Town of St. John

St. John Indiana - Founded 1837
Return to Menu

February 1, 2017 Plan Commission Minutes

Michael Forbes, PresidentStephen Kil, Town Manager
Gregory Volk, Vice-PresidentKenn Kraus, Town Engineer
Steve Kozel, SecretaryMichael Muenich, Board Attorney
John KennedyRick Eberly, Building & Planning Director
Jon Gill 
Jason Williams 
Bob Birlson 

Mr. Michael Forbes called to order the St. John Plan Commission Regular Meeting on February 1, 2017 at 7:00 p.m., and asked all to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance (recited and all took their seats).

The recording secretary took roll call. Commissioners present: Michael Forbes, Gregory Volk, Jon Gill, Steve Kozel, Jason Williams, John Kennedy, and Bob Birlson. Staff present: Kenn Kraus, Stephen Kil, Rick Eberly and Michael Muenich.


Mr. Forbes entertained a motion from the board for a nomination of Plan Commission President. Mr. Kennedy made a motion to nominate Mr. Michael Forbes as President. Motion seconded by Mr. Williams. Motion carried 7 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Forbes entertained a motion from the board for a nomination of Plan Commission Vice-President. Mr. Forbes nominated Mr. Gregory Volk as Vice-President. Motion seconded by Mr. Kennedy. Motion carried 7 ayes – 0 nays.

Mr. Forbes entertained a motion from the board for a nomination of Plan Commission Secretary. Mr. Forbes nominated Mr. Steve Kozel. Motion seconded by Mr. Volk. Motion carried 7 ayes – 0 nays.

The minutes of April 1, 2015 and January 4, 2017 Regular Meetings; and August 17, 2016 and January 18, 2017 Study Session were listed on the agenda. Discussion ensued with the Board Members and Board Attorney Muenich as to some direction for the April 1, 2015 meeting minutes, as there was not a quorum of members who were board members at that previous date; so they wish to abstain. Mr. Forbes reminded Mr. Muenich that there are minutes that go back to Year 2012 that are being prepared to catch up with any minutes that are missing. Mr. Muenich advised that he would review of legal procedure and contact Mr. Forbes as soon as possible as to a solution and procedure to get these minutes approved for the formal records.

Mr. Kozel made a motion to approve the January 4, 2017 Regular meeting minutes, the August 17, 2016 Study Session and January 18, 2017 Study Session minutes as submitted. Motion seconded by Mr. Gill. Motion carried 7 ayes – 0 nays.

A. THREE SPRINGS – PHASE III – Public Hearing for Re-Zone from R-1 to R-2PUD And R-3PUD (Mr. Dave Barrick and Mr. Doug Rettig)

Mr. Forbes announced that a Public hearing was scheduled for this evening, but due to a deficiency in the notification for this public hearing the board can not hold this public hearing. Mr. Muenich advised that is correct and stated that they have two (2) options this evening; you may defer the public hearing to March 1, 2017, subject to review of all the legal notification requirements being met. Mr. Muenich stated the second option is for the board to “cancel” the agenda item, requiring the Petitioner to start over the legal procedural notification process.

Mr. Eberly advised that the deficiency was that a Notice of Meeting Sign was not posted on the parcel in question as is required by their Rules and Regulations. Mr. Kozel asked if all other aspects of the legal notice were completed. Mr. Muenich stated that since there was this deficiency he did not review the proofs of publications for the newspaper, nor the white and green cards to compare with the certified Assessor’s list.

Mr. Forbes conferred with the board members and entertained the pleasure of the board on this item. Mr. Kozel made a motion to defer the Public hearing for Three Springs – Phase III to the March 1, 2017 meeting and upon review of proofs of publication. Motion seconded by Mr. Williams. Motion carried 7 ayes – 0 nays.


A. CASTLE ROCK – Permission to Advertise for Public Hearing and Primary Plat Approval (Mr. Doug Rettig)

Mr. Doug Rettig of DVG introduced himself to the board and advised he is appearing tonight to request permission to advertise for Public Hearing for Primary Plat Approval.

Mr. Rettig advised that Castle Rock as discussed at length at past meetings is a portion of Kilkenny Estates. Mr. Rettig passed out hard copies of the current layout of the development. Mr. Rettig advised that Mr. Andy James is also present, and they are seeking permission to advertise for the March 1, 2017 Plan Commission meeting which is four (4) weeks from tonight.

Mr. Rettig reminded the board that it is a 67 lot R-2 zoning subdivision. Mr. Rettig stated that they are not asking for any variances, they all meet the R-2 zoning of 100’ x 150’ minimum, of 15,000 square foot lots.

Mr. Gill asked if they worked on the driveway and grade situations. Mr. Rettig advised they have, they intend to submit Engineering Drawings tomorrow to Mr. Eberly for review. Mr. Rettig advised that they have engineering plans, SWPPP Plans. Mr. Gill inquired if that dictates what side of the lot the driveway would go on. Mr. Rettig reminded that it was only an issue for some of the lots, however; they are on the drawings.

Mr. Volk asked if they made a decision on preserving the island on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Rettig advised that Mr. James is trying to preserve it as much as possible. It is a 40’ x 125’ island that will be preserved as much as possible. Mr. Rettig advised that Mr. James has walked the property, has staked some center lines so he can envision where the roads are going and which trees have to come down, but he will try to preserve what trees that can be preserved there.

Mr. Rettig advised the board that they will be coming back to the February 15, 2017 Study Session for further discussion before the March 1, 2017 meeting.

With no further questions from the board, Mr. Forbes entertained a motion from the board for permission to advertise for public hearing at the March 1, 2017 Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Volk made the motion to authorize public hearing for March 1, 2017. Motion seconded by Mr. Kennedy. Motion carried 7 ayes – 0 nays.

B. MEYERS ADDITION – UNIT 3 – Permission to Advertise for Re-Zoning of Parcel from C-2 / Light Industrial to R-3PUD (Mr. Doug Rettig)

Mr. Doug Rettig of DVG introduced himself again to the board, advising he is representing Mr. Dennis Meyers. Mr. Rettig advised that they talked about this at the study session, where they are going to amend the Plat of Meyers Addition – Unit 3, in order to do so, it was brought to my attention, that we need re-zone the piece that he bought, which is “highlighted” on your copies. Mr. Meyers bought this property after he bought the property known as Meyers Addition – Unit 3.

Mr. Meyers intends to place four (4) buildings; but due to the current zoning, we are here tonight to request permission to advertise for a Public Hearing to start the re-zone process, so that we can come back later and amend the PUD plat of Meyers Addition – Unit 3.

Mr. Rettig reiterated that it is an odd shape. Mr. Rettig directed their attention to the location of Bingo Lake. Mr. Rettig advised that Mr. Meyers bought this parcel months after than the original parcel, it was not thought of at the time to re-zone.

Mr. Forbes asked the board members for questions on the rezoning. Mr. Forbes advised that this will probably be discussed at the study session also.

Mr. Williams asked if when it comes to the study session of he could see a rough sketch of what the park is going to look like that they spoke about during the previous study session. Mr. Rettig advised he would make a note of that.

Mr. Forbes stated that he would now entertain a motion to authorize a Public Hearing for re-zoning for Meyers Addition – Unit 3. Mr. Kozel made the motion to authorize the public hearing for the re-zone from C-2 and Light Industrial to R-3PUD. Mr. Williams seconded the motion..Motion carried 7 ayes – 0 nays.

C. COMPREHENSIVE and THOROUGHFARE PLAN – Recommendation to Town Council

Mr. Forbes advised the next item on the agenda is the Comprehensive Master and Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Forbes advised that at our last Study Session we adjusted the drawing for the Town Center. There was just the one adjustment to include a borderline around the actual Town Center portion of the plan.

Mr. Forbes, given the forgoing was there further discussion from the board members.

Mr. Birlson advised that going back to the “round-about”, I know that this still is just a concept, and I did not really specify my concerns on it at the last meeting. However, just looking at the traffic on Joliet Street, the majority would go westbound if the road gets re-routed through the Boyer Development. So you have westbound majority of the traffic; eastbound majority of the traffic will go through the Boyer Development and then turn right. Mr. Birlson wished to state that he feels that the “round-about” is just not necessary, although he know they are quite expensive to put in, you are looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a “T” intersection would suffice.

Mr. Forbes stated he appreciated Mr. Birlson for his opinion; however, Mr. Forbes stated he thought the drawing is fine the way it is. Mr. Forbes reminded that it is a concept and he is ready to move forward with the drawing as is.

Mr. Williams stated that he shares the concern, but is also willing to move forward.

Mr. Muenich wanted it stated for the record that he received a written remonstrance from Thiel Cabinet Shop, and he is aware of the fact that the public hearing has been closed. Mr. Muenich stated that you would need to make a decision as to whether or not to include that written remonstrance in the packet; there is no requirement for you to re-open the public hearing, it would be purely discretionary with the commissioners as to whether to accept or not accept it. You also have the option, just so everyone is aware, under the statute, to make either a Favorable Recommendation, an Unfavorable Recommendation or No Recommendation. The form of certification that was prepared from our office was on a basis of a “Favorable”, if the Commission should choose to do something different, then they should either modify that, showing the “un-favorable” or “no recommendation”.

Mr. Forbes stated that he is not personally interested in opening the public hearing again on this matter; “I think we beat this horse”, as much as we possibly could.

Mr. Williams stated that as much as he would like to hear all opinions, he would have to agree with Mr. Forbes. Mr. Williams stated that we have covered this enough at this point.

Mr. Kennedy stated that he works for an engineering firm, one of the largest engineering firms in the State of Indiana. When it comes down to it. A Traffic Engineer, and an engineer is going to determine whether that “round-about”, that thoroughfare, is acceptable with its close proximity to the railroad and how traffic flow is going to be. So, although he understands Mr. Birlson’s concern, when it gets down to it, and the engineers start to look at it, they will determine if the “round-about” is one, needed, and the best location for it. Mr. Kennedy stated with that said he would like to move forward with the plan as is.

Mr. Kil advised that for the record you can confirm that the remonstrance received was sent on to the Town Council as well, so everyone has a copy of this. Mr. Forbes stated that it would be unfair to re-open the Public hearing to include this, and not allow other public comment.

Mr. Forbes then entertained a motion to send a recommendation to the Town Council regarding the Comprehensive and Thoroughfare Master Plan; is there a Favorable, Unfavorable or No Recommendation. Mr. Kozel made a motion to send a Favorable recommendation to the Town Council. Motion seconded by Mr. Volk. Motion carried 6 ayes – 1 nay (Mr. Birlson).


Gerry Swets (9490 Joliet Street): Gentleman I have a couple of concerns, um, one that I wasn’t even planning on and that’s the Comprehensive Plan. You made some major changes to this and I think you need to ask for public comment on all those major changes. So, I’m gonna remonstrate against your, the action that you just did. Against the Comprehensive Plan because we have not had a chance to talk about the changes that you’ve made. Also, I think the um.,., looking at the agenda tonight there were three action items, or actually four, and then three action items and one of them was actually what was changed, but I am looking at the PUD, the approvals and the amount of approvals that we are seeing, requests for PUD’s. And I think that, um, I think that’s getting a little bit out of hand. Two out of three are looking for PUD’s and basically what you’re doing is giving the developer an okay to propose just about any lot size that they want to, any front yard size, any side yard size. And then basically you’re approving it. And I think housing development in this town should be R-1, R-2 and R-3 as stated in Ordinance No. 1483, it is very specific about the guidelines should be. And I think exceptions should be just that. When there’s an exceptional situation. Maybe you need to have an exception for a lot or two in a development. You don’t need to make a PUD for the entire development. Um,., I think we are eventually gonna end up with, you know, what’s gonna look like row houses, they might be really nice in some of the cities, um, but I don’t think they are proper for St. John. R-3 townhomes, R-3 family, multi-family require 15,000 square foot lots. And you guys aren’t doing that. We need to get back to that and use that as a guideline, use that as a goal and use that as a requirement. Every time you shrink the lot size you’re adding to the density, which creates more cars, more traffic. The need for additional police and fire protection. More water, more sewer volume, crowded schools and none of those benefit the residents of St. John. So I would like you seriously give that some consideration. And then the last thing would be, um, agendas, um,., it seems like the agendas come out more last minute than they do, um, anything else. I mean, I got an agenda yesterday at, at, at 2:42; and then after there was some changes made, I was looking for a revised agenda this morning, and there was no agenda posted this morning at all. And so I am wondering, can’t you get these things out a little bit earlier, so that we can see what is going on and be prepared. I would assume you would want your board to be prepared, whether it’s this board or whether it’s the Town Council, so I would like to see agendas out on a more timely basis. That’s all thank you.

Joe Hero (11723 South Oakridge Drive): I would like to remonstrate against the decision you made on item 6, where you said the notice wasn’t adequate, and then you deferred to March the first. You changed the agenda. People saw the agenda and then you changed it. So the people that didn’t come tonight aren’t here to hear about March first. Basically, if the notice isn’t correct, then the only choice you have, in my opinion, is to make them re-advertise and go through the whole process again. You don’t have the authority to keep deferring once you’ve told the people; you’re not having the public hearing. So, you defeat the purpose of the public notice that was made when you put out the word that it’s deferred. And the only way it can be deferred is by all of the people that are here, but you told them it’s not a public hearing, so you’ve gone against the public notice. So, I remonstrance against the deferral. I think they should have to re-advertise and start the whole process over again and meet the notice requirements. The second thing I would like to remonstrate against is the Comprehensive Plan and Thoroughfare Plan recommendations by you to the Town Council, because you have changed this drawing several times since you had the public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is to make a decision, based on comments from the public. Once you’ve substantially and significantly changed the concept of the Comprehensive Plan, you void the outcome of that public hearing. So, I remonstrate against this, saying that you haven’t had an adequate public hearing, by closing the public hearing, and for that reason I remonstrate against this Comprehensive Plan, because you have changed it so many times, it is no longer what was presented at the public hearing. Thank you.

(Mr. Forbes: As much as I appreciate your opinion Mr. Hero, I will rely upon the legal opinion of our hired legal staff. And the other comment I will make is, the changes that were made to that picture are “based” upon comments that came out of the public hearing.)

Casey Stroup (9137 Maplewood): (did not come to podium)

Catherine Stroup (9137 Maplewood): This is my first meeting, so, I apologize, but I live in Edgewood subdivision. I am confused as far as the Comprehensive Planning goes. What is the plan with the traffic that will be happening on Calumet Avenue, with the Castle Rock subdivision? School busses, schools, I mean, comprehensive plan, I think that being that is going to be part of our neighborhood, as a neighborhood we need to know, what the plan is for traffic, for schools, for everything else, all the traffic that’s coming in our neighborhood. No accommodations for bike paths and children playing or “what-not”. It’d be.,.um,., I would like to know what that plan is, so tell me when to come back and I’ll be here, and I’ll bring some more neighbors.

(Mr. Forbes: We’ll be,., did you have anything else? This will be on; Castle Rock will be on our next Study Session, which is two weeks from now. And then the public hearing is scheduled for two weeks after that. So, we will be able to get more information out during that discussion).

Kim Ryan (9016 Calumet Avenue): This is my first meeting too, and I live at 9016 Calumet Avenue, again that is in Edgewood subdivision. And I wanted to find out about traffic. How that’s gonna play into, you know, construction traffic going down Calumet Avenue, that street is already pretty busy as it is. I was just wondering how you were going to accommodate that traffic going into the new subdivision. So, I’ll come to the next meeting as well.

Gina Eustace (10070 Springlake Road): I thought that we were going to discuss the Three Springs subdivision, so I will hold comment at this time. Thank you.

Kim Boros (9217 Calumet Avenue): I live in Edgewood subdivision. I am also concerned about traffic, um, coming in and out of our subdivision. Um, also concerned about, construction traffic that will be coming down Calumet Avenue or I would like to know are they going to be entering through Kilkenny or one of the other subdivisions. And, let’s see,., I’m sorry this is my first meeting too also. One of my questions, or concerns is why is Castle Rock connecting to Edgewood subdivision. Why is there, you know, a need. And, when I had, well another concern is when I looked at the plan of the Castle Rock map, it didn’t show exactly where the exits or entrances heading North and heading um,., and heading West. I’d like to know where the exits and entrances for those folks living in that subdivision, and also Kilkenny where will everyone be coming out through Edgewood subdivision. So, mainly traffic concerns. Thank you.

Mike Sikora (10134 West 98th Place): I was here originally for the Three Springs subdivision discussion, which I will see you on March first for. Um, but I am also here in support of Miss Boros concerning the traffic on Calumet Avenue, with the new subdivision of Castlewood, because my children play at her house also, and uh, we are concerned about the traffic going up and down Calumet Avenue.

Michelle Patton Pupillo (14180 West 89th Place): I am also concerned about the Edgewood subdivision. I’m concerned about the traffic that will be coming out on 93rd and I think that the traffic also leads into Hart Street. And I’m concerned about Hart Street being a thoroughfare through that subdivision and through Edgewood. People using that as a short-cut. Um, and, you know there is already so much traffic on 93rd and on Hart Street in the mornings and in the evenings. I just wonder whether we shouldn’t be expanding those roads before we begin developing another new subdivision. And, I wonder whether we will be able to get a picture of that map, because we received something, but it’s not the same as what was up there. And uh, finally, um,., what was my last point,.,.,um, sorry,., I quess that’s all. Oh, um,., when is the next meeting then? (Mr. Forbes: Two weeks from tonight is a Study Session). Are we welcome to come to that? (Mr. Forbes: You are welcome to attend, but there is no public discussion. It is an opportunity for you to come, hear the developer, hear our discussion and prepare yourself for the public hearing that will be two weeks after that). Okay, and I also wonder why there’s already trees being cut down at that subdivision area, we live just uh,., south of that, and I hear the developing going on, and so I felt concern over the fact that, you know, there’s already something happening there before anything has been approved. (Mr. Forbes: That is one of those things. The individual owns that property and while can’t build anything out there, but he certainly can move trees and dirt, as he feels are acceptable to him. There is really no regulation that can prevent him from cutting the trees down). Thank you.

Gino Pupillo (14180 West 89th Place): That was my wife, once again she has probably said it all before I get up here. But, I wanted to know, um,., with all the cutting and everything that’s being done. Has the Army Corps of Engineers aware of all the wetlands and everything there? I mean,., and then, somebody else here mentioned, you know, bike paths. Heaven forbid we should have some bike paths, or walking paths. I mean that’s all woods that go all the way to like Bibich there. And people have been walking it for years and now it’s, you know, taken a hike, along with the deer and everything else. Let’s not lose sight of that. Okay?, and then the size of the lots, the R-1 is what? (Mr. Kil: 20,000 square foot). And then R-2? (Mr. Kil: 15,000 square foot). Okay then there’s no R-3 in Castle Rock correct? (Mr. Forbes: No). (Mr. Kil: Their proposing to build homes, you know what you see in Kilkenny and Edgewood right now? Their building all custom homes in there. It’s the same homes that are there right now). Just, you know, lots of greenbelt, place for the (Mr. Kil: No know Gino, what they are proposing for the paths, what they are proposing for the lots, all that is laid out in the Study Session stage. So, like Mike said, you guys are encourage to come and take a look at that. You will get to hear the Engineer speak. The Developer will be here. The Plan Commission asks a lot of questions. You’ll get to see the connectivity of the roads. You’ll get to see the overall plan. A lot of that stuff comes out, so you are definitely encouraged to come). Sounds great, and one other thing is, um,., I live in the cul-de-sac there right next to the park. By the water tower, okay um,., whenever anybody comes to use that park, we get twelve cars parked in the cul-de-sac. (Mr. Kil: Gino, what you don’t know is that he is proposing a parking lot). Oh, I did, but it’s on the far side. It’s on the north side of the park, and the playgrounds are on the south side of the park. I’m glad they are at least putting in a parking lot for it. Will it be used?, maybe not. Most people show up there. It’s mostly kids and they are good kids. They come there and they start a football game, and they have a ball, and they’re usually pretty good. You might have a can of pop or something left in the road or something afterwards, but for the most part I’d rather have them doing that then doing anything else. So,., okay. Thank you.

Kathy Wilson (9621 East Oakridge Drive): My question is basically on the Comprehensive Plan. A couple months ago, I went in and printed out several pages And then yesterday I went back in and it is like the whole plan has changed. But does that,., I mean like I’m comparing page numbers here to page numbers there, and there is,., nothing similar, so it’s not just like a line for two here or there has been updated. There is only one Comprehensive Plan on the website right? (Mr. Forbes: The only change that we did make, was the picture that was put in the Comp Plan, correct?). (Mr. Kil: Kathy there’s only one change that is the picture of the Town Center concept. I think it’s on page 61. At the Study Session, Bob Birlson asked that a section on the North side of Joliet be removed from the Town Center concept. He asked that a border be placed around the drawing. There’s only been one change for the last two years really, and it’s that picture of the Town Center, so, there is one picture change on page 61, that’s all. The rest of the document is identical to what you see). And there’s no other plan document out there.

(Discussion ensued on general topic of pages of Comprehensive / Thoroughfare Plan)

Paul Panczuk (8410 Magnolia Street): Just a comment on that last comment. I know for a long time there’s been two Comprehensive Plans on the web-site. The current and the “draft”, and there might be some confusion. (General discussion on the current Comprehensive Plan and the Proposed Comprehensive Plan). So, on the Castle Rock, um, I think you just answered one of my questions about the park, cause that was always declared as a future park, right there at the 90˚ turn. And uh, so I guess you guys are already looking out for improvements and everything there. So that’s great, cause Kilkenny does not have a park right now. (Mr. Forbes: Well, actually that park is in Edgewood and “not” in Kilkenny, so that is not the developer’s park). I know the existing park, we were under the impression that Kilkenny that, somewhere, there was additional park land dedicated. (Mr. Forbes: We had a substantial discussion on that, and I don’t believe that ended up being the case. Paul, you really need to just come to the Study Session). And I only wanted to mention it now because I know that I can’t talk there, so I wanted to make sure that you guys look out for our interests there as far as, um, putting whatever park was initially promised back in 2000. Second thing about Castle Rock and Kilkenny in general, I’m not sure if the Plan Commission can do anything about this. I heard a concern about construction traffic. Um,., 85th has been taking a beating. And its been in bad shape, and we’re carrying all the traffic, all the construction traffic for Kilkenny, Kilkenny Highlands and I believe a lot of the trucks will probably come off of Patterson to get to this. And I don’t know if there is any impact fee that can be imposed on the developer, anyway they can, um,., help out with 85th, cause it’s, that road need to be re-done, terribly, and its only gonna get worse in the next year or two as it builds out, so that a concern of mine. Um, lastly on Castle Rock, um,., this developer has done some nice work, I’ve seen it, um,., please persist on as much tree and wetland preservation as you can, I know you are already looking out for that. And, to finish with Castle Rock, one comment on the Town Center revision, I noticed you pulled it back outta the where the folks live, and I think that’s what they wanted, so that’s appreciated, but I was a little surprised that the area of near the Municipal Complex and 93rd, up to the intersection there, that was all pulled out of there too, I was a little bit surprised on that. Um, will there be chance for public comment at the Town Council meeting for that,., for the approval.

Mr. Forbes and Mr. Kil noted that there is a Public Comment portion at the beginning of the meeting.

Paul Panczuk (continued): I understand that the folks at Town Center wanted their homes not in that drawing, but, it pulled it out of that, I think it’s what,., Standard Bank?, and all that is now out of there. To me,.,

Mr. Forbes apologized to Mr. Panczuk, but stated that he has gone well over the time limits. I’ll see you at the Town Council meeting.

Diane Neely (14230 West 89th Place): I was kind of wondering what we saw tonight versus, something I had seen earlier with the Lot 67, the bigger lot on the south end. Is that going to be a lot that is going to be for sale, or not. And is there any, well I guess we’ll have to wait until everything has been approved to talk to the developer about, like would we like get first dibs that, we live in one of those houses and is just to the south of that lot, as far as possibly purchasing it ourselves.

Mr. Forbes advised that you would have to talk to the developer about that. That has nothing to do with us.

Diane Neely (continued): Any chance of getting the name and information about of who the developer is.

(General discussion ensued about contact information, number of houses built per year and where to get a copy of the concept plan).

Jerry Koster (9194 Eggert Drive): I just want to make for your consideration a couple things. If you look at the southbound of 94, which is at the top of the map, I think that the main concern is you have an exit going out there, and then you have two exits, which would be east. And the concern is, if you look at that map, um, people are probably gonna exit off out of that subdivision on Calumet. And for most of those people who will work in Illinois, you can only guess that they are gonna take Calumet through the neighborhood to 93rd over to Sheffield and then onto 394. So, our concern is that all that traffic for those who work, that are gonna head back to Illinois, you’re gonna see a lot of traffic through Calumet, which is really only a subdivision, and there are school busses, and there’s probably a lot of people that travel in excess 25 miles an hour through there. And a year or so ago, you put up stop signs on 90th I guess and Eggert, to try and slow that down, and from what I’m told it not really helpful. They kinda really come to a half-stop, and then move on. So the concern is for your consideration, is maybe not allow that Calumet exit there. And let them exit through the east owned subdivision there, and then move on.

Because they’re gonna head toward Illinois, their gonna head down Calumet. I betcha, any money. Cause that’s where all the traffic heads, 93rd to Sheffield to 394, and people coming out of that subdivision. So if there is anyway you can stop from Calumet tying together that would be really helpful. Thank you.

Mr. Forbes inquired if there was anyone else that wished to make public comment. Hearing none the floor was closed to public comment, and brought the business back to the board.

[outburst from audience member, Mr. Forbes stated that the public comment portion is closed]

Mr. Williams stated he just wanted to echo your comments about the changes made to the Comp Plan being in response to the public comment, and support you on that.

Mr. Birlson stated he wanted to make a comment on the Comprehensive Plan, just to fellow members and President, I appreciate the changes that were made, especially to the Town Center, just wanted to say that to you guys.

Mr. Volk asked Mr. Kil if there were any updates on the Lake Central building permits. Mr. Kil advised there is no update tonight Mr. Volk. Mr. Williams asked what they were discussing. Mr. Volk advised it is the tower and the other signs. Mr. Kil stated that they did not take out any separate permits.

Mr. Forbes entertained a motion to adjourn. Motion made by Mr. Williams. Motion seconded by Mr. Kennedy. Motion carried.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m.)

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Haluska, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission