Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

call please mr. Crompton here mr. ULITZ mr. hammock here mr. Leon mr. Martin here ms. Radakovich here mr. Turk chairman Cox here we'll need approval of the plan Commission meeting minutes from July 16 2026 is there a motion motion to approve second Mr. Crompton?

Aye.

Mr. Ulitz? Sorry, Mr. Hammock?

Aye.

Mr. Martin? Aye. Ms. Radakovich? Aye. Chairman Cox?

Aye. Old business public hearing?

Yes. So first on the agenda for old business public hearing is P 6 26 preliminary plat of reset division of lot six and the Sarver commercial property, which is located at the Northeast corner of black road and lowest place. Um, staff is recommending that this agenda item be deferred to the September 17th meeting of the plant commission. So a motion would be in order for that.

I'll make a motion to approve. Defer. Defer to the 17th. All right.

We have a motion and a second. Or motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

OK. Mr. Hammack?

Aye.

Mr. Martin? Aye. Ms. Radakovich? Aye. Mr. Crompton? Aye. Chairman Cox?

Aye. New visit to public hearing.

New business public hearing. OK. We have several agenda items under new business public hearing. During these public hearings, staff will read staff reports into the record, and then applicants will make additional comments on the request. Following the staff report and applicant remarks public comment period will be held on each agenda item and 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 Okay, the first agenda item is PUD 826, which is the final planned unit development of New Stone Shire Phase 2. I want everyone to pause and look at this screen for a second and appreciate the baby dinosaur shape that is before you. Yes. Okay. The applicant in this matter is D.R. Horton, Inc., Midwest, the status of the applicant is the contract purchaser builder. The owner is Light Real Estate LLC and the requested action is approval of a final planned unit development for a residential subdivision. The purpose is to create 147 single-family residential lots. The existing zoning is R1B single-family residential. The location, again, is north of Van Dyke Road and west of County Line Road. subdivision size is 54.2 acres and the existing land use is undeveloped in in agricultural use for surrounding land use and zoning to the north is residential we have new stone shire phase one subdivision and with r1b single family residential zoning to the south we have agricultural use and it's owned r1b single family residential zoning and it's also a residential uses are is the carney glen subdivision which is zoned r1b To the east, we have agricultural uses in Farmstead with R1B single-family residential zoning. To the west, we have residential uses, including the Lakewood Prairie subdivision with R1B and R3, which is one- and two-family residential zoning. For site history, the subject site contains 54 acres of land that is zoned R1B single-family residential. The subject site was included with the preliminary plat for the original New Stone Shire 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, DR Horton, is under contract to purchase the site to develop it as a residential subdivision. In 2004, plans for the original New Stone Shire subdivision included three phases, Phase 1, the only phase to be developed, is adjacent to the north side of the subject site. It contains 146 developed single-family lots in two storm detention areas. The subject site is the area that would have been Phase 2. Phase 3 would have been the property at the northwest corner of County Line Road and Van Dyke Road, which is under separate ownership from the subject site and is not part of this petition. The preliminary planned unit development of New Stone Shire Phase II was approved by City Council on April 21 of 2026. The preliminary plat consists of 147 single-family lots, a stormwater detention area, an 18-foot landscape area along the south property line adjacent to Van Dyke Road, and a road network that connects to New Stone Shire Phase 1 and Van Dyke Road. The proposed final planned unit development is substantially similar to the approved preliminary planned unit development. There are three variations from the zoning ordinance requirement that were approved with the preliminary planned unit development. And these are a variation from the residential design standards to allow 25% of the front elevations of 100% of the detached single family dwelling units to be comprised of brick or stone. The second is a variation to reduce the required landscape area adjacent to Collector Street, Van Dyke Road from 30 feet to 18 feet. And a variation to reduce the minimum lot area for two lots, lots 21 and 24, below 9,100 square feet. The final planned unit development contains the same three variation requests. For special information, the final planned unit development of New Stone Shire Phase II consists of 147 single-family lots on approximately 54 acres. The subdivision has R1B single-family residential zoning, which requires 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 parkland dedication. While the proposed plan unit development contains New Stone Shire in its name, a separate development from New Stone Shire Phase 1, or sorry, it is a separate development from New Stone Shire Phase 1 that will have its own set of house plans and its own separate homeowners association. The proposed house plans, which are the same as those included with the preliminary planned unit development, include five models, three two-story models with ten 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 will 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 Stone Shire 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 1 are shown in Figure 7. The proposed elevations and floor plans for the planned unit development of New Stone Shire 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 in 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. The attached elevations include between 25% and 41% brick or stone. Staff supports this request as the design of the proposed elevations is consistent with the developments in the area. The proposed subdivision meets the average lot size and width requirements for the R1B district with an average lot size of 10,051 square feet and an average lot width of 78 feet. All lots except two meet the minimum lot area, lots 21 and 24, and they are slightly under the required area at 8,978 and 8,000. square feet respectively. The depths of these lots were reduced to allow a wider right of way dedication for Van Dyke Rd than originally anticipated. After initial plans were submitted, city staff revised their request from 33 foot to a 40 foot right of way dedication to better match the existing 80 foot right of way for Van Dyke Rd at its West End, where it terminates at Fawn Lily Circle within the Lakewood Prairie subdivision. The petitioner modified their plans and has included a 38-foot right-of-way dedication for Van Dyke Road on the plat, which satisfies staff's request. The proposed street layout connects to the existing stubs within New Stone Shire Phase 1 with road connections to Kempton Street at the northwest corner and to the New Stone Shire Boulevard roundabout off County Line Road at the northeast corner. The subdivision also connects to Van Dyke Road on the south. Public improvements will be required along the north side of Van Dyke Road and will include a 10-foot multi-use path. The proposed plan unit development includes a landscape plan that shows parkway trees, an 18-foot landscape easement along Van Dyke Road, and landscaping around the stormwater area. The zoning ordinance requires new residential developments to provide a 30-foot wide landscape area adjacent to the 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 stormwater area. Staff supports this request because it is consistent with the existing landscaping along Van Dyke Road near County Line Road for the Kearney Glen subdivision and because it allows the petitioner to dedicate an appropriate amount of right of way for Van Dyke Road. The landscape lots 149 and 150 The open area lot 148 and the stormwater lot 151 and out lot 152 will be owned and maintained by a homeowners association to be established in the future as part of the development of this subdivision. The attached project narrative 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 sub-division. The petitioner and the Joliet Park District have signed an agreement for a $383,424 cash contribution in lieu of land dedication to the Park District for the parkland ordinance. For recommended action, staff recommends the plan commission recommend approval of the final plan unit development of New Stone Shire Phase 2. The site was intended to be developed as a residential subdivision and the proposed plan unit development is consistent with the lot requirements for the existing R1B zoning district. The 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. That concludes staff's report.

Thank you. May we have the petitioner on this item?

uh raise your right hand you swear to tell the truth whole truth nothing but the truth i do please state your name and who you're with sure good afternoon mr chairman members of the commission my name is steve bauer i'm an attorney and entitlements manager with dr horton inc midwest which is the chicago division of national home builder dear horton as staff indicated dear horton is the contract purchaser of this phase of new stone shire just a couple of very brief remarks first and foremost as staff indicated indirectly indicated this site was preliminarily approved 22 years ago in my opinion the most important item to glean from the staff report is that consistent with what this commission saw and recommended approval of and the City Council ultimately approved in April of this year in accordance with section 3.3 of the city subdivision code excuse me this final plan substantially complies with the preliminary plan that was approved So with that out we'll just close by saying that I appreciate your time that I respectfully request your recommendation of approval Excuse me.

Thank you Sure unless you have questions right now Any comments or questions from the audience Karen are seeing them request of motion for PUD dash 8-26 so moved second mr. Martin hi mr. Dockovich hi mr. Turk hi mr. Crompton hi mr. hammock hi chairman Cox

OK. All right. Next on the agenda is ordinance and resolutions associated with the vacation of a portion of Millsdale Road. Give me one second. We have There are three votes associated with this staff report packet, and the requests are all described together. But the first case is V626, which is a vacation of a portion of Millsdale Road and a dedication of a public utility easement adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad. And then we have D126, dedication of approximately 11.1 acres of land as public right-of-way Don't know why that happened.

One of you help figure that out.

OK. Sorry. Dedication of approximately 11.1 acres of land as public right-of-way south of Millsdale Road. And then we have D-26, dedication of approximately 8.1 acres of land as a public right-of-way south of Millsdale Road and east of the Union Pacific Railroad. general information the applicant in this matter is TCIH Land Holdings LLC the status of the applicant is owner of adjacent property for requested action we have a vacation of roadway dedication of a public utility easement and a dedication of public right-of-way the purpose is to allow construction of the proposed closed loop truck network bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad The existing zoning is ITC, which stands for Intermodal Terminal Industrial Park, ITA, Intermodal Terminal, and then County A1 Zoning, and then we have I1 Light Industrial Zoning. The location is, again, Millsdale Road, east and west of the Union Pacific Railroad. The right-of-way sides, the size of the right-of-way to be vacated is 0.064 acres. The existing roadway. The surrounding land use is we have the north distribution center. To the south, we have open space and warehousing. To the east, we have open space. And then to the west is open space. For site history, the subject properties have been undeveloped throughout their histories, but they have since included two large industrial developments in the Centerpoint Intermodal Center west of the Union Pacific Railroad and Eastgate Logistics Park, which is east of the Union Pacific Railroad. for special information in June of 2025. The city entered into a settlement and mutual releases agreement with Hobolt Road Extension JV LLC, Centerpoint Properties Trust, Centerpoint Juliet, Terminal Railroad LLC, Eastgate Logistics Park, Chicago LLC, New Wave Farms LLC, and North Point Development LLC relating to the construction of the Eastgate Logistics Park development in Juliet. The agreement stipulates that the Eastgate is required by the city to construct a closed-loop network that would serve as the exclusive method of tractor-trailer ingress and egress within the East Gate property, only to be accessed to and from East Gate property by tractor-trailer trucks via a single access point on Millsdale Road. The agreement further states that the closed loop truck network shall include a proposed bridge crossing the Union Pacific Railroad at a point immediately south of Millsdale and connecting with Millsdale Road at a point west of the Union Pacific Railroad. Figures 1 and 2 below show the proposed bridge connection with Millsdale Road as well as the location where the bridge will be built over the Union Pacific Railroad. The northern portion of the parcel located immediately east of the railroad and the northern portions of the parcels located west of the railroad south of Millsdale Road must be dedicated as public right-of-way to construct the bridge connection as proposed. The attached plots of dedication show these parcels in more detail. A cul-de-sac has already been constructed east of the Millsdale Road and railroad intersection to separate residential traffic closer to Illinois 53 away from the closed loop truck network access point. Once the bridge is built, eastbound traffic on Millsdale Road west of the railroad will either have to merge onto the closed loop truck network or will be forced to turn around in the existing turnaround circle that is located west of the current railroad intersection. The Union Pacific Railroad requested that the subject parcels at the intersection of Millsdale Road and the Union Pacific Railroad be vacated since cross access will not be possible once the bridge construction is complete. Located to the north of the proposed railroad bridge, the attached plat of vacation shows the four right-of-way parcels that must be vacated to allow construction of the railroad bridge. A public utility easement will be placed over the proposed vacation area to allow access to and maintenance of existing water and sanitary sewer infrastructure that is located along the north side of Millsdale Road, within two of the parcels to be vacated. Staff have no objection to the requested platification approval as of the writing of the staff report staff have not received any comments from utility companies in opposition to the proposed platification. Approval of this platification will be subject to City Council approval of an appraisal to establish the fair market value of the properties to be vacated. For recommended action, staff recommends the Plan Commission recommend approval of the following petitions to allow construction of the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge as required by the aforementioned Settlement and Mutual Releases Agreement. first is v626 which again is the vacation of a portion of millsdale road and dedication of a public utility easement adjacent to the union pacific railroad then we have d126 which is dedication of approximately 11.1 acres of land as public right-of-way south of millsdale road and west of the union pacific railroad And then we have D-226, dedication of approximately 8.1 acres of land as public right-of-way south of Millsdale Road but east of the Union Pacific Railroad. And that concludes staff's report.

Thank you. May we have the petitioner on this item? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

I do. State your name and who you're with. Nathaniel Washburn with KGG LLC. I'm the attorney for the applicant petitioner in this matter. Is there anything you wish to add? No. Staff did a good job giving this report, and this is all in furtherance of the approved agreements, and we would ask for your recommendation of approval.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from the commission?

Do you all have any visuals of what the completed project is gonna look like from Millsdale Road?

I don't know that we have any currently. I know that the city has reviewed and has no further comments on the technical details for the Union Pacific Bridge, so I don't know if any renderings were provided to the city as part of that. Certainly, if that's something the city desires, we could probably work to accommodate that, but I do not believe we have that with us today.

Okay.

there's there's no renderings of a completed bridge within this PowerPoint no I asked because there was there was concern expressed about the visual of it for those individuals who are West well yeah what east of the railroad tracks in the subdivision right there

All I can say at this point is I know we've submitted all the technical designs. To the extent that is something that the city desires, I'm sure we could work to prepare something. But at this point in time, I don't have that available. and my team behind me is saying that we don't have that with us today but if that's something we need to prepare at the city's request we're certainly willing to accommodate anybody else any questions or comments from the audience please come up come with the microphone step up the microphone i need to swear you in

You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Please state your name.

Yes, my name is Jin Jiang. This is the first time to be here. And I did not know what's happening, to be honest. I live a few hours south, but I do own to piece of land in this area. So as a private land owner, what rights do I have? And how I can be compensated and can have a lawyer to represent me? Nobody told me anything about this before. And I think I'm affected. So I should have a right to say something.

Yes, sir. Right now, this is the commission meeting, and this is your opportunity to let the commissioners know how you feel about this project.

I may have to hire a lawyer, because I do not know details. So I need time to find a lawyer to represent my interests, to protect my interests.

If you have, we can take down your phone number and email address. One of the gentlemen's with the nice tie there, he can take your information down and he can let you know the information that we have publicly available and then you can choose to do with that as you wish at this point.

Yes, at this point, I'm concerned. I'm concerned about my rights as a private landowner.

Thank you. Anyone else from the audience? Harry, you're seeing none. Is it all three, Gene? They're separate votes We'll need a motion for V and 6-26 so moved Sir second We have a motion we need a second Second

Okay.

Roll call, please.

Ms. Rudakovich. Aye. Mr. Turk.

Aye.

Mr. Crompton. Aye. Mr. Hammock.

Aye.

Mr. Martin.

Aye.

Chairman Cox.

Aye. Next is D-1-26, if there's a motion.

Motion to approve. Second.

Roll call.

Mr. Turk?

Aye.

Mr. Crompton? Aye. Mr. Hammock?

Aye.

Mr. Martin? Aye. Mr. Dockovich? Aye. Chairman Cox?

Aye. And then D-2-26, pressing a motion.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Roll call.

Mr. Crompton? Aye. Mr. Hammock?

Aye.

Mr. Martin?

Aye.

Ms. Rudakovich? Aye. Mr. Turk?

Aye.

Chairman Cox?

Aye.

Thank you. OK. So those agenda items will move to city council with a recommendation of approval. Next on the agenda is case D-326, dedication of approximately 4.3 acres of land as public right-of-way west of Illinois Route 53. The applicant in this matter is, again, TCIH Land Holdings LLC. The status of the applicant is the property owner and is for a dedication of public right-of-way. The purpose is to allow construction of the proposed closed-loop truck network bridge over Illinois Route 53. The existing zoning is I-1 Light Industrial and the location is west of Illinois Route 53, north of Compass Boulevard. Total right-of-way size, again, to be dedicated is 4.3 acres, and the existing land use, it is already a mound for the future bridge overpass. For surrounding land use and zoning, to the north is open space with I-1 light industrial zoning. To the south is warehousing with I-1 light industrial zoning. To the east is farmland with I-1 light industrial zoning. To the west is open space slash future roadway I-1 light industrial zoning. For site history, the subject property consists of 4.3 acres and is located west of Illinois Route 53 across from the former Green Road right-of-way that was recently vacated. The parcel acreage was incorrectly stated as 7.4 acres on previous public notice advertisements and it is actually 4.3 acres in size. for the attached plan of dedication. The subject property has been farmland throughout much of its history. The property was annexed into the city and zoned I-1 light industrial in 2021 with the intent of being used as land to construct a bridge over Illinois Route 53 for the East Gate Logistics Development Park closed loop truck network. The property has since been graded for the proposed bridge approach. For special information, in June of 2025, the city entered into a settlement and mutual releases agreement with Hobolt Road Extension JV LLC, Centerpoint Properties Trust, Centerpoint Juliet, Terminal Railroad LLC, Eastgate Logistics Park Chicago LLC, New Wave Farms LLC, and North Point Development LLC relating to the construction of the Eastgate Logistics Park development in Juliet. The agreement stipulates that Eastgate is required by the City to construct a closed-loop truck network that would serve as the exclusive method of tractor-trailer ingress and egress within the Eastgate property, only to be accessed to and from the Eastgate property by tractor-trailer trucks via a single access point on Millsdale Road. The agreement further states that the closed loop truck network shall include a bridge crossing Illinois Route 53 to provide tractor trailer truck access from the portion of the East Gate property line east of Illinois Route 53 to the railroad bridge which crosses over the Union Pacific Railroad to the northwest of the subject property. The applicant, TCIH Land Holdings LLC, has concurrent petitions for the preliminary plat of Third Coast Intermodal Hub 2A Subdivision and final plat of the Third Coast Intermodal 2 Hub A Unit 1 Subdivision, which would allow warehousing to be developed east of Illinois Route 53. The aforementioned Settlement Mutual Releases Agreement states that Eastgate shall be permitted to construct an aggregate of 3 million square feet of industrial warehouse buildings on the east portion and or west portion prior to approval of the site's regional traffic plan and the city shall be permitted to issue occupancy permits for such industrial buildings not exceeding 3 million square feet in aggregate provided that any all tractor trailer access with respect to such industrial warehouse buildings shall comply with the terms of section 3 of the agreement including but not limited to the completion of the construction of the route 53 bridge for any such industrial warehouse buildings receiving occupancy on the east portion of Illinois route 53 Therefore, development of the eastern portion of the campus build-out east of Illinois Route 53 cannot take place until all Route 53 bridge permits and bonds are approved. Staff have reviewed the engineering and construction plans for the proposed Illinois Route 53 bridge and have no objections to the proposed dedication of right-of-way. For recommended action, staff recommend the Planning Commission recommend approval of the dedication of approximately 4.3 acres of land as public right-of-way west of Illinois Route 53. And that concludes staff's report.

Thank you. May we have the commissioner on this item? sworn in. I want to state your name again for the record.

Nathaniel Washburn with KGG LLC, the attorney for the applicant and petitioner. As staff aptly stated, this is just one more piece of the puzzle to creating the closed-loop truck network. Good God, that's a bunch of T words strung together. This is already set up for the bridge landing, and then as part of a future item that's on today's agenda will be the other side of the bridge landing. We would just ask that the Planning Commission make a recommendation of approval.

Great. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the Commission?

Mr. Chairman, just one question.

The closed loops are for the sole purpose of keeping trucks off of other local roads in the area out there, isn't that correct? Yes. And are the trucks mandated to use those closed loops, or are they, I would think it would be to their advantage also, or could they still wander off on local roads?

I do want to speak to the design but there there's barriers there are truck barriers preventing access outside of so somebody coming in or trucks leaving the closed loop network the closed loop network is designed to keep everything within the development inside of the network Certainly there will be access for trucks coming from 53 to get in, but it's not a mandate that every trucker, certainly any operations that exist outside of the footprint, are still going to be able to traverse roads just as they do today. But any development that is existing inside of the area controlled by my client is mandated to use this path.

Any other questions or comments? Hearing none, any questions or comments from the audience? You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Please state your name. Paul Boss Jackson Telch.

Thank you. I just have a few questions here on this. I couldn't hear about a lot of those things that were going on. Anyhow, one thing that confuses a lot of the people that are out there that has something to do with this is the word subdivision in here. They feel that you're building a housing project or something in here. We have to explain that's a little different. So that was what it was worried about on the subdivision. And as far as I know, there are no, at this time, there are no buildings going on the north side of Green Road. That'll be east of 53, north side of Green Road. There's a retention pond going, supposed to be going in there, I believe. And then the next thing is, we're asking that you have what these contractors, please put a temporary road to Route 53 at 53 and Green Road. And there's room that they can go south, south of this bridge, there it's going over. that can go in there so and they can just put it in gravel it doesn't have to be a pavement or anything if they would just put that in then green road would be usable and for emergency vehicles fire department police whoever school buses everybody could use that while this bridge is being built because it's going to take some time to get this bridge built Then there's gonna be one large building, I understand, south of Green Road and south of the closed loop road. and that's down toward Jackson Creek. And I think the entrance to that is going to be coming in off that Congress, I'm not sure what they call it, from going into the two permanent buildings that they have on the west side of 53. And this building's going on the east side, and it's going to be a large one. And that's the only one at this time that we know anything about. Then one thing is the city of Joliet made a promise to all the people who were at a meeting, this was quite some time ago, that no work on this bridge over 53 will be started until the state of Illinois gives them the proper permit. They get all the permits from anyone else they need them. And as far as I know, North Point, and it has to be in North Point's hands, As far as I know, they don't have these permits in their hand at this time, so there should be nothing starting out there at this time, because that was something the City of Joliet was definitely against, to have them start that without these permits. And I asked this commission if they would, for the permits, to have another meeting if they could postpone this until another meeting, until everything is in, they have all the investigations and all the permits and everything going on out there I ask you guys to please maybe put on another delay this meeting until everything is ready thank you any other questions or comments from the audience please step up

Do we want to bring the petitioner back up for his comments?

So thank you for the opportunity to respond. With regard to Breen Road access, Breen Road, as we have indicated and worked with the city on, will be fully available until construction starts. Once construction commences, it will be subject to emergency vehicles only as it is an ongoing construction site. And after the construction is completed, anybody on Breen Road will have access to 53. No trucks will have access to 53 at that point in time, but passenger vehicles will. With respect to the IDOT permitting, As he stated, we cannot commence construction, obviously so, on a bridge without the proper permits. However, in order to secure said permits, we have to show that we have the places to land. Therefore, the dedication on one end and the platting on this end to be able to demonstrate that this is the location of the bridge to finalize that permitting process, which we are in the process of doing.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. One last time for any comments from the audience at all? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Oh, sorry. Come up. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Please state your name.

Scott Carlos. Thank you. I just had a question about the egress and ingress. Is this going to be a totally optional thing for the truckers, or is it mandated they have to use it? I know you say that green roads can be off limits to them, but is it off limits as if they're not supposed to use it, but they still could and get fined? Who's going to police it? I guess the question is there, and is it going to be a toll road, like the Hobart extension, or is it just an open road for the truckers?

I'll let the petitioner answer that. Mr. Washmer?

So as I had stated previously, any development inside the park is intended and required to use the closed loop truck network. And then any other truck traffic can only enter or exit the park from the proposed access at Millsdale. There is no other means of ingress egress due to truck barriers and other restrictions that would prevent trucks from entering or leaving the park from any other location. And will it be a toll? I don't believe there's any intention of there being any tolls other than obviously if you go far enough to get to the actual JV toll bridge, obviously there's a toll there, but that is not part of our system. Great. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the audience? Seeing none, we'll need a motion for D-3-26.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Roll call.

Mr. Hammack?

Aye.

Mr. Martin?

Aye.

Ms. Radakovich? Aye. Mr. Turk?

Aye.

Mr. Crompton?

Aye.

Chairman Cox?

Aye. Next item, please.

OK. Next on the agenda is two companion cases. We have preliminary plat of Third Coast Intermodal Hub 2A subdivision. And then companion cases, the final FP226 final plat of Third Coast Intermodal Hub 2A Unit 1 subdivision. I will note that there was a slight update to the staff report, which I'll indicate when I get to that component in the reading of the staff report. for general information again the applicant same applicant tcih land holdings llc they are the developer owner and the requested action is approval of a preliminary platter subdivision and unit one final platter subdivision the purpose is to create an industrial subdivision the existing zoning is i1 light industrial the location is east of illinois 53 north and south of green road the subdivision size the preliminary platte subdivision would be approximately 198 acres the final plat subdivision would be approximately 161 acres the existing land uses are undeveloped land as well as land and agricultural use for surrounding land use and zoning to the north we have warehousing with i1 light industrial classification to the south is jackson creek in the woodlands with county a1 agricultural zoning to the east is jackson creek with agricultural uses And then the county A1 agricultural zoning to the west is Third Coast Intermodal Hub 1 with the warehousing use and that with I1 light industrial zoning. For site history, the subject site contains a series of parcels that have been agricultural or woodlands throughout their existence. These properties were annexed into the city in 2021 with the intention of being developed as a future industrial subdivision. In June of 2025, the city entered into a settlement and mutual releases agreement with Hobalt Road Extension JV LLC, Centerpoint Properties Trust, Centerpoint Joliet Terminal Railroad LLC, Eastgate Logistics Park Chicago LLC, New Wave Farms LLC, and North Point Development LLC relating to the construction of Eastgate Development in Joliet. section 10 l of the agreement states that east gate shall be permitted to construct an aggregate of three million square feet of industrial warehouse buildings on the east portion and or west portion prior to approval of the site's regional traffic plan and the city shall be permitted to issue occupancy permits for such industrial warehouse buildings not exceeding three million square feet in aggregate provided that any and all Tractor trailer access with respect to such industrial warehouse building shall comply with the terms of section 3 of the agreement including but not limited to the completion of the construction of the Illinois route 53 bridge for any such industrial warehouse buildings constructed on the east portion of Illinois 53 The applicant has applied for simultaneous approvals of necessary right of way dedications to allow construction of the Illinois 53 bridge that would enable tractor trailer access to the east side of the development. For special information, the applicant is requesting approval of the preliminary plat and Unit 1 final plat of Third Coast Intermodal Hub 2A, Unit 1 subdivision. The preliminary plat consists of 12 lots that range in approximate size from 0.3 to 70.6 acres. All lots except for Lot 12 are included in the Unit 1 final plat. Lots 5, 8, and 12 are sized for future warehouse development though Lot 8 also contains floodplain in the northwest corner of the lot. in addition to the proposed detention basin along the southeastern portion of the lot the final plat shows a 1.1 million square foot warehouse building on lot 5. and this this is the update that is i mentioned was made to the staff report so our corrected language is as previously stated by the settlement and mutual releases agreement the city would not issue occupancy permits for any warehouse building east of Route 53, including the proposed building on Lot 5, until construction of the 53 bridge is complete. Lot 7, located north of the former Green Road right-of-way, would contain a tributary for Cedar Creek and two compensatory storage basins for flood storage capacity and a detention basin for stormwater detention. As these improvements affect the Cedar Creek Watershed Protection Area, the applicant has applied for simultaneous special use permit, which will be addressed separately from this report. Lot 4, located south of the proposed Third Coast Parkway extension across from Lot 7, contains a series of easements and additional stormwater detention basins. Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, and 10 generally contain public utility access and landscaping easements that are necessary for the provision of utilities and roadway circulation throughout the site. Lot 9, located east of the proposed warehouse building on Lot 5, would contain an additional compensatory storage basin and stormwater detention. A future special use permit will be required before construction work can begin on Lot 9 since it is within the Jackson Creek Watershed Protection Area. Lot 10 is located within a proposed traffic circle bounded by the proposed extension of Third Coast Parkway on the east, Compass Boulevard on the south, and connecting roadway to the northwest. Lot 10 would contain a detention basin, stormwater management easement, and landscaping easement. The subdivision would include an extension of Third Coast Parkway, which would connect the east and west sides, or Hub 1 and Hub 2A of the development. Third Coast Parkway would cross Illinois Route 53 and bend southward to a roundabout where it would meet Compass Boulevard to the west. and a proposed private drive that would extend southward parallel to Lot 5. From the roundabout, Third Coast Parkway would continue eastward, running along the north and east sides of Lot 5. An extension of Third Coast Parkway to the southeast is proposed to serve future hubs of the East Gate development. All public improvements would be required as per the annexation and development agreements, settlement and mutual releases agreement, subdivision regulations, and requirements of the public works and public utilities departments. All stormwater detention facilities will be owned and maintained by individual property owners or by an association. All roadways contain 30-foot-wide landscaping buffers with a 3-to-1 berm. Sewer and water connection fees and development impact fees would be required. For recommended action, staff recommends that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Third Coast Intermodal Hub 2A subdivision and the final plat of Third Coast Intermodal Hub 2A Unit 1 subdivision. The subdivision design, as proposed, meets the requirements of the previously approved Annexation and Development Agreements and Settlement and Mutual Releases Agreement. And that concludes staff's report.

Thank you. May we have the petitioner on this item?

Nathaniel Washburn, KGG LLC, and the attorney for the applicant petitioner. Wish to add anything? No. Staff did a good job with their report, and we would ask for a recommendation of approval. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions or comments from the Commission? No development will happen here until those closed loops are constructed?

So per the terms of the annexation and development agreement and the settlement agreement no occupancy permits can be granted to anything constructed east of 53 until the bridge is completed however Certainly, in order to complete the 53 Bridge, we need to be able to do earthwork mass grading, and the construction of Building 5 will occur at a time appropriate with any other mass grading or other approvals. However, it can be constructed prior to the completion of the bridge. It just cannot be occupied or used until the bridge is completed.

And then what's the time estimate on the completion of the bridge?

We anticipate having final approvals sometime in the next several months before the close of the year and if that happens we will be starting construction either this fall or next spring with an estimated target for completion being mid-2028 assuming all goes according to plan

I did have a question. So he's there. Understanding correctly, there will be no traffic, no truck traffic that can access the park east of that development. Correct. From the east.

Correct. No, no. If a truck errantly was driving west on green, they would have no ability to get into the park. And we are, I believe, putting a cul-de-sac bulb or some turnabout there. The same way you did on Millsdale. Yes, and passenger vehicles would be able to use the bypass to then continue to, as we said, have access to Route 53, so they will be able to, at full completion, still access 53 for passenger vehicles. So you or I driving down in a car or a truck would be fine, but a tractor trailer would not have the ability to access.

It wouldn't be able to get, okay.

It would get stopped, and there will be barriers in place.

Any other questions or comments from the Commission? Any comments or questions from the audience? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and not put the truth? I do. Please state your name.

My name's Scott Shearer. I live at 18960 West Breen Road in the first house off of 53 North on Breen. The proposed watershed looks like it's going to go directly to the west of me. My concern with that is when they built, these folks didn't build it, but there was a building built to the north of me, and there was water retention. And ever since they put that retention pond in, I noticed I get more water in my basement more often. My concern is when they put this watershed to the west of me, if they don't buy me out, what's gonna be my recourse when my basement starts flooding all the time? I don't know. Anybody got any answers for that?

City? Or?

We'll have to review it and take a look and see what the issues are and go on from there when we, as we review the plan.

Well, the issue is just the water coming in the basement. Understood. More often. And if they put another watershed to the west of me.

Yep. It should help drain that because it's going to be lower and everything. But there must be something else going on out there would be my guess. So it had to be taken a look at and going on from there. So you can actually call our office and I can have an engineer look at it for you today for the issue that you have to the north.

I've called several times and tried to get somebody to call back.

Oh, okay. Well, I can give you my contact information.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from the audience?

I live at 18802 Manhattan Road, so our yard backs up to Jackson Creek to the north, so your proposed is everything on the north side of Jackson Creek looking south. Is it going to affect Jackson Creek at all, the flow, the animal life, the trees, all that kind of stuff, and how is it going to affect the property values of the four homes-ish within between rowell and 53 which is going to be directly south of the site as proposed for the warehouses or such i'll let the petitioner answer that if he can

With respect to the impacts on the creek, that is actually further on our agenda, which is the special use permit for the development in and around Jackson Cedar, or I forget, is it Jackson Branch? There's three of them. Jackson Cedar and Anyhow. The Creek Ordinances cover this. We are going to be complying with the Creek Ordinances, and by virtue of the Creek Ordinances, we are not going to be changing the flow, and we will be, again, abiding by all of the terms proposed, which will be in front of you shortly. With respect to Mr. Shearer's comment, we haven't developed anything, so we're going to comply with all state and local stormwater ordinances, so This should be addressed through engineering. And I'm happy to answer any other questions any commissioners may have.

Thank you. He asked about the property values. I don't know if you can attest to that.

I'm not an appraiser, and I'm not, I cannot, I wouldn't speculate as to property values. That's something that an appraiser would have to speak to. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from the audience? Seeing none, there'd be a motion for P-7-26. So moved. Second.

roll call mr. Martin hi mr. Dockovich hi mr. Turk hi mr. Crompton mr. hammock hi chairman Cox hi looking for a motion for fp-2-26 motion to approve second Mr. Dockovich. Aye. Mr. Turk.

Aye.

Mr. Crompton. Aye. Mr. Hammock.

Aye.

Chairman Cox.

Aye. Next item, please.

All right, next on the agenda is case M326, special use permit to allow development of lots within the Cedar Creek Watershed Protection Area. The applicant, again, is TCIH Land Holdings LLC. The status of the applicant is the property owner. And the requested action is approval of a Cedar Creek Watershed Protection Area special use permit. It's to allow the construction of a future roadway. The existing zoning in the area is ITC and I-1 Industrial. The location is along Millsdale Road, east and west of the Union Pacific Railroad. The size is approximately 19.3 acres. The existing land use is open space Cedar Creek Tributary. surrounding land use and zoning distribution center and open space. To the north with ITC and County A1 zoning. To the south is stormwater detention and open space with ITC and I1 industrial zoning. To the east, we have the Third Coast Parkway with I1 light industrial zoning. To the west is open space with ITC industrial zoning. For site history, the subject properties have been undeveloped throughout their histories. A tributary for Cedar Creek runs through each of the subject parcels. The two properties that are located west of the Union Pacific Railroad are in the Centerpoint Intermodal Center, and the property east of the Union Pacific Railroad is located within the East Gate Logistics Park. In June of 2025, the city entered into a settlement and mutual releases agreement with the Hobalt Road Extension JV LLC, Centerpoint Properties Trust, Centerpoint Joliet Terminal Railroad LLC, Eastgate Logistics Park Chicago LLC, New Wave Farm LLC, and Northpoint Development LLC relating to the construction of the Eastgate Logistics Park development in Joliet. The agreement stipulates that Eastgate is required by the city to construct a closed loop truck network that would serve as the exclusive method of the tractor trailer truck ingress and egress within the Eastgate property, only to be accessed to and from the Eastgate property by tractor trailer trucks via a single access point on Millsdale Road. The agreement further states that the closed loop truck network shall include a proposed bridge crossing the Union Pacific Railroad at a point immediately south of Millsdale Road and connecting with Millsdale Road at a point west of the Union Pacific Railroad. In 2007, the City passed ordinance number 15820 regarding the Cedar Creek, Sugar Creek, Jackson Creek, and Jackson Branch watershed protection areas. The ordinance requires that any development of a lot or parcel containing territory in these protection areas receive approval of a special use permit through the planned commission and City Council. The protection area is defined in Section 47-15G.3b as property lying within 100 feet of the ordinary high-water mark of the creeks, within 25 feet of the upland edge of any wetland within the watersheds, or within 100 feet of the center thread of any tributaries to the creeks actually located with the 100-year floodplain. The criteria for this type of request are listed under Section 4715G.4. The subject properties are located within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Cedar Creek and are therefore located within a designated creek protection area. Before construction of the railroad bridge and its permanent entrance onto Millsdale Road can commence, the City Council must approve the requested special use permit. For special information, figures 1 and 2 show a general site plan for the work to occur in the impacted area. Section 47-15G.7B of the City Zoning Ordinance states that municipal and public infrastructure, including stormwater facilities, are permitted development activities within the Cedar Creek Watershed Protection Area. section 47-15 g4 of the city's zoning ordinance details the criteria that must be met for a special use permit to be granted the applicant supplied the following justifying remarks to satisfy these criteria the first criteria is that development will not detrimentally affect or destroy the natural features of the cedar creek sugar creek jackson creek and jackson branch watershed protection areas nor impair its natural functions, but will preserve and incorporate such features into the development site. Response the development of the Union Pacific Railroad bridge has been designed to avoid the greatest extent possible disturbing or otherwise impacting areas of the property immediately adjacent to the middle tributary to Cedar Creek and Cedar Creek as Depicted on the plat and the plan submitted in connection to this request work within the ordinary high watermark has been limited to stormwater outfalls and erosion control measures Typically proposed grading is at least 30 feet away from ordinary high watermark for stormwater fall Stormwater for stormwater outfalls are proposed within this 30-foot distance The closest being 2.7 feet from the tributary stream centerline all grading within 50 feet of the stream directly facilitates an increase in the total available flood storage volume of Includes naturalized landscaping the nearest proposed roadway pavement is at least 66 feet away from the stream Wetland Fill has been minimized to the extent possible Typically all work is at least 21 feet from the nearest waterway wetlands except at outfalls or in areas of wetland fill all wetland is consistent with local and federal regulations and will be mitigated for in an improved wetland bank. Floodplain fill has been minimized to the extent possible, and all floodplain fill is consistent with local and federal regulations to preserve the tributary while mitigating any offsite floodplain impacts. Criteria B, the location of natural features in the site's topography have been reasonably considered in the designing and siting of all physical improvements. The landscape plan included in the Union Pacific Railroad site and bridge plans take steps to preserve the natural features of the tributary, including stream banks, as well as provide for improved plantings near the tributary for improved aesthetic and environmental considerations. The proposed deep-rooted vegetation along the stream will increase water quality functions, such as sediment, entrapment, pollutant removal, and nutrient uptake, as well as providing additional habitat. Site topography influenced the design in that the natural course of the waterway is preserved by the proposed development. Site topography further influenced the proposed roadway location, directly resulting in 66 feet or more of separation from proposed roadway pavement to the stream's ordinary high watermark. The preservation of existing vegetation along the banks, inclusion of naturalized landscaping where the surrounding site is disturbed, increased flood storage volume, and separation of the proposed roadway from the stream all serve to preserve or enhance the site's natural features. The location of the proposed roadway has been offset from the creek to the extent feasible such that existing stormwater facilities and other existing conditions are preserved and the alignment is a continuation of the previously planned and approved Third Coast Parkway. Criteria C, adequate assurances have been received that the clearing of the site of topsoil trees and other natural features will not occur before commencement of building operations. The applicant will abide by all City of Gilead ordinances with respect to the scope and timing of work to be performed, including the commencement thereof. Criteria D, the development will not reduce the natural retention storage capacity of Jackson Creek, nor will it unlawfully increase the magnitude and volume of flooding at other locations. the plan submitted in connection with the subdivision and union pacific railroad bridge will not reduce the natural retention storage capacity of the tributary nor unlawfully increase the magnitude and volume of flooding in other locations as best practices have been followed along with all applicable city and county ordinances with regard to stormwater management The inclusion of ample compensatory storage basins as part of the development will further serve to alleviate any potential impacts as reflected in the grading plans included in the Union Pacific Railroad site plans and Union Pacific Railroad bridge flood study. Criteria e the soil and subsoil conditions are suitable for excavation and site preparation and the drainage is designed to prevent erosion and environmentally deleterious surface runoff the Union Pacific Railroad site and bridge plans take into account the soil and subsoil conditions as well as the drainage and have been designed using best practices to prevent erosion environmentally deleterious runoff consistent with all applicable city and county ordinances with regard to stormwater management and Improvements include permanent erosion control measures such as turf reinforcement mat, scour prevention, and deep-rooted vegetation to offer improved soil retention. Best practices being implemented also to prevent erosion runoff and protect existing natural features during construction include silt fence, orange construction fence, inlet protection, stabilized construction entrances, concrete washouts, permanent seating, erosion control blanket, turf reinforcement mat, ditch checks, riprap. and temporary riser pipes as shown in the grading plans stormwater pollution prevention plans and erosion control plans included in the union pacific railroad site and bridge plans the applicant is in full compliance with and is actively pursuing its illinois natch national pollution illinois national pollutant discharge elimination system also we refer to as nifty's a stormwater permit for construction activities at the time of the application The NPDES permit will take place in advance of the construction start date. The criteria F, this development will not adversely affect Not adversely materially affect water quality destroy damage or disrupt significant habitat area adversely affect drainage in our stormwater capabilities adversely affect flood conveyance and storage leads to unstable earth conditions create erosion hazards or be materially detrimental in any other property in the area of subject property or to the city of Joliet as a whole including the loss of open space or scenic vistas The Union Pacific Railroad site and bridge plans do not propose alterations to the tributary and per the plans show improved landscaping and conversion of what is presently farm field to prairie and creation of compensatory storage basins. The proposed basins and associated natural vegetation as reflected in the landscape plans and grading plans include in the Union Pacific Railroad site and bridge plans bolster the capacity of the site adjacent to the creek to provide habitat and soil retention as well as improve drainage conditions such as water quality and flood control volume. Criteria G the development will result in the restoration of the Cedar Creek Sugar Creek Jackson Creek and Jackson Branch watershed protection areas that were previously disturbed or damaged by development or agricultural uses the Union Pacific railroad site and bridge plans do not intend to make alterations to the tributary itself and the landscape plan provides for the conversion of what is presently farm field or open space to prairie and The stormwater pollution prevention plans and erosion control plans included in the Union Pacific Railroad site and bridge plans should provide more meaningful protection and improvement than the current farm field. In conclusion, staff finds the request meets the criteria outlined in the watershed protection ordinance. Engineering plans have considered site construction, grading, detention, and landscaping proposals have been approved by staff in accordance with the responses provided by the applicant. As required by Section 47-15 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the applicant has also provided evidence of a 25-foot-wide vegetation strip that would extend landward from the ordinary high-water mark of Cedar Creek Tributary. These plans have been included in the staff report packet. For recommended action, approval of the requested special use permit would allow construction of Third Coast Parkway to begin as shown in the presented exhibits as required per the settlement and mutual releases agreement that was adopted by the City Council in 2025. Staff finds that the petitioner has adequately addressed the requirements for development of the subject lots within the Cedar Creek Watershed Protection Area. And that concludes staff's report.

Thank you. May we have the petitioner on this item?

Nathaniel Washburn, KGG LLC. I'm the attorney for the applicant and petitioner. Staff did a good job summarizing the report. The only thing I would add is that since we submitted initially, we do now have the NPDES permit. And that would be the only thing I have to add to staff's report. And we would ask for a recommendation of approval.

Any questions or comments from the Commission administers over the Cedar Creek watershed protection area I believe this is just the city correct because this is a city ordinance that the city is implemented So the city is the arbiter of this ordinance Any other questions or comments from the Commission

So again, just for a point of clarity, the bridge that's gonna be going, so the entrance into the current park from Millsdale will remain the same. The primary purpose of this bridge is gonna be for those truck looking to get into the park on the east side of 53, correct?

So this petition here is for the Union Pacific Bridge. So the existing Millsdale cul-de-sac as it sits today will remain the same. The current temporary connection that is at grade into Millsdale... West of the cul-de-sac ball will be closed after the bridge is constructed. So the bridge will be the only means of ingress, egress, as I believe both the grade crossing at the UP and our temporary connection would be vacated and removed. Does that answer your question?

That answers my question. I'm just thinking some renderings probably is going to be helpful.

Was that some type of visual renderings for the residents that are there is probably going to be helpful We can certainly explore making that clearer as we move forward in this process and certainly point well taken Any other questions or comments from the Commission Any comments or questions from the audience I

Seeing none there be a motion for M-3-26 Motion to approve Second Roll call Mr. Turke Aye Mr. Crompton Aye Mr. Hammock Aye Mr. Martin Aye Ms. Radakovich Aye Chairman Cox Aye

okay next on the agenda is another special use permit so this is case m426 this is a special use permit to allow development of a lot within the cedar creek watershed protection area this is located on the east side of illinois route 53 and north of green road same property owner tci H Land Holdings. They are the property developer and owner. Again, approval of a Cedar Creek Watershed Protection Area Special Use Permit. The purpose is to allow construction of a future roadway and associated stormwater detention infrastructure. The zoning in this area is I-1 Light Industrial. Again, location is on the east side of Route 53 north of Green Road. The size is approximately 70 acres. The existing land use is farmland and the Cedar Creek Tributary. For surrounding lanes and zoning, to the north is warehousing with I-1 zoning. To the south is farmland with I-1 zoning and county agricultural zoning. To the east is rural residents in this farmland and with county A-1 zoning. And then to the west is a single-family residential use open space with R-2 single-family residential, B-3 general business, and I-1 light industrial zoning. For site history, the subject property has been undeveloped farmland throughout its existence. A tributary for Cedar Creek runs through the middle of the subject property. june of 2025 the city entered into a settlement and mutual releases agreement for the hobolt road extension jv llc center point properties trust center point juliet terminal railroad llc eastgate logistics park chicago llc new wave farms llc and north point development llc relating to the construction of the eastgate logistics park development in juliet the agreement stipulates that the east gate that Eastgate is required by the city to construct a closed loop truck network that would serve as the exclusive method of tractor trailer truck ingress and egress within the Eastgate property only to be accessed to and from the East Gate property by tractor-trailer trucks via a single access point on Millsdale Road. The agreement further states that the closed-loop truck network shall include a bridge crossing Illinois Route 53 to provide tractor-trailer truck access from the portion of the East Gate property lying east of Illinois Route 53 to the railroad bridge, which crosses over the Union Pacific Railroad to the northwest of the subject property. The bridge would land on the southwest portion of the subject property before extending southward as Third Coast Parkway. The subject property would also contain compensatory storage basins and a detention basin for stormwater detention. These improvements are shown in the associated preliminary plat in Unit 1, final plat of Third Coast Intermodal Hub 2A subdivision. In 2007, the City passed Ordinance 15820 regarding the Cedar Creek, Sugar Creek, Jackson Creek, and Jackson Branch watershed protection areas. The Ordinance requires that any development of a lot or parcel containing territory located in these protection areas receives approval of a special use through the Planning Commission and City Council. The protection area is defined in Section 47-15G.3b as property lying within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the creeks, within 25 feet of the upland edge of any wetland within the watersheds, or within 100 feet of the center threat of any tributaries to the creeks actually located in the 100-year floodplain. The criteria for this type of request are listed under Section 4715G.4. The subject property is located within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Cedar Creek Tributary and is therefore located within a designated creek protection area. Before construction of the Illinois Route 53 bridge landing and associated detention infrastructure can commence, the City Council must approve the requested special use permit. For section, sorry, special information for this request. Section 47-15G7B of the city's zoning ordinance states that municipal and public infrastructure, including stormwater facilities, are permitted development activities within Cedar Creek Watershed Protection Area. Section 47-15G.4 of the city's zoning ordinance details the criteria that must be met for a special use permit to be granted. I reviewed all of those letters from A to G with the last staff report. The same criteria are in place for this. The applicant did supply justifying remarks to satisfy these criteria, which are included in the staff report packet for this request. If it's OK with the chair, do you want me to read all of these again or reference the staff report packet?

I'm okay with the reference. Okay.

Yes, there's no requirement for her to go through it all. Okay.

Thank you. Staff finds that the request, again, letters A through G of the criteria outlined in the Watershed Protection Area Ordinance meets these criteria. The applicant will be required to install plantings that meet the vegetation strip requirements pursuant to section 47.15 of the city's zoning ordinance. The vegetation strip will extend outward from the edge of the creek's shallow channel. And overall, the measures proposed by the applicant will enhance the quality and preservation of the creek tributary, which has been farmed for over several years. For recommended action, approval of the requested special use permit would allow construction of Third Coast Parkway and its associated detention infrastructure to begin, as shown in the presented exhibits, provided that companion petitions related to preliminary and final platting the third coast intermodal hub to a unit 1 and associated right-of-way dedications are approved by the City Council staff finds that the petitioner has adequately addressed the requirements for development of the subject lot within the Cedar Creek watershed protection area That concludes staff's report. But I would request that if Mr. Washberg could note any updates, like if a NPDES permit has been obtained since the publishing of the staff report on the city's website. And that concludes staff's report.

Petitioner on this item Nathaniel Washburn kgg LLC attorney for the applicant petitioner Thank you for your more than thorough summary on the last one of our Creek criteria and thank you chair for Allowing it to be stipulated on the record had we known that we might have been a little more brief in how we articulated some things if we would have known that it was going to get read every time or had the potential to be but we certainly appreciate the latitude there like the other one and for reference for the next staff report we have all of our nippies permits in hand and certainly we otherwise stand behind staff's report in our prior submitted plans and happy to answer any questions any comments or questions from the commission

Any comments or questions from the audience? Seeing or hearing none, there'd be a motion for M-4-26.

So moved.

Second.

Roll call.

Mr. Crompton?

Aye.

Mr. Hammack?

Aye.

Mr. Martin? Aye. Ms. Rudakovich? Aye. Mr. Turk? Aye. Chairman Cox?

Aye. Next item, please.

Okay, the next item is case M526, a special use permit to allow development of a lot within the Jackson Creek Watershed Protection Area. This is located east of Illinois Route 53 and south of Noel Road. Applicant, again, is TCIH Land Holdings LLC. They also are the property developer and owner. Again, the requested action is approval of a Jackson Creek Watershed Protection Area Special Use Permit, and it's to allow future development to occur in a lot that is within the Jackson Creek Watershed Protection Area. Again, the location is east of Illinois Route 53, north of Breen. Sorry, it should be south of Breen Road, right? South of Breen Road. Sorry, that's a typo on the staff report. Again, different location from the last one we just looked at. South of Breen Road, east of Illinois Route 53. Zoning is I-1 Light Industrial, and the approximate size is around 78 acres. Existing land use is farmland and woodlands, and also the Jackson Creek. For surrounding land use and zoning, to the north is farmland and its rural residence use with county A1 zoning. To the south is Jackson Creek. There are woodlands, and then it is county A1 zoning. To the east is Jackson Creek with woodlands, and then I1 light industrial zoning. And then to the west is a single-family residential uses, as well as Illinois Route 53, and that has county R3 single-family residential zoning. For site history, the subject property has been undeveloped farmland throughout its existence. Jackson Creek clips the southern portion of the subject property. A small wetland, as shown below in the staff report, Figure 1, is also located adjacent to the creek in the southern portion of the subject lot. A companion set of petitions to subdivide the subject lot is currently in review. The east portion of the subject lot would be included in a lot with stormwater detention for a future warehouse building that would be located northwest of the subject site. In 2007, the city passed ordinance number 15820 regarding the Cedar Creek, Sugar Creek, Jackson Creek, and Jackson Branch watershed protection areas. The ordinance requires that any development of a lot or parcel containing territory located in these protection areas receives approval of a special use permit through the planned commission and city council the protection area is defined in section 47-15g 3.3b as property lying within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the creeks within 25 feet of the upland land of any wetland within the watersheds or within 100 feet of the center thread of any tributaries to the creeks actually located in the 100-year floodplain the criteria for this type of request are listed under section 47-15 g4 and the subject property is located within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of jackson creek and is therefore located within a designated creek protection area Before construction related to the Third Coast Intermodal Hub two-way subdivision infrastructure can commence, the City Council must approve the requested special use permit. special information for section 4715 g7b of the city's zoning ordinance this states that municipal and public infrastructure including storm water facilities are permitted development activities within the jackson creek watershed protection area once again chair i'm requesting if it's okay to just reference that um the there are letters a through g of the criteria for the jackson creek watershed protection area were submitted and are part of the record for the staff report um and the responses are in there and okay i'm okay all right so again section 47 g4 of the city's zoning ordinance details that criteria must be met for a special use permit to be granted and the applicant has supplied justifying remarks to these criteria and it is part of the Packet that is available on the city's website tied to this agenda item staff has reviewed the criteria and the request and as Outlined in the watershed protection area ordinance the applicant will be required to install plantings that meet the vegetation strip requirements pursuant to section 47 15 G 12 of the city zoning ordinance trees that are removed and to accommodate the proposed stormwater detention basin will be required to be replaced at a ratio as required by the city's tree replacement ordinance as detailed in Chapter 26, Article 6, Section 26-128H of the city's municipal code. For recommended action, approval of the requested special use permit would allow construction associated with the Third Coast Intermodal Hub 2A, Unit 1 Sud Division to occur on the subject property pending associated petition approvals. City Council approval is required for this special use permit petition. Staff finds that the petitioner has adequately addressed the requirements for development of the subject lot within the Jackson Creek Watershed Protection Area. That concludes staff's report. I would ask the attorney to, again, on record, indicate any updates since the publishing of the staff report to the city's website, including any comments related to NPDES again.

Thank you. May we have the petitioner on this item?

Daniel Washburn, KGG LLC, attorney for the applicant and petitioner. We do have the NPDES permit as an update since we initially submitted. And also just to further reinforce the comments from the gentleman before, as this is the one near Jackson Creek, we are outside of, all development is outside of any area that's designated as a wetland and per the tree preservation ordinance. And as you can actually see, the one detention basin We are amply landscaping the basin itself and going to comply with all ordinances. Happy to answer any other questions. Any questions or comments from the commission?

Any comments or questions from the audience? Teacher name?

A thing I haven't heard anything about is displaced wildlife. We are tearing down a pretty large section of forest to the north of Jackson Creek and all this wildlife is going somewhere. I mean we've noticed already with the warehouses that we've had a lot more wildlife in our area. You know nuisance one squirrels and whatnot trying to seek shelter and our addicts and stuff like that What are they doing about any kind of wildlife that they're displacing whether it be a deer or? Coyote squirrels raccoons all the wildlife that does live in this area. That's now going to be I'll let the petitioner answer that try to

part of the development process there's certain submittals and this is in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance which would account for such considerations thank you any other

I'm not sure how he would take care of displaced animals.

Did he say tree preservation ordinance?

So a part of the permitting process is to submit to IDNR and ECOCAT assessment, which would identify any protected species and give any sort of direction on that front. And also the tree preservation ordinance is designed to preserve such things, which is why we have to do additional plantings to account for anything we were removing. So the combination of both our permitting process and the city's own tree preservation ordinance is designed to account for the concern raised.

Thank you.

Could you speak into the microphone, please, so it's on record?

The City of Joliet is who basically polices the area for the watershed protection area for the creek itself. The City of Joliet is the one that says yay or nay to what we do around that area. When we went to do an addition to our house, the Army Corps of Engineers was involved just for us to put an addition into our house. I'm curious if they're involved in this project at all.

For the record, yes, we are complying with any permissions we need from the Army Corps and have been working through that process. Before I walk away, any further questions from the commission?

Any other comments or questions from the audience? Hearing or seeing none, we're at motion for M-5-26.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Roll call.

Mr. Hammack?

Aye.

Mr. Martin? Aye. Ms. Rudakovich? Aye. Mr. Turk? Aye. Mr. Crompton? Aye. Chairman Cox? Aye.

OK, next on the agenda is citizen to be heard on agenda items. This section is for anyone regarding wanting to speak on non-public hearing agenda items, which we have done. So we could move on to the next section. okay next section is old business of which we have no agenda items which brings us to new business we have no agenda items under old and new business not for final actual recommendation we have no agenda items which then brings us to public comment this section is for anyone wanting to speak regarding a non-agenda item and are allowed a maximum of four minutes is there anyone here who would like to address the playing commission on a non-agenda item

OK. Seeing none.

Last item is adjournment.

How about a motion for adjournment? Motion for adjournment. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.