Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4. OLD BUSINESS 3/1/05 MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 11,2005 PZ-03-05: VARIATION (EXTERIOR SIDE YARD- GARAGE ADDI 1451 W. LINCOLN STREET STEVE MILLER - APPLICANT DATE: 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 comer 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 10'5" 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 /jc RIPLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2005\MEJ MemosIPZ-O3-05 ME! MEMO (1451 W Lincoln - V AR- side yard).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 Haden 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 STAFF 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 Younquist. 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 Younquist. 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 Avenue. 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 comer, 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 Haden, 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: AYES: 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 H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2005\PZ-O3-05 1451 W. Lincoln Steve Miller. doc .If¡, Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 03-05 LOCATION: 1451 W. Lincoln Street PETITIONER: Steve Miller OWNER: Steve Miller PARCEL #: 08-11-300-023-0000 LOT SIZE: 0_52 acres (22,347 square feet) ZONING: RX Single-Family Residence LAND USE: Single-Family Residential REQUEST: 1) Conditional Use - Unenclosed Porch in front yard 2) Variation - Exterior Side Yard Setback (garage addition) LOCATION MAP Verde Drive ~ ~ ~~~-"'~ ~EE~EE ~ '" ~ N " ~ '" N N N N ~~~~~~~ - - - - " ~ 400 402 .. 403 = 402 404 I: 405 ... 406 .. 407 404 1708 ..( 408 I: 409 406 1706 ..:! 1704 410 ... 4lt 412 := 413 408 1702 " 414 415 4tO ~ Ë 5"3 505 Robbie Lane ~ N '" ~ ~ ~ .!2.!..!.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !:; !:; 1701 Rustv Drive ~~ "'~~~ ~~I-¡g ~~~~~~~~.-.- Q~~~ Q~~~ ~~~~~~~!:;Ë~504 Kim Avenue 1 205 20{, 2117 20~ I 209 21" 2t2 302 304 306 30~ 310 3t2 314 Lincoln Street "0 ~ Q ~ 4.> '" '" ::; = , 405 ~ ~ ~ ~ 401 403 '" N ~ " " ~ 415 4t9 421 ~ - Q N ~ ~ 421 Mount Prospect Country Club ~ A .. MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENEJURACEK,CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLL Y, 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. .f>. 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 Existinl! 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 surrounding neighborhood, utility provision, or public streets, and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. VARIA TION 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 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 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 Avenue. 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 comer, 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 Pt-ospC(.1: ~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP AR TMENT - Plânning Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847_818_5329 i\pplication for Conditional Use Approval Z Case Number 0 P&Z - - - E-< <- Development Name/Address ~~ 00 ¡., ~ Date of Submission Zt:: -0 ~_. ~ Hearing Date ~ Z - z 0 - E-< < ~ 0 ¡., Z - ~ E-< - rJ'J í-' Z - E-< rJ'J ~ ~ z 0 ~ < ~ cz::¡ 0...... ... ::: Z f3 - .- c"õ.. Z 0.. ;;;;¡<t: 10 I cz:: e" ~ U < ~ Address( es) (Street Number, Street) 14 S"" I lJ. L ~ .... (. C> ,~ Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning O.SI h.. X Setbacks: Front l-J 0',0 Buildinf Height ,-l>,~ Adjacent Land Uses: North L, ""c.uf.... ~+ South 1'\4c¡.I' J.~ V. 1 ' n...S; J .....L "CcoL Tax J.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) Dca - U ... ~ 00 - D(.. ~ ... OCJOO Total Building Sq. Ft (Site) ~ ~t.i b Rear 10' Side r:"'-.. of , C::¿', ~ Number of Parking Spaces Side we.. ~ \lrS- Lot Coverage (%) L-b 10 West 1!>'-'\ ':>S eo Ild, n..~ ,~c:t Cl ~ ~..~ \ East n.~ ;J QM .(. ,'0. L Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) ~e.e.. S t.'\..t' '" to Y r Name ~ + eu.Q Corporation l"l ; I J .e..r Telephone (day) (""'L r Ct1t.t 1. lo~ '=>C-f I ... ~ ~ I $' Telephone (evening) ~41 lot ~L[ - '9'\ 1 Fax I I I I I i I I I I I ~ Street Address -z. ~ ~ ~. . L.. -"' City Y\..1. T l' 1"0 S. p~ t.- ~ Interest in Property State ~c.. Zip Code G>oo S- b Pager C>w~ z ? ¡- <: ~ ¿, ::x: () 0 !; "'" ;.- zO - >. Ot z t) =- P.- O 2 ::x: 0... ",I ~ U <: = z e, ~ tI) <ë;ï ~ .~ o~ r.. 0 Z ... _0... Që Z <U ~ S oS- p::-¡; e,,> ~ Q) UO <:1 ~ i Name þ.,. iZv-Q.- u~ it : Corporation I I I I Street Address """t. "'> ~ (J ., t L.e. '-\ City ~T ~1"-6>Pev~ Developer Name e,- State Zip Code ~(. (PO~Sb Address Attorney Name Address Surveyor Name Address Engineer \ Name L, ~.(,.U or-<.c. S Address ~ 5"0 J LJ ObÒ~ J JJh~L~c;.Il..t t :Ct... ~C8CÞ' L- Architect Name l;~ ,,--\.,.)~....tc. S Address ~sot \..ùobJkd !\.)ð". ~l..t ~ :c <... r &x..o b '- Landscape Architect Name Address Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois www.mountprospectorg 2 I Teleph~ne (day) <..~ 'I lOC¡S- Cø'il- ~ ~I S Telephone (evening) .""1 I ! I I i 1 I I ~'-{ì l.{ ~ Y - l ;41 Fax: Pager Telephone (day) Fax Telephone (day) Fax Telephone (day) Fax Telephone (day) 'ò L.(,' SlÞ'I - S~fS'c.:> Fax Telephone (day): Cþ "( '1 Sb'-t -$ z:.. ~() Fax Telephone (day): Fax Phone 847.818_5328 Fax 847_818_5329 TDD 847.392.6064 ~ 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 inches, 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 property, 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 size 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 3 rd 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 property. 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. r I I 18' -3 '/2- N 10 IIÍ r-, I I I I , I f I 1_____- I -- J ------ 127_2 . N to I 0 ,.... PROPOSED" OPEN PORCH \ '. \: . 14' - 5 . . ' .' , ' ' " . . ' " , ' ' " , ' ' " , \ ' " ". " : :: , " " ",' I 1 ",' .' ," I I t ','" I I I ", ----,I :: -'--- : :.' I --I I,J I :,/ : : ,,' ....~ I . ' : .,' ----- : .r --- I \2----- I I 6.94 _._---,..¡-- : ---------_J ~ I ---------- I I . _I \M I 1t\lrrì t\1 <::TP~r:-T I I ~ ~ ~ I I I It ~ ~ ........,;:: C( ROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION 1 2- . " 0 ..... .,., .......... r ~- 0 .0 1\ ;0 ..... I -u ~ r .þ Z 0 0 0 -'-. " 0 ~ C'\ T' ...... ~ / '[OJ n!O~ "TJ°z 3: " '::1 ~. '.' - ",. -.- -,.-J -- '..-... en -7-~ð ... (X) \:.",/, ~ :W' (D~ -0 "m 00) r CJ L -.------ PLAT OF"SURVEY BY SIEVet\TSEN SURVEY SERVICE INC. - 215 OUTH RIDGE AVEN E ARLINGTON HEIGHTS. ILLINOIS 10005 Of Northwest 1/4 of the Nor west 1/4 0 11, East of the Third Pr ncipal Meri the Registrar of Titles of COO~ Coun e;.¡;~" e~ ~I/~- ~~ fl'" / ø £ Øl' Meier's 5ubQjv1~lon of part of the t1on 11. Township 41 North, Hange ~.reof regis~ered 1n the Office of 5.1951, as Document 11731,05. the ~outhwe5t an, according , Il11nois, ~ ~O~#:Y P{ff -IZ~.9 - : ~ ~;. ~. . ; ,I~ /;;':~;;~;~.., """ . 10\ I ~~~~~ ~~' . ~ . ~ r (4,~:o~\~'\ -- ~ 7 %--- --- ; f~'-' "~OR ,.: ff D.If -. _n '" teo - 55 ~~':~'" .-,'",l:.J;i:; CounlyofCook' oS,. 7J'i",.",.'.-~Vi~ fOR f)"Ñ'ÁLLJ 11': ~,~.-+~~~r~ . . . . ~~~~'do SCAlE: ,-= /S FT-. BOOK '7~ PAGE- //tJ.. 1¥~.II~~r~::~.::-.n a~n~he property deecrhd C.....,...""""""" in thill plat with /OUr ";'.d, ab8tror:ct .or ce,:,iflcat4! 01 title; alJ JlII~, ""'. llut lhe shown hereon i.. co"4!C1 repreMnl' c 1. .....4-""""""'ä., ~"""'-'D.'" hid...,,-".. ,.,q...6t...d ..I\ð~~ . ~ . - any"" rLi oy be found. ..poo-t - to our ~oc:e at once. Bu~;n9 lines and ¡;;Þ'! THIS ;;?¿t"!::6 DAY OF Oc.7'O<9£.£' 19 _Ss:- A.D. -- -- o"'v wt.ø4! tIoey a... SOl"4!corded In the maps; olherwlH refer to your' f) -" /1 .~ , ~ -t- z.- . . ~,:... ~. \ t~ fi ~ Uf 70' -t/e ~ S~ ,.if V,f Ce ~ ...\ ..' , ~:' . :~~-,"' IIfJ. 9? t~:::' .;: ;'._~ .,,- -'.- f .f "'t':I!.~þPr r,:'ib . . .".. .. . , ~ /!rþ'f ,~ tt\\ ~I ~¡ ~, ~ ¡., ~t ~ ~ ~ '. j , ~ l i {Jf~'~{;' I 141 Jf' I I ,- '" "'<1 "<6. "c'6 1 ~ L .6~ 1'0 ¡,.."Je. E II ~ I , , l' ~I i lD' '^ '^ ~ ~ i, ~ !;:fi¡'::xi:1 1"'"'"1,,,,, ',", ',""", :,l.' ,,¡ I ;'1': i", '" ',', 'i,', '¡I", d,' ¡ ,:i,T ¡!Ii:j lili,:" :,; I::ii, ",'ii,' "II!"',I,',I!!',, ';', '¡" 'I )'i'" ¡'I', ¡ii::!1 ¡il'b '+I::!'I:I, :!:,í,:,,~ ';,II! T,¡::¡::' I',j"!' 1',1,1',',' ¡¡¡:'!Ii; ',,'! "'I' ~,' I !, :, I I', ", I' li,l, Iii,' ! ;', i,I!' Ii:i,¡ ; [,il:, Iii '!ii: i! , c:: 0 +:: :a ~ CD 0'> ~ C'O (9 c:: 0 +:: C'O > CD ill CD "C èi5 "C CD (/) 0 c.. e 0... II j = s 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 platthereof registered in the Office of the 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. A 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:IcLKO\filesIWIN\ORDINANcIVariation 1451 Uncoln,garage addition, FebO5 doc ,------ ¡ ---------- : I j ¡ I õ>q'.o '.0' .....: Q)i ~ ~I¡ ,..., ....... .,.", en i /<",.""" s:: I // Õ i // 0 ~..-----.--LL.--.---.--- s:: i -.' .- , ..Ji ¡ , ¡"...-...." I '. ¡ \. ! '.~------....---.. L- . ~. ti ~t. ~ ~- ~. tÕ;iïìí( a :@, ~ .~ œ -So ~.- .." .- ~.." .~- ;." ~~ .cf .. 105" \'6 "tf. \ . .iiI-¡;,", "', ,~ ~.., ¡Iíoí8.¡ t,.. --,-, ',',,' ~""~' ~ ~, ~,,) œ ~,tn fiiìii ""',' -:J. ~," ~- ~' ~,' ~ ".,-~, ~ rJj' 70'-6 II" ----~ I I, ~I.-, ::1...'1 :t.., ... ,-1 ,1.-, C~ ",,¡ -I -¡ -t 0 =..-, -1 -¡ ..-¡ ~ .. :::>-. ....;.' -:-1 1~ -""'" "I -:-1 1~ ~ , 7"'"'\ ~ , N :\..., -1 -¡ -~ '" ,,~ --¡ :\..1 :t., ~I.-ì ~-1 ;:î '" ~ 1) bJJ ro ~ ro t: '-' .~ ~ '"'d.""" 1)'"0 rfJ'"O o~ ~ 0 ;.... ~ ! I;! Y il: Iii : ~ I ¡i, ¡II n. hì ~ ....,) .. .""4 ~\-.\ p,') "" .d ........r¡ -; "--1 ;::::) :.., " -1 ......¡ ::t, ì ::t,) -¡ -1 ;::::) ""-' ~I-) ~ """\ :;:-,... (L, ') ~-I -1 --=1 L:..~ .... , > ."..;.--- ~¡ ..- l !I -...., "I _i , I ..-- L II ~ 1 :~\ ,,-..... -' i N :L, I ~I.....' -1 """""i 0 .. .-1 ~-::"I -I -' X'\ "'.,-" V " ~ ~ --1 ::::;, .. ,"'-j :L¡ Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department Mount Prospect MEMORANDUM ~ FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1>1), H~ -z.I1S'1r$ TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER 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 27th 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: 1) 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 ofthe 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. J. The Petitioner's Building Permit plans shall include: 1. 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. Provisions for on site storm '-'later management. (eliminated) 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. 1. 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 Teasement 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-02-05 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 ~er any questions, related to this matter. /' William. Cooney, ., AICP Ije H'IPLANlPI.nning & Zoning COMMlP&Z 20051ME! MemosIPZ-O2-0S MEJ (Norwood - 1- 17 S. Emcrson).doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-02-05 Hearing Date: January 27,2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1-17 S. Emerson Street PETITIONER: Bruce Adreani (of Norwood Builders) Founders Row, LLC 7458 N. Harlem Ave. Chicago, IL 60631 PUBLICATION DATE: January 12,2005 Journal/Topics PIN#: 08-12-104-001/-002-003/021-0000 REQUEST: CU approval for a PUD and other relief from the Village Code as may be required for the proposed 14-unit rowhome development MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Bruce Adreani, Diane Becker, Jim Beloklon, Mike Breclow, Barbara & Melvin Fisher, Jim Kapustiak, Christine Kuttzolt, Wanda Leopold, Bill Loftus, Mike Miller, Jenny Mulek, Ed Pfingsten, Jennifer Tammen, Judy Schreiber, Beverly Zapfel, Linda Venticinque, Rich Scholl, and Linda Waycie Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the revised minutes of the October 28, 2004 meeting. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion, which was approved 4-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros, Matt Sledz and Keith Younquist. Matt Sledz moved to approve the minutes of the November 11, 2004 meeting. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion, which was approved 5-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros and Keith Younquist. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-02-05, a request for Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development and other relief from the Village Code as may be required for the proposed 14-unit rowhome development. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the Staff Report. She said that the Subject Property is located at the northeast comer of Busse Avenue and Emerson Street, and consists of multiple vacant lots and a parking lot. The Subject Property is zoned B5 Central Commercial and is bordered by the B5C District to the west, the Library and Village Hall, RA Single Family District to the north and east, and 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-02-05 Page 2 Hoc Committee with input from the residents of Mount Prospect. A great deal of work on downtown redevelopment has been completed since the plan was adopted. The plan was revisited last year and an ad hoc committee confirmed that the redevelopment of the Subject Properties include rowhomes, with the buildings oriented to the street and the garages 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 Avenue. Ms. Connolly summarized the Petitioner's exhibits and said that the Petitioner is proposing a rowhome development consisting of two clusters of 7 units, 14-units total; there would be two floor plans: both plans include basements and 3-bedrooms. However, one floor plan would include the option of having 2 additional bedrooms on the third floor; 2 and 3 car detached garages, accessed from a shared private drive; each unit would have its own backyard and patio. The Village's adopted Streetscape Program would be installed along Emerson Street and Central Road, but the development would include landscaping of private areas as well. The proposed development is consistent with the Village's Downtown Strategic Plan, which calls for the Subject Property to be developed with rowhomes. The Petitioner is seeking approval for the proposed Planned Unit Development, which consists of 2 clusters of 7-units each, located on multiple lots of record. The buildings would front onto Emerson Street, with vehicle access from the private drive that is located behind the rowhomes. The Petitioner's site plan indicates that the private drive would accommodate 2-way traffic and would be accessed from Emerson Street and Central Road. Ms. Connolly reviewed the Village's Zoning Ordinance bulk regulations for the development and noted that the proposed development does not have a setback requirement. However, the Petitioner's site plan indicates that the buildings would have staggered setbacks. The buildings would have no less than a 15' front setback and the stairs leading up to the units would be setback no less than 7'. However, the Petitioner revised the site plan since the Staff Report was written and will review the changes during their presentation. The exhibits indicate varying heights for the buildings. The lowest part of the roof measures 30' from the mid- point, but extends to 32'2" from highest point ofthe 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 ofthe 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 property was exempt from onsite stormwater management based on the development of the neighboring property. Ms. Connolly said the Development Code reads B5C Districts are not required to provide stormwater detention. On January 25, the Petitioner submitted revised exhibits seeking relief from stormwater detention, citing the reason that the properties across the street are exempt from the requirement. The Planning & Zoning Commission would need to recommend approval and the Village Board would need to grant relief if it was determined there was a hardship. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 4 Mr. Rogers asked 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 Avenue in the future. They would like to explore other options that would not 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 4-112 feet above grade and there is an English basement allowing for plenty of daylight to enter the basement. The end units have opportunities for side windows and have 3-car brick garages and a I-story rear building extension. There would be at least 5' of walkway and a recessed gate between each garage. Also, there would be a painted metal fence between each sideyard. Mr. Breclow briefly described the generous floor plans, noting that each basement would be capable of being finished and having a bathroom added at a later date. Ms. Tammen came back to the podium to show an example of the lifts available for installation in the garages should buyers desire space for more cars. She explained that the automatic photocell lights outside of the garages would be on one circuit that operates simultaneously without spilling onto neighbors' property. She said this ended their formal presentation and they would answer any questions put forth by the P&Z Commission. Richard Rogers asked Ms. Tammen if they had done any parking or traffic studies for this project. Ms. Tammen said no, they had not. Mr. Rogers asked why they had built all these projects in the downtown area without exploring avenues for extra guest parking. Ms. Tammen said that with each project they have provided the parking required by Code and did not feel it was in their purview to tell the Village what to provide in the way of street parking or in the new parking garage. They did try to be innovative with the idea of parking lifts, which cost about $15,000 to $20,000, and would be available as an option in the 2-car garages, which would need to be made 18" higher to accommodate one; the door does not need to be any larger. Joe Donnelly asked about building codes for the use of these lifts and said that a Variance was required to install one in Chicago. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 5 The Norwood reps said they were not familiar with these regulations. Extensive discussion followed regarding building heights. It was determined that the general midpoint is at 32'. Keith Youngquist asked who the target customer of these rowhomes would be. Christine Kuttzolt, Director of Sales and Marketing, responded. She said their previous experience in Mount Prospect afforded them the opportunity to discover what many people are looking for in this area and until now has not been available - a true, luxury rowhome. The typical buyers would be the 45-64 year old homeowners living in Mount Prospect, empty-nesters, whose children have gone off to college; they mayor may not be commuters, down-sizing or possibly upsizing their lifestyle, not yet ready to throw in the towel, looking for that semi-urban lifestyle. Ms. Kuttzolt said many potential buyers have contacted her already. Mr. Floros asked the probable price of the rowhomes. Ms. Kuttzolt said they are working on pricing and, subject to prices of the varied choices of optional construction elements going into the units, they will probably start in the high $500's. Ms. Juracek said if the Petitioners' presentation were complete, that she would open the hearing to the public. She did so by reading a note from Ms. Mary Alice Neitzke, 6 South Maple Street, asking to be read as part of the public record. Ms. Neitzke's letter stated she requests: 1) A brick fence/wall between her rear yard and the private driveway; and 2) Lighting be done in a manner that does not 'light-up' her yard - prefers the lighting be installed at the garage level. Ms. Tammen said they could not support a brick wall because it would require a 3-4 foot concrete footing, which they simply do not have the ground space for. With regard to the lighting, the garages will have ambient lighting similar to single family homes, not pole lighting. There was discussion regarding the fence and Ms. Connolly said her conversations with the residents indicated their concern that the fence will becorne an eyesore in the future and that the residents felt the rowhome association documents should address who should maintain a board-on-board fence in the future. Ms. Tammen said they will work with neighbors on maintenance issues. Mr. Rogers asked what Norwood could do to provide stormwater detention. Bill Loftus, Spaceco, addressed this question. He said they will be providing storm sewers throughout the property and tying in to downspouts where appropriate and eventually into the combined storm sewer in the street. He said what Ms. Tammen referred to as their being unable to provide stormwater retention was that they could not provide a large retention pond as is done in many suburban condo projects due to land space constrictions. Mr. Rogers said they would look to Staff to provide further compromise in final plans. Mr. Donnelly asked why it was necessary for the excessive garage height. Mr. Breclow said it was to blend in with the gable pitch of the rowhomes. After some discussion about the height of the Lofts at Village Centre, the old Village Hall and the new Village Hall, Ms. Juracek opened the discussion to the audience. Ron Ditthart, 123 N. Emerson, Mount Prospect, said it appears the north 150' of this property will be the subject of a referendum that will appear on a ballot April 5. He said that 1,600 signatures have been filed at the Village and none have been contested. He said he had been active in circulating those petitions and he interviewed 77 in favor of the referendum. Of those, 75 in favor were in favor of keeping the area as a park and 72 were in favor of keeping the north 150' open with mature trees with grass as is now. He is asking on behalf of those 1,600 voters that approval of this project be continued until after the April 5 referendum. This would be a "no lose" situation because it would avoid the Board the embarrassment of approving something the overwhelming majority of voters oppose. Ms. Juracek reminded the group that this is the first step in the process for approval of the project. After this meeting, the request will go to the Village Board and the concerns of the voters would be noted. Penny Perliss, 500 Westwood Lane, was sworn in. She said that she has lived in Mount Prospect 35 years and her main concern is all the stairs associated with the rowhomes. She said she disagreed with the marketing group and that 45-64 year olds would not want any stairs. She said she also worked on obtaining signatures for the petition both times and nobody refused to sign the petition the second time around. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 6 Wanda Leopold, 107 William St., was sworn in. She said that she submitted a list of questions to the P&Z earlier and some of her questions have been answered. She asked if the Board could require the builders to use pervious materials in the driveways and alleys to absorb the water and use native landscaping. She said this project would be dangerous for surrounding properties accessing Central Road. She said she sent e-mails to National Arbor Day Foundation, regarding the consequences of destroying the nine trees on the property. She said she copied the Village and received an answer from Sandy Clark, Village Forestry Superintendent, who said that efforts would be made to save as many trees as possible. Ms. Leopold said she was sure that if Norwood setback the building line further, they could save the American Elm tree. Linda Venticinque, 10 South Maple Street, was sworn in. She said she has lived here since 1985 and that she is in favor ofthe 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 row homes/townhouses are going to be a glorified alley. He said the people on Maple Street will be overwhelmed with the high gable roofline and the Village sewers will be overtaxed with water. Also, the people will not be able to get out of their garages on snowy days. He said there isn't parking outside of the garages for people to wash their cars or for any reason. The Fire Department will not allow them to park in that alleyway so the people will park on Emerson Street. Mr. Pinchot asked the P&Z to consider these things when making their decision. Mel Fisher, 100 S. William Street, was sworn in. He said that the neighborhood experiences periodic flooding and cited an instance 12 years ago: on the comer of Owen and Busse, he helped float a car and tie it to a tree for its owner. He said now we've added deep tunnel, more water, and less retention. He said that he does not appreciate the looks of this tenement-like project. After hearing Mr. Cooney, Director of Community Development, talk about the downtown improvements and use the word 'ambience', he looked it up in his thesaurus and found out it meant: aura surrounding an area. Mr. Fisher said that the country club area has a beautiful new country club, but nobody in the triangle area is protecting the ambience here. He concluded by stating that each of you on the Board has that duty, and that he charges the Commissioners to think of ambience before chopping down trees. Burt Scholz was sworn in. He said that he has lived here since 1974 and collected petitions in favor of the park. He wants to use the Emerson area as open space to be enjoyed by this and future generations. He said we are one of the few suburbs to have such a jewel in the downtown area, that Arlington Heights has no open space. We should strongly consider keeping the area open and have no water retention, fence, or tree problems. Linda Waycie, 603 Windsor Dr., was sworn in. She said that she is a 20 yr. resident, and also gathered signatures for the petition and wants open space. She said the downtown would continue to get denser with more buildings, stores, and apartments and be more urban like the slides shown earlier. The residents want suburban areas not urban areas - less density, not high density, and open space, not buildings. She asked if a compromise couldn't be made to keep 9 trees and build just 12 units. >~ Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-05 Page 7 Judy Schreiber, 817 Waverly, was sworn in. She said that London is a city full of parks and they refer to those parks as their "lungs". Mount Prospect needs "lungs", too. In Chicago, Michigan Avenue wouldn't have Grant Park or Millennium Park, either, if the commissions didn't plan ahead. It would just be buildings one on top of another right up to the lake. Sylvia Jonas, 1007 Willow Lane, was sworn in. She said she has been a legal resident of Mount Prospect for many years, but has been away in the military for 15 yrs. and recently returned. She said that she wasn't here when all these plans were made. She said that now when she comes do\Vrltown to go to the bakery she can't just park and go into the bakery. Or when she drives around downtown she has to be so careful of cars going in and out of parking places. She said she would probably not come downtown, but just go to the outlying Jewel and other stores for most purchases. Ms. Tammen returned to the podium to say this project is not to be thought of as a regular condo development. She said it is the type of quasi-urban setting where the car is left in the garage much of the time and the owner walks to the train or to the restaurant or library or Village Hall. Also, when there is a large snowstorm, the snow will not just be shoved to another part of the driveway, but that the association will have a contract to remove the snow to an off-site location. She asked Ms. Kuttzolt to address the question of stairs. Ms. Kuttzolt said stairs are a personal preference. She said some people prefer two-story living and some people prefer ranch home living whether they are 25 or 50. People who are baby-boomer generation are much more active than previous generations of the same age were. Ms. Juracek asked about fencing and the closing of Emerson Street during construction and a Norwood representative said it would probably not need to be fully closed for 24 hours. Ms. Tammen said they are absolutely open to suggestions and would work with the residents on Maple for a satisfactory solution. She said they were pleased to hear the nearby residents were amenable to the project. Mr. Donnelly said fence maintenance through the years would be an important issue, too. Pervious pavement substances and native landscaping plants also were discussed between the P&Z and the Petitioner's Engineer Bill Loftus. Mr. Loftus said that he didn't doubt Mr. Fisher's story about the floating car because it only took 24" of water for a car to float, but that 24" of water could be right next to a million dollar project andjust 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. F10ros 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, F10ros, 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 Village Board's decision is final for this case. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Sledz Motion was approved 6-1. At 11 :45 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. HIPLANIPlanning &Zoning cOMMIP&Z 2005\MinutesIPZ-O2-05 1-17 S Emerson S¡ Ro .-r;U;K) ¿D;¡;if k5-1 ~;rt:JZ-i.t ~ - C~~'\ /1-\ ,C< I l ~\ D :Î ~ - (). í) ," /,/ d - OJ,--v1.--~A~~1,-Œ:..---çv.'~",:J/Yl;¿'~_~-É-6-- ,~c.-J<------c.,~------- c:l\-~Yl CL~__~ ~i 1~¿~-¡;-J i6._'-~Å~~ ~~~._____rli!.____------- if.l.ktL~) C (-:u..1 ÇJ ~'-L~~i\. 'l_.&~"7.:.L¿ L_dY~', _.:é.J¿~(..fc.:~~~-_:"-~-------- -- r - ~W,;.ð ~-¡ 1)-<.uJ) &r."-.,,\.c ¡--)~J. {VVt ~'-- L- £: L, "j~oik,,- "L- -'~ ~ ~...¿~ Q ~- 'OU-~ l; &-:¡ ':t:L"{;C'L< ~)¿-lf1!¿~---- CJ.- J¡ r1..jY C1-'::..Q~\ ~~. ~::'Vì. /. ';1 /Crt:~~¥ Ji,J.:J.~~-------_._-_.- It.?~ J.:i. L.&iL r .~-¥ JCa-<--~J':i- , kh¡;~l; /,?)-l-~,\. -+l'~-+L<-~L.ft~.--- l! 11 () l' T v £1u:,J' .if" ~:~~\:2~~'; --&.?~ a f/L~:..o.t.-VL 1; /)vL-2- '- (J \ ------ ~d , ~ v~~~) . ~ r, :\ . ("(1---1 \..:.-- 1'- ,~¡ vo "'.' /~~ O:i~) Ís-<"í./ ¿t..l' -~..~..;t_~i¿"-'("'.~ ,- r " ..., - i' ", l/H....)t:. t, VI,A...~~G..:-.I:') '. 'Y I I i/".. 'I.. A.- \LJ,:' '. ~ / ~/~. '.t~-u...Y-<x: /t¿¿ :t:JIj ~ v v Cc.6/').. VÚ/-4-!.......êt Af-_'!."- ¿&.'!:L> .. ( \ { , " ','- c-- U ~"/1ì -- ~:2 '3"0,,' 61, C,\. "--J--I),,'~. jþ "-T-/b..:;; 'J," ,; .,..."..": '.r '._J~'_.;... ...,/'.<....- x~ ~ ..J_-,-~-""'" ~~~:::',:-"'---' r ~ ,. , i ¡-.- í"::...ñ"'" .... {, .,,~. ,-.."" . j /',~,"- r; ~ .c' t.'-k~ ,: /' /; , .; '" ~ . , :, ./-...>----.....--. ,;,:. &. ~ v..:...;;;z .\ ~. (I' ,. Ö ð ~-D-W,~ i-..-- Cl-'~,'\ ." /J - ~. .. ~.:-I. ~£ß-2/)i...L~i~ ...., " ~j ", 1'\ ~ " ---t~~___/(j¿d. .." '~~,Q--- . ---------------- ..._.. --------, 3: "-, \ G' n f', t', / , ,'I-.,,~' ~ ",,-1\.....i..J,/ '.r y'; i.", '.." {'1 '-c.:. " {.. -, -~.-=-.<:'- ,,;,,<- ,/.."- (.'(/'/----'f..- \... ',] ¿:I-_/.:oC'-<-<-"<- t-:>-*=',('?"-' L\-~( r.. "." t r:-:' ..:...-¡~~--'~~ ,". --"-'~--z'.... ------------- CV'..-j...' ,._l:'t.~~)/. \.L-~ì r>...¡ f.....-'P.:..- ~C<'I.-¿;' -.;,.< ' " """',", ~-,~ r/ ,.,"'-~'--- /'/1......£ V'-jQ¿<.-¿ e_r.,-v¡;Æiè_Z-c' J~.'-)-I~:':j</J'L::..:£.~._,. &/.:,-- ( - - ¡ , ....:-- i '?'~¡).s..;/.." \~' " c; ct." -...;.-- ,"'" r jJ., /,//1')1' /l_c.¿ ¿ji í)i~ þ.G- P : () ,~- I -b: r .¿' . I'¿ r,2.luc' ,;,; ¡ :u.. t., J - .:\..C\.---""~.. ~_J..>---'--'"5þ1 L?_~,-,~h ,Y~2ß:- \~;.d í' .. (- 'ì O,...C\ .~~ v\ , 't ~ II A.::¡--'v-~"'v~ . ~ "'--- " \, ' " í\ \ 1 ',,: .\:T' ^ \ - ..'. I) .....1 '-^.....' ~(.. '...' Ct,.~ C£..-,,~\. .... k<.. k--?-.('\"" ...tL ¡, 'n. I\.. () " ,--'( (,--\....Ÿv....~x .b:t'A'CV:-'--<" .¿~ð' iJ-'é.-ç , 1-' ...;v . . ")- _A,)..J ,n-',.1.. 6.J ß1}':.v ( ('~c-'F '- "'."'-.- . ¡- , u"J-.:- (¡¿A'ÁJ'-<í - ¿'LiLt ...../-:.t: ',,~ ~ -4 ~ L2-:¿¿) f/-~ , d -(' , ~L.L-;J L47 '.,) b-¿Ç' %~¡.) ~_._.._---------- 1/27 P&Z Meeting Page 1 of 1 Connolly, Judy ,---,,--,-,-,-----,--,--'----'-'--~"---"'---------'-'-,-,,-,-,,--,-,---,"~--"-------'--'-'-'------'------'-'-,,------,-------"-'~-"--'-'----~'---"-'--" From: Mark Ardito [mark@arditotech.com] Sent: Monday, January 31,200510:03 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 hH¡¿:!lw...'{I:'w.,9.I9Jt Q~.GtLç_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@arditoteçh.çom 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 -- ",,------, -~,_._-,------'- ---'--"------'-----~-"-'---- -, ~----,-,----,--,----,-,-"-,-,-~--~-,--------'----'~---"'-'--""'---'-'" Subject: FW: emerson street project -----Original Messagen--- 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 Commercia] Village Hall Conditional Use (Planned Unit Development - RowhomeDevelopment) 5 - ~ '" ... QJ QJ ." ..... rJ:¡ QJ = ~ 15 ... QJ QJ 10 ." 11 ... rJ:¡ QJ ==:1 ~ ~ .... ~ ~ LOCATION MAP Central Road ¡---5---] L_-------- Mounl Pru,peel Publie Library Pnrkin~ Deck Village Hall Busse Avenue ~ 101 g~ 11 105-109 - - rJ:¡ ;Yo N = 'I'll} '" J' 0 Jþ' ¿I ~ 110 ." eSI .... <0" \J' Q, 113 q. ~ a' E 119 irl} ~ ~~ ¡.:¡ 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 ]6 20 22 ... QJ QJ ." ..... rJ:¡ QJ - 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, 2005 HEARING DATE: JANUARY 27, 2005 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 ofthe 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 at the southeast comer of Busse Avenue and Emerson Street, and consists of multiple vacant lots and a parking lot. The Subject Property is zoned B5 Central Commercial and is bordered by the B5C District to the west (Library and Village Hall), RA Single Family District to the north and east, and R1 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 constTuction of the mixed-use development to start this spring. Summary of Downtown Developments: . The Village Centre Residences: 3-bui1dings 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 comer of Main Street and Northwest Highway. This phase of the plan is complete, pending minor interior changes per tenant requirements, PZ-O2-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 27, 2005 Page 3 .. . The Pinnacle at Village Centre: A recently approved mixed-use development at the northwest comer 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 Vi11age'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 Vi11age 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 : . ;i:he Village's Downtown Strategic Plan, which ca11s 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 requiremen t. 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 a11ows a maximum building height of 30 feet and the Petitioner's elevations indicate that the building height would exceed this limitation. PZ-02-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 27, 2005 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. . Density - 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-O2-0S Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January Page 5 As previously stated, Staff is currently evaluating Emerson Street traffic patterns. Although the design has not been finalized, 5.S' from the east side of Emerson Street must be dedicated to ensure proper traffic lane widths and to al1ow 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 Vil1age 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 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 .cal1s for the rowhome development to extend from Central Road to Busse Avenue, the Petitioner's proposal is in }eeping 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. RECOMIVIENDA TION 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 Village Board review the Petitioner shall submit a revised site plan that reflects: 1. The S.S' 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 Vil1age 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 shal1 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: irector of Community Development Ijc H,IPLA.NIPI"Uling & Zoning COMMIP&Z 'OO5IStaITMeUlo\PZ-02-0S MEMO 11-11 S EUlcrson - ,owhoUles -No,wood)oe.doe VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COIvHvIlJNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTJvIENT - P]::mning Division ] 00 S. Emerson 3tr:::e[ MOLlIl! Prospe::, Illinois 6úO.só Phone 847.1:18.53::28 FAX S4Î.òJ8.5329 -,Application for Conditional Use Approval in c", N wnb" II 'I 0 P&z - - i/ ~:; Development Name/Address f ¿;, ::: , :::::0 i 0 Q. Date of Submission /, "'- <J zE ~O , '-' (;;;.) Hearing Date I =: z - z 0 ¡::::: -< .-. ~ '" § ~ Founder I s RO\.¡ LLC ~ .~ Street Address ê i:t 7458 N. Harlem Ave. S 7 I Cit)' I SlaTe G Chicago IL ~ U I 1I1te:'est in Property 3 ~ Grantee of right to redevelop property by the Village of Hount Prospect 11/23/04 , ,z 10 í- -< .,... ¿;, ::::: 0 '- z - (;;;.) >- ;... UJ e" z ~ ~ >< (;;;.) ~ Address( es) (Street Number, Street) ï-15 S. Emerson S' Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning 1.669 B5 Central COITm. Setbacks: Front II 'I I I! ~ ï ¡ i :1 r Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) I N/A I Side 0 I Number of Parking Spaces 155 0 BÜilding Height I Rear 0 I Lot Coverage (%) N/A Side 0 N/A Adjacent Land Uses: North I' South I East SF Residential SF Residential SF Tax I.D. Number or County Assigned PÙl Nl1mber(s) 08-12-104-001, -002, -003, -021 West Institutional Residential 'I I (Villaae Hall, Libr~~) Parking Garage) ii Legal Description (attacb addj¡ionaJ sheets ifnecessary) Please See AttachITent A . -- I : t -. - .. Name Bruce J. Adreani I Telephone (day) 773.775.5400 I Telephone (evening) I Fax 773.775.4330 I Pager . Corporation l ::6~~Ù~ ! I, ii I I z: 0 ¡... ..( ~ i c::: t ""' ~ ;.:- ;;;: žc: - - ""' .:::;. ž ~ ~ ë ~;ê... '" i '-' ~ v ..... c:: i ~ ; ïi1 ~ ~ 'cr. IC~ ¡;. 0 ~:t "" -= z ~ ;::¡ ~ C g- ¡:::õ (.j > ~ö u¡ <: - Ii Name I Corporation Village of t-bunt Prospect i Street Address 50 S. Emerson Street I C. . Ity State Zip Code r-bunt Prospect I' Developer Name IL 60056 Please See Attachment B Address Attorney Name Address Surveyor Name Address I Engineer Name Address Architect Name I Address t Landscape Architect Name Address Mount P¡;ospect Department of Community Development 100 So:.lth Emerson Street, Mount Prospect lllinois W\\ w. J1l ountprospect. org - 2 Telephone (day) ~.17 ~lR t;1?R Telephone (evening) Fax: 847.818.5329 Pager TeJephone (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 Proposed Conditional Use (as listed in the zoning district) Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and ¡-low the Proposed Use Meets the Attached Standards for Conditional Use Approval (;:¡ttach additional sheets if necessary) Please See Attachment C ,..., ~ f- ¡'¡'cr. O¡,;¡ .. ~ "...!'"V ,..,. -- -~ <"'" .,.. - ~(fJ :;:i ~o ifJ;: U -< Hours of Operation ^ N/A Address(es) (Street Number, Street) Please See Attachment D I Site Area (Acres) Propeliy Zoning ¡;:;;¡z to rn- ,...,f- ~;:; rn~ o~ c..O o~ ~Z ¡:.,- Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed Use Setbacks: Front Rear Side Side I Building Height Lot Coverage (%) N limber of Parking Spaces Please note that the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and a11 required plans and other 1111!.:erials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Pla1li1ing 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 atthe time of submitta1. In consideration of the 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 propeliy grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable ho:1rs for visual inspection of the subject property. !'Ovid ä her'in and in alll11aterials submitted in association with this application are true and Applicant Date 12/22/04 If appJ icant 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 Owner Date Mount Prospect Department of Community Developmcnt 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois viVo/w.mountprospectorg 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.39'::.6064 Founders 'Row Molll1l Prospect, Illinois 12/22/04 Attachment A to Conditional Use Application Legal Description of Property LOTS 20, 21, AND 22 IN BLOCK 5 IN BUSSE AND WILLE'S RESUBDIVISION TN MOUNT PROSPECT OF THE WEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TO\VNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. ALSO LOT 1 IN MOUNT PROSPECT STATE BANK RESUBDIVISIONNO. 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, Rfu""JGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Founders'Ro'vv Mount Prospect, Illinois J 2/22/2004 Attachment B to Conditional Use Application Background Infomation: Development Professionals DEVELOPER ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONSTR UCTION 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 SPACECO, INe. 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 Waukegan Rd, Suite 400 Deerfield, IL 60015 847.444.0102 fax: 847.444.0102 F Olillders . Row Molint Prospect, Illinois 11/22/04 Attachment C to Conditional Use Application Summary of Actions Requested Proposal Summary Founders' Row brings an exciting new housing choice to downtown Mollnt 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 northern 3/4 of the western 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 dovvntown. 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 northeastern 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 oj the conditional use .vi!! not he detrimental to, or endanger the public health, saJety, morals, conifort, or general \vclJare. 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 ",,'ith the Village's Phase 1- B Comprehensive Plan. The entire community will benefit from a development that is appealing from an aesthetic as well as functional standpoint. Founders 'Row Mollnt 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 pwposes 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 surrounding 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 opportunity for synergistic development and improvement of the surrounding properties. 4. Adequate public utilities, access roads, drainage, and/or necessa¡y facilities have been or will be provided; Response: The development will be equipped with all 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 wiII have its own garage accessed from a proposed new north-south alley. The proposed north-south alley will connect Central Road to a ne\\' proposed east-west alley which is accessed directly from Emerson Street. The access points from Central and Emerson will 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 I-B Plan as well as the existing development context. Furthermore, 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 J 2/22/2004 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 Buildine: Sq. Ft. Devoted to Zonine: Sq. Ft. (Site) Proposed Use ß5-C wi Conditional Use 43,446 Residential Rowhomes 19,660 Residential Garages 7,680 Setbacks: Front (West) Rear (East) Side (North) Side (South) IS' 24' 35' 42' Number of Buildin!! Heie:ht Lot Coverae:e (ofe,) 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 garam = 32 parking spaces Attachment D-Proposed site info.xls, Founders' Row 12/22/2004 c~ 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 aPlanned 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 B 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 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 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 èxcess 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 T 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 bßin full force and effectfrom 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:IcLKOlfilesIWINIORDINANCIC USE VAR 7-17 S Emerson,FoundersRow,FebD5doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department ~ MEMORANDUM "&.~~ ~111°s- DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2005 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR FOUNDERS ROW TO: FROM: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER WILLIAM J. COONEY JR., DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT SUBJECT: Attached to this memorandum is a final draft of the Development Agreement between the Village of Mount Prospect and Norwood Construction Inc. that delineates each party's responsibilities for the Founders Row project at 1-17 S. Emerson Street. This document will guide the redevelopment of the property and is in a similar format to previous development agreements adopted by the Village Board. Please forward this memorandum and attachment to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their March 1 sl meeting. Staff will be at that meeting to answer any questions related to this matter. ~Jl I' TownhomeParce1.2.23.05 AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND REDEVELOPMENT OF LAND THIS AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made by and between the VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, Illinois, a municipal corporation (the "Village"), and FOUNDERS' ROW LLC, an Illinois limited liability company (the "Purchaser"). RECIT ALS WHEREAS, the Village has authorized the sale of that certain real estate located III the Village's corporate limits and commonly known as 1-15 S. Emerson Street consisting of approximately 1.669 acres (the "Property"), legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Village has awarded Purchaser the right to redevelop the Property and to purchase it from the Village pursuant to the tenDS and conditions set forth in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, Purchaser intends to acquire and construct or cause to be constructed on the Property, approximately 14 attached single-family dwellings in two buildings (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, the Property is located in the Village's Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District. The TIF District was previously designated, adopted and approved by the Village; and WHEREAS, these Improvements and development will facilitate the goals and objectives of the Village's TIF District and provide for increased economic activity within the Village, increase the assessed valuation of the real estate situated within the 1 TownhomeParceJ.2.23.05 Village, increase the tax revenues realized by the Village, enable the Village to control the development of the Property and otherwise be in the best interests of the Village. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above and the mutual obligations of the paliies (the "Parties"), the Parties covenant and agree as follows: Section One: Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits The recitals set forth above and all exhibits constitute an integral part of this Agreement and are incorporated by this reference with the same force and effect as if fully set forth as agreements of the Parties. Section Two: Definitions For purposes of this Agreement, the following capitalized terms shall have the meanings indicated: A. "Improvements" shall have the meaning set forth in the recitals. B. "Project" shall mean the development of the Property and construction of the Improvements in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and shall consist of approximately 14 attached single-family dwelling units and an equal number of parking garages, one per dwelling site substantially as set forth in Exhibits C & D. Purchaser reserves the right, however, to market the units as "townhomes", "row homes", "single family" and other applicable marketing terminology. c. "Title Company" shall mean Chicago Title Insurance Company and its affiliates. Attached as Exhibit B are the permitted title exceptions for the Property ("Permitted Exceptions"). 2 TownhomeParcel.2.23.05 Section Three: Approvals Zoning Contingency, Permits and Other Governmental A. Zoning. Prior to the date of this Agreement, the Village has approved zoning required for the Project, under Ordinance(s) Number(s) ("Zoning Approvals"). Attached as Exhibits C and D are the site plan and building elevations resulting from those Approvals ("Approved Site Plan" and "Approved Elevations", respectively). Such changes as Purchaser reasonably proposes and the Village approves as administrative changes during the construction permit and construction process ("Final Approved Site Plan and Elevations") may be allowed. B. Construction Permits and Other Governmental Approvals. Purchaser shall, at its expense, secure or cause to be secured, all necessary permits or other approvals from any other governmental agencIes (including without limitation the Village's agencies) having jurisdiction over such construction, development or work, or such portion of the work being performed. This shall include, without limitation, any applications and permits, documents or plats which may be required to be obtained from any local, federal or state environmental protection agency, or from any other agency which may have or exercise any jurisdiction of any type whatsoever which may affect the Property for the Final Approved Site Plan and Elevations (the "Governmental Approvals"). Purchaser will diligently pursue obtaining the Governmental Approvals. The Village will assist and cooperate with Purchaser to secure the Governmental Approvals. Procurement of Governmental Approvals shall be a condition of this Agreement and Purchaser's further obligations under it. 3 TownhomeParce1.2.23.05 C. Extent of Zoning and Governmental Approvals. The Final Approved Site Plan and Elevations and Governmental Approvals must pern1it construction of the Project as defined. D. Construction Timetable. Construction of the Improvements shall commence within sixty (60) days after Closing of the Property (weather pennitting). Purchaser shall have the right to cause construction of only one of the buildings at a time, however, and subject to Purchaser's sole discretion shan not commence construction of the second building until achieving sale of 70% of the units constructed in the first of the two buildings. Subject to discovery of latent underground conditions relating to prior uses of the Property and the time reasonably required to remediate them, each building shall be substantially completed not later than twenty-four (24) months after commencement of construction, subject to weather pennitting and force majeure. For the purposes of this Agreement, "substantiaUy completed" shall mean that subject to installation of any final finishes, fixtures, appliances and other buyer options, the units located in the applicable building are substantially complete to the point where a certificate of occupancy can issue at to each unit. Force majeure shall include, without limitation, latent underground conditions and the Village's failure to complete public infrastructure and/or streetscape improvements concurrently with Purchaser's substantial completion of the Project building(s). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section or elsewhere in this Agreement, however, and subject to posting appropriate evidence of insurance with the Village, and execution of any bonds, waivers, releases or hold hannless documents reasonably required by the Village Attorney. Purchaser shall have the right, at any time prior to issuance of any building pennits and prior to or after Closing, but on not less than 4 TownhomeParcel.2.23.05 5 days' prior notice to the Village, to commence construction staging activities and preliminary site clearance and preparation (including but not limited to removal of asphalt areas) at Purchaser's sole cost; if Purchaser so elects, then the construction timetable shall not commence to run until actual excavation/shoring work commences (beyond removal and/or remediation of underground conditions), but in no event later than July 15,2005. E. Compliance with this Agreement, Governmental Approvals and Other Regulations. Purchaser shall complete the Project in compliance with the conditions of this Agreement, the Governmental Approvals and all other Village regulations. This shall include, but not be limited to, the payment of all fees and deposits on or before their respective established due dates, subject to any waivers of or variations from any governmental requirements granted in connection with the Project. F. The Village shall reimburse Purchaser for th~ costs and expenses of removing "unsuitable" existing conditions from the site to the extent that the costs and expenses exceed the costs and expenses for excavation but for such conditions (and, if Purchaser so chooses, the administrative costs and expenses of procuring a so-called "NFR" letter from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency that attests to that condition without land use restriction and without engineered barriers or institutional or administrative controls). For these purposes "unsuitable" shall include underground petrochemical contamination, collapsed debris from prior uses (to the extent that asbestos-containing-materials and lead-based-paint materials intermixed with such debris can not be easily separately and therefore must be disposed of via licensed haulers), and asphalt materials. The Village shall reimburse Purchaser promptly for the costs and expenses of such work. 5 TovmhomeParccl.2.23.05 G. Exterior Finishes. The Project shall be completed in compliance with Exhibit E ("Approved Materials Palette") which shall provide the details of all exterior finishes. Section Four: Sale and Purchase Price Subject to all the tenns, covenants and conditions of this Agreement, the Village agrees to sell, and Purchaser agrees to purchase the Property from the Village, for the total amount of$1,050,000.00 based on 14 single-family units. Section Five: Conveyance of Property, Closing and Title The Village shall convey to the Purchaser title by Special Warranty Deed subject only to the Pennitted Exceptions ("Deed"). The "New York Style" closing ("Closing") shall take place at Chicago Title Company, Mount Prospect office, through a deed and money escrow within thirty (30) days after Zoning Approvals are satisfied and obtained, unless the parties otherwise mutually agree in writing. The costs of the deed and money escrow and the "New York Style" closing shall be shared equally by the parties. The Village shall be responsible for keeping the Property exempt for real estate tax purposes up to and including the date of Closing and recording of the deed of conveyance; Purchaser shall be responsible for taxes that accrue from and after Closing. Within 5 days after the effective date of this Agreement, the Purchaser, at Village expense (to be a Closing proration credit in favor of Purchaser), will procure a commitment ("Commitment") from the Title Company to issue an AL T A 1992 Owner's Policy of Title in the amount of the Purchase Price, showing title in the Village and Purchaser as the proposed insured, with title being subject only to (a) real estate taxes, if 6 TownhomeParcel.2.23.05 any, not yet due and payable, and (b) the Permitted Exceptions. The Village shall reimburse Purchaser, at Closing (in the form of a proration credit in favor of Purchaser), for the costs and expenses of providing an AL T A survey made and certified in favor of the ViUage, Purchaser and such other parties as Purchaser may designate and prepared by Spaceco, Inc. as surveyor, showing the Property as being not subject to gaps, gores, overlaps, easements, encroachments or other matters customarily considered to be survey defects. If Purchaser finds title and/or survey matters on such updates to be defective, the Village shall have 30 days to correct the survey defect and/or cause the Title Company to waive or endorse over the title defect within ten (10) days after Purchaser's notice to the Ví1lage. If the Village fails to correct such defects and/or obtain appropriate waivers or endorsements over such defects, Purchaser shall have the right to cancel and terminate this Agreement or to accept title and survey conditions as then known with credit at closing for title and survey defects that are of a definite and ascertainable amount. Section Six: Access to Premises From the Effective Date until Closing, Purchaser, its representatives, agents, employees, lenders and contractors may, during reasonable business hours and on reasonable notice to the Village, have access to and the right to enter upon the Property for the purpose of physicaUy investigating the Property or planning the Project; provided, however, that Purchaser shall have no duty or obligation to probe or test for existing latent conditions, however, it being the understanding that excavation of the Property for the Project shaU be adequate for the purposes of this Agreement. Purchaser shall indemnify and hold the Village harmless from and against any and aU claims relating to Purchaser's access to and right to enter the Property and except as provided in Section 7 TownhomeParcel.2.23.05 3.D. shall not cause any damage to the Property in the course of such conduct, returning the Property to its original condition. Section Seven: Limitation upon Encumbrance of Property Prior to the substantial completion of the Project, neither Purchaser nor any successor in interest to the Purchaser shall engage in any financing or other transaction which creates an encumbrance or lien upon the Property, except for only the following purposes: (a) obtaining funds necessary to acquire the Property; (b) obtaining funds necessary to construct the Project (both hardcosts and softcosts); (c) obtaining funds necessary to payor reimburse payment for Project hardcosts and softcosts incurred and/or expended prior to such funding; and (d) allowing unit acquisition mortgage loans. Section Eight: Notices All notices required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be served on the Parties, either "personally or mailed by certified or registered mail, or overnight courier as follows: If to the Village: With a copy to: If to the Purchaser: With a copy to: Village of Mount Prospect 50 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Attn: Village Clerk Everette M. Hill, Jr. Klein Thorpe and Jenkins Ltd. 20 North Wacker Drive Suite 1660 Chicago, IL 60606-2903 FOUNDERS' ROW LLC 7458 N. Harlem Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60631 Attn: Company Manager Stephen Messutta, Esq., General Counsel 8 TownhomeParce1.2.23.05 Founders' Row LLC 7458 N. Harlem Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60631 Either party may, by notice in the manner provided in this Agreement, change the addresses set forth above. Section Nine: Legal Conformity The Purchaser shall construct the Project in conforn1Íty with all app1icable laws and ordinances, including all app1icable federal and state standards. The laws of the State of Illinois shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement. The Village wil1 not impose affordability requirements against the Project. The Village and the Purchaser shall mutually agree with respect to a reasonab1e amount of signage for sale of the Project and for events intended to attract prospective buyers and retailers to the deve10pment site during sale of the Improvements. Section Ten: Remedies and Liability A. Each of the parties may institute legal action against the other party to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement, either at law or in equity, including, but not limited to the equitable remedy of an action for specific perfonnance, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. B. The rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative, and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same time or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or for any other default by the other party. 9 TownhomeParce1.2.23.05 c. Failure or delay by any party to perfonn any act required in this Agreement, subject to rights to extend contained in this Agreement, or delays pennitted by mutual agreement of the parties shall constitute a default under this Agreement. The party who so fails or delays must, upon receipt of written notice of the existence of such default, immediately commence to cure, correct or remedy with due diligence. The party claiming such default shall give written notice of the alleged default to the party alleged to be in default, specifying the complained of default. Failure or delay in giving such notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default, nor shall it change the time of default. Except as required to protect against further damages, and except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, proceedings against the party in default shall not be commenced until thirty (30) days after giving such notice absent emergency circumstances. If such default cannot be cured within the thirty (30) day period, said thirty (30) day period may be extended upon mutual consent of the parties for such time as they agree to be reasonably necessary for the curing of the same. If default is cured within the original thirty (30) day period or the agreed upon extended period, the default shall not be deemed to constitute a breach of this Agreement. A default not cured as provided above shall constitute a breach of this Agreement. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, any failure or delay by any party in asserting any of its rights or remedies as to any default or alleged default or breach shall not operate as a waiver of any such default or breach of any rights or remedies it may have as a result of such default or breach. D. Each of the following acts or omissions of Purchaser shall constitute a breach of this Agreement: 10 TownhomeParcel.2.23.05 1. Purchaser transfers, or suffers any involuntary transfer of its interest in the Property, or any part of it, in violation of this Agreement. 2. The filing or execution or occurrence of: (a) a petition filed by Purchaser seeking any debtor relief; (b) the making of an assignment for the benefit of creditors by Purchaser or its execution of any instrument for the purpose of effecting a composition of creditors; or (c) if Purchaser is adjudicated as bankrupt. Section Eleven: Assignment Purchaser may not assign this Agreement, without the prior consent of the Village, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. A change of company name or addition of a marketing name for the company shall not be deemed to be an assignment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and without the prior consent of the Village, Purchaser shall have the right to assign this Agreement to another business entity of which Norwood Construction, Inc. acts in sole managerial capacity. Should such assignment not take place prior to Closing, Purchaser nevertheless shall have the right to designate a nominee as grantee of record for the Property. Section Twelve: Mutual Indemnification To the extent permitted by law, Village and Purchaser agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party and its agents, employees, successors and assigns and in the instance of the Village, also its elected officials and officers, for any claims, suits, actions, costs liabilities, losses, damages, judgments, and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) suffered or incurred by the indemnified party by virtue of injury or death of person(s) or loss of or damage to property arising out of the acts or omissions of the indemnifying party in connection with this Agreement or the Project. 11 TownhomcParceI.2.23.05 Section Thirteen: Representations and Warranties of Purchaser Purchaser represents and warrants that: (a) Purchaser is a duly organized and validly existing business entity under the laws of the State of Illinois, is authorized to conduct its business as it is presently being conducted, is not in violation of any provisions of its organizational or operating Agreements or the laws of the State of Illinois, has power and legal right to enter into this Agreement, and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action. (b) The consummation of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement will not violate any provisions of the governing documents of Purchaser or constitute a default or result in the breach of any term or provision of any contract or agreement to which Purchaser is a party or by which it is bound. (c) There is no litigation, proceeding or investigation contesting the power or authority of Purchaser or its officers with respect to the Property, the Project, or this Agreement and Purchaser is unaware of any such litigation, proceedings, or investigation that has been threatened. (d) Purchaser has the technical expertise and the financial capacity and responsibility necessary to construct the Project and perform all of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. Section Fourteen: Representations and Warranties of Village Village represents and warrants that: 12 TownhomeParcel.2.23.05 (a) It has all the power and legal right to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper acti on. (b) The consummation of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement will not violate any provisions of the governing documents of Village or constitute a default or result in the breach of any tenn or provision of any contract or Agreement to which Vil1age is a party or by which it is bound. (c) There is no litigation, proceeding or investigation contesting the power or authority of Village or its officers with respect to the Property, the Project, or this Agreement and Village is unaware of any such litigation, proceedings, or investigation that has been threatened. Section Fifteen: Amendment or Waiver This Agreement, and any attached exhibits, may be amended only by the mutual consent of the parties and by the execution of the amendment by the Parties or their successors in interest. The parties may only waive any requirements or conditions contained in this Agreement in writing. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, this Agreement expressly supersedes all prior Agreements negotiations and discussions relative to its subject matter and is a full integration of the Agreement of the parties. The covenants and agreements of this Agreement which, by their terms, extend beyond Closing, shall survive Closing. Section Sixteen: Exhibits The Exhibits referred to and attached in this Agreement or incorporated by textual reference are incorporated by this reference and made a part of this Agreement. 13 TownhomeParcel.2.23.05 Section Seventeen: Time Time is of the essence of this Agreement. Section Eighteen: Waiver Either party to this Agreement may elect to waive any remedy to which it may be entitled. However, no such waiver shall be deemed to exist unless the party waiving such right or remedy does so in writing. No such waiver shaH obligate such party to waive any other right or remedy, or shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of other rights and remedies provided said party pursuant to this Agreement. Section Nineteen: Duplicate Originals and Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in duplicate originals or in several counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. Section Twenty: Severability If any section, subsection, tenn or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any party or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of said section, subsection, tenn or provision of this Agreement or the application of same to parties or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby. Section Twenty-One: Limited Liability for Village The parties hereto specifically agree, that the Village shaH have no liability for any breach of any of the tenns of this Agreement in the fonn of punitive damages, compensatory damages or the payment of costs, expenses or attorneys' fees. The only liability that the Village shall have for breach of any of the terms, conditions or provisions 14 TownhomeParcel.2.23.05 of this Agreement shall be liability in the [onn of specific perfonTIance of such tenTIs, conditions or provisions of this Agreement. Section Twenty-Two: Headings The headings of the various paragraphs of this Agreement have been inserted for convenient reference only and shall not in any manner be construed as modifying, amending or affecting in any way the express tenns and provisions hereof. Section Twenty-Three: No Joint Venture Neither anything in this Agreement nor any acts of the parties to this Agreement shall be construed by the parties or any third person to create the relationship of a partnership or joint venture between or among such parties. Section Twenty-Four: Entire Agreement Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement and the Exhibits hereto constitute the entire Agreement of the parties in regard to the subject matter hereof. Section Twenty-Five: Joint Work Product This Agreement is the joint work product of the Village and the Purchaser and has been negotiated by the parties and their respective legal counsel, and in the event of any ambiguity herein, no inference shall be drawn against either party on the basis of which party prepared this Agreement. Section Twenty-Six: Economic Assistance Except as provided in this Agreement, the parties acknowledge that there shall be no Village economic assistance for Purchaser or for the Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Village, after the date of this Agreement, extends its existing TIP program that includes the Property, the Village in good faith shall entertain Purchaser's 15 TownhomeParcel.2.23.05 request for equitable participation therein but the Village shall be under no obligation to provide any assistance in connection therewith even if the same is available to eligible properties. This shall not preclude the Project from participating in any incentive program created by the Village after the Effective Date of this Agreement, however. Section Twenty-Seven: Private Drive Reorientation Developer shall provide, in the applicable townhome instruments of record, that if within twenty (20) years after recording such instrument the Village acquires the real estate to the south of the Property that would allow for the north-south "leg" of the private drive as shown on the Approved Site Plan, to be extended southerly to Busse Avenue (for its full width with appropriate curb cuts and radius aprons at Busse), then and in such case the southerly half of the east-west "leg" of the private drive as shown on the Approved Site Plan (west of a line which is the west edge of the north-south "leg" extended southerly) shall be conveyed to the Village and the Village shall convey the extension of the north-south "leg" to Busse to the townhome association, all as soon as practicable after the Village (a) completes a park in the remaining area at the northeast corner of Emerson Street and Busse A venue, (b) constructs the north-south "leg" extension and opens it to Busse, and (c) demolishes and reconstructs (exclusive of relocating yard fencing and bushes immediately south thereof) the east-west "leg" as part of the park (south half) and as part of the southernmost townhome sideyard (north half). Developer reserves the right on initial recording of the applicable townhome instruments to deem the east-west "leg" as part of the association's common area or as an easement over the southernmost townhome side-yard. The Village's plans for the park and drive reorientation shall be at the Village's sole cost and expense, shall meet all design and 16 TOWllhomeParce1.2.23.05 materials criteria imposed on Developer (including without limitation self-contained stormwater management facilities) so as to be compatible with the Project, and which plans shall be subject to the townhome association's reasonable approva1. As a condition of its approval, the townhome association shall have the right to have gates or other limited access facilities installed at the north and south ends of the drive if the townhome association detennines, in its reasonable opinion, that cut-through traffic has been a problem, and that prior efforts to control traffic (including but not limited to signage) were not effective. Section Twenty-Eight: Effective Date This Agreement shaH be deemed dated and effective on the date the Village President and ViHage Clerk sign this Agreement, which date shall be adjacent to their signatures, but in no event prior to the date that Purchaser executes and delivers this Agreement to the Village for the Village's execution of it. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Village has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and behalf by its Mayor or his proxy and attested by its ViHage Clerk, and the Purchaser has signed the same by its duly authorized officer or representative. VILLAGE: VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, an IUinois municipal corporation Date: By Mayor Attest: Village Clerk 17 TownhomeParcel.2.23.05 Date: PURCHASER: FOUNDERS' ROW LLC, an Illinois limited liability company By: NORWOOD CONSTRUCTION, INe., an Illinois corporation By Title: List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Permitted Exceptions Exhibit C - Preliminary Site Plan Exhibit D - Preliminary Elevations Exhibit E Approved Materials Palette 18