City of St. Charles Plan Commission met March 3.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
Members Present: Chairman Wallace
Vice Chairman Kessler
Tom Pretz
James Holderfield
Jeff Funke
Peter Vargulich
Suzanne Melton
Jennifer Becker
Laura Macklin-Purdy
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Ellen Johnson, Planner
Monica Hawk, Development Engineer
Rachel Hitzemann, Planner
Court Reporter
1. Call to order
Chairman Wallace called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Vice Chair Kessler called the roll. A quorum was present.
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Presentation of minutes of the February 18, 2020 meeting of the Plan Commission.
Motion was made by Mr. Kessler, seconded by Mr. Pretz and unanimously passed by voice vote to approve the minutes of the February 18, 2020 Plan Commission meeting.
5. Pine Ridge Park PUD-Advanced Care Medical (Barge Design Solutions) Application for PUD Preliminary Plan
a. Discussion & Recommendation
The attached transcript prepared by Planet Depos Court Reporting is by reference hereby made a part of these minutes.
Motion was made by Mr. Kessler and seconded by Mr. Pretz to recommend approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan for Pine Ridge Park PUD, Advance Care Medical (Barge Design Solutions) subject to resolution of staff comments.
Roll call vote:
Ayes: Becker, Holderfield, Wallace, Funke, Vargulich, Pretz, Melton, Kessler, Purdy
Nays:
Absent:
Motion carried 9-0
6. Additional Business from Plan Commission Members or Staff- None
7. Weekly Development Report
8. Meeting Announcements
a. Plan Commission
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 7:00pm Council Chambers -To be cancelled
Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 7:00pm Century Station Training Room
Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7:00pm Century Station Training Room
b. Planning & Development Committee
Monday, March 9, 2020 at 7:00pm Council Chambers
Monday, April 13, 2020 at 7:00pm Council Chambers
9. Public Comment- None
10. Adjournment at 7:26 pm
Case: St. Charles Plan Commission
Planet Depos
Phone: 888.433.3767
Email:: transcripts@planetdepos.com
www.planetdepos.com
WORLDWIDE COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION TECHNOLOGY BEFORE THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ST. CHARLES, ILLINOIS
-----------------------------x
IN RE: :
Regular Meeting including :
Application for PINE RIDGE :
PARK PUD-Advanced Care :
Medical (Barge Design : Solutions) :
-----------------------------x
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
St. Charles, Illinois
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
6:59 p.m.
Job No.: 271893
Reported by: Theresa A. Vorkapic,
HEARING, held at the location of: CITY OF ST. CHARLES Council Chambers
2 East Main Street St. Charles, Illinois 60174
630-377-4400
Before Theresa A. Vorkapic, a Certified Shorthand Reporter, Registered Merit Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, Registered Professional and a Notary Public in and for the State of Illinois.
APPEARANCES
ST. CHARLES PLAN COMMISSION
TODD WALLACE, Chairman
TIM KESSLER, Vice Chairman
JENNIFER BECKER, JEFFREY FUNKE, JAMES HOLDERFIELD, LAURA MACKLIN-PURDY, TOM PRETZ, PETER VARGULICH, SUZANNE MELTON, Commission Members.
ALSO PRESENT:
ELLEN JOHNSON, Planner,
MATTHEW J. KRAMER, P.E.,
Jacob & Hefner Associates
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: The St. Charles Plan Commission will come to order.
Tim, roll call.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Becker.
MEMBER BECKER: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Vargulich.
MEMBER VARGULICH: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Purdy.
MEMBER PURDY: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Melton.
MEMBER MELTON: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Holderfield.
MEMBER HOLDERFIELD: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Funke.
MEMBER FUNKE: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Pretz.
MEMBER PRETZ: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Kessler here.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: Please rise for the
Pledge of Allegiance. (All rise)
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: Presentation minutes of the February 18, 2020 meeting of the Plan Commission.
Is there a motion?
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: Second?
MEMBER PRETZ: Second.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: It's been moved and seconded.
All in favor? (A chorus of ayes)
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: Opposed. (No response)
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: Motion passes unanimously.
Item 5 is Pine Ridge PUD, Advanced Care Medical, Barge Design Solutions application for PUD preliminary plan.
MS. JOHNSON: Thank you.
So the subject property is located on the north of West Main Street directly west of Aldi.
The property is part of the Pine Ridge Park PUD, which was originally approved and platted back in 2006.
Barge Designs Solutions has filed an application for a PUD preliminary plan proposing to develop the lot with a medical clinic called Advanced Care Medical, and I will note there are a number of staff comments related to landscaping and architecture in the staff report, and those would need to be addressed prior to Council approval, and Matt Kramer is here tonight to represent the application.
MR. KRAMER: Thank you. As Ellen said, my name is Matt Kramer. I am employed by Jacob & Hefner Associates, a local civil engineering surveying company that is familiar with the work in St. Charles. We are also the lead civil engineer on the Charlestown Mall redevelopment and so I may look familiar to a few of you. So as you can see up on the screen, this is a smaller facility, approximately 3,500 square feet. It is located directly west of the Aldi Supermarket on West Main Street.
We are proposing to add two points of access off the access roads, no direct access onto Route 64. There will be parking along the west and the south faces of the building. The lot has previously been grade and disturbed and substantially the site is at grade. Storm water detention is provided in a regional detention basin to the north. Storm water is collected in the storm sewers in the parking lot and routed to an existing storm sewer trunk line that heads northward to the regional detention basin. No additional detention will be required for the site.
Sanitary sewer and water main are also provided on the northern access drive there is water main and sanitary sewer provision for the building to connect to.
As Ellen mentioned, there are a number of landscaping and architectural comments that the applicant is mostly willing to comply with that will take some additional clarification from staff level, but based on my conversations with them, there is, you know, no insurmountable complications presented by staff comments on landscaping and architectural.
Ellen did not mention this, but the applicant will be seeking a freestanding monument sign that they will include with their next submittal to staff for both approval of the location, size and material. That covers the engineering portion.
I am available for questions if any of the council commissioners have any questions.
MEMBER VARGULICH: I have a question.
What sorts of services will be provided?
MR. KRAMER: Frankly, that's a good question. So ACM is generally provides nonlife-threatening care, so anything from a sore throat, strep throat, common cold, burns, rashes, trips, strains, you know, sprains. They can administer some IV medications, but basically it's your step between a mini clinic at a Target pharmacy and the emergency room. So, you know I've got a comprehensive list here if you want me to go through, flu shots, vaccines, preventative care, baby wellness visits, pink eye, ear infection, sinus, bronchitis. They do also offer a limited lab tests and drug screening, school physicals, sports physicals, stuff along those lines.
MEMBER VARGULICH: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: I have a question on the west elevation.
What type of landscaping will be there? I know it's not front-facing, but I'm wondering, I think that it's fairly visible around 64. What type of landscaping would be put in there near the foundation?
MR. KRAMER: Bear with me one second.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: I'll just pull up the landscape plan, Matt.
MR. KRAMER: I'm trying to do the same myself.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: One of the comments the staff made was that the west elevation, there may be adequate landscaping.
Was there any thought to any other type of architectural features for that elevation? Maybe Ellen, you could comment on that.
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, so are you referring to the consideration item?
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: Yes.
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, so this PUD requires that visually prominent elevations be comprised of 50 percent architectural features, that includes windows, doors, change in material, brick coursing, that sort of thing. So that requirement applies to street-facing elevations and also elevations facing private drives. So that would be the north, east and south elevations, but there is a question whether the west elevation should be counted as visually prominent. It's not technically fronting the street, but as Todd mentioned, it will be somewhat visible from 64 so we wanted to get from the Commission on whether we wanted to require the 50 percent architectural features on the west side.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: Any thought on that?
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I do have a comment on that. While I do believe we're not promoting blank walls, that's a central lot. There is going to be another development right next to it, and if we continue to require whatever is exposed for whatever period of time to comply with the 50 percent would compensate for that additional, if it was on the corner, the rest of the corners that are visible from the street, so I'm satisfied with that.
MEMBER VARGULICH: If you look at the overall plan, I would offer if you look at the overall landscape plan and zoom back out a little bit anything along Main Street, along the sidewalk and they have another bed that wraps around the five parking spaces and then you have a foundation planting, that's a fair number of layers as far as traffic coming from the west even on a temporary basis until the other lot is developed to have some elements that are being, you know, visual elements to see.
I guess I have a question related to that.
There is really only seems to be windows on the south side. When I look at the elevations, and there was no floor plan so I don't quite understand how the interior of the building works, there is --
MR. KRAMER: There are some windows on the
west side as well as wrapped around the main
office blocking in this area here.
MEMBER VARGULICH: Just at the front. I mean, most of that facade, the north side and almost the entire east side has no windows, but there is no floor plan. So I can't understand why you didn't do that, but I understand that on a square foot basis windows cost more honestly.
MR. KRAMER: Right, right.
MEMBER VARGULICH: To glaze something costs more than it does to put any sort of rigid facade for the most part. So I don't know if they
are exam rooms or what's going on.
MR. KRAMER: I can't speak to that. I haven't seen a floor plan myself. I've been concentrating on the exterior of the building, but I do know we've done similar facilities with them in Naperville and Romeoville, and they had about the same amount of spacing on the back of those things.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: I guess the other question, this is also from the staff report, was regarding the stone and architectural panels.
What are those?
MR. KRAMER: So the response from the architect is the specified building materials are brick and stone veneer. The stone veneer specified for the project is an actual thin-cut quality stone veneer product referred to as Stonewood Architectural Panels, and that is the manufacturer's trademark name.
The architect feels that this material is consistent with traditional materials used throughout the Kane County area.
MEMBER VARGULICH: Do you know if they've provided samples or photographs for staff to review?
MR. KRAMER: If they haven't, we can obtain them. Have they?
MS. JOHNSON: We haven't received any samples.
MEMBER VARGULICH: Just so our staff can look at it and see if they agree with your architect.
MEMBER PRETZ: For clarification on what Tim was saying relative to the west side of the building, that's a central allotment, so the potential to have developed the lot immediately to the west may have a driveway or some kind of access coming in there.
Does that mean that the requirement for the 50 percent is -- are you saying that the 50 percent should not come into play at this stage? I didn't -- I kind of missed what you were saying.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Yes, that's what I meant. I meant that it's not required because it's an inside elevation.
MEMBER PRETZ: Ellen, did you say that the requirement is any kind of access should have of the requirement of a building to provide that 50 percent?
MS. JOHNSON: Just for elevations fronting on a public street or a private street.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: What we're saying here is because they are fronted on the street, it is exposed and when it's built it will be exposed so should we recommend then to follow that guideline of the 50 percent and my thought is probably not.
MEMBER PRETZ: Okay. Thank you.
MEMBER VARGULICH: Just a couple of comments related to the staff's comments. Were you talking about the one that's bullet point four relating to the plant beds compared to the minimum walk width, width of the plant beds, I mean, to me if they're comfortable with no walks, I'd say more plant bed would be nicer than wider walks since we don't need to pave more of the world than is necessary. MS. JOHNSON: Right now they're proposing five-foot walks along the building, and the PUD actually requires six-foot.
MEMBER VARGULICH: I would just say if they don't need it, I don't know if that's a variance or adjustment or whatever, but it just seems from an operational standpoint if they needed six feet, I'm pretty sure they would have proposed six feet. I'll let you work that out with the staff, but I would support wider plant beds than wider sidewalks as a general comment. From a civil engineering standpoint, to me it looked like the grading along the west or sorry south and southwest sides of the property near the parking lot seem fairly shallow, almost flat.
MR. KRAMER: Are you referring to grading within a parking lot or the green areas?
MEMBER VARGULICH: No, on the green areas. There is just a line that says swale, but if you read the spots, they are pretty far apart and pretty shallow and it just seems like it's going to end up being damp there a lot and things aren't going to do well, and if they put in an inlet that comes off of the ones that you have in the pavement to kind of pick that up just to have a little more positive drainage.
MR. KRAMER: I'll discuss that with Barge.
MEMBER VARGULICH: Thank you. And then I would say that just another comment was related to the landscaping plan, if they would look at even if it's not a requirement the site lines when you're coming up and you're pulling up to the stop bars, I don't know what our standard is for our streets, but I think we'll want to look at that and make sure that people have clear view and not to take away planting, but maybe if it can be moved back or adjust the bed, what's in the bed to make sure that the site lines at the driveways are visible, and I would say that's also it true of the common driveways. There is a lot of planting that's out near the intersection at the northeast corner of the site, and if that can be looked at or pulled in to make sure that people have good sidelines when comes up to the intersection. Again, not taking anything away, just move it a little bit potentially.
MR. KRAMER: Good comment.
MEMBER VARGULICH: And I would say also the bed that wraps around the five parking spaces to the west, again, you might want to relook at that from the standpoint of snow removal because right now I think a lot of this is going to get buried. Installing a lot of plantings that potentially have survival issues in a couple of seasons just because of snow removal activities. Ellen, is there a reason that they can't plant the trees along Main Street?
MS. JOHNSON: In the right-of-way?
MEMBER VARGULICH: Yes.
MS. JOHNSON: Generally we leave that sort of thing to Public Works plans for the parkway trees. So generally that's not done in connection with a commercial subdivision such as this. Trees were not planted as part of the other developed lots in this PUD. So I would be waiting for a comment from Public Works on that.
MEMBER FUNKE: I've got a couple of comments.
From an architecture standpoint and I appreciate the fact that you guys are screening rooftop units, it's something that's not typically thought about, the composite panels, I've actually used those before, and my concern is they're nice when you use the lighter wood, wood texture, wood color, but when they are darker depending on the product and this is facing south that sometimes over time a charcoal color tends to fade quicker or I'd say you're going to get that fading of the panel. You know, from a maintenance standpoint, I think maybe leather to go for a lighter panel on that side.
I appreciate that the idea of incorporating more glass. Maybe there is an idea -- I see the architect creating that band, you know, that mimics the canopy, they're recessing that brick, maybe there are some opportunities to did do that at a lower scale similar to what you have in the pattern of the windows. Maybe they incorporate that recessed pattern and then it brings it back down to scale from a pedestrian standpoint. That pattern the architect created at the band is nice, but it's a little bit too high and I think it's nice, but from a pedestrian standpoint I think maybe you can incorporate some of that texture at a lower standpoint.
And then I saw the staff comments, they talked about the material of the trash enclosure so maybe use some masonry in that area would be nice similar to the building and then a durable door would be nice because a lot of times this being a prominent entrance near the doors to the trash enclosures get beat up, so it's something more durable so you're not seeing broken doors.
MR. KRAMER: So they did send me a revised copy that has something to do with that.
MEMBER FUNKE: Jeff yes, that's nice.
That works good.
MR. KRAMER: That was hot off the presses on my way out the door today.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: So that's a dumpster plan.
MEMBER FUNKE: The trash enclosure.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: Is that for us?
MEMBER MELTON: That's on the west side, right?
MR. KRAMER: Yes. Northwest corner.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: Is that for us?
MR. KRAMER: You can have it, yes.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: Okay.
MEMBER FUNKE: And then I appreciate the landscaping you guys are providing. I think it's a nice add as well to the architecture and to the site.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: Any other questions?
MEMBER HOLDERFIELD: I am still not clear maybe you discussed this earlier, but in regard to the east elevation and the north elevation, what are we proposing that they change?
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the east elevation nothing. The east elevation is an internal --
MEMBER HOLDERFIELD: No. I am talking the east elevation from the access road.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Right. The east elevation nothing is changed. We are talking about the west elevation.
MS. JOHNSON: We're actually requiring on the east and north elevation because they front on the private drives, they are required to have 50 percent architectural features.
MEMBER HOLDERFIELD: Staff comments were about the east and north elevation in regard to the 50 percent, which I'm having trouble processing. When I drive out there and look at all these buildings, they are west elevations which is just a brick wall, and the north elevation is nothing more than a brick wall. I don't get were they held to a different standard or am I missing something here in terms of architectural features for the 50 percent of that particular elevation?
MS. JOHNSON: Aldi was held to the
50 percent standard for the west wall. I looked at the staff reports from back then and they counted the different colors of brick as architectural feature, I'll have to look back at exactly what was counted, but they were held to that standard.
MEMBER HOLDERFIELD: But there is no windows.
MS. JOHNSON: They don't necessarily have to have windows, just some sort of feature instead of plain wall. So we will ask that this elevation that they quantify exactly how many architectural features they already have and they may be close to it with the different patterns in the brick and different colors. So it's not necessarily that they need to add windows, per say.
MEMBER HOLDERFIELD: But just based on the drawings that we had access to, I see nothing wrong with these elevations as far as the percentage and even on the north that road that runs behind Aldi, is this going to be an access road or a service for servicing the commercial buildings that are going to be built?
MS. JOHNSON: Correct.
MEMBER HOLDERFIELD: So it's not like a
Main Street facade?
MS. JOHNSON: Right.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: Any other comments,
questions? Is there a motion?
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I make a motion to recommend approval the Pine Ridge Park PUD,
Advanced Care Medical building, Barge Design Solutions application for PUD preliminary plan and initial resolution.
MEMBER PRETZ: Second.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: It's been moved and seconded.
Any discussion on the motion? Tim, roll call.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Becker.
MEMBER BECKER: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Vargulich.
MEMBER VARGULICH: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Purdy.
MEMBER PURDY: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Melton.
MEMBER MELTON: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Holderfield.
MEMBER HOLDERFIELD: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Funke.
MEMBER FUNKE: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Pretz.
MEMBER PRETZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: All right, that concludes Item 5. Thank you.
Item 6, additional business from Plan
Commission members or staff?
MS. JOHNSON: We will be canceling the March 17 meeting.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: All right. Anything else? No?
Is there a motion to adjourn?
VICE CHAIRMAN KESSLER: So moved.
MEMBER FUNKE: Second.
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: Moved and seconded.
All in favor?
(A chorus of ayes)
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: Opposed.
(No response)
CHAIRMAN WALLACE: The St. Charles Plan
Commission is adjourned at 7:26 p.m.
(The hearing was adjourned at 7:26 p.m.)
https://www.stcharlesil.gov/sites/default/files/event/packet-items/3-3-20%20PC%20meeting%20minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up