Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Let's call the order of the 04/08/2026 Plan Commission. Call the roll, please.

Mister Cox? Here. Mister Crompton?

Here.

Mister Eulets? Mister Hammock?

Here.

Mister Martin?

Here.

Miss Radakovich? Here. Mister Turk?

Here.

And Chairman Kelleh?

Here.

Okay. Thank you. We have a quorum. Next on the agenda is approval of minutes. We have two sets of minutes here. The first is for planning commission meeting minutes for 02/19/2026. Is there a motion to approve those minutes?

So moved. Second. Second. Call the roll please.

Mister Cox. Aye. Mister Crompton.

Aye.

Mister Hammock.

Aye.

Mister Martin. Aye. Miss Rodakovich. Aye. Mister Turk. Aye. Chairman Keller.

Aye.

Okay. Motion carries. Next set of minutes is Planning Commission special meeting minutes from 03/05/2026. Is there a motion for approval?

So moved. Second. Call the roll please.

Mister Crompton. Aye. Mister Hammock.

Aye.

Mister Martin. Aye. Miss Rodakovich. Aye. Mister Turk. Aye. Mister Cox.

Aye.

Chairman Keller.

Aye. Okay. Motion carries. Next on the agenda is old business public hearing. There is none.

Under new business public hearing, we have two items today. First, for new business public hearing, during the public hearing, staff will read each staff report and then the applicant will make additional comments on the request. Following the staff report and applicant remarks, a public comment period will be held on each agenda item. Each speaker will be given four minutes to address the commission and remarks should be directed to the commissioners rather than staff, the applicant, or other members of the audience. Property owners within the zoning notice boundary may request additional time for questions.

The commission may set reasonable limits on the length of comments and may limit repetitive statements. Speakers are encouraged to avoid duplicating comments that have already been made indicating agreement with a prior comment is sufficient for the record. All participants are expected to maintain decorum by keeping comments respectful, refraining from interruptions, and avoiding applause or other reactions so the hearing may proceed in an orderly manner. And with that, we'll proceed to the first item for public hearing PUD dash two dash 26, preliminary plan unit development of New Stoneshire Phase 2. The applicant is Doctor Horton Incorporated Midwest.

Status of the applicant is contract purchaser slash builder. The owner is Light Real Estate LLC. Requested action is approval of our preliminary plan unit development for residential subdivision. Purpose is to create 147 residential lots. The existing zoning is r one b single family residential.

The location is North of Van Dyke Road and West of County Line Road within Council District Number 3. The subdivision size is approximately 54.2 acres. The existing land use is undeveloped agricultural land. Under surrounding land use and zoning to the north is residential, New Stoneshire Phase 1 subdivision with r one b single family residential zoning. To the South is undeveloped agricultural and residential with the Kearny Glen Subdivision r one b single family residential. To the East, agricultural and farmstead r one b single family residential zoning.

And to the

West, Lakewood Prairie Subdivision r one b single family residential and r three one and two family residential zoning. Under site history, the subject site contains 54 acres of land that is zoned r one b single family residential. The subject site was included with the preliminary plat for the original New Stoneshire Subdivision in 2004, but was never developed as a phase of that subdivision. Instead, the land continued to be used for agricultural purposes until the present. Currently, the home builder d a Doctor Horton is under contract to purchase the site to develop it as a residential subdivision.

The preliminary plat for the original New Stoneshire subdivision included the 162 acres located West of County Line Road between Theodore Street and Van Dyke Road. That land was annexed in 2004 and zoned R 1 B to become a unified residential subdivision with 411 single family lots. Subdivision was to be built out in three phases, but only phase one was recorded and developed. New Stoneshire Phase 1 is located directly South of Theodore Street and contains 146 developed single family lots, as well as two storm detention areas. The 54 acre subject site contains the land that would have been phase two, located North of Van Dyke Road and East of Lakewood Prairie Subdivision.

Phase three would have been the property at the Northwest corner of County Line Road and Van Dyke Road, is under separate ownership from the subject site and not part of this petition. The road network for the original subdivision included a collector street that branched off the New Stoneshire Boulevard roundabout at County Line Road and curved through phases two and three to connect Van Dyke Road at the south end. While this street was never constructed, a public sanitary sewer main was installed along its intended path as part of the development of phase one to connect phase one to the city sewer system. Part of this existing sewer main is located on the subject property and the petitioner has incorporated the sewer location into their proposed plans. Under special information, the preliminary planned unit development of New Stoneshire Phase 2 consist of 147 single family lots on approximately 54 acres.

Lots will need to meet the requirements of the R 1 B zoning district, which include a minimum lot area of 9,100 square feet and a minimum lot width of 70 feet. Storm detention for the subdivision will be on the south side of the property adjacent to Van Dyke Road. There will be no park site within the subdivision as the Joliet Park District has requested a cash contribution in lieu of a parkland dedication. While the proposed plan unit development contains New Stoneshire in its name, it is a separate development from New Stoneshire Phase 1 that will have its own set of house plans and its own separate homeowners association. The proposed subdivision meets the average lot size and width requirements for the R 1 B District with an average lot size of 10,096 square feet and an average lot width of 78 feet.

All lots except two meet the minimum lot area. Lots twenty one and twenty four are slightly under the required area at 8978 And 8886 square feet respectively. The depths of these lots were slightly reduced to create space for a wider right of way dedication for Van Dyke Road. City originally requested a 33 foot right of way dedication, which the petitioner included in their initial plans. However, the city recently requested a 40 foot dedication to better match the existing 80 foot right of way for Van Dyke Road at its west end where it terminates at Fawn Lily Circle within the Lakewood Prairie subdivision.

Based on this updated request, the petitioner modified their plans and included a 38 foot right of way dedication for Van Dyke Road on the preliminary plat. The preliminary PUD includes a variation to reduce the minimum lot size for Lots 21 And 24, which staff supports due to the need for a greater right of way dedication than originally anticipated. The proposed street layout is generally consistent with the 2,004 preliminary plat with with road connections to Kempton Street and New Stoneshire Phase one at the Northwest corner to the New Stoneshire Boulevard roundabout off County Line Road at the Northeast corner and to Van Dyke Road at the Southwest corner. The original plans from 2004 included an extension of New Stoneshire Boulevard off the south side of the roundabout. Though the street extension was never constructed, the roundabout contains an existing curb cut on its south side.

The proposed plans include a short extension of the New Stoneshire Boulevard in this location. Proposed Street D will connect to this extension and then follow the path of the existing sanitary sewer main that was installed with phase one. The proposed house plans include five models, three two story models with 10 total elevations, and two one story models with eight total elevations. The two story homes will have approximately 2,000 to 2,600 square feet of living area and include four to five bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms. The one story models will have either 1,500 or 1,700 square feet of living area and contain either three or four bedrooms.

All models will include an attached two car garage. The proposed homes are compatible with existing homes in the surrounding residential subdivisions. New Stoneshire Phase 1 contains mostly two story homes with two to three car garages as well as some one story homes. Examples of existing homes in phase one are shown in figure six of your report. The proposed elevations and floor plans for the planned unit development of New Stoneshire Phase 2 are included as an attachment in the staff report packet.

As part of the plan unit development, the petitioner is requesting a variation from the residential design standards and the zoning ordinance which require 50% of the front elevations of at least 50% of the detached single family dwelling units to be comprised of brick or stone. The petitioner proposes that 100% of the dwelling units will have at least 25% brick or stone on the front elevation. Detached elevations include between 2541% brick or stone. Staff supports this request as the design of the proposed elevations is consistent with similar developments in the area. The proposed plan development includes a preliminary landscape plan that shows parkway trees, landscape out lots along Van Dyke Road, and landscaping around the storm water area.

The zoning ordinance requires new residential developments to provide a 30 foot wide landscape area adjacent to a main collector street such as Van Dyke Road. As part of the PUD, the petitioner is requesting a variation to reduce the landscape area adjacent to Van Dyke Road to 18 feet in order to accommodate the proposed lot layout and storm water area. Staff supports this request because it is consistent with the existing landscape along Van Dyke Road near County Lyon Road for the Kearny Glen subdivision and because it allows the petitioner to dedicate an appropriate amount of right away for Van Dyke Road. The Landscape Lots 149 And 150, the Open Area Lot 148, and the Storm Water Lot 151 will be owned and maintained by homeowner owners association to be established in the future as part of the development of subdivision. The attached project narrative includes outlines the phasing, financial, and marketing plans for the development.

According to the petitioner, the development will be completed in one phase with full build out projected to take approximately three years. Public improvements, water and sewer connection fees, school impact fees, and development impact fees will be required for the subdivision. The developer is currently working with the Joliet Park District to determine the amount for a cash contribution in lieu of a parkland donation. Future approval of the final plan unit development is still required. Under recommended action, staff recommends that the planning commission recommend approval of the preliminary planning and development of New Stoneshire Phase 2.

The site was intended to be developed as a residential subdivision and the proposed planning and development is consistent with the lot requirements for the existing R 1 B zoning district. Subdivision includes connections to the existing street network and provides a right of way dedication for further development of Van Dyke Road. The proposed house plans are compatible with the adjacent residential subdivisions And the proposed subdivision will have its own homeowners association to maintain all common areas. And that concludes staff's report.

Thank you. May we have the petitioner, please?

Hi. Good afternoon. Do

you propose to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. State your name, please.

Good afternoon, mister chairman, members of the commission. My name is Steve Bauer. I'm an attorney and entitlements manager with d r horton inclement west, which is a contract purchaser of the subject property. I'm joined this afternoon by Chris Bunkhauser also of Doctor Horton Inc. Midwest who is a project plan acquisition manager and by Ryan Wagner from B3 Companies as the project design engineer.

Given the thoroughness of staff's report, I'll I'll try to make my remarks as succinct as possible. The upshot is that the matter before you today consists of basically four total requests. The first of which is the plan excuse me, preliminary plat of plan unit development approval. With that, then there are three associated variations. One for reduction in lot area for only two out of a total of a 147 lots, which as mister Heidner explained is a product of the increased right of way widening for Van Dyke Road.

The second variation request relates to a reduction in the otherwise code required amount of masonry on the front facade of the homes. So for those of you that can recall back to approximately a year ago for Prairie Landing, also ADR or Infinity, at that time, we requested the same type of variation. Make that request in an effort toward enhanced beautification and otherwise as a measure of enhanced production efficiencies. So instead of having 50% brick on half of the homes in the community, have 25% brick or stone on all of the homes in the community. And then the third type of variation is, as staff explained, a reduction in the what I'll characterize as landscape buffer yard immediately along the northern boundary of Van Dyke Road from 30 feet to 18 feet, again, as an accommodation to provide a wider right of way for the widening of Van Dyke Road.

Are are you able to put up our presentation? If it if it if it's a lengthy process, don't worry about it. Oh, there it is. Thank you. Perfect.

So I'll I'll try to do this in like three minutes or less out of respect for your time and happy to answer any questions you might have. Very quickly, many of you have probably seen this slide or these data points in the past. D. R. Horton as a company has been the largest home builder by volume for the past twenty four years. It was founded forty eight years ago. As a whole, the company approached nearly 84,000 homes closed last year. The Chicago Division from which this request is being made closed just over 1,400 homes last year. The last bullet point reflects that the Chicago Division specifically has a long standing history in the city of Joliet. Again, most recently with the Prairie Landing development.

This is the subject development site as you've already seen from staff slides. It's one of what was contemplated twenty two years ago to be three total phases of New Stoneshire located at the Southwest corner of Theodore Street and County Line Road. This is the overall phasing plan and reflective of the preliminary plat that was approved, again, twenty two years ago for New Sunshire as a whole. Again, today, we're only talking about phase two, which is all of what R. Horton, Inc.

Midwest has under contract. Phase one is fully built out, and phase three is under separate ownership and, again, not a part of this petition. This is a design plan reflective of the preliminary plat that's before you today. And the reason that this is particularly relevant is because if you compare that, which is, again, the one on the right by comparison to the one on the The one on the left is the 2004 preliminary plat or reflective of the design from the 2004 preliminary plat for phase two. The colored one on the right is the current proposal before you today.

Some of the fundamental distinctions or differences between the two is that the proposed plan, again, the colored one eliminates cul de sacs at staff's request. It also eliminates a park site, which if you look at the black and white image on the left, is generally directly south of or below the number two in the label phase two. It's approximately or was envisioned at the time to be an approximately five acre site. If you compare that to the colored image on the right, which again is the proposed plan, you'll see that there is no park site. As he indicated.

The reason that there is no park site is because the Joliet park district specifically requested that we not provide a park site and instead provide cash in lieu. The Joliet park board adopted a resolution late March affirming that directive. Very quickly, just some site data. If you if you drop to the very bottom as mister Heiderick indicated, the overall site is 54 acres. We're we're proposing a 147 lots with a resulting density of 2.7 dwelling units per acre.

That's consistent with the fully constructed phase one and also consistent with what was contemplated for the overall development. The lot standards that are proposed are wholly conforming with those required for the established r one b zoning classification. Again, with two exceptions. There there are those two lots along the Endyke Road for which we're seeking a reduction in lot areas specifically as a result of the increase right away with Verandike Road. Again, there are a total of five house types proposed.

Three are two story. Two are two story. Of those two story, there will be a total of 10 available elevations. Of the two story, there will be a total of eight elevations. So that is to say that for the five home types proposed, there will be 18 available elevations, all of which will have, a two car attached garage and as you can see varying bedroom counts generally ranging from four to five.

What you see here is reflective of the types of elevations inclusive within those 18 different elevations that I referenced. Again, if you look at the blue boxes, those are identifying specific models and the overall square footage, which ranges, again, for the two story from about 2,050 square feet up to 2,600 square feet. And then for the one story from a little over 1,500 square feet to approaching 1,800 square feet. So again, this is the design plan reflective of the plat of planning development that is presented to you this afternoon. And either myself or mister Funkhouser or mister Wagner are here to answer any questions the commission might have.

Thank you. Is there any questions from the commission?

I do. I've got a couple.

Go

ahead. What is the price point for your homes?

Sure. So the so the two story homes, which are similar to those already being marketed and sold at Prairie Landing, are anticipated to sell in the mid to high 4 hundreds. The one story homes in the low to mid 4 hundreds.

Once when are you projecting to start your work?

So we would start land development basically, quote, unquote, immediately after final plan approval. And then generally speaking, home construction would start three months after land development commences. And

where is your construction traffic route come in? What street does that come off of?

So that's not been pinpointed. Typically, there's a preconstruction meeting that the city requires developers to have and something like that could be discussed at that time. Okay. I to to respond to your question, I'm I'm going to guess the city is going to direct that it'd be Van Dyke Any

other questions from the commission?

I got one. I know there used to be flooding. I'm assuming maybe Sean could talk to it's gonna help alleviate some of the flooding that might have happened in the past on County Line.

On County Line Road? Yeah. I wasn't I I thought I was

out there years ago and there was some issue years ago. I don't know if it's still an issue out that way or not.

I have to look into that a little more. I'm not sure how this will affect County Line Road particularly. Okay. But I I can get back to you on that.

No problem. Thank you.

Any other questions? Any questions or comments from the public? Hearing none, then a motion is in order for PUD-two-twenty six. So moved. Second. Call the roll,

please. Mr. Hammack. Aye. Mr. Martin. Aye. Ms. Rodakovich. Aye. Mr. Turk. Aye. Mister Cox. Aye. Mister Crompton.

Aye.

Chairman Keller.

Aye.

Okay. Thank you. That motion carries with the recommendation for approval that'll tentatively placed on the April 21 city council agenda. Next public hearing on the agenda is PUD dash three dash 26 amendment to the preliminary and final PUD of Joliet Junior College student housing subdivision. The applicant for this PUD amendment is Midwest REOV LLC.

Status of the applicant is contract purchaser. The owner is Rock Run Residences LLC. The requested action is approval of an amendment to the plan unit development ordinance from 2001 to remove tenant eligibility and occupation occupancy conditions, specifically conditions a and d. The purpose is to allow the existing multifamily development to be occupied by tenants that are not affiliated with Joliet Junior College. The existing zoning is R1 single family residential.

Location is 1524 Richard T Rivera Way within Council District 5. Subdivision size approximately 15 acres. Existing land use is multifamily residential community. Under surrounding land use and zoning, to the North, Joliet Junior College property, r one single family residential zoning. To the South, industrial use with I one light industrial zoning.

To the East, Joliet Junior College property with r one single family residential zoning and to the West, Joliet Junior College campus with r one single family residential and I one light industrial zoning. Under site history, the planning and development of Joliet Junior College student housing subdivision was approved in June 2001. The record plat was approved with the PUD created Lot 1, which is 15 acres and was subsequently developed with a 128 unit multi family housing development. The development contains six residential buildings and one clubhouse building. The site is located to the southeast of the main campus for Joliet Junior College, also known as JJC, and is accessed by a private road, Richard T Rivera Way, that is owned and maintained by JJC.

The Rock Run Trail and the Rock Run Business Park Industrial Subdivision border the west and south sides of the subject site. The property is within the R 1 single family residential zoning district. The existing PUD will continue to allow a seven building multi family development as a legal nonconforming use of this property in the R 1 District. As outlined in the 2,001 staff report and PUD materials, the development was to be owned by the Joliet Junior College Foundation and to be occupied by people affiliated with JJC such as students, faculty, and staff. Following its construction, the development operated under these tenancy conditions for many years.

In 2017, foreclosure was filed for the mortgage held by the foundation. In 2019, the property was sold to the current owner. At some point in its history, the development also began serving tenants not affiliated with JJC. According to the petitioner, it is currently occupied by a mix of JJC affiliated tenants and non JJC affiliated tenants. Ordinance number 13226 which approved the plan unit development included conditions related to tenant eligibility and occupancy numbers for the units.

Per the zoning ordinance, all conditions imposed as part of the PUD shall run with the land and shall not lapse or be waived as a result of a subsequent change in tenancy or ownership of the site. Therefore, the ordinance would need to be formally amended if any current or prospective owner wish to modify or remove the tenant and occupancy requirements. Ordinance number 13226 and the PUD written materials are included in your packet as an attachment. As an additional ordinance condition, the development was required participate in the neighborhood service division's rental inspection program. The development has been enrolled in the program since at least 2007 and has current rental certificates that expire in March and April 2026.

Under special information, the petitioner who is the contract purchaser of the property requests to amend the conditions of ordinance number 13,226 to allow non JJC affiliated tenants within the existing residential development at 1524 Richard T Rivera Way. The development is already operating with a mix of JJC affiliated tenants and non JJC affiliated tenants. Approval of the PUD amendment would formally remove the tenant eligibility requirements included under condition d of the ordinance. According to the petitioner, the development is not viable if tenancy is limited to individuals affiliated with JJC due to demonstrated limited demand from JJC students, staff and faculty. However, the petitioner states that general market demand exists for these rental units.

Additionally, the requested amendment would remove condition a which regulates the number of occupants of each unit by bedroom count. Residential occupancy is already regulated based on bedroom and dwelling square footage by the International Property Maintenance Code through the neighborhood services division. Removal of this condition would allow this development to function like any other multifamily residential development within the city. According to the petitioner, the total occupancy of the development is not expected to significantly change due to removal of this condition and the development will continue to function with similar similar occupancy as it has now. The development will continue to be required to participate in the city's rental inspection program.

Neighborhood services division is aware that the development already serves non JJC affiliated tenants and does not have any concerns with this request to amend the PUD conditions. The petitioner has reached out to the JJC administration to discuss this request. According to the petitioner, they are in the process of finalizing a separate private agreement with JJC related to the maintenance of Richard T Rivera Way. Under recommended action, approval of the amendment to ordinance number 13,226 to remember to remove conditions a and d will allow the existing multifamily development to serve tenants that are not affiliated with Joliet Junior College. The amendment will not change any physical aspects of the development including the number of units and the exterior appearance.

Staff supports the requested amendment and does not believe the change will have a significant impact on the character of the area. Due to current market conditions, the development may not be financially viable if the current tenant eligibility requirements remain. And that concludes staff's report.

Thank you. Do we have the petitioner, please? Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. State your name, please.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Andrew Scott with the law offices of doctor McGossett located at 10 South Blackwood Drive, Chicago, Illinois. Like the last gentleman said in the first matter, staff really covered everything. I represent Midwest REO five LLC. They're the contract purchaser of the property.

And we are seeking an amendment to remove those two conditions. A lot of the information that we have on the property comes from the current owner. And as we understand it, you know, there have been fluctuations in the student population at JJC over the years. And it you know, probably the last five to seven years, they've seen a drop in student population and JJC affiliated professors, folks of that nature. And so they started opening it up to just to to the general public in order to maintain occupancy and be able to keep the property up.

And so my client, who's the contract purchaser, would just simply like to maintain that mode of operation, get rid of the limitation on student housing only, and also to be able to, as staff had mentioned, be governed by the international occupancy code, the city's code, still subject to all inspections under the neighborhood program that was referenced before. And that's really it. Available to answer any questions that you might have.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the commission?

I just have one from the staff. In exhibit a, letter c, it says about the berm. Is that correct? Or perhaps perhaps must be completed before 09/01/2002.

That was a condition that was required to be completed back then that was completed, so it's not relevant to the present.

It was the ultimate

thing? Yes.

My question would be, have you all, you all have owned it now? Well, I'm sorry.

Midwest REO five has owned it how long now?

With a contract purchaser.

Okay. Contract purchaser. Have you all seen or heard of any major issues there since they have been ring to non JJC students?

We are not aware of any. No.

Staff, are you all aware of any major issues there? No.

We are not aware. No. In fact, neighborhood services per the, staff report, they haven't had any concerns about this request. Any

other question?

First question I have is, will additional construction be allowed on this site, or this is the maximum units allowed on this site?

The intent is well, it's already a legal nonconforming property as to bulk density, but there's also not any part of the business plan to do make any exterior changes to any of the building.

I mean, like, new additional units. It looks like there's additional land near there that you could build on that.

Oh, I'm sorry. If you wanna bring that up just very quickly, that is there's an approximately a five acre parcel that is located to the south sorry, southeast of the property, and I may come back before you in the next year for a subdivision and maybe a residential development. That's something that they're contemplating, but nothing has burned firmed up at this point.

Okay. And then I I wanna make sure I understand. It's been nonconforming, and we're gonna allow this to continue nonconforming, or are they gonna change the ordinance? There's this part of the change of the ordinance right now to to allow non JJC people there.

The the nonconforming part refers to the underlying zoning being r one. The PUD approved this development with this number of units. So it it's nonconforming for the zoning districts.

Okay.

Thank you.

Currently, what's your percentage of occupancy?

As we under based on our due diligence, it's about 96% right now.

And what is typically the rental rate for these units?

I don't know the answer to that. Any

other questions? Hearing none, we don't have any public comments. Okay. Then a motion is in order for PUD Dash 3 Dash 26. So moved. Second. Call the roll, please.

Mr. Martin. Aye. Ms. Rodakovich. Aye. Mr. Turk.

Aye.

Mr. Cox.

Aye.

Mr. Crompton.

Aye.

Mr. Hammack. Aye. Chairman Keller.

Aye. Thank you. You're welcome. That

motion carries with a recommendation for approval that will be tentatively scheduled for the April 21 city council agenda. Next on the agenda is citizens to be heard on agenda items. The section is for anyone wanting to speak regarding non public hearing agenda items and are allowed a maximum of four minutes. There's not a question and answer period and staff and the planning commission members do not generally respond to public comments. Please note speakers who engage in conduct injurious to the harmony of meeting shall be called to order by the presiding officer and may forfeit the opportunity to speak.

Is there anyone in attendance who would like to speak on non public hearing agenda items? Seeing none, the next item on the agenda is old business, there's none. Following that is new business, there's none. Following that is new or old business, not for final action or recommendation, There's also none. The next item on the agenda is public comment.

This section is for anyone wanting to speak regarding non agenda items and are allowed a maximum of four minutes. It is not a question and answer period and staff and the plan commission members do not generally respond to public comments. Please note speakers who engage in conduct and juries to the harmony of the meeting shall be called to order by the presiding officer and may forfeit the opportunity to speak. Is there anyone who would like to comment on non agenda items? Seeing none, the last item on the agenda is adjournment.

Do we have a motion for adjournment? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you.