Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1995-03-21 PC minutesPLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION DATE: March 21, 1995 AT: Plainfield Library COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Sobkoviak R. Smolich L. Kachel W. Schempf W. Manning A. Anderson ALSO PRESENT: P. J. Waldock, Village Planner Fire District representative J. Djerf, Village Engineer J. Durbin, Planner S. Hart, Secretary Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and led the pledge to the flag. Roll call was taken, R. Schinderle, the Park District, the School District, and Library District representatives were absent. The March 7, 1995 minutes were accepted as amended. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT: Lakewood Nursing Home was approved, and they did agree to put sidewalks around the perimeter as requested and a modified Landscape Plan was submitted and a larger number of shade trees were proposed. Walker's Grove Unit 4 was approved, and Renwick Pointe Unit 2 was approved, the Village grew by 13 acres, as it was also an annexation. County Case for R. Soho[ was tabled, they are negotiating with the Village on an Annexation Agreement, for all 120 acres. OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: CASE NO. 474- 021795.FP LAKELANDS UNIT SIX (2A) Planner Durbin summarized his report as follows: The applicant requests approval of the subdivision and Site Plan Review for Unit #6 of the Lakelands. This unit, also known as Lakeshore Manors, will consist of attached single family dwelling units as provided for in the Lakelands annexation agreement and preliminary plat approval. Fifteen dwelling units are proposed for this plat. The applicant intends to provide private driveways for each individual unit. The applicant prefers the private drives to avoid conflicts that may arise due to shared parking and driveway facilities. The Lakelands Annexation Agreement also refers to 135th Street as a collector street. The Transportation Plan suggests that drives and other curb cuts be minimized on major collectors because of the volumes of traffic or associated speeds. There are several problems associated with shared drives. Shared drives require that the owners share mutual parking facilities. Conflicts may arise. The applicant also suggests that straight private drives minimize damage to landscape from snowplow activities. Most importantly in this case, due to the limited lot depth, shared driveways may limit the amount of green space possible in the front yard, and may indeed be very difficult due to the limited depth and the size of the building footprint. Shared drives may also reduce the number of available off street parking spaces. The preliminary plat was approved with provisions for shared drives (horseshoes and modified tees). Accordingly, this is the best accommodation that can be made for the Transportation Plan with this development. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 21, 1995 Page 2 According to the technical memos, driveways are not typically found on this type of facility, since a higher degree of mobility is desired. Traffic volumes may range from about 5,000 to just less than 14,000 vehicles daily. This suggests that the number of drives be limited to the lowest number possible. To adequately facilitate the provision of shared drives as proposed by the preliminary plat, it may be necessary to modify building footprints and redesign the site. The Annexation Agreement requires that attached single family units be set back at least 20 feet from the pavement. Side to side building separation shall be at least 10 feet, but shall avenge 20 feet for the length of the dwellings on adjoining lots. The proposed site plan complies with the side to side building separation provisions. The buildings are separated by at leastten feet. Fire Department has requested a minimum face to face building separation of twenty feet. This has already been precluded, however, through the approval of the annexation agreement. The Site Plan does not clearly provide for sidewalks /bike paths per the Lakelands master plan. This can be clarified on the Site Plan by noting pavement stripes, signage or other means to identify the bike path. The Site Plan also does not provide the location of street lights. Per the subdivision regulations, street lighting improvements shall be installed to serve all properties within the subdivision. Accordingly, street lights should be provided along 135th. Another issue to consider is monotony. The applicant has provided building elevations for review, however, it appears that all five buildings will be based upon the same basic components. The applicants have demonstrated that the landscape plan will provide some variation, it would also be beneficial to address architectural monotony. This could be addressed through changes in materials, color, setbacks, etc. Staff would recommend that this issue be addressed by the developer. The Site Plan appears to comply with the landscape provisions of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, however, careful consideration should be given to the placement of shade tolerant plants between the buildings. The applicant should verify that curbside trash collection is possible, otherwise trash enclosures will be an issue for consideration. An additional issue for consideration by the developer is the installation and coordination of utilities along 135th Street. Stormwater detention will not be an issue for this unit as it has been accomodated by the Lakelands Development. Staff recommended approval of the Final Plat for Lakelands Subdivision Unit Six subject to the following stipulations: 1. Change the name of the Subdivision to Lakelands, Unit 2A, to correspond with prior Engineering plans approved by the [EPA. 2. Provide shared drives per the approved Preliminary Plat, unless the applicant can demonstrate that this is not feasible. 3. Clarify the means of providing and identifying the bike path 4. Provide a proper Letter of Credit for Street improvements. 5. Provide street lights along 135th street. This should be included on the engineering plans. 6. Address the issue of monotony. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 21, 1995 Page 3 The developer shall pay the appropriate recapture fee for sanitary sewer and water mains if installed by TOPE. 8. All Stipulations must be in compliance before the case goes to the Village Board. Virginia Potter, developer /builder handed out two different plans Plan 1 and 2, with shared driveways. She wanted to keep the size and quality of her development comparable with the Summit Building, the first ten units of the development along 135th Street. The last section of 15 units will have more room for shared driveways, and will balance with the first ten units. But the property in the center, is narrower, and she felt there was not room for shared driveways, if comparable with the firstten buildings. The units are 1800 to 5000 sq. ft. Ms. Potter feltthat shared driveways caused problems, with parking for the residents, turning of vehicles in the confined area, handi -cap vehicles turning, in snow removal, delivery trucks. She felt she could eliminate green space, and make the whole front of the building asphalt, but she preferred the green space. The reasons she preferred the straight driveways were; the parkway type of landscaping, with big trees (6' caliper), there are no driveways across 135th from the development, no one will need to park the ten ft. pedestrian and bicycle path, running along 135th Street, in front of the development. Ms. Potter stated that there will be different facades for the buildings, people can mix and match, she stated that she will not allow the same color or brick on buildings next to each other. There are four different brick selections, and four different color selections. The fire wall between the buildings will be, 1/2 inch drywall, then staggered 2 X 4's, the cavity will be filled with a special cellulose material on both sides, then 5/8 inch drywall on that, on sleepers. It is considered about 95% sound proof, and is a 4 1/2 hour fire wall. J. Djerf, Village Engineer, summarized his March 21, 1995 letter, as follows: We recommend approval of the site plan, subject to receipt of supporting calculations for the revised storm sewer system and grade revisions to allow runoff in excess of storm sewer capacity to flow in the 15 ft. easement between lots 9 and 10 from 135th to the Walloon Lake. Also recommended approval of the final plat, subject to receipt of a proper Letter of Credit. 1. $56,590 for street improvements to 135th St (includes one street light, and 10 ft. pedestrian lane). 2. $3,250 for storm sewer improvements per original design or an amount yet to be determined based on the revised drawings and supporting calculations. (For the cross road culvert, not the entire storm water system.) If it is to be all driveways, and included in storm sewer system, we will need a revised estimate from their engineers, and their supporting calculations. 3. $38,077 for water and sanitary sewer improvements unless same are secured by another Letter of Credit and recapture agreement. Ms. Potter had no objections to any of the stipulations of the Village Engineer. E. Schrader, said that, he was concerned with the building separations, even though the Annexation Agreement has negotiated for 10 ft. He would prefer that the common spaces have only an entry door. Ms. Potter stated that the building separations were 12.6, 15 and 25 ft., with a minimum of windows on the sides. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 21, 1995 Page 4 A long discussion followed concerning, the question of shared driveways, or private drives, the total right -of -way for 135th, (Summit Builders). The Chairman felt that the site was unique, in that the water behind it severely limits the flexibility of the builder, and felt that the lack of driveways across 135th St. was also a factor. He felt that if we could limit curb cuts through the rest of distance along 135th St. it would be possible as a hardship factor, due to the narrow lot. He felt that the private drives were more aesthetically pleasing, rather than the common drives, and there should be no parking in the pedestrian path. W. Manning felt that the developer was trying to do too much with too little land. The problem is it is just too crowded, and that is causing the problem with the parking and manoeuvering in shared drives. He did not like 15 driveways coming out on to a collector street. R. Smolich liked sketch #2, (parallel parking in front of all the units, with just two curb cuts, one for each building). Then the cars won't have to back out on to 135th St. L. Kachel felt he liked the trees, but it was a dangerous situation, because of having to back out on to 135th St. He compared 135th to Rt. 59, he also favored #2. Several problems associated with shared drives were discussed. Shared drives require that the owners share mutual parking facilities. Conflicts may arise when a neighbor has too many guests or blocks another persons access to his /her garage. Due to the limited lot depth, shared driveways may limit the amount of green space possible in the front yard, and may indeed be very difficult due to the limited lot depth and the size of the building footprint. Shared drives may also reduce the number of available off street parking space. The applicant also suggested that straight private drives minimize damage to landscaping from snow plow activities. The Commission discussed at length the fact that 135th Street is proposed as a major collector. This unit is located at the narrowest area along the north side of 135th Street. The Plan Commission found that shared drives would tend to increase the amount of pavement required, and reduce the green space available. Commissioners also found that due to the limited depth available, vehicular access would to be difficult and the off - street parking would be reduced significantly. The existing townhomes to the west were developed with a shared drive, however, these had the benefit of greater site depth. The applicant indicated to the Plan Commission that as they continue construction to the east, shared drives will again be feasible. Jerry Clark, Lakelands Corporation spoke as seller of the property. He felt that when the Preliminary Plat was approved, the lines on the plat didn't show that there wouldn't be truly enough room for the vehicular access, and he did not care for the additional hard surface. He preferred more green space. He also said that the original intent of the 1 oft. bicycle path was overflow parking, and bicycle and pedestrian path. He felt that there would be less parking on the street with private drives, than shared drives, as there would be room for four cars in each private driveway. The Commissioners did not like parking in the bicycle /pedestrian path, as the visibility backing out on to 135th Street would be limited. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 21, 1995 Page 5 J. Djerf, Village Engineer, suggested removing the trees from the parkway, and moving them further from the street, as the present position of the trees, would interfere with the Village utilities. Chairman Sobkoviak, felt that on the basis of aesthetics, that private drives met more of our goals than did the shared drives. R. Smolich asked why the requirements of the Village Engineer was not a stipulation, and Planner Waldock stated it was an oversite. The Commission decided to add that stipulation, and one to restrict parking on the pedestrian /bicycle path. Planner Waldock suggested a compromise, between the proposed plan, and sketch #2. A "Y" driveway approach. The Plan Commission also discussed a number of options which could reduce the number of curb cuts. These included "Y "'s, double wide drives, modified horseshoes, and reconfiguring the garage /drive layout. L. Kachel made a motion to table the case, until there is a better plan for the driveways on 135th Street. Seconded A. Anderson. Vote by roll call. R. Smolich, no; L. Kachel, yes; W. Schempf, no; W. Manning, yes; A. Anderson, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, no. 3 yes, 3 no. Motion does not carry. J. Clark, asked for some action now, he felt that all that could be done with the site had been done. There have been many plans prepared and discarded. He did not feel that 15 more days would accomplish what the Commissioners saw as the problem. Chairman Sobkoviak called for another motion. W. Manning made a motion that the plan not be approved. Seconded L. Kachel. Vote by roll call. R. Smolich, no; L. Kachel, yes; W. Schempf, no; W. Manning, yes; A. Anderson, no; Chairman Sobkoviak, no. 4 no, 2 yes. Motion does not carry. A. Anderson made a motion that the plan be approved with the "Y" format driveway approach (Sketch #1, the building on the right). Including the 8 stipulations on the Staff Report, plus the two added by the Plan Commission, regarding the stipulations of the Village Engineer, and no parking on the bicycle /pedestrian path. No second, motion withdrawn. R. Smolich made a motion to approve the plan as presented, including the 8 stipulations on the Staff Report, plus the two added by the Plan Commission, regarding the stipulations of the Village Engineer, and no parking on the bicycle /pedestrian path. The stipulation number 2 would not apply as the applicant has demonstrated that shared driveways are not feasible. No second, after a short discussion, regarding site constraints, W. Manning felt the site was being over built in terms of the number of units and the layout may be insensitive to the constraints of the site, and regarding what would happen now with out a recommendation. R. Smolich made a motion again, to approve the plan as presented, including the 8 stipulations on the Staff Report, plus the two added by the Plan Commission, regarding the stipulations of the Village Engineer, and no parking on the bicycle /pedestrian path. The stipulation number 2 would not apply as the applicant has demonstrated that shared driveways are not feasible. Second by W. Schempf. Vote by roll call. R. Smolich, yes; L. Kachel, no; W. Schempf, yes; W. Manning, no; A. Anderson, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes; 2 no, 4 yes. Motion carried. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 21, 1995 Page 6 476- 022195.FP HARVEST GLEN UNIT TWO Planner Waldock summarized his report as follows: This application is a request for Final Plat approval for Harvest Glen Unit Two. The Preliminary Plat for Harvest Glen Subdivision was approved on January 8, 1994. The approval was granted subject to twelve stipulations. Each of the stipulations of the Preliminary Plat approval have been accomplished or will be accomplished by the developer. The original Preliminary Plat proposed the development of 240 Single- family homesites on a tract of 104 acres. Average lot sizes for the subdivision exceed 12,000 sq. ft. however, minimum lot size was approved at no less than 10,000 sq. ft. in area. Development of the subject property is regulated by an approved Annexation Agreement. Key features of the Annexation Agreement provide for $325.00 per unit impact fee, which will be paid at the time of building permit issuance, also provision of a requirement for recapture fees associated with Pilcher Road (effecting the 223 ft. frontage of Unit Two). Also included in the Annexation Agreement and Preliminary Plat was the provision for flashing lights, to provide a cross walk warning. Since this Unit adjoins the 135th St. intersection at Round Barn Road of (Walker's Grove Subdivision), Staff feels that the crosswalk signal lighting should be accomplished with this unit. They are asking for a revision in the Unit layout to accommodate a temporary access for construction traffic. That would result in not developing Lots 95 or 96 until Unit Three is completed and the road access that is planned is established. Because the Annexation Agreement called for the flashing crosswalk light, with Unit Three, Staff felt that the best alignment would be at Round Barn Road, since then an alternate site was discussed at the park site, with Walker's Grove. The street access will be at Savannah. The developers have suggested a temporary flashing light until a final decision has been reached. In accordance with Village policy it will be necessary for the applicants to gain IDOT approval prior to release of the Final Plat of the Village of Plainfield. Staff recommended approval subject to the following stipulations: Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with provisions of the Plainfield Fire District. 3. Compliance with the Illinois Department of Transportation requirements. 4. Provide proper Letters of Credit as approved by the Village Attorney and in the amount approved by the Village Engineer. 5. Provide a recapture payment of 50% of the roadway costs along the frontage of Unit Two in the amount of $13,409.40. This payment shall be made prior to release of the record plat. 6. Provide for installation of pedestrian crossing at Round Barn Road to include flashing warning lights, in accordance with the Preliminary Plat and Annexation Agreement approvals. Staff would not object to that being a temporary location. 7. Provide for public sidewalk along 135th Street right -of -way through the frontage of this unit. 8. All stipulations must be in compliance before the case goes to the Village Board. R. Selfridge stated that they were in substantial agreement with the stipulations of the Planner. He also stated that a permanent crosswalk will be put in at the completion of Unit Three. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 21, 1995 Page 7 Chairman Sobkoviak stated that a permanent crosswalk with flashing light will be put in at the completion of Unit Three, should be added to stipulation #6. J. Djerf, Village Engineer, added that the sidewalks had been added on to the Letter of Credit, and he wanted it shown on the construction plan. After a short discussion by the Plan Commission regarding the location of the crosswalk, W. Manning made a motion to approve the Final Plat for Walker's Grove Unit Two, subject to the stipulations of the Planner and stipulation number 6 as amended by the Chairman. Seconded L. Kachel. Vote by roll call. R. Smolich, yes; L. Kachel, yes; W. Schempf, yes; W. Manning, yes; A. Anderson, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes; 6 yes 0 no. Motion carried. CASE NO. 472- 022595.FP LAKELANDS UNIT FOUR Planner Waldock summarized his report as follows. The revised Preliminary Plat for Lakelands Subdivision was approved on October 16, 1989. The Plat was further revised on March 6, 1995 to accommodate alteration of four lots along the intersection of Marina Drive with Wood Duck Drive and slightly widen each of the lots as shown on the current Unit Four Final Plat. All lots are designed in accordance with the Annexation Agreement for the Lakelands Subdivision. Typically, the single - family lots in this unit will exceed 90 ft. in width and 190 ft. in depth. However, a portion of each lot does extend into the adjoining lake. This type of lot configuration is consistent with previous approvals for single- family lots within the Lakelands Subdivision. No major issues are associated with the Final Plat as presented. Staff recommended approval of the Final Plat for Lakelands Unit Four, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with provisions of the Plainfield Fire District. 3. Provide Letters of Credit in the form approved by the Village Attorney, and the amount approved by the Village Engineer. 4. All stipulations must be in compliance before the case goes to the Village Board. J. Djerf, Village Engineer, summarized his report. The T/F or top of foundation elevations are less than the required 18 ". The T/F is proposed to be typically 0.8 ft, or 10" higher than the street based on consideration for walkout levels above the lake. The developer has requested a variance, and the Engineer had no objection. Chairman Sobkoviak suggested that the stipulation to approve the variance for reduction in T /F. After a short discussion, L. Kachel made a motion to approve the plan for Lakelands Unit Four subject to the five stipulations of the Planner. Seconded W. Manning. Roll call vote, R. Smolich, yes; L. Kachel, yes; W. Schempf, yes; W. Manning, yes; A. Anderson, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes; 6 yes 0 no. Motion carried. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 21, 1995 Page 8 J. Durbin gave a short slide presentation of Lane Kendig's Cluster Development "The Fields" of Long Grove Illinois. Sharon Hart, Secretary PLAINFIELD Will • UOUNTrit • OLOUT • GUMVUR " Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting on March 20, 1995. Please sign this sheet for our official records. 011/0 I i k l e 11 r q -PL- r jb fl as AV 6(-OAj -le I er", q -j eL 1�5ea P, OffA W 046-f., t 6O C31