The Plan Commission of the Village of Tinley Park continued a public meeting on July 17 to allow the Gas & Wash petitioner more time to respond to commissioners’ concerns about the finish and long-term durability of a 502-foot precast/cast-in-place retaining wall at 18301 LaGrange Road.

The dispute centers on a condition imposed with earlier approvals in 2023 that, in the commission’s words, required that “any retaining wall proposed by the petitioner at the final engineering phase of the project must be constructed of materials substantially compatible to the buildings and fueling canopies.” Michael, planning staff, read that condition during the meeting and said the requirement was intended “to avoid the large blank wall effect” and that the intention was masonry or a similar finish matching the building brick.

Petitioners and designers told the commission the wall was built after engineering changes raised the top height to about 12 feet at its tallest point, making a masonry veneer costly and, they said, prone to freeze–thaw damage. Christian Koleshevsky, an architect with WT Group, said, “We have over a 502 foot long wall in the front there, maxing out at 12 feet,” and argued the wall’s height and local drainage made traditional thin-brick veneer vulnerable to popping and damage over time.

Mike Hackett, Gas & Wash real-estate manager, said the store opened under a temporary certificate of occupancy in December 2024 while outstanding items -- principally the wall finish -- are being resolved. Hackett and the project team proposed applying a high-build waterproof masonry coating produced by Sherwin‑Williams (identified in materials as Lexicon XP, tinted “relaxed khaki”) and increasing landscaping — including Techni (Thuja) arborvitae and red Arctic dogwood — to soften the wall’s appearance.

Commissioners repeatedly pressed the petitioner to follow the 2023 condition specifying a masonry-compatible finish. Commissioner Manny, an architect by background, said he had consulted product technical literature and called the proposed coating “not designed to fill or level rough concrete wall to make it look smooth.” Commissioner Martinez and others urged either a masonry cladding or an architectural masonry finish that would match the approved building materials.

The petitioner said thin-brick veneer would be difficult to maintain at the site because of freeze–thaw cycles and salt exposure from roadway operations; the team estimated the casting and structural approach raised construction costs by roughly $800,000 versus their early scheme. The petitioner also said the proposed coating would require periodic repainting—roughly every six years, they estimated—and that store maintenance crews could power-wash and touch up the finish as needed.

Staff told commissioners the temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) remains in place but that the permanent certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the retaining-wall condition is satisfied. Staff said the TCO expires next month but can be administratively extended (staff noted authority to extend up to 290 days).

After discussion, commissioners voted to continue the public meeting so the petitioner can provide: (1) documented durability information and vendor/technical contacts for the proposed coating and for alternative masonry/veneer systems; (2) a revised landscape plan showing additional screening; and (3) any alternative finish systems the petitioner will consider. Commissioner Gasco moved to continue the meeting and Commissioner Manny seconded; the motion carried and the item was continued to the commission’s next meeting in August.

Why it matters: the commission must balance the village’s architectural/site-plan standards against the petitioner’s claims about long-term maintenance and engineering constraints that increased wall height. The decision also controls when the Gas & Wash will be eligible for a permanent certificate of occupancy, a procedural milestone that affects the business and enforcement timelines.

What’s next: the petitioner will coordinate with village staff to supply product durability data, paint/coating and masonry vendor contacts, and an updated planting plan for the commission’s August review. If the commission remains split on an approval, the petitioner may appeal to the village board (trustees) as described by staff during the meeting.