HomeMy Public PortalAbout2001-12-11 PC mintues 2nd part WalmartD -6397 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS: COUNTY OF W I L L ) BEFORE THE PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS taken at the hearing of the above -entitled cause before Gale L. B arma, CSR No. 84 -003807, RPR, on December 11, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., at 530 West Lockport Street, Suite 206, Plainfield, Illinois. PRESENT: MR. JAMES SOBKOVIAK, Chairman; MR. ALAN ANDERSON, Commissioner; MS. MARILYN GEHRKE, Commissioner; MR. LARRY A. KAC HEL, 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. GARRIG AN, Planner. PRESENT: (Continued) McKEOWN, FITZGERALD, ZOLLNER, BUCK, HUTCHINSON & RUTTLE, by MR. JAMES B. HARVEY 2455 Glenwood Avenue Joliet, Illinois 60435 (815) 729 -4800 Appeared on behalf of the Village; DOMMERMUTH, BRESTAL, COBINE & WEST, LTD., By MR. JOHN F. PHILIPCHUCK 123 Water Street Naperville, Illinois 60566 (630) 355 -5800 Appeared on behalf of Wal -Mart;
RATHJE, WOODWARD, DYER & BURT, by MR. MARK W. DANIEL 300 East Roosevelt Suite 300 Wheaton, Illinois 60187 (630 ) 668 -8500 Appeared on behalf of Individuals of Citizens Against Rezoning. ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Joseph Abel Mr. Jack Weber, Pulte Home Corporation - - - MR. CHAIRMAN: I noticed a hand over here. MR. BYRNE: James Byrne, 12453 Falcon Drive, Heritage Grove subdivision. I apologize. I work a lot of hours. I did not have an opportunity to make copies. I will submit them tomorrow. But I do have my title information. I paid $235,900 for my house. I live at Lot 65. I have the large frontage that abuts to this (indicating). I also have my plot survey showing it's almost 150 feet with the lot line. It directly lines up. And as you saw from the artist's rendering, I'm at the place where the berm and the fence do not have an effect from the sound buffering standpoint or an individual blocking standpoint. My residence is here (indicating). With the left turns in, sound and light will come. There is no fence. There is not a suffici ent berm. You keep talking 13 -foot high, six -feet high. That doesn't apply in my case. So that's my first objection to the presentations made so far. In terms of traffic patterns, we frequent Plainfield downtown often in terms of being customers o f the businesses. We frequently shop the butcher shop, Gourmet Junction, the golf store, right beneath us at Hav -A -Java, as well as the restaurant down the street. My wife's a third -- or my son is a third generation honor student here at Plainfiel d High School. My wife is a second generation Plainfield resident. We moved back to Plainfield January of this year after being away from Illinois 12 years with travels with my job. We picked the property on purpose because we wanted to live insid e Plainfield proper. We wanted to go to Plainfield schools. We wanted to be part of the community my wife grew up in. We picked this property also because we were told it would be residential primarily. And I'm fine with the commercial that abuts to th e back of my lot. It will now bring 8,000 cars a day passed my property line within 41 feet, not 60 feet, not 120 feet, but 41 feet from my property line. MR. SCHINDERLE: (Inaudible.) MR. BYRNE: I'm sorry, sir. The expert testified it would . So I apologize, but I disagree. In terms of other traffic patterns, Bob White would have made a substantial difference to me. I have a son who goes to Holy Family School at the very south end of Route 59.
He's an 8th grade honor student and take s honors classes at Joliet Catholic; a high school son who goes to Plainfield High School immediately south of here, and another son that goes to St. Mary's right across the street off Route 59. We spend a substantial amount of time traveling south t hrough the Village. My traffic pattern in the morning, I leave the house at ten to 7:00 to drop my son off to carpool to JCA for math honors classes. My oldest son rides the bus south on 59. My youngest son also travels -- after I drop off my son at te n after 7:00, I have an hour commute northbound on Route 59 to Ferry Road just north of Route 88 and then one mile west in the ComEd offices I work in. My commute again southbound on Route 59 is 45 minutes in the evening, and I leave work between 5:30, 7:00 in the evening. Mostly it's closer to 6:30, as you notice when I come in at quarter after 7:00 here. I face a substantial commute on Route 59. The ability to cut through southbound would be a significant time savings. Now, I'm going to have to go out to the nonstoplight at Pasquinelli exit, make that southbound turn, deal with the additional traffic, however long that duration would be, and face that again when I head northbound in the morning. MR. SCHINDERLE: Where is your home located? MR. BYRNE: My home is located here (indicating), sir, immediately adjacent by the property. I've attended every meeting including the one before the Planning Commission's started with the Wal -Mart representatives and the attorney presented. I've worked very hard to research what the zoning commission criteria are. And I'd like to present my view based on what the experts have said and what I've heard the obligations are as their experts defined. The evidence presented over the las t month and a half requires you to outright reject any rezoning of the property in question. Any action contrary will be deemed an illegal act in violation of the Plainfield Village Zoning Code and the Illinois Zoning Code. Particularly, Section 29(2)a, the amendments have to promote the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare and complies with the policies and official land use and other official plans in the village as the land use expert testified. There's several points th at don't jibe with what has been presented. The land use comprehensive plan clearly identifies that the property in question is R -1. The Village does have a right to rezone it and we recognize it. In November , the commercial strip was extended to the southwest adjacent property line. The change is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Literally, the comprehensive plan still shows the streets of the proposed Pulte subdivision there. There is incredible traffic adjacent to this resid ential, increasing the risk of injury, which the traffic expert testified, children would be at risk as more traffic goes down 127th. Kensington Club crossing is an issue you should consider. The Wal -Mart expert also testified that there would be a 35 percent increase in traffic against the IDOT study. This goes against what the Village's own study says. So the credibility of that is something I question. Additionally, crime statistics were presented. And I won't go into the histrionics whe re a child was kidnapped and killed at the Arkansas Wal -Mart or the one that was kidnapped in Bolingbrook. You have those statistics presented already.
The sound expert said without the berm and the fence, you violate the state sound regulations. T he Village has already entertained commercial properties where it has not enforced the final plat requirements. So I question whether we will get the berm and the fence. And when it's built and finished, will it be delivered because there is precedent wh ere the Village has not enforced a final plat. By rezoning the residential property, the estimate here is from a couple of weeks of $250,000 in tax revenue for the homes. There is evidence from Pulte prior, submissions of an $8 million kind of figur e from the commercial that's already provided for. We're going to lose 70 homes worth of the residential taxes. Wal -Mart can locate somewhere else in Plainfield and still get their money as well as the residential money here. Thirdly, it's not in t he interest of public safety to risk our children's safety as they have to cross higher traffic streets, and I question the general welfare value. The second item is: The trend of development must be consistent with the area of the subject property with the requested amendment. I don't believe this complies. The land use in the area is predominantly residential, both within the hundred or thousand feet north and south along Route 59 and certainly within the four miles adjacent. It is primarily res idential, and it was noted in prior testimony Wheatland Township, where this property resides, is over 90 percent residential. The commercial is not consistent or predominant in this area. The adjacent area up to two miles north and south along 59 is re sidential. The residential pattern is predominantly there, where you've put commercial in. It was zoned commercial. If it was commercial as we've said constantly during these hearings, we don't believe there would be an issue but this property is zoned residential. The immediate property north is Heritage Meadows; the immediate property to the west is Pasquinelli Estates of Heritage Meadows, and most of the property to the south is Kensington Club. Immediately consistent with the area is res idential. Item C of the code, the requested zoning classification permits use which is more suitable than the use permitted under the existing zoning classification. I see no evidence presented that the property cannot be developed residential. It would fit the complexion of the area more appropriately. In fact, Pulte has made representations, as the exhibits show, that this property was going to be developed that way not only to the Plan Commission but to the purchaser of the property. And the creation of the stoplight at the north end of the property creates a Class D intersection of which only one currently exists in Plainfield. Do we want to create another Route 30 and Division/Lockport Street for the north side? The state works ha rd to try and find a way to alleviate the current congestion problem. We're going to create another one if this property is rezoned. Item D, the fourth item of the code: The property cannot yield a reasonable use if permitted only under the conditi ons allowed under the existing zoning classifications. This property can be developed residential. There's no way that the petitioner's can prove they validate this plan. This property can be developed residential and, in fact, at premium home prices as the abutting neighborhoods suggest. Finally Item E: The amendment shall not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and will not have a substantial detriment to adjacent property. As their expert testified, he didn't take into considerati on today the value of adjacent homeowner value of property. If we get to a Zoning Board of Appeals, if the zoning petition is
approved, we'll be prepared to present expert testimony to the contrary that it will have negative effects from people who have a ctually set foot on our property, who have been in our houses, and, in fact, have appraised our homes. This isn't just a Heritage Meadows subdivision issue. You've heard from six subdivisions, the Ponds, the Estates of Heritage Meadows, Graver Estat es, Heritage Meadows, Kensington Club, and Champion Creek. The north side of Plainfield does not want this property to be rezoned. It's a duty of the Planning Commission to reject the rezoning proposal. The petitioner has not presented compelling e vidence that their proposals will meet the five legal requirements and, in fact, violates several of the criteria required for rezoning. Thank you. And I'll be glad to provide hard copies of this tomorrow morning. I apologize in the meantime for no t having it with me. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Mr. Byrne, just a couple of questions. You testified that your Lot 65 currently abuts existing business -zoned property, correct? MR. BYRNE: Partially. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Partially? MR. BYRN E: The line is here (indicating) and my property extends -- MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Sir, you don't understand. This (indicating) is the property line of what is currently zoned business; this is being acquired by Wal -Mart to help work out the access issu es. The actual zoning line -- MR. BYRNE: To answer your question, yes, sir. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: So the uses, as far as that can go on that existing commercial, you at that point don't have any idea what those uses would be, do you? MR. BYRN E: No, sir. Nor do you. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: So you don't know how many cars could actually come in and out of this access point behind your lot to access these particular users. MR. BYRNE: Based on your traffic expert's testimony, he said that t here would be a number of cars that came to this property as it's currently zoned, and it would substantially improve as he noted to 8,000 cars per day versus 700 at the peak hour. So yes, he said there would be more cars coming. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Yo u don't know though how many cars could come in here and use that access point, correct, regardless of whether Wal -Mart comes in or not? MR. BYRNE: Right. I don't. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: And this particular sound thing that you had mentioned, do you also recall the testimony of our expert when he indicated that the State does not do measurements on moving vehicles? MR. BYRNE: Uh -huh. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Finally -- MR. BYRNE: Sir, can I ask, does a moving truck make no sound, though, j ust because the State doesn't -- MR. PHILIPCHUCK: You made a statement -- you are immediately adjacent to existing commercial; that is my only point, and there would be trucks that would have to traverse this to gain access to service, whatever com mercial uses go in this property. MR. BYRNE: Under the current zoning of this, does this driveway currently exist in the plat that MidContinental has for these properties?
MR. PHILIPCHUCK: That is where the full access point has to be. MR. BYRNE: For a southern. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: No. For this property, that is their only full access except to here (indicating). And then my final point was you talked about exiting the subdivision again. As I had asked a previous person who testi fied, Bob White does not exist now. It won't exist if until -- even if Wal -Mart doesn't go -- a subdivision is developed there. So you currently have to find ways to get out of the subdivision without relying on Bob White and you would in the future; i sn't that correct? MR. BYRNE: Correct. But I purchased my home having a copy from the Kensington Club development that that road would be there. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: According to the plat that has been approved for the balance of Heritage Meadows, there, in fact, along the road that you have frontage on, I believe that is at Prairie and Falcon that you would be able to come down to a street that does come down and have direct access to 127th Street that would allow you to come out and gain access to 59 at a signalized intersection, correct? MR. BYRNE: Yeah. And at the time I leave with a great opportunity to get hit. Students at both Heritage Meadows from this subdivision and our subdivision and coming out of Kensington Club. MR. CHAI RMAN: Anybody else? Yes, sir. State your name and spell it, please. MR. WICHMAN: Hi. Scott Wichman, W -i -c -h -m -a -n. Address is 12454 Bob White Lane. Just so everybody knows, I'll point out my property. I'm right here on the corner (in dicating). I don't have much to add in way of new testimony. I just wanted to let the Board know my opinions, my feelings. When I purchased my home, I was informed that this would be residential. I bought it to be in a neighborhood. I would not h ave bought property next to a commercial development. My problem with this is that I wasn't informed of this coming in. It would have changed my purchase decision. I would not be living here at this point in time. To folks that come along and purc hase homes down the road next to Jewel, if a Dominick's comes along, if a Meijer comes along, whatever commercial property is going on, commercial zoning right now, if somebody buys a house next to that now, they know what they're getting into. My pr oblem with this is I didn't know, and the rules are being changed after the fact and after I made my purchase. I hope the Board understands that concern. I hope you stick with the zoning because a lot of people invested their hard -earned money to buy her e, and what they found was going to be a neighborhood. I was at the hearing when this commercial property was expanded. I voiced my opinion against it. It's part of the public record. Because as Mr. Connors, my neighbor testified a bit earlier, he was worried about this expanding continually and taking this away from being a neighborhood and turning it into a major commercial development. Well, now we're hearing it's being considered a node. The Village Board told us that wouldn't happen a year a go. I hope I can continue to trust them. That's all I have to say. Thanks.
(Applause heard.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? MS. FRANKEN: My name is Julie Franken, F -r -a -n -k -e -n. I live at 12340 Bob White Lane. And this gentlema n over here this evening was talking about his traffic nodes, and I'm sorry, I came in late because I had to wait for the sitter. If we look at the Wal -Mart in Naperville, there are a lot of traffic nodes there. There are -- in that shopping center , if you can recall, there's a Wal -Mart, there's a Sam's. I'm not sure what is in between, but then there was a Waccamaw but there's not now; they went out of business. On the other side of that same complex after you have a strip mall and you go ar ound, there was a Venture there but they went out of business. There was a K -Mart there but they moved. They are now building down 59. If you look at Meijer's in Bolingbrook, there was a Cubs across from it, but there's not now. If you look t o Morris, they built on one site, moved across the street so they could expand into another one but left that one empty. Not only did they say we're not going -- they own the land, just like they're going to own this land, then when they move, they lease d it. And they said, okay, you know, there's an empty building. So the lessee said, okay, I'll put something there. Wal -Mart has now renewed their lease until 2013 with an empty building there. And I've been there; I've seen it. There are at leas t 13 empty trailers sitting in the parking lot. There was a semi sitting in there sleeping. They have had homeless people there. They've had to call the police several times. It's not a pretty site. Is this what we're going to do to our stores? We're going to have Wal -Mart sitting here and Target right across from it and takes its customers away from it. We have Kohl's sitting up here and they take their customers away from it. We have Jewel sitting over here and they take their customers. And then not only do we have one empty store, we have two or three. Is that going to increase our taxes? Is that going to bring the revenue in that we want from Wal -Mart? Well, I guess it will because it's going to drive everybody else out of business. Even though I live clear up here where my husband was pointing to before, this will affect my view. This berm is nothing. I will see Wal -Mart 24/7. It will be open 24/7 with the exception of maybe Christmas Day of which those people that live right h ere will have peace and quiet that day only. I also -- I'm opposed to the rezoning of this for many reasons that have been stated in this meeting tonight and all the other meetings that I've been to. And I hope that when you make your recommendatio n to the Board that you make it based upon facts that were not only presented by the experts but by us, as the citizens, but also based on the reality of what's going to happen to our neighborhood. Thank you. (Applause heard.) MR. CHAIRMAN : Anyone else? MR. STURLINI: Rob Sturlini. I live at 12406 Bob White. I've been a resident of Plainfield for about three years. I live in the Heritage Meadows subdivision. Again, I was one of the original buyers in the first phase of the p roject. This
will be the third property that my wife and I have owned together. So in looking for this property, we had a pretty good idea on what we were looking for. Having kids we wanted good schools. My job, I travel a lot, so I wanted good, quick access to an expressway. We were looking for a new development where the people moving in would be people of our age with kids so our children had somebody to play with. Our previous locations, they didn't really have anybody to play with. We were looking for a school hopefully on -site so our kids wouldn't have to spend an hour or so in a bus driving. We were looking for approximately three years. We came down to Plainfield. We liked the town; we decided to move here. We found in Heritage M eadows everything that we were looking for. We previously lived in Schaumburg, the land of the big retailers. We knew that's not something we wanted to be a part of. We liked the fact that there were stores in Naperville, there were stores in Jolie t that we could drive through within 15, 20 minutes and get all our shopping done and then come back to our home which was in a residential area. You know, I guess the thing that bothers me here is the fact that the developers have come in now midst ride and decided to change the way that they want our community to be developed. I didn't elect the developers to determine how our community is developed or shaped. I elected village officials. Our village officials hire people with Plainfield tax money to come up with a comprehensive plan. My idea of a comprehensive plan indicates where we want residential to be, where we want commercial to be. It should also indicate if there is a need for additional commercial based on projections of what the residential property will bring in as far as families. I assume that that was done on the prior comprehensive plan in which case the best use of this plan, this lot that's in question was residential. Nothing has changed. We haven't added any more people to the area. If there wasn't a need at that time for this property to be zoned commercial, where did the need for it to be zoned commercial come from now. And who is determining the best use of the land, the developers or the City? Beca use there's a bunch -- there's a bunch of vacant property all over the place. There's a park in the middle of Plainfield. If a developer comes in and says, you know what, I can bring in so much money if you let me build a high rise here, is Plainfi eld going to take down the park and build a high rise just because now they can get more money? I hope not. I put my trust in village official to do the right thing and the right thing in this case is to make the developers accountable for what they told us would be in there. As far as the noise, the traffic, I don't know, I'm not an expert. But I have bought several homes. I forget the gentleman's last name. I know Joe is, I believe, his first name that was up here testifying earlier. He s tated that location is very important for businesses. They feed off of each other. Location is very important for homes, too. And I've never -- in talking to my friends, family, or anything like that in discussing potential home purchases or where we'd like to move, I've never heard them say, you know what, we'd have bought that home if only it had backed up to a retailer. They've
not purchased a home for reasons like that, either proximity to stores, proximity to traffic, other concerns. So you know, as far as land value goes, I'm not an appraiser, I don't know, but I rely a lot on common sense. And in my belief, it does matter what your homes back up to. And it doesn't either detract or increase the value of your home. That's basica lly all I have to say. (Applause heard.) MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Is it Sturlini? MR. STURLINI: Sturlini, right. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Could you point out where your lot is in relationship -- MR. STURLINI: It would be -- MR. PHILI PCHUCK: Do you want to go to the other map. MR. STURLINI: It would be right here (indicating). Right in the middle of Nightingale and Prairie Grove. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Is it where Falcon Drive comes into Bob White? MR. STURLINI: No. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Just south of that? MR. STURLINI: About two lots south. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: It's roughly a block away? AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's less than a block. MR. STURLINI: Uh -huh. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? MR. LATIMER: Daniel Latimer, L -a -t -i -m -e -r. 12329 Bob White Lane, Lot 83, Heritage Meadows your home. That's basically all I have to say. (Applause heard.) MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Is it Sturlini? MR. STURLINI: Sturlini, right. MR. PHILIPCHUCK : Could you point out where your lot is in relationship -- MR. STURLINI: It would be -- MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Do you want to go to the other map. MR. STURLINI: It would be right here (indicating). Right in the middle of Nightingale and Pr airie Grove. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Is it where Falcon Drive comes into Bob White? MR. STURLINI: No. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Just south of that? MR. STURLINI: About two lots south. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: It's roughly a block away? AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's less than a block. MR. STURLINI: Uh -huh. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? MR. LATIMER: Daniel Latimer, L -a -t -i -m -e -r. 12329 Bob White Lane, Lot 83, Heritage Meadows subdivision. I'm about two blocks away, Mr. Philipchuck . MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Thank you.
MR. LATIMER: And one of the reasons that I am here is because I don't believe that these seven homes that reside next to Wal -Mart should stand alone, but that's not the main reason. I moved in at the same tim e as Marty Franken, the same day Marty Franken did. I'm like him, I didn't come down to City Hall and do a lot of research. I relied basically on what the builder was telling us. They had a big map, something like this in here, and they showed all this to be residential (indicating). And I know that had to be passed by someone at the Village Hall. It turned out to be the Planning Commission, which I didn't know at the time. We put a lot of trust in you people. Grande Park is going in. Ther e's going to be 5,000 people. You're asking 5,000 people to come to Plainfield and relocate on what you're doing. And we'd just like to make sure that we can trust you. That's what you're sending out to them. Hopefully it's all about trust; it is. Mr. Heyberg wouldn't be anywhere with his job if people didn't trust him. That's all I've got to say. Thank you. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Mr. Latimer? MR. LATIMER: Yes, sir. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Did you move into your home sometime around the end of April of 1998? MR. LATIMER: '98 or '97, Dear? MRS. LATIMER: '98. MR. LATIMER: '98. Yeah. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: And you testified before the Planning Commission that at that time, you were shown a plan that showed this property a s being residential? MR. LATIMER: Yes. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Who showed you that plan? MR. LATIMER: Pasquinelli didn't show it to me, they had a chart just like this up on an easel in the office. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: For the Plan Commission's information, this was not part of the holdings of Pasquinelli, and Pulte did not come into play on that property at that time. So there were no plans residentially for that parcel at that time. MR. DANIEL: Aside from the comprehensive plan. M R. PHILIPCHUCK: Comprehensive plan showed it as estate, the same as it showed the Pasquinelli parcel. MR. LATIMER: They may have gotten it off the Village map because I've got a Village map that I paid $2.00 for. It's on there, too. MR. PHILIP CHUCK: There was no residential subdivision proposed on that parcel, that rival farm at that time. MR. DANIEL: I'll address that in closing for the Commission. MR. CHAIRMAN: State your name and spell it, please. MR. COAKLEY: My name is W ill Coakley. I live in Kensington Club. C -o -a -k -l -e -y. I was shown a map by Pulte that these were going to be homes. My biggest objection is the fact that if it's zoned residential, it should remain residential. That's it. (Applause he ard.)
MR. PHILIPCHUCK: When did you see the map? MR. COAKLEY: March of 2001. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: This year you saw the map that showed residential? MR. COAKLEY: Yes, sir. I purchased my house this year. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Thank yo u. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? State your name. MR. PATRICK BYRNE: My name is Patrick Byrne, B -y -r -n -e. First of all, I'd like to thank the Plan Commission for listening to everything tonight. And I hope you take in all the facts as you make your decision. My father had stated in a presentation that he had just done that we live on Lot 65. And if you look at the bottom map on the group, we are in the green where it's currently zoned commercial. And when we first moved in, we were kind of joking about what would be put in there, whether it would be a coffee shop or a small book store, whatever it may be. And it's a lot different than a Wal -Mart. It's not going to be nice in my room when I go to bed and I have to concentra te because I have a test tomorrow at school or something, and all I see are the lights which are pretty much even with my bedroom window. That's all. Thank you. (Applause heard.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we need that thing anymore? Whoever is resp onsible for it, can you kill the projector. MS. KAMINSKI: Kim Kaminski, K -a -m -i -n -s -k -i. 12352 South Heritage Meadow Drive. My house would be straight up the street from the truck dock, which I am not very happy about. And I am here for mysel f and all the other residents around because basically this is just wrong. I did see the same sign that Dan saw in Pasquinelli's office. They had it. It was a huge sign bigger than this back flexboard that showed that Pasquinelli was going to use t hat as Phase 6 of their project. Whether they owned the property, it was zoned residential, it was zoned -- whatever it was zoned, they put it to us that that would be Phase 6 of their subdivision and those would be single -family homes; and with eac h phase, the single -family homes would raise in value. They would get more expensive so that would raise my property value. This (indicating) will not raise my property value. You can bring in any expert you want, and you -- excuse me, but in my o pinion you would have to be an idiot to believe that that is not going to lower our property value if it's put right at the end of our street where you can see the trucks coming in and out. My children go -- my oldest son goes to Walker's Grove righ t now. Next year he will be going to Wilding Pointe, which we were told from some of the people on the PTO that they will not be bused there because we are less than the recommended 1.5 or 1.8 miles that you need to have in between your home and the schoo l in order to bus your children. My children will be exposed to this Wal -Mart on their way home, on their way to school, and that is wrong. These stores should not be put near schools. When you put forth your comprehensive plan, I was here for the meeting and I asked the gentleman, are you putting commercial properties anywhere near the schools, and he
said no, we are absolutely trying to stay away from that. Well, if you look at your comprehensive plan, all the red spots are very close to sch ools. That is wrong. Mr. Philipchuck or Mr. Abel -- I don't remember which one it was -- stated that there's a school that's across from our properties now. And I am on the field. My house backs up to the field, which I enjoy. The light s from the school, yes, they're annoying at times. But to the best of my knowledge, there has not been one gun sale underneath those lights. When I was looking to purchase a home in Plainfield, and I was specifically looking in Plainfield, I was sho pping around with my aunt who is an attorney. And we went to Wesmere and Lakewood Falls and those types of places and asked them different questions about the different open properties, open land within those developments. They said that they were managed by management firms and they could not in writing to us put that those places would never change. We asked them, what's to tell us that this land will not become a garbage dump some day, and they said, well, it's up to the management firm. That's why I bought my house in Heritage Meadows. There was no open land that was not donated to the Park District or underneath a homeowners' association that we control that would say you could change this, and we would not change this. That is another reason why this should not be here. As Mr. Franken said, I thank you for your time. You're here every night. I've been here for every meeting except for last week when I was on vacation. But I guess I am not as forgiving as he is because to me, w hen I sit here and watch you, there are a few of you that look like you have already made up your mind, you look like we are boring you, and you don't want anything to do with us. You have just about verbally assaulted our attorney who we are paying hard -earned money to retain. It's not cheap, and I deeply, deeply resent that. And at the end of the day, I hope you do make the proper decision that this remains residential. But if not, I know you're not elected officials but we can and we will vote o ut those elected officials who appoint you. Thank you. (Applause heard.) MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Ms. Kaminski, would you please show the Planning Commission where your lot is. MS. KAMINSKI: My lot is No. 8. Roughly right here somewhere (indicating). If you count eight squares forward, I back up to the middle school. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: So you're approximately two blocks away then if you go west and then you go north? MS. KAMINSKI: No. If you get to my corner, you're at the rete ntion pond which is right by where the Wal -Mart is. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: I'm going to show you what your counsel marked as Exhibit 20. It's the annexation agreement for the property that Pasquinelli developed. I'm going to ask you to look at the concept plan that was attached to the annexation agreement. Does that ring any bells as to what you may have seen? MS. KAMINSKI: This is what is in my packet that they gave me, but this is not what they showed in their model. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: But this was what was approved by the Village, correct? MS. KAMINSKI: Sure. I suppose so.
MR. PHILIPCHUCK: And the area in question tonight is shown with what designation? MS. KAMINSKI: I don't know what designation. MR. PHILIPCHUCK : There's no lots platted on it there, are there? MS. KAMINSKI: No, there's not. But we did go to the Village Hall and it was not zoned commercial, or I would not have bought there. MR. FRANKEN: Very good point. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone els e? MS. PIEMONTE: Sharon Piemonte, 12410 Heritage Meadow Drive. I just wanted to make the point that the Pasquinelli -owned commercial area at 119th Street on the southwest side is next to town homes and open space. Pulte afforded Kensington Clu b a seven -acre park as a buffer between it and the Target store, which is not even 24 hours. Golden Meadows is enhanced with a three -acre lake and additional green space between it and the Jewel -Osco. No similar concessions have been made in this p roposal, and it clearly lacks the foresight the other commercial areas require. Thank you. MR. FRANKEN: Very good point. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: I'm going to ask you if you could show me where your lot is for the Planning Commission. MS. P IEMONTE: Certainly. Right there (indicating). MR. PHILIPCHUCK: I'm sorry. So you're a few houses south of Ms. Kaminski's? MS. PIEMONTE: We'll, I'm three houses from the retention pond. So I will see Wal -Mart out the front of my house. Any one who drives down past -- to my house will be looking at the top of the Wal -Mart and -- MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Can you see the Target today? MS. PIEMONTE: Yes. But we are hoping homes will be there to obliterate the view hopefully. MR. PHIL IPCHUCK: If the homes can obliterate the view from the Target store, why wouldn't it obliterate the view of the Wal -Mart? MS. KAMINSKI: Because the homes are there. MS. PIEMONTE: Because there's going to be homes and a retention pond. MS. KAMINSKI: There is a retention pond there and then a Wal -Mart. MR. GRISWOLD: My name is Tom Griswold. I live at 12343 South Falcon Drive. MR. CHAIRMAN: Spell it, please. MR. GRISWOLD: My last name is G -r -i -s -w -o -l -d. My lot sits on the corner of Bob White and Falcon. I don't know exactly where that is on the map here. It's approximately right there (indicating), approximately two blocks from the Wal -Mart. My house is oriented in such a way that it is looking down Bob Whit e Lane and out my front window, what I'll looking at is the berm and the end of the dead -end street. Basically, I would like to echo some of the same comments. I moved in. I shopped for a house with my wife in September of 1998. We saw the same ex hibit in the Pasquinelli office. Had -- saw new homes shown in the proposed area where the Wal -Mart is going to be. The paperwork that we were given did not show that. It just showed our current phase. But their map did show that, and I'd like to test ify to that, also.
I'd like to thank the Plan Commission for their time and just hope you do the right thing for all of the residents of our subdivision. Thank you. (Applause heard.) MS. HARDEN: My name is Sarah Harden, S -a -r -a -h H -a -r -d -e -n. I live at 12463 Falcon Drive, which is Lot No. 62 adjacent to the property. We moved here from Atlanta in a rural area around Atlanta as Plainfield is to Chicago. My husband finally made it to the corporate office which is probably where he'll spend the rest of his career. So as in our search for a home around here, we looked in Oswego, we looked in Naperville, we looked in Bolingbrook. We looked everywhere except for Plainfield actually. A lot of the properties -- I drove our re al estate agent pretty crazy with no, I don't want to live there, that backs up to a road even though there was a fence there. There was a few homes that she showed us that were adjacent to even some strip malls. Didn't want that either. We just mo ved in this year in April . We spent two months looking. And somebody finally -- I didn't see anything that I liked around here. I thought that -- our house was already sold in Atlanta and I thought I was going to be homeless for a while. Someone sug gested Plainfield. So my husband and I flew up here, spent the weekend, drove around the area and I felt quite at home here. I come from a smaller town originally, and I enjoyed the smallness of Plainfield. We did a little research ourselves knowin g that the community was going to be growing. I liked the Heritage Meadows subdivision which is currently where we're at. We also were informed -- actually the welcoming committee, I know they don't have anything to do with the Village of Plainfiel d -- I'm not sure -- but they actually gave us a map that even showed us the homes and the streets detailed in the property right adjacent to my home. We also looked at -- my husband had, like, a 45 -minute commute in Atlanta to work. And we also looked at the area as a whole as far as traffic and things like that. We knew that Route 59 was going to be widened to four lanes. We thought his commute would be less time to work going north on 59. But we were also looking forward to the day when thi s street would open up down into 127th so that we would have a light to go out on knowing that those four lanes would be difficult at our current entrance and exit for the property. And, you know, I don't want to live next to commercial as my real es tate agent, if she was here, she would attest to. I didn't purchase my property knowing that I purchased it hoping -- being new to the area and not knowing a soul here that we would have the dogs in our backyard adjacent to our property and that we would have the grilling going on. I welcome neighbors. I don't want a sled hill behind my house, and I don't want commercial behind my house. Thanks. (Applause heard.) MR. PHILIPCHUCK: But you did purchase your lot knowing that there was comm ercial two lots away, right? MS. HARDEN: It's actually three lots away. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: No. This is commercial up to this line right here, ma'am.
MS. HARDEN: To that line? MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Yes. MS. HARDEN: But is the build ing going to be built to the line, I doubt it. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: But it's commercial property two lots away. MS. HARDEN: I understand that. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: You understood that? MS. HARDEN: Yes, I did. But I also wanted the neighb or behind me, not a parking lot. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? MR. KEYS: Good evening. My name is Adams Keys. And I'm just going to come up and point it out on the map. Keys, K -e -y -s. Probably the simplest last name you'll have in the room t onight. I live at 12465 Falcon Drive, Lot 61, here on the corner of Bob White and Falcon. My wife and I just moved here in '99 looking to buy our first home as a married couple. We looked at several different areas in Aurora, Naperville, Joliet, an d Plainfield looking somewhere close and convenient to both of our works for commuting purposes and whatnot. My wife and I grew up in Central Illinois pretty much a lot different than what we find up here in Chicago, small -town atmospheres, everybody kind of knows everybody, and Plainfield kind of made that click for us, where you knew your neighbors and everything like that. I have a lot of concerns about everything that everybody has talked about, traffic, sound, all that. And it's all import ant. But the real issue that Rachel and I have and with our new daughter is coming to a community where it's a hometown atmosphere, where it's residential, where you can do things, you're not worried about all the traffic and hoopla that might be out behi nd you. We welcome Wal -Mart to the community. It's not about the business. It's about just this area for commercial. And I made a comment a few weeks ago that, you know, this is a great town and we're going to have to have growth just to sustain wh at is going to happen in our community, but we need to take an effort and decide where we want that to be and I welcome that discussion. That's all I have. MS. HARDEN: Sarah Harden. I have one question for the Board: If this currently sta ys the way it's set up, this right here (indicating) being the line for the commercial property, will there not still have to be a 40 -foot buffer between the existing property here even according to the neighborhood that would potentially be there? M R. CHAIRMAN: What is that now, Doug? MR. CARROLL: 40 -foot building setback around 20 -foot landscape. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: The public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded. We will no longer be taking comments from the public. We need to have final summations from both Mr. Daniel and Mr. Philipchuck.
MR. DANIEL: If I could, Mr. Chairman, one comment, there was an exhibit that I had tendered from Chicago Title Insurance. I made reference to there being references to homes in this document to show assessed valuation or taxable value of the land. This exhibit is more intended to show the difference between the land taxed as farmland before development, before the prior approv al. The prior approval documentation for the residential area is what I was using to establish that. I just want that to be clear. There are no home references in this document from Chicago Title. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Did you have any fi nal summations or any final comments? MR. DANIEL: I do. I'd like to follow Mr. Philipchuck. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: That's my privilege, I believe. MR. DANIEL: I think you're the one that has the burden, my friend. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: I a m the one that was the applicant. MR. DANIEL: I'll leave that up to Mr. Harvey. The burden is on the applicant in this case. He would have a chance to reply to me and finish up. MR. HARVEY: I don't think our code gets into that kind of de tail, but I suggest that the applicant go first. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: I'll go forward. I don't want to delay this. I think it's very clear by the expert witnesses that are very qualified individuals that we presented in all these many nights to th e Planning Commission that we have, in fact, as summarized by Mr. Abel, proved all of the conditions within your zoning ordinance as it relates to our request. There was one reference made tonight by Mr. Byrne. He had a concern about how do we kno w we're going to get this. As the Plan Commission is aware, maybe some of the residents are not, as part of a planned unit development, what you see is what you get, if you will. In other words, we are committed to build the plan that is approved by the Village. So where the berms are shown and where the driveways are located and those conditions that we've imposed on ourselves here with the site plan, we, in fact, will be required to construct it that way. And so, therefore, I feel that the P lan Commission has more than sufficient evidence to make the recommendation to the Village Board that this particular parcel of property be rezoned as requested in our application. And that the points that were raised as regards to issues, language i n the comprehensive plan in maintaining the commercial base, I think it showed that the land as zoned today with just that small strip of commercial is a tremendous underutilization of a strategic corner in the community. And as a result, I think tha t better planning is served as Mr. Abel pointed out by allowing the expanded commercial area to develop, putting in the necessary protections that have been attested to. I know the residents, as I would be, are concerned about their property values. It's our lives' biggest investment. And we have shown time and time again, and this particular application is no different, that, in fact, what is sometimes fear is not really reality; and that the homes do maintain their values and that we feel that th rough the testimony that was shown that that, in fact, would be the case here, also. So on that, we rest, and we thank you for all of your efforts and time you put in. Thank you.
MR. DANIEL: Thank you. For the Commission's indulgence, fi rst of all, I want to thank you. It's not often that you have a contested hearing like this. I know that you aren't accustomed to having an attorney like me who has to fish sometimes, who sometimes may cause someone to say, oh, for God's sake, why i s he getting into this issue. There's some reasons for that. That is that I and the residents tend to lack a lot of the information until it comes out at public hearing. So I want to thank you for your patience. I do want to explain a couple of th ings though. In this process, you're the recommending body. You know that. You're entitled to take into account your practical experiences. That is why you're appointed instead of elected. You're selected because one of you might be an architect, one of you may have lived in the community for ages. Mr. Schinderle has been around for a long time so he's a respected member of the Commission. The Chairman knows a lot about what's going on with zoning in this area. So all of you are looked to in the community with a high amount of regard and respect. I've said twice during this hearing that our efforts serve to preserve that. We don't want anybody being laughed at or criticized for relying on a proposal that was actually backed up after it was already prepared. The fact of the matter in this instance is that Wal -Mart needs that spot. The Village of Plainfield does not need Wal -Mart. Mr. Abel testified about cannibalization. During my cross -examination of Mr. Abel, you rece ived evidence as to how these stores are going to compete for each other's customers. I can't, Mr. Abel said, compound their market areas because they're going to cannibalize each other. You're not going to have this tremendous aggregate tax increase. You heard testimony factually from residents who traveled around the area and looked at other stores. You in your own practical experience know what happens when a deep discount shop like Wal -Mart, the epitome of capitalism at its best or worst for s ome people, deep discounts, high volume, cannibalize the competition as quickly as you can, sell everything that you can and obtain it at deep, deep discounts from the supplies because they buy in heavy, heavy volume. That's not what this village needs. This village has a Meijer. A Meijer has services, opportunities for the community that Wal -Mart is providing. They've already admitted that they're a competitor of Meijer. On several occasions I asked Mr. Danos, Wal -Mart's, I think, only inte rnal representative, to explain why it is that Plainfield needs this site. If you look at the record, and I've read that transcript over and over and over again, I can't find it. I have it right here. I won't be offended if you ask me to sit down after this meeting. This site stood up as a red flag for Wal -Mart. You know why? Because it wouldn't take business from its other stores. Forget the stores downtown in Plainfield. Forget the stores that have already come in and tried to fit within your comprehensive plan, your zoning, your plan of development. And I do disagree with Mr. Abel. I do work with him from time to time. Trend of development does not include a Wal -Mart. That's District and to the School District that could pay the bulk cha rge that this village charged Mr. Pulte's group upon annexation. There were significant dollars coming in on that annexation.
We tendered the economic impact report for the prior development. Granted, it might not have been approved in bulk or in whole; sure, that's the case. But you know as you sit here today, that this commercial strip center up front was represented to develop a taxable value of some $8.1 million after four years. You know that. Someone under oath got up and told you that. A nd today it's all different why Wal -Mart wants the site. It wants to cannibalize the clients and customers of Super K -- of Super K -mart and those of Meijer. You know what? It may even have an impact on Target which was planned beforehand with a great buffer around it. There are some homes that are adjacent, sure. But this project does not reflect any of the prior considerations of this Commission on other developments. The berm has become a big issue. A lot of people think that this is co mpatible -- a lot of people from Wal -Mart think this is compatible because of the berm. You heard from their engineer Mr. Richard. You heard from Mr. Abel. You heard from their appraisal expert that I'll talk about in a little bit. There's some pret ty amazing stuff you're going to hear about. You're going to hear it again from Mr. Philipchuck as soon as I sit down. This berm creates a canyon. It puts something in the backyards of these residents' homes that shouldn't have been there accord ing to the prior plans. Some people testified that this land was zoned commercial -- or residential four years ago. Granted, it may not have been zoned residential. But you know and I know in looking at your plans and histories, your staff knows, Mr. Philipchuck knows that even though it wasn't zoned residential, everyone looking at that knew that people were talking about residential development in that area. The comprehensive plan called for estate development. Granted, things can change. What's happened in a year? Let's think about that. In a year, has there been another $100,000 traffic survey done by the Village of Plainfield that was ignored completely by Mr. O'Hara? No, there was not. Has there been a failure to presell hom es in the subdivision? Well, you know what? There has. Coincidentally, you know where they're at. Right there (indicating), west of the parcel. Big issue there, my friends, because we had an appraiser in there testify that there would be no impac t; no impact whatsoever. Give me a break. His own evidence presented to you two nights ago as Exhibits 40 and 41 you really need to take a close look at because what's going to happen is when this stuff makes the public record before the Village Boa rd, you may put a rejection in that letter, a negative recommendation, and they may still say politically we're going to take that gamble. Needless to say, this evidence is going to be there for them. It shows 30 to 60 to $70,000 differences in pric e between homes around or adjacent to the Higgins Road store that was discussed in Schaumburg and the homes away from that store. Ditto for the Glen Ellyn store. One thing that I'm not going to address tonight was the letter presented beforehand. I suspect it's a resident from a letter that echoed some of the opposite concerns. I don't know what's in that letter. I suspect you're going to take that into consideration and you're going to weigh those two people that spoke out in favor of this projec t against everyone else who's against it. But as to other evidence submitted to you outside of this proceeding as experts such as the appraiser, I want you to look at that. First of all, it's supposed to be submitted under
oath. There were a number of things that I asked for at the last hearing, some of which included the MLS listings. Mr. Philipchuck was kind enough to give me a copy of those. So what I did was I went through it and analyzed it. And I want to tell you what I found out. I just took the Higgins Road store. In 1993, there's a reference to a $220,670 average sales price away from the commercial land. There were five sales. Let me find these for you real quick. I'll show Mr. Philipchuck as we go through it. The five sales I have on a sheet of paper, Lot 301 on Thacker Street, $298,405; Lot 92 on Madeleine Street, $278,000 and change. Something on Corsier (phonetic), $269,990; another home on St. Claire, $269,900. And you know what? The next sales price is for a buck, $1, right here (indicating). What do you think that does to a weighted average? $1. Tender that one to the Commission. That's part of the appraiser's data that you received. $1 transferred to trust. If you actually took that out, the av erage would have jumped tremendously. Add on to that the fact that we couldn't rectify his data. I challenge any of you who believe this guy to look at it yourself. We couldn't rectify his data unless you took the total sales price of all of these homes away from the Wal -Mart store and divided it by the number of homes sold adjacent to the Wal -Mart store plus the number of homes away from the Wal -Mart store. Meaning they took the sales away from the Wal -Mart store and divided them by all the homes that were sold regardless of where they were. That's the appraiser's map. It doesn't hold water. You saw him argue with me. You saw me allow myself to get cut off as an attorney. I've never let that happen. But I figured you guys wouldn't give him an y credit. This is unbelievable. You deserve more credit than this. Mr. Schinderle, you look at tax dollars. I understand that. I've heard you criticize a few things during my questioning. And I don't blame you to an extent. You want to see tax dollars coming into the community. The question is: Where does the disproportionate impact fall and from whom are you going to draw those tax dollars? Whose property is going to suffer? It's not just Heritage Meadows. You've got a lot of people in Ken sington Club that are worried, a lot of people. Granted the Target store was planned, but you know what, this Wal -Mart explodes commercial in the region. It completely explodes it. Now, Mr. Abel addressed a number of things that I'd like to t alk to you about. First of all, there's some standards that we all like to look at. I'm going to take you through those. First of all, the whole basis for the organization is the Zoning Enabling Act in the State of Illinois. That is a statute that I have taken to the Supreme Court for interpretation. Argued one last May 31st, roughly. In Section 1 of that act, it says to the end that adequate light, pure air, safety from fire -- you've heard some testimony of taxable value of land and build ings throughout the municipality. Not just in this area; how about your downtown. What happens when the business is sucked away from downtown because Wal -Mart sells everything under the sun. You're going to find soon actually when I go through thes e, this isn't really a Pulte Homes issue. They had the right development. It's a great company. There's no doubt about that. They're not a commercial developer.
There's a couple of things that you have to consider under state law no matter what M r. Abel tells you and no matter what your ordinance tells you. The first thing is you look at existing conditions. Everyone has. You've heard about agricultural use in that area. Okay. The next thing is direction of building development to the b est advantage of the entire municipality. That's why you're here. That's why these people are here, and they're scattered from six subdivisions or more. Mr. Abel talked about the trend of development. I'm going to leave you to judge that yourself . But I think that everyone disagrees with the trend being commercial to that extent at that location. The next thing that you have to consider is the use to which the property is devoted at the time of enactment. Right now you can't look at this l and as if it's vacant. There is no way you can do that. It blows your credibility and violates state law. It violates your local ordinance. Look at it as being 70 homes. Look at it that way. Okay? I think for the first three or four nights of hearings a lot of people hadn't even reviewed the prior approvals, hadn't even looked at it. The architect mentioned a word or a term of art they use in the field, creative license. I think it's something you have to look at very seriously here. A lot of this is creative license. We are going to look at what findings of fact you would have at issue here. And I think each of you would have to think about this from two perspectives. First of all, maybe I am preaching to the choir. Maybe t his thing is going to get voted down by you guys, negative recommendation, maybe it's unanimous, maybe it's six to one. Who knows. But you still have the Village Board up there, and we have to establish our record and our argument here. So I hope you'll bear with me, please. Let's take a look at some of these findings. First of all, is the PUD innovative and creative? Take a look at that. Is it much different than any other big box development that you've seen? Probably not. Home Depot's used berms here and there. I think the only time that you're going to see a problem is when we actually try to define what the PUD is. What is the PUD? Is it just this parcel here or is it the parcels up here as well? Remember how this parcel and the development of this parcel is contingent upon these two lots here (indicating). You have a roadway here owned by a different owner not sealed at this point in time to uniform or unitary control. Not even a proposal. Not even a draft has been submit ted to you. There is an access issue up here as well (indicating). Now, what I want you to think about is when you bring in this volume of traffic to a store, you need to think about the impacts of that traffic. A lot of communities would retain th eir own traffic consultant. You already had a traffic report down for Route 59 by another engineering firm, paid $100,000 by the Village. That being disregarded forces the Commission another survey for you that relates to your concerns. Tonight the re was a question from the Board and from Mr. Philipchuck specifically: You don't know what this traffic is going to be, do you. Well, you know what? I don't think any of you do. I don't know what that traffic is going to be. How can you plan for a W al -Mart when you don't know the impacts of the traffic from those two lots. How can you plan for a Wal -Mart when they give you data that doesn't rely on a prior survey but goes back seven or eight years earlier to 1992 to an ISD study.
I've not had a chance to really sit down with Mr. O'Hara and catch him on anything. But I'll tell you what. That's a huge issue. If there's anything in this community that will draw it into one uniform group with one issue to fight, it's traffic. I drive thro ugh this community. I go home to Champaign a lot, and I drive down 59 all the time. I don't want to run into this any more than the residents do. Let's go through some of these findings. Does it meet the PUD regulation and standards? Well, there's a dispute there. First of all, I brought up the two lot ownership issue. Second of all, I brought up the issue that there really isn't open space. You have structures here. Structures aren't included. Do you count parking an open space? No, yo u don't. Your ordinance excludes that. So what kind of value is this to the Village? Taxes. Taxes, taxes, taxes; that's all it is. We're going to get to that in a second. This does not meet your PUD regs and standards. It does not. Staff has t o tell you that at some point in time. Maybe they can do a cross analysis; I don't know. How does it provide for transportation facilities? We just learned tonight that trucks aren't going to be using a northeast axis point. First time we heard ab out that. Mr. Richard who designed this site -- and he's a great engineer, I've used his firm as well -- never corrected me when I was asking about that route, never once. Where do the trucks dock? In back with their cabs facing south. Thi s turning radius here is an interesting little issue. Staff is going to have to tell you about that. Can a truck pull in and turn this way across the busy lines of traffic to do a delivery this way? Let me ask you this, too: You've heard conflicti ng testimony on truck traffic. Tonight you heard Mr. Abel testify that they wouldn't have traffic all night hours. That conflicts with the architect. That conflicts with what you heard from the employee from Wal -Mart. They do their deliveries when the re's no business going on. Just like other people. Or another Wal -Mart cleans the parking at midnight instead of during the day when it's full of people. So these truck deliveries do come in at night. You've heard that. I asked Mr. Abel specific ally if he was presenting any other evidence in addition to what the other people have testified to. He said no. He said his opinion letter was based on what's already here. The only thing you'll have is traffic coming in at night and make noise at nigh t. The sound expert's testimony is quite interesting. Not only was he asked to come back and do a survey, he was asked to come back and do something that was more representative of the conditions at the site. 5:00 p.m. rush hour statistics. Why 5 :00 p.m. on a Friday? Why not some other time? He didn't know about the train noise coming from a few miles west through unobstructed territory. He didn't know about that. He was brought in after the fact as well, just like all the other experts seem to have been. Mr. Richard appears to be one of the primary people along with the architect that was around beginning to end. Mr. Abel was hired to cover tracks. Mr. O'Hara was brought in after the fact. The appraiser was brought in after the fa ct. All postapplication. This project had to go through either way. We talked about compatibility. I don't want to argue with anyone about compatibility. But I don't think you have to put up a berm between compatible land uses. I don't think the highest density of commercial use possible in the U.S., a Wal -Mart, is compatible with residential use. It doesn't fit at all with the minutes of your prior meetings or the
memoranda from Staff. In no way, shape, or form can you say these things are co mpatible. Let's take a look at the practical obvious concerns. Bob White Lane under prior approvals continued. Now it's cut off. Is cutting off access compatible? No. How about over here, (indicating)? Same thing. That's not compatible. During the hearing I was asked why traffic was relevant. Residential uses generate a certain amount of traffic. Around residential uses you guys are familiar with the terminology, collector streets are major arterial streets. Take a look in that area an d determine what streets within the subdivision around that area that you thought were going to be collector streets and imagine what happens when traffic on 59 increases to the extent that people don't want to use Pasquinelli drive to exit. Sure they can go someplace else. Absolutely. And you know what? Bob White Lane, granted it wasn't built but it was planned, ladies and gentlemen; it was planned. It's irrelevant that Bob White Lane currently as it exists today is a dead end where the berm is suppos ed to start. Because it was planned to go through. You approved that a year ago. November 20th, I believe. Maybe a little earlier than that. All right. The remainder of the findings. It's interesting. We could go back and forth over the comp rehensive plan. Sure. It's a 1995 plan. But I think throughout the plan and all through visions overtime, you've always wanted to have a residential area surrounding a center of town that was more densely populated. The plan shows that. The plan talks about an estate zoning classification, whatever it might be. I think it's 100 percent residential, by the way, continuing from the west -- or the east part of town all the way across the north part of town. And you know what? Where there is vacan t land, there is even discussion in the plan and in Staff memoranda in minutes, Mr. Schinderle, about continuing that estate line all the way across the community. All the way across. To preserve it; not to have it broken. What are we doing here? Thi s lot, if you recall in one of our exhibits in the comprehensive plan was comprehensively planned for estate zoning. Let's talk about economic impact. And this obviously is a sensitive issue. This is obviously a sore spot for the residents that hir ed me; a sore spot for me. A lot of times you think, you know what, you're never going to be able to fight off a Wal -Mart because of economic impact arguments. It just so happens a year ago you received an economic impact analysis from their very same ex pert witness, under oath, same as you heard the testimony this time. Did any witness tell you anything occurred since that hearing to cause a change in that analysis? The only thing that occurred, I submit to you, is the fact that Wal -Mart wants Pul te Home's land. That's all it is. You don't have any traffic changes. I've read that report that you guys commissioned for 100 grand, roughly the Village commissioned for 100 grand. There is no reference of them needing a Wal -Mart or high commercial de nsity property at 59 and 127th. Mr. Abel talks about bumping out the commercial use and completing his, quote -unquote, node. You know what? The Target was supposed to be the largest development there, and you know that. You know that you res tricted some of the commercial here as well. You know that. A year ago.
This commercial -- and I have to tell you Mr. Byrne's son is pretty bright. Mr. Byrne did a pretty good job summarizing a lot of this. And I'll agree with what he has to s ay on this issue. A Wal -Mart is not what you have there. By getting a foot in the door doesn't mean you can kick it off its hinges. You just keep the foot in the door and the pressure on the outside of it. You had $8 million in taxable property there. Take a look at sales tax revenues. How many sales tax dollars is this going to generate, 480,000? Give them another 60, 540. How much of a tax break did Meijer get over ten years? Or was it 15? I can't recall. But I do know that in your minutes th ere's something about $332,000 a year in sales tax incentives. I do know that. And that was presented to you guys at some point in time. It was discussed in the minutes of the Village Board. Absolutely have to consider a deduction for sales tax i ncentives. Why would the Village give it to Meijer and not Wal -Mart? It has already been asked for. People have already talked about it as if it's going to happen. Wal -Mart's representatives say it would happen. No one asked them, well, with this pric e, would you go without it except for a member from the audience. Members of the Commission, I'll submit to you a few things. I've raised a lot of hell. I promise you I will do it again sometime. I don't like Wal -Mart. I don't like how it conduct s business. I don't like its business practices of buying foreign goods. I don't like that. But you know what? This is a zoning issue. You didn't hear testimony about that. You did hear about crime. I am a lawyer. I am a member of the American Trial Lawyers Association, the ATLA, and I have to submit to you when I get circular materials, about 3,000 pages of how Wal -Mart is suable or subject to suit, I should say, because of inadequate security measures, you can't discredit these witnesses test imony that you heard in the audience. Someone mentioned the America's Most Wanted from a couple of nights ago. Take a look on the internet for that. A brutal crime committed against a child on Wal -Mart's video cameras. That's crime. I am not goin g to harp on that. I've threatened litigation. I know I was asked -- it was kind of an off -the -hand comment when I said, no, I am not threatening. But you know what? I was hired for a reason. I was hired to prepare a record that could be taken up to the Village Board first. And if the Village Board approved it, to maybe carry on beyond that, depending on what the residents want to do. Obviously there are factions in the group that I've represented. Over time, some people have said, you know w hat, maybe Wal -Mart can pay us all 25 or $35,000 or maybe Pulte can. And we'll be happy. That's fine. If that's the impact on our property value, sure. He can share some of that money. And you know what? That's happened before. I haven't been asked to negotiate that. I haven't been asked to ensure that you guys verify the truck routes so that when a truck turns in into this street here (indicating), it's not hitting the gas station traffic you know darn well is going to be higher in volume with many more visits during the day than the other parts of the Wal -Mart store. Mr. O'Hara never talked about that. Internal traffic controls. There's no evidence if that's a safe alternative. None. You just have a plan and drawing in front of you. The landscaping berm, we haven't negotiated on either. We haven't raised an issue there. The canyon environment isn't acceptable. The fact that the Wal -Mart is being built at the highest point on this lot isn't acceptable.
By the way, you don't have any landscaping expert testimony. Night No. 2 that was promised. So here you have it. An attorney like me threatening a lawsuit. Obviously, I've got some conditions that are in the state statute under your local ordinance. I've got some issu es with evidence that may be disregarded, may not be. Evidence of mine that wasn't accepted. I am not going to worry about that right now. I don't want to threaten that. But I'll tell you this, and I've said it, I think, to at least one member of the m edia: Wal -Mart has not one leg to stand on if you turn this down. Pulte Homes as the contract purchaser, the annexation applicant at the time all this was applied for as being single -family residential doesn't have a leg to stand on. You know what you can say. You could say, I like Meijer; I want Meijer to succeed. And, you know, Wal -Mart is going to hurt their business. You can say that. There's no competition issue here. You've got residential property. For crying out loud, you've got a ll the reason in the world to turn them away and expect them to say you know what, I've got to talk to Mr. Philipchuck. He's got to advise appropriately that Wal -Mart is not going to sue you. This thing may never get into court. But I'll tell you this, too: Judicial forums are not the only forum these issues are decided. I mentioned and Mr. O'Hara's mentioned, Mr. Abel's mentioned, Mr. Philipchuck has even mentioned this Meijer's situation in Lisle. Both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board o f Appeals rejected that. They said you know what we are fact finders. We are the ones that have to take sworn testimony; we are the ones that have to rely on and make recommendations based on specific findings of fact on each of the elements of the ordin ance. How are you going to do that here? Reject it? Let the Village Board take the heat off of you. You guys keep your respect as a Commission. Show the community that your zoning is going to be consistent, enforced, and reliable, which it's not right now. Hell, if the sales tax dollar comes up, we're going to rezone anything commercial. Don't let that happen. I know it's not the case here. In Lisle, after the approval of that Wal -Mart store, I think there were five people on the Village Board that supported Meijer. Over the next two elections, they were all gone, including a mayor with an excellent reputation for a responsible development. From your perspective, I think you have to at least send a warning to your Village Board sayin g you know what, this isn't the best way to go. And if you're going to go this way, it's a political decision that you're going to have to pay for. That's all I have to say. I hope you take this under advisement seriously over the next couple of min utes, of course. And I thank you for your time. (Applause heard.) MR. PHILIPCHUCK: If I may respond just very briefly. I am not going to come in and rattle a sword like Mr. Daniel has done. I am not going to threaten the Planning Commiss ion. I've been before you many times, and I think I have a feel for how you exercise fairness and good judgment in these cases. I don't think it's necessary to come here and do sword rattling. I think we have proved to the Planning Commission that our expert witnesses are, in fact, that, experts.
They have presented no credible expert testimony in this matter whatsoever. He may not like our appraiser. He may disagree with our appraiser. That's fine. That is his right to do that. But I assure you that our gentleman is an MIA appraiser, duly licensed. And you heard his testimony, you heard his credentials, he doesn't go out willy -nilly. And yet he's trying to pick things out to show you how these numbers are so far off. And what this really means is that there is going to be a tremendous loss of property value for these people. Obviously there weren't a lot of sales if you look at it. In some years there was only one sale. There weren't that many lots that were really abutting the commercial piece. So unfortunately, we didn't know really the makeup. We've all heard of handyman specials and things like that. You don't know what condition the home was in, whether or not it had upgrades. So that could all be reflected in the s ales prices. But the fact remains we stand on the record presented by our appraiser. I think we did go to the issues of the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. And by the testimony and the site plan that we have presented, it does show that there have been great concerns made here for designing this particular development, the traffic, where the roads connect with other adjacent properties, where potential signals can be placed, and how traffic can get in and out of the site in a s afe and efficient manner have been addressed. He said our experts hadn't looked at prior approvals. I think what is really at issue here is the plan that's being presented to you and how it satisfies the conditions that are outlined in your ordinanc e. He keeps bringing up a traffic report that was done. You all know that was for the 143rd Street extension. That was the traffic report. And the Board kept getting it back and saying, nah, this isn't what we want and send it out again. And it e nded up being a $100,000 study, that yeah, guess what, they said, forget about it; we're going to find another solution. Getting to the truck docks. I think Tracy Richard testified that yes, in fact, this diameter turnaround was designed so an 18 -wh eeler can come in here and they can do it. That's the template that you use and back into the docks. So it -- there is that capability. I have to take exception with his references to well, you know, they brought this expert after the fact, they b rought this one in. Several of these experts the Planning Commission asked us to get additional testimony to. You wanted to hear about that. Route 59. As Mr. Abel mentioned, there are additional things that can be done. You know we will be back before the Plan Commission if we get the Board approval with a final plan. It will have more detail. And you'll be able to relook at this again to make sure that some of these issues that Mr. Daniel raises about, boy, is there going to be proper ac cess and are they going to have an agreement with MidAmerica, is the landscaping really going to look as nice as they say it will look, you'll have those opportunities as you know. He talks about the Meijer as if it's a done deal. I don't know to my knowledge if they've broken ground yet. Meijer is not a publically -held company. It's a privately -owned company. Yes, they were given a tax incentive. And have we asked for one? Yes, we'd like to get one. Doesn't mean the Village will give it to us. They may; they may not. We have a right to ask and we have asked. I would submit to you that that's not really evidence as to whether or not the Wal -Mart should be approved for this location.
As to driving a business out, this is America, my God. There will be businesses, whether it's Wal -Mart, there will be somebody else that comes in. There will be more businesses that come into the community as the community grows. And we have a wonderful downtown. And I think it's a downtown that's sustain able because of its size and its quaintness. Naperville has some of the biggest square footage of commercial in its outlying areas. They've been able to sustain their downtown. In fact, they keep putting up more parking decks in their downtown to a ccommodate the expanding businesses in downtown even though they're surrounded by these huge complexes of big box users. And I'm not saying that Wal -Mart -- that Plainfield will become a Naperville, not at all. But I'm saying that the quaintness of the Village, it's downtown, can and will be maintained. We have our MainStreet people that are ever vigilant of that. We know we are not going to attract big box users downtown. We are going to have specialty stores and restaurants and those kinds of things that we have now. Please don't be scared off by threats that another commercial entity is going to come into the Village and it's going to wipe all of our existing businesses, our mom and pop businesses, our local businessmen out. That's simply not the case. Mr. Daniel doesn't like Wal -Mart and their business practices. By God, that is his right as an American. And we're certainly not going to criticize him for that. But the fact remains that they are a legitimate business o rganization. They are one of the largest retailers in the country. I think Mr. Abel said it well: What does Plainfield have going for it that they have been able to attract so many of these major retailers into their community? There's something there, and there is. This is a wonderful community. There's room for Wal -Mart as there's room for the others. They will all thrive, and one day we'll all be very proud of this community. We ask for your support. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Before we go into our discussion, I just need to raise a couple of points. Several comments have been made over the last few weeks regarding parks and schools and their placement. The Park District is a separate entity by itself. It has no connection to t he Village of Plainfield or the school system. They have their own geographic boundaries. They have their own tax basis. And while we do work together oftentimes, they do not consult us in their placement of parks and their developments of park properti es. The same with the school board, the school district. The school district is a separate entity, has no connection whatsoever with the Village of Plainfield. And the school board certainly does not tell us where they're going to build a school. We usually find out when they ask for a building permit. So let's get that clear. Where that school is in relation to any commercial property, take that up with the school board. Staff has got these petitions lumped together, and I guess I can see why. The petitions are for rezoning, special use for planned unit development and site plan review. Ordinarily, site plan review is done much later in the game. And I agree that we needed to consider major aspects of the site plan review in order t o consider rezoning. However, tonight, I would prefer that we did not have any motion regarding the site plan
review. There is -- there should be plenty enough time, if this goes forward, due to our actions or subsequent actions, there would be ample op portunity to address the site plan review. I believe that issues that have been agreed to remain agreed to; however, we may ask for some small adjustments in traffic patterns, landscaping, probably nothing major, but I think we need to do that. We do not have enough time to work on a site plan review. A site plan review often is a whole meeting by itself. Looking at the clock, I think we need to resolve the other two issues first. The first being a rezoning from R -1 to B -3, and the use -- and the issuance of a special use permit to develop under planned unit development regulations. I think those two can be tied together. So with that, I invite the Commissioners to discuss, make comments, or not. Keep in mind that it is up to you to either accept or reject the testimony given by expert witnesses. Everyone who has spoken here is presumed to be speaking the truth; however, you have people speaking both for and against a lot of conflicting testimony, conflicting information. I guess it's up to you to decide which one you want to accept. Is anyone inclined to make a statement, make a comment? I don't want to rush for a vote. I'm not going to poll the Commission like I usually do. I'll be surprised. MR. MANNING: I'll star t off if you need someone to start it off. To me, it's a company rights issue. Can the owner of the land do with his land what he wants to do as long as he complies with the ordinance of the Village. To deny him that right is a big burden. An d I think that I haven't heard enough from the opposition to support that burden. I've heard opinion. I've been impressed with your passion. But I've seen little fact. I've seen a lot of opinion. Again, I've been impressed with your passion but very l ittle proof. On the other hand, petitioner has submitted expert testimony. He has met his burden to prove that he has met the requirements of the Village ordinances, and that's my view of it. MR. SCHINDERLE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to complim ent all of these people who have taken the tremendous amount of time and the effort that they have put forth in reviewing this and looking at it and trying to bring before us all aspects of what we have to consider. But I have to agree with Commissio ner Manning. I have heard no expert testimony from any of you. It's been a fact, it has been opinion, it's been your own ideas. On the other hand, the petitioner has certainly brought forward key people who have been in the field of their expert us e for years. They have presented their testimony. I know that there have been efforts to discredit some of that testimony and I'm not enough of an expert to be able to tell you whether that it is correct or incorrect. But from where I sit, I must a gree with Commissioner Manning that your passion is fantastic. I've been on this commission for years and never have we gone to 1:00 o'clock in a meeting and this is going to be a first for me. But I must say that I don't feel that I can take on th e burden of saying to the owner of that property that he cannot develop it. MR. KACHEL: Jim, I'd like to make a comment. I appreciate everyone's comments on both sides. I think they've all been done very well.
Expert testimony, we have had expert testimony in the years I've been on the Planning Commission. And some of the expert testimony is good and some of it is something that we've taken and we've got other experts in later on and it's completely different. As a community and t he growth of the community that we have here in Plainfield, we've tried to keep the community somewhat small. We've tried to keep our community a little bit different than other communities. Trying to keep it small hasn't worked, but we've tried to estab lish a character as far as what we want within our community here as far as what we want to have. When the Planning -- we talked about Lane Kendig a little bit ago as far as the planning. I was on that planning commission at the time when we put to gether a comprehensive plan. There were a lot of issues that were talked about. We didn't assume the growth that we were going to have and we didn't even begin to project it. Some of the estate districts that we had talked at that time, and I know it was talked about by the public, they were going to be all estate districts, it was left all open because we didn't think it was going to grow. And we wanted to try to establish that. That hasn't happened. But we have a lot of big boxes, and we h ave a lot of traffic on Route 59. We have a 5,000 unit development, which we've got expert testimony brought before us that it's going bring a lot to Plainfield. That is west of Plainfield. We have Oswego that's west of Plainfield and Route 30 that's be ing developed, which there's already plans of commercial coming down this way. We have talked about the WilKa 20 years away to build on. But west of Plainfield there's nothing. We have got a lot of big boxes right in this particular area right her e; a lot of things to go in. I am not opposed to Wal -Mart at all. I figure we can use a Wal -Mart within this community. But the fact of the matter is Joliet is extended out to Kendall County, and if you shop that way, you have to come all the way t hrough town and you have to travel up 59. Oswego is going to be up this way. If they want to come this way, you have to come over at 59. We have a lot of growth growing west. The Walgreens that was presented before the Village of Plainfield recent ly, it was established to the effect that it was going to be on Route 59. It is now on Route 30. There's a lot of area over in that particular area. This particular project was brought to us three times within a year and a half, and the first times it was a planned unit development. The second time when it came before us, it did make sense as far as what we were talking about as far as commercial, but now we have a PUD within a PUD. The public may not have a lot of expert testimony, but I fee l that people have homes and you've invested a lot into those particular homes. And I feel that's what we've look for in our community as far as what we have looked for for growth. So I think from both sides we have got testimony. But my feeling is right now that we have looked at that one particular way. And if you take a look at Joliet, the Louis Joliet mall, we've got a Home Depot, we have Builders Square. One put the other out. We have one vacant building sitting in there right now. I'd like to see a lot of business. But all big businesses in one particular area -- I've worked -- I've lived in this area my whole life. I've seen big boxes up to the north side
which were presented to us. I've seen them go in and I've seen them go out and they sit. It doesn't help the tax space. If you spread it out -- and I know Wal -Mart wants to have it right in this particular area, but they also talked about a four -mile radius, and there is an overlap already to the east on this particular p roject, if you go further to the west. I feel that will fill up and maybe they'll get even more business. I can't tell Wal -Mart where to go. But that's my feeling. (Applause heard.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? MS. GEHRKE: I can see both sides to this. I can see the homeowners' and I can see our side, the Village's side to it. But I really think if you work together with these people, you'll end up just like the Jewel and it's a pretty nice place. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any additional comm ents or discussion? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Commission agree with my proposal to move the site plan to a later date, if necessary? MR. MANNING: Yes. MR. SCHINDERLE: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MS. GEHRKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any -- MR. PHILIPCHUCK: Mr. Chairman, if I might, just a reminder to the Commission that the request for the PUD includes the site plan and understand that that goes along with it subject to coming back and working out details. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we all understand that, Doug? MR. CARROLL: (Nodding.) MR. MANNING: Wait a minute now. What did you decide? What he wants to do, he can't do? MR. CARROLL: No. What he wants to do, he can do. MR. PH ILIPCHUCK: We can do it. But we have to understand that the site plan is part of the PUD subject to working out the details. MR. CHAIRMAN: Staff has recommended three separate motions. Assuming approval, Staff has offered three separate motions, o ne is specifically for site plan. And I was going to ask that that not be offered. MR. SCHINDERLE: Jim, if the Village Board does not approve, then the site plan becomes moot, does it not? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right. MR. SCHINDERLE: So w hy don't we just drop it off and see what happens at the Village Board. MR. CHAIRMAN: I might remind you that we haven't approved it yet. MR. SCHINDERLE: I agree with that. I understand that. But should that be approved here tonight, then the Village Board says they do not accept our recommendations, then this is moot, right? MR. CHAIRMAN: Absolutely. MR. PHILIPCHUCK: I would submit that we obviously have to go to the Board and show them our site plan, and that this is part of what we're proposing to do so that they
have that to evaluate. So I mean, obviously, I would like to have a recommendation of approval by the Plan Commission of the plan that's attached to the PUD subject to coming back to the Plan Commission if the Board see s fit to approve the zoning to work out those details. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me put in a third stipulation here that -- MR. MANNING: There's more than that. MR. SCHINDERLE: Go to the back page . MR. CHAIRMAN: No wonder. Six stipu lations that they return. Okay. We will go ahead then. If motions are made for approval, then add the third motion and with the sixth stipulation added to return. What I'm thinking is if the Village Board is going -- if this goes forward to the V illage Board and if they approve it, they like to tinker with stuff anyway. MR. SCHINDERLE: What's your sixth one? MR. CHAIRMAN: That the petitioner return for review of the site plan review. MR. MANNING: Return where? MR. CHAIRMAN : Here. Because we have not had time to go through it entirely. I think we agree with everything that -- pretty much everything that has been offered. For instance, our parking lot expert may have further comments on the parking lot. We may want to put in a stipulation in writing for truckloading, the truck entrance, et cetera, et cetera. And I find that going into that this evening at this hour probably would not be productive. I'll ask again, does anyone else have any comment or questi on or make a statement in this case? If not, the Chair welcomes a motion, and we would need three motions. But let's do them one at a time. MR. MANNING: You want a motion and a second. But on a vote, a vote motion and a second. MR. CHAIR MAN: Yes. We will vote on these separately. MR. MANNING: I move to recommend -- I move we concur with the findings of the facts as identified in the Village of Plainfield zoning ordinance and recommend rezoning of the subject property from R -1 sin gle -family residential to B -3 community shopping district. MR. SCHINDERLE: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: A motion has been made and seconded to recommend to the Village Board that the Plan Commission concurs with the findings of fact as identified in t he Village of Plainfield zoning ordinance and recommend rezoning of the subject property of R -1 single -family residential to B -3 community shopping district. Vote by roll call, please. MR. CARROLL: Kachel. MR. KACHEL: No. MR. CARROLL: Seggebruch. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: No. MR. CARROLL: Gehrke. MS. GEHRKE: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Manning. MR. MANNING: Yes.
MR. CARROLL: Schinderle. MR. SCHINDERLE: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Sobkoviak. MR. CHAIRMAN: No. We have four yes, three no. A motion for approval is passed. The Chair seeks a motion for the question of the PUD. MR. MANNING: I move we concur with the findings of fact as identified in the Village of Plainfield zoning ordinance and recommend approval of the special use for a planned unit development for the subject property subject to the following stipulations: Compliance with the requirements of the village engineer; compliance wit h the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; all delivery trucks are to use the 127th Street entrance; there shall be no seasonal external sales promotions; a car under repair can be parked on the property for a period of no longer than 14 days. Additionally, all repair work should be conducted within the repair facility and all outside storage is enclosed with fences or landscaping of 100 percent opacity. MR. SCHINDERLE: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: A motion has been made and seco nded to recommend to the Village Board that the Plan Commission concurs with the findings of fact as identified in the Village of Plainfield zoning ordinance and recommend approval for the special use for a planned unit development for the subject property subject to the five stipulations found in the planner's report. Vote by roll call, please. MR. CARROLL: Kachel. MR. KACHEL: No. MR. CARROLL: Seggebruch. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: No. MR. CARROLL: Gehrke. MS. GEHRKE: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Manning. MR. MANNING: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Schinderle. MR. SCHINDERLE: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Sobkoviak. MR. CHAIRMAN: No. That's four yes, three no. Motion is carried. The final question, that of the site plan review. MR. SCHINDERLE: There's one more in there. Recommended approval of the final plat. MR. CHAIRMAN: Doug, you've got the preliminary plat in here? MR. CARROLL: That's part of the PUD. MR. MANNING: You want me to -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. MANNING: I move to concur with the findings of fact as identified in the Village of Plainfield zoning ordinance and recommend approval of the preliminary plat and planned unit development for the subject property subject to the following stipulations: Compliance with the requirements of the village engineer; compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; the applicant work with Staff to use th e landscaped parking islands to help meet detention requirements and NPDES II standards. MR. SCHINDERLE: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: A motion has been made and seconded to recommend to the Village Board that the Plan Commission concurs with the findi ngs of fact as identified in the Village of Plainfield zoning ordinance and recommend the approval of the preliminary plat and the planned unit development for the subject property subject to the three stipulations found in the planner's report. Vote by roll call, please. MR. CARROLL: Kachel. MR. KACHEL: No. MR. CARROLL: Seggebruch. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: No. MR. CARROLL: Gehrke. MS. GEHRKE: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Manning. MR. MANNING: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Schinde rle. MR. SCHINDERLE: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Sobkoviak. MR. CHAIRMAN: No. That's four yes, three no. The motion is carried. The Chair requests a motion for the site plan review. MR. MANNING: Furthermore, I move we recommend approval of the site plan for the subject property subject to the following stipulations: Compliance with the requirements of the village engineer; compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fir e Protection District; the applicant increase the number of plantings to be in compliance with Village requirements and shall add shade trees in the recessed area in the front facade and the foundation plantings along the front facade's expanse; the applic ant shall identify where shopping carts will be stored; the applicant meet all Village of Plainfield sign requirements and signs such as We Sell for Less and Satisfaction Guaranteed shall be removed. And No. 6, that the petitioner will return to the Plan Commission for a site plan review. MR. SCHINDERLE: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me reword that, that sixth stipulation. The applicant not -- or will return for a review of the site plan review. This is not a redundant action to redo the site plan review. It's just to look it over.
A motion has been made and seconded to recommend to the Village Board the approval of the site plan for the subject property subject to the five stipulations found in the planner's report and the sixt h stipulation added by the Plan Commission. Vote by roll call, please. MR. CARROLL: Kachel. MR. KACHEL: No. MR. CARROLL: Seggebruch. MR. SEGGEBRUCH: No. MR. CARROLL: Gehrke. MS. GEHRKE: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Manni ng. MR. MANNING: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Schinderle. MR. SCHINDERLE: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. CARROLL: Sobkoviak. MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Motion carries. This will go forward to the Villag e Board for their consideration. Their first opportunity would be January the 7th. However, I do not know that this will be on their agenda that night. You need -- interested parties need to contact the Village Hall, specifically Doug. MR. CARROL L: The web site. MR. CHAIRMAN: The web site to find out what night it will be on the agenda. MR. WEIFFENBACH: Just as a point of information, will you be when you make your rereview of the site plan looking at the child safety issue that was raised by the residents? I think that's a valid concern and one that merits your attention. I certainly hope you do. But I don't know if you will be doing that or not. MS. KAMINSKI: Obviously not. MR. WEIFFENBACH: Well, let them answer. MR. CHAIRMAN: When we look at the site plan review again, it will be subsequent to a Village Board action on this case. It will be in this chamber. However, site plan review is a public meeting but it's not a public hearing. It's one of those things. MR. KACHEL: Let me just state one thing. If you look at the past and things that have come before us, whether we've been in favor or not in favor, you're still going to look -- if it's going to be going through, it's to the best interest of the co mmunity. I think if you look at our past record and performance, it will be that way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Generally speaking, site plan reviews have little effect on the neighbors. This is traffic patterns in the parking lot and shade trees and how the building looks and stuff like that. It's more generic than having any effect or impact on a direct neighbor. I thank you all for coming. And I would like to reiterate Mr. Manning's and Mr. Schinderle's comments on the issue that you brought forwa rd. The Plan Commission stands adjourned.
* * * * * 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 Report of Proceedings, Pages 1 through 103 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, pr oduced under my direction and control; 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 26th day of December, 2001. Certified Shorthand Repo rter