Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westmont planning commission continues review of 12-unit proposal at 306 North Cass to Feb. 4
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission continued public hearing PCC0162025 for a proposed 12-unit rental at 306 North Cass Ave after discussion of parking, density (12 units proposed vs. 8 by right), setbacks, open space shortfall and retaining-wall/stormwater issues. Commissioners asked for revised elevations and materials before the Feb. 4 special meeting.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Michael Gatto, representing the contract purchaser and development team for Campano LLC, presented plans for a 12-unit, all-rental building at 306 North Cass Avenue and requested a preliminary subdivision to consolidate five lots, a major site-plan approval and three variances in the R4 General Residence District: a 5-foot front-yard setback reduction (from 25 to 20 feet), a density variance (proposed 12 units where the site yields eight units by right) and a variance for outdoor open space.
Planning staff (Scott) corrected the case number to PCC0162025 and summarized key project metrics: the site is about 0.475 acres (≈20,000 sq ft), the petitioner proposes 12 units (≈1,722 sq ft per unit vs. the R4 standard of 2,500 sq ft/unit), building footprint just under 6,000 sq ft, building height about 32 feet (below the 35-foot maximum), required parking of 18 spaces (19 provided), and an outdoor open-space requirement of 3,000 sq ft (250 sq ft per unit) versus approximately 2,270 sq ft offered by the applicant (about 75–76% of the requirement). Staff also noted recent village text amendments removed the need for on-site stormwater detention for this project but county BMPs remain required.
During public comment, neighbor Wayne Newton raised concerns about stormwater runoff and asked who owns the adjacent retaining wall; staff and village counsel said the retaining wall is on the Mrs. T’s property to the south. Commissioners asked detailed questions about parking and circulation, fire access, garbage-truck turning, building elevations and materials, usable open space calculations, and BMP sizing. Commissioner Peterson said he was uneasy that a fully occupied building could generate about 24 cars while only 19 spaces are provided; staff and the applicant said parking would be assigned to units and overflow could be managed by reserved guest spaces at site-plan stage.
The applicant offered to revise the east elevation and bring photos of recent façades and material samples to the next hearing. Staff provided BMP dimensions (rear BMP ~49×40 ft; front BMP ~13×32 ft) and said final engineering details are in the engineering drawings. The applicant said they plan conduit to every parking space for compliance with expected EV requirements and will install two chargers initially. The applicant also described options to address the adjacent retaining wall if excavation or additional support is required but said agreements with the adjacent owner would likely be necessary.
After discussion, Commissioner Simpson moved and the commission seconded to continue public hearing PCC0162025 to a special meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Feb. 4, 2026 for consideration of the rezoning/map amendment (to rezone three of five parcels from R3 to R4) and to allow the applicant to provide revised elevations, material examples and any required plan revisions. The roll-call vote recorded unanimous support: Commissioner Peterson (yes), Commissioner Lynn (yes), Commissioner Donahue (yes), Commissioner Simpson (yes), Commissioner Thomas (yes) and Chairperson Carmichael (yes).
What’s next: The commission asked the applicant to provide revised east elevation drawings, sample photos of recent projects, and clarified BMP/engineering details; staff said all documents and any revisions would be posted in the village agenda center ahead of the Feb. 4 special meeting. If revisions are incomplete the commission may continue that meeting further; otherwise staff expects a recommendation vote at the special meeting and a subsequent Village Board consideration.

