso lved as there was no agreement on how much the developer would receive in traffic bonuses or fees. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if, historically, the fees were maintain ed within the development – or if there were usually funds left. Mr. Garrigan said that there were usually surplus funds, and some had been credited for large regional improvements . However, he was n ot aware of any case where 100% credit was given to a developer. The sur plus wa s usually used for off -site improvements . Commissioner Renzi a sked if Johnson Road would be the original plan or the new configuration. Mr. Martin said that the original plan had Johnson Road coming to the clubhouse , and he went over how this connected and traffic impact in the area. There was some brief elaboratio n on the cross streets to Route 126 . Commissioner Renzi asked if the Pearson House was going to be rehabilitated, and Mr. Mart in referenced another restored house . He did not have a timeline on the exterior, but he said that the developer might sell this to a private ind ividual or private organization. There were no final negotiations. There was a time limit on when the exterior s of the Johnson and Pearson houses had to be c ompleted – within 5 years. Mr. Garrigan said that the general parameters of thi s wa s generally what Staff requested . Chairman Sobkoviak wanted to go through the Staff report . He w ent through Issues: (see notes) 1) Staff requested that the applicant commit to using a combination of brick, stone, cedar or fiber cement board on all home s that are constructed on the 6,000 square foot lots in this development. This request is based on the fact that the design success of these smaller lots will be heavily influenced by their architecture and the quality of materials used on these homes. M r. Martin said that vinyl might be on the 6,000 square foot homes, and this was an open issue. On June 8, there were additional standards added for the 6,000 sq uare f oo t lots , and he elabo rated these new standards. Mr. Garrigan said that a revis ed patter n book was submitted. Regarding the Homeowners Association, Commissioner McKay was concerned with some of PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 9 the areas that would have green streets close together and if a person could put a pool in th e front yard. Ms. Yaksich said that the standards allow ed for in -ground pools , and a discussion ensued regarding this. Ms. Yaksich said that a homeowner would have to submit a site plan for architectural review. Commissioner O’Rourke asked about fence restrictions, and Ms. Yaksich said that if the Village st andard wa s stricter , the V il l a g e standard needed to be followed. 2) Staff has requested that the applicant look at the option of introducing some condominium units as a mixed use component to the commercial site at the WIKADUKE and Johnson Road. This type of design component would be consistent with the general character of the development. Mr. Martin agreed to this. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if this would change the density and units , and Mr. Martin said that the density bonus would not be exceeded. A b rief discussion ensued regarding this. 3) Staff continues to look for a commitment by the applicant to construct a pedestrian overpass over the realigned section of Route 126 linking Neighborhoods 6 and 9. Mr. Martin said that this was already answered. 4) Staf f is requesting that the applicant submit a decorative street light plan outlining the design specifications for the boulevards and other streets within this development. This decorative street light plan should be incorporated into the Pattern Book. Mr. Martin confirmed the developer was okay with this. 5) Staff is requesting a conceptual landscape plan for the required landscape buffers along Johnson Road, Cherry Road, Lockport Street, and Wheeler Road. Specifically, staff would request a 30 foot landscap e outlot along these streets with the incorporation of a berm that ungulates and meanders as per Village policy. Mr. Martin had no objection to this. 6) Staff is requesting that the applicant make a commitment for BMP’s in all future commercial areas within this development. Specifically, Staff would be looking for larger landscape buffers and filter strips in all commercial developments within this project. Mr. Martin said that this was a goal to achieve, but there was an engineering issue. Commissioner R enzi asked about the developer be ing protective and the reparation work for the Aux Sable. Mr. Martin said that this drains to the east and went through many properties before reaching the DuPage River . A d iscussion ensued regarding this. 7) Staff would be looking for a commitment from the applicant to create a committee made up of the Conservation Foundation, Aux Sable Committee and staff to review and watch over the implementation of all BMP’s within this development over the build -out. Mr. Martin had no problem with the input but did not want to have governmental approval. Commissioner Henry said that the Village just wanted to help maintain this and create a better benefit to the future homeowners. Commissioner McKay wanted to take this a step further and request ed that if a bonus wa s received for this, that it should be monitored. A d iscussion ensued, and Mr. Martin said that he had no problem participating in the process. Commissioner McKay had no problem with the plan on paper but wanted to make su re that mistakes were not made . Mr. Martin had no problem with the Conservation Foundation w atch ing this. Commissioner Renzi said that it would be one to two years for the PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 10 rooting to take place and was worried about decisions made regarding plants. He d id not know if there was enough expertise in this group to provide the necessary assistance to make sure this wa s done right. A d iscussion ensued regarding this. Commissioner Renzi said that the bonds should include B est M anagement P ractices , and not just the roadways. Mr. Martin felt that the ordinance should be followed , and Commissioner O’Rourke noted that Staff made a recommendation . Commissioner Henry asked if the Park District was taking responsibility for part of this land. Cameron Bettin , of the Park District, said that the Park District would be going into an agreement with the developer on the park sites and the land taken along the Aux Sable Creek and other flood way areas. Because the Park District did not take ownership until after the prop erty was developed, he relied on the Village to make sure that this was happening. If the Park District did not like the site, it would not be taken. The Park District had someone on Staff and was comfortable working with the developer as this was alread y being worked on. Commissioner Renzi felt that the Park District should be in this group. Mr. Bettin said that the Park District could be but would have its own agreement. Commissioner Renzi asked that the Staff make sure to include the Park District i n the finished communication. Mr. Bettin asked if the Army Corps was going to be involved. Mr. Martin said that a permit was needed from the Army Corps, and Mr. Bettin noted that this was another “watchdog”. Commissioner McKay brought a piece of evide nce – pictures of natural vegetation and the potential for what could happen if the Homeowners Association did not do what was supposed to be done. Without having an expert on Staff, a Homeowners Association could allow it to become overgrown. At 9:17pm, the commission took a 10 minute break. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 pm. Chairman Sobkoviak asked that the overall development be brought up for discussion. Mr. Martin noted that the areas of BMP would also have a S pecial S ervices A greement. Starting at Neighborhoods 10 and 11 , Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there were any open issues. Commissioner O’Rourke said that a lot of the issues with the neighbors to the east seemed to have been worked out, but the stub streets were a concern . Chairman Sobkoviak said that the commission could ask the developer to add sufficient stub streets in the Preliminary Plat . Commissioner Renzi said that there was on ly one stub street to the west, and that would be by the stormwater detention area . Chairman Sobkoviak said that Neighborhood 10 had one stub street to the south, and the commission would be looking for adequate stub streets . Mr. Martin said that the WIKADUKE would veer to the east and would probably take some of the traffic off of this . Commissioner Renzi as ked what the road was on the east side of Neighborhood 1 1. Mr. Martin said that the WIKADUKE would be near this, and he was not sure wha t would happen if the road veered to the east. Commissioner Renzi asked if there was any issue with the road alignment . Mr. Gallt reviewed this and said that there were some discussions on th is regarding when the WIKADUKE wa s aligned . He said that Plainfield was planning for PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 11 the future of this . Commissioner Henry asked for a description of the envisioned alignment of t he WIKADUKE . Mr. Gallt said that n orth of Wheeler; it would veer to the east and follow the Anderson Tree Farm. This would meet up with the existing alignment of Ridge Road . Commissioner Henry confirmed that the alignment would be for commercial . Chair man Sobkoviak asked about Neighborhood 12. Commissioner Henry asked what the average of the width of the greenways was and what the buffers were b et ween the neighboring properties. Mr. Martin said that there were 275 feet buffers , and a discussion ensued regarding this. Mr. Martin said that this was 150 to 300 feet wide throughout the entire development , and it wa s wider to the south . He said that 63 acres with the school site was green space. Commissioner Henry co nfirmed that as growth worked its way north, it was about 150. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the developer would not get any narrower than 150 feet. A br ief discussion ensued regarding the park site . Commissioner O’Rourke said that the Village generally believed that the townhomes, villas, a nd condos attracted less school -age children, so he asked why these were by the school. Mr. Martin said that this was a transition, and the developer moved the condos with the park and open space with the school. Commissioner O’Rourke said that, with the villas in Neighborhood 9, he thought it should be closer to the homes with children. Mr. Martin said that the developer had meetings with the school district to determine where the school sites were desired, and the current configuration allowed for expa nsion both ways. Commission Renzi did not want little kids growing up next to a high school. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there would be changes to add more condo units, and if this would increase it to four to five stories. Mr. Garrigan said that the se future condos we re rep resented in the pattern book but would come through a full S ite P lan R eview. He suspect ed these would be three to four stories . Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the Village was c ommitting to a height based on density approved in th e Concept Plan . Mr. Garrigan said that the Village was not committing to a certain height , and the pattern book generally outlined this . Mr. Martin said that the code had a variant of four to five stories. Commissioner O’Rourke again asked if the Villag e was committing to stories based on density , and Ms. Yaksich said that the current plan wa s three stories with one level of parking . Commissioner Renzi asked if the Village just did something similar, and Mr. Garrigan confirmed that four -story condominiu ms were approved with Grande View . Commissioner Henry confirmed that this would be along 119 th Street and the future WIKADUKE Trail. Chairman Sobkoviak asked about Neighborhood 9. Commissioner Renzi said that he agreed t hat single -family homes would go better there , but he remembered the engineering testimony . The commission agreed with the villas . Chairman Sobkoviak asked about Neighborhood 7 – the townhomes. Commissioner Renzi asked about a stub stree t and what the developer would do with a s tub str eet over PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 12 the Aux Sable Creek. Mr. Martin said that this requir ed another creek crossing and the developer was avoiding that . As development went north, Commissioner Renzi confirmed that this would not require a stub street . He also confirmed with Mr. Ma rtin that Johnson Road would end up being the only road crossing the Aux Sable north of Route 126. He said that this would help designate Johnson Road as a more major road . Commissioner O’Rourke reiterated that traffic wa s a major topic, and a little wou ld help in the long run. He was concerned about what would happen if this was not planned for. Mr. Martin said that the developer could leave a green stub street and confirmed that there was one at Neighborhood 6. Commissioner Henry asked for comment fr om the T raffic Eng ineer on the stub street to the west. Mr. Gallt said that there we re some opportunities to do this and deferred to recommendations of the Aux Sable Committee . Chairman Sobkoviak said that the commission could ask for one in Neighborhood 7 . Commissioner Henry talked about the walk going over the roadway , where this was envisioned , and whether ade quate access would be allowed. Mr. Martin said that this would be somewhere around the park . Commissioner Henry did not want this to dead -end in someone’s bac k yard and wanted to agree on where it would be. Mr. Martin said that the planners showed where there was the most open space and park . Chairman Sobkoviak asked about Neighborhood 8. A discussion ensued regarding further stub streets, es pecially into the commercial area. Chairman Sobkoviak asked about Neighborhood 6. Commissioner Renzi said that the commission had talked about having one potential green area, and a potential site for a stub street. Commissioner Henry confirmed that the greenway in Neighborhood 6 was about 150 feet. Chairman Sobkoviak noted that this could not be less than 75 feet on each side . Commissioner Renzi asked if there was any way to con ceptualize any commercial there. Mr. Martin said that when talking about the veering of WIKADUKE, he gave some potential are as for commercial. Chairman Sobkoviak said that this would develop similar to the north side of town . Commissioner Renzi had some issues about what Mr. Vaupel said and elaborated . Mr. Martin said that t here we re locations in the future . Commissioner Henry noted that Commissioner Kachel had clearly stated that the c ommunity needed more commercial but n eeded transportation to accomplish this. He said that this should foster any kind of commercial , and a discussion ensued regarding commercial by the high school. Commissioner Renzi said that putting this near the high school would foster community commercial , and he said that it was important to identify commercial areas on the Comp rehensive Plan . Chairma n Sobkoviak asked about Neighborhood 4. R egarding the stormwater m ana g e m en t , Commissioner O’Rourke said that it was a B est M anagement P ractice to connect the parks; however, t here were some smaller p arks that did not. Mr. Martin showed how these connecte d as a change to the plan , and a b rief discussion ensued regarding other green streets. Mr. Martin said that this was redesigned many times by PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 13 Mr. Arndt . Commissioner O’Rourke asked about the green street , and Mr. Martin confirmed that the houses faced t his with an alley behind. Commissioner O’Rourke asked why this would not go west to the greenway and across the street. Mr. Martin cl arified the walkway connection and noted that this could be done to allow connectivity. Regarding neighborhoods 5 and 6 , Commissioner McKay said that staff felt that there should be a stipulation regarding the exteriors. I f there was important for any part of the development, she felt it was important for the small lots with the size of the homes proposed. She felt that 50% of any materials were low, but Mr. Martin said that he j ust did not want to be precluded from using vinyl siding . Commissioner McKay felt comfortable saying no to vinyl on the fronts of the smaller lot sizes to allow the neighborhoods to be “up to pa r”. Chairman Sobkoviak said that, with the 6,000 sq uare f oo t lots , it might be appropriate to have no vinyl on the front but contain brick, stone, cedar, or cement b oard. There was some agreement with this, and Mr. Martin said that neo -traditional homes were like this . Commissioner Renzi did not h ave a problem with this and elaborated on how the houses could be built . Mr. Martin said that vinyl did not mean that it would be an inferior house , and a discussion ensued regarding this. Chairman Sobkoviak a sked if there would be support for this if the developer resisted at the Board level , and Commissioner Henry agreed. Commissioner O’Rourke asked for further explanation , and a d iscussion ensued regarding key lots. Mr. Garrigan showed some pictures of neo -tradition al homes going up in Plainfield. H is concern was the additional overlay of design on the smaller lots. Commissioner Henry suggested no stipulation other than what wa s submitted in the pattern book , and Mr. Garrigan suggested allowing some mason ry, clapboard or fiber cement . Mr. Martin said that there were maintenance issues and did not want to preclude the use of a product that was widely used. Commissioner Henry said that no one wa s saying no to vinyl , he just wanted more presence of architec tural features on these homes . Commissioner McKay wanted to eliminate vinyl on the front because of the unique situation of the smaller lots . Commissioner Renzi said that the only people seeing the fronts would be the homeowners. Chairman Sobkoviak aske d if there was support for this, but the commission did not agree in totality. Mr. Garrigan said that the original stipulation required a certain percentage of masonry on the front elevations, and the developer worked with Staff on architectural features . Commissioner Renzi was not sure anything should be required beyond the key lots . Commissioner McKay said that when the d e v e l o pm e nt was completing, and the developer asked for an exception , she wanted to set the bar higher from the beginning . Commission er Henry asked if the average home in totality wo uld receive 50% masonry already. Ms. Yaksich said that all single -family homes could be any combination of cedar and masonry ; if someone want ed to include vinyl, 50% of the siding had to be masonry . Chairm an Sobkoviak asked about Neighborhood 3. Commissioner Henry asked if there was a sizable buffer on the west and east elevation, and Mr. Martin said that buffer on PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 14 east wa s 50 feet added on to the plan ; to the west wa s 30 feet. Commissioner Renzi confirme d that there was a stub street to the far south, and others were clarified. Chairman Sobkoviak asked about Neighborhoods 1 and 2. Commissioner Renzi asked which neighboring subdivision had the horse path. Mr. Martin said that this was Neighborhood 10, a nd that had a 50 foot buffer as well. Commissioner Renzi asked if th e buffer would include putting in a fence. Mr. Martin said that there would be a l ands cape buffer on Neighborhoods 1 and 2 ; there would be an on -lot easement that would be the responsibi lity of the Homeowners Association with a backup SSA. He noted that there would be a c om plete landscape buffer at grade for these and Neighborhood 10. He said that the neighbors along Neighborhood 10 wanted a fence as well. The developer was thinking of putting in a split rail fence, and if the neighbors could upgrade it if desired. Commissioner Henry confirmed that there wa s no landscape buffer on the north side, and Mr. Martin showed this. Commissioner Henry confirmed that the approximate size was 50 feet wide. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if a ny issues were missed that needed to be brought up. Regarding the density bonuses , Commissioner O’Rourke said that it seemed that the developer was creating some variance requests by meet ing the smaller lot sizes and setbacks. Mr. Garrigan said that there had always been a density range, but the new plan gave a base density that the developer could increase with more benefits that the Village wanted . Mr. Martin elaborated on the neo -traditional design , and a disc ussion ensued regarding this. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if parking was a con cern in neo -traditional plans, and Ms. Yaksich said that 20 foot building setbacks were required for alley loaded garages to allow for parking t here as well as in the garage . C ommissioner Henry asked about the single family homes, and it was confirmed that the porch setback wa s 12 feet and the garage setback was 20 feet. Commissioner O’Rourke confirmed that the developer would allow both. Regarding the farm that bordered Johns on, Commissioner O’Rourke said that these lots were requested larger than 6,000 square feet but those bordering Johnson were 8,000 square feet. Mr. Martin confirmed that this was true for both Neighborhoods 5 and 6. In looking at the reconfigured design for Neighborhood 2, Commissioner Renzi said that the cut in from Cherry Road was gone, and now people only had one way in and one way out. He asked what the developer would lose if an entry was put off of Cherry. Mr. Martin said that the developer would lose 50 feet to increase the lot sizes. Commissioner Renzi felt that there should be another stub. Steve Amann, the Village Engineer, said that the east -west portion of Cherry Road was anticipated to go east, and the north -south Cherry Road would be vaca ted. A discussion ensued regarding this. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 15 Mr. Gallt also clarified this, and Mr. Martin said that the developer did not seem opposed to a stub street to the east. Commissioner Renzi asked about the timing on this, and a discussion ensued regarding owners hip of the property. Commissioner Henry asked if the developer could lose a unit over changing the lot sizes, and Chairman Sobkoviak said that the engineering could change the plat. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there were any other issues. Commissioner O ’Rourke asked about the land plan and reviewed the land use. He a sked for an explanation on comfort with these numbers. Mr. Garrigan said that the applicant requested additional density, and the developer wa s afforded the idea to cluster the development and encourage open space. He went over some residential design guidelines and how these would be incorporated into this project. These allowed for the higher density in the project now. Commissioner Henry said that the concept wa s that if this wa s desig ned by genera l zoning standards, more farm land would be burned up. Commissioner McKay asked everyone to remember that the development was equal to many developments, and there had not been a development this large using the bonus system. There was more room to earn these bonu ses with the amount of land the developer had. She wanted to know if the give and take was enough. She went over some of the bonuses used and asked if the Village was getting e nough back and if the Village was able to handle this d evelopment. Commissioner O’Rourke said that, when stepping back to look at the numbers, even with the give and take, this was still consistent with the intent of the bonus system. Commissioner Henry said that it wa s up to the commission to find the line of subjectivity, and Mr. Martin brought up the contributions that were not given credit for . Chairman Sobkoviak asked what stipulations should be included if the development move d forward. Currently, there were none for the annexation. There were five s tipulations for the Special Use for PUD, and four stipulations for the Concept Plan. Chairman Sobkoviak suggested stipulations on the Concept Plan, and this was agreed upon. Regarding stipulation 3, Mr. Martin said that the vinyl siding situation was alr eady talked about; regarding stipulation 4, Mr. Martin had a problem with the committee idea. A discussion ensued regarding the committee idea. Commissioner O’Rourke felt that stipulation 4 should be kept, and Chairman Sobkoviak said that this was a matt er of wording. Mr. Martin said that this was someone going out to make sure that what was promised to be built was being built. There was some discussion regarding stipulation 3, and Chairman Sobkoviak said that the basic requirement was 50% brick. Rega rding bonding of implementation, Mr. Amann said that this was for public improvements. Commissioner Henry said to follow the ordinance suggestions. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 16 Commissioner O’Rourke asked about the committee members, and Chairman Sobkoviak said that the Staff and En gineer would manage that. Stipulations 5 and 6 were added. It was confirmed that there should be a stipulation to disclose the appropriate information to the homeowners as part of the Annexation Agreement. There was some discussion regarding a traffic s tipulation. Mr. Gallt suggested separating the stipulations for the developer’s improvements from the commitment to the Board for Route 126. Commissioner Renzi asked about the Best Management Practices in the commercial area, and Mr. Garrigan said that t his was still stipulated under the PUD. There were no engineering issues. Commissioner Renzi said that the only issue not resolved in the BMP for commercial was that this was not agreed upon by the applicant. A discussion ensued regarding this. Commiss ioner Henry asked what would prohibit the developer from asking for a variance. Chairman Sobkoviak recommended leaving this in and leaving it up to the Village Board if this was not needed. Commissioner O’Rourke asked to get Staff to define the bonuses a nd asked if this had been done in this situation, or if the commission was comfortable with where this was at. Commissioner Henry said that there were variables but what was not included were some of the incidentals. There was further discussion regardin g the contributions provided. Commissioner Renzi asked if the commission included the commercial BMP , what was required to get rid of that . Jim Harvey, Village Attorney, said that a majority vote was needed. Commissioner Henry asked if a developer wante d to come back and could not do it under B est M anagement P ractices, if the developer could request a variance or A nnexation A greement amendment. Mr. Garrigan said the Village had already incorporated some limited B est M anagement P ractices in commercial ar ea. Mr. Martin asked if the developer could seek a variance without modifying the A nnexation A greement as part of the stipulation. At 11:11pm, Commissioner Murawski moved to recommend to the Village Board the proposed annexation of the subject property w ould be a logical extension of the Village’s municipal boundaries . Commissioner Henry seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Henry, Renzi , McKay, O’Rourke, Murawski , S obkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6 :0:0. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 17 At 11:12pm, Commissioner Henry moved to recommend approval of the findings of fact for the Special Use for PUD as outline in staff’s report subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with th e requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 3. Submittal of a decorative lighting plan for this development. 4. Submittal of a conceptual landscape buffer plan for the areas along Johnson, Cherry, Lockport, and Wheeler Roads. 5. Submittal of a BMP pl an for the commercial areas within this development – with the understanding that the Annexation Agreement would not require amendment if a variance is requested. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Henry, Renzi, McKay, O’Rourke, Murawski, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0:0. At 11:12pm, Commissioner Renzi moved to recommend approval of the applicant’s Concept Plan subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requireme nts of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 3. That the applicant creates a committee that will oversee the implementation of the BMP’s throughout this development. 4. A commitment by the applicant to construct a pedestrian overpass over the realigned section of Route 126 linking Neighborhoods 6 and 9. 5. A commitment by the applicant for stub streets throughout the development as indicated. 6. Inclusion of specific on -site transportation needs and the commi tment of the completion in the Annexation Agreement. 7. Inclusion of specific off -site transportation needs by the Village Board. 8. Modification of the Comprehensive Plan to include commercial nodes north of the new Oswego High School. Commissioner Henry secon ded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Henry, Renzi, McKay, O’Rourke, Murawski, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0:0. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUTUST 1, 2006 PAGE 18 Chairman Sobkoviak said that all issues would go forward at a time to be determined. Cha irman Sobkoviak thanked the co mmission for hard work on case as it ha d been a long ordeal, and everyone did a great job. Commissioner O’Rourke confirmed that there were no further special meetings. Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 1 1 :16 pm. __________________ Respectfully submitted, Laura Griffith -Recording Secretary Karick & Associates, Inc.