Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2001-10-16 PC minutesVILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 AT: Village Meeting Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:03p.m. Roll Call: PRESENT: Commissioners Kachel, Seggebruch, Gehrke, Manning, Schin derle, Anderson, and Sobkoviak. The Library District ABSENT: Fire District, School District, Park District The correction of the minutes of September 21, 2001 are corrected as follows: on page 9, the 3 rd paragraph from the bottom should read, instead of ‘one handicap parking space for every 5 parking spots’, it should read, ‘ 1 parking spots for each 25 parking spots’. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there were any other additions or corrections, hearing none, the minutes were accepted as corrected. Planne r Carroll presented the Development Report: • Shenendoah (Sohol) was approved. • Mid -states was approved. • 600 Chicago was approved. • Both Heather Court variances were approved • The Recreational Vehicle Text Amendment was. The Board came up with no consensus as to whether parking and storage should be allowed in the front and side yards or be restricted to rear yards. OLD BUSINESS: Case # 900 -082401.US, Lot 4 Plainfield Commons (began at 7:12 p.m.) Petitioner has asked for a continuance to the next regular meet ing, November 6. Chairman Sobkoviak addressed the issue of ongoing “continual continuances.” He asked to begin a policy of after 3 continuances, that petitioner be dropped and be required to begin the process again. Chairman Sobkoviak, while feeling it not to be the case in this particular situation, “continual continuances” could be seen as a delaying tactic by both the Village and/or the petitioner. Planner Carroll acknowledged that this is the process with the village planners. The Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 2 petitioner then h as to re -notify the residents again. The commissioners agree. Commissioner Schinderle made the motion that as a matter of policy, that a maximum of 3 continuances be allowed after which, a case will have to start over. Commissioner Kachel seconded the m otion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote: A motion has been made and seconded to develop a policy on the Planning Commission to drop from consideration any case that has been continued more than 3 times. Vote by roll call, please. The Vote: 7 -0. Th e motion is carried. NEW BUSINESS: Case # 901 -082901.FP, Lakelands on Lake Mary (began at 7:12p.m.) Planner Garrigan asked for the matter to be continued to the next scheduled meeting on November 6. Commissioner Kachel made the motion that we continue th e deliberation on the final plat on Lake Mary to our next scheduled meeting on November 6 th. Commissioner Schinderle seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for the vote: A motion has been made and seconded to continue the deliberation on the fin al plat on Lake Mary to our next scheduled meeting on November 6 th . If there is anyone in the audience who has interest in that final plat, please be in touch with staff to find out the exact night this will show up. Vote by roll call, please. The Vote: 7 -0. The motion is carried. Case # 911 -091401.AA/PP/Z, the Crossings at Wolf Creek (began at 7: 14 p.m.) This is a petition for Annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat. Village Planner Carroll gave the report: The Crossings at Wolf Creek would be l ocated north of 119 th , east of Century Trace, west of Champion Creek. The applicants expect to develop approximately 160 acres now zoned agricultural land into 252 single -family units and 144 multi -family units. The site is contiguous with the Village li mits and utilities are available to the site. The north 300 feet of the property is annexed to the Village and zoned AG – Agriculture District. This annexation corridor was necessary for Century Trace to gain contiguity. The subject site is located in th e Village and Suburban District and Auto -Urban District of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan suggests gross Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 3 densities in the range of 2.06 – 3.20 dwelling units per acre for the Village and Suburban District. The Auto -Urban District is consi dered commercial in nature. The project provides 268 dwelling units and has a gross density of 2.64 du/as with minimum lot sizes of just under 8,000 sq. ft., minimum lot width of 70 feet, and side yard setbacks of 10 feet, minimum lot width of 70 feet, an d side yard setbacks of 10 feet. This project provided for strategic goals (Bolingbrook boundary agreement) and does not reflect the recent Village policies. Century Trace, located to the west of the subject property is approved for 504 single -family a nd 202 multi -family units for a density of 2.68 with minimum lot widths of 75 feet. This project also provided for strategic goals as it fixed a portion of the Village’s northwest boundary. PRELIMINARY PLAT: The preliminary plat contains a minimum lot si ze of 10,000 sq. ft., and an average of just under 12,000 sq. ft. All yard requirements meet Village standards. A multi -family parcel, consisting of 144 dwelling units, is proposed at the southwest corner of the project. The proposed gross density for t he project is 2.475 swelling units per acre. According to the applicant, the gross density for this site exclusive of the multi -family development is 1.85 du/ac. The multi -family component consists of 6.27 du/ac. The applicant has provided preliminary f acades for this portion of the development and it would be appropriate for the Plan Commission to comment. However, the applicant will require a Site Plan Review when they come into final planning. The applicant has provided a 10 -foot wide bike path gen erally along the eastern portions of the development and along detention areas. Previous plans also included a bike path skirting the edge of the park, as well. The applicant has been responsive to some of Staff’s suggestions to help open up visual corri dors. Staff asked and applicant has opened up some lots to provide a buffering between the homes and the bike path. It is Staff’s opinion, however, further refinement is necessary. Staff perceives the open spaces of the Wolf Creek flood plain to provide a visual and physical organizing element that establishes the theme for the entire neighborhood. According to Staff calculations, if the applicant were to build all 12,000 sq. ft. lots, the total number of dwelling units would total approximately 310 uni ts. 12,000 sq. ft. lots are the requirements for R1 zoning. Staff supports smaller lots or clustering in order to preserve open space to provide public amenities such as bike paths. However, it appears smaller lots and townhomes have enabled the applic ant to propose more dwelling units than would have been allowed by adhering to the Village Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 4 Ordinance required 12,000 ft. lots. Village Board policy has been to grant 50% credit for open space that doubles as detention or is floodplain. If we calculate de nsity for this project based on a 50 % credit for detention areas and floodplain, the project density is approximately 2.8 du/ac. Based on the above calculations, it appears the applicant has an opportunity to remove lots to better cluster development and reduce the density to be more in conformance with Board policies. More importantly, removing some lots along the Wolf Creek floodway will provide a tremendous open space/greenway and the visual and physical organizing element noted above. STREET ALIGNME NTS: In general, the plan provides for a linear and parallel street pattern to the north and a curvilinear pattern to the south, one of which terminates into a cul -de -sac. The preliminary plan provides one connection to 119 th Street, the extension and con nection of Champion Drive, a stub the west and a stub to the north for connectivity. The applicants propose sixty (60) feet of right -of -way (ROW) for residential streets and sixty -six (66) feet of ROW fir Champion Drive, matching existing ROW in Champion Creek and Century Trace. The Plan Commission has recommended approval of reduced right -of -ways on corners and curves. This difficulty requires the developer to acquire easements in front yards of some lots to accommodate the utilities. The applicant wi ll need to provide data indication utility placement is adequate if reduced right -of -ways are granted. The Plainfield Fire Protection District has expressed their desire to have a connection to Wheatlands Highlands for public safety reasons. Plainfield Fire Protection District has one (1) access point and they would prefer two (2). ANNEXATION: The majority of the subject property is currently located in unincorporated Will County and is contiguous to the Village corporate limits. The northern 300 feet is already annexed t Village and zoned Ag. It appears it would be a logical extension of the Village limits as it is contiguous on both sides. ZONING: Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 5 The applicants have requested R -1 zoning; the Village’s default zoning. The Comprehensive Plan ident ifies the area as Village and Suburban, which is residential in nature. Staff supports the R -1 zoning request. UTILITIES: Utilities currently exist on the subject site in the Wolf Creek floodplain area. RECOMMENDATIONS: Overall, staff supports the conc ept of a linear open space corridor along the Wolf Creek and smaller lot sixes to help accomplish this. However, due to some issues raised in staff report, staff would seek Planning Commission discussion and comment. It’s anticipated bringing a limited p lat back to the Plan Commission. The applicant is present. The applicant is Centex Homes 150 W. Center Street, Schaumburg. Speaking for Centex is Kevin Stough, Planner and Acquisition Manager for Centex Homes. Also present were Jim Reilly of Centex H omes, Fred Feinstein, attorney for Centex with the firm of Mc Dermott, Will, and Emory; Cliff Pixler, and engineer with Intex Consultants; Larry Peterman, Land Planner with Hitchcock Design; and Steve Hovaney, Physical Impact Consultant with Strategy Plann ing, Associates. Kevin Stough gave a brief history of Centex Homes which celebrated its 50 th anniversary in 2000. They are a national builder of residential communities in over 80 metropolitan areas. Centex has been building homes in the Chicago area si nce 1953 and presently has 10 communities under construction in 9 municipalities throughout the area. They have employees who live and work throughout the area with 3 living in the Village limits. Larry Peterman gave the project report for Centex utiliz ing a number of maps to demonstrate the different contexts, vantage points, and connections to the surrounding communities, school districts, park districts, and surrounding subdivisions. The Crossings at Wolf Creek will be the next major link in the Open Spaces Corridor that begins at Norman Town Road in Century Trace and wanders down, following the creek, and eventually comes down Rt. 59 on the south side of (Rt.) 119. The initial beginnings were the floodplain and wetland area of Champion Creek with th e potential for the floodplain and wetlands area of Heritage Meadows to be joined, as well as, future Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 6 unincorporated open space areas that could develop into an open space/bikeway area that would extend from Rt. 59 to Norman Town Rd. He described the ope n space areas, bike paths, and major play areas. He also described the creation of the “motor court” design, which has re -configured the town home arrangements so that the garages will no longer face the streets. In addition, the homes will be clustered so that only 4 to 6 homes will form a structure and the main living area will be over the driveway. There will also be an easement along 119 th Street with a berm of 6 to 9 or 10 feet in height that will turn along the main entrance so that views of the op en space and greenway will not be blocked. The main entrance will have signage constructed of a combination of stone and fencing. There were a number of challenges involved with the design including; making the Champion Drive connection, a utility corrid or of 25 feet, and keeping the floodplain, which is currently 45 feet, the same size at completion. Discussion included; access, Champion Drive in the west will go from Rt. 59 through the Crossings through Century Trace and exit at Highland Drive. Also, the tie –in going north is at Highland Drive, north through Wheatland Highlands. The road commissioners don’t want that tie -in connection. Their letter to Planner Carroll was included in the meeting packets. Their concern was that the tie -in might be a public safety issue for the fire protection district. Chairman Sobkoviak opened the discussion for the commissioners to question the petitioner. Under discussion were the lot sizes, particularly, lot widths. Staff supports the lot size being narrowed fr om 80ft. The number of lots that are less that 80 ft. are 10 or less than 4 % of the total. Approximately 7 or 8 lots adjoin each other. Staff’s report pointed out a reduction of road width, which concerned some of the commissioners. Mr. Peterman demo nstrated a continuity with surrounding subdivisions. A number of commissioners felt that the park district need to be present or contact the commission by letter regarding the bike path and park. The location of the bike path has not been established, as yet. School and park donations will be met by a neighborhood park. The park donation was to have been 9 acres and the planned park will be 5 acres. The off set will be made through a cash in lieu, along with improvements and equipment. The improvement s and equipment will be such that the cash in lieu, if any, will be negligible. Chairman Sobkoviak opened the discussion to questions from the audience. A number of residents were present and expressed their concern. They were: Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 7 Craig ______, 24300 Gree nburg Court, Wheatland Highlands, who left photos, which were entered into the record; Laura Brittmacher; Eileen ______ , Lot 255 at Champion Creek, four lots up from Laura; Jennifer _____, lives off of Champion; Joanna Cushing; and Mark __________, 1135 6 S _________ (north side of retention pond). Their comments and further questions by the commissioners were concerned with the retention pond overflowing, where the water would flow, and whether the retention pond would be re -routed to alleviate street flooding as currently occurs, and if there will be a buffer between the existing park and the retention pond. A major cause for concern is the traffic. There is a small park in existence. There are small children who must cross the street to get to the park. The feeling is that the traffic from 500 new homes would overwhelm the area, endanger the children, and decrease the value of existing homes. Some residents questioned the difference in elevations between Champion Creek and Wolf’s Crossing. There is a concern about the proximity of the new homes to existing homes and whether there will be a buffer between them. In addition, residents wonder if the corner in question should have a stop sign. In addition, Chairman Sobkoviak felt it prudent to advis e the petitioners and staff that the issue of construction traffic will probably come up at some point and that the Village will require all construction traffic to go straight down to 119 th and not cut through adjacent subdivisions. He also directed that signage reflect that. Chairman Sobkoviak also asked that Chief Bennett check the corner in question near the park to determine whether a stop sign is required. Finally, a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Joseph of 11651 Decathalon Drive was entered into the reco rd. Mr. & Mrs. Joseph have spoken with some of their neighbors and discovered that they were unaware of the new development and shared the safety concerns of the residents present regarding the possible danger from the retention pond to the children of th e neighborhood. Mr. Peterman spoke for Centex, explaining the size of the Champion Creek community has 268 homes, many of which back up to open fields, which will be lost when the new homes go in. The distance between the new homes and existing homes w ill be approximately, the size of a football field. The retention pond will not be re -routed, however there will be a sloped area that will go down to the pond and then slope back up to the homes on either side. Some areas will be re -grassed. The fir e hydrants that are extant are in position because of the location of the current water mains. Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 8 Chairman Sobkoviak broke down four different requests from the petitioners: 1) Annexation would seem to be a logical extension of the Village boundaries and t ies into two existing subdivisions. 2) Zoning request is R -1 but it doesn’t address the town home area. With annexation and P.U.D it does, otherwise it defaults to the Village’s R -1. 3) Preliminary Plat that would be contingent upon the application for special use for P.U.D. 4) Application for Special Use for P.U.D. Staff has asked for us to continue to allow for revisions based on Staff and Plan Commission comments. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the commissioners if they should move forward or ask for changes. The d iscussion following the question of advancing, evolved from clarification from staff regarding the open space and what staff is trying to achieve, to the main entrance of the subdivision on 119 th Street. Planner Carroll’s main goal is to create as much gr een space as possible by having Centex give up 3 or 4 lots. There was some discussion regarding the bike path, the back view of the houses, landscaping with berming to separate the town homes, and the fact that the garages are hidden. Commissioner Kachel reiterated the need for direct participation from the park district. There was a question of buffering between the new and existing homes. Commissioner Kachel addressed that issue for the committee and residents. Ten years ago, everything around here w as farm fields. We’d all like to have that view. But as more and more subdivisions go in, that space disappears. You’re lucky you’re there. Somewhere else, you might not have that area. It’s called borrowed ambiance. Chariman Sobkoviak agreed and a sked to have the park district address the commission with relevant issues, either in person, or by letter. He also wanted all requests of the petitioners made now so they won’t have to come back a third time. Mr. Stough addressed the committee. We want to work with staff and the committee and work to make a plan that meets your interests and our interests and present a product to sell to people who want to live in Plainfield. We have sufficient time, 3 weeks, to refine our plan. Commissioner Manning h ad some specific concerns regarding density, feeling that taking out a couple of lots won’t solve the problem. Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 9 Chairman Sobkoviak concurred, saying that the Village Board will be more critical of density, especially in the townhome area, than the Plan C ommission is. Commissioner Kachel agreed, saying, they are going to be looking at everything – buildings, open space, size of lots. In the past we’ve had some smaller ones come in but I think we’re going to start going the other way. Commissioner Ka chel made the motion to continue case # 911 -091401.AA/PP/Z to allow for revisions for the preliminary plat based on staff and commission comments. Commissioner Gehrke seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for the vote: A motion has been made an d seconded to continue to our next meeting, that of November 6 th , case # 90qq -091401.AA/PP/Z, the Crossings at Wolf Creek, to allow for revisions to the preliminary plat based on staff and commission comments. Vote by roll call, please. AYE: Kachel, Se ggebruch, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak NAY: None The Vote: 7 -0. The motion is carried. This case will be carried forward to our next scheduled regular meeting, November 6 th . Case # 885 -62801.AA, River Point Estates, Petition for Ann exation and Zoning (began at 8:25 p.m.) Planner Carroll gave the report. Staff has learned that the applicant has not submitted the correct engineering documents, but the Plan Commission had already scheduled the hearing and Staff feels it is appropriate for the Plan Commission to deliberate on the project and consider public comment, however, staff is recommending continuing this case to allow the applicant to submit the necessary documents to the Village Engineer. The applicant is hoping to develop f ifty -four (54) acres of agricultural land for a 60 unit single -family residential subdivision. The subject site is located at the northwest corner of River and Fraser Roads with Pinecone Woods to the south, Lewood to the east, and the Du Page River as the western boundary. At this time, the applicant seeks annexation and, zoning, and preliminary plat approval. Issues related to the property and development proposal are outlined below. Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 10 The subject site is not currently contiguous to the Village limits no r are utilities readily available to the site. The applicant is proposing an annexation, which would be necessary to develop the site. The west side of the property is actually part of the Village. Additionally, the applicant will have to bring water an d sewer from the closest Village limits. LAND USE: The applicant’s preliminary plat consists of a single family development providing 60 single family lots; one (1) detention area; open space and landscape buffers. The proposed gross density for the proj ect is 1.11 dwellings per acre. The subject site is located in the Estate district of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan suggests a gross density of approximately 1.11 –1.75 dwelling units per acre for single family residential and an open s pace ratio of approximately 30 -60%. The applicant proposes a gross density of 1.11 and an open space ratio of 39%, so it does appear to be within the Comprehensive Plan threshold. PRELIMINARY PLAT: The preliminary plat indicates an average size of just o ver 17,000 sq. ft. with a minimum lot size of 13,500 sq. ft. and a density of 1.11 du/ac. All lot width and side yards are proposed to meet Village Ordinance. Village requirements are ten (10) foot side yards and eighty -five (85) foot lot widths. Intern al road widths are proposed at 31 feet in 66 feet of right -of -way, which also meets Village requirements. The DuPage River, along the western side of the site impacts the site with significant amounts of floodplain. The applicant provided an 8’ wide bike path along the western edge and it dead ends to the south. Staff would recommend moving it out of the floodway, possibly in the floodplain. Additionally, the path was supposed to dead end. Staff would recommend moving it out to River Road. This is a c ounty subdivision. Staff doesn’t foresee easement for a bike path in this area. Staff would actually recommend the bike path be moved out of the floodplain and bring it out to River Road. The Plainfield Township Park District has actually requested a 60 -foot wide corridor to provide for the bike path. It is Staff’s opinion that with the site’s large lot sizes, perhaps the applicant can cut down a few lot’s sq. footage in accounting for the 60 foot wide path. It could, perhaps, be on the south end of th e site. This would provide some buffer to the lots to the south. STREET ALIGNMENTS: The plan provides for a parallel street pattern with two cul -de -sacs, which terminate into the extension of Easy Street at Lewood Subdivision, Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 11 and an additional access to River Road. Internal streets are 31 feet in 66 feet of right -of -way. This is consistent with Village Ordinance. ANNEXATION: The subject property is currently located in unincorporated Will County and is not yet contiguous to the Village corporate limit s. The applicant, however, is proposing to provide a 300 -foot wide annexation corridor from property to the west of the subject site. ZONING: The applicant has requested R -1 zoning; the Village’s default zoning. The staff Comprehensive Plan identifies t he area as Estate, so it does appear the requests are appropriate. UTILITIES: The applicant will have to bring in utilities from Fraser Road from Vintage Harvest to the site. RECOMMENDATION: A public hearing has been scheduled regarding the annexation an d zoning of this property, all public comment should be considered. Based on the applicant’s preliminary engineering, as well as, a couple of comments in Staff’s report, Staff does recommend a continuance. Should Plan Commission agree, the motion outline d in the staff report is suggested. Applicant is present. Mike Guinta, applicant, spoke for the development. No two homes will be the same. Our intent is to create a product that will sell for between $400,000 -600,000. It will act as a buffer between Pinecone Woods, Lewood, and Vintage Harvest. The product we’re going to have in this subdivision will not have any two homes the same. We’ll have an architectural review committee, which will include a resident from Pinecone Woods. Our square footages w ill be a minimum of 3400 sq. ft. for a two story. Probably, most importantly, will be our concrete drives and brick structures. We’re trying to establish a $400,000 -600,000 product in town, and that should be a good buffer between Lewood and Pinecone Woo ds. We are very close to finalizing our engineering. We have a meeting this Friday with Hamiltons. I think what the Park District is asking of us, with respect to land, 30 -foot easements from east and west from the river to River Road, plus the 100 -foot strip along the river, that the bike path exceeds their requirements for park and open space. I’ll entertain any questions. Chairman Sobkoviak called for questions from the commissioners. Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 12 Commissioner Gehrke wanted clarification about the annexation lo cation. The farm was purchased from the Paul E. Policandriotes family. At the border on the west end of their farm, there is a 300 -foot annex corridor. Commissioner Kachel asked where the sewer and water would be brought down, and he was told it will be brought down Fraser from Vintage Harvest. Commissioner Kachel also had concerns about the location of the bike path and whether Will County will support it in the Master Plan. Mr. Guinta said he has been in contact with the Park District and they are close to a final agreement. They have agreed to loop the bike path around so it doesn’t dead end at the south border. We’re very close to finalizing that, but he has to bring it to his board. He’s actually asking for 30 feet on the east and west portion s and 100 feet along the river. Commissioner Kachel asked about a bridge and felt that the Park District would need to file a report. There was some discussion regarding River Road, which is in an unincorporated area. The Lewood and Pinecone Subdivisi ons will also remain unincorporated for some time. There is the expectation of improvements to Renwick and Fraser Roads, but that is some way down the road. The discussion also included; the widening of River Road and the fact that police already service the area from the high school out and can and do give tickets on River Road but any one who has a problem with their property must call the county. A number of residents were in attendance and voiced a variety of concerns. They included: Brad Whipple, who lives on River Road a few houses from Easy Street, wanted to know if the entrance to the plat will intersect with Easy Street and what kind of landscaping would be put in place there. He was told that one entrance will intersect with Easy Street. Th e other will be 200 feet north of Fraser Road. For the west side, there will be a 3 -foot high and 20 foot wide berm. Each homeowner will landscape their own lots on the east or west end of their lots so it will create a nice fence along River Road. That would be the back of the houses. Scott ________ lives right on River Road and is concerned about possibly being forced to annex and wanted to know how the developers will divert rainwater because the new homes will create an increase in standing water af ter a rain. He was told that the engineers are working to keep Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 13 the water to the west of the subdivision. The Village will only annex the existing subdivision when asked. Jim Talaga had concerns about building a bike path in a floodway. Planner Carrol l agreed that that would be a problem and that the path would have to be moved out of the flood way. There was also discussion about retaining an existing bridge for the aesthetic look and connecting the path to Joliet in compliance with the county’s mast er plan. There has been discussion regarding this in the past and Commissioner Kachel asked Staff to find out if there were any past notes, etc regarding this issue. No one is certain why the Park District wants the 100 feet along the river. The discu ssion also took into consideration the concerns of Cheryl Pommerening, who lives in Pinecone Woods, and wanted to know where the bike path will come out to meet Fraser Road. She was told that there is no definite answer from the Park District, as yet. Ap parently, it will go from the river to a 30 -foot easement between two lots that will allow bikers to access a city sidewalk. Commissioner Kachel wanted clarification that this will distinctly be a bike path and not a sidewalk or street. The feeling was that people using the path would probably have biked from a distance, from their homes. Chairman Sobkoviak explained the basics of the master plan for the bike path. There are a number of bike paths throughout the state. All new bike paths will need to join one of the old main paths so that eventually, if someone wanted to, they would be able to bike to any place in the state, without having to use the roadway. Cheryl felt that the subdivision is very complimentary. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the com missioners had any questions for the petitioner. The discussion involved the cost of the houses being built and some question regarding the shape of the cul -de -sacs. The Village has a specific shape requirement. Mr. Guinta assured the committee that the engineers were looking at it and that they would comply. Chairman Sobkoviak also wanted to know what was going on to the west and if there would be a Home Owners Association. He would like some kind of safety net in place in case the Home Owners Associa tion becomes ineffective at some time in the future. Also, the property to the west of Claire Drive is labeled an outlot. The chair wanted to know who retained ownership of that property. The Home Owners Association will. The committee listed the iss ues that still need to be addressed. They include; a preliminary engineering report, Park District approval and Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 14 explanation of inclusion of bike path into the Master Plan, the bike path itself, and Fraser Road Crossing, as well as, possible need for righ t -of -way, and direction of storm water. Commissioner Schinderle made the motion: I move we continue case# 885 -62801.AA, River Point Estates to allow the applicant to address the concerns addressed in the staff report and concerns expressed by this group tonight. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for the vote. A motion has been made and 2nded to continue case# 885 -62801.AA, River Point Estates Development to allow the applicant to address concerns identified in the sta ff report and those issues identified by the Plan Commission. This should be continued to our November 6 th meeting. Vote by roll call, please. AYE: Kachel, Sebbebruch, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson and Sobkoviak NAY: None The Vote: 7 -0. The motion is carried. This case will be carried forward to our next scheduled regular meeting, November 6 th and at this point I would like to ask the engineer to carefully look at where storm water is going on this property. I know this property. There hav e been problems in the past. Normally all recommendations receiving a positive recommendation have a condition of meeting the concerns of the Village engineer and fire department. Mr. Guinta assured the Commission that they would make any necessary adjus tments to meet the next agenda. Case # 912 -091701.Z/SU/SPR/RP, Bryant . (began at 9:10p.m.) This is a request for zoning, site plan, final plat, and special use for P.U.D. Planner Carroll gave the staff report. The plan includes: a bank and retail, mul ti -use zoning. The applicant requested a re -zoning to B -4. Staff, however, recommended a re -zoning to B -3 and petitioner has agreed. This project will create an entry way into the Village’s downtown historic district. The Chair recalled that the pro perty had a variety of zones and was interested to know when it had been re -zoned. At some point, approximately 15 years previously, there had been a court case involving this particular piece of property. The case involved a restriction of commercial bu ilding to two corners of the intersection. The judge ruled it “arbitrary and capricious”. Chairman Sobkoviak suggested contacting Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 15 Jim Harvey for more details. This portion of the discussion revolved around the commercial history of the property. The report continued with a description of the current zoning of this property, which includes six parcels. South is R -1, east is R -1 and west on Division Street has an R -1, B -1, and B -4. The house was zoned BTD because it was deemed not rentable or saleabl e. The applicant is hoping to develop the southeast corner of Division Street (IL 59) and Main Street (IL 126) to include a 5,900 sq. ft. bank and a 7,800 sq. ft. retail plaza. To develop the corner as requested by the applicant requires the following : Rezoning six parcels from B -1 (Neighborhood Convenience Center District), BTD (Business Transition District), and R -1 (single Family Residential) to a B -4 (Highway Business District): • the whole site is proposed to be zoned B -4 • A special use permit for a Planned Unit Development • Site plan review for commercial property • Final plat to consolidate lots Staff did speak with applicant and applicant did agree to re -zone B -3. The site is located within the area identified for the Village’s Downtown Design Plan and is a very significant property as it presents an entrance into the Village’s downtown area. ZONING: When analyzing the impacts of the rezoning, it is necessary to look at the surrounding property uses and their zoning. North: B -4 (White Hen) South : R -1 (Single Family Residential) East: R -1 (Single Family Residential) West: Division Street, R -1, B -1, B -4 As noted, the applicant has requested B -4 zoning and has indicated B -3 will be acceptable, which permits uses and activities, which are conside red roadside commercial uses. Section 9 -29 of the Village of Plainfield’s Zoning Ordinance identifies the five standards in which to judge amendments. The following is a listing of the five criteria and a brief summary of how the project addresses each o f those. 1) The amendment promotes the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare and complies with the policies, and official land use plan and other official plans of the Village. Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 16 The applicant’s request to rezone the parcels all com mercial appears to comply with the policies and official plans of the Village, however, perhaps the uses in B -3 zoning are more in compliance with the policies and plans of the Village. A commercial request is consistent with the downtown plan but Staff i s concerned the uses identified in the B -4 zoning district would not be appropriate for an entranceway into the Village’s downtown. 2) The trend of development in the area of the subject property is consistent with the requested amendment. The trend of deve lopment in the immediate area is commercial in nature. The northwest and northeast corners of Main and Division Streets are already zoned B -4. The subject property is surrounded by residential uses to the south and east. However, Staff foresees many of these properties being re -zoned to BTD (Business Transition District). The trend of the development area of the subject property is commercial in nature. Staff feels, however, the uses allowed in the B -3 zoning district allows uses more consistent with f uture trends. 3) The requested zoning classification permits uses, which are more suitable than the uses permitted under the existing zoning classification. With the future widening of Rt. 59, the existence of commercial uses in the immediate vicinity, B -4 uses to the north, northwest, and immediately east, it appears a commercial zoning classification permits use, which are more suitable than those existing. 4) The property cannot yield a reasonable use if permitted only under the conditions allowed under the existing zoning classification. The property could be developed with it’s current zoning. However, commercial zoning offers a better potential for this parcel and still be compatible with the Village’s official plans. 5) The amendment, if gra nted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property. Staff feels commercial re -zoning is consistent with the Village’s goals for the area. If a good design is utilized, the site wi ll not be a detriment to surrounding property but an asset by promoting development in character with the neighborhood. Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 17 The applicant is requesting a special use permit for a Planned unit Development (PUD). Village Ordinance requires a forty (40) foot s etback with a minimum of twenty (20) feet of landscaped area. The landscaping shall be designed to provide a year round visual screen of at least seventy -five percent (75%) opacity. The applicant’s current site plan maintains some setbacks of less than f orty (40) feet and less than twenty (20) feet of landscaped area. In addition, it appears the seventy -five percent (75%) visual screen has not been met. Staff is concerned about the buffering and applicant has agreed to increase the buffering. The above are reasons for the PUD request. The Plan Commission should weigh those with the granting of a special use PUD. ANALYSIS: In analyzing the PUD request, the 1 st finding is: 1) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be detrim ental to, or endanger the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed uses in this development should not be a detriment. However, Staff is concerned with the lack of landscaping in light of the reduced buffering. Staff has spoken with appl icant about increasing the buffering and applicant has agreed to. If the applicant intends to reduce required buffer -yards, Staff is of the opinion the landscaping should provide 100% year round screening. Staff is concerned adjacent properties could neg atively be affected by headlights and noise. The 2 nd finding of fact is: 2) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate area for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair prop erty values within the neighborhood. The proposed uses are consistent with the uses in the immediate vicinity and the uses designated in the Downtown Plan for the area. However, the reduced buffer -yards in combination with reduced landscaping could be in jurious to the use and enjoyment of surrounding residential properties. The 3 rd finding of fact is: 3) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the adjacent property for uses permitted with in the district. Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 18 Staff does not foresee the uses impeding normal and orderly development of adjacent properties, but the proposed site plan could negatively impact the adjacent residential uses. SITE PLAN REVIEW: The applicants have submitted plans to co nstruct a 5,900 sq. ft. bank and a 7,800 sq. ft. retail plaza on approximately two and one -half (2 ½) acres. This site is located in an area designated in the Village’s Downtown Plan. PARKING and DRIVE AREA: Access to the site is provided by a full acc ess from Main Street (IL 126) to the north and a right -turn -in right -turn -out from Division Street (IL 59) to the west. Village ordinance requires five and one -half (5.5) parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for retail uses and one (1) par king space for each two hundred and fifty (250) sq. ft. of gross floor area for banks. The bank will contain 5,900 sq. ft. and the retail plaza will accommodate 7,800 sq. ft. of retail space. This will require twenty -four (24 parking spaces for the bank ) the applicant has provided forty -eight (48). Forty -three (43) spaces are required for the retail plaza; the applicant has provided thirty -two (32). It appears the applicant has provided more than enough parking for the bank and could accommodate the ne eded parking for the retail plaza. The proposed plan situates much of the parking and the bank drive through towards the front of the project. The Village’s downtown plan requires buildings to be moved closer to the street to more resemble an historic do wntown. Additionally, Staff requested the consultant who proposed the Downtown Plan to create a site plan based on its principles. Those renderings are included in your packets and depict buildings moved closer to the street. ARCHITETURE: The Site Plan Review Ordinance requires exterior building facades to be constructed with no less than 25% masonry. The proposed bank elevation is approximately 100% masonry with stone inlays and a metal roof. The retail plaza displays a combination of face brick and dryvit, an asphalt roof and aluminum storefronts. The Downtown Guidelines associated with the Downtown Plan emphasize maintaining architectural elements of the historic downtown. This is not to say the historic downtown should be replicated, but the same elements from downtown should be incorporated into the building facades. STORMWATER RETENTION: Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 19 The Village Engineer is reviewing the project to ensure the site plans are graded properly and the storm water will properly drain. A detention area is propo sed along the east end of the site. LANDSCAPING: The approximately 109,260 sq. ft. site will require 146 plantings. It appears the applicant has provided approximately 72 plantings. The applicant will need to increase the number of plantings in additio n to a landscaping site plan. SIDEWALKS: The applicant is proposing sidewalks along both street frontages. TRASH ENCLOSURES: Village Ordinance requires 100% visual screening constructed of masonry or wood. The applicant will need to supply renderings indicating the type of screening proposed. EXTERIOR LIGHTING: Lighting is to be shaded, directed, or otherwise designed to avoid glare onto neighboring residential properties. The applicant has not submitted a lighting plan. Lighting will be important i n this area, as it is adjacent to residential use. FINAL PLAT: The applicant is also requesting final plat to consolidate the lots into one. No major issues are associated with this request. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff feels re -zoning the site to B -3 wi ll be more appropriate for the area as the uses allowed in the B -3 are more compatible with the goals and policies of the Village. As proposed, Staff does not support a special use permit for a PUD. The applicant is requesting reduced buffer -yards but ha s not increased landscaping to reduce negative impacts. Designs suggested by the Village’s consultant, who worked on this Downtown Plan for this area, are included in your packets. These are only suggestions for designs and site plans but it does appear t o show buildings closer to the street could be accomplished through a well -designed plan. With a better site plan, the applicant could increase the buffering near residential uses as required by ordinance. Staff is willing to work with the applicant to design a mutually acceptable plan but Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 20 Staff will not support the proposed plans. Staff recommends continuing this case to allow the applicant to address concerns identified in the Staff report and any concerns raised by the Plan Commission and public. T he applicants are present. The Chair noted the justification for B -3 re -zoning. The applicants present included Carl Bryant, Paul Bryant, and Sherwood _________. Carl Bryant spoke for the petitioners, giving a brief history of the project. The project has been on going for two years.. The development project initially contacted LaSalle Bank and they were forced, due to company constraints to decline inclusion. The project then contacted a number of other concerns including; a Shell food mart, Walgreens , and Osco. Recently, LaSalle expressed a renewed interest in the project. LaSalle is the 8 th largest bank in the world and the building to house this branch of it will cost $250.00 per sq. ft. The applicants have produced four models, so far, in effort s to cooperate with the Village. The Teng model didn’t take into consideration, the widening of Rt. 59 and probable widening of (Rt.) 126. The landscaping could be berm or fence and the petitioners are willing to work with the residents, within reason. The retail section would include convenience type stores such as, Starbucks, a cleaners, etc. The proposal to push the buildings to the front toward the street won’t work. The entrances won’t be seen and the majority of traffic would wind around behind t he buildings increasing the noise, lights, and traffic to the residents behind the property. The current model places only employee parking to the back, which will alleviate a great deal of traffic, noise, and lights as the employees will be parked for a longer time than shoppers coming and going constantly. The model does show how the customer cars will be stacked for the bank. This has caused some concern for Staff, the committee, and for the residents. There is also a concern regarding Central School since it is located so close to the proposed site. Children attending there, take the bus because the traffic in the area is so heavy. In addition, the model shows a monument, at nearly street level, that the Village requested that would include signage with the Village of Plainfield inscribed and possibly the fraternal organizations within the Village, as well. There was discussion among the committee regarding the style, design, decorative features, and relocation of the monument. There was significa nt discussion regarding the placement of the bank. A variety of placements were explained. The discussion also included an extended discussion of the Conrad property and the landscape/buffering issues. The Conrad property has a hard corner, which almost touches the proposed drive/parking for the bank and employees. The proposed landscape/buffer for the Conrad property includes a brick wall that will taper out and down into the surrounding berm. The berm will be Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 21 approximately 5 ft. high and would requir e a base nearly 20 ft. wide. The other resident properties would have either a fence or a berm. Applicant has been talking with residents to come up with a satisfactory landscape buffer that is affordable and reasonable. Currently, the landscape plan is well below the required number of plantings and buffer zone. Mr. Bryant acknowledged this and indicated that this will be corrected and is open to suggestions regarding the landscaping/buffer issue. Commissioners felt that a brick wall would be necessa ry for safety purposes. The applicants, on the other hand, feel that brick will be too expensive. Of particular concern to the commissioners, was the tower monument requested by the Village. Applicant is open to suggestion as to placement of this eleme nt. The signage on the monument would be facing northwest. Petitioners are naturally anxious to move forward, the commission, however, is inclined to take a little more time to allow the applicants to address the concerns voiced by Staff, the commission ers, and the public. The Chair opened questioning to the public. There were a large number of residents present and anxious to voice their concerns. Residents present included the following: Bill and Laura Conrad 736 N. Bartlett; Bob Rahn; Jim Walter, w ho lives at the top lot on Rt 59; Gwen Krahn, who lives on Bartlett Street; and Patricia and John Hall, who live on Bartlett, immediately east of the project. The majority of the resident concerns revolved around the height of the buffering. The prope rties on Bartlett are on a higher elevation than usual. The general consensus is that a 5 or even 8 -foot fence will not be enough to secure their privacy. They prefer a brick fence for noise reduction and reduced headlight intrusion to the backs of their p roperties, instead of the proposed berm. The retention area is also a question, as the proposed 2 -5 feet will probably be too small. The issue of garbage and the drive through ever being a fast food establishment came up. The committee explained that t he drive through zoning is specifically for a bank and the garbage must be contained in an enclosure with 100% screening. Several of the residents were not opposed to the project and found it reasonable and appropriate. They did, nonetheless, have conce rns. Patricia Hall’s greatest concern is the impact of the project and resulting traffic on the street. Bartlett Street is a historic street. It is also very quiet and very appealing. The traffic on Rt. 126 already piles up. The residents have met wi th Chief Bennett regarding this issue and are not satisfied. The value of homes may drop as a result of the increased traffic flow as drivers use Bartlett, Eastern, and Center to avoid Rt. 59. The traffic and water retention cause safety concerns for the children as the neighborhood is in transition and Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 22 families with young children are moving back into the neighborhood. What types of safety valves are in place for this area. The water retention also raises the question of mosquito abetment. Mr. and Mrs. Conrad are very distressed, as their property will be the most closely affected by this project. The property is touched on two sides by the site in question. Their property forms a right angle, in one corner that almost touches the drive and parkin g lot. The five -foot fence is not tall enough, although the brick fence itself is preferable. The Conrads did not purchase this property because of the views. The property has always abutted a commercial property. But the lights, noise, and traffic fr om this setup will be untenable. They are not happy about the amount and depth of the buffering offer; since it will neither deaden the sounds, protect their privacy, nor dim the lights from the traffic. The committee felt that if the elevations on Bartl ett are that high, the Village Engineer should do a study, take pictures, and possibly get some drawings. The committee would need to look at that report before permitting the applicants to go forward. The suggestion was made to use fencing with mature t rees and planting in between to create as adequate as possible privacy screening, and noise/light buffers. The need to look at something that is “least objectionable” exists. The commission wished to ensure that the applicants addressed all the issues at hand before coming back again. The Chair put forward four questions to the committee. 1) Zoning - re -zone the entire property to B -3 will determine whether the project goes forward. The issue of development continuity was raised with regard to the archite cture and preservation of the residential district affected by the project, with setbacks and screening negotiable. The consensus was yes. 2) Special use permit under PUD for the drive -up window in B -3 to be granted it would have to be for a bank drive -up only. The consensus was yes. 3) Site Plan –still need to address the foliage, setbacks, etc. 4) Final Plat - there are some questions still not satisfactorily determined and will need applicant to address these with an effective site plan. Commissioner Schinder le made the motion that we continue case # 912 -0901701.Z to allow the applicant to address the specific concerns we have identified here tonight and the concerns addressed in the staff report. Commissioner Manning seconded. Plan Commission Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 23 Chairman Sobkoviak called for the vote. A motion has been made and seconded to continue case # 912 -0901701.Z to allow the applicant to address concerns identified in the staff report and identified at the Plan Commission public hearing. This case is to be continued to our November 6 t h meeting. Vote by roll call, please. AYE: Kachel, Seggebruch, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson and Sobkoviak NAY: None The Vote: 7 -0. The motion is carried. The discussion of this case will continue on November 6 th . Is there anything else fo r the good of the Committee. The special meeting is on October 23 rd . Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Zenobia Nippert Zenobia Nippert Recording Secretary Karick & Associates, Inc.