Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. Old Business 02/17/2015Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: DAVID STRAHL, ACTING VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2015 91 SUBJECT: PZ -21-14 - 2806 S. BRIARWOOD — REQUEST FOR FURTHER DEFERRAL Staff is requesting further deferral of case PZ -21-14, 2806 S. Briarwood Drive until April 21St to allow the petitioner the time necessary to finalize permitting and regulatory issues related to this case. Please forward this memorandum to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 17th meeting. Staff will be at that meeting to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. Cooney Jr. Mount ProspiLet Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: ACTING VILLAGE MANAGER DAVID STRAHL FROM: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2014 SUBJECT: DECEMBER 2014 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING MILLERS LANE & CENTRAL ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY The Millers Station Subdivision (Millers Lane and Cathy Lane north of the Central Community Center) was built in 1993. Millers Lane was originally designed by the developer to permit right turns into the subdivision and right turns out of the subdivision. IDOT and the Village Engineering Division supported the design. Left turns in and left turns out of the neighborhood would be prohibited due to the limited visibility caused by the rise in Central Road west of Millers Lane. Motorists would have full access to and from the neighborhood at Cathy Lane. The Planning & Zoning Commission approved the design at their 1993 hearing. However, residents to the west of the proposed development voiced their concerns to the Village Board and the trustees voted to only allow right turns into the subdivision at Millers Lane. Residents to the west were concerned that it would be difficult to access Central Road due to vehicles turning right from Millers Lane onto Central Road. In the late 1990's the Mount Prospect Park District renovated the industrial building at the northwest. corner of Cathy Lane and Central Road to what is now the Central Community Center (CCC). The Park District petitioned IDOT to install a traffic signal system at the intersection but was denied because traffic volume warrants were not met based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Even so, during peak usage times at the CCC, the intersection can become congested with visitors as well as Millers Station Subdivision residents. In 2015, Millers Lane is scheduled to be resurfaced as part of the Village's annual resurfacing program. The Engineering Division has received requests over the years to increase access at the Millers Lane and Central Road intersection but there has never been a formal petition submitted to the Village. Knowing that improvements to the intersection could be included in the resurfacing program, it was the Engineering Division's decision to raise the issue and seek the input of affected residents. IDOT was notified and the Village was told they would not object to constructing the intersection to its original design as long as all permitting requirements were met. As part of the study, surveys were sent to the residents on Millers Lane, Cathy Lane, and the two properties on Central Road immediately west of Millers Lane. A survey was also sent to the CCC. 23 of the 68 mailed surveys were returned (34%). 15 surveys support the proposal to allow right turns from Millers Lane onto Central Road. 7 surveys oppose the proposal and 1 survey was indifferent. page 1 of 2 December 2014 Transportation Safety Commission Meeting December 19, 2014 The issue was presented at the December 8, 2014 Transportation Safety Commission Meeting. Seven residents were in attendance. Two residents from Lancaster Street expressed concern that allowing right turns from Millers Lane onto Central Road would make it more difficult for them to turn onto Central Road. Two residents from Central Road expressed concern the proposal would make it more difficult for them to back out of their driveways. And three residents from Millers Lane shared how the proposal would benefit the neighborhood such as stopping motorists from turning around in private driveways, improving services such as snow plowing operations, and alleviating the congestion at the Cathy Lane and Central Road intersection. The Commission and residents agreed that the proposal, if approved, should include measures to discourage CCC visitors from driving around to Millers Lane to exit onto Central Road. By a vote of 7-0, the Transportation Safety Commission recommends to modify access at the intersection of Millers Lane and Central Road to permit right turns from southbound Millers Lane onto westbound Central Road, and continue to permit right turns from westbound Central Road onto northbound Millers Lane, The Commission further recommends the Village request the Park District to install signs prohibiting left turns from the Central Community Center parking lot onto Cathy Lane, and the Village install a No Thru Traffic sign north of the CCC. The recommendations affect the Village Code as follows: • enact an ordinance that prohibit left turns from southbound Millers Lane to eastbound Central Road (Section 18.2002). • enact an ordinance that requires motorists to stop on southbound Millers Lane at its intersection with Central Road (Section 18.2004A). • repeal the ordinance that designates Millers Lane between Central Road and the driveway at 2 N. Millers Lane as one-way northbound (Section 18.2003). Please include this item on the January 20, 2015 Village Board Meeting Agenda. Enclosed are the Transportation Safety Commission Minutes from the meeting as well as an engineering drawing for your reference. Matthew P. Lawrie Attachment c: Director of Public Works Sean Dorsey Deputy Director of Public Works Jason Leib Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker Village Clerk Lisa Angell h:1 engineering 1 trofficlsofety_commissionVecornmendotions �2014 � TSC-decem6er2024rec. docx page 2 of 2 MILLERS LANE & CENTRAL ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT IN CENTRAL RD RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN RIGHT -IN I RIGHT-OUTfi z CENTRAL COMMUNITY CENTER 46 CENTRAL RD TSC RECOMMENDATION ,J CENTRAL RD RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN RIGHT -IN I RIGHT-OUTfi z CENTRAL COMMUNITY CENTER 46 CENTRAL RD ,J Ik Mexrnt Prospe Director Sean P. Dorsey I Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2229 MINUTES OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION DRAFT CALL TO ORDER Deputy Director Jason H. Leib The regular meeting of the Mount Prospect Transportation Safety Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, December 8, 2014. II T\7WATAM Present upon roll call: John Keane Chairman Chuck Bencic Commissioner Robert Fisher Commissioner Justin Kuehlthau Commissioner Carol Tortarello Commissioner Bob Smith Police Department Representative Paul Bures Public Works Department Representative Matt Lawrie Traffic Engineer — Staff Liaison Absent: Aaron Grandgeorge Fire Department Representative Others in Attendance: see attached attendance sheet APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Bencic, seconded by Commissioner Tortorello, moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Transportation Safety Commission held on October 13, 2014. The minutes were approved by a vote of 5-0. Commissioner Fisher and Mr. Bures abstained. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD There was no one in attendance that spoke on an issue not on the agenda. TSC Meeting Page 1 of 5 December 8, 2014 OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS A. MILLERS LANE & CENTRAL ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 1) Background Information The Millers Station Subdivision (Millers Lane and north end of Cathy Lane) was built in 1993. At the time, the now Central Community Center was an industrial building. Millers Lane was originally designed by the developer to permit right turns into the subdivision and right turns out of the subdivision. IDOT and the Village Engineering Division supported the design. Left turns in and left turns out of the neighborhood would be prohibited due to the limited visibility caused by the rise in Central Road west of Millers Lane. Motorists would have fu [I access to and from the neighborhood at Cathy Lane. The Planning & Zoning Commission approved the design at their 1993 hearing. However, residents to the west of the proposed development voiced their concerns to the Village Board and the trustees voted to only allow right turns into the subdivision at Millers Lane. Residents to the west were concerned that it would be difficult to access Central Road due to vehicles turning right from Millers Lane onto Central Road. In the late 1990's the Mount Prospect Park District renovated the industrial building at the northwest corner of Cathy Lane and Central Road to what is now the Central Community Center (CCC). The Park District petitioned IDOT to install a traffic signal system at the intersection but was denied because warrants were not met based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). During peak usage times at the CCC, the intersection can become congested with visitors as well as Millers Station Subdivision residents. In 2015, Millers Lane is scheduled to be resurfaced as part of the Village's annual resurfacing program. The Engineering Division has received requests over the years to increase access at the Millers Lane and Central Road intersection but there has never been a formal petition submitted to the Village. Knowing that improvements to the intersection could be included in the resurfacing program, it was the Engineering Division's decision to raise the issue and Seek the input of affected residents. IDOT was notified and the Village was told they would not object to constructing the intersection to its original design as long as all permitting requirements were met. Today, all residents of the Millers Station Subdivision must exit onto Central Road at Cathy Lane. Allowing right turns from Millers Lane onto Central Road should alleviate some of the congestion near the CCC. There would be an adequate sight line for motorists turning right from Millers Lane onto Central Road. Southbound traffic volume on Millers Lane will most likely increase but is expected to continue to be within a typical range for a residential street. As part of the study, surveys were sent to the residents on Millers Lane, Cathy Lane, and the two properties on Central Road immediately west of Millers Lane. A survey was also sent to the CCC. 23 of the 68 mailed surveys were returned (34%). 15 surveys support the proposal to allow right turns from Millers Lane onto Central Road. 7 surveys oppose the proposal and 1 survey was indifferent. TSC Meeting Page 2 of 5 December 8, 2014 The Engineering Division continues to support the original 1993 design that would permit right turns in and out of the Millers Station Subdivision at Millers Lane. While traffic volume on Millers Lane would slightly increase, it would alleviate some of the congestion seen at Cathy Lane and Central Road during peak usage at the CCC. In addition, the Engineering Division does not believe allowing right turns from Millers Lane onto Central Road will diminish safety for those properties to the west that directly front Central Road or for the neighborhood to the west. The Village has numerous similar situations of a mix of residential driveways and full access local streets along Central Road and other arterial streets that, while challenging, has not shown to be unsafe. Finally, from the resident survey, a majority of those that responded support the proposal to allow right turns from Millers Lane onto Central Road. Recommendation: Modify access at the intersection of Millers Lane and Central Road to permit right turns from southbound Millers Lane onto westbound Central Road, and continue to permit right turns from westbound Central Road onto northbound Millers Lane. 2) Discussion Chairman Keane introduced the item and asked Traffic Engineer Lawrie to present the Engineering Division's report. Traffic Engineer Lawrie provided the Commission with background information and summarized the recommendation. Commissioner Bencic asked how many vehicles travel on Cathy Lane in front of the Central Community Center (CCC) each day. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said traffic counts were gathered a few years ago and there were approximately 400 vehicles per day. Commissioner Bencic asked how many of those motorists were residents of the subdivision and how many were associated with the CCC. Traffic Engineer Lawrie did not have that information. Commissioner Bencic raised the potential concern of motorists leaving the CCC and traveling around to Millers Lane to exit anto Central Road. Commissioner Fisher asked if a 34% response rate was typical for traffic surveys. Traffic Engineer Lawrie responded the Village typically receives 25% to 40% of mailed traffic surveys. Commissioner Fisher asked if the Police Department was aware of the accident history in the area. Commander Smith responded there have been five recorded accidents in the past two years at the intersections of Central Road with nearby local streets. One was a single vehicle accident involving a drunk driver at 2:OOAM. The other four accidents involved turning vehicles from the local street. Overall, this stretch of Central Road is not considered a high accident area in the Village. With no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Keane opened the discussion to the public. Judy Kirman, 1042 W. Central Road, read a prepared statement of her concerns with the proposal to allow right turns from Millers Lane onto Central Road. Her driveway is directly on Central Road, approximately 200' west of Millers Lane. Ms. Kirman believes the request has been generated by the Park District with the intention of expanding their facility in the future. She is disappointed the residents of Centralwood Subdivision (west of Millers Lane) were not notified of the meeting. She believes they will be directly impacted as their only access out of the subdivision is via Central Road. Further, Ms. Kirman contends there have been numerous accidents during the past year at Lancaster Street and Central Road. She also expressed concern with speeders along Central Road and the many motorists who violate the signs on Millers Lane and exit onto Central Road. Finally, Ms. Kirman expressed her disappointment with the limited space to provide comments on the traffic survey and the Village's exclusion of comments if TSC Meeting Page 3 of 5 December 8, 2014 received after the deadline. Commissioner Fisher responded the traffic survey does not state that comments are to be limited to the lines provided and often residents provide lengthier comments. He said comments are compiled in the report and given to the Commission a week to 10 days before the meeting. Traffic Engineer Lawrie responded the proposal was not generated by the Park District but by the Engineering Division. Staff has received requests over the years to increase access at the intersection. And with the street slated to be resurfaced in 2015, it was the Engineering Division that has sought input from the neighborhood to see if there is support for the proposal. John and Pat McGlynn, 7 N. Lancaster Street, expressed concern with the number of motorists that routinely disobey the signs on Millers Lane and exit onto Central Road. They believe allowing right turns will make it more difficult for them to turn onto Central Road from Lancaster Street. Ms. Bonovich, 6 Millers Lane, asked the accident history at Central Road and Cathy Lane. Commander Smith's review did not cover that intersection. She asked if the directional median or "pork chop" would be a raised concrete median. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said IDOT would most likely require it and the Village would design it as so. Ms. Bonovich would like to see less congestion at Central Road and Cathy Lane but understands the concerns from those that live on Central Road. Finally, she asked if the directional median would be designed to accommodate fire trucks. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said it would. Ron Fack, 4 Millers Lane, shared how the narrowing of Millers Lane near Central Road has negatively affected snow plowing operations. He also shared how many motorists routinely disobey the signs on Millers Lane and exit onto Central Road. Others will turn around in his driveway and he is concerned for his parked vehicles. He also has witnessed large service trucks back down the street and sees it as a safety issue. Finally, Mr. Fack also acknowledged the congestion at Cathy Lane and Central Road, particularly on Saturdays. Lee Gleba, 1040 W. Central Road, has difficulty backing out of her driveway onto Central Road at all times of the day. She believes allowing right turns from Millers Lane onto Central Road will make it more difficult. Ms. Kirman reiterated her concern with motorists disobeying the signs on Millers Lane and exiting onto Central Road. There is not a STOP sign on Millers Lane at Central Road since it is one-way northbound. She would like to see motorists stop before turning onto Central Road. Commissioner Bencic asked if there would be a STOP sign installed on Millers Lane at Central Road with this proposal. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said yes. Commissioner Bencic pointed out that, theoretically, motorists would then be turning onto Central Road at a slow speed. He also said the same number of vehicles would still be turning right onto Central Road from the subdivision. More vehicles would turn from Millers Lane and less from Cathy Lane. Commissioner Bencic expressed again his original concern that visitors of the CCC may leave the parking lot and travel around to Millers Lane before turning right onto Central Road. He asked if the proposal can include signs in the Park District parking lot requiring motorists to turn right onto Cathy Lane. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said the Park District lot is not Village property and cannot require such signs. The Village can request the signs be installed by the Park District but cannot require it. The Village, however, can install a No Thru Traffic sign north of the parking lot TSC Meeting Page 4 of 5 December 8, 2014 to discourage traffic leaving the CCC from using Millers Lane. There was a brief discussion on the possibility of installing a traffic signal at Central Road and Cathy Lane. Traffic Engineer Lawrie explained the Park District explored this idea when they built the CCC but was denied by IDOT because it did not meet the warrants. In addition, Cathy Lane on the north and south sides of Central Road are offset which presents many challenges. Mr. McGlynn asked if a speed hump could be installed on Millers Lane at the proposed STOP sign at Central Road to slow traffic. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said no. Ms. Kirman expressed concern that her driveway is only 200' from Millers Lane and right turning vehicles from Millers Lane onto Central Road would make it more difficult for her to back out of her driveway. Commander Smith pointed out there are many driveways on Central Road close to Lancaster Street, Waverly Place, and Kenilworth Avenue today and there is not an accident history. He also stated that all three of these streets have full access to and from Central Road while the Millers Station Subdivision currently only has one street (Cathy Lane) to exit onto Central Road. Commissioner Tortorello mentioned that the Commission has reviewed many traffic issues in the Village concerning access. She reminded the Commission and the audience that Millers Lane is a public street and access should be provided to the safest extent as possible. Mr. Bures summarized and agreed with the thoughts of the Commission. He supports the proposal but sees the benefit in limiting traffic on Millers Lane as much possible. Commissioner Bencic made a recommendation to support the Engineering Division's proposal to modify access at the intersection of Millers Lane and Central Road to permit right turns from southbound Millers Lane onto westbound Central Road, and continue to permit right turns from westbound Central Road onto northbound Millers Lane. He further recommended the Village request the Park District to install signs prohibiting left turns from the CCC parking lot onto Cathy Lane and the Village install a No Thru Traffic sign north of the CCC. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tortorello. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0. COMMISSION ISSUES Traffic Engineer Lawrie thanked the Commission members for their commitment to the Village's efforts over the past year and on behalf of the Village Board of Trustees he presented a small gift to each of the members. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to discuss, the Transportation Safety Commission voted 7-0 to adjourn at 8:34 p.m. upon the motion of Commissioner Bencic. Mr. Bures seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, Matthew P. Lawrie, P.E. Traffic Engineer h:\engineering\trafficjsafety commission`rets&minS\TSC-decl4min.docx TSC Meeting Page 5 of 5 December 8, 2014 Mount Prospcc't Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: ACTING VILLAGE MANAGER DAVID STRAHL FROM: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2025 SUBJECT: MILLERS LANE & CENTRAL ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES At the January 20, 2015 Village Board Meeting, Trustees requested additional information regarding the proposed access modifications to the intersection of Millers Lane and Central Road. The Engineering Staff's findings are detailed in this memorandum and its attachments. We hope this information assists the Village Board to make a final decision on the issue at its February 17, 2015 meeting. The Chairperson of the Transportation Safety Commission, John Keane, as well as I will be in attendance to answer any questions. Attachment 1 is an aerial map showing Millers Station Subdivision and Centralwood Subdivision, Millers Station has 64 properties and Centralwood has 205 properties. Attachment 2 is an aerial map of the area showing distances between private driveways and public streets along Central Road. As a reference, Millers Lane is 230' from the driveway at 1042 W. Central Road (concerned property owner). There are eight Central Road properties in the area that have a driveway less than 230' west of a public street. Attachment 3 is a spreadsheet summarizing the recorded crashes along Central Road between Busse Road and Northwest Highway over the last five years (2010-2014). A few observations: 1 — There were no recorded crashes involving a vehicle entering or exiting a private driveway. 2 — A majority of the crashes were rear end crashes involving a vehicle waiting to turn left onto a street from Central Road or an eastbound vehicle waiting to cross the railroad tracks. 3 — The intersection crash rates for this stretch of Central Road (21,600 vehicles per day) is below average to average compared to similar streets in the Village. As an example, intersection crash rates along Route 83 between Central Road and Kensington Road (16,300 vehicles per day) vary between 2 and 11 crashes per year (excluding arterial -arterial intersections). The intersection crash rates for Central Road between Busse Road and Northwest Highway vary between 0.2 and 8 crashes per year (excluding arterial -arterial intersections). Attachment 4 is a conceptual plan to widen Cathy Lane to provide an exclusive right turn lane and shared left-thru lane at its intersection with Central Road. The estimated cost to widen Cathy Lane is $31,000.00. Two outbound lanes will reduce the delay for motorists turning onto Central Road, especially during peak hours at the Central Community Center. It still will provide only one egress point for the subdivision should access at Millers Lane and Central Road remain in its current configuration. page 2 of 2 Millers Lane & Central Road Traffic Study February 11, 2015 Attachment 5 is a conceptual plan to construct a traffic signal system at the intersection of Cathy Lane and Central Road. The estimated cost for the traffic signal system, necessary road improvements and engineering design/inspection is $800,000.00 excluding costs for right-of-way acquisition. In order to qualify for a traffic signal system, minimum criteria must be met per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). A traffic signal warrant study costs approximately $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 and takes into account vehicular traffic, crash history, and pedestrian traffic. According to Park District Staff, they investigated a traffic signal system during development of the Central Community Center in the late 1990's but the existing and projected traffic did not meet any MUTCD warrants. When discussing a traffic signal system, road improvements such as constructing left turn lanes and aligning the north -south legs of Cathy Lane would also be required per IDOT standards. This would result in costly challenges such as right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, soil remediation and tree preservation. IDOT has said they are not opposed to considering a traffic signal system at the intersection but the above requirements must be met. Attachment 6 includes minutes from Village Board and Zoning Board of Appeals meetings in 1992/1993 when the Millers Station Subdivision was going through the review process. � Matthew P. Lawrie Attachments h:\engineering\traffic\safety_ commission\millers\vb memo 02-11-15.docx MILLERS LANE TRAFFIC STUDY NUMBER OF PROPERTIES IN SUBDIVISIONS VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT f Ag F` . f .. t , 4 . i 4^ a ^ x � , 4 ,a ly T' x f - �f� t r � , � ' � � �.�;. •oii�.. � �.� 7Ck is � _ _.•_.��� '1��1� ti xr, w wIM T g.: HENRY ST w' w i 1 I ti p _R CENTRAL RD ATTACHMENT 1 MILLERS LANE TRAFFIC STUDY DISTANCES BETWEEN STREETS/DRIVEWAYS VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT y I Q I J Z 3 Y 1-125' —�— RD k k ' 82' ��90'-1_.77' �L 124"� �--....-.126' �6� 58'— ���� 52' 48' 25' 46'J 45' d no gg•.. 125' 2flT' , 4D5' 46' 45' 23' __. __324' • n „�....�.. ;--r. . 355' GENTRACRD m RIm— ms's 230' DISTANCE BETWEEN MILLERS LN & 1042 W. CENTRAL RD (CONCERNED PROPERTY OWNER) A 8 OTHER NEARBY CENTRAL RD PROPERTIES WITHIN 230' OF FULL ACCESS STREET ATTACHMENT 2 Central Road Crash Analysis Busse Road to Northwest Highway (1010.20I4) Village of Mount Prospect @ Melas Park Drive C) Weller �anc Type of Crash Result Year Total Right Angle Side Swipe Rear End Pedestrian Single Vehicle Property Damage Only Personal Injury 2010 0 1 1 1 3 2011 0 1 1 1 2012 0 2013 0 1 1 1 2014 1 i 1 1 avg 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 C) Weller �anc @ Kenilworth Avenue Type of Crash Result Year Total Right Angle Side Swipe Rear End Pedestrian Single Vehicle Property Damage Only Personal Injury 2010 0 1 1 1 3 2011 1 1 1 1 2012 0 2013 1 1 1 1 2014 1 i 1 avg 0.60 0.20 0.00 0.2Q Q.DD 010 0.60 0.00 @ Kenilworth Avenue @ Waverly Place Type of Crash Result Year Total Right Angle Side Swipe Rear End Pedestrian Single Vehicle Property Damage Only Personal Injury 2010 3 1 1 1 3 2011 0 1 1 2012 0 2013 1 1 1 1 2014 0 avg 0.80 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.80 0.00 @ Waverly Place ATTACHMENT 3 Type of Crash Result Year Total Right Angle Side Swipe Rear End Pedestrian Single Vehicle Property Damage only Personal Injury 2010 0 2011 1 1 1 2012 0 2013 1 1 2014 0 avg 0.40 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0,00 U .0 0-20 ATTACHMENT 3 Central Road Crash Analysis Busse Road to Northwest Highway (2010-2014) Village of Mount Prospect @ Lancaster Street/ Wego Trail @ Millers Lane Type of Crash Result Year Total Right Angle Side Swipe Rear End Pedestrian Single Vehicle Progeny Damage only Personal Injury 2010 4 1 1 4 1 4 2011 4 1 1 3 4 1 2012 4 2 1 2 4 1 2013 2 1 1 2 1 2 2014 3 1 2 1 2 1 avg 3.40 0.40 010 2.60 0.00 0.20 3.20 0.20 @ Millers Lane @ Cathy Lane Type of Crash Result Year Total Right Angle Side Swipe Rear End Pedestrian Single Vehicle Property Damage only Personal Injury 2010 0 1 1 1 1 2 2011 1 1 1 3 1 1 2012 0 1 1 2 4 1 2013 0 1 1 1 1 3 2014 0 1 2 3 avg 0.20 000 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 @ Cathy Lane @ Wapella Avenue (& vicinity) Type of Crash Result Year Total Right Angle Side Swipe Rear End Pedestrian Single Vehicle Property Damage Only Personal lnjury 2010 2 1 1 1 1 2 2011 S 1 1 3 4 1 2012 5 1 1 2 4 1 2013 3 1 1 1 1 3 2014 3 1 2 3 avg 5.80 0.80 0.40 1.80 0.00 0,60 3.20 0.40 @ Wapella Avenue (& vicinity) ATTACHMENT 3 Type of Crash Result Year Total Right Angle Side Swipe Rear End Pedestrian Single Vehicle Property Damage Only Personal Injury 2010 6 1 1 4 6 2011 6 1 5 5 1 2012 8 1 7 8 2013 3 1 2 3 2014 6 2 4 6 avg 5.80 0.80 0.60 4.40 0.00 0.00 5.60 0.20 ATTACHMENT 3 Central Road Crash Analysis Busse Road to Northwest Highway (1010.2014) Village of Mount Prospect [ya Prospect Avenue along Central Road non -intersection related Type of Crash Result Year Total Right Angle Side Swipe Rear End Pedestrian Single Vehicle Praperty Damage Only Personal Injury 2010 9 1 1 8 1 8 1 2011 8 2 6 1 8 2012 4 1 3 4 2013 7 1 1 5 1 7 2014 12 1 1 10 11 1 avg 8.00 0.20 1.00 6.40 0.20 0-20 7.60 0.40 along Central Road non -intersection related @ Busse Road Year Type of Crash Result Year Total Right Angle Side Swipe Rear End Pedestrian Single Vehicle Property Daamage0nly Personal Injury 2010 4 1 1 2 4 2011 1 1 1 2012 2 1 1 2 2013 4 1 2 1 4 2014 3 1 1 1 3 avg 2.80 O.bO 1,00 1,00 0-00 0.20 2.80 0.00 @ Busse Road Year Total 2010 10 2011 11 2012 12 2013 13 2014 8 avg 10.80 P Northwest Highway Year Total 2010 24 2011 24 2012 28 2013 22 2014 20 avg 23.60 ATTACHMENT 3 MILLERS LANE TRAFFIC STUDY CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR CATHY LANE AT CENTRAL ROAD VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT . p z J CENTRAL } COMMUNITY CENTER Q Q '�I f ;j J e E.. C-7 t r � R a A i ugx , x CENTRAL RD PAVEMENT WIDENING •P� •fir Y, ATTACHMENT 4 a 9V s t � ,� � w ;rl��" &' '� i Y +k. "� a� k .M'iM"xp".�8. "` td "� �•.� . � Y � y� V �Q,y.,° t P kr ATTACHMENT 4 MILLERS LANE TRAFFIC STUDY CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT CATHY LANE & CENTRAL ROAD VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 4A 140& z co w Lu CENTRAL COMMUNITY CENTER CENTRAL RD Too z 00 r 41 - ATTACHMENT 5 E MINU'T'ES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NO. 77-Z-92, ZBA-78-SU-92 PETITIONER: SUBJECT PROPERTY: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: Hearing Date: November 12, 1992 Kimball Hill, Inc.. 1000 West Central Road October 27, 1992 The petitioners are seeking the following: 1.) A rezoning from I -I Light Industrial of Article XXII to R-3 Apartment Residence of Article XIV; as allowed in Article VIII, Amendments. 2.) A Special Use Permit as required in Article XXV to allow a Planned Unit Development which consists of 92 townhome units on 8.76 acres. (Request revised to 82 units.) Gilbert Basnik, Chairman Ronald Cassidy Robert Brettrager Peter Lannon Richard Pratt Dermis Saviano Michaele Skowron OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: Full Audience Chairman Basnik then introduced the next agenda item being a request by Kimball Hill, Inc. for the property at approximately 1000 West Central Road, for a rezoning from the I-1 Light Industrial classification to an R-3 Residential District, and a Special Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of 92 townhomes. Chairman Basnik asked for representatives for the petitioner, and Mr. Larry Johannesen introduced himself to the Zoning Board of Appeals as the Senior Vice President and managing partner of Kimball Hill, Inc. Mr. Johannesen stated that the application was filed to rezone this site on West Central from an I-1 District to an R-3 District to permit Kimball Hill to do a townhome community of 92 townhomes. Mr. Johannesen stated that the density had been reduced from the 92 units as originally proposed to 82 units. Mr. Johannesen stated that Trade Service Corporation had made a decision to sell the surplus property that is adjacent to their building on West Central Road. He stated that the company made the decision earlier this year and the property has been listed since approximately February. Mr. Johannesen stated that the listing broker had ATTACHMENT 6 ZBA-77-Z-92 and ZBA-78-SU-92 Page 2 advised him that there had been no interest for any type of industrial or commercial use since the listing was made, and that C. B. Commercial had brought the availability of the property to the attention of Kimball Hill. Mr. Johannesen stated that Kimball HM has done many communities in the Northwest suburbs, including Lake Arlington Town in Arlington Heights which has proved to be very successful, and Talbot's Mill in Elk Grove Village. He stated that the company has done large developments such as Lake Arlington Town with 576 units, and smaller in -fill projects with as few units as 52. Mr. Johannesen stated that the company takes great pride in creating a community environment for their developments and that the company has been in existence for over 33 years. Mr. Johannesen continued and stated that he would attempt to address the rezoning and PUD standards as required by the Zoning Ordinance throughout the course of his testimony. Mr. Johannesen then summarized the residential goals of the Comprehensive Plan as statements to provide a variety of housing inventory in the community, to protect existing single-family neighborhoods from encroachment, and to promote different types and prices of housing, and to attempt to address the affordability problem. He also noted that the Comprehensive Plan encourages low to moderate -density developments to prevent the concentration of high-density residential projects. Mr. Johannsen stated he believes that the proposed towmhome development fulfills these goals and that it would be protecting the Centralwood Subdivision to the west from any adverse impact from industrial development, and the development would provide several types and styles of housing units to attract different types of buyers. Mr. Johannesen stated that Mount Prospect is a maturing community and it is difficult for younger people to move into the Village, and it is also difficult for elderly residents to find an alternative to the single-family homes that they may have owned for quite awhile, and Kimball Hill is proposing a housing type that fits the profile of these two situations. Mr. Johannesen stated there is an affordability problem in housing in the Northwest suburbs, and that it is important that developers and municipalities address the housing needs of all sections of their populations. Mr. Johannesen then displayed an aerial photograph of the subject site and described the surrounding land uses. He stated that the location is relatively close to downtown and would offer the convenience of commuters walking to the train He stated Kimball Hill has been looking for property in Mount Prospect for some time but that the company needed a minimum of 7 to 8 acres in order for it to be feasible for the type of development that they undertake. Mr. Johannesen stated that the company had considered single-family homes on this site but that land costs were too high to support single-family lots. He illustrated that a subdivision could be created that consisted of 28 lots and that the cost of each lot would be $80,000. He indicated that a home would have to be constructed in the cost range of $315,000 to $360,000 for any return on investment. He noted that while this price of housing may not ATTACHMENT 6 ZBA-77-Z-92 and ZBA-78-SU-92 Page 3 be totally out of line, he pointed out that buyers could obtain similar housing in other areas that would offer a better location for approximately the same price. He also pointed out that from his experience, he did not think that financing would be easily obtainable for single-family homes in this particular location. He explained that the Kimball Hill townhomes would be targeted to young first-time buyers who are interested in moving into the community, or staying in the community they grew up in, or for older move -down residents who desire to stay in the Village but get away from their single-family home. He indicated that Kimball Hill builds approximately 650 to 750 units per year and that one-half of these units are townhomes, so the company understands the types of market opportunities there are for this product. He noted that the townhomes offer a maintenance -free environment for items such as snow plowing, lawn maintenance, and landscaping are all taken care of by an association and that this is attractive to the buyers of these townhomes. Concerning the rezoning, Mr. Johannesen stated that the 1-1 zoning is the least restrictive zoning district in the Zoning Ordinance and that the R-3 PUD would offer a good transition from the existing industrial uses east along Central Road to the R-1 properties abutting to the west. He indicated if the site was developed with the present I-1 zoning, the industrial development would have an adverse impact on the adjoining single-family homes and that a properly designed townhome community would not have an adverse impact. Mr. Johannesen also noted that Kimball Hill had convened a neighborhood meeting at the Mount Prospect Country Club approximately one week ago in order to give an overview of the proposal to the area residents. Mr. Johannesen then began a discussion of the site plan. He stated he had met with the Planning staff last Friday to review their findings in their staff report. He indicated that the staff was concerned about the density in the north/south area west of the Trade Service building and indicated a concern about the units close to the railroad tracks. Based on these staff concerns, Mr. Johannesen stated that Kimball Hill had revised the site plan to 82 units and he distributed a copy of the revised site plan to the Zoning Board. He pointed out that the plan significantly increases open space on the site and offers an opportunity to save more of the existing clusters of landscaping. He indicated that staff would prefer to see four -unit buildings in the north/south portion of the site, but that Kimball Hill could not provide four -unit buildings at this location but that six -unit buildings open up the building separations and the setback significantly. He pointed out that the revised plan reduces lot coverage and increases open space to 3.7 acres of total open space. He stated that the gross density is 9.4 units per acre and the net density is 12.8 units per acre. Mr. Johannesen stated that the plan is designed to be as sensitive as possible to property owners to the west, and that they have maintained as much of the existing plant life and trees on this site as they could. He stated that they had taken a tree survey very early to identify worthwhile clusters of landscaping that could be saved. He indicated that the revised plan increases the setbacks off of Central to save a cluster of trees, and that the increased separation between the buildings also offers opportunities to save existing landscaping. ATTACHMENT 6 ZBA-77-Z-92 and ZBA-78-SU-92 Page 4 Mr. Johannesen also stated that the setback of units from the railroad right-of-way had been increased from 25' to 50' based on staff concerns, and he agreed that this was an important improvement to the plan and that this would help the marketability of these units. He pointed out that there was no street connection to Prospect or Henry Street to the west and he described the road network of the PUD. He stated that a public street is proposed for just west of Trade Service, and that the existing road near the industrial building would be dedicated as a second point of access. Mr. Johannesen then began a narrative of several slides showing Kimball Hill communities in other locations and these slides showed elevations of the buildings and details of the architecture. He emphasized that the company pays much attention to detail with their architectural treatment in using different types of colors and materials to provide variations in the townhome elevation He also provided a slide of a rear elevation of a unit to indicate how the rear elevation might be viewed by homeowners to the west. Mr. Johannesen then described the townhomes and stated that the end units would be a flat - over -flat condominiums, and that the interior units would be two-story townhomes. He stated that each unit would have a one -car garage and that there are no interior common spaces such as hallways or service areas. He emphasized that this is important because these are single-family attached homes and not to be confused with condominium development or manor homes where there are common hallways. He stated that the units would range in size from 1,000 square feet to 1,418 square feet and that they would be mostly two-bedroom units, however, there would be a limited number of three-bedroom units available. He indicated that the townhome community would not produce many children. He explained that the State of Illinois standard for children indicates that 19 children could be expected to come from these 82 units. He indicated that this would have no adverse impact on schools, but also stated he felt that this figure which was arrived at by using the State standards was high. He pointed out that in Talbot's Mill in Elk Grove Village with 240 units, there are 5 school children coming from that area. Mr. Johannesen began a discussion on impact on adjoining properties, and he explained that Kimball Hill's experience has shown that their townhomes can enhance property values of surrounding neighborhoods. He stated he has information available which shows adjoining single-family homes have appreciated after completion of a townhome community and that as a matter of course, Kimball Hill goes back and analyzes single-family values to determine the impact of their townhomes, and they have never found any adverse impact. Mr. Johannesen pointed out that a real concern of theirs is the rear of their townhomes abutting the single-family homes, and he stated that this can be mitigated through landscaping treatments that will supplement the existing vegetation that is to remain. As a further example, Mr. Johannesen pointed that in the Centralwood Subdivision to the west, there are apartments on Prospect Avenue as part of this neighborhood, and that he did not believe these apartments had had any adverse impact on property values in this subdivision. Furthermore, he stated that another example is the Central Village subdivision at the east end of Whitegate. He pointed out that this is a much denser development than ATTACHMENT 6 ZBA-77-Z-92 and ZBA-78-SU-92 Page 5 the Kimball Hill proposal, and that these condominiums sell for a range of $70,000. He indicated that single-family home values on Whitegate are substantial, and that Central Village has not appeared to cause any adverse impact on home values along Whitegate. He stated that this is proof that values in Mount Prospect are not necessarily impacted by a nicely designed townhome or condominium development. He stated that prices of the units would range from $110,000 to $130,000 and that this is an expensive purchase price per square foot. He indicated that a typical buyer would have a $1,000 a month mortgage payment and would need approximately a $45,000 a year income to qualify. Mr. Johannesen used this as an example to show that residents of this development would have to be income -qualified to obtain such a mortgage. Chairman Basnik then asked Mr. Clements to summarize the staff report. Director of Planning, David Clements, stated that he would provide a background of the request and some initial observations, and Economic Development Coordinator, Kenneth Fritz, would talk about the industrial zoning and the industrial market, and that Planner, Ray Forsythe, would summarize details of the site plan. Mr. Clements noted that this request is a rezoning from an I-1 District to an R-3 District to permit a Planned Unit Development (PUD) of 82 units with the revised plan. Mr. Clements noted that this application offers a different set of circumstances that staff and the Zoning Board of Appeals customarily deal with, and that is the down -zoning. Mr. Clements pointed out that the existing 1-1 zoning permits some fairly intense uses, and that this is the least restrictive zoning classification in the Ordinance. Mr. Clements indicated that on the surface, a down -zoning might seem to offer a reasonably easy request to evaluate. He noted that single family homes on the east side of Lancaster Street abut the 1-1 zoning, and the R-3 classification would appear to be more compatible with the existing R-1. He noted that a townhome development would be a good solution to buffer the existing single family homes on Lancaster from industrial uses to the east. He explained that staff believes that a townhome development on the site could be considered a better neighbor for Lancaster than if the site was developed with an industrial use. However, Mr. Clements understood that neighbors of the area had some concerns with the townhomes, and might be indicating a preference to the industrial zoning on the basis that industrial users have daily hours of operation, and the area would be free from traffic and employees on evenings and weekends. Mr. Clements stated that the I-1 zoning is an important classification in the Village, and that care should be taken before a rezoning to R-3 is undertaken. He explained if the property was presently zoned R-3 and the request was to rezone the site to an 1-1, that this would be a very difficult zoning case to process. He believed that the 1-1 District has certain industrial potential, and that staff spent considerable time analyzing that potential in an effort to provide a higher level of information for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Clements noted that the Plan Commission would be reviewing a change in the Comprehensive Plan for this request and that this would be reviewed by the Plan Commission on November 18. ATTACHMENT 6 ZBA-77-Z-92 and ZBA-78-SU-92 Page 6 Mr. Clements also explained that staff understands that single family development is often preferred by residents in development issues, and that Kimball Hill had been asked to provide a single family analysis for this site, which Mr. Clements acknowledged had been done. Mr. Clements continued and stated that staff observations were that, single family homes abutting the railroad tracks on the location near the Trade Service Industrial building, may not be the best site for single family development. However, it has been demonstrated in Mount Prospect that less than desirable sites can be developed with single family homes, and it was noted that there are no areas in Mount Prospect along the Chicago and Northwestern tracks where single family development directly abuts the railroad right- of-way. Mr. Clements did note that there are single family homes in the northeast corner of the Village abutting the Wisconsin Central tracks, but as a general rule, it is desirable to keep single family homes away from the adverse impact of a railroad right-of-way. Economic Development Coordinator, Kenneth Fritz, then summarized aspects of the request pertaining to the desirability and marketability of the I-1 zoning. Mr. Fritz noted that it was staff's initial opinion that this property was a second tier industrial site due to its lack of visibility and access from Central Road, and Mr. Fritz indicated that he had spent time learning about the site, and talking with industrial brokers and industrial builders. Mr. Fritz indicated that he had talked with Industrial Properties Division of Grubb & Ellis, Prudential Properties and other major real estate brokers in the northwest suburbs, and there was a general consensus that the industrial market is down due to the economy, and that Mount Prospect faces competition for industrial projects from Lake County which offers cheaper land and lower taxes. Mr. Fritz stated that brokers believe that industrial lots in Lake Center Plaza and Kensington Center would develop before this property, and that this absorption is not expected in the near future. Several of the brokers that Mr. Fritz talked to, were fanuliar with this site, and they confirmed staffs impression that this is a secondary site which would not attract a corporate user. Mr. Fritz stated that he also talked with several industrial builders that were familiar with Mount Prospect, and he learned that financing today is difficult for speculative industrial properties, and these individuals stated that this type of secondary site could only hope to attract a speculative development which would provide smaller tenant spaces. These builders indicated that these tenant spaces would be too expensive to build and to keep rents at a marketable rate for small industrial users. The Arthur Rogers Company stated that they manage a large inventory of small industrial buildings in Elk Grove, and that they could easily offer rents that would be considerably less than what could be obtained for new construction on this site, and that affordable rents were the most important item for small industrial users. Mr. Fritz also stated industrial development on this site could have an adverse impact on adjoining single family homes. Because this site could only hope to attract smaller speculative users, Mr. Fritz and the staff envisioned these industrial users might require individual overhead doors for deliveries and outdoor storage, and there might be a greater turn -over in this type of industrial use, and that these conditions could impact the single family homes on Lancaster. ATTACHMENT 6 0 • ZBA-77-Z-92 and ZBA-78-SU-92 Page 7 Planner, Ray Forsythe, then summarized the PUD and site plan for the benefit of the Zoning Board. He indicated that the townhome plan met all the general bulk regulations of the R-3 District and the PUD requirements. He stated that periphery yards in this type of site plan were very important because of the different abutting zoning districts, and that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 foot setback along the west property Line of this site, and a 50 foot setback abutting the railroad right-of-way. Mr. Forsythe noted that providing this 50 foot setback from the railroad right-of-way is one reason why the density was reduced from 92 units to 82 units. He also noted that the PUD meets the density requirements of the Ordinance and that parking is provided in the appropriate amount. Mr. Forsythe also made reference to a traffic study that was submitted by the petitioner that indicated that traffic generated by the development could be successfully absorbed with surrounding area roadways. Mr. Forsythe then discussed the landscape plan, and stated that generally the petitioners had done a good job in maintaining existing plantings and landscaping on the site, and were adding new landscape materials to supplement these existing features. Mr. Forsythe stated that the staff report includes several items that need to be specified on a final site plan. Mr. Forsythe concluded with a summary of the staff report stating that, considering what staff had learned about the industrial market and the characteristics of this as an industrial site, the Planning Department believes that an R-3 zoning is a reasonable alternative to the existing I-1 zoning, and that a properly designed townhome project could be compatible with the existing single family homes on Lancaster. Chairman BasrA then asked for comments from members of the audience. First he asked if anyone was present to speak in favor to the request. There being none, Chairman Basnik asked for persons speaking in opposition to the request. Al Gleba, 1040 West Central Road, stated that he is the abutting property owner on Central, and that he believed that Trade Service Publications should have discussed this rezoning and its possibilities prior to constructing their building. He believed that Trade Service Publications would move aper the sale of this property to Kimball Hill, and that the Village would have a vacant industrial building as a result of this. He also suggested that the proposed density was too high,, the units too small, and that one -car garages were not sufficient for the Mount Prospect area. fie stated he objected to an R-3 zoning abutting an R-1, and indicated concerns about stormwater management, and indicated that he believed that Trade Service had stated at a prior hearing that there would never be a new north/south street constructed west of the existing industrial building. Mr. Gleba submitted a petition with 189 names opposing the rezoning. Paula Kucharski, 19 North Lancaster, questioned the overall dimensions of the proposed townhome buildings, and asked how the density was reduced from the original 92 units since the neighborhood )neeting had occurred at Mount Prospect Country Club. ATTACHMENT 6 0 • ZBA-77-Z-92 and ZBA-78-SU-92 Page 8 Russell Patterson, 21 North Lancaster, stated that he thought the R-3 zoning could result in apartments and rental units and believed that the townhomes would have an impact on Melas Park. He also made reference to the one foot vacated right-of-way of Henry Street and Prospect Avenue. Roy Stobe, 16 North Lancaster, questioned dimensions on the property survey, and indicated that he and his neighbors prefer R-1 zoning for this site. Mr. Stobe spoke to some of the design features of the proposed townhomes, and stated that aluminum siding was not the best material, and summarized statistics from a professional builder's magazine about buyers' preference in homes that indicated buyers prefer single family homes with two -car garages, and that most buyers do not necessarily look for a townhome product Mr. Stobe continued and discussed a mounted exhibit of the Centralwood Subdivision which depicted the density was much less than the proposed Kimball Hill plan. He also submitted an alternative site plan that showed single family development on this property, and a second proposal that depicted townhomes abutting the railroad right-of-way with single family homes abutting the industrial building. Judy Kirman, 1042 West Central, objected to the request and stated that she believed many of these issues were resolved when the Trade Service building was built in 1980, and that she objects to having to address these matters a second time. She indicated she would rather see 1-1 zoning on the site, and objected to the site plan revision lowering density by ten units. She explained there was a concern for flooding problems and made reference to a below surface spring or creek in the area. She stated that the townhomes would decrease property values of the established neighborhood, and objected to the proposed R-3 rezoning. Chairman Basnik then announced that it was approximately 11:00 p.m. and that it would be necessary to continue this case to December 10, 1992. Mr. Brettrager moved that the public hearing be continued to December 10, 1992. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lannon. Upon Roll Call: AYES: Brettrager, Lannon, Cassidy, Pratt, Saviano and Basnik NAYS: None The motion carried by a vote of 6-0. David M. Clements, Director of Planning ATTACHMENT 6 0 0 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NO. 77-Z-92, ZBA-78-SU-92 Hearing Date: November 12, 1992 December 10, 1992 PETITIONER: SUBJECT PROPERTY: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES Kimball Hill, Inc. 1400 West Central Road October 27, 1992 (Herald) The petitioners are seeking the following: 1.) A rezoning from I-1 Light Industrial of Article XXII to R-3 Apartment Residence of Article XIV; as allowed in Article VIII, Amendments. 2.) A Special Use Permit as required in Article XXV to allow a Planned Unit Development which consists of 92 townhome units on 8.76 acres. (Request revised to 82 units.) Gilbert Basnik, Chairman Ronald Cassidy Robert Brettrager Peter Lannon Richard Pratt Dennis Saviano Michaele Skowron None Full Audience Chairman Basnik introduced ZBA-77-Z-92 and ZBA-78-SU-92 being a continuation of a Rezoning and Special Use request by Kimball Hill, Inc. to allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of 82 townhomes on the property at approximately 1000 West Central Road. He stated that this public hearing had been continued from the November 12 Zoning Board meeting date and that he would convene the hearing and allow concluding testimony by the residents of the abutting neighborhood. He asked that there be no repetition of earlier statements. He also stated that the petitioner would be allowed a period for rebuttal of neighbors continents and then the public hearing would be closed for consideration by members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Al Gleba, 1040 West Central Road, stated that the neighborhood had done more research on the petition. He then introduced Mr. Roy Stobe, 16 North Lancaster. Mr. Stobe summarized minutes from the May 3, 1979 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting when Trade Services was before the Village to request the variations for the present building. He discussed the intention for Trade Services to develop the rear of the property only and not any portion of the front lot. ATTACHMENT 6 i ZBA-77-Z-92, ZBA-78-SU-92 Page 2 Ray Forsythe indicated that staff had also researched the property and the existing variations. He indicated that at the time the property was developed the parking requirement was for 5 spaces per 1000 square feet of building area. The current ordinance separates office and warehouse uses and at the present time the property meets the current requirements for parking. Mr. Stobe suggested that the four acres which will remain for Trade Service, Inc. is not adequate for the size of the building and the required parking. He also questioned Kimball Hill's proposed parking and the ordinance which prohibits parking in front yards. He is concerned that there is not adequate parking provided. Mr. Gleba discussed traffic congestion and the proposed street layout. He is concerned with the safety of merging truck traffic with residential traffic. He summarized an article from a trade magazine concerning turning movements of tractor trailers. He indicated that currently Trade Services does not have a great deal of tractor trailers making deliveries, however he is concerned with a future user of the facility and the possible increase in tractor trailer deliveries. Mr. Gleba then cited from a list of concerns that he had previously discussed including, density, size and location of the property in question, value of the units, impact on surrounding property values, flooding, strain on village utilities and services, as well as increases in traffic. Ms. Judy Kirman, 1042 West Central Road, recited from the transcripts of the May 3, 1979 Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing. The transcripts are from the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on the Trade Service, Inc. variations which were objained in order to construct the present facility. Mr. Chuck Litgen, 900 Whitegate, questioned the function of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the criteria used for judgement. He believes the Zoning Board of Appeals made promises to the neighbors and Board should not give in to the temptation of tax revenues. He reminded the members that there are over 200 signatures in the petition. Ms. Lillian Stegman, 1106 West Central Road, stated that the project was wrong for the neighborhood. She indicated that people wanted single family housing and that townhouses do not attract permanent residents. She stated that the elderly would not live there. Also stated was that the units would be resold cheaply or rented out. She feels that the proposed street is dangerous and that the decline of a really nice community will be rapid and the Village should be careful and not make an obvious mistake. She felt that this development is only a precedent to the proposed highrise next door. She feels that Mount Prospect should not build down but up. She feels that the Village should maintain the character of the neighborhood and feels that townhouses can not be improved. ATTACHMENT 6 ZBA-77-Z-92, ZBA-78-SU-92 Page 3 Ray Forsythe, Planner, then indicated to the Zoning Board of Appeals and members of the audience that Mount Prospect has a Fair Housing Ordinance and that statements that could be discriminatory should not be made while discussing this current case. Marshall Smith, owner of the Central Park Office Complex directly to the east of the subject property, indicated that he had made an attempt to purchase the subject property. He indicated his support for the proposed use. He stated that he has seen incubator type projects in nearby villages and feels that there is a lack of property maintenance. He feels that a townhouse project with a homeowners association will keep the property up and maintain the landscaping. He indicated that Kimball Hill has a good reputation in the housing industry and are well respected. Marshall Wood, 106 North Waverly Place, feels that Trade Services created the current situation. He feels that the promises originally made should be kept. Mr. Mike Powers, 804 West Busse, read a letter he had submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals indicating his objection to the proposal. His opposition is based upon density, traffic, strain on local services, cheapness of the housing, sincerity of Kimball Hill, and the proposed 252 apartment units two blocks away. Mr. Robert Claus, 105 North. Lancaster, indicated that he is a 56 year resident. He described the history of the property. He indicated that he feels the property contains wetlands and indicated the criteria which determines if an area contains wetlands. He listed plants which grow on a portion of the property and the standing water which typically takes place. He indicated that he felt that there has been a draught for the last 8 years which has taken away most of the wetland evidence. He also feels that people living in this proposed area would not be able to walk any place because Mount Prospect has not accommodated pedestrians. Mr. Basnik indicated that there were several letters submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals indicating their opposition to the request. The letters were from Pierre Ghawi, 813 West Cathy Lane, George S. Chartouni, 205 South Audrey Lane, Nazera Ghawi, 813 West Cathy Lane, William Schmitt,905 Whitegate Drive, and Mike Powers, 804 West Busse. (Editors note: there were also letters in the file from the following in opposition to the request: Helen Byrnes Poe, owner of the property at 1009 West Prospect Avenue, Mr. Chuck Litgen, 900 Whitegate, and Richard Hendricks, 1537 E. Emmerson Lane, and a petition with 203 signatures opposing the rezoning and special use permit.) Mr. Larry Johannesen, 5999 New Wilke Road, Rolling Meadows, Senior "Vice President and Managing Partner, representing Kimball Hill, Inc., rebutted the neighbors concerns. He indicated that most of the concerns the neighbors brought up related to Trade Services commitments. He indicated that the title search for this property did not find any binding agreements which would prohibit the proposed development. He stated that all drainage problems will be addressed with the engineering department at the appropriate times. He stated that they are also required to provide storm water management. He indicated that ATTACHMENT 6 ZBA-77-Z-92, ZBA-78-SU-92 Page 4 besides the Village ofNfount Prospect, permits are required from the Metropolitan Sanitary District, and the Environmental Protection Agency. He stated that there is approximately 2/10 of an acre of wetlands which does not require mitigation but a permit will be required from the Army Corps of Engineers. He stated that Kimball Hill is sensitive to the environment there and would like to save as much existing vegetation as possible. In closing, he stated that the request is fulfilling a need as indicated in the Village's Comprehensive PIan and reports from the Northeastern. Illinois Planning Commission relating to in -fill development and the needs of a maturing population. He discussed the request for affordable housing and various types of housing at low and moderate density as listed in the comprehensive plan. He then discussed the current conditions and land uses in the existing neighborhood to the west of the subject site and provided slides of the subject site and the adjacent residential neighborhood as well as existing units similar to those proposed. Mr. Johannessen then handed out a sheet which compared the increasing value of single family homes built next to similar projects which they have developed. He summarized that in all cases there has been an increase in value and the homes have not been adversely impacted by the townhomes. Mr. Andy Corken, 1400 Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Senior Associate with CB Commercial Real Estate, and Mr. Tom Dolan, 1224 North Belmont Avenue, Arlington Heights, Director of Real Estate and Development with the Alter Group were present representing Trade Service as their consultants and marketing agent for the vacant land. Mr. Corken read a letter dated December 9, from Trade Service regarding the pending sale of the property. Trade Service's intention presently and in the foreseeable future is to continue the printing facility at the present facility in Mount Prospect. This land sale will allow them to achieve fair market value for the land which will significantly reduce the operating costs for this operation. They do not have any intentions to market, sell or otherwise change the existing operation and plan to be part of the Village of Mount Prospect for many years to come. The letter was signed by Tony Duperville, Assistant Financial Controller and John Evens, Chief Financial Officer of Trade Sercices, Inc. Mr. Corken then discussed the costs of operating the business in Mount Prospect. He indicated that the tax bill for the property is approximately $200,000 and this is significantly higher than similar sites in Lake County. Trade Service contacted CB Commercial approximately one year ago interested in selling their operation and leasing a site elsewhere. This would save them a great deal of money in the long run. Trade Service decided to stay in the current facility and attempt to sell the vacant land. Mr Corken stated that if the property was not sold, there would be a great amount of financial pressure on Trade Service to consider relocating and selling the building and land. He stated that a likely purchaser would make use of the vacant land and possibly triple the size of the building. He indicated some of the allowable users in the 1-1 District including a lumber yard. Mr. Corken feels it is in the best interest of Trade Service and the community to sell the land to Kimball Hill for the proposed use. Toni Dolan added that the current parking meets the requirements of the Ordinance and that there is space available to add to the ATTACHMENT 6 ZBA-77-Z-92, ZBA-78-SU-92 Page 5 current number. He went on to describe other available properties in Mount Prospect which are in more ideal locations and have similar parking configurations. He believes the panting provided is adequate for a future user. Gil BasrA then closed the public hearing for the request and opened the floor for discussion by the Zoning Board members. Mr. Ron Cassidy indicated that staff had done a great deal of research for the staff report and he agrees and disagrees with the information. He stated that there may not be demand for this property currently but he felt that someday there will. He feels that the residential request with high density has been proposed in Mount Prospect before and they have struggled with a decision. He is not sure that it is the type of upscale housing that is needed in Mount Prospect. He feels that Kimball Hill is using Mount Prospect's name as a draw to sell their affordable housing. He feels that Mount Prospect deserves a higher and more upscale housing on the property than Kimball Hill is offering. He added that there could be more detrimental use than this housing project. Mr. Dennis Saviano indicated that he originally felt that the proposal made sense. Now the 200 people that have signed petitions, came to the meetings and indicated their opposition to the request, have caused him to become concerned. He is concerned with the other uses which can be developed on the site. He stated that the rezoning standards could go either way in this case and that he then looks at what the neighbors feelings are. He stated that if this many people are against the project it shouldn't be there. He pointed out that a more intense industrial use could legally occupy the site which could potentially be more harmful than the proposed townhouse development. He then discussed several trends that he has seen develop recently. The fust is criticism of staff. He discussed a letter by Richard Hendricks regarding staff making recommendations. Mr. Saviano indicated his support of the staffs policy of recommendations in the staff reports and feels that it is an important part of the report. He feels that it is inappropriate for people coming in to criticize staff. He indicated that he feels Kimball Hill is a good developer and that he hopes they seek new sites in Mount Prospect, Mr. Richard Pratt stated that this type of project creates a great deal of animosity and that the Zoning Board of Appeals is a recommending board that is appointed, and they have the interests of entire village to consider. He stated that he had counted 146 persons who are opposed to the project and only one in favor. He stated that because of the large number of people opposed to the project that he could not support the request. Gil Basnik read from the staff report regarding the rezoning. He talked about staffs recommendation to use caution and consider carefully the rezoning. He stated that he feels that this will be a choice industrial property when the economy turns around. He stated that he has the highest regard for staff but suggested that care be taken in recommending a project because new information becomes available at meetings. The members then discussed the standards for rezoning as listed in the zoning ordinance. Peter Lannon indicated that the proposed use is already existing in the adjacent ATTACHMENT 6 ZBA-77-Z-92, ZBA-78-SU-92 Page 6 neighborhood. Bob Brettrager stated that in no time had the Zoning Board recommended that I-1 Zoning take place next to residential. The members discussed that the property would not be rezoned to I-1 if it was currently zoned residential. Mr. Cassidy stated that it needs to be transitional. Mr. Brettrager feels that the proposed zoning is much more compatible than the existing zoning. Peter Lannon indicated that if an I-1 use was developed closer to the residential area that a negative impact would occur. Several members felt that the neighbors would like the land to remain vacant and do not really want an industrial use. Peter Lannon indicated that they like to see residential uses and that the comprehensive plan leans towards residential uses. He went on to say that the current industrial uses are a far cry from what is allowed in the I-1 district. Mr. Cassidy felt that the hardship has been caused by the owner of the property. Mr. Lannon indicated that the people who testified at the meeting; were opposed to the request but that the village as a whole would benefit by the townhomes. Getting the property developed at all will be a benefit to the village. Increasing the taxes and stabilizing the area is listed as a goal of the comprehensive plan. The suitability of the property being developed as currently zoned was discussed next. Mr. Lannon stated that there has been evidence presented on both sides. Mr. Cassidy stated that the current economic climate is not leaning for industrial but this may change. The members then discussed the current tax situation in Cook County. Mr. Basnik stated that he feels the property is suitable for industrial and may be suitable for residential but it is zoned 1-1 and the comprehensive plan indicates industrial. Several members indicated that the case could be made for both sides but there are 200 people opposed to the request. Mr. Lannon stated that normally he is in favor of neighbors positions and feelings, however in this case he feels that the facts are in favor of the petitioner. He feels that the people would be protected by the proposed residential use. Kimball Hill does not build slums, but good quality housing and he has personally visited several Kimball Hill projects and has seen that they have been maintained and surrounding property values have increased. He feels that beneath the emotion that has been expressed, the people desire is really for open land and they are gambling that the site remains vacant. He doesn't think that this is realistic and he indicated that he will support the request. Mr. Brettrager agreed with Mr. Lannon. Michaele Skowron indicated that a lot of time has been put into this request. She stated that she lives close to the property and a lot of comments that have been made have been with out founding. It is possible to get onto Central Road and also to walk to the Downtown area. The existing neighborhood includes two -flats, three -flats and condominiums and have been kept up and contribute to the concept in this community that there has to be a variety of housing for a variety of ages and a variety of incomes. There are a lot of older people who want to stay in the community and the proposed size is larger than many ATTACHMENT 6 0 • ZBA-77-Z-92, ZBA-78-SU-92 Page 7 existing single family homes in this village. She stated that Kimball Hill has a great reputation and that many people she talked to want to stay in the area and a development like this will get them into the housing market. She feels that the request is a great buffer between the existing industrial and residential. She concluded that she will support the request. Chairman Basnik then asked for a motion on the request to rezone the subject property from 1-1 Light Industrial to R-3 Apartment Residence. Mr. Brettrager moved and Mr. Cassidy seconded the motion. Upon Roll Call: AYES: Lannon, Brettrager, and Skowron NAYS: Saviano, Pratt, Cassidy and Basnik The motion was denied by a vote of 3-4. Chairman Basnik then asked for a motion on the request for a Special Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development consisting of 82 townhome units on 8.76 acres. The motion was made by Ron Cassidy and seconded by Bob Brettrager. Upon Roll Call: AYES: Lannon, Brettrager and Skowron NAYS: Saviano, Pratt, Cassidy and Basnik The motion was denied by a vote of 3-4. Peter Lannon motioned that the meeting be adjourned and it was seconded by Michaele Skowron. Upon a unanimous vote the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Ray F�rsythe, Planner ATTACHMENT 6 0 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION MARCH 17, 1993 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Mount Prospect Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Donald Weibel at 5:00 P.M. at the Mount Prospect Public Works Building, 1700 West Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. ROLL CALL Present upon Roll Call: Absent: Village Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Frank Boege Edwin Janus Elizabeth Luxem Thomas McGovern Carol Tortorello Louis Velasco Donald Weibel, Chairman William Navigato Marshall Ponzi Michael Sims, Village Planner A motion was made by Mr. Boege with a second by Ms. Luxem to approve the minutes of February 3, 1993 as presented. Minutes unanimously approved. SUBDIVISIONS Pat!Y Sue Subdivision, 1026 Linneman Road Ms. Susan Moylan appeared to ask that this R -X existing single lot be subdivided into two lots of record for single family detached residential use R-1. She and her sister, Ms. Pat Beauvais, who also appeared, currently have a contract on the property and may or may not eventually reside there. They are presently acting as developers. They are also asking for Development Code modifications for waiving the requirements for sidewalks, curb and gutters, street light and street paving. They noted that these improvements are not now on surrounding properties. Chairman Weibel noted there currently is a dialogue between residents along Linneman and the Village regarding road right-of-way improvements. As yet no plans have been finalized. ATTACHMENT 6 Plan Commission Minutes March 17, 1993 Page 2 After much discussion and many questions, it was motioned by Mr. Velasco with a second by Ms. Luxem, to grant approval for waiving sidewalks, curbs and gutters, street lighting and street pavement, contingent upon a restrictive covenant being signed covering all four items. Motion passed 7-0. A motion was then made by Mr. Boege with a second by Ms. Luxem for approval of subdivision plat subject to owner's agreement for dedication of right-of-way. An agreement for right-of-way with the Village has been signed but there is a question about a portion of the right-of-way ownership. This motion passed 7-0. These are both done on condition of Zoning Board approval and Chairman Weibel will not sign the plat until all conditions are resolved. Barrett Station Townhornes - Kimball Hill, Inc.. 1000 Central Road Chairman Weibel opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. noting that a notice had been printed in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics Newspaper on February 26- Larry Johannesen, Sr., Vice President Kimball Hill, Inc., started his presentation explaining the new plan, description of property and alludes to a previous pian which was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals and Village Board. He stated that the purchase price had been re -negotiated with Trade Services. A new plan was drawn up featuring 54 townhomes and 9 single family detached homes on 8.76 acres adjacent to Trade Service. A meeting was then held with four neighbors to apprise them of the changes so that they may go back, relate to all concerned in the area, get a consensus and inform Kimball Hill of any reaction. A meeting of neighbors occurred but no one responded to Kimball Hill. Mr. Johannesen feels this new plan is a compromise and addresses some of the neighbors' previous complaints. It would be set up as a Planned Unit Development which answers the questions raised by Mr. Velasco regarding the single family lots being substandard of size and of varying depths. Neighbors feel flooding and traffic are two major issues. They do not like the idea of the new street to the west of Trade Services building which is in the plan as a safety concern. Mr. Johannesen states this street may be right-in/right-out only. Drainage problem was worked on with Mount Prospect staff and they would plan to run a drain from the southwest low spot on the property to run to the northeast corner and then out to Central, and then down to the new sewer on WaPella. Mr. Sims stated the Village has adopted a Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy which identifies as Village priorities the construction of affordable senior housing, housing for the mentally ill, a first-time homebuyers program and rental assistance for low-income households. It also has a Fair Housing Ordinance which protects residents and future residents from discriminatory housing practices. ATTACHMENT 6 Plan Commission Minutes March 17, 1993 Page 3 The neighbors (approximately 25 at meeting) are not happy with anything other than the status quo even though there seems to be no market for light industrial in this area today and Trade Services does want to divest itself of this property. Several people did come forward with approval for Kimball Hill plan. Bob Caldrone, a 26 year old who was raised in the Village and plans to be married later this year, would like to buy a home here but cannot afford anything in the Village. He thought. these proposed units had great possibility for him and his future bride and also for his sister, a local teacher who is looking to invest in local housing for herself. Many neighbors were given the opportunity to speak and voiced the same complaints that have been heard from the beginning. Chairman Weibel closed the public hearing at 11:17 P.M. The Commission's discussion addressed drainage problems; benefit of all the Village by putting this parcel on the tax rolls as developed property for the first time since 1925; the flavor of the Comprehensive Plan because of changing times and different attitudes; making this property an asset to the Village, giving residential a chance with somewhat affordable pricing; and the pian for stormwater detention distance from housing. Mr. McGovern motioned with a second by Mr. Boege, to make a Comprehensive Plan change on this property from I-1 to Multi -family Residential, Low Density/Single Family Residential. Motion passed 7-0. Then Mr. Velasco made a motion, seconded by Mr. Janus, to approve Development Code modifications for road right-of-way width from 66 feet to 60 feet, and proximity of stormwater detention to structures from 75 to 25 feet. Motion passed 7-0. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Community Development: No Report. B. Comprehensive Plan: C. Development Code: D. Text Amendment: OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS: None ATTACHMENT 6 No report. No Report. No report. Plan Commission Minutes March 17, 1993 Page 4 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Chairman Weibel reminded Mr. Sims that the Fair Housing report is due in May to the Village Board, ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol Tortorello, Recording Secretary ATTACHMENT 6 Ll MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NO. ZBA-20-Z-93, ZBA-2I-SU-93 PETITIONER SUBJECT PROPERTY: PUBLICATION DATE: tyMelvisaty MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES Hearing Date: March 25, 1993 Kimball -Hill, Inc. 1000 West Central Road March 9, 1993, (Herald) The petitioners are seeking the following: 1) A rezoning from I-1 Light Industrial of Article XXII to R-3 Apartment Residence of Article XIV, as allowed in Article VIII, Amendments. 2.) A Special Use Permit as required in Article XXV to allow a Planned Unit Development which consists of 9 single family residences and 54 townhome units on 8.76 acres. Gilbert Basnik, Chairman Robert Brettrager Ronald Cassidy Peter Lannon Dennis Saviano Michaele Skowron Richard Pratt Approximately 25 Persons Chairman Basnik introduced ZBA-20-Z-93 and ZBA-2I-SU-93 as being a rezoning and Special Use request by Kimball Hill, Inc. to allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of 9 single family residences and 54 townhome units on 8.76 acres. Chairman Basnik asked that there be no repetition of earlier statements from the initial public hearing. Mr. Glen Richmond, representing Kimball Hill, indicated that they were back before the Zoning Board of Appeals with a new plan because the Village Board had denied their previous request. He indicated that Trade Service had made a concession on the purchase price which allowed Kimball Hill to introduce the single family lots. He indicated that they met with four representatives of the neighborhood and outlined the plan. Mr. Richmond outlined the revised plan including the detention area and stated that the townhomes would have a purchase price of $110,000 to $130,000, and the single family homes a price of $150,000 to $180,000. He added that the development will address many of the technical matters brought up at the previous meetings. This included storm water, wetlands, traffic and the density concerns. No significant wetlands are disturbed with the development. I -Ce made reference to a typical unit purchase price and mortgage payments. ATTACHMENT 6 • 0 ZBA-20-Z-93, ZBA- I9 -SU -93 Page 2 Mr. Richmond noted that net density was 9.7 units per acre and the R-3 District allows a maximum density of 13.5 units per acre. He noted that the width of the single family lots was 60 feet and that this compares favorably with the 55 foot lot width along Lancaster. He also stated that there are 16 existing single family homes abutting the site, and that 11 of these homes are now buffered by the Kimball Hill single family lots. Mr. Richmond explained that elevations of the single family homes would be all different, depending on option choices by the buyer. He also explained that development of the site would help existing stormwater conditions, and alleviate standing water in low areas near homes on Lancaster. He again emphasized that there was no direct street connection to the Centralwood Subdivision, and that the new street onto Central would be limited to right -in and right - out turns. He noted that this restriction on turning movements would prohibit left turns from the development, and address concerns about the sight line from Lancaster. He also pointed out that traffic volume was reduced as a result of the revised plan. Mr. Richmond concluded by stating that this plan provides a better development for this area than the possible industrial with the existing zoning, and that the plan helps Trade Services with their plans. He also noted that the plan will provide levels of new affordable housing that will allow people to move to the Village and benefit from being in Mount Prospect. Dave Clements, Planning Director, summarized the present plan and indicated the revision from the original plan and the reasons why it has been reduced. Mr. Clements stated that a mixed use like the proposed is a better neighbor than a possible industrial user. He stated that the 9 lots are an attempt to reduce the density and that the traffic concerns are addressed with the right-in/right-out limits on the street. Mr. Clements concluded stating that the rezoning request is reasonable and that the PUD standards are met with the proposed site plan. Mr. Al Gleba, 1040 West Central Road, addressed the Board as the representative of the Centralwood neighborhood. He stated that there were four neighbors invited to a meeting with Kimball Hill and that Kimball Hill presented them with the revised plan, He feels that the revised plan is a "band aid" to get approval. He indicated that the neighbors feel that the major issues have not been resolved. This includes traffic, flooding, previous promises by Trade Service and the additional street. Mr. David Lindgren, 743 Whitegate, spoke in favor of the request. He feels that the additional tax payers will benefit the Village. He further stated that the reduction in density, additional traffic measures proposed and the proposed drainage and storm water control is a benefit to the plan. Mr. Chuck Litgen, 900 Westgate, spoke in opposition to the request. He feels that the proposed plan is essentially the same as the previous plan, therefore should be denied. ATTACHMENT 6 ZBA-20-Z-93, ZBA-I9-SU-93 Page 3 Mr. Bob Caldrone, 708 S. Emerson, stated that he recently became engaged and is looking to buy a home in Mount Prospect. He stated that he cannot find quality affordable housing in the area and doesn't want to have to move further out to the northwest suburbs to be able Io afford a home. He feels that the proposed townhomes are a benefit to Mount Prospect. "s. Michelle Caldrone, 708 S. Emerson, stated that she is in favor of the request. She stated ,,at she is a school teacher in the Village and sees many children leaving the area because their parents have no opportunities to buy affordable housing, and end up purchasing a home far away. Ms. Judy Kirman, 1042 W. Central, stated that she is opposed to the project. She stated that the meeting to discuss the project with Kimball Hill was not what they had expected it to be. She further stated that the figures are constantly changing from Kimball Hill and that different presentations are made to each Board. She stated that 100% of the neighborhood is opposed to the request and 200 signatures were gathered in the petition. She states that they would prefer to see single family in the rear with nothing along the highway. Marshall Wood, 106 N. Waverly Place, stated that the proposed plan is not the best plan. He stated that there are other developments with purchase prices of $199,000 - $200,000 for to% .ihomes and single family of $275,000 - $285,000. Mr. Tony Duperville, representing Trade Services, indicated that the property was placed on the market based on economics. He stated that no industrial users inquired about the possible purchase. He stated that the only requests were for residential and included multi- family. He indicated that Trade Services wants to stay in Mount Prospect, however, they must consider other options if the development is denied. MT. John McGlynn, 7 North Lancaster, stated he has been a resident for 23 years and wants Tillage to deny this request. He stated that he concurs with his fellow residents. He stions the ability to provide storm control. He further states that the single family lots P.j not meet the standards of the R-1 District. He believes that Trade Services should keep the promises made previously. Mr. Basnik closed the public hearing, and the Zoning Board of Appeals discussed the request Dennis Saviano asked Glen Richmond of Kimball Hill why single family was not feasible on the entire site. Mr. Richmond responded that the cost of the property with the development costs would require the homes built to be sold for $360,000 - $385,000 which was a risk Kimball Hill could not take. Mr. Saviano questioned higher quality townhomes. Mr. Richmond replied that the reasons are similar to the single family question. He said that additional amenities would need to be added which would reduce the number of available units and the development costs would rise to a point that the risk would be too great. Mr. Saviano then asked for a response to complaints about the number of changes in the ATTACHMENT 6 ! 0 ZBA-20-Z-93, ZBA-I9-SU-93 Page 4 plan. Mr. Richmond stated that all of the reductions have been caused by ebanges requested by Village staff, the MWRD, and the Village Board. He stated that Kimball Hill has always felt that their plans were acceptable. Mr. Saviano then questioned their marketing study. Mr. Richmond indicated that it was no different than a typical single family neighborhood. He stated that you often see older people living next to young couples. He stated that their buyers were often: 1) young and single, 2) older couples, 3) non-traditional families or 4) seniors or retired persons. Mr. Saviano then questioned the estimated tax rates and was informed that the Cook County tax structure is set up in a unique way. Mr. Saviano then read parts of a letter from an objector who indicated that the proposed housing was sub -standard and monotonous. Mr. Richmond responded that he cannot respond to a person's objective opinion. He stated that they have sold this project in Rolling Meadows, Schaumburg, Carol Stream, Arlington Heights, Elk Grove Village and Palatine. Mr. Saviano then asked about the meeting held with the neighbors. Mr Richmond responded that Trade Services reduced the purchase price after the Village Board meeting and that the plan addressed the comments from the Village Board. He further stated that the proposed plan was at the economic threshold Kimball Hill could take. Peter Lannon stated that the Plan Commission approved the right-of-way dedication and the Comprehensive Plan amendment by a vote of 7-0. He was informed by staff that all further Development Code modifications will be reviewed by the Plan Commission and Village Board at a later date. Ron Cassidy stated that he is concerned with the single family lots being 1,200 square feet less than R-1 lots. He also stated that he is concerned with the neighbor's opposition. He concluded by stating that the plan is not to Mount Prospect standards. Peter Lannon stated that if Trade Service sells the entire property, that a more intense use could take over. He stated that this is an infill site and they are difficult to develop. He stated that it is not a perfect plan however, they rarely see perfect plans. He stated that others have indicated that they want new affordable housing not just old housing that is affordable. He said that the Village must provide affordable housing and stated that he and his family started out in a townhome. He concluded that there would be improvements on the drainage and storm water management and that he supported the request. The members discussed with staff the requirements for the single family lots. Chairman Basnik asked about the proposed lot width and if this was acceptable. He questioned if other single family lot sizes were of reduced area in other planned developments. The Chairman did not think that this revision was sufficient enough to warrant approval. Dave Clements indicated that staff looks at the surrounding neighborhoods in cases like this and feels that the lots are compatible. He stated that the Centralwood lots are approximately 55 feet wide. He stated that the proposed PUD meet the Ordinance for setbacks and lot coverage. ATTACHMENT 6 • 0 ZBA-20-Z-93, ZBA-I9-SU-93 Page 5 Chairman Basnik asked whether this is the best plan available. He said that Kimball Hill has come back with a better plan after a denial, and wondered if the company would refile for another plan if this application were denied by the Village Board. Mr. Richmond stated that it was a function of price and without further reductions from Trade Services it would not be posS;ible. The Trade Service representative responded that he felt the current land price would be the final offer his Board of Directors would accept. Chairman Basnik then asked for a motion on the request to rezone the subject property from I-1 Light Industrial to R-3 Apartment Residence. Mr. Brettrager moved and Ms. Skowron seconded the motion. Upon Roll Call: AYES: Brettrager, Skowron, Saviano and Lannon NAYS: Cassidy and Basnik The motion was approved by a vote of 4-2. Chairman Basnik then asked for a motion on the request for a Special Use permit to allow a PUD consisting of 9 single family and 54 townhomes on 8.76 acres. The motion was made by Mr. Brettrager and seconded by Mr. Lannon. Upon Roll Call: AYES: Brettrager, Skowron, Saviano and Lannon NAYS: Cassidy and Basnik The motion was approved by a vote of 4-2. Chairman Basnik and Mr. Cassidy voted in opposition to the request. They believed that this revised plan was not substantial enough to warrant approval and that the single family lots were less than R-1 standards. They noted the neighborhood objections and indicated that Kimball Hill could possibly make further revisions to the plan. These recommendations will be forwarded to the Village Board for their consideration. Peter Lannon motioned that the meeting be adjourned and it was seconded by Michaele Skowron. Upon unanimous vote the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Ray P. Forsythe, Planner ATTACHMENT 6 to concur with the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals and grant the request to rezone the subject property from R -X to R-1, being the subject of ZBA 16-Z-93. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Hoefert, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. An Ordinance will be presented April 21st for first reading. Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved to concur with the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals and grant the variation being the subject of ZBA 17-V-93. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Hoefert, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. An Ordinance will be presented April 21st for first reading. Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved to concur with the recommendation of the Plan commission and grant the modifications from the Development Code for property commonly known as 1026 Linneman Road. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Hoefert, Wilks el— Nays: None Motion carried. An Ordinance will be presented April 21st for first reading. ZBA 19 -SCT -93, 1733 Verde Drive ZBA 19 -SU -93 The Petitioner is requesting a Special Use permit 1733 VERDE DR in order to allow a garage designed to house more than 2 vehicles. It was noted the Petitioner has an antique car and is proposing a tandem garage in order to house this vehicle. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting this request by a vote of 6-0. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved to concur with the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals and grant the Special Use permit being the subject of ZBA 19 -SU -93. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Hoefert, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. An ordinance will be presented for first reading at the April 21st meeting of the Village Board. ZBA 20-Z-93 and ZBA 21 -SU -93, 1000 Central Road ZBA 20-Z-93 & The Petitioner is requesting the subject property ZHA 21 -SU -93 be rezoned from 1-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3 1000 CENTRAL RD (Apartment) and a Special Use in the nature of a Planned Unit Development. It is the proposal of the Petitioner to construct 9 single family homes and 54 townhomes on this 8.76 acre parcel. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting these requests by a vote of 4-2. Page 5 - April 6, 1993 ATTACHMENT 6 Also requested is an amendment to the Generalized Land Use Map (Comprehensive Plan) to reflect the Multi -Family Low Density and Single Family Residences, rather than the existing Light Industrial use as well as modifications from the Development Code (Chapter 16) relative to the width of the right-of-way within the development and setback of detention area from structures. The Plan Commission recommended granting this request by a vote of 7-0. Mayor Farley noted that Trustee Floros was recovering from recent surgery, however, he had received minutes of all meetings up to this point and was at home watching these proceedings on the TV and would come to the meeting at the appropriate time in order to cast his vote on the proposed development. Trustee Wilks explained that she has resigned from the position on a real estate Board which created what she perceived as a conflict of interest relative to discussion on this proposal from Kimball Hill. She stated that she would participate in the discussion on this matter and would cast her vote on Kimball Hill's proposal being the subject of ZBA 20-Z-93 and ZBA 21 -SU -93, The Petitioner, Kimball Hill, had proposed development of this site with 74 townhomes a few months ago, however, residents in the neighborhood had expressed their desire for single family homes abutting their properties. The following concerns were expressed by residents of the area: Drainage Possible wetlands on the vacant property Compatibility of housing Increased traffic Traffic congestion due to the proposed street east of Lancaster Mr. Richmond, representing Kimball Hill, responded to the concerns expressed, stating that all Village Codes would have to be followed if the development was approved as presented. Mayor Farley called a brief recess at 11:05 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 11:15 PM Present upon roll call: Mayor Farley Trustee Busse Trustee Clowes Trustee Floros Trustee Hoefert Trustee Wilks Trustee Clowes, seconded by Trustee Floros, moved to concur with the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals and grant the rezoning, being the subject of ZBA 20-Z-93. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Floros, Hoefert, Farley Nays: Wilks Motion carried. Page 6 - April 6, 1993 ATTACHMENT 6 Trustee Floros, seconded by Trustee Clowes, moved to concur with the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals and grant the Special Use, in the nature of a Planned Unit Development, being the subject of ZBA 21 -SU -93. Trustee Hoefert suggested the developer revise the plan in order to increase the number of single family homes from 9 to 11, so that the new single family homes will abut the existing single family homes. It was also suggested that, due to the fact that the residents expressed concern on the proposed street, Trustee Hoefert proposed a cul de sac or access for emergency vehicles only. In order to give the Petitioner and property owner an opportunity to negotiate these most recent suggestions, it was decided that it may be appropriate to continue action on this matter to a Special Meeting of the Village Board_ Trustee Floros withdrew his motion and Trustee Clowes withdrew his second to the motion. Mayor Farley announced that a Special Meeting of the Village Board would be held on Tuesday, April 13 at 7:30. The only items on the agenda for the Special Meeting will be ZBA 21 -SU -93 and relative items in conjunction with the Kimball Hill Development. Trustee Floros left the meeting at this point. Due to the late hour, Mayor Farley continued .� consideration of the following items to the next regular meeting of the Village Board on April 21st: A Resolution Determining whether Minutes of Executive Sessions May be Released 1st reading of An ordinance Amending Article II entitled "Rules of Order" of Chapter 2 of the Village Code 1st reading of An Ordinance Amending Article I entitled "Village Manager" of Chapter 4 of the Village Code 1st reading of An Ordinance Amending Article V entitled "Other Regulations" of Chapter 8 of the Village Code VILL&GE XANAGER•S REPORT Village Manager, Michael E. Janonis, presented the BIDS: following bids: .-� The following bids were received for the purchase COPY of copy machines: MACHINES: Bidder Tyle Amount Minolta Business Systems Minolta 5420 $9,674 Minolta Business Systems Minolta 5400 8,100 CSC Office Automation Minolta 5420 8,650 AOE Mita DC 4585 7,875 Coordinated Bus. Systems Mita DC 4585 7,722 Coordinated Bus. Systems Mita DC 4585F 7,892 Coordinated Bus. Systems Mita DC 3585 7,018 Page 7 - April 6, 1993 ATTACHMENT 6 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL METING OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTBZS OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT APRIL 13, 1993 CALL TC ORDER Mayor Farley called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present upon roll call: Mayor Gerald Farley Trustee Mark Busse Trustee George Clowes Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Leo Floros Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks CALL To ORDER ZBA 20-Z-93 and ZBA 21-sU-93, 1000 Central Road ZRA 20-Z-93 & The Petitioner is requesting a Special Use in ZBA 21 -SU -93 the nature of a Planned Unit Development, in order 1000 CENTRAL RD to develop this 8.76 acre parcel with 54 townhomes and 9 single family homes. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting this request by a vote of 4-1. Also requested is an amendment to the Generalized Land Use Map (Comprehensive Plan) to reflect the Multi -Family Low Density and Single Family Residences, rather than the existing Light Industrial use as well as modifications from the Development Code (Chapter 16) relative to the width of the right-of-way within the development and setback of detention area from structures. The Plan Commission recommended granting these requests by a vote of 7-0. Discussion of this development had been continued from regular meeting of the Village Board on April 6, 1993 in order to additional time to work out some details relative to this plan. A meeting was held last week with the developer, staff and elected officials. Trustee Hoefert and Trustee Wilks, along with Michael Janonis, Village Manager, acted as liaisons between the residents and Kimball Hill to discuss possible changes in the plan and to address some of the concerns of the residents relative to increased traffic and drainage. Trustee Hoefert gave a brief status report on the meeting. _He stated discussion at the meeting seemed to resolve concerns about stormwater detention for the development. Trustee Hoefert stated that all requirements of the flood control Ordinance would be :net before any permits would be issued. He also explained that additional single family homes were not feasible due to profit margin and the fact that the proposed additional homes would back up to the vacated stub street, rather than the original purpose of backing up to an existing single family home. Also discussed were possible traffic regulations governing the ingress and egress to the development. Members of the Board as well as residents of the area expressed appreciation for the considerations given in this matter. There was also discussion relative to the possibility of traffic leaving this development and cutting across Central..Road onto Cathy Lane on the south side of Central and using the residential side streets to avoid traffic delays. ATTACHMENT 6 It was suggested that conditions be added to the Planned Unit Development establishing one-way restrictions on the westernmost entrance to the development. It was also suggested that the Safety Commission examine issues related to cut-through traffic from Central Road using Cathy lane. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved to concur with the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals and grant the Special Use in the nature of a Planned Unit Development and permit the construction of 54 single family homes and 54 townhomes, with the conditions that a covenant would be placed on Lot 01 prohibiting a fence, that no landscaping be planted beyond the building line that would obstruct the vision of a motorist, and that regulations be established for the new roadway be proposed for this development, which regulations would govern traffic entering exiting this development. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran, Floros, Hoefert, Wilks, Farley Nays: None Motion carried. An Ordinance will be presented for first reading on April 21st. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved to concur with the recommendation of the Plan Commission and grant the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan as it applies to the subject property to reflect R-3, Apartment Residence, instead of I-1, Light Industrial. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran, Floros, Hoefert, Wilks, Farley Nays: None Motion carried. An Ordinance will be presented for first reading on April 21st. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved to concur with the recommendation of the Plan Commissicn and grant modifications from the Development Code (Chapter 16) relative to right-of- way width and setback of a detention area from structures. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran, a Floros, Hoefert, Wilks, Farley Nays: None Motion carried. An Ordinance will be presented for first reading on April 21st. Page 2 - April 13, 1993 ATTACHMENT 6 It was noted that the request to rezoning the subject property was approved April 6th, and that an Ordinance authorizing that rezoning will also be presented for first reading on April 21st_ 0-1 ADJOURNMMT ADJOURN Mayon' Farley adjourned this Special Meeting at 8:30 P.M. Carol A. Fields Village Clerk ?age 3 - April 13, 1993 ATTACHMENT 6 ZBA 20-Z-93 and ZBA 21 -SU -93, 1000 Central Road ZBA 20-Z-93 An ordinance was presented for second reading that ZBA 21 -SU -93 would rezone the subject property from I-1 (Light 1000 CENTRAL RD Industrial) to R-3 (Apartment Residence). The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting this request by a vote of 4-2. Trustee Floros, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved ORD.NO. 4542 for passage of Ordinance No. 4542 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Upon roll call: Ayes: Clowes, Corcoran, Floros Hoefert, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. Ordinances were also presented granting a Special Use to allow a Planned Unit Development; to amend the official Comprehensive Plan reflecting an R-3 zoning classification; and modifications from the Development Code (Chapter 16) relative to right-of- way width and setback distance between a structure and detention area. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, ORD.NO. 4543 moved for passage of Ordinance No. 4543 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE IN THE NATURE OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1000 W. CENTRAL ROAD Upon roll call: Ayes: Clowes, Corcoran, Floros Hoefert, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. Trustee Floros, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved ORD.NO. 4544 for passage of ordinance No. 4544 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GENERALIZED LAND USE PLAN (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Upon roll call: Ayes: Clowes, Corcoran, Floros Hoefert, Wilks Nays; None Motion carried. Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved ORD.NO. 4545 for passage of Ordinance No. 4545 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING MODIFICATIONS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (CHAPTER 16) FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN As 1000 W. CENTRAL ROAD Upon roll call: Ayes: Clowes, Corcoran, Floros Hoefert, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. Page 3 - May 4, 1993 ATTACHMENT 6 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18, `TRAFFIC' OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE: That Section 18.2002, "SCHEDULE II — "PROHIBITED TURNS," of Chapter 18, "Traffic," of the Village Code, as amended, is further amended by inserting the following: Direction of Prohibited "Name of Street Traffic Movement Turn Into (Name of the Street) Millers Lane Southbound Left Central Road" SECTION TWO: That Section 18.2004A, SCHEDULE IV, "STOP AND YIELD SIGNS," of Chapter 18, "Traffic," of the Village Code as amended is further amended by inserting the following: Direction of "Name of Street Traffic Movement At Intersection With Millers Lane Southbound Central Road." SECTION THREE: That Section 18.2003, SCHEDULE III "One -Way Streets," of Chapter 18, "Traffic," of the Village Code, as amended, is further amended, by deleting the following: Direction of "Name of Street Traffic Movement Description Millers Lane Northbound between Central Road and driveway for 2 North Millers Lane." SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PASSED and APPROVED this day of January, 2015 Arlene A. Juracek Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk