HomeMy Public PortalAbout2008-07-15 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RECORD OF MINUTES DATE : JULY 15, 2008 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the m eeting of the Plan Commission to order at 7:45 p.m. after adjourning the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners , Kachel, Renzi, O’Rourke, Sanders; ex -officio Commissioners Peck and Fremarek; Chairman Sobkoviak; and a Representative from the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Absent: Commissioner s McKay and Bonuchi, Plainfield Sc hool District , Plainfield Park District, Library District, and Plainfield Police Department Also Present: Jonathan Proulx - Planner II Village of Plainfield, Mike Schwarz – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Sara Leach – Planner I Village of Plainfield, Ca rol Millan – Secr etary Village of Plainfield , and Neal Eickholtz – Baxter and Woodman MINUTES: The minutes from the Plan Commission Meeting of June 17, 2008 were accepted as presented. DEVELOPMENT REPORT: Planner Schwarz summarized the results of the Jul y 7 th Village Board Meeting and the July 14, 2008 Committee of the Whole Workshop of the Village Board. Commissioner Renzi asked what the speed limit is for 143 rd Street. Planner Schwarz stated the speed limit is now posted and it is 45 m.p.h. NEW BUSIN ESS: CASE: Will County Case LENWOOD ESTATES Request: Rezoning from Will County A -1 to E -2 (Lots 1, 2 and 3) and rezoning from Will County A -1 to R -3 (Lots 4 and 5); Special Use Permit for a Planned Development; Preliminary Plat of Subdivision Locat ion: East Side of Naperville Road, ½ mile south of 135 th Street Applicant: Leonard and Esther Kubinski, Owners TIME: 7:50 p.m.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 15, 2008 Page 2 of 10 Planner Schwarz summarized the staff report. He stated this is a Will County case and the subject property is within 1.5 mil es of the Village of Plainfield so Will County is looking for input from the Village of Plainfield. This property is currently not contiguous to the Village of Plainfield. The applicants will seek a pre -annexation agreement with the Village of Plainfield for two proposed lots located on Plainfield /Naperville Road so that they can receive water and sewer services. The Village Board will decide if they want to enter into a pre -annexation agreement and is not obligated to do so. The Village Board could pro vide water and sewer without a pre -annexation agreement, but historically they have not provided services without annexation or pre -annexation. The Will County Health Department requires the county lots that are less than 20,000 sq. ft. and close to a mun icipal sanitary sewer be connected to the municipal system. The preliminary plat shows one existing access point on Plainfield/Naperville Road, which is under the jurisdict ion of the Will County Highway Department. Currently the residents are served wi th a well and septic system and the Village does have water main and sanitary trunk sewer lines located along Plainfield/Naperville Road. The Fire District has reviewed the request and has made the followi ng requests and requirements: Private road that wil l be created will need to be widened to a minimum of 20’, A paved turnaround should be constructed to allow fire trucks to turn around within the site, or in lieu of the turnaround , several sections of a split -rail fence located along the north line of the property could be removed to allow the existing parallel driveways to be connected. Staff also has suggested that the fence might be removed entirely along the length of the driveways to allow the parallel driveways to be joined creating a private road t hat would be wide enough to accommodate a large fire truck, as well as g arb age trucks, etc. The petitioner has indicated that they have contacted the property owners to the north to try and reach an amicable agreement on a shared access easement; however, an agreement could not be reached. Therefore, the parallel driveways will remain under separate control. Lots 4 and 5, which are the smaller of the lots that front Plainfield /Naperville Road, would have a minimum 30’ front yard setback subsequent to the requested 17’ R.O.W. dedication. Lots 1, 2, and 3 would be required to have a 100’ front yard setback from the centerline of the non -dedicated road, or 67’ from the front lot line of the dedicated road. The Plat cannot conform to that requirement, so th e applicants are seeking a variance from the County. Staff notes that the proposed front yard setbacks for Lots 1, 2, and 3 do exceed the Village’s minimum 30’ front yard setback for residential lots. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the Will County stormwater ordinance to waive the on -site detention requirement. The applicant proposes to accommodate stormwater management using the existing lake located along the southern portion of the property. Staff has identified the following issues for consideration: Inconsistency with Village Comprehensive Plan, Creation of Lot 5 is contingent on the Village of Plainfield entering into a pre -annexation agreement – The proposed Lot 5 does not comply with Will County Health Department minimum lot siz e requirements for a septic system. Pending the policy direction of the Village Board on whether or not the Village should enter into a pre -annexation agreement with the applicant, creation of a 5 th lot is not a certainty. Therefore, the contract purchas ers have indicated if the Village Board does not elect to enter into a pre -annexation agreement to allow sanitary services to Lot 5 , the plat most likely would need to be revised to consolidate Lots 4 & 5 into one single lot.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 15, 2008 Page 3 of 10 Minimum required 75’ setback buffer from the ordinary high water mark of the adjacent lake. Staff recommends the Plan Commission recommend that the Village Board direct staff to prepare and submit a letter of “no objection” to Will County for the proposed rezoning, special use permit for a Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary Plat of Subdivision for Lenwood Estates with 4 stipulations. Planner Schwarz concluded his report. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner. Chris Eurkaitis spoke. He had no comments or challenges to t he staff report. Commissioner Kachel asked if the Village would be doing the snowplowing. Planner Schwarz stated this will not be in the Village of Plainfield. He further stated Will County standards are similar to the Village of Plainfield in that they require all new lots be created with frontage on a public R.O.W. There are a number of variances that the applicants are seeking under the Will County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance. He listed the variances requested from the County: The creation of n ew lots on a private street , Waiving the minimum frontage on a public R.O.W., Increasing the maximum lot coverage for the new homes that will be built , Allowing non -standard street construction, in terms of the pavement depth and overall construction as fa r as curbs, etc., Granting the relief from other standards as identified through the Subdivision and Engineering Review Process and in terms of lot size for their zoning case. The se variances will be reviewed by Will County under the merits of the PUD , and what benefits , if any, will be derived through balancing those variances. The Village of Plainfield will not be plowing the road, nor will the County or Township. It would be privately maintained and plowed. Commissioner Kachel asked if any of the sept ic system lines would go near the lake. Planner Schwarz stated the Will County Health Department will be looking at this and will review. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Engineer Eickholtz if there were any engineering concerns. Village Engineer Eickho ltz stated this is being deferred to the County Engineer and the Village Engineer was not asked to review this case. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if , on the surface, the Village Engineer saw any issues or concerns. Village Engineer Eickholtz stated they woul d have some issues in regards to the variances being requested from the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Renzi asked if there would be curb cuts on Plainfield/Naperville Road for Lot 5. Planner Schwarz deferred to the applicant. He stated potential ly there will be one additional curb cut for Lot 5. Lot 4 could go either way. Will County Highway Department would have jurisdiction over the curb cuts. Petitioner Eurkaitis stated Lot 5 will have access off of Plainfield /Naperville Road and agreed wit h Planner Schwarz that Lot 4 could go either way, off of the private drive or off of Plainfield /Naperville Road. Commissioner Renzi asked if staff was okay with the curb cuts. Planner Schwarz stated staff was okay with that. Staff does not believe one a dditional driveway will make a difference. He stated that if the Commission felt strongly about the curb cuts, they could make a recommendation or stipulation to the County. Commissioner O’Rourke also had a concern about access for Lots 4 and 5 and addit ional curb cuts to Plainfield /Naperville Road . He also mentioned if the pre -annexation agreement did not go through , Lots 4 and 5 would possibly be combined. Planner Schwarz reiterated that if the Commission
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 15, 2008 Page 4 of 10 wished they could add a 5 th stipulation in terms of the consolidation of Lots 4 and 5, or some type of cross -access between Lots 4 and 5. Petitioner Eurkaitis pointed out that they are requesting just one additional curb cut for Lot 5 on Plainfield /Naperville Road at this time , as opposed to two c urb cuts for Lot 4 and 5 . Co mmissioner Sanders asked if measurements were taken after July 17, 1996 when the DuPage River went over its banks. Petitioner Eurkaitis was not sure. He stated they have been working with Geotech Engineers . T he owner of the property, Mr. Kubinski, has lived on the property since that time and has never had any problem. Commissioner Kachel preferred the curb cut be taken completely off of Plainfield /Naperville Road. Petitioner Eurkaitis stated without a curb cut, there is no way to access Lot 5. Commissioner O’Rourke stated combining Lots 4 and 5 would be an option. Petitioner Eurkaitis stated it would be a solution, but at this time they are requesting Lots 4 and 5. Commissioner Renzi stated the only way the petitioner wi ll get the curb cut is if he gets the Village Board approval of the pre -annexation agreement. He stated since staff is okay with the curb cut, he is willing to vote for it the way it is and let the Village Board decide on the curb cuts. It will also be d etermined by what the County Engineer allows. A discussion between the Commissioners and the petitioner ensued about the curb cuts on Plainfield /Naperville Road . Commissioner O’Rourke was in favor of a dding an additional stipulation concerning the curb c uts. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that cared to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response. Commissioner Fremarek asked staff under what circumstances would this site become contiguous with the Village. Plan ner Schwarz showed a zoning map and explained which pieces of property would have to be annexed before this piece of property could be annexed. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the petitioner if he agreed with the 4 stipulations in the staff report. Petitioner Eurkaitis stated he was in agreement. At 8:24 Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Village Board direct staff to prepare and submit a letter of “no objection” to Will County for the proposed rezoning from A -1 to E -2 and R -3, Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary Plat of Subdivision for Lenwood Estates. Said letter shall outline Village of Plainfield recommendations including: 1. The Preliminary and subsequent Final Plat of Subdivision shall reflect a minimum 17’ R.O.W. d edication along Naperville Road to accommodate future roadway improvements and to be consistent with the Transportation System Improvements Map within the Village of Plainfield Comprehensive Plan, 2. The Preliminary and subsequent Final Plat of Subdivision and related engineering plan shall comply w ith the provision s of the Will County Stream and Wetland Protection Ordinance, and proposed development activity shall adhere to the minimum required 75’setback buffer from the ordinary high water mark of the adj acent lake, 3. The creation of Lot 5 (a 5 th Lot) is contingent on the Village of Plainfield entering into a pre -annexation agreement with the applicants,
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 15, 2008 Page 5 of 10 4. The Preliminary and subsequent Final Plat of Subdivision and related engineering plans shall comp ly with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District . Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Sanders, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: O’Rourke, Kachel The motion is carried 3:2 Planner Schwarz wanted clarification of the dissenting votes for his staff report to the Village Board. Commissioner O’Rourke’s conc ern was with the access point of Lot 5. He did not want additional curb cuts on Plainfield /Naperville Road as it is a major collector. Commissioner Kachel voiced the same concerns. Planner Schwarz stated that issue will not be lost. He again stated if someone wanted to make a motion for a 5 th stipulation stating those concerns , it could be added. This concern wi ll be presented to Will County either way. Chairman Sobkoviak questioned the Commissioners if anyone wanted to offer an additional stipulation to the previous motion that was carried. At 8:24 p.m. Commissioner O’Rourke made a motion to add a stipulation to the previous motion that Lot 5 will not have an access point directly on Plainfield /Naperville Road and should be considered to be combined with Lot 4. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak stated a motion had been made and secon ded to add a stipulation to the previously approved motion that in the subject subdivision Lots 4 and 5 have the same access point , and no additional access points would be added to this development. He called for a vote by roll call. Planner Schwarz wan ted a clarification because two things were combined. The motion combines the fact that the lots be combined and that there be no additional access points. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he had said that Lots 4 and 5 should have combined access. He didn’t sa y to combine Lots 4 and 5. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he had said to combine Lots 4 and 5. Chairman Sobkoviak questioned Commissioner O’Rourke if he was stating that they combine Lots 4 and 5. Commissioner O’Rourke asked how else they would get access . Chairman Sobkoviak stated they could have a cross -access easement in the back or front. Commissioner O’Rourke amended his motion. Chairman Sobkoviak re -stated the motion. He stated the motion was that Lots 4 and 5 have a combined access point so th at there are no additional curb cuts onto Plainfield/Naperville Road. Commissioner O’Rourke agreed. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: O’Rourke, Kachel Nay: Sanders, Renzi, Chairman Sobkoviak
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 15, 2008 Page 6 of 10 The motion failed 2:3 Ch airman Sobkoviak stated the original motion will go forward to the Village Board . Chairman Sobkoviak called for a recess at 8:30 p.m. Chairman Sobkoviak reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m. CASE : 1413 -070908.PP/FP CHATHAM SQUARE, UNIT 2R Request: Pr eliminary/Final Plat of Subdivision Location: North of 127 th Street, W est of Heggs Road Applicant: Gladstone Homes TIME: 8:40 p.m. Planner Proulx summarized the staff report. He stated this applicant is seeking approval of a preliminary/final plat of s ubdivision to convert a portion of a previously -platted area of Chatham Square from tow nhome lots to duplex lots. The petitioner will be requesting approval from the Village Board of an amendment to the annexation agreement. This will be considered by th e Village Board concurrently with the preliminary/final plat request. The applicant is proposing to resubdivide 5 of the 8 townhome lots into 9 duplex lots. Staff has worked with the petitioner since the writing of the staff report. The petitioner is proposing 9 duplex lots and the lot sizes have been modified since the writing of the staff report. They are all at least a minimum of 12,000 sq. ft. The lot sizes range from 12,008 sq. ft. to 14,619 sq. ft. That also addresses the issue of having a min imum lot size of 6,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. So, all lots provide a minimum of 6,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, which would be required for a duplex style of development. Along with the amendment to the annexation agreement request, there will be a request for relief from any development standards that cannot be met. That would include a request for a front yard setback of 25’ in lieu of 30’, a request for a reduction in building separation side -to -side from 20’ to 15’, and a reduction in rear setba ck from 30’ to 23’ (i n the staff report in one location it indicates 25’ and it should be 23’), a reduction in lot width from 85’ (minimum at the building line) to 70’ for 3 of the lots , and two requests for an increase to the maximum lot coverage from the 30% maximum lot coverage and the 40% maximum impervious coverage. Based on the revisions the petitioner has made, increasing the lot sizes to 12,000 sq. ft., providing a minimum of 6,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, and eliminating the areas where the rear setback at 25’ was requested at the west side of the development , staff is comfortable with the relief that is being requested . If there is a favorable recommendation from the Plan Commission, the Village Board could incorporate this relief into the requ est for an amendment to the annexation agreement. The annexation agreement calls for a high standard of architectural quality and diversity of housing styles within the development. In addition 10% of the homes are to be identified as key lots and will r eceive enhanced architectural and landscaping treatments. The petitioner has clarified, subsequent to the writing of the staff report, there are actually 10% of the lots identified as key lots which are met through the existing single family homesites. T here is no need for the identification of additional keys lots as reported in the staff report.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 15, 2008 Page 7 of 10 With respect to landscaping, there was a landscaping plan presented with the townhome development when it came through for approval . T he petitioner will be using that and modifying as needed to provide landscaping for the duplexes. Staff is comfortable that this landscaping meets the Village requirements. Staff has received confirmation from the Oswegoland Park District that this change would not require a ny modifications or revisions to the Park Agreement that was previously agreed to. The utility mains and laterals were constructed for the townhome lots and storm drainage was put in , so some slight adjustments would be required. The plans have been eva luated enough to have a level of comfort that the duplex units can be accommodated without a significant revision to the utility infrastructure. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary/final plat with 4 stipulations . Planner Proulx concluded hi s report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Village Engineer Eickholtz if there are any engineering issues. Village Engineer Eickholtz stated they are currently reviewing the engineering plans. Some of the engineering items being proposed with this resubdivision include relocating some of the utilities, such as the sanitary, water services, as well as some storm sewers. Some of the lot lines will need to be revised, and there will need to be some adjusting of the grades and drainage. There will be no changes to the road improvements. He stated to this point, the changes are minor and they do not anticipate any significant issues with this resubdivision. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner. Adam Dontz spoke for Gladstone Builders and Developers. He sta ted Planner Proulx did a very accurate and comprehensive overview. He showed some slides of the resubdivision and pointed out the area where the duplexes will be placed instead of the townhomes. He stated he has sold only 2 units of the 4 unit buildings over a course of a two year period. He stated basically instead of building a 4 unit building, he will be building a 2 unit building using the two townhome end unit elevations. The current plat approved 20 units, and he is actually reducing the density w ith a net loss of 2 units in the area. He stated they are doing this in order to respond to the market demand for the end units. He showed the architectural elevations and stated there is a significant amount of brick on the front, brick over the gables, soldier course over the garage door, etc. He stated the relief on the 30’ building setback line applies to Lot 309 and Lot 304 where a corner is clipped on each. He would like it to be noted if the Plan Commission is in agreement with the setbacks so th at the Village Board could be notified of this agreement . Commissioner Sanders stated it looks like it is an improvement based on what people are more interested in purchasing . He thought it was a good complimentary use and a good design. Commissioner Peck liked what the petitioner is doing. He stated they are “reinventing themselves” to go with the market and to sell their homes. He did not feel they are proposing a product that is not as good as they had before. He sees no objection to this plan. Commissioner Kachel felt they are doing an excellent job and that it is good to see that they are trying to positively respond to the market. Commissioner O’Rourke had concerns that what the petitioner is proposing would affect the resale value of the pr esently occupied townhomes. The townhomes will be in the minority when this builds out. Petitioner Dontz stated that was a good question. He stated his end units are the largest units and the most expensive units. He felt if anything, the values would be increased.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 15, 2008 Page 8 of 10 Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the townhomes to the north would be built. Petitioner Dontz stated those plans are to be determined. He further stated if they have success with the duplex units, they may look to continue on with those up in the north. He stated they have spent nearly $1 million in marketing and advertising of this community. They have been out in this area for over two years, and what they have right now is not working. Planner Proulx also stated the annexation agreeme nt amendment that will go before the Village Board will allow for the possibility of duplex homes in the north townhome pod as well. That area has not yet been platted, but the concept plan and annexation agreement calls for townhomes . The amendment woul d allow the petitioner to build townhomes, as the annexation agreement currently calls for, and duplexes or a combination of the two. Commissioner O’Rourke aske d if there is any difference in a townhome permit costs versus what the petitioner is asking for with the duplexes. Petitioner Dontz stated the building costs of an end unit in a duplex and the building costs of an end unit in a townhome building would be identical. He was hopeful that he could sell 2 unit buildings faster than the 4 unit buildi ngs. Commissioner O’Rourke asked how the Homeowners Associations are organized. Petitioner Dontz stated there is a master HOA for the common areas. There is a single family HOA, and an HOA that will cover this product and the townhomes. Chairman Sobk oviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that cared to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the relocated utilities are going to be covered under the new easement or existing locations. Petition er Dontz stated they would be. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if Outlot D was dry or wet . Petitioner Dontz stated it is dry. Commissioner O’Rourke noticed that the utility information was not on the document. Petitioner Dontz stated it would be on the rec orded document. At 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Chatham Square Phase 2R Preliminary/Final Plat of Subdivision, subject to the following four (4) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the require ments of the Village Engineer, 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield and Oswego Fire Protection District, 3. Compliance with the requirements of the Oswegoland Park District, 4. Submittal of a revised preliminary/final plat to incorporate r ecommendations of staff and/or the Plan Commission. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Sanders, Kachel, Renzi, O’Rourke, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 5:0 Petitioner Dontz asked if that motion has support for the setbacks. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it includes everything in the Planner’s report.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 15, 2008 Page 9 of 10 Planner Proulx stated at this point, staff will not be seeking any additional changes to the plat that was provided by the petit ioner’s engineer this week. Petitioner Dontz stated he is completely satisfied with the staff report as it was presented this evening, but there is a difference between Planner Proulx’ verbal comments this evening and the written staff report. Petitioner Dontz stated that the written staff report states that staff does not recommend the rear yard setback, but Planner Proulx tonight states that staff is in support of the rear setback. He just didn’t want confusion when it goes on to the Village Board. Pl anner Proulx stated he did not believe it was necessary, but stipulation #4 could be deleted, which talks about submitting a revised plat if necessary. At 9:06 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of Chatham Square Phase 2R preliminary/final plat of subdivision, subject to the following 3 stipulations, with deletion of stipulation #4 (submittal of a revised preliminary/final plat to incorporate recommendations of staff and/or the Plan Commission) in the staff report. 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer, 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield and Oswego Fire Protection Districts, 3. Compliance with the requirements of the Oswegoland Park District. Commissioner Renzi secon ded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Renzi, O’Rourke, Sanders, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 5:0 DISCUSSION: Commissioner Renzi talked about the Bike Camp that he attended. He t h anked everyone that made a donation. Commissioner Kachel questioned whether Lenwood Estates would be assured of a curb cut and securing city sewer and water because of the placement of the Village utilities. Planner Schwarz stated it was his understandin g this is one of the issues the petitioner would like to raise or the rationale for the pre -annexation agreement . T here is a contention on the landowner’s part that when the Village put the utilities in , there may be an encroachment. Planner Schwarz stat ed he did not know for a fact if that was true, but that is one of the issues the landowner would like to present to the Village Board. Commissioner O’Rourke stated with the Chatham Square case they just heard there was no public hearing for the people al ready living in the subdivision, and wondered if the Village considered having a public hearing in the future. Planner Proulx stated there will be notice for the annexation agreement amendment before going to the Village Board. That will involve publishi ng an ad in the paper and posting a sign. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if all resubdivisions would include a change in the annexation agreement. Planner Proulx stated they would not. Planner Proulx stated in many cases it would involve some sort of rezon ing, etc. When you change residential building types, in many cases, if not most, there will be some sort of zoning action and that would call for a public hearing. Commissioner O’Rourke asked why that would not be done at the Plan Commission level. He felt more disclosure is better for the residents.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes July 15, 2008 Page 10 of 10 Planner Proulx stated it was a good point. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if it could be put on a list of items to refer to the Board for discussion. Planner Proulx stated staff uses judgment in some case s where a public hearing is not required , but staff feels it would be beneficial . There was a discussion among the commissioners in this regard. Commissioner O’Rourke asked about the strip ing on 143 rd St. and Rt. 30. Planner Schwarz stated staff is awar e of this . I t has been brought to the attention of Public Works , and they will be re -strip ing that area. Commissioner Kachel talked about sidewalks going nowhere. In particular he mentioned one along Rt. 59 by Plainfield Centra l . Planner Schwarz stated that would be conveyed to the Public Works Director. It was his understanding that the sidewalks would go in with the completion of the widening of the south section of Rt. 59. Chairman Sobkoviak mentioned people are parking in the traffic circle in the Creekside Subdivision on Creekside Drive. Alongside the traffic circle is a playground and people park in the traffic circle. He felt there should be “no parking” signs installed in the circle. Planner Proulx stated that would be mentioned in the next Traffic Committee Meeting. Planner Schwarz mentioned the Village of Plainfield, Aurora, and Naperville are co -sponsoring a “Call -to -Action ” Meeting about the CN purchase of the EJ&E Railroad. It will be held on July 23, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. at the Waubonsie Valley High School Gold Campus located at Rt. 34 and Eola Road in Aurora. Commissioner Kachel suggested that it be televised on the public TV station. Commissioner Peck stated he has had several residents contact him about Rt. 126 and Meadow Lane asking for a stop light. That is a state route. He encouraged everyone watching to please write IDOT a letter asking for a traffic light at the corner of Rt. 126 and Meadow Lane. Also, if there are other IDOT intersections people have concerns about, they shou ld write IDOT a letter stating their concerns. Since there was no further business for the Commission, Chairman Sob koviak adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. _________________________________________ R espectfully Submitted Carol Millan – Planning Se cretary Village of Plainfield