Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. NEW BUSINESS 1/6/04 illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JANUARY 2, 2004 RESTRICTIVE COVENANT - STREET LIGHTS 600 SEE GWUN (MOUNT PROSPECT GOLF COURSE) MOUNT PROSPECT PARK DISTRICT - APPLICANT The Development Code requires the Applicant to improve the right-of-way as part of the redevelopment of the Mt. Prospect Golf Course. However,.,,the exi§ting streetlight system does not exist in this immediate area, therefore installing the streetlights at this time would not be practical. The Village Code has provisions for instances where this type situation arises and allows for the installation of the required improvement at a later date. Attached please find a copy of the Restrictive Covenant where the Applicant agrees to pay for the installation of the required streetlights when the Village requires such improvement. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their January 6, 2004 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. H:/J>LANXCovenant MEJ Memo (600 See Gwun - MP Golf Course) doc William'J~CoSney, Jr., AIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BY AND BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS AND THE MT. PROSPECT PARK DISTRICT REGARDING COMPLETION OF REQUIRED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SAID PROPERTY 600 SEE GWUN WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 15 entitled Subdivision, Development and Site Improvement Procedures of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois certain public improvements are required to be constructed and installed by owners and developers of property within the Village; as part of the approval for the development of such property; and WHEREAS, the schedule for accomplishing the construction and installation of such public improvements by the owner-developer of the property under development is often in conflict with other public improvement projects adjacent to or within the vicinity of said property so as to render the accomplishment of such public improvements by the owner-developer to be practically or economically unfeasible until the same can be combined with or scheduled so as to conform with such other public improvements affecting the subject property under development; and WHEREAS, such other public improvement projects are administered by the Village, County or State, officials over which the owner-developer has no control, and in some instances those improvements to be accomplished by the owner-developer with respect to the property under development cannot be completed until the other improvements under Village, County or State control have been accomplished; and WHEREAS, under such circumstances, it is deemed to be inequitable to delay development of the property under development or to require the owner-developer to establish a cash escrow, letter of credit or improvement bond for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of required public improvements due to the delay caused by the intervening or subsequent accomplishment of other public improvement projects under administration and control of the Village, County or State; and WHEREAS, Chapter 15 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois provides that in lieu of a cash escrow, letter of credit or development bond, the owner-developer may execute a restrictive covenant to be recorded and to run with the land as a guarantee that the required public improvements shall be completed with respect to the property under development. NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the said Chapter 15 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois, the Mt. Prospect Park District does hereby covenant with the Village of Mount Prospect, an Illinois municipal corporation, as follows: 1. The Mt. Prospect Park District is the Owner and Developer of the following described property within the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, to wit: Block 23 in Prospect Park Country Club Subdivision being a subdivision of the Southeast Quarter of Section 11 and the South 15 acres of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 11, all in Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded July 10, 1926 as Document 9335147 in Cook County, Illinois. 2. A plan of development of the described property by the Mt. Prospect Park District has been approved by the Village of Mount Prospect, which approval includes the completion of the following public improvements contained in and provided as a part of the plans, to wit: To purchase and install street lights according to and as required by Village Code when requested to do so by the Village of Mount Prospect. 3. For a period of twenty (20) years commencing from the date hereof, the Mt. Prospect Park District shall undertake the above-stated improvements within sixty (60) days after being so advised by the Village of Mount Prospect to commence such construction and installation work, and shall continue said work without interruption or delay, until the improvements are completed in a satisfactory manner and in accordance with Village plans and specifications pertaining thereto. 4. This Covenant to complete the said public improvements as herein contained shall run with the said property; and for the period of time as set forth herein. Nothing in this Covenant shall in any way prevent the alienation or sale of the subject property or any portion thereof, except that said sale shall be subject to the provisions hereof and to the plan of development pertaining to the property, and the new owner shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. 5. This Covenant shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns in title and interest and the provisions hereof shall be enforceable in a proceeding at law or in equity against the person or persons seeking to violate the same including an action for injunctive relief, specific performance or to recover damages or other fines and penalties as may be established in such violation. In the event that the Mt. Prospect Park District fails to complete the required improvements or pay a proportionate share of the required improvements by other contractors within the specified time periods herein, the value of sUCh improvements shall be entered as a lien against the property due and payable within sixty (60) days after notification to proceed with the improvements. -2- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals this of ,20 day MT. PROSPECT PARK DISTRICT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DATE SIGNED VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS VILLAGE PRESIDENT DATE SIGNED ATTEST: VILLAGE CLERK Real Estate Index No. 08-11-414-001 -3- RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BY AND BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS AND THE MT. PROSPECT PARK DISTRICT REGARDING COMPLETION OF REQUIRED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SAID PROPERTY 600 SEE GWUN WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 15 entitled Subdivision, Development and Site Improvement Procedures of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois certain public improvements are required to be constructed and installed by owners and developers of property within the Village, as part of the approval for the development of such property; and WHEREAS, the schedule for accomplishing the construction and installation of such public improvements by the owner-developer of the property under development is often in conflict with other public improvement projects adjacent to or within the vicinity of said property so as to render the accomplishment of such public improvements by the owner-developer to be practically or economically unfeasible until the same can be combined with or scheduled so as to conform with such other public improvements affecting the subject property under development; and WHEREAS, such other public improvement projects are administered by the Village, County or State, officials over which the owner-developer has no control, and in some instances those improvements to be accomplished by the owner-developer with respect to the property under development cannot be completed until the other improvements under Village, County or State control have been accomplished; and WHEREAS, under such circumstances, it is deemed to be inequitable to delay development of the property under development or to require the owner-developer to establish a cash escrow, letter of credit or improvement bond for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of required public improvements due to the delay caused by the intervening or subsequent accomplishment of other public improvement projects under administration and control of the Village, County or State; and WHEREAS, Chapter 15 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois provides that in lieu of a cash escrow, letter of credit or development bond, the owner-developer may execute a restrictive covenant to be recorded and to mn with the land as a guarantee that the required public improvements shall be completed with respect to the property under development. NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the said Chapter 15 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois, the Mt. Prospect Park District does hereby covenant with the Village of Mount Prospect, an Illinois municipal corporation, as follows: 1. The Mt. Prospect Park District is the Owner and Developer of the following described property within the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, to wit: Block 23 in Prospect Park Country Club Subdivision being a subdivision of the Southeast Quarter of Section 11 and the South 15 acres of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 11, all in Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded July 10, 1926 as Document 9335147 in Cook County, Illinois. 2. A plan of development of the described property by the Mt. Prospect Park District has been approved by the Village of Mount Prospect, which approval includes the completion of the following public improvements contained in and provided as a part of the plans, to wit: To purchase and install street lights according to and as required by Village Code when requested to do so by the Village of Mount Prospect. 3. For a period of twenty (20) years commencing from the date hereof, the Mt. Prospect Park District shall undertake the above-stated improvements within sixty (60) days after being so advised by the Village of Mount Prospect to commence such construction and installation work, and shall continue said work without interruption or delay, until the improvements are completed in a satisfactory manner and in accordance with Village plans and specifications pertaining thereto. 4. This Covenant to complete the said public improvements as herein contained shall run with the said property; and for the period of time as set forth herein. Nothing in this Covenant shall in any way prevent the alienation or sale of the subject property or any portion thereof, except that said sale shall be subject to the provisions hereof and to the plan of development pertaining to the property, and the new owner shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. 5. This Covenant shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns in title and interest and the provisions hereof shall be enforceable in a proceeding at law or in equity against the person or persons seeking to violate the same including an action for injunctive relief, specific performance or to recover damages or other fines and penalties as may be established in such violation. In the event that the Mt. Prospect Park District fails to complete the required improvements or pay a proportionate share of the required improvements by other contractors within the specified time periods herein, the value of such improvements shall be entered as a lien against the property due and payable within sixty (60) days after notification to proceed with the improvements. -2- vwl 1~31~3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENTS AT 600 SEE-GWUN AVENUE (MOUNT PROSPECT GOLF COURSE) WHEREAS, the Mount Prospect Park District has received approval from the Mount Prospect Village Board and appropriate departments necessary to redevelop Mount Prospect Golf Course property, located at 600 See-Gwun Avenue; and WHEREAS, Chapter 16 (Development Code) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect requires installation of street lights in conjunction with the development of property; and WHEREAS, in certain instances the installation of public improvements, including but not limited to street lights, is not feasible at the time of development, however the developer is required to provide those improvements as such time as the Village, Cook County, or Illinois Department of Transportation deems appropriate; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees have determined that the best interests of the Village would be served by having the developer enter into a Restrictive Covenant, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A", guaranteeing the installation of specified improvements at such a time as deemed reasonable and proper. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: ~ The Mayor and Board of Trustees do hereby authorize execution of a Restrictive Covenant, a copy of which Restrictive Covenant is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A", for property commonly known as 600 See-Gwun Avenue, which Restrictive Covenant guarantees the installation of public improvements in the form of street lights at such time deemed necessary. 600 See-Gwun Avenue Page 2/2 ~ The Village Clerk is hereby directed to record with the Recorder of Deeds, a fully executed copy of the Agreement being the subject of this Resolution. SECTION THREE: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2004. ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\CLKO\flles\WtN\RES\Restrictive Coy, Golf Course,Jan,04.doc Gerald L. Farley Mayor illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JANUARY 2, 2004 PZ-46-03 - 321 E. RAND ROAD: MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING) TO ALLOW A 4-UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT AM PINNACLE HOLDING - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve a Map Amendment to rezone the property located at 321 E. Rand Road (the "Subject Property") from R1 Single Family to R2 Attached Single Family to allow the construction of a four (4)-unit townhome development. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their December 11, 2003 meeting. The P&Z Commission discussed the Petitioner's request (as described in detail in the attached staff report). During the hearing the Petitioner presented a revised site plan and indicated that the latest plan would comply ~vith all zoning regulations for the R2 District and that the proposed building and related improvements would be constructed in compliance with all Village Codes. The P&Z Commission discussed how the proposed townhome development would be an appropriate transitional use from the Rand Road corridor to the existing single-family residential neighborhood to the west of the Subject Property. The P&Z Commission also briefly discussed the potential impacts of making Highland Street a two-way street (as would be required by the Village's Development Code). The P&Z Commission suggested that the Safety Commission would be the appropriate body to review the widening of Highland Street and all of the related traffic/safety issues, but also recommended that the issues related to improving/widening Highland Street be reviewed separately from the Petitioner's rezoning request. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the requested Map Amendment to rezone the Subject Property from R1 Single-Family to R2 Attached Single-Family, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff memo and the condition that the exterior of the building be constructed from brick. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their January 6, 2004 meeting, staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William ~. C6oney, Jl., AICP H:\PLAl~Planning & Zoning COMIVBP&Z 2003kMEI MeraosXPZ-46-03 MEI (321 E. Rind Road)~doe MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-46-03 Hearing Date: December 1 I, 2003 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 321E. RandRoad PETITIONER: Zack Joseph, for AM Pinnacle Holding Co. PUBLICATION DATE: November 26, 2003 PIN #: 03-34-206-002 REQUEST: Rezone property from R1 Single Family to R-2 Attached Single Family to allow the construction ora four (4) townhome unit development; and a Variation to permit a 20-foot rear yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTIES: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Zack Joseph Ed Kowalski Norman Toberman Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 13 meeting, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The minutes were approved 4-0, with three abstentions by Arlene Juracek, Merrill Cotton, and Matthew Sledz. At 7:32, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-46-03, a request for a Map Amendment to Rezone property from R1 Single Family to R-2 Attached Single Family to allow the construction of a 4-unit townhouse development and a Variation to permit a 20-foot rem' yard. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject Property is located at the southwest comer of the Rand Road and Highland Street. It contains a single-family residence and related improvements. The portion of the Highland Street right-of-way that runs along the northern edge of the Subject Property has not been dedicated; consequently the right-of-way and street pavement width are substandard. Highland Street currently functions as a one-way, eastbound only street along the northern edge of the Subject Property. Ms. Connolly reviewed the adjacent land uses and zoning districts. She summarized the Petitioner's proposal and noted that the Petitioner is in the process of demolishing the existing house and has applied for a building permit to construct a four (4) -unit townhome development. However, before construction of the proposed townhomes may begin, the Petitioner's request to rezone the Subject Property from R-1 Single-Family Residence to R-2 Attached Single-Family Residence must be approved by the Village Board following a recommendation and Public Hearing by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Although permits cannot be Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-46-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 issued for the proposed townhome project until the Village Board takes final action, the Petitioner is permitted to proceed with the demolition of the existing residence. Ms. Connolly reviewed the Petitioner's site plan and said that the development would consist of a single, 2-story building containing four units. Each unit would have its own separate entrance, but a single shared driveway would provide vehicle access to the development. The site plan indicates that each unit would have its own 3'x3' stoop in the rear yard. The proposal does not incorporate guest parking for the development. The elevations indicate that the townhomes will have peaked roofs of varying heights that do not exceed 28-feet in height from grade. Each unit will have a front-loading 2-car garage, accessed from the shared driveway off of Highland Street. The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of face brick and stone trim. Also, balconies will be included on the front and rear elevations. The Petitioner's site plan includes a shared driveway for all four (4)-units, with a single curb cut to/from Highland Street, The site plan indicates that the Highland Street right-of-way will be dedicated, as required by the Village's Development Code, but does not show the required improvements, which include widening the street and installing sidewalk. The site plan indicates that the shared driveway tapers to 18'6" where it intersects with the existing Highland Street pavement and then flares to a maximum width of 97-feet at its widest point, which is at the entrance to the garages. Ms. Connolly said that the north half of the Highland Street right-of-way has already been dedicated and improved. As part of the proposed townhome project, the south half of the street must also be dedicated and improved to Village standards. The site plan currently includes a shared driveway with a width of 18'6" where it would intersect with Highland Street, then flaring to a total width of 97-feet along the front of the garages. In addition, widening Highland Street as required by Village Code regulations may add additional traffic and turning movements from Rand Road. Currently, Highland Street is a one-way, eastbound street from Elm to Rand Road. Consideration should be given as to whether turning restrictions should be included as part of the road improvement project before Highland Street is widened. The Safety Commission would review this matter and forward its recommendation to Village Board for final approval. Also, the Petitioner is required to dedicate a portion of Rand Road to complete the 100-foot right-of-way. Rand Road would not be physically widened since IDOT previously improved the road without requiring the dedication of the additional Rand Road right-of-way. However, sidewalk and parkway trees would be installed along the Subject Property's east lot line. The Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that new landscaping will be planted in the right-of-way and on private property. However, the size of the plants is not clear. Also, additional year-round, mature materials must be planted to adequately screen the residences and provide a buffer from Rand Road. Ms. Counolly said that the Petitioner intends to demolish the existing home. She compared the differences between the R1 and R2 zoning district's bulk regulations. She noted that the primary difference between the Ri and R2 districts was the interior side yard requirement. She said that the R1 zoning district requires 10-feet or 10% of the lot width, whichever is less and the R2 district requires no less than 5-feet. Also, R1 permits up to 45% lot coverage while R2 permits up to 50% lot coverage. The petitioner's site plan indicates the townhomes and related improvements would cover no more than 43% of the Subject Property. The proposed townhome development meets all of the R2 District's bulk regulations except for the rear yard setback. The plan calls for a 20-foot rear yard when the minimum rear yard permitted in the R2 district is 25- feet. The 3'x3' stoops shown in the rear yard are permitted encroachments. However, the Zoning Code allows patios and/or decks to encroach in a required yard, but the structures must maintain a 15-foot setback. Since the project is well below the minimum lot coverage requirement, the Petitioner may want to explore the possibility Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-46-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 of increasing the size of the patios to a more usable size, while maintaining the required 15-foot rear yard setback and complying with the lot coverage limitation. Ms. Connolly summarized the Variation standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the Subject Property is located out of a floodplain and that the topography is relatively level. The proposed 20-foot rear yard does not meet the minimum setback regulations although the Petitioner has the opportunity to design a development that complies with all Village regulations. Therefore, the proposed 20-foot rear yard does not meet the standards for a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance because the Petitioner is creating the hardship and the need for a variation when the site could be redesigned so the units comply with the required rear yard setbacks. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Map Amendment. She said that the Subject Property is adjacent to existing single-family residences, abuts Gregory Park, and has frontage onto a major arterial road. The proposed four (4)-unit townhome development, with minor design modifications, would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property and would be consistent with recently approved developments to the south and east of the site. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property and provides an adequate transition from Rand Road to the Single Family Residential neighborhood. Although Rand Road is a significant commercial corridor, the Subject Property would not be conducive to commercial development due to its limited size and surrounding uses. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed rezoning meets the standards for a Map Amendment listed in the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Variation to permit a 20-foot rear yard fails to meet the standards for a Variation listed inthe zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, she said that Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board deny the Variation request to permit a 20-foot rear yard and approve the request to rezone the Subject Property from R1 to R2 subject to the following: 1) Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall provide a material sample board for Staff review and approval; 2) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of vacation that dedicates the Highland Street right-of-way and Rand Road right-of-way as required by the Development Code; 3) The site is developed in accordance with the elevations and plans prepared by TAP Architects, Ltd dated October 9, 2003 but revised to reflect: a. Right-of-way improvements as required by the Development Code; b. Additional year-round landscaping installed along the perimeter of the Subject Property (minimum 5-foot tall evergreens line the entire Rand Road frontage); c. Larger patios/decks in the rear yard without exceeding lot coverage limitations for the site; d. Revised driveway access design to/from Highland Street; 4) The units are constructed according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to, the installation of sprinklers; and 5) The Petitioner obtains permits from all appropriate agencies, including, but not limited to, IDOT and MWRD. The Planning & Zoning Commission asked Ms. Connolly several questions regarding landscaping and sidewalks as they related to future Park District and Christian Life College improvement plans. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-46-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4 Zack Joseph, 2817 Central, Glenview, IL, and Ted Pysiniak, TAP Architects, 6422 Glenwood Drive, Long Grove, IL were sworn in. Mr. Pysiniak said the townhomes were designed to blend with the architecture of the neighborhood. The design attempts to retain as many existing trees as possible as well as adding more trees. He clarified that the site plan had been modified since the Staff memo was received and that they are no longer seeking a Variation for a 20-foot rear yard. He said that the site meets all bulk regulations for the R2 zoning district. He said the townhomes are 3-bedroom units and will have all brick exteriors. They will have two-car garages and parking for two-cars in front of each garage. They will be marketed for approximately $350,000. Norman Toberman, 615 W. Rockwell St., Arlington Heights, IL, Engineer, reviewed the engineering plans at length. He provided details on how the site will drain, the proposed grading plan, and the storm water detention design. Ms. Juracek asked him if water runoff ~vould be diverted from the Christian Life property and Mr. Tobennan said it would. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience had questions. She asked the Petitioner if the Variation request had been withdrawn; Mr. Joseph confirmed the request was withdrawn. She then quoted an e-mail received from residents who live at 521 N. Elm Street, Ed and Lind Ruff, who presented their concerns regarding their view of the townhome development. Ms. Juracek stated that the landscaping condition recommended by staff would resolve the residents' concerns of seeing a parking lot from their backyard. Ed L. Kowalski, 513 Eastman Court, Mount Prospect, Architect, asked if there would be 3 & ½ baths, asphalt driveways, and a homeowners association. The responses to all questions were yes and Mr. Kowalski said thank you. Mr. Jacobs noted that a resident had called the Community Development Department and expressed concerns regarding safety mad traffic if Highland Street were to be converted into a two-way street. Ms. Juracek said that the Highland Street improvements and possible turning restrictions would be deferred to the Safety Commission for review. Ms. Juracek closed the hearing at 8:15 pm. Leo Floros made a motion to make a recommendation that the Village Board approve a request for a Map Amendment to Rezone the property from R1 Single Family to R-2 Attached Single Family to allow construction ora 4-unit townhouse development for Case No. PZ-46-03,321 E. Rand Road, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff memo and the additional condition to require the townhomes to have all masonry exteriors. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was approved 7-0. AYES: Cotton, Floros, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None At 8:45 p.m, Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Deputy Director, Community Development "Jt~l~ ~°Ohlnblp ~IC~P; Seiaior Pla~[ner H:~PLAN~lannlng & Zoning COMM~&Z 2003~Minut e~PZ~I6-03 321 E. R~d Rd-~ Pinnacle Holding Co.,doe .Village of Mount prospect Community DevelOPment Department CASE SUMMARY- PZ- 46-03 LOCATION: PETITIONER: OWNERS: PARCEL #: LOT SI?,F.: ZONIiNG: LAND USE: REQUEST: '321 E. Rand Road Zaeh Joseph AM Pinnacle Holding Company, Ltd 03-34-206-0024000 .47 acres (20,430.9 sq. ft. after street dedication) RI Single Family Residence One Single Family Residence Rezone to R2 Attached Single Family and construct four (4) townhome units, Variation to permit a 20-foot rear yard LOCATION MAP Judith Ann Dr~ve Village of Mount Prospect Community DeVelopment Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: H-EARING DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2003 DECEMBER 11, 2003 SUBJECT: PZ-46-03 - REZONING AND VARIATION 321 E. RAND ROAD (4-UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the December 11, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Zach Joseph (the "Petitioner"), regarding the property located at 321 E. Rand Road (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking: I) To rezone the Subject Property from R-1 Single-Family Residence to R-2 Attached Single-Family Residence; and 2) Relief from zoning bulk regulations to permit a 20- foot rear yard when the Zoning Ordinance requires a 25-foot rear yard. The P&Z Commission hearing was properly noticed in the November 26, 2003 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. . PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property, located at the southwest comer of the Rand Road and Highland Street intersection, contains a single-family residence and related improvements. The portion of the Highland Street fight-of-way that runs along the northern edge of the Subject Property has not been dedicated, consequently both the street's right-of- way and pavement widths are substandard. Given Highland Street's existing substandard pavement width, it currently functions as a one-way street (east bound only) along the northern edge of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is bordered by the CR Conservation Recreation District to the south (Gregory Park), the RA Single-Family Residence District to the west, the B3 Community Shopping and R-1 Single'Family Residence Districts to the north, and the R,2 Attached Single-Family Residence District to the east. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Petitioner is in the process of demolishing the existing house and has applied for a building permit to construct a four (4) -unit townhome development. However, before construction of the proposed townhomes may begin, the Petitioner's request to rezone the Subject Property from R-1 Single-Family Residence to R-2 Attached Single-Family Residence must be approved by the Village Board following a recommendation and Public Heari:~g by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Although permits cannot be issued for the proposed toxynhome project until the Village B.o.ard takes final action, the Petitioner is permitted to proceed with the demolition of the existing residence. PZ-46-03 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting December 11, 2003 Page 3 Site Plan - The attached site plan indicates the size and location of the proposed townhome development. The development would consist of a single, 2-story building containing four units. Each unit would have its own separate entrance, but a single shared driveway would provide vehicle access to the development. The site plan indicates that each unit would have its own 3'x3' stoop in the rear yard. The proposal does not incorporate guest parking for the development. Building Design - The enclosed elevations indicate that the townhomes will have peaked roofs of varying heights, but do not exceed 28-feet in height fi.om graded Each unit will have a fi.ont-loading 2-car garage, accessed fi.om the shared driveway (Highland Street fruntage). The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of face brick and stone trim. Also, balcunies will be included on the front and rear elevations. Site Access - The proposed site plan includes a shared driveway for all four (4)-units, with a single ~b-eut ~.~.. tO/fi.om Highland Street. The site plan indicates that the Highland Street right-of-way will be dedicated, as required by the Village's Development Code, but does not show the required improvements (widening the street, installing sidewalk, etc). The proposed site plan indicates that the shared driveway tapers to 18'6" where it intersects with the existing Highland Street pavement and then flares to a maximum width of 97-feet at its widest point, which is at the entrance to the garages. Right-of-Way Improvements - The north half of the Highland Street right-of-way has already been dedicated and improved. As part of this project, the south half of the street must als° be dedicated and improved to Village standards~ As noted above, the site plan currently includes a shared driveway with a width of 18'6" where it ':would int6mect with Highland Street, then flaring to a total width of 97-feet along the front of the garages. ' c6nsequep_t.!Y., if the required right-of-way improvements are made to Highland Street the driveway's narrow eonneetxon to Highland would be elunmated, resulting ia a 97-foot wide driveway approach to Highland (with eaCh unit/garage having direct access to the street). In addition, widening Highland Street as reqUired by Village Code regulations may add additional traffic and turning movements from Rand Road. Currently, Highland Street is a one-way, eastbound street from Elm to Rand Road. Consideration should be given as to whether turning restrictions should be included as part of the road improvement project before Highland Street is widened. The Safety Commission would review this matter and forward its recommendation to Village Board for final approval. Also, the Petitioner is required to dedicate a portion of Rand Road to complete the 100-foot right-of-way. Rand Road would not be physically widened since IDOT previously improved the road without requiring the dedication of additional Rand Road right-of-way. However, sidewalk and parkway trees would be installed along the Subject Property's east lot line. Landscape Plan - The Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that new landscaping will be planted in the right-of- way and on private property as part of the townhome development. However, the size of the plants is not clear. Also, additional year-round, mature materials must be planted to adequately screen the residences and provide a buffer from Rand Road. PZ-46-03 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting December 11, 2003 Page 4 GENERAL ZONING COMI~IJANCE The Petitioner intends to demolish the existing home, consequently the existing setback information may not be relevant. However, the following table provides zoning district information for the property's existing R-1 zoning classification and the proposed R-2 zoning classification. RI Single Family 112 Attached District Existing Single Family Proposed Minimum ' · Requirements Requirements SETBACKS: I i ' Front I 30' 44'(with unimproyed 30'I 31' (with improved __., right-of-way) I riLl?of-way) .-. I 0' or 10% of lot Interior width - which ever 48' Not less than 5' 20' is less ___ Exterior 20' ] 49'1 20'1 35.6' Rear I 25' I 33.6'1 25'_/ 20' DENSITY ........ ..... N/AIi N/Al 10unitsperacre[ 4unitsper.56acre ITl . 50% N'laxitn~ 43% COVERAGE The proposed townhome development meets all of the R2 District's bu!~k regulations except for the rear yard setback. The plan calls for a 20-foot rear yard when the minimum rear yard permitted in the R2 district is 25-feet. The 3'x3' stoops shown in the rear yard are permitted encroachments. However, the Zoning Code allows patios and/or decks to encroach in a required yard, but the structures must maintain a 15-foot setback. As indicated in the above table, the project is well below the minimum lot coverage requirement.. As such, the Petitioner may want to explore the possibility of increasing the size of the patios to a more usable size, while maintaining the required 15-foot rear yard setback and complying with the R-2 District's 50% lot coverage limitation. VARIATION STANDARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section !4.~03,C,9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: · A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; · Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and · Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Subject Property is located out of a floodplain and the topography is relatively level. The proposed 20-foot rear yard does not meet the minimum setback regulations although the Petitioner has the opportunity to design a development that complies with all Village regulations. Therefore, the proposed 20-foot rear yard does not meet the standards for a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance because the Petitioner is creating the hardship and the need for a variation when the site could be redesigned so the units comply with the required rear yard setbacks. PZ-46-03 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting December 11, 2003 Page 5 "~- .............. ~.~,~, MAP AMeNDMeNT STANDARDS The standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.a of the Village Zoning Ordinance. When a Map Amendment is proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make fmdings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to, but not limited to, the following matters: · The compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general area of the property in question; · The compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; · The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed' zoning classifications; · Consister~ with the trend of development in the general area of the propen'y in question, and the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. The Subject Property is adjacent to existing single-family residences, abuts Conservation Recreation (CR) park district property, and has frontage onto a major arterial road. The proposed four (4)-unit townhome development, with minor design modifications, would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property and would be consistent with recently approved developments to the south and east of the site. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property and provides an adequate transition from Rand Road to the Single Family Residential neighborhood. Although Rand RoadSs a significant commercial corridor, the Subject Property would not be conducive to commercial development due to its limited size and surrounding uses. .. RECOMMENDATION The proposed rezoning meets the standards for a Map Amendment listed in the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Variation to permit a 20-foot rear yard fail~ to meet the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board den,' the Variation request to permit a 20-foot rear yard and approve the request to rezone the Subject Property from R1 to R2 subject to the following: 1) Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall provide a material sample board for Staff review and approval; 2) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of vacation that dedicates the Highland Street right-of-way and Rand Road right-of-way as required by the Development Code; 3) The site is developed in accordance with the elevations and plans prepared by TAP Architects, Ltd dated October 9, 2003 but revised to reflect: a. Right-of-way improvements as required by the Development Code; b. Additional year-round landscaping installed along the perimeter of the Subject Property (minimum 5-foot tall evergreens line the entire Rand Road frontage); c. Larger patios/decks in the rear yard without exceeding lot coverage limitations for the site; d. Revised driveway access design to/from Highland Street; Z-46-03 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting December 1 I, 2003 Page 6 4) The units are con~imcted according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to, the installation of sprinklers; and 5) The Petitioner obtains permits from all appropriate agencies, including, but not limited to, IDOT and MWRD. The Village Board's decision is final for this ease, 321 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ46-03. I concur: .. ." k? ,~ ~ ~ Development William J. C~CP, Director of Communiv VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPEC T COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT- Planning-Division 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 PhOne 847-818-5328 FAX 84%818-5328 Map Amendment Request Common Address(es) (Street Num,ber, Street) Site Area (Ac.) Curr~nt Zoning Proposed Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Proposed) Proposed Dcvelogment and Land Usc. _.S_etbacks (Prop.) Front Rear Side Side Building Heig~, t Lot Coverage (%) # of Parking Spaces go '0 ~ o . Tax I.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(~) ~ dis ~ 3or- 2~.>6- c~oz.-c, ooo . Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) T~le~hone (day) ~2orporation "~ Telephone (evening) Co~omtion T~lephon~ (~wning) DeVeloper Attorney '&~ ~ [/ ~i~ ' ' N~e ~ ~ . Telephone (~y) Engineer N~e Telephone Ad.ess F~ Architect Ad.ess ' ~ ~ ' F~ Mount Prospect Department of Community Development I00 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847/392-6064 2escribe the Justification for the Proposed Map Amendment Please note that the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other mateHais have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time of submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm tha/tall information provided herein and in all materials submitted in asSociation with this application are true and accurate to the b~t of my ~wledge. ' If applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting materia~/~ Property Owner~__~ ~ Mount Prospect Department of Community Development I00 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Phone 847.818.5328 Fax847.818.5329 TDD 847/392-6064 ffidavit of Ownership COUNTY OF COOK ) ) STATE OF ILLINOIS ) I, .~Tt~ L~ .~~~-CC~ ~ , , Under oath, state that i am the sole ) an ) owner of the property .~. an authorized otT~cer commonly described as and that such property is owned by as of this date. Subscribed and sworn to before Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847/392-6064 · " 66~ E. Northwest Highway · Mt. t:kospect, iL 60056 · ' Phone: (847) 496-9935 · Fax: (g47) 486-9936 William I. Cooney, AICP Director Of Community Development Village Of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Dear Mr. Cooney, & Zoning Commission Recommended Approval Of My Request For A Map Rezone The Property Located At 321 E. Rand Road and Develop A 4 Unit Town · a 7-0 Vote. Our Case Is Scheduled To Go Before The Village Board For ,!Drdinance First Reading On 1/6/04. That The Village Board Waive The Second Reading, Tentatively Scheduled For The Second Village Board Meeting. And Take Final Action At The lanuary 6tn, 2004, Because I Would Like To Start My Project As Soon As Possible. Also We Would Like To Know If'We Are Able To Apply ['or a Permit For The Excavation & Concrete Work Ahead Of Time, Pay All The Necessary Fees & Start The Work While The Remaining Permits Are Still In Pt'ocess. I Appreciate Your Assistance In Facilitating This Request. Should You Have Any 'Q~estions Please Feel Free To Contact Me At 773/230-1048 Thank You Zach Joseph vwl 12/30/03 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 321 EAST RAND ROAD WHEREAS, Zack Joseph d/b/a AM Pinnacle Holding Company (hereinafter referred to as "PetifioneF3, has filed an application to rezone certain property generally located at 321 East Rand ROad (hereinafter referred to as "Subject ProPerty'S, and legally described as follows: The North 138 feet of that part of the SOutheast Quarter (1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of Section 34, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the center line of Rand Road, in Cook County, Illinois. Property Index Number: 03-34-206-002; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner has requested the Subject Property be rez°ned from R-1 (Single Family Residence) to R-2 (Attached Single Family Residence); and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for rezoning being the subject of PZ-46-03, before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 11th day of December, 2003, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 26th day of November, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendation to approve the request, to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have considered the request being the subject of PZ-46-03 and have determined that the best interests of the Village of Mount Prospect would be served by granting said request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The Official Zoning Map of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, as amended, is hereby further amended by reclassifying the property being the subject of this Ordinance from R-1 (Single Family Residence) to R-2 (Attached Single Family Residence) District. 321 E. Rand Road Page 2/2 SECTION THREE: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant the requested rezoning, as provided in Section 14.203.D.8.a. of the Village Code, subject to the following conditions: Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall provide a material sample board for Staff review and approval; Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of vacation that dedicates the Highland Street right-of-way and Rand Road right-of-way as required by the Development Code; The site is developed in accordance with the elevations and plans prepared by TAP Architects, Ltd., dated October 9, 2003, but revised to reflect: a. Right-of-way improvements as required by the Development Code; b. Additional year-round landscaping installed along the perimeter of the Subject Property (minimum five-foot (5') tall evergreens line the entire Rand Road frontage); c. Larger patios/decks in the rear yard without exceeding lot coverage limitations for the site; d. Revised driveway access design tofirom Highland Street; The units are constructed according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to, the installation of sprinklers; and The Petitioner obtains permits from all appropriate agencies, including, but not limited to, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD). SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2004. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley, Village President Velma W. Lowe, Vii!age Clerk H:\CLKO\fi[es\W1N\ORDINANC~REZONE 321 E Rand,twnhms,Dec,03.cloc illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JANUARY 2, 2004 PZ-48-03 - 103 S. MAPLE STREET CONDITIONAL USE - MUSEUM MOUNT PROSPECT HISTORICAL SOCIETY - PETITIONER The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve a Conditional Use that would allow the relocation of the existing Central Schoolhouse building to the property at 103 S. Maple Street (the "Subject Property") and the creation of a museum campus (consisting of the existing Historical Society and relocated Central Schoolhouse buildings). The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their December 11, 2003 meeting. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's request (as described in detail in the attached staff report), the required site and structure improvements, and the conditions of approval recommended by staff. There was lengthy discussion on how the Central Schoolhouse building would be physically relocated from its current location to the Subject Property. During review of the Petitioner's request it was noted that no additional on-site parking would be provided. To address the Village's parking requirements the Petitioner will pursue an off-site parking agreement with the Village to allow use of the Village's parking deck when necessary. The Petitioner stated that the Mount Prospect Historical Society agreed to all of the Conditions listed in the Staff memo. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the Conditional Use request to operate a museum at 103 S. Maple Street subject to the conditions listed in the Staff memo. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their January 6, 2004 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William' J./Cooney, Jr., ~ICP H:LPLANLPlanning & Zoning COM/~P&Z 2003~iE.~ Memos~PZ-~8-03 MEI (103 S Maple) doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-48-03 Hearing Date: December 11, 2003 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 103 S. Maple St. PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: Mount Prospect Historical Society November 26, 2003 PIN #s: 08-12-110-002-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use to operate a museum (former Central School building) upon relocation of the structure and relief from on-site parking requirements. MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTIES: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Gavin Kleespies Andrew Hommowun Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 13 meeting, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The minutes were approved 4-0, with three abstentions by Arlene Juracek, Merrill Cotton, and Matthew Sledz. At 8:20, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-48-03, a request for a Conditional Use to operate a museum on the Subject Property and relief from parking regulations. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Petitioner has requested Conditional Use approval to operate a museum and a Variation from the Village's parking regulations. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered by the RA Single Family Residential district to the north, south and east, and the B5C Central Commercial Core to the west. The Subject Property is a vacant lot and is located directly south of the Historical Society's existing facility. The Petitioner proposes to move the Central School from its current location at Wille and Thayer to the Subject Property and operate a museum. The Historical Society would use the proposed Central School museum as a part of their existing operation. The Village's Zoning Ordinance lists 'Cultural institutions, libraries, and museums' as a Conditional Use in the RA Single Family Residence district, which requires review and recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission and final approval by the Village Board. Ms. Connolly reported that the Subject Property is currently vacant, except for an accessory building located at the rear of the lot. The site plan indicates the proposed location and setbacks where the Petitioner would like to locate the Central School building. In addition, the Petitioner's architect has provided a photo 'Perspective' that superimposes the schoolhouse on the Subject Property. The Petitioner is in the process of completing a Planning 8: Zoning Commission PZ-48~03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 landscape plan that will indicate both the existing landscaping to be maintained as well as additional landscaping to be installed. The table in the staff memo demonstrates that the project would comply with all zoning bulk regulations and that the site is well under the maximum lot coverage limitation. Also, the building would be improved as required by Village regulations. According to' the Village's Zoning Ordinance, the petitioner is required to provide 4 parking spaces on-site. However, the Petitioner does not propose to provide the required spaces on-site and is in the process of obtaining approval from the Village to allow patrons to park in the nearly completed parking deck. The Zoning Ordinance allows off-site parking agreements subject to Planning & Zoning Commission approval. It should also be noted that the Village Code restricts parking on the east side of Maple Street between Northwest Highway and Central Road and parking is prohibited along the west side of Maple Street for the first 100' south of Central Road. In spite of these parking restrictions, there are sections of parking available on the west side of Maple Street and technically, vehicles could park on the street. An internal Village Staff review was conducted as part of the Conditional Use request. Staff comments were not related to the request so much, but related to how the proposed museum would be relocated and how it would be improved once it was relocated. The following issues do not need to be resolved as part of the Conditional Use request, but they must be resolved prior to the relocation of the Central School building. The Fire Department reviewed the request and found that the relocated building is required to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes, which includes the installation of automatic sprinklers and a fire alarm system. The Engineering / Public Works Department indicated that relocating the existing Central School building to 103 S. Maple Street represents a new building on the site. Therefore, the site would be subject to all applicable Development Code requirements. As with other projects, the development requirement that will most likely have the greatest impact on this proposal is the provision of stormwater detention. Also, the site plan does not show any site improvements except for the proposed building location. When the Petitioner applies for a building permit they must indicate whether there will be any service/sidewalks installed and if the necessary utility service connections have been considered. In addition, the Engineering/Public Works Department noted that the Petitioner's plans do not accurately indicate the location of existing trees on site, which must be corrected at time of permit. Also, when determining the route that will be used to move the existing Central School building, the potential damage to trees should be considered. Both the Engineering and Forestry Departments would like to be involved in the discussions concerning the path of travel so that an appropriate Tree Protection Plan may be determined and implemented. The project would comply with all zoning bulk regulations and the building would be improved as required by Village regulations. The table on the following page compares the Petitioner's proposal to the RA Single Family Residence district's bulk requirements. The Village's Zoning Ordinance requires 3.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for museums; however, the Petitioner does not propose to provide the required four parking spaces on-site. It should also be noted that Sec. 18.2005 of the Village Code prohibits parking on the east side of Maple Street between Northwest Highway and Central Road. In addition, parking is prohibited along the west side of Maple Street for the first 100' south of Central Road. Vehicles could park across the street from the proposed museum, between the Bank One driveways. To address the issue of parking the Petitioner is in the process of obtaining approval from the Village to allow patrons to park in the nearly completed parking deck. Per Sec. 14.2206 of the Zoning Ordinance, such an arrangement is permitted, but the Planning & Zoning Commission has to approve the agreement. An internal Village Staff review was conducted as part of the Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-48-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Conditional Use request. While the following issues do not need to be resolved as part of the Conditional Use request, they must be resolved prior to the relocation of the Central School building. The Fire Department reviewed the request and found that the relocated building is required to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes, which includes the installation of automatic sprinklers and a fire alarm system. The Engineering and Public Works Departments indicated that relocating the existing Central School building to 103 S. Maple Street represents a new building on the site. Therefore, the site would be subject to all applicable Development Code requirements. As with other projects, the development requirement that will most likely have the greatest impact on this proposal is the provision of stormwater detention. Also, the site plan does not show any site improvements except for the proposed building location. When the Petitioner applies for a building permit they must indicate whether there will be any service sidewalks installed and if the necessary utility service connections have been considered. It has been noted that the Petitioners plans do not accurately indicate the location of existing trees on site. The locations of these trees must be included on the site plan. When determining the route that will be used to move the existing Central School building, the potential damage to trees should be considered. Both the Engineering and Forestry Departments would like to be involved in the discussions concerning the path of travel so that an appropriate Tree Protection Plan may be determined and implemented. Ms. Connolly reviewed the standards for Conditional Uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the proposed museum would be an extension of the Historical Society's existing operation and programs. The Petitioner's proposal and additional information demonstrate that a museum on the Subject Property would not adversely impact the adjacent properties. By relocating the existing schoolhouse to this location and creating a museum campus setting, the Historical Society would preserve a historic building while also expanding its operation in a manner that is in keeping with the adjacent Single Family Residential neighborhood. Also, the size of the schoolhouse is smaller than the typical single-family house built today. The schoolhouse would meet the applicable setbacks and generate minimal traffic except when holding a special event. In those special situations, the Historical Society will direct patrons to park in the parking deck. Therefore, the proposed museum would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision or public streets and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed museum meets the Conditional Use standards listed in the Village's Zoning Ordinance subject to complying with the following conditions: 1) The site shall be developed in accordance with the plans prepared by DLK dated November 10, 2003; 2) The Petitioner shall submit a landscape plan for Staff review prior to applying for a building permit; 3) The Petitioner shall work with Staff when determining the travel path for relocating the schoolhouse and adhere to Staff's requirements for tree protection; 4) The Petitioner shall enter into an off-site parking agreement with the Village of Mount Prospect to ensure parking spaces are provided as required by the Zoning Ordinance; 5) The site and building shall be developed in accordance with all Village Codes, which include but are not limited to the installation of fire sprinklers. She said that based on this analysis and compliance with the conditions just reviewed, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use to permit a museum at 103 S. Maple Street, Case No. PZ-48-03. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Gavin Kleespies, 2555 W. Cortez, Chicago, Executive Director of the Mount Prospect Historical Society and Andrew Hommowun, 230 Ridgewood Court, Treasurer of the Society, were sworn in. Mr. Kleespies said the lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-48-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4 Historical Society currently owns the existing Central School building, but not the lot that it is currently located on, and that the schoolhouse will be demolished if it is not moved. They want to move it and use it as a museum. Richard Rogers asked about the steeple height and moving plans for overhead wires, etc. He noted that the tree in front of the property might prohibit the movers from accessing the property from Maple Street. Mr. Kleespies said they plan to bring the schoolhouse down streets that don't have overhead wires and that they may dismantle the steeple if needed. He clarified that the Historical Society would be working with a professional who specializes in relocating buildings. Leo Floros indicated that relocating the Central Schoolhouse building to the proposed location and the creation of a museum campus was an excellent idea. Mr. Kleespies thanked him and said there had been no opposition from the neighbors, only support. Mr. Youngquist agreed it was a good location for the building. Chairperson Juracek closed the hearing at 8:35 pm. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a Conditional Use permit to operate a museum on the Subject Property for Case No. PZ-48-03, 103 S. Maple St., subject to the five conditions imposed by staff Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotton, Floros, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 8:45 p.m, Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, sj~onded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was appr°ved bY a v°ice v°te and the meeting was adj°urned'/~//l ~/~ Ju~onnolly, )k CP, Senior Planner ~/// H:kPLAlq~[anning & Zoning COMM~&Z 2003WIinut¢$kl~Z-48-03 M1> Historical Society doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ-48-03 LOCATION: PETITIONER: OWNER: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: 103 S. Maple S~eet Mount Prospect Historical Society Village of MoUnt Prospect 08-12-I 10-002-0000 0.18 acres (7,855 sq. RA Single Family Residence Vacant Lot Conditional Use (Museum) & Variation (on-site parldng) to allow the relocation of the existing Central School building. LOCATION MAP I 2 4 $ 6 8 I0 14 16 19 20 II 22 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I! 12 13 14 Y7 l~r 2O 2~ 22 Busse Avenm iu~ I00 105 104 107 106 tO9 108 11~; 114 I 2 3 4 9 17 18 101 100 107 113 108 115 11l 117 114 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DECEMBER 5, 2003 DECEMBER 11, 2003 PZ-48-03 - CONDITIONAL USE (MUSEUM) & OFF-SITE PARKING AGREEMENT 103 S. MAPLE STREET (MOUNT PROSPECT HISTORICAL SOCIETY) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the December 11, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by the Mount Prospect Historical Society (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 103 S. Maple Street (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner has requested Conditional Use approval to operate a museum and a Variation from the Village's parking regulations. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the November 26, 2003 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the east side of Maple Street, between Busse Avenue and Northwest Highway, and is a vacant lot. The site is located directly south of the Historical Society's existing facility at 101 S. Maple Street. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered by the RA Single Family Residential district to the north, south and east, and the B5C Central Commercial Core (Bank One) to the west. The Subject Property is owned by the Village of Mount Prospect, but is leased to the Mount Prospect Historical Society. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Petitioner proposes to move the Central School from its current location at Wille and Thayer to the Subject Property and operate a museum. The Historical Society would use the proposed Central School museum as a part of their existing operation. The Village's Zoning Ordinance lists 'Cultural institutions, libraries, and museums' as a Conditional Use in the RA Single Family Residence district, thus requiring review and recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission and approval by the Village Board. Currently, the Subject Property is vacant (except for an accessory building located at the rear of the lot) and contains some mature landscaping. The enclosed site plan indicates the proposed location and setbacks where the Petitioner would like to locate the Central School building. In addition, the Petitioner's architect has provided a photo 'Perspective' that super-imposes the schoolhouse on the Subject Property. The Petitioner is in the process of completing a landscape plan that will indicate both the existing landscaping to be maintained as well as additional landscaping to be installed. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE Setbacks - The project would comply with all zoning bulk regulations and the building would be improved as required by Village regulations. The table on the following page compares the Petitioner's proposal to the RA Single Family Residence district's bulk requirements. PZ-48-03 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting December 11, 2003 Page 3 RA Single Family District Proposed Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' 37' 11'9" (north) Interior 5' 15'3" (south) Rear 25' 76.5' LOT COVERAGE 50% Maximum 23% Parking - The Village's Zoning Ordinance requires 3.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for museums; however, the Petitioner does not propose to provide the required four (4) parking spaces on-site. It should also be noted that Sec. 18.2005 of the Village Code prohibits parking on the east side of Maple Street between Northwest Highway and Central Road. In addition, parking is prohibited along the west side of Maple Street for the first 100' south of Central Road. Technically, vehicles could park across the s{reet from the proposed museum, between the Bank One driveways. To address the issue of parking the Petitioner is in the process of Obtaining approval from the Village to allow patrons to park in the nearly completed parking deck. Per Sec. 14.2206 of the Zoning Ordinance, such an arrangement is permitted, but the Planning & Zoning CommiSsion has to approve the agreement. ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS An internal Village staff review was conducted as part of the Conditional Use request. While the following issues do not need to be resolved as part of the Conditional Use request, they must be resolved prior to the relocation of the Central School building. The Fire Department reviewed the request and found that the relocated building is required to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes, which includes the installation of automatic sprinklers and a fire alarm system. The Engineering / Public Works Department indicated that relocating the existing Central School building to 103 S. Maple Street represents a new building on the site. Therefore, the site would be subject to all applicable Development Code requirements. As with other projects, the development requirement that will most likely have the greatest impact on this proposal is the provision of stormwater detention. Also, the site plan does not show any site improvements except for the proposed building location. When the Petitioner applies for a building permit they must indicate whether there will be any service/sidewalks installed and if the necessary utility service connections have been considered. In addition, the Engineering/Public Works Department has noted that the Petitioners plans do not accurately indicate the location of existing trees on site. The locations of these trees must be included on the site plan. When determining the route that will be used to move the existing Central School building, the potential damage to trees should be considered. Both the Engineering and Forestry Departments would like to be involved in the discussions concerning the path of travel so that an appropriate Tree Protection Plan may be determined and implemented. CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. The following list is a summary of these findings: Z-48-03 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting December 11,2003 Page 4 ,, The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; · The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; · Adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and · Compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. The proposed museum would be an extension of the Historical Society's existing operation and programs. The Petitioner's proposal and additional information demonstrate that a museum on the Subject Property would not adversely impact the adjacent properties. By relocating the existing schoolhouse to this location and creating a campus setting, the Historical Society would preserve a historic building while also expanding its operation in a manner that is in keeping with the adjacent Single Family Residential neighborhood. Also, the size of the schoolhouse is smaller than the typical single-family house built today. The schoolhouse would meet the applicable setbacks and generate minimal traffic except when holding a special event. In those special situations, the Historical Society will direct patrons to park in the parking deck, which is located less than 500ofeet from the Subject Property. Therefore, the proposed museum would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision or public streets and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION The proposed museum meets the Conditional Use standards listed in the Village's Zoning Ordinance subject to complying with the following conditions: 1) The site shall be developed in accordance with the plans prepared by DLK dated November 10, 2003; 2) The Petitioner shall submit a landscape plan for Staffreview prior to applying for a building permit; 3) The Petitioner shall work with Staff'when determining the travel path for relocating the schoolhouse and adhere to Staff's requirements for tree protection; 4) The Petitioner shall enter into an off-site parking agreement with the Village of Mount Prospect to ensure parking spaces are provided as required by the Zoning Ordinance; 5) The site and building shall be developed in accordance with all Village Codes, which include but are not limited to the installation of fire sprinklers. Based on the above analysis and compliance with the above conditions, Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use to permit a museum at 103 S. Maple Street, Case No. PZ-48~03. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. concur: ~[(['~l~'J~C'o~P,~;irector of Community Development VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COMMUNIT;'/ ' "~' ' ': ' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -~Planning Division · 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Application for Conditional Use Approval Z Case Number ~ P&Z "' ' ' Development Name/Address Date of Submission z.~ ,-, Hearing Date Address(es) (Street Number, Street) 103 '5 maMe GT' - II'IOCA ~T- Pf'dfiPECT a~Ild I01 Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) /o/,,-m-- 16. ¢.3EP [1/4 ~.~ Setbacks: Front Rear Side Side ~to' ti" ~ ~/"' Ig / 3" Building Height Lot Coverage (%) . . Number of Parking Spaces tt~f¢¢ Z¢/ 101, lo3 = z.z.,~ -'--"E- Adjacent Land Uses: North South East West , Tax I.~}. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) 0oo. 12.'-tlo -cr.C-.azx~ o Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) Name Telephone (day) ' Co~oration Telephone (e~ening) . Cig' j State Z~ Code Pa~er ' " ~o~ pcoP~ ~ 60o~& Interest in Prope~' Name Telephone (day) Corporation Telephone (evening) S~eet Address F~x: ~i~ State Zip Code ' Pager Developer Name Telephoae (day) Address Fax Attorney Name Telephone (day) Address' : Fax Survey0~ Name ~ ' ' ' ' Telephone (day) m~Sress ~ax Engineer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax · Name Landscape Architect Name Address Mount Prospect Department of Community Development lO0 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect lllinois ~,v',v.mount prospect .org Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.302.6064 Proposed Conditional Use (as listed inthe zoning distric0 Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and How the Proposed Use Meets the Attached Standards for Conditional Use Approval (attach additional sheets if necessarT) Hours of' Operation Address(es) (Street Number, Street) ! Site Area (Acres) Properly Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed Use  - Setbacks: .... ~" Front ' Rear Side Side ~" -- Building Height Lot Coverage (%) Number of' Parking Spaces Please note that the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staffso that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time of submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the propert3,' during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best~ my knowledge. Date Applicant . ... ~ · If applicant is not properts, owner: [ hereby desN_,nate the applicant toact as,m~he purpose of seeking the . ~ Variation(s) described in this application and the associated sup--~.orting material. Mount Prospect Depar~ent of Community Develo~ent Phone 847.815.5328 100 South Emerson Sffeet. Mount Prospect IllinOis Fax 847.$18.5329 www.mountprospect.org 3 TDD 847..~9_.600-* Affidavit of OWnership COUNTY OF COOK ) ) STATE OF ILLINOIS ) I, the sole an an authorized officer of the commonly described as ., under oath, state that I am ) ) owner of the property ) and that such property is owned by as of this date. Signature Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ,20~ Notary Public Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street. Mount Prospect Illinois v,',vw.mountprospect.org Phone 847.818.>~,8 Fax 847,818.5329 TDD847,392.6064 ,,Connoll~/, Judy From: Sent: To: Subject: MPHIST@aol.com Tuesday, December 02, 2003 2:58 PM Connolly, Judy Central School The Mount Prospect Historical Society is an independent non-profit 501.c.3 that currently operates the Dietrich Friedrichs House Museum, carriage house and Education Center. These buildings are located at 101 and 103 S. Maple Street on a plot that is owned by the Village of Mount Prospect and occupied by the Historical Society on a 99 year lease. The Dietrich Friedrichs Museum is the primary location of the Historical Society, while the Education Center is an ADA compliant ancillary building that offers bathrooms and resources for visitors to the Museum. The Historical Society would like to move the Central School, an 1895, one room schoolhouse currently located on the corner of Wille and Thayer Streets, to the property at 101 and 103 S. Maple Street. The building was purchased from Saint John's Episcopal Church in February of 2002 with the stipulation that the building must be removed from their property within three years. The Historical Society proposes moving this building to the lot at 103 S. Maple Street adjacent to the Historical Society's primary museum. The Central School is a one and a half story, frame building with external dimensions of roughly 26 feet by 40 feet. It has a small entry way that extends 3 feet away from the building and a small steeple above the entry way, which rises roughly to a total of 25 feet from the ground (see drawings). The Historical Society would like to move this building to the lot at 103 S. Maple Street, which currently is only occupied by the Education Center, which is classified as an ancillary building. The Historical Society would like to move the Central School to this location and place it on top of a foundation with a full basement that would be accessible by an external cellar door. This space would be used for additional storage by the Historical Society and would not be accessible to the public. The Central School Building would be used by the Historical Society as a part of our existing operations. It would be open to the public on a limited basis consistent with the Historical Society's current operations. The opening of a second building at this location may increase the amount of traffic at the site in the months immediately following the opening of the building but in the long term, it is not believed to have a significant effect on the amount of traffic at the site. The Historical Society currently offers two off street parking spaces, this amount of parking was approved by the Village Board of Trustees in Ordinance NO. 4274 on February 19, 1991. Because the Historical Society is located across the street from the largest building in Mount Prospect, a block from Village Hall two blocks from the Public Library, and two blocks from the train station and the center of downtown, we believe that an addition to our operations will only be an insignificant addition to the level of traffic in the neighborhood. Because we are located less than two blocks from the new Village Parking structure and are on Village owned property, we believe that any additional parking that is necessary can be accommodated in the new parking structure. The office of The Mount Prospect Historical Society (847) 392-9006 Mount Prospect Histori¢ So 101 $. Maple Street: Mount ProslJect, IL 60056 F~ (847) 392-9006 F~ (847) 392-8995 Emaff: rnpft/st@ao£com Webstt~: www. m~hist, or~ October 31, 2003 Short Statement for The Planning and Zoning Commission Regarding the Relocation of the Central School The Mount Prospect Historical Society is an independent non-profit 501.c.3 that currently operates the Dietrich Friedrichs House Museum, carriage house and Education Center. These buildings are located at 101 and 103 S. Maple Street'bn a plot that is owned by the Village of Mount Prospect and occupied by the Historical Society on a 99 year lease. The Dietrich Friedrichs Museum is the primary location of the Historical Society, while the Education Center is an ADA compliant ancill?y building that offers bathrooms and resources for visitors to the Museum. The Historical Society would like to move the Central School, an 1895, one room schoolhouse currently located on the comer of Wille and Thayer Streets, to the property at 101 and 103 S. Maple Street. The building was purchased from Saint JOhn's Episcopal Church in February of 2002 with the stipulation that the building must be removed from their property within three years. The Historical Society proposes moving this building to the lot at 103 S. Maple Street adjacent to the Historical Society's primary museum. The Central School is a one and a half story, frame building with external dimensions of roughly 26 feet by 40 feet. It has a small entry way that extends 3 feet away from the building and a small steeple above the entry way, which rises roughly to a total of 25 feet from the ground (see drawings). The Historical Society wOuld like to move this building to the lot at 103 S. Maple Street, which currently is only occupied by the Education Center, which is classified as an ancillary building. The Historical Society would like to move the Central School to this location and place it on top ora foundation with a full basement that would be accessible by an external cellar door. This space would be used for additional storage by the Historical Society and would not be accessible to the public. The Central School Building would be used by the Historical Society as a part of our existing operations. It would be open to the public on a limited basis consistent with the Historical Society's current operations. Morea Prospect Itistori a£ 1.01 3. Mange Street Motmt Prospect, IL 60056 Pfiorm (847) 392,-9006 Fax (847) 392-8995; Emaff: mpf~tst~aof..com We~stte: www. mFfi/st,or9 December 4, 2003 The Mount Prospect Historical Society hopes to relocate the Central School building to the empty lot at 103 S. Maple Street. This relocation will be an extension of the Historical Sodety's current operations at this site and is not believed to greatly increase the amount of traffic. However, the Society is aware that we have limited off street parking and as a partial remedy to this issue would like to request the right to direct people to the Village Parking Deck on Emerson Street during events and periods of high attendance. II I II BUSSEAVENUE 157.12' Preperty Une 15~.1K ...... J _ D r~ BUSSE AVENUE 157.12' _15Zl0'_ I Property line 70 [. NORTHWEST HWY, DES PLAINES, It LINOI5 60016 (708) 6994)018 R. W. STANLEY & ASSOCIATES ILLINOIS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS PHONE (708) 699-0~18 . Lots t and 2 West Hal [ ( ~ ) Meridian. More PLAT OF SURVEY in Block 11 in Busse and Wii!e's Resubdivision .in Mount of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Prospect in the Third Principal commonly know~ as: 101-103 Maple Street, Mt. Prospect, Illinois q. r /. / 0 <).to' EAST MAPLE 5TE ' T Scale:. [ Imh '(lual'~ . '~O tent Order numbe~ Note: Compare the description on ti]Ss plat with your deed, abstract, or certificate of title, also con]pare all points befi~re building by same and report, any difference at (race. For buikling line and other ~estr{(:tions nut shown hereon, refer to your abstlact, deed, contract, or zoning urdtnance. [3 Check t/) m box means th,s survey has been made tot use tn connectR)li with a 111orlgdgt, Jr)an tran,~aCtlOn all(I is not State of Illinois County of Cook,i S.S. I, Ronald W. Stanley, hereby certify that the above described property has been surveyed under my supervision, and that the prat hereon drawn ~s a correct representation of said su~'ey. Dimensions am shown m feet and (Jecm~a~ pa~s thereof. and are corrected to a ter~)peralure ol 62" Fahrenheit. vwl 12/30/03 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 SOUTH MAPLE STREET WHEREAS, the Mount Prospect Historical Society (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner'~ has filed a petition for a Conditional Use permit with respect to property located at 103 South Maple Street, (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property'~ and legally described as follows: Lots 1 and 2 in Block 11 in Busse and Wille's Resubdivision in Mount Prospect in the West Half (1/2) of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian. Property Index Number: 08-12-110-002-0000; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Conditional Use permit to allow the relocation of an existing building to be operated as a historical museum at 103 South Maple Street; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Conditional Use permit being the subject of PZ-48-03 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 11th day of December, 2003, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect journal & Topics on the 26th day of November, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ-48-03; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Conditional Use permit would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. 103 S. Maple Street Page 2/2 SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Conditional Use permit, as provided in Section 14.203.F.7 of the Village Code, to allow the relocation of an existing building to be operated as a historical museum at 103 South Maple Street, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: That prior to the issuance of a building permit relative to the Conditional Use permit, the following conditions and/or written documentation shall be fulfilled: 2. 3. 4. The site shall be developed in accordance with the plans prepared by DLK dated November 10, 2003; The Petitioner shall submit a landscape plan for Staff review prior to applying for a building permit; The Petitioner shall confer with staff when determining the travel path for relocating the schoolhouse and adhere to Staff's requirements for tree protection; The Petitioner shall enter into an off-site parking agreement with the Village of Mount Prospect to ensure parking spaces are provided as required by the Zoning Ordinance; The site and building shall be developed in accordance with all Village Codes, which include, but are not limited to, the installation of fire sprinklers. SECTION FOUR: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION FIVE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2004. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\Con Use,Historical Soc,museum, De¢,03.doc M°unt Pr°spect Public W°rks Department i~. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS PROJECT ENGINEER DECEMBER 30, 2003 DECEMBER SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING WE-GO TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS The Safety Commission transmits their recommendation to construct a 24' wide asphalt pavement along We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail install curb and gutter on the west side of the street not install sidewalk on the west side of the street · allow parking on both sides of the street · lower the speed limit from 30mph to 25mph The Village has included We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail as part of the 2004 Resurfacing Program. The street is showing signs of deterioration and is in need of repair. It currently has a 17' wide asphalt pavement with curb on the east side and a 4' wide stone shoulder on the west side. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street. There are 16 homes on the east side of the street and 5 homes on the west side. The Mount Prospect Golf Course also borders the west side of the street. Village Code dictates new public streets to have 28' wide pavement with curb and gutter on both sides (31' back-of-curb to back-of-curb) with sidewalk. Knowing that the residents would prefer to maintain the "rural feel" of the neighborhood, Staff was willing to consider other alternatives. In November, the Village sent a survey to the residents adjacent to We-Go Trail including the Park District soliciting their opinion on four options for the cross-section and parking restrictions of the road. None of the options included new sidewalk on the west side of the street. Two options involved 24' wide pavement (27' back-of-curb to back-of-curb). This would be similar to the other streets in the neighborhood. Of these options, one allowed parking on the east side only (Option A) one allowed parking on both sides (Option B). The other two options involved 19' wide pavement (22' back-of-curb to back-of-curb). This would be similar to the existing road width including the stone shoulder. Of these options, one allowed parking on the east side only (Option C) and one prohibited parking on both sides (Option D). Of the 22 surveys, 14 (64%) were returned to the Village. A majority of them favored Option C including the Park District. This option would provide a 19' wide pavement (22' back-of-curb to back-of-curb) and allow parking on the east side of the street only. Of the 12 properties who voted for Option C, 6 indicated their first preference is to replace the road in its present condition (17' wide pavement with 4' stone shoulder on the west side) even though it wasn't presented as an option. The Engineering Staff's recommendation to the Safety Commission was Option A. This option would provide a 24' wide pavement (27' back-of-curb to back-of-curb) and allow parking on the east side of the street only. The street would be narrower than the standard width yet conform to most of the streets in the neighborhood. In addition, two-way traffic could be maintained with parking restricted to one side. age 2 of 2 December 30, 2003 We-Go Trail Improvements Option A would also allow for easier access by emergency vehicles compared to Options C and D that would provide a 19' wide pavement (22' back-of-curb to back-of-curb). While the Engineering Staff recommended Option A, it also made known to the Safety Commission that we would not object to a narrower width street as described in Options C and D. While building such a street could set a precedent for future road projects, a few unique factors caused Staff to consider these options. First, the pavement width would almost be identical to the current width thus retaining the narrow look of the street. From an aesthetic standpoint, many residents would prefer to maintain a rural look. Second, a narrower 19' wide pavement would save in construction costs when compared to the 24' wide pavement. Also, a few mature trees near the intersection of Shabonee Trail could possibly be saved with a 19' wide pavement. Also, a narrow street with parking only on one side should not be an inconvenience to the residents. A standard pavement width is built to typically allow parking on both sides of the street. With only a few homes on the west side of the street, on-street parking for the residents is not in high demand. Finally, there is little opportunity for further development along this portion of We-Go Trail. Village Code would require a new subdivision development to improve a street to meet typical standards. This issue was discussed at the December 8, 2003 Safety Commission Meeting. There were approximately 30 residents in the audience to discuss this issue. Many comments from the residents indicated a preference to either leave the street with its current cross-section or go with Option C. The Safety Commission discussed this issue at great length with most members supporting a 24' wide pavement (27' back-of-curb to back-of-curb). By a vote of 6-3, the Safety Commission recommends to: · construct a 24' wide asphalt pavement along We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail · install curb and gutter on the west side of the street · not install sidewalk on the west side of the street · allow parking on both sides of the street · lower the speed limit from 30mph to 25mph The only action necessary by the Village Board of Trustees for ordinance approval is lowering the speed limit along We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail from 30mph to 25mph (Section 18.2001 of the Village Code). All of the commissioners supported installing curb and gutter on the west side of the street, not installing sidewalk on the west side of the street and lowering the speed limit from 30mph to 25mph. Chairman Bencic supported a 24' wide pavement but favored parking restrictions on the west side of the street. Commissioners Arndt and Grouwinkel favored a 19' wide pavement with parking restrictions on the west side of the street. Please include this item on the January 6th Village Board Meeting Agenda. Commission Minutes from the meeting as well as a map for your reference. Matthew P. Lawrie Enclosed are the Safety cc: Village Clerk Velma Lowe x:~fileslengineerltrafficlsafecornmtrecs&tnin~decO3rec3, doc Gen R. Andler Deputy Director Ssan R Dorsey Village Engineer Jeffrey A. Wulbecker Solid Waste Coordinator M. Lisa Ange, Phone 847/870-5640 Water/Sewer Superintendent Roderick T O'Oonovan Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 w. central Road, Mount Prospect, If[inois 60056-2228 Fax 847/253-9377 Streets/Buildings Superintendent Paul C. 8ures Forestry/Grounds Superintendent Sandra M. Oark Vehicle/Equipment Superintendent James E Guenthar TDD 847/382-1235 MINUTES OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION DRAFT CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Mount Prospect Safety Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on Monday, December 8, 2003. ROLL CALL Present upon roll call: Absent: Others in Attendance: Chuck Bencic John Keane Susan Arndt Joan Bjork Kevin Grouwinkel John Dahlberg Buz Livingston Paul Bures Matt Lawrie Carol Tortorello See attached list. Chairman Vice Chai~wnan Commissioner Commissioner Commmsioner Police Department Fire Department Public Works Public Works/Engineering Division Commissioner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Keane. seconded bv Commissioner Bjork. moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Safety Commission held on November 10, 2003. The minutes were approved by a vote of 8-0. Commissioner Tortorello arrived at 7:10 p.m, CITIZENS TO BE HEARD No citizens came forth to discuss any topics that were not on the current agenda. Recycled Paper - Jrinted with Soy Ink OLD BUSINESS ^) REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ALBERT STREET & LINCOLN STREET 1) Background Information Residents petitioned the Village to consider installing Stop or Yield signs at the intersection of Albert Street and Lincoln Street. Ms. Susan Eyles, 320 S. Albert Street, lives near this uncontrolled intersection and believes it is unsafe. She called the Village after a recent accident at the intersection and is concerned for the safety of motorists and pedestrians in the area. This item was originally discussed at the November 10, 2003 Safety Commission Meeting. At the meeting, the Commission voted to hold off on making a decision until Staff had an opportunity to work with the homeo~vner at 1000 E. Lincoln Street about trimming a private property evergreen tree. This tree had branches that overhung the sidewalk and were lower than 8' above the ground. The amount of trimming that could be accomplished would affect the sight distance for motorists and influence whether Staff would recommend Stop or Yield signs. 2) Staff Study A letter was sent to the homeowner at 1000 E. Lincoln Street on November 11, 2003 requiring trimming of any branches that overhung the public right-of-way to a point 8' above the ground. The homeowner contracted a private company to trim the tree such that the lowest branches are now 8' above the ground. The sight distance for motorists approaching the intersection has increased and improved safety because of the trimming. As discussed at the November Safety Commission Meeting, 4-way Stop signs are not warranted for the intersection. 2-way Stop signs are normally warranted at intersections where the criteria for a 4-way Stop sign installation is not met but where a full stop is necessary at all times on one street in order to clarify the right-of-way. When considering 2-way Stop or Yield signs, typical engineering practice is to determine the safe approach speed for the direction to be controlled. If a motorist must slow down to lower than 15mph when approaching an intersection because of a sight obstruction, Stop signs should be used rather than Yield signs. Else, Yield signs should be used. For this case, a majority of the evergreen tree falls within the area that is to be free of any sight obstructions for a westbound motorist traveling at 15mph. Before the trimming, the tree was considered a sight obstruction because of its low hanging branches. The recent trimming of the tree, however, has increased the sight distance so that the safe approach speed is greater than 15mph and a full stop is not necessary at all times. Motorists can react and stop to give the right- of-way if necessary using less restrictive measures such as Yield signs. Therefore, 2-way Stop signs are not warranted. At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should be given to using less restrictive measures such as Yield signs. Yield signs assign right-of-way to traffic when the normal right-of-way rule appears to not be effective. 3 accidents in the past 3 years reveal this may be the case. Also, the speed data shows that because of the proximity of the homes and landscaping to the intersection, motorists may not have enough time to see other 3) 4) vehicles on the cross street, react and stop before reaching the intersection given the current uncontrolled situation. Motorists controlled by Yield signs would need to slow do~vn before reaching the intersection resulting in a shorter distance to come to a full stop if necessary. Finally, when installed, Yield signs should be placed on the minor street. Since the traffic volume is similar on both streets, Staff reviewed the traffic control signs on adjacent intersections and the recorded speeds on both streets to determine the appropriate street to be given the right-of-way. Recommendations Based on the traffic study performed by Staff, the Village Traffic Engineer recommends: approval of Yield signs on Lincoln Street at Albert Street. Discussion Chairman Bencic opened up the discussion to the audience. Mr. Hans Lim, 324 S. Albert Street, expressed a desire to see Stop signs installed at the intersection. Chairman Bencic asked if there were any questions from the Commission. There were none. Chairman Bencic asked Traffic Engineer Laxvrie to provide an overview of Staff's report to the Commission. Traffic Engineer Lawrie shared Staff's efforts in working with the homeowner at 1000 E. Lincoln Street to have a private property evergreen tree trimmed to improve the sight lines at the intersection. He also stated Staff's recommendation to install Yield signs. Chairman Bencic asked how high the homeowner trimmed the evergreen tree. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said 8'. Commissioner Bjork, seconded by Commissioner Keane, moved to approve the recommendations of the Village Traffic Engineer and approve Yield signs on Lincoln Street at Albert Street. The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0. NEW BUSINESS A) WE-GO TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS 1) Background Information The Village has included We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail as part of the 2004 Resurfacing Program. The street is showing signs of deterioration and is in need of repair. It currently has a 17' wide asphalt pavement with curb on the east side and a 4' wide stone shoulder on the west side. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street. There are 16 homes on the east side of the street and 5 homes on the west side. The Mount Prospect Golf Course also borders the west side of the street. 2) This issue was presented to the Safety Commission in order to discuss traffic-related issues brought to the Village's attention by concerned residents as a result of plans to resurface We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail in 2004. Staff Study Standard Village policy is to install curb on both sides of the street when one side already has curb. Adding curb reduces long-term costs associated with maintaining a stone shoulder, provides a buffer between vehicles and people, and improves road~vay drainage. In the past, numerous streets including portions of Council Trail, Forest Avenue, Helena Avenue, Lawrence Lane, Lincoln Street, Marcella Road, Meier Road, Moehling Drive and Prospect Avenue were similar to We-Go Trail and curb was installed on the missing side of the street when it came time to resurface. Also, a portion of Lonnquist Boulevard will get curb on both sides in 2004 xvhere it currently exists on one side. In addition to adding curb to the west side of the street, the Village also has considered widening the street. The 17' wide pavement along We-Go Trail is one of the narrowest, if not the narrowest, public streets in the Village. The stone shoulder actually serves as part of the roadway since it is difficult to maintain two-way traffic in its current state. The only recorded accident along this stretch of We-Go Trail over the past five years involved a northbound vehicle and southbound vehicle clipping each other as they passed. Village Code dictates new public streets to have 28' wide pavement with curb and gutter on both sides (31' back-of-curb to back- of-curb) with sidewalk. Knowing that the residents would prefer to maintain the "rnral feel" of the neighborhood, Staff was willing to modify our standard. In November, the Village sent a survey to the residents and golf course requesting their opinion on four proposed options for the cross-section and parking restrictions of the road. None of the options included new sidewalk on the west side of the street. Two options involved 24' wide pavement (27' back-of-curb to back-of-curb). This would be similar to the other streets in the neighborhood. Of these options, one allowed parking on both sides and one allowed parking on the east side only. The other two options involved 19' wide pavement (22' back-of-curb to back- of-curb). This would be similar to the existing road width including the stone shoulder. Of these options, one allowed parking on the east side only and one prohibited parking on both sides. Of the 22 surveys, 14 (64%) were returned to the Village. A majority of them favored Option C. This option would provide a 19' wide pavement (22'back-of-curb to back-of-curb) and allo~v parking on the east side of the street only. Of the 12 properties who voted for Option C, 6 indicated their first preference is to replace the road in its present condition (17' wide pavement with 4' stone shoulder on the west side) even though it wasn't presented as an option. After the Village sent out the surveys to the residents, the Village received a letter from a resident who organized a neighborhood meeting. The letter includes numerous questions and suggestions related not only to the proposed road work but traffic safety issues. According to the residents, the two primary concerns are the amount of through traffic to the golf course and speeding. In summary, Staff does not support a one-way street, speed humps, additional Stop signs or a 15mph speed limit as suggested by the residents. A two-day traffic study performed along We-Go Trail in 2000 showed the daily volume to be under 500 vehicles. By making the street one-way, surrounding streets such as See-Gwun Avenue, which already experiences four times the amount of vehicles compared to We-Go Trail, would experience additional traffic. The traffic study also showed average speeds from 22-25mph on We-Go Trail. As is typical on most 3) residential streets, a small percentage of drivers did exceed the speed limit. Speed limit signs are not posted along this portion of We-Go Trail, therefore, it is 30mph per the Village Code. Most of the streets in the neighborhood have either no speed limit signs or a posted 25mph speed limit. In our recent letter to the residents, Staff did offer to gather speed and volume data next summer and provide the results to the Police Department for speed limit enforcement. Also, Staff has given consideration to posting a lower speed limit of 25mph along We-Go Trail based on the 2000 traffic study and to be consistent with surrounding streets. Recommendations Staff's preference is a 24' wide pavement cross-section with curb and gutter on both sides of the street and parking restricted to the east side only. This cross-section is narrower than what Village Code dictates but is consistent with the streets in the neighborhood. Also, this cross- section allows two-way traffic to be maintained even with parking on one side of the street. However, Staff would not object to building a 19' wide pavement cross-section with curb and gutter on both sides of the street as voted by a majority of residents. Parking would have to be prohibited on at least one side of the street if not both. Since on-street parking is sometimes observed, allowing parking on the east side only would be acceptable. The 19' wide pavement cross-section with curb and gutter on both sides of the street would be substantially different from the Village's standard for streets with curb and gutter. However, a few unique factors have caused Staff to consider this option. First, the pavement ~vidth would almost be identical to the current width thus retaining the narrow look of the street. From an aesthetic standpoint, many residents would prefer to maintain a rural look. Second, a narrower 19' wide pavement would save in construction costs when compared to the 24' wide pavement. Also, mature trees near the intersection of Shabonee Trail may be saved and continue to provide a buffer from the golf course with a 19' wide pavement. Also, a narrow street with parking only on one side should not be an inconvenience to the residents. A standard pavement width is built to typically allow parking on both sides of the street. With only a few homes on the west side of the street, on-street parking for the residents is not in high demand. Finally, there is little opportunity for further development along this portion of We-Go Trail. Village Code would require a new development to improve a street to meet typical standards. Staff does not support leaving the street with its current cross-section. The combination of the narrow street and lack of curb does not discourage motorists from driving on the stone shoulder and grass. Not only does this result in an increase in maintenance costs but also does not provide a buffer between vehicles and people who may be on the parkway. Whether it is approved to build a 24' wide pavement or 19' wide pavement, parking should be limited to at least one side of the street only. As it is now, vehicles parked on the west side do so on the grass. By adding curb, parking would be confined to the roadway. With a 24' wide pavement, two-way traffic could be maintained with parking restricted to one side of the street. With parking restricted to one side given a 19' wide pavement, vehicles approaching from opposite directions could not simultaneously pass each other and a parked car. Ho~vever, having on-street parking for the residents is important and may also influence vehicle speed. Since a majority of the homes are on the east side of the street, Staff decided it would be appropriate to allow parking on this side. A majority of the residents voted to allow parking on the east side only. 4) The residents have expressed a concern ~vith cut through traffic and speeding. In their letter, they provided suggestions to address these concerns. The request to make the street one-way may reduce golf traffic on We-Go Trail but will add traffic to surrounding streets such as See- Gwun Avenue. The residents along See-Gwun Avenue already take issue with the amount of traffic on the street. Adding any more traffic will certainly exacerbate this situation. Staff, therefore, does not support this request. The other requests (Stop signs, speed humps, lower speed limit to 15mph) are measures the residents believe will reduce vehicle speed. However, according to the speed data collected in 2000, average speeds are already below the speed limit and there have been no accidents associated with speeding. Also, Staff does not believe these are effective measures to address a perceived speeding problem. To address the concerns of the residents, a narrow street such as a 19' wide pavement may keep average speeds and volume similar to what they are today and not further exacerbate the perceived problem. Also, based on the speed data collected in 2000 and to be consistent with surrounding streets, Staff believes a 25mph speed limit along We-Go Trail would be more appropriate than the current unposted 30mph speed limit. Finally, Staff would be willing to gather speed data next summer and provide this information to the Police Department for enforcement purposes. Staff believes the combination of these measures would be more effective in addressing the concerns of the residents. Based on Engineering Staff analysis and the input from residents, the Village Traffic Engineer: prefers a 24' pavement cross-section with curb and gutter on both sides of the street along We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail but will not object to a 19' pavement cross-section with curb and gutter on both sides of the street along We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail and further recommends to: · prohibit parking along the west side of We-Go Trail bet~veen Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail · lower the speed limit from 30mph to 25mph along We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail · perform a speed study along We-Go Trail in 2004 after completion of road work and golf course work Discussion Chairman Bencic opened up the discussion to the audience. Mr. Ron Nobles, 420 S. We-Go Trail, serves as the spokesperson for the street. The rural look is very important to the residents and he would not like to see the street widened. He believes the current width of the street does not pose a problem for traffic. Also, he is concerned that any widening will only exacerbate the current speeding issue seen by the residents. If a curb is to be installed on the west side of the street, he would prefer that no portion of the grass be taken to do so. Mr. John Hupp, 500 S. We-Go Trail, xvould prefer the street to remain with its current width. He sees the widening as an intrusion onto the lawns of those who live on the west side of the street. If one of the options as presented is to be chosen, he would prefer Option C. 6 Mr. Jim McGehee, 507 S. We-Go Trail, expressed a concern With tree removal that xvould be necessary near Shabonee Trail and additional water that would be added to the sewer system. He also questioned the advantages of adding curb versus leaving the stone shoulder. Traffic Engineer Lawfie responded that in addition to savings in maintenance costs, the curb would provide a buffer between vehicles and people on the parkway and improve drainage in the roadway. Also, the Village over the years has had a policy of installing curb on both sides when ~t comes time to resurface a street that only has curb on one side. Mr. John Heidcamp, 400 S. We-Go Trail, expressed a concern with the expense of installing curb. He would like to see the stone shoulder remain. Mr. Bures responded that Public Works crews visit We-Go Trail and other non-curbed streets on average a couple of times a year. The cost not only includes the stone but the labor, equipment and time preparing for the work as well. With curbed streets, crews do not have to dedicate time to maintenance and are able to perform other tasks in the Village. Mr. Nobles asked for reasoning as to why the street should be widened. Village Engineer Wulbecker, who was in attendance, said that the Engineering Staff had a different perspective. The Village Code dictates a public street, when developed, is to be 31' back-of-curb to back-of- curb. Staff had to determine what would cause them to recommend a narrower street. The four options presented to the residents were acceptable options to Staff. Ms. Joy McGehee, 507 S. We-Go Trail, said that consideration should be given to the design of the intersection of Shabonee Trail and We-Go Trail to control speeding. She also expressed a concern with the impact of the additional water to the sewer system and the character of the neighborhood with widening the street. Mr. Don Olsen, 403 S. We-Go Trail, questioned the need to install curb and widen the street. Village Engineer Wulbecker spoke about similar streets in the neighborhood and the precedent of installing curb on streets. He also mentioned as We-Go Trail was scheduled for resurfacing in 2004 it was reasonable for Staff to look at improving the street. Ms. Donna Heidcamp, 400 S. We-Go Trail, believes it would be unsafe to widen the street because vehicles already speed when turning from Lincoln Street. She is concerned for the safety of the people along the street. Also, she does not want to lose the historic feel of the neighborhood. Ms. Kathy Wagner, 501 S. We-Go Trail, would like to see Stop signs installed at Go-Wando Trail to control speeding along the street. She is unsure how the new clubhouse will impact traffic along We-Go Trail. With no more comments from the audience, Chairman Bencic brought the issue back to the Commission. Commissioner Bjork supported installing curb believing children would be cautious near the street. She also said that residents learn to cope with traffic wherever they live in the Village. She sees the importance of improving Village streets and suggested the trees near Shabonee Trail could possibly be transplanted. A couple of residents commented on wanting to save the trees along the street and keep the uniqueness of the street intact. Commissioner Tortorello pointed out that the residents should have been aware of the right-of- way when they purchased their houses. She believes that the street should be brought up to current standards and match other streets in the neighborhood because it is safer for vehicles traveling along the street rather than a narrow street. Mr2 Bures said that he believes adding curb will make the street safer. Also, curb typically will last for 50 years or more, therefore, reducing costs associated with maintaining a stone shoulder. He believes that constructing a wider street will provide more room between vehicles and pedestrians that may be in the street. A wider street also would allow emergency vehicles easier access to a house if necessary. Finally, he mentioned that the stone pillars near Shabonee Trail are an obstruction and should be removed. Adding a curb will help to keep vehicles on the roadway similar to what the stone pillars do now. A couple of residents commented that the neighborhood has not changed which should not prompt a change to the street. Commissioner Grouwinkel supports installing curb but sees the narrow street as outlined in Option C as a compromise given the historic look of the neighborhood. Commissioner Keane expressed a concern with hindering emergency vehicle access with a narrow street. One resident indicated there has never been a problem in the past with emergency access. Chairman Bencic asked Traffic Engineer Lawrie to provide a review of report to the Commission and audience. Traffic Engineer La~vrie went over the report explaining Staff's support of installing curb on both sides of the street and having no objection to not installing sidewalk on the west side of the street. With respect to the road width and parking restrictions, he mentioned factors such as the width of surrounding streets, need for on-street parking, usage of the street and potential for new development that ultimately resulted in four options. Each of these options is acceptable to Staff and surveys were sent to the residents to solicit their opinions. Traffic Engineer Lawrie told the Commission the results of the survey. He also briefly described each of the options to the audience and Commission. Traffic Engineer Lawrie touched on the issue of speeding as raised by some of the residents. He explained the appropriate use of Stop signs and why Staff doesn't support speed bumps. He recommended lowering the speed limit to 25mph and was willing to gather additional speed data next year to assist the Police Department in enforcement. Traffic Engineer Lawrie also touched on the issue of drainage and explained the sewer system in the neighborhood. Staff does not believe any widening of the street will have a significant impact to the system. Na-Wa-Ta Avenue has a similar system to We-Go Trail and has development on both sides of the street and a wider street. Also, he mentioned the golf course redevelopment will contain their storm water on-site and will not be connected to the sewer system that services We-Go Trail. Commissioner Keane asked how many trees would need to be removed given the different options. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said a Village Forestry representative inspected the street and believed 5-6 trees would need to be removed with Options A and B. All of these trees are near Shabonee Trail. With Options C and D, 3~4 trees would need to be removed. Traffic Engineer La~vrie said the Village could look at ways to recreate a buffer between the street and golf course with trees that had to be removed. Commissioner Arndt questioned how the current width of the street compares to each of the options. Traffic Engineer Lawrie explained there is currently a 17' wide asphalt pavement with 4' stone shoulder. Options A and B call for a 24' pavement and Options C and D call for a 19' pavement. Chairman Bencic brought the issue back to the Commission. He summarized five issues that the Commission needed to decide: the width of the asphalt pavement, whether or not install curb and gutter on the west side of the street, whether or not to install sidewalk on the west side of the street, parking restrictions, and the speed limit. Commissioner Keane made a motion to: · provide a 24' wide asphalt pavement along We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail · install curb and gutter on the west side of the street · not install sidewalk on the west side of the street · allow parking on both sides of the street · lower the speed limit from 30mph to 25mph Commissioner Keane was asked to clarify the motion regarding the parking restrictions. He believed that there hasn't been a problem with on-street parking and didn't see the need for restrictions. In addition, adding signs would detract from the look of the street. Chairman Bencic reiterated the motion. Commissioner Bjork seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-3. Chairman Bencic stated that he opposed the motion because he favored parking restrictions on the west side of the street. He did support the 24' wide pavement. Chairman Bencic told the audience that the Safety Commission was a recommending body and this issue would go before the Village Board for a final decision. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said this issue could be heard at the Village Board on Tuesday, December 16th but he wanted to be sensitive to the residents' schedules should there be conflicts being close to the holidays. The consensus from the audience was to defer the issue until the first meeting in January. Commissioner Grouwinkel said that he opposed the motion because he believed the 19' wide pavement with curb on both sides of the street was the safest solution. Commissioner Arndt said that she shared the same feelings as Commissioner Grouwinkel and believed emergency vehicles would not be hindered with a narrow street. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said Staff would be willing to provide notice to the residents in a few weeks reminding them of the Village Board meeting. B) l) 2) REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF HI-LUSI AVENUE AND MILBURN AVENUE Background Information Residents petitioned the Village to consider installing Stop or Yield signs at the intersection of Hi-Lusi Avenue and Milbum Avenue. Mr. Jason Fried, 220 S. Hi-Lusi Avenue, lives near this uncontrolled intersection and is concemed for the safety of motorists and pedestrians in the area. The surrounding intersections have either Stop or Yield signs and many motorists disregard the normal right-of-way rule. Staff Study The Engineering Staffperformed a traffic study. The findings are as follows: a) Accidents A search of the accident reports indicated: Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (Nov) Number of Accidents 0 0 0 0 1 0 b) c) Speed Study Representative speed surveys were performed at all four legs of the intersection between November 11th and 18th. The average and 85th percentile speeds are as follows: Northbound Hi-Lusi Avenue Southbound Hi-Lusi Avenue Eastbound Milbum Avenue Westbound Milbum Avenue Average 85th % 22 mph 28 mph 23 mph 28 mph 23 mph 28 mph 21 mph 25 mph The speed limit on Hi-Lusi Avenue is 20mph. The speed limit on Milburn Avenue is 25mph. As is evident on most residential streets, the data shows some motorists did drive above the speed limit. Under 4% of vehicles were traveling over 30mph and under 1% were traveling over 40mph. Traffic Volume Traffic volume data was gathered in November. Based on the results, there are approximately 660 vehicles per day that enter the intersection. 310 vehicles travel on Hi- Lusi Avenue and 350 vehicles on Milbum Avenue. The peak hour of the day (typically 8am-gam) experiences approximately 70 vehicles that enter the intersection. 10 3) d) Survey Results A total of 19 surveys were sent out in November 2003 to collect the residents' comments on this request. 8 surveys (42%) were returned to the Village. Many of the responses indicated motorists often speed through the intersection and support either Stop or Yield signs. One response opposed Stop signs. e) Existing Traffic Control Signs Traffic control signs adjacent to the intersection are as follows: Hi-Lusi Ave. & Evergreen Ave. (north) - 2-way Stop signs on Hi-Lusi Ave. Hi-Lusi Ave. & Lincoln St. (south) - 2-way Stop signs on Hi-Lusi Ave. Milbum Ave. & I-Oka Ave. (east) - 4-way Stop signs Milbum Ave. & Wa-Pella Ave. (west) - 4-way Stop signs. f) Sight Obstructions Based on an inspection of the area, there is not any landscaping at any of the comers causing a severe sight obstruction. Since this is an uncontrolled intersection, there is to be sufficient stopping sight distance for all four legs of the intersection. Stopping sight distance is the distance a vehicle travels from the point when a motorist sees an approaching vehicle on the cross street, reacts and comes to a full stop. A motorist should have enough clear vision to be able to stop, if necessary, before reaching the intersection. Landscaping near the homes and even the homes themselves at the intersection do not provide sufficient stopping sight distance for motorists. Therefore, Stop or Yield signs would assist in clarifying the right-of-way and possibly reduce the potential for an accident. Recommendations 4-Way Stop Signs 4-way Stop signs are normally warranted at intersections where there is a condition of severely restricted view, accidents or a significant amount of vehicles and pedestrians. Based on an inspection, there are no sight obstructions immediately at the intersection that would cause a full stop to be necessary for all four directions. In addition, there has been 1 accident over the past 5 years. In order to meet the criterion for a multiway stop sign installation, there is to be 5 accidents in a 12-month period. Finally, the peak hour of the day experiences approximately 70 vehicles entering the intersection. In order to meet the criterion, the volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) is to average 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of the day and 200 vehicles per hour for the same 8 hours from the minor street approaches. Based on the data, 4-way Stop signs are not xvarranted at this intersection. 2-Way Stop Signs 2-way Stop signs are normally warranted at intersections where the criteria for a 4-way Stop sign installation is not met but where a full stop is necessary at all times on one street in order to clarify the right-of-way. As stated above, there is not any landscaping near the comers of the 11 4) intersection. When considering 2-way Stop or Yield signs, typical engineering practice is to determine the safe approach speed for the direction to be controlled. If a motorist must slow down to lower than 15mph when approaching an intersection because of a sight obstruction, Stop signs should be used rather than Yield signs. Else, Yield signs should be used. For this case, the safe approach speed exceeds 15mph for the direction to be controlled since there is not any landscaping causing a severe sight obstruction. Therefore, 2-way Stop signs are not recommended at this intersection. Yield Signs At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should be given to using less restrictive measures such as Yield signs. Yield signs assign right-of-way to traffic when the normal right-of-~vay rule appears to not be effective. 1 accident in the past 5 years does not indicate a significant problem. The speed data, however, shows that because of the proximity of the homes and landscaping to the intersection, motorists may not have enough time to see other vehicles on the cross street, react and stop before reaching the intersection. Motorists controlled by Yield signs would need to slow do~vn before reaching the intersection resulting in a shorter distance to come to a full stop if necessary. Finally, when installed, Yield signs should be placed on the minor street. Since the traffic volume is similar on both streets, Staff reviewed the traffic control signs on adjacent intersections and the recorded speeds on both streets to determine the appropriate street to be given the right-of-way. Based on Staff's analysis, Yield signs on Hi-Lusi Avenue are recommended at this intersection. The Village Traffic Engineer recommends: approval of Yield signs on Hi-Lusi Avenue at Milburn Avenue. Discussion Chairman Bencic opened up the discussion to the audience. Mr. Jason Fried, 220 S. Hi-Lusi Avenue, mentioned there are many children in the area and he is concerned for their safety. He would like to see either Stop or Yield signs at the intersection. Chairman Bencic asked the Commission if there were any questions from the Commission. There were none. Chairman Bencic asked that Traffic Engineer Lawrie provide a brief overview of Staff's report to the Commission. Traffic Engineer Lawrie explained the results of the study and Staff's recommendation to install Yield signs on Hi-Lusi Avenue. Mr. Bures, seconded by Commissioner Keane, moved to approve the recommendations of the Village Traffic Engineer and approve Yield signs on Hi-Lusi Avenue at Milburn Avenue. The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0. 12 OMMISSION ISSUES Deputy Police Chief Dahlberg made the Commission aware of the Police Department's efforts ~n working xvith the school administration at St. Raymonds to ~mprove parking and traffic around the school. He also made the Commission aware of the Police Department's efforts in addressing the speeding concern at Albert Street and Lincoln Street raised by some residents at the last Safety Commission meeting. In addition to using the radar trailer, 22 hours were dedicated by officers over the last month to speed limit enforcement near the intersection. Traffic Engineer Lawrie thanked the Commission members for their commitment to making it a successful year and on behalf of the Village Board of Trustees he presented a gift to each of the members. No other Safety Commission items were brought forth at this time. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to discuss, the Safety Commission voted 9-0 to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. upon the motion of Commissioner Tortorello. Deputy Police Chief Dahlberg seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, Matthew P. Lawrie, P.E. Traffic Engineer x:\files\engineer~safecommXtraffic~.recs&min\dec03min.doc 13 ILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING ATTENDANCE SHEET December 8, 2003 7:00 P.M. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER ILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING ATTENDANCE SHEET December 8, 2003 7:00 P.M. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 ENTITLED 'TRAFFIC CODE' OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That Section 18.2001 of "SCHEDULE I - SPEED RESTRICTIONS" of Chapter 18 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding thereto in proper alphabetical sequence "We-Go Trail - Northbound and southbound - 25 - Between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail", so that hereafter said Section 18.2001 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect shall include the following: "Name of Street We-Go Trail Direction of Speed Limit T~ffic Movement (mph) Nodhbound 25 and southbound Description Between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail". SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,200 ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H :\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\CH 18,Speed restrictions, reduce,We-Go,Dec2003.doc E