HomeMy Public PortalAbout2007-02-06 PC Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION RECORD OF MINUTES DATE: February 6 , 2007 LOCATION: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak cal led the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel, McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Murawski, and Chairman Sobk oviak . The Fire District came after the start of the meeting. Absent: Commissioner Henry, Park District, Library District, and Police Department Also Present: Mike Schwarz – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Kelley Chrisse – Planner I Vill age of Plainfield, Carol Millan – Secretar y Village of Plainfield, and Nea l Eicholtz – Baxter and Woodman MINUTES: The minutes from the January 16 , 2007 meeting were accepted as presented . DEVELOPMENT REPORT Mike Schwarz read the Development Report: A t the February , 5, 2007 Village Board meeting the followings items were discussed: A dopted Ordinance 2617 granting approval of a special use permit to allow a drive -thru operation as part of a financial institution on Lot 7 of the Meijer Plainfield Subdivi sion for TCF Bank. A pproved the Office Max/Open Retail project in concept. The Board gave some input. Office Max would be located on Lot 8 of the Meijer Plainfield Subdivision. A uthorize d the Village President to initiate an application for certification and enter into an agreement with the Illinois Historic Preservation Office for the Certified Local Government Program. A uthorize d the Village Present to request participation in the Property Tax Assessment Freeze Program through the Illinois Historic Pres ervation Agency. F ormal ized approval of the previous text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and the text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that were discussed several meetings ago.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 2 of 23 NEW BUSINESS CASE: 1290 -122206.AA.RZ.SPR PLFD. SCHOOL DISTRICT 20 2 TRANSPORTATION FACILITY Request: Annexation (Public Hearing) Rezoning (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review Location: Southwest Corner of Illinois Route 30 and 143 rd St. Applicant: Plainfield Community Consolidated School District 202 Represente d by Dr. John Harper TIME: 7:15 p.m. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Neal Eicholz if there were any issues. Neal stated that without the plans and supporting document s , such as the grading and utility information, the storm water detention calculations, and t he traffic study, he was unable to provide any constructive comments at this time. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Mike Schwarz if it was staff’s preference to continue this public hearing. Mike stated that staff believes that based on the nature of this reques t and based on the calls and inquiries staff has received, it might be best in everyone’s interest to regroup and allow the School District the benefit of coming back to address some of the comments and iss ues that have been raised. The petitioner is here this evening to address any of the concerns that have been raised when called upon. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that later this month there would be a combined meeting of the Village Board and the Plan Commission at a workshop. One of the issues to be dis cussed by both bodies will be the land uses that in effect do not generate sales tax revenue. There has been debate regarding, for instance, financial institutions, but it wouldn’t be limited to just financial institutions. M edical facilities are also be ing proposed in some of the outlots where the best use would be commercial so there could be sales tax generated. He didn’t feel the Commission should come to a decision regarding the annexation or future land use of this property until the Commission get s the Village Board’s ideas. He was very uncomfortable with moving forward on this without hearing what the Village Board has to say. This property is not going to generate either sales tax or property tax. Mike Schwarz wanted to clarify that as propos ed the site plan has 7 to 9 acres future commercial. So, if in fact the site plan were to be approved, there would be an opportunity for some sales tax revenue from that portion of the property. He also stated that through the annexation agreement this s ite plan would become an exhibit as a controlling plan for the property. Chairman Sobkoviak reiterated that the overwhelming majority of this property will be removed from the tax roles. He suggested that the Commission not move forward with the case unt il the results of the joint meeting with the Village Board are known.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 3 of 23 Commission er O’Rourke felt that the Commission makes recommendations to the Village Board, but ultimately it is the Village Board’s decision. Mike Schwarz stated all of the Commiss ioners’ votes were recommendations. It is the Village Board’s policy decision, but the Commission tonight is voting on whether the annexation is a logical extension of the village boundaries, whether or not B -3 zoning would be appropriate, and any concern s regarding the site plan itself. Commissioner Renzi felt the Commission could get to the annexation and rezoning and get them out of the way. He didn’t see any problem with the annexation and rezoning. He felt the problem was with the comprehensive pla n suggesting that this may be a school facility as opposed to a place to store buses. Commissioner Kachel stated if there was a commercial development coming before the Commission and there is a safety issue, there is a traffic study not available right now, the landscaping is not before the Commission, the Commission would probably put the development off until the Commission had all of the material they needed to make a decision. Commissioner O’Rourke responded that in the past the developer would at least be able to make the presentation and the Commission would listen to what the petitioner had to say. Commissioner Kachel agreed that with the number of people present, the Commission would need to have testimony tonight. He felt that for a vote rig ht now everything should be before the Plan Commission because there are a lot of big issues. The safety issue is a big issue with the traffic that is going to be generated at a later date, plus the train station. He felt the Plan Commission needs a traf fic study before the project can be voted on and passed on to the Village Board. Commissioner Renzi stated that Commissioner Kachel was correct that none of the information he had mentioned would be available because they are using a 2005 study because it will not take into consideration the rerouting potentially of 126, and the train station. There will not be the counts. Mike Schwarz clarified that there was a traffic study in the file and the traffic study was based on the original site plan configura tion with the access on Route 30 in a different location and a more full access , as opposed to a righ t -in and right -out access. Staff feels in terms of the number of buses coming in and out through each of the access point s , the traffic report needs to be updated to reflect the most recent site plan. He stated s taff cannot at this time confirm or deny or debate the methodology of the traffic study and what background da ta was used. Commissioner Kachel also was concerned when the buses are let out in th e morning or later in the evening what would happen. He said when the buses are let out for Plainfield Central the downtown area is hurt for almost one -half hour to an hour with traffic problems. Commissioner O’Rourke suggested the Plan Commission listen to the petitioner and see what they say. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner. Diane Cooper, Assistant Superintendent for Business and Operations for Plainfield School District 202 was the first to speak. She wanted to provide a statement on reco rd as to the reasoning the School District is seeking a transportation
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 4 of 23 facility on this particular site. She stated the School District has the responsibility to transport students back and forth to school safely and efficiently. The School District ha s a further responsibility to their taxpayers to provide transportation services in a cost effective manner. The School District has found in the past that various bus companies have not been interested in providing transportation services because of the location. Very few bus companies have facilities that are near to the School District , and as a result the School District has not received competitive bids for transportation services. The Board of Education determined that a transportation facility wit hin the School District would encourage a more competitive bid process. The School District is confident that they will achieve significant savings for all the taxpayers of District 202 in the for m of property tax relief if the transportation facility is located in the proposed location. The District has been mindful that this facility will impact the adjacent neighbors no matter where it is located. They examined the sites they currently own and took into consideration the residential impact. The Schoo l District feel s this site is the least intrusive to residential properties. The School District has met with Village staff since the Fall of 2006 , and was under the impression this site was acceptable to Village staff , and as a result the School District has moved forward accordingly with the design recommended by Village staff, including a 7 to 9 acre commercial site. There was a meeting in January held at the School District to hear the concerns of adjacent property owners. Ms. Cooper thanked the Plan Commission for its time in reviewing the School District’s petition. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Mike Schwarz to prepare a piece of paper for people to sign at the break who claim the y did not receive a notice from the School District Scott Anderle from He aly Bend er Architects spoke next. He first addressed the comments about the traffic study. He met on two occasions with Eric Gallt, Village Traffic Engineer, along with Hamilton Engineers and wanted to make sure the traffic study was incorporating everyt hing that Eric wanted incorporated into the study . Scott had heard the study was approved and recently Mike indicated he wanted it updated. Scott Anderle addressed the items that are missing in the submittal. He stated they are about 50% through the civ il engineering process. The Village’s Best Management Practices are being included. Bio -swales will help filter the storm water runoff from the parking lot that will be diverted over to the detention basin. The detention basin will have about a 12 -18 in ch area of water, which would also have wetland plantings. The engineering drawings should be submitted to the Village and Baxter and Woodman within the next several days. The photometric plan would also be completed in conjunction with the engineering p lans. A landscape plan will be provided for the perim eter berm. Scott mentioned the plan is to have pine type trees 8 to 10 feet in height which will be on top of 12 foot high berms, as well as the 4 foot high berm. He mentioned the height of the berm, along with the height of the pine trees , would block the view from the bedroom window on the sites that are adjacent to the west side. He discussed the configuration of the site. It was decided to move the bus area as far away as possible from the homeow ners to the west and have it be situated closer to Route 30. The distance between the property owners to the west and the parking lot is around 300 feet , and it is around 500 feet to the edge of the fencing. He mentioned th e stipulations at the end of Mi ke Schwarz’ report could be taken care of without any issue except for the configuration of the commercial piece and the request for the 12 foot high berm along Route 30. He mentioned a 4:1 slope is proposed on the berms on the side facing the homeowners. That would be grass that could be mowed , and a 3:1 slope on the side inward that would be
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 5 of 23 natural prairie grass that the homeowners would not see. Cyclone fencing would be provided along the bus area that would be blocked by the berm , as it would be o n the low side of the berm and would not be seen by the homeowners as well. There will not be any rooftop equipment on the building. Trash locations have not been identified as yet, but enclosures will be provided around that. Scott also stated the requ est for masonry banding on the exterior elevations and an additional louver can be provided. A bike path can be provided along 143 rd Street, as well as a sidewalk along Route 30. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if any part of the building would be visible. Sco tt Anderle commented that part of the building would be visible. Commissioner Renzi had some questions. He commented on the 3 foot overhang and asked Scott if that would be a problem. Scott Anderle commented he would have to look into that. He stated typically prefab metal buildings do not have overhangs and the way the structure is made it is not something you would add on. He would have to check with the manufacturer. Commissioner Renzi asked about the underground detention area. He asked how m uch land was being used for the detention. Scott Anderle commented at least a couple of acres. Commissioner Renzi asked if some of the acreage could be used for commercial as that would give the School District a significant repay, and would also generat e more sales tax revenue and property tax revenue instead of just 12 to 18 inches of water sitting there. Scott Anderle agreed and said they would have to look into the depth necessary and whether or not the fall could be achieved to drain by gravity to t he storm sewers. Commissioner Kachel stated since it is a maintenance facility and probably only buses will be on there wouldn’t there be the possibility of fumes or anything getting into the underground detention. Scott Anderle stated he would have to d efer to the Village engineer, but he felt first the runoff would have to go through settling basins or through bio -swales back into that basin. Commissioner Kachel also asked Scott Anderle if there were any studies completed as far as noise from the bus es idling in the morning. Scott Ander le stated no studies have been completed for noise or fumes on this site. Commissioner Sobkoviak stated the Commission should first be discussing the annexation and rezoning. Commissioner Renzi stated he didn’t have any issues with that. Commissioner O’Rourke asked Ms. Cooper is she could share with the Commission any other locations that were looked at and why the School District ended up with this particular location. Ms. Cooper stated the School District owns j ust a few parcels and went on to mention what sites they own. She mentioned the School District has certain rules to follow as far as disposing of land. They are under Illinois State Statute regarding how property can be sold. Commissioner O’Rourke as ked Ms. Cooper if she knew how other school districts are handling their bus situation and where they put their bus locations. Ms. Cooper said the School District found that typically school districts either contract out the buses or own bus facilities ou tright. This is a different situation for District 202 since they will be using land that they own
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 6 of 23 to get better services and a reduction in tax dollars for their services by keeping the buses housed on the property. Ms. Cooper reiterated there could b e sales tax revenue on the 7 to 9 acres for commercial, but the School District is providing tax relief for the whole school district and not just for the Village of Plainfield. Commissioner O’Ro urke asked Ms. Cooper if she knew what the savings would l ook like since she had made mention about significant savings through the bus bidding process. Ms. Cooper said about $1.5 million per year. Commissioner McKay wanted to talk about economics. She stated when she sees 40 contiguous acres, such as the Bron k establishment in Shorewood, she wondered if the School District or anybody has taken a market analysis of what those 40 acres would be worth for commercial potential. Ms. Cooper stated the School District had not completed a market analysis. Commissi oner McKay talked about landscaping. She said per previous cases it was her opinion the Village was extremely opposed to berming. She stated that in most cases the plants will die. She would like to see the landscaping plan to know what is to be planted on that berm to live and who will maintain the berm. Commissioner McKay also asked Mike Schwarz to explain to the homeowners present what the annexation agreement is. She wanted Mike Schwarz to explain to the public what would happen if the Plan Commiss ion voted no to the annexation. Mike Schwarz commented specifically on the zoning matter. The hearing is legally and statute wise only relevant to the matter of rezoning. The Village Board has the final ultimate authority in deciding if a property sh ould be annexed into the limits of the Village. The alternative would be for the School District to go to the county in order to develop and it would be difficult because the sewer and water would not be provided. There will be a separate hearing for the benefit of the public at the Village Board level which will be advertised, noticed, and so forth. A discussion ensued about rezoning from default R -1 to I zoning. Commissioner Kachel asked if the Plan Commission rezoned the property to B -3 and the transp ortation facility did not materialize , would it be easier for the School District to turn the property over. Commissioner Murawski asked a bout the property being designated in 2002 as a middle school. He asked Ms. Cooper at that time if there was a visio n by the School District of a transportation center or was this something that just came up in the fall of 2006. Ms. Cooper stated that it was her understanding the property was purchased in 2001 with the hope it would be a middle school/elementary school site. It became apparent to the School District that because of the plans the Village had for that area , it would not be conducive anymore for a school site . Ms. Cooper said the School District started talking about this transportation facility prior to the referendum . T he monies were approved in the 2006 referendum. Discussion s regarding this parcel with the Village were after that date. Commissioner Murawksi asked if prior to 2005 there was not an idea of a transportation center for the School Distr ict in Plainfield. Ms. Cooper said that was correct. Commissioner Murawski asked where it was determined the buses were going to be kept. Ms. Cooper said at the time the School District was, and still is , under contract with an outside contractor, First Student, who is located in Crest Hill.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 7 of 23 Commissioner Kachel asked if the Oswego School District and Joliet School District have anything planned for some type of facility as what is planned in Plainfield. Ms. Cooper was not aware of any plans. Chairman Sobkoviak reiterated that from the conversations, there is support by the Commission for annexation of the property. He then asked if there was support for the B -3 zoning designation. Chairman Sobkoviak explained the R -1 default zoning when a property is annexed into the Village. Commissioner McKay wanted everyone in the audience to understand that B -3 does not include what the District is asking for and approving a B -3 zoning would not approve this use. It then goes to the Board level as an annexation agreement, it is discussed there, and they vote on it. Commissioner Kachel inquired if it was zoned to B -3 with the special zoning on it for this particular project and then for some reason the School District did not go through with the project, could a bus transportation facility be built there. Mike Schwarz said that would require an amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance. Commissioner McKay asked if the District owned like property in the Village and if there were any other speculated properti es. Ms. Cooper said there was not. Commissioner McKay asked if this was not approved if there was a Plan B. Ms. Cooper said they wouldn’t be able to construct the transportation facility this summer. Commissioner Renzi asked if this wasn’t approved if the School Board would go to the county for just a parking lot for the buses. Ms. Cooper stated the School District would want a facility to maintain these buses and house the staff that operates the facility. She stated it would not be a desired option of the School Board to go to Will County for approval. There was a brief recess at 8:35. The Plan Commission reconvened at 8:45 Chairman S obkoviak opened the meeting to public c omment and swore in each resident before they gave their testimony . The fol lowing residents gave their testimony: 1. Paul Mitchell – Representing Freemark Homes and Dayfield Commercial Properties and two commercial owners at SE corner of 143 rd and Rt. 30. If this project was proposed by a developer and came before the Board it w ould be turned down if it were judged like other properties he represents for developers. Comprehensive Plan identifies as commercial. Only zoning that allows bus barn is I zoning (I -1 or I -2). School District came up with clever idea to zone B -3 with a bus barn allowed via the annexation agreement. No problem with property being annexed and zoned B -3, but problem is it is effectively rezoned to industrial use. Inappropriate use of site. Not best use for 40 acre site (one of the few left) other 3 corner s are commercial.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 8 of 23 If School District sells 40 acres at $8 a ft. and buy s a 30 acre industrial site, more like $5 a foot, they would have $7.4 million to make their improvements and could apply the difference to education and reduction of the tax rate. Vil lage loses sales tax and property taxes, benefit to both Village and School Districts, who collect about 2/3 of every tax dollar. If developer came in without landscaping plan, for instance Springbank who he represented came in without a landscaping plan a nd was postponed until they had a landscaping plan. Rt. 30 entrance to Village – 4 foot berm around Route 30 would only shield 4 out of 29 feet. A 12 foot berm with steep grades and trees on top would look like a mountain. 100% masonry building, 4 -sides a rchitecture, landscaping is what developers are asked to bring to the table. This is a one story 33 feet prefabricated metal and concrete block building. He did not feel this type of building has been accepted in the B -3 District of the Village since abo ut the year 2000. Commissioner Renzi stated there was a huge difference between developers and the School District because every cost required of the School District, Park District, and Library District will come out of the pocketbooks of property owners . Developers develop at a profit to sell to someone else who runs a business at a profit; the School is in the business of not profiting , but of educating children. They are supposed to operate at the lowest cost possible. Paul Mitchell went on to say: He is familiar with bus barns in Naperville on Rt. 59 near Tall Grass and one by Naperville North High School . The Commission should be aware from what he understands; there are safety checks in the morning. About 6:00 in the morning, buses start up , the y start the engine, rev the engine, turn on the lights, and beep the horn a couple of times. Inappropriate next to residences. Against one central bus barn to serve the entire School District, which serves Bolingbrook, Romeoville, Joliet. Cause traffic for Plainfield. 2. Christine Washington was sworn in and gave her testimony: Resident of Liberty Grove Not best use of land Concerned that her land will not appreciate because of the bus barn Village loses tax money on land Too much traffic congestion wi th the addition of 400 buses School District could hold onto land and sell at a later date once the train station comes in and property appreciates. You wouldn’t take valuable land and put a parking lot on it – Rt. 30 is going to be a commercial area.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 9 of 23 3. Jennifer McManaman was sworn in and gave her testimony: Resident of Liberty Grove Sign posted giving notice was falling over on the ground – more people would have attended if better notice had been given. Only one sign – she believed there should have been one on Rt. 30 and one on 143 rd Street. Facility does not belong at this site – not indicated on the comprehensive plan. Asked if parcel gets zoned B -3, does it ultimately have to be zoned Industrial to be built on it. Chairman Sobkoviak answered no. The zoning would be B -3 and through the annexation agreement they would be allowed to use it as a bus park and bus terminal. Jennifer sked if any other company, like Laidlaw or First Student, would be allowed to do it. Mike Schwarz clarified that under a ny annexation agreement it is a contract. The B -3 was suggested because that is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the other three corners. The use would typically be allowed under an I -1 or I -2 designation. Jennifer was also c oncerned about health and safety, fumes of the buses. Buses idle for hours and with cold conditions sometimes idle overnight to stay warm. Irresponsible to place this in an area with young children. Some states , including Arizona and Minnesota , have “no idling” laws. Concerned about increased traffic down Presidential Avenue. Not a good location for this type of facility. 4. Garrett Peck was sworn in and gave his testimony: Resident of Liberty Grove Moved to Plainfield from Schaumburg/Arlington Heights area see king a better place. Strongly in disagreement with the bus barn. Stated maybe taxes will be lowered because of the savings with the bus barn, but homes will depreciate because of a bus barn in the backyard. Moving from Plainfield if the bus barn is approve d. 5. Robert Parkinson was sworn in and gave testimony: Not best use of land. Had questions for the School District – He asked why they just looked at properties they currently own. School District has already started bidding, so is it the School Distric t’s assumption that this will be the location , or is there a clause in the contract. Is there a reason the Village of Plainfield should bare the decreased tax revenue from both property and sales tax for all of the adjoining areas. Romeoville is not goin g to have to pay this burden, neither is Bolingbrook, or Joliet. Will Village of Plainfield basically be taking the burden for the $1.5 million in savings , but savings distributed among all of the other towns in the School District. Had questions for Sc ott Anderle. Traffic study, how tall are the light poles going to be. Is there going to be a maintenance facility and refueling facility. He indicated that introduces a whole different set of chemical and pollution problems that have
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 10 of 23 not been in the discussion. What is going to be the procedure for the removal of this waste. He felt the School District was trying to push this through. Diane Cooper responded regarding the question whether or not the School District l ooked at other locations that they do not own. She said t he District does not have the money to just go out and buy another piece of property. She stated that if this parcel is not approved by the Village, the School District will keep on using a bus service. Robert Parkinson stated t he School District is leasing the land to the bus company as opposed to leasing it to commercial. Diane Cooper stated the School District is not leasing the land , but will get a reduction in the cost of transportation . Diane Cooper stated all of the savi ngs will be distributed among all of the taxpayers in School District 202. Robert Parkinson asked if the other towns will have any bus barns. Diane Cooper stated this is the only facility that the School District has planned at this time. Robert Parkins on stated that the Village of Plainfield will be bearing the burden for all of the other villages. Scott Anderle stated the light poles are the standard light poles that are on any of the elementary , middle , or high schoo ls properties . They are 24 feet i n height . He went on to say that the function of the facility is maintenance, so they will be doing oil changes, air filter changes, changing flat tires. He stated there would be a refueling area at the right side of the building. There is an undergrou nd diesel fuel tank with two dispenser pumps for the buses to be refilled. He stated that as far as the EPA submittals , it would be the same as if it were a gas station facility. Scott Anderle stated the waste oil is an above -ground oil dispensing tank t hat is done through the maintenance facility where a company comes in and pumps out the tank on a weekly basis. This is similar to what happens at a Jiffy Lube or something of that nature. Robert Parkinson asked if there were any alternate energy vehicle s or if everything is going to be diesel. Scott Anderle stated everything would be diesel. Scott Anderle stated every 4 buses will plug into a power pole for the engine block heaters to reduce the amount of idling time. He stated this should not require a bus to be running for multiple hours at a time. 6. Darin Angus was sworn in and gave testimony: He is a resident of Liberty Grove and his house backs up to the proposed berm. Safety of his three children Worried about who will maintain the 4:1 ratio berm facing his house. Worried about the trees not being able to live on this berm and maintenance of them. Concerned about a d etention pond within 50 feet of house. Concerned about the noise. He is assuming buses will be leaving the 143 rd Street exit an d his house is right at 143 rd and backs up to the berm. He is concerned about the safety of his children.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 11 of 23 He is concerned about the 24 foot high lighting pole . The berm is only 12 foot high, the tree on top of the berm is only 8 feet high so he feels l ights will be shining in his windows. He was concerned about his property’s value. He wants to put his house up for sale, but feels he probably cannot do that right now because of this bus barn. If this bus barn is approved he definitely will not put his house up for sale because he feels he will lose money on it. He would like the Village to tell the School District to go somewhere else. It might not be cost effective for the School District to maintain all of the landscaping. 7. Brian Seeley was sworn in and gave testimony: He feels there are minimal gateways into the Village, Route 59 and Route 30. He feels the Village has done a very good job in identifying what the gateway to the community should look like. He does not think the bus depot is consi stent with the Village plan. Coming in on Route 30 there will be a 4 foot berm with a prefabricated building. He asked the hours of operation of the maintenance facility . Diane Cooper responded school hours (probably 6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) Brian aske d if it would b e a multi -shift operation. He said most companies would be concerned with asset utilization. Buses would be running during the day, which means they would need to be maintained at night. How would a tire be changed, probably with an air ratchet. He would not want to hear an air ratchet at 2:30 in the morning. He asked if there was a guarantee that it was not a multi -shift operation. He asked if basically the School District would be leasing that facility to the bus company. So, it woul d be to the bus company’s discretion how to run that facility. 8. Orlando Arroyo was sworn in and gave testimony: He is a resident of Liberty Grove. He lives 9 houses south of Presidential and will also have a clear view of the facility from his windows . His general observation of planning in the community is he sees the Village planning in advance with patience and caution , and he sees the School District reacting rather than planning to the population growth of towns in the area. He is concerned that the School District could get in a financial hole by continuing to plan that way. He requested the School District slow down and use more patience in planning. 9. John Lederer was sworn in and gave testimony: He had concerns about entering the Village from Route 30 and seeing this bus barn. He stated diesel fuels are carcinogens. Dayfield and Liberty Grove subdivisions all have children. Also, the new senior citizens homes are in the area and there might be people with respiratory problems. Concerned about the fumes from the diesel buses.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 12 of 23 Concerned about the time of day when maintenance would be performed on the buses. He felt it was irresponsible to have this proposed and not think about the people it affects. He felt there should be better use of the land. He stated the rerouting of 143 rd St. and Route 30 – would make this a very viable corner which could be used in a better way to help the Village and residents with tax relief . 10. Sharonda Brown -Little was sworn in and gave testimony: A residen t of Liberty Grove Moved to Plainfield basically for peace. She feels the bus barn disrupts her peace. Came to Plainfield for safety. Feels there is no concern or consideration for the babies in the surrounding area. Feels the project was brought to the meeting with incomplete and old data Feels the residents can say what they want at the Public Hearing, but does it mean anything. Is anyone really listening to what she is saying. 11. Daniette Terda was sworn in and gave testimony: A resident of Liberty Grove. Does not see any pros for the project. Concerned property values will decrease. School bus drivers would park their buses alongside the building where she used to live. The noise was horrible. There was a smell. Concerned about 400 buses sittin g and idling just blocks from where she lives. Unfair to everybody who purchased homes in Liberty Grove. Completely against the project. 12. Jordan Dauber was sworn in and gave testimony: Not currently resident of Liberty Grove, but works on property in L iberty Grove. No plants will grow on the side of a 4:1 grade. No native plants to Illinois that have the ability to grow on that type of grade nor would any type of evergreen be able to be sustained on top of that grade. He is a gardener. Concerned about the runoff water into the streets and sewers. Bio -soils the School District is talking about for filtration need to be replaced on a regular basis, especially with diesel. Did not feel one centrally located bus barn for four towns is a good idea . Asked th e Commission to refuse to rezone to anything that would possibly turn it into the proposed bus barn , and felt it was sneaking the use in under the annexation. 13. Karinlynn LeBlanc was sworn in and gave testimony: A resident of Liberty Grove. Concerned about notification. She heard by word -of -mouth. No sign up that they saw. A neighbor picked up the sign and it was covered with snow. Nobody was watching to make sure that the residents of Plainfield were being advised of the hearing.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 13 of 23 Went to the Scho ol District website many times prior to this meeting to find out information. Found no data on the School District website. Notified by friend who received a certified letter. Two children with respiratory problems, bronchitis and chronic asthma. No s tudies performed on the fumes of the diesel and its affects on residents in the area. Not best location with being surrounded by residential. Traffic congestion – 400 buses coming out of the facility. Wanted clarification on school hours because Monday mor ning she received a phone call from the School District stating that it was a snow day. She received her phone call at 5:40 in the morning, but at that point a decision had been made because 100 buses could not start ; and therefore , school was cancelled. What time do they actually start the buses. 14.Brent Branstetter was sworn in and gave testimony: Why does this property have to be annexed now. What is the driving force that requires a decision be made tonight or in the next months. Chairman Sobkovia k stated the reason for the annexation is so that the facility can connect to city sewer and water. The Village has a policy of not supplying sewer or water service to anything outside the municipal limits of the Village. Commissioner O’Rourke stated the School District has requested the annexation. Brent went on to testify that the School District is requesting the annexation and it could be stopped if there was a vote of no . The School District would then have to go to the County. Chairman Sobkoviak replied that anyone can sink a well and anyone can put in a septic system. Brent said it would be more difficult if they went to the County if there is a no vote on it at this time. Chairman Sobkoviak had no comment on that. Brent said it was his recommend ation that the Commission vote no on the annexation at this time. Do a further study. Look at the health and safety. 15. Michael Brown was sworn in and gave testimony: Found out over the weekend from people handing out flyers in Liberty Grove. He didn’t see the School District showing the residents any respect by trying to push this through on an annexation rider. It has been determined this is an industrial facility , and if it was anyone but the School District it would require an industrial zoning. Pointed out buses have to stop whether there is a train or not at train crossings. The parcel is locked in on three sides by train tracks. A previously sworn in resident asked the School District if there would be a need for more school buses as the Scho ol District builds more schools.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 14 of 23 Scott Anderle replied that currently the School District is using around 300 buses. So, 400 buses are projected for the foreseeable future. There would be no room at this site for more than 400 buses. 16. Cherrie Swete was sworn in and gave testimony: No one is objecting to the bus transportation for students . I t is the location to place this bus facility that she was objecting. Prime piece of real estate for the Village of Plainfield. Spend most of my money in neighb oring towns because there is no place in Plainfield to really spend my money, retail, fine dining, etc. Not opposed to the District needing the transportation facility, but am opposed to the location. 17. Karinlynn LaBlanc who was previously sworn in gave further testimony: Found on School District website a statistic that approximately 65% of children enrolled in Plainfield Schools come from areas outside of Plainfield. Her question is – Why is Plainfield absorbing the loss of taxes when Plainfield doesn ’t even populate half of the schools. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it would be his hope to continue this case to the next scheduled meeting of February 20, 2007. Diane Cooper stated there had been a number of references by residents of the posting of the s ign on the property and she wanted to go on record as stating the School District did not do the posting of the sign. It is a Village responsibility. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Village takes the blame for notification. A resident in the audience st ated the Village Zoning O rdinance states the petitioner has the responsibility to place the sign. Michael Schwarz clarified that the ordinance does specifically state that the applicant is obligated to post the sign; however, it has been historically the Village’s policy of the Planning Division taking that responsibility on and posting the sign. The sign was posted per the Statute requirements and with the wind and so forth, the sign did come down and was replaced. There has been talk of anything larger than 5 acres would require more of a billboard style of sign , and that is something that is currently being reviewed. All obligations of posting a legal notice in the local paper, as well as the School District’s obligation of notifying via certified let ter anybody who adjoins this property or is across the street from it, those obligations have been met. Commission McKay asked if District 202 has any long term plans to purchase their own buses. Diane Cooper responded that they did not have any plans to purchase their own buses . Chairman Sobkoviak suggested continuing the public hearing to February 20 th meeting. Commissioner O’Rourke questioned if the Commission needed to continue the case. Chairman Sobkoviak suggested that there would be more people w ho would want to give testimony. Michael Schwarz recommended to the Commission that all three cases remain together.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 15 of 23 Chairman Sobkoviak stated if there was a motion to deny the annexation, the other two questions become mute. The chair was looking for a motion to continue, but if someone would rather give a motion for something else he asked them to please proceed. Michael Schwarz stated that if that was the desire of the Commission to vote on the first item in the report, there would not be an opport unity to look at some of the site plan issues before they would be sent to the Village Board for consideration. Staff is on the record as saying that the property is a logical continuation of the municipal boundaries. The question of rezoning, staff feel s meets the findings. The question of the land use, staff is not convinced this is the ideal land use; however, it would be a Board decision in terms of the land use. Chairman Sobkoviak reiterated that if the Plan Commission denied annexation and the Vil lage Board approved annexation, the Plan Commission would not have the opportunity to make recommendations on the site plan. Commission O’Rourke asked if the Village Board would have that opportunity. Michael Schwarz stated the Village Board would have t hat opportunity, but certainly the recommendations of the Plan Commission as an advisory body would be welcomed at the Board level. Commissioner Kachel also stated that when the case goes to the Village Board, the public cannot speak out this way. Chairm an Sobkoviak stated there would be a public hearing at the Board level for annexation. Commissioner Kachel stated the Board limits the number of people that can speak and the time they speak. At 10:05 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion to continue t he public hearing to March 6, 2007. Commissioner McKay seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : McKay, Renzi, O’Rourke, Murawski, Kachel, Sobkoviak Nay : None The motion is carried: 6:0 At 10:10 p.m. there was a t en minute recess. The Plan Commission reconvened at 10:20 p.m.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 16 of 23 CASE: 1255 -063006.AA.SU.PP/FP WEINHOLD SUBDIVISION Request: Annexation, Annexation Agreement Special Use for Planned Unit Development Preliminary/Final Plat of S ubdivision Location: South of 135 th Street West side of Naperville Rd., surrounded by River Ridge Estates Applicant: James Weinhold TIME: 10:20 p.m. Kelley Chrisse gave the staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the Village Engineer, Nea l Eicholtz, i f there was anything that would hinder the development of the parcel. Nea l Eicholtz said there are no major concerns for the project. Chairman Sobkoviak sworn in the petitioner. James Weinhold, developer, gave the following statement . He stated the pro perty is located at 2728 Naperville Road and is 1.13 acres in unincorporated Will County. It is surrounded by the River Ridge Subdivision. The Lakes Subdivision is across the street and it is about 500 feet from the Lakelands. He believes presently this parcel is outdated with the surrounding area. The home that will be demolished is a two bedroom ranch with one bath and is outdated with the demand for today’s housing market. He is proposing a Planned Unit Development and a variance from 85 to 80 feet wide lots. He is not a builder, but is just subdividing this pro perty. The homes will range fro m $450.000 to $500,000. He wants the finished parcel to fit into the neighborhood. He feels the property is an eyesore the way it presently looks. Presently it is a rental problem and there have been problems with upkeep. He wants to add value to the neighborhood. Vince Cannon, attorney for the developer, gave his statement. The developer is open to being a part of River Ridge. They will have to work w ith the River Ridge Homeowners Association’s Board to look over their bylaws and what costs and fees would be associated with becoming part of the subdivision. The landscape buffer will be substantially similar to what is currently going along there. He stated the lot footage in the Village’s R -1 zoning is 12,000 sq. ft. and these lots will comply with the zoning ordinance. Kelley Chrisse stated that by relocating the berm which is currently shown in the right -of -way, which will not be allowed, four very mature trees will be saved. Commissioner Renzi asked if the River Ridge Subdivision had a SSA. Kelley Chrisse did not believe they did. Chairman Sobkoviak agree d. Commissioner O’Rourke stated a SSA was a Special Service Area. Kelley Chrisse explain ed that an SSA was a means by which the Village would take over maintenance of common areas within the subdivision, but she did not believe one had been created for River Ridge. Chairman Sobkoviak stated River Ridge was built before the SSA became a commo n requirement. There are a number of subdivisions that do not have
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 17 of 23 SSA’s. Commissioner Renzi stated he was inquiring because then it would make sense to merge this parcel into the SSA for River Ridge. Kelley Chrisse stated these lots do not have any c ommon areas and that is why staff is not requiring them to set up a SSA. Commissioner O’Rourke asked how the developer anticipates controlling builders that come into the site to design and build the houses. James Weinhold stated that the builder will ge t the design guidelines. Commissioner O’Rourke asked about the storm water management. He asked about the open swales. James Weinhold stated there would be a decline, slope, at the end of the property that will slope in with two drainage systems. The d rain pipes will run underneath the berm and run into a ditch. Commission O’Rourke asked if that was unusual since usually the water would run into a detention area. Neal Eicholtz stated the area is less than one acre so detention is not required for this situation. Kelley Chrisse stated that after the dedication for Naperville Road the development is less than one area. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if River Ridge currently has a Homeowners Association and someone replied from the audience that it did. H e asked if there is any talk or an opportunity to add that area into the Homeowners Association. James Weinhold stated he has not heard anything at this time, but is open to the idea of becoming part of River Ridge. Comm issioner O’Rourke stated corner lo t s typically seem to be wider because of the side y ard setbacks and the corner lot in this subdivision is the same width as the other lots. He asked if that would create a problem as far as the size or location of the home to be built on that corner lot. James Weinhold stated he did not foresee any problems. He stated it is an 80 foot lot, but it has extra square footage. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if Mr. Weinhold had any thoughts about a variance to be able to build on that corner lot. Chairman Sobk oviak stated that typically corner lots are not any bigge r than others. Discussion ensu ed about corner lots. Chairman Sobkoviak open ed the Public Hearing at 10:37 p.m. 1. Eva Carlson was sworn in and gave testimony: Resident of River Ridge Subdivision a nd also Vice President on the current Board of Directors of River Ridge Homeowners Association. Presented a site map of the River Ridge Subdivision. Concerned the lots in the Weinhold Subdivision do not conform to the sizes of the lots in River Ridge Subdi vision. Kelley Chrisse stated she believes 77.33 feet is width of the narrowest lot in River Ridge. She stated she also looked at the adjacent lots, and there are lots 12,000 sq. ft., 14,000 sq. ft., and 15,000 sq. ft. There is a variation of lot widths and sizes within the River Ridge Subdivision. She feels the applicants ’ lots fit in with the River Ridge Subdivision lots. Eva went on to say that the average lot width size is 85 ft. She was especially concerned about the corner lot. Very strict buildi ng guidelines in the covenants of River Ridge.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 18 of 23 Concerned that if the developer went by Village guidelines and not the subdivision covenants, the houses would look out of place - detriment to the River Ridge property values. River Ridge Homeown ers Associ ation maintains berm . Each homeowner in the Weinhold Subdivision would be responsible for maintaining the berm in back of their house. She was concerned that the berm would not be maintained by the people purchasing Mr. Weinhold’s homes. Was concerned ab out sewer and water recapture. Each person in River Ridge paid a portion of the sewer and water line being run into River Ridge Subdivision connection fees . River Ridge Homeowners Association had to pay for things that the developer of River Ridge did no t finish. Commissioner O’Rourke asked what a positive solution would be. Eva Carlson stated a positive solution would be for the Commission to not grant a variance to make the lots smaller than what River Ridge Subdivision lots currently are – maybe two nice size lots instead of three. 2. Brian Raymond was sworn in and gave testimony. River Ridge Subdivision resident and also on the Homeowners Association Board for River Ridge Subdivision. He does not oppose the annexation. Concerned with keeping up the character and style of River Ridge Subdivision. Stated from the Village of Plainfield Zoning Code – “the purpose and intent is to protect the character of the existing residential neighborhoods.” That is exactly what the River Ridge residents are concerne d about. All the corner lots in River Ridge are at least 90 feet wide. Th is proposal is for 80 feet wide and that is much smaller frontage wise than what is normal within River Ridge Subdivision. Homeowners Association has paid for all the improvements to River Ridge. Concerned the frontage for the 3 houses in Weinhold Subdivision will be directly in River Ridge where the present house’s frontage is on Naperville/Plainfield Road. If the proposed houses do not join homeowners association for River Ridge , t hey will be getting all the benefits without paying for them. Common areas are maintained by Homeowners Association. Majority of lots in River Ridge 85 feet and most 90 feet. Concerned about the size of house that can be built on the corner lot. Covenant s and declarations for River Ridge specify a minimum size, but basically they would like to see just two lots for two houses in the Weinhold Subdivision. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Mr. Raymond if the residents of the proposed Weinhold Subdivision would enjo y the benefits of your subdi vision by using the street or if there was something else that they would be using.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 19 of 23 Mr. Raymon d stated that every resident on Sharp drive at the present time pays the Association fees and they get benefit of all within the s ubdivision. The current house on the subject lots has an entrance on Naperville Road. Chairman Sobkoviak asked what benefits these people would be receiving from the Homeowners Association. Mr. Raymond responded that they would get the use of the entran ce, which the Homeowners As sociation decorates, landscapes , etc. Commissioner Kachel responded the streets are public streets and the residents of the proposed Weinhold Subdivision would have the right to use the street s. Commissioner O’Rourke stated t he residents of River Ridge had concerns because with the Weinhold Subdivision lots facing into River Ridge instead of onto Naperville Road if River Ridge does not have any restrictions or controls on these lots it will affect how people view the River Rid ge Subdivision. Mr. Raymond had concerns about the notification process . He wanted the Village to notify Homeowners Associations for a subdivision. Commissioner Kachel stated he believed the Village could not force someone to belong to a Homeowners Asso c i ation. Michael Schwarz stated a better question to ask would be what design standards or criteria could be applied to this project to be consistent with the Homeowners Association covenants. Commissioner Kachel stated that could be accomplished with a PUD. The design guidelines are much stricter now than what they were when River Ridge was built. Commissioner Kachel suggested discussing this with the applicant. Kelley Chrisse stated the design guidelines for the Village are more stringent than the co venants of the River Ridge Subdivision in terms of requirement s , architectural detail, etc. She also stated the covenants of the River Ridge Subdivision require, she didn’t have any updates so wasn’t completely sure this was accurate, a one story dwelling shall contain 1,600 or more sq. ft. of living area, whereas Village code requires 1,300 sq. ft. A 2 story dwelling is 1,800 sq. ft. required per the covenants and 1,700 sq. ft. per the Village ordinance. 3. Randall Byhr was sworn in and gave testimony : He lives in Ridge Ridge Subdivision and is also a builder. Does not want the variance granted –feels there should be two lots instead of three. Concerned about the type and size of house to be built on the corner lot. Commissioner Kachel felt whoever buys the lots in the proposed Weinhold Subdivision will want to fit into the neighborhood. Kelley Chrisse reiterated that with the PUD there will be more strict guidelines on what is built on the proposed Weinhold Subdivision lots. A discussion ensued re garding the benefits of the proposed subdivision being a PUD. 4. Scott Beckman was sworn in and gave testimony. Resident in River Ridge Subdivision.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 20 of 23 Concerned about the quality and size of home s to be built. 5. Brian Lane was sworn in and gave testimony . A builder and developer. Asked Mr. Weinhold if he had explored the possibility of making some of these lots 85 feet wide. Wanted to know if there was a compromise on these lots. Jim Weinhold stated actually he had not looked at that. He thought it wou ld be more consistent to keep them all 80 feet wide. He went on to say maybe there could be a side -load on the corner lot or something like that. Brian Lane offered Mr. Weinhold a formal invitation to talk to the Homeowners Association about reviewing covenants and restrictions and so forth. Covenants for River Ridge are outdated and he would like standards to be set higher. Chairman Sobkoviak reiterated that the PUD requirements are higher than what River Rid g e Subdivision was built to. Kelley Chri sse agreed with Chairman Sobkoviak and stated in terms of the architectural design and requirements , the PUD requirements are higher. Kelley Chrisse stated the corner lot is actually designated as a key lot. Kelley also stated that since it was noted tha t the covenants of River Ri dge are outdated, she asked the Homeowners Association in general what direction the applicant would need to go. Kelley Chrisse stated these conditions are not part of the PUD , they are actually part of the stipulations of the a nnexation agreement ; and therefore , the applicant is required to notify his builders of the requirements listed in the annexation agreement because that is a legally bidding contract. Commissioner Kachel inquired if the proposed Weinhold Subdivision homeo wners did not go with the River Ridge Homeowners Association would there be a way an easement would be granted , and if the River Ridge Homeowners Association wanted to take over the maintenance they could at their expense. Staff cannot require residents t o belong to the Homeowners Association . Commissioner O’Rourke asked Mr. Weinhold if there was a value to join the River Ridge Homeowners Association. Mr. Weinhold said yes. Mr. Weinhold stated if Brian Lane wanted to set up a meeting between himself and the River Ridge Homeowners Association, he wo uld be in favor of it. Mr. Weinhold said he was just trying to add value to the River Ridge neighborhood. 6. Chris Langbein was sworn in and gave testimony: River Ridge resident. He resides at lot directly no rth of the proposed project. His p roperty is 96 feet wide and house barely fits there – no backyard. Concerned that house to be built will fit on the 80 feet wide corner lot. Mike Schwarz reminded the Commission they were voting on the drawing in their p acket. He stated if the Commission wanted to see something other than the drawing , as far as modifications or adjustments, the conditions or stipulations could reflect that the drawing be modified to some other width. Kelley asked the applicant if there was an intent to review the lot widths. Jim Weinhold stated he would rather keep them at 80 feet. He felt he could work with the River Ridge Homeowners Association as far as the aesthetics of the houses to be built. Chairman
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 21 of 23 Sobkoviak asked the other commissioners if there was any support for changing the lot widths. A discussion ensu ed regarding changing the lot widths. 7. Kim Kelly was sworn in and gave testimony: River Ridge resident. Concerned about what is built in the Weinhold Subdivision. C ommissioner McKay shared the concern of the residents and said there needs to be cooperation. The Homeowners Association of River Ridge’s protection through the Village of Plainfield comes through a PUD. The builders will have to follow the conditions an d if they don’t, there is recourse. Chris Langbein who was previously sworn in stated he had received a mailing show ing what the houses will look like . He stated the house on the end will look very strange. He feels that if the developer sells two lot s instead of three , much nicer houses will be built. Commissioner Kachel pointed out that economics do not always work out that way. With a PUD the Homeowners Association would have some control. At 11:35 p.m. Com missioner Murawski made a motion to reco mmend approval of the annexation of the 1.13 acre parcel identified as Parcel 03 -93 -200 -015 -000 as a logical extension of the Village’s municipal boundaries. Seconded by Commissioner Kachel. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi , Murawski, Kachel, Sobkoviak Nay : O’Rourke, McKay The motion is carried 4:2 At 11:37 p.m.Commissioner Renzi made a motion to adopt the findings of fact and recommend approval of the special use for planned unit development for the proposed Weinhold Subdi vision, subject to the following three (3) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer; 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; and 3. Relocation of the landscape berm on Naperville Road to align with the existing berm. Seconded by Commissioner Kachel. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : Murawski, Kachel, Renzi, Sobkoviak Nay : O’Rourke, McKay The motion is carried: 4:2
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 22 of 23 At 11:39 p.m. Commission Kachel made a mot ion to recommend approval of the Weinhold Subdivision Preliminary/Final PUD Plat, subject to the following two stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer; and 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protect ion District Seconded by Commissioner Renzi Aye : Murawski, Kachel, Renzi, Sobkoviak Nay : McKay, O’Rourke The motion is carried: 4:2 DISCUSSION: Commissioner Renzi asked if another look could be taken at the comprehensive plan to create more commercial nodes. He noted that out west there was a lot of green. He felt residents are relying more and more on the comprehensive plan. Michael Schwarz stated there will be a joint meeting between the Plan Commission and the Village Board on February 26, 2007 and the comprehensive plan might be an issue to raise. Normally an annual review is completed of the comprehensive plan to make any adjustments or changes. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that will be one of the topics for discussion – commer cial properties. There will also probably be a discussion of some way to control banks and other non -revenue -generating uses. These uses are going to be presented. Commissioner Renzi also suggested a topic of guidance on annexation. Mike Schwarz asked if Commissioner Renzi was referring to the question of whether or not to annex a property and whether or not it might be a logical extension of the Village. Commissioner Renzi said yes. Mike Schwarz stated the Commission’s advisory recommendation in tha t matter is sort of formalized in the form of a motion. It is simply that the Commission is formalizing whether or not it is a good idea. Sometimes it may not be logical to extend to an area. A discussion ensued about annexation. Commissioner O’Rourke stated it was kind of ironic that the Commission had discussed the intensity of a B -3 versus a B -1 in a recent case . He referred to a use downtown that was mentioned in the local paper. Commissioner Kachel made mention that if a subdivision does not fil e their covenants within the county , the covenants mean nothing. He felt that a PUD gives more control. Commissioner O’Rourke thanked staff on their hard work.
Village of Plainfield Plan Commission Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 23 of 23 Kelley Chrisse announced that she would be leaving the Village. She said it was a great ex perience and she has learned a lot from everyone. She wished Plainfield the best. The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. __________________________________________ R espectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary – Village of Plainfield