HomeMy Public PortalAbout2001-12-18 PC minutesVillage of Plainfield Plan Commission Record of Minutes Date: Tuesday, December 18 th , 2001 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:01pm. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Seggebruch, Kachel, Gehrke, Manning, Schind erle, Manning, Sobkoviak Absent: Fire District, Library District, Park District, School District Before commencing with the first case, Chairman Sobkoviak took a moment to thank his fellow commissioners and staff members for their hard work during the Wa l -Mart case. He expressed his appreciation for the dedication displayed throughout that period. Minutes After calling for any necessary changes to the previous minutes and hearing none, Chairman Sobkoviak declared the minutes accepted as presented. Old Business CASE NO.: 917 -101901.PP/SU (Commissioner Gehrke left the room for the case.) Planner Carroll gave the staff report: the applicant is seeking to develop 65 acres of land, with the intent of building approximately 127 single -family units. The p roperty is currently zoned R -1. Staff feels that the applicant could meet the village requirements in this project. A PUD has been requested by the petitioner at the village’s prodding. The applicant interjected that the revised plan actually calls fo r 130 lots. Other issues raised in the staff report included a fence around a farm pond that could possibly pose a safety hazard to children playing nearby. Questions as to who would maintain the fence, be it the homeowners’ association or an individual property owner arose as well. Commissioner Manning asked Planner Carroll why a fence is needed.
Village of Plainfield Pan Commission Minutes from 12/18/01 Bill Caton (property owner mentioned previously) said that the banks of the pond are steep and the waters range in depth from 3 feet to over 14 feet. The ap plicant’s attorney raised two other issues about which the applicant had concerns. First was the question on reduced side -yard setbacks. He said that those would only be applicable to those lots that could be seen. Chairman Sobkoviak asked how many lo ts that represents. The applicant said that it represents 10 to 15 percent of the lots. In response to Commissioner Anderson’s question of how close the structures on the lots would be, the applicant said that they would try not to put 80 -foot lots toget her and have alternating lots of 80 and 85 feet next to each other. The other concern the applicant had was in reference to two lots that staff suggested the applicant “lose” in order to open up the vista in that section. If we lose those lots, said th e applicant, then we have to further reduce the minimum widths of the other lots in order to keep the lots looking relatively uniform. We would object to this suggestion. John Martin (also representing the applicant) went through the evolution of the p roject over the last nine months. He suggested an alternate compromise. Instead of “losing” the two lots, take some footage from lots in the questionable area to open up the vista in the southeast corner of the development. He said that the houses have been positioned in such a way so that the park is most visible when entering the subdivision. Commissioner Schinderle asked Mr. Martin how the houses on the fringe of the development have access to the park. Chairman Sobkoviak reiterated staff’s concer n over the identification of the key lots in the subdivision. He said that perhaps a covenant should be created to prevent the owners of the key lots from building fences that protrude beyond the building. – There was discussion of the strength of suc h a covenant in a court of law – The type of fencing allowed for homeowners was resolved: a 4 -foot spaced -picket fence would be allowed if homeowners wished to build one. Commissioner Seggebruch asked what the reason was for alternating key lots along Fraser Road. Chairman Sobkoviak reminded the participants that the issue of the pond still needed to be resolved. The applicant said that they don’t feel they are responsible for putting a fence in. If the homeowners feel a safety risk is present, they can put a fence around their property. The decision should be left up to them. 2
Village of Plainfield Pan Commission Minutes from 12/18/01 Commissioner Kachel suggested that if a fence were presented under the PUD, the cost of the fence would be spread out over all the homeowners, not any one specific owner. The applicant indicated that he is willing to put up a 4 -foot cyclone fence around the northwest outlots. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the other commissioners whether they had any objections to the applicant’s request not to remove the two southeast lots (in ord er to open up the vista). Commissioner Schinderle said that he sided with the applicant. – There was some discussion over the differences between older plans and the current one – Commissioner Kachel stated that there should be a stipulation that the Par k District must review the site plan. Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the discussion to the public at this time. Jim Talaga asked whether a berm would be used to buffer his property and the new subdivision. The applicant said that he is willing to put land scaping in that location. Bill Caton (property owner with concerns about the farm pond) said that the chain link fence offered by the applicant should be vinyl coated. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Mr. Caton whether he would be willing to have the fence put o n his property. Mr. Caton said that he would like to discuss the issue with the developer. Mr. Leebend (applicant) said that he’d rather fence the pond. Commissioner Schinderle moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat and special use permit f or a Planned Unit Development subject to the stipulations outlined in the staff report as well as an added stipulation that a chain link fence be constructed around the border of the northwest outlots. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman So bkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Seggebruch, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0:1 with Commissioner Gehrke abstaining 3
Village of Plainfield Pan Commission Minutes from 12/18/01 New Business CASE NO.: 923 -112601.SU LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE Request: Speci al Use (public hearing) Location: 623 W. Lockport Applicant: Kurt Stalzer & Plainfield Moose Planner Garrigan presented the staff report: The applicant is seeking a special use that would allow him to operate a fraternal lodge out of 623 W. Lockport Stree t. The applicant is the owner of Peyla Electric building and is the current occupant of 623 W. Lockport Street. The applicant has authorized the Plainfield Moose Lodge to act as his agent in this special use application. The operation of a fraternal lod ge / meeting hall would require a special use in the B -5 Overlay District. The applicant’s agent is seeking to relocate their fraternal lodge to the Peyla Electric building which is located on approximately 0.49 acres in the Village’s downtown. The pro posed use of a portion of the existing Peyla Electric building by the applicant should not have any detrimental effect on any of the adjoining or surrounding properties. The character of the applicant’s proposed fraternal lodge would be consistent with ma ny of the civic uses that can be found downtown, specifically the Masonic Lodge located at 529 W. Lockport Street. The applicant is proposing to use approximately 3,250 square feet of the Peyla Electric building for their fraternal lodge. The proposed us e of a portion of 623 W. Lockport Street should not impede the normal and orderly development or redevelopment of any of the surrounding property. The applicant’s proposed special use is consistent with many of the surrounding commercial, civic and frater nal organizations that are already located in the Village’s downtown. ISSUES The applicant’s use of this site will require the incorporation of a new access to Des Plaines Street. Currently, access to the Peyla Electric building is limited to the single lane alley that connects to Lockport Street. The applicant is proposing to build a parking lot to the east of the existing Peyla Electric building to provide the additional parking to this lot. Access to this new parking lot would be provided via a new a ccess drive that would be constructed on the Village owned lot just to the north of the Peyla Electric building. After conferring with the Village Attorney, staff is proposing that a license be granted to the owner of 623 W. Lockport Street that would pro vide him access through the Village -owned lot and the Des Plaines parking lot. In addition to the proposed access drive, the owner of this site is also requesting permission to allow Commonwealth Edison to reconfigure the existing utility connections to this site and run new utility connections through the Village -owned lot. 4
Village of Plainfield Pan Commission Minutes from 12/18/01 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Village Attorney draft the appropriate ordinance approving a special use for the Moose lodge to operate a fraternal lodge at 623 W. Lockport Street subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Fire Protection District. 3. Providing staff with a proposed parking plan that demonstrates that there will be ade quate parking for the operation of a fraternal lodge on this site. 4. The incorporation of an access drive to Des Plaines Street. (Commissioner Gehrke re -enters 8:24pm.) Commissioner Kachel noted that putting the driveway in cuts the village property in hal f. Chairman Sobkoviak said that that is an issue to be taken up with the Village and not within the Plan Commission’s scope. Commissioner Manning asked whether this property has parking already. Several commissioners had questions as to the layout of th e parking lot, when the move would actually take place, and what the capacity of the building was. Kurt Stalzer (petitioner) showed the commission the details of the site and answered the questions. Commissioner Kachel moved to recommend approval for s pecial use subject to the stipulations outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Seggebruch, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: None The mo tion is carried 7:0 5
Village of Plainfield Pan Commission Minutes from 12/18/01 CASE NO.: 921 -111601.SU/SPR Request: Site Plan Review, Special Use (public hearing) Location: Southwest corner of R oute 59 & 135 th Street Applicant: Ron March & Associates Dale Drayna presented the staff report: The applicant is seeking to amend the previously approved PUD for Plainfield Commons to allow a bank with a drive through, as well as seek approval of the Sit e Plan Review for Lot 5 of the Plainfield Commons subdivision. The Village Board recommended approval of the special use for a planned unit of the special use for a planned unit development (PUD) for this subdivision in May of 2001. Subject for considera tion at this time is the amendment to the previously approved PUD as well as approval of a Site Plan Review for Lot 5 of the Plainfield Commons. SPECIAL USE The Village recognizes there are certain uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cann ot be properly classified in any particular district or districts, without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses upon adjacent land and of the public need for a particular use in the particular location. ANALYSIS The uses that have be en proposed previously have been consistent with the zoning of this property, which is B -3. The applicant’s proposal of a bank with a drive -thru for lot 5 is a special use in the B -1 or B -2 zoning districts. Staff does have some concern about the number of banks that have been proposed at this intersection as well as throughout the village. Currently, there are two other banks that have been proposed for two of the Jewel Outlots. There is also already a bank located inside of the Jewel store. SITE PL AN REVIEW The site is 1.43 acres with a 3,645 sq. ft. bank with a drive -thru. The site has a floor area ration of 0.40, which meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. PARKING AND DRIVE AREAS For financial institutions, the Village Ordinance requir es one parking space for every 250 sq. feet of gross floor area and ten stacking spaces or five additional parking spaces for a drive -thru. Also, in accordance with the Illinois Accessibility Code, two handicapped parking spaces are required within the de velopment. The applicant’s proposed 3,645 sq. ft. bank requires 14 parking spaces and two handicapped spaces. The applicant’s plan indicates 36 parking spaces with an additional two handicapped spaces located in the front of the building. ARCHITECTURE A goal of the PUD is to coordinate the character of the site; architecture is an important component of the character. The Site Plan Review ordinance requires exterior building facades be constructed with no less than 25% masonry unless specifically approv ed by 6
Village of Plainfield Pan Commission Minutes from 12/18/01 the village board. A colored architectural façade has been submitted for the subject property. The building will consist of face brick throughout the entire building, incorporated with several glass windows around the facades. The rooflines have b een broken up by the shape of the building as well as the half circle roof vents. These elements break up the monotony of the rooflines on the bank. LANDSCAPING The 1.43 -acre lot requires a minimum of 85 approved plantings. The proposed landscape plan p rovides a total of 217 plantings. Staff had concerns about the lack of landscaping around the monument sign. The applicant has stated that the bank will add a significant amount of landscaping to their site plan to be in compliance with the master plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the special use to amend the PUD for Plainfield Commons subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the provisions of the Fire Protection Dist rict. Staff furthermore recommends approval for the Site Plan Review for Lot 5 of Plainfield Commons subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the provisions of the Fire Protection Dis trict. 3. Adjust parking stall lengths from 18 feet to 18.5 feet. 4. Expand the 24 -foot wide drive isle between parking spaces on the west side to 26 feet. 5. Provide a photometric plan prior to going to the Village Board. 6. Pay applicable recapture fees. 7. Provide add itional landscaping to meet or exceed the PUD’s master landscape plan. 8. Designate trash enclosures. 9. Landscape monument sign. Ron March is the petitioner and was present. He outlined the handouts he gave the commission and explained some of the architectu ral details of the plan. He said, “banks are one of the elements that fuel the expansion of areas like Plainfield because of the need for local loan access”. He also said that banks have uses and incorporate styles that lend well to success and long life . Commissioner Schinderle asked how traffic from IL 59 would access the site. Mr. March said that there would be full access from IL 59. Gil Rangburke, president of 1 st National Bank, voiced his support for the project. He stated that he felt that th e high number of banks in the area would inspire friendly competition – competition that would benefit the consumer. 7
Village of Plainfield Pan Commission Minutes from 12/18/01 Chairman Sobkoviak inquired about the ATM location. Mr. Rangburke assured the commissioners that the bank would be built in an aestheti cally pleasing manner. Commissioner Seggebruch expressed his failure to see the need for an outer ATM. Having one makes what he saw as an already lacking green area even smaller. He felt that the architecture was nice, but that the amount of pavement is at a level that doesn’t support the building aesthetically. Mr. March commented that the current plans not only meet the Village requirements but also exceed them. Commissioner Seggebruch said that he would like to see the petitioner come back to allow for adjustment of the plans according to his request for more green space. Mr. Rangburke said that they feel a distinct need for the outer ATM to relieve the drive -thru ATMs. “We would rather have more green area than asphalt, but you can’t always do tha t.” – Discussion of Village requirements – Commissioner Manning moved to recommend approval for special use as well as Site Plan Review for Lot 5 subject to the stipulations outlined in the Staff report. Commissioner Schinderle seconded the motion. Chai rman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Gehrke, Schinderle, Manning, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: Seggebruch The motion is carried 6:1 CASE NO.: 922 -111601.SPR/SU/Z/PP CROSSROADS BUSINESS CENTER Request: Site Plan Review, Preliminary Pl at, Special Use & Zoning (public hearing) Location: Southeast corner of 143 rd Street & Route 30 Applicant: Ron March & Associates Planner Carroll presented the Staff report: The applicant is hoping to develop approximately 160 acres of industrial zoned ag ricultural land for the construction of a business park together with a residential component to include duplexes and townhomes. Accommodating this request requires rezoning portions of the site from I to B -1, B -3, and R -3, a special use for a PUD to allo w a bank with a drive through, and gas station in the 8
Village of Plainfield Pan Commission Minutes from 12/18/01 B -3 district, and preliminary site plan review as part of the PUD. The subject site is located at the southeast corner of 143 rd and Route 30. ISSUES Zoning: What is the appropriate zoning for the pr operty? Special Use: Does the proposal meet the requirements of and merit issuance of a special use permit for a planned unit development? REZONING The Village of Plainfield’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map identifies the subject area as being located in the Village and Suburban and Business Park Districts. Additionally, the text of the Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial uses at intersections or nodes. Staff foresees the undeveloped corners of 143 rd and Route 30 as future commercial nodes and this request is consistent with this vision. The applicant is requesting the southern portion of the site to be zoned R -3. This district of the zoning ordinance allows moderate density single -family attached residences. Large industrially zoned property typi cally requires close proximity to major highways like I -55 or I -80 to be compatible with the uses in industrially zoned property and their modes of transportation. The subject property is located relatively far away from major highways, which makes it les s suitable for an industrial use. Commercial sites and high volumes of traffic mark the general character of the neighborhood. The trend for additional development near the node is commercial in nature and to the south is residential in nature. Staff fe els a combination of residential and commercial zoning with a reduced industrially zoned property is consistent with the Villages goals for the area. It appears the requested rezoning is in compliance with the Village of Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. SPEC IAL USE The uses proposed in this development should not be detrimental to or endanger public health, safety or general welfare. The applicant is requesting banking facilities and an automobile service station in B -3. Banking facilities are allowed in th e B -1 and B -2 zoning districts while automobile service stations are special uses in the B -3 and allowed by right in the B -4. Staff would recommend limiting the number of banks and service stations in the B -3 zoning district to one each. Also recall a po rtion of the site is proposed to be zoned B -1, which would allow banks, for example, by right. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant’s plan consists of a mixed -use residential development providing 108 duplexes; 196 townhomes; multiple park sites; detention area s; open space and landscape buffers. The proposed gross density for the project is 3.95 dwelling units per acre. The net density, (the density excluding floodplain/open space/detention) is substantially higher. The Village Board and Plan Commission have typically supported a maximum 9
Village of Plainfield Pan Commission Minutes from 12/18/01 gross density of 2.5 du/ac. The highest density supported by the Board to date has been 3.5 du/ac in the areas southwest of the Village. If the Plan Commission is inclined to approve side yard setbacks of less than 10 feet and front yards of less than 30 feet, Staff is of the opinion each lot should have a minimum landscape package including canopy trees, evergreens, and shrubs. The comprehensive plan suggests gross densities in the range of 2.06 to 3.20 dwelling units pe r acre. The Comprehensive Plan would recommend an open space ratio of 30 to 35 percent. As noted, the applicants’ project proposes a gross density of 3.95 du/ac and open space consists of 37 acres (this figure includes all of the stormwater retention are as). While the open space is well within the Comprehensive Plan’s threshold, the density ratio falls short of the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendation and past Village policy. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW The Village Engineer has raised some concerns rela tive to the location and number of curb cuts onto 143 rd Street and U.S. 30. Currently 143 rd Street and U.S. 30 are under the jurisdiction of Will County and IDOT. However, U.S. 30 south of 143 rd will become a local street at some point in the future wit h 143 rd Street becoming U.S. 30. In particular, the Village Engineer has recommended the following changes: – The northerly entrance on Route 30 should be right -in -right -out only. – The two westerly driveways on 143 rd Street should be eliminated. – The 143 rd S treet driveway just west of the strip center should be right -in -right -out only. – The service drive behind the strip center should not be connected to 143 rd Street or the east -west collector road. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends continuing the case until Ja nuary 15, 2001. Ed Petka, attorney for the petitioner, made some opening remarks. Ron March presented, saying first that he was excited to work with this opportunity, which he described as “like working with a blank canvas”. He stated that they were try ing to buffer the north parcel (industrial) by putting in a business park, a retail center to the west and residential to the south. Jack Benning, a Principal at Ives Ryan, presented the developers’ plans. The entire piece is comprised of approximately 1 64 acres. Parcels A, B, and C constitute the industrial/retail sections, while D is residential. The commercial retail section is envisioned as attorney’s offices, daycare, or some other low intensity uses. Access is critical to the success of a retai l center. As such, large truck traffic will be confined to the rear of buildings. There are three primary access points to the industrial 10
Village of Plainfield Pan Commission Minutes from 12/18/01 park off of 143 rd Street. A substantial buffer will exist between the industrial and residential parcels. All unit s will have two -car garages. The fiscal impact of this development will pan out in the following way: the entire project will generate some $1.8 million for the Village at a cost of approximately $500,000. A projected 113 students are anticipated in the residential section, creating a $2 million infusion of revenue for the school district at a cost of around $582,000. In short, the profits far outweigh the costs of this development. Christopher Zell of Newman Homes provided some background on his compan y as well as some of the reasons he was excited to be working on this project. Commissioner Schinderle asked if there was a way to make sure all houses wouldn’t be looking at garages across the street. Commissioner Kachel suggested that having some 3 -sto ry homes would make for more of a variation in looks in this development. Commissioner Manning voiced his opinion that having 300 houses with 300 garages ultimately shows a lack of creativity. – Discussion about density levels and prices – Chairman Sobko viak asked the Village Engineer whether he had any concerns regarding this project, to which he replied that the interior residential streets should be designated public roads. Homeowners Associations typically do not have the wherewithal to keep streets up to standards. Mr. March voiced strong objections to this stipulation. A discussion of the merits (or the lack thereof) for designating the streets as public ensued. Chairman Sobkoviak called for any further concerns. Commissioner Anderson requested more pictures, some being in 3D, for the next meeting. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval for a continuance. Commissioner Manning seconded the motion. 11
Village of Plainfield Pan Commission Minutes from 12/18/01 Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Seggebruch, Kachel, Gehr ke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0. After wishing commissioners, staff, and audience a Merry Christmas, Chairman Sobkoviak declared the meeting adjourned at 10:56pm. ____________ Respectfully submitted, Warren Lindsay Warren Lindsay Recording Secretary Karick & Associates 12