My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2009 06 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2009 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2009 06 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:18 AM
Creation date
8/14/2009 12:07:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2009 06 11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />JUNE 11, 2009 <br />Page 10 of 14 <br />Condition #3 regarding the FAR. <br />Russell stated the change does not represent an increase in density. <br />All of the commissioners agreed with Russell. <br />Condition #6 regarding the demolitation timeline. <br />Tengler stated that proposal from Mundelein still meets the final goal. He <br />recommends the Commission support his request. <br />All the Commissioners indicated their support. <br />Condition #8 regarding building separation. <br />Mundelein reminded the commission that the building will be sprinkled and will <br />not require a fire rate. Also the type of construction that he uses will also satisfy <br />the fire rating concern. <br />Tengler stated his support of the 8 ½ foot separation. <br />Conditions #12 regarding the number of elevation certificates. <br />Wood reminded the Commission the requirement is a FEMA requirement and <br />can not be changed. <br />Condition #14 regarding the updating of the table to reflect the correct square <br />footage. <br />Mundelein stated the issue was how the SF had been calculated. He stated his <br />agreement with staff. <br />Hartman asked if any of the commissioners were concerned about traffic on and <br />off the site. <br />Russell stated that for him the addition of the access from County Road greatly <br />improved the site circulation. <br />Tengler stated he sees the site as having adequate egress and ingress with the <br />addition of the County Road access. <br />Wood stated there had been some concern with the County Road access being <br />too close to Elm street, other issues created for Lot 3 and the silver maple tree. <br />He stated that Public Works, Planning and the Fire District have all signed off on <br />the County Road access. <br />Pritchard asked when the project would be presented before City Council. <br />Wood stated that staff hoped to have it before City Council on July 7, 2009. <br />Pritchard stated he would like to see a deadline set for the demolitation of the <br />existing buildings. He suggested 2-3 years after date of approval. All the <br />commissioners indicated their agreement to his suggestion. <br />Hartman requested staff opinion of the proposed deadline. <br />Wood stated he would support 3 years. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.