AGENDA

PLAN COMMISSION – ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

CITY OF COUNTRYSIDE

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2015 – 7:15 PM

I. Roll Call Members:

Mr. Richard Fullmer, Jr. (Chairman) Mr. Robert Lube

Ms. Tina Grotzke Mr. Ronald Ward

Mr. Crecencio Gonzalez, IV Mr. Bryon Bednar

Mr. Michael AndersonVacant

Mr. Marco Gutierrez

A. Roll Call

B. Approval of Minutes: May 5, 2015

II. Chairman’s Comments

a. Introduction of new Commissioner Ronald Ward.

III. Action Items

a. Public Hearing-Case# 18511_V-6839 Lorraine Drive- A public hearing published in The Doings to grant a variance to permit the construction of a four foot (4′) open style fence within the required corner yard instead of the required three foot (3′) open style fence.

b. Public Hearing Case# 18425-TA-10035 5th Avenue Cutoff- A public hearing published in The Doings to grant a text amendment to Ordinance 07-08-O to amend paragraph 5.

c. Public Hearing Case# 18501_V-5801 S. LaGrange Road-A public hearing published in The Doings to grant a special use permit for an outdoor patio; variance to reduce the front and corner side yard setback; reduce the required perimeter landscaping; reduce the parking stall size; variance from the Building Code Chapter 8 Signs: to exceed the maximum allowable wall signs.

IV. Public Comment

a. Mike Howley representing T-Mobile– Discuss requested proposed text amendment to zoning code regulating Antenna Towers in the Commercial Zoning District.

V. Other Business

a. City Council approved the Barker Shop special use ordinance (INFO ONLY).

b. U-Turn sign will be placed in the median on Joliet Road and LaGrange Road (INFO ONLY).

c. LaGrange Road Streetscape grant (INFO ONLY).

VI. Adjournment

Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission

Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

7:15 PM

City Hall

Board Members

Chairman, Richard Fullmer, Jr., Secretary Robert Lube,

Michael Anderson, Marco Gutierrez, Bryon Bednar,

Crecencio Gonzalez IV, Tina Grotzke, Ronald Ward

ROLL CALL

Secretary Lube called the Roll of Members physically present as follows:

PRESENT:Chairman Richard Fullmer, Jr., Secretary Robert Lube, Michael Anderson, Tina Grotzke, Marco Gutierrez, Crecencio Gonzalez IV, Bryon Bednar, Ronald Ward

Also Present: Attorney Peck, Zoning Administrator Kimberly Clarke, Alderman Pondelicek, Alderman Benson, Alderman Mikolyzk, City Engineer Fitzgerald

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

The minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 5, 2015 were previously distributed to the Board Members. Chairman Fullmer asked if there were any corrections to be made to said minutes. There being no corrections or additions, motion made to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 5, 2015.

A motion was made by Mr. Gonzalez, seconded by Mr. Lube that this matter be APPROVED. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 8 Fullmer, Lube, Anderson, Gutierrez, Grotzke, Gonzalez, Bednar, Ward

Nay: 0

CHAIRMAN’S COMMENTS

Chairman Fullmer stated the Rules of Proceeding for the hearing before the Plan Commission – Zoning Board of Appeals will follow a strict order of presentation. A sign-in sheet for interested persons addressing the Board is located at the podium. This hearing is being recorded. Please silence all cell phones and pagers.

Chairman Fullmer Introduced Commissioner Ronald Ward as a new member of the PC/ZBA.

ACTION ITEMS

1. Public Hearing – Case # 18511-V – 6839 Lorraine Drive – A Public Hearing published in The Doings to grant a variance to permit the construction of a four-foot (4′) open style fence within the required corner yard instead of the required three-foot (3′) open style fence.

Ms. Grotzke moved to open the Public Hearing in this matter, seconded by Mr. Gonzalez and carried by unanimous voice vote. The Applicant, Robert Naurath, property owner, was sworn in by Chairman Fullmer. Proofs of Notice were received by the Building Department.

Zoning Adminstrator Ms. Clarke presented the Staff report. She stated that the subject property is zoned R-1, single-family residence with lot area of 10,000 s.f. or more. This is a corner lot with two front yards and fence requirements are treated differently. A fence can be placed at the property line as long as it is three feet high and an open style. Mr. Naurath requests a four-foot high open style fence to create a more secure area in the back yard for his four young children and pet dog. Attachment A shows an aerial view of the property and several views of the home including front, back and side views. The home was constructed in 2005. The property slopes to the north toward Crestview approximately four feet. The retaining wall is close to the property line. The proposed open style fence will not cause a visibility issue at the corner because it is located some distance from the intersection. The home across the street has a wood privacy fence that appears to be 6′ or more. This fence would be located between the railing and the bushes in the photo. Staff was unable to find permits issued for the existing fences. No other corner lots in the area have fences. Staff recommends not granting the variance based on lack of hardship presented. If this fence is permitted, staff should be directed to provide a text amendment to the zoning code to modify fences in corner side yards. The Code has not been changed since 1980.

Mr. Naurath disagreed with some of the issues brought up in the presentation. Placing the fence in the required area would bring it behind the retaining wall and across the sloping yard in an awkward fashion. He stated that there are seven other homes and a City park that have four-foot fences inside the property line. Why is the Code not enforced uniformly throughout the City?. He is trying to keep his children safe; there is only one three-foot fence in the entire City; he has photos to prove it. His hardship is trying to protect his children and a dog; also there is a coyote problem in the area. They live on a busy street; a three-foot fence is no deterrent or protection for anyone. He has a letter from his neighbor expressing no opposition to the fence. There were no questions from Board members. This fence will totally enclose the rear yard – side yard.

Ms. Clarke stated that the open style fence is the requirement; it is very common to have a four-foot fence in the side yard. She will be happy to research the subject and consider a text amendment. Chairman Fullmer considers a three-foot fence no barrier whatsoever; from a safety aspect alone the four-foot open style fence makes sense.

There were no other questions from Board members. There were no comments from Interested Parties. There was no Closing Statement from the Petitioner. Mr. Gonzalez moved to close the evidentiary portion of the Public Hearing, seconded by Mr. Gutierrez and carried by unanimous voice vote.

Attorney Peck stated that the Plat of Survey indicating the location of the proposed fence is marked as Petitioner’s Exhibit A. The recommendation is to permit a four-foot open style fence instead of the required three-foot open style fence in the required setback at the property commonly known as 6839 Lorraine Drive, in substantial compliance with Petitioner’s Exhibit A. This recommendation will come before the City Council at its Regular Meeting on July 22, 2015.

A motion was made by Ms. Grotzke, seconded by Mr. Gutierrez that this matter be APPROVED. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 8 Fullmer, Lube, Anderson, Gutierrez, Grotzke, Gonzalez, Bednar, Ward

Nay: 0

2. Public Hearing – Case # 18425-TA – 10035 5thAvenue Cutoff – A Public Hearing published in The Doingsto grant a text amendment to Ordinance 07-08-O to amend Paragraph 5.

Mr. Lube moved to open the Public Hearing in this matter, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by unanimous voice vote. The Applicant, Thomas Robb, property owner, was sworn in by Chairman Fullmer. Proofs of Notice were received by the Building Department.

ZA Ms. Clarke made the Staff presentation. The City of Countryside annexed the southern part of town known as the 5thAve. Cutoff in the early 2000s; four years later the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan including the new area which was to remain rural residential. Uses were allowed to remain at the time of annexation and were considered legal nonconforming. In 2006 the property was rezoned from M-2 to R-7, again acknowledging the existing nonconforming uses on the back half of the property with the condition that if the property sold, the new owners would bring the entire property in compliance with the R-7 Zoning District. In 2011 the residential home was sold and the City cited the original owners for not bringing the back half of the property into compliance. The applicant, Thomas Robb, is requesting the same grandfather clause for the back half of the property. If he sells the remainder of the property, it will then have to come into compliance with the R-7 zoning district.

The R-7 District is limited as to what businesses are acceptable. Tom Robb is seeking relief to allow him to keep the current uses on the property. One way to bring the property into compliance is to amend the zoning code listing him as the current owner. This would allow the existing businesses to remain as is. Staff recommends amending only the original ordinance which rezoned the property from M-2 to R-7; all businesses operating out of this location shall be registered with the City. An aerial view of the property and the Plat of Survey were reviewed.

Mr. Tom Robb stated that his father owned the property since the 1940s. there has been no change in the property or the renters for the past 20 years. The current users are some RV parking, a landscape company, seal coating company and someone leasing the barn. The landscapers are keeping up with the property; everything is trimmed. The new owner purchased the house and one-half acres of property; there is an easement along the back of the property for a driveway if needed. The property has two separate tax parcel numbers but they both use the same address. Mr. Oremus bought the house and property.

Ms. Clarke stated that there was always single ownership of the property although it had two tax parcel numbers. Even though only the front half was sold, the back half must come into compliance. The best way to handle the situation is amending the original ordinance to allow the current owners to use the property as it exists today. By amending the ordinance, the current owners will no longer be in violation with the City.

Board members asked about the current uses. There is no semi-truck parking; vehicles are parked on concrete, asphalt area and gravel. The EPA has done borings costing $44,000; the property was clean. Mr. Robb does not want to rent to semi-tractors. Chairman Fullmer stated that no additional buildings can be built. Mr. Robb stated if a new owner wanted to do so, it could be done on the SE corner. A new owner must petition the PC/ZBA to continue current uses, but it is not a given. The property has been for sale for four years. Accessory structures would need a special use requirement. The property is a dead-end; there is no residential home on the property. The seal coating and landscaping and storage uses could remain but there can be no expansion. If the current renter leaves, no new business could come into the building. The uses run with the land and not with the owner. The pole building is 50 feet long; RVs and boats could be parked there. The buildings are not sprinkled and there are no washroom facilities; plus parking issues would arise with the gravel lot.

There were no other questions from Board members. There were no comments from Interested Parties; there was no Closing Statement from the Applicant.

Mr. Gonzalez moved to close the Evidentiary Portion of the Public Hearing, seconded by Ms. Grotzke and carried by unanimous voice vote.

Attorney Peck noted that Mr. Robb and his brother are both current beneficiaries of the Terry & Laverne Robb Irrevocable Trust. The recommendation is to amend Ordinance 07-08-O specifically Paragraph 5 as follows: Special authorization is hereby granted permitting the current owners of record of the Terry & Laverne Robb Irrevocable Trust and its current beneficiaries, to continue the current uses of the land so long as such uses do not increase from its current uses and such uses will cease upon the sale or transfer of ownership of the subject property or upon destruction of more than 50% of any one of the buildings currently on the property. This recommendation will come before the City Council at its Regular Meeting of July 22, 2015.

A motion was made by Mr. Gonzalez, seconded by Mr. Lube that this matter be APPROVED. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 8 Fullmer, Lube, Anderson, Gutierrez, Grotzke, Gonzalez, Bednar, Ward

Nay: 0

3. Public Hearing Case # 18501-V 5801 S. LaGrange Road – A Public Hearing published in The Doings to grant a special use permit for an outdoor patio; Variance to reduce the front and corner side yard setback; Reduce required perimeter landscaping; Reduce parking stall size; Variance from the Building Code Chapter 8 – Signs: to exceed the maximum allowable wall signs.

Ms. Grotzke moved to open the Public Hearing in this matter, seconded by Mr. Lube and carried by unanimous voice vote. The applicants were sworn in en masse by Chairman Fullmer – Andrew Goodman, Greg Orput, Scott Shust, Scott DiGilio, and Javier Millan. Proofs of Notice have been received by the Building Department.

ZA Ms. Clarke made the Staff presentation. The proposal is for a Chipotle Restaurant at 5801 LaGrange Road, with an outdoor patio of approximately 600 s.f. The parcel is zoned B-3 service wholesale, on a corner lot at 58thSt. and LaGrange Road. She discussed the aerial view and site plans at length. The site has been vacant since August 2014 when Brown’s Chicken closed. In 2010 the City established the TIF District along LaGrange Road. To the north is Andy’s Frozen Custard, Midas Muffler on the south and a condo association and apartments on the east. The outdoor dining area will be placed near LaGrange Road and away from residential development. They will provide six four-top tables and four two-top tables on the west and north sides of the building, along with planter boxes at the corners and landscaping to enhance the fa̤ade. Parking includes 26 regular stalls and 2 handicap stalls, providing standard size parking stalls of 9×18′; this size has been granted in the past for smaller sites. They will utilize the signaled intersection off 58thSt. for ingress/egress, and a second entrance/exit on LaGrange Road. They are requesting a monument sign on LaGrange Road and a wall sign facing 58thSt. There is no need for a sign variance at this time. Landscaping will be enhanced and fencing replaced adjacent to the condo association – fencing between business and residential must be 8’3′. Staff recommends approval of the outdoor patio as well as the reduced length for parking stalls since this is a limited site, along with enhanced perimeter landscaping and fencing requirements.

Traffic congestion is noted at Andy’s during their peak hours from 6:30-9 p.m. The City is doing an in-depth traffic study with video cameras this weekend from Thursday through Sunday to address the drive-thru issues with Andy’s causing traffic to back up on 58thSt. Chairman Fullmer stated that traffic backs up to LaGrange Road. The study done by KLOA did not include peak times for Andy’s. Andy’s opens at noon and peak hours are from 6-11 p.m. The information presented in the traffic study doesn’t reflect reality. He asked Mr. Fitzgerald to take that into consideration when doing the City’s traffic study. The queueing of the drive-thru prevents people from turning into the business; other traffic is blocked from entering; perhaps IDOT should may consider lengthening the green light timing. Mr. Anderson stated that the school traffic is in even worse condition when parents are dropping kids off at school – traffic in both directions.

Anderw Goodman is the co-manager of GMX Real Estate Group representing Chipotle – in partnership with Greg Orput. He introduced his team members – including architect, engineer and traffic engineer from KLOA. Chipotle Mexican Grill – is a 22-year-old company – with $4.1 billion in sales with individual stores doing $1.2 million in sales yearly. Hours are Monday-Sunday – 11 a.m. to 10p.m. Peak hours are at lunch time; menus are available on line. The restaurant specializes in tacos, burritos, salad bowls – beer and wine. Each unit has 24-28 employees depending on sales volume. This is a tight site but still a good fit. They profess to have a food with integrity program – respect the soil, partner with local farmers, promote a healthy lifestyle, eliminate synthetic or antibiotic supplements; use local produce. They are a great national tenant with a strong local presence; residents will welcome a specialty restaurant to the City of Countryside.

Greg Orput presented an overview of the proposed restaurant at the site of the former Brown’s Chicken franchise – a building built in the late 1980s. After inspecting the facility, it was deemed completely outdated and will be razed. They will build a new prototype building; their stores are currently in LaGrange and Willowbrook. Current research indicates a healthy market area especially with the considerable improvement undertaken along LaGrange Road. The traffic signal at that location is an important feature. They propose a 2,250 s.f. prototype building, one of the first in the Chicagoland area. In reviewing the various site plans Mr. Orput noted that the outdoor dining area is a very important component to Chipotle. Building location was configured to best accommodate traffic flow. The first variance is for a 600 s.f. outdoor patio on the northwest corner of the building.

The chain link fence will be replaced with a solid 8’3 privacy fence in the rear; landscape buffer will be installed on the east and south property line with shrubs and bushes. The front yard setback has dedicated right of way for the streetscape on the NW corner – 8×28′. They require variances in the side yard setback. They will have 26 parking stalls and 2 handicap stalls. They are requesting 9×18′ stalls – very significant since this is a tight site. They no longer need the sign variance – they are proposing the monument sign in the front and one on the corner. Until they get IDOT approval they do not know the fate of the northern curb cut; they seek a full access driveway on LaGrange Road and a full access driveway on 58thSt.

Mr. Millan discussed the traffic analysis – 58th& LaGrange Road is an SRA route and is on a system -the loop detectors should be investigated. IDOT wants to reduce access points on LaGrange Road – they will most likely eliminate the north access curb cut. Allowing left turns to enter from southbound LaGrange Road is crucial to Chipotle; they definitely need to have at least å_ access for that reason. Chipotle does not generate traffic until midday -lunchtime is their peak time. Andy’s peak is between 6:30-9 p.m. Mr. Millan has not seen videos on that. At that time of the evening Chipotle’s traffic is 50% less than its peak lunchtime traffic; that makes their traffic use complimentary. They will wait to see the results of Mr. Fitzgerald’s videos this weekend. Something needs to be done at Andy’s – but that is their issue. Chairman Fullmer stated that intersection relief is needed at peak hours; otherwise sales are lost due to driver frustration with long wait times. Chipotle seeks access off 58thSt. into Chipotle but states that a modified pork chop with no ability to turn right is mandatory. He looks forward to seeing the traffic study results. Mr. Millan will discuss options with his team. It was noted that Andy’s is just as crowded in winter as it is in summer.

Mr. Lube stated that the requested signs are within the City’s ordinance; no variances are needed for wall signs; they are in compliance as requested – two signs, both two-sided. Mr. Gutierrez likes the layout of the proposed building. There will be 25′ of grass with a monument sign in the middle. Landscaping will be enhanced throughout. Mr. Gonzalez noted that bollards are needed to protect diners seated along the LaGrange Road side of the outdoor Patio. Concrete planters and a 4′ wrought iron fence are planned for the north and south corners of the dining area. Chipotle will address those concerns. Further discussion re: access into and out of the site; signalization is extremely important in allowing traffic to turn left onto LaGrange Road. Mr. Gutierrez suggested a sign stating right turn for residents only – exiting east on 58thSt. Chairman Fullmer stated that anything that will deter drivers from going east on 58thStreet would be extremely important. Further discussion re: discussing results of the traffic study with Andy’s. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that monitoring of traffic will take place Thursday through Sunday, all day long. After they evaluate the study recommendations will be made. They hope to work with Andy’s on improving the efficiency of their drive-thru. There are ways of increasing the ordering process – either moving the menu board or having an employee outside taking orders. There is a definite problem with traffic flow in the area. He suggested that whatever action the board takes should be contingent on review of the City’s traffic study and recommendations made.

There were no further questions from Board members. There were no comments from interested Parties. There was no Closing Statement from Chipotle other than thanking the Board for their consideration. Mr. Gonzalez moved to close the evidentiary portion of the Public Hearing, seconded by Mr. Gutierrez and carried by unanimous voice vote.

Attorney Peck stated that the Preliminary Engineering Plan will be marked Petitioner’s Exhibit A and the Chipotle Site Plan will be marked Petitioner’s Exhibit B. This is a recommendation to allow a special use variation to permit a 600 s.f. outdoor patio on the property commonly known as 5801 S. LaGrange Road in substantial compliance with Petitioners’ Exhibits A and B.

A motion was made by Mr. Lube, seconded by Mr. Gutierrez that this matter be APPROVED. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 8 Fullmer, Lube, Anderson, Gutierrez, Grotzke, Gonzalez, Bednar, Ward

Nay: 0

Attorney Peck stated that this is a recommendation to approve the following variances:

  1. To reduce the required parking stall length from 20′ to 18”
  2. To reduce the front yard setback from 25′ to 12.5′ and corner side yard setback from 25′ to 10′.
  3. To reduce the required rear yard adjacent to residential property from 10′ to 7’3;
  4. To reduce the minimum 5′ wide landscape area on the south parking lot perimeter to 3′ wide; with the following condition: pending review and recommendation by the City Engineer after review of the City’s traffic study and the updated Chipotle’s traffic study, all on the property commonly known as 5801 S. LaGrange Road, in substantial compliance with Petitioner’s Exhibits A and B. This recommendation will come before the City Council on July 22, 2015.

A motion was made by Mr. Gutierrez, seconded by Mr. Bednar that this matter be APPROVED. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 8 Fullmer, Lube, Anderson, Gutierrez, Grotzke, Gonzalez, Bednar, Ward

Nay: 0

Chairman Fullmer announced a five-minute recess at 9:30 p.m..

* * *

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mike Howley representing T-Mobile – Discuss the requested proposed text amendment to

Zoning code regulating Antenna towers in the Commercial Zoning District.

Zoning Administrator Ms. Clarke presented a memo summarizing her conversation with Mr. Howley regarding antenna towers and antennas on rooftops. Communications towers are permitted as special uses only – and only on City-owned property. Mr. Howley has a proposal to place an antenna on the roof top of the William Tell Hotel, zoned B-3 commercial – and/or the possible consideration of a text amendment allowing him to close a coverage gap.

Mr. Howley represents T-Mobile and seeks feedback from the Zoning Board. T-Mobile has a large coverage hole from Joliet Road north to Plainfield Road west to Willow Springs Road and south to the condo buildings on Brainard. T-Mobile is already on the City of Countryside water tower and the LaGrange Highlands water tower. Antennas need to be on or near the coverage hole in order to provide service for that area. Their problem area is on the south side of Countryside. They need to co-locate on a building or structure to provide coverage. There is no M-1 or M-2 district location available and no other existing structure that can be utilized except for the William Tell. The Board packet includes before and after pictures. Eight of the antennas proposed would be mounted to the existing penthouse. There are already a number of wi-fi antennas and a City of Countryside antenna repeater located there. T-Mobile is proposing to flush-mount the antennas to the side of the penthouse, actually paint the antennas to match the brick, so it becomes virtually invisible to a casual observer. He urged members to view the photo simulations and other materials; there is not much of an esthetic impact and they will bring a positive benefit to the community.

This proposal is actually prohibited under the current Zoning Code; he requested feedback from the Board as to the next steps necessary to gain approval. He has only encountered this problem twice in the past 15 years – with unique circumstances. Neighboring communities like the Village of Oak Park acknowledge the need for an approved zoning process for placing properly designed antennas on the roofs of commercial and even residential properties. T-Mobile has a retail store in the City Center.

Mr. Lube stated that the Board spent many months revising this Code; they do not want cell towers growing from commercial buildings. Mr. howley stated the antennas would be 6-7 feet above the roofline at 80 feet. Ms. Clarke asked whether there is a minimum height required for adequate coverage. Mr. Howley stated that it is based on the location of adjacent towers (antennas). Mr. Lube asked about upgrading the system on the water tower to cover a larger area. Mr. Howley stated that T-Mobile cannot increase their frequency or their output to increase the range. Putting the antenna on a lower building would not fill the coverage gap. Mr. Gutierrez asked about the environmental impact of the antenna. Mr. Howley stated that they are very low power, thus the need for quite a few sites. The simple analogy is equivalent to a baby monitor. Internal wireless networks are installed in hospitals and cause no interference with existing communications. Ms. Grotzke asked about noise from the towers, like humming. He stated that towers do not emit audible noise.

Chairman Fullmer stated that room must be made for other carriers and limit locations to the two tallest buildings in town. Mr. Howley noted that the Zoning Code absolutely prohibits rooftop designs and there is no other option. Chairman Fullmer suggested tabling this matter to next month and have Attorney Peck review the FCC Regulations and licensing to determine what is required of municipalities re: opening towers up for improved service. What is the City’s responsibility? Ms. Clarke will review neighboring municipalities’ regulations. Chairman Fullmer asked whether the City has received other requests from cell phone companies? Not so far.

Mr. Howley stated that every company has a radio frequency spectrum that is purchased with each individual market. T-Mobile’s coverage hole is to the west – and there is no place to fill this coverage hole. Building a site runs approximately $4-5 M in capital cost. There is no optimal height required; it is specific to the carriers’ existing geographical sites. The William Tell is in the geographic location and at an optimal height. He asked board members to review the included maps and photos. A PUD (Senior Center) does not have the same restrictions as a commercial building. Chairman Fullmer stated that Mr. Peck will research the matter and this hearing will be continued to next month.

4. OTHER BUSINESS

ZA Ms. Clarke stated that the Infrastructure Committee has requested reviewing electronic message boards in August and possibly eliminating them as a special use; the Board will review time interval, color and size. She will do research and bring back more information. Ms. Clarke was requested to review the Sign Code in general – and has been working on that matter as well. Board members should try to review the existing City electronic message signs.

Also off-street recreational vehicles will be reviewed – especially smaller size trailers – may require another text amendment. Local 150 is making a change to their monument sign – in doing so modifying it to match the other smaller sign. They will exceed the size requirement so they require a variance. The T-Mobile antenna request will return in August. September is scheduled for another entire section of the Sign Code re: business – shopping centers, monument signs – breaking it up into sections.

After reviewing The LaGrange Road Streetscape plan, there is a need for pedestrian friendly features. Additional landscaping and color, more benches, flower Baskets on the arms of the decorative street lights, is contemplated. Sidewalks will be expanded to six feet and may include stamped concrete.

5. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to discuss, amotion was made by, Mr. Gutierrez, seconded by Mr. Gonzalez that this meeting be ADJOURNED. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 8 Fullmer, Lube, Anderson, Gutierrez, Grotzke, Gonzalez, Bednar, Ward

Nay: 0

Chairman Fullmer declared the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.

/fp

APPROVED:

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: RIC