Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2006-07-18 PC MinutesVillage of Plainfield Planning Commission Record of Minutes Date: July 18, 2006 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at approximately 7:04. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Kachel, Renzi (arrived at 8:53pm), McKay, O ’Rourke, Sobkoviak, Library District , Fire District Absent: Commissioner Henry, Murawski, Park District, School District, Police Department Minutes The minutes from the June 20, 2006 meeting were accepted as presented. Development Report Michael Garri gan read the Development Report: - The Sixteenth Elementary School and Seventh Middle School were approved. - Plainfield West Annexation Agreement and PUD were approved. - Normantown Prairie Annexation Agreement was approved. - The Village Attorney was directed to proceed with drafting an ordinance for the Dillman Subdivision. - The Walgreen’s Sign variance was denied. - Grande Park Neighborhoods 4, 5, and 6 were approved. Mr. Garrigan said that the Village Attorney was directed to draft an Annexation Agreement for th e Avery Knights of Columbus. Chairman Sobkoviak said that three cases on the agenda would be continued. New Business CASE: 1252 -060506.AA/RZ/SU/PP/SPR SOHOL COMMERCIAL CENTER Request: Annexation/Rezoning (Public Hearing) (CONTINUED TO JULY 20 TH ) Speci al Use (Public Hearing) Preliminary PUD and Plat of Subdivision Site Plan Review Location: East side of IL Route 59, 300 feet north of 127 th Street Applicant: Robert Sohol – Attorney Dean Kleronomos PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 2 Time: 7:08pm At 7:08pm, Commissioner Kachel moved to open and continue the public hearing for Sohol Commercial Center (Case #1252 -060506.AA.RZ.SU.PP.SPR) to July 20, 2006. Commissioner O’Rourke seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, McKay, O’Rourke, Sobkov iak Nay: None The motion is carried 4:0:0. Old Business CASE: 1243 -051406.AA/PP/SU/RZ/SPR GRANDE VIEW PLACE Request: Annexation/Rezoning (Public Hearing) (CONTINUED TO JULY 20 TH ) Special Use (Public Hearing) Preliminary PUD and Plat of Subdivision Site Plan Review Location: 825 Simons Road, Oswego Applicant: Alexander Homes – David Rasmussen Time: 7:09pm At 7:09pm, Commissioner McKay moved to continue the public hearing for Grande View Place (Case #1243 -041406.AA.RZ.SU.PP.SPR) to July 20, 2006. Commissioner O’Rourke seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, McKay, O’Rourke, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 4:0:0. CASE: 1250 -052206.SPR SEVENTH MIDDLE SCHOOL & Request: Rezoning (Public Heari ng) FUTURE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Location: West of Essington Road, south of (AND FUTURE EAST HIGH SCHOOL) 119 th Street, and east of Naperville Road (DISTRICT #202) Applicant: John Harper, Plainfield CCSD 202 (CONTINUED TO JULY 20 TH ) Time: 7:19pm At 7:10pm, Commissioner McKay moved to open and continue the public hearing for the Seventh Middle School and Future Elementary School and Future East High School to July 20, 2006. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 3 Commissioner O’Rourke seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: McKay, O’Rourke, Kachel, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 4:0:0. CASE: 1124 -122005.AA/SU GRANDE PARK SOUTH Request: Annexation (Public Hearing) Special Use (Public Hearing) Concept Plan Location: South of Cherry Road, nort h of Wheeler, And west of Ridge Road Applicant: MPI Partnership Time: 7:12pm Michael Garrigan said that this was a continuation of a public hearing being held in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations of the Village of Plainfield and the State of Illinois. Mr. Garrigan said that Staff had conferred with the various attorneys , and Mr. Buck had requested an opportunity to speak. Mr. Argoudelis was also requested to proceed with testimony, and Mr. Davidson and his clients from Oswego Plains were present to speak. Carl Buck (a lready sworn in) addressed the C ommission and said that he had had a chance to meet with the developer and Mr. Martin, and different agreements were proposed. Chiefly, he said that a 50 -foot buffer was proposed. The d eveloper agreed to work with the clients to put in a wood fence, and anything above that would be covered in the difference. Mr. Martin explained that this would be covered by the Grande Park South Homeowners Association. Mr. Buck said that the density i n Neighborhood 10 was reduced, and the V illas were also reduced. The one component was moving a historic house on the south end as an entry feature. Mr. Martin elaborated on this agreement on the map and said that he had also agreed on the brick and ceda r components on the adjacent homes. Chairman Sobkoviak commended Mr. Buck and Mr. Martin on the efforts to compromise and asked that this be incorporated into the Preliminary Plat. Mr. Martin said that he would sign a letter of agreement. Commissioner O ’Rourke asked what the proposed use of the house would be. Mr. Martin said that his group was asked to preserve it, and he did not think it would be anything else other than a single -family home. He said that the options would be considered. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 4 Mr. Garriga n turned it over to Mr. Argoudelis to present his testimony and concerns. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in John Argoudelis, who was representing Robert Sohol on Johnson Road. He had three concerns. The first concern was that the road that curved to the north west and connected to Johnson Road would cause a lot of traffic traveling west to Oswego. Many residents west of that point were concerned about increased traffic. He presented a proposal for Johnson Road that he felt would benefit all parties. It would give all residents of Johnson Road egress to Route 126 and eliminate connection from Route 126 to the northwest through Johnson Road. He said that it would not make Johnson Road a direct through -street. The new drawing was just completed recently and ha d not been passed on yet. He said that a lot of neighboring residents were estate lots and were trying to buffer the new development. He talked to most of the neighbors, and all of the neighbors to the west were in support of the new Johnson Road proposa l, and most of the neighbors to the north supported this. He noted that some of the residents were present. He felt that this could be worked out with the developer and wanted the developer and Staff to consider this proposal. Chairman Sobkoviak swore i n Robert Gary who asked if Johnson Road was proposed to be closed off. Mr. Argoudelis said that it would just connect to Route 126 at a different point. Mr. Gary asked if Johnson Road was a county road, and Chairman Sobkoviak said that if it was annexed into the Village, it would be a v illage r oad. It was clarified that this would not be closed; it was connecting through the neighborhood. Mr. Gary’s concern was connecting Plainfield and Johnson Roads, and a discussion ensued regarding clarification on t he developer’s proposal versus the proposal the neighbors’ wanted. Mr. Martin clarified that it was maintained that Johnson Road was not desired to be connected to Route 126. Mr. Gallt said that the intent of the Illinois 126 re -route was the basis of th e traffic rerouting to connect to 143 rd Street. Johnson Road was brought up early in planning, and it was discussed with Kendall County. Mr. Gary said that John Church had proposed something different in an open letter, and he was against shutting down J ohnson Road. Mr. Gallt wanted to minimize the impact from this subdivision on current residents, and a discussion ensued regarding stopping Johnson Road. Mr. Gary asked who he would go to in order to get this changed. Mr. Gallt said that this was the or iginal plan, but Staff could sit down with him to get some ideas and go over the transportation plan. Chairman Sobkoviak said that this area of the development was going to remain an open issue for a short while as there were a couple of proposals. Chair man Sobkoviak swore in Dan Hickey, a property owner on Johnson Road, who wanted it to be known that he was not in support of the plan as it was proposed by Mr. Argoudelis. He said that this was inconvenient for him and would create more traffic. Chairman Sobkoviak said that Staff, the traffic engineer, and Mr. Argoudelis would review this. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 5 Regarding the disconnection, Mr. Argoudelis said that somebody traveling from Plainfield would have to go south, north, and then west. Several residents would prefer a dead end, but he said that most wanted this to be connected to Plainfield Road. He did not think that it was a large negative impact to the development. Mr. Argoudelis said that the second concern was unanimous support on creating a 50 -foot buffer to t he estate lots. He said that this included the road, and he did not believe a road was a buffer. He thought the buffer should be created like the other estate lots. The third concern was regarding the lot sizes in Neighborhood 3; it was a great concern that 6,000 square foot lots were so close and adjacent to estate lots. The fourth concern was that the brick and cedar requirements on the lots should also be required. He felt that his clients deserved the same considerations as some of the other lots. Chairman Sobkoviak requested Staff and the traffic planner to evaluate the proposal and put this in the final Staff report. He said that when the Plan Commission sat down to evaluate all of the evidence and reach a conclusion, each neighborhood would be considered individually. Mr. Argoudelis had faith that the issues could be worked out. Commissioner O’Rourke asked, if Johnson Road was developed to the west, where it would get to. Mr. Argoudelis said that he was just addressing his clients’ first conc erns. He thought that it should be planned for, but the consideration of the current residents needed to be addressed now rather than figure out what might happen in the future. Commissioner Kachel asked what the Oswego or Kendall County plans were for J ohnson Road. Mr. Gallt said that the Comprehensive Plan did not include direct connection between Schlapp and Plainfield Roads. Without a re -route of 126, he said that this would be a mild collector. However, the re -route would minimize what Johnson Roa d could have been. He said that the concern with the growth to the west was a good concern. Commissioner O’Rourke said that he heard some conflicting comments. Mr. Argoudelis said that he had spoken with Mr. Hickey who was not in support of the Johnson Road change. However, he was in support of the other points. Mr. Argoudelis also said that he had met with Mr. Gallt regarding Johnson Road, and three or four connections were proposed. However, this was not the current proposal, and he wanted some of t hese alternatives to be considered. Mr. Martin asked if Johnson Road was proposed to be a 60 -foot wide right -of -way, and Mr. Gallt believed this was 80 feet. Mr. Martin said that the setback of the detention pond and lots were 85 feet. Also, he noted th at the lots that bordered Johnson were 8,000 square foot lots. Mr. Martin asked how many properties were to the west where Johnson Road tied in. Mr. Argoudelis said that there were four homeowners to the west that went from the connection to Schlapp, and two homeowners were in support from the east. He said that there were several points in the neighborhood that could be explored for an alternative connection. Mr. Martin said that right now in the mile stretch, the only two roads that crossed the Aux Sa ble Creek were Johnson Road and Route 126; any other connections would require another road crossing. He asked if he could have copies of the plan. Mr. Argoudelis agreed to supply him with this and said that it was discussed generally. He would email th is to the developer. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 6 Pursuant to discussions, Mr. Garrigan turned this over to Mr. Davidson who would outline his and his clients’ representations. Gary Davidson, who remained under oath, indicated that the Village’s time frame should not be the develo per’s time frame, and this evening he was concerned. He said that his clients had been coming to the meetings since February, and over the course of five months, the commission and public have had an opportunity to listen Mr. Martin’s witnesses. His clie nts had a number of PowerPoint presentations that had been prepared, but three of the commissioners were not present. That concerned his clients, and he believed that all of the commissioners needed to hear what was to be said. He felt that the evening’s meeting was the most critical meeting, and in that the purpose of the public hearing was to provide public comment. Based on the fact that only four commissioners were present, he wanted all of the commissioners to be able to deliberate intelligently and with full participation. He felt it was incumbent upon the commission to request a special meeting to have more of the board present. He felt that all of the commissioners should discuss this in order to come to an informed decision and asked that this be postponed. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the developer had not pressured or requested any kind of timing of the public hearings or when a proposed recommendation would be available. The Plan Commission set its own rules except where state statutes go verned, and the commission currently constituted a quorum where business could legally be conducted. Mr. Davidson said that he was not seeking a lengthy delay, but he just wanted more than a simple majority to present to. Chairman Sobkoviak reiterated th at there was a legal quorum, and if he was available to present evidence, he was welcome to. He noted that this would probably be the last night to present evidence, and a discussion ensued regarding public comment. Upon having no member of the commissio n make the motion, Mr. Davidson wanted his objection noted. Commissioner McKay said that there were two ex -officio members appointed, and she was concerned about the missing members. Mr. Martin did not appreciate the comment regarding the timing being th e developer’s as this was the longest hearing he had participated in. There was some discussion and elaboration regarding cross -examination of the witnesses, and he pointed out that Mr. Davidson’s clients had talked. He noted that it would be nice for th e commissioners to all be present, but at some point, there was fairness to the Village and the applicant. He said that the applicant had a right to go forward. He said that there were tapes and minutes to record this, but it was ultimately the Village’s call. Commissioner Kachel noted that everything was on television, and the tapes were available for review. Mr. Davidson did not feel that the developer would be impacted if this was delayed for a few days to have more members as live testimony was bett er than recorded. Commissioner McKay said that this was the first time that a case this size was heard. She had concerns when the public felt that the process was not fair. She wanted to see this come to fruition with more of a majority. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 7 Commissioner O’Rourke’s only concern was that if there was a special meeting, the Village could not force anyone to attend, so there could always be conflicts. Mr. Davidson said that his purpose was not to delay the process; he just wanted the commissioners to be pro vided with a full scope. He asked that this be handled by Staff to contact the commission and provide a date within the next week when there might be more availability. At this time, he said that his clients would be there to present this. He just wante d all or a good portion of the Board to be present. Commissioner McKay asked if there was precedent to this being done before, and Mr. Garrigan did not recall a case of this. Commissioner McKay asked if the commission could keep the public hearing open. Mr. Martin noted that if this was not continued to a date certain, it needed to be re -published. He said that the commission could possibly continue this to Thursday for a poll of who could attend. Chairman Sobkoviak noted that there was no guarantee an y night as to the number of people who would be available. He said that there were nights where there was not a quorum. Jim Harvey, the Village Attorney, said that there was another community his firm represented that had 40 hours of tapes and transcript s to be viewed, and that had been done in the past as there was no control over who attended the meetings. Commissioner McKay asked the Staff to make sure that tapes were delivered to the commissioners who were absent. Mr. Davidson said that this could b e a back -up plan, but the commission had a unique opportunity to continue the case to a point where most, if not all, of the commissioners could be present. Commissioner McKay referred to the Edward Hospital situation and said that there were members of t hat committee who were absent during the hearing. Mr. Davidson said that he had a variety of homeowners with a variety of education backgrounds who would be presenting. He introduced Sonya Vosecek who would speak about issues in respect to the impact on the School District. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Ms. Vosecek who spoke as a parent of three children who attended the school district that this would impact. She enjoyed the education her children received because there were some talented and conscient ious teachers on Staff. She felt that the lifestyle was being taken away from them and the school. The information she accessed was that in five years, District 308 grew by over 60 percent – causing children to change schools three or four times and crea te more taxes. With these changes, the schools had art and music on a cart because there was not enough room for a class. The classes had close to or over 30 students per teacher, and class size was an important factor to education. She went over the Os wego Report Card and compared this to state figures. She said that the district spent 37.4% on instruction and 42% on construction, and she went over the monetary figures. At 8:23pm, Commissioner Renzi arrived. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 8 Ms. Vosecek said that excessive growth w as disruptive, and the School District stated that the expected growth rate was 144%. The law mandates that the school district educate all of the students in the district, and she felt that the residents would be paying for the solution of keeping up wit h the developer’s who were overcrowding the communities. She did not mind paying more taxes if it was going to help educate her children, but she asked that the commission do what it could. Mr. Martin confirmed she was a homeowner is this area, and was a ppearing as a homeowner and not a spokesperson for the School District. Commissioner Renzi apologized for being absent and noted that, for health reasons, he was not supposed to be present. He said that he would sit through the tapes and took his civic d uty seriously. Mr. Davidson said that his clients were concerned about members of the Board being absent, and he wanted people to have the opportunity to hear this. Mr. Davidson introduced William Page (a local attorney and member of the Kendall County Board) to discuss development and the WIKADUKE Trail. William Page, who remained under oath, addressed the two issues. Regarding the school, he conferred with District 308. He said that the present schools were so overcrowded that a massive constructio n program was being embarked upon. There were two high schools, and the district would be building a third one (Oswego East at 65 million dollars). He noted that the next one would probably cost about 100 million dollars. There were four Junior Highs, a nd four more would be built at 30 million dollars each – one of these was a replacement school. Presently, the district had 12 elementary schools – the plan was for an additional 8 schools. The Junior High Schools housed 1,125 students, and each elementa ry school would have 750 students. The total enrollment in the district was 13,000 students, and in seven years, the district expected it to be 30,000. He was proud of the schools, and he was concerned that the quality of education would be diluted. He recalled that the developer’s witness said that there would be one elementary school to serve this community specifically. He felt that this would be a short fall that the remaining tax payers had to pay for this school. He had a problem with it coming i n with its current configuration and with the current donations. Regarding the roads, Mr. Page noted that when referring to the WIKADUKE, there would never be a road sign that called this the WIKADUKE trail. This was simply a concept for routes, and ther e was no money put toward making this road. He said that Stewart Road was supposed to be a six -lane road, and getting in and out of this would be difficult. He referred to the road closings and the detours and said that those that live out there had prob lems with this already. He expressed his frustration with what was going on and that those living just west of the Village would be more inconvenienced than those living in Plainfield currently. He suggested having adequate public facilities in place bef ore more traffic and development was put in. Mr. Page said that a lot of the developer’s plans were contingent on the re -routing of Route 126, and he was not given any reassurance that this would happen. If the state PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 9 gave funds, there were no plans com pleted to provide for the major road to be 143 rd Street. He also mentioned Ridge Road and felt that the plan should be carefully reviewed and asked that the infrastructure be present before building permits. Mr. Davidson said that he had previously indic ated that he was on the Kendall County Board for a period of six years and asked what, based on his experience, in Neighborhoods 1 and 2 would blend better with lots in the county district. Mr. Page said that the main thrust was to have the development go from the municipalities outward and to have this phased in appropriately. Out where he was, he had 2.5 acres, and his son had 7 acres. He did not expect the development to approach that, but he did not think it was appropriate to have those large estate s directly adjacent to small lots. The lots in this area had been increased but were not consistent with the adjoining properties. Mr. Davidson confirmed that Mr. Page would suggest a “feathering” approach – very large lots feathering down to smaller one s so as to not go against the health, safety, or general welfare. Mr. Davidson asked if this would address his concerns, but Mr. Page said no – that when he had subdivisions come through, there was a larger minimum base lot size. To the south, there was going to be some difficulties developing, and there was a minimum of 10 acre -lots. He did not want to insist on that but felt two and three acre lots were appropriate. He noted that he had also discouraged “spot development”. Mr. Davidson asked if he ha d a problem with the enforcement of different standards that were proposed in some developments. Mr. Page said that Staff and the Building/Zoning Department did an excellent job of monitoring this, keeping in mind that in 1990 to 1996, the county was smal ler. At the previous meeting, the Board approved a setback variance against the adjacent homeowner’s objection. On his Board, the commission strictly stuck with the procedures. He thought that the Board would have a problem with requests when people wan ted to make things fit in a lot without the space. Commissioner Kachel asked, on the two acres, what county required for septic systems. Mr. Page’s recollection was that 35,000 to 45,000 square feet were required. The Health Department made sure that th ose soil conditions were properly installed, and a discussion ensued regarding road improvements. Commissioner Kachel noted that the Village had always wanted larger estates. Commissioner Renzi asked if Mr. Page had heard that larger lot size created urb an sprawl. Mr. Page said that the area would inevitably be developed, and he did not think it was feasible for everyone to have two to five acres as it could not be sustained for those size lots. A discussion ensued regarding a greater area to create lar ger lots. Regarding “spot development”, Commissioner Renzi asked if he could charge a premium if he was adjacent to the property and could agree for less if he was not. Mr. Page said that the reason he did not do this was because of services to be prov ided. Commissioner Renzi confirmed that this would not be the case for this Neighborhood. Mr. Page said that there would be a need to add staff, but that was part of growth. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 10 Commissioner Kachel said that Naperville and the areas to the east were almost totally built out, and Plainfield dealt with the traffic movement for years. Mr. Page knew that some developers were better to work with, and he preferred to work with this developer over others. He built his office in Naperville, and he used to only hav e one stoplight at Route 59 and Route 34 to go through. He just wanted some of the infrastructure built before building permits. Commissioner McKay asked if the Village had any information regarding the contacts or timeframe information. Mr. Gallt said that, regarding the 143 rd Street –Route 126 extension, the Village had received $2 million in STP funds, and Phase One of the process had been started. He went over when this would go through and said that March of 2007 would be the final engineering. He said that the STP funding was scheduled for five years, and it could be expedited if needed sooner. Commissioner O’Rourke asked about suggesting the infrastructure be in place and asked if he had a plan he wanted to see. Mr. Page wanted to see greater co ntribution to schools and asked if it would take five years to get the infrastructure. Mr. Gallt said no, that this would be frontloaded as part of the Annexation Agreement, so, based on some comments, the Village had a draft to create a stoplight at Rout e 126 and Plainfield Road which was discussed with the developer. The Route 126 alignment was a long -term improvement that would take five to ten years to complete. He said that it was largely based on development because the major source of funding was development. Mr. Davidson said that he had four witnesses, including himself, still to speak. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there was something regarding this layout that his clients were not in agreement with, and Mr. Davidson said that he had a presen ter who would present this. Commissioner O’Rourke asked Mr. Page if he believed that the development would have a negative impact on the property. Mr. Page said that he could have a horse on his property, and many owners could not. He did not feel that it would negatively impact his property. At 9:04pm, the commission took a 10 minute break. Commissioner Renzi left during the break. The meeting reconvened at 9:18pm. Mr. Davidson introduced Tim Crombe who would be speaking on various aspects of the Vi llage’s bonus plan. He was a resident who lived on Cherry Road. He demonstrated some things that were more amenable to the properties. Regarding Planned Unit Developments, he went over the purpose intent and regulations. He specifically noted that Sect ion 9 -34 asked for fulfillment of objectives from the Comprehensive Plan allowing limited relief. He did not feel that 50% bonus points was limited. Regarding the findings of fact, he said that the Plan Commission should not recommend nor should the Vill age Board grant a PUD unless these findings were met. He specifically noted finding 6 – that the PUD was compatible with the adjacent properties and the neighborhood. Nobody outlined the existing properties, and he said that the whole area that he was ta lking about encompassed 500 acres. He said that Neighborhoods 1 and 2 were lying against larger lot sizes, and he showed a diagram reiterating the compatibility. He said that the 50 -foot buffer did not help generate compatibility. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 11 Mr. Crombe went throug h the Grande Park South density bonus system. He felt that some of these were subjective: - He had no problem with the 5% for neighborhood design. - Open space was given 8.25% (132 additional lots). He knew that this number was dated but said that some of th is open space was floodplain, wetlands, or storm water management. He did not feel that this was justifiable, and parks comprised less than half of this. - Best Management Practices was given 10%, but he said that the actual effectiveness of these feature s was not well established. He said that native vegetations might take beyond five years to develop, and he did not know who was watching this. - Non -dominant garages were given 10%, and he did not feel that anyone built homes with dominant garages anymore. - Preservation of a Farm House was given 5%, and he quoted the draft density bonus system. He felt that the commission should be consulted as he did not feel that this was historic. Mr. Crombe said that, generally, he wanted to clarify that if some of the erroneous bonus points were taken away, MPI could work with this better. He gave the commission credit, and he asked that the commissioners vote and recommend based on their heart. His group was asking for some consideration that Neighborhoods 1 and 2 b e a better transition from 10 or 20 acre lots. The group did not want to stop the development but just wanted to reduce the density. He did not know if this would affect his property value, but he felt that this could be a unique piece of property that w ould be desired. He did not feel that MPI had involved adjacent property owners; there was a meet and greet when this started that was essentially a presentation by the developer and not a dialogue. He wanted some movement on less than 2% of the entire d evelopment. He also said that his group was mad because they did not feel that they were being heard. There was a point where discussions were heated, and he felt that the public did not count. He also mentioned the timing of the “conciliatory bone” t hat was offered to the adjacent property owners. He said that MPI accused them of changing the bar, but the group had always asked for one acre lots. He did not feel that the rights of the adjacent property owners were addressed. Commissioner McKay had requested a meeting be set up, and there was. However, the homeowners were handed a statement from MPI stating that there was no intention of changing the lot sizes. The group offered an alternative and felt that there would be a market for this. At the meeting’s close, Ms. Yaksich reminded the residents that MPI had no intentions of changing the lot sizes. Mr. Davidson recognized the group’s frustration and was doing his best to represent them. He reiterated that 250 feet of the “football field” dista nce was the owner’s own property. Mr. Martin said that he might be able to address some bonuses better with Mr. Garrigan. Regarding compromising, Commissioner O’Rourke said that the group had always stuck with one acre and asked what the compromise was. Mr. Crombe said that one -acre was the compromise since the current residents lived on the larger acre lots. The residents PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 12 expected to look at rooftops; he just did not want to look at so many. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if there was any change. Mr. Da vidson said that the original proposal had the average lot size as 12,000 square feet, and this would allow for conservation design and Best Management Practices by allowing clustering and townhomes. He said that he was looking at an average lot size of t he entire development, and if additional open space was provided, it could be looked at. The commission would receive a proposal as it was submitted to the developer. The average lot size was approximately .75 acres, and his group felt it was a better fe athering approach. He also felt that this addressed some of the erroneous bonuses. Commissioner McKay asked how many lots this was. Mr. Davidson said that the first one is 86 lots, and the revised proposal is 49 lots. There was also a second option to be shown with 53 lots using smaller lot sizes. Commissioner McKay asked how many one acre lots were in the Village in the last five years in a PUD, and Mr. Garrigan said that, to the best of his knowledge, there were none. Commissioner Kachel asked if th e 5% bonus on the historic house was from the Historical Society, but Mr. Garrigan said that this had not been taken to the HPC and discussions were ongoing. Commissioner Kachel asked if this was historic. Mr. Garrigan said that the Johnson home was not identified as contributing in the rural survey, but there was some historical interest in this due to the Johnson ownership. The HPC has some interest in this as well as the Pearson Farm, and the Pearson Farm was identified as contributing on the rural su rvey. Commissioner Kachel said that, when looking at a PUD or any subdivision against a farm, there is not necessarily another farm. He noted that people were concerned with farm and farm -ettes adjacent to each other. Commissioner McKay asked who was watching the developments and Best Management Practices and who was responsible for putting this into play. She said that this was a good question of the Village and developer that should be answered. Mr. Davidson said that there was a representative fro m the Conservation Foundation who could suggest something for the Village. Mr. Davidson said that the Village of Plainfield had a unique opportunity because it was in one of the fastest growing areas in the country (top 10 nationally and top in the Midwes t). Having represented a number of communities and developers, he said that the developer would not do something voluntarily that the Village did not require. He wanted the commission to understand this, because standards would be set for what the builde r will do. He said that if the Plan Commission and Board did not set standards, the developer might not concede. The commission, not the lawyers, was what motivated the developer to offer compromises. Mr. Davidson introduced Biff George, who had an engi neering degree from Georgia Tech, to present on traffic and unintended issues. Biff Geor ge, who remained under oath, said that he had heard phrases like new urbanism and neo -traditional throughout the process. He said that this also created unintended PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 13 consequences, and he did not know if this was right for Plainfield. The civil services being affected and overburdened by the growing populations included the parks, fire protection, and ambulance services. He said that was why the New Edwards Hospital w as being proposed, and the police report showed a 300% increase in calls from 2000 to 2005. He asked who was watching this and referenced Grande Park North dumping asphalt. He did not think that the development would help change the cycle of not being ab le to pay for this. He asked what things was truth versus fallacy – like the WIKADUKE Trail timing, Grande Park North, and what good came from the moratorium. He said that the Traffic Witness used a 10% growth rate; however, in 2004 at Route 126 and Coun ty Line Road there were 3800 cars, and in 2005 there were 12,000 cars. He said that MPI’s Counsel stated that the project could not lose any units when meeting with the residents, and Randall Arndt showed this developer building around a major truck route . Mr. George asked if the Village need the Plainfield Bonus Plan, as this was one of the most desirable communities to build in. In reading through the staff report, he read page 3 regarding the adjacent lots. He said that this was incorrect as it state d that the larger county lots were inconsistent; however, he felt that the development was inconsistent since the county lots were there first. Regarding traffic, Mr. George felt that the Village was building a road to nowhere. He agreed with it but did not know if this was the best route. There was a garbage dump coming in Yorkville, and his research said that it would take 500 trucks a day. If a quarter of that came through this road, 125 of the trucks would travel this road. He said that Mr. Martin stated that the trucks rattle the windows in his office, and this would be end up being the same case. He did not know who was looking out for the new residents and asked how this development would improve traffic. He asked how long it would take to fix the infrastructure if Plainfield stopped development today. He said that density equaled traffic problems; Route 59 and Barrington Road were impacted by surrounding areas, but there were not these density problems. Regarding density, Mr. George asked w hy there was a bonus plan for high density in a rural area. He could not find anywhere where this was done in the country, and he did not know why this was being done. He asked if a bonus plan was needed since development was flocking to the area. He fe lt that Plainfield should hold the developer to a higher standard. He asked why Plainfield was negotiating with the developer. He also said that the homeowners were afraid of higher taxes, water and well levels, increased crime, garbage/construction debr is, noise and light pollution, degradation of educational standards, impact on watershed, traffic congestion before any relief, and rooftops. In closing, Mr. Schoppe spoke about his lifestyle in a subdivision. However, that was not what these residents c hose when they moved out there. The residents were not elitists were involved in Plainfield. He said that there were moments that stick with people, and Plainfield was a part of some of those moments. He was not trying to stop the proposal, but he felt that the alternative proposed should benefit more people. He wanted larger lots, but he knew that the smaller lots were more desirable for the developer and the Village. It was also in compliance with the estate zoning. With the reduced density and PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 14 incr eased lot sizes, there would be fewer requests for variance. He said that this was a defining moment for Plainfield, and Plainfield could follow in the footsteps of Naperville. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if he felt that this would negatively impact the value of his property. Mr. George felt that it would but could not tell him how much. Mr. Davidson asked where Mr. George had gotten his traffic statistics, and Mr. George said that this was mentioned by Mr. Gallt. Mr. Davidson asked if increased traffi c caused more accidents, and Mr. George said that he would assume so. Mr. Davidson asked if that would increase the danger to the public health and welfare, and Mr. George said that traffic was always a problem. Mr. Davidson said that one of the criteria for Special Use was that it would not impede the normal and orderly development of property. He said that there was a previous meeting that his group was accused of providing a moving target and asked where the group started out on this. Mr. George said that the group was looking at two or three acre properties, and in meeting with Staff and the lawyer and talking about water and sewer, it was not economically feasible for the Village to do one acre lots. Mr. Davidson said that he had another proposal t hat was submitted, and Mr. George confirmed that it was done a week ago. The Village and developer had a copy of this. Mr. Davidson said that this was prepared based on a request for additional dialogue. Mr. George added that he wanted to get the proces s moving, but the dialogue closed up. Mr. Davidson confirmed that he had no dialogue with the developer. With respect to the water tables, Mr. Davidson asked if there were several property owners on Cherry Road who have had flooding. Mr. George said tha t there was a 100 -year flood in 1994 or 1995, and typically, if there was a hard rain, there were problems that were a concern. Commissioner Kachel asked if there were other one -acre lots, and Mr. George said that there were in other areas with sewer an d water. Mr. Martin confirmed that Mr. George had an industrial engineering degree and ran an industrial business. Mr. Martin confirmed that Mr. George’s lawyer told him that the developer would not be going to one -acre lots. When this was proposed and run by the Village, Mr. Martin said that he was told that the Village did not support this, but Mr. Davidson said that he did not receive this communication. Mr. Martin said that this was sent on June 28, 2006 and asked if there was anything between the p roposed plan and one acre lots that would satisfy the residents. Mr. Davidson said that his clients wanted something around one acre lots, and the proposals would reflect those. Mr. Martin confirmed that the lots are around one -acre, and a discussion ens ued regarding this. Mr. Martin confirmed that nine lots were eliminated, and there was an increase in lot size around the adjoining lots. Mr. Martin also confir med that the residents wanted this to be all of the lots in the neighborhood and not just the adjoining lots. A discussion ensued regarding the rear buffer. Commissioner Kachel asked if the landscape was on a berm, and Mr. George said that this was on the existing lot. Mr. Davidson said that a plan was submitted that showed 36,500 square foot lo ts, so his group was not stuck on one acre. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 15 Mr. Davidson said that the next speaker would discuss the proposed plan. The gist of his conversation was what he believed to be good intent and zoning. It incorporated Best Management Practices and conservati on design, like grid systems and urban sprawl which were not being suggested to eliminate. The group was endorsing the conservation design plan and approved of the efforts for this design and clustering. He just thought that based on the location of Neig hborhoods 1 and 2, there was an opportunity for residential estate lots and still incorporate these aspects. He said that conservation design should not be used in an a la carte fashion; a true conservation design provided for a minimum of 50% open space. He felt that the developer had taken a piece meal approach and incorporated some Best Management Practices and some conservation design but misused the bonus design by getting the maximum bonus. This ended up creating the worst of both worlds and a dens e development. Chairman Sobkoviak noted that he was supposed to close the hearing at 11:00pm. Mr. Davidson asked when the next meeting was, and a discussion ensued regarding this. Mr. Davidson introduced Kurt Pflederer, landscape architect, who remained sworn in. Commissioner O’Rourke noted that there might be a conflict of time with the court reporter and public comment, and a discussion ensued regarding this. Mr. Pflederer professionally worked for a landscape development company and worked with land scape architects. He said that this plan was discussed, and he tried to understand where it was going. He liked the planning, but he was concerned about the execution of the plan – as a professional and a neighbor. Randall Arndt called this project a un ique blend of new urbanism and conservation design; his concern was the design concept and location. He felt that the development was in the wrong place. He showed an aerial view of the area and said that this was in the wrong place as there would be hig h density three miles from downtown. The Village had a Comprehensive Plan to show what went where, and that plan was to guide developers and the Village when the land was developed. He said that R1 was planned for this area. He went through the proposed development and showed how the density could be or should be used. He said that there was low density there now, and this development took the urban core density and moved it too far west. He said that this was urban sprawl since transportation systems could be put in high density areas close to the core, but moving out of the core would stretch an already overburdened traffic system. He said this area would be putting the high density against an existing rural “flavor”. He also said that new urbanism fell apart when a couple of its features were used. He showed a picture of what new urbanism looked like and defined it. He said that downtown Naperville was a local example of new urbanism as it called for a city core and mixed uses. He said that this would not be the case for this community, and it had no walk able services. In addition, the plan did not address transportation systems and used the denser compact growth away from the Village Core with no transportation systems to help mitigate the dens ity. He briefly wanted to discuss the plan’s layout and the potential for a walk able or bikeable system, and this was not on the concept plan. The major road was not well defined, so he PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 16 wanted that clarified. He said that an element of the safe and adeq uate movement was jeopardized with this development because there was no safe way to cross the road using pedestrian bridges. This development had the high density of the new urbanism but did not have the services for it. Part of new urbanism called for minimal environmental impact, and there had been an effort to practice conservation . However, the entire property would change this, but these practices were restricted by engineering. Mr. Pflederer showed the proposed lot sizes and said that this parce l was unique and should be handled as such. It was hard to appreciate this, but he said that there was a 30 foot drop with a four mile view. With the lot sizes proposed, he did not feel that those views would be appreciated. Part of good land planning w as letting the land speak, and he wanted this to be looked at closely before slapping a plan down on top of it. He said that Neighborhoods 1 and 2 were not j ust directly adjacent to the sit e. He presented the developer’s current proposal and said that wi th the 30 foot drop, some of the lots worked against this. He showed the contrast between the current proposal and the proposed concept for 49 lots with an average of 36,500 square feet. He showed how these lots fit the land better and said that this pla n captured the rural estate feel of the area, creating a unique product. The value and the numbers worked for the developer and created a residential option for estate type living that the Village was in need of. Commissioner Kachel asked what the size o f the lots were in Oswego and if there were one -acre lots with sewer and water. Mr. Pflederer said that there was Old Reserve with water/sewer, and a discussion ensued regarding this. Commissioner McKay said that it was her understanding that the reason this could not be deviated from was because of compromise with open space and asked if he foresaw any take from that. Mr. Pflederer said that he tried to keep the open space the same. Mr. Martin confirmed that Mr. Pfled e rer was not a land planner and had not laid out a development before. Mr. Pfled e rer said that he had done a residential layout for himself but was never hired by anyone. Mr. Martin confirmed that when Mr. Pflederer talked about the land contours it followed parallel to the contour. Mr. Martin said that when excavating and earth moving, if the layout was parallel to the contours, it disrupted the earth moving and did more damage. Mr. Martin also confirmed the orientation of the two houses and that the open space was the same. Mr. Davids on said that he was done with witnesses and had just a few closing remarks. He also noted that there were other members of the public wishing to speak. He said that if a PUD was a better use than the Village planned, the use would be permitted. He said that the PUD within Plainfield provided the Village with a “hammer”. He gave an example from Joliet. T he city told the developer what had to be done or the development could not happen. The reason that the Village had a developer with such a good reputa tion was because it was desirous. He said that Plainfield had to protect that. He served on the Board in the Village of Channahon, and in the last year, Channahon had a smaller scale version of this ask for Traditional Neighborhoods and alleyways. In th eory, it was good, but on Route 6 where this was proposed, nothing was going on. The PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 17 developer came back and said that this could not be done, and that the standards would be lowered. His group was concerned about this happening here. Plainfield is in s uch a rapid growth area, that each commissioner needed to be meticulous. Once it was approved and the excavators come in, the homeowners could change the properties. He referenced the Aux Sable and asked that the Village consider the best alternative to negotiation. Everyone knew that this product would develop, and his group understands that it was illogical to defeat development. He said that this was a good developer, but if the developer could “get away with” a minimum, they would. He said that the site bonus plan intent was good, but it was being used to maximize the developer’s return. He said that it should be declaring the maximum the Village would give. Often, citizens oppose every PUD because the term “cluster” is a bad term, but he said tha t this had been an evolutionary process. The Village could continue to uphold the general principle of the R1 district and maintain the standards by having an overall lot size that was equivalent to the R1 district but provide clustering, feathering, and buffering. The Village could increase the lot size and cluster further south, but it was not necessary. He said that conditional use process packed the sites so the developer had something to give away. It was up to the Village to set standards to look at the bonus plans carefully. He again said the Village was in a unique position and referenced what had been done in Shorewood and Frankfort. He said that this did not fit with the area. He wanted to focus on some of the density bonuses and said that if open space was not buildable in the first place, then it would be used as open space. In this plan, bonuses were being given for unbuildable land, and he did not believe that this development could count the open space as it was with the wetlands, ste ep slopes, and bedrock. Some of the areas he pointed out as a concern were about common interest ownership (like roads or utilities) that should also be left. He said that open space should be space “leftover”; the true Best Management Practices and cons ervation design should be implemented and preserved. He said the question was a year from now if the developer did not do something it said it would, would the Village retract the bonuses . He asked what was included in the Annexation Agreement. He said that this needed to be addressed now because many of the communities were catching up on mistakes made. He said that Plainfield could set the standards high and another developer would come in. He said that it was okay to say no and set expectation level s. He felt that the worst type of planning came through negotiation. With respect to some of the PUD issues, he said that the purpose of a PUD was to provide minimal deviations from the bulk regulations of the zoning code. He said that page 7 gave at le ast 11 variations, all providing for massive variances from the bulk regulations. He had not heard testimony from the developer or the developer’s witnesses as to why all 13 items needed variances. He said that the commission received variance requests a ll the time, and the variance law says that if something could be done another way, a variance could not be granted. He gave examples of some of the var iances requested and asked the C ommission to go through these items. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 18 Regarding the density bonus plan, he referred to page 21 and the bonuses requested. He went through what was requested and what it was for. He said that there was an 8% bonus for Best Management Practices as well as 5.9% for open space and another 131 units for landscape design (althoug h staff did not concur with this). He said that there was another 41 units given for preservation of a farmhouse. He noted that some of these seemed to be intertwined; 597 units were agreed upon by the Staff, and the developer was requesting 767. Mr. Ga rrigan noted that there was a general agreement Mr. Davidson revi ewed the bonuses and asked the C ommission to use good judgment on this. Finally, he wanted to address the elements and three criteria for a PUD. Regarding the value of a home, he said that more taxes might be injurious. He said that while the de finite value might not be affected, the value might. There was a lot of testimony on traffic, and there was a lot of work to be done on this. He did not think that the Village should be “thrown un der the bus” by lowering its standards. The Village could still have all of the features desired and fix this around the edges. He just wanted an honest dialogue with the developer. He said that Special Use should not be injurious, but there would be an inferior use of the owners’ land because of the Village allowance for lot sizes. He said that there was a residential estate size lot that could be used. The last criterion was that it would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of adjacent property for uses permitted within the district. Mr. D avidson said that the point was the developer could satisfy the criteria if a plan similar to that proposed with a feathering approach could be used. He hoped the Conservation Foundation r epresentative could be heard as she had some nice ideas. He said that his house was passed for a grading plan, and his lot was not built in conformance with the plan. He contacted the Village, and the Village said that he did not have the capacity to han dle this. This happened a lot, and he wanted the follow -through to happen as Staff worked hard on this. Commissioner Kachel said that Frankfort was originally a farmland, and it developed around the perimeter. Joliet was pushing this, and when Plainfiel d had a moratorium, developers went to other communities. He said that there was a lot of property held up due to the moratorium, and the north and south was developed. He understood where the group was coming from , but found it hard to show the inconsis tencies now with surrounding areas doing something else. He said that the developer was working on a conservation plan that was not seen in other areas. He wanted to see larger lots, but he was not sure if it was feasible. The Village had pushed many is sues, but when a developer came through, there were a lot of changes. He said that the Village did as much as possible , but changes did happen. Mr. Davidson thanked the C ommission for the attention and apologized for any misconstrued statements. He appr eciated the way the proceedings went. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in Kesnia Rudensiuk of the Conservation Foundation who submitted testimony in person and via a letter. She wanted to review that the PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 19 organization did not fully endorse the development. The o rganization was excited about this, but the jury was out about how this was implemented. Commissioner McKay asked if Cindy Ellis was in her organization, but Ms. Rudensiuk said that she was on the Aux Sable Watershed Coalition. Ms. Rudensiuk said that the stormwater treatment was flowed from basin to basin, but if the water entered the bottom cell and then the creek, there was not a lot of treatment. She said that getting into some of that detail would determine if this was conservation design. Regard ing the boulevards, she said that there were also details that could be addressed. Regarding commissioning, the Leadership in Energy and Development Design asked municipalities to set these standards for developments. She said that the group could look i nto oversight on implementation. She did not want to obligate Schoppe to anything, but she said that this could be provided by overseeing excavating and buffering. There would be creek crossings, and the bridges should be designed to not drip right into the creek. Regarding the big tree line being preserved, she said that there was a piece of the development that looked like it is cutting this in, and there was an opportunity to revise this. The greenways should be natural and transition where applicabl e into lawns. Regarding rain gardens, she suggested this be put in. She said that the percentage of homes that would have overland flow should be looked at, and the commercial area obligation and Neighborhood 10 greenway should be looked at for conservat ion design. She said that there were great buffers, and she did not think that credit had been given for this. She thought there was a chance to go easy on the masquerading. She felt that stream monitoring should be demonstrated. She said that the deve loper might want to consider narrower road right of ways, even by a foot or two. She also suggested smaller front setbacks and pocket parks. She said that the developer had housing diversity and she suggested more. She said that clustering was a good so lution, and the feathering was also a good alternative. She also said that on -site sewage could be considered. She felt that some of the comments could be addressed at this juncture to reassure the community that this would be a conservation community. Commissioner Kachel confirmed if she knew of communities in the Chicago land area with LEED standards. Commissioner McKay asked if she was suggesting clustering further south. Ms. Rudensiuk said that she could sit down with this at length , but did not wa nt to direct it. She just suggested that this could be clustered to cost the developer less to put in a larger lot size neighborhood. On the other hand, if the density was decreased, she asked if there would be a difference. Commissioner McKay thanked h er for being there and asked if the manipulation of lots went against conservation, and Ms. Rudensiuk said that, in both plans, the green space was the same. However, in a clustering plan, the greenspace would change and ended up being a win situation on both ends. At 12:06am, Commissioner McKay moved to continue the matter for further discussion and consideration for the Plan Commission meeting of August 1 st , 2006. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 20 Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll ca ll. Aye: McKay, O’Rourke, Kachel, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 4:0:0. A discussion ensued regarding how the public hearing would continue. Commissioner McKay said that it was nice to see movement and remained hopeful that there would be mor e discussions. At 12:09am, Commissioner McKay made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner O’Rourke. Motion carried unanimously. __________________ Respectfully submitted, Laura Griffith -Recording Secretary Karick & Associates, Inc.