Town of St. John

St. John Indiana - Founded 1837
Return to Menu

July 20, 2016 Plan Commission Minutes

Michael Forbes, PresidentStephen Kil, Town Manager
Gregory Volk, Vice-PresidentKenn Kraus, Town Engineer
Steve Kozel, SecretaryDavid Austgen, Town Attorney
Jim MaciejewskiMichael Muenich, Town Attorney
Jon Gill 
Jason Williams 
Bob Birlson 

CALL TO ORDER:
Mr. Michael Forbes called to order the St. John Plan Commission Study Session on July 20, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken by Susan Wright, Recording Secretary, with the following Commissioners present: Michael Forbes, Steve Kozel, Jim Maciejewski, Jon Gill, Bob Birlson and Jason Williams. Staff present: Kenn Kraus, Stephen Kil, Michael Muenich.

NEW / OLD BUSINESS:

A. RENAISSANCE – Unit 8 – Primary Plat Review and Permission to Advertise Public Hearing (Mr. Doug Rettig)

Mr. Forbes advised the first item on the agenda is Renaissance – Unit 8, we held the Primary Plat Public Hearing on this and the matter was deferred with no action, and we are bringing it back for discussion. It is a three-lot subdivision, and is the final addition to the Renaissance subdivision on the North side of Joliet Street. Unit 8 is lot 498, 499 and 500.

Mr. Volk stated that the concern at the last meeting was how Parrish Avenue will tie into an intersection. Mr. Volk asked Mr. Kil to confirm that was in the original agreement for Renaissance in 2005. Mr. Kil advised that even before Parrish Avenue was relocated as part of The Gates of St. John project; Clarmonte Drive and Parrish Avenue were “off-set”, they did not line up. The entire point was to get rid of the “off-setting” intersections that were causing problems, and take them and bring to a logical location and create perhaps in the future a four-way intersection. Mr. Kil further stated that whether the streets align or not, both are connected to Joliet Street. Mr. Kil advised that this makes more sense in order to have a four-way intersection.

Mr. Kozel commented that it would mean a lot less hazard. Mr. Kil advised that it was planned probably for twelve years now.

Mr. Williams stated his memory was a little rusty on some of the concerns brought by the person speaking at the public hearing, somebody saying it would be used as a through street. Mr. Forbes advised that Clarmonte is actually a thoroughfare through the Clarmonte Ridge subdivision, its wider and was designed as such; the mainstay is to align Parrish Avenue.

No matter where you put this street; Clarmonte Ridge is still going to be the thoroughfare, it is just now you would have to take a little jog to get there. Mr. Williams asked if that was from 97th and then to Parrish? Mr. Kil advised Mr. Williams that it is a straight shot now, and with Unit 8 it would make those having to go to 97th and then to Clarmonte, so that you are losing three hundred feet of momentum, slowing traffic from Joliet and 97th.

Mr. Williams stated he was trying to resolve a comment at the public hearing concerning that traffic would be forced through the subdivision; and make sure we have a good resolve for that. Mr. Forbes reiterated that the traffic is there now and is supposed to be there.

Mr. Gill and Mr. Kozel commented that the change would allow people to go in different directions, thereby alleviating some of the traffic from Clarmonte Drive.

Discussion ensued as to the original location of Parrish Avenue, the curve in the road and the connection that was off-set of Clarmonte Drive. The new plan helps not only with alignment, but also the “line-of-sight” aspects to make that location safer.

Mr. Forbes advised Mr. Maciejewski that he has not had the chance to discuss a stop sign with the Chief of Police yet for that location, so that information is still pending.

Mr. Forbes asked for any comments or thoughts from the board. Hearing none, this item will be placed on the agenda for the August 3, 2016 meeting.

B. GATES OF ST. JOHN – Unit 10 J – Rezoning Request and Confirmation of Public Hearing (Mr. John Lotton)

Mr. Forbes advised next item is Gates of St. John – Unit 10 J; we have approved the request for their public hearing of the rezoning from R-2 to R-3. Mr. Forbes advised the public hearing is scheduled for August 3, 2016.

Mr. Kil advised the information he was sent on this topic was sent out electronically to all the board members.

Mr. Forbes commented that where it is zoned R-2 that is where you built this past year’s Parade of Homes. Mr. Lotton confirmed that was the location.

Mr. Lotton advised the property to the South is zoned for two- threes and fours, and to the West is R-3, all duplexes. Mr. Forbes asked if then when you go farther South you have the Day Care Center and the commercial district. Mr. Lotton advised that is correct.

Mr. Williams asked Mr. Lotton if the duplexes being proposed are of the same decoration as they have seen in the area. Mr. Lotton advised that it is the same units that are going up currently in Unit 10 I; which is all brick and stone units.

C. 9001 WEST 96th PLACE – One Lot Subdivision / Site Plan Review / Continuation of Public hearing (Steve and Julie Salmen)

Mr. Forbes advised the next agenda item is 9001 West 96th Place, this is a re-subdivision and site plan review, making two-lots into a one-lot subdivision. This will be a public hearing on August 3, 2016.

Mr. Gill and Mr. Kozel noted the location of the property in the Renaissance subdivision for the other board members. Mr. Gill reminded them this was for a shed to place on the property, where a community garden has been implemented. Since there is no primary building on the second lot, you cannot place an accessory structure, so they are making the two lots into one for the purpose of the shed.

With no further questions from the board, the next agenda item was brought up.

D. McNAMARA ESTATES (10806 Ontario Avenue) – Two Lot Subdivision – Confirmation of Public Hearing (Ms. Pamala NcNamara)

Mr. Forbes advised that McNamara Estates at 10806 Ontario Avenue, review request of re-subdivision of a single lot into a two-lot subdivision. Mr. Kil advised this is behind Dick’s Restaurant and there is a lot of property back there.

Mr. Forbes remembers that the one will face Ontario Avenue, while the other lot will face 108th.

Mr. Williams asked if there was a decision on some of the outlot buildings near the proposed property line; does that violate any town ordinances. Mr. Kil advised that he was going to move the lot line so that all his shed and accessory structures were on the proper lot, confirming that there is no conflict.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if there was an exhibit to show. Mr. Kil advised that he does not have that yet from the engineer; but obviously, that will be available before the August meeting. Mr. Kil advised he would try to get a plan ahead of time to send to Mr. Maciejewski.

Mr. Forbes noted that he did have the initial drawings; but it was left as that he would finalize where the line was going to be placed. Mr. Kil advised there will have to be a drawn plat as the next meeting is their public hearing and primary plat approval.

No further questions or comments from the board members.

E. ROSE GARDEN – One Lot Subdivision / Confirmation of Public Hearing (Mr. Doug Rettig)

Mr. Forbes advised next item is Rose Garden, re-subdivision of two-lots to a single lot.

Mr. Doug Rettig of Land Technologies introduced himself to the commission. Mr. Rettig advised that they presented this a couple of weeks ago, and we started our public hearing. The public hearing is being continued at the next meeting on August 3, 2016.

Mr. Rettig reminded that they are combining Lot 6 and Lot 7 in Rose Garden into one lot. Mr. Rettig included an additional page, which is a preliminary site plan as to where the house will sit on the property. Mr. Rettig advised it is a large house, and Rose Garden subdivision is platted with a 30’ building line, and the developer and homeowner are hoping you would consider changing this building line to 25’ (directing their attention to handout materials).

Mr. Rettig advised that they are hoping to save some trees in the back yard; noting that in the handouts there is an aerial showing the trees, so they are asking if it is not too late to change that one line to 25’, and the only thing that is going to matter in this instance is that little corner of the garage. Mr. Rettig reminded the board that the zoning ordinance states the R-2 building line is a floating building line; and noted the section regarding wildlife areas or trees whereas it can be no larger than 40’ and no less than 25’. Mr. Rettig therefore is also asking for the one building line of 25’ to be considered, on behalf of the developer and homeowner. Mr. Rettig advised that the final drawings will be modified in accordance to the recommendations that he receives from the Plan Commission.

Mr. Forbes advised that we have done this quite often; such as the Lake Hills Development, as it adds character to the subdivision so each house is not lined up right against the next one. Mr. Volk noted that the point of the garage sticks out far from the remainder of the house. Mr. Rettig advised that since it was not what he presented a few weeks ago that he wanted the feedback from the planners before the next regular meeting.

Mr. Volk asked about any wetland issues in the back of the lots. Mr. Rettig advised the wetland area that was on the property was mitigated, and there is a conservation easement is still behind there; however, they will not be impacted.

General discussion ensued regarding this development and the topography. Mr. Rettig advised he will have the new plat of the subdivision ready for the August 3, 2016 meeting, if the consensus of the planners is okay with the waiving to the 25’ building line.

Mr. Williams asked if that would be a separate approval step, one being for the re-subdivision and the second being for the 25’ building line. Mr. Kil advised that it would be covered under the re-subdivision of the property, and will be done all on one Primary Plat.

Mr. Williams asked if this was the one that was advertised for the last meeting and continued. Mr. Rettig advised that it was.

With no objection mentioned by the board members, Mr. Rettig advised that he would make the plat change and be at the August 3, 2016 meeting.

F. BILL DISANTO (Estates of Wellington Lots 6 & 7) – One Lot Subdivision / Confirmation of Public Hearing (Mr. Doug Rettig)

Mr. Forbes advised the next agenda item is Bill DiSanto, re-subdivision request of two-lots into one lot in the Estates of Wellington; this will be Lot 6 and Lot 7.

Mr. Doug Rettig of Land Technologies advised that this is a very similar situation in Wellington. The gentleman that he spoke to a couple of days ago is purchasing both Lot 6 and Lot 7; and wanting to re-subdivide into one large lot. This is exactly as with the Rose Garden request, and he will be coming back on August 3, 2016 to request permission to advertise for public hearing.

Mr. Rettig advised that the only real issue with this subdivision is that there are platted utility easements between the two lots. Some installations were different as the transformers are installed in the front, and there are no rear easements for transformers, so they come along the street and they push them back along near the building line.

Mr. Rettig advised they need to check with Nipsco to make sure they can pull that transformer forward about 30’-40’; whatever it takes. This would probably be by moving the easement, as has been done before on an earlier development, and bring it to the building line.

Mr. Rettig and the board members discussed that this project just became known a few days ago, so it is very much preliminary.

There were no further comments or questions from the board members.

G. GREYSTONE – Unit 1/Block 1 – Final Plat Review (CWS Holdings)

Mr. Forbes advised the next item is Greystone Subdivision.

Mr. Jack Slager of Schilling Development, introduced himself to the board members, advised he is representing CWS Holdings who is the developer of Greystone. Mr. Slager advised that they received their Primary Approval earlier this year, and will be coming back at the August 3, 2016 requesting Final Plat approval for what they are calling Unit One – Block One.

Mr. Slager advised that this is a small section of Unit One that was approved earlier this year. Basically this is the final plat that will consist of a small section of Calumet Avenue, Greystone Drive, which goes through Calumet Avenue; all the way through to the Saddle Creek Subdivision.

Mr. Slager advised that the large triangular Outlot “C”, which is a retention pond; then you have eight (8) lots that are on Red Rock Place, which are duplex lots. Further, there are four (4) lots on White Sand Lane, which are cottage home lots. This will be the extent of the first phase, which will consist a total of twenty-five (25) units.

Mr. Slager advised that the one issue that came up is when having conversations with Mr. Kil, is when Saddle Creek was platted, it left a little stub street, which was nice because they were able to tie into that; it is only 150’ in length; however when they platted that street it was named Dakota.

There are no homes that face Dakota and there are no addresses assigned to Dakota, so we would like to change the name of the 150’ of Dakota to Greystone Drive. Mr. Slager advised that actually they do not have any addresses fronting on Greystone Drive either, however, we will once Greystone Drive continues across from Calumet Avenue. It was recommended that a certificate of amendment; which we have prepared and that will actually go to the Town Council for action.

Mr. Slager advised that improvements are being installed currently. They are dedicating 45’ for our half of Calumet Avenue; there will be another 45’ on the West side of Calumet Avenue in the future of the development.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if Outlot “C” is in this phase, they are discussing. Mr. Slager advised that it is; and it is a detention pond for more than just these twenty-five (25) units, as it will accommodate this entire section as they are developed.

Mr. Kraus inquired if all the infrastructure would be installed or are they going to need a Letter of Credit. Mr. Slager advised that by August they should have all the improvements completed; they are putting in the curbs next week, and the asphalt will follow after that.

At this time, there were no further questions or comments from the board members.

H. LAKE CENTRAL SCHOOL CORPORATION – New Salt Storage and Maintenance Facility (Mr. Bill Ledyard)

Mr. Forbes advised the next agenda item is for Lake Central School Corporation for a new Salt Storage and Maintenance Facility.

Mr. Bill Ledyard, Director of Construction for Lake Central School Corporation introduced himself and Mr. Liming Zhang, Engineer, Schmidt Associates to the board members advising that they have a very old maintenance building off of the Southwest corner (directing their attention to meeting room screen).

Mr. Ledyard advised that they wanted to build a 20’ x 20’ Salt Barn on the West of that building, for the salt storage in preparation of winter. Then, on the South side of the existing maintenance building; we would like to build about a 4,760 square foot New Maintenance Building. Once the new facility is completed, then they will tear down the old building. Mr. Ledyard advised they have a very tight radius point for their bus drivers, so that will help out there, and it’s not the most sightly area here as well. With the new facility, it will allow all of the vehicles to be inside, so there will be a lot less outside storage of the vehicles.

Mr. Ledyard advised that they will be seeking three (3) waivers for this project. They do not have eight (8) exterior corners, these are just secondary support buildings, so they do not have that feature. They would also like metal siding to help defer some costs on both the buildings, and because of that they will not be having three exterior building materials as well.

Mr. Zhang the Project Engineer noted different points of interest on the meeting room screen in general discussion (away from microphone).

Talking to Mr. Kraus about additional stone at the outlet of the detention basin.

Mr. Kozel asked if any of that would flow to the wetlands behind this location. It is far enough away that it will flow to a Southeast direction, far away from the site.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if the pitch point was going to be landscaped. Mr. Ledyard directed their attention to the large amount of pavement. General discussion ensued as to the amount of square footage they will be gaining by the new facility. Mr. Ledyard advised that the notations that he is looking at are foot-prints of the project and not landscaping.

Mr. Forbes advised that he has a letter from the Town Attorney in which he states that this parcel is actually a “meet and bounds property”, so you are going to have to subdivide it. Mr. Ledyard advised that Mr. Kil had e-mailed that information to them this afternoon that we “might” have to do that. Mr. Forbes clarified that “you will have to do that”, if you want to build on it. Mr. Forbes stated that it has to be platted.

Mr. Ledyard stated that they did that with the high school property, and the reason they hesitated on this property, even at the last time we were here, on some of the drawings it still showed the potential for along that track, that property being useful for something else. So, if I understand what you are saying, we would have to combine it into.

Mr. Kil corrected Mr. Ledyard in that for the transportation building you can draw your lines where you need to, and you can make two or three lots; just need to subdivide so all your buildings are on a single lot. Then the other buildings could be on one big lot also. He also advised that the one parcel of property should be subdivided so that if they ever want to sell the lot, it would be a subdivided lot of Lake Central Addition.

Mr. Ledyard advised if there were any problems or concerns with the other matters that they were requesting, as we have never seen a brick and stone salt barn. Mr. Kil discussed that it would be a miniature version of the municipal salt facility.

Mr. Ledyard pointing out that they are looking to improve the appearance of the south side of the facility; and the west side also, with some landscaping and screening.

Mr. Kil advised he would work with them to get to the correct board for the items they are requesting; reminding that they are in the U.S. 41 Overlay.

Mr. Forbes inquired how much property does the School Corporation own in that area. Mr. Ledyard showed them the area on the meeting room screen, pointing further to a small portion that is owned by a private party.

General discussion ensued as to the various parcels owned by Lake Central School Corporation. Five (5) acres at the very South is owned by the Town of St. John, and another parcel approximately 1.5 acres is owned privately. It was also pointed out on the northern side toward the railroad tracks is where the wetlands that they were referencing earlier are located.

Mr. Maciejewski inquired about the elevation from U.S. 41 to the building grade. Mr. Ledyard and Mr. Zhang directed his attention to a very large swale.

Mr. Williams asked about the very large fence around the buildings now, and most of the buildings cannot be seen from U.S. 41. Mr. Ledyard advised it is a 6’ chain-link fence with beige slats, and that everything is pretty much hidden back there.

Mr. Forbes asked for any further questions from the board members. Mr. Kil advised they will be back for another Study Session. Mr. Ledyard advised some of their concerns regarding the waivers or variances that they will need to receive, if they do not get a positive response then they would not proceed with all the engineering work. Mr. Forbes advised that he does not see an issue with the waivers.

Mr. Kil advised that he would be talking to Mr. Ledyard about a timeline.

I. BOYER COMMERCIAL CENTER (formerly Standard Lumber) – Review of Zone Change and Confirmation of Public Hearing (Mr. Bruce Boyer)

Mr. Forbes advised the next agenda item is the Boyer Commercial Center. Mr. Forbes advised that we have a Public Hearing on August 3, 2016, and noted that Mr. Boyer was here for the earlier presentation.

Mr. Forbes advised that this was just an agenda item and asked the board members for thoughts or concerns.

Mr. Volk stated that it has been discussed, and he thought they were all in agreement on it. Mr. Williams asked if there was any further thought of having the frontage road go further north, or are we leaving any accessibility for that.

Mr. Forbes stated that yes, there is consideration for an extension that will connect to Joliet Street and asked it that was what Mr. Williams was asking about.

Mr. Birlson and Mr. Williams advised they were asking about Earl Drive as it “tees into” the development.

Mr. Kil placed a diagram on the meeting room screen to show the traffic flow through the proposed development. Mr. Forbes reminded Mr. Williams that where he wants the frontage road to extend that there is a proposed building.

Mr. Kil directed their attention to the aerial view to the North, where St. John Pool Center is located is where it would end, and they are not interested. Mr. Forbes advised that there is potential with the 1.68 acres for traffic to go around that side of the buildings. Mr. Williams asked if that dedicated area would link up to Joliet Street. Mr. Maciejewski asked if there was dedicated easement to the East for all the commercial existing to connect.

General discussion ensued on the traffic flow of the development. Mr. Kil reminded the board members that this would not be before the Plan Commission for months yet. During the subdivision process is where the they would plat all the easements and everything; however, it’s nice to bring it up so you are aware of the process going on. Mr. Kil pointed out the existing properties and named their owners, and advised that Mr. Boyer did approach the Pool Center; however, they wanted to sell the business and not just the property.

Mr. Kil pointed out the location of Al’s Body Shop, that just South of there is the new Eenigenburg Water and the Earl Drive frontage road is actually stubbed right where that road would connect into, and that would take you all the way down to Alsip Nursery.

Mr. Volk asked Mr. Kil if he has made contact with McDonald’s to pave their portion of the access road. Mr. Kil advised that he has yet to hear from the corporate office as yet.

Mr. Maciejewski asked if the West side of U.S. 41 has been studied at 96th in order to study the impact on that frontage road and how that will tie in there. Mr. Kil advised that he does not have any information for the members right now, which will be part of the subdivision process. This right now just gives you an idea of what the intersection would look like. This is not the geometry, and this is not the approved plans, this is just a concept plan right now.

Mr. Kil advised he does not know what the traffic engineer is going to propose, and asked Mr. Kraus if he has a feel for that. Mr. Kraus advised that he has not had any discussion about that with Mr. Denny Cobb (First Group Engineering) about designing that intersection.

Mr. Kil felt that Mr. Cobb may eliminate that problem by having a raised center median at 96th. That would mean that if you are coming across the road from East to West, you can either keep going straight down 96th, or turn up there. But if you coming out of that road, that is going to force your movement to the West to get you out of the intersection. Again, he stated he is waiting for what the traffic engineer proposes on that.

Mr. Forbes asked for any more questions or comments from the board members.

J. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / THOROUGHFARE PLAN – Review in General (Ms. Christine Carlyle)

Mr. Forbes advised the next item on the agenda is the Comprehensive – Thoroughfare Master Plan. Mr. Forbes advised that he reached out to the President of the Economic Development Commission, and through our discussion, there is interest in a Joint Study Session of the Plan Commission and the Economic Development Commission.

Mr. Forbes asked the members if they would be okay with deferring our discussion tonight and having a group discussion with the EDC and possibly getting the consultant here to go over where the plan came from, what their thoughts were as they were going through the process.

When asked, Mr. Forbes advised that this would be a separate meeting with just that one topic. Mr. Kil advised that he would reach out to Mr. Nick Georgiou who is the chairman of the EDC and ask him to poll the members for some dates and try to coordinate with the planners as well.

The board members agreed to defer the topic from the agenda tonight.

K. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – Chapter 15 Sign Regulations

Mr. Forbes advised we can move on to the next item which is the Zoning Ordinance No. 1483, Chapter 15 – Sign Regulations, repeal of political signs. Mr. Forbes advised that we had quite a bit of confusion on the zoning ordinance, and he believes that we all have fresh copies distributed to the members.

Mr. Williams asked if this was a request for a complete repeal of “G.2”. Mr. Forbes advised that is his understanding. Mr. Maciejewski said he thought the discussion was of the restriction here; if every one of these are covered, in another fashion elsewhere in the ordinance. Mr. Forbes stated that the intent of this in several sections is to keep the Town orderly. One of the things that was in the ordinance is that you have to have permission of the homeowner. It also gives some options for removal, and it is not about restricting political discussion or freedom of speech, it is solely to keep the Town clean and orderly.

Mr. Forbes continued that because they are called political signs, it was deemed unconstitutional, and that is the only reason.

Mr. Volk stated he feels that is covered by another section of the ordinance, however, we would have to go through each section and make sure it is included elsewhere.

Mr. Forbes stated that he would like it to be made absolutely clear; is that the permission of the homeowner is required.

There are so many people that wake up one morning and find a political sign tucked behind their evergreen bush, and they won’t move it because they are afraid to move it. Mr. Forbes said that he had first-hand experience with that and the complaints that come from it.

Mr. Forbes stated that the homeowners need to be aware that they have the power and that authority is very important.

Mr. Forbes advised that now that they all have the new manual they can go through it within the next two weeks before their next meeting. Mr. Kil advised that he reads the sign ordinance daily, and there is not a sign that comes in that is not covered by a section of this.

Mr. Williams asked if there was a way to phrase the sign ordinance to remove the “unconstitutionality”, if there is such a word, in order to re-phrase to personal message or some such thing. Mr. Kil indicated that to draft that kind of language, his understanding, would take quite some time to make sure it is done correctly. Mr. Kil stated that the thought process was to eliminate section “G”, the political sign part, the rest of the ordinance covers all the other signs, and that will give us time to actually think about it, and determine what may make sense.

Mr. Williams stated that there are sections of “G.2” that make a lot of sense, and I am not necessarily aligned to having to completely repeal. Mr. Kil suggested that Mr. Williams read the entire Chapter 15 in order to find where it is covered elsewhere.

Mr. Birlson stated that his recommendation, when it comes to vote on this, is to defer this to the Town Council. Mr. Forbes, Mr. Volk and Mr. Kil stated that this board is charged with making a recommendation to the Town Council; advising you have the option to “favorable, “unfavorable” or “no recommendation”. Mr. Kil advised that those are your only options. Mr. Birlson stated that he wants to send a “no recommendation” then. Mr. Birlson felt that this is a policy decision and should be the responsibility of the Town Council. Mr. Forbes advised that he disagrees as the entire Zoning Ordinance is our responsibility and jurisdiction to take care of it,, that that is why it is here before the Plan Commission, because it is required.

General discussion ensued as to taking a “no recommendation”, and what ramifications could result. Mr. Volk suggested that since Mr. Austgen wrote the ordinance, have him review his notes and ask him relay the information to the planners.

L. NOVO SELO – Resubdivision for 10 Lots (Mr. Mirko Klagic)

Mr. Kil advised that Mr. Mirko Klagic requested to be added to the agenda regarding Novo Selo, that was sent to the board a while back. This is at the end of Schafer Drive in St. John. Mr. Kil advised that Mr. Klagic developed this section years ago.

Mr. Kil showed a lot which backs up to approximately five acres, which the petitioner reserved for himself to build his own home. Now, he has a proposal. He wants to run a road basically down the middle and plat lots on either side. The problem is with developing lots on both sides they will not be of sufficient size.

Mr. Klagic handed out materials to the board members. Mr. Forbes suggested that we accept the drawings, and bring it up at the next Study Session for further discussion, which will allow the members to check the area in question.

Mr. Klagic advised he is requesting ten (10) lots. Mr. Kil noted that there is the issue of R-1 zoning, and the depth of the lots would only be 131’. The road would have to be a cul-de-sac or just stub the road at the end. Mr. Kil noted that Outlot “A” is the existing detention for this area.

Mr. Williams suggested putting the road on one side so that proper R-1 lots could be developed. Mr. Klagic stated that it would not be cost effective, and is just looking for direction.

General consensus was to look at the area and bring it up for discussion at the next study session.

(With no further business before the board, Mr. Forbes adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.)

Respectfully Submitted:

Michelle L. Haluska, Recording Secretary pro-tem
St. John Plan Commission