HomeMy Public PortalAbout2001-11-20 PC minutesVillage of Plainfield Planning Commission Record of Minutes Date: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:02pm. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Seggebruch; Gehrke; Manning; Schinderle; Anderson; Sobkoviak Absent: Fire District; Library District; Park District; School District Minutes Chairman Sobkoviak declared the November 6, 2001 minutes accepted as presented. Doug Carroll presented the development report. Old 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: Don Bartholme as Trustee Commenced: 7:05pm Planner Garrigan presented the staff’s report. The applicant requested an additional continua nce. Eleanor Selman (a resident near the site) asked whether the site property was “spoken for.” She said she would like a buffer put along her property because of church gatherings at St. Mary’s Church that sometimes overflow onto her property. Planner Carroll discussed various possible uses of B -4 zoning: antique shop, animal hospital, farm instrument sales, greenhouse, parking lots, restaurants, etc. Commissioner Sobkoviak suggested fast food might go in there. Gary Bostancik asked about drainage and whether, once the construction commences, it would remain as it is.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 20 01 Page 2 Commissioner Schinderle said that they couldn’t know the answer to that until they know what will go in. Commissioner Schinderle moves to recommend a continuance on the case. Comm issioner Manning seconds the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for vote by roll call. Aye: Seggebruch, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 6:0 New Business CASE NO.: 918 -101901.SPR/SU/FP JEWEL OUTLOTS Reques t: Site Plan Review, Special Use (Public Hearing), Final Plat Location: Northwest corner of Route 59 and 135 th Street Applicant: Various Commenced: 7:13pm Planner Carroll gave the staff report: The applicant is requesting a special use permit for a Planne d Unit Development (PUD), site plan review, and final plat to develop a seventeen (17) acre parcel with various commercial and retail uses. The site is zoned B -3. The applicant is requesting a deviation from the parking requirement of 5.5 spaces per 1,00 0 square feet for the retail center, reduced landscaping for the retail center, in addition to requesting additional signage than allowed by ordinance for outlot three (3). The proposed uses for the site include an automobile fuel station and car wash on the southernmost lot, (special use permit in the B -3), a retail plaza on lot two (2) (special use in the B -3), and two banks with drive -thrus (special use in the B -1 and B -2) on outlots two (2) and three (3). SPECIAL USE: The Zoning Ordinance specifies th e Plan Commission shall not recommend, nor shall the Village Board grant a special use unless it makes findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each special case that: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be d etrimental to, or endanger the public health, safety and general welfare; and (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate area for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair p roperty values within the neighborhood; and 2
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 20 01 Page 3 (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the adjacent property for uses permitted within the district. ANALYSIS Staff feels character is importan t to this PUD request. To help with understanding this proposal, Staff will perform an analysis of the PUD concept for this development in terms of the three standards outlined above. As part of a PUD, it is important for the plan Commission to conside r the character of the land uses proposed. Three of the four proposed uses are either special uses in the B -3 zoning district, permitted in the B -4 district, or special uses in the B -1 and B -2 zoning district. With a good site plan, the proposed retail u ses in this development should not be detrimental to, or endanger the public health, safety and general welfare. Retail uses are an allowed use in the B -3 zoning district. Staff is concerned with the proposed fuel station and car wash. In Renwick Place (located at the southeast corner of Renwick and Division), the Village Board recommended an automotive repair facility located in the “second tier” or this development instead of a proposed lot with frontage along Division Street. The applicants have also proposed two (2) banks with drive -thrus for outlots two (2) and three (3). Banks with drive -thrus are special uses in the B -1 and B -2 zoning districts. Similar to gas stations, Staff is becoming concerned with the amount of banks locating on prime outlo ts along Division Street. Again, banks do provide a needed use, and in general are lower intensity uses with better architecture. However, the Zoning Ordinance requires planned unit developments to be designed with innovation and creativity. Staff has co ncerns the proposed uses in the PUD do not present much innovation or creativity. SITE PLAN REVIEW The applicant has provided site plans for a retail center comprised of three sections totaling 49,000 square feet, a 4,000 square foot bank, another bank at 5,155 square feet, and a 3,154 square foot gas station and car wash. Each lot requires separate site plan review. PARKING AND DRIVE AREAS Access to the entire site is provided via existing full access from Division Street (IL 59) and 135 th Street. The applicant is providing a right -in, right -out onto Division Street with this development proposal. Retail uses require 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The retail portion of this development includes 49,000 square feet, which require s 270 spaces; the applicants have provided 240. It does appear the parking proposal is short of Village requirements, however, the applicant has indicated the Jewel Food Store, which provides 3
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 20 01 Page 4 6.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, could han dle the overflow if necessary. Financial institutions require one space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area and ten (10) stacking spaces or five additional parking spaces for a drive thru. Outlot 3 requires sixteen (16) parking spaces and the ap plicant has provided thirty -two (32). Village Ordinance requires 18.5 foot stall lengths and 26 feet between stalls; the applicant has provided 18 foot stall lengths and 24 between stalls. Outlot 2 requires twenty -one parking spaces and the applicant has provided twenty -nine (29). Village Ordinance identifies 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for automobile fuel stations and one parking space per each two (2) employees plus one parking space per each manager and thirty (30) reservoir spaces. This will require approximately thirteen (13) parking spaces including the car wash; the applicant has provided thirteen (13) spaces. It is unclear how many stacking spaces the applicant has provided although there does not appear to be enough s pace for 30 stacking spaces. ARCHITECTURE Architectural facades have been submitted for each of the lots. 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. Architectural glass, clapboard, wood shingle siding, and other architectural façade treatments may be considered as alternatives to masonry. • Retail Center (Lot 2) – The retail center incorporates a combination of brick masonry, stone, and E.I.F.S. Also included are awnings above two of the entrances to help add some character. • Oxford Bank (Outlot 3) – A combination of face brick and glass make up the majority of the proposed Oxford Bank. It appears the proposed roof is comprised of st anding seam metal. • Mid America Bank (Outlot 2) – Mid America Bank has proposed a combination of burgundy face brick with E.I.F.S comprising the fascia and frieze. The roof is constructed of asphalt shingle. • Fuel Station and Car Wash (Outlot 1) – The appli cant is proposing face brick and buff colored prairie stone as its façade. Accents include soldier coursing and an awning as accents. LANDSCAPING The Site Plan Review Ordinance establishes the standards for landscaping as follows: a. All areas of the site not to be improved with structures, pavement, or other landscaping shall be improved with grass sod or seed. b. The applicant shall minimally provide one approved planting for each 725 square feet of gross lot area. 4
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 20 01 Page 5 c. All commercial sites shall be buffered from adjacent residential uses through the use of landscape berms, plantings, and/or fencing to achieve no less than a 75% visual screen at a minimum height of six (6) feet. • Retail Center (Lot 2) – The 6.11 acre site will require 354 plantings. According to the submitted plans, the site will contain 101 trees and shrubs and 156 perennials for a total of 256 plantings. Based on this calculation, it appears the applicant has an opportunity to increase the number of plantings to be in compliance with Village re quirements. • Oxford Bank (Outlot 3) – The 1.26 -acre site will require 73 plantings. The applicant has provided approximately 267 trees and shrubs and 271 perennials. It appears the applicant has provided above and beyond what is required by Village Ordi nance. • Mid America Bank (Outlot 2) – Fifty -four (54) plantings are required for the .93 -acre site. According to the submitted plans, the applicant is providing 161 trees and shrubs and 641 perennials. Again, the applicant has done a nice job of bunching landscaping to add visual interest in addition to providing foundation plantings to help “anchor” the site to the ground. • Fuel Station and Car Wash (Outlot 1) – According to Village Ordinance, the .85 -acre site will require 49 plantings. Plans indicate ap proximately 150 plantings made up of 114 trees and shrubs and 36 perennials. The B -3 zoning district requires a setback buffer from all residential districts of forty (40) feet with a minimum of twenty (20) feet of landscaped area provided along the distr ict boundary line. The required landscaped area shall be grass covered and densely planted with shrubs and trees to provide a year round visual screen of at least 75% opacity. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Stormwater retention facilities for the entire commercia l center are part of the existing stormwater management facility. EXTERIOR LIGHTING According to the Site Plan Review Ordinance, exterior lighting shall be shaded, directed, or otherwise designed so as to avoid glare onto neighboring properties. A lighti ng plan has not been submitted. Lighting will be extremely important for this site in relation to the adjacent residential uses. As part of the PUD, Staff recommends the light poles do not extend higher than the buildings they light. TRASH ENCLOSURES Tr ash enclosures are indicated for each lot except the fuel station and car wash. SIDEWALKS It does not appear the applicants are proposing sidewalks. Past Village policy has been to require sidewalks along the property’s frontage along Division Street (IL 59). 5
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 20 01 Page 6 SIGNAGE The applicants have proposed a variation from the sign ordinance to provide three signs on outlot 3 (Oxford Bank) with one sign for the retail center and two ground signs for the bank. Village Ordinance allows more than one ground sign if a building has more than one street frontage provided there is a minimum of eight hundred (800) feet of separation. Additionally, the Sign Ordinance does not allow off -premise signs. This would prevent the retail center from providing a sign on outlot 3 . Staff does see the merit or need for two ground signs for the Oxford Bank. The applicant should provide documentation as to the background and need for this request. CONCLUSION Staff has identified the following issues and seeks Plan Commission direc tion on the following: • Does the application meet the merits of a special use permit for a PUD? • Is the proposed architecture acceptable including the character it creates? • Does the Plan Commission feel this application provides an innovative and creative a pproach to development? Staff has concerns with the proposed gas station at another corner of 135 th and Division Street (IL 59) and two banks adjacent to one another in the same development. RECOMMENDATION As noted above, there are a number of issues t hat require Plan Commission consideration. Staff and the applicant are seeking comment regarding the provisions of the PUD request and Site Plan Review. Staff anticipates the need for modifications based on Plan Commission comment and recommends the revi ew of those changes prior to Village Board consideration. Based on the foregoing, Staff recommends a continuation of the case. Several of the applicants were present. Vince Tessitore (Albertsons, Inc.) made the introduction for the applicants. The co mprehensive plan calls for this area to be “auto -urban”. We believe our plans are consistent with the stipulations. Todd Berlinghoff (Hamilton Partners) examined the layout of the plans with the commission. He said that construction would be done in pha ses since they do not have tenants ready to rent all spaces yet. We think we’ve done a very good job landscaping the site. We look at the existing trees (lining where the rear of the complex will exist) as being part of the landscaping plan. If these ar e included, we meet the Village requirements for number of plantings. 6
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 20 01 Page 7 The height of the poles was the biggest concern of neighboring residents. We plan on putting in 25’ poles. The parking in the rear should be addressed. A 5.1 parking variance is w hat we’ve requested. A fence will be installed to screen rear of building from neighboring properties. One of the reasons they are asking for a signage variance is because Jewel’s sign is on their property. Instead of moving Jewel’s sign, they will put in a pile -on sign for the tenants that will be there. Applicants are willing to discuss options for signage. Mr. Berlinghoff said that it is important to them to have the banks at this location. This is because they don’t want to have parts of the develo pment site vacant for a long period of time and also because they are most likely to locate themselves at a position such as this whereas restaurants wouldn’t (the population in the area isn’t large or concentrated enough). Banks also project a good image on the entire site. Jeff Miller (Archidea Zinc) explained the architectural details of the plans: All buildings on the site are composed of identical materials in order to build a sense of continuity. Signs as well use the same materials. The retail ce nter has two projecting elements on the front of the building and uses a pitched roof. The rear of the building is screened, and the color bands used on the rear are identical to those on Jewel. Mr. Miller displayed various models of the buildings. He said the banks are very similar in design and composition, but not identical. This is so because the banks would most likely want a certain degree of individualism in appearance. The colors used conform to the general theme of architecture for the site, but are not identical. The fueling station will be a masonry building that ties in its colors with the Jewel building, and its landscaping far exceeds Village requirements. Jim Horneker of Jewel/Osco said a few words on behalf of Jewel: It is important to Jewel to have the fuel station with the Jewel building. This is because of the need for competitive edge since Walmart, Dominic’s, and others are incorporating the same idea into their design plans. He reminded the commission of the benefits a fuel st ation such as this would bring to the Village, namely a $20,000 to $50,000 a year increase in sales taxes, as well as a slight increase in employment in the area. Mr. Berlinghoff closed the presentation by reiterating the aforementioned benefits to the co mmunity and the village. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Larry Vaupel to comment, and asked some questions regarding possible tax revenues forfeited by not having restaurants. 7
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 20 01 Page 8 Mr. Vaupel agreed with Mr. Berlinghoff about the lack of market for restaurants at th is time. As for the banks, he pointed out that there is still room for restaurants in neighboring properties should the area grow to an extent that restaurants are attracted there in the future. Having the banks, which will incorporate high quality archi tecture, will set the tone for future development. The fuel station will generate significant tax revenues. Commissioner Seggebruch asked a clarifying question on the site plan. Could angle parking be used for the retail center in addition to the Jewel parking lot? Also, would the expansion of Jewel affect parking in the future? Commissioner Schinderle asked Staff how they felt with the lengths of the parking stalls. Mr. Berlinghoff commented that the applicants are determined to work out all engineer ing issues with the Village and Commission. Larry Vaupel suggested, in regards to the signage issue, that instead of having so many signs, perhaps two of them could be combined into a larger one that could accommodate the tenants. Commissioner Seggebruc h asked about the location of the signs. Chairman Sobkoviak went through the list of Staff concerns with the rest of the commission to see whether the issues could be resolved. Commissioner Seggebruch asked about the drainage at the fuel center and wante d to make sure that the overall look of the fuel center wouldn’t be changed over time, as many gas stations do. Commissioner Manning voiced concerns over the size of the parking stalls. Commissioner Anderson stated that he deferred to Staff on the issue of landscaping requirements. At this time the discussion was opened to public comment. Tom Hayes of Golden Meadows raised the question of pole heights – would they be 25’? The height of the poles should not exceed the height of the roof. He was also co ncerned about the quality of material used on the back of the buildings, which would be the only part visible to neighboring properties. 8
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 20 01 Page 9 Commissioner Seggebruch asked the applicants if they were receptive to having one monument sign, a sidewalk on IL 59 a nd the suggestions made about the signage for the banks. The applicants replied that they were. Chairman Sobkoviak asked about stacking at the car wash. Commissioner Seggebruch was concerned about parking in the rear of the building conflicting with del ivery traffic. Commissioner Manning moved to recommend approval for the Special Use for a Planned Unit Development, Site Plan Review, and Final Plat for the subject case subject to the requirements of the Village Engineer, and the Fire Protection District . Commissioner Schinderle seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for vote by role call. Aye: Gerhke, Manning, Schinderle, Sobkoviak Nay: None Abstain: Seggebruch, Anderson The motion is carried 4:0:2 Commissioner Seggebruch excused himself fr om the remainder of the meeting. CASE NO.: 917 -101901.PP/SU HIDDEN RIVER Request: Preliminary Plat, Special Use (Public Hearing) Location: Southeast corner of Fraser Road & River Road Applicant: Midwest Development, LLC Commenced: 8:47pm Planner Carroll presented the case report: The applicant is hoping to develop approximately 65 acres of agricultural property to consist of a 129 -unit single -family detached subdivision. The property is annexed to the Village and zoned R -1 (Single -Family Residential). T o accommodate the development request, the applicant is seeking Plan Commission approval for a PUD (Planned Unit Development) and preliminary plat approval as the first stage in the subdivision process. The proposed subdivision is located on property anne xed to the Village in 1989. Within the annexation agreement, no provisions were made granting relief from the R -1 zoning district. This requires the subdivision to meet the requirements of the zoning district or request a PUD in order to gain relief from Village ordinances. The applicant has calculated a plan including all 12,000 square foot lots would provide 129 lots. Potentially, the applicant could provide a plan with 129 lots, depicting all 12,000 square foot lots and meeting all other Village requ irements without the need for a PUD request 9
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 20 01 Page 10 and subsequent public hearing. This would require an application for preliminary plat only. The applicant has indicated they have reduced the square footage of the lots and street right -of -ways (ROW) in order t o provide more open space yet still receive the 129 lots. The applicant, Midwest Development LLC, was represented by an attorney, Edward Welch. Mr. Welch presented the applicant’s request for a continuance. The discussion was opened to public comment. Bill Gaiten, a landowner on the adjoining property asked the developer to consider the problem of a farm pond on the site and the danger it could pose to children playing near it. Linda Gregory, another neighboring resident, pointed out an error in the ma iling list used for the distribution of notifications for public hearings on the subject case. John Johnson expressed concerns about the effect of the development on unincorporated land, within which he now lives. Jim Talaga stated that he would like a b erm put in to screen the development from existing adjacent properties. Mr. Gaiten asked about notifications for future hearings and the content of the mailing lists. Cheryl Pommerening inquired whether a bike trail would be implemented in the constructi on of this site. Commissioner Schinderle asked how long of a continuance the applicant was requesting. Commissioner Manning moved to recommend approval for a continuance on the subject case. Commissioner Schinderle seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkovi ak called for vote by role call. Commissioner Gehrke was absent for this case. Aye: Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 4:0 10
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 20 01 Page 11 CASE NO.: 920 -110201.TA AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE Request: Update to Planned Unit Deve lopments Commenced: 9:04pm Commissioner Gehrke returned to the meeting. Planner Carroll presented the report: Section 9 -36 of the Village of Plainfield Zoning Ordinance, which covers the procedure for Planned Unit Developments, states the process shall include a concept plan, preliminary plat, and lastly a final plat. Village policy has been to leave the concept plan stage as optional and not a requirement since comments and recommendations are subject to modification during later public hearing stages. Staff is seeking to modify Section 9 -36 so as to make it consistent with Village policy and make the concept plan stage of the planned unit development optional. Staff is also seeking Plan Commission comment on the Concept Plan Committee procedure. T he Concept Plan Committee is currently compromised of three Village Board members and is intended to give applicants general feedback on a development proposal. Typically, an applicant receives comments from the Concept Plan Committee before actually appl ying and proceeding to the Plan Commission. However, Staff has sensed it may put the Plan Commission in a difficult position as at times you may disagree with the Concept Plan Committee yet the applicant is proceeding based on Committee recommendations. In Staff’s opinion, perhaps a better procedure would be for applicants to first go to the Plan Commission, next to the Concept Plan Committee, then on to the Village Board. Staff recommends a text amendment to the zoning ordinance that would allow the c oncept plan stage of planned unit developments to be optional. Commissioner Schinderle raised concerns about the concept design committee and asked questions about its purpose and necessity. There was discussion about the purpose of the concept committee . Commissioner Manning moved to recommend approval for a text amendment that would allow the concept plan stage of planned unit developments to be optional. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. Aye: Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 5:0 11
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 20 01 Page 12 CASE NO.: 900 -082401.SPR LOT 4, PLAINFIELD COMMONS Request: Site Plan Review Location: Southwest corner of IL 59 and 135 th Street Applicant: Edwards and Kelcey Commenced: 9:20pm Planner Garrigan gave the staff report : The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review for a 15,636 square foot retail plaza on Lot 4 of the Plainfield Commons. The subject property is approximately 1.61 acres in size and is located at the southwest corner of IL 59 and 135 th Street. SITE PLA N REVIEW The site is 1.61 acres with a 15,636 square foot retail center. The site has a floor area ratio of .22, which meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. PARKING AND DRIVE AREAS The Village ordinance requires 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 fee t of gross floor area. Also, in accordance with the Illinois Accessibility Code, 4 handicapped parking spaces are required within the development. The applicant’s proposed 15,636 square foot retail center requires 86 parking spaces and 4 handicapped spac es. The applicant’s plan indicates 88 parking spaces including the 4 handicapped parking spaces in the front of the building. The site has access to one full access entrance onto IL 59 and two full access entrances onto 135 th Street. These full access entrances incorporate full curb cuts onto IL 59 and 135 th Street. ARCHITECTURE 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. It appear s that the applicant has complied with this requirement. The front of the building will be made mostly of 1” insulated tinted glass on the bottom portion and dryvit on the upper portion of the building including the signage. Above each door entering into the stores, there will be a decorative light fixture to not only provide an architectural element, but to also incorporate some light onto the store entrances. STORMWATER DETENTION Stormwater detention and retention facilities have already been incorpo rated into the site as part of the Eagle Chase Subdivision. LANDSCAPING The 1.61 -acre (70,132 square foot) lot requires a minimum of 904 approved plantings. The proposed landscape plan provides the following: 12
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 20 01 Page 13 Shade, Canopy Trees/Ornamental Trees: 28 Evergreens: 0 Shrubs/Ground Cover: 881 Total: 909 The landscape plan submitted exceeds the minimum planting requirements for this site. SIDEWALKS Per the approved final plat, sidewalks are to be installed on the west side of IL 59 by eith er the developer or the applicant. LIGHTING The applicant’s photometric plan identifies 6 light poles with a total of 12 individual lights. There will also be 11 wall -mounted lights on the eastern elevation above the entry door to the stores. All lights appear to be shaded, directed or otherwise designed to avoid glare onto surrounding properties. The photometric plan appears to meet village ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval for Site Plan Review for Lot 4 of the Plainfield Commons con tingent upon the adherence to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the provisions of the Plainfield Fire protection District. 3. Pay the applicable recapture fees. 4. Incorporate sidewalks on the west side of IL 59. 5. Incorporate some type of low impact lighting on the rear elevation. Chairman Sobkoviak asked about the nature of the loading and unloading process at the retail center. Commissioner Schinderle questioned the position of the delivery t rucks. Commissioner Schinderle moved to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review for Lot 4 of the Plainfield Commons subject to the stipulations outlined in the Staff repot. Commissioner Manning seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for vote by role call. Aye: Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 5:0 13
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 20 01 Page 14 CASE NO.: WILL COUNTY CASE CARL BRYANT Request: County Special Use Location: 230 Indian Boundary Road Applicant: Carl Bryant Commenced: 9:34pm Plann er Garrigan gave the Staff report: The applicant has filed a petition for a special use for the operation of a nursery stock wholesaler with the Will County Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant’s property is within the 1 ½ mile jurisdiction of th e Village’s municipal boundaries and therefore is subject to Village review of any proposed zoning change. The Village can neither approve nor deny the application. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Plan Commission forward a letter of no objection for this proposed special use application to the Will County Planning and Zoning Commission. There was a very short discussion of the details of the subject case. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend forwarding a letter of no objection to the propose d special use application to the Will County Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Gehrke seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for vote by role call. Aye: Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 5:0 There was discussion about future meetings and dates. Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 9:45pm. Respectfully submitted, Warren Lindsay Warren Lindsay Recording Secretary Karick & Associates, Inc. 14