Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2003-08-19 PC minutesVillage of Plainfield Plan Commission Record of Minutes Date: August 19, 2003 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:02pm. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Kachel, Henry, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, R acich, Sobkoviak Absent: Library District, Park District, Fire District Minutes The minutes from the August 5, 2003 meeting were accepted as presented. A discussion of the public hearing procedure took place prior to the hearing of cases. Jim H arvey addressed the Commission. This Commission gives more due process than was mandated by the Supreme Court Klaerin Case. I will answer any questions regarding this matter that you might have. Commissioner Manning asked about the second point in the s taff report. Must the Chair rule on each offered evidence as to its admissibility? Mr. Harvey said if there is a question of admissibility, he must rule. The Wal -Mart case was probably as adversarial as it’s going to get. This rule allows the process t o be efficient. The statutes involved talk about a hearing. The Klaerin case didn’t allow a hearing which is an aberration of procedure in the state. Commissioner Manning said my concern was that the rule required the Chair to rule on all evidence prese nted. Mr. Harvey reiterated that the Chairman has only to rule on questions of evidence. Commissioner Manning asked Mr. Harvey to give an example of an instance in which the body could overrule the Chairman. Commissioner Henry said, by way of example, w hat if the Chairman closed a public hearing and would not allow it to be re -opened. Commissioner Manning said that this is not what his question is. Mr. Harvey gave an example of arguing market value. Let’s say an extreme amount of evidence is entered a nd it takes three hours to hear it all. This is way beyond the scope of the case and Plainfield. If the Chair allowed the entering of evidence to continue, the body could submit that the ruling is inappropriate, and overrule his decision. Commissioner S chinderle asked who can claim something is immaterial. Mr. Harvey said that it has to be the Chairman but an attorney could also object. Commissioner Schinderle said during the Wal -Mart case people said the same thing over and over again – could one of u s declare it to end? Mr. Harvey said that he could. Commissioner Kachel said, if you say the Commission’s procedures are working well, why change them? Mr. Harvey said this codifies what you’ve been doing. This will serve as a framework for future comm issions as well. You’re not required to adopt these, but I’d recommend that you do. As I said, you’ve already been doing these things. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if these would be useful in a lawsuit. Mr. Harvey said that while there is no guarantee, the y would hopefully help in a lawsuit brought against the Commission. Commissioner Kachel said that this could hinder discussion by making the time limits for public comment too short. Chairman Sobkoviak said he failed to see how this affects time limits. Commissioner Racich asked what strengths the Chairman has in setting limits and what strengths the people have in objecting. Mr. Harvey said the Chairman makes that decision. If the Commission wants to overrule, they can. These rules aren’t drafted to address every issue the Commission might face. They are designed to deal with adversarial situations. Commissioner Manning asked a question about the 10 th point in the staff report. Can you give me an example of what this is intended to prevent? Mr. Harvey said when a witness is cross -examined, the questioner is not allowd to question beyond what was offered in the direct testimony. Chairman Sobkoviak said there was a case here during which an appraiser gave testimony and the cross -examiner attempted to have appraiser offer testimony unrelated to what he gave in the direct testimony. Commissioner Manning said during the Grand Park public hearing, a member of the audience asked the petitioner what his profit would be from the project – is this admissi ble? Mr. Harvey said it would be up to the Chairman. Chairman Sobkoviak said the petitioner doesn’t want to answer if he doesn’t want to. The Chairman doesn’t have the power of a judge to compel an answer. I support the adoption of these rules. Commis sioner Henry moved to adopt the fourteen (14) rules as prepared by the Illinois Municipal League as Rules for all Public Hearings before the Village of Plainfield’s Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. Commissioner Schinderle seconded the moti on. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Henry, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Racich, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0. Old Business CASE NO.: 1039 -042503.RZ/AA/SU MCMICKEN ASSEMBLAGE Request: Rezoning/Annexat ion Agreement/Special Use for PUD Location: North & South of 135 th and East of County Line Road Applicant: Macom Corporation Commenced: 7:43pm Michael Garrigan announced that the petitioner has requested a continuance. Commissioner Schinderle moved to co ntinue the case to September 16 th . Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Henry, Gehrke, Schinderle, Manning, Racich, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0. New Business CAS E NO.: 1060 -071003.SU/SPR DAYFIELD PROPERTIES, LLC/ Request: Special Use/Site Plan Review PLAINFIELD SMALL BUSINESS PARK Location: Northeast of Route 30 and 143 rd Street Applicant: Clayton Olson Commenced: 7:45pm Michael Garrigan announced that this is a public hearing and gave the staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the applicants. Paul Mitchell spoke to the Commission. Tim Savage, project manager, made several points. The projected buildout is approximately 352,000 sq. feet. All bui ldings save one will be owned by the tenants. There will be 50 to 75 employees for the panel plant and batch plant. Commissioner Racich asked how they plan on bringing the materials to the plant – have you considered using the rail spur behind the proper ty. Mr. Savage said they want to reserve that option but will primarily use trucks. Commissioner Racich asked if the petitioner had close -ups of the Naperville facility. Chairman Sobkoviak opened the meeting up to public comment at this time. Diane Rus enellis asked why the plant couldn’t be located at the southern end of the property. People don’t want to see cement trucks coming and going. Mr. Mitchell said the facility will be 400 -500 feet away from the nearest property. You won’t be able to see it without straining. This is of course only a preliminary site plan review – we still have to come back for a site plan review with each building specifics. Commissioner Kachel asked Mr. Garrigan if he was ok with the architectural elements of the plan. Mr. Garrigan said there is a lot one can do with pre -cast. Chairman Sobkoviak said the Commission has decided to require that ponds be developed as amenities. Mike, does it make sense to apply this to industrial parks? Mr. Garrigan said this might be ov erkill. Commissioner Racich voiced some of his traffic concerns. Chairman Sobkoviak said building in the area will go on no matter where the trucks come from. We might as well benefit by they’re being in Plainfield. Clayton Olson invited the commission ers to visit the facility in Naperville. Commissioner Schinderle moved to recommend approval of the Special Use for PUD subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the recommendations of the Village Engineer 2. Compliance with the recommendations of the Plainfield Fire Protection District 3. Submitgtal of a PUD Agreement for staff’s review Commissioner Manning seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Gehrke, Schinderle, Manning, Sobkoviak Nay: Henry, Raci ch The motion is carried 5:2. Commissioner Schinderle moved to recommend approval of the preliminary Site Plan Review subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the recommendations of the Village Engineer 2. Compliance with the recommendations of the Fire Protection District 3. Submittal of a revised landscape plan showing number of plantings 4. Submittal of a tree survey Commissioner Manning seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Gehrke, Schinderle, Mann ing, Sobkoviak Nay: Henry, Racich The motion is carried 5:2. A 10 minute recess took place at 8:50pm. CASE NO.: 898 -082201.TA TEXT AMENDMENT Request: Site Plan Review Ordinance (Public Hearing) Location: Village Wide Commenced: 9:00pm Michael Gar rigan gave the staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak thanked Mr. Garrigan for doing a great job with this report. Commissioner Schinderle said some of these requirements are going to really raise the costs to buyers. What about lower income housing? New cou ples can’t afford to buy in Plainfield. Many elderly also face this problem. Mr. Garrigan said the changes are very consistent with what we have been doing. I would argue that the way to deal with affordable housing is with density and lot sizes. Commi ssioner Kachel said that the price points go up when the house is bought, but the long term value is higher. Commissioner Racich said our Board should develop what our community wants. Commissioner Kachel brought up some innovative things other communiti es are doing, such as sound -proof floors, 100% masonry. Commissioner Manning asked if there has been a legal challenge to requiring a development to come in as a PUD. Mr. Garrigan said there has not, but the Village Attorney says it is legally challengea ble. I’d recommend incorporating the requirement into the code. Commissioner Kachel suggested having 100% masonry on the front of a home and 75% on the remainder. Commissioner Racich said there should be no window unit air conditioning in multi family u nits. Chairman Sobkoviak suggested having 50% of the first floor of a townhome masonry. Commissioner Henry asked staff to come up with a recommendation on the issue of air conditioning units. Commissioner Kachel said any fencing should be more open rath er than cedar type fencing. Commissioner Manning moved to continue the case to September 2, 2003. Commissioner Schinderle seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Henry, Gehrke, Schinderle, Manning, Racich Na y: Sobkoviak The motion is carried 6:1. CASE NO.: 5213 -S WILL COUNTY CASE Request: Special Use for Auto Body Shop Location: 23807 W. Andrew Road Commenced: 9:50 Michael Garrigan gave the staff report. Commissioner Kachel asked if there are residenc es behind the building. Mr. Garrigan said there are some to the east of the building. Commissioner Kachel moved to recommend forwarding a letter of no objection to the Will County Planning and Zoning Commission for the applicant’s requested special use f or an auto body repair shop. Commissioner Henry seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Henry, Gehrke, Schinderle, Manning, Racich, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0. Chairman Sobkoviak brought up drainage basins. There is one at the Wendy’s on Route 59. The must be in non -compliance – there is no fence surrounding it and is dangerous. Chairman Sobkoviak declared the meeting adjourned at 10pm. Respectfully submitted, Warren Lindsay Reco rding Secretary Karick & Associates, Inc.