The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About03.12.01 COW Agenda (2)Richard A. Rock PRE51pENT TRUSTEES Stephen J. Calabrese VILLAGE QF PLAINFIELD Jchn H. Cherry Mlchae) Collins WILL COUNTY'S OLDEST COMMUNITY Kathyo'Cdnneu Steven L. Rathbun Raymond Smolich Susan Janik WORKSHOP OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE CLERK HELD ON MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2001 AT THE VILLAGE BOARD ROOM S30 W. LOCKPORT STREET, SUITE 206, PLAINFIELD 7:00 P.M. 1) CALL TO ORDER, ROI,,L CALL, PLEDGE a) Approval of Minutes of Workshop Meeting February 12, 2001 2) BUDGET 2001-2001 We will be continuing the discussion of the proposed 2001-2002 budget with a presentation by the Public Works Department. The discussion will encompass the Streets (Page 25), Water (Page 39), and Wastewater (Page 42) divisions of the Public Works Department. Additionally, we will be discussing the proposed projects for the Water and Sewer Expansion Accounts (Page 45) and the Capital Improvements Fund (Page 48). 3) ANY OTHER BUSINESS DEFERRED ITEMS Ordinance Updates - J. Testin Open Space Definition - J. Testin Radium Compliance -Allen Persons Meeting Place Design -Larry Vaupel Tree Conservation Ordinance -Jim Testin Business Inspection Ordinance - T. Burghard Design Guidelines - T. Burghard Development Rights -Plan Commission Civic Center Planning- T. Burghard 530 W. LOCKPORT STREET, SUITE 206 •PLAINFIELD, ILLINOIS 60544 (815) 43fi-7093 Fax (815) 436-1950 MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES HELD ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Rock. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Cherry, O'Connell, Smolich and Calabrese. Trustees Rathbun and Collins were absent. Also present was Chief Bennett, Village Administrator Terrance Burghard. The minutes of the Workshop Meeting of January 22, 2001 were reviewed and approved. RT. 30 ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The Village had been contacted by area residents and business people interested in the status of the proposed Illinois Department of Transportation improvements to U. S. Rt. 30 and in the alternative to Renwick Road. Numerous petitions had been advanced to the Village and distributed to the Mayor and the Board. Mr. Mueller addressed the Mayor and the Board and indicated that the comments from the group would be articulated by Mr. Richard Ziegfeld, owner of Lube Pros at the intersection of Renwick and Rt. 30. Mr. Ziegfeld indicated that when he moved here in November of 1999 he had a discussion with Mr. Durbin who told him about the proposed improvements to Rt. 30. Subsequently, he discovered after moving in that another alternative was being considered, and in response to that, he submitted petitions from nearly 60 businesses and hundreds of homeowners opposing the Renwick Road alternative. His comments are hereby attached to these minutes. In general, the petitioners argue that the proposed alternative along Renwick Road is misguided, will lead to poor access to businesses, nay drive some businesses out of town, prolongs fire and other emergency response times, and is a more costly alternative. Iane Mueller also addressed the Workshop and indicated that the Village should not try to change the major spoke of the wheel of transportation through the Village and that Rt. 30 was an original historic route anal it should remain that way. Mr. Chad Riddle representing the IDOT pointed out that IDOT is holding a series of public meetings and hearings to get feedback from people and that IDOT is not predisposed to a decision at this point, but does want local input. Furthermore, the project is not funded beyond Phase I and a new budget proposal will not come about until March 2001. Mr. Bill Stukel, a resident on Renwick Rd. pointed out that he was opposed to the change. Various other people addressed the Workshop in the same context of opposing the Renwick Road alternative. Subsequently, Mayor Rock inquired of the Board of Trustees what was their pleasure on the matter, and the Board suggested that the matter be placed on the next Village Board Agenda for an advisory vote. (Actual petitions and written comments will be attached to the official minutes copy.) BUDGET DISTRIBUTION Staff distributed the proposed Budget for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Village Administrator reported that same meetings had been set up with Kendall County and the Village of Oswego to discuss Boundary Agreements. The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. The minutes were prepared by T. L. Burghard. Richard A. Rock PRESIL]ENT March 6, 2001 TRU5TEE5 VILLAGE 4F PLAINFIELD Stephen J. Calabrese John W. Cherry Michael Collins WILL COUNTY'S OLDEST COMMUNITY Kathy o•Conneu Steven L. Rathbun Raymond Smolich Susan Janik VILLAGE CLERK To: Mayor Rock and the Board of Trustees From: Chris Minick, Finance Director Subject: 2001-2002 Budget Discussion. The budget process is continuing with a discussion of the proposed 2001-2002 budget. We will concentrate on the Public Works Department at the 3-12-01 Committee of the Whole Meeting. Mr. Allen Persons, Director of Public Works will make the presentation. We are doing very well with the bud~et process and will be one meeting ahead of . schedule after the meeting on the 12~ . This may allow us to consider approval of the budget at the April 2 Board Meeting rather than April 16 as originally scheduled. The items to be discussed on the 12~" include: • Streets (Pages 25 through 29) • Water (Pages 39 through 41) • Wastewater (Pages 42 through 44) • Utility System Expansion (Pages 45 through 47) • Capital Improvements (Pages 48 through 51) Please contact me if there are any questions. 530 W. LOCKpORT STREET, SUITE 206 •PLAINFIELD, ILLINOIS 60544 (815) 436-7093 Fax (815) 436-1950 02i 0610.1. :-0:17 1~.',Y ~ 002 FOREST PRESERVE L7ISTRICT OF WILL COU1~,1TY 2~Ei0~ 5. CI-3~ERlZY 1-I.1L>,. 1~OA^ KERP.Y 5.C-iERIUAi~I, Fre~ident POST OFFICE BOX li?6`+ SUSAN f:ILEY, Vice I'residFa~t JOLITiT, 1LL.INC~1S b(14.~4-1069 MARY Alvmr GE~LLL~-IAR7', SeCrerary I?H(7NE ($1:?) 727-8700 GLFNN WARNING, Treasurer I+AX (815) 727-9=}15 MICI1AliL I'ASfLCtIS, Bxeacut+.ve L7ire~tn_* ~1 ~: ivlr. T.L. Bwghard Village Administrator Village ofPlaintield FAX 436-1950 Re: U.S. Route 30 Improvements ccn~~PSl. ~~ a/« Dear Mr. Burghard: Thank you for your January Z6`~' invitation to your February 12`x' workshop. Unfortunately, no District Staff, including myself, is available to attend that evening. I would therefore ask that you consider the following in your deliberations. The Illinois Department of Transportation (II7QT) has }?resented two options for public continent. (riven, these choices, the District has been on record as supporting the "Re-Route Alignment" as the option with the least negative impacts to lrnvwn natural and cultural resources, and public:lands. However, we do not oppose the "Existing Alignment" option as long as there; is na direct taking of~the District's and the Illinois Department of Natural Resource's Lake Renwick Nature Preserve property and, on the condition that potential impacts to the Rookery are addressed to the satisfaction of the District, IDNR, the Illinois Iv'ature Preserves Comnzissian and the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board through avoidance, amelioration, mitigation, etc. For your retards and information, I am enclosing a copy of the District's most recent letter to IDQT regaa•ding proposed Rt. 30 improvements. Should you have any Questions, or if we can provide an additional information, please do not hesitate to call me or Planning Program Supervisor, Tim Good. Thank you for your interest. Sincerely. 1' ar . DeMauro Superintendent of Planning and Development Enclosure: 12/$/00 correspondence • cc: District file; IDO`1', Ruutc 30 District S Convnissioners c., ....,,,vnr~.~nm~~nuim~~.-~ vsnuni.,,,.,,•..,...u ~in.:~rn~~w. Fi~CYCLEC t1~CYCLAeLF ..~.. 41~ v 226Q6 5. CHERRY HIL ~1~ 1 FOREST PRESERVE DISTRrC~ L. ROAD POST OFFICE BOX 1069 JOLIET, ILLINOIS 60434-1069 PHONE (815) 7Z7-8700 FAX (815) 727-9415 Deceml:~r $, 2000 1~j003 aF WILL CaUI~TY KERRY SHERIDAN, President SUSAN RI[.EY, Vire President MARY ANN GEARHART,`Secretary C1~BNN WARNING, Treasurer MICHAEL, PAS'I'ERIS, Director ~.~,~,,~ I I Mr. ~Tolui P.:Kas.: ~ - District Engineer ~ _ Illingis p ePar4'neant.of Transportation ]7ivision of HiP,hways ~ i . DisttYCt drle 201. W. Center Court .. ~ - . Schaumburg, IL ..6019.6-1096 , Re: US Route ~Q. Impmvements, I-S5 to IL; Route 59.5e ent PI ' ~ . Lake: Renr~nck Heron. Rooke Nature Preserve ~ C ~ Nature peark ]L ry ~ P Y Deai~Mr. Kos: The District. has beeq co~p1entizzg upon the above referenced project sink e 1 concern to the District :that should be addressed ~ g8$•. Issues of and in the plans include: ~ ~ the Environmental Impact Stateztient. (EIS) . i l) The Forest P~eserve;Distxict would o ose, an ' Rook PP y taking of~t~e Lake Renwick,Heriin ery Nature'Prreservc; owned jointly with the Illinois D Resources {II)NR), for road widening. ~ epartme~at of Natural : " _ 2) The Distrii;t also apposes an increase iii traffic, noise, air.~ollution, .etc. w .... _ `~.. - - ~ -• `would, negatively impact the nesting birds;. $nd QUr existin' _ ~ loch bud cted educational facilities at both the Rez~vw~ick Road access and ~-lead. _ .. NatttruP;~q~iRaute 3.0. The C' ~~ ~ ~ apley . ~. Y access north of . dpeniYinsi;P 2AQ l'. Route 3.0: is scheduled ~to ~) The Distract rs~commends ~~ I agawst~any impacts to, the. cemeti~ry on RQUte 30 4) The DistrlEt s4ropg~Y re~mmends tliat_ b~ Park Distnc oycle'lancs;~arid conaechans-to 'V;llage, _ _ t,and, Forest: preservrx District tails and trail plans be~ inco~pt~ra'tt~ " T`he District therefore suppoxts .the "Re_Route Ali Route 30 to Route 59 ~. Should. the "Existin : F .. griinent"„incorporating, ~~~elc Road ~r77 _ wark'closely with IDI+tR and:the Nature 8 A1ign~nez~t°' alternative ba chosen;-th~•Distncf will - to early sprin to - Preserves Commission to: limit cons S Sze:impacts on nesting birds• r uire d traction-ta,late fall . other buffers to serve as visual barriers and sound bafflesy and p avid ~ motive screening aril ,: . ~uc facilities. a ingress and 'egress to r2t=/~`Vr+l cn r 02/06/01 1D: 1.$ FAQ. i.'~ Mr. John P. Kas, iz, I3epartm~,ent of Transportation .Page 2 December 8, 2Q00 I~jOD4 The District requests.tlie opportunity to be involved in the scoping and the review and comment phases, of the EIS..We will also want to receive copies of any baseline studies and results ofan natural and cultural resource inventory or study for the Nature Preserve or for Lil Cache y Y Creek. Lf I can provide any additional information; please.da not. hesitate to contact me. 'Titanic you for the time and consideration, Sincerely, . ~d~ ~ ~ F y ~' Marcella M: DeMaura .. ~ - - ,`S:npcrintendent-ofPlaanY.ng arid.Development - Cc: - ., District file; mUT -- Ronte 30/Plainfield . District Five Cnmmissian~rs ~ ~ . Greg Butt, Plainfield Township Park District Jim Testin; VeIlage of Plainfield BiII Glass, IDNR ICimi Roman, IlVPC Illinois Department of Transportation Divisipn of Highways/District 1 201 West Center Court/5chaumburg, Illinois 60196-1096 Project and Environmental Studies U.S. Route 30 (Lincoln Highway) Illinois Route 59 to Interstate 55 Will County January 22, 2001 Mr. Dick Rock President Village of Plainfield 530 W. Lockport Suite 206 Plainfield, IL 60544 Deaz Mr. Roek: This Tetter is a follow=up to the Departm~nt's'presentation of the alternatives for the' improvement of U.S. Route 30 at'the Public Meeting held on`Tuesday, December 12, 2000. The purpose of the presentation vvas to solicit public input on the project study alternatives and the associated impacts and benefits of each. We also intended to identify a preferred alternate that would be supported by the Village and TOOT. As you know, IDOT agreed to investigate the re-route option per Village request and committed significant resources to proceed with this alternative. The Village also passed, and provided to us, a resolution in support of the re-route option in September of 1994. In addition, concurrence with the re-route was reconfirmed via response to a letter from IDOT to Village President Richazd Rock on December 7, 1999. Attached is a summary of public comments received by IDOT from attendees at the Public Meeting. The re-route alignment was presented as a Village requested alternative. Although the majority of the comments received at our meeting indicate opposition to the re-route option, this alternative is the recommended course of action that will most effectively improve safety, serve traffic operations and minimize impacts to the community as a whole. As indicated, the last time that we clearly had Village support of the re-route alternate was in December of 1999. We recognize that conditions may have changed within the Village since that time as well as within adjacent areas. Nevertheless, the re-route alternative is contingent upon local support, local acceptance of jurisdiction of the existing U.S. Route 30 from Renwick. Road to Illinois Route 59, and transfer of jurisdiction of Renwick Road between U.S. Route 30 and Illinois Route 59 from Will County to IDOT. Mr. Dick Rock January 22, 2001 Page two It is imperative that we reaffirm Village concurrence now that the Public Meeting has been held and prior to proceeding with the completion of our study. Please indicate your concurrence and/or any comments to us at your earliest convenience so that we may pursue the development of a preferred alternative for improvements to the transportation system in this area. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Charles Riddle, Project Manager, at (847) 705-4096. Very truly yours, John P. Kos, P.E. District Engineer B tt~~ y Patrick J. Pechnick, P.E. Bureau Chief of Programming Attachment S:\PRO\Mgrl\Gen\WP\p&es\CONSLTLNIC\jjc 10117a.doc ~~ L O1I16101 Summary of Public Comments from Public Meeting on Decembex 12, 2000 U.S. 30 Plainfield The following are the major concerns and comments received in response to the public meeting on the U.S. 30, X-55 to IL 59 project public meeting of December 12, 2000 attended by 148 residents: The following is the breakdown for alternative support: • Oppose re-route 46 (plus 22 signatures on a petition -17 new) • Favor Re-route 9 • Non Committal 13 Personal Issues • Decreasing properly values as a result of the re-route option (8) Access Issues - - • Emergency vehicle ability to respond (29) • Impacts to businesses (x0) • Oppose barrier median/Concern about access to homes (27) Safe , Issues • Truck traffic. Many support a designated truck route to bypass the town (12) • Re-route would direct additional traffic past a new elementary school (9) • Safety (u-turns, trucks, more traffic, etc.) (4) Operational Issues • Bicycle accommodations (4) • Traffic congestion relief (33) , Environmental Issues • Rookery will not be affected by widening or roadwork (17) • Rookery should be protected (4) SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC MEETING ON DECEMBER 12.DOC •n • ~ r- r' ~~~ ~,~~ ~ `~~ ^r5 }~>. f %`' :T. ,. i ~+ j~ ., Illinois Department ranspoi ` Division of Highways/District 1 201 West Center Court/Schaumburg, Illinois fi0196-1096 I J Project and Envirorunental Studies OF PROGF;.nr;ir""dG .S. Route 30 (Lincoln Highway) h~'"t• I ~~'~• • ~'~'=~ inois Route 59 to Interstate 55 ir- Chief ~:• ., tu~7ias :bu~sxF ~~-PALS ILt ~w~~ ~~41-.'~~„- . _. _- -- `_~-- 111 COUn --. _/ `~ +~ ovember 30, 1999 .l:Jw~G~ ~~ --^~'- .. . 1~_ ! ~ . __... w.a~ 1r. Richard Kock resident 'illage of Plainfield 30 W. Lockport uite 206 lainfield, IL 60544 Dear Mr. Rock: This letter is a follow-up to the Department's presentation of the U.S. Route 30 project status at the Workshop of the President and Board of Trustees held on ~' Monday, August 9, 1999. The purpose of the presentation, as requested by Village staff, was to provide an update of the project study to the Village Board, and to identify the roadway improvement alternatives and the associated benefits and impacts of each. We had also intended to reaffirm support from the Board to proceed with the U.S. Route 30 re-route along Renwick Road option as the preferred alternative. tTnfortunately, several board members were not in attendance and Village support or the re-route o tion w haanticipated. s y ow, agree to investigate the re-route option per Village request and committed significant resources to proceed with this ~ alternative. The Village also passed, and provided to us, a resolution in support of the re-route option in September 1994. We are nearing completion of our preliminary engineering and anticipate having the Public Informational Meeting early next year. At this Public Meeting, roadway design alternatives and recommendations aswell as the associated impacts of each. alternative will be identified to the public to solicit comment, in order that a final scope of work be identified and supported by the Village and the Department. It is our intent to identify the U.S. Route 30 re-route along Renwick Road option from existing U.S. Route 30 to Illinois Route 59, as a Village requested alternative. This alternative is also the recommended project scope of work that will most effectively serve traffic operations and minimize impacts to the community. i. Mr. Richard I ', November 30, 1999 Page two As indicated, the last time that we clearly had Village support of the re-route alternate was September 1994. We recognize that this study has required a longer timeframe to conduct than would be desired and that conditions have changed within the Village as well as the adjacent areas. I~,,,,,~ - ra five ism c~,g~ g,~nt u on 1 cal, sou wort, local acceptance of jurisdiction of existing U.S. Route 30 from Renwick Road to Illinois Route 59, and transfer of jurisdiction of Kenwick Road (between U.S. Route 30 and Illinois Route 59) from Will County to IDOT. It is~imperat;~P that w~ reaffirm Vill~c~ e ce rior to~ub~~ Please indicate your concurrence and/or comments on the appropriate area at the close of this letter and return a signed original to us by December 9, 1999. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me or Mr. Joseph Korpalski, Project Manager, at (847) 705-4102. Very truly yours, Jahn P. Kos, P.E. District Engineer By: Patrick J. Pechnick, P.E. Bureau Chief of Programming cc: Sheldon Latz, Will County Highway Engineer Concur Do Nat Concur Signature Title Date S:\WP\PR0J5TUD\Rosa g\rb90830a.doc Illinois Department of Transport Division of Highways/District 1 201 West Center Court/Schaumburg, Illinois 60196-1096 BUREAU OF PROS :r~G roject and Environmental Studies .S. Route 30 (Lincoln Highway) ' ~~O-j-~~t llinois Route S9 to Interstate SS bur. Chlcf I~l ~ ill COllnty Prnj.~5:adics ~~~ c R - ~' _ une 7, 1999 i ng.TUev. ~ _ r. Dick Rock ---- "~ ~ " '1 resident ~~ ~;,:a~:res Illage of I'la'tllfield " ~"' ~~_~ 30 W. Lockport ~~~i~:~a dank _ Ulte ZOG - Nubt~c inlo. _ ~ ~ ltlainfield, IL G0544 I"~ ~ ~' Dear Mr. Rock: IDOT Division Of Hi hwa s * ist. En ineer NG. Pro'. Im , onstruction Local Roads Materials EEO NG. Pro . i]ev. Desi n Land Ac . ~' 'i~l'ro' raieiuid - ". Public Info. NG.O er. Elect.0 er. .Maintenance Traffic dministration To: To: * I =Information A = Actinn Enclosed for your review and comment is one full size and one half size set of proposed geometries and corresponding cross-sections for U.S. Route 30 from Illinois Route S9 to Interstate S5. Preliminary engineering studies included evaluations of . traffic and accident data, existing roadway and drainage facilities; and inventory, analysis and evaluation of social, economic and environmental factors affecting or affected by proposed improvements. The general scope of work for the build alternative generally consists of widening U.S. Route 30 and/or Renwick Road to provide a four-lane divided roadway with intersection improvements, roadway reconstruction, drainage improvements, traffic signal modernization and traffic signal interconnection throughout the project limits. The typical section includes two lanes in each direction, with curb and gutters separated by either a 5.5 meter (18-foot) concrete barrier median or a 3.b meter (12- foot) painted median. These medians are in response to the existing accident patterns and tendencies along with existing and projected traffic volumes. The two (2) build alternatives being considered are: • Improvements to U.S. Route 30 between Interstate SS and Renwick Road combined with re-routing U.S. Route 30 between Renwick Road and Illinois Route 59. The alignment would follow Renwick Road to its intersection with Illinois Route 59, alid then Illinois Route 59 north to its intersection with U.S. Route 30. As part of this alternative, existing U.S. Route 30 between Renwick Road and Illinois Route 59 would be closed with cul-de-sac's at each end. In addition, a barrier median is planned along Renwick Ro d to prevent "cut-through" traffic as requested by the Village during our Octob 4 1994 meeting. - i~ Mr. Dick Rock June 7, 1999 Page two • Improvements to existing U.S. Route 30 the entire length between Interstate 55 and Illinois Route S9. . Due to proposed drainage improvements, a large amount of right-of--way will be needed for this major action project. The District has attempted to minimize the right- of--way required by the use of a retaining wall, and reduced foreslopes and backslopes. We would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss proposed geometry, corresponding cross-sections, and answer any associated questions. We will be contacting you within the next week or so to set a meeting date, if desired. Ideally, we would like to meet with you within the next couples of weeks so that we can go to our initial public informational meeting sometime late this summer or early fall. As you may be aware, in 1994, the District amended the scope of our Phase I study, at the Village of Plainfield's cequest, in order to analyze a bypass option. We wow like to em hasize that loc o ation in addition to othe factors such as environmental impacts. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Joe Korpalski, • Project Manager, at (847) 705-4102 ar Bill Strawn, Project Engineer, at (847) 705- 4725. Very truly yours, Jolin P. Kos, P.E. District Engineer By~ Michael J. kovic, P.E. Project a E vironmental Studies Section Chief Enclosu cc: Terry Burghard, Village Administrator (full and half size plans) Jeff DurbinNillage Planner (half size plans) Joe Nordman/Robert E. Hamilton Consulting Engineers (half size plans) Allan PersonsNillage Public Works Director (half size plans) VILLAGE Or PLAINFIELD WILL COUNTY'S OLDEST COMMUNITY lti><Erno To I~ KOIvI: llATE: SUBJECT': John E Peterson ppESpEe~r TFiUSTE~S Jeffrey Dement Jack Heimerdinger Michael Lambert Richard Rock Raymond Smolich Kurt gtalzer 'I'1IE V1.LLAGE PRESIDENT Al~'D I3 F TRUSTEES Susan Janik J E FFItI? Y L. ll UIZI3IN, PLAN NE ~ vs.uae c,~aK July 18, 1995 ROU"I~E 30 REROUTING TO RENWICK RD. I spoke to Ed Zak of t}ie Illinois Department of Transportation today regarding the rerouting of the portion of Route 30 on Joliet Road between Rt. 59 and Renwick Road to an alignment that follows iL Rt. S9 then east an Renwick Road and then back to the Joliet Road alignment. I called Ivlr. Zak to verify the status of the study due to it's impact upon current developrent proposals. Mr. Zak iufonned me that IDOT supports the rerouting and is indeed currently studying the project. The phase I engineering is scheduled for completion in spring of 1997. As . far as collstruction funding, the project is not yet funded. . • IDOT is willing to consider and implement this project primarily due to the Village's was initiated at the Villa e's request. Accordin 1 if support oftlrc proJcct. The stuffy ~ ~.--~~ the Villa e maintains support and inte e ro' IDOT will work towards imps, le~mentah,~on. . According to Ivlr. Zak, the Village's decisions related to development proposals will have a significant impact on the implementation of this project. Development in the area, i.e. the proposed bawling center, should provide the appropriate street chazacter for the road it tivill front upon. 1~or exarnple, if the Village desires the rerouting developments along Joliet Road may address the street as a rotor road, while development along Renwick Road should address the street as a major arterial. IDOT will follow the Village's lead on development approvals. In terms of the bawling center proposal, the concept plan provides for either Joliet Road or Renwick Road to carry the Route 30 designation. Both street frontages require minimal curb cuts and the site was provided access to both roads through the extension of Arbor Drive. The bowling center fronts on Arbor, rather than Joliet Road or Renwick Road. If you have any questions or need any additional information do not hesitate to contact Ir1C. JLD:jId 1400 NORTH DIVISION STREET • PLAINFIELD, ILLINOIS 60544 • (815) 436-7093 • Fax (815) 436-1950 3 ~ ~.~ Petitio~>< about Proposal to Re-t1iil•e~t Traffic onto Renwick Road and to Widen Route 30 "hhese residents and business owners on Renwick Road and Lincoln Highway strenuously oppose an Illinois Departntcnt ofTransportation (IDO-I') proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route 59-at the request of the Village of Plainfield. Facts • Re-direct the traffic - Traffic now flows north past the Lake Renwick Heron Rookery - '1'Itis proposal directs 1u~avy traffic-including 18-wheelers-into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic - [Zoute 30/Renwick intersection has l 5,000 cars per day in each direction - Route 5y/Renwick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • ~Videtting: widen Renwick Road to four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet ofsome homes Median: a median would prevent left turns • Rationale for change: IDOT's rationale is to protect the rookery from traffic pollution Issues: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character of the neighborhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing • Subject residents to significant noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns in traffic • Make it difficult for residents to reach homes and c}ients to reach businesses because of left-turn restrictions • Pit residents against environmentalists • Ignores obvious compromise-erect a sound barrier on east side of current Route 30 and add more left-turn lanes, which would I) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affecting the major business sector in the village of Plainfield Nance Address Phone llate Yrs. on RenwicWRt. 30 ~/~; ~ / 3i z ~.jo ~ ~~~ s ~ .~~ ~ ilo ~./Ur-jr ~~ apt g~~_ /~a2 ~~/ ~/~~ - 3 _ ~t • 1 ~~~ Ch r~ ~ r~t~k ~r 2~--g 3~1 z g w / C~ r a l ~e ~ ~~~~~- b2 8 ~D 7 ~ ~~ ~ ab ~' ~ ~ . ~ ~A~N~ - S3 _SP~Z~~~:_ ~; f.,1_ ~3 ~~ ~~ ~3 ~ ~-/y/rte Pcritiun page number ~~ Petition about Proposal to Re-di~•cct Traffic onto Renwick Road and to Widen Route 30 These residents and business owners on Renwick Road and Lincaln Highway Strenuously oppose an Illinois Department of Transportation (TOOT) proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route 59-at the request nfthe Village of Plainfield. Facts Re-direct the traffic - "hraftic now flows earth past the Lake Renwick Heron Rookery - "This propasal directs hecrvy traffic-including t 8-wheelers--into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic - Route 30/Renwick intersection has 15,000 cars per day in each direction - Route S9/Renwick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • Widening: widen Renwick Road to four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some homes • Median: a median would prevent left turns • Rationale for change: IDOT's rationale is to protect the rookery from traffic pollution Issues: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character of the neighborhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood . • Reduce the value of housing ~ ' • Subject residents to significant noise pollutian and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns ire traffic • Make it difficult far residents to reach horses and clients to reach businesses because of left-turn restrictions • i'it residents against enviranmentalists • Ignores obvious compromise-erect a sound barrier on east side of current Route 30 and add more left-turn lanes, which would 1) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and ~) avoid radically and adversely affecting the major business sector in the village of Plainfield - i~fame Address Phone Date Yrs. on Rerzwick/Rt. 30 ~~~~z~. ~ S o 3 _ 7 3 0- 09 D7 s~,~ v ~~~ S ~atiSt: c (k 3a~3 f~~itifi~~~..~D. y3q-~?-~ ~t~rs ~~ c-c ~ r~c.c.c: l(o ~'3/ ~t ~ ~ch~ R~ ~5 y 79~ ~~~7 ~ S Pelitiun p.r};r number ~ 1 ~-P Petition about Proposal to Re-direct Traffic onto Renwick Road and to Widen Route 30 'I~hcsc residents and business owners on Renwick {toad and Lincoln I-lighway strenuously oppose an Illinois Department of"]~ransportation (IUU~I') proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route 59-at the request of the Village of Plainfield. Facts • Ite-direct the trafCc - Traffic now flows north past the Lake Renwick Heron Rookery - This proposal directs heavy traffic-including 18-wheelers-into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic - Route 30/Renwick intersection has 15,000 cars per day in each direction - Route 59/Renwick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • Widening: widen Renwick Road to four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some homes • 1Vlediat~: a median would prevent left turns + Ration:tlc for change: IDO"I''s rationale is to protect the rookery from traffic pollution ISSu~s: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character of the neighborhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing . • Subject residents to significant noise pollution arad higher accident rates by providing for Upturns in traffic • Make it difficult for residents to reach homes and clients to reach businesses because of left-turn restrictions • Pit residents against environmentalists • Ignores obvious compromise-erect a sound barrier on east side of current Route 30 and add more left-turn lanes, which would 1) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affecting the major business sector in the village of Plainfield Name ~Y~ ~~~~ ~ ~,`r° x~~z`ro ~ r~ ~~ Address Phone Date 2 r ~' 4 ~3 ~,~--TK~e a~ ~ T. ~~~ ~ ~ z~ ~N ~~. nri ~ ~-' ~;~ loZ1aS ~r~o ~i ~~ ~~~~ 8 ~ s'' s t; 6'--S ~ 6' t3~-~~1-`~~ Z- Is any -3y a-`J ~~ 2s~ - 7~- z~/ ~~ D v ~~ ~, 3y~J~ w- ~ ~~ ~ a~ sir y~ -~~ Yrs. on RenwicWRt. 3Q o7~d o V e Jb -~` Petition p;ige number/ _ -I/ Petition about Proposal to Redirect Traffic onto Rentivick Road and to Widen Route 30 I~hese residents and business owners on Renwick Road <utd Lincoln liighway strenuously oppose an Illinois Department of "Transportation (1f70'(') proposal to direct Route 30 su it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Ituute 59-at the request of the Village of~ Nlainf icld, Facts • Re-direct the traffic - Traffic now flows north past the Lake Renwick Heron Rookery - This proposal directs heavy traffic-including 18-wheelers-into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic - Route 30/Renwick intersection has 15,000 cars per day in each direction - Raute 59/Renwick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • Widening: widen Renwick Road to Four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some homes • Median: a median would prevent left turns • Rat~~a~e for change: IDOT's rationale is to protect the rookery from traffic pollution Issues: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character of the neighborhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing , • Subject residents to significant Hoist: pollution and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns iu traffic • Make it difficult for residents to reach homes and clients to reach businesses because of left-turn restrictions • Pit residents against environmentalists • Ignores obvious compromise-erect a sound barrier on east side of current Route 30 and add more left-turn lanes, which would 1) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affecting the major business sector in the village of Plainfield Na ~~~ Address Phone llate Yrs. on RenwicWl~t. 30 i .~ j7~ ~ tr rr ~~_~~=gyp rl . ~. 7 3 6 -~I[ Petition page number ~~~ ; - ~ ~ ,~~ 3 ~y ~~~~~~~~ ~;~ pal ~~ -s -~~ ~-P Petition about Proposal to Re-direct Traffic onto Renwick Road and to Widen Route 30 Y 't'hese residents and business owners on Renwick Road and Lincoln Highway strenuously oppose an Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route 59----at the request of the Village of~ Plainfield. F~icts • Re-direct the traffic - Traffic now flows earth past the Lake Renwick 1-ieron Rookery - This proposal directs heavy traffic-including 1$-wheelers-into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic • - Route 30/Renwick intersection has 15,000 cars per day in each direction - Route 59/Renvvick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • Widening: widen Renwick Road to four lanes, brinbing traffic within 30 Feet of some homes • Median: a median would prevent Left turns • a~i t o a`le for change: IDOT's rationale is to protect the rookery from traffic pollution Issues: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character of the neighborhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing • Subject residents to significant noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns in traffic • Make it difficult for residents to reach homes and clients to reach businesses because of left-turn restrictions • Pit residents against environmentalists • Ignores obvious corttpromise~rect a sound barrier on east side ofcurrent Route 30 and add more left-turn lanes, which would 1) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affecting the major business sector in the village of Plainfield Name Address Phone Date Yrs. on Renwicfc/Rt. 30 Gam Fd~ °;~` t J c..~~-c. /70 ~ (3 ~~o+~ F i ~-~.~ ~~l ~C l3 ~ la--~oY U(l ~~~ ~~f~~~~ ~~~~~ ma Petition page nurnber_ Petitiol« about Proposal to Re-direct Traffic onto Re><IWielc Road anti to Widen Route 30 T'ltese residents and business owners on Renwick Road and I_,incoln Highway strenuously oppose an Illinois Department of~Transpurtation (IDO I) proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route 59-at the request of the Villa~,e of Plainfield. F~icts • Re-direct the tratiic - Trattic now (lows north past the Lake Renwick (-laron Rookery - This proposal directs /u~uvy traffic--including 18-wheelers-into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic - Route 30/Renwick intersection has 15,000 cars per day in each direction - Route 59/Renwick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • ,Widening: widen Renwick Rood to four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some homes • Medirut: a median would prevent left turns • Rationale fur change: IUO•I''s rationale is to protect the rooke-y from traffic pollution Issues: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character of the neighborhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing • Subject residents to significant noise pi~llution and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns in traffic • (v1ake it dif-ficult for residents to reach homes and clients to reach businesses because of left-turn restrictions • 1'it residents against environrn4ntalists • Ignores obvious compromise-erect a sound barrier on east side of current Route 30 and add more left-turn lanes, which would 1) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affecting the major business sector in the village of Plainfield 1`` cite Address Phone Date Yrs. ort Renwick/Ilt. 30 Petition page number___~___ 9 ~=~ z~~ l~ ~. (( DUI ~S (~,~~ ~/ --~ Petition about Proposal to Re-clirect Traffic onto Renwick Road and to Widen Roll><te 30 ~r These residents and business ~~wners can 17enwick Roncl and L,incaln F{ighway strenuously oppose an Illinois Department of Transportation (IUc~"I') prapos<il to direct Route 3U so it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route 59-at the request of fire Village of Plainfield. Facts + Re-direct the tr'aftic - 1'raftic new flo~~~s nurih past the Lake Renwick Fleron Rookery - "fhis proposal directs hc~crvy U~aftic-including I $-wheelers-into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic - Route 30/Renwick intersection has 15,000 cars per day in each direction - Route 59/Renwick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • Widening: widen Renwick Road to four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some homes • Median; a median would prevent left turns • Rationale for chflnge; -UO`I"s rationale is to protect the rookery from U~affic pollution XSSUes: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character oFthe neig,hburhoad by directing heavy. traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing • Subject residents to significant Heise pollution and higher accident rates by providing far U-turns in traffic • Make it difficult for residents w reach homes and clients to reach businesses because of left»turn restrictions • Pit residents against environmentalists • Ignores obvious cornprumise-erect a sound barrier an east side of current Route 30 and add more left-turn lanes, which would 1) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Rgad and 2) avoid radically and adversely affecting, the -najor business sector in the village of Plainfield Name ~7 Addr•esc ['hone fate Yrs, on RenrvictJRt. 3Q cis p~~`r-P.t /4 ~dJ~ ~~P//J Petition pugs numbzr Z- Petition about Proposal to d'f~:i:~:`i~l~, ~°~`.".u(WV'~'w~=~~.` •~~ Re-direct Traf'tic onto Renwick Road and to Widen Route 30 ,, These residents and businc-ss owners on Renwick Road and Lincoln 1-lighway strenuously oppose an Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Kenwick Road to Route 59-at the request of the Village of Plainfield. Facts • Re-direct the traffic - Traffic now flows north past the Lake Renwick }-leron Rookery - This proposal directs frecrvy traf~iic----including 18-wheelers-into what is now a quiet neighborhood + Current traffic - Route 30/Kenwick intersection has 15,000 cars per day in each direction - Route 59/Kenwick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • widening;: widen Renwick Rurrd to four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet ofsome homes • Median: a median would prevent left turns • Rationale far change: IUO"I"s rationale is to protect the rooke-y from traffic pollution Issues: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character of the neighborhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing • Subject residents to significant noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns'in traffic • Make it difficult for residents to reach homes and clients to reacli bustnesses~becausc of"1cft•1:ur•,~ctt~~-5.~ • Pit residents against environmentalists • Ignores obvious compromise-~-erect a sound barrier on east side of current Route 30 and add more left-turn lanes, which would I) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Raad and 2) avoid radically and adversely al•fectin~; the major business secror in the village of Plainfield Namc Address Phone Date Yrs. on RenwicWRt. 30 ~~o 0 ~ ~ /~3'r~s~ ~nc~ ~ ~L ~a / ~~~~ 3 ~~ s ~.~ ~~i'7~~- ?a ~ .~ SSG `iF3 ~~ .,~_ ..~ Pc ion puye numb~r~ Petition about Proposal to 6'I~,'"`'~'~ -~'~~.~~.~ ~.~1 ~~.~, 1 '~ Re-d>I>< ec,t Traf~a<c onto Renwlic.k Road and to Widen Route 30 YY These residents and business owners on Renwick (Zoacl and Lincoht Highway strenuously oppose an Illinois DeparZrttent of Transportation (IDOT) proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route 59-at the request of the Village of Plainfield. Facts • Re-direct the traffic - Traffic now flows north past the Lake Renwick (-(eron Rookery - This proposal directs heavy traffic---•including 18-wheelers--into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic - Route 30/Renwick intersection has 15,000 cars per day in each direction - Route 59/Renw;ck intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • ~~~idening: widen Renwick Road to four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of'some homes • 1~Iedirur: a median would prevent left turns • RAtionale for change: IDO"I"'s rationale is to protect the rookery from traffic pollution issues: what effects this cfrange may prompt • Change the character of the neighborhood by directing henry traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing • Subject residents to significant noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns in traffic • Make it difficult for residents to reach homes and clients to reach businesses becaUSCpf+iefC.'tta~~e~~ot1s • Pit residents against environmentalists • ~``~ '~ '" ` • Ignores obvious compromise~rect a sound barrier on east side of current Route 30 and add mare left-turn lanes, which would 1) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely af'ttcting the major business sector in the village of Plainfteld amc i~ '~~~'~ / l "~ Address Phone (-~ ~ ~=-~~~ /_ ~ ~,~- D~ . lets ~~:~ ~. ~~ 3~7 ~ ~ .- rA Date Yrs. on Renrvich/12t, 30 7.~~~~-~TY~ ~ lfl ~in.l`~~:ci~ ~~y ~~ s ~-- ~.r~-~," ti~C. / V ~~~ ]w ~ (G' tf' (~ a ~~~5' /a2-9-~0 ~ ~ ~- S ~ ~~ ~ 3~ ~3-7-~/~~ 17.~~~~-oo~ ~, :r, .o vi.~ rc ~ r~ , J i ~ ~ r /7 Cam- CAL ~ / L ~ ~ f ' ~ ~ ~/~~ [~ (. Petition page number Petition about Proposal to F6al:liiclc~, ~ai:~~:~, ~,~~:y-~ Re-direct Traffic onto Renwick Road and to Widen Route 30 'These residents and business ~r~~~ners on Renwick Road :urcf Lincoln I-lighway strenuously oppose an Illinois Department uf~Transpurtatiun (IUO I') proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Rottcl to lZuute 59-at the reyucst of the Village uf' I'lainf icld. Facts • I:~e-direct the tr:lffic - ~fraffic now Flows north past the Lake Renwick I-leron Rookery - This proposal directs /recrvy traffic--including 18-wheelers--into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic - Route 30/llenwick intersection has 15,000 cars per day in each direction - Route 59/Renwick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • ~Videninf;: widen Renwick Road to four 1<tnes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some homes • I~lediun: a median would prevent lel`t turns • 1(atir?uale fur change: IDO"l~'s rationale is to protect the ruakery fmm traffic pollution Issues: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character of the neighborhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing . • Subject residents to significant noise pollution and higher accident rates by provrdrng for U turns in traftrc • hake it difficult for residents to reach homes and clients to reach businesses because::of ieft~ri`~fr~crton~i> • Pit residents against environmentalists • Ignores obvious compromise-erect a sound barrier on east side of current Route 30 and add more left-turn lams, which would 1) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affecting the major business sector in the village of Plainfield Name Address f'honc llate Yrs, on Itenwictv'Rt. 30 ~ ~~~ C.cL ~Gh ~cu v ~;~~ 7/avr ~a , ! ~ ars Petition page number ~~s~ ~- 4r~ ~ ~f3t-Z6~~v ! Z•a7•a"U __--/ ~n~s~ rti~~n ~~) I'etitiol>t about l.'roposal to r• "~ `~~'~~:~~ Redirect Traf~~c onto Renwick Road and to Widen Route 30 "These residents and business owners on Renwick Ro<rd and Lincoln Highway strenuously oppose tut Illinois Department uf~Truntipurtation (Ii)O I') prop~rsal to clirc:ct IZoulc 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Ruad tr. Route 5~)---at the reyue;st ol~lhe Vill,rge ul~l'luinliclcl, r~~t5 • Re-direct the traffic - Traffic now tiows north past the Itiake Renwick I-leron Rookery This proposal directs heuv_v traffic-including I s-wheelers-into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic - Route 30/Renwick intersection has 15,000 cars per day in each direction - Route 59/Renwick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction Widening: widen Renwick Road to four lames, brirtgirtg traffic within 30 feet of same homes • Nledian: a median would prevent left turns • R~itionale for change: IDOT's rationale is to protect the rookery from traffic pollution Issues: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character of the neighborhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing • Subject residents to significant noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing far U-turns in traffic • Make it difficult for residents to reach homes and clients to"reacli~businesses~becaise of lef[.tur "t>•tctio~s~ • Yit residents against environmentalists • Ignores obvious compromise-erect a sound barrier on east side ofcun~ent Route 30 and add more left-turn lanes, which would I) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affecting the major business sector in the village oFPlainfield Name Address Phone I)~tte Yrs, on Ren~viclJltt. 3U ~`~ ~q~3-l -0 -O aQ Fv 1~~.~ ~",~d,~ i7 FIA~t ~~ ~~'~~->11~-/-d~ ~'rS' t Z"-]..arJ ~ R 7 ~ ~,--~[: ~ o LTi~f~F6c I ~ ~ "%` y~~.~~1iw~` ~~ ~ ~3~ 7izz /z -7~0 ~y,~s '- - ~ - 6~ ~ ~: , i s t ~ ~~ ~ ~ Neririun pirg< num6er~ .• Petition about Proposal to ~"'n;`n«' 1~'`"~`W ~~'~~'~~ Re-direct Tr4><ftic o>r>tto Rell`vicl~ Roacl anti to Widen Route 30 , These residents and business owners on [tenwick Road and Lincoln Highway strenuously oppose an Illinois [7epartnrcnt u1~Transpurtatiun (IUc~ l) proposal to direct Route 3U so it proceeds west on Renwick Road t~~ Route 59--at the request of the Village of 1'laintield. r~~~f:s • lte-direct the traf•tic - Traffic now flows north past the Lake Renwick t-leron Rookery - "I~his proposal directs /!e'enw traffic-including 13-wheelers-into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic - Route 30/Renwick intersection has 15,000 cars per day in each direction - Route 59/Renwick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction + Widening; widen Renwick Road to Four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some homes • Nledian: a median would prevent left turns • Rationale for chattgc: IUO"(''s rationale is to protect the rookery from traffic pollution ~S3t1eS: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character of the neighborhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing • Subject residents to significant noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing for U~turns in traffic ~-~=r- • Nlake it diflicult for residents to reach homes and,c.lierlts to reach businesses,because:ofleft,tl,}trt;re~tr~t~i~o~ts~~~` • Pit residents against environmentalists `- •Ignores obvious compromise--erect a sound barrier on east side of current Route 30 and add more left-turn lanes, which would 1) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affectinf; the major business sector in the village of Plainfield Narne ~ u.~l~i.~; ~ L ~'- ~~ 'G ~~~~ ~_ . f , C~ , ~ Address Phone Date ,, i~ .^ ~.~ ~-. _J ~1=--1 ,~ !~~~~ ~~~~1~ ~.' t'ctitiun page num6er~~ JZ .'-~c'~/ ,UG~O v ~t~it S~ ~~ a ~ ~ -~ t t~ c~ '^ bi 5 ~~~ - l ~' ~ I z- ~'-o0 5 -- - c . ~• ,_i J . c, l -• ,------... Yt•s. on Reurvich,~ftt. 30 vv ~l ~/moo ~~ -sib/ ~' ~ ~sv rs o about Proposal to ~~.~~,~f..; ;.,;~~;:,~'~• , .awe .•:.:. .,: ti:.... ,•; Re-clire~t Traffic o><~.to Renwick Road and to Widen Route 30 ~, These residents and business owners on Renwick Road <tnd Lincoln Flighway strenuously oppose an lllinois Department afTranspartation (IDOT) proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route 59---at the request ofthe Village of Plainfield. Facts • Re-direct the traftic - Traffic now flows north past the Dike Renwick }-leron Rookery - This proposal directs heavy traftic--including 18-wheelers---into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traftic - Route 30/Renwick intersection has 15,000 cars per day in each direction - Raitte Sy/Renwick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • Widening: widen Renwick Raad to four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some homes • Median: a median would prevent left turns • Rationale for change: IDO"f's rationale is to protect the rookery from traffic pollution Issues: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character of the neighborhood by directing henry traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing ti . • Subject residents to significant noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns in traftic t • Make it diff icult for residents to reach homes and clients to reach'businesses.because. ofaeft~t~t;~r~~Cr~%~ttoyis`~ • Pit residents abainst environmentalists • Ignores obvious compromise~rect a sound barrier on east side of current Route 30 and add more left-turn lanes, which would I) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affecting the major business sector in the village of Plainfield Nante Address Phone llnte Yrs. on RenwicWRt. 30 ( t L ' t• r t r r ,.~ j Sz3 ~jitT $ ~~ 71 ~ / s~S / z ~ 1 r ~y ~~~ n~ "7~D~.~ ~.~ CG-xo lz --~ ~ G~ CC~`i ~~~,~ , „~ `G ~ic'~1 ('~, ~~tc 4sIS-~j'l~~ ~`l`~ lZ -`f ' v~ / c~ ..t.~u<.1 ., _ I .5 / _ i3~ ~~~ ` c.La~~-(. (fir . //~~// ((. -- l.V~ti1~l.'l /~'~~ f' L(~.L~_~~~~% ~t-L In~~~-~U~.l l ~ ~4 ~n~~ Petition page number ~~ %.3 Petition a p a to r~tatn'tet~ ,,Yn ;.."; ;;<~ ,,, bout Pro os 1 , ~~.::~.•> ~;: Re-direct Tra'~iic onto Renwick Road and to Widen Route 30 ,, 'T'hese residents and business owners on Renwick Road and Lincoln Flighway strenuously oppose an Illinois Department ofTransportati~n (ID(~1~~) proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Road w Route 59--at the request oCthe Village of Plainfield. Facts • Re-direct the traffic A Traffic now flows north past the Lake Renwick 1-leron Rookery - This proposal directs heavy traffic-including 18-wheelers-into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic - Route 30/Renwick intersection has 15,000 cars per day in each direction - Route 59/Renwick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • Widening: widen Renwick Road to four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some homes • Median: a median would prevent left turns • Rationale t'or change: IUO"I"s rationale is to protect tl7e rookery from traffic pollution Issues: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character of the neighborhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing . • Subject residents to significar7t noise pollution and higher accident rates.~by,prgvtd~ng.for U-turns in traffic • Make it difficult for residents to mach homes and"clients to reach businesses because oflc' ,e~Cri~ef'ions~°''~ • Pit residents against environmentalists • Ignores obvious compromise-erect a sound barrier on east side of current Route 30 and add more left-turn lanes, which would 1) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affecting the major business sector in the village of Plainfield Name Address Phone Date Yrs. on Rcnwicl./Itt. 30 ~~SL'/,iti_rxrie t~~f~ ~Od:~'L~ l~'Cli,n~te~a;~ ('{ t;~~.96d'3 ~a"09~UU ~Yrs' ~~ ~~~ ~. 5 vr~S • Petition page nuniber~ ~ _ Z~`~ - Petition about Proposal to ~ _ Re-direct Tragic onto Renwick Road and to :Widen Route 30 Wc, the undersigned, as frequent patrons of Nioneer l,ancs, Strenuously oppose an Illinois I)c:partment of Transportation (1'DQT) proposal to direct Route 30 ~~ it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route S) - at the request of tl~e Village of Plainfield,. therefore making access extremely dillicult to those who frequent Pioneer Lanes on a regular basis. Name Address Phone Dat,: Years Patronizing d~ z / ~7~ ~ i~.~ ILA .. •~ 2-$-c~ .3 ~J ~/~~z-~9Y~ S ~~~iGir ' ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~' GI J ~ c li~~ =~~i-oo~~ .J X30-~~ 5d/y ~ I I L ~~O ~ilh~crh7~ 81Sdg3~Sgb .~.-~~,~ ~ ~ ego ~ ~lc~ti~ 7,e. ~!l D ~ ~ 3a ~ S 7_~ D(~~~ ~ __ ~v~ ~ S`~ 3 ro 2 n ~. V `~Ctrf~ SJ ~ ~~ ~ v~'~`Q~~Q~~ ~ l? i C I~ h. ~.~ Z Y7 Dl ~-~-? ~u 3 ~~' 33 r~~vU,e ~~ ~3~`~~z ~ (a 3~ - .ss"3 - a 13~ ~.i~ i~ Petition about Proposal to Re--direct Traffic onto Renwick Road and to ~~iden Route 30 We, the undersigned, as Ircqutnt patrons ofI'ionecr banes, Stren.~:~usly oppose an Illinois 17cp~u'tment ofTr~u~aportation (IDOT) proposal to direct Route 30 ~~~ it proceeds west on Renwick Road to IZouie 59 - at the request oftt~e Village of Plainliela; therefore making access ~xtrc-nely dilli4ult to those who t~~quent Pioneer Lanes on a regular basis. ame Address Phone Datnz ~ Years Patronizing ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~®o ~~ ~ g7 ~ ~l g~D D o~ ~ -~s~Q L_ t_.~~ • • ___ _ W ~ ~ j~~ i Petition about Proposal to . Re--direct Tral~i~:c r~nto Renwick Road and to "v'~iden Route 30 We, the: undcrsi~,ned, as (rcquent patrons of Pioneer Lanes, Strenuously oppose an Illinois Department o£Trarispori~-tiun (IDOT) proposal to direct Route 30 sa it proceeds west on Ittnwick Road to Route 5~) - at the: request ofthe Village of Plainfield, therefore making access extrcnicly dillicul: to those who ireyuent Pioneer Lanes on a regular basis. Addre::~s Phone ~~~ v Date dears Patronizing ~.~~- ~ l./ r. ~. /~ -~C~xfi~ ~ /(f' z~~J•/~~rt~)cti ~ / ~~~~0 y.3 6 - D ~~ ~/ /~ - '7 - Uzi ~ ~- ~~ Q~/~ • ~~ ~ -- o ~ ~.~.N-~.1`-~~_ ~. 1 Cad ~ 0 ~ . ~ ~.~~~J '~a--~ L fGtC2y ~-~~GtL ~~~%~ ~ti p~Lrt .U~a~ 9 ~o ~~,~ CP o5 ~ ~~~3 . ~~ ~ ,, ~~--~-oo 2S S~,~S~. r ~~~ N ~~u~ ~- f Z ~ C~ v 3~'S . ~~ ~ CT ~ a ~ ~ PlL4,lt-i ~ Il/ ~ , ~ e ~ ~ ~ p a `S,~!/~S' Petition about Proposal to Re--direct Tru~`~c onto Renwick Road and to Widen Route 30 • We, the undersigned, as frequent patrons of Pioneer Lanes, Strenu~~usly oppose an Illinois Department ofTranspurtation (IDOT) proposal to direct Route 30 sa it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route 5y - at the request of the Village of Plainfield, therefore making access extremely dif•licult to those who frequent Pioneer Lanes on a regular basis. Nariie Address Phone Data: Years Patronizing; ~~t[xvh~It)y~°' a~~~ SCn~eIIiFC 3G-~~IJ3 ~~.'7'00 S `a 7 z.3 r ~`~ ~ o w~, ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~,~,~ ~-c U(U ~~tia~~ ~~u -ZJ1 u ~ 12 ~ G17 • ~ ~ ~ - :~ Petition about Proposal to . Re-direct Tray tic onto Renwick Road and to Widen Route 30 We, the undersig,~ed, as t~equcnl patrons of 1'ianeer Lanes, Strena.~usly oppose an Ill'u~ois Department afTr<<~~sportation (ID~T) proposal to direct Route 30 :,<~ it .proceeds west an Renwick Road la Route S9 - at the request ofthe Village of Plainfield, therefore making access extremely •.'iflicult to those ~vho frequent Pioneer Lanes an a regular basis. A dress Phane Dai: Years Patronizing ~1 ~ 1.. ~ I I lX 1 V / S~ PL ~ r+ S 1' J I z 7r~ ~ ~ iJ ~i~ _ Q! ~/` v~G~~ ~ car ~~- ~~- ~ Qa ,~ ~ U P -~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ti~ ~~ ~c~,~eo CG~-e- /~ Q~ f~ ~o~/~ ~'o~~D •~ i ~ ~~ ,- ~~ ~- X03 /~o~~e1 „~-L~ Job! y°~l~ C-~Y73 o~ .~ ~ Lax <<~ ~k 'P ~~~ 6 ~s ti o ~ _ y / _ r ~11 f_ ~rj ~ r9 ~~ ~ ~ J__ I _ 1 Petition about Proposal to Re-direct Traf~ic onto Renwick Road and to 'Widen Route 3Q We, the undersigned, as frequent patrons of Pioneer Lanes, Strena~~usly oppose an Illinois llcpartment ofTransportatiun (II70T) proposal to direct Route 30 sa it proceeds west on Renwick Road to RUUI~ 59 - at the request of the Village of Plainfield, therefore making access extrencely difficult to those who frequent Pioneer Lanes on :i regular basis. Nacre Address Phone Date Years Patrortizing f~~'~~~I~S~ ~~ ~a-12~~-~', P1a~r~ek~. ~al-~ ~'~~~ p h , ~~ C P ,-~ t~ ~~ c. ~ 1 // r. ..~ C7 i 2 y~~6 ~ ~~ ~sM,~ ~ti ~ ~s ~~ ~3~~1 ~ f5 Petition about Proposal to Re-direct Tragic onto Renwick Road and to Widen Route 30 We, the undersigned, as Iequent patrons ol~ 1'i~neer Lanes, Streni~uusly oppose an Illinois Department of Tra~isportation (LOOT) proposal to direct Route 30 se. it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Roue 59 - at the request of the Village of Plainfield therefore making access extremely diF~lcult to those who frequent Pioneer Lanes on ;t -egular basis. Name Address Phone Datc Years Patronizing cCL .~• ~.~ r-°1 v J r ~ . ~~,,~•~ ,]LltiT~~ l~~G"` ~EI~'L~T~jGJ~ ~~ Zy'~~o3~~ -,-pa _ ,a(/S'%s ~I ~~ _i ~ rj ~= j. S ~- ~r`- J~~~ (~ ,~ 0 _ g~~ v39 .~ ~~~ ~~~1~ ~ ~ : -7J G' ~ ~~~ - ~ ~ • ' n i ~ ~ ~~ ~`. ~~ • 1 ~ G - / - c ~lfa .~ 7 - J ~ ~_- ~~~7 y L,~ PAX ~-r:~rr~ /_ n i 2 - J 5 yr s . ~~~~~~ ~L `~; `~1 } Petition about Proposal to : ~ - • Re-direct Tra#'~ic onto Reawick Road and to .'Widen Route 30 We, the undersigned, as frequent patrons of Pioneer Lanes, Strerna~iusly appose an Illinois Department oC'1'ransportatiun (iDQT) proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Itoutc 59 - at the request of the Village of Plainlicld, therefore making access extre~uely diflieult to those who frequent Pioneer Lanes on a regular basis. Name ~~dd,ress Phone Date Years Patronizing 1~ V~r ~5 ~ r asbS~ G~ ,IF,~cc)/C~ ~ ~~ ~Sa7 /~/T~ ~ -~~~ Y'e"s 7• 4 /. Z ~r~~c~ C ~m_-r_~r ~0. ~ l ~l ~~~C~r'M~,„ i/~•~ L~_J ~~ zc~}'~ ~_ ~ z- / /~~UcJ ,~~/l J _ ._ / /~ _~ ~.~RiarJ Wn~f~~1 ~3b5 E~~A[ kw~~ $~5-`f3~"lt$ I~-~7-~L~ ~~~5 ~ ~, ~ ~ 3 ~~--~(~ .~w'' ~ ~o -- Fa ~ r~d~~ ~~1~/d ~ ~ __ ~ _ _ .~ 2~~ ~ ~~ D~ ~~,~ i~ _~~ ~ _ ~~-, ~C" .•~ C_.f.ff' _ .G"I~~~C_fV ~~~~_/ J l~///A~(.!J( ~ '-' / 4f'"/.~~~'Y"~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~3 ~ - 50~~( ~. Y Q . ~~~~~~~~~: is 7 00 / ~~~ 1~ ~~)- ~~ i'; Petition about Proposal to Rc-direct Traffic onto Renwick Road and to Widen Route 30 /.~ ~` We, the undersigned, as frequent patrons of Pioneer Lanes, Strern~nusly oppose an Illinois Dcpartmc:nt cif Transportation (IDOT) proposal to direct Route 3Q so it proceeds west on Remvick Road to Routs 59 - at the request of the Village of Plainfield, therefore making access cxlr~:-»cly d'-7i~ult to thaw who fi-cqucnt Pioneer [.ants on a regular basis. /,.~ N ~ c ~ ; .~~'! ~ldress Phone Date Years Patronizing ~ ~, _ ~-r.'~~~~~r~~ ~0 ~~ ~ ~z 3~~ • 5 L ~ ~ a v ~ie -1--~ S -v~Y~ /~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~~ s ;, - .~ _ ~c 3 S ^--~ _ _.~ C. • ~~~--~ ~~ ~, ~- ~~V ' lJU '~-~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~-r~ . ~~- ~ ~~a ~ g~r~~~~ ~,~ Petition about Proposal to Re-direct Traffic onto Renwick Road and to Widen Route 30 We, the undersil;n~:a, as li~equent patrons of Pioneer Lanes, Strenuously oppose an lllinais Department of Transportation (IDOT) proposal to direct Route 30 sa it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route 59 - at the request of the Village of Plainfield therefore making access extremely dillicult to those who frequent Pioneer Lanes on a regular basis. Nam Address ~• ~ Phone Date Years Patronizing ,~'~' '-`-- < ~ J,r > cis ~ 7~ -a 71 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~. " t ,, ,- X15 -~ '^~' S r 1'~ ~, c, ( X15 - 4-13 ~ - 3 ~ ~~_ ` ~ ~ , ZS 7 / _ 1~'-~i l 3 ----- l ~~o ~-f~ non C~ U (F,51 v ,/'rte. ~w ~y ~~~~ ~a~~t ~f39-~3~~a ~`~ ~ 7l~ 3 ' ~~.~ pd /~ y/s sue'., Ul~~7 ~ ~~ his y ~- 9s~3 ~~~ c - ~ _ ~( ~, 6 ~. . f.-~~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~au, ~F" R~~~l ~~ • Petition about Proposal to Re-direct Traffic onto Renwick Road and to `4~Viden Route 30 We, the undersigned, as frequent patrons of I'ianeer Lanes, Strenu~-usly appose an lllinais Department of Tran~portatian (IDQT) proposal to direct Route 3U sa iC proceeds west on l~em~ick Road to Rniite 59 _ at the request of the Village of Plainfield, therefore making access extremely difficult to those who frequent Pioneer Lanes on a regular basis. Name Address Phone Dai .~ Years Patronizir-g ~, .__, ~i NUR ND2i'~ -,---- ~ ,~~h ~ ~~~ nee ...~ n ~' . ~_~ G' rs ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ J ~/~ J .~ ,` ~ 1 \ Y- ~ L / / ~~~ '743 ~ ~ ~ ~~'~ G~-~ ~ ~ n. ~_~ 1, ~,~~.~-e_ Sa r ~ ~3 r• n d I e w oo a ~,~ ~ (~Ir~ a.s V 9 ~8 ~ .~_ ~' 3y~s ~ ' i''~' ~ ~~"'~ t~ ~. ~~ Petition about Proposal to Re-direct TraL`+~ic onto Renwick Road and to .'Widen Route 3Q We, the undersigz~cd, as frequent patrons of Pioneer [.apes, Strenu~~usly oppose an Illinois .Department ofTrarisportaiion ([I70T) proposal to direct Route 3~ so it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route Sq - at the request of the Village of Plainfield; therefore making access extre-iiely difficult to those who frequent Fioneer Lanes on a regular basis. Name Address Phone Date Years Patronirv~g ~~ ~Pr~ ~ ~ ~ 1~~~ s. ~- hY~ 6-~n~~ iz ~ 7 /~/~ (~ 3 U Qrr~.rl ~ ~i~t n 3~ ~ ~~- ~~~, ~~~ ~ a ~ ~~i ~-~~ ~ ~ ~ r ~~~ ~ LIZ 2510 c1W OS N' Ul cm U3~Yq?a4~~ l2 ' 2 ~ z~ 3 +,~ ~ r IRa g ~ s~ ~sz ~ i ~J ~- ~ -- ! :. -~ 1 I Petition about Proposal to Re-direr t Trafi~ic unto Renwick Road and to ~vViden Route 30 We, the un~i::rsigncd, as frequent patr~~ns of Pioneer Lanes, Strenuc-usly appose an Illinois Dcpartmci~t cat Tran< portation (1170T) proposal to direct Route 30 o it proceeds west on Iten~vick Itoud to lZou:~ Sq , at the requ4st ofthe Village ofl'lau~tield, therefore making access extreiu~ly dill3cult to those tvhu frequent Pioneer Lanes on a regular basis. Name Address P ~_~~~~ ~~~ J .~ ~~~ r~ l~`; ~ ~ Date Years Patronizing ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,a 7~~ s -~ i~ ~ o0 iz ~,~ /z- ~ "~' /~-~-oo I~- ?-~ 5 /2 -7-66 S ~2~ ~~~ -~jm _ I,_, . ... ~_____f_,_.._.__ 1/~ Imo) K 10 ~ ~~~ i 1 ~- (~ I ~.. ~ ~ ,, ~~ ~~ eJ . , rL~~ ~ /~ ~ ~ ~~ I u~' n ~~~P~~ 1 G I ~ ~-1 C I~~-s~-~~.:t- ~1, ~ ~ c plc„ ~t~ ~ ICS P~,r~ ~~~ t~h~~ l~ i Petition about Proposal to Re-direct Traf>f~ic onto Renwick Road and to .Widen route 30 We, the undcrsi~,ned, as t~cqucnt patrons of I'ioncer Danes, Stren~iously oppose an Illinois I7cp;irtmont of Tr~uispurt;-tion (IDOT) proposal to direct Route 30 su it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Ruutc Sy - at the re.nuest ofthe Villabe of Plainfield, therefore making access extrcniely dillicult to those who Gequent Pioneer Lanes on a regular basis. Naiiae Address Phone Dais Years Patronizing /~.e a~ loo f q~K ~4U r~-err=_ , . _~ ~~N~- ~~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~l~ "2,s ~ C ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~4~~L~~ ~ , ~~Z r~_ ~ -~~ 1 c, -f _ ~~ s ~.~ 9 -v sr~ i~~~/ate ... ~ i~ - or~eavi~l ~ -dy~~'~~~ 3 /alb'/oo ~ ~~ ., . _ J/ I ^ ~ r ~ , C, ~~ i~ ~~ . z , y,~ Petition about Proposal to . Re-direct Trai~:~c onto Ren`vick Road and to .Widen Route 30 We, the undersigned, as frequent patrons oFi'ioneer Lancs, Strenauusly appose an Illinois Department cif `Transportation (IDOT) proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on I~cnwick Road to Routo 59 - at the request of the Village of Plainfield, therefore making access cxtrcnacly diflic:ult to those who frequent Pionccr Lanes on ri rcg;ular basis. /Name Address Phone Date Years Patronizing; Y„ ~ ;n, h ~is ~I~~~a~ J ~ ~ ~ 7 r ~~~~ti ° /~~~~ S75~ ~ z` 3 ~v c~ ~ ~v ~~' ~ CSR ~T~I~~ ~ S~_ Z 3 z I z ~ S - - ~ -~~~ - l,~uae~1~ ~~5~ y36 ~G`(~o la~~ ~~a~z~ ~; ~~ Petition about Proposal to Re-direct Traffic onto Renwick Road and to 'dViden Route 30 We, the undersigned, as frequent patrons of Pioneer Lanes, Stren•.~~~usly oppose an Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route S9 - at the request of the Village of Plainfield, therefore making access extremely ciiflicult to those. who frequent Pioneer Lanes on a regular basis. Nrune ,<lddress Phone Date: Years Patronizing ~~ ~33~5~ p.0u~~fl ~(~~N ~~ d ja'~~`~" ~g~/ IZ~FjI c+-~ ~ ~ ' ~ G~ ~ ~ ~ ,' is 3 - 71 ~ ~~ - ~ror~ L ~N iy~~~~t l~ssz ij1~~~~d~~w ~~~- ~Si5~~39-7~iz /a-~-w .~ ~ ~~9/ ~ f / l / ~ .~. c ~ 6~ /_ ~~-e _ Alit n ~ o~ ~`/-~..~~ ~~ / ~ ~'~ D o~ // lNi°~ r ~~ ~ ~~ I lh.J~~.~.~r LJbL//.~C7/SL~~l4 ~r7d-977/ ~~'~4-G~ . ~ J~'Z/y d`~r~ ~ ~~~t/n~~Pl~ T~o'O~19 /Z~d~JZ~ ~ ~, ~~P-~~ JS~~/ b~31Cwr~~il /IvG ~,ucv~-rZ PAf~il Ic.~ /a-~~a~ ,~ /~ `'1 ~`%C'~/ ~ ~~ ~(~'-~~S ~ ( ~'-i ~C'~' V r c V/ () 2 ~~GZ c:vFC C~ l ,l z o Cy ~~~ ~ ~w~ I ~ ~~ ~ l Petition about Proposal to Re-direct Traffic onto Renwick Road and to Widen Route 30 We, the undersigr:.:d, as frequent patrons of Pioneer Lanes, Strenuously oppose an Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route 59 - at the request of the Villa~,e of Plainfield,,therefore making access extremely dillicult to those who frequent Pioneer Lanes on a regular basis. Na.n~e Address Phone ~ Date. Years Patronizing r~ ~ ) (~~a"~ ( _ -~~. ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ 8~'Dd$ / I b ~, `' ~.Q--- ,~3a ~~- (~ . ~ ~-~~ ~ tea--- ( r ~ ~ ~~/~ ~ • ~ l~l :i Pet>tt><on about Proposal to Re-direct Traffic onto Renwick Road and to '~'Viden Route 30 We; the undersigned, as liequent patrons of Pioneer Lanes, Strenuously oppose an Illinois Department of Tr~~~sportation (iDOT) proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route 59 - at the request of the Village of Plainfield, therefore making access extremely dilTicult to those who frequent Pioneer Lanes on a regular basis. Name Address Phone Date Years Patronizing ~~1~`~ \1 1~~~~\ ~~ 1 ~ /p~~/7 /ply///////~ ~ - _1 ~1 ~1 er ~1rC 1 C' d~ y 1 ~i ~~_ ~~1-,~LL~-t---F 11- ~r -cam ~ -, /`" - ~~... /a- ~-o~ ~~. g -- ~ ~ ~3-~~~a la ~~;-c~c~ I ~yrS 3 ,.~ ,~~ . '~ Petition about Proposal to Re-direct Traffic onto Renwick Road ana to Widen Route 30 We, the undersi~,ned, as frequent patrons of 1'ionecr Lanes, Strenuously oppose an Illinois Department of Tran~partation (I170T) proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Koad to Route S9 - at the request of the Village at' P1ainGelc , therefore making access extremely dil~icult to those who frequent Pioneer Lanes on .- regular basis. Name Address Phone Date Years Patronizing ~ ,~ S ~ ;~ -~~ S PQrne.1~ Y I~~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~. C,U-Q.- I~ ~) ~ ~~ ~ SOo ~~ ~~• ~~ Lc~C fit:' '~ ~~'~ ; ~ ' ,~, vn1(~ ~ Z ~q~~ c_ a, ~' . ~~ . ~,~ ~~ ~ 2 ~%"acs ~ C~ i7 r ~~c.N ~~ d`a / :- ,_ -" A ~- ~ i~ 1'etit~on about Yr'oposal to Re-tlire~t T>i-aftic~ or>tto ~tenwielc Road and to Widen lZoute 3U Ircu resltl~:nts antl ltusinrss tt~~ rr •rs im IZctttvie•k It~~,ul and l.iri~~>In 1 li~hway sU'rnut~usly opputic an Illiue~i~; !~<partntent ul"I'ransltt~rtatiuu (I I'(~'I~) prep<tsal to clirc~t IZuut~• •0 sc~ it hr~tccctls wesl nn Renwick Rtrul lu Route `•9-al the reyu~st nC tltc ~' ~Ilage ttf~ I'lainf ieltl. Facts • Re-direct the traffic - Traffic now flows north past the Lake Renwick 1-leron Rookery - This proposal directs h~cny traffic---including 18-wheelers-into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic - Route 30/Renwick int~:r section has 15,000 cars per d;ty in each direction - Route 59/Renvvick itrtersection )tas 25,000 cars per day in each direction • Widettiug: widen Remyi~k Roacl to four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some homes • iViediun: n median would prevent left turns • fLtlionale for chance: 11)(a l"s rationale is tct protect the rnokcry Iront traffic p~illulion • issues: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character of the neighborhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing • • Subject residents to signiticc~rt noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns in traffic • Make it difficult for residents to reach homes and clients to reach businesses because of left-turn restrictions • Pit residents ar_ainst environmentalists • Ignores obvious compromise- erect a sound barrier on east sidr: of current Route:30 and add more Icft-turn lanes, which would I) protest birds and still retain neighborlutod character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely afli:~'ting the major business sector in the village of i'lainfield IV:utte Address Phone i)ale Yrs. on RenwiclJftt. 30 ~ l I Ind . ~~nw~ ~( is/i~~oo ~ ~ !'~. ~ ,~` c _-~ • ~ •~~% S ! ~ ~ 'C Petition page num6rr jl / , i'etiti~>><a about Proposal to Re-direct 'l~r~tt'f~c onto lZen~vicl~ lZoad Road to Vuiden Route 3U I hose residents and business o~~n~•rs on Kcnwick Road and I.itt~uht I li~hway strcnur,usly oppose an Illin~~i~. l~epar-tnrent ol• I•ransportation (II ~U"I•) proposal to direct Route 3U so it proceeds wes on Renwick Road lu l~uute 59-at the request of the `.' illage of I'lainf field. I'.1CtS • tic-direct the traffic - Tr<rfCc now Flows north, past the Lake Renwick }-leron Rookery - This proposal directs heu~y traffic-including 18-wheelers---into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic - Route 30/Rcnwick intersection has 15,000 cars per day in etch direction - Raute 59/Renwick intersection has 25,000 cars per dzy in each direction • Widening: widen Renwick Road to four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some homes • Median: a median would prevent leR turns • Rationale far change: IDCi~!''s rationale is to protect the rookery from traffic pollution Issues: what effects this change may prompt d Change the character of the rteiglrburhoud by directing heavy traflic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing • • Subject residents to significant noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns in traflic • Make it difficult fur residents to reach hurnes and clients to reach businesses because ofleft-turn restrictions + Pit residents against environmentalists • Ignores obvious compromise--erect a sound barrier on east side of current Route`30 and add more left-turn lanes, which would 1) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Keswick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affecting the major business sector in the village of Plainfield Name Address Phone Date Yrs. qn RernvicWltt. 30 ~ '~ .'? ., ~ ~ ~~' 1 . ,~ "V1nD~ 1 n lY,,,A Ar~ l , M tA~~ Ca... , . _„ ~ '' f'etitirur rrr~,r numhrr 5 Petition about Proposal to Re-direct Traffic onto RenWiclc Road and to Widen Route 30 These residents and business owners on Renwick Road and Lincoln 1-lighway strenuously oppose an Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route 59-at the request of the Village of Plainfield. Facts • Re-direct the traffic - Traffic now flows north past the Lake Renwick Heron Rookery - This proposal directs heavy traffic--including 18-wheelers-into what is now a quiet neighborhood + Current traffwc - Route 30/itenwick intersection has 15,000 cars per day in each direction - Route 59/Renwick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • Widening: widen Renwick Road to four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some homes • Median: a median would prevent Left turns • Rationale for change: IDOT's rationale is to protect the rookery from traffic pollution Issues: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character of the neighborhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing • Subject residents to significant noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns in traffic • Make it difficult for residents to reach homes and clients to reach businesses because of left-turn restrictions • Pit residents against environmentalists • Ignores obvious compromise--erect a sound barrier on east side of current Route 30 and add more left-turn lams, which would 1) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affecting the major business sector in the village of Plainfield Name Address Phone Date Yrs. an Renwick/Rt. 30 ' o c~- rv ~ ~ 'r ~ ~~l ~. r~,~ ~ Ls h.`'~>a ~~' j ~) x-13 ~-- ~ ~ o -1 `d-- ~`- ~ vu o rr~,an~~ -~,~n,.~~~.U /~s~ ~~~~h~~.~ y!s-~;3S- y~9a /z ~-~, -~ • t'ditiun p;~~~ numhrr t;~~, I^_ Petition about Proposal to 5~ R~-tli><-ect Z,r<ifti~~ onto ~Ze>1~~~~icl: Ro~~d and to Widen Route 30 1'hcsc. resiclcnlti and business u~:l crs tin Renwick IZr,acl and L,inculn I ligltway strcnuuuly oppose an Illinois I-)cpartrnent ul~"('ransl~ortatiun (rl O"I") proposal to direct IZoulc 10 su it pruceerlti west on Renwick Road to ftuute `9--at the rcclucsl t~l•tltc ', illagc nf" I'lainlleld• r.>«t5 • IZc~dircct tttc traffic Y Traflic now (lows north past the Lake Renwick I Icron Rookery - "this proposal directs {,~ ny traf~tic---including 1 S-wheelers---into what is now a quiet neighborhood Current traffic - Route 30/Rc:nwick in e section has 15,000 cars per clay in each direction '; - Route 59/[tenvvick i.t:ersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • Widening: widen Renwick load to Four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some homes • I1~iedian: a median would Grrwent left turns • Rationale for chanl;e: IDCt"'''s ratinnalc. is to protect the rookery from traffic pollution ~ssucs: what Cfft~ts tIt15 chap'",t may prompt • Chan~;c the character of the n~~iglrborltuud by directing heavy traf~lic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housint. • • Subject residents to signilic.u t noise pollution and higher accident raics by providing for U-turns in traffic • Make it difficult for resider s to reach homes and clients to reach businesses because of left-turn restrictions • 1'it residents against envirorrt~cntalists • Ignores obvious compromise---erect a sound barrier on cast side of current Route 30 and add more left-turn lanes, which would 1) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affe~~t ng the major business sector in the village of Plainfield Name Ad~.ti•ess Phoae Date Yrs. on RenwicWRt. 30 -, -~; /l~it~C't ~~/ii/-/~ ' ~~G:S S ~~~5~' ~ ~j-~ 7L3 /~/1 .~ rz.~ ~~; U~~~~~ 3 ~i 5 ~t~~~ g Dal. ~ -~ ^3~>.3 ~ ~ ao `~ iJC7rlfCl a~ ~~T ~ s''/ D~,r = i~ C _ v ,~! t~-v~. vim- ~~~->r-u,. 1 `,~ `3 :? ~ ~f ~ ~.t,~ • ~, ~ .v r ,~rl r~ ~ ~ t'clitiun t~aRC numher_ ~_~.._ 7/~ 1'et~tion ~>tho><rt 1'rol~osal to Rc--tlircc~t rl'ral~fic onto llcrr~~-icl~ Ro<'r!It ar~tl to Witlcn Route 30 Itcsc residents and busittcss u~.~ners un Reit~~~ick Izoacl and Lincoln l ligltway strenuously oppose an Illin~,is D~partrnent ~,f "I ransportation (IC~O.1') proposal to direct Route 3U s~, it proceeds west on Renwick Road to Route 59--x1 the reclucst ul`the Village of Plainfield. Tarts • Ite-clircct tJtc traffic - Traffic now flows north, past the Lake Renwick l leron Rt,okery - This proposal directs l.e~rry traffic-including 18-wheelers-into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Carrent tr:rflie A Route 3U/Ren~~'ick intersection has t 5,000 cars per day in c:iclt direction Y Route 5~)/fZenwick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • ~Videning: widen Renwick Road to Four lanes, bringing traffic within 3U feet oh~some homes • Median: a median would prF,vent le(1 turns • Rationale for chaude: [DU'"s rationale is to protect the rookery From traffic pollution .Issues: what effects this chan,e may prompt • Change the character of the n.,ighburhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing • • Subject residents to significant noise pollution and higher accident raies by providing for U-turns in traffic • Make it difficult for residents to reach homes and clients to reach businesses because of left-turn restrictions • Pit residents against enviror.ir.entalists • Ignc,res obvious contprumis~---erect a sound barrier c,n east side of current }Zoute~30 and add more I~ft-turn lanes, which would I) prule~;t birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely aFFe~~t~ng the major business sector in the village of Plainfield Nantc. Ad;l'ress I'hune I):tte ~! Yrs. orr RemvicWltt. 30 ,.~ ~~~~~ ~~~ °~ ~~- ~~1~ W~~r ~{~~ ~~Hz >- g ,; ~ sus ~3~-~ rs~ ~ ~ ~j/~ C ' l a/sow o~n~ ~iS y i.~~~/o r%y _~~'s ~ ~.~- ~a~ ~~ t'clitiun pa~,~ nuni6er ~'etitiorr About Proposal to lie-clircct 'l'r~><~-tilt or><to Zicr~wicf~ Load acrd to Widen IZo>>.rtc 3U hr~r resi~l~~nts and hutiinctis u~. r~rs ~nr IZctrwick Road :urJ I,iu~ultt I lighway ~trcnut~usly oppt~se an Illint~i~> I.?rpv~tmcnt of Transporhttion (IL.'U'I~) proposal to clircct Ruutc 3U so it prorealti ~~c~,t on Renwick Rua~l to lZuutc 59-a1 the retluesl ~,I~thc \ illage of plainficlcl. Facts • Rc-direct tlrc traffic - Traffic now flows north past the l,,ake Renwick Heron Rookery - This proposal directs Iran.)- traffic-including 1 S-wheelers--into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic - Route 3U/Renwick intersection has l 5,000 cars per day in each direction ~ Route 59/Rertwicl; irrtr~rscction hits 25,000 cars per day in each direuti;~n • Wiilcning: widen Renwick Road to finn~ lams, brining tral7ic within 30 feet o!~~come homes • 11ledi:ur: a median would pre+vent Icli turns • Itatiouale fur cL.urf;e: If:)Ol"s rationale is to protect the rookery Erorn traffic pollution 15StteS: what effects this than. •,: may prompt • Chance the character of the ~~ •ighborhoud by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of~huusint, • Subject residents to signitic.rr t noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns in traffic • Make it difficult for residenrs to reach ponies and clients to reach businesses because of left-turn restrictions • pit residents against enviruntt~untalists •- Ignores obvious compromise-erect a sound barrier ort cast side of current Route 30 and add more left-turn lanes, which would 1) prate ;birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affc~tmg the major business sector in the village of pfaintiuld. N:rnrc Ad~.l ~ css "4 Phone Date Yrs. on RemvicWl~t. 30 / 9 Q, / , ~ ~ ~ Zy~ ( T `{/ `t ~ ~~ _ l ~___ ~~S? ~ ~ ~~~ _ r' ~~ ..~ r1. ~ ~~ ~;.i ~- ' ~, t 1 r - '1 ~ ~ C' ~ _ 2 I L I Lb t'1 ~5~ //i ~~ ~ ~ ]•~ ~ ..~ , I'etitiun page numhtr_ i %i-1 ~`, ~~ l'etitio~~ about Proposal to ~e•-direct 7,raftit~ o><>tto Rcll><`vick Road and to ~':tle>tx I~outc ?U I'Ir«r residents turd husine~ti u~ 'i crs can IZcnwi~k Kond anal I,inc<~In I li~,hway strenuously oppose an Illin,,i•: Ihlrtrtntrnt of ~frutslwrttttir~n (II.!O`I") pr<~posal tc~ clircct Kuutc 30 so it pr~cecds west on I~.enwick IZuad to IZuute 5~~-at the request of the 'v' illap,e ul" 1'lainl iel~l. Facts • Re-direct the tr•al•lic . - Traffic nOW f7Uws nUl'll; past the lake Renwick I-leron Kookcry - ThiS proposal directs /~~.. rt.v traffic-including 18-wheelers-into what is no<<• a quiet neighborhood • Current traffic ' - Route 30/Remvick in!er~section has (5,000 cars per day in each direction • - Route 59/l~envvick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direckion • Widening: widen Itenwicl. Road to four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some homes • IVlcdian: a median would p-."vent le Ft turns • Rationale for change: IDO"I''s rationale is to protect the rookery from traffic pollution Lssues: what effects this chnnr,~ may prompt • Change the character ol` the l-.;ighbarhoad by directing heavy traffic into a residcittial neighborhood • Reduce the value of housinL; . • Subject residents to signilic.u;t noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns in tral~lic • 1~1ake it difficult for resident, to reach homes and clients to reach businesses be~-ailse of !eft-turn restrictions • Pit residents against cnviror'ntentalists + ignores obvious cumprumisr -~-erect a sound barrier on east side of`current 1~outc;30 and add mare Icft-turn lanes, which would 1) protc.a birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely rtffc,;c~ng the major business sector in the village of Plainf7eld IV~~tnre Address ,~ ~- ~ ik Phone Date Yrs. on Renwich/Rt. 30 ~a ~~ ~/~5 d~5 /7~~JI4lJ ~~~~ wa a-aro ~ z~+~ ~~ en 8~~.~t~iv_~ ~.-l ~~o~ 1 ~~ j ~, -, r,, (~ ~ ~ ~ lac ~~ .~ ~.r e-r g/r' ~5 S- ~ ~~rrv ~L"=,~~~U ~ 1e~r~v1~- /:a" I~.-~D S ~~c.~S7`r ~5 ~-~is~ <v ,mss ('~ iilion page number L~ ~`/ /') ['etitiot~ about P><~oi»sal to Rewclirect Traf~it• or>tto ~Zen~viclc Road and to «iden Route 3U '1-hose resi~lrnts and bu~irwss u~ r rrs un [Zenwicl. Ruacl and I,incohr I li~;hway strcnucnrsly oppose an lllinris [)t:parUncnt c~f~ l ranspurtalinn ( i ~l)'I~) prul?osal to tlircct Routr 3U see it procceils west ~>n Renwick Road to l~uutc 59---at the rcyuctit ~~I~tltc ~ illa~c. al~ l'Iainlield. r.~4t~ • Re-direct the tr:rl'lic Y Traffic now flows norllt past the Lake Renwick 1-leron Rookery Y 'I'bis proposal tlirccts li~~.n~y Iraf[ic-includint; 18-wheelers---into what is ni>w a quiet neighborhi>od • Current tr:rftic - Route ,0/Renwick int.;~~section has 15,000 cars per day in each direction ~~ - Route 59/Renvvich in!~rsection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • Widening: widen Rernvi~:i :.oad to tour lanes, hrint;ing traffic within 30 feet ufsome homes • Median: a median would I~ vent left turns • Rationale for• clranl;e: fU(i~''s rnlionale is to protect the rookery from traffic pollution Zsst>les: what effects this chan;~c may prompt • Change the character of the n :ighborhood b_y directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value ol-housing, • • Subject residents to sigrtific..cr t noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns in traffic • Make it difficult for residents to reach homes and clients to reach businesses because of left-turn restrictions • Pit residents against enviror n~~ntalists • Ignores obvious compromi.~~~•--erect a sound barrier on east side of current Route 30 and adcf mute Icft-turn lanes, which would 1) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on IZt:nwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affe~,ting the major business sector in the village of Plain~3eld Nance Acf~l:~ess Phone Date Yrs. on 12enwictu'ltt. 30 ~ ~ S' ~-'~~ ~Z~ ~.~,~.-~ Z ~ X39- ~6 z ~ ~Z`9 ~ .-~ ~_:, G ~C~CC x ~~ 0 ~ ~~ V ~ - ~ --l_ ~ ......_ _.._.__._------. _.._.___ ._ r f'eritipn tree nnmher~)_.. <~, [. /' !'etition abot>It ~'r•ol~osa! to ~c-di>t•c~t Trak~t~~• onto RcrxWiclz Road and to ``-'alden Route 30 I hcsc resi~lent.~ and business o~~'r'crs ~~n Kcnwick Koad antl L,incc~ht 1 lit;h~~~ay strcnuc~usly oppose an Illin~:~iti L)~partntent ~,I-"I'ransportatit,n (1r:~C) I') proposal to direct Route 30 so it proceeds west on Itenwi~k Road to ltuute 59--at the retlucst ul-the V illage ul' 1'lainf field. pacts • Rc-direct the tr~ftic - Traffic now flows north past the Lake Renwick I lerun Rookery - This proposal dir~els /,~ rtiy traffic-including 18-wheelers-into what is nc~w a quiet neighborhood • Cw-rent traffic - Route 30/Remvick in.ersection has 15,000 cars per day in each direction - Route 59/Renwick intersection has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • Widening: widen Renwick (toad to four lanes, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some homes •_.IVfedian: a median would priwent left turns • Ration:~le for change: II)U"1"s rationale is to protect the rookery from traffic p~~llution issues: what. effects this chanl.e rn:.ty prompt • Change the character oFthe neighborhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood + Reduce the. value ol'housittf; • Subject residents to signi(ic:utt noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns in traffic • )\-take it difficult fur residents to reach homes and clients to reach businesses because of Icft-turn restrictions • Pit residents against cnvironntentalists • lg,nures olio iou5 contpruntise~rect a sound barrier on east side of current Route 30 and add more Icft-turn lanes, which would I) protect birds and still retain neighborhood character on Rcitwick Road and 2) avoid radically and adversely affe.a~ng the major business sector in the village of Plainfield ~Namc I.,G - ~- , ~3~~ --~-- -~- ,r7 ,; Adctr-ess Phone Date Yrs. on RenwiclJRt. 30 1 ~. -I ~.- z3z / ~ "~ ~ ~ ~~ . _ !! ti r - ~_ I ~ _ ~ ~~ ~ 4 ~ ~~ J J c ~~~ , ~~/r~ ~, ~_ _. ~~]' ~~ 7 ~/ r ~.~! ~c~ I~-IU-OL` Petition ahc>'ut l'rol~usal to ilc-clir•cct: '1"r-al~lir~ unto IZcr>twiclc lZu~>tcl ~~n~l to ~~iclcn l.Zoutc 30 I hctic rc~idunls and business u~ t,crti un Itrnwi~l: R,rul and l:incoln I lighway sU~cnt!uusly oppose nn Illinc,i~ f7epartntent ~tf'"Transportation ('LaU I') prc~pustl try direct Route 3U so it proceeds west on Renwick IZuad to Route 5~)---al the request uFthe Village >,f ['lainfield. rttcts • Re-ckirect the traffic - "1't-al-lie now flows north past the Lake Renwick l-leron Rookery - '1'Itis proposal directs lr~~.n.v lra('lic--including 18-wheelers--into what is now a quiet neighborhood • Cut•rcnt traffic - Route 3t)/Renwick in'~:rsection has 15,000 czars per day in e~ich direction - Route 59/ttettwick ilttcrscction has 25,000 cars per day in each direction • ~Videniug: widen Renwic}. Road to four lanes, bringing traffic within 3U Feet ofsume homes • Median: a median would prevent left turns • IZationttle for chanl;c: IUt t i 's ratir,nale is to protect tltc rookcr~v from lr:tf(ic pollution ~55ues: what effects this change may prompt • Change the character ofthe neighborhood by directing heavy traffic into a residential neighborhood • Reduce the value of housing. , • Subject residents to signific::uit noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing far U-turns in traffic • l~takc it dil'licult fi?r residcnrs to reach homes and clients lu reach busiresscs because of Icft~turn restrictions • 1'it residents against cnvirur it~cntalists • Ignores obvious cumpruntisc --rrect a sound barrier un east side of current ttuut~ 30 and add nturc Icf-t-turn lanes, which would I) prvte•~t birds and still retain neighborhood character on Renwick Raad and 2) avoid radically and adversely affe.•t~ng the -najor business sector in the village of 1'lain~eld Name Ad.l~ tvs 1'ktone llate Yrs. on IZerrwiclJk2t. 3U ~ l ~._--~ .. 1 _ ~ ~ • ~~ ~~ `~ C~ Jti 1 c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~L~" ' ~ ~ 2 .~ ~ ~ Lz r.~ ~,t ~ r ~~, l~ I J ~~ N ~-«-` ,v f .~ v ~~~fl fC~yiAr~~~, ,r~r_~._..._ ~, ,, I'l'11!l(lf7 page nun~h~•r ,/ ~'~ ~~ 3 I'etirion ~><bou~ 1'ro~~osal to IZe--direct "~,1•~It-lit° oT~t~o IZe>I>twi~lc ltoatl tend to Widen ~~outc 3U 'I lir~r rc~id~•nts ,tnd hu.~iirrss iw i rrs on Rcnwirl: Roncl turd I,inculn I ligh~~a~ strcnu~>usly oppose an lllin~,i<; L~cpartment nfl"r;utspurta(ioir (~I U'I') proposal tt? direct Rrnrte 30 su it proceeds we';( on Renwick Kuad to Route S9-at the retlucst of the 1' illa~c uf~ ('lainlield. F~~cts • lZe-direct the traffic - '('raf(ic now flows north. past the I_,ake Renwick Fleron Rookery . - This proposal directs Ir~~ut~y traffic----including l8-wheelers---into whet is new a quiet neighhunc~~od Current traffic - Route 30/Renwick inlrrsectie~n h:rs 1 S,000 cars per day in etch direction - Route 59/lZemviak intcrscctittn has 25,000 cars per clay in cacti dictation • ~Videttin{;: widen lZenwicl. i.aad to four Ittncs, bringing traffic within 30 feet of some (tomes • lblcdi:ut: a tttcdi.ut would hr~•vent left turns • ltntiunale fur chsut{;e: 1D(~ I"s rationale is (~~ protect the tvokcry front iraflic pollution Issues: wh;tt effects this chanze may prompt , + Change the character of tha rn:ighburhuod by directing heavy traffic into a residr.nlial neighborhood • Reduce the value of housint, . • Subject residents to signific;trt noise pollution and higher accident rates by providing for U-turns in traffic . • Make it difficult fur residenr~ to reach homes and clients to reach businesses because of left-turn~restriclions • Pit residents against envirot ~ntalists • Ignores obvious cuntpromis~ --erect a sound barrier on east side of current Routs 30 and add morn Icf1-turn Ittnes, which would I) protc,_t birds and still rrt~tin ncighhorhuod character on Renwick Itaad and 2) ~r~oid radically and adversely aflc~_ting, the nuljor business sector in tlrc villrtgc of I'Ininlield ~ Name Ad l~~css Phone, llale Yrs. un RenrviclJ)~t. 30 L.p\1~~5 •~r.:~-~cL-~+; ~5e~~ l.. (' ~\S-S"1`I- G3cao-S Pay ~ ~,Z Co\t. ~33b~ 1u.1-w~ ti , c.u ~~. 8 . Q ~'o ~ .~ z c _ ms's 7- c ~ - ~~ ~ ~~ ~ [.~yc~~'~v i~~ ~ ti ~ Z= ~ Ci >> ~ ~ ~~"1~~ ~,~,~-1r1~ ~ ~- 3 ~J j Cei . v~x_r.~-~~„ ~ / ,''_ ~ - Ica ~ a. ~.-.._ ~, fdillVn tl;IrC nun~h~r ~~ __ !lam l~ t~ ~~~.~~ ~ Rt. 30 Widening and Bypass Presentation-February 12, 2001 Richard Ziegfeld; Owner, LubePro's; 23299 W. Lincoln Highway, Plainfield, IL 60544 ~ho I represent: my name is Richard Ziegfeld. Fifteen months ago, my wife, Linda, and I invested virtually everything we have in buying the LubePro's oil-change facility from Bill Avery. Shortly after we arrived, in November 1999, I arranged a meeting with Jeff Durbin and asked whether any pending Village developments should concern. me. "Well," he said, "you might be interested in a proposal to widen Route 30, limit left-turn access to businesses and residences, and create a bypass. down Renwick Rd." Fourteen months later I stand before you asking for a vote by duly elected trustees on au. issue that matters enormously to me and to the group i represent. In broad terms, I represent the Citizens Action Committee Concerning the Rt. 30 Widening and Bypass Project. More specifically, this includes: • Nearly 60 businesses along Rt: 30, Renwick Rd., and Rt. 59-several of which provide a large portion of our local tax base • Hundreds of home owners along Renwick Rd. and in the Ashbury Farms and Lily Cache subdivisions • Nearly 2000 business patrons:who signed a petition or made acclamations opposing. left-turn limitations and,the bypass Will David Mueller please present the packets of signed petitions and acclamations, and will the people I represent please stand so that IDOT and Plainfield officials can realize haw strong our support is? Problems with trust and with a democratic process that has nearly been undermined Why we have come to mistrust some people--within IDOT and the Village administration: let me begin by noting that, as we understand municipal code; our local government consists of an elected Village president and six trustees. Tonight we open public debate on an issue that has been under discussion for ten years between the Village and the Illinois Department of Trans- portation (IDOT). Yet, in that decade, no citizen referendum and no trustee vote has taken place on a matter that will adversely affect dozens of business owners, hundreds of residents, and thousands of business patrons. More specifically, no vote has been taken during the term of this current board. Nevertheless, IDOT officials have written repeatedly that it was the "Village" pressing IDOT to study a bypass option, and IDOT somehow gained the impression. that the "Village" supports this option. I quote from an IDOT letter dated January 22, 2001, just three weeks ago: "As you know, IDOT agreed to investigate the re-route option per Village request and committed significant resources to proceed with this alternative.. The Village also passed, and provided to us, a resolution in support of the re-route option in September of 1994. In addition, concurrence with the re-route was reconfirmed via response to a letter from IDOT to Village President Richard Rock on December 7, 1999." When IDOT asked for a support resolution back in November 1999, its letter said, and I quote: "Please indicate your concurrence and/or comments on the appropriate area at the close of this letter and return a signed original to us by December 9, 1999." However, when Bill Avery and I lodged two formal requests for the correspondence between the Village and IDOT, one with each group, no such document materialized---dated 1999 or 1994. The questions we pose at the outset tonight are these: • If no concurrence letter is in official files and the board didn't vote on the issue during 1999 or 2000, who spoke for us? • If this concurrence letter exists, why didn't it show up when Bill and I filed our freedom-of-information-act (FOIA) request? In general, the problem here is that someone, and we do not know who, is not shooting straight with us. The general dilemma involving a lack of trust leads to some specific detail that we want you to know as you consider this matter. We eventually gained access to IDOT engineering plans from April 1999. These plans we now know, do not severely limit left turns along existing Rt. 30 from the truck stop to the ComEd station and do provide three left-turn options on Renwick. We hope this workshop will yield additional, credible answers and lead you to vote on this matter in a timely fashion. "Timely" means registering a local preference before IDOT makes its preliminary decision in April 2001 just two months from now. As we've mulled this trust issue, we conclude that: • Some problems, though troublesome, are inadvertent-involving large bureacracies with numerous hands in the operation • Same seem intentional--involving motives we won't try to interpret IDOT's confusing detail: to date we have received confusing, sometimes contradictory, detail. Options down in writing include • Concrete barriers that vehicles cannot cross and landscaped medians that prevent left turns • 1-inch-high "rumble" strips that slow traffic but do not prevent left turns • Left turn lanes • Bypass down Renwick Rd. that involves closing off Joliet Rd. at both north and south ends We have heard all these options from various officials, but the challenge is determining whom to trust. Examples ofproblems: • From May to August 2000, Joe Korpalski, IDOT's engineer, said IDOT favored left-turn lanes and leaving the routing intact ~• Village minutes from an IDOT briefing a year earlier (08-99) show IDOT favoring a bypass, despite Korpalski's comments • John Kos, Korpalski's boss, wrote us in August 2000 saying IDOT would mix mountable and non-mountable medians • Supiciously, Kos's letter never reached Avery, so Bill and I had a startling moment when we saw it in Village files _. + When we picked up blueprints at IDOT HQ (11-00) and weren't certain what the median markings meant, we asked an engineer what type of median they were proposing on between I-55 and Renwick; he said non-mountable--i.e., no left turns! • Korpalski indicated during the December 2000 IDOT hearing that the agency. supported the bypass option • During that same hearing, Korpalski assured business owners orally that I;DOT intends to provide left-turn access to most businesses along Rt. 30. These comments caused some business people on Rt: 30 to relax. . • The current plan shows anon-mountable barrier beginning-~-inexplicably-~-at ComEd's substation, which blocks access to Lubel'ro's and to Bill Avery's Superwash. When we asked why engineers initiated it at such a disastrous location, we . ,. received no good explanation, but they assured us, hat they.wouldseriously consider revising plans to improve access. As you can imagine, these incidents leave us exceedingly distrustful. We have no intentions of relaxing until we see revised engineering drawings that reflect promised changes and that ensure left-turn access, which is vital to 60+- Plainfield businesses. Meanwhile, though, serious problems remain for several groups because both the "Village" and IDOT appear to favor a bypass down Renwick Rd. and limiting left turns along Renwick between Rts. 30 and 59. These adversely affected groups include: • Residents on Renwick Rd. and in the Ashbury Farms and Lily Cache subdivisions • Merchants on the Joliet Rd. extension of Rt. 30 • Merchants near the intersection of Renwick Rd. and Rt. 59 • Families with children who will attend the Plainfield schools to be erected on Renwick Rd. Village staff "obstruction ": dealing with Village staff has been quite another matter. We know from IDOT file letters and from talks with IDOT staff and Jeff Durbin that the "Village" repeatedly lobbied for the bypass option as recently as the year 2000, during this administration. We also know that IDOT repeatedly told the Village it will consider re-routing only if the Village demonstrates community support. We are here to clarify that you lack anything close to strong support for a bypass. Even given these hard facts, Village officials reacted in an utterly unacceptable fashion, consistently refusing to acknowledge ~at they advocate 1) the re-route option and 2) restrictions on left turns. We approached them asking simply to learn who supported the bypass option and why they would do so, because we don't understand how it serves the public positively. Instead of engaging in a healthy exchange of ideas, one official told us point blank that 1) the "Village" had taken no stand on the issue, 2) we didn't understand the situation, 3) we had our facts wrong, and 4) it was premature to discuss the issue. The fact is that we understand the situation all too well. Until this very evening, someone has prevented public discussion of this issue by: • Telling one trustee that IDOT wants the bypass, so there's no point in the trustees voting • Telling IDOT that the "Village" favors a bypass option, despite the fact that there has not been a trustee vote. Using letters we obtained via FOIA requests, we can document that both representations were inaccurate and thereby 1) prevented a trustee vote and 2) misled IDOT about "Village" consensus. These individuals have until now stymied the democratic process, which is, speaking plainly, just not right. I think I speak far many people when I say this makes me very angry. We approach you tonight, President Rock and trustees, first, with a simple request that you exercise not only your right but you duty to render an advisory vote for IDOT. The bottom line? We must rely on IDOT blueprints, not oral statements, because those are the binding, official documents. I've covered issues concerning an attempt to undemaine democracy and, as is obvious, we are before you tonight engaged in a legitimate public debate. I'd now like to review why we think a bypass option is a misguided, disastrous public policy. Problems with this bypass proposal: we oppose what we believe is 1) inadvisable limitation of access to businesses and residences and 2) a re-route option that in Bill Stukel's wards, "moves but does not solve the traffic problem." It has been poorly conceived by outsiders who fail to realize that you cannot simply "go around the block" to solve access problems created by the bypass. There are simply are no blocks to go around. Here is our litany of 19 un-addressed problems caused by these options. Re-routing down Renwick Road and blocking oft Joliet Rd. • Change character: this will change the neighborhood's character----directing heavy truck traffic within as little as 33 feet of same homes and right-of--way as close as six feet! Can you imagine having 18-wheelers just 33 feet from your living room? • Acquire right of way: the bypass plan calls for buying/taking right of way from land owners on existing Rt. 30 and Renwicl 2 • Cost $2 million more: leaving the route intact will cost $10 million, while the bypass estimate is $12 million. What else could IDOT do with the extra $2 million to improve area roads? M• Ruin housing value: the bypass will be hard on older people whose major life investment is their home because prices, will drop precipitously when they have little time to recover. Moreover, far all residents, regardless of age, despite suggestions that property values will rebound if the area goes commercial, we now know that a B3 zoning permit requires lot sizes deeper than those along Renwick, so the bypass could render those properties virtually worthless • Add trucks downtown: John Kos's letter to Bill Avery (8-22-00) indicates that IDOT would force delivery trucks from Rt. 30 to enter-or exit via Rt. 126. Thus, a bypass actually funnels numerous trucks through an already crowded downtown, complicating, not relieving, the current mess. We estimate that Rt. 30 businesses require,200-250 semis or large trucks weekly that are currently not affecting downtown • Disastrously impede delivery of emergency service--fire, EMS, and police: the bypass and closing off Joliet Rd. will .'impede public services disastrously, not only as vehicles leave the station but as fire volunteers struggle to reach the station before the vehicle departs. Chief Eichelberger estimates that a bypass would raise response time by at least 2 to 3 minutes over on Rt. 301ocations after vehicles leave the station. A fire volunteer added that the bypass would also delay him in reaching the station. Since our response time is already at dangerous levels-about 9 minutes, we simply don't understand anyone advocating an option that would almost certainly degrade response time even further. Professional standards require response within three to five minutes, yet bypass advocates seem content to accept times as high as 11 to 1 S minutes. Heart attack victims are dead in that time, and buildings completely destroyed by fire. • Reduce access during disaster to one major artery: long-time residents note that when the tornado devastated Plainfield in 1990 along Rt. 59, the only available major artery was Rt. 30 along Joliet Rd. Given Plainfield's history, we ask why you would deliberately eliminate the sale remaining emergency option during a time of tornado, vehicular accident, or weather disruptions? It seems less than astute to block off choices voluntarily. • Raise insurance rates: as insurance companies learn of degraded response times, they would, in turn, raise policy rates ~• Slow traj~c the new school buildings along Renwick will slow traffic to scrawl-with buses and a 20mph speed limt • Cause issues in the subdivisions: this plan will force some drivers onto Lily Cache, which already needs improvment • Move but not solve a southbound Rt. 59 traffic problem: the bypass simply relocates the problem one mile south, between Commercial and Renwick, and then worsens the problem for northbound traffic, as at least 20,000 more vehicles per day in that portion of Rt. 59 join the existing 20,000, for a total of around 40,000 cars per day through that stretch • Cause sidestreet problems: the bypass plan complicates already difficult crowding problems on Dillman and Union Streets • Complicate school traffic: the bypass plan also calls far barricading Commercial St., which will shunt all 1600 cars from the high school and 116 buses per day into the newly congested portion of Rt. S9 between Renwick and Lockport • Make deliveries inej~cient: from a trucker's viewpoint, the bypass makes deliveries very inefficient, which could raise rates • Fail to account for residential growth: a bypass option does not adequately account for plans to construct thousands of new homes on Renwick Rd.--mast of Rt. 30-as developers build communities such as Carillon Senior housing and others like it • May force some businesses to close: numerous owners are concerned that an 18-month construction phase for. widening Rt. 30 will force them to close. All business owners along Rt. 30 will face very trying times for that year and a half of construction, but if you limit left-turn access, erect barrier medians in front of stores, or actually blockade businesses into a closed-off zone, you will destroy some of them -Western Landscape owners said that their business is just reaching survival maturity that a road closure would threaten -Re-routing would force the Superwash owner to demolish his building and decide whether to re-construct-a trying option far a family that backed Plainfield for 60+ years and made altruistic donations of forest-preserve lands -Owners of the Silver Coin restaurant and Alpine Glass have noted that they will probably not survive widening •• May harm downtown: patrons who get frustrated by slow northbound traffic an Rt. S9 may apt to go south to Joliet Mall • Raise historic issue: a certified centennial home (1972) an Renwick counters arguments to close Joliet Rd. to save historic homes M• .Involve violation of previous administration agreements: when the Mueller family invested $4 million during the mid-1990s in the bowling alley and located it on Joliet Rd., it did so because 1) the Village directed them to locate there instead of on Joliet Rd. and 2) the Village and IDOT assured them that even if they created a Rt. 30 bypass down Renwick, the worst-case. scenario was that Joliet Rd. would be downgraded to a local street. No one mentioned the disastrous option of blockading the road at both ends. This is a bitter experience fora family that has resided in and supported this community for I SO years. Preventing left turns or adding non-mountable barriers • Cause serious access problems: -Make it difficult for residents to .get into and out of their homes, as many would have to take long detours via Lily Cache -Make it challenging for clients to reach businesses they wish to patronise, such as the Fravena Clinic and First National Bank; this problem will seriously reduce revenue and perhaps force some establishments out of business • Increase accidents: in New Jersey which has many. concrete barriers, merchants state that barriers cause more accidents because drivers hit the medians; this data runs contrary to claims that barriers would reduce the number of accidents Problems with IDOT's bypass support: IDOT's recent decision to support a bypass seems to be based on two factors-a traffic model that we contend is flawed and concerns about environmental issues along the lake that we contend are unfounded. )E+"laws in the IDOT model: on December 12, I spoke with the engineer who generated the traffic-flow model. It suggests that the bypass will improve traffic flow, particularly southbound on Rt. S9 near Lockport St. To my astonishment, he had not taken into account several critical factors, and as anyone experienced with models knows, they are only as good as the data on which the engineer bases them. The omissions from the IDOT model lead us to conclude that in its current state, we cannot trust it: These six factors generate serious questions. • More trucks: the engineer did not account for an extra 200-250 trucks going downtown weekly at peak times, between 8-S • School slowdown: there was no indication IDOT accounted for new school buildings an Renwick-slowing cars to 20 mph • Bus delays: the model had also not accounted for buses routing back into neighborhoods to deal with left-turn restrictions • Lily Cache Rd. inadequacies: when I asked how IDOT planned to upgrade Lily Cache Rd. to handle a larger load there, he confessed that the model had not considered Lily Cache factors such as cars blocked off at Howard and Collins being dumped onto an inadequate artery. He was also unaware of the dangerous intersection at Lily Cache and Caton Farm and of the fatalities that have occurred there. • Backups on current Rt. 30: I asked whether he had accounted for how the bypass would affect the existing Rt. 30. He was not aware of the ludicrous backups this past summer when they closed Joliet Rd. temporarily because of a downed power line. Traffic became hopelessly jammed all the way from Renwick and Rt. S9 back to the Clark truck stop at I-SS, causing business and traffic to grind to a complete stop for several hours. The owner of the Silver Coin considered closing that day because no one came into his business for the better portion of the afternoon. Whoever is generating this model that suggests the bypass will improve traffic flow has simply not lived with the results. • Loss of "Y" side: a "Y" official indicated that it would add significant traffic to Renwick Rd. if they chose this site but that if we close Joliet Rd., they will eliminate this site from consideration-projected traffic volume requires access on Joliet Rd. Reasons that environmental issue (Renwick Rookery) doesn't warrant a drastic alternative: we are told that the bypass option is more attractive than the current routing because of insurmountable environmental concerns involving the Will County Forest Preserve (WCFP). This situation, like so many others. we've encountered, involves half-truths and mis-representations. First, there is a compromise WCFP would accept-a sound/light barrier slang the lake: Agency officials also indicated that the birds are not an issue and that WCFP would accept five lams along the lake so long as IDOT mitigates sound and light as the agency wants. We know that WCFP prefers a bypass, but claims that it is blocking the current routing are just not accurate. Second, the latest environmental study-from 1987-says that "the birds have habituated to the traffic"-i.e., traffic is not the major factor influencing their welfare. The chief dangers came from 1) the condition of the remaining island foliage; which is, d I quote, "succumbing to stress imposed nn them by the increasing number of birds ... (i.e., acid content of excrement and ~hysical weight of the birds)," 2) trespassing fishermen, and 3) predatory mammals that "possibly preyed upon eggs." ~. Third,, we find it curious that officials prefer the Renwick bypass-ostensibly to protect the environment despite the disastrous effect it will have on many people-yet the Forest Preserve is cooperating with the Village on developing a business corridor tween I-55 and Renwick Rd. east that impinges on the Lily Cache flood plain by 16 feet. Why is the environment important ~ng Joliet Rd: but not in this flood plain? Simple facts: • Some birds resided at the rookery before naturalists -kept nesting records, but at least three species arrived after Avery Gravel opened: the double crested cormorant, cattle egret, and great blue heron, so these species came despite the noise • The more senior bird species coexisted successfully for 50+ years with Avery Gravel literally in their midst-a commercial operation far more disruptive than Rt. 34 traffic--.-with digging.: machinery; team processors, railroad cars, and heavy trucks. This operation had no visible effect on nesting habits and, as the 1987 study indicates, did not generate genetic problems. • We believe, further, that Audobon Society studies show that this bird community has significantly increased its population over the years, even given the industrial operation in their midst • Three of the five bird species at Lake Renwick have recently been removed from the endangered list • The Lake Renwick site is not designated as a pristine environment (per the Code of Federal Regulations.; sections 43 &50), so the rookery vicinity is less sensitive to human cohabitation Discrepancies about current environmental studies: we note for the record that discrepancies have arisen relating to current environmental studies. In November 2000, when Mr. Avery and I asked for information on any current environmental issues, IDOT sent written notice that we couldn't have those studies because they are still in progress. Then when Mr. Mueller filed a FOIA request in January 2001, IDOT sent him a 1987 study and indicated that there were no studies in progress. Thus, we return one more time to a fundamental factual question that prompts mistrust: is an environmental study underway or not? For all these reasons, we ask bypass advocates to produce credible scientific data on environmental hazards posed by traffic. ossible negative consequences for Plainfield tax base ~If the bypass, indeed, reduces business revenue, the Village receives less tax income, which hurts everyone involved • More fundamentally, several business owners have indicated that if Plainfield persists in pressing far options that so seriously threaten their livelihoods, they will re-locate to a mare hospitable business climate. This prospect could disastrously affect Plainfield's tax base. We want to work with Plainfield, but certain officials have been making it extremely difficult. What we request from the Village and IDOT • The names of persons or groups who advocate limited left-turn capability and the bypass down Renwick Rd • Timely blueprint updates documenting what IDOT plans in terms of left-turns-because we trust anly official drawings • A sensible explanation for spending far more money on an option that has such a negative effect on hundreds of citizens • Precise and scientifically credible detail on an any environmental hazards at Lake Renwick • A timely vote from the elected Village government---the President and trustees----in keeping with IDOT's repeated notices that it will adopt the bypass option only if Plainfield can demonstrate citizen support. After months of canvassing hundreds of affected parties, we know that support doesn't exist. Closing: I leave you with these thoughts. A Renwick Rd. bypass and restrictions on left-turn access are, in our humble opinions, ill-conceived because they would unnecessarily hurt hundreds of residents and business owners and thousands of patrons. Bypass proponents, whoever they are, have not produced credible data with respect to traffic flow or environmental hazards. The Renwick Rd. bypass will, as I noted earlier, move but not solve the problem. We have been trying for a year to work in apublic-minded, conciliatory fashion. We hope tonight thaC you will find 1) the force of our rationales and 2) the strength and volume of our grass-roots support persuasive. And we hope that you will vote against this disastrous public-policy option. Unfortunately, I also have a duty to conclude these remarks with a note of fierce resolve. Should the Village or IDOT persist with what we perceive as unjust treatment of residents and business owners, some members of our group will, if forced to this extreme by ill-conceived public policy, turn to legal remedies. We, therefore, urge you to do vi~hat is right by the citizens of Plainfield. We happen to believe that you elected officials will ~lp us ascertain the facts about what is planned, rise about the undemocratic tactics I described above, and restore our trust in government----as your title, "trustee," implies-by voting against the bypass option. Right~of Way Table 2-12-01 Distances are in feet Location LOId Right of Way to Building ~ Nevv Right of . = ~Vay to Building ;:. ~ . - ~ Old Distance from Building to _ r Curb Ne«~ Distance from Building to Curb' ,. _ _ ';,. Renwick: May house 24.75 13 36 `36 Renwick: Mueller house 33 18 51 36 Renwick: SE corner of Howard 36 23 63 44.5 Renwick: north side; near Rt. 30 20 6.6 56 33 Route 59: Overman-Jones Funeral 20 13 40 33 , Route 59: Petka office 23 16 40 33 Route 30: LubePro's 46 16 $5 ?,, - _, 49 Route 30: McNally 49 36 66 59 Route 30: Ottawa~E corner 10 6.6 30 23 Route 30: Plainfield Family Restaurant 36 16 46 29 Route 30: Superwash 26 15 46 43 L 6 Plainfield lies in a very important plat like the hub f a wheel. There are he Villa Both lar e nd small. Chita o, Aurora, various roads leading into t g g g Naperville, Oswego, Yorkville, Shorewood and a very important on Joliet. The location of our county seat, hospitals, clinics and buinesses. The road to Joliet, was first a post road, stage line, plank road, street car line and lastlyAthe crass country major highway, l,inco~n H~hway or termed also -~" ~'~' ~ Route 30. Tt is a, line of access leading out of the Village of Plainfield ~.~-~ At the time of theplatting of the Lincoln Highway, Raute 30, it was very to not by-pass Plainfield as the; village fathers realized that the town would not survive without this critical roadway thouroughfare. In turn as the years progressed and land began to be developed along this road- way, there became many interested prospective commercial buyers. One of the first was the Khlomhaus Oldsmobile augo agency. Other interested people also came along and put up businesses. Tt soon came apparent that it .fl-~- G~~ %~r'~"'~ ~L~ annex~.to Plainfield in order to partake of taxable dollars. There was an in- creasing interest with envoy from the city of Joliet, vie~f~ r the same area. Mayor Latta, proposed the idea of supplying these businesses with sewer and 1~" X10 u- ~ ~- r'" water, so that they could be annexed. In order for the sewer line to be ex- tended, from the existing sewer plant on River Road, land would have to acquired from some land owners. The Clarence Spangler Families as well as others int the area cooperated and willingly allowed this project to happen. It was done in good will and for the good of the community. After this feat was ..accomplished it was a sure thing for any commercial developer to invest in properties that ~~y~~.~~ bordered the Route 30 corridor. And so they came with lots of hopes, until recently, when it became an issue to by-Pass Route 30 on to another road-- Renwick Raad. This road has been designed as a rural residential road. Homes have been built over a period of 40 years along the ay. New omes are still in the process and schools are now making plans for their much needed buildings. After all the expenses and the good will and intentions of many people, are you going to aba7idon this very important thouroughfare with a blockade or cul de sac Z People in goad faithinvested in worthwhile businesses never expecting to be to be abandones at a`..later date. Do you want it to all be for naught??? What will become of the area a-~ghetto?? This project will turn into a very much of dis service for many residents of Plainfield. Those who live in the south east part of the township, will be experiencing delayed, fire and ambulance calls, which can be very detrimental. Some of these subdivisions wwould literally become,~solated. Shopping trips c~. and other business related trips,~ould ee l to go arqur}d Ro ins ~~z- Hao~barn to get to a destination. Those people would choose to go to .ii~1. ~~~`~-~~ Those approaching Plainfield from the north or east, would choose Aurora or ~ ~~,_ Naperville. for their business and services. And so Plainfield would soon die ~-~~,, a slow death in a matter of time. 7`-°~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~, '.~~ Don't remove or try a try fix for that major spoke in th~ w e Th oute ~ ~~~ ~ f~ __ ~, route to Joliet and else where, a v ry a'or highway and c~e c aos that never can be me ded, ~f u allow t it m y b om~ja reality t t Mr. Blakely _ to na~:~ a direct route to Plainfield. by a i~irect rou to Plainfield. r • ATTENDANCE AT VILLAUE WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 12, 2001 NAME ADDRESS PHONE PLEASE PRINT =~ 5~M ~1 tr•~ ~ ~~ N ~ ., i ~ ~~ • ~~ ATTENDANCE AT VILLAGE WORKSIIOP FEBRUARY 12, 2001 NAME ADDRESS PHONE PLEASE PRINT /(~ ~~