HomeMy Public PortalAbout2008-03-04 ZBA.PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RECORD OF MINUTES DATE : MARCH 4, 2008 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the m eeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. The meetings were held concurrently. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel , McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Bonuchi, and Sanders ; ex -officio Commissioner Peck; Chairman Sobkoviak; the Representative from the Plainfield Fire Protection District Absent: P lainfield School District , Library District, and Plainfield Police Department . Ex -officio Commissioner Cox was not present as he had resigned. Also Present: Mike Schwarz – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Sara Leach – Planner Village of Plainfield, Caro l Millan – Secr etary Village of Plainfield, Neal Eickholtz – Baxter and Woodman , and Kristina Falet – Baxter and Woodman The Village Clerk, Michelle Gibas, swore in the new ex -officio Plan Commissioner, Garrett Peck. Commissioner Peck will fill the posit ion vacated when ex -officio Commissioner Sanders replaced Commissioner Murawski. MINUTES: The minutes from the Plan Commission meeting of February 19, 2008 were accepted as amended . Page 11 of 12, Commissioner Sanders wanted to elaborate on the minutes. He wanted to add Comprehensive Plan, Design Guidelines and other planning documents so that the sentence would read: He stated staff has done a tremendous job in creating a Comprehensive Plan, Design Guidelines, and other planning documents that the Com mission can work with. The minutes from the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of December 4, 200 7 were accepted as presented. Neal Eickholtz introduced Kristina Falat. He stated she will be the engineering representative from Baxter and Woodman and works out of the Plainfield Office. She has a lot of knowledge on floodplains, floodways, and compensatory storage retention.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 4, 2008 Page 2 of 14 OLD BUSINESS: CASE: 1380 -122007.AA.RZ.PP.SPR.FP PLAINFIELD MEDICAL CNTR. Request: Annexation, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review & Final Plat Location: 12357 S. 248 th Street (North of 127 th St., east side of 248 th St., South of Plfd. North High School) Applicant: Tandem Development Group, LLC Pierre Cowart At 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan C ommission continue Case #1380 -122007.AA.RZ.SPR.FP to March 18, 2008 Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call Aye: McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Bonuchi, Sanders, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 7:0 NEW BUSINESS: CASE: 1332 -100307.AA.PP.SU THE SANCTUARY AT MARIAN LAKE Request: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Special Use Annexation Agreement Amendment, Preliminary Plat Location: North of Caton Farm, south of Renwick Rd., east of Drauden Rd., West of Rt. 59 and the DuPage River Applicant: Town and Country Homes At 7:09 p.m Commission Sanders made a motion that the Plan Commission continue Case #1332 -100307.AA.PP.SU to April 1, 2008. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motio n. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, O’Rourke, Bonuchi, Sanders, Kachel, McKay, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 7:0
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 4, 2008 Page 3 of 14 CASE: 1385 -012908.V.SPR.FP EICH’S SPORTS Request: Site Plan Review, Vari ance, Preliminary/Final Plat of Subdivision (consolidation) Location: 24316 W. 143 rd Street Applicant: 143 rd Street Enterprises, Inc. TIME: 7:10 p.m. Planner Mike Schwarz summarized the staff report. He stated this is a public hearing regarding the var iance request to allow a metal building façade, and to waive the required overhang and eaves and/or sloping roof and/or prominent cornice along the roof line. He stated this building was formerly the Village of Plainfield Public Works Building. It is loc ated on the north side of 143 rd Street, just east of the intersection of 143 rd St. and Van Dyke Road. The property is currently zoned B -3 (Highway Business District) with a special use for indoor batting cages. There is also a request for Site Plan Revie w and Preliminary/Final Plat of Subdivision. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Commission will first discuss the request for variance, followed by a discussion of the Site Plan and Preliminary/Final Plat of Subdivision. Planner Mike Schwarz stated the appl icant is proposing a one -story metal addition to the present metal building. Presently there is a metal building and a brick well house on the property. Another business, Wave Tech Power Sports, is also located within this building. They have outdoor st orage that is basically not required by the Zoning Ordinance to be screened because it is RV/boat related items. The Future Land Use Map designates the property as general commercial. 143 rd Street is designated as IL Rt. 30 presently and is a major arter ial. Van Dyke Road is designated as a major collector street. It is stated in the Zoning Ordinance that any nonconforming building may be altered or enlarged only if the alterations or enlargements do not increase the extent of the nonconformity or add another nonconformity. The building is considered nonconforming with respect to current commercial design standards. A commercial building is required to provide masonry or brick facades as of August, 2006. Also, a building would be required to provide either overhang eaves or a sloping roof that meets a certain pitch range as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, or a prominent cornice along the roof line. The applicant is proposing a metal building that is generally consistent with the existing building that is on the site. Planner Mike Schwarz stated the findings of fact and staff’s response to each . He found 2 findings favorable (b & d), 1 unfavorable (a), and 1 neutral (c). Staff has elected to not make a recommendation on the requested variances a s staff believes a favorable recommendation would be in conflict with Section 9 -105 of the Zoning Ordinance that pertains to the expansion of nonconfor ming buildings. It is staff’s opinion that the requested variances are more of a policy issue that shoul d be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals, Plan Commission, and Village Board. Planner Mike Schwarz concluded the summary of the variance portion of the case. Commissioner O’Rourke had a question about the Alta Survey. He stated the survey indicate s a 50’ building line setback that it appears this building will be built into and there is no variance requested for that. He wanted to know if that was correct. Planner Schwarz stated the survey shows a dotted line, a building envelope for the propose d addition, and is incorrect. There is actually only a 15’ side setback, not a 50’ setback. The proposed addition will be in compliance with the 15’ setback.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 4, 2008 Page 4 of 14 Commissioner Renzi had a question about variance #1 (to allow a metal building façade) findi ng of fact (a). He wanted Planner Schwarz to expand on the health and safety concerns or general welfare. He wanted to know how that would be adverse. Planner Schwarz stated that is sort of a broad category and the terms “general welfare” staff thinks i s very similar to “quality of life”. Commissioner Sanders had a question about the zoning for the entire parcel. He aske d if the adjacent properties on the west were also B -3 zoning. Planner Schwarz stated they were not. The property immediately to t he west is zoned R -1 Residential . Chairman Sobkoviak stated previously this was Will County zoned. The county allowed the residence to be placed at that location and it is adjacent to and part of the automobile repair f acility. This is a pre -existing no nconformance. When the Village annexed the property, it was elected that the activity that was going on there should remain. Planner Schwarz stated the property to the west is also nonconforming, in the sense it is an industrial building in an R District . Commissioner Sanders asked if the variance is granted for this property could the adjacent properties use this as a precedent. Planner Schwarz stated the building to the west is partially a brick building. The front building of the property to the w est is brick with a metal addition. If that property was correctly zoned, or rezoned, from its R -1 to either an Industrial designation or a B designation, it would be “grandfathered”. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it is R -1, because that is the default zonin g. It was never changed when the Village of Plainfield annexed it. Commissioner Sanders asked if according to the Future Land Use Map, it could also be B -3 in the future. Planner Schwarz stated that was correct. Chairman Sobkoviak stated actions by the Zoning Board of Appeals generally do not constitute precedent since each and every case must be decided on the basis of findings of fact. Each case has to be decided on its own merits. Planner Schwarz stated the current Zoning Ordinance which was adopte d in August, 2006 is what sets the tone for future commercial development. So, that is why this property is being subjected to needing to come in and request variances, whereas the building to the west was developed prior to those commercial design standa rds. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the only reason this building had zoning was because the Village of Plainfield owned it. It was originally zoned ORI (Office, Research and Industrial), which has now been discontinued. Commissioner Kachel asked if there was any discussion as far as anything being done to the front façade if a variance was granted to the back of it. He stated much of the back cannot be seen. Planner Schwarz stated staff has talked with the architect and pointed out that there is a policy issue here. Staff understands that the majority of the building is metal and there is obviously a cost factor involved for the applicant with doing anything other than metal. There are some options, such as doing a brick wainscot around the new addition or brick around the customer entrances similar to the corner where Wave Tech is located. There are some options where the Zoning Board/Plan Commission could attach stipulations. Chairman Sobkoviak suggested going into the request for Site Plan Review. Planner Schwarz summarized that part of the staff report. He stated the site plan currently reflects 28 parking spaces. There would be 32 proposed new parking spaces, for a total of 60. For this type of use, 59 parking spaces are required per the Zoning Ordinance . The proposed site plan is in accordance with current loading requirements based on the existing loading bays that are on the site. There are two full access points on 143 rd Street. Internally , circulation is provided via a two -way drive ai sle. There is no circulation around the rear of the building. The Traffic Committee is recommending that one of the two existing access points be removed from 143 rd Street and staff concurs. Staff and the Traffic Committee believe that the existing west ern access point, located in
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 4, 2008 Page 5 of 14 front of the building, should be closed. The final decision rests with IDOT since IDOT now has jurisdiction of this segment of 143 rd Street. Staff has requested a cross -access easement through the front of the parking lo t that would terminate at the west property line. The subdivision plat illustrates there is a cross -access easement being provided by the applicant at staff’s request. This would cover the western access. Staff would ask that be modified to make that cr oss -access with the eastern existing driveway access. Staff would also ask for an easement provision statement to be added to the plat. The purpose of this cross -access easement is to allow any potential future redevelopment of the property to the west t o provide continuation of that cross -access through that property without the need for multiple access points on 143 rd Street. The proposed addition is underneath the threshold of requiring on -site stormwater management. Staff would defer to the Village Engineer that all engineering requirements have been met. There is a trash enclosure on the west side of the building proposed. Staff has requested an elevation detail to see what materials are being proposed. Staff has also recommended that it be const ructed of a masonry material to match the exterior of the corner of the existing building. There are two recommended revisions to the site plan: one of the two existing access points be removed from 143 rd Street, and relocate the trash enclosure to the n orth end of the new east parking lot or to the north end of the northernmost parking along the east property line; or if it must be located on the west side, shift it slightly north and provide a paved area adjacent to the building for a garbage truck to b e able to make a three -point turn to exit the site. There are 6 requested revisions by staff to the building elevations. The applicant has agreed to all but the first, providing brick and/or brick veneer material on the exterior of the existing building and/or the proposed addition (such as wainscot and/or additional brick around the customer entrances). Staff is requesting 8 revisions to the landscape plan per the staff report. The applicant has agreed to all. Staff is requesting 3 revisions to th e photometric plan per the staff report. The applicant has agreed to all. Staff is requesting various minor technical revisions to the Preliminary/Final Plat of Resubdivision (consolidation) per staff report before it is forwarded to the Village Board fo r consideration. Staff has identified the following issues that require consideration. 1. Future parking compliance: When IDOT widens 143 rd Street it may result in the loss of six existing parking spa ces that are located at the southwest corner of the si te. 2. Future front yard setback: When IDOT widens 143 rd Street the proposed 20’ parking setback will likely be reduced to a 10’ parking lot setback. Staff recommends approval of the request for Site Plan Review subject to 3 stipulations and approval of the request for a Preliminary/Final Plat of Subdivision subject to 3 stipulations. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neal Eickholtz if there are any engineering issues. Kristina Falet from Baxter and Woodman stated they have reviewed the plans and there are no co ncerns at this time. Commissioner Kachel had a question about the former well house. He asked if the well house was part of this property or if the Village still owns that piece. Planner Schwarz stated it is part of this property. He stated it has been abandoned. The well itself has been abandoned and capped. It was his understanding the building is currently just used for storage purposes. Commissioner Kachel stated if the applicant had
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 4, 2008 Page 6 of 14 problems with their parking, they could always extend their p arking to that area also. Commissioner Renzi stated that is where it is goin g. Planner Schwarz confirmed, but he did point out a triangular paved area. He stated the current configuration works best for traffic circulation. It keeps vehicles within the ir lanes. Commissioner Sanders asked the Village Engineer if there would be surface flow on the parking lot to a storm sewer somewhere. Kristina Falet stated yes it will be. Commissioner Sanders questioned if the property to the east doesn’t drain und erneath the railroad tracks or anything and if it has its own flow. He stated sometimes during heavy rain storms the stormwater will move sub -surface and then appear somewhere else. He asked if that had been looked at. Kristina Falet stated that had bee n looked at. Commissioner Peck asked the Chairman if there were any precedents regarding parking if a property is in compliance at this time, but down the line the Commission knows they might not be in compliance once 143 rd St. is widened. Chairman Sobko viak stated the Commission is taking a hard look at the Village parking requirements. There was a discussion about parking lots within the Village. He stated if the applicant has 60 parking spaces and there is the possibility 6 will be taken away, that i s minimal. He further stated when the applicant gives testimony, the Commission can ask the applicant if they can do without this 6 parking spaces. The applicant will know from his volume of business whether he can do without those spaces or not. Chairm an Sobkoviak called the petitioner or his representative to the podium. Ronald McGrath was sworn in. He is the architect representing Eich’s Sports. He gave a PowerPoint presentation. He gave a brief description of the business, Eich’s Sports. He stat ed they sell sporting goods, apparel, mostly catering to the local youth, the high schools. They sell sweatshirts, T -shirts, and clothing labeled with the different high school logos. In addition to the sporting goods and equipment that they supply to th e high school and local sporting teams, they also have batting cages. They provide a service to the community in terms of a place for the Plainfield youth to go to. They have supervised parties. He mentioned that one of the commissioners asked about t he 50’ setbacks or building line that is indicated on the Plat of Subdivision. He stated that is actually from a very old zoning ordinance. The batting cages are on the back of the existing building. The applicant is proposing to add another addition on to the back of the building to house a multi -purpose gymnasium to host basketball, volleyball, indoor soccer, as well as a small indoor baseball/softball practice facility. Some support spaces will be located in a smaller side portion of the addition. Th at includes rest rooms to support the larger group area in the back, as well as a small concession area for snacks and drinks, and a storage room. It will conform to all future building codes and such. He further stated the parking lot does move into tha t triangular area where the pump house is currently located. The pump house will come down. He addressed Commissioner Kachel’s comment about putting parking in that triangular area. He stated they actually ended up with one fewer parking space than in t he configuration shown on the site plan by doing that . He stated it is an all metal building addition. It is designed to match the existing building. He stated if it was a masonry structure, it would stand out from the rest of the building. He stated there are many metal and precast neighboring structures. He stated the metal building structure fits into the surrounding area. He stated the landscape plan provides what is required by the Village.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 4, 2008 Page 7 of 14 He referenced staff’s findings of fact regarding t he general welfare. His viewpoint on “the general welfare and good to the community ” is that on the surface he would agree it does not fit with what the Village standards are for appearance, but Eich Sports is actually providing a safe place for the youth of the Plainfield community to go and gather. By adding the gymnasium, they are provi ding another level of activity for the local youth to participate in a supervised and safe manner. He stated he felt Eich’s Sports is providing , with this addition , an even greater level of “welfare ” for the community. Chairman Sobkoviak called the petitioner’s attention to the staff report. He stated staff is requesting an easement provision statement added to the plat to require cross -access easements. He asked the petitioner if there was any problem with that. Mr. McGrath stated the cross -access easements are provided on the plat and he didn’t see any problem in providing the statement. Chairman Sobkoviak stated staff has requested elevation details for the trash enclosures. He asked the petitioner if there was any problem with that. Mr. McGrath stated there was no problem. Commissioner O’Rourke wanted to go back to the easement clarification. He stated the recommendation that staff made was to extend it furt her east, which would mean that the applicant would agree to close off the western curb cut. He asked the petitioner if that was correct. Mr. McGrath stated he believed the intent of the staff report was that if ultimately the western access is required to be closed by IDOT, the easement would have to be moved to the west. He asked staff if they wa nt to move that easement regardless of whether or not IDOT requires that western access to be closed . Planner Schwarz stated the answer is yes. IDOT ultimate ly is the agency that has jurisdiction now of this segment of 143 rd Street, and the Village can always give a recommendation to IDOT, but they will make the final decision. The Plan Commission and the Village Board can either concur or not concur with sta ff’s recommendation. The Traffic Committee suggested that of the two existing access points, the westernmost be closed . Commissioner Renzi talked about where the staff report mentions aligning the drives in the eastern access point. He further stated th e staff report states the traffic volume warrants the closing of one of these accesses. He asked the petitioner if he was okay with this. Mr. McGrath stated he was okay with that. Commissioner Renzi’s preference was to have one access rather than two. He would have the one further away from the intersection. Planner Mike Schwarz stated the Traffic Committee believes it is redundant to have two so close to each other when they serve the same purpose. Chairman Sobkoviak called the petitioner ’s attent ion to the staff report regarding recommendations to the site plan. He stated staff has two recommendations to the site plan. He stated the recommendation regarding the access points was just discussed and asked about the recommendation relocating the tr ash enclosure to the north end of the new east parking lot. Mr. McGrath stated they are amenable to that. Commissioner Renzi asked if parking spaces are being lost off of 143 rd St. would it be possible to push the trash enclosure further back and maybe p rovide an extra parking space, 2 or 3, along that area. Mr. McGrath stated along the eastern edge of the property, they have run parking as far to the north as they can within the allotted space to allow the 24’ driveway between the building and the parki ng. The parking is pushed up against the 5’ setback. The only way they would be able to gain additional parking would be to build it on the west side where they are not planning at this time to do any construction . I t would require additional variances at that point because the existing paving is nonconforming and goes up to the actual property line.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 4, 2008 Page 8 of 14 Chairman Sobkoviak referred to staff’s six recommendation s regarding the building elevations. He asked the petitioner if there was any difficulty in a chieving those recommendations. Mr. McGrath stated the biggest issue involves the recommendation of adding brick to the facades. He referenced the first recommendation which mentioned adding brick to the existing exterior of the front of the building. H e did not want to say he was opposed to the id ea, but his concern is knowing this is a metal building he was concerned of what the foundation was designed for as far as width and structure in order to be able to support even just a brick veneer. He doubte d that the found ation was built wide enough. He was concerned there would be a lot of additional costs. To do the foundation along the existing wall and under that existing wall would require Mr. Eich to shut down his store. He felt that would be an eco nomic hardship he would not be able to endure. Commissioner Kachel asked about face brick. He felt that could be attached directly to the building. Mr. McGrath stated because of the way the metal building is designed , it would require a large amount of steel because he believed the columns were spaced between 14 and 20 feet apart. In order to carry that masonry the only solution , other than putting in a new foundation , would be to put in another piece of steel at the bottom of the wall, probably a beam of some sort, and then an angle attached to that for the masonry to sit on. That would require cutting open the existing wall from both sides. Commissioner Kachel asked if the petitioner was talking about 3 -1/2 inch brick. The petitioner was talking a bout 3 -1/2 inch brick. Planner Schwarz stated some of the buildings in town have used the thin brick veneer, 1 -1/2 to 1 -3/4 inches thick and it is applied with a mastic, a glue -on material. There was a discussion about the brick veneer. Mr. McGrath stat ed that was a possible option . There was a discussion about different products. Planner Schwarz stated this is an interesting case because it has policy implications moving forward for how buildings can be retrofitted. Planner Schwarz stated the plannin g staff had thoughts that this building some day could be re -imagined in a phase approach. Maybe some brick is put on the new addition and then down the road additional brick comes toward the front. The request tonight is for approval of the plans as pro posed. Staff has just outlined some ideas. There are some options that the Commission needs to weigh in on. Commissioner O’Rourke stated the biggest issue is the variance for the metal building. It depends upon how the commissioners feel whether the me tal is an issue. Planner Mike Schwarz agreed. Commissioner Kachel felt the front of the building should have some type of architectural feel. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the petitioner about the remaining recommendations to the site plan. Mr. McGrath st ated there was no problem with the applicant painting the existing white garage doors. He stated their initial intent with the trash enclosure was to do an opaque screening with a fencing material, which is allowable by the Zoning Code, but they would be willing to discuss this with staff. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the petitioner about the 8 issues staff has identified regarding the landscape plan and if they had any issues with these. Mr. McGrath stated he did not see any problem with the landscape pla n requirement s . He also stated the photometric plan is not a problem. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the petitioner about the 9 issues regarding the Preliminary/Final Plat staff identified in the staff report. Mr. McGrath stated there was no objection .
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 4, 2008 Page 9 of 14 Ch airman Sobkoviak asked about the 6 parking spaces that would be lost when the roadway is widened. He asked the petitioner if he felt they could do without the 6 parking spaces. Mr. McGrath felt they could do without them. He further stated they are over parked by 1 parking space, so really they would possibly lose 5 parking spaces. Commissioner O’Rourke asked the petitioner about the current drive aisle. He stated it is less than the standard of 24’. Mr. McGrath stated it appears from the site plan dr awing that it is 22’ from the edge of the parking space to the sidewalk itself, but in the front of the building there is no barrier curb between the sidewalk and the pavement, so it is approximately 26’ to 28’ from the edge of the building itself to the p arking space. Commissioner O’Rourke stated without a barrier it creates some potential for issues when you have a shortened aisle to begin with. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that cared to ask a question or make a comment . There was no response. Commissioner Renzi wondered if the petitioner was okay with the recommendations adding height dimensions to the building elevations, providing a material sample for the proposed metal addition, and depicting utility meter locatio ns. Mr. McGrath had no problem with those recommendations. Commissioner Renzi stated the only outs tanding issue is recommendation #1 regarding adding brick to the elevation. Mr. McGrath agreed.. Commissioner Sanders also had comments on recommendatio n #1 for the site plan. He felt the rear building doesn’t seem to be as much of a concern as the existing building when it comes to the verticality, which a metal “pole” building poses. He felt the aesthetics and some kind of horizontal treatment could b e extended from the front entrance along the side so that you do not have the verticality at the roof line, in excess of 20’. He would not be as concerned about what the rear building looked like, as much as the east and south side s . Commissioner Kachel asked if there was going to be a ny natural day lighting, skylighting, etc., in the gymnasium. That would give a different look on the back of the building if that was added. Mr. McGrath stated no lighting is intended to be incorporated into the addition at this time mostly due to budgetary reasons due to the nature of the pre -engineered structures. Commissioner Bonuchi asked if landscaping effects could be used to “dress up” the building itself to address concerns of how the building looks on the outsi de. This will provide a place for the youth to come to play basketball in a controlled environment. She felt it is an important addition. Commissioner McKay stated traffic is an important issue for her. She feels this is a benefit to the community. It is in an industrial area with industrial buildings surrounding it mak ing it unique and different from many of the other buildings that have come through asking for similar variances. There is no housing directly adjacent. She felt the community benefit far outweighs restricting the applicant from building the metal addition.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 4, 2008 Page 10 of 14 Commissioner Renzi agreed with Commissioner McKay. He wanted to go back to the proposed findings of fact. He suggested that finding #1 (harmony and welfare to the community …..) could be revised to favorable since this could be a “drive -to ” destination that could assist in filling up some of the other open buildings in the area. He felt having a viable destination is very good for promoting the health, safety, and general wel fare of the community. He felt 3 of the findings are favorable instead of 2 and it should be allowed to go throu gh for the expansion of the non conforming warehouse look/retail/commercial building. He stated he could be amenable to some sort of landscapin g. He also would like some windows to break up the horizontal lines. Some tweaking needs to be done with the design. Commissioner Kachel agreed that there needs to be some sort of lighting, windows, translucent panels, etc. Chairman Sobkoviak encourage d the petitioner to work with staff to resolve issue #1 regarding the brick, brick veneer, etc. before it is presented to the Village Board. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the general opinion of the Plan Commission is that something should be added to the fr ont of the existing building, brick veneer, additional landscaping, etc. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he didn’t feel like that. Commissioner Kachel stated he would like to see something to spruce up the front of the building. All of the buildings that h ave gone in along there have had to spruce up the front of their buildings. Chairman Sobkoviak polled the commissioners about the front of the building. It was about half and half for something being added to the front of the building. Commissioner McKa y stated it was her understanding that basically the Commission is talking about the addition. Commissioner Kachel stated when a variance is requested, other things can be picked up. Chairman Sobkoviak stated Commissioner McKay is actually correct. Comm issioner Peck asked if the petitioner had not come before the Commission for a variance, could they have left the building facade as is. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that was the case. Commissioner Peck felt the overhanging roofs and everything else in back would be an undue burden on the applicant . He felt adding to the metal building the way it is would be the best way to do it. He would encourage landscaping, but not require it. He did not want to see places that are “grandfathered” in, similar to the auction house, gravel parking lots, etc. He would definitely support these variances. Commissioner Renzi stated he heard some consensus on the south façade. He did not hear any massive reconstruction on the south façade , but instead something to enhance the look of the south façade that would be minimally evasive to the building. Possibly some sort of landscaping could be used. Commissioner Kachel agreed with Commissioner Renzi. He suggested precast brick planters on the outside that could dress up the front of the building. Mr. McGrath asked if Commissioner Kachel was talking about a garden wall. Planner Mike Schwarz stated that was a good idea, but did not know if it was feasible with the spacing. Commissioner Sanders stated there could be co st effective changes to the front façade. Mr. McGrath stated it seems to him the Commission is looking for them to look at a way to soften the impact of the appearance of the metal building along the south façade, whether it be through some sort of horizo ntal application, masonry application, landscaping, whether it be in planters or pots, but some way of softening the impact of that appearance.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 4, 2008 Page 11 of 14 Chairman Sobkoviak stated he needed the Commission to consider the variances being requested. He reminded the commissioners that if they were recommending approval of the variances they are accepting staff’s positive findings of fact to justify these variances. Variances can only be justified on the basis of the findings of fact. Staff has given a tally of 2 fav orable, 1 neutral, and 1 unfavorable. Commissioner Renzi pointed out that it is probably more likely to be 3 favorable findings and 1 neutral. Chairman Sobkoviak agreed with Commissioner Renzi. The Commission looks at the 4 findings of fact and usually 3 out of 4 positive findings are needed before approval. Commissioner Renzi talked about the neutral finding. It talks about “noth ing can yield a reasonable use”. Commissioner Renzi felt the need to expand to remain competitive could allow the neutral finding to move to favorable since there co uld be an economic hardship if Mr. Eich was not allowed to expand to remain competitive. Mr. McGrath stated that it is in the opinion of the Eich’s that the addition of the gymnasium will be required for them to remain competitive within the neighborhood and community. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it would appear then that there are actually 4 favorable findings of fact to justify the request for variance. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the Commission was agreeable on the site plan review. The Commission concurred. Commissioner Renzi wanted to modify stipulation #3 regarding the Site Plan Review to state as modified or subject to Plan Commission. Planner Mike Schwarz stated he completes a technical review letter to the applicant and their design consultants stating what the code states. These are things that are required under the Ordinance. He stated that could be left out of the report, but the applicant would still have to comply with many of those items. Co mmissioner Sanders wanted to modify stipulation #3 to read “Subject to the plans being revised to address staff’s review comments as outlined in this memorandum and comments outlined by the Plan Commission as covered in the minutes.” At 8:54 p.m. Commissi oner O’Rourke made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance from the provisions of Chapter 9, Article XIII, Section 9 -116(1) (Development Standards – Commercial and Office Development) of the Village of Plainfield Municipal Code, to allow a metal building façade for Eich’s Sports, located at 24316 W. 143 rd Street. Commissioner McKay seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: O’Rourke, Sanders, Bonuchi, Kachel, McKay, Renzi, Chair man Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 7:0. At 8:55 p.m. Commissioner Bonuchi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance from the provisions of Chapter 9, Article XIII, Section 9 -116(1) (Development Standa rds – Commercial and Office Development) of the Village of Plainfield Municipal Code, to waive the required overhanging eaves and/or sloping roof and/or prominent cornices along the roofline, for Eich’s Sports, located at 24316 W. 143 rd Street. Commission er Kachel seconded the motion.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 4, 2008 Page 12 of 14 Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : Sanders, Bonuchi, Kachel, McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 7:0 . Planner Mike Schwarz wanted to make sure he understood the Com mission’s findings of fact. He stated the Commission found 3 of 4 findings as favorable, b, c & d. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Commission found all 4 of the findings to be favorable. Commissioner Renzi stated the first finding of fact was found favora ble by the Commission based on more of a global view of promoting the safety and general welfare. Planner Mike Schwarz asked about the neutral finding, c. Commissioner Renzi stated that would be supported because of the need to expand the business to rem ain competitive with the other facilities that are putting in indoor training facilities. At 8:58 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the request for Site Plan Review for Eich’s Sports, located at 24316 W. 143 rd Street, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Subject to the requirements of the Village Engineer; 2. Subject to the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; 3. Subject to the plans being revised to address staff’s review comme nts as outlined in this memorandum and comments outlined by the Plan Commission as covered in the minutes Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Bonuchi, Sanders, Kachel, McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 7:0. At 8:59 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval for a Preliminary/Final Plat of Subdivision (consolidation) for Eich’s Sports, located at 24316 W. 143 rd Stree t, subject to the following stipulations. 1. Subject to the requirements of the Village Engineer; 2. Subject to the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; 3. Subject to the plat being revised to address staff’s review comments as outlined in this memorandum. Commissioner O’Rourke seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for vote by roll call. Aye: Sanders, Kachel, McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Bonuchi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 7:0
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 4, 2008 Page 13 of 14 CASE: 1390 -022508.PP.FP VAN DYKE RD. VENTURES Request: Preliminary & Final Plat Location: Northwest corner of Van Dyke & Prairie Grove Rd. Applicant: Scott Hagge – Van Dyke Rd. Venture, LLC TIME: 9:01 p.m. Planner Sara Leach summarized the staff report. Previously, t he Plan Commission reviewed more detailed plans for the site through the Site Plan Review process. This proposed platting is a follow -up of that. The area is currently zoned B -1 (Business Convenience District). This is a request for a Preliminary/Final Plat approval. This request is to solidify what has already been presented to the Plan Commission and address any easements, property lines, and right -of -ways that were necessary after staff’s review. Staff recommends approval of the request. Chairman S obkoviak asked Neal Eickholtz if there were any engineering issues. Kristina Falet stated there are no engineering concerns at this time. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to make a comment or ask a question. There was no response from the audience. Commissioner O’Rourke as ked about the two access points. Commissioner O’Rourke asked what the standard is for determining access points. Planner Mike Schwarz stated every project is different. The Site Plan has alread y been approved so the access points have already been found to be acceptable. There was a discussion about distances between access points. Commissioner Renzi stated multiple footprints were approved for this development. In the future if the Commissio n approves multiple footprints, the Commission could also make conditional approval of cuts. At 9:09 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the request for a Preliminary and Final Plat of Subdivision for th e Van Dyke Road Venture on the northwest corner of Van Dyke and Prairie Grove Road, subject to the following stipulations. 1. Subject to the requirements of the Village Engineer; 2. Subject to the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Commission Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Bonuchi, Sanders, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 7:0
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes March 4, 2008 Page 14 of 14 Chairman Sobkoviak reminded the commissi oners to hold onto their material for the Sanctuary at Marian Lake case . Commissioner Renzi asked if the revisions in the staff report for the Sanctuary at Marian Lake could be highlighted in some fashion. Planner Mike Schwarz summarized the development report regarding the Village Board meeting on 3/3/08. Commissioner Kachel asked if there were any comments on rear entry signs as far as things to be done on the exterior rear of the building. Planner Sara Leach stated staff added a stipulation for the s ign text amendment for the addition of lighting, demarcation , glass features on the door. That will be a permanent stipulation for the Central Sign District. Since there was no further business before the Commission, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meet ing at 9:14 p.m. _________________________________________ R espectfully Submitted Carol Millan – Planning Secretary Village of Plainfield