Dupage Policy Journal

Village of Bensenville Community Development Commission met March 6.

Here is the minutes as provided by the Commission:

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Moruzzi at 6:32p.m.

ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the following Commissioners were present:

Moruzzi, Marcotte, Pisano, Rodriguez, Rowe, Tellez

Absent: Lomax

A quorum was present.

STAFF PRESENT: S. Viger, K. Pozsgay, C. Williamsen, S. Conway

JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS:

Motion:

Motion:

ROLL CALL:

The minutes of the Community Development Commission

Meeting of February 20, 2017 were presented.

Commissioner Rowe made a motion to approve the minutes as

presented. Commissioner Rodriguez seconded the motion.

All were in favor. Motion carried.

Commissioner Pisano made a motion to move CDC Case No.

2017-02 to this portion of the meeting. Commission Rodriguez

seconded the motion.

Ayes: Moruzzi, Marcotte, Pisano, Rodriguez, Rowe, Tellez

Nays: None

All were in favor. Motion carried.

Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes

March 6, 2017

Page2

Public Hearing:

Petitioner:

Location:

Request:

Motion:

ROLL CALL:

CDC Case Number 2017-02

Prologis

600 Eagle Drive

Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage; and Variances from:

10 - 11 - 8A Parking and Outdoor Storage in Front Yard, and

10 - 12 - 20 - l Screening of Outdoor Storage, and

10 - I 2 - 2 Landscape Strip, and

10 - 14 - 11 - 3b Fence located in front and side yard and fence height, and

10 - 11 - 120 Trailer parking space size

Commissioner Rowe made a motion to open CDC Case No. 2017-

02. Commissioner Rodriguez seconded the motion.

Upon roll call the following Commissioners were present:

Moruzzi, Marcotte, Pisano, Rodriguez, Rowe, Tellez

Absent: Lomax

A quorum was present.

Chairman Moruzzi opened the Public Hearing at 6:35 p.m.

Chairman Moruzzi swore in Director of Community and Economic

Development, Scott Viger and Senior Planner, Kurtis Pozgay.

Senior Planner, Kurtis Pozsgay, was present and previously sworn

in by Chairman Moruzzi. Mr. Pozsgay stated a Legal Notice was

published in the Bensenville Independent on February 16, 2017.

Mr. Pozsgay stated a certified copy of the Legal Notice is

maintained in the CDC file and is available for viewing and

inspection at the Community & Economic Development

Department during regular business hours. Mr. Pozsgay stated

Village personnel posted a Notice of Public Hearing sign on the

property, visible from the public way on February 21, 2017. Mr.

Pozsgay stated on February 1 7, 2017 Village personnel mailed

from the Bensenville Post Office via First Class Mail a Notice of

Public Hearing to taxpayers of record within 250' of the property

in question. Mr. Pozsgay stated an affidavit of mailing executed by

C & ED personnel and the list of recipients are maintained in the

CDC file and are available for viewing and inspection at the

Community & Economic Development department during regular

business hours. Mr. Pozsgay stated the applicant is proposing to

move an existing Bensenville business into this location, possibly

consolidating another location and expanding here. Mr. Pozsgay

stated the business utilizes semi's and trailers in its operation. Mr.

Pozsgay stated they will be stored on the western lot.

Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes

March 6, 2017

Page 3

Mr. Pozsgay stated tractors will be parked on the north side of the

lot with trailers on the south. Mr. Pozsgay stated a 12-foot

composite SimTek fence will be added to the south lot line to

minimize noise to the neighbors. Mr. Pozsgay stated the tractors

are also pushed north into the required front yard for the same

reason. Mr. Pozsgay stated the entire area with have security

personal and added lighting and fencing. Mr. Pozsgay stated other

specifics on the business (name, hours of operation, etc.) are not

being disclosed by Prologis.

Mr. Marshall Subach of Hunt, Aranda & Subach Ltd., was present

and sworn in by Chairman Moruzzi. Mr. Subach stated he was

speaking on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Subach stated the

proposed site is 13.7 acers in size with a building that is 300,000

plus square foot. Mr. Subach stated the property is currently zoned

l-1; however, it used to be zoned 1-2. Mr. Subach stated his client

met with surrounding residential neighbors in the area and that his

client want to be a good neighbor. Mr. Subach stated the identity of

the proposed client is confidential. Mr. Subach stated the proposed

client has eighty employees; four of which are Bensenville

Residents. Mr. Subach stated the proposed operation and hours is

permitted according to the Village's code however; the reason for

the Public Hearing is for the requested conditional use permit for

outdoor storage. Mr. Subach stated the entire property will be

gated and screened. Mr. Subach stated the southern property line

will include a twelve foot composite fence separating the

Residential properties from the proposed operation. Mr. Subach

stated the property will be guarded 24/7. Mr. Subach stated loading

and unloading of product will only take place form within the

docks. Mr. Subach stated the trucks that will be on site will not

idle. Mr. Subach stated in the winter, trucks will be hooked up to

electric that will keep the oil and engine warm. Mr. Subach stated

the proposed operation will be 24/7, however most of their

operation occurs Monday - Friday from 4:30am - 9:00pm;

Saturdays from 4:30am - 5:00pm and Sundays from 4:30am -

1 :OOpm. Mr. Subach stated it takes roughly five to ten minutes to

hook a trailer to a tractor. Mr. Subach stated Prologis has estimated

close to $1,000,000 of improvements to the property if approved.

Mr. Subach submitted pictures of the current parking lot and fence

on the property. The submitted pictures have been attached to the

minutes as "Exhibit A". Mr. Subach stated the current parking lot

will be dug up and replaced. Mr. Subach stated a 12' composite

material fence will be installed along the property line all the way

up to the building. Mr. Subach read the findings of fact into the

record for the proposed conditional use permit and variances.

Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes

March 6, 2017

Page4

Commissioner Rodriguez asked if there was a proposed lighting

plan for the proposed use. Mr. Subach stated his client did not have

one; however, the proposed lights would be installed on the south

side of the property and face north. Mr. Subach stated the lights

will not illuminate onto the residential properties, as the Village

Code will not allow. Mr. Subach also stated his client is not

opposed to the Commission making a lighting plan a condition of

approval.

Commissioner Rodriguez asked if the proposed composite fence

would extend the full length of the south line of the property. Mr.

Subach stated the fence along the south line of the property would

be twenty feet ending at the building.

Commissioner Rowe expressed concern with the proposed width

of the docks (11' 2"). Mr. Subach stated the petitioner is confident

there will be no issues with the width size of the docks and that a

spotter would be used.

Commissioner Pisano asked what the current hours of operation

are for the current tenants of 600 Eagle Drive. Mr. Subach stated

he believes they are similar to the proposed hours of operation of

the potential occupant.

A member of the audience asked how many truck would be

entering and exiting the property on an hourly basis. Mr. Subach

stated there would be five to ten trucks an hour during the day and

twenty to thirty trucks total during the night.

A member of the audience asked how long will the fence extend on

the south property line. Mr. Subach stated the proposed fence

along the south will extent from the property line on the west to the

start of the building on the east, the proposed fence will be twenty

feet in length.

A member of the audience asked if the trailers being parked on site

are those of the proposed tenant. Mr. Subach stated only the

proposed tenant's trailers would be stored on site.

Commissioner Lomax entered the meeting at 7:20 p.m.

Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes

March 6, 2017

Page 5

Public Comment:

Ann Franz - 902 Hillside Drive

Ms. Franz was present and, sworn in by Chairman Moruzzi. Ms.

Franz stated that when it is dead silent outside, in the early

mornings, noise will still be heard despite the proposed fence being

installed. Mr. Franz stated the area already deals with airplane

noise every 60-80 seconds. Ms. Franz asked what will happen

when the vortex winds from the planes bounces off the proposed

composite fence.

Lucy James - 865 Hillside Drive

Ms. James was present and sworn in by Chairman Moruzzi. Ms.

James stated Hillside Drive is in a direct path of a runway and by

adding the proposed business to 600 Eagle Drive would create

additional noise and pollution to the Residents on Hillside. Ms.

James questioned why there are no other options in Bensenville's

large industrial park for the proposed tenant.

Thomas Forman - 697 Hillside Drive

Mr. Forman was present and sworn in by Chairman Moruzzi. Mr.

Forman stated he measured the distance from his bedroom window

to the property line over the weekend. Mr. Forman stated he

measured 79' from his bedroom to the property line; 50' from his

deck to the property line; 20' from his children's trampoline to the

property line and 10' from his veggie garden to the property line.

Mr. Forman stated this was not a way to live and asked the

Commission to take his situation into consideration.

Chester Gorniak - 597 Hillside Drive

Mr. Gorniak was present and sworn in by Chairman Moruzzi. Mr.

Gomiak stated he was Mr. Forman's neighbor and faces similar

issues. Mr. Gomiak spoke out in objection to the proposed use and

hours of operation. Mr. Gomiak suggested finding a manufacturing

operation from another town to move into the site.

John Pelican - 701 Hillside Drive

Mr. Pelican was present and sworn in by Chairman Moruzzi. Mr.

Pelican stated when he moved into his home in the 70's, the

property behind his house use to be a golf course. Mr. Pelican

stated everything was quiet and peaceful and that the area has

become a nightmare with the planes and the proposed use would

only make things worse.

Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes

March 6, 20 I 7

Page6

Bill Perry - 814 George Street

Mr. Perry was present and sworn in by Chairman Moruzzi. Mr.

Perry stated his house was not along the proposed use; however,

his house is adjacent to an 1-1 commercial property that use to

operate 24/7 and it was a nightmare.

Commissioner Marcotte asked if the proposed 12' composite fence

would really work based on the comments from the Public. Mr.

Subach stated he believes the proposed fence would truly help the

situation and that the proposed fence is taller than the Village Code

requirements.

Commissioner Pisano stated he has major concerns with the noise

that will be produced from the loading and unloading of empty

trailers in the parking lot..

Commissioner Lomax asked the petitioners to put themselves in

the shoes of the Residents and if they would be okay with a similar

operation moving into their backyards.

Aaron Rosdal - Prologis

Ms. Rosdal was present and sworn in by Chairman Moruzzi. Mr.

Rosdal stated Prologis' intentions are not to ignore the Resident's

concerns. Mr. Rosdal stated Prologis met with the Residents and

took all their concerns into consideration and believe the proposed

plans will work for the area.

Mr. Pozsgay stated staff respectfully recommends the approval of

the Findings of Fact and the approval of the proposed conditional

use permit and variances, with the following conditions:

I. The Conditional Use Permit be granted solely to the Prologis'

tenant (to be verified at permitting) and shall be transferred

only after a review by the Community Development

Commission (CDC) and approval of the Village Board. In the

event of the sale or lease of this property, the proprietors shall

appear before a public meeting of the CDC. The CDC shall

review the request and in its sole discretion, shall either;

recommend that the Village Board approve of the transfer of

the lease and / or ownership to the new proprietor without

amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, or if the CDC

deems that the new proprietor contemplates a change in use

which is inconsistent with the Conditional Use Permit, the new

proprietor shall be required to petition for a new public hearing

before the CDC for a new Conditional Use Permit;

Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes

March 6, 2017

Page 7

2. The construction be in substantial compliance of the plans

dated 02. 08.17 by Base Ten Architects;

3. Applicant to install doly pads for trailer parking;

4. Applicant will provide detail on truck idling, especially in cold

weather;

5. Applicant will provide details on hours of operation;

6. Applicant will add landscaping to the Eagle Drive frontage;

7. Applicant will screen the truck and tractor storage area;

8. The landscape strip along the south property line between the

two fences should be maintained regularly;

9. With the privacy fence being installed on the south lot line,

Prologis shall work with affected neighbors to the south the

install trees or landscaping as needed and within reason;

I 0. The final landscape plan shall be subject to staff review upon

final permitting;

11. Six months after the date of Village Board approval, staff will

review the project and conditions to determine if any

modifications are needed.

Mr. Subach stated his client would like clarification to condition

#11 as written. Mr. Pozsgay stated Staff met with Mr. Subach to

clarify the issue and that the tenant would not be required to make

modifications to the property without reasonable cause.

Commissioner Rodriguez asked if there was a taller fence in town

that was taller than the 12' proposed fence. Mr. Pozsgay stated he

is not aware of any fence taller than IO' throughout town.

Commissioner Pisano suggested adding a condition to the

requirements for hours of operation. Mr. Subach stated his client

would not be in agreeance with the suggested condition.

Mr. Lomax asked if a noise study could be done. Mr. Subach

stated it was possible but it would require the tenant to be in the

property.

Lucy James - 865 Hillside Drive

Ms. James was previously sworn in by Chairman Moruzzi. Ms.

James asked what had previously been done to meet with the

Residents effected by the proposed use. Mr. Pozsgay stated prior to

the legal notices and mailings, the applicant hosted a neighborhood

meeting prior to the CDC Hearing and that Staff had been fielding

calls on the matter. Ms. James questioned by Staff would

recommend approval of the proposed operation knowing how the

Residents in the area feel.

Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes

March 6, 2017

Page 8

Motion:

ROLL CALL:

Motion:

Commissioner Rowe made a motion to close CDC Case No.

2017-02. Commissioner Lomax seconded the motion.

Ayes: Moruzzi, Lomax, Marcotte, Pisano, Rodriguez, Rowe,

Tellez

Nays: None

All were in favor. Motion carried.

Chairman Moruzzi closed the Public Hearing at 7:59 p.m.

Commissioner Rowe made a motion to approve the Findings of

Fact for the proposed conditional use permit consisting of:

I. Traffic: The proposed use will not create any adverse impact of

types or volumes of traffic flow not otherwise typical of

permitted uses in the zoning district has been minimized.

Applicant's Response: There will be 110 adverse impact on

traffic in the industrial park where 600 Eagle Drive is located.

The traffic will be similar to that of any industrial

warehouse/distributor user. All of the truck traffic will enter

the property from Eagle Drive. Trucks will be able to enter

from the existing curb cut on the east side of the property

closest to the building and be able to exist along a new curb

cut on the west of the property. This will allow for minimum

truck maneuvers on the property to minimize the noise. The

curb cuts will also allow for the efficient flow of traffic on the

site. In addition, the trucks and trailers are regulated by TSA

and the FAA as the proposed tenant does a lot of work with

O'Hare and Rockford airports.

2. Environmental Nuisance: The proposed use will not have

negative effects of noise, glare, odor, dust, waste disposal,

blockage of light or air or other adverse environmental effects of

a type or degree not characteristic of the historic use of the

property or permitted uses in the district.

Applicant's Response: There will not be any environmental

nuisance that is different or more than any other industrial

user in the 1-1 district. The Petitioner originally was going to

propose a cedar board on board fence of 10 feet between the

site and the residential properties. After meetbtg with the

residents, the Petitioner is proposing a 12footfence made of

commercial grade composite Sim Tek which will have no

maintenance requirement and act as a sound barrier. In

Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes

March 6, 2017

Page9

addition, the Petitioner will install screening 011 the fence

along Eagle Drive similar to that you see for tennis courts to

screen the outside storage from Eagle Drive. Finally, the

amount of outside storage is less than 25% of the total site.

3. Neighborhood Character: The proposed use will fit

harmoniously with the existing character of existing permitted

uses in its environs. Any adverse effects on environmental

quality, property values or neighborhood character beyond those

normally associated with permitted uses in the district have been

minimized.

Applicant's Response: The proposed use will fit harmoniously

witlt the existing cltaracter oftlte industrial park and allow an

existing Bensenville business and its jobs to stay in town. Tlte

reality witlt the global economy, you are not going to see a

manufacturing user occupy this 313,102 square foot building.

Prologis is a multinational company that clearly sees tlte

demand/or this building as warehouse/distribution, wlticlt is

allowed in the 1-1 district. Any such user will require outside

storage of trucks and trailers.

4. Use of Public Services and Facilities: The proposed use will

not require existing community facilities or services to a degree

disproportionate to that normally expected of permitted uses in

the district, nor generate disproportionate demand for new

services or facilities in such a way as to place undue burdens

upon existing development in the area.

Applicant's Response: Tlte proposed use will not put a strain

or disproportionate strain on public services beyond wit at is

normally provided/or in a111-1 Permitted Use.

5. Public Necessity: The proposed use at the particular location

requested is necessary to provide a service or a facility which is

in the interest of public convenience, and will contribute to the

general welfare of the neighborhood or community.

Applica11t's Respo11se: There is a need/or the Village of

Be11senville to keep its industrial parks occupied. The demand

for this building and site will be/or warehouse and

distributio11. Without approval, not 011/y will the Village ltave a

vaca11t industrial building that will lower the real estate taxes it

receives, but also a second Bensenville business will be forced

to move out of the Village and with it tlte Village will have

another vaca11cy and jobs that will leave the corporate limits.

Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes

March 6, 2017

Page 10

ROLL CALL:

Motion:

ROLL CALL:

Motion:

6. Other Factors: The use is in harmony with any other elements

of compatibility pertinent in the judgment of the commission to

the conditional use in its proposed location.

Applicant's Response: Tlte building is approximate 30 years

old, and tlte was originally built for a manufacturing use. Tlte

improvements tlte P.etitioner and tenant will put into the site,

including tlte commercial grade composite fencing will ltelp

make this site a viable occupied property in tlte illdustrial park,

wltile also being a good neigltbor to tlte residential properties

to tlte south.

Chairman Moruzzi seconded the motion.

Ayes: None

Nays: Moruzzi, Lomax, Marcotte, Pisano, Rodriguez, Rowe,

Tellez

Motion failed.

Commissioner Pisano made a motion to approve the requested

conditional use permit with Staffs recommendations.

Commissioner Rowe seconded the motion.

Ayes: None

Nays: Moruzzi, Lomax, Marcotte, Pisano, Rodriguez, Rowe,

Tellez

Motion failed.

Commissioner Rowe made a motion to approve the Findings of

Fact for the proposed variances consisting of:

I. Special Circumstances: Special circumstances exist that are

peculiar to the property for which the variances are sought and

that do not apply generally to other properties in the same

zoning district. Also, these circumstances are not of so general

or recurrent a nature as to make it reasonable and practical to

provide a general amendment to this Title to cover them.

Applicant's Response: The special circumstances that arise for

tlte variances are partially due to tlte concerns raised by tlte

residents from the meeting on February 2, 2017. Tlte parking

in tlte front yard is due to the configuration of tlte parking lot

in relation to tlte existing building. Tlte proposed tenant needs

parking/or 40 trailers and 30 tractors wJ,iclt can be obtained

Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes

March 6, 2017

Page 11

with the current configuration. The Petitioner is placing the

tractors in a location to be furthest away from the residential

property.

2. Hardship or Practical Difficulties: For reasons set forth in

the findings, the literal application of the provisions of this

Title would result in unnecessary and undue hardship or

practical difficulties for the applicant as distinguished from

mere inconvenience.

Applicant's Response: Without tlte variance the proposed

tenant will not be able to occupy the property and relocate its

existing Bensenville business. Any prospective future tenant is

going to need outside storage of tractors and trailers in this

location.

3. Circumstances Relate to Property: The special circumstances

and hardship relate only to the physical character of the land or

buildings, such as dimensions, topography or soil conditions.

They do not concern any business or activity of present or

prospective owner or occupant carries on, or seeks to carry on,

therein, nor to the personal, business or financial circumstances

of any party with interest in the property.

Applicant's Response: The circumstances that give rise to the

variance is due to tlte original design oftlte property over 30

years ago and the reality of current market conditions for

prospective users.

4. Not Resulting from Applicant Action: The special

circumstances and practical difficulties or hardship that are the

basis for the variance have not resulted from any act,

undertaken subsequent to the adoption of this Title or any

applicable amendment thereto, of the applicant or of any other

party with a present interest in the property. Knowingly

authorizing or proceeding with construction, or development

requiring any variance, permit, certificate, or approval

hereunder prior to its approval shall be considered such an act.

Applicant's Response: The proposed variances are not

resultant from actions oftlte Petitioner, Prologis. The

Petitioner is attempting to avoid a vacancy in this building and

allow another business to remain in Bensenville.

Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes

March 6, 2017

Page 12

5. Preserve Rights Conferred by District: A variance is

necessary for the applicant to enjoy a substantial property right

possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and

does not confer a special privilege ordinarily denied to such

other properties.

Applica11t's Response: A variance is necessary to enjoy

substantial property right and to allow for tlte improvement of

tlte property witlt tlte proposed new tenant.

6. Necessary for Use of Property: The grant of a variance is

necessary not because it will increase the applicant's economic

return, although it may have this effect, but because without a

variance the applicant will be deprived of reasonable use or

enjoyment of, or reasonable economic return from, the

property.

Applicant's Respo11se: Tlte variances are required for the

proposed tenant to occupy tlte space.

7. Not Alter Local Character: The granting of the variance will

not alter the essential character of the locality nor substantially

impair environmental quality, property values or public safety

or welfare in the vicinity.

Applica11t's Response: Granting the variances will not alter tlte

character of the industrial park and will provide better

screening tltat will be long lasting between tlte industrial users

and tlte residential properties.

8. Consistent with Title and Plan: The granting of a variance

will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this

Title and of the general development plan and other applicable

adopted plans of the Village, as viewed in light of any changed

conditions since their adoption, and will not serve in effect to

substantially invalidate or nullify any part thereof.

Applicant's Response: Tlte granting of the ordinance is i11

harmony witlt the general purpose of the ordinance and

similar request ltave be granted throughout tlte Bensenville

industrial parks.

9. Minimum Variance Needed: The variance approved is the

minimum required to provide the applicant with relief from

undue hardship or practical difficulties and with reasonable use

and enjoyment of the property.

Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes

March 6, 2017

Page 13

ROLL CALL:

Motion:

ROLL CALL:

Motion:

ROLL CALL:

Continued

Public Hearing:

Petitioner:

Location:

Request:

Applicant's Response: The variances requested are the

minimum required for the proposed tenant and to comply with

the request oftlte meeting with tlte residents.

Commissioner Pisano seconded the motion.

Ayes: None

Nays: Moruzzi, Lomax, Marcotte, Pisano, Rodriguez, Rowe,

Tellez

Motion failed.

Commissioner Rowe made a motion to approve the requested

variances with Staff's recommendations. Commissioner Pisano

seconded the motion.

Ayes: None

Nays: Moruzzi, Lomax, Marcotte, Pisano, Rodriguez, Rowe,

Tellez

Motion failed.

Commissioner Rowe made a motion to recess the meeting.

Commissioner Lomax seconded the motion.

All were in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Moruzzi recessed the

meeting at 8:07 p.m.

Chairman Moruzzi called the meeting back to order at 8: 16 p.m.

Upon roll call the following Commissioners were present:

Moruzzi, Lomax, Marcotte, Pisano, Rodriguez, Rowe, Tellez

Absent: None

A quorum was present.

CDC Case Number 2017-01

Pilot/Gullo International

1050 Illinois Route 83

Rezoning from O - 2 Office Center to I - 2 Light Industrial

Conditional Use Permit to allow a Truck Stop / Service Station

Variances from:

10 - 11 - 8 - 2E - 1, Enlarge Curb Cut Width from 35' to 40', 60'

and 168';

Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes

March 6, 20 I 7

Page 14

Motion:

ROLL CALL:

Motion:

IO - 11 - 8 - 28, Parking Lot Configuration;

10 - 11 - 8A, Parking in Required Yards;

10 - 11 - 8 - 2F, Driveway Location less than 50' to Intersection;

10-12-2E, Decrease the Foundation Landscape Strip from 6' to

O';

10- 18- 12A - 3B - 2, Increase Number of Wall Signs from 2;

10 - 18 - 12A-3B- 3, Increase Number of Awning/Canopy Signs

from l;

10- 18 - 12A - 3C-2, Increase Maximum Wall, Awning/Canopy,

Under Canopy and Permanent Window Sign Area;

10 - 18 - 12A-3B - 1, Increase Number of Monument Signs

Permitted from 1 and Number of Business Names on Monument

Sign from 1;

10 - 18 - 12A - 3C - 1, Increase Maximum Monument Sign Area

from 32 sq. ft. to 47.52 sq. ft.; ·

10- 18- 12A - 3D - 1, Increase Maximum Monument Sign Height

from 6' to 30';

10 - 18 - 70 - 2C, Sign Base for Monument Sign;

10- 18- 7F - 1, Landscaping at Base of Monument Sign;

10 - 18 - 12E, Minimum Sign Setback

Commissioner Lomax made a motion to re-open CDC Case No.

2017-01. Commissioner Rowe seconded the motion.

Upon roll call the following Commissioners were present:

Moruzzi, Lomax, Marcotte, Pisano, Rodriguez, Rowe, Tellez

Absent: None

A quorum was present.

Chairman Moruzzi re-opened the Public Hearing at 8: 17 p.m.

Chairman Moruzzi suggested continuing this case until a future

meeting to allow the Commission to review the proposed project.

Mr. Moruzzi stated he did not have enough time to review the

provided material as he received the information on Friday at

5:30 p. m.

The petitioner asked what else needed to be done because they

were informed from the Village Staff that their application was

deemed completed. The petitionei: stated the plans that were

provided to the Commission would not be changing.

Commissioner Lomax made a motion to continue CDC Case No.

2017-01 until March 20, 2017. Commissioner Rowe seconded the

motion.

Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes

March 6, 2017

Page 15

ROLL CALL: Ayes: Moruzzi, Lomax, Marcotte, Pisano, Rodriguez, Rowe,

Tellez

Nays: None

All were in favor. Motion carried.

Report from Community Development

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Pozsgay reviewed both recent CDC cases along with

upcoming cases.

There being no further business before the Community

Development Commission, Commissioner Rodriguez made a

motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Marcotte seconded

the motion.

All were in favor. Motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m.

~:

Mike Moruzzi, Chairman

Community Development Commission

<( en., Q)

:.0 C)

·- CtS.c a.

w._. >< N