Village of Lombard Legistar System

Patrick Zuroski, project manager, general contractor and developer for the proposed

facility. 951 S. 7th Street, Rochelle, 61068. He displayed a color rending of the Main

Street Market concept for the renovation of the building. Mr. Zuroski /DPSA

Companies/on behalf of Kraupanithi, Inc. dev. subject property. Pursuant to submittal

requesting the village an amendment to the existying cu on the west side of building

attached to previous site plan. he also mentioned the variations they are requesting. 1st

amendment is auto service. the first service has vacated the property and asking that

the west side of the structure to have similar use. he mentioned that side is all right for

this use. 2nd amndement - sales - mulch, beverages, in specific areas on site. sales

consistent with other stations. will have no impact on adjacent proeprty. 1st variation -

the petitoner wants to install a new brand sign in the same location similar hiehgt and

width. 2nd var - increase so that he top portion of the sign 4 x 8 top part and bottom part

of sign will measure. he described the sign and feel that the surface area of the xistsing

sign is same as proposed but slightly larger. 3rd var - the petioner is req. 1 non

illumiated citgo sign for the north and east side of canopy. req. an illumatined main

street market placed over store and he described. he noted the idifference on the

canopy is the citgo logo is now non illuminated. the petitoner submitted plans and

r3eceived initial comments from the BIS. construction of the store will proceed upon

receipt of trhe plans. limited demoliton permit. the project has net or exceeded village

codes excedpt for their requests tonight. pet. will enhance north side of property with

landscaping. repave where paving currently exists. no further plans for anything elase.

feel it is a good neighborhood image and fits well.

There was no one to speak in favor or against this petition.

Speaking against the petition were:

Peter Zakos, 618 S. Main Street. Mr. Zakos stated he has lived there for 30 years and

his proeprty is located south of the gas station in question. He gave the history of the

canopy and mentioned that at previous meetings it was established that the canopy

would measure 22 x 40. He asked if the petitioner would be expanding the canopy to

make it larger. Mr. Zakos also inquired as to perimeter lighting. He mentioned the light

poles by his drieveway and wanted to know if those would stay. He referred to the

pictures he handed out to the to the Commissioners which showed the standing water

he gets. Mr. Zakos stated that all downspouts are directed to that area and his flooding

problem has gotten worse over the years. The pictures also show debris he receives

which gets washed into his yard. He is concerned about those problems, the

neighborhood, and having a 24-hour facility next to his property.

Joe Grimes, 25 E. Madison Street, stated that project is being brought back as a result

of certain issues and he wanted to speak about these issues and make sure they are

addressed. He wanted confirmation that the canopy and number of gasoline pumps

would stay as is. He was concerned about the canopy lighting and he felt it could be

brought down to 50 footcandles. He asked about the hours of operation mentioning that

at previous meetings the petitioner stated that they would be shutting down from

midnight to 4:30 a.m. He wanted stormwater runooff to be addressed as well as the

landscaping and fencing. He asked if they were going to replace the fence on the south

and west side. He thought there was mention of a 10' tall fence at one time and

wanted to know if that was going to be the height. He thought the landscaping was

minimal and the petitioner should get larger bushes. He was concerned about traffic

and safety specifically the north entrance. He stated there was talk about making it a

right in right out or closing it. He believes the traffic study is inadequate as it doesn't

address traffic around the site or in conjunction with the schools but just talks about

flows of traffice in and out of the facility. Mr. Grimes stated he was very happy with the

building redesign and thought it was great but he thought brick should be the material of

choice and they should be required to use it. He feels that since the neighborhood has

made concessions, the petitioner should also.

Petitioner rebutted. wanted to so through some of the issues - are here to address the

issues of the cu and the variations. not asking fgor anuything additional then in the

petition. feels all these issues have been addressed and they are not specifically tied to

our request at this time. keep in mind that they are exceeding village ordinances and

want to be good neighbors.

Heniff gave staff report. appeared before pc in may with no recommendation and went

to bot. they sent back. he reiterated the request. the pumps and canopy are legal non

conforming as they are today. Three signage variations associated but modified. they

moved a number of signs. the new request changes from 9 to 4 and 138 to 94 s.f. the

underlined village code so by right they can do 2 signs by right they are requesting 4.

freestanding sign in clos. staff doesn't feel the sign would create a clos issue because

of the roadway profile. canopy sign restricted to non illimunated letters. same

recommendation. modified recommendation to address those concerns amending the

petition. staff feels that the 8 conditions are appropriate.

Commissioners:

SF - hours working was that incorporated in here? BH it was discussed in april pc . if

approprate they could consider that but staff did not have in their recommendation.

RO - like the design is an improvement. absent at the april meeting. couple of issues.

wanted to be good neighbors, not aware of a potential stormwater issue. need to be

addressed and correcting the s/w situation. the other issue is the lighting issue, does

the lighting meet code. BH introduced DG for s/w issues. Lighting would fall under

same requirements that any business would have. he gave code requirements. more

of a code enforcement issue. if they modify the lighting, they would have to submit

photometric plan. RO we don't know at this time if it meets code or not.

RS - a little disturbing that the discussion that we had in the april meeting are not

incorpoated and since no recommendation those were not forwarded. Take some of

thse issues, the landscaping the greates degree possible and be rmeinded, and about

the fencing, the traffice, the north entrace specifically about the tankers, and the traffic

study didn't indicate any problems. concerned about the building materials and favored

all brick xterior. Requested what the prior petition contained.

DR - is the canopy staying exaclty as is. pet no alternatives other than minor reqpris.

DR hiehgrt and size will stay the same. Pet yes. DR - # of pumps will stay same. PEt

yes but the configuration may change.

DG pes of Village Village code parking lots is resurfaced or rebuilt staff will look at

anyimprovements to bring it up to code and restriping - 25%. If 50% all that and

landscaping, drainage, etc. With the minor patchwork is a matter of surface area. the

application would be limited to striping. if less than 50 % we could work with you to see

if you could handle that to your satisfaction. pet is looking to resurface the entire lot?

pet. haven't submitted anything yet. its their intention to make improvements but the

size and confirguration not decided at this time. it is not intention to repave the entire site

at this time. we are decreasing the impervious surface area of site to allow for additional

absorbancy.

DR - current hours? pet - no current hours of opration DR intended hours. Pet;

operate \withing code.

RS at last meeting the owner agreed to hours not have any oeration between midnight

at 4 am. and correspond with hours of convenient store across the street.

BH - addressed the conditions that talked about 7 pmn and closing. hours of operation

11-5am, final analysis midnight to 4:30 went to the board.those were specifically added.

direction was given to add more landscpaing but not a condition.

DR what is code for hours of operation. BH Village doesn't have nay codes to hours of

operation.

RS - what is req. for a fence. BH solid redwood fence and gave location could that be

increased in height . 8' is max being mindful of clos issues. RS is that what it is now?

BH i believe 6.

RO - water issue - concerneedd about this issue. this is the time to correct it and this is

our opportunity to do something about it. Village staff should take a look at and

determine if there is a problem and be corrected by pet. DG staff did look at issue,

water is running off solution is higher elevation or tieing into storm sewer. BH talk about

access in and out of site this is from the traffic consultant. as it relates to north access

dirve. he quoted the study. ifthe pc feels it necesary to sign it or mark it that would be

appropriate. the other issue was what the increase in the trips would be. the pet. is

taying with the 4 don't increase trips to site. they note that conveience mart traffic is

pass by and not destination oriented. the conveience store is a permitted use and there

may be some additional trips generated but what is the fueld discpesning impact.

RS - exterior and the building material and what it is and percentages. Pet - we

submitted a full set of plans and facility will be construed as on color rendingering the

extiero wil be 100 % brick and wraps around the west section. the south side is concrete

block and shielded by landscacping and will retain that surface and paint the same color.

Green canvas awnings and one exterior sign.

1. the 2 conditonal uses in addition to the 8 coibnditions: to include the folliwng: that the

hours of operation are no greater than midnight and don't begin before 4:30

The a photometric plan be submitted.

Drainage plan be created and submitted subject to Director of CD and the opeople

informed of that .

Increased landscaping to the maximum

6'Solid fence on the west and south be maintained.

fuel transport occur between 7am and 7 pm or wahter was agreed to previously.

Mark Janek reprsenting Insignia Homes. A fewmonths ago he appeared about this

project and now for the public hearing. The property under contract is at end of Fairfield

and gavie location south of the detnetion/rention basin of Roosevelt lRoad. Property

has history of development approvals. Curently condo buildings on south and west, on

east single family homes, north is commercial. proeprty wasinteedned an extension oof

current condo. mentioned 66 buildings that were to be approved. the facilities went into

disreapr and if the assoc. wanted to pay for the repair of pool, tennis courts and assoc.

saidno. came in with t/h proposal with 45\46 units and showed the elevations. the pc

gave us comments about hte plan and arch. and now 40 units as well as architecuture.

arch changed a little to address the issues is the end of theunits facing the single family.

chanted to end units for a two level unit to have a different product for a different buyer.

all units face the exterior property lines. all rears of building where garages are they are

hidden from site and the possiblity of trafficc congestion. located denteion basin on

west side and will not touch theweland part of site. will have aw walking path on both

ends of property and open to whomever is back there. Conp plan calls for 10-11 units

per acre they are at 7. t hey have reduced density. average sale price is around

220-230 per unit. they believe that th4ese t/h are designed and built to have entirely all

area owned by association. no rear yards not attraactive for children. have numberous

professions here if they have any questions.

No one in favor

Against:

Steven Garrett - 440 13th place, hh subdiv. west of properosed developmnt. will impact

neighborhood greatly. Sewer plan will not work. having a problem with that sewer

bubbles over repeadly with raw sewage that goes into his backyard. thius is caused by

high point center property and gave history of the stromwater issues. they were

promised flood reflief and never receeived it except for a dike. water lines will run over

each other that won't work. traffiic concerns him. doesn't like the R1 not congruent with

muylti family structure. flood water management code CLLMR must be issued by fema.

have not seen that. rentntion bponds will areadly be taking the easgate highland

meedical water in addition to what is there alrady.

Vincent Lopez - 1371 S. Lombard Ave., been there for 15+ yuears. Brief comment did

not buy into the neighborood, couldnt afford lobmard at time because of taxes and

moved into incorporated. he mnetioned the schools that their kids go to. loves the

neighbrohood like the quitness and country atmosphere, they have trees and green

grass. he welcomes change but not compromising their issues.

Edward Bubek - 143 S. Grace - back gate - to use street as thoroughfare. they should

make their own adjustment and where will all the construction equipment go. likes his

neighbrohdood safe for kids.

Shannon Smith - declined

Gary Harrison - 1361 S. Lombard - what exactly is being annexed. Brought a plat of

survey and wants to know if they make a private road annexed. Do you plan on taking

those proeprties for the private road. Where is s/w going, will the retntion handle the

sever storms? is there a backup plan for the tention if it fails? Will the village be liable,

will lombard take measure to ensure that doesn't happen?

Michael Friga - 1527 S. Highland, are here to voice our concerns and be neighbors that

will affect our quality of life. still inapproiate around single family homes. project should

meet certain criteria like s/w, impervious surface, nature of arch, increase in traffic and

other safety issues. also the long term status of these units like abseetism landlords.

Robert PcPherson - declined

Analyese Meyer - 261 pINE LANE - concerned about flooding. have problems arleady

wioth flooding. when fairfield becoames part of lombard will they take care of the

drainage issue.

Steven Longhorn - 1410 S. Lombard - concerns about flooding prolem and that topo

survey . added traffic to radway, if access is from grace street. don't want to be

incorporated. Tarrffic flows - what direction they are comingfrom? Tremenoud amount

of children crosisng that roadway. putting the condos will icnrease traffic on highland.

Gene Harrison - 1331 S. Lombard - echo the comments on his neighbors. didn't receive

any notice that it was being heard tonight. Surprise to find that it is not a road and was

built illegially. against annexation as well.

Jerry Voss - 1391 S. Lombard - on the location map sent to him by village it shows

subject property like it comes up to his back door. the road managed by township so he

is confused. He has lowest yard in his section. Water drainage he cannot add or

detract from his yard because he is in a flloodplain. Wonder why he can't do anything to

keep a swimming pool out of his yard but a contractor can do what they want. His kids

play on other side of fence but with increased amount of traffic. feels there could be

300-400 more people and the poeple who buy into the development they can only go

one way and after thedev. is completed and they open up the access road onto Grace

Street. Doesn't water backed up any further in his back yard. Water right now just sits

there.

Ben Swagga - 1517 S. Stewart - corner lot. open up street we have problems. single

family homes 1/2 acre - 3/4 acres right now. Worried about the maintenance of the

condos. No tax base here. Keep the single family homes with bigger lots. Against

annexation also. we are not here to cause problems and won't fit the profile. dont open

up grace street.

Myra Murill - 1471S. Lombard - lived in Chiago, burr ridge and hinsda.e and took 2 years

to find a hosue here. totally agianst the probject. installed 2nd sump pump in house

because of water. traffice is another issue. are there certain legal procedures to follow

to let neighbhood folks know what goes on in their neighborthood. FAARS have to go

for variances. As far as he knows only 4 people were notified of the hearing.

Questioned the public hearing procedures of notification. Questioned the main access

and garbage pcikups He mentions the staff report to change the setbakcs mentioned the

developer can change those if they want.

Gloria Herrera - 1380 S. Lombard - one block west of Grace and in front of Jerry who

talked about how is losing land.\ bea\cause of the accessing of the road. concerned

about drainage also. concerned about annexation into lombard. worried about the

property taxes feels she will have to contributre in order to get a fix to the water problem.

Loves here neighborood because of the space and her neighbors. plese don't change

her neighborhood.

Walter Cowa - completely against the development because it will be too crowded and

too close to their building. the plan doesn't show on plan how many feet the property is

from the building. He mentioned a reservoir and a safety issue of falling into it - will

they put up a fence and how will it look. He mentioned how they used the pool and

tennis court and sauna and that they pay for insurance. then they asked for more

money for maintenace. They lost the value and now they lose the value again Can't

undestand him or where he is going with this conversation.

Lydia Jinsysky - mentions the petition on PC 03-22 . Chairperson Ryan mentions that is

the wrong petition. they have reviewed the proposal and plans and object to the deve.

when the property orignally deve. it was comtemplated that a 3 story building with

amenitites would be constructed between thebuilding and only 2 buildings built.

mentioned their disrepair. mentioned the loss of the value. with new devel they will see

a further decrease in value to their property. mentioned the proposed detention pond

and will be immediately adjacent to their property. Difficulat traffic patterns without

additional ingress and egress. Louis university and montini the congestion will be

excessive. increase in density will not be good for the people. the proposal ignores

them but puts them int he rear of the new development. drastic change in

demographics with the community.

Ramona Garrett - 440 E. 13th Place - environmental scientiest - about theenvironment.

took a look at the extent of th wetlands in area. want the area to be protected if deve.

gets built the wetland will not be protected. Retntion ponds and mosquitos from

standing water and needs to be addressed. Mentioned an aerator but the ponds are too

shallow. . Consider the bigger picture mentioned the highest and best use of the

proeprty and should be some benefit for a large group of people. don't see a benefit

here. traffic study doesn't consider grace and 15th street. they like their big lots and

country feel and like the different types of birds and like nature and want to make sure it

is still here and wyhere will the animals go.

David Bardack - York center cooperative - problems with plans and with nassets. 866 lf

and 31,00 s.f. and producers a dense housing area. In favor seeing the wetland being

preserved but the extent to drainage coming east and south and hh area and this

something that must be considered. water detnetion areas on property not fenced and

raisese safety issues. North of barrier at end of Fairfield, York t/s deposited large

amounts of concrete should be fenced to keep the garabage at bay. Inventory of trees

to be maintained and glad but osme of the trees are ont he concrete but on the coop

area. Finally lights, on fairfield and these will be the old style village lights, concerened

about the direction of the lgihts.

Mark Janek rebutted. most people to the west of their property. he will explain the s/w

flow. their site flows from south to north toward the basin area. the stream flows flows

from west to east. their proeprty downstrem from neighborhood that talked tonight. their

flow willcontinue east. he doesn't believe that they will affect anyone upstream from

them. Concern about using Grace and 15th place, their entire site is focsued toward F/f.

no access to Grace. will use the access driveway as thye will be owing half of that

property. the gate is for emergency purposes only. their traffic study is only for f/f as

that is what they will access. 7% increase on f/f per study. peak hours 27-30 cars at

peak tiome. most of the popel at their condos will be working and not at home.

lDetention basin, mosquitos, the depth ob dettention basin and are designed by Dupage

county standards and vol staff, they detain and they go back down to their normal level

which is about 6-8" of water. they will plant a native mix to encourage anmials which eat

the mosquiot larvea which is their design. Wetlands will not be within 25' feet grading

wise and not touching flood plain or they mitigating flood plain on site. the part they are

building on will have fill, thenatural part of site they will leave alone. Losing lands -

doesn't take into any properties on grace just th epiece they have under contract and the

condo association property. they will hook on to Chicago water. the watermians cross,

watermain can cross each other they are not sanitary sewer pipes, they are meeting

village and dupage county codes. Lot coverage - is only 33-35% which is extremely low

because of the few units. Amenities - they are gone from the condo assoc. problem is

that tings happen with that property , they had a choice to ppay for the amenitites to be

rebuilt and they said no. But he will make a project that will help them out and will effect

someone but feel this is a ration plan and feel they have more than followed the code.

DR - the intention that Grace street will go through. Pet. no development along grace

street. we have a chipped path close to grace street butr no imporvements to grace

street at all.

RS - don't have control over the gate. Wants to know who does. Pet. 0- the condo

assoc. that is their gate.

Staff report.

Presented the main points and willturn over the DG to address the s/w issues. Insignis

Homes petition exclusively. gave location of property. proposing 7 building 40 unit

building replace a previous development proposal approvedin 1979. to clarify dupage

county has it zoned for R6 which menas someone could go to dupage county as a 66

development as a matter of right. PC reviewed earlier versions at their workshop and

raised concerns of s/w, wetland, guest parking, and other issues that the peti. has

addressed. Planning comments continugint achieved thru north side and is ultimately in

Lombard. annexation considerred by BOT. The CP as medium denisty residential and

proposed develop. is less or 7.1 % and is consisent and is lower. Zoning Ordinage - R1

to R4 cu approval and deviation to setback and cu for more than 1 strucutre on lot of

record.

Rezoning - automaticlly to R1, want R4. single family residential is that is has R1 zoning

and then there is a map amnedment. staff feels it is appropriate.

Cu for P D - addresses site specific issues. property constrained on orth side by

enbironmental issues.

Design issues - Read off of page 5mentioned the alternative elevations. the private

access dirveway a loop road back to f/f and maintained by a created association.

Transportation - only served by F/F ave. 33' public right of way, immediately est of that

is another easement which is an underimproved roadway.

Traffic study done and summarized the findings. No traffic signals or improvements

needed.

Landscaping - tree inventory Fron yard setback for a roofer over front porch that will

goalong f/f avenue.Read off of page 7.

CU -more than 1 building on lot of record - seven buiildings on subject property. will be

a homeowners association.

Sub & Deve. Ordinance - willimprove f/f improvemnets to full length of roadway. hh will

continue to provide sanitary sewer.

Surrounding land uses - compitable and provides a transition.

Turned over to Dave Gorman that he has been working on. making known that there

are new floodplain maps put out by FEMA. come to village or check out on website. no

proposed encrochment into floodplain with this development. only to wetland buffer.

there is a 2 year maintenance monitoring period and they are involved with permitting on

that. Surcharging of hh sanitary sewer. village not aware and will talk with them as they

will be providing sanitary swervice. Watermin will be looped from 17th street tof/f and

back. it will go alongside the h/h/ watermain. basins will be wetland bottoms and should

not be a fear of drowing and have talked with insignia about split rail fences around

them.

BH final issues to parking area - staff notes that each unit 2 car garage and 2 spaces

outside garage and 15 additional spaces in 3 didfferent areas. Hidden Valley condos

has suffienct parking.

architect compitability - the petitioner has developed a new model for what they would

like to do

Staff recomended approval subject to conditions. staff did look at apo list we didn't send

out to 19 properties immediately west of subject property notifing them of themeeting.

the subject prperty is singed with a public hearing notice.

Commisisoners: RO - notification concern BH - notification all property owners 250 ' of

a subject property public hearing with a sign. RS - definate improvement based on

workshop. we have general consdieration of all aspects of development anticipate that

if subject property remained R1 they would not be attractive to buyers as to proximity to

condos. The gate is under the condo assoc. what we can do to mandate that gate not

be opened for the construction process but that would be her recommenation.

RS if gate opened it is not by the village or insignia or opened by entities has no control.

interms of the rate of incrase as to figures??? this subdivision will be of a shoddy value?

not sure what she is asking. Barrier/split rail/ along the detention? DG thse basin

mentioned the slopes of the basins. RS - improvement of f/f the north end blocked to

prevent dumping. BH yes definately, it does have merit don't want fly dumping. would

be good to put a barrier RS - water lines crossing DG will run paralledl to exisint main

owned by HH. similar situation south on f/f. RS so they won't cross. DG don't believe if

they crossed it wouldn't be an engineering problem.

RO - not against development but think the commisison has to do is to take account

impact on neighbors, traffic issues, water and the arch compatibility still a major problem

for him.

DR - agianst alot at first but the work that has been done is very good but a developer

could come in right now and put up a 100 units w/o a public hearing so this developer

has come before us, listened to our concerns twice, reduced the denisty and answer

some of the problems and did a good job of it. try to do what is good for the village o

lombard and i think it is a very nice development which will improve the lookds and

value.

RS - i don't anticipate thingsto go wrong or go badly. don't think there is a precedent for

it.

SF - this is a high quality development and look it as a transition. it could be much

denser and it is a good compromise and dev. gone out of his way to make it a good

development.

RS neighter situation is possible lay of land dictates the flow either flows east or n/e is

that correct?

BH - clear up - that there were additional annexation above and beyond. 2 poperties

that are under contract with insignia and he rad the state statute. he mentioned the far

end of the public right of way. no single family properties annexed with this petition.

MB - f/f is it just the section immediately to the east. BH yes. can't hear him BH yes.

5. that all construction traffic will use f/f avenue as for ingress/egress

6. that split rail barrier will be put up surrounding the wetland areas including the

detention areas.

7. that particular attention paid to blocking the north end of f/f to improve dumping.

8. any drainage issues caused by the development be addresed by Director of

Community Development.

Eugene 1808 Darien, proposing a variation for the sign height. was here before before

for 3 freestanding signs which was granted. the actual lettering isonly 60.3 feet, they are

acutally proosing to lower the sign and more pleasing to roosevelt road but need height t

o locate the Lincoln Mercry dealership. He passed round pictures of the differences in

signs????? 5.5 acrte facility and think a sign of that size would beadequate. lowering

the sign more than 5 feet from what it is.

No one to speak in favor or against the petition.

idrc staff report requesting 2 deviations to the proposed sign as part of the expanion.

wants to install a new freestanding sign. he gave the history of the signs which meet

code and now want relieft to remove and replace the brand sign however the new sign

would not be the height or area of code therefore this hearing.

Planning - completed the expansion for the quick service bays and additionals service

space. Comp with sign ordinance - did receive cu in 2002 and a deviation for a number

of wall lsigns. he referred to the table on page 3 comparing the code vs. request. signs

legal nonconforming when they take down the sign a new sign has to meet code or get

relief to put up sign. Auotmobiles do propose unique signage issues. He gave staff

comments relative to the standards in regard to placement of signs. Amortization - in

the past inventory of non conforming signs and identified the L/M sign as one. the

request would be inconcsisent with the village board and could set a precedent.

Hardship - ordinance is not causing the hardship and has enought signage w/o relief. 3.

could decrease t6h eaesthic appeal of Roosevelt Road. When variations are granted

they run in perpertuity with the land and they set a precedence and such recommnds

denial

?Commissioners: DR - this sign is replacing the current one. how big is the current one

compared to the new one? BH existing sing is 35 the new at 25'11' sign surface is 154

s.f. and proposed 145 s.f. 9 sf.f less in terms of areas and over 5' in terms of height less.

DR they were notified that they had to bring it into compliance. BH we found a letter in

the file stating that.

DR we approved the other free standing signs and wall signs. BH yes. Dr so they have

5 years left to leave it or bring it under conformity.

Staff recommdns denial.

BH mentioned that if the petitoner wasnt to appeal the decision they must submit a letter

in 10 days and then will go to BOT>

William Henniff, Senior Planner, stated he had two items. First, he advised the

Commissioners that staff had received notice of a DuPage County petition requesting a

conditional use an oversized garage for the property located at 1021 S. Columbine. The

petition stated that the garage was to exceed the maximum allowed gross floor area for

an accessory structure (detached garage) from 850 square feet to approximately 1,139

square feet. Being that the property is located within the Village's ultimate boundaries

and due to time constraints, staff made a recommendation to the Board of Trustees last

Thursday that the Village adopt a Resolution of Objection as the garage would well have

execeeded our code. The Board approved the Resolution and staff will be submitting a

letter of objection to the County.

Secondly, Mr. Heniff noted the need for a second Plan Commission meeting in

September. He proposed September 22 and asked the Commissioners if they would be

available on that date. Mr. Heniff mentioned that the hote/ conference center will be

workshopped at the July 28, 2003 special Plan Commission meeting and staff

anticipates a filing for a public hearing for the hotel/conference center in September.

Due to the complexity and enorminity of the project, he mentioned that staff felt it might

be prudent to schedule another meeting in September to address any other concerns

relating to this project as well as for any other petitions that might come forward.

Mr. Heniff stated that there would only be one meeting in August and asked if their were

any objections to beginning the September meetings at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30 p.m.

Commission Zorn indicated that she would be unavailable on September 15.

Commission Olbrysh indicated that he would be unavailable on September 22.

Commission Olbrysh also had mentioned his concern of having a quorum for some

upcoming petitions as he might have to recuse himself.

Lastly, Mr. Heniff mentioned that staff would be bringing forth for the Commissioners

comments the possibility of consolidating the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of

Appeals if they feel processes are being duplicated.