Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planned Development Shermer Road topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan commission forwards final plan for 1657 Shermer Road to trustees after 4–1 recommendation
Summary
Plan Commission members voted to forward a final‑plan recommendation for the north portion of the development at 1657 Shermer Road to the Village Board after a 4–1 vote, but staff said the result will register as a non‑positive recommendation because the commission did not reach five concurring votes.
Plan Commission members voted to forward a final-plan recommendation for the north portion of the development at 1657 Shermer Road to the Village Board after a 4–1 vote, but city staff said the result will register as a non‑positive recommendation because five concurring votes are required for a positive recommendation from the nine‑member commission.
The commission considered the final planned development for the site that was rezoned in 2023 and previously approved at concept stage for a four‑story, 45‑foot building (now with a screened rooftop mechanical assembly raising screened height to 50 feet) to accommodate supportive affordable housing. Deputy Director Kolstad told the commission the final submittal applies only to the northern 1.5‑acre phase and that other phases would return for subsequent final‑plan review.
Kolstad said the final plan is “substantially in conformance” with the concept plan approved by the Board of Trustees and outlined changes since concept approval: a widened fire lane, an EV charging outlet in the parking plan, added outdoor bike racks and a bike room inside the building, and a raised parapet and panel screening to conceal rooftop mechanical equipment. Kolstad noted the revised parapet raises the screened height from the originally contemplated 45 feet to 50 feet, and added that 50 feet is an allowed height in the VGRC zoning district.
Commission discussion was brief. One commissioner said they welcomed the addition of affordable housing to Westbrook but expressed reservations about the building not being an “integrated” structure; the commissioner said they “almost abstain[ed], but I’m going to vote yes nonetheless.” No substantive changes to the final plan were requested by the commission.
The commission adopted draft Resolution No. 25‑PC‑02 as prepared by staff. The motion was seconded; the roll call resulted in a 4–1 vote to forward the resolution to the Board of Trustees. Deputy Director Kolstad explained the Commission’s action will be transmitted as a 4–1 recommendation because the Plan Commission’s membership is nine seats and five concurring votes are required for a positive recommendation.
The resolution and supporting final‑plan materials will be considered by the Village Board at a later meeting for final action.
