Kaptur Administrative Center
8999 W. 123rd Street
Palos Park, Illinois 60464
708-671-3700
General Information
Webmaster

VILLAGE OF PALOS PARK -MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

HELD BY THE PLAN COMMISSION AND ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
November 19, 2009 

Plan Commission Chairman Jones called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m.  Present were:  Julie Kay, John Basso, and Michael Sundermeier.  Paul Petan, Marty Strubin, and Michael Wall were absent.  Also present was Steven C. Manning, Community Development Director and Sally Kinney, Secretary to the Plan Commission. 

Zoning Board Chairman Lencioni called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m.  Present were:  Steve Maier, Phyllis Adams, Jack Martin, Nancy Konior, and Cathy Saylors.  Gerald Dill was absent.  Steve Manning Community Development Director and Colleen Santo, Secretary to the Zoning Board was also present.  

Chairman Jones stated that the purpose of this meeting was to hear a request for a subdivision in Shadow Ridge Subdivision lot 17.  Steve Manning stated that notifications were sent to the Southtown Star on November 4, 2009, letters were sent to neighbors and the Village posted a public hearing sign on the property.  Mr. Manning said that two letters were received regarding 133 Forest Edge.  One from Jim Klein and an e:mail letter from Ken Thomala.  Mr. Manning stated that the meeting is being audio and videotaped and comments by audience members were to be made at the microphone. 

HEARING 1--LOT 17 SHADOW RIDGE SUBDIVISION

Scott Schreiner, the President of Design Tek Engineering and Design Tek Surveying located at 9500 Bormet Drive, Mokena Illinois represented both the current property owner Providence Bank and the contract purchaser of the lot J&B Builders, John Bobak, owner. 

The contract purchaser of Lot 17, 2.07 acres, is one of the largest lots located in Shadow Ridge Estates Subdivision.  Due to the shape of the lot and the constraints of the Code, just over one acre of it is actually buildable outside of the conservation easement which is just over an acre.   In addition to the conservation easement there currently is platted approximately a 52’ side yard setback.  When you factor the constraints, the lot shape, conservation easement, the side yard setback at 52’ the buildable area of the 2.07 acre lot becomes 9800 square feet.  This was about half of what the average buildable lot was in Shadow Ridge.  Mr. Schreiner said that the average subdivision lot in Shadow Ridge had a buildable area of 16,800 square feet.  Lot 17 buildable area was just less than 9,900 square feet.  The buildable lot in relation to other lots was very small.  He said Mr. Bobak came to the firm with a house plan for Lot 17.  He had a contract to purchase the lot and a large down payment which hinged on fitting the planned home on the lot.  The home was planned with a 52’ side yard setback and did not fit on the lot.  Initially, they asked for a side yard setback variance to 21.5 feet from the 52’ and were rejected because it would have exceeded the maximum allowable variance allowed by the Village.  They then decided to subdivide into two lots.  A subdivision would allow the lot to be split into 17A and 17B.  Lot 17B would be a non-buildable lot.  The plat did not indicate but they asked George Arnold from Sosin, Lawler, and Arnold Law Firm in Palos Heights to add language to the plat that restricted Lot 17B from ever being buildable and language would be added and recorded when the subdivision was approved by the Village. 

The idea was to create a lot that could abide by the Village ordinance front yard widths and thereby create a side yard setback that could allow the home to fit on the lot.  By subdividing the lot the frontage was reduced down to about 208’.  15% of that was approximately 31’ which was what the ordinance allowed for a side yard setback.  In order to make the house fit on the lot a 21.5’ side yard setback which was less than the 33% maximum variance could have been requested.  Mr. Schreiner stated that they were at the meeting to get the lot subdivided and get a variance for a side yard setback from 31’ to 21.3’ to allow the home to fit on the lot.  They had worked for approximately two months with the architect on this.  The plan had been altered dramatically in order to reduce the size in order to have it fit on the lot.  The site plan showed a patio and small pool.  It was very important to the client to have a patio and pool area.  The site plan indicated a conservation easement behind the house as well as to the north of the home.  Any further movement or rotation of the home to the north would eliminate the possibility for the patio and small pool. 

Chairman Jones asked Mr. Schreiner why the property was shaped the way it was.  Mr. Schreiner explained that they took the original north east line and offset it by 100 feet so that the lot would have 100 feet of frontage.  It had been brought south and east to a point just beyond the front setback line and then they drew the line radial to the center line of the cul-de-sac.  This was done with two goals in mind:  They wanted both lots to be at least one acre in size and they wanted the frontage of Lot 17A to be of a dimension that would allow a side yard setback equal to what was needed for the house to fit which was roughly 21.5 feet. 

Chairman Jones said that there was a section in the Village Code that mentioned that the property line should be approximately perpendicular or radial to the existing street.  The purpose of this being added to the Code was to prevent lots like this.  The Village wanted to get lots to be shaped more rectangular or logical.  Chairman Jones said it appeared like this was a forced situation in order to get it to work for what was desired.  It would have made more sense to divide this by having a single line coming across at an angle where you could get the two acres and not make a lot this shape.  Chairman Jones said that he was not opposed to the subdivision just to the shape of the lot.  He said it did not make sense.  If the lot shape was changed the home could be shifted enough to where a variance would not be required on the side yard.  The architect would be able to adjust angles on the house and get it to fit.  If the pool was outside of the 50 foot setback in the backyard, a variance to the pool could be requested.

Mr. Schreiner responded that there was an existing easement on the north side of the lot which was going to restrict shifting of the home to the north any further.  Moving the house north was not feasible if there was a 31’ or 32’ side yard.  Shifting the house north was not an option.  The only thing that could be done was to remove portions of the house.  A variance for the pool in the rear yard could not be done as there were utilities in the rear yard.  There was a 16’ easement line and Chairman Jones thought the angle of the garage and adjustment to a couple of other things could make the house fit without a side yard variance.  If a side yard variance was required he said it could be adjusted so that the side yard variance could be to the north instead of the south impacting the neighbor.  It appeared the owner was creating his own hardship by using the house design.  If the owner sold this property and another purchaser came in with a new design that fit the property, then there would be no hardship. 

Chairman Jones stated that if a new property line and adjustments for the home design could be made the home could be shifted to the north and then probably would meet the 30’ setback on the south side.  There was an objection from a neighbor to the variance requested.  Chairman Jones thought the design of the home was creating the hardship.  Mr. Schreiner said that he could not argue that the house could have been designed differently.  He said that this was one of the more expensive lots in Shadow Ridge and was 2.08 acres. Because it was one of the larger lots it was demanding a higher value in turn a higher priced home.  The lot had the third smallest buildable area and yet probably demanded the highest cost, so they may have been forcing the house a bit.  The chairman said he was not opposed to the subdivisions just the way it was being handled.  John Basso said he agreed with Chairman Jones.  He said that the homes were too big to be 22’ from the property line and that 50’ was the minimum for a side yard. He said that these types of lots have been denied all along.  Chairman Jones said that they have voiced their concerns.  John Bobak of J&B Builders asked for a continuation of the public hearing until the December 17, 2009 meeting.  

The Plan Commission took the following action:

Chairman Jones asked for a motion to continue the public hearing.  John Basso, moved, seconded by Julie Kay to continue the Plan Commission public hearing to the December 17, 2009 meeting or the next meeting if the petitioner needs more time to revise.  The motion passed unanimously. 

HEARING 2—LOT 17 SHADOW RIDGE SETBACK VARIANCE 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 

Steve Manning stated that the second hearing was for ZBA to vote on the setback variance for the same petition.  Since the subdivision was continued he recommended the Zoning Board of Appeals take a vote to continue their hearing to coincide with PC continuation. 

 The Zoning Board of Appeals took the following action:

Chairman Lencioni asked for a motion to continue the Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing to December 17, 2009 if required.  Steve Maier moved, seconded by Phyllis Adams to continue the public hearing on December 17, 2009 if required.  The motion passed unanimously. 

HEARING 3—CARSTENSEN VARIANCE 

ZBA Petitioner:  Carstensen, 12110 S. 86^th Avenue asking for a side yard variance of 8.7’ to the required 15’.  This is resulting in a side yard of 6’ 5” inches or a 57% variance.  Also requested is a rear yard variance of 3’ 5” inches to the required 15’ resulting in a rear yard 11’ 7” inches or a 23% variance. 

Derek Carstensen stated that he needed the variance based on the fact that his lot was less than ½ acre.  He had a company through Home Depot named Tuff Shed build a shed and they never mentioned that a permit was required.  He was not aware of the permit requirement until about seven months later when he received a letter from the Village. 

Mr. Carstensen said that he thought building the shed behind the garage was the best location as it was wasted space and did not obstruct any of the neighbors view.  After the Village notified him that a permit was required he called the company and found out that the shed was built by an unlicensed contractor.  The company then mentioned to him that he should have gotten a permit. 

Mr. Carstensen said that his lot was very small and 15’ off a lot line with an acre of property was feasible, but not feasible when there is less than one acre.  If he moved the shed further north than it would be seen from the street.  Aesthetically it was more pleasing where it was currently located.  Except for a little glimpse of the roof line it was not currently noticeable from the street. 

PUBLIC COMMENT 

Julie Kay, 12008 S. 86^th Avenue:  She said there was not a hardship.  Mr. Carstensen was a tradesman and should have known that when he worked in a Village a permit was required.  When he first moved in he put a gravel driveway, which is partly on his neighbor’s property to park his recreational vehicle and the Village had to ask him to move it.  At that point he should have learned that when he was going to do something in the Village he needed a permit.  She said he parked commercial vehicles in his driveway overnight and had been told by the Village Code Enforcement Officer to remove them.  She stated that she did not see commercial vehicles lately.  Homeowners always have to get the permit.  The majority of lots in Palos Park are smaller than one acre.  Mrs. Kay said that there are many people in the Village and they abide by the rules.  This shed is a moveable structure and can be moved. 

Mr. Carstensen responded that he was a plumber and pulled permits for the homeowner.  It was his responsibility to know what was required by the Village.  He never asked the homeowner to pull the permit.  Mrs. Kay stated that a permit should be displayed on the property.  He said he spoke to Rodney Albright and was told that a permit was not required as long as he was not building a garage.  After the letter was received he called Mr. Albright and the specifics were then mentioned after the fact.  It was not a permanent structure on concrete and was not anchored to the ground.  It was built on 2’ x 6’ galvanized steel platform and was set on stone; it was not technically a permanent structure. Mr. Carstensen stated that he had received letters from the Village on certain things and the items were taken care of.  He did remove the camper.  Part of his job was to be available 24 hours per day and sometimes he had to have his vehicle available.  Chairman Lencioni reminded those in attendance that the issue tonight was the variance request.  

Joe Evans, 12120 S. 86^th Avenue:  Mr. Evans said the shed was put up without a permit and that Mr. Carstensen knew he needed a permit.  He said that the petitioner put an addition on his house and knew about permits.  He stated that he could not slap something up and just expect to get a variance later. 

Andrew Alexa, 12118 S. 86^TH Avenue:  He stated that they live next door to the Carstensen property.  He was speaking for his mother Jenise Farano who could not attend.  He said their picture windows face the back of the wall of the yellow shed.  He wondered why it was built so close to the property line when the property was large enough to accommodate it closer to their home.  The trees have lost their leaves and the structure was now highly noticeable.  It also had an earth berm built up on the south side of the shed on their property without permission from the Village or Ms. Farano.  If the structure was allowed to remain the berm should be removed and a significant mature evergreen tree buffer should replace it.   

Mike Ahrendt, 12104 86^th Avenue:  He lives on the north side of Mr. Carstensen’s property.  He realized there were infringements with the Village but some of the people that spoke there had more personal issues with Mr. Carstensen than the reason they were at the meeting tonight.  He said the shed did not bother him and his home was located probably just as close as the neighbors to the south. 

John Basso, 9116 W. 123^rd Street:  He did go out to look at the shed.  The problem was if the other two neighbors decided they wanted to put something 2’ from the property line, there would be bumper to bumper structures.  That is why the Village had a Code, to avoid situations like the one they were hearing.  He said that a resident cannot build something and say that since it is already built they should leave it there.  Mr. Basso said that he had a half acre as well.  When he built his garage he had to follow the Code. 

Nancy Konior asked what the hardship was.  Mr. Carstensen said that if he moved the structure it would be in the middle of his yard.  Ms. Konior asked if he could put up a smaller shed.  He responded that he would if Home Depot would do it at no cost.  He said he would have built a smaller shed if he would have known it was going to be such a problem. 

Chairman Lencioni said that he did not see a hardship for the rear yard setback.  Chairman Lencioni said that the shed could be moved up towards the garage.  If it was moved to the north it would still be seen by the neighbors.  He said it appeared that there were underlying factors as to why some of the people were in attendance. 

Jack Martin said that it was a very big shed at 12’ x 20’.  He said that it seemed like another case where the hardship was made by the petitioner. 

Zoning Board took the following action:

Chairman Lencioni asked for a motion:  Nancy Konior moved, seconded by Steve Maier to deny a rear yard setback variance of 3’5” to the required 15’ resulting in a rear yard setback of 11’ 7” which was a 23% variance because there was no hardship.  The motion carried unanimously. 

Chairman Lencioni asked for a motion:  Steve Maier moved, seconded by Nancy Konior to deny the side yard setback variance of 8’7” due to there being no hardship.  The motion carried unanimously.   

Chairman Lencioni told Mr. Carstensen that the Village Council would have the final determination at the December 14, 2009 Village Council meeting. 

HEARING 4--APPLICATION FEES 

Steve Manning stated that the Village Council had referred back to the Plan Commission to consider a possible Code Amendment to increase the amount of fees for applications to the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals.  He said the Village had the same fees for 10 years.  The fees did not begin to cover the costs of staff time, publishing, producing reports, notice signs, etc.  Steve Manning recommended an application fee increase from the current $250 to a $300 flat fee and sites over one acre would be charged an extra $100 per acre. 

John Basso asked if the increase would cover costs and if not it should be increased to exactly what was needed.  Steve Manning said Orland Park charged $300 per acre, Palos Heights charged $1,000 per lot.  Mr. Manning was looking for a median point so it would not be a hardship to residents.  He said he was looking to cover an average of the cost.  The Village of Palos Park fees were one of the lowest in the area.  Mr. Manning stated that the fees collected in one year covered 2/3 of the department budget.  Therefore, he projected the fee increase would cover 90% of the budget. 

John Basso wanted to know what the logic was in charging a higher fee for lots over one acre.  Steve Manning said the legal notice is usually more costly and more staff time was required.  Chairman Jones stated that if a petition had a cost of $1,000 and some are $300 or $100, petitioners should not be compensating those that cost more.  Chairman Jones agreed that we should cover actual cost but he did not want to charge someone $300 if the cost was only $100.  We should just charge for the work that was actually done.  Mr. Manning stated that the Village had a Cost Recovery Ordinance that stated that if there were costs in excess of the application fee the petitioner would be billed for those costs.  Chairman Jones asked why the rate would need to be increased if costs are covered by the Cost Recovery Ordinance.  Michael Sundermeier said that we would be increasing the base from $250 to $300.  Steve Manning said that not all the cost was recoverable by Code, like staff time.  He said extraordinary costs were covered but not staff time which was the largest cost.  Chairman Jones said that if the Village was going to increase the fee it should completely cover all costs.  He said he would want this to be fair to each resident. 

John Basso said he thought it should be a flat fee.  Petitioners should not be charged just because they have more than one acre.  Chairman Jones said it sounds like some people are being subsidized.  Chairman Jones said he needed to think more about the fee increase.  John Basso stated that costs would fluctuate every year with fees and salaries, insurance and ad prices go up and the new fee would be outdated.  If the Village had an eight acre subdivision petitioner the fee should be more than $250 due to the time and cost involved.   

Tom Wehmeier, 12 Old Creek Road  Mr. Wehmeier stated that he was interpreting the discussion to mean that there were hard costs that were recoverable and soft costs that were not based on staff time.  The Village was trying to increase the base cost to cover the staff time.  He thought that soft cost should be included in the Code as reimbursable costs. 

Chairman Jones asked if there was a state statute that did not allow the Village to charge for staff time.  Mr. Manning was not aware of one or that a municipality that charges for staff time.  Chairman Jones stated that the Village has to do what is right for us not what other municipalities have done.  Michael Sundermeier said that usually applications for more than an acre are larger projects.  Steve Manning said that a private firm bills hourly which was over and above their base fee.   Julie Kay stated that costs need to be covered and funds have to be made for the Village. 

Maria Rogers, 12021 S. 93^rd Avenue:  She thought that the ad in the Southtown newspaper was too small to see.  She thought it was a waste of money.  It should be placed in a local paper.  If the Village was trying to raise money we should not be wasting money putting ads in the newspaper.  It was mentioned that it was a legal requirement. 

Mr. Basso said he has been on the Plan Commission for about eight years and the only people that attend the meetings are the people that were directly impacted by the issue.  If we were notifying neighbors, putting a sign on the property and an ad in the paper, on cable, and website people will only get involved if they are impacted. 

HEARING 5--DEVELOPMENT LAND DONATION AND EXACTION FEES 

Steve Manning stated the Village Council had referred back to Plan Commission to consider a Code Amendment to increase fees for exactions. These fees are for new construction and are charges for: parks, school, transportation, and library.  Another part missing from the ordinance was the land donation portion.  This was where a large developer would be required to donate land for a park or school site if the park department or school district had in their plan that land is needed for park or schools. 

The “park” formula is standardized because of the landmark case law from the City of Naperville.  This formula has been supported in court challenges.  Mr. Manning was proposing the Village adopt this ordinance.  Michael Sundermeier asked if there were a minimum number of acres that needed to be donated for parks.  Steve Manning responded that 10 acres per 1000 people was the ratio most towns and courts use.  For example, based on an average amount of persons per household and then apply to ratio of 10 acres per 1000 people.  A fee can be collected in lieu of land. 

The “school” formula was more involved due to the three types of schools that were used in the formula:  elementary, junior high and high school.  Each school type has a corresponding ratio of acres per number of student ratio, average people per house multiplied by acres per student.  The fee collected in lieu of land would be given to the respective school district that served Palos Park. 

The “library” fee was currently $117 per household and the proposed increase is $250 per household. 

Steve Manning stated that the total fees for park, school, library per four-bedroom house in Orland Park is $12,437, Lemont $10,101was being charged.  John Basso said that he had heard several people mention that fees in Palos Park are.  The intent was not to exceed what other communities charge it was just to bring exaction fees more in line.  Chairman Jones stated that currently the exaction fees were $4,782. per new four bedroom house for park and school, the library was a separate fee of $117.  The third component was the capital fee for acreage.  It was not only getting raw land it was to improve land with sewer and water, grading and storm water detention facilities and is converted to a fee if that developer was not donating that improved site. 

Mr. Basso asked how the units are charged if they are townhouses.  Mr. Manning said that there is a different formula used for townhomes which averages less people per unit.  The lower population averages into the formula and it would calculate into less land or fee.  Chairman Jones stated that he agreed with the land donation or capital fee in lieu of improvements.  He said the increased library fee to $250 was acceptable.  Chairman Jones stated that the $10,000 increase seemed expensive.  He would like more comparables in surrounding towns.  Mr. Manning said that he did not want the Village at a competitive disadvantage to Orland Park or Lemont.  The current fees are low so that the schools, library, and, parks are receiving a lot less. 

With every new home permit the Village was losing money every time if the new fee was not in place.  Chairman Jones said that it depended on what the developer had planned for the land use what town they would annex to.  He did not think the $10,000 would make that much difference, maybe we should be charging more, like $15,000.  Chairman Jones said the costs would probably be passed along to the purchaser anyway.  He wanted to see more comparisons.  Chairman Jones said that they could go along with the increase to $10,000 for now and still investigate into other towns and then change it again later. 

Plan Commission Regular Meeting 

Chairman Jones called the regular meeting to order at 9:20 p.m.  Present were:  Julie Kay, John Basso, and Michael Sundermeier.  Paul Petan, Martin Strubin, and Michael Wall were absent.  Also present was Steven C. Manning, community Development Director and Sally Kinney, Secretary to the Plan Commission. 

PLAN COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES 

Julie Kay moved, seconded by Michael Sundermeier to approve the Minutes of the Plan Commission Public Hearing dated August 20, 2009.  Upon voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 

Julie Kay moved, seconded by Michael Sundermeier to approve the Minutes of the Plan Commission Regular Meeting dated August 20, 2009.  Upon voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 

Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting  

Chairman Lencioni called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 9:20 p.m.  Present were:  Steve Maier, Phyllis Adams, Jack Martin, Nancy Konior, and Cathy Saylors.  Gerald Dill was absent.  Steve Manning Community Development Director and Colleen Santo, Secretary to the Zoning Board was also present. 

ZONING BOARD APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Cathy Saylors moved, seconded by Nancy Konior to approve the Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting held October 21, 2009.  Upon voice vote the motion carried, Jack Martin abstained.   

PUBLIC COMMENT 

Maria Rogers, 12021 S. 93^rd Avenue.  Mrs. Rogers stated that there was a large annexation like Holy Family Villa that the Village could have received money.  Mrs. Rogers asked how much impact fees did the Village receive from Holy Family Villa.  She asked why the Village purchased the land when they were supposed to give it to the Village.  Chairman Jones said that we did not have an ordinance in place for land donation.   

Mrs. Rogers said we should not nickel and dime the little guy with a little parcel when we did not get a big lump sum from Holy Family Villa.  Chairman Jones stated that we did receive something from Holy Family Villa. 

The Plan Commission took the following action: 

There being no further discussion, John Basso moved, seconded by Julie Kay to continue the consideration of Plan Commission and Zoning Board application fees until the next meeting.

Upon roll call vote, the motion passed, 4 yes (Basso, Kay, Sundermeier, Chairman Jones)  

There being no further discussion, Julie Kay moved, seconded by John Basso to approve the proposed land donation and exaction fee proposal.

Upon roll call vote, the motion passed, 4 yes (Kay, Basso, Sundermeier, Chairman Jones) 

Steve Manning stated that part of his job was to prepare amendments to the Code.  ZBA had several cases recently regarding fence amendments.  Mr. Manning thought this would be a good time to discuss ideas for amending the fence Code. It would be appropriate for Zoning Board and Plan Commission to make a motion to recommend to Council to consider a specific Code amendments and refer each one back to Plan Commission for a hearing.  

The split rail style fence requirement had been an issue with requests that varied mostly with the three foot height limit.  The most recent request was for a five foot wrought iron fence in the front yard of a home.   Chairman Jones stated that he liked the way the Code currently read.  He thought it was best to keep it restrictive and review each case.   Mr. Basso said that aesthetically post and rail fence was nice but not many home styles look good with that type of fence.   Chairman Lencioni said the split rail fence limits resident’s choices and maybe wrought iron looks better.  Cathy Saylors said split rail fencing is not very popular.  Jack Martin said he did not think fences should be in front yard at all.  John Basso said that depending on the location of the home it might make sense to have a fence that blocks a view.  Mr. Basso said to leave the fence ordinance as it was.  Jack Martin said that the intent of the fence ordinance was to keep it open.  Chairman Jones said the Plan Commission was trying to discourage fences in the front yard.  Chairman Lencioni said that it would be easier for the ZBA to deny a petitioner if “of a similar type” was removed from the Code.  Steve Maier stated that the style had to be split rail but that the option for a material other than wood could be used.  Chairman Jones asked if they wanted it to take out “or similar” in the Code so that only split rail fencing was allowed. No motions were made. 

HEARING NOTICES 

Steve Manning stated that currently our Code has four different ways to notice a hearing.  We had been putting up courtesy signs on petitioner property notifying of a public hearing.  It would make sense to have a consistent hearing notice procedure in place.  We currently send immediately adjoining property owners a notice.  The convention that most towns follow was to set a distance.  Many towns use 250’ around a subject property to identify which neighbors were notified.   Chairman Jones stated we have been discussing this for a long time and were hoping for a 600’ notification.  Steve Manning said that he was looking for a consensus.  Chairman Jones said that notification should be the same for all notifications.  Mr. Maier said this would make it easier to make a mistake using 600’.  Steve Maier said to leave the notification as adjacent property owners and recommend to staff to make it a policy to notify more properties.  Mr. Manning said the object is to be more consistent.  Mr. Basso said the Public Hearing signs are great but they could be a more noticeable color.  Chairman Jones thinks 600’ would be a good area of notification.    

We notify using website, cable, Village Council meeting announcements, e:news, bulletin boards and ads in the newspaper.  Currently, we do not give notices to properties outside the Village of Palos Park.  John Basso asked if that was our responsibility.  Steve Manning said that City of Chicago must notify everyone within 250’ even if they are in an adjacent municipality.  We are not bound by the same procedure.  Chairman Jones said the Village should be consistent in our notification process.  It was discussed that most people in the Village get the Regional newspaper.    

FENCES AROUND GARBAGE CANS OR DUMPSTERS 

Mr. Manning stated that recently there was an inquiry for fences around garbage cans or dumpsters.  Currently, the Village Code treated it as a fence but it was an enclosure for a refuse area.  It was an issue in the multi family areas.  Phyllis Adams said that they are prevalent in Edelweiss in the Park and they are very unattractive.  In other areas people keep their garbage in the garage.  The dumpsters are just kept outside.  Ms. Adams said it is being done and is against Village Code. 

ANNOUNCEMENTS 

• Special meeting of Village Council for amending the Comprehensive Plan will be held on December 7, 2009.
• Tree Preservation and Replacement Ordinance has been drafted and is being reviewed by Commissioner.
• Six lot residential at 12424 Wolf Road, will be possibly being heard at one of the next Plan Commission meetings.

Adjournment of Plan Commission Meeting

There being no further discussion, John Basso moved, seconded by Julie Kay, to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m.  Upon voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.

Adjournment of Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting

There being no further discussion, Nancy Konior moved, seconded by Jack Martin, to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m.  Upon voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 

Minutes respectfully submitted, 

_______________________

Sally A. Kinney
Secretary to the Plan Commission

Recreation Department
708-671-3760
8901 W. 123rd Street
Palos Park, Illinois 60464
Map

Library
708-448-1530
12330 Forest Glen
Palos Park, Illinois 60464
Map
Website

Police Department
708-671-3770
8999 W. 123rd Street
Palos Park, Illinois 60464
Map
Website

Fire Department
708-448-0369
8815 W. 123rd Street
Palos Park, Illinois 60464
Map

Village Email
♦  Mayor: John F. Mahoney
♦  Village Manager
♦  Treasurer
♦  Police Chief: Joe Miller
♦  Fire Chief: Steven J. Carr
♦  Recreation Department
♦  Library Information

Village Commissioners
♦  Public Works: Nicole Milovich-Walters
♦  Police: Dan Polk 
♦ Building: G. Darryl Reed
♦ Finances: Kent Oliven

© All Rights Reserved, Village of Palos Park