Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-04-2020 ZBA Agenda PacketZoning Board of Appeals & Plan Commission Tuesday, August 04, 2020 7:00 PM Village Boardroom 24401 W. Lockport Street Plainfield, IL 60544 Agenda ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS A.CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE TO THE FLAG, ROLL CALL B.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on January 7, 2020. 01-07-2020 ZBA Minutes C.PUBLIC COMMENTS - • Please email public comments to publiccomments@goplainfield.com, please note PUBLIC COMMENTS - ZBA in the email subject line. Comments must be received by Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. • Village Meetings are livestreamed on the Village’s Website - https://plainfield-il.org/pages/agendasmeetings, click “in progress” when available. • Live meetings are broadcast on Comcast Channel 6 and AT&T U-verse Channel 99. D.DEVELOPMENT REPORT E.OLD BUSINESS F.NEW BUSINESS CASE NUMBER: 1885-071520.VAR REQUEST: Variance (Public Hearing) LOCATION: SEC of West Rock Drive and South Mueller Circle APPLICANT: Sean Reynolds Please email public comments to publiccomments@goplainfield.com, please note PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS - ZBA in the email subject line. Comments must be received by Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. 16605 S. Mueller Cir. Staff Report & Graphics 1 Zoning Board of Appeals & Plan Commission Page - 2 G.DISCUSSION H.ADJOURN PLAN COMMISSION A.CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL B.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of the Plan Commission meeting held on July 21, 2020. 07-21-2020 Plan Commission Minutes C.PUBLIC COMMENTS - • Please email public comments to publiccomments@goplainfield.com, please note PUBLIC COMMENTS - PLAN COMMISSION in the email subject line. Comments must be received by Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. • Village Meetings are livestreamed on the Village’s Website - https://plainfield-il.org/pages/agendasmeetings, click “in progress” when available. • Live meetings are broadcast on Comcast Channel 6 and AT&T U-verse Channel 99. D.OLD BUSINESS E.NEW BUSINESS CASE NUMBER: Will County REQUEST: Opportunity for input on Will County Case LOCATION: East side of South Aero Drive and South of 119th Street APPLICANT: Naim Halili 11953 S. Aero Dr. Staff Report F.DISCUSSION G.ADJOURN REMINDERS - August 17th - Village Board at 7:00 p.m. August 18th - Plan Commission at 7:00 p.m. 2 Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Minutes Date: January 7, 2020 Location: Village Hall CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE & ROLL CALL Chairman Kiefer called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Heinen, Minnis, Renzi, Ruane, Seggebruch, Womack and Chairman Kiefer were present. Plainfield Fire Protection District was present. Plainfield Township Park District, Plainfield Public Library District and Plainfield Community Consolidated School District 202 were absent. OTHERS PRESENT: Jessica Gal, Associate Planner; and Jonathan Proulx, Director of Planning APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals dated November 19, 2019 were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Kiefer asked for public comment and there was no response. DEVELOPMENT REPORT No report. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS Case No. 1864-120419.VAR 25229 W. Zoumar Dr. Jeffrey DeRango Mr. Proulx stated the applicant is seeking a variance to allow a covered porch to encroach 3.68 feet into the front yard setback. According to the Village’s Zoning Ordinance, a 30-foot front yard setback is required for residential structures in the R-1 zoning district. Mr. Proulx stated according to the applicant, the encroachment into the front yard setback is due to a surveying error that occurred prior to home construction. Such error was not discovered until home construction was complete and was noted on the as-built property survey. Thus, the applicant is seeking a variance in order to keep the covered porch. Keeping the existing porch is of significant importance to the applicant because the encroachment is minimal whereas removing the porch, rooflines and sidewalk to rebuild a smaller porch would be an extensive cost and be an inconvenience. Even so, the porch that could be constructed to meet the setback could only be two to three feet deep which results in a space that is not functionable to a new homeowner. Mr. Proulx reviewed the finding of facts in the staff report dated January 3, 2020. Mr. Proulx concluded Staff finds that the mistake in the plat of survey which resulted in the requested encroachment is minor deviation from the code and will not change the character of the neighborhood nor significantly impact adjacent properties. The applicant has implemented additional checks to avoid the same error. Removing the porch and rebuilding a smaller one is a costly undertaking and a smaller porch would not benefit a new homebuyer. However, staff remains neutral whether the property could not still yield a reasonable use since the house has already been constructed on the subject property. Prior to discussion by the Zoning Board of Appeals and any public comment given during the public hearing, staff recommends approval for the proposed variance. 3 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 7, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Chairman Kiefer swore in Patti Bernhard, Attorney for applicant. Ms. Bernhard provided a presentation on why the variance is being requested. Ms. Bernhard stated the encroachment was not discovered until the as-built survey. Chairman Kiefer asked for public comments. Chairman Kiefer swore in Marilyn Munsayac, resident. Ms. Munsayac voiced a concern regarding that the homes adjacent to the property have not been built. Chairman Kiefer closed public comments. Chairman Kiefer asked staff if they feel this will create an ongoing problem. Mr. Proulx stated staff is not concerned and is comfortable with a favorable recommendation. Chairman Kiefer swore in Jeffrey DeRango, surveyor for the applicant. Commissioner Ruane asked who the builder is. Mr. Bernhard stated Lennar, also known as CalAtlantics, is the builder. Commissioner Ruane asked if the home passed all the inspections with the Village. Ms. Bernhard stated it does not have a certificate of occupancy. Commissioner Ruane questioned why this issue was not caught during the as-built foundation inspection. Mr. DeRango stated during the foundation survey the porch was not located on the survey because the field crew did not locate at that time. Commissioner Heinen asked if the foundation for the porch is poured at the same time the house foundation is poured. Mr. DeRango stated a frost or wing wall would have been there. Commissioner Seggebruch asked if the porch was added at a later date and if the building permit has the porch on it. Mr. DeRango stated the building permit had a different elevation on it, which was the problem. Mr. DeRango stated they have changed their process to ensure this problem does not occur again and took responsibility for the error. Commissioner Heinen believes this is a mistake and that is why he supports the variance. Commissioner Minnis stated he is willing to support the variance and indicated is learning experience for the village, builder, and surveyor. Commissioner Renzi stated he will support the variance because of the economic realities of the situation. Commissioner Ruane stated he will support the variance and explained why. Commissioner Seggebruch also believes this is mistake and will support the variance. Commissioner Heinen suggested there be a 2-foot encroachment on the adjacent lots. Commissioner Renzi stated the encroachment will need to be asked for and approved. Commissioner Heinen made a motion to we adopt the findings of fact of staff as the findings of fact of the Zoning Board of Appeals and recommend approval of a variance to remain the existing concrete porch up to 3.68 feet into the front yard for the property located at 25229 West Zoumar Drive. Seconded by Commissioner Renzi. Vote by roll call: Minnis, yes; Ruane, yes; Seggebruch, yes; Womack, yes; Renzi, yes; Heinen, yes; Kiefer, yes. Motion carried 7-0. 4 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 7, 2020 Page 3 of 5 Case No. 1865-12109.VAR 24216 W. Lockport St. Dale Lewis Ms. Gal the applicant is seeking a variance in order to allow internally illuminated signs on a building located in the Central Sign District. Pursuant to Section 9-100(3) of the Village’s Zoning Ordinance, only externally illuminated signs are permitted in the Central Sign District. Ms. Gal reviewed the staff report dated January 3, 2020. Ms. Gal concluded staff submits that the findings of fact have not been met in order to recommend approval of the variance request. While the glass wall on the primary façade poses a challenge in incorporating exterior lighting, Staff believes that there are solutions that can meet the applicant’s desire to illuminate wall signs and comply with the sign regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff proposes that the applicant review lighting alternatives with a sign contractor. Staff is seeking input and direction from the Zoning Board of Appeals on whether there is support to allow internally illuminated signs in the historic downtown which could be reviewed through a future text amendment process. Chairman Kiefer swore in John Argoudelis, attorney for applicant; and Dale Lewis, applicant. Mr. Argoudelis stated that the applicant has satisfied the four factors in the staff report. Mr. Argoudelis stated that the business is located on the edge of the central sign district and pointed out that Station One and Mora has signs that are internally light. Mr. Argoudelis stated that the applicant believed their signs were in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Argoudelis indicated the sign ordinance is better suited for more traditional building in downtown but does not make sense for larger multi-tenant buildings. Chairman Kiefer asked for public comment and there was no response. Commissioner Seggebruch asked staff if the Station One signage was approved administratively. Mr. Proulx stated the signage for Station One was approved as part of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development that was approved administratively. Mr. Proulx pointed out that Station One is not located in the historic district but is in the central sign district. Mr. Proulx stated staff does acknowledge that there is some unusual characteristic to the subject building, such as size of building and lot. Mr. Proulx addressed the timeline of the coordination with the applicant. Mr. Proulx stated the applicant was forthcoming with wanting an internally illumination of the signs and staff did a thorough review of the sign code to see if anything could be done administratively. Mr. Proulx stated since the sign code prohibits internally illumination staff provide the applicant with their options. Commissioner Seggebruch suggested the village may need to review the central sign district code. Commissioner Seggebruch stated the downtown area has a lot of lights from the trees and landscaping. Commissioner Seggebruch understands the applicant’s point regarding the size of the building warranting the sign. Commissioner Heinen stated he likes the signage the applicant has on the building because it complements the architecture of the building. Commissioner Heinen also suggested reviewing the central sign district code to add illuminated signs. Commissioner Renzi agrees that the signage looks nice but agrees with staff. Commissioner Renzi indicated to maybe limit the brightness of the lights, but their job is to enforce the code. Commissioner Minnis asked if the signs are in compliance with the code, expect for the illumination. Mr. Proulx stated correct. Commission Minnis clarified that the signs don’t need to removed, so it is a matter 5 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 7, 2020 Page 4 of 5 of finding a new way to light the signs to comply with the code. Commissioner Minnis stated he likes the signs, but it is ultimately the Village Board decision. Commissioner Womack agrees with the other commissioners’ comments. Commissioner Womack asked if there are any other committees that review the signs in downtown. Mr. Proulx stated no. Mr. Proulx stated the code does allow us to regulate the light intensity of the signage. Commissioner Womack likes the signs and stated there are ways to have the signs lite to meet code. Commissioner Womack stated there is some redundancy to the signs. Mr. Lewis stated there are wall mounted and protruding signs. Commissioner Womack has concern about a third business into the building and where will that sign be placed. Mr. Lewis indicated that there may not be a third business because of the banquet hall success. Mr. Lewis stated they would like to utilize the signs they installed and explained the challenges to follow code because of the glass front of the building. Mr. Argoudelis stated it is their intention to have the lights at the lowest setting. Commissioner Ruane stated the signage fits the building. Commissioner Ruane is concerned for the resident across the street from the building. Commissioner Ruane asked how a light level would be enforced if this is approved and suggest a stipulation in the variance for the light level. Mr. Lewis stated the signs have a dimmer and he is comfortable with the lowest setting on the dimmer. Mr. Lewis wants to be able to light all five signs to maximize their revenue at nighttime. Commissioner Womack asked staff if there have been many requests for internal illuminated downtown area. Mr. Proulx stated on occasion and explained that the signs needs to compliment the building. Chairman Kiefer agreed that this building is unique, and he feels there is a challenge to lighting it in the evening. Commissioner Minnis asked why is the Station One building is different then this case. Mr. Proulx explained that the Station One building has a Planned Development. Chairman Kiefer reminded the applicant that they are on record saying the signs will be at the lowest illumination. Mr. Lewis stated he understands. Commissioner Minnis made a motion to adopt the findings of fact of staff as the findings of fact of the Zoning Board of Appeals and recommend denial to allow three internally illuminated wall signs and two internally illuminated projecting signs in the Central Sign District for the business known as Sanctuary Plainfield, LLC located at 24216 West Lockport Street, 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. Seconded by Commissioner Heinen. Vote by roll call: Renzi, no; Ruane, yes; Seggebruch, no; Womack, no; Heinen, yes; Minnis, yes; Kiefer, yes. Motion carried 4-3. DISCUSSION Commissioner Renzi asked that the speed limit on Renwick Rd. between Route 59 and Route 30 be reviewed. 6 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 7, 2020 Page 5 of 5 Commissioner Seggebruch indicated that the village has a good problem since the downtown area is bombing. Commissioner Seggebruch stated he feels we have too many streetscape lights in the downtown area. Chairman Kiefer read the reminders. ADJOURN Zoning Board of Appeals meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Tracey Erickson Recording Secretary 7 8 9 10 Legend 11 12 To whom it may concern, We are requesting a fence variance for our corner lot that backs up to Drauden Road. We feel that constructing the fence as proposed is the appropriate aesthetic choice given the existing community fence in our backyard. The reason we would like a fence is for containing our two dogs and our soon to be walking newborn daughter. We recognize that not constructing a fence is an option many people choose, however, in our situation we think our family would greatly benefit from a backyard fence. We hope you consider our situation and the following reasons for approving our variance request: 1.) We are not requesting to place the fence at or close to the corner lot line. 2.) There is an existing community fence in our backyard that already extends beyond the distance from house to lot line. 3.) Erecting the fence from the house line according to the ordinance would end our fence at an arbitrary point perpendicular to the existing community fence, leaving a random 20 feet length of fence that would look weird and unsightly. 4.) The fence does not block the view of the intersection in any way. 5.) The style of our fence is open, non-privacy, 4 ft black aluminum, and keeps view of the lot wide open. 6.) There are similar corner lots in Plainfield that fit our lot's description, and have fences that extend beyond the house line. Regards, Sean 13 14 15 16 Plan Commission Record of Minutes Date: July 21, 2020 Location: Village Hall CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE, & ROLL CALL Chairman Kiefer called the Plan Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Minnis, Renzi, Ruane, Seggebruch, and Chairman Kiefer were present. Commissioners Heinen and Womack were absent. OTHERS PRESENT: Jonathan Proulx, Director of Planning; Jake Melrose, Economic Development Manager; and Jessica Gal, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of the Plan Commission meeting held on July 7, 2020 were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS No Public Comments received via email. DEVELOPMENT REPORT Mr. Proulx provided an update on the Plainfield Riverfront project. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1883-062420.AA 13701 S. Lake Dr. Dominic and Christina Culotta Ms. Gal stated the applicant is seeking annexation to the Village of Plainfield in order to construct an approximately 2,500 square foot single-family residence and connect to municipal water and sewer utilities located along Naperville Road. The applicants, and current property owners, purchased the vacant lot in 2019. Ms. Gal reviewed the staff report date July 21, 2020. Ms. Gal concluded Staff submits that the proposed annexation is a logical extension of the Village’s boundaries. The proposed detached single-family residence use is consistent with surrounding zoning and residential uses. As well, the Will County Health Department encourages connection to municipal sewer and water if available in close proximity. In advance of such public comment and discussion by the Plan Commission, staff recommends approval. Chairman Kiefer swore in Mike Martin, attorney. Mr. Martin explained the county encouraged the property owner to annex into the Village. Mr. Martin stated they have obtained approval from the school district and the homeowner’s association. Commissioner Minnis asked if all the utilities are accessible by Naperville Road. Ms. Gal confirmed. Commissioner Minnis asked if the applicant is asking for any variances. Ms. Gal confirmed no variances are being requested. Commissioner Minnis agrees that it is a logically extension of the Village. Commissioners Renzi and Ruane had no comments. Commissioner Seggebruch asked what happened to the previous home on the property. Mr. Martin believes that the previous owner removed the home. Commissioner Seggebruch made a motion to recommend approval of annexation of the property located at 13701 S. Lake Drive (PIN: 06-03-03-201-020-0000), as a logical extension of the Village of Plainfield. 17 Plan Commission Minutes July 21, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Second by Commissioner Ruane. Vote by roll call: Minnis, yes; Renzi, yes; Ruane, yes; Seggebruch, yes; Kiefer, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 1884-062420.AA.REZ.SU.SPR.FP SWC Spangler & U.S. Route 30 Encore Car Wash_Plainfield Mr. Melrose stated the applicant is proposing to construct a car wash with a drive thru on the property located at the southwest corner of Spangler Road and U.S. Route 30 and to create a future pad lot for future development. In order to do so, the applicant has requested annexation by annexation agreement of PIN #0603233000570000, map amendment (re-zoning) of the annexed parcel to a commercial designation, approval of a special use for a P.U.D. to allow for a variation from the sign code and two drive-thru uses, site plan review approval of the car wash development and preliminary/final plat of subdivision. Mr. Melrose reviewed the staff report dated July 21, 2020. Mr. Melrose concluded staff believes that the proposed development and uses are appropriate for the U.S. Route 30 corridor and recommends approval of the proposed project. Based on the foregoing analysis, prior to any public comment or discussion by the Plan Commission, staff recommends approval. Mr. Melrose stated an email public comment was received from Georgette Lane (see attached) and was included in the online packet. Chairman Kiefer swore in swore in Chris Kane, applicant. Mr. Kane provided an explanation of what the project will entail. Commissioner Minnis indicated he supports the annexation and map amendment. Commissioner Minnis asked if the applicant has a contract on both the parcels. Mr. Kane confirmed. Commissioner Minnis asked if there is a user for the lot adjacent to the car wash. Mr. Kane indicated that a user has not been identified and the thought is it would be a fast food user. Commissioner Minnis asked if the sign lettering is higher than the roofline. Mr. Kane stated the roofline will be higher. Commissioner Minnis stated he is concerned about the vacuum stalls along Spangler Rd., and suggested landscape buffer along Spangler Rd. Commissioner Minnis asked if the dumpster is for the public use. Mr. Kane stated it is for the business. Commissioner Renzi asked the applicant to explain how the water system works and the recycling of the water. Mr. Kane explained how the water system works and how the water is recycled. Commissioner Renzi asked what signs will be part of the variance. Mr. Kane stated the final signage has not been approved. Mr. Melrose stated the variance is for the rooftop sign and all signs will be subject to the Sign Permit Application process. Commissioner Renzi asked if lights will be turned off after hours. Mr. Kane stated there will be lights left on for security purposes. Commissioner Renzi asked how wide the lanes are for circulating about the building. Mr. Kane stated there are four lanes at 13 ½ feet wide, as well as an emergency bypass lane. Commissioner Renzi indicated he supports the annexation and map amendment. Commissioner Ruane asked if the lettering on the building will be down lite. Mr. Kane indicated most likely they will be backlite or lite from within. Commissioner Ruane indicated that there is a lack of pedestrian access and suggested adding it. Commissioner Ruane asked what the materials for the garbage enclosure are. Mr. Kane stated masonry, to match the building. Commissioner Ruane suggested extending the detention area and landscaping to the north to include the adjacent lot. Mr. Kane indicated that it was there intention to do so during final engineering. 18 Plan Commission Minutes July 21, 2020 Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Ruane asked where the vending vacuum enclosure will be on the site. Mr. Kane stated that is where the vacuum turbine is located which will be indoors and there will be two vending machines for air fresheners, towels, etc. Mr. Kane indicated that the location was mislabeled at “pay booth” on the plans. Commissioner Ruane asked if the exhaust for the turbines will be muffled. Mr. Kane indicated that it is a large air blower and the noise is contained in the building. Commissioner Seggebruch stated the applicant did everything they wanted the hotel applicant to do a couple a years ago, including acquiring the adjacent lot, cross access, buffering, etc. Commissioner Seggebruch asked if the vacuums will be blended into the canopy of the building. Mr. Kane confirmed. Commissioner Seggebruch asked where the employees will be parking. Mr. Kane stated that the employees will park near the dumpster. Commissioner Seggebruch asked what the parallel spaces near the detention area will be used for. Mr. Kane indicated they call them “prep stalls”, customers will use them to brush bugs of windshields, etc. Commissioner Seggebruch made some architectural suggestions for the roof. Commissioner Ruane made a motion to recommend approval of property PIN 06-03-23-300-056-0000 as a logical extension of the Village’s municipal boundary. Second by Commissioner Minnis. Vote by roll call: Seggebruch, yes; Renzi, yes; Minnis, yes; Ruane, yes; Kiefer, yes. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Ruane made a motion to adopt the findings of fact of staff as the findings of fact of the Plan Commission and, furthermore, recommend approval of the requested map amendment from the default R-1 zoning to the requested B-3 – Highway Business District zoning for the property PIN 06-03- 23-300-056-0000. Second by Commissioner Seggebruch. Vote by roll call: Minnis, yes; Renzi, yes; Seggebruch, yes; Ruane, yes; Kiefer, yes. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Minnis made a motion to adopt the findings of fact of staff as the findings of fact of the Plan Commission and, furthermore, recommend approval of the proposed special use planned development for Lots 1 and 2 of the proposed Final Plat of Subdivision of ECW 2020, subject to the following two (2) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer; and 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Second by Commissioner Renzi. Vote by roll call: Ruane, yes; Seggebruch, yes; Renzi, yes; Minnis, yes; Kiefer, yes. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Seggebruch made a motion to recommend approval of the requested site plan review for the Encore Care Wash located at the southwest corner of Spangler Road and U.S. Route 30, subject to the following two (2) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer; and 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Second by Commissioner Ruane. Vote by roll call: Minnis, yes; Renzi, yes; Ruane, yes; Seggebruch, yes; Kiefer, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 19 Plan Commission Minutes July 21, 2020 Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Minnis made a motion to recommend approval of the requested preliminary plat review of the Final Plat of Subdivision of ECW 2020, subject to the following two (2) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer; and 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Second by Commissioner Renzi. Vote by roll call: Ruane, yes; Seggebruch, yes; Renzi, yes; Minnis, yes; Kiefer, yes. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Seggebruch made a motion to recommend approval of the requested final plat review of the Final Plat of Subdivision of ECW 2020, subject to the following two (2) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer; and 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Second by Commissioner Renzi. Vote by roll call: Minnis, yes; Ruane, yes; Renzi, yes; Seggebruch, yes; Kiefer, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 1886-071520.SPR Lot 2 of Plainfield Business Park Northern Builders, Inc. Mr. Melrose stated the petitioner, Northern Builders, Inc., is proposing to construct a 232,853 square foot Pace Bus Maintenance and Storage Garage in the Plainfield Business Park located at Depot Drive and Van Dyke Road. The ~12 acre site is located on Lot 2 of the Plainfield Small Business just south of the Pace Park N’ Ride Facility on the east side of what will be Depot Drive. The project site is currently zoned I-1 Industrial District P.U.D. (rezoned to I-1 in 2017) and the use of a maintenance and vehicle storage facility is considered a permitted use in the subject zoning district. Mr. Melrose reviewed the staff report dated July 21, 2020. Mr. Melrose concluded the site plan proposal to develop the Pace Maintenance and Storage Garage conforms with the I-1 Industrial District of the proposed property and future uses of the Plainfield Business Park. The project also provides new development opportunities to the business park with the infrastructure improvements that accompany the proposed facility. In advance of any public comment or discussion by the Plan Commission, staff recommends approval Chairman Kiefer swore in Brian Novak, Northern Builders. Mr. Novak described what PACE will use the building for and the site plan. Chairman Kiefer swore in Melinda Metzger, PACE. Ms. Metzger stated the proximity for the garage to the PACE Park and Ride will allow PACE to better serve Plainfield and allow for future growth. No email public comments were received regarding this case. Commissioner Seggebruch asked if the facility will service buses regionally. Ms. Metzger stated the facility will serve the southwest suburbs and will have 53 buses with future growth upon opening could be 68 buses. Commissioner Seggebruch asked if the office space be used by PACE or leased. Ms. Metzger stated it will be used for the management for the PACE garage. 20 Plan Commission Minutes July 21, 2020 Page 5 of 5 Commissioner Ruane asked if there will be any bus storage outside. Ms. Metzger said it is PACE’s intention to storage the buses inside. Commissioner Ruane asked staff if a variance would be needed for outdoor storage of the buses. Mr. Melrose indicated the zoning would allow for outdoor storage. Commissioner Ruane asked if Depot Dr. will be extended to Persons Parkway. Mr. Melrose confirmed. Commissioner Ruane asked if there will be a pedestrian access to Persons Parkway. Mr. Novak confirmed. Commissioner Ruane asked how many employees will be working out of the facility. Ms. Metzger indicated 100 employees at first. Commissioner Renzi asked Ms. Metzger to confirm the bus count. Ms. Metzger reiterated that there will be 53 buses at first, with a future addition of 15 buses but the garage capacity is 125 buses. Commissioner Renzi asked the applicant to explain where the buses will travel to and the anticipated route of travel. Ms. Metzger explained where the buses go and their route of travel. Commissioner Renzi is concerned about the increase in traffic. Ms. Metzger stated their buses travel in off peak travel times. Commissioner Renzi asked staff if the increase in traffic can be absorbed. Mr. Melrose indicated that the project has been reviewed by engineering and staff is comfortable with the additional traffic. Commissioner Renzi asked if the second floor of the building is being built for future use. Ms. Metzger confirmed. Commissioner Minnis asked for clarification on where the bus storage and maintenance areas are in the building. Mr. Novak explained the building layout. Commissioner Minnis asked what is the stabilization count of employees at the facility. Ms. Metzger stated 200-250 employees. Commissioner Minnis asked if the Joliet garage will be closed. Ms. Metzger indicated the plans for the Joliet garage has not be finalized. Commissioner Ruane made motion recommend approval of the proposed site plan review for the project known as the Pace Bus Maintenance and Storage Garage, 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 Second by Commissioner Renzi. Vote by roll call: Renzi, yes; Seggebruch, yes; Ruane, yes; Minnis, yes; Kiefer, yes. Motion carried 5-0. DISCUSSION Chairman Kiefer read the reminders. Commissioner Minnis asked staff if Steiner Rd. and Heggs Rd. connection is still a possibility. Mr. Proulx confirmed and explained what road projects are a priority. ADJOURN Plan Commission meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Tracey Erickson Tracey Erickson Recording Secretary 21 From:Jake Melrose To:Kevin Lane Subject:RE: Proposed car wash Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 3:36:11 PM Please see the answers below to your questions regarding the car wash development. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Lane <klane53@att.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 12:47 PM To: Jake Melrose <jmelrose@goplainfield.com> Subject: Proposed car wash Hello Mr. Melrose, Given the cost of this property and the architectural upgrades required by Plainfield, how many cars per hour will be processed for the operators to break even or turn a profit? The Village has not been provided a pro-forma to understand the needed revenues and return-on- investment for the proposed project. Communities do not typically request this information except when an incentive is being requested and the applicants have not requested one. That said, the applicants have stated that nearly half of the traffic coming to the site is already from existing traffic passing by and is typical for car washes to "capture" this amount. On the spectrum of traffic inducing uses permitted in a commercial district, a car wash is in the low to medium range comparatively. Given that the applicant has provided three different access points and the fact that the car wash exits in the opposite direction of Spangler to the right-in/right out on US 30, this will lessen the use of Spangler. In order to accomplish this, the applicant is purchasing the additional property on the site and has obtained a cross access easement with the neighboring plaza plus has worked with IDOT to obtain the right-in/right-out into the property. Staff identified multiple issues such as these to the applicant that were identified during the previous hotel proposal. The applicant made a concerted effort to address all of those prior to their submittal. What I being required of the operators to address issues of noise and light pollution for the subdivisions of Winding Creek and Franklin Heights? The applicants have first positioned the car wash east to west rather than north to south which could have been achieved with the size of that lot at Spangler and Route 30. This was done for a couple reasons. One was that the exit of the car wash, where the dryer is located (although it is inside), is facing west towards the neighboring commercial property. That case the opening and closing of the car wash noise would not be pointed at the neighboring residents. Second, they positioned the building in this way to move the vacuums to the north side of the building facing U.S. Route 30. This will ultimately negate any noise from vacuums which are now much more efficient and not as loud than the past. The noise of this operation would be no more than the decibel levels created by U.S. Route 30 traffic. 22 As for the lighting, they are not proposing lighting near the neighboring residents to the south. Due to them positioning their building east to west, there is over 75 feet of detention area between the residents and the site, and in this area there is essentially zero lighting shown on the lighting plan. The building is over 180 feet away from the south lot line adjacent to residents. Also, there are over 20 trees that will being planted at the rear lot line adjacent to the residential to provide screening. All lighting will not be higher than the proposed structure which is a 25 foot (10 feet lower than what was is allowed) and will be downlit/”flathead” lighting. All other lighting is also downlit on the building except for decorative wall sconces on the façade of the building. Do they operators have any community ties to Plainfield? Staff is unaware of any community ties to Plainfield. How many job opportunities will this operation provide to the community? The car wash operation will have around 5 people on staff at any given point. Do the owners have any operations in the region to exemplify how care and maintain their businesses? This is their first car wash operation. The applicants run a professional design/build landscaping firm currently. Jake Melrose, AICP Economic Development Manager Planning Department 815.439.2826 (Office Direct) 815.216.3139 (Cell) 815.436.7093 (Village Hall) www.PlainfieldDevelopment.com 23 24 25 11953 S. AERO DRIVE AERIAL MAP EagleView: Pictometry, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Village Address Points Parcels Plainfield Municipal Boundary 7/31/2020, 10:48:24 AM 0 0.03 0.050.01 mi 0 0.04 0.090.02 km 1:2,257 Plainfield Staff County of Will, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, EPA, USDA | EagleView: Pictometry | Plainfield GIS | Plainfield GIS | Will County GIS | NPMS National Repository |26 5.5.a Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: ZC-20-036 Staff Report FINAL (ZC-20-036)27