Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/2005 P&Z minutes 48-04 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-48-04 Hearing Date: February 24, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1101 Linneman Rd. PETITIONER: Mitroff Group, Ltd. PUBLICATION DATE: February 9,2005 Journal/Topics PIN#: 03-34-410-044-0000 REQUEST: Rezone to Multi-Family Residence ranging from R2 to R4; Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development; Variations to Bulk Regulations MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Matt Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Phillip Atchinson; Dan O'Malley; Terry Smith, BSB Architects Tiffany Baros; Celine Bembaum; Joanne Bina; S. Brudoley; Bruce Cascarano; DiSilvestro; Paul Dahlgren; Gladys & Clarke Dunkel; Irene Dziubinski; Mike & Jan Fedanzo; Marie Fisher; Rev. Jeff Gavin; Brunhilde & Sylvia Jonykeit; Alice & Chester Kilian; Ken & Jackie Koeppen; J. Kolooling; Daniel Kovacevic; G. Labec; Richard Orlowske; Mary Lynch; Peter Masterto; Marie Ann Maytum; Kathy Montalbano; Shiro Ozeni; Carol Pappas; Sanjit & Ruia Ray; Carol Rojo; Paul Salbi; Vincent Scheferin; L. Starr; Allen Sg; Bill Sweet; Patricia Terisin; Louise Vandrick; Robert Wolk; Al & Anita Zuepuils Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the January 27, 2005 meeting and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion to approve. The motion was approved 6-0. Under Old Business, Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue PZ-50-04 to the March 24, 2005 meeting. Richard Rogers made such motion, seconded by Joe Donnelly, approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-48-04, a request to rezone to Multi-Family Residence ranging from R2 to R4; a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development; and Variations to Bulk Regulations. She said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. The Subject Property is located on the east side of Linneman Road, between Golf Road and Dempster Street. The site currently contains the St. John Lutheran School with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single-Family Residence and is bordered by the RX District to the west, St. John Lutheran Church, R2 Attached Single Family Residence Planned Unit Development to the southwest, Courts of St. John, R4 Multi-Family Planned Unit Development to the east and south, and RX and R4 to the north. The Subject Property was originally located within unincorporated Cook Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 2 County and developed under the County's regulations. The Subject Property was later annexed into Mount Prospect. The properties involved with this annexation were also zoned RX Single-Family Residence as required by state statutes, but were later rezoned as they were redeveloped. The Petitioner's proposal includes the demolition of all of the existing structures on the Subject Property and the redevelopment of the site as a 70-unit townhome development. The Subject Property is currently zoned .RX Single-Family Residence. The Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to R4 Multi- Family Residence, which allows a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre for multi-family developments. The Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 8.99 units per acre, 70 units/8.99 acres, which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R4 District. In addition to the requested rezoning, the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development. This request is due to the Village Code's requirement that two or more multi-family residential buildings may be located on the same zoning lot only as part of an approved planned unit development. The PUD process also allows for unified zoning control over the entire development, which would require formal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed in the future. The site plan illustrates the proposed layout for the 70-unit townhome development. The development would consist of 12 buildings: 2 4-units, 2 5-units, 4 6-units, and 4 7-units. Each unit would have a separate entrance, a two-car garage, and a two-car driveway. The pavement width of the private street is 24-feet, consistent with the Village standards, and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development. In response to the January Staff memo directing the Petitioner to comply with lot coverage requirements, the 5-foot wide sidewalk on Hunt Club Drive was eliminated. This change was not what Staff had in mind for the development to comply with Village regulations. A sidewalk currently exists on Linneman Road and the Petitioner proposes on-site guest parking spaces. The elevations indicate the general look of the townhomes. Each building will have peaked roofs and each unit will have a front-loading 2-car garage, accessed from the private street. The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of brick and siding. Also, balconies will be included on the rear elevation of some of the units. However, the Petitioner did not include individual elevations for each style of building. Staff has requested elevations for each of the proposed building types to ensure that the development benefits from varied architectural details. In addition, Staff has noted a concern with the proposed rear elevation and its lack of architectural interest. The Petitioner submitted revised rear elevations in an attempt to address Staffs comments in the January report. However, Staff found that having an all brick rear elevation for the end units would be appropriate in addition to the other proposed revisions. The site plan indicates that the development will be accessed from Linneman Road only, but have two emergency vehicle access points from Hunt Club Drive. The main access road would then splinter off to the individual private drives via a 'turn-about'. The emergency access points from Hunt Club Drive would have a gate, controlled by a traffic pre-emption device, to eliminate vehicle cut-thru traffic. In addition, the Fire Department will designate specific areas of the development as Fire Lanes as necessary to ensure adequate emergency vehicles access. The Petitioner has agreed to make the required right-of-way improvements. However, Hunt Club Drive is a public roadway located in a 48' wide easement. The Petitioner's plans indicate a 9' easement along a portion of Hunt Club Drive. This was required as well as a 5' wide public walk installed in the easement because the easement may eventually be acquired as public right-of-way and the proposed improvements would be in keeping with current Village Code requirement. The Petitioner's proposal indicates that there will be two types of floor plans. The Village Code requires 2-Y2 parking spaces per dwelling unit for multiple-family dwellings containing 3 bedrooms or more. The Petitioner's Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 3 proposal contains 280 parking spaces that consist of two garage and two driveway parking spaces per unit, plus 36 guest parking spaces dispersed throughout the development. Although the site could accommodate 316 vehicles on-site, at Staffs suggestion, the Petitioner is working with St. John's to obtain an off-site parking agreement. The purpose of this off-site parking agreement is to ensure there is sufficient guest parking because the Village Code does not permit on-street parking on Hunt Club Drive and Linneman Road. The Petitioner can update the Commission on the status of the agreement with St. John's. The Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that a variety of new landscaping materials will be planted throughout the development. The landscape plan indicates that shade and ornamental trees will be the primary screening material around the perimeter of the Subject Property. In response to Staffs comments in the January memo, the Petitioner has submitted a revised landscape plan that includes additional plant species with year-round interest. In addition to the landscaping, the Petitioner proposes to install a 4-5' wrought iron fence along the south and east lot line. The proposed fence was included in response to the Police Department's concerns regarding possible vehicle burglary and overall site perimeter security. The Petitioner's site plan indicates that the circle drive, or 'turn-about', would be constructed using a porous paver material. The Village Code does not recognize this material as pervious; therefore it is included in the lot coverage calculation. Including the sidewalk along Hunt Club, the site will exceed lot coverage; therefore, the Petitioner must modify the site to comply with code or provide justification for granting a Variation. The Petitioner has submitted preliminary storm water detention plans and is working with the Village's Engineer to document the design will comply with Village Code regulations. A final design is typically submitted as part of the Building Permit process. However, Staff has already made the Petitioner aware of Staff concerns regarding televising the existing sanitary service, increasing the detention volume, and other modifications required as part of the final engineering design. The Petitioner is proposing to make a monetary contribution, approximately $60,000, to the Mount Prospect Park District. The funds would be used to upgrade the ball fields at Kopp Park, which is the closest public park to the Subject Property. The Petitioner must provide written confirmation of how much they will be contributing to the park district and how these funds will be utilized. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards and said that the Petitioner is creating the need for a lot coverage Variation because this is a new development on a large parcel of land. There are elements of the project that could be modified and/or eliminated so the site does not exceed 50% lot coverage. The standards for Map Amendments, which rezones the property, are listed in another section of the Zoning Ordinance. When a Map Amendment is proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to, but not limited to, the following matters: the compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general area of the property in question; the compatibility of the surrouhding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; the suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed zoning classifications; and consistency with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question, and the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. The Subject Property is adjacent to existing multi-family residential developments, abuts single-family residences, and is across the street from an institutional use, St. John's. The proposed 70-unit townhome development, with minor design modifications, would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property and would be consistent with recently approved developments approved in the Village. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 4 Property and provides an adequate transition from the single-family residence to the north to the multi-family residences to the south. The proposed rezoning meets the standards for a Map Amendment listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Variation to permit 51 % lot coverage does not meet the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board deny the lot coverage Variation, but approve: 1) The request to rezone the Subject Property from RX to R4; 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development subject to the following: A. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall submit a revised site plan for Staff review and approval that reflects no more than 50% lot coverage and includes a sidewalk along the east lot line; B. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall submit detailed elevations for all building types, developed in accordance with the elevations prepared by Bloodgood Sharp Buster revision date February 14, 2005 but revised to reflect the rear elevations of all end units to be all brick; C. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall submit a detailed landscape plan developed in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Pugsley & LaHaie, Ltd, but revised to reflect the finalized location of the wrought iron fence and gates (along the east elevation) as approved by the Police Department; D. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall submit a finalized agreement with the Mount Prospect Park District documenting mutually agreed upon and Staff approved, off-site improvements to Kopp Park that meet the public benefit requirement for a Planned Unit Development; E. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall submit a finalized parking agreement with St. John Lutheran Church; 3) Prior to applying for a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall verify (televise) the portion of the existing sanitary service to be utilized for the development is still serviceable and that the receiving sanitary sewer system has sufficient capacity to serve the development, subject to Village Engineering certification; 4) Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall submit a lighting plan for the lighting within the development; 5) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of easement in favor of the Village for the eastern 9' of the property along Hunt Club Drive in the event the road is made publiclimproved; 6) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval; 7) The Petitioner shall construct all units according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: the installation of automatic fire sprinklers, fire hydrants and roads must be located and constructed according to Development and Fire Code standards; 8) The 'tum-about'/cul-de-sac and all on-site utilities shall be privately owned and maintained; 9) The emergency access gates and paved drives to Hunt Club Drive must have traffic pre-emption devices. Ms. Connolly then summarized the difference between the original and current submittals. She noted that for lot coverage: the sidewalk along the east lot line was eliminated and service walks were modified; the project now meets the 50% lot coverage limitation. However, Staff suggests the Petitioner modify the site plan to meet lot coverage without eliminating the sidewalk or require the Petitioner to sign a covenant paying for its installation at a later date. Regarding the rear building elevations: the revised elevations indicate different windows and a 'scalloped' railing for the balcony as well as a modification to the upper level of the residences. Staff recommends that the elevations be revised to reflect the rear elevations of all end units to be all brick. The landscape plan should be revised to include additional plant species with year-round interest. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 5 In addition, Staff researched the feasibility of the site being rezoned to R2 Attached Single Family as opposed to the requested R-4 Multi-Family Residence designation. The table in the Staff Report listed the Zoning requirements for each district as well as the Petitioner's proposal. Should a plan be approved but not built, the Village Attorney confirmed that the Planned Unit Development designation does not expire and that the site would have to be developed in accordance with the approved site plan. Sec. l4.504.E allows the Village Board the opportunity to revoke the PUD if the project has not been completed within 5 years or the construction falls behind schedule. Therefore, it was the Village Attorney's determination that the site would need to be developed in accordance with the adopted site plan or not at all unless the Village Board took action to approve another development. Ms. Juracek and Mr. Rogers questioned the reasoning behind the requested zoning designations, they felt an R-2 designation with a height restriction should have been requested, in case the proposed project was not built and the PUD expired. Ms. Connolly said some of the buildings had 7-units, which required R-4 zoning. Interested parties who would speak for the Mitroff Case were sworn in by Chairperson Juracek. Dan Kovacevic of Mitroff Builders, 1655 N. Arlington Heights Road, spoke. He said they were proud to propose to build their fourth community in Mount Prospect. He said Mr. Mitroff lived adjacent to the subject property area over 32 years and his son, David, a principal with the company, grew up there. He introduced the next speaker, their land planner Terry Smith, of Bloodgood, Sharp & Buster Architects and Planners, in Palatine. Mr. Smith described the property and explained the proposed development as Ms. Connolly had, elaborated on the details, and explained the reasoning behind some of the decisions that Mitroff Builders had made. He said the land was basically flat with low points and a smattering of trees. He said they wanted a progression of densities from the south and east progressing north and developing south to north to a total of 70-townhome modules of 4,5,6 & 7 units. He presented slides to show how a typical 2-1/2 story rear elevation steps down to a 1-1/2 story front elevation from the streetside. There would be no garages in the front of the buildings for aesthetic reasons and the 1-1/2 story element would be facing the residential area. He said they worked closely with the police and fire departments to design a plan with just one access point to the cul-de-sac. Their original thought was to donate the street to the Village, but the street did not meet Village Code requirements, so it could not be accepted. This impacted the lot coverage calculation because now the private street is included as part of the lot coverage. If they used a certain type of ecological friendly pervious paver brick, it wouldn't exceed the 50% limitation. However, as Ms. Connolly reported, the Village Code does not recognize this material as being pervious. In order to provide variety they have changed the orientation of two buildings, providing an entrance view of green space and courtyard area. There is a detention area at the southwest corner, where St. John's Court has an easement. Each unit will have two garage parking spaces and two stacked parking spaces per unit. There are six locations of parallel parking onsite as well. Mr. Smith said they could provide a public walk running north! south along their property and still provide for a 9' easement area and provide bond money for a sidewalk to occur in future if needed. He also said this would be a two-phase project. Ms. Juracek asked Mr. Smith why they chose Linneman Road for ingress/egress and why they had no connection to Hunt Club Road. Mr. Smith said Linneman Road is a public street and Hunt Club Road is a private street. Ms. Juracek asked for Staff verification and JeffWulbecker, Village Engineer, said Hunt Club Road is a public street within an easement not a dedicated right-of-way so the Village does not own the right-of-way, but there is an easement for a public road. Keith Youngquist asked the reason for the dramatic elevation changes of up to 4'. Mr. Smith said that would be covered by Mr. Dan O'Malley. Todd Shafer, Civil Engineer with Haeger Engineering, 1911A Rohlwing Road, Rolling Meadows, said he had been working very closely with JeffWulbecker. Mr. Shafer discussed the existing sanitary/storm sewer Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 6 conditions in the area, as well as any requirements for the proposed development. He also described large existing stormwater detention areas installed by MWRD. Dan O'Malley, Architect, BSB Architects, came forward and said they no longer build "garage-heavy" buildings as they did fifteen years ago. Garages are kept low-key and out-of-sight as much as possible. Front entries are "easier on the eyes" than garages. He described the buildings at length. He explained the reason for the 4' grade change in elevation as providing a convenience. They are able to classify the building as 2-1/2 story rather than 3-story by keeping a portion of the bottom story 4' underground level. He described the building materials to be used and ease of maintenance and also the building height. Ms. Juracek asked if there would be a homeowner's association and Mr. O'Malley said there would. Mr. Rogers asked if he were talking about standard brick or modular brick. Mr. O'Malley said brick veneer. Mr. Rogers asked whether wood would be used and was told it would be an engineered wood product. A vinyl exterior window will be used. Mr. Rogers asked and was told that none ofthe units will be, or are required to be, handicapped accessible. Terry Smith returned to the podium to say the landscape planner was unable to be at the hearing so he would speak about the plan and answer any questions. He displayed several slides and described the shade trees, plantings, small sign and ornamental fence with emergency access points. He also referred back to the Chairperson's question of access from Linneman Road and said it had been their distinct impression that Staff wanted them to access Linneman Road and have limited access on Hunt Club Road. Mr. Rogers asked if they would preserve the trees presently along the east property line. Mr. Smith said they would make every effort to preserve the trees along the east and even the west property line. Depending on the grading, every provision would be made to preserve them. They would have no fence along north property line. They would plant evergreens 6 to 8' in height with small intermediate height plantings adjacent to those trees. Joe Donnelly asked the reason for the emergency access points and Mr. Smith said the fire department wanted them at the north and south auto courts. He asked how many units St John's Court had and Ms. Connolly responded 32 units. Mr. Floros asked the approximate distance of the northernmost building to the single-family residences to the north, the Bel Aire Subdivision. Mr. Todd Shafer came forward and said the proposed building setback is 30' - 32' with the concrete entry stoop - 32' north of the property line. Dan Kovacevic came forward again to say that concluded Mitroff Builder's presentation and with regard to Staffs conditions they felt they could accept all except the Hunt Club Road sidewalk requirement. He agreed to post a cash bond and would provide the 9' easement, but not the sidewalk at this time since it doesn't connect to another sidewalk. He said that they would make the change on Sheet B and that their Engineer confirmed with the Village Engineer that they would not need to televise the sewer lines to determine capacity. They have an agreement with St. John's Lutheran Church, that they have not yet been able to put down in writing, that would allow the Mitroff development to use the church parking lot for overflow parking. Therefore, Mitroff would like the on-site parking to be sufficient as they have 316 spaces for 70 units. These units will not be condominium, they will be fee simple. These 2, 3, and possible 4 bedroom units will be priced in the mid-$300,000s and optioned into the $400,000s. Ms. Juracek asked if they had done a traffic study and Mr. Kovacevic said they had not. She asked, if they were to require a street opening instead of a gated opening on Linneman Road, how would that impact the project. Mr. Smith said the drive aisle is 24' wide, and asked whether the P&Z would prefer the possibility of cut-through traffic; their understanding from Staff was that the Village did not want cut-through traffic in the development. Ms. Juracek thought it would be more convenient for present homeowners to cut-through. Jeff Wulbecker, Village Engineer, said it had been the Police Department's suggestion, for security reasons, that there not be cut- through traffic and have a gated opening. Ronald Roberts described several anticipated traffic problem scenarios, which were greeted by applause from the audience. Ms. Juracek acknowledged receipt of written comments from residents regarding the proposed townhome project: Anita Zanek, Joanne & Steven Bina, and Paul Dahlgren of Linneman Road. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 7 A number of residents were sworn in and spoke negatively about the proposed project: Paul Dahlgren, President of the St. John's Condo Association for the past ten years, spoke about the adverse effect on the sewer system and additional traffic. He showed pictures of standing water and reported on the expense of having the water pumped away and expressed concern at having additional concrete surfaces added to the area. Pete Masterton, 680 W. Bel Aire, was sworn in and said he brought a petition from residents addressing the present standing water problems and the existing traffic problems. He also spoke about the effect on the aesthetics of the area and the ability of the proposed townhome residents to observe the present homeowners from their balconies. Ken Koeppen, 1040 S. Linneman, stated he has lived in Mount Prospect for 41 years. He presented a petition stating that the people who signed it wanted to keep the area single-family residential. He complained about the present density in the area and repeated comments made by the previous speakers. Mike Fedanzo, 1050 S. Linneman, said he is concerned with the 27 acres on the east side of Linneman, south of Dempster, formerly owned by United and sold for a condominium complex. Staff was familiar with the project, but said the county would have jurisdiction over that proposal because it was not in Mount Prospect. Jeff Wulbecker said any sewer system in that project would not connect with sewers on this side of Dempster. Mr. Fedanzo asked the Board to consider the additional traffic from that project when considering this proposal, also. Joanne Bina, 1026 S. Linneman, said the area is better suited to single-family homes. She noticed that many single-family homes are being torn down to build much larger homes. That is the trend being followed by most builders today. She also had concerns about the project to be built on the United property and the number of children it would place in Mount Prospect School Districts. Since our Board cannot control that development she advised stricter control over the projects they can control. She was also concerned about traffic, especially heavy construction traffic and the time of morning it would start, where it would park, and who would clean up the streets after it. Alan Szumanski, 665 Bel Aire Lane, a commercial investor in apartment buildings in Mount Prospect, was sworn in. He presented several petitiones against the project: (1) a petition signed by the Board of Directors from Countryside Apartments representing 33 buildings, 200 units; (2) a petition signed by the Board of Directors from Hawthorn Oaks Apartments, representing 33 buildings, 200 units; and (3) a petition signed by the 10 residents of the duplexes along Hunt Club Drive. He said Mr. Mitroff was a neighbor of his for 20 years and never made a proposal like this until he moved away from the area and opined that perhaps he did not want to live next to such a project. Mr. Szumanski said the proposed R-4 rezoning allows for a height limitation of 34', which would be completely incompatible for the area and that a 6-flat with 3 stories in the area is just 28'. Mr. Keith Youngquist advised Mr. Szumanski that the present R-X zoning would allow 35' building height. Laura Starr, 690 Bel Aire Lane, had concern about the lack of park space or green space if the project is built. She said the neighborhood children presently use this land as play area. Ms. Juracek said the developer would make a donation to the Park District and would elaborate on that donation later. She asked Jeff Wulbecker to discuss whether or not Linneman Road could handle construction traffic. Jeff Wulbecker, Village Engineer, came forward and said that, regarding the weight of the construction vehicles; anyone using Village streets with overweight vehicles must obtain a special permit from the Village. As to removal of mud from the streets, the contractor is given 24 hours to remove the mud or our Village crews clean up and bill them for the service. David Mitroff addressed the P&Z. He said that he grew up on Linneman Road and attended Robert Frost School. He said when his father decided to build this project he asked him to address the "public benefit" aspect of the project. He had always been active in baseball so he called the Park District and asked about any baseball projects. He said there were plans for a baseball diamond behind Cobb Park that required $60,000. They looked Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 8 at the plans and are proud to say Mitroff is going to finance that. Leo Floros asked if they had considered building single-family homes on the property and Mr. Mitroff and Mr. Kovacevic said they had, but felt that townhomes would be a better use of the land, given the apartments and condos already surrounding the area. Sylvia Jonykeit, 1007 Willow Lane, urged the Commission to retain the current zoning instead of making allowances for builders to build what they want. Todd Shafer came forward to respond to sewer questions. He said they are proposing to relocate the sewer restrictor to the Linneman Road right-of-way, not normally allowed, which would allow easier access. He described the workings of the proposed detention ponds at greater length. There is a drainage area 20' wide by 200' long at the northwest corner of the property that has a detention rate of 664 and our proposed ponds are at 666, so the sewers cannot accommodate that from a detention standpoint. In order for the project not have an adverse impact on the properties to the north, they propose to detain the water even further. St. John's property of 3.5 acres is 45% impervious and has a detention of.6 acre. They would provide more detention for this site with only a 5% difference in imperviousness and less release rate. Dan O'Malley came to the podium to say that the top of the balconies would only be 9' above grade level and project no more than 5' from the building. It was also noted that it would be the side elevation that faces north not the rear elevation where the balconies would be. Chair Arlene Juracek brought the discussion back to the Commission. Ronald Roberts reminded the group that the Comprehensive Plan encourages single-family homes in the Village, lives in the neighborhood and is biased in that thinking. Richard Rogers said the density in that area is too high already. Keith Youngquist noted the lack of amenities provided in the project. Leo Floros said he would also opt for single-family homes, especially with United's property development looming in the future. He did say, however, that Mitroff Builders would build a project to be proud of. Ms. Juracek said she does believe in property rights and a person's right to develop property to it's highest and best use but in this case there are other ways to bring an appropriate return to the developer; she also shared some of the other concerns mentioned this evening and was not in favor of walling off Hunt Club. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval for rezoning to Multi-Family Residence to R4 for the property located at 1101 Linneman Road, Case No. PZ-48-04. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek Motion was denied 6-0. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval for Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development and Variations to Bulk Regulations subject to the conditions listed in the Staff report for the property at 110 1 Linneman Road, Case No. PZ-48-04. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek Motion was denied 6-0. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 9 Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 11 :28 p.m., seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner