HomeMy Public PortalAbout1990-03-20 PC minutesPLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
DATE: March 20, 1990 AT: Village Hall
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Simmons, Vice-Chairman Sobkoviak,
M. Krippel, W. Schempf, H. Bayer,
R. Mentzer, J. Anderson.
EX-OFFICIO PRESENT: D. Norris, E. Schrader, Fire District.
ALSO PRESENT: P. J. Waldock, Village Planner
J. Djerf, Village Engineer
K. Jania, Secretary
Chairman Simmons called the meeting to order at 7:41 p.m. Roll call
was taken. L. Kelly, M. Gehrke, G. Krahn, J. Wilson, and D. Neir
were absent.
Under Informal Discussion, Robert Whitley, Jr. was removed from the
agenda.
Case No. 254-3190PP - Quail Run Joint Venture
Requesting Preliminary Plat approval for Quail Run Subdivision.
Location: West of Pheasant Chase Subdivision, east of
Van Dyke Road.
Mr. Waldock reported, as discussed at the previous meeting, the
proposal here calls for a subdivision and street extensions. The
Quail Run Subdivision would extend Pheasant Chase Drive and create a
couple of new streets. Proposed are 86 single-family residential lots
with the 87th being a park district location. The developer-Is proposal
is currently for Park District to acquire the storm pond and establish
a park area in the west location of the storm pond area.
This case was tabled at the last meeting to allow time for the
Village Engineer to complete his review and to allow communication
between the developers and the Pheasant Chase Owners Association. Also,
the developers have been in contact with the Park District to establish
communication and initiate the park donation requirements and park
location for this particular site.
John Djer, Village Engineer, discussed his letter of review dated
March 20, 1990: Route 59 improvements - an agreement should be reached
on the timing of this. Improvements should be started at least prior
to starting Unit 2. Mr. Djerf then reviewed his comments as to
streets, sidewalks, Van Dyke Rd. improvemets, storm drainage, water
system, and water main looping.
Mr. Waldock stated the developers are aware of the Van Dyke
improvements.
Mr. Waldock reported the Park District question was addressed by the
donation of specific residential lots for park use in the previous
plat. That is a change with the Quail Run proposal. Also, Lakeside
Manor stipulation that would require -ipulatihld qui the owners association of each
L_
subdivision be combined to form one association is another change.
PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
March Z0, 1990
Page Two
It is believed it is the developer's intent to look at combining
owners associations to make sure that there are common interests
involved in this particular neighborhood.
Mr. Edward Welch, Attorney for the developer, stated they have met
with the Park District and the homeowners.
As to the homeowners association, they are willing to combine them.
However, if the Park District takes the lake there is no need for the
unified homeowners association. Mr. Welch then discussed covenants
and restrictions.
As to the engineering concerns, Mr. Welch stated they have already
,-..maae those changes and they will be on the final plat.
As to the improvements on Van Dyke Road, he stated this was the first
time this was brought up to them and are not really ready to discuss
this at this time. Mr. Welch stated that this is a new preliminary
plat. The previous concerns on the previous plat really do not apply
at,this point because this is an entirely new plat coming before the
Board.
Mr. Charles Engram, developer, stated he has no problem combining
homeowners associations, but there is some clarifying needed on the
lake. This still needs to be worked out.
He also stated discussion is needed on the Van Dyke Road improvements
also.
Mr. Welch stated with reference to the homeowners association issue,
it all depends on what the Park District does.
Mr. Greg Bott, Director of the Plainfield Park
have met with the developer and are interested
mentioned. Pending agreement with the Village
of the liability questions, they are intereste,
proposed. They are still contemplating on the
agreement on this.
District, stated they
in the park sites
in working out some
d in the park site
lake and need some
J. Jania, Pheasant Chase resident, asked about drainage and if soil
testing has been done. He is concerned about the drainage along the
existing homes on Mallard Drive South.
D. Grom, Pheasant Chase resident, expressed concern about construction
traffic staying off of Pheasant Chase Drive. Who will monitor this.
Also concerned about traffic routes through Pheasant Chase and Quail
Run via Route 59 and 135th Street. Mr. Grom also asked if the zoning
for the entire area could be changed from Residence B to all Residence A.
PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
March 20, 1990
Page Three
Ms. D. Bostjancic, Lakeside Manor resident, stated she is familiar
with Intech Consultants and is happy they are involved in this
development.
Mr. Tim Mortar, potential purchaser of a lot in Quail Run, stated
the proposed development looks to be a good one and is happy with
the engineers and developer.
Discussion followed regarding stipulations, if preliminary plat is
approved. Mr. Waldock read into the record the six stipulations
listed in the February 28, 1989 letter for the Lakeside Manor Unit 3
Preliminary Plat which was approved February 20, 1989.
Discussion followed regarding these stipulations.
J. Sobkoviak moved to recommend to the Village Board approval of
the Preliminary Plat for Quail Run Subdivision subject to the
following stipulations:
1. Provision of improvements to Route 59 for right and left-
turn lanes onto Pheasant Chase Drive.
2. Limit construction traffic ingress and egress to Van Dyke q1171q0
Road, Construction traffic on Pheasant Chase -should/be t permitted.
no
3. Van Dyke Road to be improved in accordance with collector
street specifications along the entire frontage of the subject site.
4. Compliance with provisions of the March 20, 1990 report
from John Djerf, Village Engineer.
5. A good faith effort to combine owners associations of
Pheasant Chase, Lakeside Manor Units 1 and 2, and Quail Run Subdivisions.
6. Park District and Village Board agreement on park donation
requirements for the subdivision.
7. Application for rezoning the subject site from Residence B
and Residence A-4 to Residence A, Single-Family.
Seconded by H. Bayer. Vote by roll call.
Krippel, yes; Sobkoviak, yes; Schempf, yes; Bayer, yes; Mentzer, yes;
Anderson, yes; Simmons, yes. 7 yes, 0 no. Motion carried.
8:30 p.m.
(A short recess was taken.)
PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
March 20, 1990
Page Four
Chairman Simmons reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Case No. 258-31290 " Takenaka, International
Site Plan Review for building addition.
Location: 2001 Coilplus Drive
Mr. Waldock reported the proposal in this case is the expansion of
the Coilplus Illinois building located on Coilplus Drive north of
143rd Street. Requested is the expansion by approximately a 39,000
sq. ft. warehouse storage area addition onto the north end of the
building. Presently the building is 104,720 sq. ft. and with the
additional 39,000 sq. ft. they would be roughly 145,000 sq. ft.
Site plan in this case does not meet several provisions of the
ordinance such as landscaping, brick facade, trash enclosures, and
light#giplans. This is due to the nature of the existing structure and
these provisions are considered pre-existing conditions.
This proposal is resulting in landscaping which had not previously
been provided for. Applicant has agreed to landscape the existing
office area. No new dumpsters will be added or relocated as a result
of this project.
On the parking issue, there is an unusual circumstance. Parking for
industrial uses is required for employees and customers. The ordinance
also specifiesthat one space for every 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area
be provided in all districts. With the ordinance requirement this
building addition would require another 132 parking spaces. Staff
feels this is unreasonable for an expansion that will not generate
additional parking demand. No parking problems have been reported
from the site as it now exists.
If the Board follows the ordinance a variance may be needed for parking.
The Board can approve the site plan with 34 parking spaces, but this
in no way implies a variance is not required or a variance has been
granted as part of the approval. But the Board can approve the site
plan with the stipulation that additional parking spaces may be
ultimately required at some time in the future.
Findings of staff are as follows:
1. The warehouse expansion, as proposed, will not be detrimental
to the area.
2. There is adequate on-site storm water storage to accommodate
this addition.
3. No additional parking demands will be generated by this
project.
PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
March 20, 1990
Page Five
4. The facade as planned is acceptable since it is a
continuation of an existing design.
5. Landscaping is adequate as planned since the site is
benefited by existing tree growth.
6. Setbacks are acceptable according to Village ordinances.
Staff recommends approval of the site plan for the Coilplus Illinois
site subject to provisions as may be required by the Plainfield Fire
Protection District.
The Board discussed use specific parking; the possibility of a
variance; or approve the site plan with the stipulation that would
require additional parking spaces in the future if it is deemed
necessary.
E. Schrader, Fire District representative, stated he is in favor
of the use specific parking. Referred to the large asphalt area there
now for parking of trucks, trailers, etc. There are no problems at
this time.
After discussion on the parking issue, the Board asked that the
applicant:prepare a parking layout on a separate paper instead of
redoing the plans prior to the Village Board meeting.
M. Krippel recommended to the Village Board approval of the site plan
for industrial expansion of Coilplus per the recommendations of the
Village Planner and including provision that parking layout be provided
for future or additional parking spaces per Village ordinance to be
provided prior to Village Board action. Seconded by W. Schempf.
Vote by roll call.
Krippel, yes; Sobkoviak, yes; Schempf, yes; Bayer, yes; Mentzer, yes;
Anderson, yes; Simmons, yes. 7 yes, 0 no. Motion carried.
Case No. 257-320902 - Zoning Ordinance amendment to establish a
buffer requirement in Multi-Family, Business and Residential Districts
Village-wide.
Mr. Waldock reported on the draft ordinance to address concerns over
lack of adequate control on transitions from adjacent high intensity
uses to lower intensity use. This ordinance attempts to address the
issue through combination of increased setback requirements for structures
and driveway/parking areas and landscaping. The ordinance requires
building setbacks to increase to specific dimensions depending on use
category. A required green area is established which would prevent
driveways and parking pavement from extending to the property line and
zoning boundary of low density residential districts. A fence
requirement is not provided for all applications, but the ordinance
stipulates that fencing may be mandated by the Village if necessary.
PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
March 20 1990
Page Six
Discussion followed visual screening. It was agreed to add language
to provide for "year round visual screening". Also add language
"Prohibit designated parking spaces within buffer area".
It was also agreed to delete the word "berm" from each district.
In the Business Districts setbacks are increased to 40 ft. and the
landscape requirement to 20 ft. - this is between a residential
district and a commercial district.
In the Industrial District setbacks are increased to 60 ft. and 30 ft.
for landscaped area.
Board discussed front, side and rear yard setbacks. The ordinance
does not refer to rear yard setbacks. This should be clarified.
Board agreed to add a provision to require a rear yard buffer from
all zone districts.
Also clarification is needed when a street separates residential
from industrial - clarify buffer requirements in this case.
Board agreed to add language: "These buffer requirements shall not
apply to districts separated by public right-of-ways".
Dr. Bates, resident, talked about his property which is near the
Corbin House on Division Street. There is no buffer between his
house, the alley, And the Corbin House. Traffic is generated
through the alley 'because of the Corbin House which creates dust, etc.
He would like to see a buffer there. He stated he thought in
discussions with the Board a buffer was to be put there and asked
the Board to look into this.
This case is continued to the April 3rd meeting.
Adjourn: 9:45 p.m.
Kay Jahfidj Ocretary