Planning Commission Minutes 2008 10 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes OCTOBER 9, 2008 Page 10 of 11 Commission Questions to Applicant and Staff: Sheets asked for clarification of the subject property and why is staff okay with a density greater then what is allowed by the zoning designation of the property. Wood stated that infill development, such as this property is difficult, therefore staffs recommendation is based on redevelopment and the request for relief from the underlying zoning based on the degree of relief requested, the functionality of the site, setback, site play layout and other PUD requirements. Russell stated he observed that Building #1 is under construction since the foundation forms are in place. Should the site have been considered more suitable for a single family? Mundelein stated the site was not considered for single family. Staff and Applicant Summarv and Recommendation: Mundelein summarized with a discussion of the primary alley access, guest parking and the possibility of additional traffic congestion in the area. Staff had no summary comments. Public HearinG Closed Commission Comments: Hartman stated her concerns with the use of the alley as the primary access and the property should not have a density greater than what is permitted. Russell stated his support of the staff recommendation and he sees the project as a development that works and provides a benefit to the City. He stated his appreciation that the applicant reduced the original request of density. He continued with a discussion of the requirements for future submittals: what are the standard differences between a preliminary and a final, the landscape plan is very meager and needs more detail. Loo stated her concerns regarding alley and her desire to have only 15 units. Lipton thanked the applicant for his presentation stating he did a good job. He suggested the applicant get creative with access and not through the alley but perhaps the SE corner of the property off County Road. He also supports a density of 15 and if a land use dedication is not done then a cash-in-lieu payment should be done. Pritchard identified his concerns as density, alley access, parking limits on Elm Street. He stated his support of staff's recommendation. Sheets stated she is pleased to see that the property has been cleaned up. She supports the 15 units as permitted by zoning. Her main concern is the alley access. She requested a discussion of the Commissioners regarding the conditions presented by staff. Russell stated that Condition #2 regarding density should be modified to reflect the desire of the Commission to hold the density to 15 units which is consistent with the underlying zoning. Roll Call Vote: