Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2006-06-20 PC MinutesVillage of Plainfield Planning Commission Record of Minutes Date: June 20 , 2006 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:45 . Roll Call Present: Commissioners Kachel , Renzi -10:11 , McKay, O’Rourke, Murawski, Sobkoviak , Fire District Absent: Commissioner s, Henry, Park District , School District, L ibrary District, Police Department Minutes The minutes from the June 6, 2006 and June 8, 2006 meetings were accepted as presented. Development Report Mr. Garrigan said that there were four matters brought before the Village Board: - The Special Use for the Villas of Plainfield was approved. - The Final Plat for Chatham Square Unit 2 was approved (6 -0). - The Annexation Agreement and Special Use for Plainfield West were approved. - T he Board directed the Village Attorney to draft an ordinance for the Annexation Agreement and Special Use for Normantown Prairie. Chairman Sobkoviak asked what Mr. Garrigan kn ew about the NIMS training, and Mr. Garrigan said that there was a requirement f or this training and wanted to coordinate the dates and times . Chairman Sobkoviak asked what the training was for, and Mr. Garrigan explained that it was for the emergency reaction to Homeland Security issues . New Business CASE: 1251 -060106.CP GRANDE PARK 4, 5 & 6 Request: Concept Plan Location: 135 th Street and Steward Road Applicant: Hartz Construction, Elaine Pochiro Time: 7:4 8 pm Mr. Garrigan read the Staff report. P LAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 2 Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there were any engineering issues, and Steve Amann s aid that he supported Mr. Garrigan’s request to a stub street to the east as it was important to extend that. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was a stub street into the commercial area, and Mr. Garrigan said that there would be pedestrian access or vehi cular access. Chairman Sobkoviak said that, along the WIKADUKE trail, it was requested that vehicular access be reduced to prevent congested traffic on the major thoroughfares. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the group of petitioners . John M urphy (30 N. LaS alle, Chicago), a tt orney for Hartz Construction , briefly went over the plan. He said that Hartz construction had been in business for over 45 years. They were looking forward to coming into Plainfield , and the t hought process was that having been previou sly approved for active ad ult, Hartz was coming in to modify the product -mix. This substantially reduced the density of the project, and this substituted the single -family condo minium s (or cottage homes). The developer believed that the active adults wer e not usually interested in living in the standard condo minium s but maintaining home ownership in a townh ome or single -family form. Active adults generally wanted to downsize and move to a community like this. Thi s concept had succeeded for the developer , and the element that made this attractive wa s that this would be condo minium units, the various amenities would be maintained by the Associatio n. Because this development wa s an age -restricted community, this would be a positive tax impact (especially on the schools). The developer was excited about bringing a good product into Plainfield and accepted the conditions set forth by Staff (including the pedestrian crossing to the future neighborhood commercial center). The developer had met with the P ark D istrict in terms of the cl ubhouse facility and the possible conveyance of the clubhouse to the Park District . Steve Lenet was available for questions on the land plan, and Brian Tellman was available with the design group. Mr. Lenet said that Staff gav e a thorough report, and he would be happy to answer questions. Commissioner Kachel asked, as far as vehicular access and the bike path in the front , if this could be put in some place else. Mr. Lenet said that there we re a couple of options for providin g the access to this commercial area , either there or through the stub street. The developer preferred the bike/pedestrian access because of the less impervious surface, and everything wa s in relative proximity. He said that auto mobile access was provide d , that wa s what wa s going to be used. He wanted to encourage bicycles and pedestrians to the commercial area. He could make the automobile connection, but it was preferable the way the plan stood . Mr. Lenet said that the stub street to the east was not a problem. Commissioner Kachel said that the bike path crossed a street on the lower portion and asked if there would be any designation on that street. Mr. Lenet said that generally he tried to work with the V il l a g e s to provide signage for motorists as well as change in pavement texture or color. P LAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 3 Commissioner O’Rourke asked if he knew the size of the commercial area, but Mr. Garrigan did not know. Chairman Sobkoviak confirmed with the petitioner that this was 15 acres. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if he considered anything going to t he south for future development, and Mr. Garrigan said that they had not but could look into that further . Commissioner O’Rourke said that it was nice to see a petitioner come in and ask for less. Chairman Sobkoviak said that, on page 4, Staff was looking for a number of modifications to the architecture f or some harmony and diversification . Mr. Lenet said that these elements would be ironed out before bringing back . Chairman Sobkoviak said that in the normal process of P reliminary P lat and F inal P lat, the developers identified the key lots and what plans there were for developing . Mr. Lenet said that he had identified the key lots already and were aware of the design guidelines Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor fo r public comment. There was no response. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there were any further commission comments or discussion. Commissioner O’Rourke confirmed that there was just concern about the stub streets. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the petition er had agreed to the stub street to the east and readily agreed to the pedestrian access to commercial . He would look into the stub street to the west . Commissioner Murawski asked, when the developer ca me back with architecture plans , if there would be p lans. Mr. Lenet said that the condominium units we re a form of ownershi p, so preliminary architecture wa s available . Commissioner Murawski said that the V il l a g e wa s used to condo minium units being se veral stories and common areas we re owned by the Homeow ners A ssociation. T he form of the b uilding would be single -family, but the same ownership concept would be present for these. Chairman Sobkoviak clarified that the home started at the front door . Commissioner Murawski confirmed that the land would be co venanted for age restriction . Chairman Sobkoviak confirmed that the seven stipulations were okay noting that the fourth stip ulation was amended. At 8 :17 pm, Commissioner Kachel moved to make a favorable recommendation to the Village Board of the Concept P lan for Neighborhoods 4, 5 and 6 of the Grande Park development subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 3. Incorporation of a stub street to the east and pedestrian crossing to the future neighborhood commercial center. 4. Incorporation of a bike path along 135 th Street. 5. That the landscape easement incorporate a meandering and undulating landscaped berm along with street trees alon g 135 th Street. P LAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 4 6. That the applicant incorporated brick pavers at the entrance and at important crossing points throughout this development along with decorative street lighting. 7. That the applicant submits the additional architectural and landscape elements that will be incorporated into the key and through lots. Commissioner McKay seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel , McKay, O’Rourke, Murawski, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 5 :0:0. This would go f orward at the next board meeting. Old Business CASE: 1224 -122005.AA/SU GRANDE PARK SOUTH Request: Annexation (Public Hearing) Special Use (Public Hearing) Concept Plan Location: South of Cherry Road, North of Wheeler and West of Ridge Road Appli cant: MPI Partnership Time: 8:18pm Mr. Garrigan read the new Staff report with modifications. He announced that this was a public hearing being held in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations of the Village of Plainfield and the State of I llinois. Michael Martin remained under oath and turned this over to Mike Schoppe . Mr. Schoppe showed the revised land use plan and went through the changes : - The total are a changed from 1,113 to 1,118, and they had under contract a property to the south . - T he unit count changed to 2,403 . He went over the North Overview changes (landscape buffers, 20,000 sq uare f oo t lots along the perimeter. Mr. Martin said that in N eighborhood 1 there we re nine less lots due to the increase in lot sizes . Mr. Schoppe we nt over the changes in Neighborhood 3 including the landscape buffer located along the east and west property lines . Mr. Schoppe went over what the landscape buffer would consist of (a mixture to create a solid screen of vegetation). The lo cation of the buffer might change slightly based on drainage or easement issues. He elaborated on where the buffers were added. Mr. Schoppe went over Neighbor hood 4 in the Central Overview; 3.1 acres were added to the P LAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 5 commercial site because the westerly edge of the c ommercial was expanded to the west. This was modified to attract bigger box commercial, and h e also went over the traffic flow for this. In the corner was a road stub to the south and expected future entrance. Mr. Schoppe went over Neighborhood 8 in the Central Overview and introduced 6,000 sq uare f oo t lots and went over how the houses were oriented. Mr. Schoppe went over Neighborhood 9 in the Central Overview including the introduction of a n eighborhood green , and the “green street” width was increased . Mr. Martin reiterated that there was still a boul evard street by the school. Mr. Schoppe went over Neighborhood 10 in the South Overview including a landscape buffer located along the e ast property line to be planted with native bio -swale plantings (to help create space between new houses an d existing estate houses). Mr. Martin clarified that the homeowner wanted 80 feet, and while the developer was not able to give that , 50 feet was given. Mr. Schoppe went over the lots removed, including the single -family lots along the lot line as requested by the homeowner. There was also a commitment that the homes adjacent to neighbors would be all brick, all cedar, or a combination of the two (no vinyl on either of these) per the homeowner’s request . Mr. Schop pe said that there was also an addition of a half acre park site (for the P ark D istrict ), and the green street connected to this . Mr. Martin confirmed that 40 units were removed. Mr. Schoppe went over Neighborhood 12 in the South Overview where condomini ums we re introduced to the development, and 8.1 acres of additional land for school was given (as per the request of the S chool D istrict ). He showed some examples of the standards for condominiums proposed . There was a 4 or 5 story building with first fl oor park ing; he said that right now this was just a concept. The developer felt that this was appropriate as there were no basements and the proximity of Route 126. Mr. Martin went over the q uantity of townhomes and condos, and there was a 25% ratio o f m ulti -family to single -family homes. Commission Kachel asked about increased commercial since the back -loaded lots provided a buffer between this anyway. He asked if this would hinder the sale of those homes, and Mr. Martin said that this was going to be decided by the commercial that goes in. He said that lots would probably end up being eliminated. This was a commercial pod, so he noted that the homeowners should know. Commissioner Kachel said that if he left the green space, the commercial could be i ncreased. A discussion ensued regarding the layout of this. Commissioner McKay wanted to know how much green space there was to t he ea st of Neighborhood 12, and Mr. Martin said that the land to the south had wetland and was unb uildable – plus the schools would be there. He asked about the land to the east, and Mr. Schop p e said that there was 800 feet between the nearest condo minium to the east property line . Commissioner Kachel asked if this would be brick and cedar the majority around the building, but Mr. Schoppe said that this was for Neighborhood 10. Wendy Yaksich said that this would be 100% on the front and 75% on the side elevations . P LAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 6 Commissioner McKay said that it was nice to see some negotiation trying to accommodate the difficulties . Chairma n Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public comment. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in E rene Verba who did not u nderstand the number of lots because the total went down but condominiums and townhomes were added . She said that the u nits actually went up . Mr. Sc hoppe said that the total in Neighborhood 12 did go up; however , the totals in other neighborhoods went down . He said that with the total reductions and calibrating with the additions to Neighborhood 12 , overall there was a reduction of 59 dwelling units. A discussion ensued regarding this. Ms. Verba also said that she ran a business , and if Johnson Road closed , it would hurt her business. People would have to go through a subdivision to get there, and Plainfield Road was brought closer to her. She als o said that truck traffic on Route 126 would be closer to her, and she did not purchase close to Route 126. She would not be able to get out of the area and was worried that people would not make deliveries to her . She was a lso worried about the value of her property and making a turn onto Route 126 with a horse trailer. Gary Davidson , who remained under oath, apologized that he had not had an opportunity to review the plan with his clients, s o some questions he would not ask. He a sked about the new pla n for Neighborhoods 1 and 2 and was curious about the language in the “on lot landscape buffer”. Mr. Schoppe said that those lots would have the 50 -foot buffer and would be appl ied to the rear 50 feet of the lots. Mr. Davidson asked w hat lots were increa sed , and Mr. Schoppe showed which lots these were. Mr. Davidson confirmed that , when a title commitment was received , the net square footage for the easement on the property would be 20,000 sq uare f ee t . A d iscussion ensued regarding whether the landscape easement was usable . Mr. Davidson asked if, under the old plan, there was a landscape buffer/easem ent. Mr. Schoppe said that there was an easement , and it would have been on -lot; the new plan just increased it. Mr. Davidson said that Staff had been wor king with the d e v e l o p e r on this revised plan and asked at what point he commence d work on the revised plan. Mr. Schoppe said that he had worked on this for probably a month and confirmed that he had not met with Mr. Davidson, Mr. Buck, or the neighbors an d adjacent owners. Mr. Davidson asked if he had discussed any of the concerns , wishes , or desires; Mr. Schoppe said that he had d iscussed this with the neighbors. Mr. Davidson asked if any of the neighbors were repres ented by lawyers, but Mr. Schoppe did not know. Mr. Davidson confirmed that neither Mr. Schoppe n or any other agent of Schoppe had indicate d that this plan would be forthcoming. Mr. Davidson also confirmed that this plan was submitted to the V il l a g e on June 8 . Mr. Davidson asked if there w as an offer by Schoppe to meet with the clients, and Mr. Schoppe said that he had met with residents but did not know who th e clients were. Mr. Davidson confirmed that Mr. Schoppe d id not have any hand in p reparing the Staff report. Mr. Davidson asked wh en the Staff report was completed, and Mr. Garrigan said that the revised Staff report was done that day but started on Thursda y and faxed to Mr. Davidson. Mr. Davidson said that the new plan wa s at the P lan C ommission, and the report stated that the deve loper had been working with the V il l a g e for three years but exten sively for the past P LAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 7 year. Mr. Davidson confer red with his clients to see if they had further questions . He was interested in knowin g whom of the neighbors that Mr. Schoppe had met with. Mr . Schoppe said that he had met with Mr. Hugu nin adjacent to Neighborhood 1 and also recognized some of the faces from the meeting. Mr. Davidson t hanked the commission for the time to speak. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there were other public questions fo r Mr. Schoppe. Commissioner McKay asked what the protocol was for public notification for revised changes. Mr. Garrigan said that the public hearing process continued, but there were no minimum notice requirements. Lucianne Barone addressed the commissi on and just wanted to clarify that there had not been any changes to Neighborhoods 5 or 6. She also confirmed that there was no planned buffer on Neighborhood 5. She had concerns about the pond on Johnson Road and wanted to know why a buffer was not cons idered there. Mr. Schoppe said that the south side of Johnson Road was not considered because open space buffers were on the west side. He expected buffering on the lots because the lots were backing up to Johnson Road. Ms. Barone confirmed that this wo uld be 15 feet wide, and with the gradual incline, she wanted to know why any berm would only be four or five feet. Mr. Schoppe said that the residents were separated from the development by a road. Ms. Barone asked who was going to maintain Johnson Road , and Mr. Amann said that the Village would take jurisdiction . Ms. Barone asked if this would be plowed in the winter and the grass cut in the ditches like Oswego . Mr. Amann was not sure about the grass cutting, but there would definitely be snow plowing . Commissioner McKay wanted to make a connection between the homeowner and the engineer that there would not be a safety hazard in bad conditions . Mr. Martin said that a requirement could be added for the Final Plat. Chairman Sobkoviak said that a lot o f the things would be decided on Preliminary Plat; right now , the biggest concerns we re density, road placement, and securing agreements for location of schools and buffers . Ms. Barone understood that there would be fewer dwellings but did not see the num ber of cars being reduced. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Biff George who said that the Staff mentioned earlier that there were extensive talks on a revised plan. He asked if the developer h ad been in contact with land owners in the past month, and Mr. Scho ppe said that he personally had not . A discussion ensued regarding contact with the owners, and Mr. George said he had a copy of the letter that cut off all ties between the developers . A further d iscussion ensued regarding contact being through the lawy ers . Mr. George read a prepared statement regarding the needs and concerns of the neighbors.1 Mr. Martin left it up to the P lanning C ommission to decide if the questions and concerns were the things that had attempted to be address ed . He noted that with the number of homeowners t here, there was no way that there could be tot al agreement. He said that the 1 On record from court reporter notes. P LAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 8 developer had tried to rise to the hurdles that we re being presented. Mr. Davidson wanted to respond to Mr. Martin appropriately regarding the moving target concept; however, he did not want t he chairman to allow the pe titioner to interject narrative without narrative from the other lawyers as well. At a previous P lanning and Zoning C ommission meeting, the petitioner had s tated that a reduction in any lots would be at a break even point. He asked if this analysis was inaccurate or i ntent ionally misleading the board. Mr. Martin said that the petitioner had needed 2 ,400 units from the beginning. Mr. Davidson asked what t he profit margin was for this, a nd Mr. Martin said that he did not know. However, Mr. Martin said that, from the m ee t ings with the V il l a g e, the Route 126 dedication was several million dollars. Mr. Davidson asked if he was unaware of the profit margin, how he could make the affirmative statement about the units needed . Mr. Martin said that, to make the contributions, that was what the client had figured was need ed . W ith respect to Route 126, Mr. Davidson asked what assurances had been made that Route 126 would be authorized by IDOT. Mr. Martin said that it had to be or it would no t take truck traffic. Mr. Davidson asked about an indicate d pre -arranged agreement with Representative Cross that this would be approved. Mr. Martin said that the V il l a g e and the client had met , as had Repr esentative Cross, and it was his understanding that this wa s part of the overall plan to reroute the road to 143 rd Street and then to I nterstate 55. This was planned before the Grande Park South plan was proposed, and Mr. Martin noted that the original pl an was to have two crossings over the Aux Sable Creek. Mr. Davidson asked if he was a ware of any funding in the I DOT or State budget for this. Mr. Martin said that he did not know what the budget was for this and that the funding was moved around based o n current politics . Mr. Davidson asked Mr. Martin, as a seasoned lawyer, if he was familiar with the inter -governmental agreements that were needed. Mr. Martin did not know what inter -g overnmental agreements were required . Mr. Davidson said that the app licant had proposed re -routing the street to “lure” Plainfield into creating a high -density development . Mr. Martin said that he did not believe that this was a high -density dev elopment; he just felt that his client was trying to meet the V il l a g e ’s plan . In reference to the condo minium and school area , Mr. Davidson asked if the applicant was placing these condo minium units on a piece of pr operty that was primarily flood plain with open space to the south. Mr. Schoppe showed the land to the south and t h e flood plain area on the map . Mr. Davidson asked if this was unbuildable without additional engineering , and Mr. Schoppe confirmed that without additiona l eng ineering, it was. Mr. Davidson said that the developer wa s receiving a great number of bonuses for open space which was unbuildable. Mr. Schoppe did not know how the bonuses worked , but Ms. Yaksich said that the bonus was 97 units , not including the floodway . She noted that the applicant was enhancing the flood plains . Mr. Davidson said that the detention ponds and some flood plain area s were being utilized in establishing 97 units , and Ms. Yaksich said that the applicant had 467 acres of open space (including flood plains, stormwater, and park sites ). Mr. Davidson said that later testimony would be provided on this. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the V il l a g e had a very strict formula for cal culating open space and density. I t was strict and was arriv ed at after considerable debate; he said that the developer was following this formula. P LAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 9 At 9:29pm , the commission took a 15 minute break. The meeting reconvened at 9:44pm. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Jim Konowalik who had the 14 -acre parcel on Cherry Road. H e wanted to clarify the group’s “bar” that was being set. From the initial meeting, the gro up had met and decided what the minimum concession would be. Th e current homeowners lived in an equestrian community, so the minimum acceptable acreage was one acre for Neighborhoods 1 and 2 . He thought that this was generous and was stated from the begi nning. Commissioner McKay said that, in the spirit of negotiations, perhaps a mee ting could be made and a list refined for the various desires . She asked if there could be a meeting between attorneys, and Mr. Martin said that he had no problem with this. Regarding the 50 -foot landscape buffers Commissioner McKay said that since this was a conservation design, by putting this on a private homeowner’s lot, will the homeowner be personal ly responsible for this, or would it be maintained by the H omeowners As sociation . Mr. Martin said that Neighborhoods 1 and 2 would be the responsibility of the homeowner, and Neighborhoods 3 and 10 would be the responsibility of the association. Commissioner McKay asked why there wa s that deviation , and Mr. Schoppe said tha t s ince it wa s an easement, it could be maintained by either entity . Commissioner McKay wanted this to be definite, and Mr. Martin wanted to a dd this to the SSA. Chai rman Sobkoviak swore in Jim Hugu nin who reviewed the P lan C ommission/Staff report and sa id that he had been working with people who had questions. He did not believe that the A nnexation A greement at this point wa s appropriate since it wa s not contiguous to the Village . He read from the Staff report dated February 8 and referenced the change d report dated June 18; he thanked the developer and Staff for the revisions but asked for open communication. He also wanted to raise the concern about the commissioners being absent and Board members not being present . Mr. Hugu nin asked about the propo sed A nnexation A greement and said that w hen Grande Park North was brought in , it was disputed. Now, a higher scale d e v e l o pm e nt was coming in, and the V il l a g e knew that there were a lot of objection s . He could not find anything in the V il l a g e ’s documents determining what exactly a pre -annexation agreement was. He read part of the Staff report and said that the residential development occurring was not consistent, since to the west was residential estate lots . He did not see th e logic in this as the devel oper seemed to be trying t o fit to make this work. He said that i t did not seem to be a logical extension of the boundaries at this time. When develop ing or annex ing , he felt that this should be contiguous. He did not think that there was as much of a m arket for this as being promoted. R egarding the S pecial U se, Mr. Hugunin said that the developer could not get the l ot sizes the way the R1 zoning wa s set up , so the S pecial U se needed to be legitimate. H e went through the Staff report and asked why the Village would vary from a n R1 residential development . He read more of the standards r eferenced in the Staff report and P LAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 10 said that the developer had to be in compliance with the S pecial U se and P lanned U nit D evelopment ordinance . H e read the findings of f act that needed to be f ound for acceptance of this and went over the hardships presented as part of this (including traffic and water). He said that the Comp rehensive Plan referenced inter -governmental entities, and this was not happening. He also spoke about water problems and well problems – including how a high -density development would affect this. In 2001, he r ead a section of minutes about annexing services and development practices. Further regarding Special Use, Mr. Hugunin read more from the St aff report regarding the Special Use. He said that the proposed trend of development in parts of northeast Kendall County was not consistent with this. C urrently, this was how it was being developed, and he noted that this was not in the V il l a g e yet. He said that t he only representation from Kendall County wa s someone who used to work for the Village. He read further from the Staff report about access to 135 th Street and talked a bout rural development in the area . He did not understand why the homeowne rs had to spend money to fight this. He read more from the Staff report and disagreed with the points made regarding the findings of fact; he felt that it had too much of an impact on taxes and other amenities. At 10:11 pm, Commissioner Renzi arrived. Mr. Hugunin said that the homeowners were there because they did not agree with the findings of fact. He read a section of t he Kendall County R esource Plan regarding values of the property (not necessarily regarding money). He felt that t he third finding of fact was based on this. Mr. Hugunin felt that the V il l a g e was changing the general character of the neighborhood while the homeowners had earned the right to live in the lifestyle they live in now . He said that the Staff report stated that various mu nicipalities were taking over the rural areas in that region, and that was incorrect. He said that t he pla ns were created by people who did not live in that area, and he felt that the plans were being forced upon the homeowners. He thought that the value s of the surrounding ar eas would not be maintained and felt that the Village was crossing over into an area that they d id not have a right to. He again mentioned property value as not just about mon ey. He said that the county had it designated different l y, and the same consultant had recommended different densities to the county versus for the Village . He said that surrounding villages had this land use in larger acreage and were going to make proper planning decisions. He said that special meetings wer e proposed that never happened, and h e also suggested work with inter -governmental entities. Mr. Hugunin read from the Staff report regarding the third finding of fact and said that he did not agree with this. He said that a ll three conditions for the S pecial U se were not met, and he invited the developer to show him differently. Mr. Hugunin said that the Staff submitted that the applicant’s proposed d e v e l o pm ent would promote orderly d e v e l o pm e nt , but he disagreed. He said that t his ran a highway throu gh a subdivision, so he did not feel that this was normal or orderly. He further read P LAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 11 from the Staff report and said that no considerations were given to surrounding neighborhoods, so he did not know what extra was given that was not for the development’s use. He said that t he PUD for the 1 ,100 acres was to provide variances and that there were ordinances that did not allow this. He referenced setback variances and said that t he d e v e l o p e r was asking the Village to go against the standards set. He said t hat the PUD accommodated the fulfillment of the developer’s objectives, and the V il l a g e was not properly plannin g and cooperating to meet the standards . He read the objectives of the PUD and said that some of the developer’s witnesses (like Randall Arndt) were not appropriate. He said that t he supporters supported the land use but not necessarily this development. Mr. Hugunin referenced the zoning requested and what was there now. He said that the homeowners could live with the scale, and he elaborated on the range of houses. He noted that the value of having a rural area was important, and he felt that impeding on this area was not necessary. Regarding more efficient use of land, Mr. Hugunin did not feel that the highway was. He referenced open spa ce and said that he appreciated the preservation of the Aux Sable, but the natural drainage areas that were there now needed to be protected. He referenced the effects of Grande Park North on the creek. Regarding preserving natural features, he read the Staff report on this, especially regarding water flow. Regarding the Traditional Neighborhood development, Mr. Hugunin said that this was introduced to be used for the downtown. However, he noted that it could be used for new development as well, and he elaborated on this. He said that the open space was deceiving as well, and he further read from the report regarding conservation design. He said that the ordinances state that the flood plains needed to be protected, and he also referenced Randall Arndt ’s book. Mr. Hugunin referenced the Best Management Practice’s in the Staff report, and he reiterated that he wanted the developer to leave the area alone. He said that the creek should be left alone, and the stormwater was draining into the area. Regar ding the TN design, he did not think that this should be allowed to be covered in the R1 zoning district and should be used for the downtown only. A heated discussion ensued regarding this. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the law stated that the commission did not have to hear redundant information and noted that Mr. Hugunin had had ample opportunity to speak. He believed that this would be it for the night, and Mr. Hugunin said that he thought that he was supposed to give a presentation during the public h earing. There was further discussion regarding what was involved in the public hearing. Chairman Sobkoviak asked what further evidence Mr. Martin had to present, and Mr. Martin confirmed that he had nothing further. Chairman Sobkoviak asked about a set period of time to review evidence and said that he had told two lawyers that represent groups of individuals that there could be summations of their arguments, probably at the P LAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 12 next meeting. Mr. Davidson said that he had witnesses and evidence to give, but he had not yet had an opportunity to call witnesses. He had approximately five witnesses, including a landscape architect and attorney, and Chairman Sobkoviak asked that he be prepared to deliver the summation, just in case . Chairman Sobkoviak ask ed com missioners to think about how much time was needed to deliberate . Mr. Garrigan noted that Mr. Bu ck had no additional witnesses but just had his closing arguments. He said that Mr. Davidson’s review was correct on this. At 10:58pm, Commissioner Kachel mo ved to continue the case for further discussion and consideration for the Plan Commission meeting of July 18, 2006. Commissioner O’Rourke seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Henry, Renzi, McKay, O’Rourke, Murawsk i, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0:0. Commissioner Renzi asked how long the witnesses might take, and Mr. Davidson said that he could be d one in one meeting (maybe less). Commissioner Renzi was sure that everyone had different issues and th ought that if the commission had ful l testimony and summaries, he was not sure if the commission was looking at two meetings including other agendas. He suggested hold ing off on arguments until the commission could deliberate as there might be a consensus on the P lanning C ommission . Chairman Sobkoviak thought it would be better to know all of the objections , and Commissioner Renzi said that he was trying to avoid redundancy . Mr. Martin noted that Michael Garrigan was supposed to receive issues that the c ommission want ed the developer to address . Chairman Sobkoviak agreed and asked that all issue be sent to Mr. Garrigan . Commissioner McKay said that there wa s noth ing more disconcerting than questioning the democratic process. She said that a lot of time and money wa s spent on this, and there should be some consideration for that. At 11:04pm, Commissioner O’Rourke made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner McKay. Motion carried unanimously. __________________ Respectfully submitted, Laura Griffith -Recording Secretary Karick & Associates, Inc.