HomeMy Public PortalAbout1993-10-05 PC minutesDATE: October 5, 1993
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
E% OFFICIO PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
I 1 1
AT:
Plainfield Library
Chairman Sobkoviak
D. Norris W. Manning
L. Kachel W. Schempf
M. Krippel
School, B. Eichelberger
Fire, J. Eichelberger
Trustee, M. Lambert
Trustee, J. Ray
Peter J. Waldock, Village Planner
J. Peterson, Village President
D. Djerf, Village Engineer
S. Hart, Secretary
Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken, the Park
District representative, the Township representative and the Library District representatives were
absent.
Chairman Sobkoviak declared the minutes of September 7, 1993 approved as amended.
CASE NO. 413-090993-Z MC DONALD'S CORPORATION
Planner Waldock summarized his report as follows: The first two cases on the agenda related
to Mc Donald's and the Plan Commission heard both cases together. The Public Hearing was
relative to a zoning change for a 2.24 acre parcel, 220 ft. north of the northwest corner of Route
59 and IL. Rt. 126. This application is for Lot 2 of Country Manor Estates, Lot 1 is for sale
and is not a part of the development site, however, it is part of the rezoning. Surrounding land
uses include mixed residential dwellings, (one, two and multi- family units) along the west side
of the subject site. Commercial uses are found south of the rezoning site. These include an
attorney's office in a converted residence) and the Mobil Gas Station. To the north, vacant
commercial B -3 land presently exists. To the east, across Rt. 59 is the Twist and Shake carry
out, and Nabby's restaurant, White Hen Pantry, a hair stylist and a dry cleaner. The rezoning
is for the purpose of construction of a Mc Donald's restaurant, with a drive up window. The
site is in relative alignment with Naperville /Plainfield Road, and has a secondary access to Rt.
126 via a driveway extended from the south, across the adjoining and undeveloped parcel. The
drive through is located on the south side of the building, there is no speaker at this restaurant,
the orders are taken by humans. Stacking for eleven cars is provided at the Drive -up window,
parking is provided for 52 cars. The building is 3000 sq. ft in floor area, the facade is a
combination of brick, stucco, and glass. The Lighting Plan detail calls for eleven twin fixture
lights, and one triple fixture light at the rear of the building. The twin head fixtures are along
the south side of the driveway area, and the parking area.
PLAN COMM SSION MINUTES
October 5, 1993
Page 2
Landscaping is intended to buffer the drive area, a six foot screening fence is provided along
the rear of the property. Stormwater detention is provided in the parking lot itself,
compensatory storage for the flood plain is accommodated in the lot adjoining the subject site.
The building is not located in the flood plain. A trash enclosure is provided at the rear of the
building and is fully enclosed by screening fence. The pavement areas are provided with
bituminous pavement and there is sufficient parking to meet requirements. IDOT permitting
requirements would be needed to accommodate access to both Rt. 126 and Rt. 59. The Village
and Mc Donald's are continuing with discussion for the access. What is depicted on the Site
Plan is consistent with previous considerations by former applicants for the subject site. In
analyzing the rezoning request, Staff compared surrounding land uses, and the Comprehensive
Plan, this site is identified as projected historic core residential. That would indicate that either
this site ought to revert back to residential, or that the Plan did not take into effect the current
zoning and the existing land uses in that area. It also shows the White Hen Pantry, Mobil,
Nabby's and Twist and Shake sites as historic core residential. It was the Planners conclusion
in analyzing the Comprehensive Plan in comparison with this case, that the Plan did not address
the issues associated with land uses at this corner. In looking at the site's orientation, it is
Staff s conclusion that the orientation is to Rt. 59, the rezoning request is for Highway
Business, the site qualifies in terms of its frontage on Rt. 59. The surrounding land uses along
Rt. 59 are compatible with the use proposed by Mc Donald's. The Site Plan as presented is in
conformance with the Village Commercial Development regulations. Some residents and Elected
Officials have indicated an interest in re- routing Rt. 59. This may have an impact on the land
use itself. The re- routing of Rt. 59 may reduce traffic flows and therefore effect the viability
of this business. The Village had not received calls from concerned land owners prior to the
meeting. Planning principals and practices require the evaluation of surrounding land uses,
harmful impacts, (if any on surrounding properties) future land uses, the Comprehensive Plan
for the area, and current projected trends in development. The factor that most significantly
effects this request, centers on the existing land uses, immediately along Rt. 59, and the
compatibility of zoning request with the constraints of the subject site. In Staffs opinion, the
review of this matter should consider whether any negative impacts can be mitigated via
construction practices, landscaping layout, and other design features. It is the conclusion of the
Staff, that mitigation can be accomplished via, sufficient landscaping and installation of fencing
along the west property line. Therefore, the conclusion of the report is that the subject site is
compatible with surrounding land uses along Rt. 59, and the impact on residential uses next to
the site can be mitigated adequately to allow for successful development. The findings of Staff
are as follows:
1. The rezoning as requested is compatible with existing uses along Rt. 59 in the immediate
vicinity.
2. Impacts of the proposed development can be mitigated by landscaping and fencing along
the west property line of the subject site.
3. The requested zoning establishes a Highway Business category, consistent with the
subject and the intent of the Zoning District as proposed.
PLAN COMMISSION AMIR ICS
October 5, 1993
Page 3
With these findings, Staff recommends approval of the rezoning from B -3, General Business
District to B -4, Highway Business District for Mc Donald's Corporation subject to the following
stipulations:
1. A six foot solid screening fence shall be required along the west property line of the
rezoning boundary.
2. Provisions of the Village development regulations must be met at the site.
3. Site Plan Approval shall be required.
Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan for Mc Donald's Corporation subject to the
following stipulations:
1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer.
2. Compliance with provisions of the Plainfield Fire District.
3. Provision of storm water detention calculations and design details as necessary.
4. Compliance with provisions of the Illinois Department of Transportation for access to
Route 59 and Rt. 126.
5. Screen and direct all exterior lighting to avoid glare on adjoining residential properties.
This shall include the placement of pole mounted lighting along the west edge of the
south driveway facing away from adjoining residential areas. Box style lighting (RSV
Series) fixtures aimed immediately to the ground are an acceptable light fixture style.
6. Signage must meet the provisions of the Plainfield Sign Ordinance. No variances are
included with this review.
7. All Stipulations must be met before the case goes to the Village Board.
J. Phillipchuck, attorney for Mc Donald's spoke regarding the B -4, Highway Business Zoning,
and the reason for it, being the drive- through window. He also spoke of the possibility of
putting the screening fence on a two foot berm, all the way across the back of the property
to help screen the adjacent land owners. There won't be a speaker box, purchasers will speak
directly to the order takers, which will cut down on noise on the property. The hours of
operation are 6:00 am to 11:00 pm. Deliveries are controlled by the individual Mc Donald's
restaurant, refuse collection is twice a week.
PLAN CORD SSaON AIMUTPES
October 5, 1993
Page 4
Questions of the Plan Commission included; IDOT's interest in Rt. 59 and sufficient access from
the site, and needed improvements on Rt. 59; answered by 1. Phillipchuck to have right -in right -
out access for Lot 1, and a full intersection for Lot 2, at Naperville /Plainfield. Lot 1 will have
access to Lot 2, and the intersection at Rt. 59. The screening fence, and the plantings were also
a concern. L. Kachel questioned the portion of business that is drive through, and was answered
by J. Phillipchuck, to be 51 to 55 %.
J. Eichelberger spoke of 8 inch mains, the need for a closer hydrant. The Fire District does
have a concern with Rt. 59, and the potential for accidents.
E. Schrader delivered a letter (which is attached), and spoke representing the 28 adjacent
landowners; points made were: spot zoning, another curb cut on Rt. 126, truck and bus
parking on the highway (s), B -4 zoning adjacent to an established residential area, the long hours
of operation everyday of the year, noise pollution, loitering, residential security, and odors.
Questions of landowners included; The runoff of water that naturally goes into that field, the
B -4 use adjacent to their homes, Nabby's restaurant serves breakfast, lunch and dinner and that
is adequate for the needs of the Village, the traffic on Rt. 59 at present was the biggest concern,
the fact that the Mc Donald's would be Corporate owned was a concern, and who would monitor
the "mess ", traffic, odor's and rodent problem and congregation of people.
President Peterson, spoke, "I met with the Mc Donald's people last week, whether they knew
or not, our plans for a bypass, and specifically called this to their attention, fearing that they
may have made a mistake in locating on this site. I think Plainfield is ready for a Mc Donald's,
and should have a store like this and maybe the enterprises that will follow. But frankly guys,
(To the Mc Donald's people) this is the wrong place. If Mc Donald's is the good neighbor that
Mc Donald's is suppose to be, I think you are acting a little selfish here. I tried to analyze why
Mc Donald's wants this spot, and my supposition is: I think they want this spot, because it is
a place of no competition. When you see a Mc Donald's, you see Kentucky Fried Chicken,
Burger King, Pizza Hut, Denny's all follow suit. There is no place for those to go here. There
will be Mc Donald's, Nabby's, and Twist and Shake and that is it. They will have this
tremendous traffic volume right in front of their place, and no competition. It looks to me like
it is selfish. I would like to say, Mc Donald's Corporation, we would like to have you in town,
we would like to see Mc Donald's locate in the right place, where it won't disturb our
neighbors. Where we won't find ourselves in the absolutely worst traffic situation in the whole
town, and frankly I just don't understand how the Corporation could possibly have selected this
location, except perhaps by simply looking at the volume of cars in the intersection. We are
hoping for a by -pass, we know we have developments going south, we have developments west,
we have property already zoned B -3 and B -4 where your company could locate west or south.
I am not making a decision on this tonight, I am just expressing my concerns, I think if you
came in with the right location, you would have no problem at all getting this building, but I just
can't imagine a worse spot."
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
October 59, 1993
Page 5
The concerns of the Plan Commission included: The traffic will be heavier because of the drive
through, on Rt. 59 and Rt. 126. The curb cuts on Rt. 126, and the difficulty of screening the
property from the adjacent landowners.
J. Phillipchuck spoke to the concerns of the respondents, Mc Donald's Corporation carries a two
edged sword, the fact that Mc Donald's are very successful is sometimes perceived as bad.
Unfortunately, as the region grows, we will have traffic. It is part of urban life. We are
obviously experienced at locating sites. Mc Donald's wouldn't come into a site, unless we felt
that the site would operate safely, and that the site could be managed from the standpoint of
location and relationship to it's neighbors, especially when it backs on residential. Whether it
is a corporate store, or franchise operation, the Mc Donald's people take strong stand as to what
Mc Donald's will allow on the premises, Mc Donald's do not become a gathering location for
loitering. Any business man knows that those activities are not good for business. We try to
involve ourselves in Community activities. It is understandable that people don't want change,
something will go in here, the zoning change request is just for B -4, for a drive through. There
will be traffic no matter what goes on that site, it is zoned B -3, and the list of uses in B -3
include restaurants or automobile truck agencies that can generate much more noise, much more
in the way of lights. Any use in B -1, B -2 or B -3 is permitted.
J. Ulrich spoke for Mc Donald's, we try to locate our stores convenient to most of the people
of the community. We think this location is a central location in town, there are new
subdivisions north, west and south of town. As far as traffic, we don't add to traffic, traffic is
already there. Most of our business is lunch time, we do 50% of our business at lunch, 20%
at breakfast, and 30% in the evening.
A concern of Plan Commissioner L. Kachel was traffic, the turns in and the turns out. M.
Krippel spoke of the rezoning issue. If it weren't for the period of time that has passed since
the last approval, we really wouldn't be considering this zoning issue. He was not sure that the
zoning itself is the real issue, it seemed to me to be appropriate before when we voted for it,
and I think it still is. He is still concerned about the traffic, and prior to approval of the Site
Plan, Staff and the Village Engineer should be able to look at what IDOT is requiring there,
and be able to tell us this will work, and not increase accidents. L. Kachel agreed with M.
Krippel, we have to see more about traffic control in that area, we have to be sure that traffic
can be controlled before we approve it.
W. Schempf, said that he thought there were better places in Plainfield as far as Plainfield
people are concerned, further west. W. Schempf made a motion to recommend to the Village
Board that this request for a rezoning from B -3 to B -4, be denied. Seconded by D. Norris.
Vote by roll call: W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes; M. Krippel, no; D. Norris, yes;
W. Schempf, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, no. Motion carried, 4 yes, 2 no.
PLAN COMMISSION NHNUTES
October 5, 1993
Page 6
Chairman Sobkoviak spoke: The recommendation to deny zoning will go to the Village Board
for their consideration October 18. The Plan Commission will not consider the Site Plan Review
at this time. If the Village Board agrees with the recommendation there will be no need for a
Site Plan Review. If the Village Board does not agree with the recommendation and approves
the re- zoning, then Site Plan Review will be required, and you will be required to come back
before this Board for the Site Plan Review.
CASE NO. 415- 091393.FP PLAINFIELD ARBOR CORPORATION
Planner Waldock summarized his report as follows: The subject site had recently been the focus
of three rezoning attempts for multi- family housing. The developer has now abandoned his
desire for multi - family housing on the site and desires instead to develop the tract with single -
family homes, and have proposed to re- subdivide Outlot D into 27 single - family homesites, the
replat for Phase One will have 15 single- family homesites. No major issues are associated with
this Final Plat request, all lots are consistent with the current zoning ordinance requirements for
single - family zoning. Stormwater detention is accommodated by the design, the engineer is
looking for additional calculations, regarding capacity, but the design engineer is contented to
accommodate stormwater detention in the existing area proposed. Staff s analysis is that it is
appropriate and consistent development proposal to existing subdivision activity located east of
the site, it is consistent with the Village's Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, Staff s
recommendation is for approval of the Final Plat for Arbor of Plainfield re- subdivision with the
following stipulations:
1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer.
2. Provisions of "as built" drawings for storm water control systems installed to serve the
subject site.
3. Amend the current Letter of Credit to also include public improvements required in this
plat. (i.e. Street trees, sidewalks, sanitary sewer service extensions, etc.)
4. All stipulations must be met before the case goes to the Village Board.
After a short discussion, M. Krippel made a motion to recommend to the Village Board the
approval of the request for Final Plat approval for Arbor of Plainfield re- subdivision Case No.
415- 091393.FP. Seconded W. Manning. Vote by roll call: W. Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes;
M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, yes; W. Schempf, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion
carried, 6 yes, 0 no.
PLAN COMMISSION M[WUTES
October 5, 1993
Page 7
CASE NO. 416- 091793.FP GOLDEN MEADOW ESTATES #5
Planner Waldock summarized his report as follows: The proposal is the continuation of Golden
Meadow's Estates Subdivision. The plat includes 33 single - family homesites, the extension of
Primrose Circle, Golden Sunset Drive, and Prairie Rose Court. This unit also includes provision
for an unnamed street between Lot 149 and Lot 150 which extends to the north property line as
well. There are nine stipulations from the original Preliminary Plat approval, all of which are
either being addressed or have been addressed as part of the current development. The
stipulations of the original approval are as follows:
1. Comply with Illinois Department of Transportation review requirements regarding
access to Rt. 59.
2. Complete water loop along Route 59 with Phase 4.
3. Comply with requirements of the Village Engineer.
4. Comply with requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District.
5. Complete Annexation to the Plainfield Park District and Library District.
6. Submit a Draft of the Private Covenants for the subdivision prior to or along with
the Final Plat Application.
7. Extend storm sewers to access all lots.
8. Park District approval of Park area and monetary contributions as needed.
9. The Developer shall meet with Hershel Peterson (an adjoining land owner) to
discuss access to the Peterson property. If an agreement can be reached, an
access provision would be considered at Final Plat review.
Access is provided through Phase 4, as required by #9, the Park District has agreed to the
monetary and land contributions, the storm sewer is accessible to all lots on site, Private
covenants have been submitted, the applicants have proceeded with annexation of the subject site
to Park and Library Districts. The Subdivision Plan complies with requirements of the Fire
District, and the Village Engineer. The water loop is present, it is waiting final installation
along Rt. 59, and IDOT permits have been garnered for Golden Meadow Drive access to Rt.
59.
October 5, 1993
Page 8
The Final Plat for Unit 5 is in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Preliminary Plat
approval. It is Staff s opinion that a street stub between Lots 149 and 150 should be fully
improved at this time. This improvement is necessitated, due to progression of development in
the area. Neumann Homes had desired not to construct improvements for this unnamed street
stub. However, Preliminary Plat approvals for Riviera Estates on the adjoining property to the
north have indicated that this street stub is warranted at this time. Staff finds that the street stub
would be a significant benefit to Golden Meadow Estates Units 4 & 5 by providing access to
Douglas Drive. Douglas Drive is the primary extension through Graver Estates and is also
extended through the proposed Riviera Estates Subdivision. Residents of Golden Meadow's
could utilize this street extension and thereby gain a north bound access to Rt. 59. Without this
street stub, traffic through Golden Meadow Estates would be required to first travel south
through Units 1, 2 & 3 to 135th Street, then north on Rt. 59. This is a cumbersome traffic
pattern at best. In light of this significant benefit to Golden Meadows Estates and in light of
normal Village policies requiring subdivision developers to complete all public improvements
within their own boundaries, Staff feels it is justifiable to ask Mr. Neumann to complete this
street extension to the north property line along with the extension of a water main to the north
perimeter as well. An estimate of cost for this improvement including road base, road surface,
curb, gutter, sidewalks and the water main extension is estimated at $16,500.
Mr. Neumann has indicated an objection to construction of these improvements on this stub
street. He has indicated that this was not part of his Annexation Agreement and that previous
discussions with staff did not require any improvements along this street stub. In examining the
Annexation Agreement it was noted that the Agreement calls for the dedication of right -of -way
for the street stub. The Agreement does not specify that public improvements are not required.
Current engineering plans submitted do not include improvements on the street stub. However,
these engineering plans were submitted and approved as part of Unit 4, they were not approved
for development of Unit 5. Preliminary engineering plans provided for sewer extension to the
north property line.
Village Staff recommended the approval of the Final Plat for Golden Meadows Estates Unit 5
subject to the following stipulations:
1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer.
2. Compliance with provisions of the Plainfield Fire District.
3. Compliance with the provisions of the Preliminary Plat approval.
4. The street stub between lots 149 and 150 shall be fully improved with complete public
streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and water main extensions to the north property
line.
5. The street stub between lots 149 and 150 should be named by the applicant at this time
in this case.
PLAN COMMISSION IVII NUTES
October 5, 1993
Page 9
Dale Bruckner, Attorney for Neumann Homes spoke: Neumann Homes has had a good
relationship through the years with the Village of Plainfield. Mr. Neumann has no objection to
the improvement of the street, his objection is to paying for it. The Village of Plainfield and
Neumann Homes entered into an Annexation Agreement, in that contract it states that the Village
agrees to accept this Final Plat if it is in substantial conformance to the Concept Plan, and
complies with ordinances and regulations of the Village as modified by the agreement. In the
staff report Mr. Waldock said the Final Plat for Unit 5 is in compliance with provisions of the
Preliminary Plat, which were in substantial compliance with the Concept Plan. There is a
contractual obligation to accept this Final Plat. None of these call for Neumann Homes to
improve this piece of roadway. The estimate of $16,000 is at odds with Neumann Homes
projection, because there is a substantial amount of dirt stored there, and there would be
significant excavation costs involved our projected fee is in excess of $40,000. Paragraph 20
page 9, Neumann agrees to provide land for a road extension to the north, and they agree to
provide a walkway access into the park. They agree to provide land, at a cost of approximately
$40,000 also. That was not on the Concept Plan. That was not Neumann's idea. The
Subdivision Regulations provide broad discretion, but here the contract specifically provides that
Neumann is bound by the subdivision ordinances as modified by this agreement, (paragraph 20
also). The terms say, provide land, it does not say improve it etc. In the very same sentence
that requires the provision of the land, it says he will provide walkway access into park. That
does require pavement. Mr. Waldock seems to be suggesting that under the broad powers of
Subdivision Regulations, that you can add any requirement that reasonably could be deemed to
benefit the subdivision. The contract is very specific, such as the number of trees, how far they
have to be spaced, and how big around they have to be. This contract is meaningless, if under
the auspicious of your Subdivision Regulations, you can supplement all of these requirements.
If you take the position that there is a conflict between what the contract says, and what your
regulations provide. Paragraph 21 of your contract says, if there is any conflict, the provisions
of this contract control. You have a contract that says donate land, and regulations that say pave
the road. I suggest that is a conflict. The contract that was signed, says where there is such
a conflict, that the contract controls. It is only fair to point out, there are risks to the Village,
(in our opinion) in breaching this contract and requiring $40,000 or more worth of
improvements, from Newmann Homes, there are costs of litigation, attorney's fees, and in the
event of an unsuccessful litigation from the Village's standpoint, there are possible damages,
including the cost of this or the costs involved in delaying the project. Attorney's fees would
go into the thousands, the other damages could run into the tens of thousands. That is not the
desirable result from our perspective. We are here to suggest there are potential averse
consequences. We believe there is a resolution to this problem, to have the developer to the
north bear the cost of improving that piece of road. That must of been the Village's plan when
they entered into the contract. Because the contract says "donate the land". Who is going to
benefit more from the roadway, Golden Meadow Estates, or Riviera Estates? Consider two
questions, one, would you approve Riviera Estates with a one road cul -de -sac one mile long, and
there was no street here, would you approve Riviera Estates? I suggest the answer is likely not.
And two, would you approve Phase 5 of Golden Meadow if Riviera Estates wasn't there? And
I would say the answer is likely you would. Simply it is just that when Riviera Estates comes
on to the scene, that this has to be approved.
PLAN COND41SSION MIlWTICS
October 5, 1993
Page 10
You have the ability to compel that developer to pay for those improvements costs. The same
cannot be said for Neumann Homes, and we do not think it is fair, and we don't think it is legal.
What we are requesting is that you recommend Final Plat approval as suggested by Mr.
Waldock, but without any condition that approval be conditioned upon the improvement of this
unnamed roadway to the north.
The questions of the Plan Commission included: Who put the $20,000 pile of dirt there?
Answers by Neumann to the Plan Commission: That was part of the development. That dirt
was put there on an "out lot ", as they build out homes, that dirt will be removed. That lot is
shown there as a future roadway.
After a short discussion, D. Norris made a motion to table the discussion until an opinion can
be received from the Village Attorney. Seconded W. Manning. Roll call vote. W. Manning,
yes; L. Kachel, yes; M. Krippel, No; D. Norris, yes; W. Schempf, yes; Chairman
Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried 5 yes, 0 no.
DISCUSSION:
Sign for St. Mary's Church sign.
Planner Waldock summarized his report as follows: The Sign Ordinance regarding Churches,
schools, and permitted uses in a Residential Zone, require Special Sign Approval.
The sign requested area is 40 sq. ft. Which is consistent with commercial signage. Overall
height is 10.5 ft. at roof peak, and is exceeding the 8 ft. requirement of the commercial zones,
however commercial signage criteria does not apply, because this is a Special Use in a
Residential District. The location of the sign is in the parking lot area, within. 5 ft. of the right -
of -way for Rt. 59. The sign area is 40 st. ft., and does not include the brick, only the "St.
Mary's Immaculate" screwed to the top of the changeable copy portion, and the changeable copy
portion itself. Staff, has no objection to the sign as presented. It is intended to match the facade
design of the building.
After a short discussion, W. Manning made a motion to recommend approval of the sign for St.
Mary's Church as per the drawings submitted. Seconded W. Schempf. Vote by roll call. W.
Manning, yes; L. Kachel, yes; M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, yes; W. Schempf, yes; Chairman
Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no.
ADJOURN: 9:30.
Sharon Hart, Secretary
PLAINFIELD
"I I . aft-Mt . DOW . enwuNm
Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting on OCTOBER 5, 1993.
Please sign this sheet for our official records.
owle
e Ball -d1-1) 4-A/' -.-L
G� Ge ,eF zo
DE1j ,)/(z F-oL)e K6-
-7 12 84P•rd 10 e
III VarfriCepe
P�
Ile
VIC
,�;
0 pl' C /,i ( `,--
�e v VVN- C, /A kl
Nell -�a 1) r
A�3.2 �ft X
c�
Plainfield Plaililing Commission
James Sobkoviak, Chairman
Mr. Peter Waldock, Planner
Plainfield Village Board of Trustees
Mr. John Peterson, President
Mr. David Van Voren, Administrator
LETTER OF OBJECTION
We, the undersigned, as adjacent property owners, as residents
in the immediate and nearby area, as interested and concerned
citizens of this community, or as merchants owning or transacting
business in the vicinity do hereby object to the PETITION FOR
ZONING from McDonald's Corporation (John H. Philipchuck, Attorney) ,
for the 97,379 square feet parcel on the west side of Illinois
Route 59 - Tax Lot Numbers: 06-03-09-402-071; 06-03-09-402-072; and
06-03-09-402-073, for the following reasons:
This request and any positive action...
1. Constitutes "spot" zoning, which is an undesirable precedent
in the community.
2. Indicates a planned access road off Main Street which will
require an additional curb-cut at a point and within an area
where, already, there exists 6 points of ingress and egress
on the north side of Main Street (Illinois Route 126)
alone, in a span of less than 500 feet; not to mention that
within 500 feet of any direction from the intersection of
Highways 59 and 126, there are a total of 31 points of
ingress and egress, where a variety of vehicle manuevers may
occur at the same time through traffic is passing the area.
Because "approximately one-half" of their business uses the
drive-thru facility, the volume of traffic this type of
business must generate will impact the safety of highway and
pedestrian traffic in a negative manner.
3. Neglects to address truck, bus and other large vehicle
traffic and parking which are not controlled by Village'
Ordinances, as are automobiles. Without due consideration
and contol, these large, noisey vehicles will be on the
property, and likely parked along the access road bordering
the residential lots, or stopped along and, possibly, on the
roadway of Routes 59 and 126.
1
/I
4. Would allow a fifth (and possibly sixth) "high traffic
volume" business to add to the vehicle count of Route 59
in the 1000 feet of roadway between Route 126 and the
Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway underpass.
5. Allows B-4 zoning adjacent to an established residential
area of primarily owner-occupied, well-maintained one and
two - family homes. Property values may suffer because of the
proposed and potential uses for the subject site, plus the
likelihood of long hours of operation everyday of the year,
the constant traffic flow, and the mere characteristics of
a drive-thru restaurant.
6. Raises other intangible issues and concerns, such as noise
pollution, loitering, residential security, odors, etc.
173 3 A
IL
15
Submitted by Date
2
Plainfield Planning Commission
James Sobkoviak, Chairman
Mr. Peter Waldock, Planner
Plainfield Village Board of Trustees
Mr. John Peterson, President
Mr. David Van Voren, Administrator
LETTER OF OBJECTION
We, the undersigned, as adjacent property owners, as residents
in the immediate and nearby area, as interested and concerned
citizens of this community, or as merchants owning or transacting
business in the vicinity do hereby object to the PETITION FOR
ZONING from McDonald's Corporation (John H. Philipchuck, Attorney),
for the 97,379 square feet parcel on the west side of Illinois
Route 59 - Tax Lot Numbers: 06-03-09-402-071; 06-03-09-402-072; and
06-03-09-402-073, for the following reasons:
This request and any positive action...
1. Constitutes "spot" zoning, which is an undesirable precedent
in the community.
2. Indicates a planned access road off Main Street which will
require an additional curb-cut at a, point and within an area
where, already, there exists 6 points of ingress and egress
on the north side of Main Street (Illinois Route 126)
alone, in a span of less than 500 feet; not to mention that
within 500 feet of any direction from the intersection of
Highways 59 and 126, there are a total of 31 points of
ingress and egress, where a variety of vehicle manuevers may
occur at the same time through traffic is passing the area.
Because "approximately one-half" of their business uses the
drive-thru facility, the volume of traffic this type of
business must generate will impact the safety of highway and
pedestrian traffic in a negative manner.
3. Neglects to address truck, bus and other large vehicle
traffic and parking which are not controlled by Village
Ordinances, as are automobiles. Without due consideration
and contol, these large, noisey vehicles will be on the
property, and likely parked along the access road bordering
the residential lots, or stopped along and, possibly, on the
roadway of Routes 59 and 126.
1
11
4. Would allow a fifth (and possibly sixth) "high traffic
volume" business to add to the vehicle count of Route 59
in the 1000 feet of roadway between Route 126 and the
Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway underpass.
5. Allows B-4 zoning adjacent to an established residential
area of primarily owner-occupied, well-maintained one and
two- family homes. Property values may suffer because of the
proposed and potential uses for the subject site, plus the
likelihood of long hours of operation everyday of the year,
the constant traffic flow, and the mere characteristics of
a drive-thru restaurant.
6. Raises other intangible issues and concerns, such as noise
pollution, loitering, residential security, odors, etc.
crl� Z
-�7 OIL
/ev �7" , ,
, -, " , Al
e,�5Z ///-I/ "Ile IL
IL
Y
I r IL
I E IL
z
Submitted by Date if
Rq