HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 09/28/2020 - Loves Travel Stop, EG Park District Dog Park, Fence and Landscape Requirements and Restrictions Major Arterial StreetsElk Grove Village
Plan Commission Minutes
September 28, 2020
Present: J. Glass
S. Carlson
F. Geinosky
K. Weiner
L. Bacigalupo
J. Morrill
P. Rettberg
G. Schumm
Absent: R. DeFrenza
Staff: M. Jablonski, Assistant Village Manager/Director of Communication
J. Polony, Deputy Director of Community Development
R. Raphael, Engineering Supervisor
N. Radcliffe, Senior Management Analyst
Petitioner(s): C. Bruner, Love's Travel Stops and Country Stores (Item 3)
S. Harville. CESO (Item 3)
B. Curcio, Elk Grove Park District (Item 4)
J. Green, WT Group (Item 4)
G. Berger, Gary R. Weber (Item 4)
Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
Item 1: August 3, 2020 Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Geinosky moved to approve the meeting minutes of June 29, 2020. Commissioner
Morrill seconded the motion. Upon voting (Carlson, Geinosky, Weiner, Bacigalupo, Schumm,
Morrill, Rettberg, Glass AYES, the motion carried unanimously.
Item 2: PC Docket # 20-8: Petition to modify an approved site plan by requesting a
variation from Section 3-7: E(3)(b) of the Elk Grove Zoning Ordinance.
(Love's Travel Stops and Country Stores)
Chairman Glass read the legal notice into the record and asked the Petitioner to explain their
purpose before the Plan Commission.
1
C. Bruner stated the previously approved site plan proposed approximately forty-two (42) parking
stalls, but Love's ran into some issues with IDOT. C. Bruner stated the proposed driveway to the
north would encroach on its neighbor's property line and would need an agreement with the
property owner to allow this. Love's could not come to an agreement with the neighboring property
owner.
C. Bruner stated Love's had to reposition the driveway to the south, as well as repositioning the
building more to the south and moving the tanks from the south side of the building to the north
side of the building. Due to the changes, the parking along the building was eliminated and had to
be relocated to the south, which encroaches in the twenty-five (25) foot setback.
Commissioner Bacigalupo stated he appreciated the enhanced landscaping improvements to the
site.
Commissioner Rettberg asked how many parking stalls the Petitioner would be short without the
extra parking stalls in the setback. S. Harville stated Love's is eight (8) to ten (10) parking stalls
short. They are requesting the variation to be sure there is enough parking for customers and
employees. Commissioner Rettberg asked if the employees will be parking in the parking stalls.
S. Harville stated the parking would be available for customers and employees.
Commissioner Geinosky asked if the landscape plan had been reviewed by Village staff. S.
Harville stated Village staff reviewed the landscape plan and had no comments. R. Raphael
confirmed the landscape plan had been reviewed.
RECOMMENDATION
Commissioner Geinosky moved to recommend approval of the variation from Section 3-7: E(3)(b)
of the Elk Grove Zoning Ordinance to place twelve (12) car parking spaces within the 25-foot
front yard setback along Pratt Boulevard.
Commissioner Rettberg seconded the motion. Upon voting (Glass, Carlson, Geinosky, Schumm,
Bacigalupo, Morrill, Rettberg, Weiner, AYES), the motion carried unanimously.
Item 3: PC Docket # 20-9: Petition for a Special Use Permit for the development of a
public dog park and associated parking lot in an A-2 Multiple -Family
Residence District (Elk Grove Park District)
J. Green stated the Elk Grove Park District is proposing a large dog park and showed the Plan
Commission a site plan depicting where the dog park is being proposed. J. Green stated the
proposed dog park is located on the west side of Perrie Drive. J. Green stated there will be a
concrete area concourse in the middle, with the large and small dog park on either side.
J. Green stated north of the dog park will be a parking lot for 20 cars, with 19 standard spaces and
one handicap accessible space. A detention basin would be located in the northwest corner of the
site plan. It would be a dry bottom detention basin sized accordingly to the Village Zoning Code.
The detention basin would hold just under 20,000 cubic feet of storm water. J. Green stated by
holding that water, they're able to decrease the runoff from the site and the peak runoff from the
site by 96%.
J. Green stated that the Park District is proposing multiple storm drains on the property to try to
remediate existing drainage concern. They are also proposing a water quality feature underneath
the parking lot to help alleviate the drainage concerns.
G. Berger stated the focus of the landscaping on this project is mainly along the west property line,
which faces single family homes. The Park District would preserve a lot of the existing trees and
proposes large shrubs along the fence line for additional screening from the ground level to about
6 to 8 feet high. The Park District would replace one parkway tree and add artificial turf to the dog
park.
J. Green stated in conclusion, the Park District has proposed many amenities, such as a walking
trail, a drinking fountain located in the concrete concourse, dog waste stations located inside and
outside the dog parks, and mats for where the 'dogs enter. There would be double gates for the dog
parks that promote a controlled entry. A member could enter one gate, unleash the dog, and then
open the other gate to let them in.
Chairman Glass asked why the Park District picked this site and why Elk Grove needs a dog park.
B. Curcio stated the Park District completed community wide surveys in both 2016 and 2019, both
of which stated the need for a public dog park. B. Curcio mentioned the of Elk Grove Park District
had previously had two other dog parks in the community, at Powell Park and Morgan Park, that
were both removed.
Chairman Glass stated this proposed dog park is located on the east side of the village which is far
for the rest of the village to visit and asked why this site was picked in particular.
B. Curcio stated the Park District had a task force back in 2012 and analyzed the existing locations
of their parks. The Park District has 43 parks in Elk Grove Village. B. Curcio stated this location
is a 1/2 acre site that was previously foreclosed and has chosen this site as the best option.
Chairman Glass asked what happened to the two dog parks previously owned by the Park District.
B. Curcio stated he wasn't working at the Elk Grove Park District at the time, but he knows they
were removed. Chairman Glass asked for the reasons why they were removed. B. Curcio stated he
can speculate that the residents that lived near the dog parks didn't want them there.
Commissioner Rettberg asked what the requirement or difference is between the small dog park
and the large dog park. B. Curcio stated the difference is the weight of the dog, so anything under
30 or 40 pounds is considered small and then anything over 40 pounds would be large.
Commissioner Rettberg asked is there much of a factor in terms of the noise from barking dogs.
B. Curcio stated since Elk Grove doesn't have a dog park, it's hard to imagine that there won't be
some noise just like there is noise in all of the parks when athletics are going on and kids are
playing in playgrounds. B. Curcio stated he can't imagine the noise being any more than that.
Commissioner Rettberg stated in the letter of transmittal from September 9, the hours of operation
are listed as 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM or sunrise to sunset, and the letter states the maximum number
of memberships is 250. Commissioner Rettberg asked about the memberships for the park and
what they will entail. B. Curcio stated the Park District plans to require residents to register their
dogs because they want to limit the number of memberships. B. Curcio stated this process is similar
to signing a child up for a program.
Commissioner Rettberg asked if the Park District foresees any limitations on the number of dogs
that would be permitted in the dog park at any given time. B. Curcio stated the Park District would
have the ability to control access through a key fob system.
Commissioner Rettberg asked if the Park District is planning to have any employees on the site to
monitor the dog park while it's open. B. Curcio stated that there would be no employees at the site.
P. Rettberg asked how the Park District plans to determine which Elk Grove residents get a
membership first. B. Curcio stated it would be open to everybody and memberships would be
given on first come, first served basis.
Commissioner Rettberg asked what the distance is between the edge of the dog park and the lot
lines where the residents reside on Fleetwood. J. Green stated towards the north it's 20 feet and
that widens to 37 feet at the south. Commissioner Rettberg asked if there are any sound barriers
being proposed. J. Green stated only fencing and screening was proposed.
Commissioner Carlson asked what type of fence is being proposed. J. Green stated the Park District
proposed a black, vinyl coated chain link fence. Commissioner Carlson asked if the water detention
basin will eliminate the flooding. J. Green stated the dog park would have three drains proposed
that are roughly a foot lower than the existing grade to ensure there is proper drainage. That was
one of the Park Districts first assignments was to make sure that the drainage was alleviated.
Commissioner Carlson asked why the concrete concourse is necessary J. Green stated the Park
District is proposing a drinking fountain on the concrete and sidewalks to and from each enclosure.
Commissioner Weiner stated the south side of the dog park is 37 feet away from the homes and
on the north side of the dog park, this distance goes down to 20 feet. Commissioner Weiner asked
why the distance is being cut down in the north side J. Green stated that the sides were different in
order to maximize the enclosure for the dogs.
Commissioner Weiner asked if the parking lot located off of Willow Lane could be used as normal
parking and dog park parking. B. Curcio stated yes. Commissioner Weiner asked if there is going
to be any type of lighting in the proposed parking lot. B. Curcio stated no. Commissioner Weiner
asked if there will be appropriate signage at each of the gates for the small/large dogs that states
the rules. B. Curcio stated that rules will be posted and that when members come in to sign-up,
they'll get a packet that shows what the rules are.
4
Commissioner Weiner asked the dog park would be properly maintained. B. Curcio stated yes,
there with be added storm drains and regular maintenance of the park a few hours a week.
Commissioner Weiner asked if the proposed landscaping would be able to absorb water. B. Curcio
stated that it would.
Commissioner Geinosky stated over the weekend, he visited a dog park in Arlington Heights and
Mount Prospect. The dog park in Mount Prospect limits memberships to 250, and the memberships
are $50 for the first dog, $25 for the second and third dogs, and limited to three to a family. The
Mount Prospect and Arlington Heights locations did not have any staff at the dog parks. The dog
parks were well signed, well fenced, and each require maintenance once a week for 3 hours where
the park district cleans everything up and makes sure there are no issues. Individuals who come to
the park with their dogs have to stay with them at all times.
Commissioner Geinosky stated a big concern of his on this proposal compared to other parks is
the other dog parks are located in the middle of a huge complex of ball fields and other athletic
uses. There's enough to park over 5,000 cars at the Mount Prospect location as it's a shared parking
lot. Commissioner Geinosky stated his concern over the lack of parking since there's only 20
parking stalls going around the property and there's no parking on Perrie Drive allowed.
Commissioner Geinosky stated that not only is flooding an issue, but the bigger issue is the
proximity of the park to residential homes. The Director of Community Development wrote in her
memo that the Petitioner is waiting on an application for Natural Resource Opinion Report from
the Northern Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District. The letter from the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources concludes that adverse effects are unlikely.
J. Green stated the Illinois Department of Public Health and the Eco CAT are both prerequisites
for the permit, which acts as erosion control. J. Green stated they are working on procuring the
permit since it needed in order to disturb soil.
F. Geinosky stated his concern about the 250 memberships with only 20 parking spaces and asked
how the Park District arrived at 20 parking spaces. B. Curcio stated Udall Park has a second lot
and the Park District is counting on people using that lot as well. Commissioner Geinosky asked
if a member signs up, will they receive rules and regulations on where they can park when they
sign up. B. Curcio stated the signs will also show where they can't park, which is on Perrie Drive.
Commissioner Geinosky asked if nonmembers can get in. B. Curcio stated non-members will not
have access and the Park District hopes residents will use the honor system since there is no one
on -site monitoring the park. B. Curcio stated in order to open the gate, they must use a keycard
which will open the gate and lock behind them. Commissioner Geinosky asked if members can
come after hours. B. Curcio stated the park is open dawn to dusk and will be locked after hours.
Commissioner Bacigalupo asked if the proposed area will be covered with athletic turf. B. Curcio
stated turf will be installed at the high areas where the gates are, but the rest would be normal
grass. Commissioner Bacigalupo stated he doesn't think the design on the west side or south side
would look good with a chain link fence, especially after 20 years of wear and tear. J. Green stated
the Park District would consider changing the chain link fence on the west and south side to a
board on board fence or another solution.
19
Commissioner Morrill stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Geinosky and the other
Commissioners' thoughts. Commissioner Morrill stated he has gone to many dog parks and all of
them are further away from residential areas than this proposal. The dogs can get really loud,
especially with the increase in number of dogs in the park.
Commissioner Morrill stated he does not like how close this proposed dog park is to homes. There
would need to be some improvements in the screening in order for him to vote on this. J. Green
stated the park district is willing to consider limiting the number of users at one time.
Commissioner Morrill stated if they can limit the number of users and add some kind of sound
barrier type fencing, then he'd be more open to it.
Commissioner Schumm asked since the membership is limited, are there fees for those
memberships. B. Curcio stated there will be a small fee for each member. Commissioner Schumm
asked if other people other than Elk Grove residents be able to buy a membership. B. Curcio stated
yes, but memberships will be sold to Elk Grove residents first.
Chairman Glass invited the public to provide comments.
Leonard Vanderwheel, a resident located at 215 Fleetwood Lane, stated he has been a resident for
50 years and his property backs up to the proposed dog park. When he first moved to his current
home, there were no streets and slight flooding issues. His family used that park to play baseball
and football, and many kids played soccer there all the time with dogs walking around. The board
on board fence would make it hard to tell if there is any foul play happening inside the dog park.
He has been complaining to the Park District about the flooding for 50 years, but never got a
response except back in the 1970s where a member of the board recommended that he put railroad
ties on the back of his property, which just increased the flooding. L. Vanderwheel shared
photographs with the Plan Commission to show the flooding that has occurred over the time. If
this proposal moves forward, there will be people parking all over the place and it has potential
become dangerous. The dog park can be dangerous with possible dog fights and can be dangerous
for the kids.
Michael Breen, a resident located on Perrie Drive across the street from the proposed dog park,
stated he is concerned that it seems like a decision is already made. M. Breen stated he does not
want the dog park and everyone he's talked to in the neighborhood does not want the dog park.
This is a proposed three -acre dog park placed into a three -acre park, it's absurd. He has seen dog
parks all over, placed in forest preserves or in an industrial area where the noise is not an issue. M.
Breen stated you can't put a dog park in a residential area. He walks to his driveway and sees nice
green grass and families having picnics. He does not want to come out of his house and see a dog
park. It's a beautiful neighborhood here with great residents that are very friendly. He looked at
the dog park in Mount Prospect, and it's close to 40 acres and questioned the reason why the Park
District is trying to squeeze in a three -acre dog park. He proposed that the Park District should put
in a walking path and benches so people can walk around and use the benches to relax and trees
for shade. The Park District is going to destroy this beautiful neighborhood, so his vote is no dog
park.
Cl
Chairman Glass stated the Plan Commission did not approve this item as Michael Breen had stated.
This hearing is an opportunity to voice your opinions on the item.
Pat Clark, a resident located at Unit 201 on 640 Perrie Drive, stated her concerns about the
proposed dog park coming into a peaceful part of their neighborhood. When she looks outside, she
sees a peaceful park with families gathering to spend time together, and those families are not
going to be able to do that anymore if this proposed dog park gets approved. This little piece of
land is for families to enjoy some peace and play with their kids, dogs and family. There will be
parking issues all over the neighborhood if this proposed dog park moves forward. She already
sees some issues with dog feces not being picked up and is concerned with the potential issues that
can occur within the dog park. She would like to understand the process of limiting the amount of
dogs for memberships and the amount of dogs in the park at once.
Bill Richmond, a resident located at 640 Perrie Drive, located in unit 204, stated that he is not in
favor of the proposed dog park because a lot of kids play in the small piece of land, including his
upstairs neighbor, who plays soccer there every day. His other concern with the proposed water
retention area is that it's going to be 4 feet deep. How is it going to be protected to keep the kids
out of it, so they don't fall in and get hurt? Chairman Glass stated that the water retention area is
covered and surrounded by a fenced area. B. Richmond stated apart from that, he is not in favor of
the proposed dog park.
Chris Thompson, a resident located at 615 Perrie Drive, located in unit 201, stated he is the board
president of the Park Place Condos for Perrie Drive. Their community has 104 units and close to
250 residents of Elk Grove. Their community sits less than 30 feet from the proposed dog park at
Udall Park. With COVID-19, a lot of the residents could not make tonight's hearing, but are
concerned about the proposal. They have a lot of elderly people who are overwhelmingly against
this that asked him to tell everyone here that they are not in favor of the special use for the public
dog park. The Park Place Condo residents love the Elk Grove Park District and everything they do
to support and enhance the community, but they strongly believe adding a dog park to the village
is not a good idea. A dog park in a non-residential location would be much more preferred and
enjoyable for the residents of Elk Grove Village. Taking away this plot of land from the kids that
play out there every day would be a negative impact for their community. Having a dog park will
decrease the value of the entire neighborhood. The homeowners of Park Place Condos who face
Perrie Drive make up a third of their community, which is roughly 100 residents. Each homeowner
would lose their privacy and ability to enjoy their home in peace and quiet. Because of these
reasons, the residents of Park Place Condos ask the Plan Commission to not to recommend the
special use for the development of a public dog park.
Michelle Cetkovic, a resident located at 615 Perrie Drive, located in unit 505, stated she is a court
reporter that operates out of her home, and does not want dogs barking during the day while she's
trying to conduct business. She agrees the noise will be an issue and thinks that the dog park would
also take away the land where a lot of kids play. The area gets flooded and muddy when it rains,
and she can't imagine dogs running through there. What happens when the parking becomes
overflowed and people can't get in to use the dog park? She sees cars speeding down that street all
7
the time and she's seen two accidents in her 10 years of living there. She is not in favor of this dog
park.
J. Glass asked if there is going to be an age limit on the use of the dog park. B. Curcio stated it's
adults with dogs, 18 and older.
Valerie Carroll, a resident located at 221 Fleetwood Lane, stated she has an issue with the flooding.
A little lake forms whenever it rains where the park would be and would create a mud pit. If the
proposal moves forward, 20 parking spaces would not be enough and will result in an excess
number of vehicles parking all over the residential streets. With people parking on the streets, they
can barely get out of the driveway. Green spaces are meant for kids to play and for families to
hang out in peace. If that's taken away, kids will have to play in the street or areas where it's not
safe. Putting a dog park is going to contribute to less play for the kids and more spending time
inside. Dawn to dusk is unfair because people can bring dogs at dawn and wake up all the residents
that live there. She is not in favor of this proposal.
Greg Tvrdy stated there are three people in the audience that have over 150 years of living in this
neighborhood and he has lived in this community for 54 years. He doesn't know why the Park
District wants to wreck green space all the time. G. Tvrdy asked the Park District to use this money
to fix up other parks in the area and basketball courts which are already peeling.
Simon Malik, who owns 211, 207, and 201 Redwood Lane, stated that he agrees with his fellow
residents who oppose a dog park. He is offended that the Park District wants to put a dog park in
this area. He is offended that the Executive Director of the Park District has been on his phone
during this hearing. There seems to be a lack of study and preparedness for this proposed dog park
and seems rushed. His kids go to sleep at 7:30 PM and wake up around 6:00 AM to go to school,
so dusk to dawn does not work for his family. How is the Park District going to police this? Will
they be wasting tax dollars and wasting the Police Departments time on any ignorance that occurs
at the dog park. In order to control access after-hours, the Park District can make the keycards
inactive after hours, and after 10 or 20 swipes, so they can't let anyone else enter the dog park. It
seems the Park District hasn't done their research and are wasting the resident's time. S. Malik
stated no to the dog park proposal.
Danuta Staszel, a resident located at 615 Perrie Drive, unit 605, stated all the buildings on Perrie
Drive will be affected by the signage and the dog park will not allow kids to play there if this
proposal moves forward.
Jim Carroll, a resident who owns 241 Cottonwood and 221 Fleetwood Drive, stated his shed was
underwater this spring. What happens if this proposal moves forward? Where will people go to
walk their dogs? Another concern is that two cars cannot be parked on both sides of the street on
Redwood, Cottonwood and Fleetwood because they are not wide enough. If there's an accident or
emergency, fire engines and paramedics will have trouble coming down the street. He is not in
favor of this proposal.
8
Peggy Mette, a resident located at 204 Redwood, stated that she is not in favor of the proposed dog
park. Kids and families take their strollers to go around the park and will not be able to do that
moving forward and she is against it.
Chairman Glass stated he would like Nick Radcliffe, an Elk Grove Village staff member, to share
any resident emails that came in from residents that could not attend due to COVID-19. J. Glass
stated the Village allowed emails to be read at the hearing for those that could not attend.
N. Radcliffe read the following email from Aneta Dziura: "I received a letter from the Village
Clerk about a public hearing concerning putting a dog park in my neighborhood and taking under
consideration, I am very much against it. I am a resident in 12 Oaks Condominium and the dog
park will be right in front on my windows. I will not appreciate all the extra noise and smell that
the proposed dog park would bring."
B. Curcio stated he wanted to address the comment regarding him not paying attention to residents'
concerns. He was diligently taking notes on his phone so he can email them over to himself and
his commissioners. He apologizes if he offended anyone. He stated his main point is to listen to
residents' concerns, as this proposal was just an idea to explore. He has a lot of homework to do
and a lot of concerns to address, such as the flooding issue. B. Curcio went on to list off all the
above resident concerns that the park district will address, and expressed his appreciation for all
of the resident comments and concerns. This was an idea and a concept and he will bring these
concerns back to his commissioners to discuss further.
Chairman Glass asked if it makes sense to continue the hearing. B. Curcio stated he has a lot of
homework to do and would like to continue the hearing to identify the best option for a public dog
park. Residents asked the Park District if they have looked at other locations. B. Curcio stated they
have, but can do another survey to see if other options will work. Chairman Glass asked Village
staff to take down everyone's information so they can be properly notified with any updates on
this item.
The hearing was continued to a date to be determined.
Item 4: PC Docket # 20-10: Text Amendment to Amend Elk Grove Zoning Ordinance
Section 7A-1-F (1) Fence and Landscaping Requirements and Restrictions
N. Radcliffe stated that per the direction from the Mayor and Board of Trustees, Community
Development was asked to review the current zoning ordinance to develop the criteria to permit
the installation of 8 foot fences along resident's street side property lines that abut major arterial
streets.
Chairman Glass asked why the Village should raise the fence height limitation by 2 additional feet.
N. Radcliffe stated that over the past few years, there have been requests for fence height along
the major arterial roads due to noise generated from the arterial streets and the lack of privacy.
Chairman Glass asked if Tonne Road should be included. N. Radcliffe stated if the Plan
Commission would like to include specific connector streets, they can include them in the
recommendation. Chairman Glass asked if they should specify that only the rear yard can be
0
permitted an increase in fence height. J. Polony stated there are some home owners that have a
side yard facing the arterial road.
Commissioner Rettberg asked if there are any homes with frontage on Arlington Heights Road, if
so, can they increase their fence height. J. Polony stated there are parts of the Village Zoning Code
that would deny the request in the front yard, as they have to comply with Village regulations.
Commissioner Geinosky asked how the request for additional fence height was initiated. N.
Radcliffe stated there have been multiple requests from the past in regards to this topic and the
Village would like to be better prepared and able to effectively serve the community's needs.
Commissioner Weiner asked if this request was approved, would residents be able to put up fences
from 4 feet to 8 feet. J. Polony stated currently there is no code regulating fence height ranging
from 4 feet to 6 feet and homeowners would be able to do what they please for fence height, within
the limits of the code.
Commissioner Bacigalupo asked how the Village will regulate this. N. Radcliffe stated
homeowners would have to go through the normal permitting process. Commissioner Bacigalupo
stated if this item were to be approved, there would be no uniformity along the arterial streets and
it will look cluttered. N. Radcliffe stated there are homes and yards within the village that have
different types of fences, materials, and colors. Commissioner Weiner stated that homeowners
have the right to do what they please in their yard. Commissioner Weiner recommended to have
some type of regulation of fence height for every homeowner. Commissioner Rettberg stated
homeowners install fences for different reasons, whether it's for pets and kids, privacy, or security.
Chairman Glass stated the Village permits all colors and all styles up to 6 feet. Would the additional
2 feet make a difference? Commissioner Bacigalupo stated to him it would create a negative impact
on the Village.
RECOMMENDATION
Commissioner Morrill moved to recommend approval of a Text Amendment to amend Elk Grove
Zoning Ordinance Section 7A-1-F (1) Fence and Landscaping Requirements and Restrictions by
adding the following sentence to the end of the section:
"An eight (8') foot fence is permitted along the street side property lines abutting one of
the following major arterial streets: Arlington Heights Road, Devon Avenue, Higgins
Road, Meacham Road, Nerge Road, Rohlwing Road or Plum Grove Road and the
following collector streets: Tonne Road and Biesterfield Road."
Commissioner Geinosky seconded the motion. Upon voting (Glass, Carlson, Geinosky, Schumm,
Morrill, Weiner, AYES, Bacigalupo, Rettberg, NAYS), the motion carried 6-2.
Item 5: Adjournment
10
Commissioner Schumm moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Weiner seconded the
motion. Upon voting (Carlson, Geinosky, Weiner, Bacigalupo, Glass, Morrill, Schumm, Rettberg
AYES), the motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Radcliffe, Senior Management Analyst
C: Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village
Clerk
11