HomeMy Public PortalAbout2014-04-15 PC minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD April 1 5 , 2014 Chairman Sobkoviak called the Plan Commission meeting to order at 7:0 0 p.m. and led the pledge to the flag . ROLL CALL Commissioners Seggebruch, Renzi , Kiefer, Heinen, Green , Chairman Sobkoviak , and Fire District were present. C ommissioner O’Rourke, th e Park, School, and Library Districts were absent. AP PROVAL OF MINUTES : The Plan Commission minutes from April 1 , 2014 w ere accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There was no response. D EVELOPMENT REPORT Mr. Garrigan stated the Village Board approved the Kombol annexation by a vote of 6 -0. OLD BUSIN ESS Case No. 164 6 -031414PP/SU/Z/FP Row Homes at Prairie Creek Mr. Garrigan stated this case was continued from the last Plan Commission meeting and continues to be a public hearing being heard pursuant to public notice in accordance with state statue an d all applicable ordinances that was continued . The following were issues that needed to be addressed: 1) Verification by the Village Engineer that the proposed development is outside the 100 year and 500 year floodplain. 2) A request that the applicant submi t a revised plan showing the new sidewalk and parkway configuration. 3) A request for revised elevations for the townhomes that are being proposed for this development. Mr. Garrigan stated staff found the applicant had complied with the findings of fact for the rezoning and the special use. The applicant has provided a site plan with modifications showing the traditional parkways and with a 5 -foot sidewalk; and the site plan consists of 212 townhome units on 64 acres; the applicant has provided a series of 12 different elevations; staff is working with the applicant to have 3 different buildings with variations of each unit. Staff will continue to work with the applicant on the roof lines and to incorporate some dormers and to achieve a unified architectura l approach but avoid monotony . Staff has been working to incorporate some different architectural variations as it relates to window trim for the side and rear elevations. Mr. Garrigan stated Steve Amann, the village engineer from the firm of Baxter and Woodman, is present to address any concerns as it relates to the storm water. Mr. Garrigan said Staff is recommending a favorable recommendation subject to the final engineering approval for both the special use and the rezoning along with the platting o f this property. Mr. Amann stated they reviewed this site when the detentions ponds were built, the access road, and the utilities for this site; made sure they complied with all the village ordinances; recently reviewed the floodplain elevations relative to the houses and to the access roads; stated he would defer to the design engineer on the elevations of the houses; stated it appears the foundations for the homes (there will not be any basements, the houses will be slab on grade) are above both the 1 00 and 500 year floodplain elevations at this site. The access road is well above the 100 and 500 year floodplain elevation; from a floodplain p e rspective the project is pretty protected. Michael P. Collins VILLAGE P RESIDENT Michelle Gibas VILLAGE CLERK TRUSTEES Margie Bonuchi Paul Fay Bill Lamb Garrett M. Peck James Racich Dan Rippy
Plan Commission Minutes April 1 5 , 2014 Page 2 of 7 Chairman Sobkoviak asked if Mr. Amann had received the report from Cemcon and if Mr. Amann had any objections to the report. Mr. Amann stated he did not have a paper copy and was reviewing it on his phone; and indicated he did not have any objections to the report. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the applicant and his repr esentatives (Len Monson, 552 S Washington, Naperville, attorney for Petitioner ; Andrew Mouw, Ryan Homes; Kevin Seraphin, Cemcon ) remain sworn in. Mr. Monson stated the y have provided a sidewalk as requested; provided additional elevations and continue to work with Staff; stated they comply with the city ordinances regarding the floodplain. Mr. Monson stated Mr. Seraphin will address the floodplain issues and comment on Mr. Bilow’s analysis. Mr. Seraphin stated with Mr. Bilow’s help they were able to l ocate the USG S report; spoke with Elizabeth Murphy who put the USG S report together. Mr. Seraphin stated that according to Ms. Murphy the purpose of that report was not to be anything towards the regulatory nature; it was to see how this water shed functi oned in the 2013 storm and how to address some of the emergency issues associated with what happened in that storm. Mr. Seraphin described the 100 and 500 year floodplain elevations of the access drive and the bridge; indicated the secondary access has be en relocated so it is outside of the 100 year floodplain but explained it is still in the 500 year floodplain . Mr. Mouw explained they have reconfigured the plan so they have a traditional sidewalk rather than the carriage walk with a 25 foot back to back curb; there is a 78 foot minimum house to house with the 25 foot road, 8 foot parkway and the 5 foot sidewalk and the parking spot on either side in the driveway; they staked the borrow pits and will work with staff to create some way to break up the driv es on the east side . They have a strategy on the elevations and will continue working with Staff. Commissioner Renzi reviewed the five points in the staff report. Commissioner Kiefer asked about the garage windows. Mr. Garrigan indicated they have agre ed to grids on the windows on all the elevations; windows that will have trim which will be constructed as part of the window. Mr. Garrigan indicated they will need a landscaping plan before this case proceeds to the Village Board. Chairman Sobkoviak op ened the meeting to public comments. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Bob Bilow, 14126 S Naperville Rd. Mr. Bilow asked if the land planned for the development had been filled in any way. Mr. Seraphin described the areas that have been elevated out of the floodplain and indicated the detention areas have been excavated out to compensate; the area outlined in yellow has always been at the elevation it is today. Mr. Seraphin indicated material had been removed from the borrow pits. Mr. Bilow described his presentation of the study done by the USGS which included the flood waters at 1 foot through 14 feet; described the flooding at the bridge at 135 th Street; described the Norman Drain; stated there would not be any access to the secondary access road. Mr. Bilow indicated he was not a licensed professional engineer. Chairman Sobko viak swore in Karen Rebuehr, 139 34 S Weller Dr ive . Ms. Rebuehr expressed concern with flooding; described the flooding that occurred in 2013; indicated the village was thinking of sandbagging to prevent water reaching Route 59 in the 2013 flood; indicated 135 th both to the east and west was blocked at the bridge be tween Rte 59 and Naperville Road, and Naperville Road was closed . Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Mary Lehmann, 24738 W F raser Road. Ms. Lehmann expressed concern with flooding downstream ; would prefer this project not be built . Chairman Sobkoviak reminded Thomas D. Mooney, 14110 S Naperville Road that he remains under oath . Mr. Mooney expressed concern with flooding ; sta ted the flooding is getting worse; suggested this property be made a part of the Riverwalk.
Plan Commission Minutes April 1 5 , 2014 Page 3 of 7 Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Jerry Taylor, 14310 S Naperville Road. Mr. Taylor expressed concern with flooding and the debris from the flooding; feels there is a flooding problem in Plainfield; and would prefer this project not be built. Chairman Sobk o viak swor e in Teresa Malick, 13654 S Capista. Ms. Malick feels the new development that will be taking place on Book Road will affect the properties downstream ; in the past 7 years the back flow has grown from a little stream to a river in the farm field; the berm built by Lakelands and the canoe launch affects others; and fe els a newer study might be needed before this development is built . Commissioner Sobkoviak s wore in Marta Simmons, 23508 E William Ct. Ms. Simmons mentioned that 6 or 7 homes that were purchased by FEMA in the Weller Subdivision due to the flooding issues. Mr. Bilow suggested Plainfield should excavate this area to give the river a greater area in which to drain to better serve the neighbors. Mr. Mooney stated the earthen berm along Route 59 is 450 feet long and the river was ready to flood over in 2013. Mr. Seraphin explained the methodology that the USGS took in their report; they took a DEM file from Will County GIS which was based on 2004 topography and supplemented in 2007 but not supplemented in this area . The topography used was pre development before any of th is excavation had taken place or the construction of the bridge. Secondly, t he pictures provided by Mr. Bilow’s presentation showed the flooded areas to be in the area where the bridge is; the projections of the flooding limits was based on the flood profile that were generated by the USGS which was not included in the report, (bu t stated he was able to get an excel file that was not in the report from USGS.) This report starts at the Shorewood station and identifies the station and elevations for all 9 stages that were studied. Mr. Seraphin further described the elevations in th e floodplain . The lowest foundation is 612 with the lowest bridge elevation is 612.1 which is 5 to 6 feet over the high water level elevations shown in the report . Mr. Seraphin stated they have rerouted the location of the secondary access to be out of t he 100 year floodplain Mr. Amann stated the map that USGS was based on a profile of the water surface that they estimated from the stream gauge information starting in Shorewood and they took the stages of 9 or 6 foot above the flood stage to 14 feet up and extrapolated all the way upstream to here. This area is the upper limit of their study in Plainfield. They used a computer model to develop the models as they came upstream and overlaid topography that the county gave them and came up with the in u n d ation map. This is like a flood plain map, you calculate a floodplain elevation , lay it out on the topo to see where the ground is underwater and that is floodplain. The difference here is the development of the bridge and detention ponds and all the com mercial area was built after 2004 so the inundation map that USGS used based on that flood elevation did not take into account the new elevation at this site that was built up s in ce 2007 . Mr. Amann corroborated with Mr. Seraphin that the floodplain elevat ions that they are required to regulate to as well as the USGS elevations are all below the site, below the houses, and below the access road. Mr. Monson stated they have to be fully compliant with the Village Engineers, will all requirements of the USGS and every group that oversees this. Mr. Monson stated the proposed project is out of both the 100 and 500 year floodplains. Chairman Sobkoviak closed the public comments. Commissione r Heinen asked Mr. Amann to further explain the USGS report. Mr. Ama nn stated this is a n a malgation of both topography and modeling; the picture is simply aerial topography ; it appears white on the slide but that is the flooding extent that they are showing in the results of their model; the model is based on an estimation of the water surfaces along the DuPage River during the events and then overlaid on the topography of 2004 that then determines the extent of the white area or that inundated area which is shown on this map. Commissioner Heinen said then this is not a pi cture of what happened – it is based on models, and topo that may be approximate (it is hard to get exact topo and that is why the engineers, developers hire surveyors to do exact topo of the property and figure out the elevation of their property versus t he elevation of the 100 and 500 year floodplains. Mr. Ser a phin stated the models used by the USGS provided by Will County were based on orthographic projections through this
Plan Commission Minutes April 1 5 , 2014 Page 4 of 7 area were done in 2004 while the work in this area was started in May 2005; they did not have the benefit of using post development topography after this area was reconfigured and the detention ponds were built. Commissioner Heinen said the topo maps they are using are based on 2004 while the rainfall was based on 2013 starting at Sho rewood and working backwards ; the inundated entrance was based on 2004 and not on the existing conditions; if they showed the existing conditions the entrance would be elevated outside of the floodplain. Mr. Seraphin said the orthographic projections that they used to generate these digital elevation models with aerial topo graphy could be with an accuracy of 2 feet; showed the area he has done a topo with an accuracy of 6 inches. Mr. Amann said in the report from the USGS you find a disclaimer that this s tudy was not intended to be used for regulatory. Commissioner Heinen stated FEMA is the regulatory agency in regards to floodplain. Commissioner Heinen asked if Mr. Amann would concur that with the access out of the floodplain that the residents should h ave emergency access to this development. Mr. Amann stated yes even during the 100 year event; 135 th Street was built many years ago but the design for the access road had the benefit of knowing what the floodplain elevations were so it was designed to mee t those elevations and be above. Commissioner Heinen mentioned some of the other concerns have to do with the water that will be introduced based on this development; asked if they could give their opinion as to the amount of water that will be generated from this development. Mr. Amann stated this site is 1/10 th of a square mile while the tributary area at this is 250 square miles so percentage wise this site contributes very little to the overall flow into the DuPage River; we have detention on this sit e that is intended to store and reduce the peak flow from the site for their development. Commissioner Heinen stated one of the resident ’s concerns is that it seems that things have changed; there ha ve changes upstream from their property that ha ve caused some concerns or issues on their properties; asked if they knew of a ny differences that might be reason for the recent flooding. Mr. Amann stated DuPage County has been developed for many years; meteorologist s and hydrologists studies are showing that th e r ainfall patterns are changing ; we are getting more frequent large events on a back to back basis; this is a global problem not defined to the DuPage River or specifically to this site. Commissioner Heinen asked if he knew of any illegal berming that ha s been done. Mr. Amann replied no. Commissioner Heinen asked for an analysis - if this area was knocked down to create a compensatory storage . Mr. Amann said the contributory area of the DuPage River is 250 some square miles; to dig a hole to contain an d actually reduce the level of the DuPage River would be an unimaginable cost. Commissioner Heinen indicated they tried to construct compensatory storage facilities in Northbrook. If this property were knocked down it could not solve the issue. Commissi oner Renzi indicated the Cemcon report was not signed; asked if Mr. Seraphin had input on this report. Mr. Seraphin indicated he finished the report today; the report is not a technical submittal, t he report is a summary of fact and findings; the report i s just to refute the allegations ; stated his company has been involved with this project since 2004 and any analysis done in this area is based on his topographic data, his engineering plans and the as built survey after the construction; further described the findings of this report. Commissioner Renzi asked about the borrow pit on the eastern side of the property. Mr. Seraphin stated the borrow pit has been filled it; previous owners took material from this area to provide good structural material to se rve as a base for the foundations in the commercial portion and filled in the pit with topsoil. Now the borrow pit is not suitable for foundations. When this pit was dug it was outside of the foundation footprint they had designed; our foundations have t o stay out of that area. Commissioner Renzi asked it the borrow pit affected the floodplain in any way. Mr. Seraphin said there is no effect, the pit was filled in but is no longer as compacted and will not support foundations; stated water tends to seek its own level. Commissioner Seggebruch asked the m ethod ology of the creation of the ponds on both the commercial and multi -family propert ies. Mr. Seraphin stated there is a creek between the detention ponds; described the ponds, how they collect water, release water and collect water again from the backflow.
Plan Commission Minutes April 1 5 , 2014 Page 5 of 7 Commercial Seggebruch expressed concern with the development of the commercial property ; concerned with the secondary access; stated the standard practice is 2 access points to any site. Mr. Mouw i ndicated they have a meeting scheduled with the Fire and Park Districts; they agree the emergency access will be greater than 12 feet. Commercial Seggebruch expressed concern with the proposed 25 foot street width; asked if there would be parking on the s treet with the narrower street; asked the normal width of a parkway and why this parkway is set at 8 feet. Mr. Mouw indicated if trees are to be placed in the parkway they need at least 8 feet. Mr. Garrigan thought the standard parkway is 10 feet. Mr. Mouw indicated parking will be restricted to one side; explained the narrower street is traffic calming also; every unit has 4 parking spaces including the garage; there are 55 guest parking spaces. Mr. Garrigan indicated the Fire Dept. has not yet revie wed the new revised plan. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Fire Dept. will have to give their approval also. Commissioner Renzi asked if there were consensus that there would be parking on only one side of the street. Mr. Mouw indicated he did not have a p roblem restricting parking to one side of the street. Commissioner Renzi indicated 73 feet versus 78 feet front to front of the houses. Mr. Garrigan indicated the 78 feet is the new cross section. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if a stipulation should be adde d to create a Special Service Area. Mr. Garrigan indicated it should be added as a third stipulation to the final plat. Mr. Mouw indicated they have no objection to this additional stipulation. Commissioner Kiefer felt the questions and comments from th e residents are all good points; appreciated the discussion and explanation on the flooding; concerned the proposal only shows a sidewalk on 1 side of the street , asked if there were going to be sidewalks on the interior side of the street. Mr. Mouw state d because of the site constraints there is not room for the second sidewalk. Commissioner Heinen asked if Staff was OK with the one sidewalk. Mr. Garrigan stated he would continue working with the applicant on this issue. Commissioner Renzi asked if sti pulation no. 3 under the motion for the special use was still needed in relationship to the sidewalk. Mr. Garrigan stated stipulation no. 3 can be eliminated under the special use. Commissioner Heinen made a motion to recommend approval of the R -4 zoni ng for the subject site. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Vote by roll call: Green , abstain ; Seggebruch, yes; Kiefer, yes; Renzi, yes ; Heinen, yes ; Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried 6 -0 -1 Commissioner Renzi made a motion to recommend approval of t he Special Use for Planned Development subject to the following stipulations numbered 1, 2, and 4 in the planner’s report : 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection Distric t. 4. Submittal of a landscape plan and revised land plan with additional landscaping as per staff’s suggestions. Commissioner Heinen seconded the motion. Vote by roll call: Kiefer, yes; Seggebruch, no; Green, abstain; Heinen, yes; Renzi, yes; Sobkoviak, y es. Motion carried 4 -1 -1 Commissioner Kiefer made a motion to recommend approval of the Site Plan subject to the following stipulations:
Plan Commission Minutes April 1 5 , 2014 Page 6 of 7 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 3. I ncorporation of an emergency access point subject to the mutual approval of the Plainfield Fire Protection District and Plainfield Park District. 4. Submittal of revised architectural elevations of townhomes as per staff’s suggestions. Commissioner Heinen se conded the motion. Vote by roll call: Renzi, yes; Seggebruch, no; Green, abstain; Heinen, yes; Kiefer, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried 4 -1 -1 Commissioner Renzi made a motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat subject to the fol lowing stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 3. C reation of a Special Service Agreement for the property in question. Commissioner Kiefer seconded the motion. Vote by roll call: Heinen, yes; Seggebruch, no; Green, abstain; Kiefer, yes; Renzi, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried 4 -1 -1 NEW BUSINESS Case No. 1647 -041114.SPR Wendy’s Re -imagining Mr. Proulx stated the applicant is a comprehensive r eimaging of the existing Wendy’s Restaurant located within the Menards’s shopping center at the northeast corner of Route 59 and 135 th Street. Mr. Proulx stated the proposed changes involve taking the existing brick elevation and incorporating more modern elements to create a fresh modern design. Mr. Proulx described the new tile material, the metal coping; and the proposed monolith to be added on the front elevation with a projecting red EIFS window surround to provide a basis for the front signage and a lso around the drive -thru window on the north elevation would contain the red EIFS material. Overall staff feels the modern design is a fresh new look; the majority of the materials comply with the site plan review ordinance. Staff is seeking direction from the Plan Commission on the proposed monolith and EIFS material and color of the monolith and pick -up window. There are some minor changed to the curb, walkway and ramp. The applicant has submitted engineering plans which will be reviewed by the sta ff engineer. In general Staff suggests a favorable recommendation of the site plan review for the reimaging of Wendy’s Restaurant pending any input from the Commission. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Kenneth M. Price, repre sentative of Watermark Engineer ing on behalf of Wendy’s International ; stated CBRE is overseeing the project; and Abbott Studios is the architect. Mr. Price described the new site plan on a 1.8 acre parcel; described the access from Route 59 and the one way traffic flow around the build ing; stated Wendy’s is re -imagining and re -branding the look; there will be a new vestibule incorporated within the building while the outside envelope will not change. Mr. Price described the proposed new walkway, the accessible route into the existing d oor will be made ADA compliant and the required striping will be added; the parking stalls will be re -striped. Mr. Price indicated they would like to incorporate a canopy over the top of the order station to provide weather protection during the ordering process . Mr. Price described the architecture and the proposed wall scone lighting ; stated the overall site lighting will not be changed . There w ere no public comments.
Plan Commission Minutes April 1 5 , 2014 Page 7 of 7 Commissioner Renzi asked the location of the spandrel glass ; and asked the purpose of the window surround. Mr. Price stated the contrast of the white material with the spandrel glass is an architect design element to provide interest. Commissioner Renzi asked about the color and location of the canopy and what material would make up th e canopy. Mr. Price indicated the canopy was not shown but it would be located over the ordering station and thought it would integral to the b uilding – it will not be fabric or canvas material; did not know if there was any down lighting in the overhang. Commissioner Renzi asked that the material of the canopy and if any lighting was to be added in the report. Commissioner Green asked if any changes to the building or the addition of the canopy would alter the drainage character of the site. Mr. Price said the site changes would not dramatically change any drainage patterns. Commissioners Green and Kiefer asked if the drive -thru would create any changes to the traffic pattern. Mr. Price stated the canopy will be an apparatus that goes over the top of the ordering station in the drive -thru and this will not impact or change the traffic pattern, the canopy will simply protect the driver while ordering. Commissioner Seggebruch asked if there was something that could be used other than EIFS; suggested t hey could use a type of metal panel instead of the EIFS and still get the same look . Mr. Garrigan agreed Staff tries to limit the usage of EIFS on Route 59. Commissioner Seggebruch stated the ADA upgrades is a good thing; indicated 1 of the spaces sho uld be indicated as van accessible with signage. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if ther e was a consensus on the monoli th material . Commissioner Seggebruch suggested the ACM panel could be substituted. Mr. Price agreed they would agree to this substitute the m aterial. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the applicant could incorporate additional wood grain tile or perhaps face brick to match the elevation. Mr. Price stated the project architect is beholding this is part of their rebranding and re -imaging and would li ke to keep the color; the ACM panel in place of the EIFS is satisfactory. Commissioner Seggebruch asked if the window surround could be changed from EIFS to metal. Mr. Price stated he spoke with the architect and both the white and red could be done in t he ACM panel. Commissioner Seggebruch asked if a stipulation was needed. Chairman Sobkoviak stated they agreed to the changes under oath. Commissioner Seggebruch made a motion to recommend approval of the site plan review for a proposed reimaging of Wend y’s Restaurant located at 13407 S Route 59, subject to the following two (2) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer; 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; Commissioner Kiefer seconded the motion. Vote by roll call: Green, yes; Heinen, yes; Renzi, yes; Kiefer, yes; Seggebruch, yes; Sobkoviak, yes. D ISCUSSION Meeting Adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted by _________________________ Merrilee Trotz Recording Secretary