Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />JUNE 11, 2009 <br />Page 10 of 14 <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 wiIl'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 1/2 foot separatidn. <br />Conditions #12 regarding the number of elevjon certificates. <br />Wood reminded the Commission the regGirement is a,FEMA requirement and <br />can not be changed. <br />Condition #14 regarding the updating of the t'abj 'to/reflect the correct square . <br />footage. <br />Mundelein stated the issue was hoF"load been calculated. He stated his <br />agreement with staff. <br />Hartman asked if any ofthe commissioners, were concerned about traffic on and <br />off the site. <br />Russell stated that for him th addition ofhe access from County Road greatly <br />improved the site circulation. <br />Tenglerstat d h-e.se es41 site as having/adequate egress and ingress with the <br />addition orthe Co nay Ro &access. <br />Wobd stated there hd been oine concern with the County Road access being <br />too clo Ito Elm street, ''`o eues 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 \\ad ccesk <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 />Pritchard declared a recess to allow Staff and Commission to draft a motion of <br />approval with the modification to the conditions as discussed by the Commission. <br />