[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] Tonight's a regular scheduled planning and zoning board meeting, January 23, 2024, room 102, display in Civic Center.
[0:13] Before I get on to tonight's cases, Ryan, could you please call a roll?
[0:22] Member Weaver. Member Catalano. Member Fowler. Member Hover. Member Selatnik.
[0:29] Here. Member Freemis. Here. Chairman Zappel.
[0:32] Here.
[0:34] The next order of business this this evening will be approval of the
[0:38] minutes from January 9. I was there any discussion on that matter. If not to have a motion.
[0:45] It's been moved by Mr. Sletnik. Seconded by Mr. Vareemis. Ryan, could you please call the roll.
[0:53] Member Sletnik. Member Freemis. Hi. Member Weaver.
[0:57] member Catalano. I, member Father. I. Chairman's apple. I, the minutes from January
[1:04] 9, 2023 have been approved. Next order of business is, is anyone here the seed
[1:13] mean that would like to speak on a matter that's not on tonight's agenda?
[1:22] Something
[1:23] we have a continuance. I'm going to call the continuance first.
[1:33] As a case that
[1:34] is anybody here for 1628 Rand Road, case number 24-004-CU. The
[1:43] petitioner is Ursula Taplewitz, a barrelaine in this plane. She's asked for a
[1:49] to continue in. Is anybody here for that this evening? If not, do I have a motion to continue
[1:57] this case to have that given a date? Is this February 13th? Do I have a motion to continue
[2:10] this case to the 13th of February? Move by Mr. Weaver, seconded by Ms. Foller. Ryan could
[2:16] Please call a roll.
[2:18] Member Weaver.
[2:20] Member Father.
[2:21] Member Catalano.
[2:22] I.
[2:23] Member Seltenick.
[2:25] I.
[2:25] Member Freemis.
[2:25] I.
[2:28] Um, the case will be continued.
[2:30] Um, to February.
[2:32] Would you say 13th?
[2:35] Uh.
[2:35] First case this evening is, uh, case number 23-064-
[2:40] F.
[2:42] Uh.
[2:45] 2285 Webster Lane, the applicant is requested a final plant of subdivision pursuant to
[2:52] section 13-2-2 of the subdivision regulations to split and existing lots and to two lots of
[3:01] record and the R1 single family residential district.
[3:05] Partitioner is Gene Bunk of 2285 Webster Lane.
[3:11] Second case this evening is 622 Grace on Avenue and 1332 and 1368 Webford.
[3:21] Case number 23-005-F-Plat.
[3:26] The petitioner is requesting to combine tentative and final plat of subdivision to consolidate
[3:32] three lots into one lot of record and any other variations waivers in Zonganolife as may be necessary.
[3:42] Petitioner is my low residential Graceland property, I'll see a barrington.
[3:49] Third case is safety.
[3:51] This case number 23-047-V. 1183 South River Road. The Petitioner has requested a major variation
[4:01] from the Fence Regulation to allow the finish side of a wood privacy fence to face the subject
[4:09] property instead of facing neighboring properties as required by code.
[4:17] Physicianer is Catherine Cunz of 1183 South River Road, Displains Illinois,
[4:30] fourth cases
[4:31] 001-B, the 915 Alphiney Drive, the petitioner has requested a variation to allow a total building
[4:43] coverage and excess of the maximum 30% building coverage permitted for interior lots
[4:50] in the R1 single-family district.
[4:53] And any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief, as may be necessary.
[4:57] petitioners, Arthur Gassau of 915, Elfini Drive, Slings. Fifth cases evening. Case number
[5:08] 24, dash 002, dash V. 1504, Oakwood Avenue, the petitioner has requested a variation to
[5:17] reduce the side corner to reduce the required corner side lot to allow for construction
[5:25] of a shed and the R1 single family residential district and any other variations waivers in zoning
[5:32] relief as maybe necessary. Petitioner is Max Larson of 1504 Oakwood Avenue.
[5:43] The first case is 2285 Webster Lane is the Petitioner Prison.
[5:49] If you could step up to the podium place,
[5:54] it doesn't matter.
[5:59] I remember you from the last meeting,
[6:01] and are you the only one giving testimony this evening?
[6:05] Okay, could you raise your right hand please in the case before you're this evening?
[6:10] Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so if you got I do I
[6:15] If you could explain you're a request once again to the board. Oh, sure. I'll try I
[6:22] Have a hundred foot wide lot and I've been living there for
[6:30] many years and
[6:34] I decided that I would like to subdivide because I would just like some choices, some opportunities.
[6:42] I made decide to give each of my two kids a lot.
[6:47] I might decide to sell the lot.
[6:50] I've had a couple of people approach me that are interested in building a new home.
[6:56] And I made just decide to keep it.
[7:00] I mean, I just would like options.
[7:02] That's all.
[7:05] Thanks.
[7:07] Thank you.
[7:08] Samantha, could you just summarize the staff report for us, please?
[7:14] Certainly.
[7:15] And I was, I think Stu was going to do a little brief run subdivisions.
[7:20] Was that our understanding?
[7:23] Just on, okay, never mind.
[7:25] So I will launch into our,
[7:28] this case then.
[7:29] so
[7:30] Samantha Redmond, senior planner for the record. So this is for the final part of subdivision for 2285 Webster Lane.
[7:38] You saw a Ms. Bunk before you in June, and she requested a tentative part of subdivision, which you approved, in a variation for lot width, which you also approved.
[7:48] Lots are supposed to be 55 feet wide. These are 50 feet wide. That variation has been approved. Now we're before you for the final part of subdivision.
[7:55] The existing conditions of the property are that it is a single family house on the north side of the property and then the proposed lot to the south will be
[8:06] It is currently just green space. The total property area is a little over 21,000 square feet and it's located with the R1 single family residential district.
[8:17] Here are some site photos. Here's the public notice sign and then some photos from a greener days
[8:24] And then here we have the R1 zoning requirements.
[8:29] So with the subdivision, it meets all of these requirements
[8:31] for the existing house.
[8:33] And then any future development of the property
[8:35] will also need to meet all of these yard or setback requirements
[8:39] as well as maximum building height and things like that.
[8:42] So it does meet all of the lot area with all of these things
[8:46] you saw on the tentative cloud of subdivision process.
[8:50] So when you're looking at a final cloud of subdivision,
[8:52] You are basically looking at whether or not the subdivision has or meets all of the requirements.
[8:58] So I believe on page 7 of your packet you have the proposed platform.
[9:02] When we look at this we're affirming that there are it includes all the required information.
[9:07] So it includes the basic information like the final side of subdivision title on here, final side of blank subdivision information about the owner scale.
[9:15] Um, relevant title blocks over here, uh, variation information, because this was granted a variation.
[9:22] You can see that on the screen, and then any survey or stamps.
[9:25] So that's just basically information that is included.
[9:29] A plot of subdivision also needs to include lot information.
[9:32] So it would include things like straight names, which are included, um, when you look at the full plot.
[9:36] It includes the hot lines, which show the 50 foot wide lots, and uh, the 22 or 220, um, foot depth.
[9:44] It includes all the setbacks in a legal description, and then it notes any monuments and other
[9:49] bases for the surveyer measurements,
[9:53] and then finally, there's utility information included,
[9:56] any existing utilities or labels within the packet also includes any correspondence that this
[10:01] individual has had with any utility companies. And finally, with most plats of subdivision,
[10:09] actually I will go back really briefly. So on this plat also, they will, or she will be dedicating
[10:14] portion of it to the city because the lotline currently extends into the street. This was the
[10:20] same on the tentative part of subdivision you saw. So as part will be dedicated it will reduce
[10:24] her taxes and also make a make it easier for the city to maintain this property or the section of
[10:31] the street. And then any plat of subdivision typically includes public improvements. So engineering plans
[10:38] which are included within your packet were submitted and then estimate a problem cause was
[10:42] submitted and approved or reviewed and approved by the engineering department, so there will be that a little over 3300 square feet of area that is to be dedicated to the city of display and there will be proposed improvements that would include a public right and to the public right of way, which include construction of a driveway, a sidewalk or driveway apron, a sidewalk and the parkway would include landscaping and then any connections from the street would be included.
[11:08] And then before recording the plat of subdivision, they are required to provide certain financial guarantees, which are in Title 13 of our subdivision regulations, and there are time periods associated with that as well.
[11:19] Sam, if you would like me to talk about the plank that planning is on board, roll with regard to, for doing a subdivision, I was prepared to do that the next document, but I can do that up now, yeah, absolutely, because it does apply to both.
[11:34] Okay, why don't I just finish this up and if you want to hop in, that'd be terrific.
[11:39] And so with this, you have one action, and Stu will go over what your role is in this.
[11:45] So you could approve approved conditions or deny this request,
[11:48] and this would be afforded to the city council.
[11:50] Finally, for a final decision.
[11:53] Take it.
[11:54] So when we look at a subdivision code,
[11:59] most of these subdivision codes were in their modern form written at a time
[12:03] when there was a lot of kind of green field development,
[12:07] open development throughout the Chicago suburbs,
[12:11] when a lot of the neighborhoods
[12:14] that this plane is comprised of was being carved out,
[12:17] the streets were being laid out,
[12:20] and a lot of these plant requirements,
[12:21] which may seem overly technical for someone like the petitioner,
[12:25] who is simply dividing her lot into two.
[12:27] A lot of these requirements come from when builders
[12:30] were making 50 lot subdivisions and building
[12:33] really kind of the city that we know now. With most of Cook County and Northern Illinois,
[12:39] almost fully developed, we still go through the subdivision process, but kind of the planning
[12:47] aspects of it, especially for infant development, are much more kind of these divisions into smaller
[12:55] lots, or, as would, will be with the next docket, a consolidation of multiple lots into
[13:03] one-developable partial.
[13:06] And I'm like a decision to either change the zoning classification, a men-to-map, or even
[13:15] change the zoning code unless an applicant is asking for some extraordinary, like a variation
[13:24] for requirement, the review of a subdivision plot is really almost administrative. It still
[13:29] comes before you, but the question that is put before the planning and zoning board when
[13:34] looking at a plot like this or the next one is, does it comply with our rules? And when we say
[13:41] does it comply with our rules, does it include all the elements that Sam just talked about,
[13:48] but also does it meet all the standards with regard to setbacks with regard to dedicated
[13:54] road with and then finally does a comply with zoning and so in this case all
[14:01] those things I will staff and I believe staff is indicated that it does and so
[14:09] the decision basically is do you agree with staff determination and should they
[14:13] be approval be sent up to the City Council for final approval? One kind of
[14:21] The important distinction is that the planning and zoning board has final approval over
[14:26] tentative paths, which are more of kind of a rough sketch.
[14:29] And usually after a developer gets tentative plot approval, they'll go and do the engineering,
[14:36] they'll figure out where easements for utilities need to go, they'll come back with a final
[14:39] plot.
[14:40] And that is sent to the planning and zoning board, planning and zoning board looks at it.
[14:45] And only really it has recommending jurisdiction over it.
[14:49] they recommend that the City Council are approved or denied and the reason for that is usually that that goes up with some other relief that would be in the City Council's determination.
[15:00] But our code recognizes that sometimes there are very simple subdivisions like this one where you're just taking a lot, you're dividing it, or the next one where you're taking three lots and consolidating them.
[15:12] In that case, you don't have to split it up, you can do tentative and final together.
[15:17] And so, procedurally, the, I believe staff determined that the way we read our code is that there are actually two boats that you should take, one would be to approve the tentative flat and then two to recommend the final all in one and then send it up to City Council.
[15:34] Did that kind of hit the high points of what you were looking for?
[15:38] That was perfect. Yeah, that was exactly what I was looking for.
[15:41] Yeah, I'm happy to answer any questions and Jane is also here to answer any questions you have about the property.
[15:48] Thank you.
[15:51] Is there any further discussion on this matter?
[15:57] Is there anyone here that has questions or is either in favor of or poses this request?
[16:06] Doesn't it appear to be the case?
[16:10] Do I have a motion?
[16:13] motion by Mr. Weaver? I move that we recommend to the City Council, their final, their approval
[16:21] of the final plan of subdivision.
[16:23] It's been moved by Mr. Weaver, seconded by Mr. Catalano. Ryan, could you please call the roll.
[16:31] Member Weaver.
[16:32] I, member Catalano.
[16:33] I, member Foller.
[16:35] I, member Selenic.
[16:36] I, member Vremus.
[16:38] Hi.
[16:38] Chairman Zavill.
[16:39] I will write a recommendation to City Council.
[16:43] Thank you very much.
[16:44] Thank you all.
[16:45] I appreciate your help.
[16:46] Thank you so much.
[16:51] Next case this evening is case number 23-055-F-Platth-622-Graceland-1332 and 168-Weppard
[17:03] is a petitioner present.
[17:11] If you could state your name and your mailing address, please.
[17:15] We'll do a good evening, Mr. Chairman members of the Board.
[17:17] my name is Katrina McGuire with the lawfices of Thompson Coburn, with offices at 55 East
[17:22] Monroe, Chicago, Illinois. I'm here this evening on behalf of the applicant and owner,
[17:28] Milo Residential Graceland property LLC. If I could just hold you up when. Oh, sure.
[17:35] Are you the only one giving testimony this evening? Um, I anticipate that I will be the only one,
[17:40] but in the event, we have questions if you'd like to swear in the other witnesses. That's really good.
[17:45] If I could ask anybody who potentially could give testimony to a step up and raise your right
[17:52] hands please, in the case before you this evening, you swear to tell the truth the whole truth
[17:57] and nothing but the truth so up your God. I do. Thank you very much. You can proceed.
[18:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, I'm here on behalf of the applicant and owner of my
[18:06] little residential bracelet property LLC. We are as noted in the agenda here before you on a combined
[18:14] tentative and final plat of subdivision for the property in order to consolidate the three parcels into one
[18:21] as contemplated by your ordinances. We are not seeking any variations or exceptions from the subdivision code.
[18:30] This project, as you know, is a familiar one for the city of disciplines and we are proposing
[18:37] essentially to consolidate these parcels to move forward with the development is contemplated
[18:41] and is approved by zoning. I have nothing further in our sort of direct presentation,
[18:47] happy to answer any questions that the board might have.
[18:53] Thank you very much.
[18:56] A little change in the venue if the city could summarize the staff report, please.
[19:08] Okay, today we're going to take a look at a combined tentative and final part of subdivision
[19:12] for the Properties at 622 Grayson Avenue and 1332 and 1368 Webford Avenue.
[19:20] So just to recap, this property is located at the corner of Grayson and Webford.
[19:24] It contains three separate parcels at this time.
[19:26] One is a drone top expiling in parking lot at 622 Grayson and 1368 Webford.
[19:31] And the former city of display is parking lot at 1332 Webford,
[19:35] which is now owned by the Fetisher.
[19:37] Properties a little under one acre in size,
[19:39] and its zone C5 central business district.
[19:43] These are site photos of the signs that replace
[19:45] on the property within seven days,
[19:47] or actually say more than seven days from the meeting tonight.
[19:50] You could see the three signs located
[19:52] on the corner of Grace on Webford,
[19:54] one at the parking lot,
[19:55] and one at the northern corner of the site by the railroad tracks.
[20:01] Just a recap on the subdivision
[20:03] and the public improvements are involved with it.
[20:07] But obviously the over an all-incent of this
[20:09] to consolidate three existing lots of record into one, but they are also looking to make some
[20:14] public improvements, which would include installing and replacing streets, gaping along
[20:18] Greece and Westford in front of the development, along both of those streets, as well as separating
[20:23] the existing combined storm and wastewater system for the entire block, 13-hour block of
[20:28] Westford, as well as repraved and widened Westford in front of the development and repair portions
[20:33] of Westford Avenue in Greece.
[20:37] This is an overview of a tent of supply and subdivision instead of
[20:39] And Sam, I'm going to cover some of the, some of the ash wool items that need to be on the
[20:44] plat.
[20:45] You can see they're highlighted in colors here, so I'd like to north there on scale and the
[20:48] blue, the title, legal description.
[20:51] All that stuff is required for subdivision to go through.
[20:54] You can see at the bottom right hand corner, the surveyer has stamped and certified that everything
[20:59] is drawn accurately, the ownership information is down below in the red.
[21:06] Taking a look at just a lot of information, you can see the lot boundaries are highlighted
[21:10] red. This will be the boundaries of the new lot one once consolidated. You could see the green boxes
[21:16] are where the actual monument or iron posts are located on the site. There's still those
[21:22] are noted on the plan. The orange you can see all the setbacks as well as the lot areas themselves
[21:28] of where the existing parcels are, which will, like I said, be consolidated. The page one of the
[21:35] that summarizes the total area of the plot once it is consolidated.
[21:41] And then you can see in blue there are street names and connections that are also part
[21:46] of the subdivisions to showing where the actual subdivisions located as well as how any
[21:51] proposed development the future would be accessible from the streets.
[21:56] This is utility information, so obviously a lot of the existing utilities of this site will
[22:01] We worked for a new development.
[22:04] Green shows the new proposed utility lines.
[22:08] These are also included in your will serve letters that are in the packet that show that
[22:12] utility companies will serve services property.
[22:16] And you can see in blue these are existing public utilities that are located in the street.
[22:21] So which will be altered or improved upon as part of this subdivision.
[22:27] So just a brief overview of the file engineering plans.
[22:30] You can see that these are kind of a highlight of the public improvement. So as we talked about the road work, as well as the streetscaping, these are all shown here on the engineering plan and highlighted on the slide for ease of viewing.
[22:44] So taking a look, staff has one recommended condition of approval.
[22:48] And that is regards to street lighting, making sure that street lighting is updated and meets the public works in engineering departments, sets of expectations.
[22:59] and before any issuance of Billino right away permits.
[23:02] So that is a one-conditional approval.
[23:03] Your actions for tonight are to take a look at the
[23:06] at the TANF-plata subdivision,
[23:08] as well as the final part of subdivision
[23:10] to be forwarded to city council.
[23:12] And as it was mentioned,
[23:15] you have full approval on the TANF-plata of subdivision,
[23:17] and the final part will go to city council
[23:20] for their final determination.
[23:22] And I'm here for any questions that you may have.
[23:25] Thank you very much.
[23:26] Does anyone on the board have any questions for you to the petitioner or staff?
[23:32] I have one.
[23:33] Mr. Weber?
[23:37] If these parcels are combined and then subsequently somebody, or the owner of the property,
[23:46] may want to subdivide it again, do they need to subdivide it on the same property lines?
[23:53] Could they come in with a new proposal that changes the property lines?
[23:58] The previous case that we heard was the pre-easy case of divide down the middle everything works.
[24:07] I'm kind of wondering what the options are here if there's a change in mind of how the property is used.
[24:16] Is that a question someone can answer here?
[24:19] Yeah, so in regards to any new subdivision requests in the future,
[24:21] there would have to come before you as a separate request.
[24:25] And regards to what type of, like, how it can be arranged.
[24:29] There's a couple different options for a developer.
[24:31] There's no specific lot with requirement for the C5 district,
[24:35] so they would not have to do a certain square footage,
[24:37] like the previous property, which was R1.
[24:40] And R1, any interior lot, has to be at least a P5 feet wide,
[24:43] or it has to get a variation.
[24:45] Cornelot would have to be 65 feet, but those rules are not something
[24:48] that are actually applied to the C5 district.
[24:50] there's no specific lot with requirements.
[24:53] However, it still have to meet the minimal lot
[24:55] depth of 125 feet, as well as the items
[24:59] that we discussed in this report, a new car is a flat.
[25:01] Making sure it has all those details that are required
[25:03] for the solution regulations.
[25:05] OK, thank you.
[25:09] Ms. Fowler, you have questions?
[25:11] A couple of questions.
[25:12] What is the width between the building
[25:15] and the dance building, that little pathway?
[25:19] How wide is that?
[25:21] Let
[25:23] me take a brief look here.
[25:40] The petitioner might have a better answer.
[25:42] I believe it's.
[25:44] Is it five feet?
[25:46] Oh, there's a five foot utility easement.
[25:50] That's on the.
[25:50] Right.
[25:51] It's just a path.
[25:55] Okay.
[25:57] Is it a patch of my five feet?
[26:00] Okay.
[26:00] So my question to you is.
[26:02] I'm looking at the men of from the fire chief,
[26:06] but it's dated May 16th.
[26:08] And that was done when we assumed that the petitioner was going to purchase the dance building
[26:15] and since he has backed out of purchasing that building, how does that affect the fire study
[26:21] in this project?
[26:22] I feel like this should be updated before we go further.
[26:25] So, I did have a chance to speak with Dave Schoen who is our fire chief and he had concluded
[26:31] that not only is the information and that letter is still accurate, but actually the fact
[26:35] that that's of all is actually one less story.
[26:39] It does make it even easier for them to
[26:42] to service that ability in the case of emergency.
[26:44] So one less story and how will the access
[26:47] that story from web-ford then, I'm confused.
[26:54] What can they get through if I feed to help people
[26:57] who are in the back corner by the tracks?
[27:02] Well, I will say this is not part of the purview,
[27:04] I will answer that they will access it from Webford Avenue with the letter truck that they have.
[27:10] So the letter truck can access the furthest, I'm directionally challenged today.
[27:18] North, right? The tracks are north.
[27:21] It can access the roof which gives the access to the building.
[27:26] Again, I think this is really a big mistake not to update.
[27:29] since this project has changed. Originally the whole point of the big dance building was
[27:36] to turn it into a park and it would provide that buffer and now we have five feet and I just don't
[27:44] think this holds up anymore. I feel like we should get a new I think it should be looked at again
[27:51] as is. Just to clarify the premise of this request is for the subdividing or the
[27:58] It's a consolidation of three lines of sound.
[28:01] It does not have anything to do with the development.
[28:04] So the fire letter was put in there as a reference,
[28:07] but it's not part of the purview for tonight.
[28:12] Joe Taylor.
[28:14] So thank you.
[28:17] So prior to my contract with dance building,
[28:22] the fire department actually determined that the fire access
[28:27] was allowed because we extended the building south towards Webford.
[28:34] So I don't think there's a floor plan of the actual building.
[28:38] The fire chief signed off on that plan prior to us,
[28:42] even attempting to acquire the dance building.
[28:46] So that memo that you're referring to is not accurate.
[28:49] It's, it's, it's accurate.
[28:51] I agree. It's not accurate.
[28:52] Well, it's accurate because it doesn't have anything to do with the dance building.
[28:59] So the fire chief, already made the determination prior to that, that the design that's currently
[29:06] designed is meets fire code.
[29:10] So the accurate within.
[29:12] But you and GoodFace said you were going to buy the dance building.
[29:16] So what happened there?
[29:17] That I'm not prepared to answer that question right now, that's where we're out of that.
[29:23] Okay. No, but okay.
[29:27] Okay. Any other board members have any questions at this time?
[29:35] I just wanted to comment. I think there were some concerns about the placement of the signage.
[29:42] For this, I think there were some, there were some public questions about the sufficient sea of the signage.
[29:48] I would note that the state law does not require that any signage.
[29:52] be placed on a property when it's for subdivision, what our code requires is, and I'll just read the
[29:58] on.
[30:00] I'll read what the subdivision regulations say about notice is that at a time of light here,
[30:11] here we go.
[30:12] A conspicuous sign shall be posted on the subject property at least seven days prior to the planning and zoning board meeting.
[30:18] and which the platform will be considered for tentative approval.
[30:21] In this case, a science or place on both the web-ford and the Grayson frontage, there was
[30:28] some, I guess there was an issue that one of them was kept blowing over and public works,
[30:34] public works, prepares the science and I don't know if it was the wind, I don't know if it was
[30:39] the ground.
[30:40] One of the science stayed up consistently and the all the provision requires is that it
[30:46] posted on the subject property, the subject property is considered the entirety of all three properties
[30:51] for this. So they were in full compliance. I will also state that the property has been a
[30:59] little bit of a hazard. Nobody was, Jim, anything about the sidewalk. My older son on his way to
[31:05] law school almost felt twice. So as a good neighbor, that would be really nice if you can maintain
[31:12] the property. There are signs all over. It looks pretty terrible right now.
[31:19] Thank you. Any further questions for the petitioner or for the staff? The staff report's been entered.
[31:26] Do I have anyone here that has questions or is either in favor of or a post of the sub division of this property?
[31:45] Good evening. Good evening.
[31:47] I'm Tom Love Strand. I signed up somewhere.
[31:50] If you could raise your right hand please.
[31:52] And the case before you this evening is where to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so I hope you got it.
[31:57] I do. Thank you.
[31:59] So I just want to do, based on member followers comment, and one to go back to a couple of fire department,
[32:06] memos that went out.
[32:08] The first being from January of 22 in which they identified two options that would need to be implemented in order for the building to meet.
[32:20] and I want to point this out, fire code. They then went into a fairly extensive listing of the issues
[32:27] within the existing fire code that needed to be reconciled or remediated. That same year,
[32:38] they then sent Chief Anderson then sent a letter to the council, indicating that they had worked
[32:47] with developer, and said that they'd create
[32:52] acceptable access points to the west side of the building.
[32:55] I think that's what you've raised
[32:57] is that the access to the west side of the building
[32:59] no longer exists as this letter was written in May of 22.
[33:05] Secondly, there's a comment made
[33:09] that the design met the fire codes.
[33:14] And excuse me, that is not
[33:17] what the letter from the fire department said,
[33:20] what it actually says is that it met required building codes.
[33:26] So I think your point is well made,
[33:29] it might be worthwhile to go back
[33:31] and check with the fire department to see if it indeed
[33:33] really met fire codes, or if, as the memo here says,
[33:38] it nearly met building code.
[33:40] The International Fire Code is considered part of our building codes.
[33:45] Before I go any further, are there quite a few of you that want to ask questions or get
[33:50] testimony?
[33:52] Well, if I could ask you all the rides, I'll sway you all in at the same time.
[33:56] Whether you change your mind and you don't want to testify, that's fine.
[34:00] Anyone else?
[34:03] In the case before you this evening, you swear to tell a truth to the old truth and nothing
[34:06] but the truth is not if you got whoever'd like to go next could step up.
[34:17] Good evening.
[34:18] Good evening.
[34:18] And I signed in 1333 WebPert Avenue.
[34:24] I have a couple of questions.
[34:26] I was kind of hard to see on the prints that were shown.
[34:30] For you guys, but also for the developer,
[34:33] I'm curious to know, is the generator still being installed?
[34:37] WebPert Avenue?
[34:39] I guess my question is, how are we improving streetscapes on WebPert Avenue?
[34:43] If we're going to be putting in the generator?
[34:45] My next question is I'd like to not understand what size the generator is, are we talking 14KW, 32KW, natural gas, diesel,
[34:59] so we don't know that.
[35:01] So we don't know if it's going to be diesel with an underground storage tank, is it going to be following an FPA 110 for a weekly monthly generator testing?
[35:15] Hopefully if it's a belly tank, it's going to be following an APA-30.
[35:19] What I'm getting at is this is a residential street.
[35:22] Why are we going to put a generator on web for a new on a residential street?
[35:29] Developers got money, put the generator inside the parking garage.
[35:32] Put it against the north side, against the train tracks.
[35:36] He can enclose it in this center block wall.
[35:38] He can exhaust it out to the side there.
[35:41] Don't let him tell you that they can't be done. Don't, it's pipe, it's wire, it's break, it can be done.
[35:50] He's working with Village, Violington Heights. I think that project's been put on old twice now because he's working with the city.
[35:57] So again, if you put conditions in, I would suggest putting a condition in to move the generator.
[36:04] Maybe put that on the roof or put it in the garage.
[36:07] The other thing is, I know a couple of months ago, I think you guys put conditions in for the three restaurants that are going in, and I think it was for signs.
[36:16] Again, being by residential, if something is illuminated, there's houses right across the street from the parking garage.
[36:23] Don't make the signs illuminated.
[36:26] We're residential. We're no different than what the restaurants are.
[36:29] That's all I got.
[36:30] Thank you.
[36:32] Thanks.
[36:33] Can we get answers to any of those questions?
[36:37] Well, if we could probably have the petitioner answer all the questions after some of the residents
[36:44] state their concerns, would anyone else like to speak?
[36:53] Good evening, Deb Lester, 596 webford.
[36:58] Yeah, just to follow up with the last comments this afternoon, I did take a look at all the
[37:05] to hide things because the developer are the city in conjunction with the historic nature
[37:17] of the property that surrounds it, work together to come up with a plan and from the original
[37:24] plan of the developer is vastly different. I did look at some of those plans and that generates
[37:30] Major is being placed at the back of the building. There are no garage entrances anywhere near the residential district. The pool has been moved, which the city requested, so that the pool would not face or disturb the residential neighbors. It's now overlooking a parking lot.
[37:53] And they put in a dog run, which I'm not sure if all of that still has to be worked out with the city in order for the plans to move forward.
[38:05] They put in a 17-foot dog run in the back of the property right next to an existing building, so none of that would disturb the neighbors.
[38:13] We're not seeing any type of cooperation with that.
[38:20] And so I also have a question if we follow the NFPA-214, which requires the developer to
[38:28] have specific plans with the fire department to make sure that if the fire should occur during
[38:38] construction that there is a plan in place. There have been many of these buildings going up
[38:47] with wood and they have been completely demolished and set the other neighboring buildings on fire from the
[38:58] numbers. So there are specific recommendations in NFP 2014 and we'd like to make sure
[39:07] that those are followed at the time and that there are adequate resources to protect
[39:13] the neighborhood so that that doesn't occur. So those are some of my comments. I just have a
[39:21] question. If you could go back to the one slide that had the yellow, I'm not quite clear what that
[39:27] yellow marking on the plant is, or that.
[39:35] What are those goldish yellow?
[39:38] This is the streetscape installation.
[39:43] Okay, so that's on the sidewalk.
[39:45] Correct.
[39:47] And when this is approved,
[39:50] it's solely from what you explained what is for
[39:54] the subdivision, it is not for the building and things could be changed if necessary.
[40:02] I'm still very concerned that there is not going to be any clearance with this building being built
[40:10] two inches from the sidewalk along Graceland. The people will be able to see on coming traffic
[40:17] when they're pulling out from Webford on to Grasland.
[40:21] Unlike the Welcome Project,
[40:25] that is all surrounded by stoplights.
[40:29] So people turning in and out are regulated by the stoplight.
[40:34] When you're coming, traffic coming down Grasland
[40:37] never stops from either going east and west
[40:41] a minor in turning down to Grasland or coming from the north
[40:45] on to Grasland.
[40:46] So the only time you have traffic that's actually stopped is when the train, the train signals are down and a train is coming.
[40:55] So there's very little opportunity for people to see the site triangle, which was mentioned many times in the contour saws development project.
[41:06] It's never been addressed.
[41:08] No one has ever told us that this is going to be safe because that building is going to
[41:16] be built right up to the corner and maybe we should take some of those public hearing
[41:21] signs and put them right at the corner and block that corner and let's see how much people
[41:29] can really see when they're going to try to look to their left in order to make a right
[41:35] turn. So we also had when over the meeting minutes from way back in 2014, your April 23 meeting
[41:50] minutes where Mr. Taylor was questioned with regard to the Welkin property. And we note that
[41:59] last contours laws, property traffic report, which you also had when you reviewed contours
[42:05] laws, may mention of the fact that in their traffic analysis, they had to take account
[42:12] into account the fact that Welkin had their date of their publications September 28th, 96 units
[42:23] that were unoccupied.
[42:24] So with that, I have copies of it if you'd like to see that directly from the package that you had.
[42:34] I question between that and the 54 other apartments you've approved for counter-saws.
[42:42] Why we need another 131 apartments?
[42:45] The Welkin, even if you look at their MLS listings, it's vastly different from what Mr. Taylor
[42:52] represented back in April when he would ask, if one of your members asked, if it's built,
[43:00] will they come? And Mr. Taylor replied, oh yes, this will be least up in 12 months.
[43:07] It's obviously not least up in 12 months. He also said that this would attract young people
[43:14] with disposable income.
[43:17] If you look at any of the MLS listings right now,
[43:21] they all have the on them that the welcome is now
[43:26] accepting applications with people with 550 credit scores.
[43:32] A 550 credit score by TransUnion,
[43:35] experience our all considered very poor rapport.
[43:41] There was just a report out from the government that because the people's credit card limits are so high.
[43:49] Credit card companies are now pulling back on the amount of credit that people have.
[43:56] So if you had a $5,000 dollar limit, they're now scaling that back.
[44:02] How much disposable income are these people going to have with a $550 dollar, $550 credit score?
[44:10] If we're trying to improve downtown and bring people in who will spend money in our downtown area, I don't see how that's going to work.
[44:22] So, we question, you know, the answers that we were given and what was told for the welcome, this doesn't seem to be any different.
[44:33] So I just want to know if we are, if this still has to go through planned development with the
[44:42] actionable construction or once the plan is approved, is he free to go?
[44:52] That's a question for us to have, early.
[44:54] So to clarify, the request tonight is solely for the consolidation of three lots into one.
[44:59] it does not.
[45:00] I approve the bill in itself. The billing will have to be reviewed by staff and meet all requirements of billing codes, fire codes, any code that it relates to the bill in itself.
[45:09] And will residents be involved in that and the construction management plan?
[45:15] I noticed I'm one of these documents that you had published that the construction entrance is going to be on the far west end of the property.
[45:27] is that set in stone where is the construction trailer going to be? Where is the dumpster
[45:33] one he's taken out debris from the fifth floor, the sixth floor? Where is all that going
[45:41] to go with? He's developing this on every square into the property.
[45:47] So that is something that the plans comes for through billion per hour will have layout and
[45:52] we're all that's going to be located. It is a administrative review done by staff. It's not a public
[45:57] hearing. Okay. And can the public look up those prints before they're approved and make comments?
[46:06] Under FOIA, it's too correct me if I'm wrong, but under FOIA you have the opportunity to request documents.
[46:11] Okay. All right. That's all I have. Thank you very much for listening. I appreciate it.
[46:17] Thank you. And I'm sure the petitioner can answer some of those questions you raised also.
[46:23] If you could step up to the podium, please?
[46:30] Jim Hanson, 1339, went for it.
[46:32] So I get it. We're here to talk about final plan.
[46:36] Not being approved or he fire code and all that stuff.
[46:41] I do want to thank the attorney there for just supporting the whole bare minimum requirement about the zoning signs.
[46:46] We need intent is to notify, but when they're faced down, point it in a way that nobody can see him
[46:52] except in the rear of your mirror of their car, you know, as long as we hit the check box that they were up for seven days,
[46:58] bare minimum requirements, that's what we want in the city.
[47:00] So thank you for that.
[47:02] This is the opportunity for you guys to look at what the entire life span of this thing,
[47:09] of where it started, all the changes that continue to come and go, and this is your opportunity
[47:15] you'd get on the record so that when it starts to unravel and fall apart that you at least
[47:22] did your part to say this doesn't belong here. He has shown nope, not he, the company has shown
[47:31] no ability to stay on with the original plans. They've decided that because we used our legal right
[47:43] to contest this that we voiced our displeasure that this is going to be put across the street from our house.
[47:48] I know all of you would have the same concerns if this would literally across the street from your homes.
[47:54] You'd have a different opinion of it.
[47:56] The restaurant that was going to come and help downtown is now what a sandwich bar.
[48:00] It can, and the way he's building it, it can never be a restaurant because he's not putting in the exhaust and hood systems.
[48:06] So all these things that got us initially to say yes, yes, yes, they're changing.
[48:11] So, it's going to go through, we know that.
[48:14] He's going to take this the next step, the next step, it's coming.
[48:17] What we need to do is we need to make him do it right.
[48:20] We need to let him know that in this town, you know the rules and you play by him.
[48:25] You don't stand in the middle of the street and F5 the neighbors because they stood up against
[48:30] you.
[48:31] We lost.
[48:32] We take it.
[48:33] We lost.
[48:34] But we don't need to be told how we got beat and how we should run to keep running to the PZB because
[48:40] doesn't do us any good. This is the man that wants to come into our neighborhood. So he's
[48:46] got to do it right in that construction management plant. John Carallel committed to me. I
[48:52] know he's not here anymore that Phil and I would be involved in those conversations because
[48:57] it is right across this street from our house. And if one time my wife cannot get out of the driveway
[49:02] to go to her work in a critical care unit at a hospital because there's people parked there
[49:08] or blocking that road, I'm calling 911 and we're going to have this enforced.
[49:14] This is what you guys have to understand what is going to be like to live across this.
[49:18] We live across the Welcome, while they were doing all of that work on it, and we had
[49:23] to stuff going down the tubes, the disposal tubes at 530 in the morning, waking up the
[49:28] dogs, waking up the neighbors, and this went on for a long time.
[49:33] They still haven't corrected that building. It still floods all over the place. There's ice and they have no
[49:40] care concern about the people that walk there. Those are the people that he needs in that building,
[49:46] renting the welkin and they're going to come and see his new building and he doesn't take care of the
[49:51] sidewalk. And the people from the welkin that walk their dogs walk on that sidewalk.
[49:58] So he's kind of not met, if he's messing with us, he's not.
[50:02] I don't walk on that side of the street.
[50:04] I don't park in his lap.
[50:06] I could care less whether he comes or goes.
[50:10] But the people that he's trying to get to stand
[50:12] these apartments move to these apartments,
[50:14] if not setting a very good example for them
[50:16] if he's trying to get hit at us.
[50:18] So just keep this all in mind.
[50:21] I understand this is going through.
[50:22] I'm not here to argue all of those things.
[50:24] One thing about, if he does not go through with this project, the zoning will be reverted by the city council, it'll be petitioned in the zoning will go back, so I don't know if that changes back into the original
[50:36] lot line set, U.S. set question.
[50:40] So I don't know if that works that way or not, but the zoning will revert back to C3 if his project does not go through.
[50:50] That's all I have to say, just do what's in your heart like I like you always do.
[50:54] I appreciate you guys.
[50:55] We know this is going to go through, but that doesn't mean you can't make him do the job the right way.
[51:02] Is it possible to have a public hearing about final construction plans like we did in the past?
[51:08] I mean, I will say I'm very impressed with what is the project I already forgot.
[51:15] Yeah, the contours saw they were fantastic to work with, they really took, you know, a lot of input from the community and really made some wonderful changes.
[51:27] It's not too late, Joe Taylor, you can do that too and we will support you.
[51:32] Okay, thank you, thank you for that look.
[51:38] Thank you everybody, anyone else have any comments?
[51:43] And the other questions are comments from the board, yes, Mr. Weber.
[51:50] So I'd like to go back to the generator.
[51:54] But in saying that I don't feel it's really the place of the PCB to iron out the details
[52:02] of a project.
[52:03] So what I'd like to hear from here is that we have staff that will deal with that question
[52:10] And we'll represent the city's best interest on placing the generator, sizing, and so forth.
[52:19] Who is that in our city government that does that?
[52:23] And will this be reviewed by them?
[52:30] So this will be reviewed by multiple departments when it comes through our billing department, fire prevention,
[52:35] department, engineering, zoning, and any other department that's necessary to determine it means all the good requirements.
[52:42] Who, which department would have the greatest interest in an electrical item like the generator, but that'd be engineering?
[52:50] Building department, building department, which includes electrical inspectors, they look at all that kind of stuff.
[52:56] Well, as a PCB member, I would like to say, it's really important to me to understand that a lot of people play their part in reviewing this project.
[53:09] And while I understand this is a forum for public input, we have people who know much more than we do about the specifics of things like a generator.
[53:20] and what are the implications of putting it in location A or B and whether it's two
[53:24] big or two small and so forth. And I have to say, I think I can say perhaps on behalf
[53:31] of my fellow board members, we rely on these folks to be doing their job and to make sure that
[53:39] not only requirements are meant, but good judgment is utilized on issues like this.
[53:47] We did, there was a question that you said we were going to hold off till the end about the generator for Joe Taylor, I'm, we didn't get it answered.
[53:58] I was going to give the petitioner a chance to respond to some of the residents after the comments from the board were pretty much finished.
[54:10] Thank you, Mr. Weber. I need a question from the board.
[54:17] Now I'll give the petitioner a chance if they would care to address some of the concerns of the residents in the neighborhood.
[54:29] Certainly Mr. Chairman again for the record Katrina McGuire here on behalf of the applicant.
[54:33] And if I forget any that you would like me to address certainly remind me, I'm trying to focus
[54:40] on the matters that I think are within the scope and purview of tonight's hearing, but
[54:44] I understand that community members have come forth and raised other concerns.
[54:48] So we're obviously happy to try to address them as best we can.
[54:52] Obviously, many of those we've heard throughout the course of these sort of approval processes
[54:57] for this project and we know that emotions run strong and people still have very strong feelings
[55:02] about that. So I doubt we can answer everything to people satisfaction, but we certainly want to
[55:07] address them as best we possibly can.
[55:11] I think on the, there was a question or concern,
[55:17] Ms. Fowler, you raised about snow removal.
[55:22] The sidewalks, okay. I'm sorry. Yeah. And Mr. Taylor
[55:25] confirmed that that has been taken care of today. Today. But how many days were they frozen and snow
[55:31] was on there, how many, 10 days?
[55:34] Right, and so he acknowledges that that needs to be.
[55:35] Because he was coming here tonight.
[55:37] So that is not being a good neighbor.
[55:39] OK, well, thank you.
[55:41] It has been addressed and will be addressed more promptly
[55:43] in the future.
[55:45] As far as comments about fire comments in the past,
[55:48] I think those were Memoranda that were issued
[55:50] as part of the review process for the project.
[55:54] Changes were made as part of that process
[55:57] to ensure that the fire departments
[55:59] concerns and comments were all addressed.
[56:01] They have been throughout the fire department has indicated that we meet their fire safety
[56:06] codes.
[56:06] They will again review at the building permit stage, that that is the case.
[56:11] They have confirmed both in a written memorandum as well as to staff here that they have
[56:15] no changes or concerns about this flat of consolidation.
[56:20] So, I just wanted to state that on the record, that those that were being recited into
[56:23] the record were comments, essentially old-scale comments that were prior, that was part of
[56:27] review process that we're then addressed as part of the further design of the project.
[56:34] That goes also to the concern about NFPA-214, which I have to respectfully say I don't know
[56:40] what that states, but again, want to confirm on the record that this project will be required
[56:45] to meet any and all fire safety codes that exist and certainly will not be built without
[56:51] compliance of those.
[56:54] There's a concern raised about site-distance requirements.
[56:57] Again, I want to reiterate that those I believe are outside the scope of what we're here before today.
[57:02] But again, that those were our site-distance requirements were met.
[57:06] That was indicated in the traffic studies that were conducted in IDOT satisfied with those as well.
[57:15] I think the generator question, again, as was indicated by staff,
[57:20] Ultimately, it's location in sighting is going to be approved as part of the building permit process,
[57:25] but it's location has been approved as part of the zoning plans along the way.
[57:32] And I think that hopefully addressed, I tried to take notes of all the comments.
[57:37] Were there any other comments that I didn't?
[57:40] Is there a consideration of moving the generator to the back?
[57:45] Why is that?
[57:56] So I think it gives me a please limit your side talk. You can speak for the petition or outside if if you care to make no
[58:06] I'd have to have to come back to the podium if you have other questions.
[58:10] All right, so at this point the location of the generator is where it sort of
[58:15] It is appropriately located based on the other utilities and so we'll be visible from the street. We'll be able to start a generator. Well, there are beams
[58:24] Do
[58:30] you want to step up, why don't you step up, stay tuned for the record?
[58:34] Joe Taylor again, this, the, all the utilities there, transformers, switching, switch gear,
[58:44] generator, are all being screened by a masonry wall, by a request of the, of the city.
[58:53] So, we had done a metal screening wall and upon request from the city officials asking for it to be upgraded, so that said more hefty wall, it reinforced with rebar and concrete and it has a masonry front.
[59:15] So, it matches the facade of the building,
[59:18] therefore, that was primarily for vision and for sound.
[59:24] Attentuation.
[59:29] Do you miss the chairman members?
[59:32] Just the question, it's just a comment for the petitioner.
[59:36] You know, there's sound block that could be applied
[59:40] to the inside of the generator room.
[59:45] The proud foot company is who makes sound block.
[59:48] You may look into that, you know, you'd have the block on the inside, the brick, hopefully on the outside,
[59:55] and that would mitigate any noise and the gentleman back actually nodded.
[1:00:00] Well, I guess I know what I'm talking about. Would you like to make another comment?
[1:00:04] I can stop up.
[1:00:08] Again, I don't want to go back and forth and I know what we're here for tonight.
[1:00:13] One, the generator on the very first plan when the dance building was thought of, there was no generator.
[1:00:18] So what she just said is not true. The generator got added onto the prints once the dance building was not going to go through.
[1:00:24] Don't let a developer tell you that the generator can't be moved.
[1:00:30] There's directional boring. I know what I'm talking about.
[1:00:32] I oversee 2 million square feet of a pediatric hospital in Chicago.
[1:00:37] I have generators underground and garage on roofs.
[1:00:41] There's diesel fuelings. That's my question.
[1:00:44] He can't even answer what kind of generator.
[1:00:46] You don't even know what type of generator you're putting in.
[1:00:49] What? Okay. What type of generator?
[1:00:51] It doesn't matter.
[1:00:52] It does so because when you go to a hundred and fifty hey W you have to go to diesel see this one I'm talking about
[1:00:59] Again, I don't want to do the back and forth, but what's bright is right? How is putting a generator?
[1:01:04] Improving streetscapes. I understand soundproofing
[1:01:07] But if it's natural gas is it running weekly is it gonna do a low bank test?
[1:01:11] These are questions that again
[1:01:12] I appreciate your comments to Mr. Weaver and I think the city staff does need to look at this again
[1:01:18] And we know it's coming, I get it, it's rather frustrating for my house, but again, work with
[1:01:23] the neighbors.
[1:01:24] You know, the staff is got your input and I think that's great because it's being directed
[1:01:29] to the right place, but I'll back way up and say, all we're hearing the night is actually
[1:01:36] the subdivision.
[1:01:38] But it's a good thing you showed up because I'm sure they'll take your concerns and
[1:01:42] they can consider it.
[1:01:43] Well, I mean, correct me if I were on, but so my can did right.
[1:01:46] I know you guys make conditions on certain things.
[1:01:48] Can you make the condition of like you were saying that the location of the generator and also
[1:01:53] you made the conditions on the three restaurants of not having illuminated signs across from
[1:01:58] residential houses.
[1:01:59] Again, parking garage, right, he'll probably have illuminated signs like the walk and has.
[1:02:04] Can you make that also a condition?
[1:02:06] Those are the things I'm asking.
[1:02:07] We get it's coming.
[1:02:08] I'll have to ask Mr. Weiss, but all we're hearing tonight really is a subdivision.
[1:02:13] It's a little different than other hearings we had.
[1:02:16] So, thanks for your time.
[1:02:19] Thank you very much.
[1:02:24] I'd like me to respond.
[1:02:25] I'm not aware of what the specific relief that was being asked for with regard to the restaurants.
[1:02:31] I don't know if those were a conditional use or if there were a specific issue with the signs.
[1:02:37] But with a subdivision, really, the conditions need to be specific to the layout of a lot and not the improvements they're upon.
[1:02:45] Thank you very much.
[1:02:46] But wouldn't the layout of the lot is that important how close the building to the West is that isn't that part of the subdivision?
[1:02:57] I mean, that's a major issue. Five feet.
[1:03:00] We had somebody come up last meeting that needed.
[1:03:04] They wanted to build their house and if we have a 25-foot setback for residential and we're allowing a building to be five feet.
[1:03:14] And just to, again, I went by the welcome building again by the Mexico restaurant, if you see that pathway between it's just, it's just bad design is building needs to be
[1:03:29] You need to really rethink the scope of the size of this we know what's going in we all agree it's going to happen, but five feet from the end of the building to the dance building
[1:03:41] That's part of the, but this, then that is part of this tonight. It really is important.
[1:03:48] Well, I, I do not believe that any variation was requested for the side lot for this building.
[1:03:54] This building is going to be in full compliance with the C4, the C5 requirements.
[1:03:58] I think one of the issues is that the dance building is a non-conforming building.
[1:04:03] And if you were to build a new building on that lot, it couldn't be built that close to the lot line.
[1:04:08] And which does create, which can create when you put two buildings close together,
[1:04:14] but you can't penalize a new building being developed that is complying when it has a non-conformity next to it.
[1:04:21] And that's one of the issues.
[1:04:23] I understand, but maybe this is not to the letter of the law, but when this was approved,
[1:04:29] when this, you know, when it was approved, it was because the dance building was not going to be there.
[1:04:34] This whole project, the scope of it, is changed with the dance building be there.
[1:04:40] There are people on this board that approved, recommended approval because the dance building was going to be gone.
[1:04:46] And you know who you are.
[1:04:49] So that has changed the scope of this project has changed because the dance building is going to be there and it's going to be five feet.
[1:04:56] We can't get away from that. So I don't see how we can approve voting this tonight.
[1:05:02] I just don't understand that.
[1:05:07] I would just have to say that the City Council, in the end, originally requested a
[1:05:18] condition that that property be included in the development and then the City Council
[1:05:24] changes his mind and the City Council decided to remove that condition and nonetheless zone
[1:05:31] the combined property into C5, these three lots exist in C5 now and they are, and so really
[1:05:43] the question is, are we just scrubbing the lot lines tonight? That is the question that
[1:05:49] is before you and the recommendation that you will make.
[1:05:56] Comment? Mr. Weaver. So I think for a lot of the details that aren't strictly a question of
[1:06:04] Combining the parcels
[1:06:06] This process can take a long time based on the history of this project some things will continue to change
[1:06:14] If we wait to combine the parcels until all of our departments and all the public input have finalized all the details
[1:06:21] We won't have combined parcels, perhaps for a very long time, and I think that's because we've taken this out of sequence, and I think we have to respect what Stewart is saying, and that the issue tonight is the combining of the parcels.
[1:06:40] I, despite of what other people have said here, and I think the input is very good, but I think that some of the remaining issues really need to be
[1:06:51] address by a process that should be already going on. We'll continue to go on. Our city
[1:06:59] departments need to stay on top of these issues, but this seems the logical time to
[1:07:08] January 23 to make a decision about combining the parcels. Thank you, Mr. Weber,
[1:07:14] any further discussion? I just want more questions to staff. So what is the next process?
[1:07:20] Let's assume this gets approved tonight or obviously not tonight, but let's say let's
[1:07:27] pre-what are the next steps.
[1:07:30] So, the next step after approval of our recommendation to city council from your from the board is that city council review and finalize a their proof or deny the request. And then after that is approved, then they would start with the building permitting.
[1:07:45] Should we would review from staff the staff level administratively and confirm that all the code requirements are met for the structure and the improvements that are going to be on the site.
[1:07:54] And what is the time frame usually for something like that.
[1:07:58] This is a larger project so it's hard to tell the exact time frame.
[1:08:02] It could take a while to get through and make sure all of the comments are addressed.
[1:08:06] And all the codes are addressed in the development itself.
[1:08:10] But staff will continue to work with the petitioner and their development team throughout that process.
[1:08:15] And in the meantime, can they remove the buildings that are on site while we're waiting for this process?
[1:08:24] So, they would, obviously, one of the steps would be to demolish the existing billions on site,
[1:08:29] but they would obviously want to get through this step first before doing that.
[1:08:33] But, if they get through the step, they can start demolition, correct?
[1:08:39] Well, I mean, they could, they could demo today, but the intent is that they can get the subdivision approved first.
[1:08:48] And then...
[1:08:49] There is a permanent process for demolition, right?
[1:08:51] Correct. Yeah, they would get a permanent start.
[1:08:52] Yeah, they would get a permit from us and from Cook County to demo the property, but they can apply for that today.
[1:08:59] And then during that process, they'll check the building if there's a specialist and needs to be treated correctly and just demolished correctly, is that what you're saying?
[1:09:07] That's part of Cook County's process.
[1:09:10] The demolition permits are required to go through Cook County.
[1:09:14] Is that right, Jonathan?
[1:09:15] Yes, thank you.
[1:09:16] County would what appropriate is there both Cook County and local demolition permits required and remediation of any materials such as this best this is part of Cook County's process.
[1:09:25] Okay, great. Thank you.
[1:09:28] Are there any other steps that will come before the PZV or this is the last thing that we will be addressing?
[1:09:36] Well, this would be the last thing for any entitlements.
[1:09:39] They would as I said, they would still have to go through permitting and make sure that all the code requirements are.
[1:09:43] Anything else to come to us again?
[1:09:46] No, not unless they request anything else.
[1:09:54] If there's no further discussion, do I have a motion?
[1:09:58] Mr. Waver?
[1:10:00] I'd like to make a motion that the PZB
[1:10:03] approves the tentative plan of subdivision.
[1:10:08] It's been moved by Mr. Waver, do I have a second?
[1:10:11] Second by Mr. Solednik?
[1:10:13] Ryan, could you please call the roll?
[1:10:16] Member Waver.
[1:10:17] I member Sletnik member Catalano member Fowler no member Vremus
[1:10:24] Hi, Chairman Zoddo I the tentative
[1:10:27] plan of subdivision has been approved will write a recommendation
[1:10:30] City Council do I have another motion yes Mr. Waver I
[1:10:36] move that the PZB recommends approval by the city council of the final
[1:10:41] plan of subdivision subject to condition number one proposed by the staff
[1:10:46] and draft it in the package.
[1:10:49] Yeah, I should back up.
[1:10:50] We approved the tentative.
[1:10:53] We don't need to be recommending the tentative also.
[1:10:57] So tentative, you final approval, since this is concurred,
[1:11:00] then a separate motion to approve the final.
[1:11:03] We don't always do it this way, but this is technically
[1:11:06] it is correct that a motion to recommend
[1:11:09] the final platform approval by city council would be in order.
[1:11:13] I should read the condition.
[1:11:15] the condition reads that the construction level street light and detail is required in the attached
[1:11:20] engineering memo is provided and approved by the PWE department. That's public works in engineering.
[1:11:26] Prior to the issuance of any building or right away permits.
[1:11:31] Thank you. It's been moved by Mr. Weaver. Do I have a second?
[1:11:35] Seconded by Mr. Soletnik. Ryan, could you please call a roll?
[1:11:39] Member Leaver.
[1:11:41] Members of that, Nick.
[1:11:42] Member Catalano.
[1:11:44] Member Fowler.
[1:11:45] No.
[1:11:45] Member Vremus.
[1:11:47] Chairman Zambo.
[1:11:48] I will write a recommendation to City Council.
[1:11:54] That concludes case number 23-005-F-plat.
[1:12:01] Next case this evening.
[1:12:02] I think Stewart is going to leave us.
[1:12:05] So we'll give it a little time.
[1:12:07] Thank you very much.
[1:12:08] The next case this evening is case number 23-047-B, address commonly known as 1183 South River Road, is a petitioner present?
[1:12:32] Good evening.
[1:12:34] If you could state your name and malign address, please?
[1:12:41] Yes, my name is Katherine Coons, my mailing address is 1183 South River Road.
[1:12:47] Are you the only one giving testimony on your behalf this evening?
[1:12:51] Yes. If you could raise your right hand, please. In the case before you're the saving, you
[1:12:56] just want to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so I'll be
[1:12:59] glad. Yes.
[1:13:01] Please explain your request to the board and I appreciate your patience sitting through
[1:13:06] the first case.
[1:13:08] You're welcome. But I have a fence. It runs down both sides of my property to the north
[1:13:20] end to the south of the property.
[1:13:24] The south side of the property, the fence, well both sides
[1:13:29] of the fence are quite old, but for whatever reason the south side of the property wasn't
[1:13:35] disrepair. So I had the fence replaced and refurbished to be consistent with the fence that
[1:13:49] I was replacing, so both sides of the fence would match if that makes sense.
[1:13:57] That's perfect sense to me.
[1:14:01] Did anyone complain about your fence?
[1:14:05] Only when it was in disrepair.
[1:14:08] After you repaired it, was there any complaint about the repaired fence?
[1:14:12] No.
[1:14:12] No, I was congratulated by some of my neighbors on how nice it was.
[1:14:18] And your immediate neighbors are the ones that it congratulated you on your new friends?
[1:14:24] Yes.
[1:14:24] Oh, thank you.
[1:14:31] Kind of a cut and dried case.
[1:14:33] Do I have any questions from many board members?
[1:14:35] Yes.
[1:14:36] Mr. Weber?
[1:14:37] When did you acquire the property?
[1:14:42] It was about
[1:14:51] 1990.
[1:14:53] The fence was standing when we bought the...
[1:15:00] We'll need about the House. Who requested the sense permit in 1990 was that you were the previous owner?
[1:15:07] It must have been the previous owners, because the fence was standing when we moved into the house.
[1:15:14] That timing would suggest that the fence went up right before it was sold to you.
[1:15:20] But the report says that there was a permit issued in 1990.
[1:15:25] That was not to me.
[1:15:30] How did this case come before this board this evening?
[1:15:37] Did the city? I think the city
[1:15:42] Yes, the final inspection
[1:15:46] Put the fence in the wrong way. Right,
[1:15:54] the fence looks nice
[1:15:56] It yes, it does
[1:15:58] Even though I think the side with the pole has more character to be cut out
[1:16:03] Well, and and there could be in if the other side of the fence looked like that
[1:16:08] I would have done it that way.
[1:16:10] It just made sense to me.
[1:16:12] I don't know, you know.
[1:16:17] Could I have a brief recap on the staff report, please?
[1:16:23] Yes, so today we're taking a look
[1:16:25] at a majorization for a fence design at 1183.
[1:16:28] South Displains were a road.
[1:16:30] So we've overcap over the property.
[1:16:32] The, it's improved with a single family residence.
[1:16:34] It is located within the floodway.
[1:16:36] So a property area is a little,
[1:16:37] it's one in a quarter acres
[1:16:39] and property of zoned R1 single family.
[1:16:44] So, just a review of the sign or just a defense requirements in regards to design.
[1:16:49] Location of posts specifically requires that the location of post should face the subject property
[1:16:55] and the finished side should face neighboring properties as you can see in this picture here.
[1:17:01] Just kind of showing there.
[1:17:04] These are site photos of the property of the public notice sign on the top left
[1:17:08] And then a view of the property from the front, and then you can see the existing fence on the bottom two pictures.
[1:17:16] 1990 there was a fence permit. It was approved with the condition that the finish side of the fence faces joining lots.
[1:17:23] It was installed incorrectly with the finished side facing inward towards the subject property.
[1:17:31] On 2022, there was a fence permit approved to repair a section of fence that had fallen to this repair.
[1:17:37] Staff did see that receiving a complaint regarding the fence, and so the petitioner did apply for it and get an approved permit.
[1:17:47] One of the conditions of the improvement was that the finish side of the fence would have to face the adjoining properties.
[1:17:55] and December there was a field inspection by staff because the fence was installed incorrectly.
[1:18:01] Staff did notify the owner to correct defense or apply for a variation.
[1:18:06] There were several warnings that were issued and the citation that was issued in May.
[1:18:11] I'm going to demonstrate here in date scheduled which has been tabled based on the outcome of the variation request.
[1:18:19] Thank you very much.
[1:18:20] Do I have anyone that has questions about this request that are either in favor of a reposes this request?
[1:18:31] Do I have any discussion or questions from the board?
[1:18:35] Ms. Varemes?
[1:18:51] My neighbors, the Reverend Richard Malone, as wife Rita, did approach me.
[1:18:55] They asked if I wanted them to come.
[1:18:58] And I was like, I couldn't see any reason why I would inconvenience on that way.
[1:19:05] And they were fine with the fence the way it is.
[1:19:14] And so there's a fence on the north and the south.
[1:19:17] What's on the back of your lap?
[1:19:19] Is there a fence?
[1:19:21] It's the river.
[1:19:23] Oh, river.
[1:19:26] So.
[1:19:28] Thank you.
[1:19:30] Mr. Salatnik?
[1:19:31] Yeah, just some basic clarification and for the record discussion.
[1:19:37] The side of your lot on either side primarily faces the back of the lots that are either
[1:19:46] side of your house with that correct?
[1:19:48] Yes.
[1:19:50] So the incorrect part of the fence is facing the rear of the properties of the adjacent properties.
[1:19:58] Make that point.
[1:19:59] And have any of your neighbors complained about what they see?
[1:20:03] No.
[1:20:03] They mostly have landscape to write up to it.
[1:20:08] So they virtually can't see it.
[1:20:11] Thank you.
[1:20:17] Any further discussion?
[1:20:18] Was this house a fire, a fire house at one time?
[1:20:22] Yep.
[1:20:23] My understanding from the Historical Society is that it was a brickyard.
[1:20:28] Oh, brickyard.
[1:20:29] I'm exempts with Whitcome was the brickyard.
[1:20:32] Mm-hmm. Okay, thank you.
[1:20:34] Any other questions or comments from the board?
[1:20:38] If not, do I have a motion?
[1:20:44] Ms. Fowler?
[1:20:48] I motion. We approve a major variation from section 128-2.D of the zoning ordinance to allow
[1:20:56] a fence assigned with the finished side of the wood facing towards towards the subject
[1:21:01] property instead of the finished side facing neighboring properties as required.
[1:21:07] It's been moved by Ms. Father, do I have a second?
[1:21:09] Second, do I have Mr. Weaver?
[1:21:12] Second question? Oh, sure.
[1:21:13] Just want to ask, did you want to include the staff condition?
[1:21:16] Oh, thank you.
[1:21:18] And did you also want to say that we were recommending city council approval?
[1:21:23] I says, obviously the council.
[1:21:27] The condition approved, but did you see the condition of approval?
[1:21:33] That the fence is altered as necessary to be in
[1:21:36] informants with all regulations in title 14 flood control and just planes
[1:21:45] municipal code for variants is granted by the director of public works in
[1:21:51] engineering.
[1:21:54] Can we explain that in kind of layman's
[1:21:56] shortly. Yeah, I'm a little confused. Maybe a little of the properties in a flood
[1:22:02] way so there are restrictions on what structures can be built within a floodway or
[1:22:06] blood plane, and those are detailed in our title 14, which mirrors the FEMA requirements.
[1:22:13] So anything that as additional layer blocks the flow of water can obviously have negative
[1:22:20] effects, so they do restrict the, what can be constructed there?
[1:22:25] And if there is something constructed there, like a fence, it does need to be elevated
[1:22:28] It's certain, so that, um...
[1:22:31] So,
[1:22:34] essentially, this condition is making sure those regulations are met because, say, it does have to maintain
[1:22:40] understanding with FEMA and making sure those rules are adhered to.
[1:22:47] So does that mean the fence needs to be raised or some pickets need to be removed?
[1:22:55] So, the engineering division did originally approve the 2022 permit, as long as the location of the fence and the height
[1:23:03] clearance of the fence from the bottom from the adjacent grade is the same engineering has previously approved this
[1:23:10] their inspection will be part of the close out of this issue
[1:23:14] if the variation should be approved to confirm that it's the same as it was before if so no additional work would be required
[1:23:21] and just a clarification this is in a flood plain but not in the flood way
[1:23:26] this isn't a flood way it is in the flood portions of the property are within the flood way
[1:23:30] That's why I asked about pickets being removed and think being raised.
[1:23:35] Well, if I could say, the house never wasn't the floodway or floodplain until Hurricane Katrina.
[1:23:45] Well, then everything changed, and we had to buy flood insurance.
[1:23:50] And we never had to before.
[1:23:54] And the house is never, ever flooded ever.
[1:23:58] This has nothing to do with the case.
[1:24:00] How many feet from the river is your house located?
[1:24:04] The river of your house?
[1:24:06] Um...
[1:24:07] Just...
[1:24:07] Roughly speaking.
[1:24:12] Like a football field?
[1:24:14] Like a football field?
[1:24:17] Around?
[1:24:17] Maybe not that.
[1:24:18] I don't know.
[1:24:19] I don't have any.
[1:24:20] I guess I could look at my drawing.
[1:24:23] 300 feet?
[1:24:24] Well...
[1:24:24] 300 feet?
[1:24:26] It's great.
[1:24:27] It's never flooded.
[1:24:28] up there's no further discussion that's been moved in seconded
[1:24:32] Ryan could you please call the roll?
[1:24:37] Member Follard.
[1:24:38] I.
[1:24:38] Member Weaver.
[1:24:39] I.
[1:24:40] Member Catalano.
[1:24:42] Member Sletnik.
[1:24:43] Member Vremus.
[1:24:44] I.
[1:24:46] Well, whether recommendation the city council.
[1:24:48] Thank you.
[1:24:50] Very much for coming in.
[1:24:52] Thank you for your time.
[1:24:56] Next case this evening is case number 24 dash.
[1:24:59] zero, zero, four, dash, b, nine, fifteen, alfini, drive,
[1:25:04] as petitioner president,
[1:25:16] Arthur Guzz.
[1:25:17] Arthur Guzz.
[1:25:18] Arthur Guzz.
[1:25:19] Arthur Guzz.
[1:25:19] Arthur Guzz.
[1:25:20] If you could please both raise your right hands.
[1:25:25] In the case before you, the evening is where to tell the truth,
[1:25:28] the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, self you got.
[1:25:30] I do.
[1:25:31] I do.
[1:25:32] I do.
[1:25:32] I do.
[1:25:33] and our contractor and architect are also here if that you had any technical questions I don't know.
[1:25:37] I think it's step up. I'm sure they're going to testify.
[1:25:41] Sure.
[1:25:51] If you could state your names for the record.
[1:25:54] John Birdo with Kembal Architects.
[1:25:57] Steve Kazinski, owner of S.P.K. Builders.
[1:26:01] If you could raise your right hands please, in the case before it is evening,
[1:26:05] you swear to tell a truth to the whole truth.
[1:26:07] And nothing but the truth stop you again.
[1:26:09] You could be seated, and then if we have questions, we'll get back to you.
[1:26:15] If you could explain it or request to the board, please?
[1:26:18] Yes.
[1:26:19] So, 9.15, Elfini Drive is our home, we are owners and residents there.
[1:26:23] We've looked to about nine years, and we are looking to add onto the back of the home.
[1:26:26] There's a current family room addition that we're looking to remove.
[1:26:29] It's about 11 by 14 feet, I want to say.
[1:26:33] And we're looking to add a family room, bedroom, second fold bath.
[1:26:36] That's currently a two bedroom, one bath home.
[1:26:38] Looking to turn it into a three bedroom, two bath home.
[1:26:40] and we are looking to maintain a single story of living.
[1:26:43] So our variation request is to cover technically 32.34% of the lot,
[1:26:48] and that exceeds the 30% that's allowed.
[1:26:51] I'm sorry, you say 32.34.
[1:26:55] And that includes the cannabis.
[1:26:57] 1.41% is the front and rear door cannabis.
[1:27:14] Any questions from the board?
[1:27:21] Samantha, are you going to summarize the staff report?
[1:27:24] Mr. Rogers?
[1:27:26] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is probably my 500th zoning variation in my career, but my first inaugural presentation to the city of this place.
[1:27:38] The applicant is requesting a zoning variation for the subject of property.
[1:27:44] The existing conditions are shown in the photos.
[1:27:46] As the applicant described, all of the existing improvements are exist on one story.
[1:27:54] The applicant is proposing to remove and existing room addition from the rear of the residents to construct a new room addition to the rear of the residents.
[1:28:02] All told, the site plan shows the footprint of the existing areas under roof.
[1:28:08] The area in red would be the existing addition to be removed in the areas in green.
[1:28:12] comprise the proposed additions.
[1:28:15] The addition to the front is a covered entryway,
[1:28:19] whereas it's opened on the sides.
[1:28:22] The additions to the rear are enclosed except for the entrance
[1:28:25] at the northeast corner, which is an entrance into the building.
[1:28:29] The applicant provided all of the required plans
[1:28:32] survey and elevations.
[1:28:34] The specific request is relief from section 12, 7, 2,
[1:28:39] J, and regard to building coverage.
[1:28:41] where for an interior lot in the R1 district, the maximum coverage of 30% is permissible.
[1:28:47] As the applicant outlined, the proposal comprises 32.34% of the existing lot area.
[1:28:54] 2.34% overage is approximately 167 square feet.
[1:29:00] The applicant in their materials on pages 12 through 14 of the materials distributed to the board,
[1:29:06] outlines the justifications for their requests and staff summarizes those in
[1:29:10] on pages 4 through 7. If the board is amenable to approval of the request, staff recommends that
[1:29:20] the conditions as listed on the slide and in the report be included in any motion.
[1:29:26] The board's action this evening, it would be to approve, approve subject to conditions, continue,
[1:29:33] or deny the standard variation request, and the action by the board would be a final determination
[1:29:37] on this request. I can try to answer any questions as the Zoning variation applies to the code
[1:29:43] in the applicant can answer any questions related to their proposal. Thank you.
[1:29:49] Thank you very much.
[1:29:56] Have any questions from anyone on the board?
[1:30:00] Just a comment that I think the presentation that we have before is very thorough, very detail.
[1:30:07] Would you like to see our slideshow?
[1:30:09] Sure.
[1:30:09] Would you like to see our slideshow?
[1:30:12] Sure.
[1:30:14] Well, there's a rendering, a digital rendering, at least, of what our proposed home would look like from the
[1:30:18] front.
[1:30:19] That's also an image there of what our current neighborhood looks like.
[1:30:21] So there's our house in the middle top on the right, and it shows just our neighborhood of
[1:30:24] all other largely single story homes.
[1:30:26] The majority of our neighborhood is not very large.
[1:30:29] they're all modest homes and these plants all are in line with that.
[1:30:34] There's a lot more slides but you don't have to.
[1:30:39] Mr. Weaver makes a good point.
[1:30:41] A lot of times people come in here and they're not anywhere prepared with drawings or anything.
[1:30:48] So that's great.
[1:30:51] I commend your architect.
[1:30:52] Any further discussion?
[1:30:56] Mr. Slaynick?
[1:30:58] I just have a comment that what they're proposing doesn't seem overly large.
[1:31:06] from the street frontage and is in scale and character with the neighborhood and I'd be in
[1:31:14] favor of the variation.
[1:31:18] We have other discussion, do I have anyone here in favor of their proposal, anyone objecting
[1:31:24] their proposal, do I have a motion,
[1:31:29] Mr. Weaver?
[1:31:30] I move that we approve the standard variation request subject to the two conditions proposed
[1:31:37] by staff.
[1:31:39] It's been moved by Mr. Raver.
[1:31:41] Do I have a second?
[1:31:42] Second by Mr. Raimus.
[1:31:45] Ryan, could you please call the roll?
[1:31:49] Member Weaver.
[1:31:50] Aye.
[1:31:50] Member of Raimus.
[1:31:51] Aye.
[1:31:52] Member Catalano.
[1:31:53] Aye.
[1:31:53] Member Fowler.
[1:31:54] Aye.
[1:31:55] Member Sletnik.
[1:31:56] Aye.
[1:31:56] Chairman Zabba.
[1:31:59] Are we final on this one?
[1:32:01] Yes.
[1:32:02] If you have any questions,
[1:32:04] you can get a hold of Samantha or Jeff
[1:32:07] and the community development department.
[1:32:10] Great, thanks for your time.
[1:32:11] Thank you very much.
[1:32:12] Thanks, John.
[1:32:20] The next case this evening is...
[1:32:24] Thank you, everyone.
[1:32:25] Thank you.
[1:32:31] Case number 24, that's 002,
[1:32:35] that's B, 15 or four.
[1:32:38] Oakwood Avenue, when you are Max Larson.
[1:32:40] Yes.
[1:32:41] You could raise your right hand, please.
[1:32:43] In the case, before you this evening,
[1:32:45] you're swear to tell the truth, the whole truth.
[1:32:46] And nothing about the truth, so help you, guys.
[1:32:49] And you're going to explain your quest to the board, please?
[1:32:52] Sure.
[1:32:52] So thanks everybody for your time.
[1:32:55] You know, it's getting a little late, so I'll try and keep it concise.
[1:32:59] What I'm hoping for tonight is a variance on a setback requirement
[1:33:05] for our corner lot in order to install an eight by ten
[1:33:10] wood frame garden shed for our family.
[1:33:20] You've read the sign post it obviously, have any of your neighbors
[1:33:24] inquired as to what you're doing?
[1:33:27] No inquiries.
[1:33:29] We haven't noticed a lot of people slow down and take a look at the sign,
[1:33:32] but I think that's just curiosity.
[1:33:35] So I have spoken with all of our nearby neighbors,
[1:33:39] our next door neighbor, Ray Erdal, across the street,
[1:33:43] are neighbor rich and then behind us are neighbor Craig as well. And nobody has had any issues with this shed or the shed cuts.
[1:33:56] Thank you for that.
[1:34:01] Any questions from the board members?
[1:34:04] Yeah, could you discuss why you chose to put it at the front of the lot rather than the rear lot?
[1:34:10] because adjacent to the garage, there's some space.
[1:34:13] That's a good piece of obvious at the intersection
[1:34:15] like it is now.
[1:34:16] Yeah, that's a fair point.
[1:34:19] It is my wife and my decision to put it there,
[1:34:27] because our five-year-old has taken quite an interesting
[1:34:30] gardening.
[1:34:32] She's not allowed in the garage for obvious safety reasons.
[1:34:36] But we do think it's fair to let her have her gardening tools
[1:34:40] in said shed, having it there allows us visibility, you know, while we're inside, we can keep an eye on her and in there.
[1:34:49] That being said, adjacent to the garage, would also work well, and maybe better.
[1:34:56] And be less visible at the intersection.
[1:34:59] Great.
[1:35:02] What kind of foundation do you have one of the building?
[1:35:04] So it's a...
[1:35:05] No, it's how easily you can you move it.
[1:35:07] So it can be moved. I guess easy is a relative term, but it is the 6-inch gravel bed, and then it has a 4x4 construction with OSB on top of that.
[1:35:22] So no cement or permanent foundation there.
[1:35:25] So it's on a, on a skid if you will, timber skid.
[1:35:30] So you could maybe move it would it come along?
[1:35:32] Yeah, maybe tasting creativity or hiring people that know what they're doing.
[1:35:36] but yeah, I would have seen it could be milk, merely.
[1:35:40] I am a neighbor admittedly, and it's visible
[1:35:42] from the intersection, and that's quite disturbing.
[1:35:47] Got it.
[1:35:48] Just for the record.
[1:35:51] Disturbing visually.
[1:35:54] It's like right there.
[1:35:57] Right there.
[1:35:57] Yeah, honestly, it's not going to eat.
[1:35:59] Go to eat, hang over the fence, even.
[1:36:02] Yeah, it's bigger than we thought it would be.
[1:36:06] So lessons were certainly learned there.
[1:36:09] If it is approved to stand the same spot or, you know, even if it gets moved by the garage we would do our best to make it blend in with the neighborhood.
[1:36:19] We've done color sampling on the outside of the house and the trim.
[1:36:23] We'd be happy to to color match it 2,000.
[1:36:27] But also, you know, like you stated, moving it to the north, northwest corner, what else?
[1:36:36] Well, where there's an alley and a utility box on the street, so it'd be along with all the other utilitarian type things.
[1:36:44] Right, right.
[1:36:45] Whereas in the front of your lot, it looks kind of out of place.
[1:36:49] Yeah.
[1:36:50] Thank you.
[1:36:53] So your plan is to paint it.
[1:36:56] So it's certainly going to be painted.
[1:36:59] If or there, the priority was to make it blend in as much as possible, right?
[1:37:04] Absolutely.
[1:37:04] If it's next to the garage, I think we would do the same thing, just to make it blend in.
[1:37:10] So, yeah, either way it will be painted, it's just a matter of what shade of gray it will be painted as well.
[1:37:16] But you're asking for a display obviously, that's your first choice.
[1:37:20] That would be my first choice.
[1:37:22] Now the backup choice is we're discussing by the garage.
[1:37:26] It would still require a variance for the setback.
[1:37:30] It would be able to be moved slightly further into the property, but it would be about five feet.
[1:37:37] So it would be about three feet closer, further from the property line, and it is today.
[1:37:46] And being a quorum a lot, it does require a ten foot setback. So it would be a five foot, five foot variance setback.
[1:37:59] You requested a permit before you put it up?
[1:38:03] Another one in the lessons learned.
[1:38:06] Didn't really think there are too much.
[1:38:10] Based on not being a permanent foundation.
[1:38:13] And of being in the yard, we didn't pull it up.
[1:38:16] But was denied.
[1:38:19] So this is the, so there's no permit pulled initially.
[1:38:24] And so this is sort of doing things in reverse order, I guess.
[1:38:33] So the application for a permit came after it was already on the property, correct?
[1:38:44] I'm thinking about the options of putting it on the property with out it being in the side yard,
[1:38:50] which is essentially in the backyard.
[1:38:53] And it seems the size of it would indicate that it will fit somewhere.
[1:38:59] What did you see as options for avoiding the side yard requirement?
[1:39:03] So, and I'm not well-versed in the terminology, maybe that other slide would be...
[1:39:14] Because the so-called Northwest Alternate Location, is it within the time you decide your...
[1:39:20] Our backyard, as we would consider it, is the top half.
[1:39:26] Basically, that's the Fenston area.
[1:39:29] Between the house and the garage.
[1:39:31] So the two places where we would consider it to be viable would be where it's noted there next to the house turn location or on the northern side next to the garage.
[1:39:44] That's not what I'm asking about.
[1:39:46] I'm asking about putting it in the backyard.
[1:39:50] Not initiated area.
[1:39:51] Yeah, so I took some pictures.
[1:39:54] I think they're on the slides here.
[1:39:56] Okay, so the northeast corner has a brick walkway.
[1:40:04] I can continue this brick walkway, it goes around.
[1:40:08] There would need to be interrupted and ripped out.
[1:40:11] It's false, so you can't see much growing there, but that's our oldest child's personal
[1:40:16] and gardens.
[1:40:17] We'd have to rip that out as well.
[1:40:21] It would also, and I should have taken better pictures, but we have one large
[1:40:25] train our backyard, the nice dogwood tree. One of the main wins kind of extends that direction
[1:40:33] as well, so we would need to cut that out. So while that is technically an option, it would
[1:40:43] be pretty tough for us to make that modification for the shed.
[1:40:56] Well, I'm thinking that a structure
[1:40:58] will last longer than your children being very young and restricted from certain locations
[1:41:04] and encouraged in others. That's right. The structure could be in place in some place
[1:41:10] a very long time.
[1:41:13] I do want to point out that 70% of the structure is blocked by the fence so and it's not
[1:41:19] a clear fence so I think I personally don't have a problem. You're keeping it there if you
[1:41:28] difference. It sounds like it'd be a lot of work, and you'd have to
[1:41:32] tear out that nice brick long way in a tree. It doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
[1:41:37] Please get that on the other side of the garage.
[1:41:40] Sure. It's a more open area.
[1:41:43] And it's basically on the alley.
[1:41:44] And it's on the alley. Yes.
[1:41:46] And the other thing that you don't show in your plan is how far away is this
[1:41:51] shed from your condensing units. You've got condensing units over there and it needs
[1:41:56] open air to ventilate properly, so you're actually
[1:41:58] hindering the efficiency of the ability to cool your
[1:42:03] coolant.
[1:42:03] Yeah, you can say that.
[1:42:04] You're like right on top of your condensing unit.
[1:42:06] That's a fair point.
[1:42:07] Not a prudent thing.
[1:42:08] So it's 16 inches, I believe, about looking it up.
[1:42:14] But certainly, the more airflow the better for AC and so,
[1:42:17] no disagreements.
[1:42:19] But they're two air conditioned units side by side, right?
[1:42:23] And they're both up against them.
[1:42:26] Yeah, it's tough to tell in the bottom of my mind.
[1:42:30] There's one behind it then.
[1:42:32] That's true.
[1:42:33] Two ACNs.
[1:42:34] Right.
[1:42:35] I can just imagine the reaction of your air conditioning country.
[1:42:39] Yeah.
[1:42:40] I'm glad you're back.
[1:42:41] Would not be happy.
[1:42:43] Fair points.
[1:42:44] That's why I asked about the foundation.
[1:42:47] I think you do have space by the garage.
[1:42:49] And I think that appropriate, come on, you can get that thing relocated, and along and you'll be much more satisfied.
[1:43:02] I like it in the back too.
[1:43:05] I drove by there.
[1:43:06] It looks a little odd being the front.
[1:43:08] It does.
[1:43:09] No, I agree.
[1:43:10] I agree.
[1:43:11] Just like generator should be in the back.
[1:43:13] I agree.
[1:43:15] Yeah.
[1:43:16] No, it should be consistent if we're going to, you know.
[1:43:20] I own experience with air-conditioning units is that workers need space and you're giving them
[1:43:25] 16 inches. That's not right. Yeah, I mean, well, we just need to get into the space back on the
[1:43:33] conversion unit. Yeah, the fancies are removable on the back, so we can do it, but I mean, all of the
[1:43:39] points that everybody had made are excellent and I don't disagree with that. And I think the shed would be
[1:43:45] are easily moved, it really would be so. Any other discussion from the board?
[1:43:52] Yeah, you could put pipe underneath the skids and then you could pull it would have come along.
[1:43:57] PVC or metal? No metal. Yeah, kind of it, would you could roll it right? Yeah, yeah.
[1:44:02] Would he have to come back again? If that's a case or can we approve it if he does,
[1:44:08] with a condition that it's moved? So he doesn't have to come back?
[1:44:12] I think I would likely be more comfortable or staff, but more comfortable, we continue this
[1:44:18] to the next meeting, unfortunately, and then we have time for all of our other staff
[1:44:23] to review it before it comes before you again, so if that is your interest, we could go
[1:44:28] come back on February 13th and have it placed a new location and make sure that our building
[1:44:34] fire and engineering departments are all good.
[1:44:38] That sounds great to me.
[1:44:39] I'd be in favor of that, and I think the real location would be a lesser degree of variation
[1:44:46] request, but he still would need the variation, but it wouldn't be as much, and it'd be
[1:44:52] an a lesser of truce of the visual location than now, and it'll have maintenance clearance
[1:44:56] for your condensing unit.
[1:44:58] So this is continued.
[1:45:02] So you could make a motion to continue it to a date certain so that would be February 13th. If that's the date, you'd like for him to come back.
[1:45:19] I could so move.
[1:45:21] It's been moving about Mr. Slyanick to continue this case.
[1:45:25] Has that continuous also direct the staff to look at the rear sides?
[1:45:31] Based on our recommendation that they move the building to the rear.
[1:45:36] I'll second that.
[1:45:38] It's been moved by Mr. Slyanick.
[1:45:40] Seconded by Mr. Weaver.
[1:45:43] Ryan, could you please call the roll?
[1:45:45] Members, Slyanick.
[1:45:46] Aye.
[1:45:47] Member Weaver.
[1:45:48] Aye.
[1:45:48] Member Catalano.
[1:45:50] Member Fowler.
[1:45:51] Aye.
[1:45:52] Member Bremis.
[1:45:53] Chairman Zavill.
[1:45:55] Aye.
[1:45:57] This case has been moved to February 13th.
[1:46:02] Thank you very much.
[1:46:03] Thank you.
[1:46:09] Thank you.
[1:46:10] Excuse me.
[1:46:11] Excuse me.
[1:46:12] Excuse me.
[1:46:14] Excuse me.
[1:46:21] Excuse
[1:46:27] me.
[1:46:28] So we have something happening on the fifth, that's been...
[1:46:31] Yes, so there will be an I'll send an email, let me double check the date.
[1:46:38] So February 6, yes, we are planning to do legal training, it will, we will have it over teams,
[1:46:46] like people can come in person but we'll also have it available over teams and we will discuss if
[1:46:51] people aren't able to attend or watch the teams whether we can send you any documents or any
[1:46:57] according afterwards. I'll follow up with an email after this meeting. That will be happening
[1:47:03] on the 6th and then we are also scheduled to pump. I will update you on the location. It's
[1:47:10] harder to do a team's meeting in these chambers and then our other room also doesn't have
[1:47:15] good video conferencing so we might do a different conference room but I'll let you know and we'll
[1:47:19] agenda posted. What was that? That's what I asked.
[1:47:25] I also want to follow a blessed
[1:47:27] our conversation from last meeting about creating a style branding guideline for developers.
[1:47:33] What is the process to kind of get that moving or what what are what can is there anything
[1:47:39] we can do about that at this point. So at this point and Jeff can fill in a little bit
[1:47:50] in March. We can discuss that idea then too and we can kind of contemplate what the
[1:47:58] style that I might look like and what that involves and just have can answer any questions.
[1:48:03] I would add only that it's really up to the commission to recommend what to do with that type of
[1:48:09] document whether to formalize it as a design guideline expectation for the development community
[1:48:16] to clarify in which districts those requirements should apply and ultimately any formalization
[1:48:24] of such a document would ultimately be approved by the City Council.
[1:48:28] So it's really, we'll put the ball in your court after we present some materials.
[1:48:32] If you guys could provide some feedback to staff, if necessary, we'll provide additional
[1:48:36] research and options and move toward a document that you would tell us what to do with.
[1:48:42] And then, will we ever open it up to public feedback or it's really not us, is there?
[1:48:49] Yeah, that would be an item that would eventually be formalized in a way if it's the board's desire to be presented at a meeting and then a recommendation to potentially prove it as a resolution and design guidelines to be applied formally to future projects.
[1:49:04] There are already some architectural requirements in the code, many of which are varied
[1:49:10] as a minor variation at the pervue of staff.
[1:49:15] It could extend into single family, what this time we're primarily focusing on commercial
[1:49:20] multi-family building materials.
[1:49:22] Ultimately, when you see the draft document and have comments, we would like to hear what
[1:49:26] you would like to do with it and what direction to take that.
[1:49:29] also object to City Council, additional input and review for the City Council.
[1:49:34] Great.
[1:49:36] Thank you.
[1:49:40] So just one thing.
[1:49:43] I've got to do a lot of traveling in the next few months.
[1:49:46] So I cannot make the 13, 2, 13, 3, 12, 4, 9.
[1:49:52] So it won't be here.
[1:49:54] If that's not cool, and you want me to step down, 20 years is enough.
[1:50:02] I'm sure as volunteers we're happy to have you participating in this process if you are
[1:50:07] available after those dates we'd love to keep you and obviously that would be your decision
[1:50:11] if you want to.
[1:50:12] in meeting of the month I can make, but yeah those for sure I won't be able to touch it.
[1:50:41] Well it doesn't meet our open meeting act or open meeting act requirements, so.
[1:50:55] Yes, yeah the training success special meeting and not necessarily a public hearing so that one's okay
[1:51:00] We already cleared that was due so
[1:51:11] Yeah, there were special rules enacted by the governor to allow a basically emergency rules of procedure for public hearings during that time frame
[1:51:22] That provision has since
[1:51:24] ceased and we're back under our normal rules
[1:51:48] We already have results from, I'm not sure how many communities think it was 12, so we're going through those right now. We'll have some information to share with you to see how an idea of what everyone else is doing.
[1:51:59] Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Lakota group put some kind of document together several years back for the city of this plane?
[1:52:08] I'm recommended architectural guidelines or something like that.
[1:52:12] There's a document, there's several documents from several different studies that included various hard-scape streetscape improvements, materials, brickpapers, stone, landscape treatments and different areas of the city.
[1:52:24] I think this could become something that is based on the direction we're talking about.
[1:52:30] We received that the meeting at which it's presented, that the board can recommend how expansive it needs to be.
[1:52:37] At this point, we are truly focusing on mixed use, commercial, multifamily residential, high rise, construction materials,
[1:52:46] principally associated with our downtown and if it needs to expand beyond that, as part of your recommendation, that would be feedback we'd like to hear from you,
[1:52:53] after you have a chance to review the materials.
[1:52:55] Doesn't necessarily have to be a single meeting review.
[1:52:59] There's a lot of feedback at that meeting
[1:53:00] and direction provided.
[1:53:02] We'll probably not bring it right back to another workshop.
[1:53:05] We'll probably need some time to respond
[1:53:07] to those comments and present something later in the year.
[1:53:11] And I'll just add to that.
[1:53:12] Yeah, we will have some on larger mixed use things.
[1:53:15] We're also looking at building materials
[1:53:17] for single family residential as well, too.
[1:53:20] And just evaluating those requirements
[1:53:22] and whether that's something we want to proceed with.
[1:53:25] If we want to be looser, stricter with our regulations.
[1:53:27] That's pretty broad, but we'll have activities set up,
[1:53:33] and things like that for you guys to understand the scope of the workshop.
[1:53:37] And is it just from the aesthetic point of view,
[1:53:40] or are you looking at the whole of the
[1:53:44] building?
[1:53:45] The building that Pam looks at, for instance, this is all Mason.
[1:53:49] And all these buildings used to be all Masonry.
[1:53:53] not animation business anymore, but it makes good, but it makes good sense
[1:54:03] the judge's wife who's up here
[1:54:08] for that, that Lester, that Lester was talking
[1:54:13] about sparks flying off the building and so what I'm getting at is I don't know
[1:54:18] how in this country we got away from building all machinery buildings. I make
[1:54:24] more sense to me and I see all these stick growths going on, what's it, it's all about
[1:54:30] money, right? It's all about the money, but they got away from it and I don't want to
[1:54:36] authenticate about me, but I will. The pressure lumber now is going way up. So from a
[1:54:45] cost point of view, I don't buy the argument that basically is too expensive. It's from a
[1:54:59] margin of facility you got to have a fire protection treatment would, which is not cheap.
[1:55:11] Yeah, so again, without going into any specific project, all development in the community
[1:55:15] has to strictly comply with all of our codes and requirements.
[1:55:19] The closer and structure is to a property line, the more stringent the fire suppression system requirements
[1:55:25] would be the rating of the exterior wall so that it would last if there were a fire immediately
[1:55:30] adjacent to it to give people appropriate time to get out of a structure, the way that our
[1:55:36] fire department responds in fights, high rise, fires is very meticulously planned in accordance
[1:55:42] with those codes. So, across the whole city that would be the case in every instance.
[1:55:49] The comment
[1:55:50] about what exterior building material should be appropriate in particular types of building is exactly
[1:55:55] the type of feedback we were hoping to get as part of this exercise. Although there are change
[1:56:00] changes in technology and certain materials become popular over time.
[1:56:04] They can go out of style just as quickly and sometimes the codes that are already been adopted.
[1:56:10] We'd like you to look at because maybe with the frequency of requests for relief, we might have
[1:56:16] set the bar in the wrong place, but we don't want to change it without getting feedback before
[1:56:21] we propose something that would come back before you for review.
[1:56:24] When you compare what they do in downtown Park Bridge and downtown Arlington Heights and
[1:56:29] in Mount Prospect. Now we want to make sure that the stuff that we're building doesn't
[1:56:33] look cheap in relation to that stuff and that's a big aesthetic thing that I'm concerned
[1:56:39] about.
[1:56:40] a little further out, the range has done a beautiful job.
[1:56:45] The demographics are a little different, but is still, and hence got a lot of range.
[1:56:51] And my prospects are neighbor, they've done a wonderful job,
[1:56:58] so good thing we're going to
[1:56:59] stand.
[1:56:59] I think you have a good record too.
[1:57:02] So it's not only building materials, it's also a fenestration, so you know, how the front
[1:57:06] wall, how much glass and transparent facade is provided.
[1:57:12] the profile, the offset of different parts of the building.
[1:57:15] Sometimes, if you see one full block, all on one plane,
[1:57:18] it can be looked very imposing, can be advantageous to require
[1:57:22] even that portions of the building be offset from the set back
[1:57:25] of the front wall by a minimum distance
[1:57:27] to provide additional architectural interest.
[1:57:31] I do believe we're going to get to a point
[1:57:32] where we would recommend that regulating specific architectural
[1:57:35] styles that we still want to maintain flexibility
[1:57:38] for the development community to propose things that they think look nice, especially as tastes
[1:57:43] change over time. But the commission would always have that influence to ensure that something
[1:57:50] that the community doesn't want to see could be stopped both the board and the city council.
[1:57:56] So this is our first opportunity to try to set some parameters around those expectations and
[1:58:02] ultimately it's in the development community's favor to understand what the expectations would be
[1:58:06] the end of the process so that they can program for those costs at the beginning of the process
[1:58:10] as part of their contracts and acquiring property.
[1:58:14] I know that you've only been on Stanford probably less than a month, but where is the city
[1:58:21] and drive it?
[1:58:22] I think drive it's sort of gone out of favor, but is there a policy in place for drive it?
[1:58:28] Because it's just such a cheap material.
[1:58:31] It's a maintenance nightmare, it shouldn't be allowed to grow a little period.
[1:58:35] No, in certain states that have insect problems, like South Carolina, it's not a lot.
[1:58:41] Because the insects can bore into the styrofoam.
[1:58:44] And when it was a new product, it was very poorly understood.
[1:58:48] Contractors were not installing it correctly.
[1:58:50] They were tremendous water damage issues associated with it until the product started to
[1:58:55] be used correctly.
[1:58:56] But under the current requirements of the code, there are certain instances where there
[1:59:01] are not regulations imposed on new construction
[1:59:04] in residential and in commercial instances.
[1:59:07] That product is allowed under those circumstances.
[1:59:11] This is another one of those opportunities
[1:59:12] and something that could be discussed that an outright ban
[1:59:16] on something might not be the appropriate step
[1:59:18] but making it very specific when and only when
[1:59:22] a use of a product like that would be appropriate.
[1:59:25] Artificial stucco is generally
[1:59:26] drive it's one of the commercial brands.
[1:59:31] The Disney aspect of things, if you can't touch it and you can't quite see it, sometimes
[1:59:38] the material doesn't necessarily need to be to the high quality standard of a portion
[1:59:43] that's at ground level that everyone's going to be immediately beside that you can see
[1:59:47] with your naked eye.
[1:59:50] There might be instances there might be applications, especially in retrofitting modifications
[1:59:54] to older buildings that are comprised of different and older materials, where that...
[2:00:00] Might be allowed, but again, we would present those options so that the right threshold could be established. Right now in the code, there's a threshold for a size or a percentage of the increase over the existing improvements.
[2:00:11] When these new architectural requirements are triggered, it would probably be a formula similar to that.
[2:00:17] If the scope of work is limited, then additional flexibility would be provided if it's a substantial reinvestment in a building.
[2:00:24] then the expectations would be higher for the reimbursement in the property.
[2:00:30] Well, that particular material seems to be going out of favor anyway, but just so it doesn't get reading the books because it's a script.
[2:00:40] My personal experience, I completely agree with you.
[2:00:44] There are many buildings in the community that have used it over that time frame,
[2:00:48] in minor repairs, you know, a change in a facade prepared to damage would probably be instances
[2:00:55] where we would consider it and recommend that we set the bar again in the right place,
[2:01:01] so that if someone's doing a substantial reinvestment in property, that they would not use
[2:01:06] those materials, only in the instances where it's necessary to match existing conditions or match
[2:01:11] the aesthetics of the rest of a bigger structure would potentially be appropriate.
[2:01:22] I'll chime in really quick too and so it'll be us at the workshop and then also several
[2:01:27] members of our building department will be here too to discuss their thoughts too in
[2:01:31] their all architects so they can talk to you all about building materials all day long.
[2:01:35] So they'll be here too.
[2:01:45] Yeah, we could certainly do that. We haven't advertised yet. If you guys would be open
[2:01:49] and maybe I think we did the contour place workshop at 6pm.
[2:01:54] Do you think you'd be available at 6, rather than 7 on that date?
[2:01:59] Let me check. Let me open the calendar. Yeah, let me open it real quick.
[2:02:08] So the training is on the six.
[2:02:10] We could potentially are on the fifth. We on February 5th and the workshop is on March 5th. Sorry wait. Work shop.
[2:02:18] The legal training is on February 6th. It's currently scheduled for 7 p.m.
[2:02:23] And then the workshop is would tentatively schedule for March 5th. We could do that at six or seven depending on your availability and interest in that.
[2:02:35] On March 5th.
[2:02:44] Well, I don't have to solve this all in one night, so if we're okay starting on the regular
[2:02:48] schedule, we really just need to get that initial first-plus reaction about if we're heading
[2:02:54] in the right direction, if there are parts of the draft that are substantially inconsistent
[2:02:59] with what this board would expect, but we will try to do a thorough job so that most of
[2:03:04] that work is ready for a presentation at that time and again, if you like it the way that
[2:03:10] presented. I would hope that we can get close. It might be a shorter process, but it could
[2:03:16] also be a much longer process if there's a lot of details and things to review. As with
[2:03:23] any regulation, we would try to suggest the least restrictive, the smallest number of additional
[2:03:29] regulations that achieve the desired result. We don't want to become overly regulatory on these
[2:03:34] issues if we can simplify the requirements, provide straightforward expectations of what is required
[2:03:40] under what circumstances, this could be a relatively straightforward process, but whether
[2:03:45] what you see on that date, if we want to change out a picture to get a better example of
[2:03:49] a particular style, we certainly can do that. It's some of it's quite simple. I don't like the
[2:03:54] picture that you used on page 6. We'll swap it up with a better example so that you guys can be confident
[2:03:59] in the document and then tell us what we should do with it.
[2:04:05] Yeah, there's a number of examples at
[2:04:07] community and the area struggles with similar issues. Sometimes dragging the quality out of an initial proposal is part of the negotiation.
[2:04:20] I don't know that I've met at too many developers in my experience that give you the best thing on the first day when I have to ask for revisions and let them know what the expectations will be from both the board and the city council so that they can be more realistic about how much they're going to need to invest in the appearance of property.
[2:04:36] So we absolutely can provide some examples from adjacent communities.
[2:04:42] Is possible to do six o'clock for the February six training or is that we can't do it because of the attorney.
[2:04:51] Just curious.
[2:04:52] But let me check what the attorney first and I can send you an email and confirm if six PM would work for them.
[2:04:57] That worked for you.
[2:04:58] I'll do it.
[2:04:59] Oh, okay.
[2:05:01] Okay.
[2:05:02] Okay.
[2:05:03] I can do seven.
[2:05:04] I just read the judge earlier.
[2:05:05] Okay.
[2:05:06] Well, I will send out an email and you guys can confirm, I'll confirm first with Stu and then we can confirm that time and I'll do the same for the March 5th if you guys are comfortable with 6 p.m.
[2:05:17] We can discuss that and confirm it. We'll have another meeting before March 5th too, but I do want to start to advertise for the workshop before that point and post it on our website and everything.
[2:05:31] The March 5th meeting is a workshop, so it's similar to the contour place in the
[2:05:37] Converland crossings you did, except it's based on, yes, it's open to the public and
[2:05:41] so we're encouraging people to attend because we'd like their input, and like I said,
[2:05:45] we'll have some activities to articulate our plan and I'm hoping to send you a memo the week before
[2:05:50] that has information about our rules, hopefully any examples and we'll try to synthesize our results
[2:05:57] the Northwest Municipal Conference. You have as much of a primer before you come into this.
[2:06:02] We won't be voting on anything. It will just be discussion of a text amendment. And then from
[2:06:07] your input, we'll start to propose text amendments to you through the normal process.
[2:06:19] I'm too
[2:06:19] deferred to Mr. Stitz.
[2:06:23] So, very initial stages we have received some new and very initial plans for come-in crossings.
[2:06:31] I'd say it's a little bit more involved or it's say more the it has a better overall use of the space just it provides a little more restaurant and residential mixture than the previous
[2:06:42] middle or they're actually say the previous project that was back in 2020.
[2:06:48] So we're still working with them on just kind of getting the the ball rolling we would like to do a workshop within as well regarding that type of development.
[2:06:58] And well, I guess we did a workshop with them.
[2:07:01] But like following up with them to basically do the next step,
[2:07:05] maybe do our TV if we need to just to kind of get them
[2:07:08] more prepared for the application process.
[2:07:12] So so far, nothing yet, but we'll keep you updated.
[2:07:25] Yeah, they're still taking on public input
[2:07:27] and re-grising their plans accordingly.
[2:07:29] So we have...
[2:07:30] We've not gotten new plans yet, but we'll continue to work with
[2:07:38] them.
[2:07:49] Yeah,
[2:07:54] you guys just talked for a while, and it's more than two, it's technically a meeting.
[2:08:00] So if you wouldn't mind adjourning again, that would be helpful.
[2:08:05] Yeah.
[2:08:07] Just a little bit here.
[2:08:08] All in favor to adjourn, say aye.
[2:08:12] Aye.
[2:08:12] Aye.
[2:08:12] All opposed.
[2:08:16] Exciting things happening.