HomeMy Public PortalAbout2001-11-06 PC minutesVillage of Plainfield Planning Commission Record of Minutes Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2001 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:04pm. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Kachel; Seggebruch; Gehrke; Manning; Schinderle; Anderson; Sobkoviak Absent: Fire District; Library District; Park District; School District Corrections On page 12, paragraph 1 of the October 16 minutes, the phrase “Paul E. Condriotis family” should read “Policandriotes f amily.” Hearing no additional corrections, Chairman Sobkoviak declared the minutes accepted as amended. Old Business CASE NO.: 912 -091701.Z/SU/SPR/FP BRYANT RETAIL Request: Zoning, Special Use, (Public Hearing) Site Plan Review and Final Plat Location: Southeast corner of Rte. 59 and Rte. 126 Applicant: Carl Bryant Commenced: 7:07pm Planner Carroll reviewed the details of the case and presented his report. He recommended a continuance of the case to allow the applicant to address concerns raised (namel y, buffering between development and residential housing; design of buildings to resemble downtown design plan) since the last meeting.
Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2001 Page 2 of 16 Larry Vaupel, Director of Economic Development, presented the village’s position to the Commission. He said that the village is looking for the design to more closely resemble the designs of the downtown buildings, which are front -loaded buildings with parking in the rear. According to the developer Teng & Associates, a firm contracted by the village last year to render estimates of possibilities for types of retail uses for the anticipated development by Bryant, front -loaded buildings with parking in the rear would not lend well to a successful retail business. Office market is not there. Rather, coffee shop types of businesses where people could pull in and leave in a short amount of time is more likely to succeed. He suggested that the question that the planning commission should address is what types of uses should characterize the development and should we build n ow or wait until the office market looks more promising. Chairman Sobkoviak asked for clarification as to what types of businesses are envisioned by the village for the site. Mr. Vaupel said that probably something along the lines of a dry -cleaner, cof fee shop, or a Dunkin Donuts (types of businesses that can take advantage of the high traffic in the area) would be ideal. Commissioner Kachel voiced some concerns. First, why is this site being subjected to a downtown design plan when other buildings on the same corner were not? If this is to happen, the others should have undergone the same restrictions. Second, there are as yet no plans to restructure/widen Rte. 126, but if it is eventually widened, what will happen to this site that has a building s o close to the intersection? Chairman Sobkoviak inquired whether the village has offered the developer any incentive for agreeing to the village’s plans. He felt that, since there is no intrinsic value for the developer to build according to the village’s designs, some motivation should be given. Mr. Vaupel said that there is typically very little monetary incentive available (e.g. rebates) for the village to offer and stated that the best way to come to agreement is to negotiate on both sides and be wil ling to make some compromises. We should look at the similarities and take the best outcome we can get. Commissioner Seggebruch commented that, as an architect, he feels that that intersection (Rte. 59 & Rte. 126) is not the best place to introduce the concept of heavy pedestrian traffic. Businesses in the area are mainly offices and do not attract a significant amount of pedestrian traffic. Additionally, residents near proposed site do not want parking behind the building (and thus behind the
Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2001 Page 3 of 16 residen ts). He noted that if retail traffic could be contained in the front and employee parking in the back that would be the best solution. The applicant (Carl Bryant) was present and spoke to the planning commission. He said that since the last meeting on Oct. 16, the commission’s comments were taken into consideration and improvements to the plan were made. The buildings were moved toward the street and away from the Conrad (resident) property, increasing the buffer area by 18’. The other important cons ideration was screening. Bryant felt that two possible methods appeared to be the best options. Originally, he felt that using fencing would be the best method. He decided however that, since some fencing and a considerable number of trees already exist ed on the perimeter of the property, using a combination of fencing, trees, and berming would be the best solution. There was some discussion on the location of the trees. Chairman Sobkoviak said the commission needs to determine where support lies. T he plans presented by Mr. Bryant are somewhat counter to what the village envisions. The chairman asked Mr. Bryant if he could make the building(s) visually exciting. He mentioned the New Lenox Bank has some very distinctive architecture and that doing s omething similarly distinctive would be a good thing. Commissioner Seggebruch recommended a pitched roof. The discussion was opened to public comment. Richard Krahn (Bartlett St.) noted that building here is a long -term commitment and that the recessi on should not affect the commission’s decision. He felt that there is a need for offices. He also said that it is not known what the traffic will be once the intersection is finished. Businesses that involve “in -and -out” traffic would create even more t raffic at an intersection that would already have a high volume of traffic. Commissioner Kachel voiced concerns about windows for the building. Bill Conrad (Bartlett St.) spoke to the commission about the possibility of making one lane at the bank one -wa y, which requires 20’11”, thereby opening up more room for the residents. Commissioner Kachel asked if two more feet could be gotten out of the plans to give the extra room in the buffer. 3
Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2001 Page 4 of 16 Mr. Sherwood (with Bryant) said that doing so would be very di fficult and would require extensive changes. Commissioner Manning asked Mr. Conrad what type of screening he would prefer. Mr. Conrad said he would prefer trees as a screen. Herb ________ (Bartlett St.) expressed his desire for there to be a screen on opening day, and not have to wait for trees to grow in order not to see the back of the building. John Hall (Bartlett St.) said that screening is his biggest concern because he feels that it directly affects his (and all the others who have property adjo ining the development site) property value. He was also concerned increased lighting in the area. Commissioner Kachel said that traditionally screening has been very successful in protecting property value. Keith Wright (Bartlett St.) would like to see a concern for lighting as well. As an architect he said he feels that berms do very little good in screening. Nice looking trees and fences should be used instead. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that he feels that the case should be continued – however, af ter hearing Mr. Bryant’s remarks as to why the case should be resolved at that time, he called for a vote. Commissioner Seggebruch said he was in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Manning moved to recommend approval for Re -zoning request, Special Use request, Site Plan Review, and Final Plat subject to the following stipulations: developer must meet the requirements of the Fire Dept., the Village Engineer, submit a detailed landscaping plan, and a detailed lighting plan. Commissioner Schinderle second ed the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for vote by role call. Aye: Kachel, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: Seggebruch The motion is carried 6:1. 4
Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2001 Page 5 of 16 CASE NO.: 911 -091401.AA/PP/SU/Z THE CROSSINGS AT WOLF CREEK Request: Annexation, Sp ecial Use and Zoning (Public Hearing), Preliminary Plat Location: North of 119 th Street, West of Champion Creek and East of Century Trace Applicant: Centex Homes Commenced: 8:26pm Planner Carroll presented the case report. Since the last meeting, the app licant has reduced the number of units by one; Champion Drive has been shifted to the south; the eyebrow in the south of the site has been removed; park area has been increased. Staff felt that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the concerns outli ned by the commission at last meeting. The applicant should address the issue of 50% credit, a village policy. Representing Centex were: Kevin Stough, Jim Reilly, Larry Peterman, Ed Siefert, Fred Feinstein. Mr. Stough presented initially their position. Larry Peterman outlined the major changes that were made. Gross density is 2.47. Using 50% credit density is 2.8, and using the master plan, density could range from 2.5 to 3.2. Overall he feels that they have succeeded in meeting the commission’s req uests as well as maintained the densities that are required. Chairman Sobkoviak calls for questions. Commissioner Manning asked for clarification of densities. A woman had some concerns about whether the bike trail was still in place; traffic on Champio n Dr.; schools for residents; estimated commencement of project. There was some discussion of the method for water detention. Commissioner Schinderle moved to recommend approval for Annexation, Special Use and Zoning, and Preliminary Plat for the Crossin gs at Wolf Creek. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for vote by roll call. 5
Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2001 Page 6 of 16 Aye: Kachel, Seggebruch, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0. CASE NO.: 885 -062801.AA RIVER PO INT ESTATES Request: Annexation (Public Hearing), Zoning, Preliminary Plat Location: Northwest corner of Fraser Road and River Road Applicant: Mike Guinta Commenced: 9:00pm Planner Carroll presented the report. Staff recommended that the applicant instal l a bike path along the south property line. Staff is also concerned about the ownership of outlot 60. Applicant should address who is responsible for the maintenance of the lot. The applicant (Mike Guinta) was present. He responded to the issue of th e bike path as well as ownership of lot 60. The Homeowner’s association will be responsible for its maintenance. Chairman Sobkoviak had concerns as to where excess water in the development area would go. The discussion was opened to public comment. Bra d Whipman inquired whether there would be sufficient landscaping to “preserve the integrity of River Road”. He was concerned about maintaining a pleasant look in the area. He also asked where the construction traffic would be located. Mr. Guinta respond ed that the construction traffic would be located on Fraser Road and that he would plant evergreens to maintain the look of the area. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that there should be no -access easements along River Road and also that he is opposed to buffer ing between communities as it helps to segregate communities. Howerer, there is an opportunity for scenic landscaping. Also, space should be left for the widening of River Rd. Commissioner Kachel suggested that screening/landscaping should be done early on. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval of Annexation, R -1 zoning, and Preliminary Plat subject to the 5 stipulations of the Engineer’s report as well as those points voiced at this time. 6
Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2001 Page 7 of 16 Chairman Sobkoviak called for vote by roll call. A ye: Kachel, Seggebruch, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0. New Business CASE NO.: 910 -091401.Z 113 S. DIVISION Request: Re -Zoning from R -1 to B -4 (Public Hearing) Location: 113 S. Division Applicant: Do n Bartholme as Trustee Commenced: 9:15pm The Applicant is proposing to rezone 113 S. Division Street from R -1 (Single Family Residential) to B -4 (Highway Business District) zoning. The Highway Business District is intended to accommodate those retail and wholesale commercial activities that are considered roadside commercial uses. The property is located on Illinois Route 59 and south of Robert Avenue. Planner Garrigan presented the report. The applicant requests a continuance. Chairman Sobkoviak put forth some questions as to the zoning of development. The Planning Commission needs to know the configuration of the building that is being planned. Commissioner Manning moved to recommend a continuance. Commissioner Schinderle seconded the motion. Vo te by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Seggebruch, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0. 7
Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2001 Page 8 of 16 CASE NO.: 901 -082901.FP THE LAKELAND CLUB ON LAKE MARY Request: Final Plat Location: North of 135 th Street and West of Essi ngton Road Applicant: The Lakelands Corporation Commenced: 9:29pm Planner Garrigan gave the report: The preliminary plat and planned unit development consists of a 72 -unit cluster development incorporating both single -family and town -homes on a wooded lak efront site. To preserve the natural state of the site, the applicant is proposing to construct single -family and town -homes on building pads only. FINAL PLAT: The proposed final plat consists of 52 single -family homes and 20 town -homes. In accordance w ith the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, the gross density for this section of the site that is within the estate and suburban district should be between 2.06 and 3.0 dwelling units per acre for single -family residential. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan recommends an open space ratio of between 25 -30%. The applicant is proposing a gross density of 1.14 dwelling units per acre and an open space ratio of near 70%. The applicant’s proposed final plat is consistent with the Village’s comprehensive plan wit h respect to density and open space ratio. The single -family pad dimensions vary from 2,024 square feet to 2,728 square feet. The applicant’s proposed town -home pads are approximately 1,728 square feet. The applicant’s proposed final plat incorporates t hree cul -de -sacs and a number of guest parking lots. Two gated entrances have been incorporated into this final plat. The first entrance is onto 135 th Street and the second is onto Essington Road at the southeastern corner of this development. SITE PL AN REVIEW: The Site Plan Review Ordinance requires exterior building facades to be constructed with no less than 25% masonry unless specifically approved by the Village Board. This development’s proposed clubhouse is a 3,341 square foot two -story structur e. The Village’s 25% masonry requirement has been met in the design of this structure. The applicant has submitted as part of this site plan review landscape plans for the proposed town homes and clubhouse. The applicant has incorporated a total of 181 plantings for each of the two -unit town -homes structures in this development. Additionally, the applicant has submitted landscape plans for this development’s 8
Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2001 Page 9 of 16 entrances that incorporate an extensive amount of landscaping that include ornamental trees, eve rgreens, and shade trees. The applicant’s proposed development includes three separate guest -parking facilities that are located at the southeastern and northeastern part of this property. A public or private clubhouse would require 4 parking spaces pe r 1,000 square feet in accordance with Village ordinance. The proposed clubhouse would require approximately 14 parking spaces. Additionally, the proposed parking plan for show a drive aisle of 24 feet and parking stall dimension of 9’ by 20’. This conf licts with the Village requirement of 26 feet. The applicant has submitted an overall sidewalk plan that has incorporated an interior sidewalk that meanders around the eastern, northern and western perimeter within this site. Staff believes pedestrian ac cess along 135 th street should be incorporated. RECOMMENDATIONS: Subject to inputs by the Planning Commission, Staff recommends approval of the final plat and site plan review with stipulations. Such stipulations are: (1) compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer; (2) compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District; (3) install sidewalks and improve 135 th Street according to the requirements of the applicant’s annexation agreement. Joseph Regis (Hamilton Consult ing) outlined what his firm saw as necessary for the development of the Lakelands project. He stipulated the following requirements: Internal Roadways 1. Although the internal roadways will be privately owned and maintained, we still recommend that the Vill age minimum standards for pavement thickness be followed to minimize pavement maintenance costs for the future residents. 2. The Village Standards for cul -de -sacs was developed to meet Fire Department safety concerns. We strongly recommend that the Village S tandard be followed for this item. 3. The Boulevard entrance detail from the Village Standards was developed to address problems noted in other developments. We recommend that the Standard be followed for this item. 9
Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2001 Page 10 of 16 135 th Street 1. Although 135 th Street west of this development has only a 33 -foot right -of -way (which is what is proposed with this development) we recommend 40 feet. 2. Rather than a 5’ bike path on the north side of the roadway, a ten -foot bike path, off pavement, south of the roadway is recommende d to match up with the proposed bike path west of this development. 3. The proposed typical pavement section is inadequate for any roadway within the Village, and should meet the minimum standards for a Minor Collector. 4. Only 300 feet of fully improved section is shown (plus 50 foot tapers on both ends). We repeat our recommendation that a full collector improvement be made from Duck Drive through Essington. 5. Analysis of the 135 th Street culvert is still required. Requirements 1. Written acceptance by Bolingbrook of the 33 foot right -or -way on Essington is required. 2. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency sewer and water permits are required. 3. A stormwater management plan is required. 4. A CLOMR floodway construction permit is required. 5. An adequate Engineer’s Opinion of Probable construction cost, and suitable security are required. 6. The base flood elevation for this site is 619.5. Therefore, the Flood Protection Elevation for this site is a minimum of 621.50. Basement floor elevations below that level are a violatio n of the Village’s Flood Control Code. The top of foundation elevations shown will require homes on the lowest lots to be constructed on slab and the deepest basement for the highest lots will be 7 feet deep. 7. The Village’s current standards must be used. 8. A CAD file of the lot and utility layout is required. 9. Six sets of drawings, upon final approval, are required. The applicant (Jerry Clark representing) was present. Mr. Clark stated that his company takes issue with only a couple of the points outlined b y the Village, but said that he will come to an agreement with staff and engineering on the issues. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the commission was willing to place faith in the applicant to fulfill the stipulations set forth. 10
Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2001 Page 11 of 16 Commissioner Manning wante d to see a sidewalk on 135 th Street included. Discussion followed as to the difficulty of meeting this stipulation. Mr. Clark said that they weren’t willing to provide a 10’ bike path because he believes there is misinformation in regards to the bike pat h. There is only a 5 -foot path on a 66 -foot right -of -way for a mile and he doesn’t see why this case should be different. If in fact 10 feet is needed, there is vacant property across the street; the additional five feet could be taken from that, not fro m the Lake Mary property. Commissioner Kachel also expressed concerns about the bike path/walkway. Mr. Clark expressed his reservations about the walkway, but said he will work toward an agreement. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval for F inal Plat subject to the stipulations set forth at the meeting. Commissioner Kachel seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Seggebruch, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is c arried 7:0. CASE NO.: 913 -100301.FP LIBERTY GROVE Request: Final Plat Location: West of Route 30 and North of Route 126 Applicant: Cambridge Homes Commenced: 9:57 Planner Carroll presented the report: The applicant is seeking final approval for Units 1 a nd 2 of Liberty Grove Subdivision. Unit 1 is located on the south end of the development adjacent to IL 126; Unit 2 is located directly to the northeast of Unit 1. Meadow Lane will extend through the development from IL 126 to 143 rd Street. The prelimin ary plat for the subdivision identifies 695 single -family units on 283.5 acres. Unit 1 has designated 63 single -family lots on approximately 74 acres and Unit 2 includes 72 units on approximately 24 acres. Unit 1 includes a 26.8 -acre detention and park a rea and a 5 -acre site for a private swim club facility. 11
Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2001 Page 12 of 16 Units 1 and 2 contain a minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet and a maximum of 23,148 square feet. ISSUES: • The right -of -way (ROW) widths are 60 feet except for Meadow Lane, which is 80 feet. This is consistent with the profile of Meadow Lane in Whispering Creek, located to the south of the subject site. To reduce conflicts on Meadow Lane, corner lots should locate driveways from the cross street and not Meadow Lane. No access easements can be cr eated along Meadow Lane for lots 1, 28, 29, 63, 50, 48, 99, 285, 288, and 299. • The annexation agreement specifies cul -de -sacs shall have landscape islands. These islands are not identified on the plat but will be required to meet the specifications of the annexation agreement and the Village Engineer. • With this application, there will only be one entrance into the development for construction traffic and residents. This may cause some conflicts. The Fire Protection District has also requested a second po int of access for emergency vehicles. The applicant should identify a second point of access. • The developer is required to pay the Village $50,000 toward the cost of any future signalization deemed necessary by the State of Illinois and/or the village to accommodate site generated traffic. Funds are payable on a pro rata basis at the time of issuance of building permits for the first 350 single -family homes. The Village has identified possible sites for future lights are at Meadow Lane/IL 126 and Meadow Lane/143 rd Street. • The developer is required to install an 8 -foot asphalt path along IL 126 and 143 rd Street. The annexation agreement states a crushed limestone pathway may be installed in and around the park site. The pathway is designated on the preli minary plat. Timing for when these improvements will be installed should be identified. • The developer agrees to impose covenants, conditions, and restrictions at the time of final plat submitted for each unit. These covenants are to include anti -monotony language. No covenants have been submitted and must be provided prior to Village Board consideration. • At the September 1999 Plan Commission meeting, concerns were raised by property owners to the west in relation to horses and the proximity of the develo pment. At that time, the Plan Commission stipulated the applicant would provide a fence along the west property line from IL 126 to the north end of the public park. This should be included with this application. 12
Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2001 Page 13 of 16 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends appr oval of the final plat for Liberty Grove Units 1 and 2 subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 3. Corner lots along Meadow Lan e shall have driveway connection to streets other than Meadow Lane. 4. No access easements shall be provided on corner lots adjacent to Meadow Lane. 5. Prior to Village Board consideration, covenants, including anti -monotony language, must be submitted. 6. A fence shall be provided along the western property line from IL 126 to the north side of the park. The applicant, represented by Ralph Christensen, was present. Mr. Christensen informed the commission that Cambridge Homes was currently building Carillon Lakes on Renwick Road, and had just finished the Cambridge at Carillon project. He then took issue with one of the stipulations in Doug Carroll’s report, which identified 10 lots that should not have driveway access to Meadow Lane. These were lots 1, 28, 29, 6 3, 50, 48, 99, 285, 288, and 299. Mr. Christensen stated that this made five of those lots impossible to build – namely, lots 29, 63, 50, 48, and 99. He suggested a compromise: that he will make sure that the driveways of the problematic lots are far eno ugh away from the intersection so as not to create traffic problems. Mr. Christensen went on to address the points of access issue. He said that they will build from the south, at IL 126, to the north, at 143 rd Street. Next summer, they will be buildi ng a road from 143 rd Street to handle their construction traffic. This will be suitable for emergency vehicle access. Jan Stenger Soko, the property owner adjacent to the proposed site, owns horses, which she previously said should be screened from the new development. This is primarily a safety issue (in case children see the horses and try to get to them, and are hurt in the process). She requested a stockade fence so that the view of the horses would be obstructed. To this Mr. Christensen agreed. Linda Erickson, a neighbor to Jan Stenger Soko, asked why digging has started when the applicant has not yet received approval for construction. She also asked what types of homes (i.e. projected values) were envisioned. Mr. Christensen responded that t hey were in fact permitted to build and that they had posted a restoration bond in the event that they did not get the building permit. 13
Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2001 Page 14 of 16 In regards to the question about home values, Mr. Christensen said that they had not devised any figures as of yet, but hazarded a ball -park guess that the prices of homes would range from $160K to the mid to upper $200K range. Chairman Sobkoviak suggested modifying Planner Carroll’s stipulations. Change stipulation #3 to “Corner lots along Meadow Lane shall have drivewa y restrictions”, and strike stipulation #4. Commissioner Seggebruch asked some clarifying questions. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval for Final Plat subject to the stipulations in the staff report as amended. Commissioner Schinderle sec onded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for vote by roll call. Commissioner Kachel recused himself from the vote. Aye: Seggebruch, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0. CASE NO.: Will County Case Ja mes & Sharon Muhich Request: Setback variance Location: 2281 Plainfield/Naperville Road Applicant: James & Sharon Muhich Commenced: 10:25pm Planner Dale Drayna presented the report: The applicant’s property is located on the East side of Naperville -Plainf ield Rd. and is located in unincorporated Will County. The applicant has filed a petition for a variance to allow the frontage of the property to be less than 300 feet and for the stream setback to vary from 75 feet to 25 feet. This petition has been fil ed with the Will County Planning and Zoning Commission. This property is located within ½ miles of the current village limits allowing the village to review and consider this request in accordance with the Illinois Complied Statutes. The village cannot a pprove or deny the application; however, Will County is seeking Village comment. The subject property is currently a 10.155 -acre vacant lot and is located on the east side of Naperville -Plainfield Rd. Surrounding uses include single family to the North a nd West and the Bass & Grill Club to the South and East. The applicant wants to build a single -family home on the property. 14
Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2001 Page 15 of 16 ANALYSIS: The frontage of the subject property is 241.01 feet. That is approximately 59 feet less than the 300 feet required in W ill County. The AG district in the Village requires 500 feet of frontage. However, the request for a reduction in the property frontage will not alter the existing streetscape of this neighborhood. The second variance request is for the stream setback t o be reduced from 75 feet to 25 feet. According to the Village of Plainfield Zoning ordinance, no development activity may occur within the minimum setback, which is 75 feet from the ordinary highwater mark of streams, etc. Therefore, the Staff feels tha t the variance for a reduction in the streams setback of 75 feet may result in potential flooding hazards for the homeowner and surrounding property owners, unless the structure can be built above the 100 -year flood level at the 25 -foot proposed setback. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Plan Commission recommend forwarding a letter of no objection regarding the applicant’s request to obtain a variance for a reduction in the property frontage from 300 feet to 241.01. Additionally, Staff recommend s forwarding a letter of no objection regarding the applicant’s request to obtain a variance for a reduction in the stream setback of 75 feet to 25 feet, provided that the home can be built above the 100 -year flood level at the 25 ft. setback. The applica nt was present. There was discussion of Village limits and contiguity. Commissioner Manning moved to recommend forwarding a letter of no objection regarding the applicant’s request to obtain a variance for a reduction in the property frontage from 300 feet to 241.01 feet. Furthermore, the commissioner moved to forward a letter of no objection regarding the applicant’s request to obtain a variance for a reduction in the stream setback of 75 feet to 25 feet, provided that the home can be built above the 100 -year flood level at the 25 ft. setback. Commissioner Gehrke seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Seggebruch, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0. 15
Plan Commission Minutes November 6, 2001 Page 16 of 16 Planner Carroll gave the Planning & Development report. The Commission discussed future scheduling. Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 10:41pm. _____________ Respectfully submitted, Warren Lindsay Warren Lindsay Recording Secretary Karick & Asso ciates, Inc. 16