Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2006-09-19 PC MinutesVillage of Plainfield Plan Commission Record of Minutes Date: September 19 , 2006 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:02 . Roll Call Present: Commissioners Kachel , Mc Kay, Murawski, Renzi, O’Rourke, Sobkoviak , Fir e District Absent: Commissioner Henry, Park District, School District, Library District, Police Department Minutes The minutes from the September 5, 2006 meeting were accepted as presented . Development Report Michael Garrigan went through the Developm ent report: - The Grande Park South was continued to 10/2. - The Village Attorney was directed to prepare the ordinances for the Annexation Agreement on Springbank Unit 6. - The Village Attorney was directed to proceed with the Annexation Agreement and Special ordinances for Grande View Place. - The Board supported the Normantown Vacation south of White Ash Blvd and EJ&E. - The Board had some concerns with the Concept Plan for Chartwell Estates, and Staff was continuing to work with the applicant. - The Board supporte d the proposed Rezoning, Special Use, and Site Plan Review for Todd’s Body Shop. OLD BUSINESS: CASE: 1260 -072806.RZ/SPR/SU/PP/FP NORTHWEST CORNER ROUTE 59 AND OAK STREET Request: Rezoning, Special Use for a PUD (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review , Preliminary Plat, Final Plat (CONTINUED) Location: Northwest corner of Route Illinois 59 and Route Illinois 126 Applicant: Division Street Properties (John Argoudelis -Agent) Time: 7:05 pm At 7:06 pm, Commissioner Renzi moved to continue Case #1260 -072806 .RZ.SPR.SU.PP.FP to October 3, 2006 . 1 Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Kachel , McKay, O’Rourke, Murawski, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6 :0:0. Commission Kachel said that a lot of plans had had everything together and asked if there was a reason why. Mr. Garrigan said that there had been precedent to do the Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Site Plan Review at the same time. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the commission pre ferred to hear these on different nights. In this case, he noted that there was no concept plan, so everything was done at once, instead of reviewing concept plans first. Mr. Garrigan said that the site plan would be solidified, but plans change. Chairm an Sobkoviak confirmed that Staff was comfortable with all of these issues coming forward. Commissioner Renzi shared the concerns and wanted some way to get an introduction at an earlier stage – especially for larger projects to present what was going to be done. He wanted a couple of meetings to absorb it. Chairman Sobkoviak said that, in this case, it was a small en ough parcel to not be a problem. He said that he would rely on staff to keep the commission informed . Commissioner Renzi said that if the commission wa s getting in something that had been reviewed in the past , there was s ome base familiarity. However, if the traffic or other studies had not been presented yet, he wanted to review this. Commissioner McKay confirmed that the commission coul d continue portions of a case to absorb it on a case -by -case basis. Jim Donahue noted that, for large projects, the commission would see a P reliminary P lat first. However, for this case – there was a site plan associated with a plat . CASE: 1252 -060506.A A/RZ/SU/PP/SPR SOHOL PROFESSIONAL CENTER Request: Annexation, Rezoning, Special Use for a PUD, (Public Hearing) Preliminary PUD and Subdivision Plat, Site Plan Review Location: East side of Illinois Route 59, 300 feet north of 127 th Street Applicant: R obert L. Sohol, LLC Time: 7:15pm Michael Schwarz read the Staff report. Dean Kleronomos remained under oath and Chris Papesh with Geotech was also available for questions. Mr. Kleronomos said that there were still some big picture issues with the cul -d e -sac, main drive aisle, and parking. It was determined that the three issues would be addressed. 2 Mr. Kleronomos said that the width of the linear curb a isle was not a problem. Chairman Sobkoviak confirmed that the developer would also agree to addition al landscaping. Mr. Kleronomos was fine with removing three parking spaces cl osest to Route 59 and said that the handicapped spaces would probably be moved. Mr. Kleronomos said that the northern -most connection to the drive aisle was reconfigure d so it d id not appear to be a direct thru street. He said that the t raff ic study was completed, and he felt that it supported the position. Chairman Sobkoviak agreed that it removed the appearance of a thru street . Commissioner O’Rourke asked why this could not be a public street. Mr. Kleronomos wanted to put parking in there and could not put pedestrian traffic into the building s if this was a public street. He elaborated further on this. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if it would not be a thru street, why two a ccess points were needed. Chairman Sobkoviak said that this was in r esponse to a V il l a g e request for cross -access because it had the effect of reducing congestion on main roads . A d iscussion ensued regarding cut -thru traffic. Commissioner Renzi confirme d that the people coming from the north would have to come down Rhea drive . He said that t here would probably be a substantial am oun t of traffic coming in from the n orth entrance, and those exiting from the south would come to the traffic light. Mr. Schw arz reviewed portions of the traffic report , especially regarding volume s and possible traffic patterns. H owever, he wanted Mr. Gallt to weigh in on findings . Commissioner Kachel confirmed that the road in the area by Renwick & Route 59 was private. He said that a sign could be put up expressing this. Commissioner Renzi was concerned about volumes, but he was more concerned about the cul -de -sac . Mr. Schwarz was worried about snow plows and similar vehicles. Commissioner Renzi, in trying to visua lize t his from the north, said that the cul -de -sac would be similar to a round -about . Commissioner Kachel asked why this was desired to be a cul -de -sac. Mr. Schwarz said that if there was going to be a direct connection, it wa s a little more convoluted. A bri ef discussion ensued regarding this. Mr. Schwarz said that this would impact the current plan , and buildings would be lost. F urther discussion ensued regarding the roundabout. Commissioner Murawski liked the idea of the roundabout, but he had more of an issue with emergency or delivery trucks. Mr. Kleronomos showed the layout of the site and said that he did not anticipate the need for cutting through . Commissioner Renzi felt that the roundabout could be used to align the streets. Mr. Schwarz said tha t, o n Ro ute 59, the access that IDOT had approval , w ould be in Village jurisdiction. The cul -de -sac/roundabout would just be used for turnaround to not go into the private street. Commissioner Kachel confirmed who owned the road to North. Mr. Kleronomos said that this was changed to make it not look less like a cut -through , and Mr. Schwarz showed how this changed to offset the road . A discussion ensued regarding this. Commissioner McKay thought it was a mistake to look at projections to 2012 instead of right now where cut -through happens a lot. She thought the volumes seemed low and was concerned with public safety, especially to the restaurant. She asked if speed bumps 3 could be put in. Mr. Kleronomos said that he would do it if warranted , but it was not a recommendation from the traffic study . Mr. Schwarz did recommend a stamped or different textured concrete to indicate a pedestrian -friendly roadway. He said that this along with signage was considered a traffic -calming device. Commissioner Kachel asked if this should be put in there now, but Mr. Schwarz said that Staff was not recommending this . R ather than texturized concrete , Commissioner Renzi asked if this could be offset with natural drainage materials, and a brief discussion ensued regardin g this. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if all the issues could be avoided if this was public. Mr. Schwarz said that the public road was one option , but the number one issue was the design of the parking lot. He could not find any areas around this that had access to parking stalls off the drive aisle like this. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the petitioner had looked at parking in the rear. Mr. Kleronomos said that the applicant wanted to have view without parking in the flood plain. Commissioner Kachel thought it should be private, but he also suggested the pavers. Mr. Kleronomos was amenable to putting up signs . Commissioner Murawski said that S taff had mentioned taking away three parking spaces off of Route 59 , and he asked what would happen with som eone making a right -turn into the lot if t hese were taken out. He would have concerns about people coming into the lot fast. Commissioner Renzi was concerned with parking and wanted Staff to look at more than the three parking spots off the bottom. He w anted the traffic experts to review this . Chairman Sobkoviak said that if a roundabout was required, it would change the parking layout . Commissioner O’Rourke said that, if Mr. Gallt needed to review this, the commission could continue the case, but Chai rman Sobkoviak wanted to go through all of the issues. R egarding pa rking off the main drive aisle, Chairman Sobkoviak said that Staff did not support this. He asked Staff how to resolve th is. Mr. Schwarz said that if this was required to be d edicated, it would impact the proposal as it would probably cause the loss of a building. Commissioner Renzi suggested angled parking , but Mr. Schwarz said that the problem was with the direction of traffic compared to the angled parking . Chairman Sobkoviak said tha t th e developer agreed to widen the width of the linear curb aisle and add additional plantings Regarding additional detail on B est M anagement P ractices, Chairman Sobkoviak asked the applicant if he had them. Mr. Papesh said that he wa s going to a semina r on this , but a lot of it was going to be addressed at the time of final engineering . Chairman Sobkoviak wanted to make sure that all bases were covered . A d iscussion ensued regarding the direction to take , and Commissioner O’Rourke asked if this could be reviewed w ith the traffic engineer. Mr. Papesh said that if parking was taken off of main drive aisle, for the applicant’s use, it would not be the main drive aisle since people would be coming through there to park for the most part . Commissioner Ren zi hoped to lose a few parking spaces to build in the turnaround because he could not visualize putting another road through there. He wanted traffic engine ering to put in the information, and Mr. Papesh said that the Traffic engineer had said that a ngled parking 4 on a curved road wa s difficult . Commissioner Renzi felt that there was any number of ways to address this. Mr. Schwarz agreed with the engineer but said that it lent itself to flexibility to either direction. He noted that this was a parking lo t as soon as someone enter ed . When he scaled the cul -de -sac, he said that i t dipped into the site 90 feet, but he thought it might be able to be reduced to 70 feet. A typical stall width was 70 feet, but he could work with the applicant on how to design this. Mr. Kleronomos suggested vacating the road and giving them rights to the road with cross access . However, Mr. Schwarz f elt that this was a piece of paper that would not change the traffic patterns , and the V il l a g e Traffic Engineer would need to wei gh in on this. Commissioner O’Rourke wanted to co ntinue this , and Mr. Papesh asked which direction the commission want ed the applicant to pursue. Chairman Sobkoviak asked what was more desirable to the commission. Commissioner O’Rourke wanted a recommen dation from the Traffic Eng ineer. Commissioner Renzi said that as long as the square footage and p arking spaces were not removed, he wanted the turnaround or cul -de -sac. Commissioner Kachel wanted the cul -de -sac , and a d iscussion ensued regarding how to make this work. Mr. Papesh asked, if a cul -de -sac was done, if it would be viable to do an ingress/e gress easement with no setbacks. Commissioner O’Rourke said that Staff could give him variances on the easements . At 8 :34 pm, Commissioner O’Rourke moved to direct the applicant to revise the plans to address staff and Plan Commission concerns and continue the public hearing to October 3, 2006 . Commissioner McKay seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if it was the consensus to see a roundabout/cul -de -sac with zero setbacks . Commissioner O’Rourke support ed Staff’s need for access , and Chairman Sobkoviak said that a vacation was not needed. Commissioner McKay thanked the developer for being patient, and she thought it was essential to get a drawing with engineering input . Mr. Schwarz agreed that it would be useful . Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the commission was comfortable with the removal of the three last parking spaces adjacent to the entrance to Route 59 with the possibility of others changing . Commissioner Renzi’s concern was that there were 187 parking spaces , and Mr. Schwarz reiterated the desire meet the required parking space s. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the petitioner agreed to the width of the linear curb island, plantings, and B est M anagement P ractice s. He noted that the big issue was the main drive aisle, and he asked if the commission was comfortable with the parking off the main drive aisle. M ost of the commission was comfortable but wanted to defer to the traffic experts. A fu rther elaboration was made on this. Mr. Schwarz said that the Traffic engineer was given a copy of the report, and he would follow up. Mr. Papesh asked for the report as soon as possible so that this could be submitted. Commissioner Kachel asked to talk to the engineer about traffic -calming devices, and a discussion ensued regarding different types of pavers or alternatives. 5 Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public comment. There was no response. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Kachel, McKay, O’Rourke, Murawski, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0:0. Commissioner O’Rourke confirmed that Mr. Gallt could be invited to the meeting. CASE: 1262 -081506.TA TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION CODE Request: Te xt Amendment (Public Hearing) Location: Village Wide Applicant: Village of Plainfield Time: 8:35pm Mr. Garrigan read the Staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked for Mr. Eickholtz’s input. Mr. Eickholtz summarized the changes incorporated into Chapter 1 2 of the ordinance based on problems and comments from Public Works. There was a brief explanation submitted for the changes. Commissioner Renzi had questions regarding protection of sensitive areas as the clause said that the land had high potential of erosion. He suggested the wording as a “significant risk” of erosion. He asked what standard was looked at for high potential and if there was a trigger for a high potential for erosion. There was a lot of discussion regarding areas like this, and he wa nted to give the engineers protection. Mr. Eickholtz said that there was an erosion -control ordinance already out there. Commissioner Renzi also had a question regarding paragraph B as the engineer could put up the flag to stop the work; however, he aske d what the process was for the developer to resume the work. Mr. Eickholtz said that this had not come forward before, but the engineers could work with Staff on the appeal process . Mr. Garrigan said that the way to fix it was to conform to the approved plans . Chairman Sobkoviak said that he was a lluding to a developer receiving a stop -work order or the plans we re not approved by the V il l a g e Engineer . He agreed that there wa s no appeal process for someone other than the V il l a g e Engineer. He also asked what happened i f there was a petitioner’s enginee r that disagreed. Mr. Garrigan said that, in the past, the developers discussed this with the V il l a g e Administrator or the V il l a g e Board to determine the direction to go. Chairman Sobkoviak confirmed that this was not in writing somewhere, and he suggested that th is be put in there. A discussion ensued regarding this. Chairman Sobkoviak wanted something in writing that solidified the appeal process to the V il l a g e Board or wherever – to prevent t his from g oing to civil court. Mr. Garrigan 6 said that some changes and language could be incorporated into this. Commissioner Renzi just noted that there was no back -end for the resumption of work . Mr. Garrigan said that m eetings we re set up with the V il l a g e Engi neer , and field inspectors work ed that out . Commissioner Renzi wanted the rules and procedures to be put in writing . Chairman Sobkoviak said that most of the developers we re ultim ately cooperative, but if this wa s not in writing , this could be difficult to deal with . Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for p ub lic comment. There was no response. At 8:47pm, Commissioner Murawski moved that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the proposed text amendments as highlighted in this report with languag e to be added regarding Plan Commission concerns regarding the appeals process. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Kachel, McKay, O’Rourke, Murawski, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is c arried 6:0:0. At 8:48pm, the commission took a 10 minute break. The meeting reconvened at 8:58pm. NEW BUSINESS: CASE: 1264 -081706.FP CREEKSIDE CROSSING, UNIT 6A Request: Final Plat of approval of Unit 6A Location: South of Renwick Road, east of Old In dian Boundary Road Applicant: Rick Burton (Lennar Chicago) Time: 8 :58 pm Mr. Donahue read the Staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there were any engineering issues. Mr. Eickholtz said that he was working closely with the design engineer and there were no significant issues. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Rob Zoromski (Lennar) who said that the five issues and engineering comments were being worked on. The adoption of the DSSA was fine as this was in place for Units 1 thru 4 already. Regarding the o utstanding Staff comments – the U -shaped island was on the Landscape Plan and would be installed. The recapture fees per the Annexation Agreement were paid at the time of Building Permit process. Commissioner O’Rourke asked what lots J, K and L were, and Mr. Zoromski said that these were open space lots to be turned over to the village. Mr. Donahue said that these would either be turned over to the Homeowners Association or the Park District. He showed a map of where this unit was placed within the deve lopment. 7 Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public comment. There was no response. Fo r the recommendations , Commissioner Renzi asked if the commission should include the four based on the applicant’s statements. Chairman Sobkoviak said that if the applicant was satisfied before going forward, this was okay . At 9:05pm, Commissioner Renzi moved to recommend approval of the final plat for Creekside Crossing Unit 6A Subdivision subject to the following five (5) stipulations: 1. Subject to the requirem ents of the Village Engineer. 2. Subject to Fire Department’s review and approval. 3. Adoption of a Dormant Special Service Area. 4. Address outstanding items as specified in the staff report prior to Village Board consideration. 5. Payment of appropriate recapture fe es. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Kachel, McKay, O’Rourke, Murawski, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0:0. This w ould go forward after the engineering issues we re reso lved . CASE: 1270 -090606.FP DILLMAN SUBDIVISION Request: Final Plat of Subdivision Location: West side of Heggs Road, approximately ½ mile north of 135 th Street Applicant: Heggs 10, LLC Time: 9 :06 pm Mr. Donahue read the Staff report. Chairman Sobko viak asked if there were any engineering issues, but Mr. Eickholtz did not anticipate any problems. Michael Wojack (already sworn in) had nothing further to add. Commissioner O’Rourke wanted to identify the public utility easements and drainage and revie wed this. Mr. Donahue said that the actual PDF was the Preliminary Plat. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the Village required this to be submitted in a particular manner, and Mr. Eickholtz noted that normally there were some types of setback. Mr. Schwarz said that the Final Plat would lay out the easement provision. Commissioner O’Rourke said that this was in the notes; he just wanted to see if this could be added to 8 the map. Mr. Garrigan said that there was language in the subdivision code stating that easements needed to be made, and he would make this change on the final plat. Mr. Wojack had no objection and agreed that it was nice to have this show n on the map. Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public comment. Bill Lamb asked a question r egarding the access for construction off of Heggs Road for construction; he wanted to know if it should be noted on the plat. Mr. Donahue said that it was noted in the Annexation Agreement, and it was a temporary easement so he was not sure if it was on t he Final Plat. Chairman Sobkoviak confirmed that there would be construction access off of Heggs Road and a trigger point that the access was closed off in two years. Commissioner Renzi asked if the funds were being used from the Park District, and Mr. D onahue said that the funds from this subdivision would be used for improvements to the park at Dunmoor Estates. At 9:17pm, Commissioner Kachel moved to recommend approval of the final plat for Dillman Subdivision subject to the following five (5) stipulat ions: 1. Subject to the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Subject to Fire Department’s review and approval. 3. Adoption of a Dormant Special Service Area. 4. Address outstanding engineering items prior to Village Board consideration. 5. Payment of appropriate reca pture fees as outlined in the annexation agreement. Commissioner McKay seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Kachel, McKay, O’Rourke, Murawski, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0:0. He noted that the applicant should be in touch with Staff to determine the date this would go to the Village Board. Discussion Commissioner Renzi said that there had been a nice presentation for the Conservation easements, and a brief discussion ensued regarding this . Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 9 :19 pm. __________________ Respectfully submitted, Laura Griffith -Recording Secretary Karick & Associates, Inc. 9