Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-21-2001 Public Hearing (3)Plainfield Village Board of Trustees May 21,2001 13 PLAINFIELD VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 21, 2001 AT: Village Hall BOARD PRESENT: R. ROCK, S. CALABRESE, M. COLLINS, K. O'CONNELL,, R. SWALWELL, S. THOMSON, J. CHERRY. OTHERS PRESENT: H. HAMILTON, ENGINEER; B. KUJATH, DEPUTY CLERK; J. HARVEY, ATTORNEY; T. L. BURGHARD, ADMINISTRATOR; ALLEN PERSONS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR; J. TESTIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR; C. MINICK, FINANCE DIRECTOR; D. BENNETT, CHIEF OF POLICE; A. DE BONI, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST. EAGLE CHASE AMENDED ANNEXATION AGREEMENT Director Testin stated that this is for the third amendment to the Agreement. Two issues involved are a change from duplex to single family and the other is improvement to Van Dyke Road. The applicant wishes to convert Lots 114, 115, 116, 121, and 136, situated contiguously along the north side of Golden Eagle Drive be allowed as single-family units. Additional issue that has surfaced in concerning improvements to Van Dyke Road. In the original Eagle Chase Agreement approved in 1995, Krughoff Land Company was to improve the eastern half of Van Dyke Road to certain standards by no later than October 1,2001. Since 1995, the standard and road profile to which Van Dyke Road was to be constructed has changed considerably. The applicant and the Village Engineer have both estimated the costs to construct these improvements to be approximately $156,000. Staff, including Public Works and Engineering, has concluded it may be beneficial to receive funds in lieu of improvements, and do an overlay of the road now. The Board had some question regarding the improvements to Van Dyke Road. There were no public comments made. S. Calabrese moved to close the Public Hearing and retum to the regular meeting. Seconded by J. Cherry. Vote by roll call. Calabrese, yes, Collins, yes; O'Connell, yes; Thomson, yes; Cherry, yes. 6 yes 0 no. Motion carried. I~ARBARA K~T~, DEPUTY-- CLERK I would like to share some of my ti). oughts about this development which I have compiled fi.om public input at the last 3 meetings regarding this proposal. This proposed development has undergone numerous revisions and name changes fi'om Plainfield Club, to Grand Prairie, to Grande Park, which is what we know it as for the time being. It seems that with these constant changes there are too many unanswered questions. At last observation it was stated to have: 1500 multiple family units, 822 townhouses or apts., 706 active adult units, 827 singlel family units and 23 acres for commercial, for a total of 15 neighborhoods and about 5800 people. In the first meeting on February 7th at Plainfield High School the developer spent about 1 1/2 hours telling about the development and mainly the park. At a later meeting Mr. Kachel, of the Planning Board, had to ask the developer if this park would be comprised of mainly green space or landscaped. It seems that we do not even have a definitive plan for the park much less the 15 neighborhoods. The next 1 1/2 hours was given to the public and their questions concerning this venture. Some of those concerns were about traffic,density, quality of the building of the developer, and other concerns. We were told at the end of the meeting to look at the Plainfield web site to find answers to our questions that were raised that evening. We were also told by Chairman James Slobkoviak that as quoted in the Feb. 14th edition of the Enterprise, "This development could take up to 3 or 4 nights, easily." I did not know Plainfield had a web site and called City Hall for the information. I wonder how many other people just gave up or did not have a computerto help them.. Also at that meeting was Supt. Plank of the Oswego School District. He mentioned the fact that the Oswego Schools are already struggling. He needs to build a new school every year for the next 10 years even WITHOUT this development. This development is in 2 school districts. 80 acres are in the Plainfield School District. As stated in the May 9th issue of the Beacon News, the Oswego School Board did not want to participate in a land swap regarding the 80 acres that lie in the Plainfield School District. Kendall County has a tax cap and new schools will require a referendum of the voters,the majority of which are in Kendall County. It seems that Plainfield will be repeating the same process that happened to them when Joliet annexed into the Plainfield School District. How do you think the majority of the voters of the Oswego School District will respond to that? Another concern of mine is the fact that so far nothing has been really said with regard to the western border of this development which has 3 adjacent neighborhoods. They are Oswego Plains with approximately 170 acres of 3 acre lots, Southfield Estates with 108 acres of 3 acre lots, and the Elliott Development with 240 acres of 9-20 acre lots for a total of 528 acres. The adjacent Grande Park neighborhoods 12, 13, and 14 have a maximum lot size of 10,000-11,000 sq. ft. adjacent to lot sizes FROM 132,000 sq. ft. The next meeting of March 27th ,held at Heritage Grove School cafeteria, was attended by a favorable number of Plainfield and Kendall County residents. Several Plainfield Village Board candidates were in attendance. Handouts were available with answers to some of the questions asked at the previous meeting. People had little time to look at them before the meeting began. Chairman Slobkoviak said that no question which was asked at the previous meeting would be covered at this one, which caught many people by surprise. It seemed the main topic for this meeting was the proposed WiKaDuKe Trail. As stated by John Phillipchuck, attorney for the developer, in the Feb. 14th edition of the Enterprise, "This will help to direct some of the traffic that now impales the village on Route 59." This statement implies to me that the developer already realizes Plainfield has major traffic problems without this development. The developer seems to be wrapping the whole development around the proposed WiKaDuKe Trail. However when my mother-in-law asked Tom Cross, Rep. of the 84th District, who was her attorney, to check if there was any money for this he said there was none allocated now nor in the near future. Mr. Cross's aide Bryan was in the audience but no questions were asked. Most of this traffic would be directed to I1. Rt. 30 to Plainfield to Rt. 59 or to Interstate 55. Ail one has to do is listen to the radio every morning to know the trouble spots at 126,55 and Weber Road. Even Commissioner Larry Kachel, as quoted in the March 28th edition of The Herald News said,"When we increase the size of Plainfield (with the population of Grande Park) we have no way to get these people out." The infi.astructure that now exists in Plainfield cannot handle the traffic now. How do they plan on handling this with an Increase of 5800 people using the local roads? This past month we had R.R. construction work done in Plainfield. For 5 days it was closed and the rerouting was a nightmare. Now there is construction on 59and 126 with the traffic down to I lane in each direction. You have people taking shortcuts through the Plainfield neighborhoods using Center and Eastern to get back to 126. Talk to the people in those neighborhoods. At the end of this meeting we were told that due to scheduling, the proposal would be brought before the PlanningCommission for a vote on April 10th. Many people were caught by surprise since we were told at the first meeting that this development,"could take up to 3 or 4 nights, easily." (Chairman Slobkoviak) In the May 16th edition of the Plainfield Enterprise, it was again stated that "the entire development would center the proposed WiKaDuKe Trail," which Rep. Cross has said that no money is allocated for. The March 28th issue of The Herald News said,"As it stands, the road is in the planning stages and no funds have been set aside to build it." Piano, Il. is in the same predicament as Plainfield now with a proposed 821 acre development called City Acres. It will have 2,000 residental units. However, Piano has chosen to use John Lewis, from the Center for Governmental Studies at Northern Illinois University,(phone number 815-753-0936) to do a fiscal impact study of the proposed development and what effect it will have on the people of Piano who have many questions regarding it. New Mayor Bill Roberts has said many public hearings will continue because they want to ''take time necessary to do things right." IfPlano can do this, why can't Plainfield? j Thank you TERESA MCK1NNEY May 21,2001 Dear Plainfield Village Board Members, I am writing today regarding the proposed Plainfield Commons commercial development at the comer of IL Route 59 and 135th Street which will come before the Board tonight seeking approval of a special use permit for a PUD. This parcel of land adjoins my property, and I have several concerns regarding this development. When our home was refinanced in January, our appraisal reflected that the existing proximity to Rt. 59 and the Amoco station made our lot less desirable, but the reason that the appraiser did not note a deduction in property value was because of the distance from the existing business and road. Once this development is established, this distance will significantly diminish, impacting our home and its value. One of the stipulations for approval of a special use permit for a PUD is that the special use will not negatively impact the enjoyment of the surrounding properties, and that the special use will not decrease property values of the surrounding area. The Planning and Zoning Committee has decided that the proposed development meets this requirement and recommended approval of the special use, with certain stipulations requiring larger and more dense landscape plantings on the west and south boundaries of the property. This is absolutely necessary if the development is to be established. I urge you to buffer this development from the residences as much as possible....possibly placing a Iow berm on the landscaped property nearest the retention ponds and the south portion of the property. I would also like to see requirements to pitch the roof of each building, similar to what is being done on the development at Rt. 59 and 11th Street. Also requested at the Planning and Zoning meeting was that the landscaping on the west and south portions of the properties be established as soon as possible...before construction begins. This would protect our neighborhood immediately, while also allowing the plantings to establish themselves and begin to grow. No response was given to this request at the Planning/Zoning meeting, and I would like to see this requirement included in the stipulations. In addition, a variance was approved for a larger than normally approved sign at the entrances to the new development. While I agree that this is probably necessary at the Route 59 entrance to the development, I do not see any need for a larger than normal lighted sign to be placed at the 135th Street entrance. This is too close to the residential properties on both the south and north side of 135th, and should be disallowed. This development can be a tremendous asset to the community if care is taken to insure that the development does not encroach on the surrounding neighborhoods. Please carefully consider any additional steps that you could take to help provide a desirable community where our neighborhoods can exist comfortably with surrounding businesses. Sincerely, Teresa McKinney~~