By Dee Longfellow
For The Elmhurst Independent
The City Council meeting held on Monday, Oct. 4 began with almost an hour of comments during public forum, most of whom were the neighbors of Roberto’s Restaurant, where an applicant is seeking conditional use permits to build parking lots at 283 W. Eggleston and 272-276 W. Eggleston.
Among the speakers, many of whom lived on Eggleston, was Michael Kusich, with Wild Trace townhomes, which abut the site.
“We’ve read both the Majority and the Minority Reports and we agree with the Majority Report,” he said. “The Minority Report sounds like it was written by an attorney.”
Kusich went on to say that Plan B of the Minority Report was not the same Plan B that was presented to the Zoning & Planning Commission (ZPC). He pointed out several discrepancies.
“We oppose the application because there is no evidence of need, no impact studies have been done, and there seems to be no concern for quality of life,” he said.
Resident calls out Polomsky
Resident Michael Novak called out 3rd Ward Ald. Dannee Polomsky for a quote that was reported by another media source.
“You said, ‘residents in this neighborhood are in part dependent on the vibrancy of the Spring Road businesses,’” he recalled. “This is wrong, it is the opposite. We are not dependent on those businesses, they are dependent on us!”
Mark Daniel, a local attorney, brought up the landscaping portion, in which the Report proposes the homeowners put in their own buffers – landscaping, trees, fencing, etc. — between their property and the parking lot and that the applicant would later reimburse them.
“You are asking neighbors to install a buffer on their own property – to give up from six feet to up to 200 feet of their property to appease this applicant,” Daniel said. “That is absurd.”
Later in the meeting during the aldermen’s discussion, Daniel raised his hand several times but was told by Mayor Levin that the deliberation of the Council was not a time for audience participation. The mayor suggested he put his hand down, as he would not be allowed to speak. When Daniel continued to raise his hand, Levin admonished him that he was “out of order.”
‘I have the lawsuit right here’
A resident named Grant Dungan came to the microphone with papers in his hands.
“I spoke with several sitting elected officials and many of them said the Minority Report is ‘insane,’” he said. “We are not standing for any of this.”
He held up a stack of papers in one of his hands.
“I have the lawsuit right here, ready to roll,” Dungan said. “We asked for basic things, but there are still no traffic studies. We are pro-development. There are good projects and bad projects. Please find your moral compass and do the right thing.”
Following public forum, the City Council held a long discussion of the differences between the Majority and Minority Reports but ultimately, the vote came down to a tie of 6 yeas, 6 nays, and two absent. In the case of a tie, the Mayor votes to break it. Mayor Levin voted with the Minority Report. (Details of the vote follow.)
Details of the Report
The Minority Report (then,
the Majority Report after the vote) indicates, in part, that:
• the applicant is to install an 8-foot opaque fence along the east side of the proposed north parking lot adjacent to 271 W. Eggleston, along the east side of the south parking lot adjacent to 270 and 262 W. Eggleston, and along the rear of the single-family home properties located at 270 and 266 W. Eggleston, where they are adjacent to the south parking lot.
• an inlet or drainage structure is to be installed at the northeast corner of the north parking lot property to assist with maintaining existing drainage patterns and directing storm water away from the property at 271 W. Eggleston.
• dumpsters with screening are to be placed as required by ordinance. The dumpster “shall be constructed in the rear yard of the 465-469 So. Spring building and shall be surrounded by building structure or solid fence on all sides.”
• a fence permit will be required for parking lots. City staff will ensure that bollards and fencing are installed as required.
[Ed. note: This is only a portion of the Plan, which can be found in full in boarddocs at the City’s web site.]
Who pays for buffers?
The main issue of the Report that was discussed through the meeting was what to do about buffering between the neighboring properties and the parking lot. The Report reads that the applicant “shall reimburse costs of trees and/or other botanical landscaping, including planting along the adjacent property lines… in an amount not to exceed $58,760. This is $121 per linear foot of adjacent property….”
The question was whether homeowners should provide their own landscaping, trees or other buffers, then be reimbursed by the applicant; or should the applicant provide the landscaping on residents’ properties; or should landscaping buffers be provided by and placed on the applicant’s property.
Ultimately, aldermen decided that the applicant should pay for the landscaping and that it should be on the applicant’s own property, not the residents’.
The vote is taken
“I will now reiterate what we’re doing,” Levin said before the vote. “Before us is a motion to substitute the Majority with the Minority Report.”
The vote was a tie of 6 to 6 with two absences to accept the Minority Report. Levin broke the tie, voting with the Minority Report.
Those who voted with the Minority Report were Aldermen Marti Deuter (1st Ward), Bob Dunn (2nd), Dannee Polomsky (3rd), Noel P. Talluto (4th) and Tina Park (5th), James Neudara (5th).
Those who voted with the Majority Report were Aldermen Jacob Hill (2nd Ward), Christopher Jensen (3rd), Emily Bastedo (6th), Michael Honquest (6th), Mark A. Mulliner (7th) and Mike Brennan (7th).
(Aldermen Jennifer Veremis (1st) and Brian P. Cahill (4th) were absent.)
Discussion will continue at a future meeting of the Elmhurst City Council.
[Ed. note: Due to press deadlines, the Independent was unable to get the exact names of those who spoke during public forum. We apologize if some are misspelled.]
