HomeMy Public PortalAbout2001-12-04 PC minutes D -6358 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS: COUNTY OF W I L L ) BEFORE THE PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS taken at the hearing of the above -entitled cause before Gale L. Barma, CSR No. 84 -003807, RPR, on December 4, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., at 530 West Lockport Street, Plainfield, Illinois. PRESENT: MR. JAMES SOBKOVIAK, Chairman; MS. MARILYN GEHRKE, Commissioner; MR. WALTER O. MANNING, Commissioner; MR. ROBERT SCHINDERLE, Commissioner; MR. DAN SEGGEBRUCH, Commissioner; MR. STEPHEN AMANN, Village Engineer; MR. DOUGLAS CARROLL, Village Planner; MR. DALE DRAYNA, Planner; MR. MICHAEL S. GARRIGAN, Planner. - - - MR. CHAIRMAN: Tuesday, December 4, 2001, meetin g of the Plainfield Plan Commission is in session. All rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carroll, would you call the roll, please. MR. CARROLL: Kachel (No response.) MR. CAR ROLL: Seggebruch. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: Here. MR. CARROLL: Gehrke. MS. GEHRKE: Here. MR. CARROLL: Manning. MR. MANNING: Here. MR. CARROLL: Schinderle. MR. SCHINDERLE: Here. MR. CARROLL: Anderson. (No response.) MR. CARROLL: Sobkoviak. MR. CHAIRMAN: Here. MR. CARROLL: Park District, school district, fire district. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Here. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Was that fire or library? MR. CARROLL: It's coming right next.
MR. C HAIRMAN: Thank you. You have from your packets the minutes of our last meeting, that of November 20th, our last regular meeting, November 20th of 2001. Are there any additions or corrections that we need? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, the minutes will be accepted as presented. Under new business, Case No. 915 dash 100901 dot F, Frank, P, Paul, slash S, Sam, P, Paul, R, Raymond, slash S, Sam, U, union, Rose subdivision. This is a public hearing for final plat, site plan review, and a special use permit. Staff. MR. GARRIGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This matter comes before you, Mr. Chairman, this evening with regards to the requested special use application and site plan review and a fi nal plat. The current location of property is located at the corner of 135th and Route 30. This is Lot 4 of the Rose subdivision. Just for your contacts, the current Walgreens, which recently opened up, is right here on Lot 1 of the northwestern c orner of the Rose subdivision. The subject site is currently zoned B -3 approximately 16 acres. Again, to reiterate, this property was approved for final plat in February of 2001, approved. The applicant again is requesting a site plan review, a fin al plat, and special use. With regards to contacts, the Walker's Grove School is located just north of the site along here. Harvest Glen residential subdivision is right through here to the west and the Copley Printer plant is here to the east (indi cating). With respect to the first request, special use permit, in accordance with the Village ordinance, the applicant must prove that they conformed or adhered to the three standards which are incorporated in the Village ordinance. First stan dard in regard to the establishment maintenance or operation of special use would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health. Staff has had an opportunity to review this. The proposed drive -through as proposed by the applicant. It's Staff's opinion that that is consistent with the current use. It's consistent with what's already occurred at the Walgreens site on Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision. The proposed drive -through as applicant has submitted, should have no detrimental impact of a djoining lots within the Rose subdivision, or, moreover, any of the residential areas to the Rose subdivision. As you recall, as part of the final plat approval of the original Rose subdivision, there is a perimeter fence from 135th Street all the w ay to Route 30 which has already been installed and already some existing landscaping has already installed. So there's over 350 feet between the proposed Lot 4 or this proposed retail center and the residential area of Harvest Glen. So it's Staff's opinion there will be no detrimental aspect or endangerment to any of the adjoining properties in this subdivision. With respect to the second standard, this applicant must show that the special use not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of the p roperty in the immediate area for the purposes already permitted nor substantially diminished and impair the property within the neighborhood. Again, it's Staff's opinion that the proposed drive -through as submitted is consistent with the current use , uses of Lot 1 with regards to the existing Walgreens, with regards
to -- it should have no negative impact on any of the property values or diminish any of the property values of the surrounding property in this area. With respect to the third sta ndard, applicant must show that the establishment of special use will not impede the normal and ordinary development. Again, it's Staff's opinion that the proposed drive -through should have no negative impact on the normal and orderly development. It's c onsistent with the B -3 zoning. So Staff believes that the applicant has complied or adhered to the three required standards as enumerated in the Village's zoning ordinance. With respect to the second application or aspect of this report, it's t he site plan review. The applicant's specifically proposing to construct an 8,000 square foot retail center on Lot 4. Here's an elevation of the proposed architectural elevation of what applicant is proposing to do. MR. CHAIRMAN: Where is Lot 4? MR. GARRIGAN: Lot 4 is, again, just south of Walgreens. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I'm sorry. MR. GARRIGAN: Again, the applicant must show that they've complied with the Village ordinance with regards to the minimum 25 percent masonry require ment as per the Village's site plan review ordinance. As you can see the elevations here, the applicant is proposing to construct a retail center which would be constructed of face brick, also a plate window, plate glass, and also drivit. It's Staff 's opinion that they have complied or adhered to the Village's 25 percent masonry requirement. However, Staff does have some concerns with respect to the proposed architectural elevations, the potential for possible monotony. And Staff would welcom e possible -- some additional architectural elements into the elevations which would break up the potential monotony of this structure as enumerated in my staff report. Anything like perhaps the incorporation of some additional brick patterns or soldier course of brick, an arcade, some awnings, perhaps some roof treatments would have the positive impact of possibly breaking up the proposed architectural elevations to this site. With respect to the second element of the site plan review for Lot 4, th e proposed site will incorporate a right -in right -out access right here at Route 30 as you can see with regards to right through here (indicating), a right -in and right -out through here (indicating). They will also have a full access to a private str eet which runs through the heart of the Rose subdivision. They'll have an easement through here, an access easement which shall be incorporated to give them access to this part of the street which runs from Route 30 to 135th. So their only full access to Route 30 and 135th Street is via this private internal street which runs through the Rose subdivision. With respect to the parking on the site, the applicant has as required in accordance with the Village ordinance and inasmuch demonstrates there's 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail space. Also, there is possibly a proposal for a possible drinking establishment -- sorry -- drinking or eating establishment on this location and they must demonstrate 10 parking spaces per thous and square feet for that. A total of 1,800 square feet is being proposed for a drinking or eating establishment which would require 34 parking spaces -- strike that -- would require 18 parking spaces.
A proposed retail aspect of this proposed reta il center would require 34 parking spaces, a total of 52 parking spaces would be required. It appears that the applicant has proposed 74 parking spaces on this site and that adheres to the Village's parking requirements. In accordance with the Villa ge's parking requirements, for a drive -through, the applicant must adhere to the ten parking spaces for stacking requirements. Staff has had an opportunity to review this accountable stacking. It appears that the applicant has actually exceeded the amoun t of stacking for the drive -through which will be required consistent with village ordinance. So it's Staff's opinion that the applicant has adhered to the parking requirements of the Village. With respect to lighting, the Staff would request that t he applicant submit a photometric plan prior to the final approval. At the present time, the applicant has not submitted a photometric or specific designs for the light standards. Staff would request that the applicant do that before the final approv al of this project. With respect to the trash enclosure, again, Staff would request that the applicant submit specifics, drawings for trash enclosures in accordance with Village policy with regards to 100 percent enclosure for those trash enclosures. Again, the signage, that is a separate process. The applicant would need to go through a separate process and adhere to the Village's sign ordinance. But Staff would welcome or invite the applicant to perhaps consider some type of unified signage throughout this development which would possibly have a positive aspect on the aesthetics of this proposed development. With respect to the sidewalks, the Staff is requesting a sidewalk plan on something that's consistent with what we've done with oth er projects, consistent what we did with the Walgreens site. So prior to final approval, Staff would request a sidewalk plan be submitted for our review. With respect to the storm water, Lot 3 of the Rose subdivision, which is right down here on th e southwestern corner of this, will serve as the current retention area. That will serve this whole site, serve specifically Lot 4, and I will defer to the village engineer on any storm water or engineering questions -- or I'm sorry -- engineering matte rs with regard to this report. The last aspect is the final plat. The applicant is seeking an amended final plat from the original final plat which was approved by the Village Board in February of this year. In that original final plat, to refr esh your memory, the applicant requested -- the project was subdivided into three lots. Lot 1 here is the current existing Walgreens. And now the applicant is requesting an amended final plat which would subdivide this Rose subdivision, approximately 16 acres, into four lots. Lot 4, again is the proposed retail center here. Lot 3 is the current existing retention area. Lot 2 is this large area through here. So, again, as enumerated in my staff report, obviously the lot sizes, lot dimensions have changed from the original final plat to the proposed amended final plat. In conclusion, it's Staff's opinion that the applicant has adhered to the Village ordinance with respect to the final plat requirements, also with respect to simply site plan r eview and also special use requirements.
I would suggest as enumerated in my staff report that the following motions as enumerated in my staff report are made subject to those stipulations. That concludes my staff report, Mr. Chairman. MR . CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Before I ask the petitioner to step up, you mentioned sidewalks in your report, but you don't have any -- you don't have a stipulation addressing sidewalks. MR. GARRIGAN: I believe -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Am I missing i t? MR. GARRIGAN: I believe there is an incorporated engineer report, a letter perhaps, with a request for sidewalks on Route 30. And I'd be more than happy to amend and incorporate an additional stipulation requesting the applicant to submit a sid ewalk plan. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we add a ninth stipulation then to submit a sidewalk plan? MR. GARRIGAN: That's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Petitioner, would you state your name. MR. BOCHENSKI: Certainly. Hello. I'm Joe Boc henski with Location Finders. I am the co -project manager. With me tonight is John Haganow. You probably remember us from the Walgreens Planning Commission that we came to. I think Michael did a great job summarizing our second part of this d evelopment which is an 8,000 square -foot multi -tenant retail center that includes a drive -through. I think instead of me going into rehashing the particulars that Michael brought out in his staff report, I'd like to say that we, you know, have worked well with Staff on Lot 1 with the Walgreens. We feel confident that we can work through some of the minor issues that are open regarding architectures and landscaping issues, the sidewalk issue and that we feel they're very minor in the scheme, in the sc ope, and we feel very comfortable working with Staff. And we'll sit down with Staff and go over these things and get good feeling and come out with another good result as we did with the Walgreens. So I think the best thing from our perspective is m aybe go to a question and answer and then summarize it up later. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's go down the list of the stipulations from the staff report. Compliance with the engineer, I assume you'll work that out. And compliance with the Fire Pro tection District, there is no argument there. Whatever the Fire Departments wants, that goes. Then compliance with the site plan review ordinance with respect to the requirement for 26 -foot drive aisles. Do you have a problem meeting that? MR. BOCHENSKI: None whatsoever. MR. CHAIRMAN: Submittal of a photometric plan prior to a final approval. MR. BOCHENSKI: We will submit a photometric plan. MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually, I'd like to see that before it goes to the Village Board. MR. BOCHENSKI: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Submittal of a trash enclosure plan. MR. BOCHENSKI: No problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, before that goes to the Village Board.
Introduction of some additional foundation plantings or landscape islan d along the stretch of the facade. MR. BOCHENSKI: That is one particular item that we'd like to discuss in detail with Staff when they have the opportunity. Because there are some -- our tenant, we built for this tenant before and pretty much are u sing the same design that we have done with other buildings with this tenant. And it's one of the things where we looked at safety issues of putting plantings right next to the turn. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the Plan Commission generally does not get dow n to put a bush here, put a bush there. We generally like to let the applicant work it out with Staff. MR. BOCHENSKI: We feel comfortable working with Staff on that issue. MR. CHAIRMAN: Introduction of additional architectural treatments alon g the eastern, northern, and southern facades. MR. BOCHENSKI: Once again, I don't think we have a problem working with Staff. We have a couple of centers that we recently did, one we're actually building in Aurora near New York and Eola that's very similar to this project, and I think the architecture there looks great. And I think there's a difference when you're looking at drawings than when you actually see the project. If we need some enhancement, we're definitely willing to work with -- MR. SCHINDERLE: What about the western. It's absolutely blah. There's nothing there except doorways and some lights. MR. BOCHENSKI: Right. It's the back of the building, the service area. That's typically what you find in these centers. T here's a lot of landscaping behind that building after the drive aisle and after the employee row of parking. There's a wide area of landscaping back here. There's 23 feet of landscaping. MR. SCHINDERLE: That would be easier. A building which is a ll brick and six doors that is just there, can you do anything to break that up a little bit? MR. BOCHENSKI: We can certainly look to bring some decorative lights as we have in the front or -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Dan, would you have any suggestions or something? MR. SCHINDERLE: Different brick or something? MR. BOCHENSKI: On the landscaping plan, there are foundation plantings that do break up the back so it's not as consistent. The elevation drawing doesn't pick those up, but the landsc aping plan does. So the appearance of it will be broken up. As you're standing in the employee parking, you'll see foundation plantings. Once you're on the other side, you're not going to see much because there are trees that over time will grow. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: Well, I would just say that based on the elevations, I mean, it appears that they're working with the surface a little bit. I mean, the footprint doesn't show it. It just shows a rectangular building. But they might just be steppin g it out one brick or so or whatever. Unless they're going to get into redesigning the front of the building or breaking it up, I don't see any reason why they couldn't have the same type of a scheme all the way around the back of the building with t he pilasters and the base course. In other words, just take the same treatment all the way around. Not without knowing more about what's
going to happen to the west, you know, it may not be a back of a building so -to -speak. Depending on what happens acr oss the street. MR. BOCHENSKI: We don't have a planned future development on the back parcel. However, we do envision several -- a development there. It's not going to remain vacant forever. But this is the service area. It's not the custom er area. It's not the frontage to US 30. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: On the Walgreens building, I think the back of Walgreens is really the south side of the Walgreens building, sort of. MR. BOCHENSKI: They have closures. The west side has a drive -throu gh which gives the break up, also. MR. BOCHENSKI: We can look to do some break up in here (indicating). I don't know that it will be as dramatic as the front. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: No. You'd want the front to be the most. MR. MANNING: I think the question is going to be hard for you to work with. But I think the landscaping, landscaping plantings shown here shows three trees back there. I think that if you concentrated on the landscaping, that might get the effect I think that we're looking for. MR. BOCHENSKI: That you're looking for? MR. MANNING: Yes. MR. BOCHENSKI: We can work with Staff and get a combination of both or illuminated landscaping with some decorative lights or something of that nature to enhance that area. MR. MANNING: That requires, I think, an amendment to 7. MR. CHAIRMAN: What would you suggest? MR. MANNING: Adding western. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Item 7 in the planner's report, we need to add western along with the eastern, northern , southern. Okay. Item 8 is introduction to the cross easement on the west perimeter of Lot 4 to provide better access to the Rose subdivision. Any difficulty with that? MR. BOCHENSKI: You know, we had looked at that in the past. I mean , we're talking about this area right here knocking out roughly three parking spaces and opening it up to the back. One of the things that we would have to do which would definitely be required is get approval from Walgreens. They do have some issue s with that. Basically the main issue -- and I -- we will work with Staff and talk through this and get the pros and cons and see what's best in the end. One of the issues that was brought up was just it being used as a bypass. Once you get in of f 135th Street and shooting straight down this road and cutting straight across and dodging the light, that was what we decided when we shut this off so it wasn't easily used as a quick L -bypass. MR. CHAIRMAN: Dan, what do you think of that? D an's our parking lot man. MR. MANNING: You get the same effect from that L -shape road. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: Is the road going in at this time ?
MR. BOCHENSKI: It won't go in with this development. This is what's proposed as we fill out the fu ture development. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: I mean, I've never seen a master site plan for this entire site. So I'm a little confused as to why you're -- I mean, apparently, you're parceling off this parcel now from kind of the master parcel. So is that wh at you're going to do each time you want to do another building is you're going to parcel off another outlot? MR. BOCHENSKI: As the market dictates, we are going to develop this. We don't want to develop something and hope people come. We want to d evelop something with tenants in mind. As you see on that site plan, there's actually a proposed day care. We're working with the National Day Care right now for the site on the most northwest portion of the center. But once again, we don't want to build something and have a vacant building. We want to work it with the tenants in mind and having the tenants' input when we're developing this so we get exactly what people want so we have the best market we can deliver. MR. CHAIRMAN: This full c urb cut, that's already been approved by IDOT in the future? MR. BOCHENSKI: No, that hasn't been approved by IDOT. That was what was recommended when we met with Staff initially when we came in to line up with the drive across Route 30. The r ight -in and right -out is in and it is approved -- or was approved. MR. CHAIRMAN: How about the sidewalk plan, do you have any problem with that? MR. BOCHENSKI: I think we'll work with the village engineer on ultimately -- there is a lot going on on Route 30. I think you all know that. I think working with IDOT -- I mean, we went through the first phase with Walgreens of going through IDOT. Did a lot of hydraulic work, did some culverts and stuff like that. And we'll continue to do work w ith the village engineer, our engineer, and IDOT to get this -- to get it perfect. The one thing I know we don't want to do is put something in and then have IDOT come in with their plan and rip it apart later on. That doesn't seem to make sense. W e want to remain consistent as we can with IDOT's future plan for that intersection. MR. CHAIRMAN: Speaking of the village engineer, do you have any issues, Steve? MR. AMANN: The only issue I had was basically the stuff on Route 30 that the ap plicant was referring to. There was the Staff and consultant report for a sidewalk out there as well as enclosing the drainage system. The Village is pursuing with a separate engineer an improvement to that intersection at some point with IDOT and a ll that. And we need to work out how that's all going to get implemented with the grant program funding at that intersection improvement and whatever improvements are made on the frontage by the developer. We can work that out, I'm sure. MR. CHAIRM AN: Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Sir, none of us can hear anything that was said. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll have to talk louder, I guess. Basically the engineer stated that there's nothing that he can't work out with the applicant.
Dan, have yo u -- do you have any comments on the parking lot? MR. SEGGEBRUCH: No. I mean, I think it -- I mean, obviously -- again, they're in excess of the ordinance. I'm assuming it has something to do with the fact that you are looking for approval. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Commissioners are free to question Staff or the petition. MS. GEHRKE: Is there a restaurant going in there, is that why you're asking for a drive -through? MR. BOCHENSKI: Yes. We are looking to put a coffee shop, specifica lly a Starbucks, with a drive -through end cap. MS. GEHRKE: Do you have that yet? MR. BOCHENSKI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who cares to ask a question or comment regarding this case? Mr. AUGUSTYN: Yes, I wou ld. MR. CHAIRMAN: State your name, please. MR. AUGUSTYN: John Augustyn, A -u -g -u -s -t -y -n. There's nothing that he can't work out with the applicant. Dan, have you -- do you have any comments on the parking lot? MR. SEGGEBRUCH: No. I mean, I think it -- I mean, obviously -- again, they're in excess of the ordinance. I'm assuming it has something to do with the fact that you are looking for approval. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Commissioners are free to question Staff or the pet ition. MS. GEHRKE: Is there a restaurant going in there, is that why you're asking for a drive -through? MR. BOCHENSKI: Yes. We are looking to put a coffee shop, specifically a Starbucks, with a drive -through end cap. MS. GEHRKE: Do you h ave that yet? MR. BOCHENSKI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who cares to ask a question or comment regarding this case? Mr. AUGUSTYN: Yes, I would. MR. CHAIRMAN: State your name, please. MR. AUGUSTYN: John Augustyn, A -u -g -u -s -t -y -n. First of all, I'd like to thank my neighbors for nudging me to get up here. They say a picture are worth a lot of words. If you want to just pass those out (indicating). There is plenty there. In accordance with W algreens there, I had John Haganow and his Location Finders at the house, and we originally took over the association. They gave us a plot. They came to our general meetings. They put a fence up and said where they're going to put it. Now, as thos e pictures simply state, they did the landscaping on the Walgreens side, and this is what they left on our side, along with holes left by Joe's and road construction. It's all left out there. So, you know, they say one side looks real nice. Come on the other side of that fence and this is what we're still dealing with.
We were told that they were going to put up plants, and then we were told it's too late in the planting season. It just so happens they just got done planting trees and bushes on the Walgreens side. So I have neighbors asking me why is nothing done on our side of the fence. MR. CHAIRMAN: Who is responsible for that, the landscaping and the completion of that area? MR. BOCHENSKI: We're responsible for the mainte nance and the completion of that area. There is -- we have had discussions with -- we showed up and gave presentations twice to the homeowner's association. We've talked to the Village Staff regarding the landscaping of the whole -- there's a 40 -foot landscape buffer that runs along the perimeter south and the west perimeter. There's a fence that runs all the way along it. The fence was just completed recently. There are some faded areas that need to be reput in. It's a -- I don't want t o call it a work -in -progress because it's probably about 95 percent done. There's work that still needs to be done. We have worked with Staff, and we are going to submit to Staff -- there was some discussion about more plantings being needed. We -- the current -- what's currently planted is what was approved by the Village as far as the landscape plan is. After discussions with Staff and after hearing some of the concerns of the residents, we then met with Staff and have come up with some fu rther plantings that we're going to do in the spring as we're starting -- hopefully starting the project on Lot 4 for plantings on the outside of the fence, the non -Walgreens side, if you want to call it that, to break up the fence. One thing you ge t when you put 800 feet of fence is you get a little monotony, and you need something to break it up. So that's what we have agreed with Staff to do and what we're going to look to do. Our landscaper, our subcontractor is going to come back in the spring, replace any of the dead trees that didn't take that he just planted in November. Those are trees, not necessarily plantings that we envisioned, you know, more lower plantings that can grow in smaller areas than big evergreen trees which need more than five feet to grow, especially when when they start getting big. So he's going to come back in the spring, replace anything that is dead. There is some areas of sod -- it's not sod, it's seed that didn't take. That needs to be reseeded. We u nderstand that. This was just done this fall. I wish it would have ended up perfect. It didn't. There's some re -grading that needs to be done. We are going to look to do that work. MR. MANNING: You are talking about the residents side of the fen ce? MR. BOCHENSKI: Right. That was seeded, and it didn't take very well. There is going to be planting on that side also in some areas. MR. AUGUSTYN: Can we specify plantings. Is that trees? If they're going to be eight -foot trees, four -fo ot trees. MR. BOCHENSKI: They are not going to be eight -foot trees. There are going to be plantings, small plantings so that they grow in that area. MR. AUGUSTYN: I think our main concern is that you look out your backyard and you see a brown fence, a stockade fence, and a Walgreens.
We'd like trees back there if we can get more taller trees on the other side so we don't see the Walgreens. MR. BOCHENSKI: The trees on the other side, they are seven feet and some may be five. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. DUNLAP: Rick Dunlap. I'm a resident owner on Lot 3 -- MR. BOCHENSKI: One thing when you do plant these trees, obviously you plant them with the idea they're going to gr ow. You buy seven footers. In five years they double in size. MR. AUGUSTYN: Or you buy bigger ones. MR. CHAIRMAN: As far as the number of trees goes, the Village has an ordinance that covers that; and I am not sure what was called for, what w as agreed to at the time. Do you have any recollection of that, Staff? MR. GARRIGAN: Yes. With regards to the stipulation -- there was a stipulation, Mr. Chairman, that was added to the site plan review -- site plan review of the Walgreens to add a perimeter fence around the site which has been completed. The rest -- MR. MANNING: That is around the entire site. MR. GARRIGAN: From 135th Street to Route 30, which currently exists. There was no specific stipulation or dire ction. I've reviewed the minutes actually on this one for an exact amount of landscaping. So there was really no landscaping requirement around the buffer like we did in the Plainfield Commons or another subdivision. MR. CHAIRMAN: Usually we offer a fence or bushes. MR. GARRIGAN: Usually. Sometimes both. But usually it's either -or. MR. BOCHENSKI: Just so everybody understands, what we did put in was plant 71 trees. That's how many trees are planted along with the fence. MR. MANNING: Are you talking about the residents side? MR. BOCHENSKI: No. They're in the landscape buffer on the development side. MR. SCHINDERLE: Explain the landscape buffer to me. Where in relation to the lot line is the fence? Is it right on the back lot -- AUDIENCE MEMBER: Four feet. MR. BOCHENSKI: It's five feet give or take a couple inches off the lot line. MR. SCHINDERLE: So you've got a five -foot buffer in there in which you can put landscape? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yo u've got a 40 -foot buffer, five feet of space. MR. SCHINDERLE: With the buffer, you've got a five -foot fence and then 35 more feet, but the 35 feet is on the Walgreens and this particular project -- MR. CHAIRMAN: That's generally how it's don e because they're stuck for the maintenance. MR. SCHINDERLE: So you're going to be responsible for the maintenance of the five -foot beyond the fence? MR. BOCHENSKI: Right. Exactly. One of the things that came up just to reiterate, you know, a fter hearing the concerns of the residents, we did go back in with Staff and we haven't submitted a plan. We are going to submit a plan that shows numerous plantings along the outside, the residents side of the fence. That's something --
MR. CHAIRM AN: We realize the construction season has been over for some time. I think we need to have a due date on these kind of things, some date when it has got to be completed. And also, there needs to be some method of enforcing that like nonissuance of occupancy permit until works are done. The Plan Commission cannot make a rule. We can't make anybody do anything. But we can recommend to the Village Board. They're the ones that can make them do it. AUDIENCE MEMBER: We'd like to recommend bigger, taller trees. The trees are shorter than -- MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that was agreed to. AUDIENCE MEMBER: The trees are shorter than the fence. You see the fence; you don't see the trees. He says they are going to grow in five y ears. We might sell our house in three. You're still going to see the Walgreens. There's seven -foot trees on the other side of the fence. We just want bigger trees so we don't see the Walgreens. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know how the trees are now or how tall they expect them to get. MR. BOCHENSKI: Some of the trees are actually -- there's a berm that goes exactly four and a half feet. There's a berm, landscaped berm. Some of the trees are planted on there so they will appear higher than they actually are. The average tree was six to seven feet. AUDIENCE MEMBER: And the fence was eight feet. MR. BOCHENSKI: The fence is six feet. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm sorry. Six feet. MR. BOCHENSKI: But it is on somewhat of that berm s o it appears higher, too. So you have more screening of the development because of the four -and -a -half -foot berm if you're planting on there, the fence is on there. The trees are supposed to double in five years. MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess we have to di rect Staff to inform the Village Board of the situation. And it will be up to them to insist or place an enforcement thing. More questions? MS. BURKART: My name is Rita Burkart. I have a problem. We -- you say you're going to maintain the ya rd, the property. Mowers have been out twice and have mowed their side of the property and our side has never been touched. I am paying ChemLawn to come so their weeds are not growing into the edge of my yard, you know. And they have not maintained it a t all since they've put the fence up. MR. CHAIRMAN: We are acknowledging there is an upkeep problem, and that will be addressed when this goes to the Village Board. MS. BURKART: Also, the -- we have a problem with the fence being too low. We originally thought that the fence was supposed to be on top of the berm which would be perfect because now what we have is headlights coming into my family room all night long because the fence stops right where the Walgreens is. And every night, headlig hts are coming into our yard. And if you're going to put another strip mall in and you're going to have more lights, then we're going to have constant lights in the back of our house. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you point, where would your house be.
MR . BURKHART: I'm Craig Burkhart. We're right in here behind lot -- behind the retention pond. So here's Walgreens and the drive -through from Walgreens as the people are coming in, we're seeing those headlights. We're probably going to see the headlight s from here (indicating) as well. But realistically, the main problem we saw was from the beginning which was the placement of the fence only five feet away from our property line. Had it been a little bit further back on the top of the berm, it wou ld have provided more protection on that and given them a better ability to provide landscaping on our side and not have caused this maintenance issue that they had only five feet to mow on our side. And it's also causing the ability for them not to put any significant plantings on our side of the fence because of where the fence is actually placed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any possible solution? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Give us the five feet. MR. CARROLL: Increase the height of the fence. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll need to have the engineer look at that. Another one in the audience. MS. SMITH: My name is Amy Smith. I'm the president of Harvest Glen Homeowner's Association. We were originally told we were going to have the fence on top of the berm and that we're going to have landscaping on both sides. This has been an issue. I talked to Mike Garrigan, and I was told that this site approval was supposed to be contingent on the landscaping being approved first. I also propose d to John Haganow the fact that there is only five feet back there. And we've asked them to landscape it. I asked them -- there's only four homeowners total along 135th -- I mean, along the west and south perimeters. And I suggested to him if they wer e willing to pay to extend the fences of those four homeowners up to the Walgreens fence and give that property to the homeowners in the back, that would take care of the whole problem as far as them maintaining the property. It would save them the money over the years of maintaining that five -foot area. Then the homeowners would also have the extra footage and be able to put their fence up to the Walgreens fence instead of having the issue of worrying about if they're going to maintain the property or not. In the long run, it would kind of be a win -win situation for homeowners and for Location Finders. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any opinion of that at this moment? MR. BOCHENSKI: Opinion from -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe not giving the owners property but relinquishing an easement. MR. BOCHENSKI: One thing that you have -- I think there's 18 lots that go along there. It's sometimes hard to get 18 people to agree that you're going to relinquish that. I know the developer owns a c ouple of them. So I'm not -- or an investor, I'm not sure. MR. MANNING: Is it Ms. Smith? MS. SMITH: Yes. MR. MANNING: You said there were four property owners on that west side. MS. SMITH: On the south and west side. Total. Th ey have fences already put up. MR. MANNING: They have erected fences?
MS. SMITH: Right. They already had fences put in. They do not extend up to the Walgreens. MR. CHAIRMAN: The last five feet is -- MS. SMITH: That is where the f ive feet has come to be a problem. We have homeowners right now who want to install a fence and they want go up to the Walgreens fence and they've been told no. And if they did that, that would create a whole problem for them to get back there and mainta in that five feet of property. That's why I said if they -- I don't think 100 percent of the homeowners to say okay to this , I really don't think it's a problem. The ones I have talked to are all for it. Who would be against having an extra five feet of property? They're going to mow it anyways. If they're going back to mow their back yard, they're not going to stop at that property line. So I just thought if they would give the homeowners that property, they would not have to pay to maint ain that property. We wouldn't have to worry about it being maintained. MR. SCHINDERLE: How then are the developers or owners of those properties going to get back to maintain that fence if something happens to it? They've got to have some means of being on the west side of that fence in order to either repair it or whatever. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I think the homeowners would allow them back there. MR. SCHINDERLE: That's a guess. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'll let them back in my yard to repair it. MR. SCHINDERLE: You're only one. MS. SMITH: That would have to be an understanding. And that's with any easement. With an easement, homeowners have to be willing to move a fence if they need to be able to get back in there. That would h ave to be an understanding with all the homeowners. MR. MANNING: What problem do you see with this? MR. BOCHENSKI: Well, it is a difficult proposal. I mean, if there is a problem back there and people are attaching their fence to our fence, th en if you need to go back there and remove their fence, there is an expectation that you're going to put it back. Most easements don't tell you that. If you're on an easement, then whatever is on there, you know, whoever comes in, knocks it down, yo u're responsible for putting it back on. It could create major future problems, especially as homes sell. People don't -- you have new homeowners; they don't understand that. The five feet is -- you know, commercial mowers can come back. And I a pologize for them not being back there more often than it is. But it is brand new construction, and I ask that you bear with us on the maintenance of it. But commercial mowers can get back there. Planning is proposed. Deeding to them is probably n ot an issue because then we don't need half of your ordinances with setbacks and all that. Easement is going to cause many issues. At the same time, they're allowed, I believe, per the Village to put a fence that closes off their back yard and then it just leaves the five feet there. And that at least leaves it up to the individual. I would propose that as an option, also. I'm not saying they necessarily need to do it but it is an option to do it. MR. MANNING: So the biggest problem you have is attaching their fence to your fence because of future problems?
MR. BOCHENSKI: There could be. I just can't think of all the scenarios as I stand here tonight. But I think -- MR. MANNING: That's pretty easily imagined. MR. CHAIRMAN : So the homeowners, they do have the option of simply carrying the fence across the backyard, double fencing. MS. SMITH: That's why the landscaping has been a big issue because they put the fence -- they didn't put the fence on top of the berms. It's closer to the homeowners. Now, you have only got five feet of property there. And you start putting bushes or trees back there, how are you going to get back there with the commercial mowers? MR. CHAIRMAN: That is their problem. MS. SMIT H: But it will become the problem of the homeowners because it will be hard to maintain it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mike, do you recall from the minutes whether that fence was supposed to be on top of the berm? MR. GARRIGAN: There was no specific langu age as a stipulation as to the exact location or configuration of the fence. It just required a perimeter fence for really safety reasons. That was the reason why the Planning Commission approved the fence because of the detention. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it started out as a landscape berm. And at the last minute, a safety fence was put up because there was a concern of children wandering into the retention area. MS. SMITH: Can I tell you something though with that safety fence, which it has be en brought to their attention, there is big gaps in certain areas. And I've got a homeowner whose child crawled underneath there and got to the retention pond. AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's on the pictures. MS. SMITH: Stuff like that needs to be taken care of pretty quickly. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a funny thing about a fence, they've got to be straight and the ground ain't. MS. SMITH: We asked them to fill it in. When we came to the meeting, we said our concern was kids getting into that re tention pond. MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess that's another thing we can direct the petitioner to look at is closing the gaps at the bottom. I noticed those in the pictures that were presented here. MR. BOCHENSKI: Just for the record, a week ago we di d have people out there closing the gaps. And there is significant settling which is going to happen and a lot more over the winter when you get the snow and more moisture precipitation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can the gentleman who gave us those pictures, ca n we keep those? MR. AUGUSTYN: You can. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please enter those into the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: More questions? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mine was just tying in with -- I am one of the property owners that has the fence already. And I have the five -foot of space, and I've been maintaining it all summer. When they did seed, they seeded to the top of the berm. They didn't go all the way to everybody's property lines. They never seeded in the first place. But I was just addi ng on with her that I think -- you know, I said it kind of jokingly, if they gave everyone five foot. Maybe they don't attach to the fence. I think something
can be written into the homeowners' association, the Village, and be given to someone when the house is sold at closing showing there is an easement. There's an easement back there anyhow. There's already 30 foot of easement. There's a swale at the back of the properties, and that is an easement. As it is now as homeowners, if the Village w ants to get back there, we have to let them back there. Another five feet, I don't think it's going to affect it. But the Village would then have to adjust some of the setbacks. I understand where they're coming from. But it could go in the conven ants. We already have now that you have to get a letter if the house is sold from the homeowner's association showing everything is paid in full and kept up with the association rules. I think that would be the easiest way to solve the problem becau se now you don't have to deal with it. I've been maintaining it all summer anyhow. I'll move my fence myself. And, you know, not even attached. I'll put a post right next to the fence. So it's not even touching. I think that would be the easiest way for everyone. Because once they do plant those bushes, the guys coming back to trim are going to be walking through with the weed whackers. There is really even going to be no maintenance to get back there. MR. CHAIRMAN: We can't compel a property owner to give property away. But we're holding that thought. MR. MANNING: My thought was if some of the people put fences up and others don't and don't maintain it, you've got a real mess back there then. MS. SMITH: No. We would have to have something in writing, something drawn up for all the homeowners there that -- if the property was given to them, something would have to be in writing that they're responsible for maintaining that property. AUDIENCE MEMBER: As they are for the rest of their yard. MS. SMITH: Same thing as if they're -- just like the Village ordinance, if it gets over eight inches, the Village comes after you. They would have to be responsible for maintaining that just as they would their own yard. MR. MA NNING: All or nothing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Staff, should this be a separate issue, separate challenge? MR. CARROLL: We can work on it separately. MR. GARRIGAN: We have been working on this issue. We've had numerous meetings with applicant, a nd I've also been trying to work with the president of the association on this issue. So it's been an ongoing issue for the past three or four months. I did represent to Ms. Smith that this issue would come up, obviously as part of the discussions, and obviously they have come up. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got all winter. Let's say three months you come to the Plan Commission with a solution. How is that? MR. SEGGEBRUCH: Mike, the only thing I recommend is, you know, I live in Golden Mead ows right on the pond. We are across from Jewel. Our property line is actually out into the pond and Jewel owns part of it. If you're really to do an easement, if they have an homeowner's association -- and I assume you have some common ground you have to maintain now? MS. SMITH: Yes. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: Maybe the entity to hold the easement is the homeowner's association. That way it's permanent; it runs with the homeowner's association. Every individual homeowner still has the ability to m aintain it. Just like in Golden Meadows,
that's what we do along our pond. Even though the homeowners' association owns the property outside our lot lines, each person maintains their own section of shore line. But the easement will be held by the assoc iation. Then you don't have to worry about future owners. You don't have to deal with each individual property owner. MR. CHAIRMAN: That sound likes an excellent suggestion. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: You might want to think about that. I think it coul d work for you. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that would be much easier and much easier for the petitioner and probably easier for him to accept. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other questions? MS. BURKART: I have a question. What time is the sweeper that goes a round and cleans the parking lot, is there a limit -- a time limit when they can do that? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know. Is there a Village ordinance on that? Apparently not. MS. BURKART: Because it has been late at night. MR. BOCHENSKI: It's actually Walgreens that does it. MR. CHAIRMAN: State your name, please. MS. SHEARER: Linda Shearer. I live on that south side of the Walgreens. I've had inspectors out to my house two or three times over the summer regarding my yard in the back. They actually started digging in the wrong spot and they dug all the way down to the middle of my lot, you know, my piece of ground there, not the five -foot piece, but on my part of the ground. They turned up all the clay. I've got weeds g rowing every place. I didn't bring pictures. MR. CHAIRMAN: Who were these individuals? AUDIENCE MEMBER: They were putting in a sill fence and they put it on the wrong side. They were four feet on our property line instead, and they had to rip it out and they tore up a lot of grass. MR. AUGUSTYN: Those pictures that I gave you, what she's talking about is that hole that's in there. That's originally where they put that sill black screen fence and they came back and then they moved it. T hey left the hole, and that's exactly how they left it. That's what she's referring to. MS. SHEARER: And we had topsoil and they turned all the clay up from underneath. We have got weeds growing everywhere, and they said we're going to come out and sod it twice, and we've never seen or heard from anybody. MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess that needs to go on your laundry list. MR. BOCHENSKI: Do you know who you talked to because that's the contractor -- MS. SHEARER: The inspector. You would have it on file I am sure because I called out to the office and they've come out to the house. And two or three times I've called. MR. BOCHENSKI: What lot are you? MS. SHEARER: I believe it's Lot No. 40 something. I'm right along -- S aying, you know, along the line of what Amy was saying, you know, we could maintain that or move our fence back or whatever. MR. CHAIRMAN: Staff will be working on a solution for that. AUDIENCE MEMBER: She is Lot 85. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else?
MS. HARDEN: My name is Sarah Harden. I live in the Heritage Meadows subdivision. I just have a question to the Village. As the community grows and I've seen in the zoning issues about landscape buffers and things like that, instead of this being shoved down the residents throats all the time, is there anything going to be done, amended as far as landscaping goes or even buffering, making that larger when these big commercial properties are right next to the properties like that? MR. CH AIRMAN: There was a hearing on this when this platted and when this was put together. And this is what they've gotten here now is what was agreed to. MS. HARDEN: I guess I am a little concerned that it might be someplace else the next time. MR . CHAIRMAN: Every subdivision asks for something different. MS. HARDEN: I just think a fence is more of a hardscape to me than a landscape buffer. It's more of a permanent picture. MR. CHAIRMAN: This one started out as a landscape buffer. Pe ople wanted to see bushes and trees and stuff. And then we were just about ready to vote on it and several individuals said, well, wait a minute, our kids can go right between those trees and into the pond. So we said, okay, how would you like a fence or the developer said how would you like a fence from 135th Street and all the way to 30 and everybody nodded yes and that's what happened. People got exactly what they asked for here. MS. HARDEN: Five feet away from their property line, I mean is th at what they asked for? MR. CHAIRMAN: You need to have access to your fence in order to repair it, stain it, whatever. MS. HARDEN: I guess I was wondering about creating the fence on the other side to prevent access on the other side of the la ndscaped buffer instead on their side. I guess that's my big issue with that. They could have put a fence around their entire parking lot right on the edge of their parking lot and left the landscape buffer the landscape buffer. MR. CHAIRMAN: But t his was what was agreed to. MS. HARDEN: I am just asking the question for future -- AUDIENCE MEMBER: Maybe we need to be more specific next time. MS. HARDEN: That's why I am asking the Village if they're ever going to define or amend wh at's currently stated. MR. CHAIRMAN: Because everyone is different. MS. HARDEN: I am talking about even the width, 40 feet of the landscape buffer between residential and commercial. MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the ordinance say? MR. CARROL L: Ordinance says it's actually a 20 -foot landscape buffer. It has to be about 75 percent opacity and six feet in height. MR. CHAIRMAN: So we've got double. We've got double what the ordinance says. Yes, sir. AUDIENCE MEMBER: If you re ad the minutes -- originally at a homeowners' meeting at my house. I have the original minutes of how that landscaping that was told to us as far as the plans were supposed to be with landscaping on both sides. If you want, I can give you a copy of it . MR. CHAIRMAN: We've got it. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Of our own that was told to us.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know what was told to you because that may or may not be logged. AUDIENCE MEMBER: It won't jibe. MR. CHAIRMAN: It may not be logged. Any others? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, sir, one last comment about the fence. We were amongst the three or four families that were here that were concerned about children getting through the fence, and we did ask for the fence. And I b eg to differ with you about what we actually asked for which was the fence either on top of or behind on their side of the berm. And then we went to a discussion of 75 percent visual coverage of the fence by landscaping which is absolutely impossible now , which somehow vanished from the record. But that's my distinct recollection of what we discussed. Anybody else? AUDIENCE MEMBER: That is correct. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have to look up the minutes. MS. SMIT H: I don't think it was specified on the minutes. MR. CHAIRMAN: We need to have to look up the minutes. Bring it back to us. AUDIENCE MEMBER: That's all we would ask, if you'd review that and we come back later and discuss it. MR. CHA IRMAN: If it's in the minutes, it's enforceable. That's the only thing I can tell you. It will take some work to pry those minutes out. But we have them. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: If what you're saying is the fact, then i t is enforceable and the Village will enforce it. Any other questions? Yes, ma'am. MS. HERNANDEZ: My name is Lisa Hernandez. I'm on Lot 8. My concern is about the lighting for Walgreens. I understand that there was supposed to be down lighting. I have the night lights. I guess they're from Walgreens' drive -through coming, shining through my kitchen window, my study, through the whole back side of my home. My whole house is lit up because of these lights. I understand they're timed, but aren't these supposed to be down lights so the light is not shining through the homeowner's home? MR. CHAIRMAN: Staff will look into that, too. MS. HERNANDEZ: That was also in the records that they were going to put down lights versus floo d lights. MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion, gentlemen, lady? (No response.) Mr. CHAIRMAN: To recap, the petitioner has agreed to investigate the allegations of poor maintenance and incomplete work done on the existing landscaping around the fenc e, and he has agreed to make certain additions to prevent unwanted trespass to the retention pond. And Staff is looking into a variety of methods to alleviate the problem with the five -foot separation. Staff is also looking into other problems that we asked about. However, those things are not necessarily standing in the way of the petition before us for Lot 4.
MR. SEGGEBRUCH: Can I ask Staff a question? In this entire development, was there any discussion about -- I mean, obviously Walgreen s being the first building in, they kind of have their own set corporate design. Was there any discussion about, you know, tying this entire development together in terms of signage and, you know, architecture between the different buildings? I mean , does this kind of stand alone, each lot on its own? MR. CARROLL: Because this came through, it wasn't a PUD per se, so we didn't look into tying anything together. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: So there isn't nothing to tie that in, kind of stand on their own? MR. CARROLL: (Nodding.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Signage, in the comprehensive sign plan here for this development, what is Walgreens doing now for a sign? MR. GARRIGAN: What they have is wall signage on the eastern elevation and northern elev ation which is consistent with what Walgreens does on other sites and also ground signs northeast -- the northwestern corner of 135th Street. MR. CHAIRMAN: A monument sign? MR. GARRIGAN: Monument. It's under ten feet. It's consistent with the Village's signage ordinance. MR. CHAIRMAN: As the remainder of these outlots develop, I mean it's not too hard to imagine probably three more. There needs to be something in there that we get everybody's sign in. Too late to do anything about W algreens. But if we allow one more monument that could contain the signage for the remainder of the outlots, this would leave the developers of -- future developers of the outlots still with the possibility of putting up wall signs. So this develop er doesn't -- the development of this particular outlot doesn't necessarily require a monument, however, perhaps a place should be set aside. MR. GARRIGAN: There is a proposed monument sign on the proposed elevations right here. But as my staff rep ort reflects, obviously all signage is a separate process. It stands alone. MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps there should be a single monument somewhere that will hold signage for this particular building and future ones or some plan before we wind up with a w hole row of monuments. MR. SCHINDERLE: Is that the way the plan shows it, one sign and then it has a number of individual tenant availability areas on it right here (indicating)? MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that the sign you're proposing? MR. BOCHENS KI: Yes. The monument, Footnote 3, Plan 3, it's a monument sign that mirrors the architecture of the Walgreens monument sign. It's pretty much an exact replica. MR. CHAIRMAN: Where will that go? MR. BOCHENSKI: Right on the south side of the right -in, right -out. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And that will be a sufficient size to cover the remainder of the outlots. MR. BOCHENSKI: That is where Lot 4, it's proposed for four tenants in this 8,000 square -foot building. It's a ten -foot monumen t sign. MR. CHAIRMAN: How many more of those are we going to have?
MR. SEGGEBRUCH: Jim, if you look at the overall site plan, if they do extend the road through the way they're showing, there is probably an opportunity to tie them down to one m ore sign on 30 and one sign at 135th at those two entrances and that will be it. In other words, those other outlots are going to have to share that one monument sign. That's probably how to try to tie them down. They have one more outlot which really b others me because it's lined up right across from the Walker's Grove school. MR. BOCHENSKI: Which is what was required when we initially did it. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: I know. But it kind of bothers me. MR. MANNING: Well, the sign issue is bein g handled separately by what process? MR. GARRIGAN: There has been discussion between Staff and also the applicant and working with the association of Harvest Glen. And we actually -- we have an agreement -- I did not submit the actual plan -- bu t we have an agreement with regards to them incorporating some additional landscaping on the western side to try to alleviate some of the concerns. Obviously it hasn't alleviated all the concerns of the homeowners. MR. MANNING: I am talking about th e signs. MR. GARRIGAN: Oh, signs. MR. MANNING: How is it handled, who has the final approval of the signage on the property? MR. GARRIGAN: The applicant is required to submit a sign for any type of ground monument or wall sign to Staff. Staff reviews that consistent with the Village's signage. MR. MANNING: So you guys approve it? MR. GARRIGAN: Yes. MR. MANNING: Okay. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: You're saying because this isn't a PUD, that's why the sign isn't being approved a s part of this package that they're showing here? MR. GARRIGAN: That's correct. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: So it just goes through a normal signage process? MR. GARRIGAN: Yes. MR. MANNING: So the Staff agrees with the uniformity of signage thr oughout the site is important and is your responsibility. MR. GARRIGAN: That's correct. It's our ultimate responsibility. I wanted to bring that to the Plan Commission's attention. MR. MANNING: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Additional discussion , questions? Any other comments from engineering, Staff? MR. MANNING: Three of them or one of them? MR. CHAIRMAN: Staff has offered three different motions. MR. MANNING: Separately, voted separately. MR. CHAIRMAN: We can -- si nce these are all tied together, why don't you make three motions and make three seconds and we'll vote once. MR. MANNING: I move that we recommend the approval of the requested special use of a drive -through subject to the two stipulations included in the staff report. MR. SCHINDERLE: Second. MR. MANNING: I move that we recommend the approval of a site plan for Lot 4 of the Rose subdivision subject to the eight stipulations. MR. CHAIRMAN: Nine.
MR. MANNING: What is nine? MR. CHAIRMAN: Nine is to submit a sidewalk plan, and Stipulation No. 7 has been amended to include the western facade. MR. MANNING: Subject to the eight stipulations included in the staff report plus the ninth stipulation added to the meeting plus the amended seventh amendment. MR. SCHINDERLE: Second. MR. MANNING: I move that we recommend the approval of the amended final plat of the Rose subdivision subject to the two stipulations included in the staff report. MR. SCHINDERLE: Sec ond. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. A motion has been made and seconded to recommend to the Village Board the approval of the requested special use for a drive -through subject to the two stipulations filed in the planner's report. Further, we re commend approval of the site plan for Lot 4 of the Rose subdivision subject to the eight stipulations following the planner's report with the amendment to No. 7 and the addition of stipulation No. 9 to submit a sidewalk plan; and further, that we recomme nd the approval of the amended final plat of the Rose subdivision subject to the two stipulations found in the planner's report. Vote by roll call, please. MR. CARROLL: Seggebruch. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Gehrke. MS. G EHRKE: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Manning. MR. MANNING: Yes. Mr. CARROLL: Schinderle. MR. SCHINDERLE: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Sobkoviak. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Motion is carried. This will go forward to the Village Board for their c onsideration. MR. CARROLL: 17th. MR. CHAIRMAN: On December the 17th. Next business is Case No. 851 -010800.F, Frank, P, Paul, Guinta Commercial. This is an application for final plat at Route 59 and Renwick Road and Fraser Road. Mr . Guinta -- or Staff rather. MR. GARRIGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a request for a final plat for the property with regards to -- applicant's request on the final plat for the proprosed commercial development of the Vintage Harvest Comm ercial subdivision. The site is located east of the existing Vintage Harvest subdivision, the west of Route 59 or Division Street, north of Fraser Road, south of Renwick Road. The site is currently zoned B -2, which is a general business distr ict. As Plan Commissioners will recall, this matter came before the Commission some time ago, in February of 2001, for a requested PUD with regards specifically for a U -Haul Self Storage Center and retail facility. After discussions with applic ant and Staff, the applicant is now requesting specifically only a final plat to subdivide this roughly 9.62 acre site into three specific parcels.
As enumerated in my staff report, Lot 2 would be approximately 241 square feet, Lot 3, approximately 250 square feet, and Lot 4 would be 59,214 square feet. Each lot is consistent with the Village's zoning ordinance under B -2 with regard to the width requirement and also with regards to the total square footage requirement. Again, the applicant's o nly proposing to subdivide the parcel. Any type of development or future identification of the parcels itself would require a site plan review and possibly special use for each and every parcel on this proposed final plat. It appears that no major i ssues are associated with this proposed configuration on the final plat. As I reiterate, the applicant's met the minimum requirements for lot sizes and also lot widths. Staff does have some concern obviously with access onto this proposed site. But in view of the fact that the proposed subdivision -- commercial subdivision would abut Route 59, obviously IDOT would have the final jurisdiction over any access or access points onto his final plat. Again, Staff would request specifically that app licant identify any type of future improvements that need to be made to this proposed commercial site relative to internal roadways, infrastructure improvements. And also, applicant needs to identify the party or parties who would be responsible for makin g these improvements. Again, consistent with my staff report, I would make the recommendation or file a motion as enumerated in my staff report. That concludes my staff report, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Guinta. MR. GUINTA: I have nothing further to add. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just want to check it out. Make it easier to Staff. Steve, have you identified any issues? MR. AMANN: I am not reviewing this, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Who is? MR. CARROLL: NIPC is just sub dividing the lot, and the engineer doesn't really get too involved. There is no public improvement. MR. CHAIRMAN: Looking to see if there's any potential lurking out there. Is there anyone in the audience who would care to ask a question or m ake a comment regarding this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Commissioners are free to discuss, ask questions. MR. MANNING: Mr. Guinta, have you seen the staff report? MR. GUINTA: I have not. MR. MANNING: The third stipulati on is the identification of infrastructure improvements that would need to be made to the site and the party or parties who will be responsible for these improvements. Do you have any problem with that? MR. GUINTA: No. None at all. The anteri or -- actually, sewer water exists to date. When we broke off the Burger King piece, we extended sewer and water to the western edge of the Burger King. There is currently a service drive that only goes approximately 100 feet off of 59 to service the Bu rger King. The further extension of that is my responsibility. And then when this particular Lot 2 is developed, we will extend sewer and water to service Lot 3 and Lot 2 as well.
The maintenance of this road will be a common effort from all the commercial users so that there won't be a problem with responsibility as to snowplowing, things of that nature. MR. CHAIRMAN: What do they call it, the common access easement or something? MR. GUINTA: Well, we do have a 100 -foot easement. It is access easement, public easement for public utility use. MR. CHAIRMAN: I remember there being some discussion originally when we first did that parcel. How about Dan, do you have any down there? MR. SEGGEBRUCH: No. Well, I mean what 's -- I'm assuming the U -Haul concept is gone, it's not coming back. MR. GUINTA: It's still on the table. If they choose to proceed, they will bring in their own proposal. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: Is the subdivision of these lots similar to what we sa w when that was proposed. MR. GUINTA: Similiar but different. The dimensions are different. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: I mean, I remember that access road coming to the south into their property which was at the south end and everything. MR. GUINTA: Correct. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: I'm just kind of wondering what this is going to lead to in the future. MR. GUINTA: The access has not changed, road configuration, infrastructure has not changed. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: Okay. I mean obviously just o ne access point on 59 which is already there. MR. GUINTA: That's correct. And for your information, IDOT -- we have completed our engineering for Route 59. We will be improving it to accommodate a turning lane, and the plans have been submitt ed for their final approval. MR. CHAIRMAN: No further discussion. You know the drill. MR. SCHINDERLE: I would move we recommend approval of the final plat of the Vintage Harvest subdivision subject to the three stipulations listed in the staff report. MS. GEHRKE: I'll second it. MR. CHAIRMAN: A motion has been made and seconded to recommend to the Village Board the approval of the final plat for the Vintage Harvest commercial subdivision subject to the three stipulations found in th e planner's report. Vote by roll call, please. MR. CARROLL: Seggebruch. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Gehrke. MS. GEHRKE: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Manning. MR. MANNING: Yes. Mr. CARROLL: Schinderle. MR. SCHI NDERLE: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Sobkoviak.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Motion is carried. This will go forward to the Village Board for their consideration on December 17th. MR. GUINTA: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let the record show that Ms. Gehrke is excusing herself from the meeting. (Exit Ms. Gehrke.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Case No. 917 dash 101901.P, Paul, P, Paul, slash, S, Sam, U, union, Hidden River. This is a request for preliminary plat and special use permit and it is a continued public hearing. MR. CARROLL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this was continued from the November 20th Plan Commission meeting because applicant was considering making changes based on the village engineers and Staff's comments. The applicant has made some changes to the plan. However, Staff received them on Friday so was unable to complete a report to really get into the details. So I'll let the applicant real briefly touch on the high points. The applicant is basically lookin g for direction from Staff and the Plan Commission as to whether they're heading in the right direction, so -to -speak. Then Staff would anticipate the applicant coming back to the Plan Commission based on your comments. The applicant is present. I'l l let them -- MR. MANNING: Are you saying this is not good? MR. CARROLL: No, not at all. I am saying I just received it Friday so I didn't get a chance to really -- MR. MANNING: I see. So this is good. MR. WELCH: For the record, my name is Ed Welch. I'm the attorney representing the developer Midwest Development. This is about the sixth or seventh time we've been actually meeting with the Village. This is the first time -- or the second time now before the Plan Commissio n. We have done some changes. We know that you have a lot on your agenda tonight. So we're going to try to keep it as quick as possible or present it as quick as possible. We have our land planner John Martin to walk us through, you know, what -- where we got and how we got here. MR. MARTIN: John Martin with Jen Land Design in Chicago. The property for those of you who are not familiar with where this property is located, this is Route 59, the DuPage River to the west of the property. There's a county subdivision called the Leewood subdivision just to the north of us. There's a New Streams of Plainfield subdivision going in right here coming in off of 59. Commonwealth Edison right -of -way runs north/south through the area approximatel y here (indicating). As Ed mentioned, we've worked with Staff, and we've actually been through the land use committee on three separate occasions. We've worked out a lot of details on this plan. One of the things that overall this exhibit show s is part of your transportation plan in terms of how the road network would tie together out in this area. So we've gone through a lot of those issues. The latest was to align with Leewood at our northeast corner. That road would eventually cut through and service this quadrant north of the River.
Also, for your -- just to get another overview before I start showing you the plans, there is a flood plain area which is represented by this line that comes along the DuPage River in this location. Pr etty much encompasses most of the Fritz property which is to the south of us and cuts across the southwest portion of our property. This property, as you know, as this is -- if you recall, this is a blowup of your zoning map. This property is curre ntly in the Village of Plainfield. If you follow that, that's your corporate limit line right here. The property is currently zoned and annexed R -1 in the Village of Plainfield. What we did is a benchmark, and as a starting point have looked at a p lan that would comply with all of your ordinances, subdivision regulations, six and six -foot wide streets, straight R -1, 12,000 square foot lots, 85 -foot lot widths. And as you can see, it's a typical subdivision. But this would comply with your ordinanc es in terms of a straight R -1 plan. Obviously the developer doesn't want to build this and the Village would like to see something better. This plan would generate 129 lots at a 12,000 square foot minimum. From that plan, we went to and de veloped an initial plan which I think might have been in your original packets. It's not the latest plan. But in the original packets, we had developed actually a preliminary PUD plan which took the straight zoning plan a step further. We went in a nd I think we varied about eight to ten lots from 80 to 85 foot lots and we took about 22 percent of the lots and went from 11 to 12,000 square feet and tried to open up the plan a little bit. And we came in with a little boulevard and open space to a pon d in the center and tried to create a little bit of an open space distance to the flood plain area basically on this enlarged site plan running along this southwest corner. The Staff still had reservations with this. We had met, I think, on three or four occasions with Staff and just this past week and that's the result of the plan that you have in front of you. We met with Staff and their open spaced area that's approximately six acres of which over an acre and a half is usable high and dry parkland right smack in the center of the subdivision. So when you're coming in to viewing that space, the retention pond is tucked to the back, kind of bordering the lots that back on to that open space so that acts as kind of a buffer between these homes and th e active park site. The park site is very central to everyone in the subdivision and we designed a road system that's, as you can see, curvilinear creating a lot of vistas as you drive through the subdivision highlighting some of the key nodes in the subdivision. As you can see, you have something that's called a key lot. This is again based on some of your input, and we've met with your consultants, some of the ideas of how we can make these subdivisions a little bit more interesting and again put a little more sizzle and pizazz into the plans. We have identified key lots in locations such as this key intersection, this key intersection. We have got another intersection where the roads come in and meet into basically the center loop of th is subdivision where what we're proposing is, and as you're consultant has talked about I think with you, is that -- and this is a blowup -- you're looking at 100 scale drawing here shown in the darker gold color the key lots, and this is a blowup of tha t northern section which is the tip of the top end of the park showing on this plan.
What this is doing is showing you how we're going to create in this subdivision these key lots that will show architecture work. The critical thing in most of these subdivisions -- and I think some of the problems that the Board has been having is kind of the plainness on the backs of the elevations of these buildings -- is that we create along Fraser where those homes are backing up, we have a 20 -foot landscape bu ffer outlot that would be heavily planted, we have a bike path running along Fraser that will eventually connect to the bike path that runs north -- the Park District is planning north/south on the Commonwealth Edison -- and basically indicate in these k ey lot locations how the architecture will be treated. The dark reddish -brown color indicates you'll have some compounds in the backs of these houses and the rear facades of those houses will be treated in such a fashion that there will be some inter est along Fraser Road as you approach the subdivision. Key Lot No. 1 not only has the rear facade emphasis but the side lot or side facade and the front facade of that lot would also be treated. In other words, it wouldn't just be brick on the front . They would maybe carry some brick and siding depending on what type of architecture that was around the side. And the same thing is true on this other corner lot that's on Fraser Road; introduced an idea of angling the homes on a corner lot so it's no t just setting straight on coming out. What this does is gives us an opportunity to side load that lot and basically keep again that intersection clean of any driveways and keep that intersection open for, you know, the enhanced landscaping. We're i ndicating a path system through the park, perennial gardens, and benches as you walk along the park and down along the pond and the park. Planting trees in groves and groupings rather than in a straight line of a typical 40 -foot parkway spacing. That was the other thing that we looked at in terms of doing something special as you saw in this other exhibit on the east end of the site. What we've tried to do is break up the homes and the view of the homes through there by introducing landscape islands and again enhancing the intersections with groupings of landscaping instead of just straight parkways tree plantings. That is basically our plan. Again, this property is zoned R -1. It's in the Village already. What we're proposing is 127 lots whi ch comes out to about 1.96, I think, DU per acre. It's a couple lots less than what could be generated by a straight R -1 plan. We're asking for a PUD plan which would have minimum lot widths of 80 feet, a minimum lot area of 10,500 square feet, and the m inimum -- I'm sorry. The average -- I don't have the number right off the top. The average lot size is 12,643 square feet. Again, the density is 1.96. The side yard -- again, in order to accomplish this PUD plan and create the openness and some of these features that we've created in the plan and going with the 80 -foot wide lots, we also have 85 -foot wide lots in this plan and we even have 90 footers. That's varying sizes of lot widths. But we're asking for an eight -foot side yard or a combined 16 especially for those 80 -foot wide lots so we can develop the same product on those lots as we can on an 85 -foot wide lot. MR. SCHINDERLE: Approximately how many 10,500 square foot lots are sitting there? MR. MARTIN: That would be an absolut e minimum. I don't have that number yet. We haven't actually gone through and calculated this plan out. As you can see, and I
would really ask again, if you have a copy of that original PUD plan that we submitted, that one was fully calculated. It had lot areas. A lot of this plan still retains a lot of that PUD plan. So I don't want to give a number. But I'd say probably 10 percent. MR. WELCH: If you remember from the meeting that we had here with the land planners where they're talking about giving enhancements and bonuses for doing extra special things, you've seen we have done some of the things that they've talked about right here? The single loaded street so you increase the vistas instead of the double loaded streets which we had o n our previous plans, the island in the middle of the roadway to further break it up. In addition to this, we're actually not increasing the density which your planner suggested we do. Rather we actually lost an additional two lots in order to accom plish this. But we do need those decreased side yard setbacks from ten feet to eight feet. Not all of them will be using that. By doing that, you allow us to be placing a three -car garage product on an 80 -foot lot which otherwise we wouldn't have been a ble to do. For the previous, the first one we had, we had all 85 foot and we were suggested that we perhaps would go to some smaller lots so that there would be more of a variance between the units and would open up these vistas so that we would have something unique about this particular subdivision. So we think that we have a good plan and we would like to have your approval. This is our amended preliminary PUD plan. MR. CHAIRMAN: If you could, get the Fire Department to review those sid e yard setbacks. I already know there's not going to be a problem. But it would be nice to have that in the package. MR. WELCH: Actually, every surrounding community uses that particular width anyway. But yes, we can certainly -- it's part of yo ur development process that they have to approve that. MR. SCHINDERLE: Are you asking for approval of this tonight to move forward or are we -- Staff recommendation was that we do this on a continuance until the December 18th meeting. I guess I have to ask, Doug, why did you request that? MR. CARROLL: Because I didn't see the plans until Friday. MR. SCHINDERLE: You haven't had a chance to look at it, right? MR. WELCH: At the time he wrote the staff report, he hadn't even seen the plan. MR. MARTIN: We just met with your consultant on Wednesday of last week. We rushed to get you a plan Friday. MR. CARROLL: I think what I was looking for tonight is could you support side yard variances. Are they in the right direct ion so when they come back on the 18th, you can say yes or scrap it now. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have supported that width in side yards in at least one other case and which particular one, doesn't come to mind at this moment. MR. CARROLL: I t hink in that case what we did was when we did allow a reduced side yard, we have them beef up the landscaping a little bit. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, Lakelands perhaps was one place where we -- MR. CARROLL: Farmington Village.
MR. CHAIRMAN: In order to achieve other gains, I believe we relaxed side yard setbacks. Is there any questions or comments from the audience tonight on this case? AUDIENCE MEMBER: I am looking at their drawing, I've got to commend them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Stat e your name, please. MR. CATON: Bill Caton. I am the owner of the four -acres on the corner. We discussed the problem of having a half acre pond that's four -foot deep there with steep sides to the middle and that there be some kind of -- MR. WELCH: Are you talking about this pond? MR. CATON: No. I am talking about on my property on the four acres. It's located to the south third of the property. It has some type of fencing to prevent, you know, toddlers or other children from str aying off those back lots into that pond. I see -- the green, I'm assuming, on the southwest corner shows landscaping along the private drive right there. MR. WELCH: Yes. MR. MARTIN: There is an existing tree row along the west property. I t doesn't come all the way up to the north but it basically comes around the Fritz property which is this property up to about halfway up as an existing tree row which we intend to preserve. MR. CATON: If we could fence off my two borders, the east b order and the southern border from those back yards with maybe a 10 -foot easement that belong to the common area areas so therefore individual landowners could at their discretion take down fences, alter the fences, be maintained by the -- MR. CHAIRM AN: Why an easement? MR. CATON: So you could have plantings on there that would not be disrupted by the individual landowners. So if I am a landowner sitting in one of those lots in the backyard and I decide I don't like that fence, you know, I could alter and take the fence down or change the nature of that fence. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know how an easement would prevent that. MR. WELCH: I am not sure that I necessarily understand the total concern of it. It's a residential zoning next to a residential zoning so it's all single family. It's not an increase in the zoning. I am sure that we could probably work something out, perhaps put a fence or something there. We could investigate looking at that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's say when you come back we are going to be interested in how you're going to separate that. MR. MANNING: The pond is on your property? MR. CATON: The pond is on my property, correct. MR. MANNING: And you want them to fence it? MR. CATON: Yes. They're coming up to my borders and it's a -- it's been there for many years as a farm pond and it's an attracting nuisance to the people in the back there. MR. SCHINDERLE: What prevents kids from Leewood subdivision coming into that pond no w? MR. CATON: Well, it's obscured to their vision. They don't see it. They don't know it's there. But from the other two borders, it's close. It's only about maybe 25 feet from the southern border and it's -- you can see it. Most people don't ev en know it exists there because it's hidden behind the building.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does Staff have -- well, when you give us a staff report, tell us what you think about that. Any other questions, sir? MR. CATON: No. That's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would care to ask a question or make a comment about this case? MS. TALAGA: Jim Talaga, T -a -l -a -g -a. I'm adjoining property owner of Pine Cone Woods. Pine Cone Woods is the drive down to the end. I'd like to see a berm or some kind of plantings only because the front of our house is facing the back of the new houses. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're on the south -- MR. TALAGA: We are on the west. MR. WELCH: It's a private road that do esn't even get down to their property at all. MR. MARTIN: It's a private drive. MR. SCHINDERLE: Is your house in this area (indicating)? MR. TALAGA: No. My house is back this way (indicating). Back. Go south. Two lots between you -- MR. SCHINDERLE: From the lots between you -- MR. TALAGA: No. There is no lots. That's all my property. MR. SCHINDERLE: This is all landscaping, isn't it, the way that shows up on there? MR. MARTIN: It doesn't go all the way dow n. MR. TALAGA: There is probably about 500 feet that's open in the back of the house before the tree line starts. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're 500 feet from that? MR. TALAGA: No. There's 500 feet from the back of his property to where the tree l ine starts. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, okay. MR. SCHINDERLE: His property would be just north of the tree line then. MR. TALAGA: Right. MR. MARTIN: Yes, yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. If Staff could give us a recommendation on that, also. MR. SCHINDERLE: The developer may want to meet with Mr. Talaga and work out something. MR. WELCH: We will. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else in the audience care to make a comment or ask a question? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: St aff is recommending continuing this case until December 18th. Is there any other discussion -- do you need anything more from us? MR. SCHINDERLE: I like what you've done. MR. WELCH: That's essentially what we need to know. If we're on the right track, then we can start to engineer this so we can come in and show you how it works. We can have all of the dimensions for you and be able to lay everything out. But we didn't want to go through all that trouble and expense because we had al ready done iT for the previous one. And if we weren't going anywhere with this -- you know, we were concerned with the additional number of the 12,000 foot lots. And the fact that
we're now at a number of 80, 80 foot, and that's the additional one, and then we need the eight -foot side setbacks which would not be applicable to all lots. You know, because those that are on 85, with the same product, they would be further off the lot line so you would have a varied number of spaces in between. MR. CHA IRMAN: Dan, do you have any reservations about this? MR. SEGGEBRUCH: I was going to ask about the extension of the Leewood Drive. How does that work? I mean, are you responsible , it looks like, for the center line portion of that or how does tha t -- MR. CARROLL: That's something we're going to have to work out as far as how much of it they'll actually build. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: To the east of that is vacant property, right? MR. WELCH: Yes. It's ultimately to allow that to be devel oped. As indicated when you looked at the plan that had the transportation, that would take that Leewood Road over further to the east and ultimately line up with other roads. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: But I mean north of there, that's not a Village street ri ght now. MR. CARROLL: No. It's common. MR. WELCH: And this is actually a private drive right now. There is no road there. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: Right. That is what I am wondering. How is that going to be set up? Is that going to be a symbo l of the Village in the future. MR. CARROLL: Yes. It would be consistent with the transportation plan. MR. WELCH: We would be dedicating a portion of that and improving a portion of that as part of this development. MR. CARROLL: Is the 1 8th enough time for you guys? MR. MARTIN: I don't know, Doug. I just dropped off 12 copies of each of these exhibits. These two exhibits here that I've showed you tonight and also that kind of updated just like that. MR. CHAIRMAN: If it's not the 18th, it will have to be in January then. MR. WELCH: We want to proceed as fast as possible. We'd like to start construction in the spring. You know, the contract of course is contingent as well. As indicated it is already zoned. If we're n ot successful with getting our PUD through, we have every intention of just going a straight subdivision. But we want to get this through. We think it has advantages for everyone. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Assuming it comes through the Plan Commission on the 18th and is approved. I don't think it can get to the Village Board until the first week of January . MR. WELCH: That's fine. We understand. Because that's preliminary. And then of course we have to come back for the final in order to be abl e to start in the spring. The faster we move this along, the better for us. MR. CHAIRMAN: Have we given you the information that you need? MR. WELCH: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any comments? If not, then -- MR. WELCH: Are you continui ng the public hearing for that or are you going to close the public hearing? MR. CHAIRMAN: I will continue the public hearing. The Staff recommends continuing the public hearing until December 18th. MR. WELCH: Thank you.
MR. MANNING: I move to recommend continuing this case until December 18th, 2001. MR. SCHINDERLE: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: A motion has been made and seconded to continue the public hearing on Case No. 917 dash 101901 dash, P, Paul, P, Paul, slash, S, Sam, U, union, also known as Hidden River until December the 18th, 2001. Vote by roll call, please. MR. CARROLL: Seggebruch. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Manning. MR. MANNING: Yes. Mr. CARROLL: Schinderle. MR. SCHINDER LE: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Sobkoviak. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Motion is carried. This public hearing of the Hidden River will be continued until December 18th. MR. WELCH: Thank you. (WHEREUPON proceedings were had which were p reviously transcribed.) STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS. COUNTY OF W I L L ) I, Gale L. Barma, CSR No. 84 -003807, RPR, do hereby certify that I reported in shorthand the proceedings had in the above -entitled cause; and that the foregoing Excerpt of Proceedings, Pages 1 through 105 inclusive, is a true and correct transcript of my shorthand notes so taken at the time and place aforesaid. This certification applies only to those transcripts, original and copies, produced under my direction and cont rol; and I assume no responsibility for the accuracy of any copies which are not so produced. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day of January, 2001. Certified Shorthand Reporter