HomeMy Public PortalAbout2004-03-02 PC MinutesVillage of Plainfield Planning Commission Record of Minutes Date: March 2, 2004 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 6:54pm. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Henry, Kachel, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Racich, Sob koviak Absent: Library District, Park District, School District, Fire District Minutes The minutes from the February 17, 2004 meeting were accepted as submitted. Development Report Stephanie Sheetz read the development report. The Marian Lake Villa pro ject – both site plan and special use for PUD – were approved. The text amendment for the BTD district came to a tie vote. They are discussing adding a BTD between Renwick and Spangler on Route 30. The Village is drafting and ordinance in regards to the McMicken Assemblage project. Regarding some intergovernmental projects, the Village is working on some data sharing with Will County. They are also working on a resolution to support Kendall County trails and greenways. Ms. Sheetz concluded the report. Old Business CASE NO.: 1098 -012904.TA TEXT AMENDMENT Request: Text Amendment for incorporation (Public hearing) Of a historic preservation ordinance Location: Village Wide Applicant: Village of Plainfield Started: 7:09pm 1
John Kersh presented th e staff report. He highlighted the major changes in the ordinance. Discussion ensued regarding owner consent. Chairman Sobkoviak explained that the Historic Preservation Commission would be set up similar to the Planning Commission. They would recommen d and advise, but the Village Board would have the final say. There was also some clarification regarding landmark versus historic district designation. A historic district requires 51% consent of land or homeowners. Commissioner Kachel asked if there w as a change in the percentage consent required. Mr. Kersh said that the Illinois Preservation Association said that if you do not lower the percentage, you may never see a district. A discussion followed regarding the commission members going from 7 to 9 because of a large workload. A further discussion ensued regarding the confusion in the different memos submitted in the packet and which points needed to be addressed. The commission went through the points on the memo submitted to the President & Boa rd of Trustees. Under the first section: - HPC be given the authority to approve/deny and have VB act as an appeals board (The Plan Commission did not want the HPC to have ultimate authority). - A 9 -member commission instead of 7. (There was consensus on thi s and staff agreed because of the workload). - Members will be considered based on their field of expertise and how it related to preservation. (There was a consensus on this and the staff supported). - The election of a secretary among the commission members hip (Since the Village wants to keep their own records, this was stricken). - Owner consent NOT required for landmark designation, but such designations may be protested, after the fact, by the owner. (Mr. Kersh explained this as - if owner consent is requi red and someone nominates a parcel of land, they bring it to the property owner. If the owner does not consent, the process stops there. However, if the ordinance does not require owner consent, the process would proceed but the record would reflect the owner’s wishes. Ultimately, the Village Board could force the owner to comply. The feeling on this was divided. The Staff supported based on an IPA suggestion. Commissioners Schinderle and Manning did not support). Commissioner Racich asked how many p roperties would possibly fall into a historic district. Mr. Kersh said it may be 400 -500. Commissioner Racich said that it seemed high. Commissioner Racich also commented that he did not see the HPC as a “Gestapo”. They would not have power – the Villa ge would. However, he did not see the Village forcing people into anything the did not want. 2
Chairman Sobkoviak asked what the ramifications were of owner consent. Mr. Kersh said that this does not jeopardize Certified Local Government status, but the I PA suggested it. Commissioner Schinderle asked would happen if they lose state designation. Mr. Kersh said that they could not qualify for certain benefits. Chairman Sobkoviak asked how the commission felt about the issue. Commissioner Racich, Manning, and Gehrke felt that owner consent should be required. Commissioner Schinderle and Kachel felt that the owner should have recourse. Chairman Sobkoviak said that they may need to remove this section from the ordinance. Commissioner Henry pointed out the Flounders House case. They voted for relocation because they were in fear of losing it. He said that this may happen again. Discussions resumed on the first section of the memo: - Consent % changed from 51% to 20% (For a historic district, the consensus among the Plan Commission was that the percentage should be 51%). - A table structure that outlines “level of review” by the HPC for different construction projects for historic structures (There was consensus amongst that Plan Commission that this was neede d. The second section on the memo was addressed: - HPC membership increased to 9 (uncompensated) members to handle the workload. (This was agreed) - Members chosen based on their field of expertise as it related to the preservation. (This was agreed) - Elimin ate owner consent as a requirement; instead, make it non -mandatory and allow for owner to protest HPC decisions to the VB (this establishes a formal “internal” appeals/protest process that will minimize, if not eliminate the need to involve the courts. (T he Commission could not agree on a recommendation for this) - For landmark nomination: get consent of owner ONLY; don’t require consent of adjoining property owners as well. (This was agreed) Finally, the third section on the memo was addressed: - Give the H PC the power to approve/deny designation and COA’s & COEH’s only upon owner consent, w/o consent, HPC can only recommend to VB. (The staff said that they can go either way on this. The commission felt that the HPC should enjoy the same status as other Vi llage commissions – as advisory only). - Make VB an appeals board and a hearing body to approve/deny HPC decisions and recommendations where there is a lack of owner consent by a super majority of votes. (This was agreed but the current Village Board work load was noted). - Make consent % for district nomination lower (i.e. more customary to other Illinois HP ordinancies). (The commission felt that this should remain at 51%). 3
- Incorporation of tables that outline levels of review for construction, maintenance , or repair projects for historic structures. (This was agreed). - Nomination/Designation, COA, and COEH procedures may need to be outlined, point -by -point, per the suggestions of the VPA draft. (The commission felt that this should be left up to the HPC t o create their own protocols). - The numbers may need to be adjusted (e.g. days to make a decision, days for notice, days to file, etc.) per the suggestion of the VPA. (This was agreed. It was noted that the HPC will be working with the VPA on this). Chai rman Sobkoviak asked if there were any other points. Mr. Kersh said that regarding the first point they addressed – this would not jeopardize state designation. CLG status is the only thing needed for this. Mr. Kersh gave a closing statement addressing the Village’s goals and the benefits of the ordinance. Chairman Sobkoviak congratulated John on his hard work and due diligence. He asked if there was any further commission discussion. Upon hearing none, he opened up the floor for public comment. Chai rman Sobkoviak swore in Thomas Carey. Mr. Carey asked about the historic district – to establish a district, you need 51%. The previous draft stated that the Commission may nominate a district, but the way the new draft is worded, it sounded like the com mission can nominate a district with no consent. Commissioner Henry clarified the wording on this. Mr. Kersh said that this was an oversight, and they can reword it better. Chairman Sobkoviak directed the staff to fix this. Mr. Carey said that nothing in the ordinance refers to historic significance as a specific age. Mr. Kersh said that this leaves it open to interpretation. Mr. Carey said that this might have required St. Mary’s to be rebuilt after the tornado damage. A discussion ensued regarding restoration meeting historic standards. Mr. Carey said that if you open up this can of worms – even if not intentional – it might end up compromising property rights. A further discussion ensued regarding historic districts in surrounding areas that have done well. Mr. Carey made a final point regarding the penalty fees increasing and asked what the ordinance was referring to when it referred to an “object”. Mr. Kersh explained that an “object” is defined as a small structure – like a sculpture or clock tower. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Michael Lambert. Mr. Lambert said that since zoning has been in effect, property rights have been compromised, but rights have been balanced. He asked if a district is more than one building. Mr. Kersh said that a di strict can be comprised of one building. Mr. Lambert said that he recommended a 9 -member board. He said that this promotes a sense of balance as well as helps to handle the workload. The VPA recommendation was 4
to have specific occupations on the commiss ion. He also expressed his opinion that the Village has turned the idea of preservation “topsy -turvy” and is making it more confusing. Mr. Lambert said that the Preservation Commission is charged with fact -finding, research and recommendation – then pass ing on their non -binding decisions or recommendations onto the Village. He feels that the Village Board is okay as an appeals board, but adding the “nitty gritty” of preservation to meetings will increase an already long Board meeting agenda. This may al so delay a homeowner’s request depending on the Village’s meeting schedule. A discussion ensued regarding who pays possible litigation fees. Mr. Lambert said that he would submit further points to the Staff in writing. Regarding owner consent, he said t hat they need another provision that property owners need to occupy the property for 18 months and need an intent to stay for an additional 18 months. If they do not provide this, the ordinance jeopardizes the goals of the ordinance to protect the Village . Mr. Lambert also said that he got the feeling that the Staff thinks that a weak ordinance is better than none and that amendments can be added later. However, he did not like the idea of “backdoor legislation”. The strongest advocates for preservation are the biggest stewards for the community and not just those “out to make a buck”. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Michelle Kelly from 803 Bartlett. Ms. Kelly said that she owns a property and two businesses in Plainfield and really likes the community. Z oning protects most subdivisions but it is not protecting the historic areas that need to be saved. She does not think the Village should approve things like replacing gutters. A 9 -person commission will have enough experience to approve issues like that . Ms. Kelly said that houses being torn down right now are the reason that this is so important. She agrees with the 18 -month provision otherwise people will buy properties for profit and destroy what is there. She said that if the ordinance and commiss ion do not serve to be state -certified, don’t do it as there would be no incentive. Commissioner Henry asked where the 18 -month provision was in the ordinance. Mr. Kersh said that it was not in the ordinance; it was just a suggestion from the VPA. Commi ssioner Manning asked what they would need the 18 -month provision for. Mr. Lambert clarified that nothing can occur on the property for 18 months after purchase of a property in the historic district. Once the commission has received an application for a demolition permit, the case would go to the Village board. Commissioner Kachel asked how other commissions handle this. Mr. Lambert said that demolitions normally come before the HPC. Commissioner Schinderle asked what process would have been followe d if the houses on 126 & 59 had been in a historic district. Mr. Lambert said that if they were “contributing” structures in a historic district, it would have gone to the HPC. The 5
procedure he is proposing would require the owner to own the property for 18 months and continue to own it for 18 months. He gave an example that in a historic district, if Property A has been owned for one month and applies for a demolition, someone can nominate the property for landmark status. Once this is done, any work i s halted until a public hearing is held. If after the public hearing, the commission finds the demolition appropriate, a COA would be issued. If not, work would be halted and an appeal process could be heard. Commissioner Kachel asked what communities Mr. Lambert feels work the preservation the best. Mr. Lambert mentioned Aurora, Will County and Joliet, and Urbana. A discussion ensued regarding Urbana’s preservation ordinance. Mr. Lambert said that it was interesting that we are requiring 51% of the residents to come out and approve historic district designation. Usually, the Village asks for those who disapprove to come out. Commissioner Kachel said that he is not sure how the 18 -month provision would work. Commissioner Racich asked how many pr operties would be deemed contributing. Mr. Lambert said that 500 to 600 would be historic to some factor. In the core historic area, less than 100 could be landmarks, 200 would be contributing properties, and the remaining properties would be non -contrib uting. Commissioner Racich said that developers tear down farm homes and then request annexation. He would like to see this process reversed. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Heath Wright. Mr. Wright said that he entered into record at the last meeting a pr oposed ordinance. He read his recommended provision on owner consent for landmark designation. The time for public comment on the case closed. Mr. Kersh said that Kathy O’Connor from the IPA sent him an email regarding CLG status requirements and said t hat owner consent issues will not hinder this. Chairman Sobkoviak asked for any additional commissioner comments. Commissioner Henry said that he is liking the ordinance to covenants for some subdivisions they are approving. He understands that the Vill age Board wants control, but he thinks that it would work well for the HPC to have the authority. Chairman Sobkoviak said that in essence, he agrees. However, he did not think it likely that the Village Board would pass authority on to the HPC. He asked for the commission’s feelings on this. Commissioner Kachel said he thought they should give the HPC some authority. Commissioner Racich said that the Village should not micromanage. He felt the HPC should have the authority to rule on certain issues. Commissioner Henry said that the 6
HPC should rule on minor replacement and repair issues. Commissioner Manning said that the ordinance does not clarify minor versus major issues. Mr. Kersh said that the chart will be created to clarify this. A discussion ensued regarding minor administration versus COAs. Commissioner Kachel asked who would create these charts. Chairman Sobkoviak said that it would be appropriate for the HPC to create it. A discussion ensued regarding the Plan Commission’s role in this. Commissioner Racich said that he wants the HPC to have some control with the ultimate control with the Village. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the HPC should have some authority for low level COAs. Commissioner Kachel asked if the level of authority woul d jeopardize CLG status. Mr. Kersh said that no suggestion made tonight would jeopardize CLG status. Mr. Kersh said that the stipulations to be added are the incorporation of the definition of “object” in Section 2 and to combine Subsections A and B of S ection 7. At 9:02pm, Commissioner Manning moved to recommend approval of the historic preservation ordinance for the Village of Plainfield subject to the following stipulations: 1. Owner consent to be required only for landmark designation – adjacent propert y owner’s consent not required. 2. HPC to be allowed to have some level of authority to issue COAs – the authority level to be determined by the Village Board. Commissioner Henry seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Henry, Kachel, Manning, Schinderle, Racich, Sobkoviak Nay: Gehrke The motion is carried 6:1. The case will go forward to the Village Board on March 15. Commissioner Henry asked if the commission could get a final copy of the ordinance. A short break was called at 9:04pm. The meeting was readjourned at 9:15pm. New Business CASE NO.: 1097 -012904.SU/SPR GYMQUEST PLAINFIELD Request: Special Use/Site Plan Review (Public hearing) Location: Northeast corner of Van Dyke Road and Presidential Avenue/W ood Farm Way Applicant: Gymquest Plainfield Started: 9:15 pm 7
Ms. Sheetz read the staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioners: James Gray, Greg Teets, Jim Pappis. Mr. Gray said that Gymquest is anticipating coming to Plainfield and they e xpect a strong demand. He gave some background on Gymquest, and a pamphlet was passed out. He said that gymnastics facilities are usually based out of modest building, and they do not want this building to be an economic hardship on the company if they c annot financially support it. Mr. Gray also said that they wanted to open the gym with the commencement of school. The site is favorable for what they are looking for, and they have received a lot of help from the Mayor, Planning Staff, and Village Engin eer. Mr. Gray focused on page 8 of the report where the staff listed some concerns. - Location of two parking stalls – Mr. Gray said that they will allow the maximum amount of parking. - Need for pronounced architectural relief on all facades over 100’ in len gth – Mr. Gray said that they need 20% of the façade broken with architectural relief, but 39% of the façade has relief. They want to be sensitive to the economic limits of the project. He went on to show pictures of another similar facility in Hoffman E states showing a tasteful way to handle the architecture. If they incorporate a large glazed area, concerns for light glare have been raised. Commissioner Manning asked the petitioner to clarify this. Mr. Gray said that staff is requesting the glazed ar ea as a good solution, but they want the scheme they proposed to be approved as is to reduce the cost of the project. Commissioner Henry asked what other alternatives were available. A discussion ensued regarding vertical or horizontal cuts. However, th ey did not want to get into a design that would detract from the building. Commissioner Kachel said that with the roadways and visibility, the walls of the building are visible on all sides. With the current zoning and surrounding structures, the petitio ner felt that the building is already a transition. Commissioner Racich said he understood the economic concerns, but the commission is concerned about the look of the building in the new center of the Village. A discussion ensued regarding the look of a “cheap” building versus wanting to be economically sensitve. Chairman Sobkoviak asked what was different that an application for Special Use as a PUD was being requested. Ms. Sheetz said that a PUD was just needed for the setback and the usage. A discu ssion ensued regarding the similarity to Flexi Mat and needing more depth to the façade. 8
Mr. Gray said that they are trying to address the economic issues and the requirements of the Village. Chairman Sobkoviak said that they cannot pass this on without a firm agreement. Mr. Gray said that the Planning Commission will make its recommendation to the Board, and the Board will vote. However, the petitioner is requesting that the original proposal be recommended. Commissioner Schinderle asked about the c olor of the building . Mr. Gray said that they want to reinforce the colors chose for the facilities. Ms. Sheetz said that she was not saying the color would not be successful. She just did not see it as consistent with the Village’s policy. A discussio n ensued regarding facades acceptable to staff. Commissioner Kachel was concerned with the homes backing up to the property, and the facility being a focal point of the area. He said that other communities have been successful with different color scheme s in an industrial area. Chairman Sobkoviak asked that the commission focus on the special use as a PUD first as a gymnastics facility in an industrial zone. Chairman Sobkoviak felt that this was as good a use as any for the site and asked for consensus. There was agreement on this. Regarding the site plan, Commissioner Kachel said that he did not think the color always takes away from the building. Ms. Sheetz said that she was just following the Village’s guidelines. A discussion ensued regarding gla zing and acceptable colors. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the staff is just trying to keep buildings in the commercial nodes consistent. Commissioner Racich said that he supports the Village standards, otherwise people applying for a PUD will always try t o bring up new standards. Commissioner Henry said he recommended tabling the issues until the details are worked on with staff. Mr. Teets addressed the commission. He said that they have put together exactly what the pamphlet advertised – innovative pro grams with children. They have done this with some not -so -impressive buildings. They want to project the goals of the program on the building. They want the kids to be proud of the facility’s design, and they want it to be state -of -the -art. They have u sed some comparables, but the economics are not cheap. They want to keep this affordable for the families. Regarding the colors, the facility is visible and as a “centerpiece” with the surrounding areas, he felt they should be treated as a centerpiece an d let the building stand out in a tasteful way. Commissioner Schinderle said that the two items they are concerned about are the architectural relief and the color scheme. The color scheme is what they petitioner wants to present the feeling of the proje ct’s goals. Ms. Sheetz said that they can look at options or alternatives. 9
Chairman Sobkoviak said that the staff has identified five stipulations and asked if the petitioner was agreeable to these. They were. Chairman Sobkoviak said that they are hung up on the architecture and color. He asked for the commissioners thoughts. Commissioners Racich, Henry, and Gehrke felt that the building needed to be consistent. Commissioner Manning thought that the mix of colors in an industrial setting would be enl ightening. Commissioner Schinderle felt that industrial areas tend to be bland. Chairman Sobkoviak asked about the architectural features. Mr. Gray said that they want the Plan Commission to give a recommendation on how they should go forward. Commissi oner Henry said that he does not like to send things to the Board open -ended. Chairman Sobkoviak said that they can recommend approval of the Special Use and can send a recommendation of denial on the site plan because the color does not meet standards an d there was a disagreement regarding architectural features. Two facades will be visible, and they have a tentative agreement on one façade. Commissioner Racich was concerned with the traffic situation. He asked if people will be dropping their kids off of Van Dyke Road. Ms. Sheetz said that they can explore how to discourage this and encourage more pedestrian traffic. Mr. Gray also said that they can do whatever they need to do including telling parents how to drop children off properly as part of a w elcome packet. Commissioner Kachel asked about possible signalization at this site. The Village Engineer said that they can look into this. Ms. Sheetz said that there is a stop sign at Presidential Drive. Commissioner Kachel asked about the trash conta iners. Ms. Sheetz said that the ordinance requires it to be 100% enclosed. Commissioner Schinderle said that the chairman was talking about recommending denial and asked if they would rather give approval with certain specifications. Chairman Sobkovi ak said that he was more comfortable denying the site plan on specific issues. Commissioner Racich asked for an estimate on potential use of the site. Mr. Teets said that typically the programs would be in the evenings when industrial areas are less occu pied. They expect 500 -1,000 people a week. Chairman Sobkoviak asked for any additional discussion. Commissioner Manning said that he was convinced by the applicant that the they should not change the proposal. Commissioner Schinderle agreed. 10
Commissio ner Henry said that the site plan across Wood Farm Way is single -family homes. Commissioner Racich asked if the area will generate income to the Village of Plainfield. Mr. Teets said that sales tax will be collected from the pro shop and vending, and rea l estate tax will be collected. Commissioner Gehrke felt that this should be given back to the staff. Commissioner Kachel thought that this could be given to the Board to decide. Mr. Gray said that if it came to the point of color, they could make it a mono -chromatic building, and they would rely on the signage for catching attention. Commissioner Henry said that the came to the Plan Commission with a proposal that Staff and the commission do not approve of. A discussion ensued regarding a mono -chromat ic scheme. Mr. Gray said that they do not want to impede on the client schedule. He also said that he thinks the circular structure helps with some of the architectural relief. Ms. Sheetz said that she did not feel a one -inch variation on the façade suf ficiently broke it up. Commissioner Gehrke asked if the color was agreeable to staff. Ms. Sheetz said that color was one way to address the issue. Mr. Gray showed a proposed color on a paint swatch. Commissioner Henry asked why they were negotiating in this forum. Commissioner Henry asked if they could move that they table the issue. However, Chairman Sobkoviak pointed out that the petitioner is desiring an action that the commission does not have sufficient evidence to support. Mr. Gray said that he did not think there was a benefit to tabling the issue. Staff is asking for some things that they are not willing to provide. At 10:51 pm, Commissioner Henry moved to recommend approval of the special use for a PUD on Lot 10 of the Crossroads Business Ce nter Subdivision, permitting use as a gymnastics facility and a Planned Unit Development, subject to the following stipulation: 1. Completion of a Statement of Intent and Agreement. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vo te by roll call. Aye: Henry, Kachel, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Sobkoviak Nay: Racich The motion is car ried 6 :1 . 11
At 10:52 pm, Commissioner Henry moved to recommend denial of the site plan review for the subject property, based on the following items: 1. Co lor does not meet standards set by the Village. 2. Two facades do not meet standards set by the Village. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Henry, Kachel, Gehrke, Sobkoviak , Racich Nay: Manning, Schinderle The motion is carried 5:2 . The case will go forward to the Village Board on March 1 5 . Commissioner Manning asked if they were going to have a meeting on March 16. Ms. Sheetz said that she would verify. Commissioner Kachel passed some pictur es to the staff regarding some trash signs. Chairman Sobkoviak commended Commissioner Racich on his recent endeavors. Chairman Sobkoviak declared the meeting adjourned at 1 0 :5 5 pm. __________________ Respectfully submitted, Laura Griffith Recording Sec retary Karick & Associates, Inc. 12