.

Apartments Get Initial OK from Village Board

The next step is review of the 340-unit development's preliminary plat and site plan, which go before the plan commission tonight.

A new multi-family housing complex could be coming to Plainfield as early as next spring, now that the has signed off on rezoning  and annexation for the 27-acre site.

Voting 5-1, the board concurred Monday with the village plan commission's endorsement of the for the former property at 23756 127th St., east of Route 59. It could bring an estimated 565 new residents to Plainfield. 

Trustees Dan Rippy, Paul Fay, Jim Racich and Bill Lamb and Mayor Mike Collins voted in favor of the rezoning and directing the village attorney to draft annexation documents. Trustee Garrett Peck voted no and Trustee Margie Bonuchi was absent.

The next step will be the plan commission's review of the preliminary plat and site plan at a meeting tonight.

Continental Properties Co. of Menomonee Falls, Wis., wants to build a deluxe apartment complex that would include a 3,000-square-foot clubhouse, outdoor pool and 3.8-acre park.

Planner Jonathan Proulx, in a report presented to the board, said 80 percent of the units would be one- and two-bedroom units, 10 percent studio apartments and 10 percent three-bedroom units. The developer has estimated that rents would range from $900 to $1,750 per unit, Proulx said.

Although the development site is not contiguous to the village, staff said its annexation represents a logical extension of Plainfield’s boundaries. The property can be linked to the village via an annexation corridor along the rear 300 feet of a vacant parcel of land west of the site, Proulx's report said.

But George Mueller, an attorney for Craig and Judy Haick, who live just north of the proposed development, vehemently disagreed with village staff’s assertions.

“It’s not contiguous at this point,” Mueller said.

The attorney characterized the village’s proposal to “classic strip annexation,” which he said would not survive a judge’s scrutiny.

“Number one, it’s premature … and number two, it’s a bad idea,” Mueller said.

But village Attorney Jim Harvey assured board members that annexation of the vacant property to achieve contiguity with Plainfield’s boundaries “more than meets Illinois law.”

“I’m not concerned,” Harvey said.

Following several minutes of discussion by homeowners, trustees and developers’ representatives, Collins assured those present that there would be plenty of time to hash out plan details before it gets final approval.

“Tonight, we are just asking the attorney to prepare annexation agreements,” Collins said. “This will come before the plan commission again tomorrow night (Tuesday).”

Based on the outcome of the plan commission meeting, a special use permit, preliminary plat and site plan could be up for village board approval at the Dec. 19 meeting.

Tim December 07, 2011 at 12:53 AM
how does adding more taxpayers, add to the burden of taxpayers?
Blake December 07, 2011 at 01:55 AM
Thank You Trustee Peck for not supporting this. I can't make it to tonight's plan commission meeting so I will post a few questions here. I don't know if any of the elected/appointed officials read the Patch but in case they do... 1. Did anyone personally visit other rental properties that have been developed by Continental Properties? 2. If the answer to number 1 is no, how about a phone call to the local government having jurisdiction over these properties. How has the experience been for them? 3. Does Continental have the financial backing to complete a project of this size? Or will they get halfway through construction and run out of money. 4. How much parking will be permitted on the property, vehicle congestion and double parking are common in these types of developments. Hopefully in their haste to spur development the Village will not grant variances to building codes that will allow substandard construction and low budget building materials. While the buildings and landscaping will look nice when they are new, picture it 5-10 years down the road. Through the course of my employment I have worked in several large apartment complexes in neighboring communities. What appears to a passerby as a beautiful, modern complex can harbor residents that are mostly transient and unfortunately most are not of the highest caliber. If this proposed complex was closer to an existing neighborhood I would expect more opposition to this.
Steve December 07, 2011 at 02:00 AM
Great questions andy! Maybe you should run for mayor next time around.
Greg December 07, 2011 at 04:38 AM
Need for housing in Plainfield is zero, supply is unlimited. Housing prices in Plainfield have declined sharply since 2008 because of the over supply of housing. Why are we adding another 340 units? This complex alone will bring property values down even further simply by the number of units available. The one avaliable option for struggling home owners under water was to be able to rent out your home to cover the bad mortgage. This complex will also bring down the value of rentals in the area just by it's number of units available. These struggling home owners will have no choice but to walk away and let their property go to foreclosure. This complex will crush an already dire housing situation in Plainfield. This is the equivalent to pulling the plug on someone on life support. I read on the other thread that this will be for young professionals and they are only 1 or 2 bedroom apartments, etc The facts of life are this. In this economy there is a limited number of "young professionals". The limited number that are out there aren't moving to apartments in Plainfield. There is no direct rail access to downtown. What kind of professional would this building cater too? Totaly un realistic. If you believe multi families won't move into single or 2 bedroom apartments you have obviously never lived in or around the city. You can fit alot of mattresses on the floor of the studio. If you think that doesn't happen you are in denial.
Jay December 07, 2011 at 06:49 AM
Andy, a quick visit to their website may answer most of your questions. You do know how google works, don't you?
Greg December 07, 2011 at 11:28 AM
adding what tax payers? renters don't pay property tax and there is no sales tax collected from link cards. The residents who aren't on public funding will be spending their own money and will be forced to spend money in Naperville and Oswego like the rest of us. Those towns have a much better sales tax and better selection of stores. The amount of property tax the owners pay will be a spit in the wind when you break it down per unit. It will be a fraction of what we pay for a single family house even though it will contain just as many occupants. These people will still have access to schools, library, park district, etc. They will over burden the system and that money is going to have to come from somewhere. I'll let you guess where
concernedresident December 07, 2011 at 03:40 PM
Greg the tax dollars are from the developer not the renters. Don't get me wrong this is definitely NOT something Plainfield needs. Rental rates in the $900-$1100 range, we have plenty of rentals in that price range available now, for single family homes! I also agree with the comment as to who are we catering to when it comes to local business? Am I missing something here? Plainfield does not house a large corporate business that has thousands of employees or transferees. I dealt with relocating for the likes of Caterpillar and BP and guess what they don't relocate anymore, nobody does. So what type of transients are left? The bad ones that's who. If there was a need for supporting local corporations then AMLI in Naperville would be full, but it's nowhere near being full. So we get the AMLI dropouts, we get the eye-sore of looking at dense housing from Rte 59, we get the added traffic on 127th st, our schools absorb transient children. Well thought out Plainfield. What a joke! You want added tax dollars? Buy up some of these vacant bank owned properties, fix them up before they fall down and sell them to decent people who want to actually live in Plainfield and raise their family here! Stop building stupid pedestrian bridges or putting up copper-topped lighting, us residents don't care about crap like that!
Tim December 07, 2011 at 04:34 PM
Renters don't pay property tax? Do you think the landlord just pays it out of the kindness of their heart? You can't walk around claiming that your ignorance of the subject is anything other than just that. Ignorance. Since you claim to have 'broke it down per unit'... go right ahead and post the numbers you came up with for what the taxes collected per unit are. Just because you think you have a right to post your opinion, does not mean that the rest of the people reading it are as ignorant as you are. It is obvious you have zero facts to back up anything you are claiming, and I'm sure most people above your intelligence level(read: most) have discarded what you posted as nothing more than the ramblings of the uninformed.
Jay December 07, 2011 at 05:53 PM
"Greg" are you ignorant or just stupid?
Mark December 07, 2011 at 06:33 PM
Our tax dollars will subsidize for those who can't afford to pay the rent. Stats show this number of units in one place require at least 2 police officers every hour of every day. The board is looking for money and this is a ticket they’ve been looking for. The developers have likely already lobbied for subsidies in Springfield. If you’re living close to the location, you should consider getting out!
Greg December 07, 2011 at 07:17 PM
Show me a renter who gets a tax bill? I hope most readers have the ability to see where I said the "property owners" paying the tax bill. The village claims this could raise 700,000 in tax dollars. The avg tax on small unit PUD in Plainfield is somewhere between and 3,000-4,000. Multiply any of those numbers times the number of units and is it greater or less than 700,000? This is nothing more than a quick cash crab that will cost tax payers in the long run. I'd wager my IQ against either one of you since you have added nothing to the conversation in the way of fact or opinion. I'd be more than happy to meet in person and discuss all of this.
Haiku December 07, 2011 at 07:30 PM
People running for County Board should use some tact. You know who you are!
Tim December 07, 2011 at 08:24 PM
Well "greg" seems to think that the same number of residents would live there if it was houses instead. Thus, he thinks it is a tax loss. I have to wonder how he thinks that 340 houses would be able to be located inside of 27 acres, to even consider that as a valid argument. To make a correct comparison, you would have to divide 27 acres by the average lot size in plainfield, then multiply that by the average tax bill. So, lets say the average lot size is 1/2 acre. That allows for 54 houses. To be generous, lets say that each of those houses would have a $10,000 total yearly property tax bill(which would be every taxing body, not just plainfield). That would mean that if this was built out in houses instead, it would generate $540,000 in taxes. Oops... thats less, isn't it greg. "greg" is just upset that his house has lost value, because he bought into the lie that owning a house is the only path to independent wealth. It is not, and you have to be able to realize when to step aside from your wrong ideas and let other people avoid making the foolish investment decisions that you have. Being angry and bitter at people that don't even live here yet, shows more about your situation, than it does about the potential future residents situation. Why do you think that making up things without any proof is acceptable?
Greg December 07, 2011 at 10:01 PM
Tim, Nobody said anything about detached single family homes. This is an attached unit plan. Just going off some of the other PUD in Plainfield you could fit 5 units on a half acre. That gives you some 270 units. You get the picture. You can make things up but the fact remains this is going to be a financial strain for current residents. Sad to see you have no concern for them or their families. I sure hope you aren't a current elected offical. How much do you stand to make on this deal? The point is we don't need any new housing of any kind. It doesn't matter if it's apartments or mansions There is no demand.
Miguel Sanchez December 07, 2011 at 10:37 PM
From my perspective, the primary thing Village planners did correctly during the expansion of Plainfield's Northside was manage density. I really hope this apartment disaster is avoided.
Tim December 07, 2011 at 11:20 PM
provide a source to your claim that '2 police officers for every hour of the day'. A cursory google search of that returns no such statistics. Otherwise, making stuff up does not bode well for your future credibility.
Tim December 08, 2011 at 01:10 AM
Greg, seriously. You NEED to stop making stuff up an then thinking it is true just because you say it is. The actual facts of the apartment rental segment of the economic picture, tell a completely different story than you are trying to portray, with your noticeable lack of supporting facts. In the 3rd quarter of 2011, vacancy rates hit a 5-year low of 5.6%. The second derivative of that growth is slowing, but still marching upward for the foreseeable future. If you need that explained, feel free to ask. IF you understand what it means, then you need to address why you are claiming there is no demand, when the measurements of growth say the complete opposite. This is not bubble-type measurement, this is actual sustainable development not seen for almost 40 years. Just this week, the Wall Street Journal had an article stating; "Rental landlords nationwide are seeing vacancy rates fall and rental rates are rising" as cities across the country see a surge in demand for apartments. Read it for yourself; http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111207-713194.html Or, read the reports that get directly released by REIS, which is a company who does nothing but focus on this type of segment in the market. You will find the same thing happening here in this region; http://www.reis.com/tour/national_commercial_real_estate_data.cfm What do you have to backup your claims to the contrary? So far, it has clearly been shown your claims are laughably untrue.
plainfieldresident December 08, 2011 at 01:24 AM
I agree with you Miguel and hence I bought a home in North Plainfield. You want to build apartments build them in the corn fields out West. Seems someone on the board is talking out of both sides of their mouth because this discussion came up just a couple of months ago about the 130 acres just East on 127th and that got shot down in flames because "It did not meet the village plans because it was too dense". Move over Blagojevich the Plainfield village board may soon be joining you. I believe that would infringe upon the Fair Trade Laws that we abide by.
plainfieldresident December 08, 2011 at 01:27 AM
Oh and by the way, Thank you Garrette for being the only trustee who gives a damn. It's not always about the money!
Greg December 08, 2011 at 02:50 AM
Really, Manhattan?? LOL When did Plainfield became a major city???? Are you joking or just a joke? You need to educate yourself on the area you are talking about. This would be a great place in downtown Chicago or New York. The problem is we live in Plainfield not the largest market in the country. It's a booming rental market(for places with a low supply of rentals) Plainfield has no shortage of housing. IL is in the top 10 in foreclosures. Plainfield, Joliet, Aurora are all in the top 10 in the state. That is OUR REGION, It's our region they they are building this future slum. Any dolt can drive around town and see all the empty homes and commerical buildings. Are you going on record saying the vacancy rates in Plainfield are 5.6%. You must be kidding right? You really don't believe people are that stupid? Do you see all the partial built subdivisions? Ever do a google of shadow inventory? IL is 3rd in the country. We aren't anywhere close to the bottom yet. It's too absurd to even debate. If I find a like for common sense i will post it for you. You must have a financial or political interest in this. Nobody of sound mind or concern for their own community would defend this sham on their own. You could at least be honest and disclose your interest. I hope you aren't an elected offical because you are on the wrong side of this and it will lead to your ousting
Tim December 08, 2011 at 03:13 AM
Greg, REIS is a nationwide research firm that reports on the metrics of the commercial real estate industry. Apartment buildings are also included in their metrics. Nowhere did I mention manhattan, or anything like that. What I did do was to provide you a direct link so that you could go and get the information yourself. REIS also provides major market and sub-market metrics in and around most major cities in the US. In their chicagoland report, it is then broken down into areas in which plainfield is included. What you seem to be confused about is that single family houses are an identical market to apartments. Unfortunately, they are not. Attitudes in the younger demographic have shifted as a result of all those foreclosures you pointed out, away from 'homeownership'. I do have a financial interest in this, I live here. I would rather our community is made up of a more diverse population than a bunch of retired folks living on fixed income that fear change and lock the younger generation into the same mistakes they made. I also took the time to read the market reports, before coming to any conclusions. You make it sound like suburban sprawl is some sort of natural right to be expected, when it is only a recent concept brought about by the desire to spread a cities population out enough that a nuclear blast would cause less damage. It is a relic of the past, and it has no place in a sustainable community going forward.
Donny Kerabatsos December 08, 2011 at 03:27 AM
I am not sure Gary understands what you are saying Tim. While I wouldn't call him names over it, it is a little amusing to watch him try to twist what you are saying to fit what he believes is happening, even though it's actually not.
Greg December 08, 2011 at 04:53 AM
You must not read your own links if you don't know what manhatten refers too. 'm not confused nor do I need to create a new name to agree with myself to save face in a losing arguement. Nice of you to pop up Donny "phones ringing Dude". Weak I'm fully aware rentals are on the rise and it isn't all due to attitude change of those youngsters. Many people simply don't have the income or credit to obtain a mortgage. Increase in demand for rentals does not mean there is a demand for apartments. While people don't have the "desire" for home ownership they still desire living in a home. They are not one in the same. Plainfield has plenty of rentals available. There is no demand for 340 units on the market. It's simple supply and demand. Why do you want to destroy what is a semi stable rental market buy over loading it with available units? .
Tim December 08, 2011 at 05:12 AM
Gary, simply clicking on the REIS link clearly takes you to a nationwide database of properties and metrics you can look at yourself. If you want to focus on manhattan, instead of the properties in the area you live in, that is your choice. I think the phrase 'You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink' applies here. Why you instead refuse to read the reports from this region, is rather strange. Ignoring what is in those reports does not change what is in them.
Tim December 08, 2011 at 05:20 AM
Gary, You have taken the time to accuse me of being on the village board, then of having a financial interest in this particular project, then you refuse to read the apartment data that was provided to you for this region and instead focus on another city hundreds of miles away in another state, and now are accusing other posters of being my creations. At what point are you going to begin to produce some facts to back up any of these claims? You are literally ignoring the facts being presented to you in order to continue to hold the contrary position. If you want to be taken seriously, you are going to have to stop playing the 'shoot the messenger game' and begin to have a rational debate based on things other than your opinions and fantasies.
Greg December 08, 2011 at 06:47 AM
Facts? You claimed a 5.6% vacancy rate and you expect someone to take you serious? Why don't you post the report to support your "facts"? Plainfield doesn't have an adequate supply of apartments to supply any meaningful data one way or the other. What we do know is there is an over supply of housing in Plainfield for sale/rent(fact). There is an over supply of vacant property both residential and commerical(fact). Adding more vacant units will only compound those problems(fact if supply and demand principals still exist). Are you stating those are not factual? What part is made up? Opinions 1. These type of units tend to house a larger number off occupants than originally intended(opinion based on experiance and observation). 2. These types of units tend to over tax local services while not paying their fair share due to the large number of occupants(opinion based on experiance and observation) What is laughable about that? Do you have any real live experiance living in and around these types of units or are you just a google warrior? You are the one who likes to twist things to support your beliefs. For example I never said you were a village offical, I just hoped that you were not. You keep making things up as you go along. You can polish this apartment terd as much as you want it is still just a terd. The majority of people see that. Common sense and critical thinking are very valuable tools. Try it some time
Mark December 08, 2011 at 12:12 PM
Tim, Your likely searching for violent crime. I'm speaking of theft involving the contents of cars, damage to property, drugs, disturbances, stolen bicycles, ect, ect. These things however not of a violent nature require police reports and law enforcement time. I don’t recall mentioning Drive By’s, Murder, Rape however these numbers are also slightly higher. What’s your interest in these developments?
JeffK December 12, 2011 at 04:42 AM
Tim won't disclose his interest. We do know he is interested in being on our Will County Board in the 13th district. He is running on Peck's ticket. According to this thread his platform is as follows People with negative equity in their homes are a bunch of bittery cry babies who don't know any better. He fully supports this apartment building being built. Why shouldn't he? He doesn't live anywhere near it. He doesn't even live in Plainfield People only think they have a right to express their opinion. Thanks for the quotes Mr Kraulidis. Good luck in April. Anyone know why Peck has enough money and supporters to get signatures to run for office but not able to muster up a group to block this? This is far worse than a bus barn. Come on Peck, we need you to raise your voice. Should probably distance yourself from people like Tim, too
Tim December 21, 2011 at 06:51 PM
You join the ranks of people that have accused me of working for; Shorewood, Plainfield, This apartment developer, Will County, (next?) Care to provide proof as to why your fact-less pronouncement is different from the others?
jj August 16, 2012 at 05:05 AM
Low income housing only brings problems, need I say more

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something