The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5. NEW BUSINESS 2/15/05 MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER ~b . ~<"" z.lIS~ FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2005 SUBJECT: PZ-46-04: V ARIA nON (OVERSIZED DETACHED GARAGE) 1310 BURNING BUSH LANE TED DRAG - APPLICANT The Petitioner is appealing the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision to deny a request for an oversized detached garage (Case No. PZ-46-04) for the residence at 1310 Burning Bush Lane (the "Subject Property"). The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their January 27,2005 meeting. The attached exhibits indicate that the location of the proposed garage would comply with the required setbacks. However, the size and height of the garage exceed the maximum size permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner proposes to construct a 750 sq. f1. garage, which exceeds the maximum 672 sq. ft. permitted. In addition, the height of the proposed garage is 13.25', which exceeds the 12' (measured from the mid-point) permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's request in great detail. Several Commissioners stated their preference to have the Petitioner store the Bass boat and yard furniture inside the proposed garage as a way to minimize storage in the yard and on the driveway. However, they also stated that the Variation request was not based on a hardship and that the Petitioner has alternatives to building a 750 sq. ft. garage to meet his storage requirements. There was further discussion regarding other garages that were granted Variations and exceeded the 672 sq. ft. limitation. The Commissioners noted that only one garage received a Variation since the Zoning Ordinance was recently amended to allow 672 sq. f1. garages. That Variation was granted to allow an addition to an existing garage to accommodate a workshop room, but the approval was conditioned on: 1) a shed could not be constructed on the subject property; 2) the existing rear garage wall had to remain, but modified to allow a door no larger than 3'6" to provide access between the addition and the garage; and 3) the exterior access door to/from the addition could not exceed six-feet in width. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 3-4 to deny the Variation to allow a 750 sq. ft. garage that would measure 13.25' from the mid-point of the roof, Case No. PZ-46-04, at 1310 Burning Bush Lane. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 15,2005 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. ~~7~~p Ijc H,IPLANIPlanning& Zoning COMM\P&z 2005\MEJ MemosIPZ-46-04 ME! MEMO (1310 Bwning Bush Lane - VAR- o"",ized garage).doc / '--~ '-"I - Uv ...r/lN31-o~ /hoC To Judith M. Connolly~ AICP Senior Planrièl'~ I Ted D. Drag~ homeowner at 1310 N. Burning Bush Ln., would like to appeal the decision, by a 4-3, vote made by the Planning & Zoning Committee for the requested variation of an oversized garage to the Village Board of Mount Prospect. Ted D. Drag ~v:~~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONíNG tOMMíSSIÖN CASE NO. PZ-46-04 Hearing Date: January 27, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1310 Burning Bush Lane PETITIONER: Ted Drag PUBLICATION DATE: January 12,2005 Journal & Topics PIN#: 03-25-123-003-0000 REQUEST: Variations for the size and height of a detached garage. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Ted Drag Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the revised minutes of the October 28, 2004 meeting; and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros, Matt Sledz and Keith Younquist. Matt Sledz moved to approve the minutes of the November 11, 2004 meeting and Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros and Keith Younquist. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-46-04, a Variation request for the size and height of a detached garage. She said that this case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the Staff Report. She said that the Subject Property is located on the west side of Burning Bush Lane, between Cree Lane and Euclid A venue, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single Family Residence and is bordered by the Rl District on the north, west, and south and by the CR Conservation Recreation District to the east, River Trails Park District. The Subject Property is slightly larger than the typical Rl lot and has a rectangular shape. The Petitioner would like to demolish the existing garage, repave the driveway, and construct an oversized detached garage. The proposed garage would comply with the zoning setbacks; however, the proposed driveway would need to be modified to comply with the code. The Zoning Ordinance limits the size of the driveway width to no more than 23' after 15' from the front elevation of the garage. In order to comply with the zoning regulations, the Petitioner would need to change the color or the material of the adjacent patio so the driveway does not exceed the 23' width limitation. Ms. Connolly reviewed the Petitioner's exhibits, which illustrated that the proposed garage would measure 30'x25', which is 750 sq. ft., and would measure 13.25' from the mid-point of the roof. She said that the Zoning Ordinance allows detached garages up to 672 sq. ft. and the height cannot exceed 12' when measured Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-46-04 Page 2 from the mid-point of the roof. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking Variations for the height and size of the proposed oversized garage. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed garage would be constructed of white vinyl siding and have a 6: 12 pitch roof. Vehicles would enter/exit the garage on the east elevation through either a 16' wide double door or a single, ] 0' wide single door. In addition, there would be a service door and two windows on the north elevation. The Petitioner states in his application that the oversized garage is necessary to accommodate storage needs, which include a boat. Several of the Petitioner's neighbors signed a petition stating they are not opposed to the proposed garage. The existing home does not comply with current Village zoning regulations because the house encroaches into the required front yard by one inch. Also, the existing detached garage encroaches into the required side yard setback. However, the Petitioner would demolish this garage and construct a garage that meets the required setbacks. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards and said that the Petitioner is proposing to construct an oversized garage to provide additional storage. The Petitioner states that he only has a subbasement, which does not meet his storage requirements. Also, he states that the oversized garage would allow him to store his 'yard' furniture and boat inside the garage, as opposed to parking the boat on the driveway, which is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner provided a list of oversized garages with his application. She said that five of the garages are in the Village's corporate limits. Staff researched the information provided by the Petitioner, but could not confirm the size of all the garages listed. She said that the table in the Staff Report documents that only one oversized garage received a Variation since the Zoning Ordinance was changed to allow larger detached garages (672 square feet). Based on the information submitted by the Petitioner, the Variation is needed to accommodate the Petitioner's living requirements, which does not meet the Zoning Ordinance's definition of a hardship. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner has the option of adding onto the house and/or constructing a shed to store some items. However, any of these alternatives would require modifying the driveway and patio to ensure the site continued to meet lot coverage requirements. Although the requested Variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the request fails to support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Variations to permit a 750 square foot garage that would measure 13.25' from the mid-point of the roof, for the residence at 1310 Burning Bush Lane, Case No. PZ-46-04. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek asked Ms. Connolly to review the e-mail from a neighbor inquiring whether adverse water run-off conditions would be created as a result of this Variation. Ms. Connolly said that she had contacted the Engineering Department to answer the resident's question. Engineering found that the Petitioner's request would not exceed the Village's lot coverage limitations. Therefore, constructing a new garage should not adversely impact drainage. Matt Sledz asked about the Variation that had been granted since the Text Amendment that allowed larger garages had been adopted. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner could have done a 10 x 12 shed, but wanted a larger garage instead of the shed. The P&Z approved the larger garage on the condition that a shed would never be built. That case was final with the P&Z. Ted Drag, 1310 Burning Bush Lane, was sworn in. He said that he has lived in his Mount Prospect home for three years. He said Ms. Connolly had covered all points of his petition very well. He said he designed the garage so his Bass boat would fit perfectly during storage time. He has hired a professional architect and builder Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-46-04 Page 3 and will change the color of the driveway concrete to meet zoning regulations. He described several other large size garages in the area. He said he investigated the water drainage issue, which is a problem in their area, and said he is sure he will not add to it with this garage. He also said he will not need a shed in the future if he is allowed to build this garage to these proportions. The Planning & Zoning Commission asked Mr. Drag about his current storage situation. Mr. Drag said he presently keeps vehicles and his boat on the driveway. Ms. Juracek asked if any audience members wished to speak. Since nobody came forward, she closed the Public Hearing. She said a petition from the neighborhood was submitted and that it is in favor of the request. Mr. Cotten said the residents want to get vehicles and boats off the driveways. Mr. Donnelly agreed as did Mr. Floros, although he said he has mixed feelings because the Text Amendment has just been written and exceptions were already being made. Mr. Rogers said he agreed with Mr. Floros; he said he felt a line had to be drawn somewhere. Mr. Sledz also had similar comments. He thought the premise of not building a shed on the property was appealing, but a new owner might not abide by that rule. Ronald Roberts said he thought a deeper garage could store the boat without being that much larger. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve a Variation for a 750 sq. ft. detached garage that measured 13.25' from the mid-point of the roof for the residence at 1310 Burning Bush Lane, Case No. PZ-46-04. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, and Juracek NAYS: Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, and Sledz Motion was denied 4-3. Ms. Juracek explained to Mr. Drag that he had the option to appeal the P&Z's decision to the Village Board within five calendar days and that Ms. Connolly would follow up to explain that procedure to him. After hearing four more cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 11 :45 p.m., seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. H:IPLANIPlanning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2005\MinutesIPZ-46-04 1310 Burning Bush Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 46-04 LOCATION: PETITIONER: OWNER: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: 1310 Burning Bush Lane Ted D. Drag Ted D. Drag 03-25-123-003-0000 0.21 acres (9,100 square feet) Rl Single Family Residence Single Family Residential Variation (Oversized Garage) LOCATION MAP 1340 1304 1302 1300 Euclid Avenue ~ ~ ~ '" - ~~~~~ Church 1321 1313 Bnrning Bush Trails Park River Troils Park Di"r!" 0 '" ~ MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JANUARY 20,2005 HEARING DATE: JANUARY 27,2005 SUBJECT: PZ-46-04 - VARIATION (OVERSIZED GARAGE) 1310 BURNING BUSH LANE (DRAG RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the January 27, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Ted D. Drag (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 1310 Burning Bush Lane (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a 750 sq. ft. detached garage that measures 13.25' fì'om the midpoint when the Zoning Ordinance permits detached garages up to 672 sq. ft. and no more than 12' in height when measured from the mid-point of the roof. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the January 12, 2005 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required \VTitten notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the west side of Burning Bush Lane, between Cree Lane and Euclid Avenue, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single Family Residence and is bordered by the RI District on the north, west, and south and by the CR Conservation Recreation District to the east (River Trails Park District). The Subject Property is slightly larger than the typical R I lot and has a rectangular shape. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Petitioner would like to demolish the existing garage, repave the driveway, and construct an oversized detached garage. Originally, the Petitioner's proposal exceeded the maximum amount of permitted lot coverage, but the project was revised to comply with the 45% lot coverage limitation. The attached exhibits have been revised to reflect a 45% lot coverage. The proposed garage would comply with the zoning setbacks; however, the proposed driveway would need to be modified to comply with the code. The Zoning Ordinance limits the size of the driveway width to no more than 23' after 15' from the front elevation of the garage. In order to comply with the zoning regulations, the Petitioner would need to change the color or the material of the adjacent patio so the driveway does not exceed the 23' width limitation. The Petitioner's exhibits indicate that the proposed garage would measure 30'x25', which is 750 sq. ft., and would measure 13.25' from the mid-pint of the roof. The Zoning Ordinance allows detached garages up to 672 sq. ft. and the height cannot exceed 12' when measured from the mid-point of the roof. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking Variations for the height and size of the proposed oversized garage. PZ-45-04 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting November 11, 2004 Page 3 The Petitioner's exhibits illustrate that the garage would be constructed of white vinyl siding and have a 6: 12 pitch ;-oof. Vehicles would enter/exit the garage on the east elevation through either a 16' wide double door or a single, 10' wide single door. In addition, there would be a service door and two windows on the north elevation. The Petitioner states in his application that the oversized garage is necessary to accommodate storage needs, which include a boat. Several of the Petitioner's neighbors signed a petitioner stating they are not opposed to the proposed garage. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The existing home does not comply with current Village zoning regulations because the house encroaches into the required front yard by one (1) inch. Also, the existing detached garage encroaches into the required side yard setback. However, the Petitioner would demolish this garage and construct a garage that meets the required setbacks. The following table compares the Petitioner's proposal to the Rl Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. Rl Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum ReQuirements SETBACKS: Front 30' 29.9' No Change 5' 8.19' (north) No Change Interior 9' (south) No Change Rear 25' 82.12' (house) No Change 30' Existing Garage 17.5' New Garage LOT COVERAGE 45% Maximum 38% 45% V ARIA nON STANDARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: . A hardship due to the physical sun-oundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and . . Protection ofthe public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner is proposing to construct an oversized garage to provide additional storage. The Petitioner states in the attached application that he only has a subbasement, which does not meet his storage requirements. Also, he states that the oversized garage would allow him to store his 'yard' furniture and boat inside the garage, as opposed to parking the boat on the driveway. As part of the application, the Petitioner provided a list of oversized garages, 5 of which are in the Village's corporate limits. Staff could not confinl1 the size of all the garages listed, but the following table includes other oversized garages that received Variation approval. PZ-45-04 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting November 11, 2004 Page 4 Address Size of Detached Garage (Approved) 604 Wilshire 720 sq. ft 1918 Wood Lane 682 sq. ft 702 Windsor 750+ sq. ft* 1402 Robert Drive 896 sq. ft. 517 Eastman Drive 3-4 car double deep* 1002 Prospect Manor 748 sq. ft. 716 Prospect Manor 768 sq. ft 1712 Martha Lane 672 sq. ft. (600 was max at that time) 915 S. Owen 768 sq. ft** 1310 Burning Bush Lane 750 SQ. ft. *= Staff does not have a record of a Variation ** = Only Variation approved after the Zoning Ordinance was changed to permit 672 sq. ft. garages. Based on the infonnation submitted by the Petitioner, the Variation is needed to accommodate the Petitioner's living requirements, which does not meet the Zoning Ordinance's definition of a hardship ("A practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of unusual surroundings or condition of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground conditions or other unusual circumstances"). The Petitioner has the option of adding onto the house and/or constructing a shed to store some items. However, any of these alternatives would require modifying the driveway and patio to ensure the site continued to meet lot coverage requirements. RECOMMENDATION Although the requested variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the request fails to support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Variations to permit a 750 square foot garage that would measure 13.25' from the mid-point of the roof, for the residence at 1310 Burning Bush Lane, Case No. PZ-46-04. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. I concur: ~i~ lJ~~~~r:ctor 0 f Community Development Ije HIPLANIPI""';"g & Zo";,,g COMMlP&Z 2005\S"rr M'",o\PZ.4G.O4 MEMO \ I J I 0 8om;"g B"sh Lo..e . VAR. g",.e). doc . VILLAGE OF MuUNT PROSPECT COMMUNJTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Variation Request P&Z Final The Planning & Zoning Commission has final administrative authority for all petitions for fence variations and variation requests that do not exceed twenty-five (25%) of a requirement stipulated by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. PETITION FOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW z 0 - E-< ~~ o~ ~ ,!: z¡:: -0 ~'-' ~ ~ z - Case Number pz- -02 Development Name/Address Date of Submission Hearing Date Common Address( es) (Street Number, Street) /~/O J;?,/ / ¿:J ¡i/.:z=L/ ¡; Ba!;/-I L;v. Tax J.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) O_~ -dlS-/cJJ -CO-:s - (')tJO(? z 0 ..... E-< < Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) ~ 0 I ~ Z - ~ E-< ..... rJ) z 0 - E-< < ~I 0- .... ¡:: Z G - .- ~õ. Z 0. ;:J< 01 ~ í-' ~ U <: = Name -r-E D Telephone (day) ('817 d tf-3 770 Telephone (evening) ¡I .I:> . De¥. Corporation Street Address Fax /3/0 t//lØ'IIIG Bt./..5 LN . City State Zip Code t!1T. 'p¡¿Os!'£c'r a;:¿. ~O(JS~ Pager (8'cf'7 78'1-,-/57 Interest in Property Z Name Telephone. J) 0 - þlê/!? (?~7) o?93-3770 - -/ED D. &-< < ~ ~ Corporation Telephone (evening) tf 0 ~ ¡;¡;, ~ ZO -ò Q... Street Address Fax: Z <u B t( æ/f/J/V? B t-lSH L4/, ~g. /3/ð 0'" ¡:z::~ <;.:)1 City State Zip Code Pager ~ U /fT f/¡¿t?S I'~l XL h (YtJ J&; ( ~'I V- 78/- ~S77 <: ~ Developer REr;;c/f./CY Ç>¡£AGFS .I;/t/C. Telephone (day) '30 -993- ot.f7¿, Name Address if 5-0 #t'-Rrt¡ )1;/'Z /¿ Rj) . Fax b3D - 79 3-~ (JI/ 1 ~ ELM I.Wt2.5T ) ~TL. (ßt X Attorney Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Surveyor Z Name Telephone (day) 0 I - &-< '" Address Fax «;i ~.~ 0,£ ¡;¡;, 0 z... -~ Qç: Engineer ~ Ë Name Telephone (day) 0 g. ¡:z::~ Address Fax <;.:) > ~ <u uO <I ~ Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Landscape Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois 2 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 Code Section(s) for which Variatlon(s) is (are) Requested SW11Il1ary and Justification for Requested Variation(s), Relate Justification to the Attached Standards for Variations ~ /.A./O(.(LÜ LIKE. Tf/ x.s r;~ Æ~G E' DUE 10 THC'. F,£JC¡ T HAcJ£ /I/O H/l5EM.!:NT, BUT ,Þf SUB R If5EH EN'" I . / ¡êçC¡2 E A rr ó/LI F/lH-XL.'I ICot:JM Þ Tf-/-x;s Do E5 1(/' /"" ;9lLð tJ Q AAlr ¡2c;O/'t FoR: 57rJ/fA6 € ~ /'Hr..,j ~A IZ~76 C W~"-I ¿J~ ~ E-< ~<n £J.-: lJ E CI-/,¿rs, ~/IS lYe ð /ê.;¡ r~,vs. o~ /lie ..5' / ",~/Vr€ Fo£. I ><~ ' ~O' I/- AlL/) ~e/U I £/C." 1~5 GA/èAG- E tVtit./ LD '-¡Llow /o/E rô :E~ / :E~ çTð~c ð'TIIERS ZTEMS /Is. åJEtl; L~WN r~//i!,(,J+.Tl,,(~G) ~O <n¡:: YAJtD 5v fPl..z:E5 I LI1-D)£;-Æ-S. g&J; b- RX LL I t;,c .. r: tlA¿£ u . -( ' I ' A BASS p..L:~ f T¡..úJ7- ..T wt::X./ L D L:r KE. 7d 57ï:te£ -T,lj~ ¿;¡=. It I J/ Gl1R.ItGE XII.) !:TEA]) tJ F ßEI.A.f; ß(/...e~EA.JE~ t.Þ'ZTH -II /2 F"-- , ' ,'" FEE r¿; STe-;I2t: .:J:r EL..!5€wJlERE. .:z::,- {A..k:Jt./¿£) At If:;'</ ~& T'O hI£,t:' ~.fV vEh'ZCLE"s .u/SZ L::Je" Au.. .sEA. S~N1 tÇ.5~c.rItLL So-' tAd It/TE R... My .7:"A/Tl?/U rxolv Z5 TO t.IV/i'" -ZA/' /"17. r>~sl£ær- F~/ê ~ I-OA./~- 7:I Þf E: /fA./D -r~z.s (';-/tRA6E ¡ 5' ~¿~ 'Jt~l..o(.v.~ Please note that the application will not be accepted until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division, It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the òwner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents pennission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best of my kn.OWledge. ~. . . Applicant .-;/ ~;þ):L:)/ ~~ Date /ð - /8--c::>r ~_. -.---- -J If applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in tills application and the associated supporting material. Property Owner ,~'V - .~~ J r:- ~I.)U,(D~' (#CUI-D $ t.-Ir/;;¿ r -r;£ ~Iï.J./ trle Nt'EDED STc),er,~£: A-/!/D G"IUI-IA,VCG 7).¡-F BFA-u-rr' O,;c ,Pi"!;,,, ¡:'-ie() /' E /{, y.. Date /0 -18 -o~ 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392_6064 >f( Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 .. ~egency gaft~e~ 450 N. York Road Elmhurst, Illinois 60126 630-993-0476 Regency Garages has been contracted to build a 3D' x 25' detached garage at 1310 Burning Bush Lane in Mount Prospect, Illinois. The specifications for the garage are: . 30' x 25' detached garage (750 square feet) . Reverse gable roof with 6/12 pitch . ~;; height 15 feet 4 inches . IAJ vinyl siding with Pewter Grey architectural roof shingles . Wall height 9 feet . Two overhead door 16' x 8' and 10' x 8' . One 36 inch service door and two sliding windows . Rear yard setback is 15'feet - this includes the easement . Side yard setback is 5 feet on south side and 13 feet on the west side. If you are not opposed to the erection of the above garage please provide your address and sign your name below. Name Address Signature I Date ~' " 13cJ[ " '" . / ¿ -, I . i ¡~¿\ ') d (jJ-v.' / ~vv~,.. I 1.'11\ -t- ,.:),'J Þ .., k;\;.'\j ( : j !. !cf/1{of¡ (¡ l.-\ .- '() !~ ." :,/ I~[)l( g L.{¿:V> 'I,') g./}, L-... L:J' ~" ~ Itrz- ,(, '¡ ~(~/'Il::" ; i ;~, I'. J L) j\b~ J1~ ~ t!CbA f [,,1't-- ' ,.,oltz/tV J ,.~ '.71, dc./Æ!/I/Þ71 1.'1 ¿'( s;?¡ ( 1/ \ ( I.'" ' 1.3co V!, -, ",1 . "c:. 'tOY(...IJ1' "-- '~ "...-{ / u -t C--t-.,ò. :l~ /() /"7 - II ' .- - OLf ,-- ~/'m 'l /'/>5 .6> if r: .A:'í/t'G- ...:.~sd- // ." ../ /i v/ eft U;'-A.-G~ \..2z;/~ ¿ / I "/~ ;? /¿~' .- Il-p Y /3 j .J-.. l~ \ r I ,i " ~,' r¡ ~ /",Et,¡ Iv f+ í\1)() ,~ LJ i'\'/I) I 1\) L- I.j J . n " -:; " i ')-. .~- 1'" t:. ' ¡,...o; .' "ð' . ' j T) ,~ì 1 L-/ f,- 11-..~ (~::.. //1 -- "... (; ,> .- ~egency gaftage~ 450 N. York Road Elmhurst, Illinois 60126 630-993-0476 Regency Garages has been contracted to build a 30' x 25' detached garage at 1310 Burning Bush Lane in Mount Prospect, Illinois. The specifications for the garage are: . 30' x 25' detached garage (750 square feet) . Reverse gable roof with 6/12 pitch . Ga~e height 15 feet 4 inches . P:vvte1 vinyl siding with Pewter Grey architectural roof shingles . Wall height 9 feet . Two overhead door 16' x 8' and 10' x 8' . One 36 inch service door and two sliding windows . Rear yard setback is 15 feet ;:- this includes the easement . Side yard setback is 5 feet on south side and 13 feet on the west side. If you are not opposed to the erection of the above garage please provide your address and sign your name below. (vclvlk' 11 !' ( I) As (', Ii VI C/ .... j J 30"7 N. P J n'\.i1. L/\, ~cÁ. t l,lVcnf\C 5-\-c i ¡...IC,' M 1. Pr-osl ~c. t I I L l."y .0 5 '" Name " . , Þf!l~fl , -!rt'/fJYC5~\ é.j1 k ß- It ~.,~,» Address ! J 33 {il'lj¿ ,11 ., ..."- í /11 r f(o)r/..~('I, .v'-- ( .3 uÎ S- i J)t ~ L-a¡.)ë. fl.l't I~~~<':)\ ~Æ't -L[; ~ / I )()J ß\Jv\'o ßV:JL, !()/¿I/ð'/ ~J/ Yt~! ye.~.: (../. ,7 . . " /67 7 0'; ~d2 Ð (&j2j / v ; I It l' 1" ! f;/ / / .-.--. v I l/ 0 LIe- £5-LZ£Ð G/P/2H;-'ES :z: /1/ ~ /'/i!:OSPe-CT; 3 - 4 CftK:.. /. '"'04 WIL5HIR.t.=: L-.'. 3 (~r¿ 7¡¡D ~. 1=+. d. I '1 J 8 LV DC/£) LiIJ' . 3 eAR. tao j%. Fl. 13. 7o:;J. Lù:I:~])50"- De. '-I CAr¿ 750 +~. t:T. ILl. 140~ l<oß€P-T DR... - 3 c.fl~ fJoo + sO' t=Î. 'S. 5;/ £/1$T/1vf.AtU DJ?.. 3-t../Utr¿ 'OSL. DEEP. ~. 17~ t KEIJ..s1:.l\.:GToAJ (L-l¡l)J:'IVL'oRft>enTED J "3 c--ft~ 7dO-l-5! Fr. ~-,. -~_.:-, -- =¿~ "-- . 1 ..:c"-- - ,:. -::-t~ -.. PLAT OF SURVEY OF LOT 298 IN THE BRICKMAN MANOR SECOND ADDITION UNIT NO. O~E, A SURDIVISION DF PAPT OF THE ~DPTHWEST 1/4 DF SECTION 25, TOI,JNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL ~iERIOIAN, I~j cnm: (DUNTY, ILLINOIS. I IRON CHAIN f'PE LINK j--. I- I FENCE -- Il/, CHAIN LINK - :z ----- U) --- ~J~ PE " IN LOT 298 0 l{) (,0 .i ¡:: I ~ , :J !! Q.. I ~ . , IL 'I- ~ I ~ I ,~ 1!; IU ~ ,.: U IlL t-1' FRAME GARAGE '" \# .' . ..; 22.22 I. ¡ ! , '-"N_H_H__. -~" I 'CORNER POST O,J SOUTH 0.8 EAST LtXiE...\'/J ..tSf) ,\'OTl-:,'>' "- CD BRICK 8 FRAME ~'Y,: I~'- RESIDENCE '~ "\ ;:; NO. IJIO \ '1 ~ 1; BURNING BUSH - +-, I," , : q ~ ! '" <t i ' :: >< æ ' . i 2.01 !! ~ ' j : 0, ~o! ! ~, ¡ i -'_.l ¡ ..- 29,90 DRIVI:WAY _.'___mm-wooo--.-.---- ----- FENCE _H. 14 0 0 \ '.1 CHAIN LINK POST . " 0.5 SOUTH LINK -, FI:NCê , '" ..,~ II¡ 26.12 0 I'J >< '" '" ..; '" 28./5 0 "', I'J; "', ~-~-: 29,~0 .- , . C~CR~~_.., -<e---:.._.-- ..; FENCl: /1/40.0 CHAIN LINK POST l.. SOUTH /Jill/lmsiol/s sllml'l/ lI/IIs, !i(j_'!:; I/rI'F','1 I/lltl tll"'¡1II1/1 /ll/rls Ill/",,',~r AIIYIIII/' rlMIl sIIoWII IlIlIs: fir)' (j0' O(}" illflicl/l/' /f,'Y""I'S, milltlll'S 1/1111 ,'I'/.Ollfl.,- :'0,:::; /;V f(J' (j(t (j(j" ,,: il/tlit'lll",' III/'I/Sl/t"(' r/iJlwlIsioll,' Iwl/ril/Y, (:i(j.:!.'; I / (,'" .1111 ' (jO' O(}" ",j i lid intl,'.~ t"('('(ml d i 1/Il'IISiOll / Iwl/ ri IIY, (!i{)..!,') dJ./ (N.'IIi' O(J' (JO",,; r/I illllir"I,'s d/'/'d ('(Ill dill/f'lIsi'lII / lWl/riml H"lIdll!/-' sh/lll'lI 11('1'('011, ~fllll.ll.I,,''III/.lIlorlls."ttl/l'tI dala. 1l1l1t.SS Shll"'11 o(h,'lwis('- r.'O/ll/)(rr /folll.",';lIls 111:1("." I/"illflsl/I/If' '11Iti ""II/II"III//ll dUii.,-,'//(','.' imlll/'dill/I'II/- IRON PIPE \ /~I I .'¡ I i JUW-.'I', I," I Old !LÓ !\D i ~ i I I I cò ..----. --.. --- CONCRETE: . 0.8" NORm II II " ,I II I' ,! Ii --- ii . i: 0 i I: I --1, "'-------. "I, i . - Ii , 'I I. tll PIPE STATE OF ILLIN(,HS } C( II TNTY OF ('( )OK ss. 2. -J --.... f- :r:lLJ U)lLJ ~g: CDCf) (!) Z - ZlLJ O:::lLJ ::> -1 CD,,--- I s l ' I ¡ II ! ! .. . .,1 I. ./,,""'" (', (.,,/I'III/n,,' II, "" /lli/lois l)n~li'".~iollllll.lllld SIII'/'I'I("" do 1/1"'('/111 1."I'lilll /1/11' 11/111'" -'IIT"lI/'d /lIt'IIIIII"/, ",.sI'ril",t/ 1''I)lw'/y, ,,1/" 11/111 /I". 01"",,- I,h,' i" '1 ,'/1/"/'('('1 "ï)'('. ",'"h"ill" ,!f""id ,""""'1(, 1'lIllIli",., /III//IIi" -- .._!1cP~!l. .1J!._..]QQL .._...._--- ------------.---_..--- E)N S~1E PLA~ SCALE 18 = 20' .----.------ ----""-----"'------.'-----------1 I ! (LEE STREET) ~;~=~-;;;;;~--;~;;~:~~~~~~~zr: a a ..q- ..- 65.0' '0 0'> ;;; ; /ÑËVrëÕÑCRETr- wÄCKi -" ......-.. .--..'----...--.......- ---, 1== ;w a:: u :z: 0 u ;= w :z: 11,8' 12.15X2,O OVERHANG I r----- I 11.50' 36.87' 2.01' 'N EXISTING NO. 1310 BURNING BUSH LN.~ ~ RESIDENCE TO ~ N REMAIN 48.24' 23.62X2.0 OVERHANG 8.19' . -----~,j i L______-- ~/ L....___---.----.---------- NEW CONCRETE 3 X30TO N CR ETE-.A P RON" --- '0 IÓ N NEW 1 STORY FRAME GARAGE 30.0' , \.r> r:- 65,0' ------------_._---- '0 0'> ,,; N I I~ '0 0 ..q- ..-- 5.0' rTED DRAG -I ! 1310 BURNING BUSH LN" MT. PROSPECT. IL ¡REGENCY GARAGES 1450 N. YORK ROAD i ELMHURST, IL 60126 2 ~ -, . REGENCY GARAGES 450 N. YORK RD. ELMHURST, IL 60126 (630) 993-0476 NO SWAY BRACING PLYWOOD WALLS 12in 25 YEAR SEAL TAB SHINGLES OVER 15 LB. FELT 1/2 INCH PLYWOOD ROOF SHEATHING BIRD'S MOUTH CUT DOUBLE 2" x 12" HEADER 2" x 6" RAFTER TIES 2" X 6" RAFTERS 2" X 8" RIDGE 16" O.C. 2" X 4" STUD FRAMING 16" O.C. ROOF TYPE Reverse Gable %" PLYWOOD WALL SHEA THING GARAGE SIZE W 30' L 25' SIDING TYPE: VINYL %" BOLTS x 10" x 6' a.c. RAISED WATER LEDGE 4 SIDES Owner Information Ted Drag 1310 Burning Bush Lane Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 847-298-3770 2"x4" TREATED BOTTOM PLATES Footing Depth 18in 5 in, CONCRETE w/MESH 4 in. CRUSHED STONE Footing Width 12 in. 1-------------------"'---------- --------------- __m__--------------------------------------------- ------------ - ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------.----- ---.. ---___--_n_-l : ' i i I VINYL SIDING ~ tt:CÏf: i I I I I ! i I I I i I I I I I I I i I I J 30'-0' 1 I I I g 12"x12" ROOF VENTS ! T/ T /PLA TE ;- , ~ ~ I ;.-, b I 0. FOUNDATION 1ø - ¡ l / 10'-0' f f 16'-0' " ~ f 0 I " 6(1- 35# ASPHALT OOF SHINGLES WTER GREY GRADE \ tÂ"¿f) REAR (VV~) OH GARAGE DOOR 16X8 INSULA TED METAL DOOR PER PLAN- \48X24 II1NDOWS 7 / j 25'-0' J 3'-0 7"=0' r=ö -0' LEFT SIDE (~~1l1) RIGHtTE~~~A~ ~-~~-f- -.----- - ----I i 1310 BURNING BUSH LN., MT. PROSPECT, IL I I REGENCY GARAGES I I 450 N. YORK ROAD I I ELMHURST. IL 60126 PH. 630-993-0476 ¡ - SCALE SHEET I u- -----------_.__J~HŒJg.!L~lEV A TION.$.. J/~~.r=-L ___.L__.1 "-0' VWL 2/9/05 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1310 BURNING BUSH LANE WHEREAS, Ted Drag (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner") has filed a petition for a Variation with respect to property located at 1310 Burning Bush Lane (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property") and legally described as follows: Lot 298 in the Brickman Manor Second Addition Unit No. One, a subdivision of part of the northwest 1/4 of Section 25, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois Property Index Number: 03-25-123-003-0000; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Variation to allow an oversized detached garage; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Variation being the subject of Case No. PZ-46-04 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 2ih day of January, 2005, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 1ih day of January, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and negative recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Variation would be in the best interest of the Village. (\; Page 2/2 1310 Burning Bush Lane NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Variation, as provided in Section 14.203.C of the Village Code, to allow a 750 square-foot detached garage, with a 13.25' height exceeding the maximum size of 672 square feet and 12' height allowed by Village Code, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2005. Gerald L. Farley Mayor ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:ICLKO\filesIWINIORDINANClVariation-1310 BurnBush,ovrsz garage,FebO5.doc '\ 0 0 .q- ~ SIDEWALK \:~~~~ / i" '0 O! ì;:; I I I I 1 """""h,..,."~.,"_.,.""~.._-',,j /'-NEW CONCRETE WALK! /' /,'-"""'."""""'h""""""'-""I ~ , I <-> t.": r .~ -- ' ð , , '-" ;:: w Z 65.0' EXISTING NO. 1310 BURNING BUSH LN RESIDENCE TO REMAIN ..".. ,-,.,.., i."..~.=~~~.~.==~~==_7'éJ "" NEW CONCRETE a IÛ '" NEW 1 STORY FRAME GARAGE 30.0' \J') '2: 65.0' E)N 0 0 .q- ~ 5.0' []] rn +------ I. .0 .6 .9 .~,~L ---- ~.~ ~$' "---' ODD. [].O ð . ./ f-""'--" ~'J\ LL~ MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 11,2005 SUBJECT: PZ-03-05: VARIATION (EXTERIOR SIDE Y ARD- GARAGE ADDI 1451 W. LINCOLN STREET STEVE MILLER - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-03-05, a Variation to allow a 14,59' exterior side yard, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their January 27, 2005 meeting. The Subject Property is a corner lot, located within a single-family residential neighborhood. The attached exhibits illustrate the Petitioner's proposed improvements to the existing home, which include a one-story addition to the house in the rear, an unenclosed porch, and an addition to the existing garage to accommodate a third vehicle. The proposed unenclosed porch would encroach one-foot into the required front yard; the P&Z granted Conditional Use approval for this request January 27, 2005. (The P&Z's decision is final for this part of the zoning case,) However, the addition to the garage would encroach to'5" resulting in a 14.59' exterior side yard, which requires Village Board approval. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's plans for the house. They discussed the safest manner in which to access the garage and traffic volume on Busse Road. The P&Z noted that the garage addition would be close to the right-of-way and that most of the other structures in the area complied with the required setbacks. One Commission stated his doubts that the County would ever widen Busse Road. There was discussion regarding the probability of Cook County Highway Department approving a curb-cut for the Petitioner to access a new garage from Busse Road, how it would be difficult to enter/exit the driveway from Busse Road during rush hour, and how the existing right-turn only lane (from Busse Road to Lincoln Street) would impact access to/from the Petitioner's property. The Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 5-2 to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a Variation to permit the construction of an addition to the garage 14.59' from the exterior lot line (along Busse Road) at 1451 W. Lincoln Street, Case No. PZ-03-05. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 15,2005 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. ~&J:~1 Ijc RIPLAN\PJ.",,;ng & Zoning COMM,P&Z 2005\MEJ McUlosIPZ-O3-05 MEJ MEMO (1451 W UncoJn - VAR- s;dc y"d).doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-O3-05 Hearing Date: January 27,2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1451 W, Lincoln St. PETITIONER: Steve Miller 233 HatIen Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: January 12,2005 Journal/Topics and PIN#: 08-11-300-023-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use approval to construct an unenclosed porch in the required front yard and a Variation for a garage addition to encroach into the exterior side yard setback. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Steve Miller Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the revised minutes of the October 28, 2004 meeting and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion to approve. The motion was approved 4-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros, Matt Sledz and Keith Younquis1. Matt Sledz moved to approve the minutes of the November 11, 2004 meeting; Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros and Keith Younquis1. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ- 03-05, a request for Conditional Use approval to construct an unenclosed porch in the required front yard and a Variation to add on to the existing garage that would encroach into exterior side yard. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject Property is located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, between Busse Road and Ojibwa Trail, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single-Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RX District. The Petitioner proposes to improve the house by adding a one-story addition to the house in the rear, an unenclosed porch, and an addition to the existing garage to accommodate a third vehicle. As part of the project, the Petitioner proposes to modify the front elevation of the house by adding dormers and modifying the roofline. However, the Petitioner has not submitted floor plans that indicate a 'finished' second story addition at this time. The addition to the house meets zoning regulations, but the porch and garage addition encroach into the required setbacks, Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-03-05 Page 2 The proposed unenclosed porch consists of a concrete base and wood columns. It would extend almost 6' from the house, resulting in a 39' front yard setback when the Zoning Ordinance requires a 40' setback for this district. Therefore, the proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval. Also, the proposed garage addition would encroach 10.41' into the required 25' exterior side yard. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to construction the garage addition. The existing home and addition to the rear of the house complies with the Village's zoning regulations. However, the proposed porch and garage addition would encroach into required setbacks. In order to approve the requests, the board has to find that they meet the standards for a Conditional Use and Variation, respectively, which are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards. She said that the proposed Conditional Use, the unenclosed porch, would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision, or public streets, and would be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. She noted that the standards for a Variation are different than the Conditional Use standards and said that the Petitioner is proposing to increase the size of the garage to accommodate a third vehicle, resulting in a 14.59' exterior side yard setback. Ms. Connolly said that the garage would continue to be accessed from Lincoln Avenue. The Subject Property is rectangular in shape and exceeds the minimum lot size for the RX district. The Petitioner examined the possibility of constructing a new 3-car garage that would front onto Busse Road. However, they stated exiting onto Busse Road would be dangerous due to the high traffic volume on Busse Road. In addition, the new curb cut would require a permit from Cook County Highway because Busse Road falls under CCH jurisdiction. The Petitioner also explored redesigning the garage so they would be side loading, while still maintaining access from Lincoln A venue. The Petitioner determined that there was not enough room to allow for an adequate turning radius for this design. The manner in which the existing garage is located on the Subject Property, as well as the traffic volume on Busse Road, create challenges for expanding the existing garage to accommodate a third vehicle. However, a 3-car 'tandem-style' garage could be constructed and still utilize the same driveway; this design would require removing the existing sun porch, Ms. Connolly said that the Zoning Ordinance defines a hardship as "a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of unusual surroundings or condition of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground conditions or other unusual circumstances". Although the site is located on a corner, the site is not restricted by a small lot width. However, these conditions exist throughout the surrounding neighborhood and are therefore not unique to this property. The Petitioner has the option of modifying the existing garage so the addition meets the 25-foot setback, as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. While this design may not be the most convenient option, the garage would meet the required setback. Although the proposed garage addition may be constructed in an attractive manner, the Petitioner has other alternatives that would meet zoning regulations. Also, while Staff can appreciate the Petitioner's desire for a 3- car garage, there is no hardship and the proposed 3-car garage is more of a convenience. Based on this analysis, Staff finds that the request does not meet the Variation standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. However, Staff finds that the proposed unenclosed porch does meet the Conditional Use standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends: The P&Z approve the unenclosed porch and allow it to encroach into the required front yard, creating a front setback of no less than 35' for the residence at 1451 W. Lincoln Street, Case No. PZ-03-05. The P&Z's decision is final for this part of the case. Staff recommends: The P&Z recommend that the Village Board deny a Variation to allow a garage addition to encroach into the required exterior side yard, creating a 14.59' setback for the residence at 1451 W. Lincoln Street, Case No. PZ-03-05. The Village Board's decision is final for this part of the case because the request is more than 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-03-05 Page 3 Ms. Juracek noted there is a lot of green space between the fence and Busse Road and asked if that is an easement. Ms. Connolly said that was right of way that belongs to the County and that the road could possibly be widened in the future. Steve Miller, 233 Hatlen, Mount Prospect, was sworn in. He explained that his detached garage has been broken into where he presently lives and he feels that an attached garage offers more security. He also feels the turnaround would be a great advantage when his children start to drive. Ms. Juracek asked if the wooden fence on the Busse side would remain. Mr. Miller said it would. Mr. Rogers said it would be difficult to approve this requested garage, being so close to Busse Road, and asked Mr. Miller if he would consider a two-step garage, keeping one car in back of another. Mr. Miller said he had thought of that, but obviously it would not be as convenient or as aesthetically pleasing in appearance. Several Planning & Zoning Commissioners noted that this garage would be very close to Busse Road if Busse were widened, and that it would be the only structure that close to Busse. Mr. Youngquist asked if Mr. Miller resided in the house at present. He said he did not, that he lived two blocks away. Mr. Youngquist and Ms. Juracek said a condition of granting a Variation was proving a hardship and no hardship was being proven in this case. Mike Pollera was sworn in. He said he was the general contractor for the project and represented the architect who was unable to be at the hearing. He said that the architect had gone through as many designs as possible to try to stay within Code, including demolishing the present garage, but could not design a more acceptable plan. A tandem garage would have required destruction of part of the existing house and consequent weakening of the structure. Ms. Juracek asked if there was any further comment from the audience. Being none, she closed the Public Hearing and brought discussion back to the P&Z. Leo Floros said he could support this project because he does not think Busse will be widened in the near future. He said there is a turn lane at Busse and Lincoln, which affords sufficient land area. Mr. Floros said that to orient the garage towards Busse would be a serious mistake; it would be dangerous or they would be unable to get in or out during rush hours. Richard Rogers made a motion for Conditional Use approval to allow construction of an unenclosed porch that would encroach in the required front yard at 1451 W. Lincoln St., Case No. PZ-03-05. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. The Planning and Zoning Board's decision is final for this case. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0, Mr. Donnelly asked Mr. Miller to return to the podium and explain if he needed the turnaround whether or not the 3-car garage addition was approved. Mr. Miller said yes, he did need the turnaround because of the traffic coming off of Busse onto Lincoln. Ms. Juracek agreed, saying yes, there is not actually a left-turn lane at that location, cars just go onto the walkway to make the turn. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval for a Variation to allow a 14.59' exterior side yard for the proposed Garage Addition, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan at 1451 W. Lincoln St., Case No. PZ-03- 05. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. It was noted that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-03-05 Page 4 UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Sledz and Juracek NAYS: Rogers and Youngquist Motion was approved 5-2. At 11 :45 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner K\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2005\PZ.O3.05 \45\ W. Lincoln Steve Miller.doc MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JANUARY 20,2005 HEARING DATE: JANUARY 27,2005. SUBJECT: PZ-03-05-CONDITIONAL USE (PORCH) & VARIATION (EXTERIOR SIDE YARD) 1451 W, LINCOLN STREET (MILLER RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the January 27, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Steve Miller (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 1451 W, Lincoln Ave. (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner has requested: 1) Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of an unenclosed porch in the front yard, and 2) for a Variation to construct an addition to the attached garage that would encroach in the exterior side yard. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the January 12, 2005 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, between Busse Road and Ojibwa Trail, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single-Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RX District. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Petitioner proposes to improve the house by adding a one-story addition to the house in the rear, an unenclosed porch, and an addition to the existing garage to accommodate a third vehicle, As part of the project, the Petitioner proposes to modify the front elevation of the house by adding dormers and modifying the roofline. However, the Petitioner has not submitted floor plans that indicate a 'finished' second story addition at this time, The addition to the house meets zoning regulations, but the porch and garage addition encroach into the required setbacks. The proposed unenclosed porch consists of a concrete base and wood columns. It would extend almost 6' from the house, resulting in a 39' front yard setback when the Zoning Ordinance requires a 40' setback for this district. Therefore, the proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval. Also, the proposed garage addition would encroach 10.41' into the required 25' exterior side yard. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to construction the garage addition. PZ-03-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 27,2005 Page 3 GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The existing home and addition to the rear of the house complies with the Village's zoning regulations. However, the proposed porch and garage addition would encroach into required setbacks. The following table compares the Petitioner's proposal to the RX Single-Family Residence District's bulk requirements, RX Single-Family District Minimum Requirements Existing: Proposed SETBACKS: Front 40' 42.42' 39' Interior 10' 16.47' (east) No change Exterior 25' 29.22' 14.59' Rear 30' 100.54' 70.54' LOT COVERAGE 35% Maximum 17% 27% CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. The following list is a summary of these findings: . The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; . . Adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on V illage streets; and Compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. . The proposed Conditional Use (unenclosed porch) would not adversely affect the character of the sun"ounding neighborhood, utility provision, or public streets, and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. VARIATION USE STANDARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: . A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and . PZ-03-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 27,2005 Page 4 . Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner is proposing to increase the size of the garage to accommodate a third vehicle, resulting in a 14.59' exterior side yard setback. The garages would continue to be accessed from Lincoln A venue, The Subject Property is rectangular in shape and exceeds the minimum lot size for the RX district. The Petitioner examined the possibility of constructing a new, 3-car garage that would front onto Busse Road, However, they state in the attached application that they feel exiting onto Busse Road would be dangerous due to the high traffic volume on Busse Road. In addition, the new curb cut would require a permit from Cook County Highway because Busse Road falls under CCH jurisdiction. The Petitioner also explored redesigning the garages so they would be side loading, while still maintaining access from Lincoln A venue. The Petitioner determined that there was not enough room to allow for an adequate turning radius for this design. The manner in which the existing garage is located on the Subject Property, as well as the traffic volume on Busse Road, create challenges for expanding the existing garage to accommodate a third vehicle. However, a 3-car 'tandem-style' garage could be constructed and still utilize the same driveway; this design would require removing the existing sun porch. The Zoning Ordinance defines a hardship as "a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of unusual surroundings or condition of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground conditions or other unusual circumstances". Although the site is located on a corner, the site is not restricted by a small lot width, However, these conditions exist throughout the surrounding neighborhood and are therefore not unique to this property. The Petitioner has the option of modifying the existing garage so the addition meets the 25-foot setback, as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. While this design may not be the most convenient option, the garage would meet the required setback. RECOMMENDATION Although the proposed garage addition may be constructed in an attractive manner, the Petitioner has other alternatives that would meet zoning regulations. Also, while Staff can appreciate the Petitioner's desire for a 3- car garage, there is no hardship and the proposed 3-car garage is more of a convenience, Based on this analysis, Staff finds that the request does not meet the Variation standards contained in Section 14.203,c.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, Staff finds that the proposed unenclosed porch does meet the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203,F,8 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends: 1) The P&Z approve the unenclosed porch and allow it to encroach into the required front yard, creating a front setback of no less than 35' for the residence at 1451 W. Lincoln Street, Case No. PZ-03-05. The P&Z's decision is final for this part of the case. 2) The P&Z recommend that the Village Board deny a Variation to allow a garage addition to encroach into the required exterior side yard, creating a 14.59'setback for the residence at 1451 W. Lincoln Street, Case No. PZ-03-05. The Village Board's decision is final for this part of the case. I concur: ~ VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 1\1ount PrOSpCL"T ~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 50 S, Emerson Street Mount Prospect, llJinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 l\pplication for Conditional Use Approval Z Case Number 0 P&Z - - - ¡... -<;:::; Development Name/Address ~= 00 r- ~ Date of SubJTÙssion z8 -0 >'!......... ~ Hearing Date ~ Z - Address( esj (Street Number, Street) It.¡ $"'1 l.), t ~.....tc>l"" Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) 0 .51 h..X ~~Yb Setbacks: Front Rear Side E: "'-' of Side We.. ~ Z ~o\.o 10' '~',~ \'f S- 0 - ¡... Buildinÿ Height Lot Coverage (%) Number of Parking Spaces <: ~ "Z- ~ ,l::> ?-6 10 0 Adjacent Land Uses: I ... North L;",'ul~ ~+ South East West~"",~Se 11.d, z - ~ Cþ I' J.... to'... I ' n...S; J e..., L 1'Cc, L Tl.c;. ;.1 ~ .(. I'Go l ;,.;¡ f1,.Cþ tct r2 ~ ~..~ \ r-' Tax J.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) - rr; ~ O~ - It.. ~ 00 - c..:>1.. ~ .. 0<'.>00 z - ¡... rr; ~ ~ Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) :'e.e.. <; ~IJ "y ( z 0 ~ -< ¿ IXI 0- t,¡.. ::: Z ~ - .- cõ.. z Co ;:¡< 01 a:: c." ~ U < CQ Name ~+~ Corporation Telephone (day) c..... ~4 "lo~ '=> Lt I .."l.. ~ I 5" TeJephone (evening) c;r\.( 1 Lr~ L( - I ~91 Fax State :CL Zip Code G>OO S- b Pager ] Ow - TTelePh~ne (Jay) ¿;: (ï '=~ Iz: 'Name I~ ! ~+ eu.JL u~ it <: e,.. lo<if G>Y'-~~/S' Ii -I I "- Corporation Telephone (evening) I "" .... - CJ 0 ~ Li ~y - l ;'11 ¡,¡" ~ ~Yì z:D ;,? Street Address Fax: z: CJ ;:::¡P. (J~ t ~ '-, 02 """t. > > ~o.. ~I City State Zip Code Pager :;( U ~T ? I'-6~C2v~ <: 'Sc.. ~OOS{; CQ Developer I Name Telephone (day) I Address Fax - Attorney , Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Surveyor Z Name Telephone (day) 0 - ~ tI) Address Fax <~ ~.~ OJJ ¡., 0 z.... -Q... ~E Engineer \ Z CJ Name L I to'\ .(. L.J o....<..c. s ~ E Telephone (day) CO '"l"1 SG.'i -SZ,9'(.) O§- ~"¿) '!Þ 50 J ~ Ob6~ J í.:' > Address Fax I: ::( I!) uQ ~ ~L r-odL..c. re.... Cø C8C:P'"2- <I t = I Architect Telephone (day): ~ L.(" Sf:>'-t -$Z-1rGJ N a m e l ; '"' .... \,..H. .... tc. S Address ~S()( \..ù Oc, cl ~d Fax I\)(}". ~Lr I :c c.... ~b "t- ( Landscape Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax I Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect l11inois www.moun tprospect. org 2 Phone 847.8] 8.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 . I hop..;d Cnnd¡ti~n,l U" (os li";dm ,h, conmg d'ô',ict) ~ : " . - '. ~ I Om"b, in Detail the Buildings and Acti,"',e, Pi-oposed and How the ",oposed Use "eo" the Att,,¡',d S¡a"d"d, fo< I i Conditional Use Approval (attach additional sheets if necessary) I I i I ! I "'" ~ ¡.... ~[/) O~ >;:J ~~ ~ ~ [/) " ~ Z . ;:JO CIJ¡:: U ~ ~ ¡....Z -0 CIJ- o¡.... ~:S ~Ë2 ¡="o O~ CX:Z ¡=..- f( ec..~ ~ ~ +tc-c..L.- d Hours of Operation Address(es) (Street Number, Street) , ""\ S, LV, L~h c.CJl...... Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning 0.51 {"t-X Setbacks: Front '-{O '. Building Height '2.. ~', (. Total BuiJding Sq. Ft. (Site) ~9Yb c. ~~O Rear C' Lot Coverage (%) 1--(;. Side Side ~&~ ,~'.S \ Number of Parking Spaces Please note that the appJication will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully compJeted and alJ required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted, It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staffso that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time of submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the O\\ller or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the ovmer of the proper!) grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents pem1Ìssion to enter on the property during reasonable hours for "isuaJ inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials subn1Ìtted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ~~ Applicant Date l ë... - ~ a - 6 '-I If applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the V ariation(s) described in this appJication and the associated supporting materiaL Property O\\11er Date Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois v.ww.mountprospectorg PhOlle 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818,5329 TDD 847.392.6064 3 RE: 1451 W. Lincoln Street. Proposed Conditional Use: Unenclosed Front Porch - wI a 12 inch encroachment. A request is hereby made to allow for the addition of an unenclosed front porch they may encroach up to 12 inches into the front setback. The plan as submitted calls for the porch to stop at the 40 foot Front yard setback as required in the Village Code, However, for aesthetic reasons, it may be desirable to extend the porch an additional 12 jnches, thereby creating a 12 inch encroachment into the front setback. The porch is intended to give more visual appeal to the front elevation of the home by breaking up the long expanse of the main roof. Variation Request: Addition of a 3rd stall to the existing garage. A request is hereby made to allow for the addition of a 3rd stall to the existing garage which will result in a 10.6 foot encroachment into the exterior side setback. The addition of the 3rd stall is requested for several reasons. 1. Functional Obsolesces, The room addition being proposed (for which no variance is being sought) will result in a 3200 + square foot residence, A 2-car garage for a home of this size presents an issue of functional obsolesce. This home is being renovated to accommodate a large family with multiple drivers and vehicles, The addition and renovation is being undertaken to improve the functionality of the propeliy, as well as to dramatically enhance its visual appeal from the street. The owner is making a large investment in the improvements and has been advised that a home of this sjze in this neighborhood would suffer from functional obsolesces if it were served by less then a 3 car garage. 2. Visual appeal. In order to improve the visual appeal of the home~ the existing roofline is being changed. Dormers are being added to the front elevation and there will be an additional stepped backed gable in the rear. To further enhance the appearance, the proposed 3rd garage bay would be stepped back from the main structure. This will add yet another element of visual interest to the roofline and soften the north & west elevations resulting in a positive impact on the surrounding neighbors. 3. Uniqueness of the propeliy. The property is located on the South East corner of Lincoln and Busse. The possibility of demolishing the existing garage and constructing a new garage which exits onto Busse Road was explored. This would have allowed the improvements to stay within the setback. However, in addition to requiring the demolition of a major portion of the existing structure, there were several issues that made this impractical and hazardous. A. The driveway would have exited onto Busse Road only 5 car lengths south of the stoplight at Lincoln. This is a very heavily trafficked area and the driver would be trying to back out into 40 MPH traffic 50 feet from a major intersection. There would also be no way for them to see cars that were turning Southbound from Lincoln onto Busse. I think the board will agree that this would create a dangers situation which would be detrimental to the public welfare. B. The possibility of turning the garages to face Busse but having the driveway on Lincoln was also looked at. Unfortunately there is not enough room to allow for an adequate turning radius. After careful review of the options with an architect and other construction professionals, it has become apparent the most functional and safest solution and the one that offers the most positive impact on the neighbors, is the addition of a 3rd bay to the west side of the existing garage. This request is respectfully submitted for your review and consideration. 127.2 . N <0 I (:) ,... 18"-3 1/2- N IX) .n r-, t I I , I I I I I , I L ------ PROPOSED' OPEN PORCH , , I , \ I . ' I I , ' I I , ' I I , ' I I , ' I I , ' I I " " ' I , ' ' I , ,I I ,', I I 'I, ',,: : ,~' I """ "'-"'--'\ : -, I I -, I ' .1 ---I : I ' I I .. I I " I ' I " ----- ¡ Î -- I I 126...------_J i -----------_J . I ---------- I . \AJ I I~I("("\I "-I C"TDC"C"T -- ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ I I I II ~ ~ -......;: C( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I ) ,-' ,...' I -- J ------ " 0 0 .... ï1 .......... r .þ.. 0 .0 II ;::0 .... , -0 O. r .þ Z 0 0 -_.-~ """'" CJ fV C"\ -r ~ ~ / '[j ()ID~ 'T1°Z 3: "- !:¡ .. . ~ I -- '$'" -, .-... en ~ '...,.....' ()) - -;p- :~ ,/" . :-...1' OJ ~ -0 "m ° (X) r 0 L .------. PLArl' Oli' SlJRV E Y BY SIEVeRTSEN SURVEY SERVICE INC, Meier's 5ubaiv1~ion of part of the tion 11, Township 41 North, Han~e ~.reof re~1s~ered 1n ~ne Office of 5,1951. as Oocument *1131505. , ~ -(;- Z- .j¡f)~ ~it-~ fr(# ~él E . p~ r 'I ~ I , ~ "" i: \ ì'. ~ r~ ~ Ji: Ì 70' ""~ -'l../e<-v S~ ".Ii",! Ce If. ,.A-lo ',: l' ~I i ij)1 \A '^ ~ ~ .'\. <,' . ~} ,\ "'~ ,~ -1 <~'(' r~:-', . , ~/ ~ ~J ~I $\ ~ Or(, , "<6 1 r---+ ILl,6ClJ jO L-',J~ .;', r "> " ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ .(\~ '\. zs , , --. - 2.0 ~. :¡ I/PJ'WlV v......,.A'~/~.I987 , 1 .. I~ /~;::~;:~~":;""" C<fI! ~~~ ~'7" . ~ &, ¡" /é,', 1 n~'~~\ - - - --=-= =-, §: LAND ¡ ~ .,' - ~ "~œ : :: ,- - :..-- ~ %-- ---- - ; j:" Of" ,":: ø... - .. -- Cv;>-b State 0 - 5 S -~ I -^". /"¿J § Counly 01 Cook' "~ ..,,; "" "",,"'~v..$ £),# Á¿¿; ¡,r: ~,~ A-~.Ll!:/-~r~ "I", ~ OF 1\...,-" <1-"" FOR,r ~d~ , ' ,¡"" 1./ I Eclward A. SievertMn a~.le..dßl"-~.cIo SCAlE, : .-: /.!7 FT., BOOK ~ð PAGE //V. ~.::... .~~~~ certify that I e...~ the property deecrlbed C~ ~ in thia ,.&al with yooar ~d. a_lract or certif.rate 01 Iii"'; alJ JlII~: andl"'t the ahow" hereon ia a coned reprnen'- c.. I~ .. ..4- ~ --do., ~................. l>..iId...,.- II;' ,f,q.....1Ie-d ...'V~~ -- anI/ Mo--r :y be Iound. ..port - to our ~"'e al once. 8u~ing Iine5 and ¡;Þ'~ lliIS;;?~ DAV OF Oc..rt2Ñ~ 19 _B~ A.D. uo- _L_h- __L__.L_..._.----___...I-.I,ftfl.._...'nfl...........r.l.rlovour . n. '! :1: i1¡:!I.. il! ¡¡¡::;: 1\!, ¡¡ :," ::,::".1 ' \1: ~ 11!i!!:;:.I: I c: 0 +: :a "'0 « (l) 0) ~ ro <.9 c: 0 +: ro > (l) w (l) :2 CJ) "'0 (l) tfJ a c.. 0 I- a... I .. 0 ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ Iì (ì b tJj ,. ~ 1 8 0 .. ~ ,~ ~.. "= >.," w~ fIj~ 0,' ~ =-ii5 e~ , ~! '- vwl 2/9/05 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1451 WEST LINCOLN STREET WHEREAS, Steve Miller (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner") has filed a petition for a Variation with respect to property located at 1451 West Lincoln Street (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") and legally described as follows: Lot 2 in Meier's Subdivision of part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to plat thereof registered in the Office ofthe Registrar of Titles of Cook County, Illinois, on April 5, 1957, as Document #1731505 Property Index Number: 08-11-300-023-0000; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Variation to allow an addition to the existing garage to encroach 10'5" feet within the 25' foot minimum side yard as required in Section 14.805.B of the Mount Prospect Village Code; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Variation being the subject of PZ-03-05 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 2ih day of January, 2005, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 12th day of January, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and positive recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Variation would be in the best interest of the Village, ß 1451 W. Lincoln Street Page 2/2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Variation, as provided in Section 14.203.C of the Village Code, to allow a garage addition to encroach 10'5" within the twenty-five foot (25') minimum exterior side yard setback required by the Mount Prospect Village Code, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as "Exhibit A" SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2005. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H,ICLKOIfilesIWINIORDINANCIVariation 1451 Lincoln,garage addition,FebO5,doc t: 0 :¡::¡ :a "C « Q) 0> ~ CO <.9 "'ì t: 0 :¡::¡ CO > Q) w Q) "C ü5 "C Q) t/') 0 a. e a.. 175,8' ~-----_._-- I : I I i ¡ I : I I .... I ()i !1> ,;;Ì /- - ~I ...' èñ~! /<:>--_.. ' i // c: I ! ./ Õ : if (.) r-.......__.L.i>--_.--._._"m_.- c:t .- I ..Ji I ¡n._____.,. I ~ I " I . I . I "~.._m----_-' L- --- 0.0,' 0 '.0' 70'-6 11'- --_-.J \ I. i I ! I I: I ÎÎ i I i i I "\ Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department Mount Prospect MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER 1>Þ, tJ,~ -z.I1 5 os- FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 11,2005 SUBJECT: PZ-02-05 - CONDITIONAL USE (PUD) 1-17 S. EMERSON STREET NORWOOD BUILDERS - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-02-05, a request to construct a 14-unit rowhome planned unit development on the east side of Emerson Street, south of Central Road and north of Busse Avenue, The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their January 27, 2005 meeting. The Subject Property is located at the southeast corner of Central Road and Emerson Street, and consists of multiple vacant lots and a parking lot. The proposed development is consistent with the Village's Downtown Strategic Plan, which calls for the Subject Property to be developed with rowhomes. The Petitioner is seeking approval for the proposed Planned Unit Development as well as relief from storm water detention requirements and building heights (rowhomes and detached garages). The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's project at length at the January 2ih meeting, The Petitioner presented their request for the Planned Unit Development and requested an Exception from the Development Code regulations pertaining to storm water detention requirements and Variations for the building and garage heights, The Petitioner requested an exemption from storm water detention requirements for several reasons: I) the rowhome project is in the B5 District and is across the street from projects in the B5C zoning district, which is not required by Village Code to provide storm water detention; 2) physical space constraints limit their ability to provide detention, and 3) the area does not currently have a flooding problem. The Petitioner's Engineer explained how water would be managed on-site and answered questions from the Planning & Zoning Commissioners about run-off and other Engineering designs and practices. There was lengthy discussion regarding this request and possible options for the Petitioner to meet the intent of the Development Code, Several members of the P&Z stated their concerns that the garages were too large, There was lengthy discussion regarding the style of the garage, its roof, and how a high-pitched roof was necessary to blend with the architecture of the rowhomes. There was discussion regarding hydraulic lifts that could be installed to allow owners the ability to park additional cars. Several community residents addressed the Planning & Zoning Commission and stated their preference for a park instead of the proposed rowhome development. Then several residents whose backyards are adjacent to the PZ-02-05 February 11, 2005 Page 2 proposed project also addressed the P&Z and stated their support for the rowhomes. They asked questions about the fence along the shared lot line and questions specific to the construction process. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend that the Village Board approve the Conditional Use request for the proposed rowhome development and relief for building heights, Case No. PZ-02-05, subject to the following conditions: A. The Petitioner shall save as many of the existing trees as possible; B. The Petitioner shall provide at least 50% of the required amount of storm water detention; C. The Petitioner shall work with the residents adjacent to the site to resolve any screening/fence issues that include but are not limited to the style of fence and who will maintain the fence; D. Prior to Village Board review the Petitioner shall submit a revised site plan that reflects: 1. The 5.5' Emerson Street right-of-way dedication and the 7' easement along Central Road; 2. A 24' wide, right-in/right-out only Central Road curb cut that is striped and signed accordingly; 3. Modifications to the east lot line and private drive that eliminates conflicts with existing utilities, and creates the necessary turning radius to accommodate a garbage truck; E. Prior to Village Board review the Petitioner shall submit a revised landscape plan that includes additional trees throughout the development, identifies the screening material along the east lot line, and includes the adopted Village's Streetscape Program; F. Prior to Village Board review the Petitioner shall submit revised elevations that reflect the building materials presented to the Village Board as part of the RFP process in addition to a material board; G, Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall submit a lighting plan for the site for Staff review and approval; H. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner shall submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval that include provisions for having snow removed and deposited off-site. I. The Petitioner's Building Permit plans shall include: I. Signs posted in the private drive that parking is prohibited. 2. A two hour fire separation between the garage units that abut each other. 3. A one hour fire separation between each garage building. 4. Each unit shall be protected by sprinklers and constructed in accordance with our adopted codes. 5. A fire hydrant installed along Central Road, location to be determined per the Fire Chief. 6. Pro'¡isions for on site storm water management. (eliminated) J. Develop the site in accordance with all applicable Village Codes and requirements, including, but not limited to, Fire Prevention Code regulations, lighting regulations, Sign Code regulations, and building regulations. K. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner shall submit a plat of subdivision that reflects the required 5.5' dedication along Emerson Street and the 7' easement along Central Road. L. Provisions shall be made to allow the private drive to be extended south to Busse Avenue at such time as the property to the south is developed as a park. PZ-O2-05 February 11,2005 Page 3 Since the January 2ih P&Z meeting, the Petitioner has worked to address concerns listed in the Staff memo and raised at the P&Z meeting. However, the Petitioner is still seeking 100% relief from storm water detention requirements and the Petitioner's Engineer has submitted information that outlines the impact of providing detention as required by the Village Code. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 15, 2005 meeting. Staff will be present i'er any questions. related to this matter. , William. Cooney, ., AICP /jc RIPLANlPl,nning & Zoning COMM\P&z 2005\MEJ McmosIPZ-O2-05 ME! (No,wood - 1- 17 S. Emcrson).doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-O2-05 Hearing Date: January 27,2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1-17 S. Emerson Street PETITIONER: Bruce Adreani (of Norwood Builders) Founders Row, LLC 7458 N. Harlem Ave. Chicago, IL 60631 PUBLICATION DATE: January 12,2005 Journal/Topics PIN#: 08-12-104-001/-002-003/021-0000 REQUEST: CU approval for a PUD and other relief from the Village Code as may be required for the proposed 14-unit rowhome development MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Bruce Adreani, Diane Becker, Jim Beloklon, Mike Breclow, Barbara & Melvin Fisher, Jim Kapustiak, Christine Kuttzolt, Wanda Leopold, Bill Loftus, Mike Miller, Jenny Mulek, Ed Pfingsten, Jennifer Tammen, Judy Schreiber, Beverly Zapfel, Linda Venticinque, Rich Scholl, and Linda Waycie Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the revised minutes of the October 28, 2004 meeting. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion, which was approved 4-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros, Matt Sledz and Keith Younquist. Matt Sledz moved to approve the minutes of the November 11, 2004 meeting, Merrill Cotten seconded the motion, which was approved 5-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros and Keith Younquist. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-02-05, a request for Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development and other relief from the Village Code as may be required for the proposed 14-unit rowhome development. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the Staff Report, She said that the Subject Property is located at the northeast corner of Busse A venue and Emerson Street, and consists of multiple vacant lots and a parking lot. The Subject Property is zoned B5 Central Commercial and is bordered by the B5C District to the west, the Library and Village Hall, RA Single Family District to the north and east, and Rl Single Family District to the south. The Village Board adopted the Mount Prospect Downtown Strategic Plan in 1998. The Strategic Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan and it created a vision for downtown redevelopment based on work by the Ad Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-O2-05 Page 2 Hoc Committee with input from the residents of Mount Prospect. A great deal of work on downtown redevelopment has been completed since the plan was adopted. The plan was revisited last year and an ad hoc committee confirmed that the redevelopment of the Subject Properties include rowhomes, with the buildings oriented to the street and the garages and vehicle access oriented to the rear. Ms. Connolly summarized the review procedure for a PUD and said that it requires review and recommendation by the P&Z Commission and final action by the Village Board. She said that when reviewing the current application, the P&Z Commission should consider that the Village Board selected the Petitioner's Request For Proposal submittal (RFP) through a competitive process involving 8 development teams. Also, traffic patterns on Emerson Street are under review and Staff is evaluating the feasibility of modifying the Emerson Street cross section between Central Road and Busse A venue. Ms. Connolly summarized the Petitioner's exhibits and said that the Petitioner is proposing a rowhome development consisting of two clusters of 7 units, 14-units total; there would be two floor plans: both plans include basements and 3-bedrooms. However, one floor plan would include the option of having 2 additional bedrooms on the third floor; 2 and 3 car detached garages, accessed from a shared private drive; each unit would have its own backyard and patio. The Village's adopted Streetscape Program would be installed along Emerson Street and Central Road, but the development would include landscaping of private areas as well. The proposed development is consistent with the Village's Downtown Strategic Plan, which calls for the Subject Property to be developed with rowhomes. The Petitioner is seeking approval for the proposed Planned Unit Development, which consists of 2 clusters of 7 -units each, located on multiple lots of record. The buildings would front onto Emerson Street, with vehicle access from the private drive that is located behind the rowhomes. The Petitioner's site plan indicates that the private drive would accommodate 2-way traffic and would be accessed from Emerson Street and Central Road. Ms. Connolly reviewed the Village's Zoning Ordinance bulk regulations for the development and noted that the proposed development does not have a setback requirement. However, the Petitioner's site plan indicates that the buildings would have staggered setbacks. The buildings would have no less than a 15' front setback and the stairs leading up to the units would be setback no less than 7'. However, the Petitioner revised the site plan since the Staff Report was written and will review the changes during their presentation. The exhibits indicate varying heights for the buildings. The lowest part of the roof measures 30' from the mid- point, but extends to 32'2" from highest point of the roof. However, the B5 District allows a maximum building height of 30 feet and the Petitioner's elevations indicate that the building height would exceed this limitation. The color elevations indicate that the style of the proposed buildings would be in keeping with other buildings constructed as part of the downtown redevelopment and include elements of each project. The exhibits indicate that the front elevations will be all 'Modular Brick', which is another name for standard residential brick. However, sections of the rear elevations, side elevations, and some of the garages list 'Man Made Shake Siding' as building materials. It is important to note that the building materials submitted as part of the RFP review process differ from the materials listed on the Petitioner's exhibit. Therefore, the building materials must be finalized prior to Village Board review to ensure the proposed building materials are the same as the materials presented to the Village Board as part of the RFP process. Vehicles would access the detached garages via an "L" shaped private driveway with curb cuts on Central Road and Emerson Street. The Engineering Division has requested that the Central Road access be widened to 24' and that the Central Road access be restricted to right-in/right-out only movements. In addition, the Strategic Plan calls for the installation of a public park to the south of the Subject Property where the two single family homes currently exist. Provisions should be made that at such time that the park is installed that the Subject Property's private drive shall be extended south to Busse Avenue and that the segment accessing Emerson Street shall be incorporated into the park. Ms. Connolly stated again that the Petitioner has revised the exhibits since the Staff Report was written and would review the changes. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 3 The Petitioner's Landscape Plan provides a concept of the proposed landscaping to be installed. However, the plan does not incorporate the Village's Streetscape Plan and the correct improvements to be made on Emerson Street and Central Road. Also, the plan does not specify the screening required along the east lot line. Prior to Village Board review, a revised detailed landscape plan listing materials and sizes must be submitted for Staff review. In addition, the revised plan needs to include additional trees throughout the development, have the Central Road 'parkway trees' located on private property, south of the sidewalk, and identify the screening along the east lot line. The proposed development calls for 14 units on the 1.6 acre site. The Zoning Code allows a maximum density of 16 units per acre in the B5 District. The proposed density complies with zoning regulations. The Village's Zoning Ordinance requires 2.5 parking spaces for residential developments with 2-3 bedrooms. The unit mix is not confirmed at this time, but the Petitioner's site plan indicates that vehicles will be parked in either a 2-car or 3-car garage. The Fire Department has required that parking be prohibited in the private drive, The project does not include Guest Parking, however there is on-street parking along Emerson Street in addition to the Village parking deck. The Petitioner's revised exhibits indicate a 'lift' may be installed in the garage to accommodate additional vehicles, which they will review as part of their presentation. In response to Staff comments, the Petitioner proposes to create a 7' easement along the north lot line of the Subject Property to allow for the continuation of the Village's Streetscape Program. A 7' wide public sidewalk will be installed; however, physical constraints require the parkway trees to be located on the private property. As previously stated, Staff is currently evaluating Emerson Street traffic patterns. Although the design has not been finalized, 5.5' from the east side of Emerson Street must be dedicated to ensure proper traffic lane widths and to allow for the installation of the Village's Streetscape Program. Ms. Connolly said that the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standards and said that the development is designed to complement the existing and future downtown developments in addition to generating pedestrian activity and multiple-use trips. Although the Mount Prospect Downtown Strategic Plan calls for the rowhome development to extend from Central Road to Busse Avenue, the Petitioner's proposal is in keeping with the plan. Also, the rowhome development provides a transitional land use between the existing single-family residential homes and the surrounding commercial and institutional uses, The development will have a positive effect on nearby properties and continue to stimulate the development of the downtown area. Therefore, the development will have a limited adverse impact on the adjacent neighborhoods, utility provision or public streets. Subject to compliance with the conditions of approval, the proposal will comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Petitioner's request for Planned Unit Development proposal and proposed building height, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner has since revised their plans to address most of the conditions listed in the Staff Report. She said that the latest revisions indicate that the Petitioner is seeking relief from storm water detention requirements. However, the request was not based on a hardship as required by the code. She asked that the Petitioner review the revised exhibits and identify any conditions not met but listed in the staff report. Ms. Juracek asked why the original submittal did not include the request for relief from stormwater detention. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner thought the pröperty was exempt from onsite stormwater management based on the development of the neighboring property. Ms. Connolly said the Development Code reads B5C Districts are not required to provide stormwater detention. On January 25, the Petitioner submitted revised exhibits seeking relief from stormwater detention, citing the reason that the properties across the street are exempt from the requirement. The Planning & Zoning Commission would need to recommend approval and the Village Board would need to grant relief if it was determined there was a hardship. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 4 Mr. Rogers asked if there would continue to be parking allowed along Emerson Street in front of the rowhomes. Ms. Connolly said at this time there were no plans to eliminate the public parking on the street. Mr. Donnelly asked if emergency vehicles will use the private drive of the project and if they had approved it. Ms. Connolly said the Fire Chief has tentatively approved the drive with one change, a striped 'pork chop' design instead of a raised design. Keith Youngquist asked how refuse would be handled. Ms. Connolly said the garbage containers would go in the private drive on garbage day for pick-up, not on Emerson Street. There was discussion regarding overnight guest parking with no immediate solution. Ms. Juracek swore in speakers for the petitioner and asked that they identify themselves when they presented. Bruce Adreani, 7458 N. Harlem Avenue, Chicago, IL introduced himself as the owner of Norwood Builders and Petitioner for the project known as Founders' Row. He introduced the Norwood staff members. Jennifer Tammen, Director of Planning for Norwood Builders, 7458 N. Harlem Avenue, Chicago, IL, addressed the P&Z. She said the planned luxury rowhomes of this development would be an aesthetic addition to, not just the downtown, but also the entire Mount Prospect community. Ms. Tammen itemized other recent downtown projects that have been, or are near completion. She reviewed the Vision Statement of the 1998 Strategic Plan that included rowhomes in the downtown. Ms. Tammen reported on current market conditions and how this project makes a 'good fit' at this time. She said Norwood agrees to all conditions listed in the Staff Report except item "f', as they were requesting some relief or modification from stormwater detention requirements on the grounds that the rowhomes are a downtown property like the other properties that did not have to provide detention. Ms. Tammen stated that, given the size of the land in relation to the project, any extensive stormwater management would be a hardship. The second item they would ask relief from is extending the private drive to Busse A venue in the future. They would like to explore other options that would nót affect their sale to a homeowners association. She said that this is new item and they have not had time to consider alternative solutions. Mike Breclow, Director of Design and Partner at OKW Architects, 600 W. Jackson, Chicago, spoke next. He said that the project is located between institutional uses on one side and residential uses on the other. They looked to historic precedent set in Chicago and Boston rowhomes for guidance, He discussed the generous and staggered setback allowances and choice of trees, lined up with the home entrances, for the streetscape. The simple, yet timeless façade is robust enough to stand up to the institutional uses surrounding it, the entrances neighborly, yet opaque. Each rowhome has a private rear yard and both end units have generous side yards. The first floor of each unit is about 4-1/2 feet above grade and there is an English basement allowing for plenty of daylight to enter the basement. The end units have opportunities for side windows and have 3-car brick garages and a I-story rear building extension. There would be at least 5' of walkway and a recessed gate between each garage. Also, there would be a painted metal fence between each sideyard. Mr. Breclow briefly described the generous floor plans, noting that each basernent would be capable of being finished and having a bathroom added at a later date. Ms. Tammen came back to the podium to show an example of the lifts available for installation in the garages should buyers desire space for more cars. She explained that the automatic photocell lights outside of the garages would be on one circuit that operates simultaneously without spilling onto neighbors' property. She said this ended their formal presentation and they would answer any questions put forth by the P&Z Commission. Richard Rogers asked Ms. Tammen ifthey had done any parking or traffic studies for this project. Ms. Tammen said no, they had not. Mr. Rogers asked why they had built all these projects in the downtown area without exploring avenues for extra guest parking, Ms. Tammen said that with each project they have provided the parking required by Code and did not feel it was in their purview to tell the Village what to provide in the way of street parking or in the new parking garage. They did try to be innovative with the idea of parking lifts, which cost about $15,000 to $20,000, and would be available as an option in the 2-car garages, which would need to be made 18" higher to accommodate one; the door does not need to be any larger. Joe Donnelly asked about building codes for the use of these lifts and said that a Variance was required to install one in Chicago. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 5 The Norwood reps said they were not familiar with these regulations. Extensive discussion followed regarding building heights. It was determined that the general midpoint is at 32'. Keith Youngquist asked who the target customer of these rowhomes would be. Christine Kuttzolt, Director of Sales and Marketing, responded. She said their previous experience in Mount Prospect afforded them the opportunity to discover what many people are looking for in this area and until now has not been available - a true, luxury rowhome. The typical buyers would be the 45-64 year old homeowners living in Mount Prospect, empty-nesters, whose children have gone off to college; they mayor may not be commuters, down-sizing or possibly up sizing their lifestyle, not yet ready to throw in the towel, looking for that semi-urban lifestyle. Ms. Kuttzolt said many potential buyers have contacted her already. Mr. Floros asked the probable price of the rowhomes. Ms. Kuttzolt said they are working on pricing and, subject to prices of the varied choices of optional construction elements going into the units, they will probably start in the high $500's. Ms. Juracek said if the Petitioners' presentation were complete, that she would open the hearing to the public. She did so by reading a note from Ms. Mary Alice Neitzke, 6 South Maple Street, asking to be read as part of the public record. Ms. Neitzke's letter stated she requests: 1) A brick fence/wall between her rear yard and the private driveway; and 2) Lighting be done in a manner that does not 'light-up' her yard - prefers the lighting be installed at the garage level. Ms. Tammen said they could not support a brick wall because it would require a 3-4 foot concrete footing, which they simply do not have the ground space for. With regard to the lighting, the garages will have ambient lighting similar to single family homes, not pole lighting. There was discussion regarding the fence and Ms. Connolly said her conversations with the residents indicated their concern that the fence will become an eyesore in the future and that the residents felt the rowhome association documents should address who should maintain " " " a board-on-board fence in the future. Ms, Tammen said they will work with neighbors on maintenance issues. Mr. Rogers asked what Norwood could do to provide stormwater detention. Bill Loftus, Spaceco, addressed this question. He said they will be providing storm sewers throughout the property and tying in to downspouts where appropriate and eventually into the combined storm sewer in the street. He said what Ms. Tammen referred to as their being unable to provide stormwater retention was that they could not provide a large retention pond as is done in many suburban condo projects due to land space constrictions. Mr. Rogers said they would look to Staff to provide further compromise in final plans. Mr. Donnelly asked why it was necessary for the excessive garage height. Mr. Brec1ow said it was to blend in with the gable pitch of the rowhomes. After some discussion about the height of the Lofts at Village Centre, the old Village Hall and the new Village Hall, Ms. Juracek opened the discussion to the audience. Ron Ditthart, 123 N. Emerson, Mount Prospect, said it appears the north 150' of this property will be the subject of a referendum that will appear on a ballot April 5. He said that 1,600 signatures have been filed at the Village and none have been contested. He said he had been active in circulating those petitions and he interviewed 77 in favor of the referendum. Of those, 75 in favor were in favor of keeping the area as a park and 72 were in favor of keeping the north 150' open with mature trees with grass as is now. He is asking on behalf of those 1,600 voters that approval of this project be continued until after the April 5 referendum. This would be a "no lose" situation because it would avoid the Board the embarrassment of approving something the overwhelming majority of voters oppose. Ms. Juracek reminded the group that this is the first step in the process for approval of the project. After this meeting, the request will go to the Village Board and the concerns of the voters would be noted. Penny Perliss, 500 Westwood Lane, was sworn in. She said that she has lived in Mount Prospect 35 years and her main concern is all the stairs associated with the rowhomes. She said she disagreed with the marketing group and that 45-64 year olds would not want any stairs. She said she also worked on obtaining signatures for the petition both times and nobody refused to sign the petition the second time around. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 6 Wanda Leopold, 107 William St., was sworn in. She said that she submitted a list of questions to the P&Z earlier and some of her questions have been answered. She asked if the Board could require the builders to use pervious materials in the driveways and alleys to absorb the water and use native landscaping, She said this project would be dangerous for surrounding properties accessing Central Road. She said she sent e-mails to National Arbor Day Foundation, regarding the consequences of destroying the nine trees on the property. She said she copied the Village and received an answer from Sandy Clark, Village Forestry Superintendent, who said that efforts would be made to save as many trees as possible. Ms, Leopold said she was sure that if Norwood setback the building line further, they could save the American Elm tree. Linda Venticinque, 10 South Maple Street, was sworn in. She said she has lived here since 1985 and that she is in favor of the proposed development. She said they have a problem with backing up to a parking lot, but do not experience any flooding/water problems. She stated that she was not approached to sign the petition to build a park instead of the rowhomes and that they welcome the new rowhome project. Rich Scholl, 12 South Maple, was sworn in. He said he thought rowhomes was the best use of the property. He said that 14 families as opposed to a parking lot is a higher and better use of the property, He said that he has lived in Mount Prospect since 1987 and that there were chain link fences along the parking lot that had been repeatedly knocked down. He said that the Bank had put up the board-on-board fence around 1994. His only reason for being at the meeting was the fence. He thinks the proposed project is a very good one and he wants to be sure the fence is replaced and hopefully with a wrought iron one for maintenance reasons. He feels that would fit in well with the project. Wes Pinchot, 747 Whitegate Court, was sworn in. He said that said he has lived in the Village for 40 years and is a licensed architect. He complimented Village Staff, particularly Judy Connolly who, he said, did a wonderful job with Petitioner's proposal. He said most people are not aware that these $500,00/$650,000 rowhomes/townhouses are going to be a glorified alley. He said the people on Maple Street will be overwhelmed with the high gable roofline and the Village sewers will be overtaxed with water. Also, the people will not be able to get out of their garages on snowy days. He said there isn't parking outside of the garages for people to wash their cars or for any reason. The Fire Department will not allow them to park in that alleyway so the people will park on Emerson Street. Mr. Pinchot asked the P&Z to consider these things when making their decision. Mel Fisher, 100 S. William Street, was sworn in, He said that the neighborhood experiences periodic flooding and cited an instance 12 years ago: on the corner of Owen and Busse, he helped float a car and tie it to a tree for its owner. He said now we've added deep tunnel, more water, and less retention, He said that he does not appreciate the looks of this tenement-like project. After hearing Mr. Cooney, Director of Community Development, talk about the downtown improvements and use the word 'ambience', he looked it up in his thesaurus and found out it meant: aura surrounding an area. Mr. Fisher said that the country club area has a beautiful new country club, but nobody in the triangle area is protecting the ambience here. He concluded by stating that each of you on the Board has that duty, and that he charges the Commissioners to think of ambience before chopping down trees. Burt Scholz was sworn in. He said that he has lived here since 1974 and collected petitions in favor of the park. He wants to use the Emerson area as open space to be enjoyed by this and future generations. He said we are one of the few suburbs to have such a jewel in the downtown area, that Arlington Heights has no open space. We should strongly consider keeping the area open and have no water retention, fence, or tree problems. Linda Waycie, 603 Windsor Dr., was sworn in, She said that she is a 20 yr. resident, and also gathered signatures for the petition and wants open space. She said the downtown would continue to get denser with more buildings, stores, and apartments and be more urban like the slides shown earlier. The residents want suburban areas not urban areas - less density, not high density, and open space, not buildings. She asked if a compromise couldn't be made to keep 9 trees and build just 12 units. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 7 Judy Schreiber, 817 Waverly, was sworn in, She said that London is a city full of parks and they refer to those parks as their "lungs". Mount Prospect needs "lungs", too. In Chicago, Michigan Avenue wouldn't have Grant Park or Millennium Park, either, if the commissions didn't plan ahead. It would just be buildings one on top of another right up to the lake. Sylvia Jonas, 1007 Willow Lane, was sworn in. She said she has been a legal resident of Mount Prospect for many years, but has been away in the military for 15 yrs. and recently returned. She said that she wasn't here when all these plans were made. She said that now when she comes downtown to go to the bakery she can't just park and go into the bakery. Or when she drives around downtown she has to be so careful of cars going in and out of parking places. She said she would probably not come downtown, but just go to the outlying Jewel and other stores for most purchases. Ms. Tammen returned to the podium to say this project is not to be thought of as a regular condo development. She said it is the type of quasi -urban setting where the car is left in the garage much of the time and the owner walks to the train or to the restaurant or library or Village Hall. Also, when there is a large snowstorm, the snow will not just be shoved to another part of the driveway, but that the association will have a contract to remove the snow to an off-site location. She asked Ms. Kuttzolt to address the question of stairs. Ms, Kuttzolt said stairs are a personal preference. She said some people prefer two-story living and some people prefer ranch home living whether they are 25 or SO. People who are baby-boomer generation are much more active than previous generations of the same age were. Ms. Juracek asked about fencing and the closing of Emerson Street during construction and a Norwood representative said it would probably not need to be fully closed for 24 hours. Ms. Tammen said they are absolutely open to suggestions and would work with the residents on Maple for a satisfactory solution. She said they were pleased to hear the nearby residents were amenable to the project. Mr. Donnelly said fence maintenance through the years would be an important issue, too. Pervious pavement substances and native landscaping plants also were discussed between the P&Z and the Petitioner's Engineer Bill Loftus. Mr. Loftus said that he didn't doubt Mr. Fisher's story about the floating car because it only took 24" of water for a car to float, but that 24" of water could be right next to a million dollar project and just blocked from getting into it by some poor planning. Mr. Breclow said a great deal of land would be needed to do wetland landscaping. He said they would look into saving any magnificent specimen of trees. Mr. Rogers said this land has already been approved by the Village Board to be used for rowhomes and not something else to be considered by the P&Z at this time. Mr. Floros also brought up similar sentiments and said the Village was planning open space at the south end of this property. Ms. Juracek said she was also in favor of open space at the south end of the Emerson property. Matt Sledz said the proposed use is a totally inappropriate use for a suburban location. He said that if someone wants to live like this that they should move to Chicago or Boston. Richard Rogers said we are already committed because we are two-thirds into the downtown plan. Ms. Juracek said it is too late now to comment that the Comprehensive Plan is wrong when the rowhomes were approved many years ago, Ronald Roberts said he thought just seven rowhomes would be enough density. Ms. Juracek asked Ms. Tammen if that would be viable. Ms. Tammen said the project would not be viable at less units. Burt Scholz addressed the P&Z again and said that the downtown area plans can be changed, that they are not cast in concrete, and asked the P&Z to step back and look at the problems. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 8 Wes Pinchot said the Village Staff has an obligation to see to it that the rowhomes must comply with water retention and parking. Bruce Adreani came to the podium and said he works hard to get things done and he felt good because of the people who lived on Maple Street and came out to the meeting tonight and said they approved of the project and didn't have water problems and didn't anticipate any future problems. There was discussion regarding the size of the proposed detached garages. Several of the Commissioners stated the size was inappropriate for the project. There was discussion regarding modifying the proposal to have the garages comply with Village regulations. Some Commissioners stated that the style of the garage was appropriate for the type of project (rowhomes) and that changing the roofline would detract from the project. Joe Donnelly moved to modify the proposal so the garages would meet zoning regulations. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, and Sledz NAYS: Cotten, Rogers, Youngquist, Juracek Motion failed 3-4. Richard Rogers moved to approve a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development for the proposed 14-unit rowhome development subject to the conditions list is the staff report, but modified to require 50% storm water detention, and include: 1) the Petitioner work with the neighbors to resolve issues regarding a fence (type, maintenance) along the east lot line and 2) the Petitioner shall try to preserve as many existing tress as possible at 1-17 S. Emerson St., Case No. PZ-O2-05. Leo Floros seconded the motion. The Víllage Board's decision is final for this case. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Sledz Motion was approved 6-1. At 11 :45 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. H:IPLANIPlanning & Zoning COMMIP&Z 2005IMinutesIPZ-O2-05 1-175 Emerson 51 Ro v '1;l£~ ¿o;elf ÁT ~p>z-~(, - C~~\ J~ ,C< / i, ¿¡ . (j.~~L~"¿~- ~"yU"--,.M\" ~D ~~-,J¡;.jk---..fb,,- k n'-1-__-~- C.l'~.¿£~~CL~___~~ì 11~~.~'i.-~ ~,.,~~.~ ~ ;~b~ f~~___~,l_f.~___,------- ¡rJi'..f;Lu..-) C (~~-=) ~-p:k~/\.~_,é?&"?:~\.._d.Y~' ~,:_ç.fL~(.-Í/~-1:'::1 ,'£;--------- Y r ' - 'n_...... &..ÆW.>ð -þ:" !)-<.uJ¿ &,it-<\ c- ì ¡~.p- ~ pl', (~tL:., ;-.~ Ak'< "}-- -'~ _~~-ðA~~S<) ()~\QLL,ð\..J 6-uT j;L:.~(_(L;( '/}¿_~B:I=?A~ ----- t{ J nd-L_~-ð:!ß.Yv-\ . ~ú- ~¿v~, __,.d:, . /l.r(l-=~ .).¿'_J.'",--------------- LU~ ctÍ- ¡,~~ r .tJ-ø~~ ,/C~;4':Í- , ~~li ~- Yl.~.t-t.~~~¿ß,;U----- £1u:,:> - .( /\ ~~t:2-*'1 ffi ~ -,~'-.J Q ,yr:~j)vVt 10 /~_YUL '- (J \ / ~ d Ct.--~." ~)I{£.lr~..J~.:t ~tß-Q/ÿ-~t~(~ ,7-.5_- . - . . - r, (' r, ; '; , (" nd \..:.- / - '~l vv~ ~.::.~ 0 ;f~) ~~j ¿U -~--~.; ~__~i v--':: (.'~ r- - .... - f, ' . (/'//...-'.I~ t( YI.N~--<...:.G..:-{) :t:.-rL+ rLi~u....V~ /~ V-- ç ~v vV: œð !'/"} yú¡'.----4-!-_b -~!!.'- a~¿) ., r', I'" - (.... LL-l/1.) _Jd~ úÞ () ~~';,,-jÞ1ßc> .__.t'::;:'"r->-':'í._J~>-- C' r;.';;fò-<. ,.f-' jk-ð-~'P £Cd &-;~;../f:.~,~/~---- ~~--- Q./--t:-D-~~ -'---~ --,._--- ..-------'. 3, "\:.\ \ G' , , ,'ì G i_). /' - ,i/'v~~-~j- '/-'" C'<j!)-2.L. \...'--<--:-c:7 ,i 'f-...,. " ~. ..;-,- ()-, --'ð"(..:;K-<...' t--:- :>-<::.¡ .,-1,-.{..L .,y'--( '-:-------~ ... .----....c.----:;-'T-----'------- r' , .....- r ,(', \j"'.t.~, .y- '_J~» /"õ-',", '--'v~y ,--^-L~~---'- \"-'--~l. ,~/7 ~t..--~~,,¿,--!9 ;~<-" , --:, ""'. t .:.... ,~r1í -' ¡./ ---'-- :/1/\.;£ U,-)Q¿;;...-7 C>r,...v:¡)-'c..¿,.¿..,' J.;.~)..I"::'¡'(~/~J,),~" ~"-:,:. ( - J . ,~ ,7.~ .í ¡ ~'/-:.: '.. (,/~ - '. C', , c, C) CL" --:;-' () 1'Þ- /\/./1':' l'L£-¿¿,¿f...i )¿~ ß-G- P ~ --O~_. J -b .. ~ .. \.. .--1, ( .(6 r,::..Íùc' ',;; 1 .L:u... 1:;,lJ -\,..t,"""",, --~--") G?_~Y'-<-r-h )~ :'-~ \~; I" l. "\ O.......C( -i::C~ v\ \. 't A Î, '\~"v-",\,..~ ~ "--, , \, ,\ i\ \ 1 ------ \ .. I j 1':-----'::""- ,1 1 --;: /; ,~ ~ ~>~L- ()-- t l\, -~ (1:-,'1",-,- ~L ,;...~C\.... :t¿, UL-t ...i.~LÃ'ÁJ~_q iL_( ...--'-'<--'/ L" '. (',. /~- (I .' -1 I -4 0....-' If? /- ('~-ŸV"/,?-'-i .. .~'_/\j"-V:-'--O .. ¿~ð -- ~~~ ..J:.U-<!j ~' Ö ~~-,;J ~~-' .1- JY" --.--.- .---(,;.J :.-v- ,.L 6J /?1hv ¡ r.:.e..~je.2 ~¿"Y.. C-:-/c-:~, i, ' ~ '1..:.: . , -~-- 1/27 P&Z Meeting Page 1 of 1 ----------'-----'--'--'-'--'---_."~'-'~'----------'--'------,-,--,-,----'--~-~---"-"--'----------"'----'~-~----~---,-----,-,,-,'----'-'-------~------'-'--"'-' Connolly, Judy From: Mark Ardito [mark@arditotech.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 10:03 PM To: Connolly, Judy Subject: RE: 1/27 P&Z Meeting Judy, Thank you very much for sending along this information. I was unable to attend the meeting due to prior commitments, but was able to view the entire meeting on television via MPTV, I share the same concerns as my neighbors do; the fence between our backyards and the alley and then the height of the proposed garages, Do they really need to be 24' tall? I understand the pitch of the roof is intended to be the same of the main structure, but 24' tall seems a little excessive. I also have a concern about the outside lighting that will be on these row homes and garages. Thanks for all of the documents. I look forward to meeting you and talking more about these issues. Best regards, Mark Ardito ------ -- -- -- -- - - --- ---- -- ------ - - -- - ------- Ardito Technical Solutions hUQ.;/ /W't£W~LqjtQ~_çlL~Qm 8 S. Maple Mount Prospect, IL 60056 (847)259-4440 (847)655-2744 - fax --- ------- ------ - -- ------ -- -- -- - - -- ----- --- -----Original Message----- From: Connolly, Judy [mailto:JConnoll@mountprospect.org] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 1:39 PM To: mark@arditotech.com Subject: 1/27 P&Z Meeting Please review the attached staff report & e-mail any questions/concerns re: the project. I'm send .pdfs of some of the exhibits - please let me know if you have any problems accessing them. (I won't fax the site plan since it is included with this e-mail.) Thanks- Judy 2/4/2005 Page 1 of 1 Connolly, Judy ._..__..__.._-~.-_.__._._-----_.~.._.~--_...__._-_.-w--,--",,----,_w_,-,-,----,,-,--,-,'------'-"'-~~~---'-.--_._--~-.--_._---_.__.__.'- Subject: FW: emerson street project -----Original Message----- From: Amunini25@aol.com [mailto:Amunini25@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 8:36 AM To: Connolly, Judy Subject: emerson street project hi judy, its laura venticinque 10 S. Maple St. us, I had a few additional questions regarding the project behind will the utilities behind us be burried or will they just leave the poles and wires running along the proposed drive/alley, what are the requirements for a brick fence in the village. My husband a i were discussing this and he said that seemed to be quite a large footing requirement for a brick fence. I thought the meeting went well and wish you good luck with the project. I assume we will be contacted by you or the builder as to the next step in this process. I would like to suggest that when the builders or the village get some what of a plan for the fence that it might be a good idea to get all of the neighbors together for a meeting to discuss this, thanks again for all of your hard work, Laura Venticinque 10 s,Maple st (847) 398-8317 1/31/2005 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 02-05 LOCATION: PETITIONER: OWNER: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: 1-17 S. Emerson Street Norwood Construction, Inc, Village of Mount Prospect 08-12-104-001-/002/003/021 1,669 acres B5 Central Commercial Village Hall Conditional Use (Planned Unit Development - RowhomeDevelopment) LOCATION MAP Central Road 5 - ~ ... Mount Pro'pcct I'ubli, Library P"rkln~ Deck Village Hall r--- ---_oJ L__~----- n [j .... CIJ CIJ '"' .... rJJ CIJ == ~ .... I 'JI) ~ 11 I .... , ~ I I ~ ~ ... ~ ~ 15 Busse Avenue ~ 101 g~ 11 105-109 - - ;\10 rJJ == or,/¡ ~ l' 0 C'oI:I 110 ¡'" -sl '"' ('Sf ...~" oJ' CIJ 113 ~ > (J' E 119 i>/¡ ~ II-' ~ <1ÿ 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 20 22 .... CIJ CIJ '"' .... rJJ CIJ - Co c: ~ ~ Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JANUARY 21, 200S HEARING DATE: JANUARY 27, 200S SUBJECT: PZ-02-05 - CONDITIONAL USE (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) 1-17 S. EMERSON STREET BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the January 27, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Norwood Builders, Inc. (the "Petitioner") regarding the properties located at 1-17 S. Emerson Street (collectively the "Subject Property") for the purposes of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of a 14-unit rowhome development. The P&Z hearing was noticed in the January 12,2005 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 2S0-feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the' Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located at the southeast corner of Busse Avenue and Emerson Street, and consists of multiple vacant lots and a parking lot. The Subject Property is zoned BS Central Commercial and is bordered by the B5C District to the west (Library and Village Hall), RA Single Family District to the north and east, and Rl Single Family District to the south, PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES The Village Board adopted the Mount Prospect Downtown Strategic Plan in 1998. The Strategic Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan and it created a vision for downtown redevelopment based on work by the Ad Hoc Committee with input from the residents of Mount Prospect. A great deal of work on downtown redevelopment has been completed since the plan was adopted. The most recent project underway is the demolition of the former Village Hall, with the construction of the mixed-use development to start this spring. Summary of Downtown Developments: . The Village Centre Residences: 3-buildings located at Wille/Central/Main Street that contain 205 condominium units (total) and a public parking lot. This phase of the plan is complete. . The Lofts & Shops: A mixed-use development at the northeast corner of Main Street and Northwest Highway. This phase of the pIan is complete, pending minor interior changes per tenant requirements, PZ-02-0S Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 27, 2005 Page 3 . The Pinnacle at Village Centre: A recently approved mixed-use development at the northwest corner of Emerson Street and Busse Avenue that calls for first floor retail and four stories of residential above the retail tenants, Construction to begin this Spring. Per the Village's Zoning Ordinance, the review procedure for a PUD requires review and recommendation by the P&Z Commission and final action by the Village Board. In reviewing the current application, the P&Z Commission should consider that the Village Board selected the Petitioner's Request For Proposal submittal (RFP) through a competitive process involving 8 development teams. Also, traffic patterns on Emerson Street are under review and Staff is evaluating the feasibility of modifying the Emerson Street cross section between Central Road And Busse Avenue, SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT As illustrated on the attached exhibits, the Petitioner is proposing a rowhome development consisting of: . Two clusters of 7 units, 14-units total; Two floor plans: both plans include basements and 3-bedrooms. However, one floor plan would include the option of having 2 additional bedrooms on the third floor; 2 and 3 car detached garages, accessed from a shared private drive; Each unit would have its own backyard and patio. . . . The Village's adopted Streetscape Program would be installed along Emerson Street and Central Road, but the development would include landscaping of private areas as well. The proposed development is consistent with the Village's Downtown Strategic Plan, which calls for the Subject Property to be developed with rowhomes. The Petitioner is seeking approval for the proposed Planned Unit Development. REVIEW OF APPLICATION COMPONENTS PUD Proposal: The proposed development consists of 2 clusters of 7-units each, located on multiple lots of record. The buildings would front onto Emerson Street, with vehicle access from the private drive that is located behind the rowhomes. The Petitioner's site plan indicates that the private drive would accommodate 2-way traffic and would be accessed from Emerson Street and Central Road, General Zoning Compliance . Building Setbacks - The Village's Zoning Ordinance does not require building setbacks for most developments in the B5 District. Sec. 14.1905.B specifies that building setbacks are required only when a site is adjacent to a residential development that comprises 40% or more of the frontages between two intersecting streets. In this case, the existing residential will remain, but they comprise approximately 20% of the Emerson Street frontage. Therefore, the proposed development does not have a setback requirement. The Petitioner's site plan indicates that the buildings would have staggering setbacks. The buildings would have no less than a 15' front setback and the stairs leading up to the units would be setback no less than 7'. . Building Height - The exhibits indicate varying heights for the buildings. The lowest part of the roof measures 30' from the mid-point, but extends to 32 '2" from highest point of the roof. However, the B5 District allows a maximum building height of 30 feet and the Petitioner's elevations indicate that the building height would exceed this limitation. PZ-02-0S Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 27, 200S Page 4 . Building: Elevations - The color elevations indicates that the style of the proposed buildings would be in keeping with other buildings constructed as part of the downtown redevelopment and include elements of each project. The exhibits indicate that the front elevations will be all 'Modular Brick', which is another name for standard residential brick. However, sections of the rear elevations, side elevations, and some of the garages list 'Man Made Shake Siding' as building materials, It is important to note that the building materials submitted as part of the RFP review process differ from the materials listed on the Petitioner's exhibit. Therefore, the building materials must be finalized prior to Village Board review to ensure the proposed building materials are the same as the materials presented to the Village Board as part of the RFP process. The building elevations indicate that each unit will have individual access, with some of the center units sharing a staircase. The Petitioner has submitted two floor plans. Each calls for a minimum of 3- bedrooms, with one plan having 2 additional bedrooms on an optional third floor. . Private Driveway - The site is accessed by an "L" shaped private driveway with curb cuts on Central Road and Emerson Street. The Engineering Division has requested that the Central Road access be widened to 24' and that it be restricted to right-in/right-out only movements. In addition, the Strategic Plan calls for the installation of a public park to the south of the Subject Property (where the two single family homes currently exist), Provisions should be made that at such time that the park is installed, that the Subject Property's private drive shall be extended south to Busse Avenue and that the segment accessing Emerson Street be incorporated into the park. . Landscaping - The Petitioner's Landscape Plan provides a concept of the proposed landscaping to be installed. However, the plan does not incorporate the Village's Streetscape Plan and the correct improvements to be made on Emerson Street and Central Road. Also, the plan does not specify the screening required along the east lot line. Prior to Village Board review, a revised detailed landscape plan listing materials and sizes must be submitted for Staff review. In addition, the revised plan needs to include additional trees throughout the development, have the Central Road 'parkway trees' located on private property, south of the sidewalk, and identify the screening along the east lot line. . Densitv - The proposed development calls for 14 units on the 1.6 acre site, The Zoning Code allows a maximum density of 16 units per acre in the B5 District. The proposed density complies with zoning regulations. . Parking - The Village's Zoning Ordinance requires 2.5 parking spaces for residential developments with 2-3 bedrooms. The unit mix is not confirmed at this time, but the Petitioner's site plan indicates that vehicles will be parked in either a 2 car or 3 car garage. The Fire Department has required that parking be prohibited in the private drive. The project does not include Guest Parking, however there is on-street parking along Emerson Street in addition to the Village parking deck. . Right-of-Way Improvements - In response to Staff comments, the Petitioner proposes to create a 7' easement along the north lot line of the Subject Property to allow for the continuation of the Village's Streetscape Program, A 7' wide public sidewalk will be installed; however, physical constraints require the parkway trees to be located on the private property. PZ-02-0S Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 27, 200S Page S As previously stated, Staff is currently evaluating Emerson Street traffic patterns. Although the design has not been finalized,S.5' from the east side of Emerson Street must be dedicated to ensure proper traffic lane widths and to allow for the installation of the Village's Streetscape Program. CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section l4.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. The following list is a summary of these findings: . The Conditional Use wil1 not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; . . Adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and Compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. . The development is designed to complement the existing and future downtown developments in addition to generating pedestrian activity and multiple-use trips. Although the Mount Prospect Downtown Strategic Plan calls for the rowhome development to extend from Central Road to Busse Avenue, the Petitioner's proposal is in keeping with the plan, Also, the rowhome development provides a transitional land use between the existing single-family residential homes fand the surrounding commercial and institutional uses. The development will have a positive effect on nearby properties and continue to stimulate the development of the downtown area. Therefore, the development will have a limited adverse impact on the adjacent neighborhoods, utility provision or public streets. Subject to compliance with the conditions of approval, the proposal will comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Petitioner's request for Planned Unit Development proposal and proposed building height, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to Vil1age Board review the Petitioner shall submit a revised site plan that reflects: 1. The 5.5' Emerson Street right-of-way dedication and the 7' easement along Central Road; 2. A 24' wide, right-in/right-out only Central Road curb cut that is striped and signed accordingly; 3. Modifications to the east lot line and private drive that eliminates conflicts with existing utilities, and creates the necessary turning radius to accommodate a garbage truck; B. Prior to Village Board review the Petitioner shall submit a revised landscape plan that includes additional trees throughout the development, identifies the screening material along the east lot line, and includes the adopted Vil1age's Streetscape Program; C. Prior to Village Board review the Petitioner shall submit revised elevations that reflect the building materials presented to the Village Board as part of the RFP process in addition to a material board; PZ-02-0S Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 27, 2005 Page 6 D. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall submit a lighting plan for the site for Staff review and approval; E. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner shall submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval that include provisions for having snow removed and deposited off-site. F, The Petitioner's Building Permit plans shall include: a. Signs posted in the private drive that parking is prohibited, b, A two hour fire separation between the garage units that abut each other. c. A one hour fire separation between each garage building. d, Each unit shall be protected by sprinklers and constructed in accordance with our adopted codes. e. A fire hydrant installed along Central Road, location to be determined per the Fire Chief. f. Provisions for on-site storm water management. G. Develop the site in accordance with all applicable Village Codes and requirements, including, but not limited to, Fire Prevention Code regulations, lighting regulations, Sign Code regulations, and building regulations. H. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner shall submit a plat of subdivision that reflects the required 5.5' dedication along Emerson Street and the 7' easement along Central Road. 1. Provisions shall be made to allow the private drive to be extended south to Busse Avenue at such time as the property to the south is developed as a park. The Village Board's decision is final for this case, I concur: VIL.LAGE OF MOUNT PROSPE.CT' COlvIIvIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTI'vIENT - Planning Division 100 S. Emerson Street MoLIn, Prospe::, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.1: ¡ 8.53~8 FAX S4Î.ð: 8..53~9 Application for Conditional Use Approval z 0 ¡::::::. -< :2 ~ 9 ~ Founder's Ra~ LLC ~.~ ~ Street Address ~ §: ~ 7458 N. Harlem Ave. S ~ Ii City I SlatiO: _I Zip Cod:.- G Chicago IL 60631 ...". ü I Interest in Property I ~ Grantee of riqht to redevelop property by the Village of Hount Prospect 11/23/04 I - z: 0 '- :s è. ~ 0 t.o.. z: - ¡.::¡ '- ;.... C/'J V z: ..... E-< ~ >< ¡.::¡ z ~ ...,., I Case Number P&Z - - I O"',¡op",,, N"",!Add,.", Date of Submission I ~ '. II ~ :1 I I. ï ¡ ì i <~ - .-. ~-;:: ~Õ 0 QJ i.;., :.J z:~ ::::Õ ,r, '-' '=J Hearing Date .::: z: Address(es) (Street Number, Street) i-IS S. Emerson S Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning 1.669 B5 Central COITm. Setbacks: Front Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) N/A 0 Building Height I Rear 0 Lot Coverage (%) 0 Side Side NA 0 I Number of Parking Spaces 155 NA . Adjacent Land Uses: North SF Residential Tax l.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Nul11ber(s) 08-12-104-001, -002, -003, -021 j ! (Village Hall, Libr~~~ Parking Garage) !' South SF Residential East SF Residential West Institutional Legal Description (attach additional sheets ifnecessary) Please See Attachrr.ent A Name Bruce J. Adreani I TeJephone (day) 773.775.5400 I TeJephone (evening) I Fax 773.775.4330 1 Pager =l ~ ii Ii ! I 'I Corporation z 0 - f- <: :;;::¡ c::: ¡:; ? ¡; žé ;::: ;:, - :... ?; ~ ;:: E '-' ~ ,." - ;-::1 '-' ::::: u <: c:= Z C¡ I~ 1= '" I - ~. < § , ~ ::> ,.., .- I' :::: ~ t:;:~ ~Æ ,..., -= ž ~ :J :; C g. c::-v c.;¡ >- ~~ u"ï < - I N,m, I ¡ Corporation Village of r-bunt Prospect Street Address 50 S. Emerson Street I C' Ity State !>bunt Prospect IL Dcveloper Name Zip Code 60056 Please See Attachment B Address Attorney Name Address Surveyor Name Address I II Engineer Name Address Architect Name Address Landscape Architect Name Address Mount P¡:ospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois W\\ W.11l ountprospect. org - 2 Telephone (day) R47 Rl ~ q?~ Telephone (evening) Fax: 847.818.5329 Pager Telephone (day) Fax Telephone (day) Fax Telephone (day) Fax Telephone (day) Fax Telephone (day): Fax Telephone (day): Fax Phone 847.818,5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847,392.6064 I Proposed Conditional Use (as listed in the zoning district) Describe in Detai! the Buildings and Activities Proposed and I-low the Proposed Use Meets the Attached Standards for Conditional Use Approval (attach additional sheets if necessary) Please See AttachIænt C 0 ¡,.; f- ¡'¡'CfJ O¡,:;¡ ,;:¡ .....~ "" - -¡,:;¡ <:"" -"" ~CfJ ~:i ;:¡O rJ'J¡:: U -<: Hours of Operation N/A Address(es) (Street Number, Street) ¡":¡z Please See AttachIænt D ~O Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed Use rJ'J- ,-.f- ~::; Setbacks: rJ'J~ t OC: Front I Rear Side Side i =-"0 I o¡;,. c:::z =-.,- \ Building Height Lot Coverage (%) Number of Parking Spaces ¡ Please note that the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other l11ê.:erials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time of submitta1. In consideration ofthe information contained in this petition as well as aU supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the propel1y grant employees oftlle Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable ho'Jrs for visual inspection of tile subject property, Applicant !'Ovid Clller'in and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and Date 12/22/04 Ifapplicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application a:1d the associated supporting material. Property O,vner Date - Mount Prospect Department of Community Developmcnt 100 South Emerson Street, Ivlount Prospect Illinois vrvrw .mountprospect. org 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847,818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 F ollilders ' Row Moullt Prospect, Il/inois J 2/22/04 Attachment A to Conditional Use Application Legal Description of Property LOTS 20, 21, AND 22 IN BLOCK 5 IN BUSSE AND WILLE'S RESUBDIVISION IN MOUNT PROSPECT OF THE WEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COlJNTY, ILLINOIS. ALSO LOT 1 IN MOUNT PROSPECT STATE BANK RESUBDIVISION NO.3, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 14 TO 19 IN BLOCK 5 IN BUSSE AND WILLE'S RESUBDIVISION IN MOUNT PROSPECT IN THE WEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Founders 'Row lvfount Prospect. Illinois 12/22/2004 Attachment B to Conditional Use Application Background Information: Development Professionals DEVELOPER ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT Founders' Row LLC Bruce J. Adreani, President 7458 N. Harlem Avenue Chicago, IL 60631 773.775.5400 fax: 773.775.4330 Otis Koglin Wilson Andrew M. Koglin, Principal Michael L. Breclaw, Partner 600 W, Jackson Blvd., Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60661 312.798.7700 fax: 312.798.7777 SP ACECO, me. William B. Loftus, President James e. Kapustiak, Project Manager 9575 W. Higgins Road, Suite 700 Rosemont, IL 60018 847,696.4060 fax: 847.696.4065 Levine Associates of Illinois, Inc. Marvin Levine, P,E., President 740 Wallkegan Rd, Suite 400 Deerfield, IL 60015 847.444.0102 fax: 847.444.0102 Founders' Row MOlll1t Prospect. Illinois 1 ]/] 2/04 Attachment C to Conditional Use Application Summary of Actions Requested Proposal Summary Founders' Row brings an exciting new housing choice to downtown Mount Prospect- luxury rowhomes, This type of development brings additional aesthetic and economic synergies benefiting not only the downtown but the community as a whole. The proposed unique homes make this a viable, appropriate, and dynamic downtown development. Founders' Row is a rowhome development that encompasses approximately the northem 1'4 of the westem half of the block bound by Central Road, Busse Avenue, Emerson Street and Maple Street. We are proposing fourteen (14) 2 Y2 story, three bedroom, 2 Yz bath rowhomes that include fully finished English basements. Generous back yards and rear detached 2- and 3-car garages make these homes spacious and comfortable while conveniently located in Mount Prospect's bustling downtown. The building's front setbacks and recessed entryways add interest to the homes, vary the street wall, and create distinctive living spaces. Large side and back yards and setbacks break up the buildings and create an appropriate scale and comfort to pedestrians and homeowners alike. Attractive landscape and streetscape elements are planned around the perimeter and entranceways of the development for the residents and visitors to enjoy. This development will define the northeastem edge of downtown Mount Prospect. This well integrated plan provides an appropriate transition to the institutional uses to the west, and the residential uses to the north, south, east and the existing and future mixed-use residential and retail to the southwest. Standards for Conditional Use Approval 1. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use '..vi!! not he detrimental to, or endanger the public health, safety, morals, conzfort, or general \velfare. Response: The proposed redevelopment will not negatively impact the community. Instead, the redevelopment of this underutilized site will greatly improve the area with well-designed rowhomes, gracious front and rear yards, interior and perimeter landscaping, and land uses that are appropriate and consistent with the Village's Phase I- B Comprehensive Plan, The entire community will benefit from a development that is appealing from an aesthetic as well as functional standpoint. Founders 'Row Mount Prospect. Illinois 12/22/04 2, The conditional use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood in which it is to be located; Response: The proposed redevelopment will improve the enjoyment of the suITounding properties and uses by introducing unique rowhomes into the downtown, a product that is currently absent from the marketplace. These new residents will also patronize the new and existing area shops, businesses, library, and Village Hall. The proposed redevelopment is not expected to diminish property values within the neighborhood. Instead, it can be effectively argued that the development will stabilize and boost property values, while expanding the tax base, thereby easing the burden on taxpayers throughout the Village. 3, The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district; Response: The proposed redevelopment provides a natural linkage to the improvement and redevelopment of surrounding properties by realizing the goals of the Village's Phase 1-B Plan Comprehensive Plan creating appropriate transitions to the institutional uses to the west, the residential uses to the north, south and east, and mixed use residential and retail to the southwest. For these reasons, we believe that the development enhances the oppol1unity for synergistic development and improvement of the suITounding properties, 4. Adequate public utilities, access roads, drainage, and/or necessmy facilities have been or will be provided; Response: The development wi11 be equipped with a11 required systems and apparatus to adequately serve the development's needs. 5. Adequate measures have been or '>'I'ill be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets; Response: Each rowhome wi11 have its own garage accessed from a proposed new north-south alley. The proposed north-south a11ey will connect Central Road to a new proposed east-west alley which is accessed directly from Emerson Street. The access points from Central and Emerson wi11 minimize the impact on Busse and Maple Streets. Furthermore, situating the garages to the rear of the homes will eliminate residential driveway curb cuts on Emerson, thereby fostering safe and pleasant pedestrian movements in the downtown, 2 Founders 'Row Mount Prospect, Illinois 12/22/04 6, The proposed conditional use is not contrary to the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village, Response: The proposed conditional use is consistent with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and the Phase 1-B Plan as well as the existing development context. Furtheffilore, the proposed development is consistent with Village's 1998 Downtown TIF District Strategic Plan vision statement. "As a way to diversify the type of living options in the downtown, and add to its overall character, this area (the eastern face of Emerson Street between Busse and Central) would be enhanced by the addition of high quality rowhomes. " 7. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may, in each instance, be modified pursuant to the recommendations of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Response: The site is located in the B-5 Central Commercial District. The proposed use is allowed as a Conditional Use as per Article XIX, Section 14.1904 of the Mount Prospect Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, we are requesting the Conditional Use to allow dwelling units on the ground floor. 3 Founders' Row Mount Prospect, Illinois 12/22/2004 Attachment D to Conditional Use Application Proposed Site Infonnation Address (Street Number, Street) 1- 7 S. Emerson Street Site Area Property Ownership Entitv (Acres) Lots 1,20,21,&22 Village of Mount Prospect 1.669 Per Survey dated 12/14/04 Total Development Site Area 1.669 Property Total ßuildinl! SQ. Ft. Devoted to Zonin!! SQ. Ft. (Site) Proposed Use B5-C wI Conditional Use 43,446 Residential Rowhomes 19,660 Residential Garages 7,680 Setbacks: Front (West) Rear (East) Side (North) Side (South) 15' 24' 35' 42' Number of Buildin!! Hei!.?ht Lot Covera!!e (%,) Parkin!.? Spaces Mid Point of Roof = 32' 2" 38% Each Unit w/detached garage 4 end units wI 3-car garages 10 interior units w/2-car garages = 32 parking spaces Attachment D-Proposed site info.xls, Founders' Row 12/22/2004 : vwl 2/10/05 jc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE NATURE OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1-17 SOUTH EMERSON STREET (FOUNDERS ROW) WHEREAS, Mark Bruce Adreani, d/b/a Norwood Builders (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner") has filed a petition for Variations and a Conditional Use Permit in the nature of a Planned Unit Development with respect to property located at 1-17 South Emerson Street,(hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") and legally described as follows: Lots 20, 21, and 22 in Block 5 in Busse and Wille's Resubdivision in Mount Prospect of the West Quarter of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, IL. Also, Lot 1 in Mount Prospect State Bank Resubdivision No.3, a resubdivision of Lots 14 to 19 in Block 5 in Busse and Wille's Resubdivision in Mount Prospect in the West Quarter of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois Property Index Numbers: 08-12-104-001-0000 08-12-104-002-0000 08-12-104-003-0000 08-12-104-021-0000; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development for a fourteen (14) unit rowhome development, as provided in Section 14.502 of the Village Code; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks Variations from the Village Zoning Code to allow building heights in excess of thirty-feet (30') and garage heights in excess of twelve feet (12'), as provided in Section 14.203.C.7 of the Village Code; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Conditional Use and Variation being the subject of PZ-02-05 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 2ih day of January, 2005, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 1 in day of January, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and positive recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees in support of the requests being the subject of PZ-02-05; and t " 1-17 S. Emerson Street Page 2/4 WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the requests herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Conditional Use permit and Variations would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY,ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings offact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development for a fourteen (14) unit rowhome development, as provided in Section 14.502 of the Village Code; and SECTION THREE: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant Variations from the Village Zoning Code to allow building heights in excess of thirty-feet (30') and garage heights in excess of twelve-feet (12') for each rowhome unit, as provided in Section 14,203,C,7 of the Village Code; and SECTION FOUR: Prior to the issuance of a building permit relative to the Conditional Use permit and Variations, the following conditions and/or written documentation shall be fulfilled: A. The Petitioner shall preserve as many of the existing trees as possible; B. The Petitioner shall provide at least 50% of the required amount of storm water detention; C, The Petitioner shall work with the residents adjacent to the site to resolve any screening/fence issues that include but are not limited to the style of fence and who will maintain the fence; D. The Petitioner shall submit a revised site plan that reflects: 1. The 5,5' Emerson Street right-of-way dedication and the 7' easement along Central Road; 2. A 24' wide, right-in/right-out only Central Road curb cut that is striped and signed accordingly; 3. Modifications to the east lot line and private drive that eliminates conflicts with existing utilities, and creates the necessary turning radius to accommodate a garbage truck; / 1-17 S. Emerson Street Page 3/4 E. The Petitioner shall submit a revised landscape plan that includes additional trees throughout the development, identifies the screening material along the east lot line, and includes the adopted Village's Streetscape Program; F. The Petitioner shall submit revised elevations that reflect the building materials presented to the Village Board as part of the RFP process in addition to a material board; G. The Petitioner shall submit a lighting plan for the site for Staff review and approval; H, Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner shall submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval that include provisions for having snow removed and deposited off-site; I, The Petitioner's Building Permit plans shall include: a. Signs posted in the private drive that parking is prohibited. b. A two-hour fire separation between the garage units that abut each other. c. A one-hour fire separation between each garage building. d. Each unit shall be protected by sprinklers and constructed in accordance with our adopted codes. e, A fire hydrant installed along Central Road, location to be determined perthe Fire Chief; J. Develop the site in accordance with all applicable Village Codes and requirements, including, but not limited to, Fire Prevention Code regulations, lighting regulations, Sign Code regulations, and building regulations. K. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner shall submit a plat of subdivision that reflects the required 5,5' dedication along Emerson Street and the 7' easement along Central Road~ L. Provisions shall be made to allow the private drive to be extended south to Busse Avenue at such time as the property to the south is developed as a park. SECTION FIVE: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. 1-17 S. Emerson Street Page 4/4 SECTION SIX: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of 2005. Gerald L. Farley Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H\CLKOlfilesIWIN\ORDINANCIC USE VAR 7-17 S Emerson,FoundersRow,FebO5doc BH/hjm 2/10/05 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 (APPOINTIVE VILLAGE OFFICERS) OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION 1: Article VIII, entitled "Department of Police," Section 4.801 entitled "Creation of Department; Appointment" of Chapter 4 "Appointive Village Officers" of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting the subparagraph A(2) of Section 4,801 in its entirety and adding a new subparagraph A(2) which shall be and read as follows: 2, The Chief of Police is hereby authorized to appoint, from within or outside ofthe Mount Prospect Police Department, with the advice and consent of the Village Manager, two (2) Deputy Chiefs of Police, four (4) Watch Commanders and one (1) Operations Commander, which positions shall be known as "exempt rank" positions, There shall be permitted a total of seven (7) exempt ranks in the Police Department. The duties, as assigned among the exempt ranks, may be shifted or modified from time to time by the Chief of Police, upon consultation with the Village Manager. If a member of the Police Department is appointed to an exempt rank prior to being eligible to retire, he or she shall be considered as on furlough from the rank held at the time of the appointment. SECTION 2: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2005. Gerald L, Farley, Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk H:ICLKOlfilesIWINIORDINANCICh 4- Police OperCmdr,Feb,2005.DOC iManage 149163vl D The following business item will be presented at the February 15, 2005 meeting for approval: EXHIBIT "E" XI. NEW BUSINESS E. A RESOLUTION OPPOSING ANY REDUCTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT