HomeMy Public PortalAbout1995-06-06 PC minutesPLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
DATE: June 6, 1995 AT: Plainfield Library
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Sobkoviak
K. O'Connell L. Kachel
T. Spika A. Anderson
ALSO PRESENT: P. J. Waldock, Development & Zoning Director
Library District representative
School District representative
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, W. Manning, R. Schinderle, the Park and Fire District representatives were absent.
The April 18, May 2, and May 16 1995 minutes were approved as presented.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT:
Renwick Pointe Unit 2 revision was approved with 85 ft. lots, with 24 lots and 3 car garages.
Post Office is concerned with the reactions of the Village, the Post Office does not want to be told
what to do by the Village. There was a short discussion regarding the different solutions possible
for the Post Office.
The Development Committee has developed a Flow Chart for the cases coming to the Village.
June 26th is the Public Hearing for the Comprehensive Plan with the Plan Commission and Village
Board.
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. 489-052395.FP DEDICATION PLAT FOR HUNT CLUB LANE
Planner Waldock summarized his report as follows: Part of the approval process for Cambridge
Place of Plainfield, is that access must be provided to the subject site via a dedicated roadway. The
Final Plat for the Reserve Subdivision, Unit 1, includes Hunt Club Lane. However, the developer's
timing for recording of Phase I does not meet with the needs of Cambridge for their subdivision.
Therefore, the TOPE Corporation is asking for early dedication of the roadway for Hunt Club Lane.
This dedication plat is intended for the purpose of providing public street access to Cambridge Place
Subdivision. The dedication plat extends Hunt Club Lane along the west perimeter of Cambridge
Place project. This right-of-way will be improved by TOPE Corporation as part of their contractual
obligations with Cambridge Homes. A Letter of Credit in the format required by the Village and in
the amount approved by the Village Engineer will be provided prior to recording of the dedication
plat. No major issues are associated with this plat. Therefore, Staff finds no objection to the request
as presented.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
June 6, 1995
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Dedication Plat for Hunt Club Lane as presented with the
following stipulations:
1) Comply with requirements of the Village Engineer.
2) Provide proper Letter of Credit in the format and amount required by the Village.
After discussion, L. Kachel made a motion to recommend to the Village Board the approval of the
Hunt Club Lane dedication subject to the two stipulations of the Planner. Seconded by A. Anderson.
Roll call vote. K. O'Connell, yes; L. Kachel, yes; T. Spika, yes;
A. Anderson, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes . Motion carried. 5 yes, 0 no.
CASE NO. 490- 052495.AAA THE RESERVE SUBDIVISION
Planner Waldock summarized his report as follows: TOPE Corporation has made a sales contract
with Kimball Hill Homes and William Ryan Homes to purchase all but four (4) of the lots within the
first phase of the Reserve Subdivision. TOPE has requested an amendment, through the contract
purchasers, for a Text Amendment to provide relief from page 16 of covenants.
Paragraph b. Building sides and rear may incorporate the same materials as the front; except when
aluminum or vinyl is used, the front shall be an all masonry front including all bays, returns and
garage fronts.
These covenants are above and beyond the requirements of the Village, and were offered in
exchange for smaller lot sizes of 8500 sq. ft. This is an example of clustering. Density is just over
2 units per acre.
At issue with this request is the inclusion of Subdivision Covenants that provide for brick faced
facades when vinyl or aluminum siding is used on the homesites. Both William Ryan and Kimball
Hill home designs utilize aluminum or vinyl siding. The builders prefer to use a combination of
brick and vinyl facades, rather than all brick as specified in the Covenants that were made part of
the Annexation Agreement. The builders believe they can utilize their standard building elevations,
and meet the original goals and objectives of the Annexation Agreement.
They are also requesting a revision of the covenants to allow driveway widths of 17 ft. rather than
18 ft.
Page 16. Paragraph h. Each driveway will have a minimum width of 18 ft and allow for off - street
parking of at least two cars.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed Amendment to the Subdivision Covenants would delete the requirement for brick
facades for single - family homes. This will allow the market, as the only controlling factor, for the
use of brick in facades for single - family homes at the Reserve Subdivision. Kimball Hill and William
Ryan Homes use aluminum or vinyl siding on all four sides of most elevations.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
June 6, 1995
Page 3
The homes proposed by the applicants in this case are within the anticipated price range expected
as part of the Annexation Agreement. However, the floor area indicated in the Kimball Hill
submittal ranges from 1,714 to 2,622 square feet in area. The Annexation Agreement requires 1,400
square foot minimums for 1 story dwellings and 1,800 square foot minimums for 2 story dwellings.
Therefore, the 1,700 square foot homes proposed by Kimball Hill and William Ryan Homes could
only be allowed if they are single -story structures. This provision is not requested for Amendment
in the Agreement.
The brick facade issue was an important issue at the time of the original approval of the Annexation
Agreement. Consideration of this issue, therefore, should not be taken likely. It would appear that
each of the builders will use aluminum or vinyl as their chosen siding material for portions of each
of their buildings. Staff believes that brick should be maintained, therefore, on the front facades of
each of the elevations that include the use of aluminum or vinyl siding on the sides or rear.
However, Staff would not object to the use of a reduced amount of brick in homes that also use
vinyl or aluminum siding. It is suggested that the minimum amount of brick acceptable to Staff
would then be face brick used on the building face parallel to, or facing public streets. Brick should
extend a minimum coverage of 8' -10' above grade on the first story of the building. In this way,
should the builders prefer to use vinyl or aluminum they would also then be compelled to use face
brick on the buildings front wall over the first story. Planning Staff believes this is a reasonable
compromise to resolve this situation and still meet the goals and objectives of the original plat and
annexation approval.
Staff sees no benefit to the reduction of driveways widths. We have previously experienced some
complaints with regard to this issue on existing subdivisions in the Village. Therefore, we cannot
support the portion of the amendment that reduces driveway widths.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of an Annexation Agreement Amendment that would allow partial
brick front facades for structures that utilize aluminum or vinyl siding on the sides or rear of the
building.
2. Staff recommends denial of the portion of the Annexation Agreement Amendment that would
allow 17 foot wide driveway pavement area.
Jim Esperson, William Ryan and Todd Waller, Kimball Hill spoke, All brick homes are very
expensive. They were seeking relief from that cost. They felt they are the leaders in the industry,
similar homes are presently being constructed in Aurora, at their project at Stone Fence Farm at a
minimum sq. ft. range of 1,714 which does exceed 1,400 sq. ft. Price range of $153,000 to
$186,000, keeping in mind these are base prices.
Plan Commission Members concerns included:
T.S Annexation Agreement allowed smaller lot sizes in exchange for brick. The developer changing
mind concerned him.
J.S Lot widths will be according to the Preliminary and Final Plat.
K.O With just 75 ft. frontage, how many styles of houses are going to fit, on these lots?
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
June 6, 1995
Page
|.5 Felt the biggest factor, was when the project was approved the density would be approximately
2 units per acre.
There was a long discussion regarding the percentage of brick on the facades. Suggested differences
between one story and two story. bO % (Of( high across front up to gable (parallel to the street))
on one story, and up to 50% to facade parallel to the street on two story, up togabol,
After discussion, /\./\nderoon nnadeanmotiontoreconnrnendto the \/illa#BBoard, the approval of
the amendment to the Annexation Agreement for the Reserve to allow for a minimum of 40% brick
(masonry) on the front facade nn 2 story homes, and a 6 % nninirnurn brick (masonry) facade on
the one story (front facade meaning those walls parallel to the street) and to retain the 18 ft. width
of the driveway, for Case 49O-O52495,AAA, The Reserve Subdivision. Seconded by L.Kach8l Roll
call vote. K. O'Connell, yes; L. KachoL yes; T. Spika, yes; /\. Anderson, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak/
yes. Motion carried. 5 yes 0 no.
DISCUSSION:
HARVEST GLEN P0D
The developers of Harvest Glen, have a concern with the lots that back up to Rt.30. The entire
svvaleisin the future homeowners back yard. Their proposal isto soften the impact of the industrial
site across R1. 30.' with the construction ofaberm. By taking 1O ft. from the front yards ofthe lots,
and adding ittV the back, t0 construct the berm. The Development Committee and Village Attorney
felt that this should be approached as avarianCe, rather than a PU[>. The Development Committee
felt that 20 ft. was not enough front yard, and it should be 25 [t. The difference could be made up
by either making the house smaller orthe back yard smaller.
Mr. VVadock introduced Mr. Zvvemoke of Moser Enterprises. M: Zvvemoko stated, there is 30 ft.
widoyvvalm, (in the back of the yards, and now on the Final Plat There is an existing landscape
barrier on the aaaa side of the proposed back yards. that takes the sb)rnnvvater that goes around the
entire subdivision and picks up water that is off site (from acnmaa 135th Stand from the highway
itself). These swales are planned to drain all the water from the rest of the subdivision. They cannot
move svvaln; they propose a re-configuration of the hornma backing up to R1. 30. They considered
depth of lot 140 ft. and hoped to borrow 10 ft. from the 30 ft. setback in the front yard. An
alternative was to borrow from two places, for the berm. The first borrowing was totake 10 ft. from
the front yard, a ]O ft. setback to a 20 ft. setback, and shorten the back yard from 40 ft. to 35 ft.
This was felt to be their best alternative. He also suggested turning all the houses across the street,
to not face the lots with the shorter front yard setbacks so there wouldn't be driveway to driveways
on this street.
Concerns of the Plan Commission included:
iSohkoviak: |n the end result, what would the size Ofthe lots would end up? Lots would stay the
same size, only would move the house. How many lots are affected? There are 12
lots of 240 lots. the back yard landscaping would be in Lots 64 - 77
TSpika: With this problem, we must make the next developer make such decisions inthe
future on Rt. 30 setbacks should 5Om6O ft. in the future.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
June 6, 1995
Page 5
A.Anderson: Asked of kinds of trees. that could be used, besides evergreens? Hackberry.
K.O'Connor: Asked who would maintain this berm? Homeowner still own berm and drainage
swale. The homeowners Association would maintain. She also suggested reducing
from 12 to 10 lots.
Planner Waldock stated, This case will require a Public Hearing, he requested a consensus of the
Commission. He felt there was some merit to the request. A little weak as a variance, but it is
covered, by the required criteria.
The consensus of the Plan Commission was as follows:
K. O'Connell, no problem with 25 ft. setbacks.
L. Kachel, liked the concept, liked privacy. 25 ft. front yard setback would be acceptable.
T. Spika, liked plant material, had no problem with 25 ft.
A. Anderson, 25 ft. setback no problem.
Chairman Sobkoviak, had no problem with 25 ft. front setback.
AMBER SUBDIVISION
The Property owners are requesting a property line shift by 6 ft. This does not cause any variances
or conflict with the Zoning Ordinance. it is a minor revisions. Would like to change Final Plat of
show the shift of the 6 ft.
After discussion, L. Kachel made a motion to recommend to the Village Board, the approval of the
change of the Final Plat for Amber Subdivision. Seconded by T. Spika. Roll call vote. K.
O'Connell, yes; L. Kachel, yes; T. Spika, yes; A. Anderson, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion
carried. 5 yes 0 no.
There was a discussion regarding Park District, and the uses, and the developers donations,of land
for parks.
ADJOURN: 9:30
Sharon Hart, Secretary
PLAINFIELD
Will - GOUNTirs • —Esr • co—u-Ty
Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting on June 6, 1995.
Please sign this sheet for our official records.
r.
rM
MUM
V, FA FIRM) ow"IN-50" t, Row" 0 -
AK,,T- WC-P�We poi /q , vd k,4i, � e,- —ip v-J �J A% v U,-O I L 6 USA t