Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27/2005 P&Z mintues 02-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-O2-05 Hearing Date: January 27,2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1-17 S. Emerson Street PETITIONER: Bruce Adreani (of Norwood Builders) Founders Row, LLC 7458 N. Harlem Ave. Chicago, IL 60631 PUBLICATION DATE: January 12,2005 Journal/Topics PIN #: 08-12-104-001/-002-003/021-0000 REQUEST: CU approval for a PUD and other relief from the Village Code as may be required for the proposed 14-unit rowhome development MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner . Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Bruce Adreani, Diane Becker, Jim Beloklon, Mike Breclow, Barbara & Melvin Fisher, Jim Kapustiak, Christine Kuttzolt, Wanda Leopold, Bill Loftus, Mike Miller, Jenny Mulek, Ed Pfingsten, Jennifer Tammen, Judy Schreiber, Beverly Zapfel, Linda Venticinque, Rich Scholl, and Linda Waycie Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the revised minutes of the October 28, 2004 meeting. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion, which was approved 4-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros, Matt Sledz and Keith Younquist. Matt Sledz moved to approve the minutes of the November 11, 2004 meeting. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion, which was approved 5-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros and Keith Younquist. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-02-05, a request for Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development and other relief from the Village Code as may be required for the proposed 14-unit rowhome development. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the Staff Report. She said that the Subject Property is located at the northeast comer of Busse Avenue and Emerson Street, and consists of multiple vacant lots and a parking lot. The Subject Property is zoned B5 Central Commercial and is bordered by the B5C District to the west, the Library and Village Hall, RA Single Family District to the north and east, and R1 Single Family District to the south. The Village Board adopted the Mount Prospect Downtown Strategic Plan in 1998. The Strategic Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan and it created a vision for downtown redevelopment based on work by the Ad Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 2 Hoc Committee with input from the residents of Mount Prospect. A great deal of work on downtown redevelopment has been completed since the plan was adopted. The plan was revisited last year and an ad hoc committee confirmed that the redevelopment of the Subject Properties include rowhomes, with the buildings oriented to the street and the garages al)d vehicle access oriented to the rear. Ms. Connolly summarized the review procedure for a PUD and said that it requires review and recommendation by the P&Z Commission and final action by the Village Board. She said that when reviewing the current application, the P&Z Commission should consider that the Village Board selected the Petitioner's Request For Proposal submittal (RFP) through a competitive process involving 8 development teams. Also, traffic patterns on Emerson Street are under review and Staff is evaluating the feasibility of modifying the Emerson Street cross section between Central Road and Busse Avenue. Ms. Connolly summarized the Petitioner's exhibits and said that the Petitioner is proposing a rowhome development consisting of two clusters of 7 units, 14-units total; there would be two floor plans: both plans include basements and 3-bedrooms. However, one floor plan would include the option of having 2 additional bedrooms on the third floor; 2 and 3 car detached garages, accessed from a shared private drive; each unit would have its own backyard and patio. The Village's adopted Streetscape Program would be installed along Emerson Street and Central Road, but the development would include landscaping of private areas as well. The proposed development is consistent with the Village's Downtown Strategic Plan, which calls for the Subject Property to be developed with rowhomes. The Petitioner is seeking approval for the proposed Planned Unit Development, which consists of 2 clusters of 7 -units each, located on multiple lots of record. The buildings would front onto Emerson Street, with vehicle access from the private drive that is located behind the rowhomes. The Petitioner's site plan indicates that the private drive would accommodate 2-way traffic and would be accessed from Emerson Street and Central Road. Ms. Connolly reviewed the Village's Zoning Ordinance bulk regulations for the development and noted that the proposed development does not have a setback requirement. However, the Petitioner's site plan indicates that the buildings would have staggered setbacks. The buildings would have no less than a 15' front setback and the stairs leading up to the units would be setback no less than 7'. However, the Petitioner revised the site plan since the Staff Report was written and will review the changes during their presentation. The exhibits indicate varying heights for the buildings. The lowest part of the roof measures 30' from the mid- point, but extends to 32'2" from highest point of the roof. However, the B5 District allows a maximum building height of 30 feet and the Petitioner's elevations indicate that the building height would exceed this limitation. The color elevations indicate that the style of the proposed buildings would be in keeping with other buildings constructed as part of the downtown redevelopment and include elements of each project. The exhibits indicate that the front elevations will be all 'Modular Brick', which is another name for standard residential brick. However, sections of the rear elevations, side elevations, and some of the garages list 'Man Made Shake Siding' as building materials. It is important to note that the building materials submitted as part of the RFP review process differ from the materials listed on the Petitioner's exhibit. Therefore, the building materials must be finalized prior to Village Board review to ensure the proposed building materials are the same as the materials presented to the Village Board as part of the RFP process. Vehicles would access the detached garages via an "L" shaped private driveway with curb cuts on Central Road and Emerson Street. The Engineering Division has requested that the Central Road access be widened to 24' and that the Central Road access be restricted to right-in/right-out only movements. In addition, the Strategic Plan calls for the installation of a public park to the south of the Subject Property where the two single family homes currently exist. Provisions should be made that at such time that the park is installed that the Subject Property's private drive shall be extended south to Busse Avenue and that the segment accessing Emerson Street shall be incorporated into the park. Ms. Connolly stated again that the Petitioner has revised the exhibits since the Staff Report was written and would review the changes. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 3 The Petitioner's Landscape Plan provides a concept of the proposed landscaping to be installed. However, the plan does not incorporate the Village's Streetscape Plan and the correct improvements to be made on Emerson Street and Central Road. Also, the plan does not specify the screening required along the east lot line. Prior to Village Board review, a revised detailed landscape plan listing materials and sizes must be submitted for Staff review. In addition, the revised plan needs to include additional trees throughout the development, have the Central Road 'parkway trees' located on private property, south of the sidewalk, and identify the screening along the east lot line. The proposed development calls for 14 units on the 1.6 acre site. The Zoning Code allows a maximum density of 16 units per acre in the B5 District. The proposed density complies with zoning regulations. The Village's Zoning Ordinance requires 2.5 parking spaces for residential developments with 2-3 bedrooms. The unit mix is not confirmed at this time, but the Petitioner's site plan indicates that vehicles will be parked in either a 2-car or 3-car garage. The Fire Department has required that parking be prohibited in the private drive. The project does not include Guest Parking, however there is on-street parking along Emerson Street in addition to the Village parking deck. The Petitioner's revised exhibits indicate a 'lift' may be installed in the garage to accommodate additional vehicles, which they will review as part oftheir presentation. In response to Staff comments, the Petitioner proposes to create a 7' easement along the north lot line of the Subject Property to allow for the continuation of the Village's Streetscape Program. A 7' wide public sidewalk will be installed; however, physical constraints require the parkway trees to be located on the private property. As previously stated, Staff is currently evaluating Emerson Street traffic patterns. Although the design has not been finalized, 5.5' from the east side of Emerson Street must be dedicated to ensure proper traffic lane widths and to allow for the installation of the Village's Streetscape Program. Ms. Connolly said that the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standards and said that the development is designed to complement the existing and future downtown developments in addition to generating pedestrian activity and multiple-use trips. Although the Mount Prospect Downtown Strategic Plan calls for the rowhome development to extend from Central Road to Busse Avenue, the Petitioner's proposal is in keeping with the plan. Also, the rowhome development provides a transitional land use between the existing single-family residential homes and the surrounding commercial and institutional uses. The development will have a positive effect on nearby properties and continue to stimulate the development of the downtown area. Therefore, the development will have a limited adverse impact on the adjacent neighborhoods, utility provision or public streets. Subject to compliance with the conditions of approval, the proposal will comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Petitioner's request for Planned Unit Development proposal and proposed building height, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner has since revised their plans to address most of the conditions listed in the Staff Report. She said that the latest revisions indicate that the Petitioner is seeking relief from storm water detention requirements. However, the request was not based on a hardship as required by the code. She asked that the Petitioner review the revised exhibits and identify any conditions not met but listed in the staff report. Ms. Juracek asked why the original submittal did not include the request for relief from stormwater detention. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner thought the property was exempt from onsite stormwater management based on the development of the neighboring property. Ms. Connolly said the Development Code reads B5C Districts are not required to provide stormwater detention. On January 25, the Petitioner submitted revised exhibits seeking relief from stormwater detention, citing the reason that the properties across the street are exempt from the requirement. The Planning & Zoning Commission would need to recommend approval and the Village Board would need to grant relief if it was determined there was a hardship. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 4 Mr. Rogers asked ifthere would continue to be parking allowed along Emerson Street in front of the rowhomes. Ms. Connolly said at this time there were no plans to eliminate the public parking on the street. Mr. Donnelly asked if emergency vehicles will use the private drive of the project and if they had approved it. Ms. Connolly said the Fire Chief has tentatively approved the drive with one change, a striped 'pork chop' design instead of a raised design. Keith Youngquist asked how refuse would be handled. Ms. Connolly said the garbage containers would go in the private drive on garbage day for pick-up, not on Emerson Street. There was discussion regarding overnight guest parking with no immediate solution. Ms. Juracek swore in speakers for the petitioner and asked that they identify themselves when they presented. Bruce Adreani, 7458 N. Harlem Avenue, Chicago, IL introduced himself as the owner of Norwood Builders and Petitioner for the project known as Founders' Row. He introduced the Norwood staff members. Jennifer Tammen, Director of Planning for Norwood Builders, 7458 N. Harlem Avenue, Chicago, IL, addressed the P&Z. She said the planned luxury rowhomes of this development would be an aesthetic addition to, not just the downtown, but also the entire Mount Prospect community. Ms. Tammen itemized other recent downtown projects that have been, or are near completion. She reviewed the Vision Statement of the 1998 Strategic Plan that included rowhomes in the downtown. Ms. Tammen reported on current market conditions and how this project makes a 'good fit' at this time. She said Norwood agrees to all conditions listed in the Staff Report except item "f', as they were requesting some relief or modification from stormwater detention requirements on the grounds that the rowhomes are a downtown property like the other properties that did not have to provide detention. Ms. Tammen stated that, given the size of the land in relation to the project, any extensive stormwater management would be a hardship. The second item they would ask relief from is extending the private drive to Busse Avenue in the future. They would like to explöteother options that would not affect theír sale to a homeowners association. She said that this is new item and they have not had time to consider alternative solutions. Mike Breclow, Director of Design and Partner at OKW Architects, 600 W. Jackson, Chicago, spoke next. He said that the project is located between institutional uses on one side and residential uses on the other. They looked to historic precedent set in Chicago and Boston rowhomes for guidance. He discussed the generous and staggered setback allowances and choice of trees, lined up with the home entrances, for the streetscape. The simple, yet timeless façade is robust enough to stand up to the institutional uses surrounding it, the entrances neighborly, yet opaque. Each rowhome has a private rear yard and both end units have generous side yards. The fIrst floor of each unit is about 4-1/2 feet above grade and there is an English basement allowing for plenty of daylight to enter the basement. The end units have opportunities for side windows and have 3-car brick garages and a I-story rear building extension. There would be at least 5' of walkway and a recessed gate between each garage. Also, there would be a painted metal fence between each sideyard. .Mr. Breclow briefly described the generous floor plans, noting that each basement would be capable of being finished and having a bathroom added at a later date. Ms. Tammen came back to the podium to show an example of the lifts available for installation in the garages should buyers desire space for more cars. She explained that the automatic photocell lights outside of the garages would be on one circuit that operates simultaneously without spilling onto neighbors' property. She said this ended their formal presentation and they would answer any questions put forth by the P&Z Commission. Richard Rogers asked Ms. Tammen if they had done any parking or traffic studies for this project. Ms. Tammen said no, they had not. Mr. Rogers asked why they had built all these projects in the downtown area without exploring avenues for extra guest parking. Ms. Tammen said that with each project they have provided the parking required by Code and did not feel it was in their purview to tell the Village what to provide in the way of street parking or in the new parking garage. They did try to be innovative with the idea of parking lifts, which cost about $15,000 to $20,000, and would be available as an option in the 2-car garages, which would need to be made 18" higher to accommodate one; the door does not need to be any larger. Joe Donnelly asked about building codes for the use of these lifts and said that a Variance was required to install one in Chicago. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 5 The Norwood reps said they were not familiar with these regulations. Extensive discussion followed regarding building heights. It was determined that the general midpoint is at 32'. Keith Youngquist asked who the target customer of these rowhomes would be. Christine Kuttzolt, Director of Sales and Marketing, responded. She said their previous experience in Mount Prospect afforded them the opportunity to discover what many people are looking for in this area and until now has not been available - a true, luxury rowhome. The typical buyers would be the 45-64 year old homeowners living in Mount Prospect, empty-nesters, whose children have gone off to college; they mayor may not be commuters, down-sizing or possibly upsizing their lifestyle, not yet ready to throw in the towel, looking for that semi-urban lifestyle. Ms. Kuttzolt said many potential buyers have contacted her already. Mr. Floros asked the probable price of the rowhomes. Ms. Kuttzolt said they are working on pricing and, subject to prices of the varied choices of optional construction elements going into the units, they will probably start in the high $500's. Ms. Juracek said if the Petitioners' presentation were complete, that she would open the hearing to the public. She did so by reading a note from Ms. Mary Alice Neitzke, 6 South Maple Street, asking to be read as part of the public record. Ms. Neitzke's letter stated she requests: 1) A brick fence/wall between her rear yard and the private driveway; and 2) Lighting be done in a manner that does not 'light-up' her yard - prefers the lighting be installed at the garage level. Ms. Tammen said they could not support a brick wall because it would require a 3-4 foot concrete footing, which they simply do not have the ground space for. With regard to the lighting, the garages will have ambient lighting similar to single family homes, not pole lighting. There was discussion regarding the fence and Ms. Connolly said her conversations with the residents indicated their concern that the fence will become an eyesore in the future and that the residents felt the rowhome association documents should address who should maintain a board-on-board fence in the future. Ms. Tammen said they will work with neighbors on maintenance issues. Mr. Rogers asked what Norwood could do to provide stormwater detention. Bill Loftus, Spaceco, addressed this question. He said they will be providing storm sewers throughout the property and tying in to downspouts where appropriate and eventually into the combined storm sewer in the street. He said what Ms. Tammen referred to as their being unable to provide stormwater retention was that they could not provide a large retention pond as is done in many suburban condo projects due to land space constrictions. .Mr. Rogers said they would look to Staff to provide further compromise in final plans. Mr. Donnelly asked why it was necessary for the excessive garage height. Mr. Breclow said it was to blend in with the gable pitch of the rowhomes. After some discussion about the height of the Lofts at Village Centre, the old Village Hall and the new Village Hall, Ms. Juracek opened the discussion to the audience. Ron Ditthart, 123 N. Emerson, Mount Prospect, said it appears the north 150' of this property will be the subject of a referendum that will appear on a ballot April 5. He said that 1,600 signatures have been filed at the Village and none have been contested. He said he had been active in circulating those petitions and he interviewed 77 in favor of the referendum. Of those, 75 in favor were in favor of keeping the area as a park and 72 were in favor of keeping the north 150' open with mature trees with grass as is now. He is asking on behalf of those 1,600 voters that approval of this project be continued until after the April 5 referendum. This would be a "no lose" situation because it would avoid the Board the embarrassment of approving something the overwhelming majority of voters oppose. Ms. Juracek reminded the group that this is the first step in the process for approval of the project. After this meeting, the request will go to the Village Board and the concerns of the voters would be noted. Penny Perliss, 500 Westwood Lane, was sworn in. She said that she has lived in Mount Prospect 35 years and her main concern is all the stairs associated with the rowhomes. She said she disagreed with the marketing group and that 45-64 year olds would not want any stairs. She said she also worked on obtaining signatures for the petition both times and nobody refused to sign the petition the second time around. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 6 Wanda Leopold, 107 William St., was sworn in. She said that she submitted a list of questions to the P&Z earlier and some of her questions have been answered. She asked if the Board could require the builders to use pervious materials in the driveways and alleys to absorb the water and use native landscaping. She said this project would be dangerous for surrounding properties accessing Central Road. She said she sent e-mails to National Arbor Day Foundation, regarding the consequences of destroying the nine trees on the property. She said she copied the Village and received an answer from Sandy Clark, Village Forestry Superintendent, who said that efforts would be made to save as many trees as possible. Ms. Leopold said she was sure that if Norwood setback the building line further, they could save the American Elm tree. Linda Venticinque, 10 South Maple Street, was sworn in. She said she has lived here since 1985 and that she is in favor of the proposed development. She said they have a problem with backing up to a parking lot, but do not experience any flooding/water problems. She stated that she was not approached to sign the petition to build a park instead of the rowhomes and that they welcome the new rowhome project. Rich Scholl, 12 South Maple, was sworn in. He said he thought rowhomes was the best use of the property. He said that 14 families as opposed to a parking lot is a higher and better use of the property. He said that he has lived in Mount Prospect since 1987 and that there were chain link fences along the parking lot that had been repeatedly knocked down. He said that the Bank had put up the board-on-board fence around 1994. His only reason for being at the meeting was the fence. He thinks the proposed project is a very good one and he wants to be sure the fence is replaced and hopefully with a wrought iron one for maintenance reasons. He feels that would fit in well with the project. Wes Pine hot, 747 Whitegate Court, was sworn in. He said that said he has lived in the Village for 40 years and is a licensed architect. He complimented Village Staff, particularly Judy Connolly who, he said, did a wonderful job with Petitioner's proposal. He said most people are not aware that these $500,00/$650,000 rowhomes/townhouses are going to be a glorified alley. He said the people on Maple Street will be overwhelmed with the high gable roofline and the Village sewers will be overtaxed with water. Also, the people will not be able to get out of their garages on snowy days. He said there isn't parking outside of the garages for people to wash their cars or for any reason. The Fire Department will not allow them to park in that alleyway so the people will park on Emerson Street. Mr. Pinchot asked the P&Z to consider these things when making their decision. Mel Fisher, 100 S. William Street, was sworn in. He said that the neighborhood experiences periodic flooding and cited an instance 12 years ago: on the comer of Owen and Busse, he helped float a car and tie it to a tree for its owner. He said now we've added deep tunnel, more water, and less retention. He said that he does not appreciate the looks of this tenement-like project. After hearing Mr. Cooney, Director of Community Development, talk about the downtown improvements and use the word 'ambience', he looked it up in his thesaurus and found out it meant: aura surrounding an area. Mr. Fisher said that the country club area has a beautiful new country club, but nobody in the triangle area is protecting the ambience here. He concluded by stating that each of you on the Board has that duty, and that he charges the Commissioners to think of ambience before chopping down trees. Burt Scholz was sworn in. He said that he has lived here since 1974 and collected petitions in favor of the park. He wants to use the Emerson area as open space to be enjoyed by this and future generations. He said we are one of the few suburbs to have such a jewel in the downtown area, that Arlington Heights has no open space. We should strongly consider keeping the area open and have no water retention, fence, or tree problems. Linda Waycie, 603 Windsor Dr., was sworn in. She said that she is a 20 yr. resident, and also gathered signatures for the petition and wants open space. She said the downtown would continue to get denser with more buildings, stores, and apartments and be more urban like the slides shown earlier. The residents want suburban areas not urban areas - less density, not high density, and open space, not buildings. She asked if a compromise couldn't be made to keep 9 trees and build just 12 units. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 7 Judy Schreiber, 817 Waverly, was sworn in. She said that London is a city full of parks and they refer to those parks as their "lungs". Mount Prospect needs "lungs", too. In Chicago, Michigan Avenue wouldn't have Grant Park or Millennium Park, either, if the commissions didn't plan ahead. It would just be buildings one on top of another right up to the lake. Sylvia Jonas, 1007 Willow Lane, was sworn in. She said she has been a legal resident of Mount Prospect for many years, but has been away in the military for 15 yrs. and recently returned. She said that she wasn't here when all these plans were made. She said that now when she comes downtown to go to the bakery she can't just park and go into the bakery. Or when she drives around downtown she has to be so careful of cars going in and out of parking places. She said she would probably not come downtown, but just go to the outlying Jewel and other stores for most purchases. Ms. Tammen returned to the podium to say this project is not to be thought of as a regular condo development. She said it is the type of quasi-urban setting where the car is left in the garage much of the time and the owner walks to the train or to the restaurant or library or Village Hall. Also, when there is a large snowstorm, the snow will not just be shoved to another part of the driveway, but that the association will have a contract to remove the snow to an off-site location. She asked Ms. Kuttzolt to address the question of stairs. Ms. Kuttzolt said stairs are a personal preference. She said some people prefer two-story living and some people prefer ranch home living whether they are 25 or 50. People who are baby-boomer generation are much more active than previous generations of the same age were. Ms. Juracek asked about fencing and the closing of Emerson Street during construction and a Norwood representative said it would probably not need to be fully closed for 24 hours. Ms. Tammen said they are absolutely open to suggestions and would work with the residents on Maple for a satisfactory solution. She said they were pleased to hear the nearby residents were amenable to the project. Mr. Donnelly said fence maintenance through the years would be an important issue, too. Pervious pavement substances and native landscaping plants also were discussed between the P&Z and the Petitioner's Engineer Bill Loftus. Mr. Loftus said that he didn't doubt Mr. Fisher's story about the floating car because it only took 24" of water for a car to float, but that 24" of water could be right next to a million dollar project and just blocked from getting into it by some poor planning. Mr. Breclow said a great deal ofland would be needed to do wetland landscaping. He said they would look into saving any magnificent specimen of trees. Mr. Rogers said this land has already been approved by the Village Board to be used for rowhomes and not something else to be considered by the P&Z at this time. Mr. Floros also brought up similar sentiments and said the Village was planning open space at the south end of this property. Ms. Juracek said she was also in favor of open space at the south end of the Emerson property. Matt Sledz said the proposed use is a totally inappropriate use for a suburban location. He said that if someone wants to live like this that they should move to Chicago or Boston. Richard Rogers said we are already committed because we are two-thirds into the downtown plan. Ms. Juracek said it is too late now to comment that the Comprehensive Plan is wrong when the rowhomes were approved many years ago. Ronald Roberts said he thought just seven rowhomes would be enough density. Ms. Juracek asked Ms. Tammen if that would be viable. Ms. Tammen said the project would not be viable at less units. Burt Scholz addressed the P&Z again and said that the downtown area plans can be changed, that they are not cast in concrete, and asked the P&Z to step back and look at the problems. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 8 Wes Pine hot said the Village Staff has an obligation to see to it that the rowhomes must comply with water retention and parking. Bruce Adreani came to the podium and said he works hard to get things done and he felt good because of the people who lived on Maple Street and came out to the meeting tonight and said they approved of the project and didn't have water problems and didn't anticipate any future problems. There was discussion regarding the size of the proposed detached garages. Several of the Commissioners stated the size was inappropriate for the project. There was discussion regarding modifying the proposal to have the garages comply with Village regulations. Some Commissioners stated that the style of the garage was appropriate for the type of project (rowhomes) and that changing the roofline would detract from the project. Joe Donnelly moved to modify the proposal so the garages would meet zoning regulations. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, and Sledz NAYS: Cotten, Rogers, Youngquist, Juracek Motion failed 3-4. Richard Rogers moved to approve a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development for the proposed 14-unit rowhome development subject to the conditions list is the staff report, but modified to require 50% storm water detention, and include: 1) the Petitioner work with the neighbors to resolve issues regarding a fence (type, maintenance) along the east lot line and 2) the Petitioner shall try to preserve as many existing tress as possible at 1-17 S. Emerson St., Case No. PZ-02-05. Leo Floros seconded the motion. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Sledz Motion was approved 6-1. At 11:45 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner C:IDocuments and SettingslkdewislLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLK2IPZ-O2-05 ]-17 S Emerson St Rowhome Developmentdoc