HomeMy Public PortalAbout2001-10-23 PC minutes PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION HEARING October 23, 2001 Heritage Grove Middle School Cafeteria Plainfield, Illinois BOARD MEMBERS: MR. JAMES SOBKOVIAK, Chairman; MS. MARILYN GEHRKE MR. LARRY KACHEL MR. DAN SEGGERBRUCH MR. WALTER MANNING MR. ROBERT SCH INDERLE MR. ALAN ANDERSON ALSO PRESENT: MR. STEVE LARSON, Village Engineer; MR. DOUGLAS CARROLL, Village Planner; MR. MICHAEL GARRIGAN, Planner; MR. JAMES TESTIN, Community Development Planner; MR. JAMES HARVEY, Village attorney. DOMMERMUTH, BRESTAL, COBINE & WEST, LTD. BY: MR. JOHN F. PHILIPCHUCK Appeared on behalf of Wal -Mart; RATHJE, WOODWARD, DYER & BURT BY: MR. MARK W. DANIEL and MR. REESE J. PECK Appeared on behalf of Village of Plainfield residents.
CHAIRMAN SOKOVIAK:. Tu esday, October 23rd, 2001 special meeting of the Plainfield Plan Commission is in session. All rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of allegiance said.) CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Call roll, please? MR. CARROLL: Kachel? MR. KACHEL: Here. MR. C ARROLL: Seggerbruch? MR. SEGGERBRUSH: Here. MR. CARROLL: Gehrke? MS. GEHRKE: Here. MR. CARROLL: Manning? MR. MANNING: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Schinderle? MR. SCHINDERLE: Here. MR. CARROLL: Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Here. MR. CARROLL: Sobkoviak? CHAIR MAN SOBKOVIAK: Here. MR. CARROLL: School district? Fire district? Library district? CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: This being a special meeting, there is only one case on the agenda. That case is case number 904 at 03101.SPR/Z/samreunion (phonetic). The P etitioner is Wal -Mart and this is a public hearing for the special use and zoning and site planning reviewing. Many of you probably haven't attended a plan commission meeting before. The way these things usually work is we have the Petitioner and s taff present the case, so that we know what we're going to be looking at and what we're going to be arguing about. Following that, the plan commission will be asking a few questions of the Petitioner, to clarify the issue. Following that, we will o pen the meeting for public comment. Now, I understand a group has retained counsel and at that point, I will probably turn the question and commentary portion over to you. We have a time constraint. We need to be out of the building by 9:30. So , therefore at 9:00, I'm going to close the meeting. The meeting will be continued until
October 30th, the same time, same location. With that, I'll turn it over to staff to begin presentation. MR. CARROLL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, staff, to g ive you a brief summary, this is a public hearing as the chairman said for a special use for PUD rezoning from R -1 single family to B -3 and the view of the subject site is at the northwest corner of 127th and Route 59. With that, I'll turn it over to the applicant. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: John? MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: John, I need to swear in the individuals that you will be presenting to give testimony, and I will do this all at once. Would you all raise your right hands , please? (Witnesses sworn.) CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: When it is your turn to speak, please state your name for our record. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: My name is John Philipchuck. I'm an attorney, offices at 183 Water Street, Naperville, Illinois and I'm here th is evening on behalf of the contract purchaser and Wal -Mart. I thank the plan commission for taking the time to establish the special meeting for us, and we do appreciate that. Just a couple of housekeeping issues with our proposal, as Mr. Carroll po inted out, the location of the property, this is one of the commercial roads along Route 59 that are identified in the comprehensive plan text, and we have petitioned for a -- it's currently zoned R -1. We've petitioned for B -3 special use land developmen t -- we really have no problem if ultimately the plan commission and the village want to leave the property zoned R -1 and not zone it to B -3. What's really critical is the special use for the planning and development. So, if the village wishes to kee p the property as R -1 rather than zone it B -3, that's fine. It just seemed like it made sense, being that there is an existing 20 -acre commercial piece along Route 59 that is zoned B -3. What we'll present to you tonight will be testimony through vari ous expert witnesses that we have retained to look at and focus on the PUD and to be able to demonstrate to you that in fact this proposed site has been properly designed and in fact
will fit the parameters of the planning and development and deserve the s pecial use, and that it will in fact take into account and satisfy the protection of the public health, safety and welfare and the property values in the general area, and address the traffic issues that come with any development in communities. So, we have an opportunity here, we feel, to take property that, while the current zoning is residential, there are areas that we, and we only have a few of those along Route 59 in the Plainfield community to take advantage of the commercial opportunity, and tha t is what we are hoping to be able to do. So, with that, I would like to introduce, unless counsel has any questions of me Mr. Tracy Richard, who is our civil engineer, and Tracy will go through the site plan and site engineering. MR. RICHARD: Thank you. My name is Tracy Richard, I'm a registered professional engineer with Manhard Consulting, and I would like to briefly go through the proposed layout of the site and some of the engineering aspects of the proposed development. To start off with a ccess to the site, and I'm currently looking at a site plan, colored landscaping plan, actually, which for access to the site, we would like if full access to the very far north corner to Route 59, a right -in and right -out, approximately halfway in the cen ter of the property and also a full access to the south, which would align with the current under construction Target access, and this would provide for the main traffic circulation into and out of the proposed facility. Depicted on this plan and maybe I should back up and say that north is up, Route 59 is to the, is to my right, and 127th is the bottom quadrant on that plan. The development is approximately 22 acres of a Wal -Mart section, sitting in front of it depicted in green with no proposed develo pment are outlots that are not part of our proposal tonight but are part of a different development The 28 acres I'm referring to are what is colored in the rear of the site.
The building would be approximately a 149,000 square foot structure to be located in the western section of the site, with parking in the front. We provide parking at 5,000, five per thousand to support the store. To the south, we have shown this as the blue the storm water detention basins and also shown immediately north of the proposed Wal -Mart building also what we depict in here as a future expansion area, along with some future parking that would be, if desired constructed at some date in the future. The site will be engineered providing services in terms of sewer, wat er, sanitary by extending those utilities that currently exist at different locations around the border of the site into the facility, some are currently under construction and somewhere they're existing already, but the site has immediately surrounding it sufficient existing utilities, sewer, water and sanitary to serve this facility. We will also be shown on this plan creating both landscaping and buffering, berming along both the north, the west, around the detention basin and in the parking lot as sh own on here in terms of by berms, which vary in height along the north and the west property lines, that combined with both fencing and tree planting as depicted on this landscape plan. Some of the, some of the changes that have occurred to the plan sin ce we last met with the homeowners at a previous meeting, we were able to address some concerns as shown on this plan, by increasing the width of the buffer area to the north, some increase in the buffer area to the west and by shifting the building slight ly to the south, they've provided additional height to the berm, which currently has been engineered and in these plans at a three to one slope. The berm height varies, again, depending on where you're at at the location. Along the north property line, at some locations 13 feet and some locations where it narrows down to four feet. The plan also has on it shown a future lease parcel shown on the far south righthand corner of the parcel, which is anticipated as a gas station, which we are requesting it would basically be fuel pumps and no other services, other than the sale of gas at that location.
As part of the Wal -Mart building, orientation and some of the features of it, the main store entry is at the north end of the building, towards the east at this location. What we call the garden center is located to the southeast corner, and the DLI as it's called is located at approximately the southern quadrant. Our truck receiving area is this, juts out to the back, and the truck docks are located at that area. For reference to some of the store's features, the storm water detention for the site, the site currently drains from a north to south direction, and there currently is on this property a creek ditch, that drains again from west to east, crosses under an existing culvert on Route 59 headed to the east. We will create the detention basins, basically with bottom lakes, to take storm water off this site, collect it into the lakes and then release it at the controlled rate into the, into a drainage system, which is basically an underground -- will be an underground pipe, that ditches currently exist out there right now. Part of that is being enclosed in a storm sewer pipe, and we would discharge to that as a drainage to the east in general, that is some of the main engineering aspects and locations of the site plan. We have also submitted as part of our improvements a, what I depict up here as a photometric plan, a site lighting plan of the parking lot, which on this particular drawing, t he light pole locations are shown in dark, double head pointed orientation on there, and the information shown in this plan is basically the point -by -point photometrics, to show what the lighting levels are, based on this plan. We again tried to address some of the concerns raised at the last meeting that we had, and in terms of full height lights, locations and the normal standard for a light pole for Wal -Mart and most retailers is approximately 35 feet. We have reduced the pole heights down to 25 fe et, in order to address that. And this plan again shows the illumination levels at any point at that site. That is in general just a lay -out of the site and some of the engineering.
John, do you wish us to present fully or do you want to ask quest ions in the middle individually as we come up? CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Does the plan commission have any questions at this time? Robert? MR. SCHINDERLE: Where does that drop off. MR. RICHARD: As the large edge for instance backs into the western po rtion of that buffer area, that would be an area where we represent is approximately 13 feet. We have different cross sections shown. So, as you come from that and you come towards the east, this area for instance represents a cross section, where the ber m height is now down to approximately nine feet, and then the four foot I'm referring to to, as you'll get -- MR. SCHINDERLE: How many homes are along that particular area? MR. RICHARD: The four -foot sections? MR. SCHINDERLE: Yes. MR. RICHARD: The h omes shown are these adjacent lots, lots 75, 66, 65, 64. In that four -foot area, that's the rear of lot 65, also lot 66 touches that and then it starts to get into the, again what I'm saying is transitions going up to the nine, four level and you have another four lots. MR. SCHINDERLE: Is there any kind of a fence or any other frontage on that berm? MR. RICHARD: We propose to by landscaping, also as discussed was to install a fence at the top of the berm. So, it would be the height that I had gi ven, you would add onto that the fence height. MR. SCHINDERLE: What's the height of the fence? MR. RICHARD: Right now it has been shown at five feet, but you know, we're not opposed to a higher fence if it's so desired. MR. SCHINDERLE: As an engineer , can you tell me what the approximate height of the windows in a two -story home would be? MR. RICHARD: We have, as well at the last meeting, too, we had an exhibit, this is a very simple modification of the same exhibit, that if you were looking out of a two -story home immediately to the north, which is shown in pink, this green area in here is that berm.
This would be the Wal -Mart parking lot in here, and that would be the Wal -Mart building shown, you know. Again, the height of the existing house and in respect to that, a view from the second floor window really gets you somewhat almost level with the fence, and again, depending on the maturity of the plantings that go with, that would be at the same level, obviously as immediately planted and then as they mature, that develops fully beyond that. So, there's portions of that as far as site line to the structure, you can simply see the effect. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Any other questions at this moment? MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Are there any questions o f the public at this time, Mr. Chairman, of the engineer? CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Would you care to cross examine the developer's engineer at this time? MR DANIEL: Good evening, members of the commission. My name is Mark Daniel, I'm an attorney, 300 East Roosevelt Road, Wheaton, Illinois, 60187. With me today is a partner of mine, Reese Peck, P -e -c -k. He's at the same address. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: May I swear in all of you at this time? MR. DANIEL: I don't intend on giving any evidence un til the close of this. TRACY RICHARD, called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. DANIELS Q. Mr. Richard, you testified about the full access at the north corner of the property al ong Route 59. That's going to be a signal lighted intersection, correct? A. All access locations on Route 59 are subject to the Illinois Department of Transportation's review, approval and permitting process. I would anticipate a signal there, based on traffic, subsequent traffic studies and if warrants are met, there could be a traffic signal there, but that is again subject to the state requirements. Q. Did you or anyone else with Wal -Mart or
representing Wal -Mart here tonight examine the impact of the installation of that signal at the northwest entrance to the Wal -Mart parcel upon Pasquinelli Drive, where it intersects with Route 59? A. Currently there is a traffic study that is undergoing, it has not been completed, that would addr ess the impact this development would have on these access locations and in general the nearby immediate intersections. That has not been completed yet. Q. In your professional experience, do you think it's likely what you would see a second signal lighted intersection at Pasquinelli, being so close to Route 59 and the northwest access point for Wal -Mart? A. The northern access point, I guess I'd like to say first of all is a location that was defined by the state prior to Wal -Mart coming to the property. There had been discussions and it was our understanding that this location was somewhat preset. Obviously until we make a formal submission to the Illinois Department of Transportation, to verify any and all discussions that occurred prior , we're moving ahead based on that assumption. As far as a signal at that location in respect to the existing or proposed 127th, again, it's a, you know, the state traffic study, traffic count and their review of approval process. Q. In relation to the storm water, you mentioned the flow is generally from north to south across the Wal -Mart property, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And how do the berms that appear to range from four feet in height to 13 feet in height impact the flow of storm water from the residential area down to the tributaries that drain the residential area to the north? A. It does not impact the current residential to the north, this drainage system was designed for concerning again, in a similar fashion, the collecti on of this storm water into a storm water management system.
We have a current storm water management pond at this location. There are also, as an example to that drainage to an outlet pipe, which in general runs along the west property line and will also go into the exact same system along 127th Street, along with future storm water management that comes off the proposed Pasquinelli property to the west. So, in terms of the berm, it does not impact storm water drainage. Q. With respect to th e drawing, I believe you showed an elevation of a home in comparison to the elevation of a Wal -Mart. It appears that you have different elevations for the berms, and you show a three to one ratio and then you show a flat level plane underneath the home , which is designated as lot 60. I guess the first question related to this is whether or not you believe the effects of the view from lot 60 is the same as the view from all of the other lots in your professional opinion? A. We took a view fro m lot 60, because again, it was somewhat the closest to the store. Obviously a view from whether it's 61, 64, to your perspective viewing the store is going to change slightly, not only based on the elevation of the house, but also based on the elevati on of the berm, as I previously stated would be changing in height and size. Q. And did you also find that during your review of the elevations along these other lots, that the lots and homes with their foundations are situated on a sort of plateau with deeper or lower elevations for storm water drainage around the lots? A. The current homes on those lots, obviously the house is probably the highest elevation on there, whereas the, for instance, the rear yards would be draining away from the h ouse to a lower point at or near the rear property line, so the elevation of the lot is dropping in respect to the finished floor. In respect to what we have shown on this drawing is not to depict every, call it depression or change in gray, but to giv e the overall in respect to a finished floor, a second floor view, a berm and a parking lot as to, you know, what you would see at that location. Q. With respect to the views from other lots within the subdivision to the north, did you take a
co unt of what the views of the Wal -Mart property would be across from the detention pond? If you are looking south from the homes that are to the north of the detention pond, did you study any of the impact visually that the Wal -Mart is going to be causin g? This is again north of outlot C. A. We did not perform any additional cross sections, very similar to what I showed here that would look at those views from those properties. Q. In relation to, and I think this related somewhat to John's open ing, but did you review the zoning as it exists today on that parcel and was it residential? A. The zoning on that parcel is what it is. In other words, that is the residential zoning that currently exists, and that's why we're here tonight, to reque st rezoning to permit this commercial development. Q. John mentioned also that this was consistent with the comprehensive plan, which designated it as one of the commercial nodes, and I'm wondering if you could identify the comprehensive plan for the r ecord and if you could describe where in the comprehensive plan states this property is part of a commercial node for development? A. I do not have, I'm not an expert on the comprehensive plan, that obviously would speak for itself, and John would, if he so chooses here to make an answer to that. Q. In relationship to the findings of fact, in preparing your plan, did you review the elements that the commission reviews that are in section 9 -39 of the zoning code, which I'll hand you? A. Our let's say development team of personnel, which represents not only myself, architectural landscaping, many different people have prepared the package that is put before the plan commission to address each and all items within the findings of fact. Q. Out of the number of items, they're numbered 1 through 7, in Section 9 -39, are there any particular ones that you were focused on? A. Again, I think I could speak to all, to some of them, whether it's, you know, to highlight one or another, if John wishes t o offer something here, I don't know if I specifically picked one out over another.
I don't know if I'd specifically pick one out over another. Q. Why don't we take a look at item 1? With respect to the innovativeness and the creativeness of this p articular approach to the development of the Wal -Mart parcel, do you have any comments as to how this is different from any other commercial location along Route 59? A. The Wal -Mart, proposed Wal -Mart development would have increased buffer areas from w hat I view along Route 59 in both the two areas I've already talked to, which is the north boundary and to the west. It also provides I think a, call it a distance between the Route 59 traffic corridor from the proposed homes that again depending on wh ich particular commercial development you look at, the set -back by itself also has some type of buffer, again between 59 for that development. Q. Are you personally familiar with the definition of a buffer under the local zoning ordinance? A. I have read it, but I do not have it memorized. Q. You reference the parking area as a buffer between the homes to the north and I think you mentioned either the west, there was a buffer on the west side and you also mentioned there was a larger buffer resu lting from the set -back itself from Route 59. As you take a look at the definition of buffer area, which is a landscaped area, you intended to separate and reduce the harmful impact of adjoining land uses or structures, do you still think that that's an
accurate answer? A. That does not change my answer, in that I've used the term buffer for the landscaped area, which addresses the definition in this ordinance. I've also used the term commonly used in engineering and traffic tests and also plan ning, the term buffer means the change between one use to another. Q. And what changes in use do you see between the residential area to the north or the proposed residential area to the west and the Wal -Mart? A. That's not what I was referring t o. My previous response was the change between Route 59 traffic and that which would possibly oppose a residential area substantially closer to Route 59. And I'm saying that the distance that has now been created by this commercial development incre ases that distance from the Route 59 corridor. Q. And the distance that you're talking about is between Heritage Meadows and Route 59 of the proposed homes that were previously allotted to this particular lot? A. The proposed homes that are previousl y planned for this location, which would be, again, this is the approximately 10 -acre commercial lots that are zoned and permitted at this time. And the homes would, if developed, would have been abutting those locations, so the distance between 59 and those proposed homes is what I'm referring to. Q. Your engineering analysis, is it customary for you to compare proposed commercial development like this and talk about the buffer for the proposed commercial development? Oh, let's strike that. So , you are eliminating the homes in the Pulte subdivision from your consideration, correct? A. No, I believe I discussed that in terms of by saying that the proposed home location would be far closer to 59 than it would be with this development. Q. A nd then you also agree then that you would not consider a paved parking area as a buffer between uses? Is it also correct that you would not consider a paved parking area as you see to the north in the future parking and as you see in front of the Wal -Mart store, slightly to the north of the north wall
and continuing south, at the detention areas? A. Again, I use the term used quite commonly in planning as commercial, again buffer, certain use, that being what I'm using it for right now is the 59, R oute 59 corridor. Q. In relationship to the traffic pattern on the parcel, you show a north entrance along 59 at the edge of the property and an entryway to the village pressure adjusting station. In that particular vicinity, is it your expectatio n that the semi -truck traffic serving the Wal -Mart will access the Wal -Mart from the north lanes that you depict on this preliminary landscape plan?
A. We have shown the access location on these plans without calling it designation of -- of truck traff ic route. In other words, could a truck enter, physically enter at this location versus today at 127th, it could, it has not been refined. I think it came up, the topic of at the meeting with the homeowners as to where trucks would enter, at what loc ation and circulation and that, as far as we're concerned can be discussed at the meeting and concluded as to if there's any restriction whatsoever brought on the property for access to trucks. Right now, it's been engineered and so it could be brought in at either location. Q. Regardless of where the access point is to the property, do you or Wal -Mart anticipate there being access the full length of the Wal -Mart building on the west side alongside the six homes that are depicted in the residential subdivision to the west? A. Are you referring to access from the residential into the commercial? This would be used for truck delivery traffic at some, initially there is our truck, again at the southwest corner is our truck dock. If ever Wal -Mar t chooses to build a future expansion, the current expansion would have for a second loading dock at this location. So, that would experience truck traffic. That's what's available to us right now. If that ultimately gets built and shown in that fash ion is but a guess. Q. Do you know currently if Wal -Mart has a traffic engineer and assigned an expert that's reviewed those plans, so I can go into further detail with them, rather than questioning you on these issues? A. A traffic engineer is curren tly as I stated has been retained and is working on a traffic report, probably will not be concluded until late this week. As far as a sound engineer, there has not been a study proposed to address that.
Q. In relationship to the storm water dete ntion and relocated creek that you reference on the southeast portion of the property, depicted in blue there, there's a creek currently flowing through that generally runs from the northeast to southwest, correct? A. It runs to the, it runs to the east in general and in fact very lightly shown light lines on this drawing represent the proposed location of it at least right now that's under the 127th Street plans that are currently under construction. There is a creek right now that somewhat cuts across I'll call it this first lot towards the crossing and under the 127th improvement plans currently under construction, a portion of that will be moved closer to 127th that's shown here. Q. On the outlots, I'll refer to it as an outlot, even t hough it's not part of your plan, just for reference, this is the green space to the south lot, on the southeast corner of the lot, at the intersection of Route 59 and 127th Street. You refer to that as future commercial development. Do you have any fu rther details on where that's headed, where the parking lot is going to be located, where the traffic circulation will be and when, if anything, the creek will continue in a visible capacity or whether it will be completely enclosed? A. To the simple part of the question, the creek is already proposed to be enclosed as part of 127th plans that's currently under construction, it will be enclosed from basically from the culvert along a small stretch of 59 to the south and then west to approximately wha t I show the existing -- or I'm sorry -- proposed smaller storm water pond that will be enclosed in pipe. As to the access to the outlot, I have seen preliminary plans talked at one time early on to the developer of those approximately 10 acres, they are not finalized at all. They are strictly that preliminary, to my knowledge, the defined users have not been set and in terms of access right now, the best I could offer is that I would envision access would be limited to within the Wal -Mart lot, within p ossible access off of what I would call this area to the right turn -off of 59. We would not envision, at least at this time any further access off of 59 or 127th.
Q. How many Wal -Marts have you done the preliminary consulting for in this capacity, a similar capacity to how you're tonight testifying? A. Roughly I would say at least 15, maybe 20. Q. And with respect to the west lot line and you might need to look at this with me here, there is a distance that appears of approximately 90 feet b etween the east lot line of the residences and the leading dock for the proposed Wal -Mart, is that correct? A. I have a second exhibit without color. Let me look at that. This is a, there is 85 feet of grass area to the curb, another 40 feet to the building. So, 125. Q. And is it customary for you to find a Wal -Mart located within 125 feet of a single family subdivision designed and proposed to be designed as the Pulte subdivision to the west is located? A. I would say quite often the y're closer than that and farther, depending -- let me say that they vary, depending on the requirements of both not only the community, but of the site plan itself, and it is not a set I would say number that you would say, you know, as the grass area, 2 0 feet is a 10, five, it varies all over, depending on both not only community, but what is being opposed in terms of circle familiar to the commercial development. Q. In relationship to this particular project, you're looking at single family detache d homes to the west and to the north of the proposed Wal -Mart site. These aren't townhomes honor condominiums or duplexes. What percentage of your work for Wal -Mart has involved set -backs or distances -- I'm sorry. Distances between rear lot lines o f that kind of residential use and the nearest wall of the proposed commercial Wal -Mart? A. I would say that the, that distance shown on here probably represents in terms of the number I've dealt with not only Wal -Mart, but also similar large what we, what we have call large commercial uses, such as as an example, Target, the home improvement stores, which I also do several of those. I consider they're in the category of probably very large represented by most plans I've dealt with.
In other words , there is a set -back that would probably fit in the category of being larger than normal.
Q. Now, again, we're just talking about Wal -Mart. There is eventually going to be a 200,000 square foot plus store, and I'm asking you if you could tell me fr om your perspective with Wal -Mart only, Target is a different size store in this particular instance, and why don't we get into this. Have you reviewed the Target plans south on Route 59 to view the bufferings that are provided for in relation to the T arget so there was some separation between commercial use and residential use? A. I was not the engineer of the Target store, and plus I have not had the opportunity to look at their defined plans. Q. Are you familiar with the buffering through an y of your discussions with village officials, for example, Mr. Carroll? A. The buffering as I understand along the rear of the properties is a 40 -foot area as required by ordinance. Q. And that buffering that you're talking about, is that the buffe ring that is onsite with the Target store, on the Target side of the property line? A. I'm sorry. I was referring strictly to this proposed Wal -Mart plan and this development. Q. What about the Target to the south? Did you ever become familiar t hrough discussions with anybody at the village what buffering and precautions were taken to buffer the Target that you mentioned was comparable from the homes to the west and north? A. I did not look at any of their detailed plans as I specified befo re. Q. So, just so we're clear, you have no knowledge whatsoever of what's going on with the Target development to the south? A. Other than what you can physically see in the field today. Q. And then setting what you saw in the field, did you s ee the buffering that was provided for, the green space, the changes in elevation, the trees, the open space park like area that was located to the west of the Target off 59 and to the northwest of the Target? A. That site is due to the construction sta tus right now, does not offer a clear picture of all items that will be ultimately there when it's complete.
Q. From a professional consultant perspective, have you testified before that an optimal development plan for a Wal -Mart would include multi -f amily use, either apartments or townhomes or some kind of single family use that is adjoined or of a higher density even than what you see in the Pulte situation to the west? A. I've stated before that the development of a commercial Wal -Mart and othe r similar commercial developments varies quite greatly. And sometimes it is behind single family, what is proposed here, sometimes it's multi. It varies all over, and every situation speaks for itself. Q. In this particular situation, you have a si tuation where the homes to the west and to the north were platted and subdivided before the Wal -Mart came in. How many of those situations have you provided expert assistance on in a similar capacity as you are anywhere a Wal -Mart seeks to become located adjacent to those previously platted residential lots? A. I would believe only a couple in recent times. Prior to that, maybe four or five, in that area. Q. And out of those few occasions, do you recall whether any of them included greater bu ffering than what you're providing for here? And when I speak of buffering, I'm just talking about the distance between the homes and the commercial, in general, I'm not speaking of just the green space. So, it would be the 125 -foot distance that we di scussed before? A. To my knowledge, again, I believe it varied. Some will be greater. Some will be less, and there, I'd have to look back individually to further answer that question. Q. Earlier you referenced a photometric plan. Does any of the photometric plan refer to the impact of reflections of light off the building on the north face of the proposed Wal -Mart or the north face of the proposed future expansion? A. The plan that I was referring to and shown, which is a photometric, pho tometric really depicts what I would call a birdseye view down on the east, showing the illumination anticipated not only on the site and also at the periphery that's shown on this particular plan.
It does not, I believe, if your question was does it ref lect or show, call it illumination or maybe bounce back off the building, it does not really to my knowledge take into that sort of account in that computer modelling that's performed by this. Q. Is there anything you can glean from the photometric plan to determine the brightness or the plume of light that illuminates in this particular commercial lot? A. Again, I think the plan speaks to the illumination in terms of what you would achieve at levels under, either underneath, at or adjacent or near the lot, but as an example, it does show for instance, we don't depict the future outlot, eight and 10 lot developments and what might occur there, nor I don't think it goes far enough into the current existing subdivision to show any light levels that are existing there whatsoever, either. Q. Has Wal -Mart presented any or prepared any plans that show an artist's rendition of any kind of the view of the Wal -Mart from either the north lot line or the south lot -- I'm sorry -- or the west lot l ine of the property? A. We have prepared the site, the plan as I have shown in front of you tonight. There is also a building elevation plan which shows the building, but I believe if you're looking for, call it a different sectional view other than what has been provided, we have the architect here any who can speak to that in more detail. Q. All right. Why don't we wait on that then a little while? Could you explain to the commission and the people in the audience what natural aspe ct of the land that Wal -Mart and the neighbors to the east are most likely to preserve and continue? A. Neighbors to the east? I would not offer a response to that, but will reserve a response at a later time. Q. With respect to the gas station use that's depicted, is that -- I'll tell you what, I'll run through my understanding of it, and if I'm wrong, interrupt me and I'll hand you the mike, so we can save some time. It's correct that there are eight pump stations or islands and there are two tanks located to the east of the southerly four tanks for the pump stations, the southerly four pump stations, that it's
all going to be an overhang with a building in between the two sets of four pump stations? A. In general, that's correct. Q. And with respect to gasoline truck deliveries, you would expect them to run along the southeasterly corner of the property, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Is the Wal -Mart corporate office in the business of operating gas stations, do you know if they're going to be the operator of this particular one or are they going to be leasing it to a national company? A. My understanding is leased, but a representative of Wal -Mart is here tonight. So, when he is available for questioning, he can an swer that. Q. Is there any proposal for any screening in the way of fences around this particular gas station? A. The landscape plan as it depicts, within the parking lot show what is proposed from planning purposes, and obviously some of that will p rovide some view, differences in routes, depending where you look. Obviously what is not shown here because it's not part of our project is the future development on those eight acres of, or I'm sorry 10 acres of outlots between Route 59 and the Wal -Ma rt development. Q. With respect to the gas station, in particular on the paved roadway on the southerly portion of the property, running on the east edge of the Wal -Mart site, you see where I'm pointing here, it runs from 59 right in, right out access, it runs south towards the relocated creek retention pond. In that particular depiction, there's a system for the roadway development into that southern lot on 59, at intersection of 59 and 127th Street. Is there any particular reason for that acce ss? A. That access location was simply depicted on here. Whether that is ultimately the location to be used by the 10 -acre lots, that's subject to their submittal and review, and I suspect possibly during the process of development of the plan if t hose lots come in while this development is being engineered, the access locations can be coordinated, and if not, it can be depicted as a circle line without access into those lots for future use.
Q. Is it correct that Wal -Mart has a landscape archite ct to talk about the landscaping and they also anticipate on presenting evidence on the traffic impact of this particular parcel, including truck usage of any of the roadways on the internal portions of the lot? A. Our landscape architect is here tonigh t. As I stated before, the traffic analysis has not been completed and will be done. So, probably towards the end of the week. As far as people available tonight, the landscape architect is available, so is the building architect. Q. Is the Wal -Mart going to be a 24 -hour operation with all of the parking lot lights on 24 hours a day and with delivery traffic planned for 24 hours a day? A. Again, operational aspects of the store can be answered by the Wal -Mart representative when he's availab le for questioning. Q. And with respect to the photometric plan, hopefully this will avoid some further questions on the issue. I guess it would help if you provided a detailed explanation as to how these readings apply in this particular situation. For example, around the northwesterly most lights, you have to the left of that an indication of 2.0 and to the right of that 2.1. Could you explain what those mean? A. These are foot candle readings at the below, at ground level at that height. So, approximately the light itself, if you go to either side of it, these are the foot candle readings that you'll find or anticipated, I should say by this computer analysis, in or around those light locations. You'll see as an example the foot can dle readings immediately directly underneath a light, whether it's a double head or single head makes a difference, reads larger than those that are found in the immediate outer perimeter. Q. And all these readings are planned for 25 -foot lighting, is t hat correct? A. The pole is a 25 -foot high pole. It would sit on approximately two and a half foot high concrete base, that is elevated above the ground to protect the pole in the parking lot of the
cars, what have you. So, actually after the illum ination is 27 and a half. Q. Now, I understand that there was a prior meeting with some residents. I think Mr. Peck was there and John was there as well. Other than that meeting, was there any kind of a concept plan meeting, where you presented any drawings? A. You mean subsequent to the meeting with the homeowners? The plans that we presented to the homeowners, there have not been meetings beyond that to my knowledge. Q. Was there any other meeting with the plan commission or the villa ge board regarding the conceptual plan for this particular proposed Wal -Mart and the parking lot areas? A. Again, to my knowledge, since we discussed with the homeowners, I am unaware of any other meetings. Q. Taking a look at the access roadway f rom in between the Wal -Mart face and the parking lot island, directly to the east, you show a roadway that runs from the north of the property generally down the center of the property to the south, where there's going to be some spill -over and a, sits on 127th Street. You're familiar with Bob White Lane, correct? A. Yes. Q. And a preliminary plan and possibly one that was shown to the homeowners included a plan that brought Bob White directly into the commercial property, is that correct? A. The access of Bob White Lane I don't believe was brought into it. There was I think a sidewalk access shown on one of the plans that was also brought up in the discussion with the homeowners, that I think at the time of the meeting, access to Bob White was brought up, and no one at least from the homeowners aspect wanted to see any connection there. We had no desire from the commercial and the only thing then that was also called change and removal of plans was the sidewalk access. Q. With respect to the continuation of Bob White Lane from Heritage Meadows south into the particular Wal -Mart parcel that we're talking about, you have essentially the same effect, whether Bob White Lane
is bermed across and terminated at the north edge of the Wal -Mart property lots or whether Bob White Lane runs into a parking lot, correct? It's the same effect? A. I'm not sure what you mean when you depict same effect. In my opinion, there's no correlation between the two. In other words, this is a proposed c ommercial versus let's say the proposed residential development. I'm not sure what you mean by that question. Q. Well, taking a look at Bob White Lane on the particular drawing that we have here, which again is the preliminary landscape plan for th e commission's benefit. The Bob White Lane terminate point is at the Wal -Mart property line to the north and as we look south, you have the berm that we discussed previously, you have a traffic lane that's approximately 30 feet wide and then a curbed par king aisle, is that correct? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And if a user of Bob White Lane were to rely on the Pulte subdivision plan for this property on an earlier date, it's accurate to say that this development deprives the user of Bob White Lane f rom taking the semi -circle down to 127th Street that previously existed to the Pulte one, is that correct? A. The possible development of that Bob White Lane again would be subject to development of the property. In other words, if it developed, I wou ld assume Bob White Lane would be extended as proposed. If it was not developed for any particular reason by the owner, then it would stop the show and not proceed. Q. But you do see that proposal to this Wal -Mart is an elimination of Bob White Lane's access to 127th street, don't you? A. Again, I am not privileged to a, let's say a traffic report that would have identified subsequent traffic patterns from Bob White through the proposed residential, and I think that would speak to itself as to whate ver may or may not have been anticipated. Q. Has Wal -Mart done any rendition or anything
that you're familiar with to depict the view of the rear of the berm from any of the residential homes? A. The only depictions that we have done so far is wha t is currently in front of the committee tonight. Q. But the drawings, particularly for this store that you've reviewed with Wal -Mart, whether it is with the architect or your firm or any of the others, including the landscape architect had considered all of those, it's accurate to say that there's no depiction that you can share with the commission or the audience of what the berm with the fence and the trees above the berm will look like from their back yards or the back porches for example? A. Ot her than again, the drawings we have done, for instance, the one I have referred to previously, which shows the section through a portion of the Wal -Mart lot, and shows a, what I would call a typical elevation from the closest single family home to the Wa l -Mart store. Q. But this one here, you're showing an approximation, correct, of the finished floor elevation of 639.5 and the floor elevation of lot 60 with none other than you're not showing the impact of the development or the visual impact of the d evelopment as you look out from lot 60? A. Oh, what I would call an elevation perspective, very similar to what you would see for a building, that's correct, such as this particular rendering as it is viewed from the front of the building, that has not been done. Q. It's accurate to say that the plans for this particular site don't call for any recreational facilities, right? A. That's correct. Q. And with respect to open space, could you describe the open space for the commission? A. Ther e is, the spaces that are currently shown on the plan as to what I will call landscaping areas, which are areas in green and/or areas not part of pavement or building developments, such as the potential basins are the only areas that I think I could say a re open space on this plan. Q. From another perspective, if it's compared the Pulte PUD 1 subdivision to the subdivision proposed here, than you had proposed in this instance, you would agree that the open space is being reduced as you look at the Pul te development first and then compare it to
the Wal -Mart development? A. I would say I've not prepared that analysis in that fashion. I cannot verify that. Q. And again referring to open space, have you taken a look at the zoning ordinance and are you using the definition of the zoning ordinance or are you using an engineer's commonly understood definition? A. Engineer's commonly understood definition. Q. And the storm water detention areas, would you consider them structures that you've all -- piping for example, into a creek? A. The detention basin is again involving aspects, but not only if you call construction grading, depth, continued not only normal water level, high water level and also the incoming and exiting storm sewers t hat are tributaries to it are all part of that storm water management system. Q. And the structure that you've got in place you think will properly handle the storm water from north to south, right? A. The proposed storm water management system w ill meet the ordinance requirements. Q. With respect to your comments earlier and again take the mike from me and correct me if I'm wrong, but you mentioned green space depicted on the plan would constitute open space. From that comment, you woul d exclude the two commercial lots to the east along 59, right? A. Yes, I would. I was referring to the Wal -Mart portion. I think I should also explain what any area depicted for future development, such as the expansionary Wal -Mart, the expansion of future parking, those areas initially will not be built, so they will obviously be left in a natural green state. In other words, grass. MR. DANIEL: I think that's all I've got in the way of questions. I'm not sure if John has any follow -up que stions or wants to clarify anything? CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Mr. Philipchuck, do you have any redirect? MR. PHILIPCHUCK: No, I do not. I don't know if there are any members of the public today that might have any questions.
CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Oka y. We'll open up the meeting for -- anyone who has a question or cares to make a comment on the testimony that has just been given, please step up to the microphone, please state your name, your address so the court reporter can get that down. And you're welcome to form a line. We're going to open up the meeting for public comment. This is a time for anyone in the general public to step forward to the microphone and ask a question relating to the testimony that has just been given. If you care to make a comment, that's all right, too. If you want to form a line behind the podium, that's fine, too. Please state your name and address? MR. ONUSAITIS: My name is Dan Onusaitis, O -n -u -s -a -i -t -i -s. I'm at 12436 Falcon Drive. I had a few questions for Wal -Mart and in relation to the proposal here. EXAMINATION BY MR. ONUSAITIS Q. The northwest area of the facility that you have here, you had mentioned a little bit earlier that this is for future expansion and that there would be a propos ed dock. Would it be correct in saying that that future expansion would be for a grocery store? A. What is shown on here is for the future expansion, which turns into what we call a super center and does provide the grocery aspect to the store. Q. Okay. And I believe actually the attorney had asked whether or not there was any specific delivery times, any type of I guess foreseeable traffic that would be in that area for trash removal, especially if you're going to have groceries and food, tha t could bring animals, rats, racoons, anything to the area. Also, if that's going to be another proposed dock, I guess just logically looking at the picture, you would think that the trucks would come through the top, the north entrance, if they have doc ks coming in this way, and also this being the main area for the docks and the delivery to the building, is there anything in requirements or guidelines that state that
you have to have security lighting or sufficient lighting in the back that would normal ly be attached to the top of the building to light this area 24 hours? A. I'm kind of working backwards. In terms of lighting, the lighting that is provided right now, anything along the rear is minimal. It's normally only at truck dock areas, as an example, there's only one light that is normally provided at the end of the truck dock, in a similar fashion would -- what would occur to the dock for the future groceries area, keep in mind, too, what we have shown right now is a current prototype subject to change as to how that dock is orientated, how it is built, even the size of the future expansion. But those would normally be the lighting provided the rear of the store. They don't normally provide what we would call a wall pack lighting, which is mounted to the side of the building and mounted onto the pavement. That's normally only done at an entrance or exit to the store, not for lighting up parking lots. Q. Do you think that that could result in a, the potential for, if there 's only lighting in the dock areas, that that would be supplied by Wal -Mart and let's say there, would I be correct in stating that this complete middle section would not be lit, there wouldn't be any lights back here to prevent maybe somebody from parking a car back there and having easy access to the homes here for burglaries or anything to that extent? A. The lighting levels again are subject, not only of what is, we'll call it a desire for the store, from the commercial for their operation and u se, it's also a function of the community. So, during the course of the process, will additional lights be added, it's possible. We have stores where a lighting at the rear of stores has been required. We also have stores where it has not been, t hey do not envision that as, you call it the same safety levels that you are speaking to. Q. Will there be any additional lighting on the side of the building or the north end, the north end of the building here prior to future expansion or even after expansion on the building itself?
A. No, right now again we don't. Standards are that you don't light off the side of the building, but when shown the lighting there, which obviously would not be installed until that future for a parking lot for in stance is proposed. Q. So, then right now, this area would be dark, correct? A. With the exception that this, except this area would be dark. The area that would be lit would be just that, these couple lights on the far, they're called perimeter drive. I don't know if you could depict those. Q. Yes. I can depict those now and there's going to be another question. So, those are four, four 27 and a half foot lights right up against this buffer area as you referred to it, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. I guess the reason I was mentioning a lot of the things with regard to the lighting on the side of the buildings as people have addressed, you know, thought about this issue and driven around and looked at other buildings and tried t o come up with ideas, examples of why we might or might not be interested in a Wal -Mart proposal is because, I don't know if anybody has seen on the northeast corner of 111th and Route 59, there's a strip mall that is backing up to some homes, and it is ve ry obvious if anybody can see it that they, if they want to drive by it, there's homes there and they actually have a berm and a fence, which would as an example in this picture would have been right here and the homes were backing up to it, and there's se curity lighting that's mounted at the top of the building, and it's directly across from the second floor windows of all the homes. So, somebody could keep that in mind and take a look at as an example of something that we would definitely want to avo id. You had the depiction or the side view of like an advantage point from the residential area, and I was wondering if that was to scale? A. Yes, it is. Q. What was the height of the home that you had depicted in this picture? A. I believe we used 20 feet between floors. So, approximately 20 feet to the underside of the second floor.
Q. Were any studies done in relation to the vantage point from Bob White, maybe in the northern -most portion of Bob White, within the Heritage Meadows s ubdivision? Because right now, if anybody wants to drive down Bob White through Heritage Meadows, you can tell just when you turn the corner up at the top of Bob White, you can see all the way across and down and across 127th to the Target that's being proposed or actually being built right now. And I was just wondering if you feel that the berm that you're going to put near or that you're proposing to put here and this fence will actually block the view down Bob White of the Wal -Mart, because I gue ss I would say, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but Wal -Mart is pretty comparable to the size of Target in the size of the building and the height, is that not correct? A. Yes, in general the size of that store and the Target are very similar, an d again, in roughly the 130, 140,000 square foot scenario. In terms of a view from Bob White, again, depending on where you are stopped looking from your car, the berm obviously and the landscaping, et cetera are going to cut off the view to the south. How far up Bob White would you have to go and also the elevation before that changes, I'm uncertain. Q. Before the proposal here for a Wal -Mart, there was plans in here for Pulte to have a residential area. And at that time, I'm not too sure if I remember how the plans were and you can help me with this. Do you recall seeing the lay -out of the subdivision that was proposed and did Bob White go all the way down to 127th and provide additional road access to 127th from the proposed residential ? A. I did see that plan. Quite frankly, I don't have it memorized as to the extension of Bob White all the way through here. I would assume it did, I just do not have that locked in my head, so I can provide a concrete answer. Q. I gues s then the only other question I had in bringing that up is right now Heritage Meadows, which is the single family and the townhomes at this point don't
have, they only have the main access, which is off Route 59, which at this time, even with the construc tion is a very congested area, which will come up in traffic studies. But the only other exit at this point is off of Van Dyke, which is right here, and I guess my question is in the traffic study, I know you said it's still going on, but one thing to consider is removing the originally planned residential area with additional road access to 127th and then a potential stop light here. Do you see it being realistic to say that the Illinois Department of Transportation is going to put a light on 119th, a light here and a light here and maybe not leave a light at the Heritage Meadows entrance because we've heard rumors that they're going to force or the Illinois Department of Transportation has done planning on doing a right turn only out of the subdivisi on, which would mean that everybody is going to be forced to drive past the school on a regular basis to exit our subdivision. A. Again, I think it's almost sufficient to state that the traffic study when it's done addresses this revised change that the proposed commercial versus the residential looks at the access locations and provides data that suggests what if any improvements are necessary to support this, that they do go beyond the border somewhat, to certain intersections. As far as the st ate, again is the key here as to whether a traffic signal is permitted, where it's going to go. I think as you know, or many folks do, I should say, 59 right now is under the current construction, this area because of the proposed median that will be in there will be actually, unless the state permits it otherwise, is a right in, right out only, you couldn't make a left into the site, because of that median until the state reviews not only this location, what's proposed, what's currently existing as you d escribed further up, north of 59, and for that matter what if anything would or could be developed on the east side of 59, too, at this location will influence if and when a light could go there, will it go there, that's the question that has to be answere d. Q. So, then if this proposed Wal -Mart did get approved, really, and actually I'm just ignorant in the sense of how much the traffic study would take part
in the Illinois Department of Transportation, would we actually have, would our planning c ommission have control over what the Department of Transportation decides in regard to the street entrance into Heritage Meadows or after this is proposed, they do a study and they say well, we're going to put a light here and here, because this is the mai n area and we're sorry, but you're going to be a right turn and you're not going to be able to go north on 59. And now you're going to force all the traffic out to Van Dyke and have a lot of traffic going past all the children in the school area. The other question is is there security at Wal -Mart currently? Does anybody know? A. I guess what I'd like, again, because we're kind of going to be calling in an engineer and all the other professions, we're trying to keep the questions in that order , not simply to provide a little uniformity. Q. I guess the only concern I had there was whether or not, I'm sure that there's probably studies that Wal -Mart has done on their own on criminal activities, related incidents that are logged at Wal -Mart st ores, maybe how that could effect the area, being so close to a residential community and that would also include anything that would potentially occur in the parking lots of the areas that are not sufficiently lighted or backing up to homes. That's really all I have. MR. BREEZER: John Breezer (phonetic), 12426 Heritage Meadows Drive. EXAMINATION BY MR. BREEZER Q. My only question, I think as you stated before, referencing the last meeting that we had together when you discussed truck traffic, no w you're, the last meeting you had, you said all truck traffic would enter off of 127th, driving along the side of the building and make a circle to back and turn around here and there would be no truck traffic up along the houses in this area. Has that ch anged from the last time we met until now? A. I simply wanted to, when I stated, as of right now, the access in terms of the width here and here are able to take trucks at either location right now. It's probably more good engineering than anything else.
As far as to answer your question, I think in terms of the processes of these meetings, not only what occurred at the homeowners in here now, the area could be identified whether trucks come through here or not. And I think that's the subject of this meeting, and what the village will allow and what they won't allow. I'm not saying the trucks cannot come solely from 127th, as they can function from that location. I guess what I'm saying is that's, that requirement will be part of this developm ent. And whether my client says yes to that, that's up to Wal -Mart. Q. Okay. I guess I'm just saying, the last time we met, is that not what you stated, that all truck traffic would come off 127th and turn around there and none of it would come fr om the north side of the property? I just want to say is that what we were told last time we met? A. I believe that was a response given at that meeting, that is correct. MR. BREEZER: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: My name is Kim Murray, I live at 1 2430 Heritage Meadows. I am right across the retention pond from where the Wal -Mart is going to be. When I bought my home, I was told this was going to be residential. No one said it might be, it may be, no one gave me any options, they said it's res idential, and that is why I wanted my home there. My kids' bedrooms are going to be looking at a Wal -Mart. I have no option, I cannot afford to move and in all honesty, I've been told not by health professionals, but I've been told what this is going to do to the value of my home. Personal opinion, not Wal -Mart, I would never move next to a commercial piece of land. And when I put my savings into this home and the upgrades I've put into my home and a pool I've put in my back yard, I didn't do it u nder the understanding I was going to look at anything commercial.
That's not what I was told. I was not told there was any probability of anything commercial going in there. I have three children, I have a daughter with asthma, I do believe this i s going to worsen her condition in the fact that they are, it's not going to be as clean as a residential area would be. There are going to be trucks, there's going to be a gas station, there's going to be lights, there are going to be things that will affect her condition and that I believe will ruin the value of my home, that I put my hard earned money into. No one said maybe, they said it's residential. These people who moved by that Target, moved by that Jewel, they knew that was commercial land . We did not know this was commercial land, we did not know there was any probability of commercial. We were told residential, and I just am here to tell you I don't think it's fair that this is even happening. And now I have to put my hard -earned money into a lawyer to stop this from happening, because it's not fair. Thank you for your time. MS. GORSKY: My name is Paula Gorsky (phonetic). My address is 12959 Kennsington Drive, a resident of Kennsington Club, across the street of 127th and be hind the Target. I also moved into that area, thinking moving from the city by the way, behind all of these commercial things. Looking at the plan, seeing on our plans, seeing the commercial plat, placed as a grocery and four little stores that has now turned into a giant Target that I see out of my bedroom window, I am not happy about. Again, seeing this across the street where our homes for the rest of our subdivision were to be and now a store, all of the traffic coming out of the Wal -Mart ont o 127th Street, hindering my entrance into my home, a proposed or their planned bike path around our whole subdivision to take my two small children to drive past gas stations and the Wal -Mart and cars is just unacceptable to me as a new resident of this t own. And I apologize, I'm not a public speaker, I just, I'm very concerned with this, I know a
lot of focus has been on Heritage Meadows as it should be, but there's also a subdivision to the south that is not happy about this at all, speaking personally , and I oppose this in every way, and I sure hope that you take some consideration into all those residents as well as all the children that go to that school and all the children that will be going to that school. That is my opinion. MR. SHELDON: My n ame is Jim Sheldon, S -h -e -l -d -o -n, I live at 12965 Stockington Avenue, in the Kennsington Club subdivision, and I just have a prepared statement to say to you. We moved from retail villages seeking a better planned community like those that Plainfield ha s already made. The corner of 127th and Route 59 promised just this arrangement. Pulte in Plainfield led us to believe that the zoning of this parcel would remain residential, but apparently we were misled. For some of us, these homes are not the f irst homes we ever owned. Over the years we have accumulated plenty of stuff. We don't need any more stuff like the stuff that Wal -Mart sells. We seek a community, not a super retail outlet. Letting Wal -Mart move to Plainfield would easily foil t he dignity that the oldest village in Will County has earned over the last century. It would also tarnish the reputation as a well -planned village and attract perhaps an undesirable tax base. Wal -Mart is a fine store, it has alternative opportunities n earer to the areas of first -time home buyers or people that are very good customers of theirs. Those potential locations offer a better match with Wal -Mart and Target. We ask you to please rezone there and not here. Thanks very much. MS. KAMINSKI : My name is Kim Kaminski, I live at 12352 South Heritage Meadows Drive. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Spell your name? MS. KAMINSKI: K -a -m -i -n -s -k -i. And I'd like to right now reserve the right to come to the podium again, because as a
resident of Plainfie ld, you will know this face. EXAMINATION BY MS. KAMINSKI Q. Okay. And from there, I would like to know, this traffic study that you say you're doing now, would you take into consideration there's construction on Route 59 in other places in this community? The traffic study is not going to make any sense when that construction is complete. Everybody is trying to avoid this area right now. So, your study is for naught. Also with regard to the fence that you're going to put along the berms, in a case that I found on the internet, in Dublin, Georgia, a case in Dublin, Georgia, you had put a five -foot metal fence along the property, which I believe they said it was like 12 months later, the fence was blown down and twisted and in the people's back yards, there was garbage from the Wal -Mart all over the place, it took 18 months of fighting with Wal -Mart to try to get this repaired, and the association finally paid for it themselves and put it back up again. Can you tell us who's going to be ma intaining this property? A. Wal -Mart. Q. And that's what they told the people in Dublin, Georgia. Are you going to reimburse them the $1800 for the fence? A. Wal -Mart will build, maintain and operate this development and will be responsible for anything on the property, in response to your question. Q. Question two was will you refund them their $1800 in Dublin, Georgia? A. I'm speaking to this development, not speaking to a question or a concern for a problem as you're stating, whic h I don't have any knowledge of in another state. I'm speaking to this one. If there's something on some portion of this development, whether it's landscaping or berming on the Wal -Mart property which they built, Wal -Mart will be responsible for the aga in operation and maintenance of this facility. Q. That's what the people in Dublin, Georgia thought as well. I'll take that as a no. Have you done any security studies on a
lot that size and will there be someone controlling that lot other than th e officer that will have to do everything, because that is a 24 -hour -a -day job? A. I'm sorry. Some of your questions directly for the Wal -Mart operations will be answered by the representative, somebody I'm involved with because of the civil engineeri ng knowledge that I work with, but some of the specifics are in reference to be answered later by Wal -Mart. Q. Okay. I'll keep that for later. How much water will be used for the landscaping, we're already having a water problem every summer in Pl ainfield as it is? A. There is plans for irrigation for this system. That is really a function as any other section of the community, for instance, what I mean by that is that if they are limited to watering in facilities due to water shortage, et c etera, they will follow the same rules the rest of the community does as well. Q. Okay. And is there anything proposed for your parking lot for the morning or the afternoons, when the children from the two local schools will be coming right past ther e, seeing that they are not offered bus service because they are less than 1.5 miles away from the school? A. Such aspect has not been brought up yet, nor discussed in terms of I believe you're referring to off -site bussing of children. Am I say ing that correctly? Q. They will not bus because we're less than 1.5 miles, but they have to go past there in order to get to school. A. Again, the current plans for the Wal -Mart store, which the community if approved reviews and provides certain aspects that are required, I'm just speaking to one, for instance of the sidewalk along 127th required as part of this development. There's a bike path along, again I'm referring to a bike path, I believe that's a correct term for the winding walk alo ng 59 for access along those facilities. In terms of more, you're referring to safety above and beyond that, some of that is also in response to the type of, if anything, signalization that occurs at intersections with regard to that. Beyond that, f rom what I would call
conventional measures, that has not been discussed or brought up. Q. And lastly, when taking into account the comprehensive plan, did you focus on the part where they claim to keep proposed commercial developments away from scho ols? A. I did not study the comprehensive plan as others of our team have been involved with. So, I'll defer comments to them. Q. Didn't you go to the meeting last week? I would have thought you would have been there. A. No, I did not. MS. MEIZENGER: Thank you. My name is Lori Meizenger (phonetic), and I live at 12426 South Bob White. To answer your question, this poor man from Georgia, their homeowners association had to pay $1800 to repair that fence. You know there, you can see the fence. At that picture, the caption reads after a homeowners association paid for the repair of the fence, I made a final clean -up of the area on our side of it. Unfortunately, customers continue to throw trash over the fence. I think you s hould reimburse them. MR. TRUPPA: My name is Tony Truppa (phonetic), I live in the Champion Creek subdivision. EXAMINATION BY MR. TRUPPA Q. My question is of the plan consulting representative on the statement for the plan commission members. Wa s Manhard Consulting involved in any site or development planning for a previous Wal -Mart location that was proposed for 111th and Route 59 in the Naperville corporate area? A. There was a proposed development to my knowledge by Continental Properties I think was a developer, that I refer, I'm not sure, I haven't looked back on the records, if that was exactly at that location, but I can remember it being in Naperville, and I think that developer was attempting to see if Wal -Mart would go onto that pro perty. That may be the correct location. I'd have to look back on records. Q. But do you recall that Manhard was involved in any site planning at that location, either for Wal -Mart or through Continental properties for Wal -Mart?
A. We were, in the location I'm referring to, we were retained by Continental Properties at the time. Q. Are you aware of any engineering issues that may have precluded Wal -Mart from the continued development at that location or perhaps Continental Properties from pursu ing that development at that location and then moving into the Plainfield area versus Naperville? A. There were -- if, I believe there were several issues involved. I think some of it was simply the development of the land that Wal -Mart could fit on that parcel of property. I think there were outlots already secured and the land available towards the rear of that. Again speaking from memory, I think it was not sufficient to support the store with both the standard store and parking and also oth er aspects, storm water and access. Q. In May of 2000, the township board vis -a -vis our planning commission adopted a master land use plan, which defines the development and the use of land throughout Wheatland Township. Over a period of a year, our plan commission sought input and direction from the various municipalities, the city of Naperville, Plainfield, Bolingbrook, Aurora, school district, park district, forest preserve district, the various economic development groups for the municipalitie s mentioned and NIPCI, Northern Illinois Planning Commission. After this intensive review process, our plan was developed in the area immediately around this area was either designated residential for a state lot zoning as defined by current Will County ordinances. After taxing the comprehensive plan, we sent the plat with plans to the various entities I just mentioned. I'm here today to encourage the plan commission to keep consistent with the zoning that's already in place for this immediate area as residential. Thank you. MS. MAKUCH: My name is Julianna last name is Makuch, M -a -k -u -c -h. I live at 12406 Heritage Meadows Drive, and I echo the comments of my fellow homeowners in that when we looked at purchasing a home, we looked in an
area that in fact was zoned for residential surrounding us. Had we known that there was a possibility of rezoning, we probably would have looked elsewhere. We moved to Plainfield because of the community, because of the planning, because of the wonderful schools that we have, everywhere you look on the signs, it talks about Plainfield's wonderful schools. That was all the consideration we took when we bought this home. My question is really to the board, why are we allowing this to be rezoned to a new commerc ial development when in fact there is a good portion of property still in Plainfield which is available for commercial sites? My question is not why Wal -Mart, it's why rezoning, and I think that's what we all feel here. MS. SHANNON: My name is Lisa Sha nnon. I'm going to be living at 12509 Larkspur Lane, which is immediately to our south, which is a brand new subdivision. I'm actually a professional realtor. When I went to look at homes and purchased a home, I had the opportunity to live in Naperville , but I was very fond of Plainfield, I sold many homes here to many of my friends and relatives as well as customers. We did the research, and I checked the zoning on that parcel of land and I was very confident that it would remain residential when I pu rchased my lot. Now I'm building a very expensive home, which is going to be backing to a Wal -Mart. Am I pleased about that, no, I'm not and I would like to make the comment as a mother who has two very small children, who is very concerned about the s chool system and the children walking by that Wal -Mart, as a realtor that's going to be very concerned about property values in this neighborhood. My home is not even built, and I guarantee you that my property value is going to go down by at least 25 or $30,000 by a Wal -Mart in my back yard. I'm concerned about my current buyers and my previous buyers, because we're going to be backing up to a Wal -Mart, it's a precedent that's going
to affect every single buyer that's going to be coming up in Plainfiel d if they buy next to an empty piece of land, whether or not there's going to be a retail establishment built in their back yard. That's my comments to the board. MS. POMETTA: My name is Phyllis Pometta, P -o -m -e -t -t -a, are I live at 12355 Heritage Mead ows, and I am holding one of the smallest, probably newest members of Heritage Meadows subdivision. Now, I ask you by looking at this, ask if this was your child, would you want your child living five houses away from a commercial development? I did not buy my house as a young married person starting a family wanting to move next to a commercial property, and let alone a gas station. I think that is unacceptable. I do not feel that it should be rezoned commercial, and thank you very much. MR. ANDERS ON: My name is Mark Anderson, I live at 12951 Greenfield Drive, in the Ponds of Plainfield subdivision. I am the president of the homeowners association at the Ponds of Plainfield. We have a prepared statement here from the board of directors at the P onds that I'd like to read to the board and then I'll submit the letter to you. This letter is to express our concern relative to the proposed rezoning of the piece of property just west of Route 59 at 127th Street from residential to commercial. When the owners here were purchasing lots within the Ponds, we were told that all of the land around us was zoned residential. This is why most of our neighbors picked this area to build homes. Although growth in Plainfield is inevitable and even welcome, the objection is to the village's desire to rezone the land which was originally meant to be residential. Had it been zoned commercial to begin with, most surrounding neighbors would not even be here. We do live here, we are taxpayers and we have a problem with the rezoning. Another concern is the amount of traffic all of these commercial businesses will produce and the ability to enter and exit our subdivision. We already have difficulty in this regard
and once there are four lanes to cross, th ere will be major safety issues. Another major concern is proximity of the proposed site to an existing middle school. Our children and their safety must come first. Thousands of people will be coming in and out of a store the size of Wal -Mart ev ery day. Children hang out at schools. It's meant to be a safe haven for them. Would any one on the planning commission feel comfortable letting their children play around a school, knowing that thousands of strangers are coming and going a short dist ance away? Please consider these concerns and do the right thing and tell Wal -Mart to pick an area in Plainfield that's already zoned for commercial use. Thank you for your fair consideration in this matter. MS. PIEMONTE: My name is Sharon Piemonte (p honetic), I live at 12310 Heritage Meadows Drive. It is the duty of the plan commission to see that our town grows responsibly. Don't subject families to the unbearable conditions or living 40 feet from the world's largest retailer. Stores expected to s ell a million dollars a day can afford to look elsewhere in our town for a commercial lot. As second -time home buyers, we were sad when they came to research in the area we wanted to call home. We visited the school numerous times and reviewed the annual school report card. We contacted the Environmental Protection Agency about the radium in Plainfield water and learned what a reverse osmosis unit does. I acquired copies of our park district schedules and library. Knowing how important location is to r eal estate, we insist on a copy of plats Pasquinelli had for the area, and it clearly showed the area in question as a neighborhood. We were assured repeatedly by Plainfield, Pasquinelli and Pulte that that land would be developed into single family homes . Now, after families have invested years in our community and millions of dollars for their
homes, not to mention paying property taxes, which are among the highest in the village, you want to put a Wal -Mart in our back yards. To even suggest 25 -feet li ghts on all night next to people's homes is ludicrous. A 24 -hour operation does not belong in a residential community. I also have reservations about a gas station on that location. To bury gas tanks that close to our pumping station seems foolish. If there was ever a gas leak, it could seep into our water supply. There are already plans for a gas station in the Wolf Creek commercial district directly across from us east of Route 59. Do not saturate this area with gas stations which bring a live crime element into neighborhoods and doesn't help them in the long run. I am also opposed to rezoning as well as many other environmental issues, interfering with the creek along 127th is a bad idea. People in our area are already suffering from flooded b anks. Our retention pond has crested with recent rains, and run -off in a parking lot on this site will surely make matters worse. Another major concern is the air and noise pollution that close to people's homes and at all hours of the day and night. Naperville has an ordinance restricting the sale of guns and knives within a thousand feet of the school. Plainfield should adopt such an ordinance. Children should be everyone's main concern and the negative effects this will have on little children is unconscionable. We bought our homes in Plainfield to ensure our children a safe and healthy environment. People who a short time ago were looking forward to a long and peaceful life in Plainfield are now questioning whether its time to move on. D on't lose these valuable messages, keep commercial development out of residential areas. Rezoning this area would be detrimental to our community by having a grevious effect on our
property values, our quality of life and most importantly the safety of o ur children. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Okay. Thank you very much. We're getting close to the time where I have to adjourn the meeting, because of our arrangements for renting the hall. We will be continuing this meeting on October the 30th, and there will be time set aside for further public comment. So, if you didn't have a chance to speak tonight, you'll get another chance. John, do you have any closing comments? MR. PHILIPCHUCK: For the residents, we will return on that evening, we do have additi onal professionals here who will address traffic issues, landscaping issues, the architecture of the building and physical impact studies as well as landscaping. So, if you wish to come back to that meeting, there wil be another opportunity as the chair man has pointed out to ask questions and to hear testimony from those experts. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Do you have any comments? MR. DANIEL: No. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Okay. At this time, the chair needs a motion to continue the discussion of this case u ntil October 30th, 7:00, at this location. MR. SCHINDERLE: I so move. MS. GEHRKE: I second. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: A motion has been made and seconded to continue the discussion of this case until October 30th at 7 p.m. at this location. A vote by v oice. All in favor, signify by saying aye? ALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOBKOVIAK: Opposed? The motion is carried. The plan commission will reconvene on October 30th, at 7 p.m. at this location. (WHEREUPON, that was all the the proceedings which were held in the above -entitled matter.)
STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS: COUNTY OF W I L L ) I, Kathleen Dean, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 84 -1438, a Notary Public within and for the County of Will, do hereby certify that I reported in shorthand the proceedings had and testimony taken in the above -entitled cause; and that the foregoing report of proceedings is a true, correct and complete transcript of my shorthand notes so taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth. In testimony whereof, I have hereun to set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this 28th day of October, A.D. 2000. Notary Public My Commission Expires June 28, 2003.