Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 02/12/2018 - 751 Meacham-townhomes, 1520 Pratt-BWB parking plan, Text Amendment Section 7E-6:A Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Minutes February 12, 2018 Present: J. Glass S. Carlson F. Geinosky P. Rettberg G. Schumm P. Ayers K. Weiner Absent: J. Morrill T. Thompson Staff: M. Jablonski, Assistant Manager J. Polony, Deputy Director of Community Development R. Raphael, Engineering Supervisor Petitioner: T. Abrams, President of SGS Architect(Item 2) J. Glascott, WT Civil Engineering(Item 2) S. Gawlik, President of SGS Architect (Item 2) T. McHugh, Attorney for Petitioner(Item 2) R. Kieferbaum, Owner of 1520 Pratt Boulevard(Item 4) Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Item 1: November 13,2017 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Geinosky moved to approve the meeting minutes of November 13, 2017. Commissioner Schumm seconded the motion. Upon voting (Carlson, Geinosky, Rettberg, Glass, Thompson, Morrill, Weiner, AYES, Ayers, ABSTAIN),the motion passed. Item 2: PC Docket 17-7 — Petition for the Annexation, Resubdivision, variances and Rezoning to A-2 Multiple family Residence District and R-3 Single Family Residence District under the Village's Zoning Classification to allow construction of five (5) multi-family townhome buildings and two (2) single family homes. 1 Chairman Glass read the legal notice into the record and asked the Petitioner to explain his purpose before the Plan Commission. T. Abrams stated he was president of the Civil Engineering Division at the WT Group in Hoffman Estates, IL. He is before the Planning Commission to present on behalf of Village Square. He stated that in speaking with Village Staff, it was recommended to talk about the previous plan that was approved and the new proposed site plan. T. Abrams explained an aerial exhibit of the development and the development's location. He stated that to the West is Meacham Road, to the south is Walmart, to the north is Single-Family residential, to the east is Single-Family residential, there is existing church property to the southwest, and retail to the northwest. T.Abrams stated that the previous site plan included a new left turn lane for south-bound Meacham Road onto Dakota Drive,as well as two (2) six-unit rowhomes of three(3) stories,two (2) six-unit town homes, a five (5) unit town home, and a four-unit rowhome. Stormwater detention is in the north-east portion of the development, other access drives include cross-access to the north, and an emergency access to the Walmart property to the south. T.Abrams stated north property lines are heavily screened with fencing and evergreen and canopy trees. Additional landscaping includes parkway trees to meet Village ordinances, and native plantings along the proposed retention pond for water quality and aesthetics. T. Abrams explained the new site plan which they worked on in conjunction with Village staff. The new site plan includes changing two(2) six-unit rowhomes of three stories to two (2) six-unit town homes, which are two stories; changing the four-unit row home in the south-east corner of the property to two (2) single-family homes;and removing the proposed bike path from the south- east corner of the Dakota Drive cul-de-sac connecting to West Glen Trail. T.Abrams stated that the Petitioner is working with the Village to possibly develop a single-family home on the vacant lot on West Glenn Trail instead of the bike path. T. Abrams showed an example rendering of single-family unit built previously by the developer and stated it would be high-quality construction, and that he would work with the Village to work out details of construction. Chairman Glass asked why the changes were made. T. Abrams stated it was recommended to them to make the changes by Village staff, including the Mayor, who felt that the rowhomes lacked uniformity with the other town-home buildings,and that two-stories buildings would fit better with the neighborhood. Additionally the Mayor expressed that two single-family homes on dome Avenue would fit better with the neighborhood rather than the four-unit rowhomes. Commissioner Schumm asked the Petitioner if they had complied with items 1-6 in the memo from Community Development. T. Abrams stated they had not yet but that they would comply. 2 Commissioner Schumm asked petitioner why it was necessary to have a 50-foot right-of-way instead of a 60-foot right-of-way as required by ordinance. T. Abrams stated the site was very narrow. There is 25 feet of fall across the property which limits how much it is possible to grade. To provide a roadway that allows for circulation for fire trucks, as well as sidewalks in the right- of-way and economically feasible buildings is tough to do it with a 60-foot right-of-way.He further stated that development to the north of the property also has a 50 foot right-of-way Commissioner Schumm asked the Petitioner if all buildings had basements. T. Abrams stated that there are basements in all units. Commissioner Ayers stated that he agrees with the Mayor, and that the neighborhood would appreciate the townhomes instead of the rowhomes. Commissioner Ayers asked whether the Petitioner was working directly with the Village to acquire the lot on West Glenn Trail. Chairman Glass clarified that the Plan Commission is not reviewing plans for the vacant lot on West Glenn Trail. Commissioner Ayers stated that it is not uncommon for variances to be granted for 50ft. right-of- ways. He stated that there should be sidewalks where there are homes. Commissioner Ayers asked the Petitioner if there would be sidewalks on both sides of the road. J. Glascott stated that they are putting carriage walks on both sides of the road and providing a 10- foot utility easement in addition to the 50-foot right-of-way. Commissioner Rettberg asked how many combined units including houses are there in the new plan as opposed to the original plan approved by the Plan Commission. T. Abrams stated the original plan had two six-unit rowhomes, these have been changed to two six-unit multi-family town homes. The remaining two six-unit town homes and five unit-town home units would stay the same. The previous plan also had four row homes in the south-east corner, while the new plan has two single-family homes in their place. Commissioner Rettberg asked if it were down two units from the original plan. T. Abrams concurred and stated that was correct. Commissioner Rettberg inquired if the Petitioner was still requesting a variation to exceed the ground coverage requirement and if the request had changed at all from the previous presentation before the commission. T. Abrams stated that it had changed slightly but that it was still above 50%. J. Glascott stated that the two southeast lots should be reduced because of the solid driveway going across the frontage on all four units. The lot coverage in the northwest corner would go up slightly. Commissioner Rettberg asked if the overall percentages would be similar to the previous plans. J. Glascott stated that they would. He also noted that they will be removing the pavement behind the units and that would allow for more impervious surface overall. 3 Commissioner Rettberg asked the Petitioner if there were calculations available for ground coverage. J. Glascott stated that they did not have those calculations at this point. Commissioner Rettberg expressed concern with flooding and aesthetics of the pavement. J. Glascott stated that one issue discussed with the Mayor was removing the pavement to allow residents to have green space and backyards for the twelve units on the west side of the development. T. Abrams stated that retention system would meet Village requirements. Typical detention requirements for a release rate are 0.3 cfs/acre, and this development will have a 0.10 cfs/acre because they are annexing into the Village. He stated that the above requirement and the detention system could be considered over designed. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Fire Department had any objections to the new site plan. M. Jablonski stated the Fire Department had no concerns; they looked specifically at the proposed changes and do not anticipate any issues servicing these areas. Commissioner Carlson asked if the cul-de-sac would be an issue. M. Jablonski stated that the Fire Department did not have any concerns about the cul-de-sac and still had emergency access to the Walmart parking lot. Commissioner Geinosky inquired about why the bike path was removed. M. Jablonski stated that the Village Board had an interest in having a single-family home constructed on the vacant lot on West Glenn Trail, and so it would not be possible for the bike path to connect as originally proposed. Commissioner Geinosky asked what the difference is between a rowhome and a townhome besides the rowhome being three stories high and the town home being two stories high. S. Gawlik stated that the major difference between the rowhome and the townhome is that rowhomes are much narrower in width,and because of this when doing a two-car garage you need a three-story building to get enough living space. When doing a townhome with a two-car garage, the unit is wider overall. Commissioner Geinosky asked which contractor would be developing the single-family residences. T. Abrams stated it would be the same contractor—Village Square. Commissioner Geinosky inquired if the architecture of the single family homes would be similar to the town-homes. T. Abrams stated single-family units would match the town-homes. Commissioner Geinosky asked if the items in the Public Works memorandum had been addressed by the petitioner.T. Abrams stated that they would comply with the comments from Public Works. Chairman Glass opened the floor to the public for comments at 7:33 p.m. 4 L. Difrancisco,resident at 736 Easton Lane, stated her house backed up into the town-houses. She stated it was her understanding that there would be shrubs and trees between the existing houses and new town-homes. She asked if there would be a physical barrier that would prevent pedestrians from cutting through the yards to cut through the new subdivision. T. Abrams asked resident L. Difrancisco if she had a fence in her back yard. L. Difrancisco stated that the backyard runs lower, there is a brick wall and some shrubs and two rows of logs. As it stands, there were people that would cut through to the field as they walked to Walmart. She stated that if you walked to her next-door neighbor's house there was an opening in the fence that people could easily walk through. T. Abrams stated that at this point the gap was supposed to remain, but they could certainly close the gap off. L. Difrancisco stated that there is concern with people cutting through. T. Abrams stated that the area is being densely landscaped with Evergreen trees, but they could certainly make a connection between existing fences. It would take coordination with property owners because that gap is private property and it would have to be worked out. L. Difrancisco asked if the bend around the street coming from Meacham would have more shrubbery. T.Abrams explained landscaping symbols on the rendering and stated new trees would be installed, along with shade trees and Evergreen trees. S. Evenson, resident at 1114 Home Avenue, stated he wanted to confirm the area around Home Avenue would still be a dead end. T. Abrams stated yes, it would remain a dead end. R. Hultgren, resident at 1048 West Glen Trail, stated that he approved of the change in design from the townhomes to the single-family homes on Home Avenue. He stated that he lives between the two developments and is happy there is no longer a bike path being built behind him. He asked who owned the property on which the bike path was originally proposed,because on the Village's GIS site the property shows as being owned by Walmart. M. Jablonski stated that strip of land is unclaimed, due to surveyor's error, and as a result is likely not showing correctly right now in the GIS. Surveyor's error occurs when land is measured from two different directions and there ends up being an unaccounted for gap, yielding a small strip of land that is not claimed right now. R. Hultgren inquired about whether there was a change in the detention requirement since 2002, when the code mandated a 0.10 cubic feet/second release rate. Chairman Glass stated there had not been a change. C. Schorsch, resident at 763 Easton Lane, stated that he is president of the Home Owner's Association at White Cliff. He stated that the proposed changes are very encouraging. He echoed the concern of his neighbor, stating he drove by her yard today near the first bend in the proposed Dakota Drive,there is a retaining wall with and elevation drop of approximately 10-12 feet by her yard in the southwest corner of White Cliff. He stated there is an existing split rail fence, and 5 suggested it might be necessary to have a guardrail near this curve. He stated his concern is putting a sidewalk in a road with such a big grade difference next to it. He stated people do not realize the drop is there and he thinks a small guardrail and a fence to keep people from falling over the drop would be in order. C. Schorch stated that his other concern is the detention area. He stated that in the other meeting it was said there would be a wall at the north end of the detention area. If there is a significant drop there, he does not think it would be proper to put any kind of safety in the hands of a split-rail fence that is owned by the Home Owner's Association. He stated that any new enhancements to the property should come with safety controls.He also stated he was concerned if the new roadway would cause premature failing of the existing retaining wall. T. Abrams stated that the existing wall is 7 feet tall. He stated that there would be a 10-foot strip of green space between where sidewalk would be and the existing retaining wall, and the road is an additional foot above. There is about an 8-foot grade difference. He stated that right now no barrier was proposed but that is something they are willing to do if required. As far as impact of retaining wall, he stated that would be something they would look at in final engineering. Chairman Glass asked staff if they would take a close look at the wall. R. Raphael stated that they would look at it during review, but he did not anticipate any changes needed, as pressure from vehicles, which are considered moving loads, is pretty negligible. Chairman Glass asked staff if they could take a look at a possibility of a barrier at the curve. R. Raphael stated that he would look at the curve for safety considerations. Commissioner Ayers inquired about the previous Meeting Minutes and asked if had misread that there would be a solid barrier between the town homes and the existing subdivision. He thought there was going to be a continuous combination of owner's existing fences and the new developer's fences. Commissioner Weiner stated that she did not think he had misread the information, per conversations in the last meeting it was established that fencing would be continuous. One conversation was had about garbage that could collect there. Commissioner Ayers stated that existing homes would want the fencing to be included. Chairman Glass stated that the developers had already agreed to it so if there was a motion to approve the petition, fencing should be stipulated as a requirement. M. Jablonski stated that this would be a condition subject to cooperation of the neighboring property owners. J. Szostak,resident at 1064 W Glenn Trail,stated he remembered from the 2002 development plan that developers planned to make the lot on Home Avenue part of detention. He stated the Walmart detention, has overflowed a half-dozen times over the years. It was designed to run through the marsh area and it looks like it would run right over back of the development. J. Szostak stated that he wonders where the water will go if it fails. 6 J. Glascott stated that Walmart retention is designed to go to south, and there is also low spot in northeast corner. Overflow from Walmart goes down through Rucks Street right-of-way and through the empty lot on W Glenn Trail. The Petitioner is picking up the low spot to the northeast corner and routing it into the detention pond. The overflow goes into the existing storm sewer at the northeast corner through underground pipes. J. Szostak inquired about the width of the single-family homes compared to the sample rendering of a single family home shown at the hearing. J. Glascott stated that drawing is wider than what would be build, and is just an example of aesthetics. He stated they have not actually designed the house yet. J. Szostak asked what the difference was between the widths of the drawing versus the one they plan to build. T. Abrams stated that the there was a 65-foot width in drawing, in the design it would be more like 55-foot width depending on garages along Home Avenue. J. Szostak asked the petitioner why the proposed home area shown on the lot on W Glenn Trail was not centered and not very wide. J. Glascott stated the lot was 40 feet wide. He stated that the home was not centered because there is an overflow through that lot. They also need 20-foot easement on property line where water mains run through and they cannot build on that. J. Szostak stated the 40-foot width home would not fit into the neighborhood. He also stated he had planted a tree on his property on south side of house and they might have to take tree down to build there. T. Abrams stated he would have to look at that. J. Szostak asked if the single-family home would have a driveway and be a two-story home. J. Glascott stated yes. J. Szostak inquired about whether there was a septic tank in the backyard from the old lot on Home Avenue. J. Glascott stated there were no contamination issues, should they find a tank they would have to abandon the tank, utilizing a certified septic contractor remove it. R. Hultgren asked if the drainage would be underground. J. Glascott stated there is a series of inlets and storm sewer pipes to route to the pond. When Walmart overtops,the water will now go to the slightly lower area, get picked up in storm sewers underground and routed away. H. Pletz, resident at 1058 Conrad Court, stated his concern is the water. He stated his sump pump runs all the time, even when it's not raining. The house they want to build is on a lot that takes some of that drainage now. He asked petitioner where the water would drain. Chairman Glass stated that the water for these homes would drain into their yards, sump pump drains into open space around their home. H. Pletz stated that this town was built on a swamp so his concern was the water. Chairman Glass stated that the Village was not built on a swamp. H. Pletz stated that there are all ranches in the neighborhood now and only just a few with second stories. 7 Chairman Glass stated that the Plan Commission is not discussing the Petitoner building a house on that lot. They are proposing buying a house from the Village, but it is not here for approval from the Plan Commission. H. Pletz asked if the land on Home Avenue was still Cook County. Chairman Glass stated yes and that it is subject for annexation. H. Pletz stated traffic in area was another issue in the 2002 plan. He asked if there would a Left turn lane on Meacham. He asked where visitors would park when visiting people in the new development. Chairman Glass stated yes, there would be a left turn lane on Meacham and that visitors would park on the street or in the driveways and two-car garages. H. Pletz stated his biggest concern is water. Chairman Glass stated that the Petitioner will meet code. T. Abrams stated all runoff from streets from homes and multi-family units is being picked up in storm sewers and routed to detention pond. Currently storm water is going all over the place, and once it is engineered there should be a positive impact on the neighborhood. J. Szostak inquired about the two homes on Home Avenue. He asked if there would be enough room for garbage trucks, snow plows and fire trucks to make turns. M. Jablonski stated that the driveway was specifically laid out to allow larger vehicles to back up and pull out. J. Szostack asked how deep the water pipes in the development were. R. Raphael explained the water main is typically 5 feet deep and goes under the roadways. K. Meier, resident at 764 Easton Lane, inquired about the distance in square footage from back of new buildings to the neighbor's property line. T. Abrams stated there were 40 feet between the property line of the residents and the new buildings. K. Meier asked if there would be a guardrail in the new proposed cul-de-sac. She asked if the space was an open field. T. Abrams stated they do have a fence run along the north side of the detention pond. K. Meier asked if there would be foliage, and if so if it would be mature foliage. T.Abrams stated evergreen trees would be planted, which tend to be larger trees. K. Meier asked if for some reason drainage systems fail, who would be responsible for basements flooding. T. Abrams stated that Illinois Drainage Law states that water is allowed to continue on its current path and that they have right to maintain drainage pattern, as long as they do not cause erosion, 8 meaning the development cannot increase release rates to downstream areas. He stated that the development is significantly reducing existing release rates. K. Meier asked petitioner if they have to dig, are the developers going to make sure retaining wall will be stabilized while they put in a road. K. Meier asked what would happen if houses settle or crack. T. Abrams stated that the design will ensure the retaining wall doesn't fail. He stated that existing homes are far enough away that it won't create any issues from the construction. K. Meier stated that they don't know that. Chairman Glass stated the developer is not doing anything extreme and it shouldn't affect homes. K. Meier asked if the street would start up low and go up to the proposed cul-de-sac. J. Glascott stated there would be a 15-foot grade change downhill from Meacham to the cul-de-sac. K. Meier asked if there would be a metal barrier for cul-de-sac. Chairman Glass stated that distance between homes and the end of cul-de-sac was far enough away where there was no reason for barrier. K. Meier asked how far the distance was from the cul-de-sac to the property lines. T. Abrams stated there was a 95-foot distance. J. Glascott stated there was also a pond there with a berm and a retaining wall. S. Shah, resident at 768 Easton Lane, stated he lives directly behind detention pond and has concerns about water coming into his back yard. He has two young kids that play in that area,right now it's safe but he doesn't want water getting into the house and wants safety as well. He asked if there was a walkway by the detention area. Chairman Glass stated there would not be a walkway. S. Shah inquired about the aesthetics of detention area. T. Abrams stated native plantings and Evergreen trees would be installed around the detention pond and there would be a fence between the pond and homes. S. Shah inquired if the Evergreens would block their view. Chairman Glass stated the fence will block their view. T. Abrams stated a 15-foot tall Evergreens would be installed along with a 6-foot fence. S. Shah inquired about the length of construction and asked if construction would be loud. T. Abrams stated the goal was to get the development done in less than a year, and they have to abide by Village code on construction hours. R. Raphael stated construction hours are lam to 7pm. K. Meier inquired about the fence along water detention pond behind the homes and whether it would be built on the high ground towering above them. T. Abrams stated the fence is on the low side of the backyard. 9 K. Meier asked if the fence has to be installed. Chairman Glass stated the Petitioner will work with existing property owners to see if the fence will fit in. K. Szorszh stated it was very helpful to see the drawing on the website and asked if more would be posted as the project progressed. Chairman Glass stated that this is what is currently being presented, and they will have to conform to these plans. He stated that there wouldn't be anything else posted on the website for this project. RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Geinosky moved to recommend approval of the following changes to the plan as originally approved by the Plan Commission: • Change in requested zoning for the property on Home Avenue from A-2 to R-3. • Removal of proposed bicycle/pedestrian path connecting Dakota Drive to West Glenn Trail. • Change in style of two(2)multi-family buildings closest to Meacham Avenue from rowhome style to a townhome style. with the following requirements: • Village staff will review and determine whether there is a need for solid barrier along curve on Dakota Drive and ensure there is no negative impact on the existing retaining wall. • The Petitioner will construct a solid fence connecting to existing fences along the north side of the project,subject to the cooperation of neighboring property owners. Commissioner Weiner seconded the motion. Upon voting (Ayers, Carlson, Geinosky, Glass, Rettberg, Schumm, Weiner AYES)the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Glass recessed the meeting at 8:28 p.m. Chairman Glass reconvened the meeting at 8:34 p.m. Item 3: PC Docket #18-1 Text Amend Elk Grove Zoning Ordinance section 7E-6:A. Uses prohibited in I-1 Industrial Districts by deleting "Industry No. 2085 Distilled and blended liquor" from the list of prohibited uses. Chairman Glass read the legal notice into the record and asked the Petitioner to explain their purpose before the Plan Commission. M.Jablonski explained that at the time of its adoption,the zoning code distilleries were considered to be high-impact uses. With modern practices and a prevalence of smaller operators, the operations of distilleries and breweries aren't considered high impact. The Village is proposing 10 the change because staff no longer feels there is a conflict between this use and other uses in the I-1 zoning district. Commissioner Rettberg asked the Village if the zoning code intended to prevent distilleries. M. Jablonski stated that zoning code has a list of high-impact users from the 1970's, when breweries and distilleries were all huge operations.Now operations can be much smaller and there is not much impact on neighbors. Commissioner Rettberg asked if there was an interested user. M. Jablonski stated yes, the Village was approached by a distillery looking to locate in the industrial park. Commissioner Ayers inquired about whether this change would only permit smaller craft distillers and if there would be any size restrictions. M.Jablonski stated there is no size restriction. M.Jablonski stated existing properties and facilities in the business park would limit the size of operations. RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Ayers moved to approve ordinance to text amendment to amend 7E-6:A in I-1 Industrial Districts and allow distilled or blended liquor. Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. Upon voting (Ayers, Carlson, Geinosky, Glass, Rettberg, Schumm, Weiner AYES)the motion carried unanimously. Item 4: Request for a Special Location Parking Plan for the facility at 1520 Pratt Boulevard to allow parking at 1505 Pratt Boulevard—Blue Water Builders. Chairman Glass asked the Petitioner to state their purpose before the Plan Commission. R. Kieferbaum stated that he was one of the owners of 1520 Pratt Boulevard, which they had recently purchased. He stated that they discovered a potential issue on the west side of the building the drive to access parking is owned by the neighbor to west. R. Kieferbaum stated they tried to get an easement agreement to gain legal access to the drive, but the neighbors were not willing to do that. R. Kieferbaum stated the neighbors did not want to limit their future use of the property. He explained that this puts their property at great risk if the neighbors decided to do something different, which could cut off access to parking. Chairman Glass asked the Petitioner if they had an agreement now. R. Kieferbaum stated they did not. He explained that there was an 18-foot parking stall width, ten feet of drive and another 60 feet to the west owned by the neighbor. 11 He stated that the lot directly across the street is undevelopable due to site condition and requirements of truck operations. Since it is directly across the street, this lot is an ideal site for a parking lot. R. Kieferbaum stated that in addition to ensuring their future parking, it would also provide for truck parking, which there is currently no capacity for at 1520 Pratt. Chairman Glass asked the Petitioner if they were requesting permission to build parking spaces on lot across the street for facility; and if parking spaces would include trucks and cars. R. Kieferbaum stated that this was correct. He stated that the trucks would not be flatbeds, not semis, with the largest truck being a a 36 feet flatbed, and one antique fretruck, which is 42 feet. Chairman Glass inquired if there would be construction equipment parked in the lot. R. Kieferbaum stated that the largest piece of equipment is carried on an 18 foot trailer that weighs 12,000 pounds. He stated they don't own anything over scale, no large excavators, dozers, or things of that nature. Chairman Glass asked what kind of construction is done by the company. R. Kieferbaum stated they do industrial and office markets. He stated they do a lot of work in the business park since they moved here 5 years ago. He stated this is a great location for us due to where they are in the general area. Commissioner Rettberg asked if they are purchasing the lot they want to use as parking. R. Kieferbaum they are under contract to purchase with the condition that this parking plan is approved. Commissioner Rettberg asked if 1505 Pratt is currently vacant. R. Kieferbaum stated that right now there are just shrubs and trees. Commissioner Rettberg inquired if there is room for a building. R. Kieferbaum stated that previous owners looked into building there, but due to slope, soil conditions and requirements for front-loading trucks, it was unfeasible to put up a building. Chairman Glass inquired about lighting in the proposed parking lot. R. Kieferbaum stated initially not considered, only used during business hours. If staff or someone requests it, they would. Chairman Glass inquired about fencing the parking lot. R. Kieferbaum stated they did not plan to fence the lot. He stated that trucks and trailers would be parked there, and he understands there is risk of theft,but that's how they currently do it at their old building. Chairman Glass asked if there was a water detention issue. R. Raphael stated petitioner would have to provide it as part of the development and comply with MWRD requirements. 12 J. Polony noted there will be lighting required, which will be addressed permitting phase. RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Carlson moved to recommend approval of special location parking plan at 1520 Pratt Boulevard to allow parking at 1505 Pratt Boulevard. Commissioner Rettberg seconded the motion. Upon voting (Ayers, Carlson, Geinosky, Glass, Rettberg, Schumm, Weiner AYES)the motion carried unanimously. Item 5: Adjournment Commissioner Weiner motioned to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. Upon voting (Ayers, Carlson, Geinosky, Glass, Rettberg, Schumm, Weiner AYES) the motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Maggie Jablonski Assistant Village Manager C: Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk 13