Plan Commission
Village of Lombard
Meeting Minutes
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Rocco Melarkey |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
7:30 PM
Village Hall
Monday, July 19, 2004
Call to Order
Vice-Chairperson Flint called the meeting of the Plan Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner |
Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Martin Burke and Commissioner Rocco |
Melarkey |
Present:
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan and Commissioner Sondra Zorn
Absent:
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner I; and George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan |
Commission. |
Public Hearings
Vice-Chairperson Flint called the order of the agenda. He stated that the petitioner associated |
with PC 04-25 is requesting a continuance of the petition to the August 16 Plan Commission |
meeting. |
040308
A. PC 04-25: 201, 205 and 211 E. Roosevelt Road; 1200 S. Highland Avenue; and |
112-116 & 120-124 E. 13th Street (Southwest Corner of Roosevelt & Highland) |
(Ordinance on Second Reading) (Item #1 Continued from September 2, |
2004/Waiver of First Requested) |
Requests that the Village take the following actions on the subject properties: |
1. Approve an amendment to an annexation agreement. (2/3 of Corporate Authorities |
Vote Required) (Waiver of First Requested) |
2. Approve a major plat of resubdivision. |
3. For the entire subject property, approve a conditional use for a planned development. |
4. For Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision, approve the following deviations: |
a. A deviation from Section 155.706 (C) and 155.709 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance |
reducing the required perimeter parking lot landscaping from five feet (5') to zero feet |
(0') to provide for shared cross-access and parking. |
b. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(17)(a)(2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for |
more than one wall sign on a street frontage. |
5. Pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance, approve a conditional |
use for a drive-through facility on Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision. |
6. For Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision, approve the following deviations: |
a. A deviation from Section 155.706 (C) and 155.709 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance |
reducing the required perimeter parking lot landscaping from five feet (5') to zero feet |
(0') to provide for shared cross-access and parking. |
b. A deviation from Section 153.505 (B)(17)(b)(2) of the Sign Ordinance to allow for |
more than one wall sign for interior tenants. |
7. Pursuant to Section 155.414 (C)(18) of the Zoning Ordinance, approve a conditional |
use for an outdoor dining/service establishment on Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision. |
8. For Lot 3 of the proposed subdivision, approve a deviation from Section 155.706 (C) |
and 155.709 (B) reducing the required perimeter parking lot landscaping from five feet |
(5') to zero feet (0') to provide for shared cross-access and parking; and |
9. For the entire development, grant site plan approval authority to the Lombard Plan |
Commission. (DISTRICT #6) |
Staff is requesting a waiver of first reading on the first amendment to the annexation |
agreement. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Burke, to |
continue the petition to the August 16, 2004 meeting. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Melarkey
5 -
Absent:
Ryan and Zorn
2 -
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws.
040311
G. PC 04-22: Text Amendments to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance (Waiver of |
First Requested) |
The petitioner requests approval of a text amendment to Section 155.415 of the |
Lombard Zoning Ordinance, allowing religious institutions to be listed as a conditional |
use within the B4 Corridor Commercial District. |
The Village also requests the approval of companion text amendments, as follows: |
Section 155.412: Adding "religious institutions" as a conditional use in the B1 Limited |
Neighborhood Shopping District; |
Section 155.413: Adding "religious institutions" as a conditional use in the B2 General |
Neighborhood Shopping District; |
Section 155.414: Adding "religious institutions" as a conditional use in the B3 |
Community Shopping District; |
Reclassifying "Clubs and lodges, nonprofit and fraternal" from a permitted use to a |
conditional use in the B3 Community Shopping District; |
Section 155.415: Adding "religious institutions" as a conditional use in the B4 Corridor |
Commercial Shopping District (as also requested by the petitioner); |
Reclassifying "Clubs and lodges, nonprofit and fraternal" from a permitted use to a |
conditional use in the B4 Corridor Commercial Shopping District; |
Section 155.416: Adding "religious institutions" as a conditional use in the B5 Central |
Business District; |
Reclassifying "Clubs and lodges, nonprofit and fraternal" from a permitted use to a |
conditional use in the B5 Central Business District; |
Section 155.417: Adding "religious institutions" as a conditional use in the B5A |
Downtown Perimeter District; |
Reclassifying "Clubs and lodges, nonprofit and fraternal" from a permitted use to a |
conditional use in the B5A Downtown Perimeter District; |
Section 155.418: Adding "religious institutions" as a conditional use in the I Limited |
Industrial District; |
Adding "Clubs and lodges, nonprofit and fraternal" to the list of conditional uses in |
the I Limited Industrial District; |
Section 155.802: Adding definition of "religious institution" |
Sections 155.401 et. seq.: Redirecting definitional references of "religious institutions" to |
Section 155.802. |
The petitioner is requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #4) |
Mr. Heniff explained that the petitioner will present the petition for PC 04-22 and PC |
04-23 and staff will present the companion text amendments associated with the |
petition. Vice-Chairperson Flint indicated that there will be a separate vote on each |
petition. |
John Pieper, attorney for the petitioner, the Maronite Catholic Bishop of the USA, |
presented the petition. The subject property is Lot 3 of the Terrace Lake Subdivison. |
Their petition is being brought forward to allow the for the church to establish a home in |
Lombard. |
He discussed the history of the church and mentioned their search for a new church |
site. The Zoning Ordinance needs to be modified to allow them to have a church in the |
B4 as a conditional use. They feel this site is suited to a church, and they are asking for |
the text amendment to move forward. He mentioned the other types of assemblages, |
which are allowed in as conditional uses in business districts and stated that religious |
institutions should be considered in the same manner. |
He then gave the specifics of the project. He gave the location of the site, the acreage, |
and the surrounding land uses and mentioned the critical wetlands east of the site. |
They are seeking a conditional use to allow for a 19,000 square foot facility with seating |
for 300 persons. He referred to the building plans and noted the second floor, which will |
have priest accommodations. Parking lot lighting will be consistent with lighting |
standards. Street lights will be installed as part of the public improvements. He referred |
to the aerial photograph depicting the area north of North Avenue and west of Grace |
Street. He noted the critical wetlands which impacts one of their variation requests. |
He submitted color elevations of the church. Referencing the site plan, the church is |
located on the southern boundary as it is the deepest portion of the lot. The plan |
proposes two access points off of Grace and parking north of church that will include |
105 spaces. To the west of the parking lot is a buffer zone that is required by DuPage |
County to be preserved for the critical wetlands. Stormwater detention will be provided |
in the parking lot and the detention facility in the buffer zone area. He referenced the |
landscape plan. They have retained landscape consultants to provide an inventory of |
the types of trees and plantings that are consistent with the County Ordinance for the |
buffer zone. |
He then discussed the public watermain request. Village code would require them to |
extend the watermain from its current terminus to the north property line. This main |
would cause a problem for the Village and church. For the Village, health concerns exist |
when you have a dead end main and the water will become that has to be purged |
consistently. Fire hydrants will be installed east of the church. They are asking that the |
watermain not be extended and will terminate at the service line to the church. He |
mentioned the property to the north, which is currently unincorporated, and that they are |
hoping to acquire that parcel. It is also the last parcel that would be annexed into the |
Village along Grace Street. If it is necessary to extend the watermain, they will pay for |
the extension thru the companion development agreement. This is a unique situation |
which will justify their request. |
The transitional yard request addresses a unique situation. The property to the west |
has critical wetlands and a 50-foot buffer is required. The Zoning Ordinance requires a |
transitional yard of 30-feet and requires specific vegetation. The required vegetation is |
inconsistent with the County's requirements. He mentioned a management plan they |
must have with the County that requires the periodic controlled burning of the plantings. |
Regarding traffic generation, they will have two services on Sunday morning and |
religious training classes held between the two services. That is their peak hour, which |
is the same time Grace Street will be at their lowest peak hours. They feel they are |
consistent with the neighborhood. He mentioned the bell tower and the bells are for |
aesthetics purposes and they are not audible from outside the church. |
Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public participation. Edward Knight, |
265 Edgebrook Avenue, Wood Dale, stated that he is an alderman for the City of Wood |
Dale and Chairman of the Zoning Board. He wanted to add support to the project. It is |
a low impact use on residents of the area. Traffic can be accommodated and it is a |
great location for the church. He talked about the watermain - if they made to bring it to |
north end of property, it would create a problem with their pressure. |
Vice-Chairperson Flint then requested staff report. William Heniff, presented the text |
amendments associated with PC 04-22 first and then discussed the major issues |
associated with 04-23. |
Regarding PC 04-22, staff reviewed existing uses in the various business zoning |
districts and compared to like uses such as meeting halls. He referred to the staff report |
and the results are consistent with what the petitioner found. Counsel reviewed the |
issue of religious institutional uses in business districts and felt the use is compatible |
with the B business districts. Congregation and assembly hall uses should be |
considered in the same manner and function. The text amendment makes all meeting |
halls in the B and I districts as conditional uses. Case law finds that one district must |
allow religious institutions by right - the O office districts meets that requirement. He |
mentioned the standards for text amendments and lastly, he referred to the last page in |
appendix and mentioned the additional definition of a religious institution. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked if the proposed the definition of religious institutions is |
broad enough to include convents. Mr. Heniff said that it does. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked about the term "religious institutions". Mr. Heniff stated |
that the term is frequently used in zoning ordinances. She also suggested an |
amendment to the definition for ease of understanding. |
Vice-Chairperson Flint asked if there was any discussion. There was none. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be Recommend for approval to the Corporate Authorities. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Melarkey
5 -
Absent:
Ryan and Zorn
2 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5523 |
040312
H. PC 04-23: 950 N. Grace Street (Waiver of First Requested/Resolution/ Motion) |
The petitioner requests use approval of the following actions for property located within |
the B4 Corridor Commercial District: |
1. A conditional use for a religious institution; |
2. A variation from Section 155.707 (B)(4) to allow for alternate plant materials within a |
required transitional yard on the west side of the subject property; |
3. A variation from Section 154.404 (A)(3) of the Subdivision and Development |
Ordinance modifying the public water distribution system requirements for adjacent |
properties; and |
4. Approval of a development agreement for the subject property. (Resolution) |
5. Petitioner is requesting a waiver of the Village's portion of the public hearing fees. |
(Motion) |
The petitioner is requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #4) |
Starting with the discussion of PC 04-23, Mr. Heniff summarized the petitioner's request. |
He noted the Comprehensive Plan depicts the site for commercial uses. However, |
many religious institutions have similar characteristics as commercial uses. |
Regarding the surrounding land uses, this site is appropriate as residences exist to the |
east and open space to the west. This use is a less intense use than many other |
commercial uses and is compatible with the built environment. |
Referencing the elevations submitted, they are not asking for any relief from bulk |
requirements. Due to the critical wetland buffer, Lombard's planting requirements might |
not be appropriate for this location. |
He then mentioned the extension of the watermain to run it up to the church property. |
The petitioner wants special consideration not to go to the north end of the property. |
The property north of the subject property is zoned I-1 by DuPage County. The land |
use for that property is not consistent with the Village's plan. The adjacent property |
owner wants to keep with industrial use of the property and staff is not supportive of |
annexation of that property as an industrial parcel. |
The petitioner proposes to enter into a Development Agreement, stating that should the |
property be annexed into the Village, a reverse recapture obligation would be created. A |
long dead end is not desirable and he mentioned that flushing the hydrant that would be |
needed and staff believes a variation could be supported. |
Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for questions and comments by the |
Commissioners. |
Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the site is an excellent location for the church and a |
good use for the property. This is really not a neighborhood type of church but a |
community church in a broader sense. |
Responding to a question by Commissioner Olbrysh, Father Alfred, pastor of Our Lady |
of Lebanon described the differences and similarities between the Roman Catholic and |
the Maronite Catholic Church. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if the recommendation needs to include conditions |
pertaining to the public improvement requirements. Mr. Heniff said that the petitioner is |
aware of the requirements and that the requirements are also listed within the |
Subdivision and Development Ordinance. |
Commissioner Burke stated that the watermain variation request is reasonable. He |
asked about the Village collecting a bond rather than addressing the issue through the |
development agreement. Mr. Heniff stated that a bond is a short-term obligation. The |
agreement would be written to have the ability to state that if they acquire the I-1 |
property, the watermain will not be needed. The Village can also address the obligation |
through the agreement in the water billing process. Mr. Peiper stated that water billings |
constitute a lien against real estate, so the security of the real estate provides the Village |
Commissioner Burke referenced the landscaping variance. What guarantee do we have |
that the County will make them put in the landscaping. Mr. Heniff said that the County |
will push for the preservation of the wetland. Commissioner Burke stated that the |
Director of Community Development has the final review of the landscape planting |
materials, which will tie into DuPage County's final approval. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked about the finance of recapture. Recapture could talk a |
long time and an escrow bond is something typically required. George Wagner stated |
that the development agreement will address the financing aspects. Commissioner |
Sweetser stated that the agreement could ignore what the Commissioners have stated. |
Mr. Heniff stated that he would share the comments with Village Counsel. Staff will note |
for the record that the Commissioners want to ensure that adequate protections are |
provided as part of this proposal. |
Commissioner Burke referred to condition #2 and mentioned the proposed educational |
rooms. There should be language added to the conditions so the petitioner does not |
have to come back for an amended conditional use. Mr. Peiper stated that the new |
definition of religious institution should allow for religious study activity. Mr. Heniff stated |
that the condition was added to differentiate between religious study activity and general |
educational activities. Mr. Peiper stated that his client knows that if their educational |
activities are more extensive, they would have to come back. |
Commissioner Burke referenced the southern elevation of the building, which lacks |
vegetation. He suggested that a condition be added to include plantings along the south |
property line. |
Commissioner Olbrysh asked about time limitations to the approval. Mr. Heniff stated |
that code requires that the project be substantially underway within one year of approval |
of the Ordinance. The petitioner has represented to staff that they want to break ground |
this fall and time is of the essence. |
Vice-Chairperson Flint asked if there was any additional comments from the |
commissioners or the public. There were none. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, |
that this matter be Recommended for approval to the Corporate Authorities |
subject to the amended condition(s). The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Melarkey
5 -
Absent:
Ryan and Zorn
2 -
Enactment No: Ord. 5524, Res.32-05 |
1. The petitioner shall develop the site essentially in accordance with site plan |
prepared by Nicholas Batistich Architects, hand-dated June 28, 2004 and made a part of |
this request. |
2. That the conditional use shall be for the construction and operation of a religious |
institution on the subject property. Should the petitioner or any subsequent property |
owners seek to operate uses such as, but not limited to, day care facility, pre-school |
activities, elementary school activities, a conditional use amendment will be required. |
3. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed |
improvements. Said plans associated with the permit application shall also address the |
comments noted in the Inter-departmental Group Report. |
4. That the site shall be constructed and operated in conformance with the Lombard |
Village Codes. |
5. That the relief granted as part of this petition shall be subject to the petitioner |
executing a development agreement with the Village. |
6. That the petitioner shall submit to the Village a final landscape plan for the |
transitional yard on the subject property. The plan shall reflect any additional plant |
materials required as part of the DuPage County wetland approval process and shall |
include any additional transitional landscape plantings as required by the Director of |
Community Development. |
7. That the petitioner's final landscape plan shall also provide additional landscape |
plant materials along the south property line, with said planting subject to review and |
approval by the Director of Community Development. |
040313
I. PC 04-24: 1101 & 1105 E. Highridge Road (Waiver of First Requested) |
The petitioner requests that the following actions be taken on the subject property: |
1. Annexation to the Village of Lombard; |
2. Approval of a five-lot major plat of subdivision with the following variations: |
a. For Lot 4 of the proposed subdivision: A variation from Title 15, Chapter 155, |
Section 405 (E) of the Village of Lombard Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum lot |
width from 75 feet to 35 feet in the R1 Single-Family Residence District; |
b. For Lot 5 of the proposed subdivision: A variation from Title 15, Chapter 154, |
Section 506 (D) of the Village of Lombard Subdivision and Development Ordinance to |
allow for a lot without public street frontage. |
The petitioner is requesting a waiver of first reading. (UNINCORPORATED) |
Waheed Saeed, 221 Forest Trail, Oak Brook, stated that he wishes to annex 1101 and |
1105 E. High Ridge Road into the Village. His subdivision proposal is based upon the |
Village's recommendations, and he believes that it is appropriate. The property will be |
divided into five lots. Lots 1, 2, and 3 will exceed the zoning requirements at 75 feet |
wide and 300 feet deep. They will each be greater than ½-acre. Lot 4 will require a |
variation for a 35-foot width and it will not be buildable. Lot 5 is mostly within a |
floodplain and it may be given to the County in the future. |
Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment. |
Nancy Walker, 1108 E. High Ridge Road, stated that she lives directly across the street |
from the property. At the May 17 Plan Commission meeting, she and a group of other |
residents suggested that the lot be split into two 87-foot wide lots and one 86-foot lot. |
The proposed Lot 4 will create a gap in the flow of homes and could become a prairie. It |
will not be maintained and it could become an eyesore. She does not believe that the |
property owner to the east would be willing to sell his lot to the petitioner. She is |
concerned that Lot 4 will be developed as an access road for Lot 5, which will destroy |
the block frontage and negatively impact traffic, creating a public safety hazard. |
The petitioner stated that even if he is unable to purchase the property to the east, |
someone eventually will. Builders want bigger lots, and in this high-demand area it is |
hard to find available land. Lot 4 won't remain undeveloped forever. |
Commissioner Sweetser inquired as to the upkeep of Lot 4, stating that the neighbors |
would like to see something in excess of what is required by Code. The petitioner |
responded that the Village's Code Enforcement staff makes sure that all land is |
maintained. They do not allow tall grass, and the Village's ordinances will be enforced. |
He will be happy to maintain the lot as long as he owns it. |
Bob Walker, 1108 E. High Ridge Road, stated that the property has been a mess for |
some time. He stated that the petitioner's proposal is fine, but he would like assurances |
that the 35-foot wide lot will be landscaped and will not be turned into a road. He does |
not want kids back there. He is in favor of a proposal that would only create three |
residential lots because a homeowner caring for the land will keep it better maintained. |
The petitioner stated that Lombard's regulations are stricter than DuPage County's and |
the lots will be maintained properly. A developer will eventually purchase Lot 4 and use |
it to the best of his ability. |
Vice-Chairperson Flint then requested the staff report. William Heniff, Senior Planner, |
stated that this petition has been modified from a previously denied petition. Lots 1, 2, |
and 3 will meet the R1 lot width requirement of 75 feet and they will be buildable. Lot 4 |
and 5 require a public hearing to approve variations for width and street access. |
Mr. Heniff stated that if the subject property is not annexed into the Village, the proposed |
Lot 5 could be built upon as a matter of right under DuPage County's regulations. |
However, the Village does not allow this type of lot, as it does not provide for continuity |
or emergency access to properties. Staff would prefer to have Lot 4 and Lot 5 under the |
Village's jurisdiction to prevent the possibility of development on these lots. Also, Code |
Enforcement would be better able to enforce property maintenance requirements. |
Mr. Heniff stated that the 35-foot strip would be unbuildable, as would Lot 5. This gives |
the assurance of no additional structures. If the property at 1111 E. High Ridge |
annexes into the Village, they could look at incorporating Lot 4 into a different project. |
Lot 5 is a floodplain area that may be dedicated to the forest preserve. Staff believes |
that only three single-family residences should be built on this property, and |
recommends approval subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. These |
conditions have been reviewed and approved by Village counsel. |
Ms. Walker asked if a road could be put on Lot 4 or anything other than grass. Mr. |
Heniff stated that if the forest preserve or park district wanted to locate a recreational |
facility or something of that nature, it would need to come back before the Plan |
Commission for approval because that is not part of this request. Right now, Lot 4 and |
Lot 5 are not buildable, and the 35-foot lot width is not wide enough to accommodate the |
66 feet necessary for a public right of way. |
Commissioner Olbrysh referred to a number of lots in the School/Ahrens area that are |
wider than 75 feet. He asked why the 35-foot strip is not being incorporated into the |
other three lots, since larger lots would be more valuable and would not require a width |
variation. Mr. Heniff stated that he believes the petitioner wanted to create three lots |
that meet Code. The petitioner stated that Lot 5 cannot be built upon because of the |
floodplain. As far as the 35-foot lot is concerned, someone will buy it. The neighboring |
property owner might purchase it to build two houses and make a lot of money. If the |
neighbor does not buy the lot, some small local builder will and it will end up being |
beneficial to the community as a whole. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if Lot 4 could be used as an access to a possible |
pedestrian path on Lot 5, should the forest preserve take over Lot 5. Mr. Heniff stated |
that staff has not looked at any development on Lot 4 and Lot 5, but the forest preserve |
has eminent domain powers to create an access road, if necessary. |
Commissioner Burke asked if it would be appropriate to add a condition that Lot 4 must |
be landscaped at the time Lot 3 is landscaped, and it must be maintained consistently |
with Lot 3. |
Commissioner Sweetser suggested that Lot 4 be landscaped with Lot 3 and kept in a |
manner that meets or exceeds Code. |
Mohammed A. Saleem, 230 N. Cardinal Avenue, Addison, stated that he purchased Lot |
3 and he does not want any development on Lot 4 to invade his privacy. He would like |
assurances that it will not be built upon. Mr. Heniff stated that the Plat of Resubdivision |
will show the lots as non-buildable, and Lot 4 will be landscaped when Lot 3 develops. |
As they are not buildable, they will remain as open space. |
The petitioner responded that staff has explained several times that Lot 4 is not |
buildable. It will be a separate lot on paper, but because it will be maintained the same |
as Lot 3, no one will notice that it is legally a separate lot. |
There were no further questions from the Plan Commission. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, that |
this matter be Recommended for approval to the Corporate Authorities subject to |
the amended condition(s). The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Melarkey
5 -
Absent:
Ryan and Zorn
2 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5525, 5526 |
1. The proposed Lot 4 and Lot 5 shall not be considered buildable lots of record; |
2. The proposed Lot 5 shall be relabeled as "Outlot A;" |
3. The proposed Lot 4 shall be relabeled as "Outlot B;" |
4. The petitioner shall submit a complete and corrected Plat of Resubdivision prior to |
consideration by the Board of Trustees; and |
5. Lot 4 shall be maintained in accordance with Village Code. Additionally, when Lot 3 |
is developed, Lot 4 shall be landscaped with materials subject to the approval of the |
Director of Community Development. |
Business Meeting
Vice-Chairperson Flint convened the business meeting at 9:22 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the June 21, 2004 Plan Commission meeting were approved by |
unanimous consent of the Plan Commission. |
Public Participation
Vice-Chairperson Flint asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the |
Plan Commission regarding anything not on the agenda. No one was present to speak. |
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
The Vice Chairperson deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
William Heniff introduced and welcomed the new Associate Planner, Michelle |
Kulikowski. He indicated her school and previous work backgrounds as well as some of |
the duties that she would be responsible for. |
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
040314
J. SUB 04-02: 300 Eisenhower Lane North |
Motion requesting approval of a one-lot plat of consolidation. (DISTRICT #3) |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Associated with a building |
permit application, the petitioner is requesting approval of a one-lot plat of resubdivision |
for the subject property. The plat proposes to make the tract of land a lot of record, as |
defined by the Zoning Ordinance. This division is considered a major plat of subdivision |
as it is greater than one acre in size. Therefore, it must be reviewed and approved by |
the Plan Commission and Board of Trustees. The resubdivision meets all of the |
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision and Development Ordinance. |
Vice-Chairperson Flint opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. There were no comments by the members. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Melarkey, |
that this matter be recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Melarkey
5 -
Absent:
Ryan and Zorn
2 -
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Workshops
There were no workshops.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. on July 19, 2004.
______________________________ |
Stephen Flint, Vice-Chairperson |
______________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |