The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5. NEW BUSINESS 5/17/05 MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER þÞ. ~/~ 6" /11 d!f: FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAY 13, 2005 SUBJECT: PZ-50-04 - CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION 1510-1534 RIVER WEST COURT (RIVER WEST APARTMENTS) BILLY BOB MARKETING, LLC - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-50-04, a requ st to convert the existing River West Apartment complex to condominium ownership, as detailed in the attached Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their April 28, 2005 meeting. The Subject Property is located on the west side of River Road, between Seminole Lane and Camp McDonald Road. The site contains the River West Apartment Complex, which consists of 10 buildings, 60 units total. The apartment complex was built in the late 1980s/early 1990s in accordance with a Court ordered Consent Decree and is zoned R4 Multi-Family Development. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, reviewed the case. She said that the Village Code requires that existing developments being converted to condominiums meet current code requirements. The Petitioner is not seeking relief from the Village Code and has submitted information, including preliminary engineering plans, that lists the proposed improvements and demonstrates how the site will comply with current Village regulations. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's project. Several members stated their support of the conversion because it would benefit the Village by providing an improved housing stock. Several other members noted how well the site is currently maintained. There was discussion regarding the proposed storm water detention design; the Petitioner stated that they would comply with the Village's regulations and provide detention as required by current code standards. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve the Petitioner's request subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their May 17, 2005 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. ~~t~<ì. ~JlV' William J.Cooney, Jr., ICP Ii' H,\PLANlPl,nnùlg & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2005IMEJ MelllosIPZ-SO-O4 ME! (Rive< West Condo Conve"ion).do, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-SO-O4 Hearing Date: April 28, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1510-1534 River West Court PETITIONER: Billy Bob Marketing, LLC (Contract Purchaser) PROPERTY OWNER: Sparks & Associates, Inc. 4700 Arbor Drive, Suite 101 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 PUBLICATION DATE: February 9, 2005 PIN#: 03-24-416-004-0000 REQUEST: Petitioner is seeking approval to convert the existing rental apartments to condominium ownership. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Matt Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: 1. E. Mulh Mike Sparks Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2005 meeting and Leo Floros seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 with abstentions by Chair Arlene Juracek, Richard Rogers and Keith Youngquist. Under Old Business, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-50-04 a request to convert the existing rental apartments to condominium ownership and other relief from the Village Code as may be required for the proposed condo conversion. She said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. The Subject Property is located on the west side of River Road, between Seminole Lane and Camp McDonald Road. The site contains the River West Apartment Complex, which consists of 10 buildings, 60 units total. The apartment complex was built in the late 1980s/early 1990s in accordance with a Court ordered Consent Decree and is zoned R4 Multi-Family Development. The Subject Property is bordered by the R1 District to the north and west, the B3 Community Shopping District to the south, and to the east by the Cook County Forest Preserve. The Development Code requires existing developments being converted to condominiums to be considered a new development, and required to meet current Village regulations. The Petitioner's exhibits specify the proposed improvements, which include, but are not limited to: Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-50-04 Page 2 Increasing the amount of storm water detention to comply with current code requirements; installing fire sprinklers and fire alarms as required by current code requirements; and repairing the parking lot, private sidewalks, and balconies as needed to comply with current code requirements. It is important to note that the Petitioner is not seeking relief from any Village Codes. Also, the Petitioner has started the building permit application process to obtain permits required to improve the Subject Property. Although the Petitioner submitted Preliminary and Final Property Reports, the Final Property report needs to be revised to: 1) reflect the correct water supply and sewer service, 2) explain the final storm water detention design, and 3) include the November 30, 2001 Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) information from FEMA. The correspondence from the Petitioner provides details on changes to the property report. Furthermore, the Village Attorney has to review and approve the Final Property Report. Current zoning regulations require 2 parking spaces per unit. In this case, 120 parking spaces are required. The Subject Property exceeds this requirement and includes 123 parking spaces. The Petitioner's exhibit documents that there are 93 surface spaces and 30 garage spaces. The Petitioner's landscape plan documents the existing landscaping. The landscape plan indicates that the area between the garages and the adjacent single-family residences does not include or call for landscaping. Staff conducted a site inspection and noted that the adjacent property owners have bushes, fences, and other materials that screen the rear lot line. Staff researched the River West development file and found that the Village approved the development without landscaping in this area. The file includes documentation from a landscape architect stating that the dense shade limits the viability of plant growth. The Petitioner is not seeking relief from current storm water detention requirements and has submitted preliminary engineering plans. The Petitioner's Engineer has met with the Village Engineer and Project Engineer and is working with them to document that the final design will comply with current Village Code requirements. Staff has included the Petitioner's latest proposal, however, the plan was submitted late and Staff cannot confirm at this time that the proposed design complies with Village regulations. A comprehensive review will be done when the Petitioner applies for a building permit. Please note that if the proposed design does not comply with Village regulations, the Petitioner will have to modify the design to meet Village Code requirements. The alternative is to apply for a Development Code exception, which requires P&Z review and final approval from the Village Board. A streetlight and sidewalk covenant was recorded when the property was originally developed. The covenant is in place for 20 years and guarantees that the property owner pays his/her fair share of the cost to install streetlights and sidewalks in the public right-of-way. Since River Road is an IDOT right-of-way, the decision to make the public improvements is subject to IDOT approval. The covenant runs with the Subject Property and it has approximately 10 years remaining. The covenant requires the Property Owner at the time the improvements are being made to pay for the improvements. In an effort to minimize costs and confusion for the future condominium association, the Village Attorney recommends that the Petitioner obtain estimates for the improvements and escrow the funds as part of the requested conversion. The funds would be refunded to the Petitioner should the covenant expire without the improvements being made. The Subject Property was developed in accordance with a 1980 Court ordered Consent Decree. Further relief from zoning regulations is not required at this time because the Decree included specific development requirements for setbacks and density. The proposed condo conversion was prepared in accordance with Village regulations and the Petitioner is not seeking relief from Village Codes. The proposed improvements document that the Petitioner will comply with all Village Codes for, but not limited to providing parking lot lighting, installing a fire suppression and detection system, and meeting Life Safety requirements. The conversion would benefit the community and bring the property up to current code requirements. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-50:'04 Page 3 Commission recommend that the Village Board approve a condominium conversion for the River West Apartment Complex at 1510-1534 River West Court subject to: 1) Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall obtain estimates to install streetlights and sidewalks in the public right-of-way (River Road) and escrow funds for the proposed improvements; 2) Completing the Condominium Conversion Plat Procedures as outlined in the Village's Subdivision Code (Section 15.307.B); 3) Submitting a Final Property Report as required by Village Code for the Village Attorney's review and approval; 4) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval; and 5) The Petitioner shall improve all units, common areas, and the Subject Property according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: installing a fife suppression and detection system, meeting current Building Code requirements, and complying with current stonn water detention requirements. P&Z Commissioners determined that the proposal was in compliance with all Village Codes and had sufficient parking for residents and visitors. Chair Arlene Juracek asked the Petitioner to address the Commission. Mike Sparks, President of Sparks and Associates, 14 E. Evelin, Arlington Heights, was sworn in. He said he represented the owner of the River West property. He said they have been doing condo conversions since 1974. They have worked diligently with staff to bring the property up to Code for conversion on these 11-year-old buildings. The units will be priced at $180,000 - 200,000. There are (10) 2-Bedroomllbath and the rest of the units are 2-Bedroom/2-baths. They have a rent-to-own program for their current renters, where part of the rent goes to the purchase price, using the Ameri-Dream Program. Richard Rogers asked if they had made adequate provisions for stormwater detention provisions, given that the Forest Preserves and the Des Plaines River are across the Road from the complex. Mr. Sparks said they had lowered the parking lot sufficiently to hold the water as required by Village Code. The engineering information will be included in the property report. Ronald Roberts complimented Mr. Sparks on his programs that help the community in home ownership. Mr. Sparks said the previous owner had maintained the property to the degree that not much reconstruction needed to be done. Ms. Juracek asked if members of the audience had come to address the Commission on this case. Roger Van Dyke was sworn in and said he was curious about using a parking lot for detention. He said he had not seen that before and wondered how the design worked. Keith Youngquist explained that it is a common design, most notably used by the big box stores. He said the parking lots essentially become detention ponds. Mr. Sparks explained the lot will have drains and when the river goes down the parking lot water will go down. Mr. Van Dyke thanked them for the explanation. There were no more questions from the audience and Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval to convert the existing rental apartments to condominium ownership with the recommendations listed in the Staff Report, emphasizing the need to comply with storm water detention requirements, at 1510-1534 River West Court, Case No. PZ-50-04. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-50-04 Page 4 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at midnight, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. _..-// H:IPLANIPlanning & Zoning COMMIP&Z 200S\MinutesIPZ-SO-O4 River West Condo Conversion.doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ-50-04 LOCATION: PETITIONER: OWNER: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: 1510-1534 River West Court (N. River Road) Billy Bob Marketing, LLC (Contract Purchaser) Sparks & Associates I i \0 03-24-416-029/030/031/032/033/034/035/036/038/044-0000 3.42 acres R4 Multi-Family Development Apartment Buildings Convert the existing apartments to condominium ownership LOCATION MAP 0 O"ofVI".ge ~ MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: APRIL 21, 2005 HEARING DATE: APRIL 28, 2005 SUBJECT: PZ-50-04 - CONDO CONVERSION 11510-1534 RIVER WEST COURT (N. RIVER ROAD) - BILLY BOB MARKETING, LLC (APPLICANT) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the April 28, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Billy Bob Marketing, LLC (the "Petitioner"), regarding the property located at 1510-1534 River West Court (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking approval to convert the existing apartment complex to condominium ownership. The P&Z Commission hearing was properly noticed in the February 9, 2005 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper, but has been continued since then at the Petitioner's request. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted Public Hearing signs on the Subject Property. . PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the west side of River Road, between Seminole Lane and Camp McDonald Road. The site contains the River West Apartment Complex, which consists of 10 buildings, 60 units total. The apartment complex was built in the late 1980s/early 1990s in accordance with a Court ordered Consent Decree and is zoned R4 Multi-Family Development. The Subject Property is bordered by the Rl District to the north and west, the B3 Community Shopping District to the south, and to the east by the Cook County Forest Preserve. SUMMARY The Development Code requires existing developments being converting to condominiums to be considered a new development (Sec. 15.307.B), and required to meet CUITent Village regulations. The attached exhibits were prepared by the Petitioner and specify the proposed improvements. The proposed improvements include, but are not limited to: . Increasing the amount of storm water detention to comply with current code requirements; Installing fire sprinklers and fire alanns as required by current code requirements; and Repairing the parking lot, private sidewalks, and balconies as needed to comply with current code requirements. . . It is important to note that the Petitioner is not seeking relief from any Village Codes. Also, the Petitioner has started the building permit application process to obtain permits required to improve the Subject Property. Although the Petitioner submitted Preliminary and Final Property Reports, the Final Property report needs to be revised to: 1) reflect the correct water supply and sewer service, 2) explain the final storm water detention design, and 3) include the November 30, 200] Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) information from FEMA. The PZ-50-04 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting April 28, 2005 Page 3 enclosed correspondence from the Petitioner provides details on changes to the property report. Furthermore, the Village Attorney has to review and approval the Final Property Report. Parking - Current zoning regulations require 2 spaces per unit. In this case, 120 parking spaces are required. The Subject Property exceeds this requirement and includes 123 parking spaces. The attached exhibit documents that there are 93 surface spaces and 30 garage spaces. Landscape Plan - The Petitioner's landscape plan documents the existing landscaping. The landscape plan indicates that the area between the garages and the adjacent single-family residences does not include or call for landscaping. Staff conducted a site inspection and noted that the adjacent property owners have bushes, fences, and other materials that screen the rear lot line. Staff researched the River West development file and found that the Village approved the development without landscaping in this area. The file includes documentation from a landscape architect stating that the dense shade limits the viability of plant growth. Engineering - The Petitioner is not seeking relief from current storm water detention requirements and has submitted preliminary Engineering plans. The Petitioner's Engineer has met with the Village Engineer and Project Engineer and is working with them to document that the final design will comply with current Village Code requirements. Staff has included the Petitioner's latest proposal. However, the plan was submitted late and Staff cannot confirm at this time that the proposed design complies with Village regulations; a comprehensive review will be done when the Petitioner applies for a building permit. Please note that if the proposed design does not comply with Village regulations, the Petitioner will have to modify the design to meet Village Code requirements. The altemative is to apply for a Development Code exception, which requires P&Z review and final approval from the Village Board. Covenant - A streetlight and sidewalk covenant was recorded when the property was originally developed. The covenant is in place for 20 years and guarantees that the property owner pays his/her fair share of the cost to install streetlights and sidewalks in the public right-of-way. Since River Road is an IDOT right-of-way, the decision to make the public improvements is subject to IDOT approval. The covenant runs with the Subject Property and it has approximately 10 years remaining. The covenant requires the Property Owner at the time the improvements are being made to pay for the improvements. In an effort to minimize costs and confusion for the future condominium association, the Village Attorney recommends that the Petitioner obtain estimates for the improvements and escrow the funds as part of the requested conversion. The funds would be refunded to the Petitioner should the covenant expire without the improvements being made. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The Subject Property was developed in accordance with a 1980 Court ordered Consent Decree. Further relief from zoning regulations is not required at this time because the Decree included specific development requirements for setbacks and density. RECOMMENDA TION The proposed condo conversion was prepared in accordance with Village regulations and the Petitioner is not seeking relief from Village Codes. The proposed improvements document that the Petitioner will comply with all Village Codes for, but not limited to providing parking lot lighting, installing a fire suppression and detection system, and meeting Life Safety requirements. The conversion would benefit the community and bring the property up to current code requirements. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board approve a condominium conversion for the River West Apartment Complex at 1510-1534 River West Court subject to: PZ-50-04 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting April 28, 2005 Page 4 1) Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall obtain estimates to install streetlights and sidewalk in the public right-of-way (River Road) and escrow funds for the proposed improvements; 2) Completing the Condominium Conversion Plat Procedures as outlined in the Village's Subdivision Code (Section 15.307.B); 3) Submitting a Final Property Report as required by Village Code for the Village Attorney's review and approval; 4) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval; and 5) The Petitioner shall improve all units, common areas, and the Subject Property according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: installing a fire suppression and detection system, meeting current Building Code requirements, and complying with current storm water detention requirements. The Village Board's decision is final for this case, 1510-1534 River West Court, Case No. PZ-50-04. I concur: I' . ector of Community Development Ii< H.IPLANIPI"",iug & Zouing" COMM\P&Z 2005\S"ffM~no\PZ-50-04 MEMO IRk" W", Condo convmion)"doc: '.I oj n. 14. 2 (I 05 4:04F'Yi WOO)F1ELD GARDENS APARTMENTS ¡.~ ':. J:: - - SPARKS & ASSOCL.\TES, INC. 4700 ARBORDRIVE,SŒTE 101 ROLLING MEADOWS, IUINOUS 60008 CORPORATE OFFICE (847) 427-5830 F..\.X; (84ì) 427-5836 January 13, 2005 Village ofMt. Prospect Attn: Judith M. Connolly 50 South Emerson St Mt Prospect, IL 60056 by FAX (847) 818-5329 RE: 12 Oaks Condominium Conversion 1510-1534 N. River Road, Mount Prospect, 111. 60056 Dear Ms. Connol1y, In further response to your Jetter dated December 14) 2004. The following improvement to the existing buildings is planned: 1. Balconies Purpose: Maintain an balconies to extend usefullífe with minimum future maintenance requirements. Repair all damaged material due to natural erosion Re-caulk all seams for wea1herproofmg Repaint with Exterior Latex Satin fiIÙsh -low weather resistant Refasten any loose railings ' Balcony work must be completed the day it is started Contractor: Work to be completed by 12 Oaks staff Access: Exterior work accessible with mechanical lift and ladders Access closed to residents during work Protection: Patio doors blocked to prevent fi-om opening Patio doors unblocked at the end of each work day Timeframe: Summer '04 - 30 days Status: Completed Scope: 2. Exterior paintin~ Purpose: Maintain all exterior fascade of buildings to extend useful life with minimum future maintenance requirements Repair all damaged material due to natural erosion Re-cau1k all seams for weatherproofing Repaint with Exterior Latex Satin finish -low weather resistant Contractor: Work to be completed by 12 Oaks staff Access: Exterior work accessible with mechanical1ift and ladders Access prohibited to residents during work Protection: Areas of work closed off to residents No material to be left out at end of each work day Tiroeftame: Summer '04 - 30 -45 days Status: Completed Scope: 1;)1-14-&5 16:1Sj4 RECEIVED FROM:l 847 397 2268 P.G! .'1 "n 14 2 v", r, ¡:- - '-', . '.' .J 4:(i5F~ WOOD~IELD GA~D~NS APARTMENTS r~:. 9,.J - : " . L 3. Lobbies Purpose: Repair and repaint all hallways. Scope: Repair all holes and paint chips on all hallway walls Repaint hallways for brighter and cleaner appearance Carpeting in hallways to remain the same .A.reas to be sectioned for work in phases Replace light fixtures with brighter/energy efficient fixtures Work to be completed by 12 Oaks staff Residents to have partial accessI\Vork to be done in phases (sec!ions) All areas of work closed to residents As each phase (section) is completed, residents granted access All fire doors full operational at all times No material to be left unattended Time-frame: Spring .05 - 15 - 30 days Status: Scheduling Contractor: Access: Protection: 4. Main Entrv doors Purpose: Repaint existing doors and replace hardware for added Efe Scope: Repaint exterior doors to coordinate with all other painting Replace hardware components including automahc closers Ensure a11 doors lock properly Contractor: 12 Oaks staff Access: During construction residents wiJ1 not have use of doors for that day only and only during work hours All fire doors and any other exit doors will be made available for exit/entrance Fire department access continues as nonnal Work area will be blocked to prevent access Work area will be unblocked at the end of each work day for access . All fire doors will be closed at the end of each work day Timen-ame: Painting: Fall '04 - completed Hardware: Spring '05 - 10 days In progress Protection: Status: 5. Laundry rooms Purpose; Replace all washers and dryers with condominium o\oVlled eqllipmern Scope: Install new upgraded washers and dryers for all laundry rooms Use all existing cOlmections for new machines Replace t1ooring Repaint all walls Replace light fixture with energy efficient fIxtures Contractor: Work to be completed by 12 Oaks staff Access: Laundry rooms v.ri11 be closed at anyone time during construction Residents win not have access to lalli1dry rooms during constroction Residents will have to go another floor to do laundry Laundry rooms will be locked v.rith vestibule function Jocks Automatic closers will be used to ensure doors are kept dosed Only management will have key for laundry rooms under coDstmction Timeframe: Winter 'O4/Spring (05 - 30 days - 2 days per room Status: Planrring Protection: IH -14-B5 16:195 RECEIVED FROM:! 847 397 2268 P.192 'Ja.n.14. 20(i5 4: 05 t'f'j WOOD~;ELD GARD N:. 9'.:' - " . -' 6. Fire alarm svstem Purpose: fustall new fire alarm system to meet all code requirements Scope: New fire alarm system wi11 be addressable, analog system Zones to cover each are of the required protection Work to be completed in accordance willi village code Work to be coordinated with Mt Prospect Fire Department Current structuIes do not have any fire alarm system other than smoke detectors Contractor: Cbicago Metro Fire Alarm Company Access: No change to resident ac;cess Residents do not normally have access to fire alarm equipment Existing detection system will remain in full effect until new syslem is complete Work will be done by individual building As each unit is completed, alarm \Jilin be placed III test mode for L1at building Each building will have individual controls Timeframe: Winter'O4/Spring '05 - 45 - 60 days Status: Engineering - permit requests submitted Protection: 7. Sprinkler svstem Pmpose: Install new fire sprinkler system Scope: Install new system to include coverage in all common areas. apartments with controls on each floor An rooms 10 have sprinkler heads to provide maximum coverage Work to be completed in accordance with village code Work to be coordinated with Mt. Prospect Fire Department Infrastructure will be installed prior to apartment installation Only 'OL approved materials to be used Piping to be covered with Soffit Steel Management staff required during entire installation Contractor: Tyco/Grinnell Access: No change to resident access Residents do not normally have access to sprinkler equipment Residents will have normal access to their apartments Each floor wi11 have individual switches and control valves Piping in each unit wi11 be done while resident is not in the apartment Senior staff of 12 Oaks wi11 be present at all tinles during installation Residents will be provided with locks to secure any valuables Connection will be done in a 1 - 2 day period by building Inspections to be done by building Timeframe: Winter 'O4/Spring '05 - 60 - 90 days Status: Engineering - permit requests submitted Protection: 8. Si!Ila2e Purpose: Replace existing signs with new name and 12 Oaks logo Scope: Replace sign using existing brick slructure Signs incìude any signs for leasing and advertisement Including signs for leasing/sales office ~11-!4-S5 16:f,}S RECEIVED FROM:! 547 397 2265 P.Ð3 ja.n.14. 2005 t : (: (- HI: Contractor: Access: Protection: Timefrallle: Status: 9(a). Pmpose: Scope: Contractor: Access: Protection: Timeframe: Status: 9(b ). V'({\'-\~¡[¡í', ('I,r,r.\,u,:. :1[,"..r.p!r~'T'.,.-, 1~'._.\.I,I¡-lLL) ,~r',~'.~)C:I\'~' I'\rr'i\,I\',[!II~, N:. j'. ¿ Openwood Studios Residents do not nomlally have access to these areas Each area will be blocked during construction Wark started must be completed each day 3 days Completed Parldn£ Lot Repair all asphalt in all parking lot areas Level and patch all10w areas and seal coat Restripe entire lot J & R Asphalt Co. Residents will not have access to area during sealing or striping Areas wiU be blocked from access in phases Areas will be reopened once each phase has been completed Resident cars will not be parked in work areas 12 Oaks staff will monitor progress and assist residents with additional parking needs 5 days Completed Water Retention Plan Haeger Engineering (Mr. Wí11iam Renner, P .E.) has met wÜh the VilJage of Mount Prospect engilleering department and will confinn that the property meets water retention requirements. If any deficiencies are identified, they wi]] be corrected. 10. Purpose: Scope: Status: fH-14-B5 16:06 Concrete Repair any concrete work required Concrete is in excellent condition requiring no repair. Concrete sidewalk along the River Road frontage is in place and in excellent condition RECEIVED FROM:1 847 397 2268 P.Gl4 .J.3.n. ì4. t.ií)lj 4: l) (; ~lV ijUUU~jtLU bAKUtNS A~A~I~tNi~ f\ ':. 'j -- '. .J INSIDE THE APARTMENTS The -individual apartment units are offered for sale in three ways: (1) Units may be purthased in EXISTING CO}..TDITION (2) Units may be purchased with a BASIC UPGRADE PACKAGE which jnc1lldes: New Carpet Fresh PaUlt Replacement of Light Fixtures in kitchen) hall and bath Replacement of Closet Doors Ceramic Floor Tile in Kitchen New Vinyl Flooring ll1 Bathroom Replacement of Door Hardware (3) Units maybe purchased ",ith FUlL UPGRADE PACKAGE The same as the Basic Upgrade Package PLUS: New Wood Baseboards Crown Molding at Ceiling Ceramic Tile in Bathroom Replace Kitchen Cabinets Replace Kitchen Countertops Replace Kitchen Sink and Faucets All New Appliances: stove, refrigerator, dishwasher, microwave, disposal Replace Bathroom vanity and faucets and :new showerhead Replace electric outlets and covers STACKED WASHER Al'ID DRYER lJN1TS will be ofièred as an optional upgrade. No washer or dryer units will be installed vvithout first obtaini:ng a Village pennit. If you have any questions or need additio:nal information, feel free to contact me at 847-722- 9552 or you may also contact Tino Calderon, Construction Manager at 847-942-5625. Thank you for your guidance in this matter. Si:ncerely, r/ ~ tIiJ, Judy P. Thornber Vice Presid~t p.s. please note in your file that my recent letter dated December 5, 2005 should have been dated January 5, 2005. IU-14-S5 16:S6 RECEIVED FROM:1 847 397 2268 P.S5 /'- r ~v;,~. 2005 5 PAR K 5 .& ¡\ S S 0 C I .\ T E S. í:\ C R;! rl! E): t ,1,' (j J[ :11: :1 ~ e In " ¡¡ t ¿. D ~ ¡ ¿! ;) P m!'U Village of Mt. Prospect Attn: Judith M. Connolly Senior Planner 50 South Emerson St. Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 RE: 12 Oaks Condominium Conversion 1510-1534 N. River Road, Mount Prospect, IL Dear Ms. Connolly, I've just joined Sparks and Associates in the position of Vice President and will be helping to coordinate the condominium conversion of 1510-1534 N. River Road. As . soon as possible, I'll introduce myselfto you at more length by phone or a meeting. I've read your letter of December 14, 2004 and much of the code material you reference. Some of the issues raised can be answered now. Other matters are being worked on by . professional consultants. Addressing the issues in the order presented: Item. 1 - There are 10 buildings of 6 units each for a total of 60 Units. Each apartment has 2 bedrooms for a total of 120 bedrooms. There are 93 surface parking spaces of which 9 are designated for handicapped. There are 30 garage spaces for a total of 123 parking spaces altogether. Item 2 - Correction on water supply and sewer service As stated in your letter, the property receives water and sewer service through Illinois American Water Company. Correction will be made on the final Property Report. Item 3 - The Final Property Condition Report (Exhibit 9 ofthe Final Property Report will explain the stann water detention design for storage on the pavement and the limitation on pavement overlays f()r future maintenance. Item 4 - The Property Condition Report will be corrected to conform to the Letter of Map Amendment (LaMA) granted on November 30,2001 (FEMA Case No. 02-05-0333A). The Base Flood Elevation will therefore be recognized as 638.8. 4700 ARBOR DRIVE, SUITE 101 ROLU:\G MEADOWS, ILLINOIS 60008 CORPORATE OFFICE: (847) 427.5830 FAX: (847) 427.5836 '~~J_""""" . . For All the Comforts of Home -_¿to 12~,~.¡?J~==111~'- .' '.' '. . c-. r ( Item 5 - We have hired an architect to review the site and buildings against the current Code including ADA handicapped parking requirements, and we will provide our analysis as soon as possible. We have hired engineers to study the stormwater detention. We are preparing a pnotometric plan for the parking lot lighting. Weare moving forward with permit processing for addition of automatic .. sprinklers, standpipes and a fire alarm system. I'd like to address the issues of public sidewalk, streetlights and parkway trees when I've had a chance to learn more about those issues. My new eel phone number is (847) 722-9552. Please call me at any time. I'm looking forward to meeting you. Yours truly, Judy P. Thornber Vice President ,..-......- . '. , . ...,. , ' u_-- I h i~~ [ t ~ ;¡;ã:~~~"d:.!:~ ß ~::gd~:H8:~ ~ ;¡;HH~~HrE ~ z<"",j¡ i i ! i j i i j ! i ! i i ¡ i i ! i i í i , i ! i I : : I L_--_--j -h " ~ ~t ~~~ ~ > '" ~ ; ¡Hi¡ 1, i . i ~i;;Eijilj~II¿~ 8 ~~~~.e~oo~£~g~~ ! i~I&5Ii~~!!i;;; ~ <....~ã:~~.u~e 3 z<"æ <""Ow~""~~"'-' $i V) ~ S t. ~ ;::$ ! .- ~ ~:H .- S 0 '"d ~~~ ~ 0 c~< 0 U i~~~ ~ -+-'~ V);:j O)~ ~:è 11j Q) I¡h 0. 'I~I å3 13 ~III ;>.!8 !II: Ç2 j ¡¡Hi --- O! E-o ~I ~"! ~i O' ~t 0- Z! <, ~¡ Ul ~I ~l ~" 110 00 00 UU '¡ill 'ù.u "U ùu öu ûo ÜIJ UU 1m 1", 1UJ oU Oli . ün åo ;o .- 00 '00 '00 00 ÕD ÕD åo ÕD '. ÔO '" '00 ilil ÎILI 1m ìUJ ÕD 00 On 'ao åo ÕD 00 00 Î1o ÖO Î1o 06 o. Õ6 iD ~ ö. ' .- 00 00 '00 il oJ io i7 0' Ò6 - ':z ÖO '00 0.9 i, "8 ':z ÕD :/ '00 ':z / Î On 'J.: .1 ;~ ¡: On ~ ~ 0., '00 åo Î1o Î1o åo On åo - ill GO ÕD GO å.o ;On ÕD ÕD 00 ÕD '0 åo ~. - ~ ill On On 00 On no On On ÕD ÕD Î1o åo ÔO åo jo ':0 ~ Gt nt 00 ño 00 å.o 00 On GO å.o no ÖJ <:0 åo "0 '" '" ~ QI OJ 0.0 00 ño GO On 00 110 M '00 o. ;. ':~ 1 ño 00 On 00 å.o 00 åo M å.o .,., ÕD å.o åo M o¡¡ - '00 o.J è:: b 1 0: O¿ (n "- 1 è O¿ In -- . I I 0 (,¿ ';.¡ - I G' I ':1 '00 . 1 I if> O' I, 11 åo I' - .0 It - t - =<J io i. 08 .. "" åo " )/ 0< "', ;.:¡ b I.' ô. O' ôo O' o. o. ÔG 0.7 Õ6 "'5 Ïl:; ëó ô" ë.:; o. å.:; å7 0\ ~ oe ô" b Î1z o. õz n, ö¿ õz n2 ñz Ö2 õz Þ o~ Î1z Î1z êë å2 Ô2 ~! tJt ----- ill' ¡¡¡e IDE o:æ iDl iDI '~I . ~I ~, 'n, '~I "~. ; t. '~I 'L -"'-- lk~ Q; CI at 00 i" 0' 01 111 åo ño On '00 no 00 ö.o On M ö.o åo å.o 00 'òo 110 åo - ; 00 00 - ,.......__..0- -. _0- ... j o. -- ' åo '00 OD 00 ë Sta tístiml Þ>re:;. SUMMary õa - ---.----- ..._.-------- I 00 00 "" åo ë: Proje:::t: All Projects no ÖO ' ö, õa '", [----- j 00 Label Ave; Max ! ö, '"' 00 M,n Avg/Mh Max/Mh ~ Pts j - 1 I I : Parking &. D,'¡v¡..>s 0.79 .J ~?_--.- ?:l 3,9'3 11.50 19? ----.. . "'-"--' E:x:m:srr 1 ~ê TO FINAL PROPERTY REPORT FOR TWELVE OAKS AT RIVER WEST CONDOMINIUM Condominium Plat (See attached) , \ I 1 t Exhibit l-C I. " .-.----------._u----'-' ..----- ..... CERTIFIED SURVEY, INC. !'I.oM"'7""~ 31Ss._ø..,..SoIuS8,Pari<lUd..,lL- F....'-.s23-~. . PLAT OF SURVEY j ~ . .. LOT'"""" N'^""""" "'....... WUT.A"""""""'" oe","-"'" '" ,....,'" LOT"'" WOOfM£W--_NO. ~...... -- '" '1oR"".de ,",."..,.,..".'" ",,'TIOH". -.,.,..,......."""'" """"'-",EAST '" "" "'-""""""'-"""""". .., 'OOCCOOtm'."""" TWELVE OAKS A. T RIVER WEST CONDOMINIUM """'IT".'OOE""""""""'~""""""'" fOf\"""-vE",","AT_WUT~"" r -""""'Æ<T h i I f ¡ I ~ . ~ g , ! a - I I ~ ~ Q ~ . ~ . :..: CI: ~ , II '1 1/ '/ 11 ~ II ~ , I. " 'I . I ; II" , I ' II 14.96 .-- r"'" " ""~'N' CAMP ROAD MCDONALD r . I . ~ I I . . ! ( ¡ ¡ I ~ t \: I t I Q . ""; c:¡. Ct- I I õi ..,: 0 ,. .Ct 'I<J .> Ct I '" I<J 3:' '( --J It I '" 4J Q I I " 'rn,~"'" t I I I I ORDER NO.~ ÐOGfT -L..- PAGE .....L.°F.D.- """"'- """"",-.- '_'_A-""---OC _-"'_T'_"""""__- -._- ""'--'"--"-- --"...-.....-.......-- -.....- -",.-.." ---..- --,--"'-"....- --.........,..............----.. _...~---_..- ---.-----. ..""... ..~...v... ...va< ...- 1 - ..----- I -" .... i,.J~I...:". . -'. .,., '.. . .. '. . .. . -.-',. -:~,:".""'.- . ..... """- -.. ....... . . -... . ...... CERTIFIED SURVEY, INC. . PhoDe 847-823-9500 315 S. Northwest Hwy, Suite 50, Park Ridge. IL 60068 Fax 847-813-9502 PLAT OF SURVEY UPPEIIElEVATION.' .45.92 LOWEIIELEVATlON- &3152 12bJJ 10.02 10.0& 100 ¡¡¡02 '~02 10.01 ~rí, ..1 r 8.6 ,10:; 6-5 T B-4 ~~ B-3 0" 1003 031 1003 .'12 1003 IOD? ..'S.. r 'I~ GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET ~9 UNIT 1532.18 ~ . 1 st FLOOR ORDER NO- 64'37 EXHIBIT -ë-- PAGE -2- OF ..lL-. HORIZONTAL P\.ANES SHOWN HEREON ARE MEASURED ON THE TOP OF FINI6HéO flOOR AND TO THE BOTTOM OF FINISHED CEJUNG. VERTICAL P[.ANES SHOWN HEREON ARE MEASURED TO THE INTERIOR FAce OF WALL ON EXTERIOR WALlS AND TO THE INTERIOR FACE OF WAlL os INTERIOR WAIl.. . ElEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN RElATION TO: BENCHMARK NO 91 . TOP OF BOLT IN SE CORNE.~ OF SIGN BASE AT 5W CORNER OF CAMP M<OONALD AND U3 ' s. ELEVATION -. .,..11 UPPER ELEVATION-. S4G.51 ON THIS PAGE ONLY. .'LOWERELEVATlON+. <'8.53 ON TH:s PAGE ONLY. .... - --- - IO:¡, '-' A-6 G8~GIG "II'; ./!-.-2 ,,0: .- 9.88 Q~ 1016 .. ~II;:¡ ¡;; UNIT 1534-1A ~'" 11 .j¡, 16.13 7.:..,0 .". ""- ~ STATE Of ILlINOIS) .o~, "" 1»" .~{>".¡J' COUNTYOFCOQj()SS o~'~ ;;",'1' I. DAVID "- KOSTICH. A P:OfESSIONAL IUJNOIS lAND SURVEYOR 00 v =~R~~ 1roT~~~~n~ C~~ =;~ RElATION OF THE BUIlDING TO THE PRoPERTY UNES Of THE lAND INDICA"ŒD HEREON. THAT THE wAlLS OF SAID BUIlDING' AAE PLUMB AND THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS oF SAID ADJOINING HUILDINGS OR STRUCruRES ONtO SAID lAND NOR OVERlAP OF SUiLDINGS OR STRUCTURES FROM UAlD lNIJ. EXCEPT AS SHOYIIN. . DIMENSIONS ARE SHCNVN IN FEET AND DECIMAL PARTS THEREOF. DATED_T~IS- 25'"- DAY OF AUGU~T _d- dAD. 200< PRO...SIONAlIUINOlalANO ,""\/IIYOR "2771 I I I i I I ' J ' , 'T""~ GRAPHIC, IN FEET 2nd FLOOR ORDER NO.~ EXHIBIT C , PAGE -L-°F...1L- """- ....,. ...... ...... .,' , ',.' , , , , CERTIFIED SURVEY, INC. Phone 847-823-9500, 315 S. Nortb1"est H'WY. Suite SO, Park Ridge, n. 60068 ' Fax 847-823-9502 PLAT OF SURVEY Q90 B -~ - 12.44 i4!.i '0 '"' ~ \4.S!> .,S¡ , ~ s ¡¡¡:->o ~ ;1 ¡;¡II~ UNIT ~S32-2B - UNIT 1534-28 UNIT 1534-2A , HORIZONTAL PlANES SHO\Mi HEReON ARe MEASURED ON me TOP 01' F...OHEO FlOOR AND, TO THE BOTTOM OF FINIBHED C!1lJNO, VERTICAL PlAN'ES SHOWN HeREON ARE MEASURED TO THE INTERIOR FACE 01' WALL ON EXTERIOR WALLS AND TO TH£ INTERIOR FACE OF WALl. ON INTERIOR WAll.. . .' ElEVATIONS, SHÖWN HEREON ARE IN RElATION TO: BENe_N.'1 TOP OF 801.T IN Sf CORNER OF SIGN BASE AT SWCœNeR OF CA"" M<OONAlD AHO us 4$, ElEVATION."38,17 UPPeR ElEVAT10N.. 65&.7 ON THIS PAGE ONtV, LOWEll ElEVAT1oN.. GHeO ONTHlSPAOEON.v, -- ...... ...... -.. .... ...... .... .... .- ..... , ' , , " , ' ",'-" ,', '" ~I~.. STATE OF IUINOIS) COUNTY CJ6' COOIC 81 , I, DAVID "- kOS11CH. A PROFESSIONAl. LUNOIS lNIO SURVEYOR DO HEREBY CE!\m THAT 1 HAVE 8UR\1EYm THE ABO\IE DE"""IIIED lANO.,PROPEIITV NlO .-ACE ÞND _r IT CORRECTlY - THE -ReLATION OF THE ~ TO 'I'HI! PROPERTY UNES Of' TIE lAND INOICA TED -ON. '!HAT THE W,tLt.s OF SAIl) BUI.DINO - P\.IAIB , AND THAT TIt!Ia! AlII! NO ENCROACHMEm'S OF .....0 AOJOIN1N3 ,BUILDINGS 011 81A\JC'lUlŒS ONTO 8AJO WID NOR 0IIER1AP OF ,8U1LOINGS "" 8TRIJCTUIOE!I FROM SAlO 1.»10, EXCEPT !oS SHC>IIN, :'~= ~'t::"~ tI F~ :?s¡"-CIIAIU. P~~~Of'. ~ONAL ILUNOIS "'NO SURI/I¡YOI\ ~~1 ~ . ..... .... .... .- ... .... ~ cL IN FEET 3rd FLOOR ORDER NO......MH- EXHIBIT c . PAGE-L°F...u- .... ... ..... "-... -- .... .... ... .-.. I8IiII8 CERTIFIED SURVEY, INC. . PbODe 847-823-9500. 315 S. North1l'ut Hwy, Suite SO, Park RIdge, IL 60068' Fax 84?-823-9502 PLAT OF SURVEY . ~ 1>1 ~ ~ UNIT 1532-38 UNIT 1534-3A ~eo HORIZONTAL PtANES SHowN HEREON ARE MEASURED ON THE TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR AND TO l>iE 8OTTOM OF FINISHED CEILING. VERTICAl PLONES SHOWN HEREON ARE MEASURED TO THE ItnÐIJOR FACE OF WALl. ON EXreRIOR WAWI ANO TO THE INTERIOR FACE OF WALl. ON WfERIOR WALl. . ElfV"l1ONS SHOWN HEREON ME IN RElATION TO: BENcHloIARJ( No 8. TOP OF BOlT IN SE CORNER OF SIGN BASI; AT SWCOf\NER OF CAMP Md>ONAU) AND US 45. ELEVATION-'e3S.17 UPPER ElEVATION" .<4.4<õ ON THIS PAGE ONLY- LOWER ELEVATION-' <SOl" ON THIS PAGE ONlY. ... .~ .:49 .... .. ..... - ..... STAn¡ OF IU.lNOIS) COUNTY OF COOK) SS . ~ DAVID A. KOS11CII, A PROFE8SIO- UJNOIII LAND 8UIWEYOA DO HEREBY CER11fY tHAT I ttAVE SURVEYED THE - DESCMlED lAND..PAOPERTY /IHO SPAcE HID ",...T 11' CORRECTLY 8HCWS THE RElATION OF "'" BUIlDING TO TH. """""ATY LIN.. OF THI lAND INDICATED t£R!0N, THAT tHE WALU 011"" BULQINQ ARII PUJM8. AND THAT THERE ME NO ENCROACHIII!NTS Of 8AlD ADJOINING . BUIlDINGS OR S1RUCTURE8 ONTO SAID LAND NoR ØIIERLAP OF .8U1lDiNGB OR mlUC'l1JRES FROM lAID lAND. EXœI'T NJ IHC>NN- DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN IN Fë£T AND DECIMAl PARTS THEREOF. ""tEOTH" fS"""'YOF "ViVST AD. 2004 PROFESSIONAl. IUJNOI8 lAND SUR\lEYOII G711 , .".. ~. r ,~ GRAPHIC !lCALE IN FEE1 I I ¡ I 1st FLOOR .,"" ~ ~\,." £C'-""" ¿;," ~<i' ' ":Þ~ ORDER NO. 0487 EXHIBIT ----¡;- , PAGE-L.°F..1L- - - - - " -" "',,, ", "", CERTIFIED SURVEY, INC. Phone 847-823-9500 315 S. NoJ:thwrst Hwy, Snite 50, Parkllidge, 1L60068 Fax 347-823-9502 PLAT OF SURVEY -- -. --- - ... - _. - HOA1ZONTAI. PINE8 - HEREON ARE MEASUII!O ON '1M! TOF OF FJN8HED I'lOOR AND TO THE SOTTOIo! Of' ANISHED ~, VERTlCA1. f'IANI!S SHO"",, HERl!ON AlII! , MEASURED TO 1M! IHTI!RIOA FAce OF WAll. ON !XT1!RIOR WALlS Þ1Ð TO '1M! tm3VOR FACE. OF WALL ON II/mIJOA WAIL . ElEVATIONS - H£RfON ARE IN RaAT1ON' To, BëNCHIoWIK No 81 TOP OF BOLT IN SE CORNER OF SIGN aAS!! AT ow CORNER . OF<:.I<MPMCOOIIAUIANOUS45,' ElEVATION -+1131,\1 ,_ERElEVATlON" «H3 ONTHI.ÞAGEONlY, tOWER ~AT1ON .. 6S5/' ON THIS PAQI! ON\. Y, STATE OF UJNO\!I) COUNTY OF COOIQ 18 , I. CAVID A. KOSTICH. A PROFESSIONAl. M.1JNOIS WID SURIIEYOR DO H"R£BY CER1FY THAT I HAVE SURVEYED WE MOllE œ8èRtIIED LANO.,PROPERTY AND ""ACE AND '!HAT IT CORRECT1.Y IIHOW!ITHE RElATlON OF THE BUU>ING TO 1HE PROPERTY UNES OF THE WID "NDICATED HEREON. T>1ÀT - WALL! OF IIAJO BUIlDING Am! PlUloAB . AND THAT THI!AE ARE NO EHCllOACHMENIS Of !IAIO A!lIOINING ,SU1UJINO8 OR STR\IC"'JA£S ONTO 8AJD !.AI«) NOR .......lAP OF .BUIlDINGS OR STRUCTURES FROM SAIO v.M>. EXCEPT AS SH<7MI. DIMENSIONS ARE ~ IN FEET ¡ON¡) œCIMALPJoRTS 1HEJIEOF. CA1B)THIS 25"' CAYO' .AUGUST AD-2004 PRO1I!88IOHA1. WNoi$lMO SUR"","oR 02m ... - .. .. - .... -- ....... - .' ",' ';., '. 1 M. 11' . t GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 2nc' FLOOR ORDER NO. 0487 EXHIBIT G PAGE .-JL°F..1L- -- -- . .. CERTiFIED SURVEY, INC. Phone 847-313-9500 315 S. Norpnvest Hwy, Suite 50, ParkRidce, IL 60068 Fax 847-813-9501 , PLAT OF SURVEY -0 HORI10tlTAI. PI.ANEiI SHOWN HEREON NIÆ MEASURED ON THE TOP' OF FINISHED F\.OOR AND TO THE BDTTOM OF FINISHED CElUNG- VER11CAL P\ANeS SHDWN HEREON ARE MEASURED TD lHE INTERICR FACE oF WAll ON EXTERIOR WAU.5 ANI) TC 1I1a INTERICR FACE oF WAlL ON INTERIOR WAlL . aLEVATJONS SHOWN HEREON AIlE IN RElATION TO: BENC>1IoW'K No" TOP OF BOlT IN BE coRNER OF S1GN BASE AT ~ CORNER Of CMIP Mc:DONALD AND us '5. STAlt!OFIl1.IIOIS) COUNTY OF COOK¡ sa ~ DAvui 10. KOST1CH. A PROFeSSICNAl WNQII LAND SURVEYOR DO H£R£IIY cERTIfY mAT I HAIlE SURIIEYED tilE - DesCRIBED lANO, PROPERTY AND SPACE..,.D THAT rr CORRECn,V BHDNS THE RElAT1DN OF THE BlADING TO THE I'IIOPaITY UNES OF tilE INID 1¡""CATEO HEREOH. THAT THE WALLS OF SAID IIUILDONG ARE PWMØ NID THAT THEIlE AlII! NO ENCRO-'CH1.tENT8 OF $A) ADJOIN"'G BUILDINGS OR S'lRUClIJRES ONTC SAID WID NOR OVERlAP OF BUIlDINGS OR STRUCTURES FR"'" SAID WÐ. excEPT M SHOWN. ~~S~S~~W"'" 0:'::; ':8ru;;- P:o'.~~OF. ElEVAT1ON o. 638.17 UPPEREL£VATION.' aSS4; ONTI<IS PAOE ONLY, LOWERELEVA1IONo. 647.51 ON THIS PAGEONL'i', PRDFESSIONAlIWNOIS lAND 8URIIEYOR IUT7 -"',,. ." ': '. ~ 1l___I9. 20 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET , 3rd FLOOR ORDER NO. 0487 EXHIBIT ---c- PAGE -L°F...u- - -- - - - . ' ., ' ' - .,: CERTIFIED SURVEY, INC. Phone 847-823-9500 315 S. No~hwest Hwy, Suite 50, Park RIdge, 1L 60068 Fax 847-823-9502 PLAT OF SURVEY HORIZONTAL PlNÆS SMOWN HEAEON ARE MEASUREO ON T>E TOP"'" """'HI!D flOOR AND TO T>ie BOTTOM OF FINIS><ED cE1UNO, vamCAl PW<E$ SHOWN HEREON ARE MEASURED TO THE INTERIOR fACE OF WALL ON EXTERIOR WALLS AND TO THE NT£RIOII FACE 01' WALl. ON INTERIOR WALl., ' EtEVA'IlONS SHOWN HEREON AAE IN RELATION TO: BENCHMARK No 81 TOP OF BOLT IN SE CORNER OF SlGN8ASEAT SWCORN£R OF CAMP McÐONALD AND us 4S, ""A'Il!OF1UJNOI!I) COUNTY OF COOt< 8S , I. DAVIÓ A. KOS'!1CH. ,.. PROFESSIONAl. LlINOIS ",,",0 SURVEYOR 00 HeREBY CERTI'Y THAT I HAW S\JIM!VEO THE "BOllE DESCRIBEtI LAND. PROPERI'Y NÐ SP.o.ce~O _T IT CORRECT1.V BHONS lIE RElATION OF THE ØUIlDfNO TO Tl<e PROPER'TY LINES OF - LAND tIOICATED tEREON, THAT THe WAWI OF !WO BUILOING ME flU"" AND THAT THERE HIE NO ENCROfloCHIo1EHTS OF SNO ADJOIN1NG 8UIlDINGS OR STRIJC1\JMS ONTO IINO l.ANO NOR OVEI'IW' OF BUW"GS OR sTRUCT1lRE8 FROM SAIO w.o. EXCfPT M SHOWN. DIMeNSIONS ME. 8HO\/VN .. FEET ÞHO OEOIMAL- PARTS THERECt'. OArclJTHIS - ~,. DAYOf' AUGU&T A.D.ZOO4 ELEVATION '.131,11 UPPER ElEVAi1ON'. 664.41 ON THIS PAGE ONLV, lOWER EtEVATION'. C3"'~ ON THIS PAGE ON'- V, PROfCSS1ONAl.1WNOI8 lAND 8UM!YQR ..m - '""'- - -.. - ... .~ ... .......- - - - - - I t I t f t t t , I I t I I 1 t t t. t y 20 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET . 1st FlOQR ORDER NO. 0487 EXHIBIT C. PAGE -LOF ~ - -- CERTIFIED SURVEY, INC. Phone 847-823-9500 315 S. Northwest Hwy, SaiteSO, Park Rldge.1L 60068 Fax 847.:s2J..9502 PLAT OF SURVEY. 3193 UNIT 1522~1A UNIT 1520-18 . .47 3&0 HORIZONTAL PlANES SHowN HEREON ARE MEAStJRED ON THE TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR AND TO THE BOTTOM OF FINISHED CEIUNC. VERTICAL PlANES SHOWN HEREON ARE MEASURED TO THE INTERIOR FACE OF WAlL ON EXT!!RIOR WAU.S ANO to THE INTERIOR FACE OF WAlL ON INTERIOR WAU.' . - E1.EVATIONS SHOWN HEREON AIlE IN RELATION TO: BENCHMAAK No 91 TOP OF BOLT IN SE CORNER OF SlON BAtt AT:;N CORNER OF CAMP M<OONALD AND US 45. a¡¡v"'TION.'~.IT .UPPERELSVATION.' 04651 ON THIS PACE O""Y. lOWER a.ev...TtON~' 636.50 ON THIS PACE ONI. Y. STATE OF ILJJNCO$) COUNlYOF!J"OI<)$S . l DAVID A. KCS11CH, A PAOFESSIONAlIUJNOIS LANO <;L'R'/EYDR 00 HEREBY CEImFY THAT I HAVE SlJR'YEYB) THE A80VF OESCIUBEO lAND. PROP£RTY IIHD SPACE N<D THAT 17 COAREC1\.V """'13 THE RELA'OON OF 1H£ BIALDING TO TIE PROPEIm' LtlES Of THE l/>J'D INDICATED -ON. THAT THE W.4lUI OF SAID IlUl.DING AA&. PlUMB AND THAT - ARE NO ENCROACHtoIEHTS OF SAle A!>JOIN1NC IIUlDINGS OR II7RtJO1\JRES OI!TO SAID lAND - OÆJ>JJ>P OF 8U&DIHCIS OR STRUCTIJAES FROM SAID LNÐ. excarr NO SHONN. ~~~OFIH"":J~"(;glEC--P~~OF. PROFESSIONAl WNOIS LAND SUR'VEYOR..m . ... ~. .~ ¡J. - T GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 2nd FLOOR ORDER NO. 0487 EXHIBIT C PAGE -1L-OF ~. - I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 CERTIFIED SURVEY, INC. Pliont 847-823-9500 315 s. Northwest Hwy, Suite so, Park Ridge, n. 60068 Fax 847-823-9502 . PLAT OF SURVEY' ceo 3Ha UNIT 1522-2A UNIT 1520-28 l26 .31:.4. 3tUj HORIZONTAL P\J\NES SHOWN HEREON ARE MEASUREQ. ON TIiE TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR ANO TO THE BonOM OF FINISHED CEIlING. veRTICAl PLANES - HEREON ARE MEASURED TO THE INTERIOR FACE OF wALl. ON EXTERIOR WALLS ANO TO THE INTERIOR FAce OF WALL ON IIITERIOR WAU.. . . ElEJATIbNs SHOWN HEREON ARE ... RElATION TO: BENCHMARK No I' TOP OF BOLT IN SE CORNER OF SION BASE AT 1m CORNER OF CAMI' Mc:OONAlD AND us ... E1,EVATlON-~.'1 Ì1PPER EI.EÌIAT1ON- &55.44 ON THIS PAGE ONlY. LOWER El.EVATION- £47-51 ON'MSPA<OEONI.V. . . J srAT1!OFUJNOIS) COUNTY OF ÇOOI<) as " '. l QAI/II)"" KOSTICH, A PRciÆssIoNAt. UI'IOIS i.AMI SURVEYOR DO :='". ~ ::YJ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ "'=,.: £ ~ ~ :,.:::: NiQ 1W<T 7}£RE ME NO ~ OF SAID ADJOINING - 011 8TRUC1IJIIE8 ONTO SAIl lAND NCR CNEI'U» OF -- OR IITRU<:1\JAEII FROM ...., IJIN>. EXC:I5PT N5 ........... ~ ARE SHeWN 1M FEET I'KJ DEC8oW. PARTS T>£REQF. . QATED '!HIS t,!,'" OAY OF A U6UST . A.O.2D04 PROFESSIONAL IW>IOIS lAND SI.IR\IEYOR 80m f ---.-- ~ .~ ¡j~ GRAPHIC SCAlE IN FEE:T , I I j j I i t j j j j i j 3rd FLOOR f t ORDER NO. 0487 EXHIBIT . C PAGE --1.!L OF -.1L., I . - -.._u_.--. .~~-'-'-'--' -.--.- CERTIFIED SURVEY, INC. PhoDe 847-823-9500 315 S. Northwest Hwy, Suite SO, Park Ridge. n. 60068 Fax 847-823-9502 PLAT OF SURVEY' 319 UNIT 1522-3A UNIT 1520-38 126 -"" 3110 I!O HORIZOOtTAL PtANES SHOWN HEREON ARE MI!ASURB) ON THE TOP OF FINISHED FloOR AND TO THE SOTTOM OF "'HISHED CEILING, VER'T1CAI. PLANES SHO""" HEREON ARE MEASURI!D TO THe INTERIOR FACI! Of' WAU. ON !XT1!R1OR WAlUI AltO to THE MERIOR FACE OF WAU. ON IHTER/OR w~ '. ELEVAT1ONs SHOWN HEREON ARE IN RELATION TO: BENCHMARJ< Ho 01 TOP ~ IIOU IN SE CORHER ~ sIGH BASE AT &II CORNER OF CAMP McOONAUI AND US 45. . El,EVAT1OH'.~,17 . - 'uPPER aEVATiON" <&4.Z7 ON THIS PAGE O~ Y. LOWER aEVAT1ON .. <56-.! ON 'IHS PAGE OM. Y, STATE Of' IWNOtS COOI<TY Of' COOl<) sa ~ DAVe A. ~ A I'ROf'aSIONAI. UINOiS lAND SURVEYtJR DO HEREBY CERTFY THAT I ...va "",,\lEYED THE'ÞBO'JE CESC,,",ED lAND, PRCPERTY N<D ...ACIi ""' TAAT IT COAAEc1\.V SHOWS mE REtAT1CN OF - II\JLDIØ TO "lIE PROPERTY UNO OF me lAND INDICATED HEREON. THAT lHE WÞiJ.S OF SAID IIOII.DItG -- PLl'M3 ,",,0 THAT TI£JO!! ARE NO ENCllOIoCHMEH11I OF SAD ADJO""NG BULDINGS OR S1'RtJC"TU!U!s ONTO SAID \.AND NOR C7'IfS'1N' "F BUIlDINGS OR STR\JCT\JRES -- SAIl) lAND. EXCS'T' NJ -- ClWEHSIONSARE SHOWN IN FŒT NIt> œclMA1.PNmI n<ERECI', . DA'ÆDTItS 'd" DAYOf' AUGUST """.>004 PROfESSIOtW. o.uNOIS lAND s.........,VOR #UTT .. ',' ," . ORAPH1C SCALE IN FEEt UNIT 1516-1B 1st FLOOR ORDER NO. 0487 EXHIBIT C- PAGE ...1L°F--13- - ...... .... ".- .., , .. ... . CERTIFIED SURVEY, INC. Phone 847-823-9500 315 S. Nor;thwest Hwy, Suite 50, Park Rldge, n. 60068 Fax 847-823-9502 . PLAT OF SURVEY HORIZONTAL PlANEB SHOWN HEllEON ARe MEASURED ON THE TOP' OF FINISHED FLOOR AND TO THE BOTTOM OF F,,"><ED ceJUNG- vERTICAL PlANES 8HOWN HEIIEDN ARt! MeASURm TO THE _lOR FACE OF WAU. ON EXTERIOR . WAll.S NII).TO THE IN1ÐUDR FACE OF WALl. ON _lOR WA~ " elEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN RElATION 1'0: BfNCHMARKNol1 . , TOP OF BOLT IN BE CORNER of SIGN BASE AT SW CORNER OF CAMP Mr:[)OIIAI.DANO us 4S, UNIT 151Q..1.B IML, 37Te so STATE DI' tilNOlS) COUNTY OF COOIQ BI I, o",.,ó A. KD8'11CH. A PROfESSIONAl. IWNOIS lmo sUR\lEYDfO DO HEAS\V CERTFf "."T I HAve SURWtE> 'THE AllDIII! DEOCRIBED lAND, PROPERTY NIO IPAC£:Nm"."T IT CORREC1LV BHONS THE RElATION OF '!HE BUILDING TO - PROPERTY LINES OF THE LAND 1NOtCJ\TEO HSU!OII. "."T THE WÞUs DF lAID BUI.tIING AM........,e ,AND THAT - NIl! 110 ENCROACHMENtS ~ BAlD ADJOINN!I eUlLOlNOS OR 8'!RUC1\JRES ONTO 8AIO I.AND NOft CM!JIt}P OF BUII.DIN!IS OR STRUCTURES FROM SAID l»Ð, EXŒI'T AS 8HaNN. DIMENSIONS AIlE SH<>M<'" I'm NIO DECIMAl. FNmI THeÆOI'. DATEOTHS 2,>'" DAVO' AUGUST AO.2OII4 ElZVATlON" 838,17 UPPER ElEVA TlON .. '46.55 ON 1H1S PAGE 0Nl v. LOWERELEVATlON.. 658.0;1; ON1H1SPAGeONLY, -; W: -/ - PRDÆS8IO/1AlIl,UNOlS I.N/O SURVEYOR 12m ..... -- .... -- '-' - .... ., .. _. -; -¡ ---- - - .-..- '---- ' - - - --- - .',., t "r. ',f' 10 ,20 GRAPHIC SCÞJ.E IN FEET CERTIFIED SURVEY~ INC. Phone 847-823-9500 315 S. No~weJt Hwy, Suite 50, Park Ridge, IL 60068 Fax 847-823-9502 PLAT OF SURVEY I I '/ ;!6; UNIT f5fo..2A "UNIT 1510-28 £I/~ UNIT 1516-28 I!G,4ð ;;;;;- ! UNIT 1512-28 I '1 !II ~ 'U80 2nd FLQOR HORIZCNTAI. PlANE. - HEREON ARE -- ON 'THE TOP'Of' FIN18HED FLOOR N<O TO 1HE BOTTOM Of FINISHeD CEIUNCI. III!RT1CAL PlMEá - H£R£ON ARE , MEASUR!O TO THE INTERIOR fACE OF WAll. ON EXTERIOR . WAWi ANI) TO 1HE INTERIOR FAa Of WALl. ON INTERIOR ' WALL " ELEVA1lON8 - HeREON ARI! IN RELATIoN TO'. BENCHMARK"'.' , ,," TOP OP BOI.T IN 8E CORNER OF 81GN BASE AT Wi CORNER OF CAllI' McDONAI.O ANI> U8 '5o 8TATe Of 1U.1NOI8) COUNTY Of COOK) IS I, o.o.'i1Ò A. 1(DS11CH. A PAOÆSStONAL I.I.INOISIAND'IIUA\IEYOR DO Hl!Æ8V CEIIt1fY _T I HAVE IIURVEY1S> THE - IJI!SCRI8ED lAND, PACPEII1Y IHJ IPACE;AND 1><AT IT CORRECTLY 8HOWS T>E RElATION 0' mE 8IJILI)N TO THE PRŒERTY UNU 01' - lAND 1HOICA1ED HEREON. THAT 11£ WAIJ,S OF ""'" BUIUIING NIE. PUJIoIII - AND 1W\T THERE NUl NO ENCROAcHMENT8 Of 8AID ADJO- BUIUXNOa ~ 8TR\IClUREa ONTO SAKI lANO NOR 0IIÐI1N' OF 8UILDINGa OR llRucT\lRl8 ",,* aAl> LAHO, IXCEPT ... aHCN'/N- .......---.. ....T- DECIlAALPNITII1><I!N!Of. o.o.1EDtJ1IS 25'. o.o.VOI' AUOUBT A.D.2O<M ORDER NO. 0487 , EXHIBIT_,~- - PAGE --1L°F -1L- ELEVATION...,1.17 II'I'ERE1.ÉvA7ION" osso. ON THIS PAGE ONLY. LOWER ELEVATION" 547.ss ONTH,a PAGE ONlY. PR0f£881ONAL llLtlOlS LAIÐ 8UR'ÆYOR mTT -- I!a - . . .' ...' .,,'., '. . .,. CERTIFIED SURVEY~ INC. Phone 841-823-9500 315 S. No~west Hwy, Suite SO, Park Ridge, IL 60068 Fax 847-823-9502 PLAT OF SURVEY :1/: '. r .'.? 10 20 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEEt OlIO M15. 36:47 0.80 '" UNIT 1510-3A w UNIT 1510-38 UNIT 1516-38 :Ill UNIT 1514-38' UNIT 1514-3A' UNIT 1512-3A O.~7 1P.3G ,; ~ !! "' ß1õ 'IiOS 3rd FLOOR fi HOIIIZOI<1'AL PINE8 SHOWN IÐŒON ARE MEASURED ON THE TOP' OP I'1NISHED FLOOR þJ.) 1'0' TI!E BOTTOM OF FINISHED œIJNG- YER'I1cAL PlANES SHOWN HEREON ARe , 'MEASURED TO THE mElllOR FACe OF WJ>J.l. ON EXTERIOR WA11S mD ,TO THI! IN11!RIOR FACE OF WJ>J.l. ON INTERIOR ' WAil.. ,- ElEVATIONS - HEJIEON ARE IN RElATION 'TO< a_No.1 ' ., TOP OF 8OI.T IN se CORNER OF SIGN BASE AT Em cORNER OF cN1I' IIcDONALD AAD US 45. ORDER NO. 0487 , EXHIBIT C- PAGE -ll-°F-1L- ELEVATION -. 038_17 STAlEOFWNOISJ COUN1Y OF CQO4( as ~ D,..n.; A. KOSTICH. A """""OSIONAL IiJ.JNÒI8 v.mJ SURVEYOR 00 HEREBV CERTIFY _T I HAile sURV'EYED 'I1iE A8OIIE œsœœeo <.ANtI. PROP1!RTV ..., ...ACE:ANÐ _T IT OORRECT\.V SHC1MI11iE RF.lATION OF 'I1iE _G TO - PROPERTY UNES OF - !NO INDICATBlHI!REON. _T11iEW.ou..s OF lAID BUIlDING ""'!'\.lIMS , ""0 _T THEIlE ME NO ~ OF IIAIO AOJO1N1NG BUIl<IINGS OR 8'1R1JC1\JRES omo $NO WID IIOR 0\/9ILAP OF BU!lOINGS OR STRlIC'IUI\ES PI"," SAI) lAND, EXCI!PT AS SHOM<. DIMENSIONSAAE SH(>M IN FEET - DECIIIAL PARTS'rnEIIEOF. DATEDTHIS ?<'M DAVOF AUQU&T "".2004 UPPERElEvATION=' ....-" ONTHlSPAGEONlY. l.OWERElEYATION"' SS'-'" ONnilSPAGEONlV. PROfESSIONAl. WNOIS lAND SURVEYOR IZm - - --' ...... .... .... .... -- - - - ... - - - 118 - .. -ell ~\.. ,. Jo., Un"" ~ T ~="'N m, ~ E """""'" CALL JULIE 48 hours before you dog 't.""", "C. ,~ . "Os,,) .,," 'HE ,"u.ow,"o, 'o".,,-~------------ "IV-'OWN,".-!""'l""",",---è~_~;"-,-"L ""'f"".'o.""""""""" 1-800-892-0123 ---~'____'M~.~. TWELVE OAKS SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS SECTION 24 TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH RANGE 11 EAST MT. PROSPECT. ILLINOIS "..JL- ! I ~,~ '....>wi 1 I"",.""",::, . VICINITY MAP Nor ro "'" SHffi NO. INoeX ro SHffTS -~--- -~--===~~- ;;;;"s mo sm.;;;;;;,;,. s ",,"Ne ClW",,<JNS -~~._---- ON""" "'" PMwe P,",N - , r"~,~~"-,-"""-"~",,-,,,_,,,'M",,,,, :::;;;"-;::':::,:;: ~':':'"'::',':::::'::: ~.::.:;:'.:."~'t".,::;:;,::.~::.:: =~:£.::~= E.:;:,:~:J~~:':~ =- ":.:.':.H_":"'.::':: .:: , ::':;::;:=;.:;::"'...7::::..o;.::.::.:::'~-'__'_h".,.dM """' '" '" ". ,." """ ~ '" ", ,,"',,"' or ro, N,n' ,"",'.. .. r..~ 0", '__"',m. ".m"" - 6J"S """" "") 6J9.02 (""" ""8) "". ......'" ~ ~ --'"""~~':-.~.::;: I I ;;::.:+:;.: ;';i:?:"'~;~~i£~;":i:;-7""':~~" I ::-..: ~~",;::;;~: .:. ::"'.';'.':::-'.~ ~7::':~- I "-:':::::::"-~'::';~K"':~~:::;."_.- ~'::-i::~ H ~-, ,~ TITLE SHEET PARKlNGlDETENTION IMPROVEMENT lWELVE OAKS .illi£1i/i ,.....,- ..,,'.~ ,'. ~"- '.."a,. -'"'~,- A", ~,~ ,,~,- p-",- ~-::::.;o;.:;,[:~., ,..,~ ~.. =,~;:;.'::::"", ~.,~"'-~. '_."'N' -,"- "",- ----.-- ~N - ;:::":-;"~-") "-. ,. ~::.":';.f""'~ ",_., ,-,- -~ .."OV_-~,. _.~ ,~ ,,"'- ,_.- ~.- _.~~. N" - ,. _NO .-_.... --. ,... --, ... -/~-~ c. --<-..- ~o,- ", "."._- ,'j. ,;¡ ... h. '" ,. or_,," or- ",-~. ,_.,- ,- - ~~0 =~.o .~'".-"-O ,~"'"'. .-- ,~.._- ,"',,- M" ,-,~ _w,....~ --,- _NN ..-- ."-""'- ;:::~h'~- ::'If':':'::- -A<>.""" _.- ~'. - """"'-""" '"-..,_... ,~,~,~ --.,- '-".0 "N - .... .. .,.~"'~.""" !.J;:-;;;-!.(: ~'í..~::::;,..f \.\..~.. .. . ." "om" 'HO-o> --,- ., . . '- ( <XI ->- ->-- -)-- -)- ->---- ---.-- ~ . )( r=- m Ó. ø -...--.. 'm. ;'0 <Þ œJ HAEGER ENGINEERING =='='= ~~~.:,:""': ::-:-'-'=1, - '" ......... """" .0' .... ."" ..., . . 0... ~-".œ -.. "W~ -~-~"'-----K .. ., " ',- . - <,-. .'" ". > '" - ," DCS PLAINCS RIVCR ROAD ., . , !~ h: ~:; e~ ai:j ~ ðm 2)( ,,- 5" !!I~ me> ~n 00 2Z is! ;g::! 00 <Z ;1" m ?i ~. "II 01 j I L¡>o" J ¥. . W:;i!¡,oulO""IJIJ'eÞltr ) ¡' ¡ . ., I: 1 01. . :: ?~f!QJHftPqpqH i m¡¡mnm,! flB¡!d1!rq , H' fr-.;¡I'n i , :¡i jÎ!¡,q, i ' , -71-F=- ~ I ~ ¡ ~ ~ ZC) ~n r- z Z < .. c: m Õ... 0 z." > i > ¡:¡U ~c: '" !:! .. fir ~JæJ: ¡ J "'-, ~H .,It~ . . ~ i 'I ;;;: , j,s ""' . ¡ .æ: if!; == r.= . . ~ Ii::;: 0'( r~== ~ '~- i.. r = ~ I ~ ;~3'C~;.; I ¡¡f!!II!! d ~~~,,~~ ~' q~H~ c~ ¡;,~~c~ II ¡IWI '^~S ~ ~~" ~ êê~ ~ ~~'" ! ",i! ~ ~~ ;¡> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i IT ¡ DES PLA/NES ,,--- - -- q~d; Hip! :,n Hn .,' - i! 'õ .~ ~ .,,:; 'c',,' ~ ,ì ~ ..---+ ~ ,f. ~ ,.-,~' I, < _L ~ r,. ~- I -- ,., Z ..-. : :1 ,., n -< ~ '< :'----t- 1 ',.f . , I , ! coo_. c_-.- ------.-oo--- ....... ¡:: > Z '" 0 p;; ~~ -< ,., n -< Õ z 0 ,., -< > ¡= " ,=)"~!~~¡ij,;>- ~. ,). Jrl . , ~ ! -, 'O~l ,ij I ¡,' CC,q Í I' J¡~~¡lfffr¡ïfïl!Ì¡!ìlff!¡if'~~J1!îf~~ff¡i¡rrll¡,¡¡f !II ilf,,-¡f!;.t) ! !~¡J!'ìni¡i!¡Íif¡~.p~¡!' U ìqJ¡¡P'¡ II' ¡ -¡'! ~¡~!~~i~ill o£ ~~'>¡¡H~",.uf -ll-F==- ---'- Kad 5/5/05 be 5/10/05 bh 5/12/05 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONVERSION TO CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1510-1534 RIVER WEST COURT WHEREAS, Billy Bob Marketing, LLC (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner), has filed a petition for a condominium conversion with respect to property generally known as 1510 -1534 River West Court, (hereinafter referred to as Subject Property); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is legally described as follows: LOT 1 IN THE APARTMENTS OF RIVER WEST, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF PART OF LOT 'A' IN WOODVIEW MANOR, UNIT NO.2 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE SOUTHWEST ~IF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RAND 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. . PI N: 03-24-416-029/030-036; 03-24-416-038; 03-24-416-044 WHEREAS, Petitioner desires approval providing for the long-term conversion to condominiums of a 60 unit apartment development; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Condominium Conversion, designated as P&Z Case No. 50-04, before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 28th day of April, 2005, pursuant to due and proper notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal and Topics on the 13th day of April, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and. 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 abov~ are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The condominium conversion being subject of this Ordinance is subject to the following Conditions: 1) Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall obtain estimates to install streetlights and sidewalk in the public right-of-way (River Road) and escrow funds in an amount to be determined by the Village and enter into an escrow agreement for the completion of the proposed improvements; .ß 2) Completing the Condominium Conversion Plat Procedures as set forth in the Village's Subdivision Code (Section 15.307.B); 3) Submitting a Final Property Report as required by Village Code for the Village Attorney's review and approval; 4) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval; and 5) The Petitioner shall improve all units, common areas, and the Subject Property according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: installing a fire suppression and detection system, meeting current Building Code requirements, and complying with current storm water detention requirements. 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. INana K. Wilks Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\Con Use1510 1534 river west c tFINAL pud may 2005.doc MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAY 13,2005 SUBJECT: PZ-IO-05 - VARIATION & DEVELOPMENT CODE EXCEPTION 100 S. SCHOOL STREET (ST. PAUL LUTHERAN CHURCH) GREG O'BRIEN 1 ST. PAUL LUTHERAN CHURCH - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-1 0-05, a request for Variations and a Development Code exception for storm water detention, as detailed in the attached Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their April 28, 2005 meeting. The Subject Property, consisting of two parcels, is located at the southwest comer of Busse Avenue and School Street. The property located at 100 S. School Street contains the main church building, a one-story accessory structure (parsonage at 108 S. School Street), a parking lot and related site improvements. The property at 112 S. School Street contains an existing single-family residence with related improvements. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, reviewed the case. She noted the elements of the project that would require relief from zoning setback regulations and explained why Staff supported the Petitioner's request to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface only. Greg O'Brien, representative of St. Paul Lutheran Church, reviewed how the current proposal differed from their previous proposal. He explained how the goals of the Church helped them arrive at the new, revised expansion proposa1. Several neighbors addresséd the Commission and stated their support for the Church expansion, but stated that the size of the expansion was inappropriate and that they felt it would adversely impact the neighborhood. Several neighbors stated their objection to the Church demolishing the residences to accommodate the addition and the parking lot. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's project at length. It was noted that a new house built to Village Code could have similar impacts on the adjacent properties because the new house's height may limit views and the amount of sunlight. One Commissioner stated his support of the requests and encouraged the Church to take a comprehensive view of the development of all its properties and prepare a long-range plan. There was discussion regarding the proposed storm water detention design and how the site currently does not have any detention, but the Petitioner would provide detention for the new impervious surface. Also, the P&Z Commissioners discussed lighting and how the proposed lights need to be shielded properly to minimize any adverse impacts on the adjacent properties. PZ-IO-05 May 13, 2005 Page 2 The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve the Petitioner's request subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report, with an emphasis on proper shielding for the lights. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their May 17, 2005 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. Ii' H,IPLANlPI,nniug & Zon;ng cOMMlP&Z 2005\MEJ M'lI1osIPZ-IO-OS MEJ (SI Paul Lutll"w, O,.,cll cxpansion).doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-IO-OS Hearing Date: April 28, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 100 S. School Street PETITIONER/OWNER: St. Paul Lutheran Church 100 S. School Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 PUBLICATION DATE: April 13,2005 PIN #8: 08-12-111-012 & 08-12-1 I 1-016 REQUEST: Petitioner is proposing to construct an addition to the existing church and expand/modify the existing parking lot. The Petitioner is seeking relief from Village regulations for. the following: 1) required setbacks (Variation); 2) number of parking spaces provided on-site (Variation); 3) storm water detention (Development Code Exception); and 4) other relief from the Village Code as may be required for this project. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Matt Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Harold Bune; Bob Dooley; Barbara Dorolnig; Janet Doyle; Roy & Darby Halsaien; Dennis & Cynthia Higdon; Ronald Kloss; Brenda O'Brien; Peter Loeschke; Sue Miceli; Scott Moon; Roger & Melodie Van Dyke; Rev. Marc Schwichtenberg; Paul Seils; Rev. Kris Whitby; Charles T. Walsh; Jennifer Weisler; Chairperson Arlene Juracekcalled the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2005 meeting and Leo Floros seconded the motiQn. The motion W¡}S approved 5-0 with abstentions by Chair Arlene Juracek, Richard Rogers and Keith Youngquist. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-10-05, a request to construct an addition to the existing church and expand/modify the existing parking lot: She said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. The Petitioner is seeking relief from Village regulations for the following: (a) required setbacks, (b) the number of parking spaces provided on-site, and (c) storm water detention requirements. The Subject Property, consisting of two parcels, is located at the southwest corner of Busse A venue and School Street. The property located at 100 S. School Street contains the main church building, a one-story accessory structure and parsonage; at 108 S. School Street, a parking lot and related site improvements. The property at 112 S. School Street contains an existing single-family residence with related Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-IO-05 Page 2 improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. The Petitioner is proposing a number of improvements to the site, including a 2-story addition to the existing church, which creates an open, interior courtyard, and an expansion of the existing parking lot. The proposed improvement would result in the demolition of the accessory structure at 100 S. School Street and the existing home at 112 S. School Street. The proposed 2-story building addition will match the Church's existing setback of 19.32' along School Street, which is less than the required setback of 20 feet. Therefore, they are seeking a Variation for the proposed exterior side yard setback. The Petitioner is also proposing an expansion of the existing parking lot. Although the site will include 21 additional parking spaces, creating a total of 52 on-site parking spaces, the Petitioner is seeking relief from the Village's zoning regulations for the amount of required on-site parking. In addition, the proposed parking lot requires variations from the RA District's minimum rear and exterior side yard setback requirements. ' The Petitioner proposes to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface. However, due to the scope of the project, the Development Code requires that storm water detention be provided for the entire site. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking an Exception to the Development Code regulations to allow storm water detention for the new impervious surface only. The Petitioner has included a detailed Facility Usage chart that outlines the various activities that occur at the Church and the estimated number of participants. Based on the "Net Change in Use" information submitted, the facility may experience some parking deficiencies. It is important to note that the facility currently does not meet the Village's parking requirements and occasionally experiences parking shortages. During those occasions when on-site parking is not available the Church's parishioners can either park on the school property or park on the street. The proposed addition will meet the interior side yard setback requirement; however, it will encroach slightly into the exterior side yard. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow the addition to encroach 8" into the required yard in order to maintain the Church's existing setback. The existing setback cannot be considered a legal nonconformity for the addition because the intensity of the addition exceeds the limitations listed in the Zoning Ordinance and new construction is required to comply with zoning regulations. Currently, there is a vacated alley along the west lot line that is used as a secondary means of access to the existing parking lot. The existing parking lot extends up to the lot lines on both the east and west sides of the Subject Property. The Petitioner's plans indicate that the vacated alley access point will be abandoned and that landscaping will be installed along the entire west lot line. The new parking lot will have a 15.8' setback along the west lot line. ' The Petitioner's plans show two parking lot driveways: one entrance and one exit, and striped accordingly. The parking lot currently extends to the east lot line; however, the Petitioner proposes to create a 10' setback and landscape islands to separate the driveways. Although the parking lot currently does not comply with zoning regulations, a Variation is required for the proposed setbacks because the parking lot intensity changes and it can no longer be considered a legal non-conformity and allowed to remain with a zero setback. In reviewing this request it is important to note that the Village's height restrictions within residential zoning districts are measured to the mid-point of the roof (except for buildings with flat roofs). The existing building height measures 41' at the top of the ridge. Although the proposed addition has a height of approximately 36' to the peak of the roof, the height to the mid-point of the roof is 27'. It should be noted that although the height restrictions within the RA District apply only to residential buildings, Staff has applied the same height restrictions to the proposed Church addition. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-IO-05 Page 3 The Petitioner submitted a lighting plan that shows the proposed light levels and type of fixture. The information submitted does not comply with Village regulations. However, the Petitioner has not requested a Variation from the Village's lighting regulations and has not provided justification for a Variation. Therefore, the lighting plan must be revised to comply with Village Code requirements. The Police Department recommended that the Petitioner install a perimeter fence along the west and south lot lines of the Subject Property. The fence would minimize entrancelexit points and help eliminate thefts to vehicles. The Petitioner confirmed that there are existing fences along the west lot line, which create a continuous fence line. The Petitioner has agreed to pursue an arrangement with the property owner south of the Subject Property to install a fence that meets the Police Department's requirements and is acceptable to the Property Owner. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Village Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. They relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner is proposing to add a 2-story addition to increase the efficiency and general comfort of the Church's daily operations. As part of the project, the Petitioner would demolish two structures to accommodate the construction of the addition and parking lot expansion. The Petitioner designed a parking lot that would provide the maximum number of parking spaces possible. The existing parking lot is currently built to the lot line, but the proposed parking lot will include landscape setbacks. These landscape areas will minimize the impacts of the parking lot on the adjacent properties. In addition, the 8" Variation needed for the exterior side yard would be in keeping with the existing setback and maintain the character of the building. Based upon the scope of the improvements, the Development Code requires that the entire site be brought into compliance. However, the Petitioner proposes to provide storm water detention only for the new impervious surface. The Village's Engineering Division reviewed the Petitioner's proposal and found that the site slopes predominantly west to east. Consequently, stormwater runoff from the site, as well as runoff entering the site from the properties along Elm Street, is conveyed east across thesite. This flow enters the storm sewersystem in School Street unrestricted; no stormwater detention currently exists on site. Engineering concurred with the Petitioner's engineering report that states providing the storage as described would create adequate storage volume for the area to be improved for the runoff generated by a 100-year storm. This volume would equate to providing storage volume for the entire site for the runoff generated by the 25-year storm. Engineering also concurred that the cost involved and the disturbance to the areas intended to remain outside the scope of the project could be significant if storm water detention must be provided for the entire site. However, the design submitted indicates the proposed stone fill, back filling around the detention chamber, would be included with the detention calculations. Village policy prohibits the inclusion of the stone fill as part of the storage volume calculation. Therefore, in order for Staff to support the Petitioner's request to provide detention for the new impervious surface only, the storm water detention design would need to be reconfigured so the calculations do not include the stone fill as part of the storage volume. This may include, but is not limited to a larger detention chamber, increasing the depth of the detention chamber, or a new design. The Village Code permits the Planning & Zoning Commission to recommend approval of exceptions to Development Code regulations in cases of hardship, "caused by conditions uniquély attributable to the land under consideration, would be imposed upon an applicant by compliance with these regulations and upon a finding that there are alternate feasible means of fulfilling the purpose and spirit of the regulations to protect the public health, safety and welfare...". Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-IO-05 Page 4 The request must meet the standards for an exception. The standards relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The site currently does not provide storm water detention and the Petitioner would provide detention for the new impervious surface. Staff reviewed the request and found that a reasonable effort has been made to comply with Village Code requirements, but that site constraints limited the Petitioner's ability to provide above grade detention. In addition, the site will be well below the maximum amount of permitted lot coverage. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village Board approve Variations for I) the amount of parking, 2) the proposed setbacks, and 3) a Development Code exception to allow the Petitioner to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface only for the Subject Property, subject to the following: I. Consolidating the Subject Property into a single lot of record; 2. Revising the lighting plan to comply with the Village's lighting regulations; 3. Revising the landscape plan to reflect existing fences and the proposed fence along the south lot line; 4. Meeting the Building Code & Fire Code requirements for Fire Protection that include the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm; 5. Complying with all other Development Requirements, as defined in Section 15.402 of the Village Code, which include: a) b) The installation of streetlights within the public right of way adjacent to the site; and Paying a fee for the planting of parkway trees in the public right of way along the site (this fee is $400 per tree, and shall be based upon the number of planting sites detennined by the Village's Forestry Division). Three gentlemen were sworn in: Rev. Marc Schwichtenberg, Senior Pastor at St. Paul, 21 S. Owen St., Greg O'Brien, St. Paul's Building Committee, and Greg Goss, Architect. Rev. Marc Schwichtenberg said the case is about people; not a building and he introduced Greg O'Brien, Chairman of the Building Committee. Mr. O'Brien showed a power point slide presentation and highlighted changes made since the August 2004 zoning meeting. He noted the concerns and issues discussed at that meeting and noted how the Building Committee addressed the issues. He compared the previous addition elevations to the new proposed elevations and noted how solutions to the objectionable height and other issues were incorporated into the new design. He reviewed the . landscape design and showed where new plants would be planted and how shrubbery would be used to screen and shield neighboring properties for privacy and ITom light. He reviewed changes to the parking lot traffic pattern improvements. Mr. Roberts asked if Mr. O'Brien had aerial graphics of the school location. He said that he did not, but explained the school location in relation to the church. Ms. Juracek presented a petition ITom Mr. Robert Black and questions from Ms. Janet Doyle, both posing the question why additional parking is needed when, as late as last Sunday, many empty spaces were noted in both the church and school parking lots. Mr. O'Brien responded that he realized that nobody wanted to see buildings tom down to make room for parking, especially in a residential area, and if they were building a new church in a new area it wouldn't be necessary; the church would be built with the necessary size parking lot next to it. But this church is 90-years old and they have one parking lot next to the church and one parking lot a block away. And the parish being 90 years old, so are many of its parishioners, who cannot walk that extra block, especially in the weather extremes that we experience in this area, so oftentimes they choose to stay home rather than attend church. Ms. Juracek brought up the question posed by petitioners that, rather than razing single-family homes, those should be used to house staff meetings. Mr. O'Brien said they have scattered staff all over in various storage, broom closets and classrooms, basements and sub-basements and have found that to be counter-productive and, given the ADA requirements, it would be very expensive to make those homes handicapped accessible. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-IO-05 Page 5 Greg Goss, Architect with Goss/Pasma Architects, came to the dais to answer Richard Rogers' questions regarding stonn retention and assured the Commission they would meet Engineering's requirements. Ms. Juracek thanked Mr. O'Brien on his presentation and asked for questions from the audience. Robert Black, 119 S. School Street, was sworn in. Mr. Black said he didn't know where Mr. O'Brien came from, but where he came from he didn't call walking across a parking lot a hardship and he didn't approve of razing two perfectly viable residential homes for parking spaces and also, the size of the structure is too large. Neighbors would not object to parishioners parking on the streets. Perhaps the Church could compromise and tear down just one home. He is not at member of the congregation, but has been inside the facility and they seem to have enough space for meetings. Melodie Van Dyke, 123 S. School St., was sworn in. She said she has lived there for 25 years and has been a parishioner for 10 years. She said she is so concemed about demolishing two homes to accommodate the Church expansion that she may leave the St. Paul Lutheran parish. She stated that it's not a Lutheran campus and that there are other ways to accommodate the Church's needs without tearing down homes. Bill Reddy, 105 S. Elm St., was sworn in. He said this was not about anger, confrontation, or the Church, it was about community. They are a tight knit community and the Church has not done the proper outreach to the community. He described the meetings held by the church for the neighborhood as inadequate. He said the two homes needed to be town down to provide water detention area for the 8,175 sq. ft. addition proposed by the church. He said that for his property it was necessary to spend over $4,000 in landscaping trying to block the light from the Church's parking lot. He concluded by passing out pictures of his backyard to the Commission. Ann Doyle, author of the earlier referenced e-mail, came up and passed out pictures of many empty parking spaces in the existing lots. She said she did not think 7 parking spaces were worth tearing down 2 houses. Jennifer Weisler, 111 S. Elm St., was sworn in and testified that she lives behind the Church parking lot and will be deprived of sunlight because of the building height and stated that the addition would decrease her property value. Robert Kleinke, 102 S. Elm, member of St. Paul for 35 years, was sworn in and said the Church has always supported community events. The Prayer Garden is open to everybody to use. The changes in the Church are for (physically challenged) people like him, who cannot walk to Church anymore. Peter Loeschke, 101 S. Elm, was sworn in and showed a picture of the proposed Church and said he thought it was a beautiful Church and appreciated that they had lowered the height of the Church and increased the landscaping and hopes the Church can find a way to bring the neighborhood together. Greg O'Brien came forward again to address the lighting issues. He said the parking lot lighting is at a bare minimum. They have worked with staff on a photometric plan to reduce the amount of glare. With regard to the windows facing Elm St., the windows will be shaded and the offices are not occupied evenings and weekends when people are home and most in need of privacy. There is only a fire exit planned for a former driveway in back of the Church. Mr. Floros asked him if there would actually only be 7 more parking spaces as he has been hearing. Mr. O'Brien said, no, they are going from 21 spaces to 52. He further emphasized that they needed the improvements they were requesting. Richard Rogers said there are shields that can be put on the lights on the parking lot. Mr. O'Brien said he would work with the lighting contractor on that item. Roger Van Dyke, 523 N. Main St., was sworn in. He said that the lighting issue is very minor, and that his sister, Melodie's, concern about tearing down houses, is a major issue. They shouldn't be allowed to build higher than surrounding homes and block the sunlight from the yards. He also said they don't need meeting rooms, they have a huge gymnasium in which to hold meetings. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-IO-05 Page 6 Matt Sledz said the Church had done an honorable job in responding to the earlier objections to this expansion; however, he does not feel they have effectively proven a hardship to be granted relief from Village Code. Leo Floros said the Church is a good neighbor. He noted that much has been said about demolishing two homes and observed that St. Mark demolished at least four homes for its Church expansions. Hè thinks St. Raymond's and St. Emily's may have also torn down homes to build their additions. He said he has no problem at all in supporting this request, which he feels will be good for the community. Richard Rogers said St Paul's owns the property and has the right to improve the property as they see fit and they need the parking near to the Church. He said putting in storm water detention will benefit the neighborhood and he also supports St. Paul in this expansion project. Keith Youngquist said this proposal was a definite improvement over the previous proposal, but he thinks the west elevation of the new addition would be improved if it were a stepped elevation on the southwest side and he had concerns with regards to that area in the rear that abuts to the yards of the homes on Elm and School Streets. He thinks most people prefer more open space near their back yards and it would alleviate negative feelings if the Church could open it up. He said this was not a demand but if the Church could look into it that would be good. He said the Church did a great job with the presentation tonight. Joe Donnelly said he was pleased to see the building height reduced and the mechanicals relocated from the previous request. He said the two houses could be torn down just as easily to build new, larger homes. Ronald Roberts said he agrees with all the comments made by the other Commission members and hopes the Church will strive to promote future harmony in neighborhood by looking at all parcels and all their needs to minimize the impact on the neighbors. Ms. Juracek said she was glad to see the height of the building reduced and said the open south end provides balance on the north end. She said the additional green space adds to the neighborhood balance. Ms. Juracek also noted that churches needed to function differently today than before; that there was definitely a need for adult gathering spaces and meeting rooms. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval for: 1) a Variation to allow a 25.2' rear yard setback for the parking lot; 2) a Variation to allow a 19.32' exterior side yard for the building addtiion and a 10' exterior side yard for the 'parking lot; 3) a Development Code exception to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface only; and 4) Variation for the amount of on-site parking to allow the expansion and modification of the church and parking lot for the property at 100 S. School St., St. Paul Lutheran Church, Case No. PZ-50-04, with all the conditions imposed by staff and the further condition that shields be placed on the parking lot lights. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at midnight, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 10-05 LOCATION: PETITIONER: OWNER: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: 100 - 112 S. School Street St. Paul Lutheran Church St. Paul Lutheran Church 08-12-106-106-0000 & 08-12-106-018-0000 1.36 acres (59, 243.95 square feet) RA Single Family Residence Church & Single Family Residential Variations & Development Code Exception LOCATION MAP Central Road 1 , 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 --L- 10 11 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 11 1 1 3 ~ S 6 7 8 9 10 II 11 13 I~ IS 16 17 19 18 II 11 ., 101 100 100 '" 101 Owen Park ;: II; 10.1 ~ = 1.1, '" --jù~ - ~ 0 119 11 111 120 111 111 113 114 117 116 118 119 113 110 --1J!L. 100 %OJ-'" ~ ~ 106 ~ --ID- - 110 -~:.'.'2- ---m- """ ----¡¡. w:m- -'jib ----m- ---m¡- . ,no 100 103 101 105 1114 107 106 109 108 111 110 113 II! 115 114 211 116 _219 118 I ~ ::1 - ~ MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENEJURACEK,CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: APRIL 21, 2005 HEARING DATE: APRIL 28, 2005 SUBJECT: PZ-IO-05 - V ARIA TIONS & DEVELOPMENT CODE EXCEPTION 100-112 S. SCHOOL STREET (ST.PAUL LUTHERAN CHURCH) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the April 28, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by St. Paul Lutheran Church (the "Petitioner") regarding the properties located at 100 & 112 S. School Street (collectively the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner has requested approval of the following: 1) Setback variations for the proposed building addition and parking lot; 2) Variation for the number of parking spaces provided on-site; and 3) A Development Code Exception regarding storm water detention. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the April 13, 2005 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted Public Hearing signs on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property, consisting of two parcels, is located at the southwest corner of Busse Avenue and School Street. The property located at 100 S. School Street contains the main church building, a one-story accessory structure (parsonage at 108 S. School Street), a parking lot and related site improvements. The property at 112 S. School Street contains an existing single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on alJ sides by the RA District. The Subject Property is across the street from Owen Park, which is a neighborhood park that includes playground equipment and ball fields. The school, owned in conjunction with St. Paul Lutheran Church, is located at the northwest comer of Busse Avenue and School Street. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Petitioner is proposing a number of improvements to the site, including a 2-story addition to the existing church. which creates an open, interior courtyard, and an expansion of the existing parking lot. The proposed improvement would result in the demolition of the accessory structure at 100 S. School Street and the existing home at 112 S. School Street. The following is a brief summary of the proposed improvements: >- Building Addition - The proposed 2-story building addition will match the Church's existing setback of 19.32' along School Street (which is less than the required setback of 20 feet). Therefore, they arc seeking a Variation for the proposed exterior side yard setback. >- Parking Lot Expansion - The Petitioner is also proposing an expansion of the existing parking lot. Although the site will include 21 additional parking spaces, creating a total of 52 on-site parking spaces, PZ-IO-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting April 28, 2005 Page 3 the Petitioner is seeking relief from the Village's zoning regulations with regards to the amount of required on-site parking. In addition, the proposed parking lot requires variations from the RA District's minimum rear, interior and exterior side yard setback requirements. (Please note that there are approximately 30 on-street parking spaces in front of the Church and the park.) ~ Storm Water Detention -The Petitioner proposes to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface. However, due to the scope of the project, the Development Code requires that storm water detention be provided for the entire site. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking an Exception to the Development Code regulations to allow storm water detention for the new impervious surface only. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE Currently the site does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations and portions of the existing Church encroach into the required setbacks. The following table compares the Petitioner's proposal to the Zoning Ordinance requirements. RA District Minimum Requirements Existing Proposed ReQuired Action SETBACKS: Front 30' .. 20.62' No Change None Interior 14' Building: 8' Addition: 25' None Parking Lot: 0' Parking: 15.8' None Exterior 20' Building: 19.32' Addition: 19.32' Variation Parking Lot: 0' Parking Lot: 10' Variation Rear 27' 10' 25.2' (parking lot) Variation LOT COVERAGE 75% Maximum 57.1% 66% No Action STORM WATER Detention for the Development Code DETENTION Full Detention None New impervious Exception only 1 space per 3 worshipers - PARKING 219 (with 8 day care spaces) 31 52 Varia tion Parking - The Petitioner has included a detailed Facility Usage chart that outlines the various activi ties that occur at the Church and the estimated number of participants. Based on the "Net Change in Use" information submitted, the facility may experience some parking deficiencies (primarily during weekend services and special events). It is important to note that the facility currently does not meet the Village's parking requirements and occasionally experiences parking shortages. During those occasions, when on-site parking is not available, the Church's parishioners can either park on the school property (located immediately north of the site) or park on the street. Setbacks - Building Addition - The proposed addition will meet the interior side yard setback requirement; however, it wil1 encroach slightly into the exterior side yard. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow the addition to encroach 8" into the required yard in order to maintain the Church's existing setback. The existing setback cannot be considered a legal nonconformity for the addition because the intensity of the addition exceeds the limitations Jisted in the Zoning Ordinance and new construction is required to comply with zoning regulations. PZ-IO-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting April 28, 2005 Page 4 Setbacks - Parking Lot - Currently, there is a vacated alley along the west lot line that is used as a secondary means of access to the existing parking lot. The existing parking lot extends up to the lot lines on both the east and west sides of the Subject Property. The Petitioner's plans indicate that the vacated alley access point wi1l be abandoned and that landscaping will be installed along the entire west lot line. The new parking lot will have a 15.8' setback along the west lot line. The Petitioner's plans show two driveways: one entrance and one exit, and striped accordingly. As previously noted, the parking lot currently extends to the east lot line; however, the Petitioner proposes to create a 10' setback and landscape islands to separate the driveways. Although the parking lot currently does not comply with zoning regulations, a Variation is required for the proposed setbacks because the parking lot intensity changes and it can no longer be considered a legal non-conformity and allowed to remain with a zero setback. Building Height - In reviewing this request it is important to note that the Village's height restrictions within residential zoning districts are measured to the mid-point of the roof (except for buildings with flat roofs). The existing building height measures 41' at the top of the ridge. Although the proposed addition has a height of approximately 36' to the peak of the roof, the height to the mid-point of the roof is 27'. It should be noted that although the height restrictions within the RA District apply only to residential buildings, Staff has applied the same height restrictions to the proposed Church addition. Lighting Plan The Petitioner submitted a lighting plan that shows the proposed light levels and type of fixture. The information submitted does not comply with Village regulations. However, the Petitioner has not requested a Variation from the Village's lighting regulations and has not provided justification for a Variation. Therefore, the lighting plan must be revised to comply with Víl1age Code requirements. Fence The Police Department recommended that the Petitioner install a perimeter fence along the west and south lot lines of the Subject Property. The fence would minimize entrancelexit points and help eliminate thefts to vehicles. The Petitioner confirmed that there are existing fences along the west lot line, which create a continuous fence line. The Petiti()ner has agreed to pursue an arrangement with the property owner south of the Subject Property to install a fence that meets thePoliceQ~partment's requirements and is acceptable to the Property Owner. VARIATION ST ANDARI)S 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 Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. . The Petitioner is proposing to add a 2-story addition to increase the efficiency and general comfort of the Church's daily operations. As part of the project, the Petitioner would demolish two structures to acc()mmodate the construction of the addition and parking lot expansion. The Petitioner designed a parking Jot that would PZ-lO-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting April 28, 2005 Page 5 provide the maximum number of parking spaces possible. incorporating the recommendations previously listed. Staff supports the proposed design subject to The existing parking lot is currently built to the lot line, but the proposed parking lot will include landscape setbacks. These landscape areas will minimize the impacts of the parking lot on the adjacent properties. In addition, the 8" Variation needed for the exterior side yard would be in keeping with the existing setback and maintain the character of the building. STORM: WATER DETENTION - DEVELOPMENT CODE EXCEPTION Based upon the scope of the improvements, the Development Code requires that the entire site be brought into compliance. However, the Petitioner proposes to provide storm water detention only for the new impervious surface. The Village's Engineering Division reviewed the Petitioner's proposal and found that the site slopes predominantly west to east. Consequently, stormwater runoff from the site, as well as runoff entering the site from the properties along Elm Street, is conveyed east across the site. This flow enters the storm sewer system in School Street unrestricted; no stormwater detention cuaently exists on site. Engineering concurred with the Petitioner's engineering report that states providing the storage as described would create adequate storage volume for the area to be improved for the runoff generated by a 100-year storm. This volume would equate to providing storage volume for the entire site for the runoff generated by the 25-year storm. Engineering also concurred that the cost involved and the disturbance to the areas intended to remain outside the scope of the project could be signitìcant if storm water detention must be provided for the entire site. However, the design submitted indicates the proposed stone fill, back filling around the detention chamber, would be included with the detention calculations. Village policy prohibits the inclusion of the stone fill as part of the storage volume calculation. Therefore, in order for Staff to support the Petitioner's request to provide detention for the new impervious surface only, the storm water detention design would need to be reconfigured so the calculations do not include the stone fill as part of the storage volume. This may include or is not limited to a larger detention chambers, increasing the depth of the detention chamber, or a new design. DEVELOPMENT CODE EXCEPTION STANDARDS Sec. 15.109 penl1its the Planning & Zoning Commission to recommend approval of exceptions to Development Code regulations in cases of hardship, "caused by conditions uniquely attributable to the land under consideration, would be imposed upon an applicant by compliance with these regulations and upon a finding that there are altemate feasible means of fulfilling the purpose and spirit of the regulations to protect the public health, safety and welfare...". The request must meet the standards for an exception, which are listed in Sec. 15.109 and are summarized as follows: . A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and . . Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The site currently does not provide storm water detention and the Petitioner would provide detention for the new impervious surface. Staff reviewed the request and found that a reasonable effort has been made to comply with Village Code requirements, but that site constraints limited the Petitioner's ability to provide above grade detention. In addition, the site will be well below the maximum amount of permitted lot coverage. PZ-IO-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting April 28, 2005 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village Board approve Variations for 1) the amount of parking, 2) the proposed setbacks, and 3) a Development Code exception to allow the Petitioner to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface only for the Subject Property, subject to the following: 1. Consolidating the Subject Property into a single lot of record; 2. Revising the lighting plan to comply with the Village's lighting regulations; 3. Revising the landscape plan to reflect existing fences and the proposed fence along the south lot line; 4. Meeting the Building Code & Fire Code requirements for Fire Protection that include the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm; 5. Complying with all other Development Requirements, as defined in Section 15.402 of the Village Code, which include: 1. The installation of streetlights within the public right of way adjacent to the site; and 11. Paying a fee for the planting of parkway trees in the public right of way along the site (this fee is $400 per tree, and shall be based upon the number of planting sites determined by the Village's Forestry Division). The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: P, Director of Community Development Ije H,IPLAN'PI,nning & Zoning COMM,P&Z 2oo5\Slarr M'",cIPZ-IO-05 MEMO (100 S. S,hool SI Paul VAR dev ,ode ",uhld", COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -PI?111ljng Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Variation Request 'VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT "'>-Mo-,-,"'"""""., ""---"o-"~'_"_.,.'" ,---.-----.-'.,.--..' The Planning & Zoning Commission has final administrative authority for all petitions for fence variations and those variation requests that do not exceed twenty-five (25%) of a requirement stipulated by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. PETITION FOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW Village Board Final Z Case Number 0 PZ- - 05 .... , E-o -<- Development Name/Address ~~ = = 00 ~ t Date of Submission Z= ...."'" ><e- ~ Hearing Date ~ Z .... Common Address(es) (Street Number, Street) 100 S. School Street Tax J.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) 08- 12- 106-0000 08- 12-106-018-0000 z 0 ;: -< :; ~ 0 ~ Z .... ¡;;.;¡ E-o .... rn Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) SEE PLAT OF SURVEY (ATTACHED TO SUBMITTAL) Z Name Telephone (day) 847.255.0332 . 0 ST. PAUL LUTHERAN CHURCH ..... E-o -< Corporation Telephone (evening) ~ 01 ~i: Street Address Fax 847.255.0948 ~.§ ~õ.. 100 S. SCHOOL STREET Z 0.. ;;;¡-<r:: City State Zip Code Pager 01 ø:: MOUNT PROSPECT IL 60056 C ~ Interest in Property U -< = ," ," '.-,- -~Pi"',,, ¡-z Name Telephone (day) 847.255.0332 0 ST. PAUL LUTHERAN CHURCH - ¡.... < ~ ~ Corporation Telephone (evening) 0 g ~ ~ ZO - >. Street Address Fax: 847.255.0948 ~ ~ Z 11) Po 100 S. SCHOOL STREET ;;J 0 Oc: tX ~ City State Zip Code Pager ::t: U MOUNT PROSPECT IL 60056 < ~ Developer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Attorney Michael J. Moran & Associates Name Mike MonA Telephone (day) I Address 121 S. \Vilke Road,' Suite 281 Fax Arlington Hts., IL. 60005 Surveyor Edward J. Molloy & Associates Z Name .John Molloy Telephone (day) 630.595.2600 0 - ¡.... '" Address IHO Mark Street Fax 6.30.595.4700 «; ~.~ Bensenville, IL 60106-1022 '" OJ! ~ 0 Z"" _0.. Q"i:: Engineer Patrick Engineering Z 11) ;:J E Name Mathew Bardol Telephone (day) 630.795.7200 0 Po 0 a:~ ~ >- Address 4970 Vanity Drive Fax 630.434.8400 ::t: 11) uO Lisle, IL <I ~ Architect Goss Pasma Architects Name C'.rpgnry C'.OIil,<;¡ Telephone (day): 847.475.1250 Address 1691 SheraulR Ave. Fax R47475 1290 Evanston, IL. 60201 Landscape Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 2 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 Code Section(s) for which Variation(s) is (are) Requested Summary and Justification for Requested Variation(s), RelateJustification to the AttàchedStandardsforVafiations.. .... Second Appearance to Board to present a refined scope of work and address several issues of concern to ViIIage and neighbors. SKI~; A I I A<..:Hlm M.I!.:M(J UA1.l!.:U (March II, 2005) SUMMARY OF REQUESTED MODIFICA nONS ~ Variation of Parking reQuirements- ¡.;¡ 1) ~~ Existing site is non-conforming with the required parking spaces. The proposed development increasestheparkirig O¡.;¡ (from ~O to "I "P:lCE".") :lv:;¡il:lhlE". ciirf'.ctly :lciJ:lcE".nt tfl thk "itf'., hilt f:ll1" "nflrt flfthf'. rf'.C¡lIirf'.mf'.nt ThE". nf'.W p:;¡rking will ;;..;;¡ ~Oi accommodate. normal facility usage during the week as shown on a current weekday schedule of activates in the Church ~~ (OrigiHally EyÞmith:Q). :;~ =-0 2) V"1 ;"l;vlI vf r '" 1.;111:5 Lul S"tb""k - oo¡:: . Request for relieffrom 20' side yard setback will provide additional parking spaces. Side yard is in fact School Street and U 00( across from park. ~et back vanance will not Impact resIdential neighbors. Proposed parkIng lot reqUiTes vanatlons trom RA District minimum rear, interior and exterior side yard setback requirements to maximize parking count yet provide adequate landscaping and buffers. 3). Building addition variation of side yard setback to match existing buildings setback (Requested 1 9 12' I Required 20feet) <I) "¡¡ri:itiQR Qf ~t9n+1 \\' :iter DeteRti9¡:t Request for consideration to provide detention for the new developed area rather than the entire site. O. igill"l Subl1¡ittal (SCG ral, ;,,].., Li.giIlG(..,ing Ju"t;r.U,tioH alid Cakl1lal;ollb) , Please note that the application will not be accepted until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to submittal. In consideration of the infonnation contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents pennission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for- visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affinn that all infonnation provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Applicant >; (t.'~,...\-(th t.~-¡ L-.:.\tu ;-,: 1'\ C h.l:J¡ ~ \ ...... Date h\(l,"t Ì'\ 2-::Oj "lee :; If applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting material. Property Owner '"\ Date l\\(~[C h. l...""':» , tOO :} Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect rIIinois, 60056 4 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 Memo Date: March 11, 2005 To: Community Development Department - Planning Division RE: Saint Paul Lutheran Church Issue: Summary of Requested Modification~ At the August 26, 2004 Zoning Commission meeting, the Commission requested that the Petitioner, St. Paul Luthel'anChurçl1, consider making several changes to the proposed Church Addition before putting the proposal to a final vote. Below are the issues that were raised at the meeting and our Resolutions. 1. Parking Lot Traffic Flow. It was requested that we redesign the traffic flow to restrict to one direction of traffic flow for safety concems. Resolution: The Parking lot was redesigned for one lane of traffic. Curb cutouts were modified to restrict traffic to one direction. Reducing the lanes had the added benefit of reducing the overall parking lot expansion and the corresponding setback variance. 2. Parking Lot Lighting: Several neighbors raised concerns about the height of the two (2) light poles in the original submission. Resolution: The revised plan calls for 4-parking lot lighting poles @ -15' high. 3. Elevation of Proposed Addition. Although the original proposed building elevation was already within current Village Codes, there was concern from the neighbors that the peak of the roof was too high for a residential area. Resolution: Subsequent design changes required that the entire elevation of the Addition be lowered several feet in order to align its Main floor with the existing Church structure. In addition, the slope of the Addition's roof was decreased, which further lowered the roof peak. The addition building height has been lowered from original proposal apex of 48' to 36' -0" above grade level. 4. Location of Mechanicals. One of the neighbors raised a concern about the location of the HV AC compressor units and the associated noise during operation. Resolution: The compressors have been located on the roof of the Addition on a screened flat roof area. The sidewalls of this area are designed to appear from street level as a sloped roof. These sidewalls also serve as an effective sound barrier for the compressors. Page I of2 Memo j 5. Courtyard Security. The original V-shaped design raised concerns about maintaining security in the resulting courtyard. Resolution: The revised design closes the V-shape and creates an interior courtyard that is closed to the public with access from inside the building. 6. Tree Survey: The original plans submitted did not include a tree survey and a listing of mature trees that will be lost to construction. Resolution: A tree survey was conducted by an accredited Forester and incorporated into the site plan. Furthennore, the submitted Landscaping design includes replacements for the number of trees removed during construction. 7. Exterior Materials: The original submission already contained materials allowed under the Village code. However, concerns were raised by the Commission and neighbors regarding the Addition's appearance and how it would blend with the existing Church structure. Resolution: All elevations are now full-height masonry, with all street-side elevations completely clad in stone to match the existing church structure. This requested improvement represents a nearly six-figure cost increase to the Congregation. Page 2 of2 ç: b/) '" 1U "ò ... 0 ... 1U ..... ç: ~ 0 b/) ç: ... 1U 1U ç: b/) ç: 1U . 1U ... .s::: MEMO GOSS/PA5MA ARCHITECTS 1óO1 Shcrman Avcnue Penthouse Sl1lte Evanston, illinois 60201 ph. 8~U7s.1250 fx. 8+7.+75.1290 Date: 06.Apri1.2005 To: Community Development Department - Planning Division Re: Saint Paul Lutheran Church PZ-1O-05/1O0 S. SCHOOL STREET ., ,,- Issue: Response to Village Staff Review Pursuant to your review, dated April 4, 2005, of the above-mentioned zoning application, the following is our response to each item w~hIlY~.Çqg~9!ËQgIm9ß_~Ji~,çtfqX,l!gÇ:1j!t2Bétl . staff review: ;: ENGINEERING DIVISION U 1U In reply to your request, attached is infonnatiQIljggjçlltiI1g the 'Stormtech' underground detention system will provide the proposed 11,500 cubic feet of storage volume. The online Stormtech Calculator was used to determine the. area of underground system necessary to provide the specified volume. u ... <1\ Attached are selected pages from the Stormtech Design Manual and a copy of the output data sheet from the Calculator. The selected pages show specifics regarding the chamber/aggregate fill system. The Calculator data indicates that a system of chambers and aggregate with a bed area of 8421 sq. ft. will provide 11,500 cubic feet of storage. The system shown on Drawing C-3 has an overall area of8710 sq. ft. POLICE DEPARTMENT It has been the Church's' intention to work with the neighbors to coordinate fencing along the west lot line with gated access to behind the sanctuary in the north west comer of the site. The Church feels that since the south lot line will be bermed and buffered the landscaping would be a more desirable separation with the south residence. The Church will coordinate with the south neighbor for the most desirable solution. PLANNING DIVISION . 15' poles were used to throw light further away and reduce the amount of poles needed to get the proper light levels for minimum safety standards. . Bollards are typically only three feet high and have very poor light perfonnance. Bollards are OK to use for delineation of an entrance, but not for a complete parking area. . A photometric plan of the parking lot lighting has been prepared and hereby attached in an (8-l/2"x 11") format, along with a cut sheet of the proposed fixture, for your reVIew. . We have resubmitted the owners' narrative in a Memo dated 08.Apri1.2005, along with a daily calendar of normal facility usage currently and proposed. Also attached is a summary of the projected parking totals. . We have attached the 'Yard Requirements' from Sheet A1.l and bubbled the proposed setbacks compared to the required setbacks. We also bubbled the existing building Mean heights and the proposed addition Mean height and height to top of ridge. . Concerning the west lot line, we don't foresee the trees proposed being any more of a conflict with the power lines than what already exists. If the trees are pruned properly and on a regular basis (i.e. not topped off), there should be very little conflict. Sincerely, ~. .(fu ~~ GossPasma Architects attachments '.'-,kÂ~"'Ô>"",>'_,,- .....: . '04/07/05 THIJ 11', ~6 FAX 630 434 84()Û .... .""F'AfRï<:k ENGIN~~RIN(i ù ,- ._.._.,~--_.. '-~""'r.X"'" ""t':t',u..'i'iuVl1"', ¡:uotnIwatI;11 managetíJ.èfit Page 141 ÒO3 of2 SløRt ,......¡lngiD88m Oes~gre/CQ~t , Site Calculator Enter the Required Storage Volume, select CI Stormiech System, and select the appropriate Storage volume per Chë1mber and the calculator will approxImate the total system size and cost needed. ~ ~ Volume, StOftllfttcll SWfsmI SfOtIIg8 ~ p.,. CIt.mben ~---=:J ft3 l~~.~~=- - ~5. ?~F w!~.~" of s~ne beJa"; Rcc;,jç((JiltlC' . Number of Chambers Needed: Required Bed SIze: :* Quantity of Stone: * Volume of Excavation: * Area of filter fabric: * ~23 .-J 1842o.61_~ ft2 1675-0~ 1 Yds3 ~~9.31 ..,.-JT()D~.. '1208.02 J Yds3 fi929:.~, ._.J YdS2 Quantity Costl Chambers: fg~.._-_...J $1z.~.._.J / unit** Stone: 1959.31 I $1~.J / ton 11208,02 I $[10.00 .1/ yard Excavation = hg?~.19 -.,...-..r $@,~..J / yard Filter Fabric: Total $r~I,~~Q.,__J $[11,511.72 :J $11 2.080:f.° J $@~.~.60_,_...__J lCàlll~888-296-5367 for estimated chamber pricing, . Includes 10% overage for bed perimeter &lbto tal: $1 ~~R..9s>_J Cø$t per ft3: $14,20 " .~_J Forgeneral estlm2ltè purposes only, Contact Stormtech for costs on speclflc projects and associated variables. Does not reflect changes In geographical costs or contractors overhead, profit and other mr5~eaneolls expenses, **Chamber costs may not be InclusIve of shipping. About I Product LIne Support Center I Request Info I Site Map I Home 'f~~?:j);~~,74z~:".>~ J,t1ðj~~1¡~:3~ . Engineers ~ Design/Cost .. CAD DrawIngs - Site Calculator . Cost Comparison - DesFgl" 'Manual Þ ~ec:¡uest Educatlol'1 Seminar to Industry LInks 11 FAQ's " Devefopers j, Installers! Cont"actors . Regulatoty Officials . ReSOUtèe Tool$ Storm Tech U.C 20 Beaver Ròad SUite 104 . Wethers1'1efd, Connectlcl . 06109 (P) 888~a92-26~4 ef) 860~529~8040 Info@stormtech.com RequcØ i'rIOre intb about StarmTech (i'~,"l~ The advanced design of StormTech's Gold'" chambers allows stormwater professionals to create more profitable, environmeotaHy sound developments. Compared with úther subsurface systems, StormTeðh's innovative chambers offer lower overar! instaHed costs, superior design flexibility and enhanced long-term performance- $MiP'~!7n@![ t!)e$~gfñj ~Qe){¡~HHß~W for Optimal Land Use Storm Tech chambers are ideal for commercial, municipal, industrial and residential applications. Our chamber systems can function as stormwater detention, retention, "first-flush" storage systems or a combination of these. They car¡ also be designed into beds or trenches of various configurations. UnHke the costly fittings and bulk heads of pipe systems, our end caps allow fast and cost-effective row termInation. Trimmable chamber lengths allow our systems to be desjgned around all types of limiting boundaries. L 10 R: SC.310 chamber and SC-740 chamber Typical Cross Section Detail (not to scale) END CAP- Product Features and Benefits The advanced features and innovative technology of StormTech chambers streamline ,installations while lowering overall installed costs. StormTech chambers offer these unique benefits: . Isoration Chamber System'. dramatically reduces costs associated with piping manifolds, while isolating sediment to manageable areas for ease of maintenance. .. Compliance with local regulations and NPDES Phase I and II requirements. . Two people can install chambers quickly and easily, saving time and money. 0 Extensive product research & development and rigorous testing ensure reliability and performance. . Versatile product design accommodates a variety of cost- effective system configurations. a The chambers' length can be cut in 6.5-inch increments and end caps can be easily secured for flexibility in design and installation. 0 The subsurface chamber system facilitates various design requirements for detention, retention and recharge of stormwater- .. Products are produced in our ISO 9001 :2000 certified manufac- turing facility. ~ Injection mOlded of polypropylene ensu res precise control of wall thickness and resistance to envjronmenta stress cracking. 0 Distinctive gold chambers reflect the sun's energy to retain their integrity at the most crudal point of installation. For mere information on StarmTecl¡'s Isolation Chamber System, contact your local Storm Tech representative. 80-740. 30" SC-J10 -16M DEPTH OF 5TONE - TO BE: DETERMINeD BY DESIGN ENGINEEI1. 12" MIN- TVI'>. sc. 740 and Sc.310 Chamber Specfficatiol'ls The SlormTech SC"740 chamber optimizes storage volumes In ../at/ve/y small footpri/js by providing 2.2 frlft' (minimum) of storage. This can decrease excavation, backfill and as'ociated costs. The StorrnTech SC-310 chamber Is ideal for systems requiring loY/"rlse and wide- span solutions. Tho ,hamber alloWs tho storage of 'argo VOlumes, 1.3 Witt' (minimum), at minimum dePths. SformTech SC.140 Chamber (not to scale) Nominal Chamber Specifications SiZ8 (W x H )( Installed l) 51.0' x 30.0. x 85.4" Chamber Storage 45.9 ft! Minimum rnsts"ed Storage. 74.9~ Weight 74.0 IDS œ (W x H x Installed l) ,0. x 16.0. x 85.4' Imber Storage 7ft3 ¡mum Installed SIOrage" ~ I if *' 3G'.7 (t "" ,hi Ibs' .24' DIA. MA)('. SC.740 end cap. - 51.0"- ,~."- SC~10 end cap ~l. F!l' \1~r' 1---34.0' ....¡ aSSUmA<: '" ~t_:- ~,'1'h / 2 - S'" T" ,... 0- /14 <.ð I;þ G H/1f...., ðc.:."'- ACCEPTs 4" SOH 40 PIPE FOR ~ OÞTlONAlINSPëCjON PORT t 1{ rn i/~ ?1 ~. ì{ !r ~ ~. ,~ J{ 7~' )I{ ) ~ /=: i~, ,~ ~ I~ ~ k ~ ;e: Þ= ::a I H H ~ \ H'. J1. JL H. H }{ Ik H. H H ,...,..----. l I ~90.7'lOÅ - I -, I-----~ 85,4" INSTALL.ED - --{ SC.740 chamber ACC~PTS 4" SCH 40 PIPE FOR r- OPTONAL N~PECTrON po¡:¡¡ -, '. C " ,L( }( 1./. oJ{ ~ ~ }J, }I r~ .~ ~ ~ !@ == r... ~ , ~ Iv. ~ ~ C }{ H' .}{ .}t .~ Ji ~fi ~ X \.¡ }í 11 Ò t-: ..~I 90.7'LOA_.. r 85.4" INSTALLED - -¡ SC.':t, n ...&.-_. d4/07/u5 THU 11:38 FAX 630 434 8400 10..0' System Sizing. PATRICK ENGINEERING f4J 006 ....-~; For quick calculations, refer to the ,Materials Worksheet on StormTech's website at www.stormtech.c:om. 'ìOJ SYSTiiM SiZiNG The following steps provide the calculations nece$sary to size a system. The worksheet on page 17 itemizes these calculation$ and CO$ts. If you need assistance determin- ing the number of chambers per row or customizing the bed configuration to fit a specific site, call StormTech's . Technical Services Department at 1-$88-892-2694. 1) Determine the amount of storage volume (Vs) required. It is the des;gnengÎneer's sale respOIJsibility to deter- mine the storage volume required by local codes. TABLE 7 - Storage Volume Per Chamber Bare Chamber and Stone Chamber Stone Foundation Depth Siorage &" 12u 18" StormTech SC-740 StorrnTech SC-310 88.4- 40,4 45.9 14.7 74.9 31.0 Not8; Storage volumes are in cubic feut per chamber. AsS/,Imes 40% porosity for the stone plus the chamb8r volume. 2) DetermIne the number of chambers. (C) req~¡red. To calculate the number of chambers needed for adequate storage, divide the storage volume (Vs) by the volume of th~ selected chamber, as follow$: C = Vs ¡Volume per Chamber 3) Determine the requIred bed sl2e (5). To .fínd the size of the bed, multiply the number of chambers needed (C) by erther: 5tormTech SC-740 bed area per chamber;:: 33.8 W 5tormT~ch SC..310 bed area per chamber = 23.7 IF S = (C x bed area per chamber) ... (1 foot x bed perimeter In feet) . NOTE: It is necessary to add one toot around the perim8ter of the . bed for end caps and working spa.ce. 4) Determine the amount of stone (Vst) required. TABLE 8 - Amount of Stone Per Chamber In Tons '.- StOriS Foundation Depih 6" 12" 18" StormTech SI:.740 3.8 (2.8 ydJ) 4.6 (3.3 yd3) 5,5 (3.9 yd3) StormTech SC.310 2.1 (1.5 yd3) 2.7 (1.9 yd~) 3.4 (2.4 ydi) - Note: Assumes 6 inches of stone above, and between chambers. To calculate the total amount of washed, crushed angu- lar stone required, multiply the number of chambers (0) by the selected to/'ls of stone from Table s. NOTE: Washed, crushed angular stone is also required around the perimeter of the system. 5) Determine the volume of excavation (Ex) required. 6) Determine the area of filter fabrIc (F) req~Jr~d. TABLE 9 - Vellrll1e of Exca~ti)n Per Chamber stone Foundation Depth ,. 6" 12" 18" SformTech SC-740 5.5 6.2 6.8 StormTech SC.310 2.9 3.4 3.8 .. Note; Volumes are in cubic yards (Jer chamber. Assumes 6 {fiches of separation between chamber rows and 1 B inches of cover. The \fol- ume af excavçtion w{1t vary as the depth of the cover IncreaSffS. Each addItional loot 01 cover will add a volume of excavation of , 1.3 cu. yds. per SC'740 and 0.9 cu. yds. per 80-310 chíJmber. The bottom and $ides of the bed and the top of the angular stone must be covered with a non-woven geot- extîle (filter fabric) that meets AASHTO M28á Class 2 requirement. The area of the sidewalls must be calculat- ed and a 2.foot overlap must be included where two pieces of filter fabric are placed side-by-side or end-to- end. Geotextiles typically come in 15 foot wide rolls. 7) Determine the number of end caps (Ed requlr$d. Each row of chamb~rs requires two end caps. Ec = number of rQWS X 2 " U("" ., ) ..' 16 Call StarmTech at 888.892.2894 or visit our websJte at www.stormtøch.com for 1f'.r.hnir.~1 ;:onrl nrnrlllr-t inf"'m~':~n 0.171 421 0.3f o.r or 1'67 r.8.. Io.ðl 0.21 0.30 0.47 0.6ð 0.71 1.22 1./" O...s 428 O.'u 0.4ð 0.61 0.93 1.67 0.73 O.ðl ----"',' ,'" I' Ir ".w~ 0."2 O.ß 0.68 O.ðl r69 1.22 0.68 O.~ ,O.B.J 1.51 0.66 O.s.. I. "- ,;1.80 0.77 0.7.. 0.62 B II 0.77 0.6ð 0.56 ,.81 I.s.. 0.68 O.s.. 0.56 - '.61 1.05 0.85 0.52 0.5 o.ð9 O.~ Q,4, 0.<'6 ~~ "11 : ~I 42ð l,l,- I '-T"-' 0.29'0.21 -" 0.12 : 0.36 0.29 '0.2:1 j ¡ O'¡' ! 0.58 0.51 0.;1911 0. 8 i --j O.f,Ì-Î j 0.6ð, °.ae' , I;ff-----O;!IO B 0.7:1 h', ! ¡ 0.96 ¡; 1.70 0.76 0.60 0.61 0.77 0.6:J 1- 0.77 ! 1.29 1.25 0.60 0.6ti I." 1.09 ¡'- 0.60 : 0.81 1.02 0.76 O./U " O.tØ ¡0.66 0.80 0.78 0.76 ----- 0.55 ~ 0.68 O.H 0.76 0.69 ,- 0.6ti ,0.89 1.1" 0.77 0.60 0.79 ¡ ,J,51--!:!.9 0.58 0.68 /.12 ¡ I, 7~ n7.T 0.59 0.61 B Ii ---~I -'1' "',0.:17 0.40 ,-:0.46-- -0.65, 1.16 "-4AIi----~" 0.6ð 0.51 0.20 '. J25 0.:1.z! 0."5 0.69 0.80 I.<f6 0.78' \\.:¡o 0.3/ ,,' -- "-'J--'-- - ,- 'h , , , " __0.15 , :,O.Ig 0.29, \ 0.45 , "- ", 0.61 1.09 ,il 0.52 ------------------ 0.6ti 1.01 0.;" ; I I _h--__'__-, h_--, mml,:i, , diWI , , o.r' ! '" L-'-----l -Ii 0.57 '¡q'i,,' : ¡./:; I¡i¡¡i '------- ------ ---.,--- -- 038 -',I",.", ",',__h__"__- - ~lr p ""',,""-' ~ I~~¡;,~¡;~.. '.,-- i¡~- 0.25 0.20 >' -',' POINT BY POINT FOOTCANDLE LEVELS 0.16 ---,,--- " -----, --- _h -"".._--- ---".. - , PLANE: PL1 POINT SPACING LEFT -TO-RIGHT = 10ft POINT SPACING TOP- TO-BOTTOM = 10ft LOWER LEFTHAND CORNER OF PLANE: X = 4857 Y = 4860 Z = 0 UPPER RIGHTHAND CORNER OF PLANE: X = 5016 Y = 4998 Z = 0 UGHT METER IS NORMAL TO PLANE -, I _co!! _--__,I!___--- 'D L ~, I I I' I -I I I, - - h_--" .-. ' AVERAGE fc = .66 MAXIMUM fc = 1.92 MINIMUM fc = .11 AVERAGE/MINIMUM = 6 MAXIMUM/MINIMUM = 17.45 TOTAL NUMBER OF POINTS = 208 PRO.JECT NAME: ST.PAUL LUTHERAN CHURCH lABEL LUMINAlRE DESCRIPTION I MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMENS B 1 / ACORN!I 2A24-F13-RF3-175-MH / ON 15' POLES 14000 -.. -In 1=32' RSZ 2A Acorns ".',:,;,;:,.':;~">~;~~~~~,~~:Ç~~I,~~.,!~~~~,,, "~~J'F:;'~{ , , , , , , . : " , , " ',";'.,,'" 'T", ; '1m I , ,¡i;;::I: ' ; , i, "i 1. Ii :,',',',1" ¡,m '" !' !', i; ,,' ,¡ I" 'T.! ; ;1 ' m j, " !!: ¡ j' i; i,i, ' , ' ; , , "i , ; Features " ¡ , , mi : i' ! ' , , , ' , , , , ; , The housing / lens holder ring shall be made of ASTM 356.2 virgin ingot aluminum and shall be cast in remanent molds for greater strength, urûfonnity and sharper detail. It shall mount to a p()st top or bracket by means of a 3" J.D. Slip fitter hub secured by three stainless steel set screws. ¡ ," . ! ..;, ":j..¡.I¡m:r¡' : 1t ','¡m¡-', ; "i"',i ,; ,:'t( " ¡¡:,'U":,',""i:',',.,,',",',','" t' "~,I!: , '!.1"--;- " 11", ";; ,: ,;:i' ',j , , ; ii! ,i+ J.. ,¡" ';m;, , ; "J', ;,;L:! . i 'j-- ,; m , ;[: .L: ' The teardrop shape of this Jul11inare is one of the fibst creative and effective lighting solutions for , hbtels, shÇ!ppil1g(;,~~teW. paI'Jq",.r@~i4<1n...c.t)s,; Ül'livetsitiesärid other þÙblicåcêêšš þÎ'ójéetš. ", The optional spiral banding enhances its basic " classic design. " . ,; ',' ""'T ""m, ! ' I ,; i, 'I ",',1,;"'"','":",,,,,,.,:".,',."',:,:,,," , ' -(I-[,:j1,', : i H'! ..¡.-";,,,,: ", ;' : ¡ Dimensions: Phrt Number AiFxx2A 18 ALFxx2A21 ALFxx2A24 Width II" 13" 15" Height 18" 21" 24" E.P.A 1.10 1.20 1.40 The optical assembly shall be a borosilicate glass refractor with symmetrical or asym- rnetricallight distribution. Options shaH include upper reflectors, louvers, or refractive lens. , ' ','Th~'en(!l()s...re$þall;'be;,'a'poly()arbpn:aJe Or ' acrylic clear textured, refractive or white finish With an amphorae (acorn) shape and optional tWist-lock lamp access. The baIJast assembly shall be unitized and Ü'ltegrally mounted to a cast aluminum tray. The elçctrical component is a high power factor CWA designed to operate up to a 250 watt HID, medium or mogul base lamp (by others) at -20 d;egrees F. All mounting fasteners and brackets shaH be stainless steelfnonferrous for future serviceability. J'¡~) " ,;~j ";:'"",,}!! " :' 'Ie.' /' " "', The finish shall be a thennoset polyester power coating applied over a sandblasted surface with a~ 8 stage immersion chromate conversion and pretreatment process. "'" , ,.' The luminaire shall be ETL and CSA listed and suitable for wet location. Note: xx indicGtes{ztter selection , , ,; Shown with Centennial A Post BEACON PRODUCTS INC . 6503 191H STREET EAST. SARASOTA, FL 34243 . PH 941-755-6694 . FAX 941-751-5535 ~PFrrF(' ATfONS Sf )RJRrfTO CHANfòE WITHOUT NOTICE. VL" J 2A , Drr~,i' iH!,:,I; : r-" "\ u 'hi .--\ ". fj Qpti~(11.0ptions! 0 (RF5) Type V Borosilicate Glass Refractor* ~ ¡:¡f. ~iJJJ- 0 (RF3) Type III Borosilicate Glass Refractor* ~ II :;.;: ¡: H it ] ,-i.fi: i ' t;:(FZl) , ~ ::~::)::::t~::::~::~~ 180' ~ II~,','-;;.,ih,-.;::,~ti,b,,~~,:_i}~-" [i,~':~,!,¡",'" ~¡;;- ~ i: :2A'lB. '-" "H,18';'N/A' ,r--"'----'\ f::;.,._,.,.,'.".¡I,_'"-,',,.:.,._.~,.,2,_,_.",,:...-~,:'.,.','".,',:::','"2,4!,',__',,.à,,-"-~.,,,,', :-i-'..',,'_IT,",1- ,,3_5_:_J::--:r,~I,I~¡.:i:..: i8" !H -, LC'i"!¡~l; .. 2A24 only, rl Fitter Options '~- -----", I. ~! ~,wl) !- 0 F12-2A18 0 F5-2A21 0 F13-2A21 I.."',:,: '. Height = 6.75" Heigh' = 5.50" 0 F13-2A24 L ~ - ! Height = 7.5!)" l' H I i'l i I: !.. Ordering Guide (Checkllppropriateselections) Lens Option~ 0 (ACT) Acrylic Clear Texture 0 (PCT) Polycarbonate Clear Texture 0 (PWT) PoJycarbonate Texture White* 0 (AF3) AClyljc Refractive Type III** 0 (AF5) Acrylic Refractive Type V** 0 Other *Recommended with fluorescent lamps Note: **2A24 ollly Light Source Options D2A18 D2A21 D2A24 0 70MB N/A D D 0 1O0MH N/A D D 0 150MH N/A D D 0 175MH N/A D D 0250MH N/A N/A G 070BPS NIA D D 0 lOOHPS N/A D D 0 150HPS N/A D D 0250HPS N/A N/A G 0 INC D D D 0 PL26W G24q-3 G24q-3 G24q-3 0 Other D=Mediultl base lamp. G=Mogul base lamp NIA=Not Available Voltage Options 0120 0208 0240 0277 0 *480 0120/277 0 *QUAD wired at 0 Other *Some wattage I voltage combinations may not lIe available, plea.~e collsultjåctOlY. Notes: 0 (UPR) Uplight Pan Reflector** 0 Other Note: * 2A21 & 2A24 only Electrical Options 0 (FS I) Fused (Single, in pole, 120 or 277 voltage) 0 (FS2) Fused (Double, in pole, all other voltage) 0 (QD) Quick Disconnect 0 (PEe) Photoelectric Control (SpecifY voltage) Finish Options Standard selections are lightly textured satin finishes. See data section jòr jìnishing specifications. 0 (WHT) White 0 (BLK) Black 0 (BRZ) Bronze 0 (VER) Verona 0 (GRE) Green 0 (ORA) Gray 0 Other Premium 0 Custom Color (Color chip required) Style Options fe, V"i" \ A i~::: ':;;:~ 0 <liB) B,"" Bm'd',_t t') Å 0 (FBB) Finial & Brass Band ~¡).', A 0 (FDB) Finial I Dome & Brass Band \ ./ Example:F22-2A21/ PCT /100MH120-D / HSS90 / FS1/ BKT / (I{applicable) Filtel,J Le;;;J SollrceJV-;;;J \"SockeA,Optic--;;¡ï:ElectricaA-FinÍ-l'h \...Style Part No: / / / / / Specifier Name: Specifier Signature: (ptcase P,.Ì/¡I) Date: 2A Acorns ;",.":~~j:'È;',:!:~,~:,~1;3.)~,),i, ~I,;~gi, .~,:"Q. .:O.~U,7 ~~t,,:~9,~1,'.~~,!r,',~;~,'~~.',~.: :~.~:~.:~- II:] II : i ! 'Jii i !: ,,', i; ; ,- , , ' .. ; , " :' ¿.:;:.::;:,;;;.=:-=i !-----, ~ t~ 0 F21-2A21 , 0 F21-2A24 Heighl = 10.00" '- ",¡:;.~-=:? ~~~1. , )vl ~~ 0 F22-2A21 0 F22-2A24 He(~J" = 8.25" ß¡\lJast Door Inn-- "1 'UJt" r I LJ 0 F29-2A21 .¡ ¡ 0 F29-2A24¡ Height = 700" Ii , Ii ¡, Ba!las! Door & :.1 Twist Lock I..; ~?~~~~~ i ¡ CJQ !: - i! 0 F46-2A24¡ Height = 12.75" ) i ¡ I [I , ;~'I 0 F1t:2i~4 ", Heighl=/8.(}O" , 0 F45-2A24 Height = / i.50" Pc ftl f¡ (---'¡ Ii U \._../ ¡ ~, ,--_Ar--_- ~,. I -..n1 I ~D ,,' --~ ~I. Wall Mount Twin Post Mount ¡ r: (S~I~:-~!:!:.~-:~6J). (Shown with A~-562~HI, . ,; ." " ' , , , " ,,' "",. rð ¡ I 'e'7 r,'-,!Ib~~i. Li ,-- , , 'fJ!_~ j"~ : -" VL-/2B BEACON PRODUCTS INC. 650319111 STREET EAST. SARASOTA, FL 34243 . PH 941-755-6694 . FAX 941-751-5535 SPECIFICATIONS SUßJECTTO CHANGE WJTIIOUTNOTICE. c:: ò.O on OJ 'U ... 0 ... OJ ç; ~ . ò.O ç; ... II) II) ç; ò.O ç; II) II) ... ;3 u II) ,.ç; u ... ~ MEMO GOSS/PASMA ARCHITECTS !:I 1601 Sherman Av.nu. J>.nlJ.ous. SUit. (.vanslon, illinois 60\101 ph. 847.475.1250 ix. 847.475.1290 Date: 08.April. 2005 To: Community Development Department -Planning Division Re: Saint Paul Lutheran Church Issue: Proposed Project Narrative Saint Paul Lutheran Church has long had a need for two critical improvements to its facilities: a multi-purpose Fellowship Hall and expanded parking next to the church. This need has only grown larger as a result of two major changes taking place in our church. First, our congregation's renewed emphasis on small-group bible studies, community outreach, and mission work has increased the use of the church facilities beyond the traditional Sunday morning activity. The net result has been an increase in our use of the church facilities during non-peak hours on weekdays and evenings. However, the types of activities taking place do not require the use of the Sanctuary, but rather meeting rooms and gathering places. This has also severely limited our ability to accommodate the many requests we receive from community groups to use our facilities because of the lack of proper meeting rooms. The second significant trend we are experiencing is a split in our membership demographics, having both older long-time members and new families with small children. Accommodating the needs of these diverse groups requires additional parking immediately adjacent to the church. In light of these needs, it is sadly ironic that we are being forced to ask the Village for a zoning variance for fewer parking spaces. In an ideal world, we would be adding as much parking as we could. Unfortunately, our location within a mature residential neighborhood, with its rapidly rising home values and infrequent home sales, makes this unfeasible. Therefore, the revised proposal before the Zoning Board will increase our church parking to 51 from the current 30 spaces is a significant accomplishment for us. These new 21 parking spaces are in addition to the 60 spaces that already exist at our school. In a<iditioll to the a<i<ied parking spaces, we are redesigning the traffic flow inside the parking lot to ensure that it empties southbound on Sunday mornings. This will integrate with the special traffic ordinances the Village has established for the two blocks on School Street in front of the church and school. Furthermore, ample street parking exists during peak usage on Sunday mornings, since Owen Park across the street from the church is empty at that time of day. MEMO We would be remiss if we did not point out that the community already benefits from our church parking lot, as it is the de facto public parking lot for Owen Park during every baseball game played there. Frankly, this has created problems at times, as our members are often forced to park blocks away when they arrive for evening services or events. We have resisted repeated calls from some of our members to close our church parking lot during these times, as other churches in the area do on a regular basis. We do not believe that is an appropriate response to a community that prides itself on friendliness and that is so supportive of its local churches. Given the challenges of our situation, the immediate benefit to the community and our best efforts to meet all of the Villages many requirements, we respectfully ask that the Village grant a variance on it's parking requirements and set backs for the building proposal under consideration. Sincerely, Gregory 0 'Brien, Chairman St. Paul Lutheran Church and School Hours 8:00 :ïõ:õõ 10:00 - 12:00 12:00 - 2:00 2:00.4:00 4:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 7:00 7:00 - 9:00 Monday Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg Total Tuesdav Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study -- Ministry Mtg 10 Total 45 Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study -- MinistryMtg 5S Total Sanctuary - Fellowship Hall lO Staff Bible Study ---=-- Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study -- Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff - Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff 10 Bible Study Q Ministry Mtg 2S Total Saint Paul Lutheran Church Normal Facility Usage Currrent Wednesday Sam;tuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff 15 Bible Study ----'- Ministry Mtg 2S Total 30 Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study -- Ministry Mtg 40 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff 25 Bible Study Q Ministry Mtg 40 Total Thursday - Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff 30 Bible Study - MinistryMtg 40' Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall ]0 Staff Bible Study -- Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg Total 15 Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff 15 Bible Study Q Ministry Mtg 4S Total Friday Sanctuary - . Fellowship Hall 10 Staff - Bible Study -- MinistryMtg 10 Total 45 Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study -- Ministry Mtg SS Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall ]0 Staff - Bible Study -- MinistryMtg 10 Total - Sanctuary Fellowship Hall ] 0 Staff Bible Study -- MinistryMtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Han 10 Staff Bible Study -_Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff' Bible Study Ministry Mtg - Total - Sanctuary - Fellowship Hall Staff 10 Bible Study Q Ministry Mtg 2S Total SatUrday Sanctuary - Fellowship Hall 10 Staff' Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary .' Fellowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study - MinistryMtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff' Bible Study ---=-- Ministry Mtg - Total . Sanctuary . Fellowship Hall Staff' . Bible Study - Ministry Mtg Total - - - - - - - . Hours Sunday 8:00 - 9:30 Sanctuary ] 20 Fellowship Hall - Bible Study --=- Total 120 9:30 - 11:00 Sanctuary 300 Fellowship Hall - Bible Study -1Q Total 320 11:00 - 12:00 Sanctuary 100 Fellowship Hall - Bible Study --=- Total 100 12:00 - 6:00 Sanctuary - Fellowship Hall Bible Study --=- Total - 6:00 - 9:00 Sanctuary - Fel1owship Hall - Bible Study 25 Total 2S - - - - - 30 - - - - 30 - - - - - - 75 - - - - 7S - - - - - - 100 - - - - 100 - . - - - - Notes: Funerals can occur on any day, typically in the morning on Monday through Saturday. There are typically 1-2 funeral services held per week and 3 weddings per month. Hours 8;00 - 10:00 10:00 - 12:00 12:00 - 2:00 2:00 - 4:00 4:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 7:00 7:00 - 9:00 Mon~y Sanctuary FelJowship HaJl Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg Total Sanctuary Fel1owship HaJl Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg Total Sanctuary Fel1owship HalJ S taft' Bible Study Ministry Mtg Total Sanctuary Fellowship HaJl Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg Total Sanctuary FelJowship Hall Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Staff Bihle Study Ministry Mtg Total Tuesday Sanctuary FelIowship HalI 10 Staff - Bible Study -- Ministry Mtg 10 Total 45 Sanctuary - Fellowship HalJ 10 Staff - Bible Study -- Ministry Mtg 55 Total Sanctuary FeJJowship HaJJ 10 Staff Bible Study -- MinistryMtg 10 Total Sanctuary FelJowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total - Sanctuary FeJJowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study -- Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fel1owship HaJJ Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg - Total Sanctuary FeJJowship HalJ Staff 30 Bible Study l1 Ministry Mtg 45 Total Wednesda! Sanctuary FeJJowship Han 10 Staff 15 Bible Study --- Ministry Mtg 25 Total 30 Sanctuary Fel1owship HalJ 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 40 Total Sanctuary 25 Fel1owship HaJJ 10 Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg ~I Total - Sanctuary FelJowship Hal] 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary FelJowship HalJ 10 Staff Bib]e Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Tota] Sanctuary FelJowship Han Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg - Total - Sanctuary FelIowship HalJ Staff 35 Bible Study l1 Ministry Mtg 50 Total Saint Paul Lutheran Church Normal Facility Usage Proposed Thursday Sanctuary Fel1owship HalJ 10 Staff 30 Bible Study -- Ministry Mtg 40 Total Sanctuary Fenowship HalJ 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary FelJowship Han 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fenowship HalJ 10 Staff Bible Study -- MinistryMtg 10 Total Sanctuary FelJowship HaJl 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary FelJowship Hal1 S taff Bible Study Ministry Mtg - Total 15 Sanctuary FelJowship HalJ Staff 30 Bible Study ~ Ministry Mtg 60 Total Friday Sanctuary - Fellowship Hall 10, Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total 45 Sanctuary Fellowship HalJ 10 Staff Bible Study -- Ministry Mtg 55 Total Sanctuary 25 Fel1owship Hal1 10 Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg ~I Total - Sanctuary FelJowship Hal1 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship HalJ ]0 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fel1owship Hall Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg - Total - Sanctuary - Fe1lowship HaJJ Staff 30 Bible Study ~ Ministry Mtg 4S Total Saturday - Sanctuary Fe1lowship HaJJ JO Staff - Bible Study - Ministry'Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary FeJJowship HaJl 10 Staff Bible ~tudy -- MinistryMtg 10 Total Sanctuary FeJJowship Hall 10 Staff Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total - Sanctuary - Fellowship HaJl 10 Staff - Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total - Sanctuary - Fellowship HaJJ 10 Staff - Bible Study - Ministry Mtg 10 Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall - Staff Bible Study Ministry Mtg - Total Sanctuary 50 FeJJowship Hall - Staff - Bible Study -- Ministry Mtg 50 Total - - - - - - - - Hours 8:00 - 9:30 -- Sunday Sanctuary FeJJowship HaJJ Bible Study Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Bible Study Total Sanctuary FeJJowship Hall Bible Study Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Bible Study Total Sanctuary Fellowship Hall Bible Study Total 120 - - - 120 300 - 20 320 100 30 - - 130 - 30 - 30 20 25 45 - - - - 9:30 - 11:00 Notes: Funerals can occur on any day, typically in the morning on Monday through Saturday. There are typically 1-2 funeral services held per week and 3 weddings per month. - 30 ,- - 11:00 - 12:00 - - 30 - 12:00 - 6:00 25 - - 6:00 - 9:00 25 75 25 - - - 100 - - - - - - 100 - - - - 100 - 75 - - - 7S Saint Paul Lutheran Church Normal Facility Usage Current Facility. Monday Tuesday Wednesday. Thursday Friday Saturday Suuday 8:90 - 10:00 10 25 40 10 10 - 8:00 - 9:30 120 10:00 - 12:00 55 40 10 55 10 30 9:30 - 11 :00 320 12:00 - 2:00 10 10 10 10 10 - 11 :00 - 12:00 100 2:00 - 4:00. 10 . 10 10 10 10 75 12:00 - 6:00 - 4:00 - 6:00 10 10 10 10 10 - 6:00 - 9:00 25 6:00 - 7:00 - - - - - 100 7:00 - 9:00 25 40 45 25 - Proposed Facility Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 8:00 - 10:00 10 25 40 10 10 - 8:00 - 9:30 120 10:00 - 12:00 55 40 10 55 10 30 9:30 - 11:00 320 12:00 -2:00 10 35 10 35 10 25 11 :00 - 12:00 130, 2:00 - 4:00 10 10 10 10 10 100. 12:00 - 6:00 30 4:00 - 6:00 10 10 10 10 10 - 6:00 - 9:00 45 6:00 - 7:00 - - - - - 100' 7:00 - 9:00 45 50 60. 45 50 75, Net Change in Use Monday Tuesdav Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday S 'Il-»IDrï 8:00 - 10:00 - - - - - - 8:00 - 9:30 10:00 - 12:00 - - - - - - 9:30 - 11:00 12:00 - 2:00 - 25 - 25 - 25 11:00 - 12:00 30 2:00 - 4:00 - - - - - 25 12:00 -6:00 30 4:00 - 6:00 - - - - - - 6:00 - 9:00 20 6:00 - 7:00 - - - - - - 7:00 - 9:00 20 10 15 20 50 75 Notes: Funerals can occur on any day, typically in the morning on Monday through Saturday. There are typically 1-2 funeral services held per week and 3 weddings per month. Peak usage is the reus It of Worship services in the Sanctuary, which include a high perentage of families. This pattern increases the number of multi-passenger vehicles and reduces the need for parking spaces. . Preliminary Zoning Analysis/Church - Existing Condition Zoning District: Uses: Minimum Lot Area: Yard Requirements: lot Coverage: RA. Single Family Residential Church - Permitted in Limited Circumstances School - Permitted in Limited Circumstances Daycore - Permitted Use Parking Lot - OK Minimum Lot Areo = 6,000 sf Existing Lot Area = 51.591 sf = 1.18 acres ,'~~-"-,~ "'>~""-'v"-.;r"'" ,,-'"-'," --0""','-" Front Yard = 30 ft - Actual 19,92'(Pre EÑting. Nan-Can/arming)' Interior Side Yord = 10ft - Actual 10,01' (Pre EÑing) Exterior Side Yard = 20 ft - Acl1.I4l 19,88'(Pre EÑUng) Rear Yord = Equal to Height of Principal Building, Not < 25' ; - Actual 9,91' (Pre E:risUng, Nan-Can/arming) r' ",' ,",,', -"'-"~ Total Impervious Surfaces not to Exceed 75% of Lot Area 51,588 x ,75 = 38,691 sf Max. Existing Church Building Footprint = 10,780 sf Existing House Building Footprint & Shed = 2,853 sf Existing Parking lot = 13,809 sf Existing Paved Areas = 2,032 sf Tatal Existing Impervious Surfaces = 29,474 sf = 57,1% Available Impervious Expansion = 9,217 sf Height Restrictions: Z8:,3~r~~ ~ /-Exišting Church Building Mean Height = 26'-0" l " Existing Church Building Top of Ridge = 41'-0" ! ",""" ,~-^-,J Off Street Parking: Church = 1 Space per 3 People in Sanctuary 1 Person Per 20" of Pew = 630 People = 211 Spaces Req'd Daycare = 1 Space per Employee = 4 1 Space for each 10 Licensed Capacity = 4 Total Parking Required = 219 Existing Parking Provided (On-Site) = 32 Existing Parking Required (Off-Site) = 58 Total Existing Parking Provided = 90 Parking Space Size = 9'x18' Off Street Loading: landscape Requirements: No Requirement Per Article XXIII Preliminary Zoning Analysis/Church - Proposed Site Plan Zoning District: Uses: Minimum Lot Area: Yard Requirements: lot Coverage: Height Restrictions: Off Street Parking: Off Street Loading: landscape Requirements: RA, Single Family Residential Church - Permitted in Limited Circumstances School - Permitted in Limited Circumstances Daycare - Permitted Use Parking lot - OK Minimum Lot Area = 6,000 sf Proposed lot Area = 59,446 sf = 1,36 acres Buildings: Front Yard = 30 ft Interior Side Yard = 10ft Exterior Side Yard = 20 ft* Rear Yard = Equal to Height Parking: Not Less Than 10' Tatal Impervious Surfaces not to Exceed 75% of Lot Area 59,446 x ,75 = 44,584 sf Max. of Principal Building, Not < 25' Existing Church Building Faotprint = 10,780 sf Proposed Church Addition = 8,175 sf Proposed Parking lot = 15,530 sf Proposed Paved Areas = 4,771 sf Total Existing & Proposed Impervious Surfaces = Available Impervious Expansion = 5,328 sf 28' Qr 2-Stories " ,-Existing thurchBuilding Mean Height = 26'-0"', ; Proposed Church Addition Mean Height = 27'-0" , Propose~ ~hu~ch Addition Top _of ,Rid.ge =36' -O':r Church = 1 Space per 3 People in Sanctuary 1 Person Per 20" of Pew = 630 People = 211 Spaces Req'd Daycare = 1 Space per Employee = 4 1 Space for each 10 Licensed Capacity = 4 Proposed Church Addition = No Requirement/Accessory Use Total Parking Required = 219* 39,256sf = 66.04% Proposed Parking Provided (On-Site) = 51 Existing Parking Provided (Off-Site) = 58 Parking Space Size = 9'x18' Total Existing/Proposed Parking Provided = 113* No Requirement Per Article XXIII GOSSIP ASMA ARCHITECTS 1601 Sherman Ave. Ev""IOI\ IIllno', 60201 Tel,841.-415.12.50 Fax. 841,415.12S0 A1.1 REVISION St. Paul Lutheran Church PROPOSED ADDITION & AL TERA TION FOR: ST. PAUL LUTHERAN CHURCH 100 South School Street Mount Prospect, Illinois A~Ç':l!I.EÇI Goss Pasma Architects . ".,"'....^~ h.~,oo."',oo"""", """"'" TABLE OF CONTENTS i'-'----~o: TI~~~-S~~~~'-----"-- I PLAT OF SURVEY I AU: SITE AND FLOOR PLAN I A3.1: ELEVATIONS 'I A3.2: ELEVATIONS CI: SITE DEMOLITION PLAN I C2: GEOMETRY AND PAVEMENT PLAN !I C3: STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT PLAN TSI: TREE SURVEY PLAN I LSI: LANDSCAPE PLAN -- _O'~ --.... ....~ ~'I tJ ~I UI z 8 IX: f2 l- e z . GOSSIPASMA ARCH',n'"s . """""" . c: -l . II f ~ ! 5 £ III I =:; IJ' . iÓ ¡ It ~ ., r-~o ..., -----0 -----0 ----0 ~ , ;> <¡> e I e I ~ e I 0 , _H__--0 -----0 I ~ r!i Ii ! ..... " I! ¡! I ¡ i ~ I ¡ . ~ I I I ; ì I I --J I -.--J i,i," ¡i. fif r H j iI, j II ¡ í !ì!ì ¡eu !H; Ilifil ¡! !:;!¡f !! HI1j ¡!!;s¡¡f!!ï!¡¡!¡lr/.fs!¡I¡I¡f¡¡;¡¡;i/!ì I. ¡ f:." II ¡f"l ! /,;:' .: ,,' j;-'""-¡,-:-!~I':¡¡li'-1 'V. " '¡'j" -¡'» 1"'1 " ¡ H IL~' if! ¡ ;:!; ¡ ì : I' - . " t' ¡\ ¡:. .¡ i - t It , ,II!"O .' ¡ , , Î::"; ;, ¡ - ! I" ! i' ! H'¡ ;; ¡¡¡ , ... 'z ~. CI °. .. ::; m ." ç; Z I g I x ¡ II Q õ j2 I I ~. ~ Ii I '" I ~ i ::J -----1- : I ~ -- 30N3^V i ! -..- 3ssns ED ~ :¡¡ q¡ .0 - '" ¡; m '0 .. ::; m ." ¡; Z ED - -«> II ~. L; --- I' 1 . I; I: r-- II II : 1._- -0 LL.....9 -ll I" "I if -i i, i f ¡ J IL,m. f_,L: if! ml,fI i-! ~m J; !!I~i I. i! !m in ¡¡¡ ¡1Im;1 ~!!~:;' ;;- tir¡f'!llif ¡¡"I;¡ t~~~::v¡¡¡J , : I It,. ,..1!'" ,. ",[ ¡,h. iri:' ¡¡!in ¡:k:! ¡p ;¡¡I.~'I!,;',""';!'¡'!!I~I'lr" ., '.or.. " f, ¡,¡;¡' ' !fJ'~":'i"m! I :; .' ;!' ; Hili i ' Ii; i _._.~_._- ~8 n= "h . 3~ ~'if .11, "'= ".1 n~ ""go, ~ ¡¡~_r 8i:HF: 00 St. Paul Lutheran Church ';".~:::.'::. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION n I~ . ii Hi I" ¡ "-'---------. [Ð ~ ~.~ .¡~ "~- " .. ~.~ '\>;:;';.'~:.~¡~. ~...- .rj ; ., ~ w ~ ~ - m . 01 .... : m . Iñ ~ õ z i f- I + -J. ,:~ (i.I~ "I ~ 0 ' -"~ "'-"! ~Ii ~¡Hi ~ a ~i g" i : § ! i ..",~,.~..,,~.~.~ St. Paul Lutheran Church "H un . 'œ'.~_'- ~ ..->.,,- a ?1~ 'l~ ii ~I' ~i'- ~o I ! , , , , , ------ - -- ~ - --- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'm ë ... , m ~ Õ z i I --t I i i ii, ¡ I I Ii -- Fl. 11 m- ~ - -. -: I lþ~,~d t ':~;,:~:;:¡L_.....J , --~----.,¡ >C) ~O ~u:> -u:> :;~ ~> J~ v.> In I ii . Ii ¡ I i NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION It ~ II N . i ¡ ! . 2 N ~ ê ~ Š - z , G1 '" m (') .... õ z ~ ~ . -_.~.....-..., SI. Paullutheran Church ,..-- .._-,.<- ! I i/ì ~j - _-! ..h ~;n m¡ . .~ ¡ ~! i ~j ~ ~ , I -- -~- ~i~ ~iì 'I o,~~ ~8 11m i!~ ~> ~<n ~:s:: ~> NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION a .- i~ .1 J ~I~ t~ ~I~ ~I II E ;1 ~ I I , EJ: n' ...a. '1J :JJ m r s: Z » :JJ -< I 'i il 'It :i~ :I~ :¡~ :¡ 'I ~ ~ ~ +~ -----~I _J x ~IS . . ~ i ~ ~ -- . ~ . ! ~ § , ~ ! 1 i ~ _........"n.._.", St. Paul Lutheran Church '..._,.... .,-,,- (j) 0 C -j :r ';.:'¡'~'h",":':!':":\_,--,-- ,~ iir------------------¡ :u l:: : :' : ~ ~ , 'I ' :[1 [J~--------~~ I' 0 ,0 ,,' C)' "'~,::::,,--J-.li'f'"> I ¡,10~,;, i --,j -,',',",":,,:,','-,'~" ",.i-,;"',~~--o, c:':-'~,~i [' ;." ~,,- ~t(JL--""""~~:~2~~~?;;:¡)5~J 0 'r:.' " ::~ ~'I o~, ""':"','~'~',;" 'J I - - - ¡n° :'~I--2«:~)-.)'~(~;;:>:¿j ..1- ",C)' "J.,,~---,-,,-,;;.;......;--,,----~';i.,.<.,)f- It, :~hr~I--,--,----~~-,~;:':-ti<./'~ :1: ° I IL. -- - "~'-l,," 1,/ ," v , ~ ,~ : III,," "6ò:,"",,",'!1 , ',' '" ~, "II f,¡ "", :;",',' :",1 0 / I I ",' ::0;'-3' ~~""":{"'-'-"'---ë~ I I :~i ~:I ~: f';/',>; I :,:';,":,/,'j ~"~-; I ,...- - - "'_+~ ° ¡iL~:,;,~-::"~,,,,"'~<'>1 ¡","" <b ¡ I ~~1 ~'~~~ ~~'~:;~:~:~;~{'~1:~~~;;~~,(:~j:;;G:;:";'(~~~~~~~f~t¡: _oil -~ ;'o~- '<"~"'<-"">""'^"""^""'d'>"^V,.. . H,:(.;:,~Ç(,'"'"',',""",-""",,,,,:,"",,",',',',"""","',""."°1 ~~;'!-';/;«"';<.>~~,:'~"'/;',.,:/;/:ç</,<.,~(/~;..;~:;~~ 1 ~;~',);~( ,;,',:? ,".:: \{:,'~;(~'~< ;:ç,::":(',..,'.ç'(^';;(,'~,)(,~,;,1:':',t:,, ~~;= n~r~~:~;5'::5~~:¿':,~e;¿:~1'}7:~¿y:~;~(¥;>/">::::::nf:', ì ¡ . >\~~::":v~',,v ,,','n,' <"W y, v;:.-", ¡:~~. I : ~ ~f1i~l;~~~è~}:!~~~~~t;¿~~l~v~yl~1rf: lt~ i, ~ }~, :f '~'l.¿, , ,;-'1: fc.~',,-: .<;' , 'J"'~ " ~, /'v'" Pi 'r" , , \'1-"" :r""""',/'~""V"'" 1>,"'"""-""- ! i r~ ~\\ /~.~"~;YO ~ ì ~:,,~;---;-,<" I' ;1 ',' I ,~, "-"c,j'-",,, ,j, ',1,'., :, ¡ ,'H" LJ "/ -"",,10'-(" ~ ì i,l' , :-"ty "'~!~ ¡',Il:¡ ~ ~ l'~ 1¡; , ""'. .' ~IJ,,'¡ ¡ lion lli:~ :'l..II~"-:'"~""~ it I ~ ':.!...- "t ¡ ,I, :""" I" I I k--, ¡ f! ,1"',Ô,,',J,f,'.:,.',,-,~~~L..,"" '~'. " '~¡,.' ",',:',','!, f':":": ih!l ,,' .!' Ft1 [~' ~! ~~~:+~~~J~=-,:~'"'-"" 0 (j) () :r 0 0 r -- "" ","""" (' I, i Ii - -,--- -'-., ---..------.------. -~--- ------ ;,I~: ~'g 1I~ o,f§ ÜH m¡ . >C':> :;0 i".en -en ~~ ~v:I Q:s: :i> .~""'=II8f:- ENGINEERING INC- LISLE, ILLINOIS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 H ~ i~ . I i ¡ '"U :JJ m r ~ Z » :JJ -< EJ ¡I~ I ~ I, I ' , o. ; N ,i Ii ¡ ¡ i§ " i~ !~ ¡" Ii r ) -? 1'\.' I I I r I ;,I~: ~~ll; . ! >Q ~O M/J ~vo =::a ::> .'cn 3::;:: ~> ENGINEERING INÇ, LISLE. ILLINO'S NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION """'.._..mM~"" i 2?);'i{ifC¿;¿]ßi~Tf~~ St. Paullutheran Church ,- c;,~ mr. ';"~,';;;. 0 In '~ ¡;¥! ¡ ~; ¡ \J ::D m r š::: Z » ::D -< EJ ~ Ii ! I = (') I ~ w ¡ , I' ¡ ¡ ~ 81 ~. §., ! I '8 ~~ ~ 8~ 8~ ~ §. §~ ~ ~~ ~: ~ !I~ ~~ § =~ :" ~ ~ ~. * Q Q ; ø ~ ~ i I ~,=--=J ---.,~ ! ,I , " . ~ ....."u--..,"~-"'" St. Paul Lutheran Church ~œ.:.::::::=. ~ _.,-------------- r Î;r---------------~i i~--~-~L I ~ ¡~ 1"1 \ ~ I, t I I I~ 'i:-- lr~ \ ~ (,' ' 1,1, I~i,- !í: ""'l II ¡ I I, ,- : - ---- -- : I i I ¡ I ii - - ~ ¡' ~ 8 : I ¡ I'l L- ! I ¡ Ib 'i i ~:- Iw~1 " Ii' IHi, Jn~ !: i ~iJ lJ ! 11- lrl~- rl' III')! I ' I ïi- LJ: -: I I :Iij ,'~--II i ¡( l t ' I' ': ' I, : i L ,Q ..:U.l__- --'-' ~ç;;:~ ~,;,~~Ll~__- ~ I' ~ II ! , , ,I I i 'I i,o i~ !~ i~ em.-- 11'.'1 I ,." ""'NO' &!~: 0 , ;m ~m . )C') ~O nen -en =::a :b.. "'en ~:s:: ~> Ii 'I ~! ¡i i ~ ii r j:~t:'iiJD@U.~[J ENGINE:ERING 'NC, LIseE. ILLINOIS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION . h ~y! 10, ,i , h ¡¡ -. i I -~~'ro.':' I - !~:i! ~ .~ f I 1';,~ ~ ¿:;:- ¡ c::~. :: /- !¡!I~t .¡ i I I I' II VJ ~ ¡ii ~§ ~ 1'1 I I ~,..,- 1'£VJb , 'I 'U g.;. II ! I, Ji ê. 5 I ; Ii §~" II I' g ¡¡ 9 =~=~~~ ~ II i !HH (Hl"~ I i;:~2~~ ~ I~; ~~ "~ uurl I~ - " 0 .. ~ g;; i~ '~.' ~ ~ ~ ~'I' ~H~J li~~~~ 10 ~. ::..- I" i!. ~ , 'I I[ fH 8!)l~ ~I I~ ~. ~. ~ ~ I "- S-~" ~ 12.ä.{ ~¡;¡ In~~~ j",. . ~ 3, ~.~H~I ~-3.' ið ã~ U' - . ~" I~ ¡¡ o~i . '" VJ n :r 0 Q. VJ ::; ('¡ !l \ i Ii i~ r (~1 , , iì I 11\ I¿J 'i 11 ivt~1-- '--~ I~ I,I II ' , ~j-T~ ¡ '~,~~r-~~---=- !Ii I'I ¡-- ,I I' ~ III 'I' ! 'Iii ,I I Iii 1:1 ¡ trt,j: ¡- (Ii I- ))1 I ?bl ; ,i, I I' -I~I' ,,(.--N Ii ii! : 1 iN"1 :-'/I~'¡I: '.! '" ! I ':1 I I I I" 'I' i j:¡¡iU 111..i. .1 I'.! ~~,:WU~ ;1:1, i ~I l :.,Þ=n.:' C:\ -",,' ; ~-i :I! ".,j ,,_J - ,: I ;\" ( I \ ,----j \1'.' i' I J., . ",~-,-- ': I ,. "-+,Y!L .. Ii: " , @~';:Lt=~~~~~ "", \ ~g:~:;' §¡d~ g"Pll ./ "', ~\ .. ) ,-::--/ ---- -'j :) Oû r .80-00 : > - I I ¡!!!I - m :~; EH { ~ i~ II r r~ H :; >... m~ nr l" ('¡ ()Q ('¡ ::s Q. [Ð11¡i en'; I \; ..4 , ¡ ! ~ œ . ~ ; -, m ,m ~ (/ . c: '" < m .. ... r- Þ Z i~ '1¡---------------------'----¡ 'w ,I - .""' -. \'-. 1-- ¡~IIII Ii: :H1 ~~ I~,' .¡~i,' :~~ O!'l";! '~~gO""'¡¡' lï,1 II: ,¡~ ¡~,>--¡:,~ 't¡ IJ ',';:;; . '¡y-!--;, §~ìl' il'".!-----,1C------------------<::r;J---~ !'-,~, ',,-~:- b!frn n 1 ¿ i I -- '~ ~~þ I :i 0j-J ~E;~ I ¡ni~ ! r-:-,~ ~~- -- ¡~ I' ll- "'--=---=1 if! h n~ ,I lì: ,." :îf I r--1" 'i ~ 'I 1,1' ,'-l /0 'I' 1+,"- -- -- ! i liU ¡'O Iii ~~, ~J¡i ,-,~ ¡8il~~.' J'" ~.tj0i 'i, ¡'I,'~ I,il",di II,(--U B)!:r'L,':",~.~,i,---,-,'- ,~:I LH 0-'-" i ¡ u~ ,~, I¡~, ï~ ~hf---1 ~_~~___d .', ---+h[¡g,¡:-, ¡<'i 1'- i I: ¡~: I~" I:; '~-!o .! HI It Ji~- -- '~,-I!i ,.. !~¡i~!~~;' 1,,-: 1'1' ~:*,_'::._--- I' , I ól I' -,.,.~- Ii :!: g' : ,I < ::. I,Vi Ii .~ 1 nl ¡ , ',', ',,- ô¡'" I' !, : I; ,-- -- Wl I i! !~ I,' i <-I 1"-- ; * -.! < ",I ~:-~I,¡"..,bLJ-j,',1 ~I'lli ii!~~~ r~¡l,II',:. '.',~,::. ,¡ ¡~,f=lill I ~~I" 110~,~f~¡":,§;f-' 11' 1',i,lOt'-I: ,'jir"'" ¡"'r1íl";,l°~1 " .-: " - \ /:\ , IH "I I I' II I , c' I j:- ~ ~ '~ ~I' 6' ) / ' r..- ',',r ~!'iJ, I'.'" II r~ I </ J¡i, , ~,'-'_:C""-,"':- !~ "I' ~ I! ~ "I I" ,,'" . !i ~~llli;¡r ~ j'111' -" l ..¡I,~,¡ijllr:::!:!1 ,¡i','"ii,' I " ~, ,-,0 , 1 i "~,-T7-- , :1 '= IÎ I I I,:'" : ,'I õ; ',', H 0 l ;¡ II,~,-'<,~"n__--_,n_' c--r--'~HFr ' ,,' ~ IJ-.'--..- ,I lLJL\ ? I r ¡'-: ~~-=j) ~~"~~_?~~- ! I q -I I_~ : Ii :-:,;",11 ' ';nõN;;~~if---:-:,--~-~-~--~ ~=~, -------- I! "" ",."" ( " -n_- I ------,-----.L_--------'---'-------n--__- i ~ ~-,_.~....._'" )0 ~O non -on =;:;;, ::b> Q~ :r.> St. Paul Lutheran Church C"a ~m . NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ~œ~...;. ;,I~: 0- ~g[[~ liE" i ~. " ~ 11 il ~._~ . E =-:0 ~ Ordering Guide ¡Oed "PI""p";nI"elecl",",1 E.w"'pl,. ALO9024/ AC /100MH120.D / HSS90 / FS11 BKT / a/Qat'oble) L"",;;;;;JL,:;;] s"""",JfiJ;J \..Sa;;;;C'""õpti",7CEI.~Fi"i.<h Slyle Pan No / / J / / / Lens Optiom 0 (A C) Acrylic Clear 0 (AW) Acrylic White' 0 (PC) I'olycarbonate Clear OOthet . Rmm",,"mled """/1,,""""'" ¡,,"'ps Light Spurcc Options OAL09024 050MH D 0 JOMH D 0 100MB D 0150MH D 0lJ5MH D 0 100HPS D 0 ISOHPS D 0 32W/CFH GX24q-3 0 42W/CFH GX24q-4 OINC D 0 Othe¡~ D ~ Med""" """¡,,mp Volt~e Options 0120 0208 0240 0277 0'480 0120/277 0 'QUAD wired at 0 Olher- 'Sa." .,a/tage! >altoge <,ombin"lio"" mny no' b, a,'aih,ble, ple",« """,..../tJac/ory Noles: Sp<c";,, Name, Spe"fie< S'gnarure, Optical Options œ 0 (RF5) Type V Borosihcate Glass Refractor LJ ~ 0 (Rr» Type II! Boros'¡icate Glass Refractor' ,J D (llSS) Hooseside Shield 090" 0 I SO" Ii D (l.VRI)TypeVS,"ckReflector D Other Laser Luminaire BoardWalk Collection , ' !ê Electrical Options 0 (FS I) Fused (Single, ¡" pole, J 20 or277 >olloge) 0 (FS2) Fused (Double, In pale, all o/hey vol/age) D (QD) Quick Disconnect 0 (PEe) Photoelectric Control (Sp"'.¡y vol"'se) Finish Options Slando",! selection,s a", I'gh'!y !exll"",d ,olin,finis/"", See dala section JVY fi"',""'g 'pec¡fimtions, 0 (WIlT) White 0 (BKT) Black Textured 0 (BRZ) Bronze 0 (VER) Verona 0 (GRE) Green D (ORA) Gray 0 Other Pœmium 0 Custom Color (C%" c/"p '¥q"Ù.d) w'""'p",,,) Oat" '...'~,-ill-;~I.'..'.-:",.,.. ,......[~: , , ~¿._:,--=(~~ , .tJ BEACON PRODUCTS INC . 6503 19TH STREn EAST, SARASOlA, FL 34243 . PH 941.755.6694 . FAX 941.751.5535 BW.2B SPECIFICATiONS '"BIECTrO Œ<,G' WITHOUT "'TiC' - '--'---'-" -.-, -...----.--- -----, ,- î" I f" 1.°' I .°,".. .~'O'.....""'. 0.°'_..,0,'" .0.08_,,0,"'- 0.1°. .°10 O.I~__O"', -".°'__0,".. O,"_O,O'.nO."., M' 0.02 0.'" 0.13 0.'° D." D.O1 [=-::::'.f~-:'.JL______-C: 0.02 0.03 .. rrn::r~T~I:rrt~~j;-. -=-===~,--------______I---' '~D"'D"""'D"'D"'O"'O"'O"'O"'O"'O""~" to, 0." I." I t... .W-'O." 0." 0..' 0.'. 0." r- D,'" D" o.n D..D .°, A 0." 0.56 0.>1 0.'. D. -- D:"-O" 0." ... 0." 0" J. t." 0." ~03 0" 0.;1~~~~" 019 0..' :~.;-i' D.' -~: -D" D." on -~~~JJj . r-{, I r I~' 0." 0." O~~." 0.71 0.'. --~~-.:. 0.. ~o." 0." o.n -'o"--A ,~ 0.' . -.- -- 1 I r." 0." 0.'" o~-~., 0." 0." -~~~ 0.' ~...'... 0... 0,", ¡;:\,~j D n_~"f!["[L__._- I r-" 0." ... 0." 0." 0." 0." -~ o 0.0 0..' !." 0.00 o.eo 0..' 0. , .. r'" D." 0...1-0,"'--." 0." "" -..w_- O~ ----,.., '." 0.00 -0.52 0. ., - , L t." 0." 0.",1 ....." 0." 0."""" 0. '-4""""-<>." O" 0." ~ o. 1 í"- r'-'- ð." 0." 0.011~"",-.." 0.'. "" -oon-'--o o'~r'O1I1..-.O." 0.52 0." I:..~.-!!" 0.1 -.' . ------..::r;-------'-"T,. .' t'.. 0." oJ-~-;o=¡,~ 0.'" °' .--i>,~ 0." .~Jb':'ii'-C:~ 0.. 0. ~~~-ö, 01 - ~ :-:- -~~-;:~~ -.------.-- !"'~~ ~_"-:~T=~"~ --..-' , ",n' , .;'-., '-. It:--,----_.. ...._.._~~. . -..--... --- ...._.~ ---~-~~.-~--~ 1. Íi-~~~t~~-- 001 O"c=::::=:'~~"- ~~~~~~~~~-:#"-D'~:- --e."-'=-=-=-====-"~~-I --. ,- _..--- ----- ===:=---==~::;:;" D." 0. ~~_O~~-_':_--':-:'; ~'__n__====--=-__._-_J .m._____--------..---.--.- -- STATlSiiëÃl AREA ;- MAIN LOT ONLY ENTIRE AREA -------- ------------- ---- -- ----------- AVERAGE Ie = .62 MAXIMUM Ie = 1.02 MINIMUM Ie ~ .2 AVERAGE/MINIMUM ~ 3.1 MAXIMUM/MINIMUM ~ S.I TOTAL NUMBER or POINTS = 179 AVERAGE Ie = .43 MAXIMUM Ie = 1.02 MINIMUM Ie ~ .01 AVERAGE/MINIMUM = 43 MAXIMUM/MINIMUM = 102 TOTAL NUMBER or POINTS = 296 POINT BY POINT FOOTCANDLE LEVELS PROJECT IWÆ: ST,PAULS LUTHERAN CHURCH QTY. lABEL LUMINAI"E OESCRIPTION / MOU""NG HEIGHT LUMENS J I A II/lASE"' AL-O9024-LVRI-175-MH / 15' PQlES 1,4000 I I B II/lASER' AL-O90'4-LVRI-17SMH-I8OHSS/15'POlI 1,4000 [PREPAREO BY: 1-- 1;;:'-18-2005 I~ ArAGON PROOtICT!< ..,""'~...-~- I ¡I.!'.', ~llli ~- I N " ". L;.~' '"'"""",,' ~- .' ~ ' , ¡: ,. \; ~OR, ST, PAUL LUTHERAN CHURCH ORDER NO" 2002-1081 FILE, 16-41-11 """",", EDWARD J. MOLLOY & ASSOCIATES, LAND & CONSTRUCTION SURVEYORS LTD. '2"'.""""'.""';'~"£,"l"'"""'("')"H60"",("')"'-"'O PLAT OF SURVEY 0" COT " lOT" lOT" ¡ -I! LOT)5 ..'+.- -- '--] i L -"'-<, I.OT ,< ,~"""',.., ,0' ~ " ~" ., .~ AREA Of TRACT SURVtYED, 48,973 SO, FT, OR 1.124 ACRES ~~j) ~; 0,..." "",..... . ,4.. 0 ,-. "- "..,,'..-'0.... "",.,. i ! i i ! í I ! L______---- 1-- "------------ I oj om~ u."" ,~~" ..",'" '"""""J.,,,"-"". ~ ..-.- ~.~""'"-~ Fd.;.~~-::"2}~::':~~f :-'1-";:o"l ~~ -,~,.,,~,. M='" -"-"-~" _--_""""'_.00 "OJ. ¡-- X~kf!.In.L_- ."~< ""'t:r~"'= ~ "" 'If Kad 05/06/05 je 5/9/05 be 5/10/05 ORDI NANCE NO AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS AND AN EXCEPTION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 100 SOUTH SCHOOL STREET WHEREAS, St. Paul Lutheran Church (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) is the owner of the property generally located at 100 South School Street (hereinafter referred to as Subject Property) and legally described as follows: Lot A (Except the South 255 feet thereof) in Block Bin Busse and Wille's Resubdivision in Mount Propsect in the West ~ of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County Illinois. The North 50 feet of the South 255 feet of Lot A together with the East ~ of the vacated alley lying West and adjoining said North 50 feet of the South 255 feet of Lot A in Block B in Busse and Wille's Resubdivison in Mount Prospect, in the West ~ of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois. and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Variation from Section 14.1005.8 to the required exterior side yard setback from 20 feet to 19.32 feet to allow for the building addition and from 20 feet to 10 feet to allow for the proposed parking lot. ' WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Variátion from SectiQn 1.4.1005.8 tothe required rear setback from 27 feet to 25.2 feet to allow for the proposed parking lot. WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Variation from Section 14.2224 for the amount of required on-site parking spaces from 219 to the proposed total of 52 spaces. WHEREAS, the Petitioner has requested an exception to the requirements of the Development Code, Section 16.603, to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface only; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of MoUnt Prospect did consider the requests for setback and parking variations from Section 14.1 005.B and Sec. 14.2224 and an exception from Section 16.603 of Chapter 16 (Development Code) for the Subject Property at their regular meeting on April2B, 2005, said request being the subject of PZ 10-05 and by a unanimous vote recommended to the President and Board of c Trustees of the Village to grant the variations from Chapter 14 and an exception from Chapter 16 as requested; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has forwarded their recommendation being the subject of PZ 10-05 to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOl.JNT PRQSP¡::GT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That the recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporate herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. . SECTION TWO: That the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant to the Subject Property Variations from Sec. 14.1005.B and Sec. 14.2224 (Zoning Ordinance) and an exception from Section 16.603 of Chapter 16 (Development Code) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect for storm water detention for a specific portion of the Subject Property, as shdwnoh the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A," subject to complying with the following: 1. Consolidating the Subject,Property into a single lot of record; 2. Revising the lighting plan to comply with the Village's lighting regulations; 3. Revising the landscape plan to reflect existing fences and the proposed fence along the south lot line; . 4. Meeting the Building Code & Fire Code requirements for Fire Protection that include the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm; 5. Complying with all other Development Requirements, as defined in Section 15.402 of the Village Code, which include: i. The installation of streetlights within the public right of way adjacent to the site; and ii. Paying a fee for the planting of parkway trees in the public right of way along the site (this fee is $400 per tree,' and shall be based upon the number of planting sites determined by the Village's Forestry Division). SECTION THREE: Except for the modifications granted herein, all other requirements of said Development Code shall apply to the Subject Property. ~ SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of 2005. Irvana K. Wilks Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk . . H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\DEV Code and VAR 100 s school sl paul May 2005.doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department Mount Prospect MEMORANDUM FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: MAY 13,2005 SUBJECT: PZ-I1-05 - MAP AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE & VARIATION 1101 S. LINNEMNA ROAD (ST. JOHN LUTHERAN CHURCH) MITROFF GROUP - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to deny Case PZ-11-05, a request for a Map Amendment, Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development, and a Variation for the building height, as detailed in the attached Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their April 28, 2005 meeting. 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. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, reviewed the case. She said that the Petitioner appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission in February. At that time, they presented a request for 'a 70-unit townhome development and they were seeking R4 Planned Unit Development Zoning District approval. The P&Z recommended that the Village Board deny the request, but the Petitioner withdrew the request before the Village Board reviewed the case. The Petitioner has since revised the proposal to address concerns and comments raised at the February P&Z meeting and the revised proposal includes redevelopment of the site as a 50-unit townhome development with 7 single-family residences along the north lot line. Representatives from the Mitroff Group made a detailed presentation. They reviewed changes to the project and provided an extensive explanation of how the adjacent properties would benefit from the proposed storm water detention design. Several neighbors addressed the Commission and stated their concerns regarding the proposed density and stated that they preferred the site be developed as single-family residences only. Other neighbors stated the proposed building height was too tall and that the development would create additional traffic. Members of the St. John Lutheran Church addressed the P&Z and stated their support of the project and how it would benefit the community by providing an increased tax base, improved ball fields for the park district, and be a high-end development. . The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's project. One Commissioner noted that the adjacent properties would benefit directly from the storm water detention improvements; however several other members stated that they felt the proposal was an inappropriate land use and that they could not support the PZ-11-05 May 13,2005 Page 2 requests. There was discussion regarding the Petitioner installing STOP signs to minimize traffic conflicts, how the storm water detention design would comply with Village Code requirements, and how the proposed building height was comparable to the height of several existing buildings and the maximum building height allowed in the RX district. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4-3 to recommend that the Village Board deny the Petitioner's proposal. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their May 17, 2005 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. Ije HoIPLANlPI,nning & Zoning cOMM\P&z 200S\MEJ McmosIPZ-II-O5 ME.! (1101 Linl1"n~' St John- Mi~ol1).doe MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ." ... ... . PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-ll-OS Hearing Date: April 28, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1101 S. Linneman Road PETITIONER/OWNER: Mitroff Group, Ltd 1655 N. Arlington Heights Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 PUBLICATION DATE: April 13, 2005 PIN#: 08-14-401-151-0000 REQUEST: Petitioner is seeking to: 1) rezone the Subject Property from RX to R1 & R2 (Map Amendment), 2) Conditional Use approval for a P1aIln~d Unit Development, 3) Variation for building height, and 4) other relief from the Village Code as may be required for the proposed 7 single-family residences and 50-unit townhome development. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floras Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Matt Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Darlene Bergstrom; Joanne Bina; Ron Brialeaf; John Diplin; Greg Galla; Ms. Lynn Davies-Gavin; Concetta DiSilvestro; Fred Durler; Patricia Fruin; Rev. Jeff Gavin; Edith & Ellen Gehrke; Christine Hecht; Fred & Joyce Hayden; Ed Hofert; Phillip Hutchinson; Alice & Chester Kilian; Tarki & Ken Koeppen; David Kovacevic; Dorothy Krueger; Luther Legg; Javier Millan; David Mitroff; Dan O'Malley; Kathy Montalbano; Richard Oslovski; Carol Pappas; Ed & Carol Pfmgsten; Margaret Pyde; Vincent Sclapini; Neil Schmidt; George, Patricia, Christine & Joe Schubkegal; Terry Smith; Allen Szumanski; Jon Terte1; Jim Vylanek; Stuart Wolf. Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2005 meeting and Leo Floras seconded the motion. Thÿ rrWtionwasapproved 5-0 with abstentions by Chair Arlene Juracek, Richard Rogers and Keith Y oungquist.Under Old :Business, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-50-04 a request to convert the e{Cisting rental apartments to condominium ()'Yller§hip and other relief from the Village Code as may be required for the proposed condo conyersiQ!1. ~be said that this~<lse 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 cuITeIltly contains. the St. John Lutheran Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-Il-O5 Page 2 School with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single-Family Residence and is bordered by the RX District to the west, R2 Attached Single Family Residence Planned Unit Development to the southwest, 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 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 appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission in February. At that time, they presented a request for a 70-unit townhome development and they were seeking R4 Planned Unit Development Zoning District approval. The P&Z recommended that the Village Board deny the request, but the Petitioner withdrew - the request before the Village Board reviewed the case. The Petitioner has since revised the proposal to address concems and comments raised at the February P&Z meeting. 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 50-unit townhome development with 7 single-family residences along the north lot line. The various elements of the proposal are outlined below: As noted previously, the Subject Property is currently zoned RX Single-Family Residence. The Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to Rl Single Family for the 7 Single-family residences, but R2 Attached Single Family for the 50-unit townhome development. The R2 district allows a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre for multi-family developments. The Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 8.06 units per acre, 50 units/6.2 acres, which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R2 District. In addition to the requested rezoning, the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development for the townhome development. The Petitioner is not seeking PUD approval for the 7 single- family residences. The proposed 7-lots of record would comply with the Rl Zoning District regulations, lot size, depth, and width. Plans have not been submitted for the single-family residences as the homes would be custom built homes and would be built according to Village regulations. Zoning compliance is reviewed independently for the townhome PUD and for the single-family residence lots. The Petitioner's site plan illustrates the proposed layout for the 50-unit townhome development and 7 single- family residences. The development would consist of 10 townhome buildings: (3) 4-unit buildings, (4) 5-unit buildings, (3) 6-unit buildings, and (7) single-family residences on 7 individual lots of record. Each of the townhome units would have a separate entrance, a two-car garage, and a two-car driveway. The pavement width of the public street is 28-feet, which is consistent with the Village standards, and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development. The proposed development also includes a 5-foot wide sidewalk on Hunt Club Drive and 52 guest parking spaces on-site. The Petitioner's 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 and the rear elevations of all end units would be all brick, as shown on the enclosed, revised elevations. 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, ornamental, and evergreen trees will be the primary screening material around the perimeter of the Subject Property. In addition to the landscaping, the Petitioner proposes to install a 4-5' wrought iron fence along the south and east lot line. The Petitioner's landscape plan indicates gates at appropriate access points. The proposed fence was included in response to the Police Department's concerns regarding possible vehicle burglary and overall site perimeter security. The proposed site plan indicates that the development will be accessed from Linneman Road and Hunt Club Drive by a public street running east/west. Also, there will be one emergency vehicle access point from Hunt Club Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-ll-05 Page 3 Drive. The single-family residences would be directly accessed from the public street, and access to the townhomes would be from a private drive accessed from the public street. The et11ergency access point 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 with a 5' wide public walk installed in the easement. This was required 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. Therefore, the proposed sidewalk sho.u1d not 'jog' as shown on the Petitioner's plan because it creates safety hazards and it is unlikely that the tree they are attempting to save would survive. The Petitioner's proposal indicates that there will be two types of floor plans for the townhomes. Unit A consists of2 bedrooms with a den while Unit B would have 3 bedrooms with a bonus room. The Village Code requires 2- ~ parking spaces per dwelling unit (for multiple-family dwellings containing 3 bedrooms or more). The Petitioner's proposal contains 200 parking spaces' (consisting of a two car garage and two driveway parking spaces per unit), plus 52 guest parking spaces dispersed throughout the development. The single-family homes would have garages and guests would park in the driveways. The Petitioner's site plan indicates that the R2 PUD portion of the project would have approximately 48% lot coverage, which is below the 50% limitation. The proposed single-family residences would comply with the 45% limitation for the R 1 Zoning District. The Petitioner has submitt{':d preliminary storm water detention plans and is working with the Village Engineer to document that 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 StaffcQncel]1s including, but not limited to, televising the existing sanitary service, increasing the detention volume, and other modifications required as part of the final engineering design. The Petitioner is not seeking relief from Engineering requirements and will meet all Village regulations. The Petitioner submitted a Traffic Study to evaluate the impact of the proposed development. The Village's Traffic Engineer reviewed the plan and agreed that the overall impact of the development on the local road system will be minimal because the previous use, a school, generated more traffic in the morning than the proposed residential development. However, the evening rush hour will have an increase in traffic becaysethesc;hool's peak traffic was early afternoon, but the increase is reasonable. Reasonable meaning the level of service has not changed and the delay due to added traffic is less than 5 seconqs. Also, the proposed street connecting Linneman and Hunt Club will disperse the traffic so that one street will not be burdened with all the development traffic. The Village's Traffic Engineer found that the delay at key intersections, i.e., Hunt ClublGo1f, LinnemanlGolf, Linneman/Church/Willow, would not be significantly affected with the added traffic. However, the Village's Traffic Engineer disagreed with the study's findings regarding the impact of the new church, on the west side of Linneman Road, on the local road system. The study states that ".. .no newladditional traffic is expected to be generated" by the church development. However, based on the preliminary plans, the building footprint. is much larger and includes a sanctuary, hall, gym, offices and more parking spaces. It would be important to know the impact this will have on traffic in conjunction with the Petitioner's development. Therefore, since the Petitioner submitted their project first and the church does not have finalized plans at this time, the Village's Traffic Engineer recommended that the church do a traffic study and incorporate the Steepleview info into their report. If the study finds the combination of both developments shows a need for road improvements, Staff recommends that each development be respöhsible for a percentage of the improvements. Therefore, if Steep1eview gets approved first, Staff recommends that one of the conditions of approval include a condition that the Petitioner is required to pay for their share of road improvements if road improvements are necessary, by putting funds in escrow. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-11-05 Page 4 The Petitioner is proposing to make a monetary contribution, approximately $60,000, to the Mount Prospect Park District that would be used to upgrade the ball fields at Kopp Park, which is the closest public park to the Subject Property. The table in the Staff Report provides zoning district information for the property's proposed zoning classification and summarizes the proposed setbacks. It shows that the proposed building height requires a Variation because it exceeds the maximum height limitation of 28' for the R2 district. The project would comply with all other Village regulations. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Village Zoning Ordinance. They relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner is seeking relief from the Zoning Ordinance to allow portions of the townhomes to exceed 2~' from the mid-point of the roof; the single-family homes would comply with Village Code. The Petitioner states in their application, that "The justification for this relief is ~ecause of the fact that the site can be classified as a transitional land use parcel, sandwiched between more dense multifamily.areas to the south, southwest, and east and the low density single family areas to the north." Technically, the Petitioner is creating the need for a Variation because the building style could be redesigned so the height complies with the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed height is in keeping with the height of several existing buildings adjacent to the Subject Property and would be consistent with the maximum building height permitted in the adjacent RX Zoning District. Therefore, because only portions of the buildings would exceed 28' and several of the adjacent existing buildings have similar height, the proposed height would not be out of character ofthe neighborhood. The standards for Map Amendments are listed in the Village 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 surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; the suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed zoning classifications; 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 d((velopments, abuts single-family residences, and is across the street from an Institutional Use, St. John's. The proposed 50-unit townhome development and 7 single-family residences 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 Property and provides an adequate transition from the single-family residence to the north to the multi-family residences to the south. The proposed Map Amendments, Conditional Use for the Planned Unit Development, and Variation for building height requests meets the standards for each request as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board approve: 1) The request to rezone the Subject Property from RX to Rl and R2 as shown on the Petitioner's site plan dated Aprilll,2005; 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development subject to the following: A. Modify the site plan so the sidewalk and easement/ROW do not jog as shown on the plan, it is unlike1y that the tree they are attempting to save would survive even if the sidewalk was jogged and the 'jogged' sidewalk design creates safety issues; Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-11-05 Page 5 B. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall submit detailed eleva1ions forall1?ldi@ng types, developed in accordance with the elevations prepared by Bloodgood Sharp Buster; C. 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; D. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall respond to Engineering's comments: 1) increase the stormwaterdetel1tiop..y(}Jt,lmet(}.f,()~~9.::ft, instead of the 2.23 ac-ft shown, as required by Village Code, 2) note the sides of the detention pond slope and do not exceed 4: 1 (horizontal/:vertical), and 3) note the proposed rim elevations so Staffcan confirm th?t the structure are below !he gesign high water level; E. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall submit? lighting plan that complies with the Village's lighting regulations for the lighting within the development; F. 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 public/improved; G. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of Resubdivision that creates 7 individual lots of reçOl-d f(}t:tQË,single-fami1y residences and at least one-lot for the townhome development; H. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval; !. The Petitioner shallc()nstæctallunit§~çç(?t:Qjng to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: the inst?ll?f!Ol1 (}f ?ld1()1P.'!11£..f!rçsprinklers, fire hydrants and roads must be located.:md. constructed according to Development and Fire Code standards; J. The emergency access gate and paved drive at the southernmost access to Hunt Club Drive must have traffic pre-emption devices; and K. As the impact of both the Steep1eview and St. John Luthenl11 Çl1ldt:çhdçyçlopments may result in the need for road improvements as a result of an expected increase in traffic (}n theJocal r(}?qsystem, a Traffic Impact Study will be required by the St. John Lutheran Church and must j!J.cluqçthe Steepleview traffic forecast prior to approval of the church development. Should road improvements be necessary based on a review by the Village's Traffic Engineer, both developers will be required to pay for their share based on their respective impact to the local road system; funds will be escrowed. L. 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. Variation to allow the rear elevation of the townhomes to measure no more tþ¡¡n 3:3.5'fr(}mthemid-point of the 3) roof. Richard Rogers asked if Mitroff.wa§qeveloping the proposed custom homes. Ms. Connolly said Petitioner would respond to that question. Patrick Brankin, the attorney for Mitroff with Schein, Bimey Ross & Citron in Chicago came forward and thankedMs, Connolly for her thorough presentation. To be sworn in, he introduced Rev. Jeff Gavin, Terry Smith, Planner, Dan Kovasevic of Mitroff, Xavier Millan, Traffic Engineer, Todd Schaeffer, Engineer, Dan O'Malley, Architect, Sharon Jones, Landscape Architect. Mr. Brankin said this presentation will show that they will meet all Codes necessary for this project. Rev. Jeff Gavin, 1111 Linneman Rd., Pastor of St. John's Church, came to the dais and gave a lengthy history of the parish and the area. He also gave examples of the parish having been a good neighbor through the years. He Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-II-05 Page 6 said when they decided to sell part of their property they chose Mitroff Builders because of their fine reputation and confidence that they would build a project that would enhance the area, even though they could have enjoyed greater financial rewards from other builders. He said it is the hope and prayer of the membership of 157-year-old St. John's Church that their presence continues to be felt through the decisions made by the Village tonight. Dan Kovasevic of Mitroff Builders came forward next and told of several developments they had built in the area. He also pointed out changes they had made from the previous proposal for this site to develop this proposal. He also answered the previous question that they do plan to build the custom homes on the single-family sites. They have added street parking so they don't need to ask the Church to handle their overflow parking. He touched upon the improved water detention and restrictor. He spoke about the added tot-lots and enhanced brick elevations as requested by staff. Terry Smith, Director of Land Planning for BSP Architects in Palatine, stepped up to the podium and testified that he has been working with Mitroff over a year with this site, which he again described. He showed an aerial view of the site and pointed out the existing developments and spoke of the problems to consider when planning a new development, especially with regard to the objections to the last proposal. He said they are trying to be a good neighbor by showing front elevations and keeping garages in back of the homes. He reminded the group that the total townhomes, 50, is down quite a bit from the original proposal of 70 townhomes. Ms. Juracek asked about some issues she had from the previous proposal that had been carried over into this proposal regarding ingresslegress onto Hunt Club and moving a right-of-way further south to avoid a dangerous corner. Mr. Smith said the only way to follow Village Code and have ingresslegress onto Hunt Club Drive would be the way they have configured it. Javier Millan, Senior Consultant with KLOA, Inc., Traffic Consultants for Mitroff Builders, spoke next. He told Ms. Juracek her question was a very good one. He personally had checked out the dangers of the comer at Hunt Club. Taking the computer mouse to the aerial photo, he illustrated an area on Hunt Club Drive where there is a Stop Sign. When a car is stopped there, they can see any cars that would be coming out of the proposed subdivision. He went on to explain the Traffic Study they had conducted for Mitroff. Todd Schaeffer, Haeger Engineering, came forward to speak. He said he is a Registered Professional Engineer and a Certified Flood Plain Engineer in Illinois. He said he has been working on this project for quite some time and worked with Village Staff to include Village Engineer and Public Works. They have decided on a dual detention system, isolating the single-family sites, they will provide their own stormwater detentions system. He explained the system in great detail, including the restrictor, which will need to be maintained by the homeowner association. He explained access to the water supply and noted that no easements would be necessary. Dan O'Malley, Architect, described the layout of the townhomes in greater detail. He said he feels there is a broad market of buyers for this type of townhome. He said he wanted to explain their request for a Variation for the height of the building is actually a measure to protect the character of neighborhood. The buildings are designed to blend in with the area and do not have a flat roof. Sharon Jones, Landscape Architect with Pugsley & Leyhad in Lake Zurich, IL. She described the trees and plantings to be used in the proposed development. She spoke of a proposed wrought iron fence they would erect and a welcome sign to the development. Her talk concluded the Mitroff presentation. Ms. Juracek opened the Hearing to the audience. Edward Hofert was swom in and said he was an attorney representing Mr. Jacek and several members of the audience. He said he had served on the Zoning Board in the late 1950s, had been the Village attorney from 1961- 1965, had been the attorney for Elk Grove Village for 20 years, and also the attorney for Hoffman Estates for 7 years. In his practice of specializing in municipal law he prepared many ordinances including the 1 ST Open Space Ordinance for the Village of Mount Prospect, which was later adapted by Cook County. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-11-05 Page 7 He said multi-family housing changes the character of a neighborhood and should not be allowed to proliferate. He said he thinks this is an opportunity to keep this as a single-family community. John Desmond, 62 West Briarwood, Streamwood, IL, was swom in and said he was the CQIlgregation Chairman for St. John and a licensed Real Estatesa1esm~n7 lIe ""as.()n the§eleçti()Il ç()rnroJtt~~:in9!l1ey had many builders who submitted plans for 150-250 units but they did not think those plans would be good for the neighborhood. Only Mitroff & Cambridge Builders came in with plans for 70 units and based on Mitroffs excellent reputation, the committee chose them. He also wanted to squelch rumors that the Church.. congregation was divided over building this facility. They have taken repeated votes and nearly 100% have voted for the facility, only 1 or 2 percent have voted against it. He also stated that 50 townhomes would not.. crçate greater social distortion and reduce property values. Townhomes priced at over $300,000 cannot hurt values in the area, only increase them, especially when they are top quality, they will only upgrade and improve the existing facility. Years ago he purchased a unit at 1103 Hunt Club Drive for $90,000 and today those units are selling for $200,000. He also said moving the road would not work as the Church would beresiciing in the school for at least one year until their new facility is completed. Paul Dahlgren, 1161 Linneman Road presented a petition and was sworn in. He said he represented Courts of St. John and they went along with all the listings. He read their objections to the development proposed by Mitroff Group: water retention; restrictor; congestion; no change in amount of greenspace; high density; traffic; and drainage. Todd Schaeffer returned to the podium and responded to the Courts of St. John's objections but met resistance from another resident who was sworn in, Bruce Cascarano of 1145 LiIlIlem:ln .:R..o:lci. .lIeh:id questions about the restrictor and the water that presently accumulates on the Courts' property. Mr. Schaeffer pointed out the system to Mr. Cascarano on the aerial exhibit. Mr. Cascarano was. satisfied with thçexplanation and thanked Todd Schaeffer. Richard Rogers pointed out that Mitroff would be solving the Courts of St John's water problem. Alan Szumanski, resident and owner of 665 Bel Aire Lane and several other properties in the area, was sworn in and said he was pleased to see that some reduction in density had been made but thought it was not enough. He agreed other concessions had been made but still felt the proposal was inappropriate for the area. He said he thinks the restrictor will cause the same problem that the Courts of St.John Þ:ls.Mr.§cÞ:lçffçr again returned to the podium to respond to Mr. Szumanski's objections. He referred tQ the :leriale[Chiþitëi.n~Ipointed out the way the restrictor would operate. He also said he will continuç to workwith Village Staff and Engineer to refine the restrictor to further enhance the system to accommodate the future single-family homes. Ms. Juracek assured Mr. Szumanski that the developer would need to work very closely with Staff and meet Village Codes. Ms. Juracek said we have heard drainage and density concems, single-family vs. multi-family concerns, are there any new issues to bring up at this point. Celine Birmbaum, 1101 S. Hunt Club Drive, was sworn in. She said when they exit their driveway they have a blind spot that will be increased by this development. Stuart Wolf, an Attorney with offices at 3345 Arlington Heights Road, was sworn in. He said he represents St. John Lutheran Church. He said the plan presented tonight is a win/win proposition for the Village and the neighborhood. He said he feels the Commission should move forward and recommend approval to the Village Board. He also pointed out that this discrete proposal is a financial loss to the Church. He didn't want the Commissioners to think all the people in the audience were against the proposed development. Many were parishioners of the Church and supporters of the proposal. He asked those to stand up briefly so the Commissioners would know they were supporters of the proposed development. A group of people stood. Ms. Juracek thanked them. Joanne Bina, 1026 Linneman Road, said if you look between Elmhurst Road and Algonquin way over to Arlington Heights Road, it is a sea of apartments, a sea of humanity, and with United building more across from Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-l1-05 Page 8 their facility, it will worsen. She said she wanted to urge the Commission to please keep the area single-family residences. Edward Hofert again came forward and said he thought Ms. Bina had summed it up - reduce the size. Don't flood the area with townhomes. He wants the Church to prosper, everyone does, but not at the expense of the community. John Desmond returned to the podium to say that, regarding reducing down to single-family homes, it would significantly reduce the price for the property, which would prohibit us from building a new church facilities and, in that case, nothing happens. He said the Church has already reduced its price because of the reduction in the number oftownhomes. Mr. Desmond said he wanted to reiterate his earlier sentiment, 50 townhomes.is not going to hurt the quality of life in the area. Ms. Juracek asked staff if they could impose a Stop Sign as a condition of approval. Ms. Connolly said they could. Ms. Juracek suggested a Stop Sign at the location of proposed house #7. She then closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Donnelly asked why townhomes 1 & 2 were different than 8 & 7. It appears that from 8 & 7 one may view the center court, which is blocked from 1 & 2. Mr. O'Malley said it was not intentional, perhaps because they were limiting the total number oftownhomes. Ronald Roberts said he supports the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan to promote single-family residences. Matt Sledz agreed with that opinion and said he felt this was an inappropriate development. Richard Rogers said we are at odds with comparing the local community with the property rights of an owner. We have a situation here where we already have a large area of multi-family residences, so lower height would make sense. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval to: 1) rezone the Subject Property from RX to R1 & R2 (Map Amendment), 2) Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development, subject to the conditions imposed by staff and the further condition the Petitioner install a STOP sign to minimize traffic conflicts, for the proposed 7 single-family residences and 50-unit townhome development at 1101 S. Linneman Road, Case No. PZ-11-05. Matt Sledz seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, and Juracek NAYS: Roberts, Rogers, Sledz and Youngquist Motion was denied 4-3. A negative recommendation will go to the Village Board. Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at midnight, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjoumed. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner C:\Documents and Settingslkdewis\Local Settings\TemporalY Internet Files\OLK2\PZ-II-O5 1101 S Linneman Rd. MitroffGroup.doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Departn1ent CASE SUIHMARY - PZ- 11-05 LOCA TIO1\': 1101 Linneman Road PETITIONER: OWNER: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: M itroff Group. Ltd (Contract Purchaser) 51. John Lutheran Church 03-34-410-044-0000 8.31 acres RX Single-Family Residence School 1) Rezone from RX to RI Single Family ¡:¡nd R2 Attached SingJe FamiJy 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development 3) Variations - Bulk Regulations (Building Height) LOCATIO1\' MAP Golf Road "" g == ~ ; -= ¡¡ ¡;:j MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CO1\TNOLL Y, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: APRIL 21, 2005 HEAIUNG DATE: APRIL 28, 2005 SUBJECT: PZ-11-05 - MAP AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE, AND VARIATIONS (50-UNIT PUD TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT WITH 7 SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENCES) 1101 LINNEMAN ROAD - MITROFF GROUP (APPLICANT) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the April 28, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by the Mitroff Group, Ltd. (the "Petitioner"), regarding the property located at 1101 S. Linneman Road (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking: 1) To rezone the Subject Property from RX Sing1e- Family Residence to Rl and R2, 2) Approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development, and 3) Variations from Bulk Regulations for the townhome building heights. The P&Z Commission hearing was properly noticed in the April 13, 2005 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted Public Hearing signs on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 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. Johr1), R4Multi- Family Planned Unit Development to the east and south, and RX and R4 to the north. ZooiD District Noted Above RX - Single Family R2 - Attached Sin Ie Famil R4 - Multi-Family Residence Max. Densit 1 SFR Dwelling 10 unitslacre 16 unitslacre Min. Lot Size 17, 500 sq. ft 4,000 s . ft. 2,700 s . ft. The Subject Property was originally located within unincorporated Cook 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 R.X Single-Family Residence (as required by State statutes), but were later rezoned as they were redeveloped. SUMMARY The Petitioner appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission in February. At that time, they presented a request for a 70-unit townhome development and they were seeking R4 Planned Unit Development Zoning District approval. The P&Z recommended that the Village Board deny the request, but the Petitioner withdrew PZ-1l-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting April 28, 2005 Page 3 the request before the Village Board reviewed the case. The Petitioner has since revised the proposal to address concerns and comments raised at the February P&Z meeting. The Petitioner's proposal inc1udes the demolition of all of the existing structures on the Subject Property and the redevelopment of the site as a 50-unit townhome development with 7 single-family residences aJong the north lot line. The various elements of the proposal are outlined below: Rezoning Request - As noted previously, the Subject Property is currently zoned RX Single-Family Residence. The Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to R 1 Single Family for the 7 Single-family residences, but R2 Attached Single Family for the 50-unit townhome development. The R2 district allows a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre for multi-family developments. The Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 8.06 units per acre (50 units/6.2 acres), which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R2 District. Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development - In addition to the requested rezoning, the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development for the townhome development. This request is due to the Village Code's requirement that two qr more multi-family residential buildings may be located on the same zoning lot only as part of an approved planned unit development (PUD). 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 Petitioner is not seeking PUD approval for the 7 singJe-family residences. The proposed 7-10ts of record would comply with the Rl Zoning District regulations (lot size, depth, and width). Plans have not been submitted for the single family residences as the homes would be custom built homes and would be built according to Village regulations. Accordingly, zoning compliance is reviewed independently for the townhome PUD and for the single-family residence lots. Site Plan - The attached site plan illustrates the proposed layout for the 50-unit townhome development and 7 single-family residences. The development would consist of 10 townhome buildings: (3) 4-unit buildings, (4) 5- unit buildings, (3) 6-unit buildings, and (7) single-family residences on 7 individual lots of record. Each of the townhome units would have a separate entrance, a two-car garage, and a two-car driveway. (Plans have not been submitted for the single-family homes.) The pavement width of the public street is 28-feet (consistent with the Village standards) and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development. The proposed development also includes a 5-foot wide sidewalk on Hunt Club Drive (a sidewalk currently exists on Linneman Road) and 52 guest parking spaces em-site. Building Design - The enc1osed 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 and the rear elevations of all endunits would be all bfick, as shown on the enclosed, revised elevations. However, the Petitioner did not include individual elevations for each style of townhome building. Site Access - The proposed site plan indicates that the development will be accessed from Linneman Road and Hunt Club Drive by a public street running east-west. Also, there will be one emergency vehicle access point from Hunt Club Drive. The single-family residences would be directly accessed from the public street, and access to the townhomes would be from a private drive accessed from the public street. The emergency access point 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. PZ-II-O5 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting April 28; Page 4 Right-of-Way Improvemeuts - The Petitioner ha.s 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 with a 5' wide public walk installed in the easement. This was required because the easement may eventually be acquired as public right-of-way and the proposed improvements would be in keeping with current Vi11age Code requirement. Therefore, the proposed sidewalk shou1cfnof 'jog' as shown on the Petitioner's plan because it creates safety hazards and it is unlikely that the tree they are attempting to save would survive. Parking - The Petitioner's proposal indicates that there will be two types of floor plans for the townhomes. Unit A consists of 2 bedrooms with a den while Ul1it ß 'Y9ulciJg"e} becirooITIs \Yitb a þonusr()()ITI,Th~Vil!age Code requires 2 Y2 parking spaces per dwelling unit (for multiple-family dwellings containing 3 bedrooms or more). The Petitioner's proposal contains 200 parking spaces (consisting of a two car garage and two driveway parking spaces per unit), plus 52 guest parking spaces dispersed throughout the development. The single-family homes would have garages and guests would park in the driveways. Landscape Plan - The Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that a variety of new landscaping materials wi11 be planted throughout the development. The landscape plan indicates that shade, ornamental, and evergreen trees will be the primary screening material around the perimeter of the Subject Property. In addition to the landsçaping, the Petitioner proposes to install a 4-5' wrought iron fence along the south and east lot 1íne. The Petitioner's landscape plan indicates gates at appropriate access points. The proposed fence was included in response to the Police Department's concerns regarding possible vehicle burglary and overall site perimeter security. Lot Coverage - The Petitioner's site plan indicates that the R2 PUD portion of the project would have approximately 48% lot coverage, which is below the 50% limitation. The proposed single-family residences would comply with the 45% limitation for the Rl Zoning District. Preliminary Engineering - The Petitioner has submitted preliminary storm water detention plans and is working with the Village Engineer to document the design will comply with Village Code regulations. A final design is typically submitted as part of the Building Pernlit process. However, Staff has already made the Petitioner aware of Staff concerns including but not limited to televising the existing sanitary service, increasing the detention volume, and other modifications required as part of the final engineering design. Traffic Study The Petitioner submitted a Traffic Study to evaluate the impact of the proposed development. The Village's Traffic Engineer reviewed the plan and agreed that the overall impact of the development on the local road system will be minimal because the previous use (school) generated more traffic in the a.m. than will this development. However, in the p.m. rush hour (5-6pm) there will be an increase in traffic because the school's peak traffic was early afternoon, but the increase is reasonable, i.e. level of service has not changed and delay due to added traffic is less than 5 seconds. Also, the proposed street connecting Linneman and Hunt Club wi1l disperse the traffic so that one street will not be burdened with all the development traffic. The Village's Traffic Engineer found that the delay at key intersections (Hunt Club/Golf, LinnemanlGolf, Linneman/ChurchlWi1low) would not be significantly affected with the added traffic. However, the Village's Traffic Engineer disagreed with the study's findings regarding the impact of the new church (on the west side of Linneman Road) on the local road system. The TIS states that".. .no new/additional traffic is expected to be generated" by the church development. However, based on the preliminary plans, the PZ-II-O5 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting April 28, 2005 Page 5 building footprint is much larger and includes a sanctuary, hall, gym, offices and more parking spaces. It would be important to know the impact this will have on traffic in conjunction with the Petitioner's development. Therefore, since the Petitioner submitted their project first and the church does not have finalized plans at this time, the Village's Traffic Engineer recommended that the church do a TIS and incorporate the Steepleview info into their report. If the study finds the combination of both developments shows a need for road improvements, Staff recommends that each development be responsible for a percentage of the improvements. Therefore, if Steepleview gets approved first, Staff recommends that one of the conditions of approval include a condition that the Petitioner is required to pay for their share of road improvements if road improvements are necessary, by putting funds in escrow. Public Benefit - The Petitioner is proposing to make a monetary contribution (approximately $60,000) to the Mount Prospect Park District that 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. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The following table provides zoning district information for the property's proposed zoning classification and summarizes the proposed setbacks. Zoning District Lot Front Setback Rear Height Density (Maximum) Coveraee Side Setbacks Setbacks Limitations ] 0% of front yard R2 10 units/acre 50% 30' but not less than 5' 25' 28' Varies- Varies- 33.5' (rear) Proposed R2 8.06 units/acre 48.06% no less than 30' no less than 10' 25' VARIATION 8,] 25 sq. ft interior lot 45% 30' 10% of front yard 25' 28' , Rl 9,375 sq ft comer lot or 10' (lesser) Proposed Rl 9,846.25 18,250 Would Would Would Would Would Comply Comply Comply comply Comply VARIA TION STANDARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section l4.203.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 . . Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner is seeking relief from the Zoning Ordinance to allow portions of the townhomes to exceed 28' from the mid-point of the roof; the single-family homes would comply with Ví1lage Code. The Petitioner states in the attached application, 'The justification for this relief is because of the fact that the site can be classified as a PZ-II-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting April 28, 2005. Page 6 transitional land use parcel, sandwiched between more dense multifamily areas to the south, southwest, and east and the low density singJe family areas to the north." TechnicaJly, the Petitioner is creating the need for a Variation because the building style could be redesigned so the height complies with the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed height is in keeping with the height of several existing buildings adjacent to the Subject Property and would be consistent with the maximum building height permitted in the adjacent RX Zoning District. Therefore, because only portions of the buildings would exceed 28' and several of the adjacent existing buildings have similar height, the proposed height would not be out of character of the neighborhood. MAP A.1\IENDMENT STANDARDS The standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.a of the Village Zoning Ordinance. When a Map Amendment is proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to, but not limited to, the fol1owing matters: . The compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general area of the property in question; The compatibility of the sun'ounding 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 zQning 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 50-unit townhome development and 7 single-family residences would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property and would be consistent with recently approved developments approved in the Ví11age. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property and provides an adequate transition from the single-family residence to the north to the multi-family residences to the south. RECOMMENDA TI ON The proposed Map Amendments, Conditional Use, and Variation for building height requests meets the standards for each request as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board approve: 1) The request to rezone the Subject Property from RX to Rl and R2 as shown on the Petitioner's site plan dated April 11, 2005; 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development subject to the following: A. Modify the site plan so the sidewalk and easementlROW do not jog as shown on the plan (it is unlikely that the tree they are attempting to save would survive even if the sidewalk was jogged and the 'jogged' sidewalk design creates safety issues); B. Prior to ViJlage Board review, the Petitioner shall submit detailed elevations for all building types, developed in accordance with the elevations prepared by Bloodgood Sharp Buster; C. 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 PZ-ll-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting April 28, 2005 Page 7 sewer system has sufficient capacity to serve the development, subject to Village Engineering certification; D. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall respond to Engineering's comments: 1) increase the stormwater detention volume to 2.62 ac-ft, instead of the 2.23 ac-ft shown, as required by Village Code, 2) note the sides of the detention pond slope and do not exceed 4: I (horizontal:vertical), and 3) note the proposed rim elevations so Staff can confirm that the structure are below the design high water level; E. Prior to issuance of a Building Pern1it, the Petitioner shall submit a lighting plan that complies with the Village's lighting regulations for the lighting within the development; F. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of easement in favor of the Vi1lage for the eastern 9' of the property along Hunt Club Drive in the event the road is made publiclimproved; G. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of Resubdivision that creates 7 individual lots of record for the single-family residences and at least one- lot for the townhome development; H. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval; 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; The emergency access gate and paved drive at the southemmost access to Hunt Club Drive must have traffic pre-emption devices; and K. As the impact of both the Steepleview and St. Jolm Lutheran Church developments may result in the need for road improvements as a result of an expected increase in traffic on the local road system, a Traffic Impact Study wi1l be required by the St. John Lutheran Church and must include the Steepleview traffic forecast prior to approval of the church development. Should road improvements be necessary based on a review by the Village's Traffic Engineer, both developers will be required to pay for their share based on their respective impact to the local road system; funds will be escrowed. L. Prior to Vi1Jage 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. 1. J. 3) Variation to allow the rear elevation of the townhomes to measure no more than 33.5' from the mid-point of the roof. The Village Board's decision is final for this case, 1101 Linneman Road, Case No. PZ-11-05. I concur: ~ r I /.~~r\ :;1,-,"1 I v v It ""' f'-'" o' oney, AICP, Difector of Community Development William J. C (i< H,IPLANIPlannùlg & Zollillg cOMMIP&Z 200S\StöfTM'lIIoIPZ.ll.OS MEMO {Lm""",," Ro"d SO To~"holl'cs 7 SFR. Mi"ofT¡ do< VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT CO~\11.J~lTY DEVELOPYfEKT DEPARTMENT - PlarÍ.~lrig Division 50 S. Emerson Street MoU:1t Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Application for Conditional Use Approval Mount Prospect ~ ',qw' "", ' '~.,., 'e.' ',.. ' " . , , ._, ' "r>', ,p .,,' ., '" " ""v: "<""" " '" ,', Z Case Number 0 P&Z - - ¡: ~..- Development Name! Address ¿~ ~O ", C '" :.::.... Date of Submission zE -0 :<""" '~ Hearing Date Q Z - , " Address(es) (Street Number, Street) Rd) fi1' /3-0 ¥e c.. T¡ XL 6COS(;. / I 00 5' LO1,1e;y1Cl V\ f-. Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning Total Building Sq Ft. (Site) I ~3i3~8 Rx ::q /0..0 Setbacks: "', '0'< Front Rear I Side Side " I Xi' /070 LOT Ú!":>ì4 z -10 t;t're:R¡GIZ:::: 25 f Ii,/IE,!}, ~ ~ 0 Or!.. Ie ' I - -< Bt¡i1ding Height Lot Coverage (% J- Number of Parking Spaces I ::; t/~41?/£Ç f;~r' 4~£'A'::: 8,iDe c::: - Ir..% 0 Adjacent Land Uses: " ¡.. North f South ~ £/V f7f '- 111 F East ébuÞO West /?z /'t.I a /11ï z - f,' x t? -'-I ,°I...:..J ~ IA/r.-I.-é F4/11It..y ¡:~ PuD I<x C f1Ú.¿C if - Tax 1.0. Number or County Assigned Pin ~umber(s) V) í.) O'g- ¡+~ ¿¡Of-IS/-am 2: - ¡... V) - X ;;.¡ Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) 5£'£ A-rrAcfl£P 0' ., c' ,<, Z Name PAN KCIV'4CE¡"/G I P4-VíP /J1 /rÆcJ¡:::F Telephone (day) , 0 5Co7T 5cilo{:/'/"K-c, ])y..I4Lj) /1//lít:c:fé rð'¿17) 39ð-3~5¿' - E- ,..,c" , <:: Corporation Telephone (evening) ¿ -v //// TTZorr C;-K?Ot.J/~ L/?) (?¿¡ 7) 39' ¡'. ..iC 3C:: - I o~ ... c Street Address. Fax(f~v 5f?-t!/90 ~ ,§ /6?~A~ IJR¿'lt/~ßA,11h3I!O #/00£ Q c.. Z c.. ::ì< City State IZ~ø/ pa(?q~ 3L13- ð;;;77 01 1'/ £L / A/ 'â/'Z' ,,{) )fe¡~I-I r5 --, ¡::: J.L í.) ::.::: Interest in Property Æ U <: Cc/!-¿;e~cr 'ZIÛ/-/4-5'E:L:. == '. " z ,... '"" <: - I '¿:' ... .... - tJ C ::: :... ~ z~ - >-. C 1:: Z ;¿ ;;; ë ,... .... '"" ~ "" - ;-::¡ '" ~ '"" ¿ z: SI ... '" <:~ - :: ¿ 0 ~ .~ C~ ;. c z: ~.... - - ,..-:: Z ~ ;:; = C §- O::ü c;: :> ~~ U ...... I c:: ,; !'iame 5f: :!of/A) f.'f-)¡--H£R41v' é}.¡u,¿cif Corporation Street Address I!¿ïO ¿4~E41¡fA./ ;(0. City State Zip Code !lfr. j}OSr'ECr J¿ ~:;::oper /J/;/12¿V;Ç tf7pOt./~ L-r(j Address /65)),/ 4/-L-//Uci-íV.-t/ Ø>' Æ?t>. _~)i rE: loLl£- A/?LltVtrfZJ)'} lI€iGffr:;; IZ ~ Attorney 'DÂ¡.¡Î i/ D ¡ K ¡;.¡; Fi: Name 5d"¡4liJ B./,etl/CL¡ ¡(O:;S cI C. iv¿O¡'v' Address 222 A/ LA- -5Ä LL£ 5i: 5L-': ry /9/0 {:.fl C.4~¿) / It- b¿íC;:O ( bc.)[J5b Surveyor Name. H-4fGi-'¿ rN4-iA/¡ÇF¿/A/(,~ Address IC( / I A f!C({¿I",J/tVi';- Rl> r<OUlrV(: ¡11£+Dows / 1L ~,¿::> Engineer Name Tòvp 5ifAfrER. HÆ-á.rER EN'Gllv'££Rl,VG- 19114 KOHL H/IA/6- !<C4Þ k>êJLL/N& ¡1,l£ADovvs,IL Address Ç.,CCO'ð Architect Name 853 AI;'Yc¡.ftfEC¡5' T PLA/VN£,2~ Address (530 E. ÙUlv'C;J££ RD 5Jt rr: 3(,0 PAl-A DNE ;.I L <ÓCV~ 7 . Landscape Architect SIH¡¡¿ON .:Jõ.'\J£S Name PuG-5LE1 of LA H-4té:./ Lìi) Address -::ì-t414 t)Lf) ¡11CHl!Ní2Y I!D -1AK£ ZU.¿¡CH / IL (;Co'-!- 7 . Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois \\-\vw. moun tprospect org 2 Telephone (day) . ~f7) 593-7~~7C; Telephone (evening) Fax; (!q7) ::;93'-2?ð/ Pager Telephone (day) (Rf7) 31ð-:)bJ{~ Fax (õ/'/i) 3tð~- ¿:/9CJ Telephone (day) (JJ¿) J3"Z - 02 dQ Fax (it 2) ?32 -£/~'I Telephone (day) (:i¿/7) 3'9 f - C?Có Fax ¡?4i7) 5'11- ?ÞO? Telephone (day) (il+7) 394-~~6CYù Fax (JJi) 3.:;'1- -&bol? Telephone (day); (817) 70S-- 2Zú'::¡ Fax (i+7) 705 -220/ Telephone (day); (j:f7) 4 3i? -Co/3 Fax (j47)4jð7-Gt~y Phone 847.818,5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.60M y, .,' , " , Proposed Conditional Use (as listed in the zoning distiìdt) Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and Howthe PropOsed Use Meets the Attached Standards for Conditional Use Approval (attach additional sheets if necessary) SEE A7TACHED 0 :: ...èn ",,-, ,-"" ""-,, O¡;¡;¡ >=- , ~Ç)I <~ :!:;;; :!:z =-0 íI:J~ " U -< " " - " ",," .-'" ,"'-," .. Hours of Operation " .."" "'-- , ' -,,- '- -, -"'-, Address( es) (Street Number, Street) ~ ., r-Z Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed Cs;: -0 íI:J~ ?3i -rJ¡ /R-I, 1<-2 fuþ 50 0'10 $r 1<-/ 5"1,862. SF Roo/;) .J~2 (;Î'i;: ,...:-- R-2 po_,') :)70 170 S": ", ~< íI:J¿; Setbacks: 0::: Front {(- \ - 301 Rear f:- t - Z$" Side ,Q" t:,ç" Side R. - \- ,,-;' ~O 0:.... R-'¿-?3ù I R .2 p,-') 2') 1< .?. PvD .2 S- I ((-2 P"I[) -;2'5 I =::z ~ - Building Height Lot Coverage (%) ~umber of Parking Spaces fR~ ),3,5' 4 B . I '.0 % JS~ iu::-r'z' 33" c:' Please note that the application \vill not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. Incomplë:te submittals \-vill not be accepted. It is strongly suggested that th;: petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time of subnùttal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be give::1 to this request. The applicant is the OWller or authorized representative of the ov,rner of the property. The petitioner and the OWller of the property grant employees of the Vil1age of Mount Prospect and their agents pennission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property, I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Applicant j)f ¡?,( ----- , /ÂI¡~;?J / ' ¡11 trrZ£¡¡:¡;: ç;e¡)I.J,o U-r) , If applicant is not property owner; Date 3//1/ os- I . I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting materiaL .. /- /J -;? ¡Ulr¡:?"rrt{-;&v,P, in:'); c...,;;-t/"72..r¡'Cr rv'!.L'¡hf5EL- Property Owner ~¡:~ ,ræ/IJ{//'tf':"- Date 3 /; ¡/OS- . , Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect IJJinois www.mountprospectorg 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 /1 ' -:::/11 Qß. ~ ~ 8) , " - --- 1 .n ///1 .--:-:: ~~- -: tr- :-;-- _0- ,Ii' ---m-----m.- . . //1. -'10 .. . O. t ... . ø , ~ ...0- ~--è6'-ŒT~$-Œb--6--~ --- -' l., ~ '- - - - - -~ '_u":~ ~:~~ ~ 0 0 -;j AI:Z)-- -- ~ <9=---------- r1 f.6II' "-_.--..~ ~ --'--"--', - 6 -1==f1 ,..., ~ 5 ~\ ,~:;-~-,--~ ~--------~H d'! ~Ft'-------7 DETE~T!ON. CC):~'---"'-~ (Çc -= 2 ø ~ =- ,;fi] OPE~ SPACE -,- . ' ,.. \~ ------ --. ~----..--~ ~.. .---. .ij' '~3'- " r:), --_..:-~ ==~ -- ~~ ~ iÏ .. . -:fS!' ----=tI'_-.... I--'~-_./:.,;.., -----. .- , f-- '-"-.---- - C("=-- '~ - ~~ ;'1--- @= ..- ~o :: ...--..-----:@) : , -- -- .'::. ~ - ~: I -L_p"'¡' , 0 ~ C>.-- '=,' ø ~. ----------:::@ " ::'___--m-Ä \':::;F"------: n ~ ~ ~ ~ ?t:I (9=:., - - "-=->',,' ø r:- --.. .--~, ~uçL_~ '~l:: ~ .. : :-p C+------.--- 9. -----..----.@ - ~'.._-----_-A ~ ..:J ~ ~- 0=- :1==1, ~---- ~: ,-, ----_-~--rn~ - ~'---"..-= . ~-----::~=G (J' -~U! --:0 -- u :':"':;~ r~- ø(!;Ø C' -<- . , <- I .- ~ , :~ i.l "" ,'~ .-/<,<: ,',' ... ..> ... /. // /~. ~/ ""'=,E'( '-"'J5C':"~ ,<.:,- "LA.," "'A-~R ". ","-'Y 0 ~n¿S.~L :::::;:;:"7.:'~~::~;::;:::~?£::-::: ....~:: -::. Cb :::.:;;.:-:: :.',-~::':" --;-.'. '., - . '~ =--, -" "--.~ ø ;::::::~ -.:. ~ :':. -,:::",,',---' :. .. . "--- -'--~ - .,-, -, ",,< L::.;,,':~ ". '-,..". - ----. "'~-~-"-"""-""""""'--"--.>-"""'-- :""~.'>-"~ ..,,' "......"",. .-,.-,--_..~_..:..~. c£P ~ ....--,.. -,~..- ,.. ..,~ "." -""~"-'--'" ,. ~'::::::-'-'.;;..;,.,,';;,..'::',:..::.:..::-,~;:' -~'-~"~-""-' " ::.~:-;. ,_.:,.,:-;;:::',:;- -::: :~:':';:':;::::-'~'.:;;;:- NOT~ . . --,-,...'- : ::::-:::.:.-.::.-..:=--~:......_---"._.._.-.,',. ....-,.-- . -------.-------..- ,- . "". "--"'.-,... . -"----"'-'-"""" '."--.,' ._----~",...- . ----.'-00"____- ,---- .0..:::..--:::.;::-..;.--;-::.-.',::.::_--..__. ~~:~-:":;:::::"':::_:-~_:"-:_::.::.:-:.:- "-"" '.'::."'::.'.:. -:-::;;~;:;.-.::.:::.-.:-..::".:.:::--:---..- "'.- -. ".. .- "- ---0_' '.. .. "'.. ------ .. .... ""- r¡:¡r-------.I~ I'I~ISTEEPLE \'!E\r 181 .-. ,I II,:": I"? I ?r.I"r.lna'.~ :.an"sc.? ~Iar. , " 7». ~ol,," .-<uo -,. ~. ------ --=- - . - ~',-~.- ':'I -:- , . " \ó.. . .. 6 CD -I =- .. I ce r>C:>.,: J 0 . ~ , T-,-., Q . I ~~:~. ;!.~Ä ~ D 0 ~-=~..~c-:: -: 0 ~, t--~..Je '- --.:: \,\;J \1;V \t) ~ \U! '7" ,Ira .. ,---":'-11!.----,-' .:: < x a: = z ~--', ~----- --...:; e @- . - "-'¡ - -; : u (9=:,...... .. ~- . C9='-'-----"'~1 ~ ~-_:-..-- "--'-'-"-'-'..,-..,.- .-------- s-:.'~e ~ .J~-~ ~ -.. .. 0-,_.,. --',' , ~ ,~'" ". ..,,' :¡~~ :';'IJ~:ìr;tDT\T;\'II' II," ¡I~~I!\'I~ 1'\,1: 11!:III~Uí)III~I,I). .rf-J.II~..lï.II;.l' :',°'(A"c: S':;"~\:,P,~"T','::= :: '.: - .. '::~"A'.' :N' 'l "~,.c: :)t°~,- ., .. '; ~.-.:.:~,....:... ...._-~....._..- -""""""", .. ., 'I: ::::=~:"~-1:: 'fjjPUGSLEY & LAHAIE L TO ! j i a, :, -...-- t::- ,i¡ '-~O'='.Ë .q:~.",c,s .~" :""...~=,~, : ~ '---=--- ' ;, '~~w~.:.~ -:- ~:_::. ,- ~- - .._. ) SUMMARIES OF ACTION REQUESTED Attachment One Describe in Detail, the Buildings and Activities Proposed and how the Proposed Use Meets the Attached Standards for Conditional Use Approval: Description of Proiect The proposed site is an 8.31 acre infill parcel, located at 100 I South Linneman Road. The current land use is a private school owned and operated by St. John Lutheran Church. The current zoning of the site is RX. The applicant's proposal, Steeple View, is for the development of 50 attached multifamily units AND 7 single family lots (8,125 SF minimum). The density of the project is 6.86 units per acre. For the town homes, there will be two unit types offered: a two-story raised ranch unit of 1,266 SF and a two and one-half story row home unit of 1,746 SF. The proposed zoning for the site will be R-I for the single family lot area and R-2 PUD for the town home pod. The site plan is arranged so that there is a row of single family lots bordering the existing single family to the north and town homes located on the southern portion of the plan. The~e will be a proposed 66' wide public street right-of-way that will separate the proposed single family lots on the north to the proposed town homes to the south. This street will connect Linneman Road to Hunt Club Road. Entrance into the town home pod will be off of the proposed east-west pub! ic street. The town home units will be arranged in pairs so that there will be a shared driveway to access rear garages, and landscaped courtyards in ITont of each building. The buildings are planned on the site to offer views of the facades trom the adjacent streets, while minimizing impacts to the adjacent residential uses to the south (multifamily). Two town buildings will face the proposed public street and will flank the boulevard entry into the town home parcel. From this boulevard entry, the town homes will be served by a private drive (24' wide). The private drives which service the auto courts will be accessed trom the proposed public street. The auto courts will be developed as continuous loop drives to permit emergency access. Parking on the town home site will be in the form of enclosed garages spaces (Two per unit, 100 total) and surface tandem spaces (100 total) and surface off-street spaces (50 total). Parking for the single family lots will comprise two enclosed garage spaces, plus 2 additional stacked spaces per unit. All storm water detention will be mitigated on-site in the fonn of a detention basin located at the southwest comer of the project.' Conformity to Conditional Use Approval The proposed project meets the seven standards established in Section 14.203, Subsection D, Part 8. The proposed development will not compromise life-safety of current or future residents as all zoning related requirements, (of the R':¡ and PUD ordinances), engineering and public works requirements and applicable building codes shall be met with minimal variance or waivers requested. In order to develop a site plan that is worthy of the Village's consideration, the applicant has met with the Village and departmental representatives on several occasions to discuss the various site planning related issues including land use, density, traffic and parking. Given the multifamily land use of Steeple View, the impact to local school districts will be minimal. Page 1 Owing to the fact that the parcel's current use is a private school, the Village's General Land Use Plan indicates that the future land use of the subject parcel be Institutional. However, given the church's desire to close the school and sell the property to private interests, an alternative land use of low- medium density multi-family would be compatible with the multi-family land uses to the southwest, south and east of the subject site. Further, the proposed development would also serve as a transitional land use between the multi-family uses to the south and the existing single family to the north. Conformity to Planned Unit Development Standards The applicant is requesting that the proposed project, Steeple View, be considered as a planned unit development with an underlying zoning of R- I and R-2 PUD. The project merits consideration as a PUD because it will offer alternative housing type within the Village, other than single family or condominium units. The proposed project offers an effective execution of smart growth practices, whereby an infill parcel, reasonably close to public transportation, utilities, retail and office uses is utilized for residential purposes. In addition to serving a demand for housing, the proposed project will also benefit the Village as the parcel wilJ be converted into a tax generating use, as the current use generates no property taxes. Page two - .. Proposed Site Information Proposed Land Use R-l SF Area wlROW R-2 PUD Area Total Site Area Site Area (Acres) 2.10 Ac 6.21 Ac. 8.31 Ac. Total Site SF 91,762 SF 270.369 SF 362,131 SF Development Standard R-l R-2 Total Site Total Units Proposed 7 50 Density 3.33 DulAc. 8.05 DulAc. 6.86 DulAc. Front Yard 30' 30' Interior Side Yard 6.5' 25' Corner Side Yard 20' 25' Rear Yard 25' 30' Building Height 28' Max. 28.5' (Front); 33.5' (Rear) Variance Requested Total Building SF 26,600 SF (.46 FAR) 80,000 SF (.30 FAR) Lot Coverage 45% Max. 48.12% Parking Spaces 2 Gar/2 Stack! Unit 2 Gar/2 Stack!1 Guestl Unit 28 Total 250 Total See kin I?; Relief for Variation of Allowed Buildinl?; Heil?;ht. Based our new approach to this community under an R-2 POD classification, it has become apparent that the proposed town homes are not compliant to the height restrictions for that zoning. The ordinance calls for a 28' maximum height (as measured from grade to the mean point of a root) and we are at - approximately 33' as measured to the mean from finished grade at the rear of the building. Therefore, we are requesting a variation from Section 14.905-D of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The justification for this relief is because of the fact that the site can be classified as a transitional land use parcel, sandwiched between more dense multifamily areas to the south, southwest and east, and, the low density single family areas to the north. Moreover, despite that the buildings are taller, the rear-loaded garages and four-sided architectural treatment offers aesthetic relief. In addition, despite the fact that the buildings exceed the height requirement, we are implementing remedial me,asures to help decrease the apparent height of the buildings. For example, the finished grade is raised around the front and sides of all buildings (about 4 '), so when we measure height from that grade, we are just about at the 28' limit for height (28'-2" actual). It is possible to further reduce the apparent height of the roof system somewhat, but we feel that it would be detrimental to the character of these elevations. Moreover, a key component of each building assembly is the "raised ranch" on each end. This unit type is single-level living above a garage. The purpose of introducing this module was specifically to allow the building height to taper off at the ends. This lower building mass relates well to our adjacent single family neighbors. The measured height at these end units is 23'. In summary, while at a worst case scenario, the ma;'{imum building height exceeds the 28' maximum height restriction, we are mitigating the overall average height by adjusting the grade in ITont of the building, and, by stepping down the ends of each building to a lower height. Page 3 10'-6" -{~~ 11' ~ 1 0" ~{ I 4'-6" WOOD SIGN WITH SAND BLASTED LETTERS VIEW ~ Signage Plan . STEEPLE VIEW . Mount Prospect, Illinois ~itroff Group, Ltd. Submitted: March 15, 2005 Submitted: March 15, 2005 "~i "'chotcc" and Plann",. Inc. ~.. Bloodgood Sharp Buster e.. 04-11-2005 ! 2: 5mA FROkrHAi PROSPECT PARI( D ¡ ST S47-255-W8 T-732 P 002/002 F-504 ..i>.. Æilp, ' ~',"""~, Lyrfii t'.... MITAOFF I. . d '" I I I' l'vtlTROFf GR()Uf'. L T D ;ó55:<',:';,T!,'";,',,cr:>'..I'¡;iGr'T:?',.,",.1 ::,,'~; ")':¡""'"I, ;"""-,-',',';,, r,lCH'"" 'I <.\~.iJ()~ i:i-17 398,36:>1> ,'.:; ,;-<, >.B,6:r,'(> April 8" 2005 Dear 1\/1r. Eunesser: ~t 'ff6) þ ,-( t-~, fYLo~ccr 'P AL~ D l s:,'Tr--\ C l ~~~. Co-)~ J . EN tJE S5ev:~ J f-- -t- I~ L' oS Mr. Lou Ennesser DirectOr of Parks and Planning 1vlT. PROSPECT PARK DISTRICT 1000 W. Central Mt. Prospect, (L 60056 Mitroff Group, Ltd. is the contract purchaser of 8.3 acres on Linneman Ro~d in Me. Prospect currently owr.ed by St. John's Luthtran Church. W.~ are seeking Village approval of a Planned Unit DeveJopmenr (P.U.D.) consisting of 50 to\vnhomes and 7 single family homes. II is our desire to provide a p1.lb1ic benefit upon the approval of our P.D.D. by the Village. Therefore, contingent upon final approval and plat recording of the P.U.D., and provided that there are no other fees or costs payable to The District jn connection with the construction of the development, Mitroff Group, Ltd. proposes to contribute $60,000 to the Me ProsperI Park DisIrict for the following work related to the renovation of the ball1Ìeld at Kopp Park: . PrepaIation of Topographic Survey for ball field area, Removal and disposal of existing backstop and sideline fencing, including concrete footings, Remova] and disposal of existing bleacher::; and bleacher pads, Furnishing and installation of new backstOp, sideline and dugoUT fencing. piayer's benches, bleachers and bleacher pads, RenovatiÙI1 ofinfidcl, and Restoration of all disturbed areas. . . . . . " As we discussed, any leftover funds m.ay be used in other areas of the park, while any shor1fail wiil be Îunàeà by the Fark District in Ïis ::;oJc: ùiscrttÌon. . WI¡; arC pltased Lo work with the Park District to promote yoUth baseball in the Village. Thank you for the opportunity. Sincerely, , - ¡ /' /) /./ ' ý~' ,.- , ,~ þ.-./ I~" L.---.------ Daniel P. Kovacevic Chief Financial Officer DPKlnjk c' - ,I &'C€.IMMIJ1."'1\1 '... 1)IVtll1I'MIN1&H"I)Þ-:IU,,\t;t ',' 94 11-95 12:52 RECEIVED FROM:847 255 1438 P.G2 /. .~~ /" - MITROFF GROUP LTD. MITROFF GROUP. LTD. 1655 NORTH ARlINGTÒ,\) HEIGHTŠttbAD SUITE 100-E.-\ST. ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL 60004 84ï.3983636 FAX: 84ï.398.8190 April 7, 2005 Ms. Judith M. Connolly, AICP Senior Planner VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Community Development Department 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056-3218 Re: Steeple View, Mt. Prospect Dear Judy: . Attached is a copy of the Traffic Report from Steepleview. If you need more copies, just call Nonna in our office to let her know how many you need. Please call me with any questions. . Sincerely, J)f ¡J / L--- , Daniel P. Kovacevic Chief Financial Officer DPKJnjk Attachment . .' ~:.' .. R! "¡!HNTIAL&COMMLRCIAI. ..~'.. DIVI¡YI':\\I N 1. & ßRO\'-..;A\,AI-,¡ . ..., .. I ~ KENIG, liNDGREN, O/HARA, ABOONA, INc. L::::J 9575 W. Higgins Road. Suite 400 Roseman!. Illinois 60018 I I I I I I I I I I I ~I I I I 'I I I (847) 518-9990. Fax (847) 518-9987 email: kloa@kloainc.com MEMORANDUM TO: Dan Kovacevic Mitroff Companies FROM: Luay R. Aboona, PE Javier Millan DATE: April 5, 2005 SUBJECT: Site Traffic Analysis Proposed Residential Development Mount Prospect, Illinois This memorandum summarizes the results of a site traffic analysis conducted by Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, Aboona, Inc. (KLOA, Inc.) for a proposed residential development to be located in Mount Prospect, Illinois. The site is located between Linneman Road and Hunt Club Drive south of Golf Road and is proposed to contain a residential subdivision with seven single-family homes and 50 townhomes. The project is proposed to be developed in two phases. Phase I will encompass the development of 34 townhome units with access to Linneman Road via an existing curb cut while Phase II will involve the development of an additional 16 to\vnhomes and seven single-family homes with access being provided via a new east-west road (Steeple View Drive) connecting Linneman Road with Hu;tt Club Drive and providing access to the townhomes and the single-family homes. This study was conducted to assess the impact that the proposed development would have on traffic conditions in the area and to detennine roadway and access improvements necessary to accommodate development-generated traffic. The scope of this traffic analysis included the following items. 1. Data Collection. This preliminary phase oftbe analysis included a reconnaissance of the site aqd its environs to detçrmine the physical apd operational aspect~ of the existing road,. network. Traffic counts were conducted at the critical intersection in the area to detennine existing traffic volumes on adjacent roadways. 2. Directional Distribution Analysis. The directional distribution of traffic approaching and departing the site was estimated based on the existing traffic travel patterns, as detennined from the traffic counts. ..., -'. Traffic Generation Analysis. Peak hour traffic volumes that would be generated by the development were estimated based on rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 4. Site Traffic Assignment. The site-generated traffic volumes were combined with through (nonsite) traffic volumes and assigned to the adjacent road network according to the directional distribution analysis. These assignments were used to analyze the impact that the development would have on forecast traffic conditions in the area. KLOA, Inc. Transportation and Parking Planning Consultants I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 5. Evaluation and Recon'ln1gnJ.iClliol'ls.~as~(t,og thç analyses described above, the traffic impacts of the new development were evaluated and recommendations were detennined with respect to roadway improvements and site access needs. Existing Conditions Transportation condi ti ons in the site area wer~. inventoried tog btaina(:taJétÞf1:g~forpro j ecting future conditions. Three general components of existing conditions Were consider:~cl:{ 1) the geographical location of the site, (2) the characteristics of the roadways and traffic control devices in the site area, and (3) traffic characteristics On th~s.eI'Qllci~ays. Site Location As indicated previously, the site ofthe proposed development is located betwe~11 I,j IlI1em an Road and Hunt Club Drive sQl1tl1 ofQQJfRQlld:.Thesit.Ë.is s:y¥ently occupied by the St. John's Lutheran School (closed). Major land uses include single family homes to the north, the Hunt Club Condominium building to the east, the Countryside Apartments to the south and a townhome development southwest of the site. The II11l11anuel BibleCÞur.çl1ancitheSt. J°hn'sLlltheran Church are located west of the site. Figure I shows the site location as well as the traffic control and geometries of the surrounding roadways. Site Accessibility Th~ principal roadways in the vicinity of the site are illustrated in Figure 1 and described in the following paragraphs. Golf Road (IL Route 58) is an east-west arterial tha,t is UI1clËI' the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). The roadway in the viCinity of the site has a five-lane cross-section providing an exclusive left-turn lanËat its intersËctignwÜl1 !.:inn.ËJ:Ilé¥JRgaci,é¥JclHunt Club Drive. The roadway in the vicinity of the site has a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Golf Road has been designated as a Stré:1tegic Regional Arterial (SRA) in this area by IDaT and as such the roadway adheres to stricter acCeSS control s.tandards. Linneman Road is a north-south two-lane collector roadwav that extends from Golf Road south to ,.. """ '...'" ,,"""'.'.'" ~ its terminus at Algonquin Road. The roadway is under stop sign control and provides an exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane at its intersection with Golf Road. Linneman Road, approximately one quarter of a mile south of Golf Road, curves to the west where it intersects with Church Road. Linneman Road is under stop sign control at this intersection and provides an exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. Linneman Roadhas posted speed limit of 30 mph and is under the jurisdiction of the Village of Mount Prospect. Linneman Road is under traffic signal control at its intersectionwithPempster Street. 2 I I I I I I I I I (f) - - I fT1 r 0 I n J> - 0 I z I I I I I ¡" r ! ~ " j.. ù: 1;' J..., . t~,.!:r/J:,:~~ I . ~'~"I' . ':','T.. ,';' I I I I , I I I I I I "~'I I I I I I I ~~ I I I I ") .J ,I I I I I I I I I <I I I I I I I I ," Hunt Club Drive is a north-south nvo-Iane collector street that extends from Golf Road south to Huntington Commons Road and has a posted speed limit of20 mph south of Golf Road. North of Golf Road the road is named S. Wa-Pella Avenue and has a posted speed limit of25 mph. At its unsignalized intersection with Golf Road, Hunt Club Road and S. Wa-Pell!l Avenue are under stop sign control. No exclusive turning lanes are provided on either leg. Hunt Club Drive is unåer the jurisdiction of the Village of Mount Prospect. Willow Lane is an east-west two-lane residential street that extends from Church Road west to its terminus at Tome Drive. At its unsignalized intersection with Church Street, Willow Lane is under stop sign control. Willow Lane is under traffic signal control at its intersection with Busse Road (approximately half a mile west of Church Road). Willow Lane is under the jurisdiction of the Village of Mount Prospect. Existing Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes Manual peak period traffic counts were conducted by KLOA, Inc. at the intersections of Golf Road with HW1t Club DrivelS. Wa-Pella Avenue and Linneman Road with Church Road/Willow Lane. The counts were conducted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 during the weekday mornìng (7:00 to 9:00 AM.) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 P.M.) peak periods. Based on the counts, it was determined that the morning peak hour of traffic is from 7:30 to 8:30 A.M. and the evening peak hour is from 4:45 to 5:45 P.M. The existing peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 2. , Development Traffic Characteristics '" In order to evaluate future traffic conditions at the proposed access drives for the development, it was necessary to determine the traffic characteristics of the development, including the directional distribution and volumes of traffic that would be generated by the development traffic. Directional Distribution The directional distribution of future site-generated trips on the external roadways is a function of several variables, including the operational characteristics of the street system and the ease with which drivers can travel over various sections of the road system without encountering congestion. The directional distribution of traffic generated by the proposed residential development was determined based on an analysis oftraffic movements in the area, as derived from the traffic counts. The results of the directional distribution analysis are shown in Figure 3 and Table 1. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , '" . . a: ... 0 0 <I: ..JW ...I;:) ~~~~2 1""100 w --- > NON ~ < ~ 1 (8) I I I' +- 1284 (]7191 .; ... '" r 28 (37) 2 :>w ::;:) 02 w w> wet en 0:( "'w 0:(;:) ::~ > 0:« 2 w :: GOLF ROAD +- 1286 (1716) r 16 (25) 1399 <l<43}) -+ ~ f 21 <12) ~ I ,if 1 (O) J 1404 <1417) -+ 22 (26) -. ¡;;....õ -01'"' -,-,-' ~N C ::::~ « .. 0 '<;" co a: N .DOT- - ~ PALM DR 2 « ~ w 2 2 ...J NOT TO SCALE 0 a:: :r u a: ,:) :r u <I: "'w <1::> ::ffi > <1:< 2 BEL AIRE LN w > a: C OJ :> ...J U ... Z ::J :: ASH DR r'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'- i ! I i í i f ,--------------, ; i ~ ¡ ,.,. i , . / ! ~ ~< SITE i . " i " i " ¡ i i \. ; ! j L._._.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.i ~0'1~ O-N --- N 0'1 .... J1l. WilLOW LANE .. 7 (2) .-r 3 (I) -+ 17 «45) ~ EVA LANE ~ 2 (2) +- 4 (4) r 21 (26) ,if Còã3lõ ~~~ NO'1N N N IVANHOE LANE PARTRIDGE LN C <I: 0 a: Z ...I ~ ...I <I: :: 2 < ~ w 2 2 ...J c a:: <C. ...I ..J <C. ~ LEGEND A.M. PEAK HOUR (7:30-8:30 A.M.) P.M. PEAK HOUR (4:45-5:L!5 P.M'> ..J <I: ::J 0 S ~Q t-J\~O~ Ñ (,0 \\Ù~1\ÑG\0 00 - (om - PROJECT: TITLE: PROJECT NO: 05-096 ~. KLOA, Inc. FIGURE NO: 2 STEEPLE VIEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MT. PROSPECT. ILLINOIS EX'S TING PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 5 I I I I I I I , I I r I ! I a: 2 < I- :>w I-w 0 ;::> <:> " ,,2 ;:~ w w w> > ;: w< « GOLF ROAD CI:I :2 13% ~ .. < ...Jw ...J:> Wz o..w «> ;:« 50% ... ~ Q c:t 0 ex: c:t I-w «:> ;:ffi > c:tc:t Z :2 < :E w z Z ...J NOT TO SCALE PALM DR :r u a:: :> :r u w > II: Q tXI :> ...J (,) I- Z :> :t z j ~! ~ ~ ..J Q ex: ct ..J ..J ct ~ ¡.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-, ; i ; i i i i i .'~-------------! I I I i ,.' ! i I ". i ~'" SITE! \ i " i i i i i \ j ~ i L._.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-/ ASH DR 2% <III( .. WILLOW LANE EVA LANE PARTRIDGE LN IVANHOE LANE 0 « 0 a: Z ...J ~ ...J ct ;: ...J 4 :> 0 S ~~ t-f\ t-f\ 0 ~ ~co \\U~"t\ÑG"tO LEGEND 00% - PERCENT DIS TRIBUTION PROJECT: TITLE: PROJECT NO: 05-096 ~. KLOA, Inc. FIGURE NO: 3 STEEPLE VIEW RE S IDENTIAL DE VEL OPMEN T MT. PROSPECT. ILLINOIS ESTIMATED DIRECTIONAL DIS TRIBUTION 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I I , I r : r Table 1 DIRECTIONAL DISTRlBUTION OF SITE TRAFFIC Direction Percent To and from the east on Golf Road 50% To and from the west on Golf Road 13% To and from the south on Linneman Road 35% To and from the east on Willow Lane 2% Total 100% Site Traffic Generation Site access and roadway requirements for the proposed development were based on an analysis ofa combined assignment of site-generated and through (nonsite) traffic movements on the adjacent roadways. The estimate of site traffic generation was based on the number of units and character of the proposed development. The site traffic volumes were determined based on trip generation surveys published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in its 71Ì1 Edition of the Trip Generation _Manual. Table 2 shows the estimated peak hour traffic generation for the proposed development with seven single-family homes and 50 townhomes. Table 2 ESTIMA TED SITE-GENERA TED PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Weekday Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes A.M. P.M. Out In Out Proposed Land Use ITE Code In Size - Single Family 210 7 Homes 4 6 4 - T ownhome 230 50 Units 5 25 23 11 Total 6 29 29 15 7 I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I Comparative Analysis It should be noted that although the St. John's Lutheran elementary school is not operational, based on discussions with St. John's Lutheran school officials the school at one time had a student "/"'põpÜlation of 145 sttiderÙs, 18 staff personnel, seven volunteers and 13 office workers. In addition and typical of any school they had daily truck deliveries of dairy, soda and food. In ,order to do a comparison on the amount of traffic that was generated by school when it was fully operational versus the amount of traffic the proposed development will generate, KLOA, Inc. used trip generation rates found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Table 3 shows the comparative analysis between the estimated peak-hour traffic generation for the proposed development and the estimated trips generated by the school when it was fully operational. Table 3 CaMPARA TIVE PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ANALYSIS Weekday Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ITE A.M. P.M. Proposed Land Use Code Size In Out In Out - Single Family 210 7 Homes 1 4 6 4 - T ownhome 230 50 Units 1 25 23 11 Total +6 +29 +29 +15 Previous Land Use Elementary School 520 145 Students -35 -25 Difference -29 +4 +29 +15 lIt should be noted that the P.IvL peak trip generation for the elementary school occurs between 2:00 and 4:00 P,M. and as such it has no impact on the peak hour of the adjacent streets, As can be seen from Table 2, the proposed development will generate approximately 25 less trips during the morning peak hour while during the P.M. peak hour the development will generate additional traffic since the school had no impact on the adjacent street P.M. peak hour. However, it should be noted that the development w]ll generate considerably less truck and bus traffic than what the school used to generate since the homes will not have weekly deliveries like the school used to have. Future Developments Based on discussions with Village of Mount Prospect officials, a portion of the parcel west of the site which is currently occupied by the St. John's Lutheran Church will be redeveloped to reconfigure their sanctuary and move their existing offices (located in the St. John's Lutheran Elementary School) to the reconfigured building. Since the new sanctuary will not increase in size and the offices are just being moved from the east side of Linneman Road to the west side of Linneman Road no new/additional traffic is expected to be generated. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In addition a 27 -acre parcel located in the southeast quadrant ofthe Dempster Street intersection with Linneman Road could be developed with a multi-family development. Based on the location of this parcel, we do not anticipate a significant increase in traffic through the studied roadways as this parcel is bounded by Dempster Street to the north thus providing an excellent east west connection to other north-south arterials. Traffic Assignment The development site-generated traffic (Figure 4) that will occur during the morning and evening peak hours was assigned to the area roadways according to the residential directional distribution discussed previously (see Figure 3). Figure 5 illustrates the total traffic assignment. Tills assignment also includes a two percent growth rate per year applied to the existing traffic for one year. The total traffic assignment shown in Figure 5 was analyzed to detem1ine future traffic needs in the area and the ultimate design access needs of the development. Evaluation and Recommendation The proposed development, as previously mentioned, will be developed in two phases with the first phase containing 34 townbome with access to Linneman Road via the existing curb cut serving St. John's Lutheran Elementary School. The second phase will consist of the development ofan additional 16 townhome units and seven single-family homes. In addition, Phase II will incorporate the construction of an east-west street (Steeple View Drive) connecting Linneman Road and Hunt Club Drive. The residential development will then have access via this new road. For analyses purposes KLOA, Inc. analyzed the full buildout of the site. Steeple View Drive as previously mentioned will serve the development by connecting Linneman Road with Hunt Club Drive and as such it should be designed to provide one lane in each direction with outbound movements under stop sign control at both intersections. Based on the traffic volumes and the results of the capacity analyses no exclusive turning lanes into the site will be necessary. The seven single-family homes will front the proposed east-west road while the townhomes wiII be located south of Steeple View Drive. Access to the townhomes will be provided via a connection to Steeple View Drive located midpoint between Linneman Road and Hunt Club Drive. Outbound movements at this internal intersection should be under stop sign control. No geometric improvements to the existing roadways will be necessary. Traffic Impact Analyses Capacity analyses were conducted at the unsignalized intersections of Golf Road with Linneman Road and Hunt Club Drive/Wa-Pella A venue and Linneman Road with Willow Lane/Church Road as well as the Linneman Road and Hunt Club Drive with the new Steeple View Drive utilizing the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) 2000 capacity analysis model. Under existing conditions all of the studied intersections operate at acceptable levels of service with the exception of Golf Road \"ith 9 I I I I I I I I .1 I I I I I I r I I IX: Z <C .... ;:)W ""w 0 3:;:) <C;:) 0 CJZ ~~ w w w> > +-- 2 () ~ w<c <c<C (f) Z r 1 (5) GOLF ROAD <C -IW -I;:) Wz A.w <C> š:<C 0 (2) -+ ~ i' 1 (2) ~ I I +-- 1 (51 r2m 5 <31 -+ ì í 0 (21~ :::M c -- <C N Lt'I 0 a: ,... ,... ... <T -' -' Nt- <C ~W <C;:) 3:~ > ,<c<C Z Z <C :E W Z Z -I NOT TO SCALE PALM DR c a: :r u a: :) X U BEL AIRE LN w > a: C m ::> ...I u ~ ;Z ::> :z: ;: õ:; WILLOW +- 1 (0) LANE r 9 (5) 0 (1) -+ ( - EVA 0'1 LANE N PARTRIDGE LN 0 <C Z 0 .J a:: Z 0 a:: <C <C :E .J W .J Z <C Z :¡: -I N r'-'-'-'-""'-'-'-'-'-'-"N! I i~ 7 (4) ) ¡ '-. Ir1o (51 l L- - - - - --- - -- --¡ ./~ 9 (5) J i ì .' =-- 3 <11 --. I - .' C) i ,.." ,.' ~ i - ,. '" SITE ¡ 0 "', ¡ \ ! " I i i i i i i i i L._.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.i ASH DR , IVANHoe LANE ~ -I c:( 3 -I « ;:) 0 S ~Q ~~o~ ...\ cO G'O\'O \\Ù~,\~ 00 - LEGEND A.M. PEAK HOUR (7:30-8:30 A.M.) P.M. PEAK HOUR (~:~5-5:~5 P.M.) (00) - PROJECT: TITLE: PROJECT NO: 05-096 STEEPLE VIEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MT. PROSPECT, ILLINOIS SIT E T RAF F IC ASSIGNMEN T ~. KLOA, Inc. FIGURE NO: 4 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I <I: a: :2 <I: ~w ~::;) to- ::;)w I-w w2 ~::;) :;) ;:;ôôc.w a 02 <2 --- > C) w 3w NON<I:<I:~ 1 <8) w> > +- 1313 (1751> ) ¡ ~ ;= 13~g <1760) w wet <1:< ~ en :2 r 18 (32) (451 GOLF ROAD 1427 0461> ---- ~ ~ 22 05> --. I I ìÎí , 1 ( 10 1 --1' 1439 <14501---- 22 <28) '--' õ ....~ NO"'" -,-,-' PALM DR ~I'- C ~~ < UJLf1 a 1"1 a: 2 <I: ~ w 2 2 ~ NOT TO SCALE cPOII' -- II' c a: :.t u a: ::J :r u <I: I-w <::;) ~ffi > et< :2 BEL AIRE LN w > a:: c IX! ::;) ~ U to- :2 ::;) X N~ I"') I'- -- ~ ~I"') CTI~ -- ASH DR I'- N ~._._.-._.-._._._._.- N ", NIl!'). i~ 7 (4) .) I ¡ ¡ l Jr 10 (5) + i !..._------------¡ .'~'I r 5 ~f/ ~ ! 1 Î .'~,~ ¡ .' \...v a . ~ 0'1 .'~ ..:::; ! I"') V "V 1'1 SITE I -- ". 'V ¡ 0 I"') ~ i ~ \ i i i i i '\ i " i L._.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-/ ~ ~CTI~ 9=~ N CTI"'" ) 1l. IL 2 <2) WILLOW +- 5 (4) LANE.. r 32 (32) 7 (2) --- 3 <2) ---- Î 17(45)--.) ( EVA LANE ~ã5;:: ~~~ NO'IV N N IVANHOE LANE PARTRIDGE LN C <I: a a: ::.::: ...J < ;: 'Z ...J 0 ex: < ...J ...J < :Æ LEGEND A.M. PEAK HOUR <7:30-8:30 A.M.J P.M. PEAK HOUR (4:-45-5:45 P.M.) 2 < ~ w 2 Z ..J ...J < ::;) 0 s ~~ ..I\~O~ CO"" G1\O~ \"\\,)Ñ\\~ 00 - (00> - PROJECT: TITLE: PROJECT NO: 05-096 KLOA, Inc. STEEPLE VIEW RES/DEN TIAL DE VEL OPMEN T M T. PROSPEC T, IL lINOIS TOTAL TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ~ ~, FIGURE NO: 5 11 ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I Hunt Club Drive during the P.M. peak hour. The analyses indicate that the existing left-turn out of Hunt Club Road operates at level of service (LOS) E due to the heavy through volumes along Golf Road and the long delays this movement experience. This is not uncommon and is expected where a minor street intersects a major highway. It should be noted that based on observations conducted during the P.M. peak hour, the majority of the left-turning traffic from Hunt Club Road onto Golf Road is generated by the office building on the southwest quadrant of the Golf Road intersection with Hunt Club Drive. Although the capacity analysis indicates a LOS E for the left-turn out movement based on our observations there were numerous gaps in the Golf Road through traffic stream due to platoons created by the traffic signals at Elmhurst Road and Busse Road. As such, these gaps allow more vehicles to turn left out of Hunt Club Drive than what is represented on the capacity analyses. Table 4 is prepared summarizing the results of the capacity analyses at the intersections. The results of the analyses are expressed in terms oflevel of service and delay. (For an explanation of Level of Service, please see the Appendix.) Table 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Existing Conditions Future Conditions AM. P.M. A.M. P.M. Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Golf Road/ Linneman Road C 17.8 C 19.1 C 18.9 C 20.0 Golf Roadl Hunt Club Drive D 29.0 E 40.9 D 31.8 E 44.2 Linneman Road/Willow Lane/Church Road A 7.54 A 8.03 A 7.60 A 8.03 Linneman Roadl Steeple View Drive A 8.7 A 9.1 Hunt Club Drivel Steeple View Drive A 9.0 A 9.2 LOS - Level of Service Delay is measured in seconds. There have been some concerns raised by the residents of the area regarding the potential for increase in cut-through traffic along Linneman Road and Hunt Club Drive due to the proposed development and the construction of Steeple View Drive. Vehicles desiring to go west on Golf Road have the opportunity of turning left from Hunt Club Drive or from Linneman Road (which provides an exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane). On the other hand some residents might find it easier to travel west on Willow Lane to the traffic signal at Busse Road, turn right to go north and then turn left at the signalized intersection of Golf Road with Busse Road. However, it is our 12 ,1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I opinion that this westbound movement will be minimal as motorists have to travel at 25 mph on Willow Lane( 40 mph on Golf Road) and come to a complete stop at two intersectiòns (Cypress Drive and Robert Drive). It should be noted that the provision of Steeple View Drive connecting Linneman Road and Hunt Club Drive will disperse traffic traveling to and from the north via the two roadways instead of loading all of the northbound traffic via a single road. Another potential cut-through route that has been discussed is motorists traveling southbound and bypassing Elmhurst Road via Linneman Road and Hunt Club Drive. Based on our observations and the results of the traffic counts, a very low number of vehicles are currently turning left to travel south on these two roadways. During the P.M. peak hour approximately 25 vehicles turn left from Golf Road onto Linneman Road while approximately 37 vehicles turn left from Golf Road onto Hunt Club Drive. Based on a review of the proposed site plan and the existing traffic patterns, the provision of a connecting street between Hunt Club Drive and Linneman Road will not increase or invite additional cut-through traffic in the area. In addition to the cut-through concerns, staff has raised some concerns with the adequacy of the sight distance at the location of Steeple View Drive at its intersection with Hunt Club Drive. Based on our field observations, a vehicle exiting Steeple View Drive can see vehicles on Hunt Club Drive coming from the north as well as from the south. In addition, the north leg of Hunt Club Drive at its intersection with the Hunt Club Condominium access drive is under stop sign control and as such motorist exiting Steeple View Drive will have more time to perform an exiting maneuver. Conclusion The proposed site is well situated with respect to the existing land uses and local and regional roadway system. The capacity analyses under existing conditions as well as under future traffic conditions indicate that all of the studied intersections are currently operating and will continue operating at acceptable levels of service with the exception of the Golf Road intersection with Hunt Club Drive during the P.M. peak hour. This is due to the heavy through volumes along Golf Road and the long delays left-turn out of Hunt Club Drive experience. As previously mentioned, this is not uncommon and is expected where a minor street intersects a major highway. In addition, due to the existence of traffic signals east and west of the intersection at Elmhurst Road and Busse Road, numerous gaps in the Golf Road through traffic stream are created thus allowing more vehicles to turn left out of Hunt Club Drive than what is represented on the capacity analyses. The site access system as proposed will provide efficient traffic movement between the proposed development and the adjacent roadways without increasing or encouraging cut-through traffic through the existing residential neighborhood. The proposed development will generate significantly less traffic during the morning peak hour when compared to the amount of traffic the school used to generate and as such the new residential traffic can easily be accommodated by the existing roadway network. Kovacevic Residential Development in Mount Prospect AprilS 2005 Ira jm 13 ¡ I J I Appendix :1 I I I I , I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Total Delay (SECIVEH) A $10 B > 1 0 and $15 C >15 and::;25 D >25 and $35 E >35 and $50 F >50 Source: Hi?,hway Capacity Manual, 2000. ü:::i OE./2005 17:40 :=:47'34:::7449 VJ?;L'3H DEEF'F IELD PAGE 01/0::: TO: MT. PROSPECT ZONING BO,.\RD RE: ST. JOHN LUTHERAN PROPER TV DEVELOPI\-fENT PROPOSAL CASE NO. PZ] 1-05 PROM: ALZVEJNIEK$ 695 BEL AIRE LANE 847-437-7181 94-29-95 99:El4 RECEIVED FROH:8479487449 p.St 03iO6i2005 17:40 :,::4 7'34::::744'3 '.":;:.',L=,H LEEFFI:::U' F"::;(lE 0:=:./0::: AI Zvej nieks 695 Bel Aire Lane J\:lt Prospect, In 847-437-7181 RE: CASE NO. PZ 1) -05 For the past few days I have been reviewing the 1\lITROFF GROUP's revised plans for developing the St. .John Lutheran property. As a reminder, their first plan/proposal was rejected unanimously by the 1\ft. Prospect Zoning Board. I Msh to make the following comments on their new proposal: 1. \'Vasn't it mentioned by the Zoning board during their first proposal that the South side of Mt. Prospect is too densely populated - and - that more town homes just adds to the density? How does their new proposal which reduces the number by a total of thirteen - from seventy to fifty seven units - take that into consideration? It was also mentioned that the direction in J\.ft. Prospect is to go to single family dwellings. The audience present at tbe first meeting cheered these comments. 2. The:y have added seven residential homes in their new proposal. Fine - however - they are requesting a Zoning change from the current RX to Rl to accomplish this. They are proposing to buiJd seven homes directly behind our four homes that reside on Bel Aire Lane. This would total1y change the character of our neighborhood4 We bayelarge lots, they wish to build on gman Jots. Why not keep the RX for at least this one more row of homes so that we can maintain some uniformity in our neighborhood. I feci five homes would be sufficient. 3. The seven new homes in their new proposal are being planned for a low area that currently collects water during rain storms. It makes sense to leave more green space between the homes. The solution :is not to build as many homes in a row as possible on that swamp area. 84-261-85 G9:GS RECEIVED FROH:S479487449 P.Q2 , O::::lOE..l2Üi)5 17:40 :::47'34:::744'3 i,',I':"L::,H [1~:EF'FIEUI F';:::,'~E 0::'0:: \Ve don't need to see any standin g water as a result of this new construction. Let's keep the area for residential homes Zoned at RX. 4. The reduction of 13 units from their original proposal does not alter the concerns of our neighbors and my family regarding traffic on Linneman Road. A lot more traffic wilJ stiJl be the result of their new construction proposal Some consideration should still be made to reduce the number of units proposed. Why townhornes? Why not more singIe family homes in their plan? 5. The height of the new buildings being proposed is estherically overwhelming. Iftownhomes are being built why not keep the architectual design in line with the townhomes to those of the Court of St. Johns which will border the project. This makes sense as it follows some architectual design pattern of construction and development of this area. Even tbe new buildings in the downtown area of Mt. Prospect follow a Jike design pattern. Let's keep the character of our area as is. All of us living here are happy with it. We obviously chose our homes in this area because we liked the ares. Let's not allow dramatic changes to occur to our neighborhood. 84-28-85 e9:es RECEIVED FROM:8479487449 P.E>3 ), ./1 . 7} Ct!ÞH! f)Cf¡U lU JI1ÚJ-Jú } . ,ì I ..:-), !-¿--' . / /0/ "-::;/)';) (Al yL¿.¿7/ (1,¿' C J. c-~{ Yt"¿U:'>~1f. -h; 1!;(;?Ll¡-t{ )1l; C1?~crL C7L J-lYiZ¿'~J a~ur ~() X2C.C-I.J.fCe.7 I ¿;) JUxLt~c¿¿ ~L / 10 I ~fC! {a ¿.eel ~t - ê!-yìU!'L 2t-~¡- ~ / / " -u~ d, .~L j (lz<-: ~l vi d :jæh; I xf-<, ~lè, L, k7-'~~ £. ~,':) '}t/;,"~ 'u.l dW"d'll1ll/ dwn~f ~:r.(:Jit" I r.tr;.o dcNJ-LCJ . , . LR/"f ~ kd f£ft& f d4 up NL ~)1U-<.':4 /;ú{jl- . ~-u.'J1 rJ¿. i'~; tILt -j-a.r¡,'N I w-c.j.(2ÿ"'- ()A~--Z. /)1.-p'cr U-Ic:J /ìl--¿~C It' O;t.. / /J r" " liÎ 7 I (' / '(:;:1t1 ~'~'~'1i-f/K2¿¿,'.~/'4L~--~) ~-i- "lLL.(Lf: Iva;(a/t¿.;{t ti1-¿ /)1éœ/7~/ ¡ ~ßo¿'It-,) ')X}ðJ d 'f..U(f Þ:J} titd p a ~It. -<fJfk-p tIu . :,~k,.,:, ,Ik,{r~%~~.), ?'e<""¡U;'r tt p¿'J{t.",~c-{ b" >-<1;-<,' '0 j:Jl, Ct »)WJ.(, T ; {l-{. C H ( &þ J --<'-(0 dlL :L{'7"" "0 (?t. c'1 '4»<-<Yo r ;; ~C!-Ll c¿ ð'-f~ /Î.,1.VÌé ¡/Î/LC;-CzJ:; ~ . Ðc a"JU-¡ ex 1c-<c 'I;-~,,-<, (f.4L<¡-CAÌù.C v[d ~-iu-ff¿<! .ho ToÙ",>, ):I~1f.7 elL;; ,iJ~ //? .;;;JJ¡ic éJU-V~ _c6 ,:5~,j -<yO cu LV (ucj¿~A ail Gem t (>¡'<: ðtc>1 c--t .&"'-<2 . ~ I~! ¡¡'~.,a ŒJu~ ik r rJi<.HL~ vYi~ i c.! (]hlt ÎlbV<> ,? ¿) rj:k 8- (Jk.<-{ ~,~ (eel,' ~fu 4 (]1 C J I , f~ ( VJ2-o-L, "',';7 t CJff-ø-¿ Ú"'t'"J 1 ¡'Fh- ~¿~ ~I(/' ~7 enl L~C-Ü L('7'-j fo Cfu..- &L1-f;C ~d. :, Þ, : r c;;¡-UY; - ~ 7W ó /N~ 0"- "- /' J-?s¿ /T Ù ~ CMk . . cd ~i,- fò J(;;¡tX-t / 'I ~) {hit! C?-I<Z d~'K c-l -_f¿-ð--(f~ ,C!él.if""y-Iff£.€( O-'~-yO/LC i:~ {jC}~t.( '-fc/ ~-ì)17 é¿7Lè -t-. ()/~L-1-{ ,--6\itc/¿ ---fc-t~ ~. .,. rJ¿ J!~,¿ (!øA..-~~;~';> ¡;~-fLb-:1 3" J"",-« /) ~ :~ f2-~O ctU-!Ú7 d--t &.-""'t . C~'v7' (~~ iA 0/ -~-f~-f 'f2Pa/1V~~f t£~¿ (~~ I . Jt/ " r, "..,) ~ " '...~ O>t9-~-- L-{}---j(-<'l cL 01'1 I ) \~.::. }T'-c 2~{ - I~¡Å-t "Z-( ')~ ( " 1'\., i I,.ó ~ !' ',I. \ " . , ' , , , Q,'-C'u.Lvl ~t ;:j 'j(~<o( V.,Le t~ .~J--/:-'-(i OLC,il /1 C-:/-:"(." NI n/? Ii 'j ~~' ; ~/ L, J' -,J/. -h- . I ;j r.x.--vJJU, V 'J I_, (, I' , 'tL-CL--CCt/Ly -c,\...J;A.:2.-'~¡/¿C~? . II ).' '.,w~ ~ Cl"'l' ' êhD.{ c-rF-UL~ /V'êÍu" LH.UfC¿'~'9 tJiJßLd<tt Wu-. . 4- (U -( cO< e ¿tiLL -st Ú~ c t!: -n7f Œ &< I:i .::;)1 . ,~ V¡:- 'b-~ vd ú. c ~L: t M V-~ Ô~ . ,~ CLf,-rt- ,J//~~ --t9- Xl~.qJLl.£ 7 aAÞUIL-d.. uu, Jx;'Y-4-'\.- ~ ~vl ;~ p').ê a-tvi<Ax>-7 ,'t-u-71 C-li~~L ~ ;t:K ¿ . ~ . t¿Jr~'7'7 . il!~~ tfk ik"c.eL., oLt:L. C¿ bY: .~ " &ct.~ 6,7/¿¡}c,<: ,Ùciv-L éYt174htCC . <!AA{> tM7 4-0 ~+ l C'71 ~ , , (ì ¡j; \.- í -~ \. /) L' . . . l';t::i ,2rå<F,~ ()Jd,,?¿ O¿)"'.'~-( 7L¿VO'-~{;' :>.~ - í -, ~ U >-f¡ ,1J+c~l. b i 0-'-' .\. v~.-?U. <> '>Ì. - ~1l<7 I uULI Ix- ~»<'dl lM~k<- ~ ~ û/L4' c& ¡) ...u-l ð!¿ff ~ l. ,'-. f v' 11. ') " ~ 1 n-t ' . i r:L/ ()7U--c ~ 0 ¡- t:yv¡-'\'v 71 C-¡4-'Q..::([,c Á--I C1'u., - t ð'--r<.... ,()...." 4.f) " "Á \/1 ~ Ò-;vð-u-~ '--PU,L>\... (Þ"IL4.. d! 0-1} I" L/u..[t¡¿,~ 9/<:-"o-C c-, ~^" ," ¿--', - l ~ f-:J /F)t..'é!.,-CL-i'C:é.,' Il ad,';'" l':: l~j e~7- Lf7¿;¿- 9óZL7ý , , " ~1UA-:f2-AÌ)Ié/ , II 0) !+tINT Cl,vþ V(Ll vE. i M'~ \L V)OC9ci - 4-2~ ~¡;";~'~;'-_:,'~,'" ,', "', \ f- \ q'l}b \ \, ~i W1'"""..--.._o:\ " ~\ ~.' r-rf.:ft\)\t. ~),~~,.J \. ..,\r:,~~:":r~-=-~~~~-' ~ , ' "..': ,', ---------. ------- ------------- i .(-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II "% . if ~ if Church Pastor Jeff G. Gavin April 5, 2005 "Cfirist's :ramify '1(eacfii11!J Out In Love" TO: The Village of Mt. Prospect Board of Planning and Zoning FROM: The Council ofSt. John Lutheran Church ofMt. Prospect, Illinois The Council of St. John, representing nearly 500 members, most of who are residents and tax paying property owners within Mt. Prospect, urge you to support the change of zoning and approve the property development proposal from the Mitroff Group, Ltd. for the 8.3 acres of land on the East side of Linneman Road, presently owned by St. John Lutheran Church. In consultation with advisors from our Synodical denomination and others, it has been determined that the direction, and indeed the future, of St. John is dependent on an improved church facility. In order to be able to meet this challenge, it is necessary to divest of some property. After entertaining offers from numerous developers and carefully deliberating over their proposals, we selected the Mitroff Group. This decision was based very much on the quality of the finn, its heart for Mt. Prospect, and a proposal that would enable St. John to be the best neighbor possible, as our church will remain in its present location. We received proposals for at least as much money from other developers, but it was our belief that row houses, high-rise condos, and high-density dwellings would not benefit the neighborhood. The Mitroff proposal we feel will enhance the neighborhood. In your review of the Mitroff development proposal, I'm sure you will recognize the great care taken to enable this development to indeed be an enhancement to the neighborhood and to the Village of Mt. Prospect. Again, we urge you to support and approve this development. In the service of Jesus Christ, T e Council of St. J~hn Lutheran Church - Mt. Prospect, Illinois ~. / / ~ ß ~ - / /1 ~Jff. j~ , ! '~<: 4;~ ,;U¿~ ~ C? 6~- ~:rl~~ ~t) / 0, ~~~~ ¡jt£IJ-vZ- Or¿ ~ ~¿.~ cXrvrj/1{b-~, ~~~ 1100 Linneman Ad. Mount Prospect, IL 60056 eo (847) 593-7670 www.luther95.net/SJLC-MPIU ~ ::: I /--- r~¿{\~ iI\ ~ ]1 g¡ E:=J ;: _::::_~~ I .' .,=:.:::;=.,;:..-"..,-,.~, -~.-.). .. E:=J ::;::-'~- .._--;:;:==.:,"'-"~' h IJIIiIIIIm ' ~.-. .... ., ~-1:':.':;::::;:~':' c::::J ;~"~=- E:=J :: =: :::- - ,- MULTIFAMILY 04 ZONING " 0 0 -- ~, °.. -~ ( ~m~~~ .~- -~ ~,~&. "',- -- ""'- ""M_'- .,.- -, .... ~ :;,-~ -~--. ,- "- --~o~~- ~.~. -~ 0 :.=;: " ~ " " --~ r ;;;; ¡;;;- .;;;; ,.;;;.;;; ~-;;.;;;;; , IrI"'_~"1I:::'~.'r.~'" I \!"'J!S/!.. '...!.B~ !!!2::!!'3!.. ~". ,-,~-----.., """,ro_~-~~-~~-- , - -~===:i==-~..:=-- ~ - ~~~~~=- PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN STEEPLE VIEW MITROFF GROUP lTD, ~'~".~ . EJ HAEGER ENGINEERING ¡ =~~. -' ..,.=::.-:=': ¡ -~- , -- '" - '"" """'" "': _. "",' ... , . , .. - """ -~. ~"" -==f-ll- I I I II! S 1- I "- ¡i, I > 1<: I ¡- ;!.ii ~ , 1~I!i; I o',~I, II: I .i:!, < ~:¡! æ I' "'"1 ! i I! i IHI~ ~ H-i-,-I~ "- II I 1--12 T! Iii: 1~"o'vHI'- ~~~~ ,ill-- !: d p,H !¡¡!j£i:~I¡~:j¡i:~¡~!i&i}jil Iii i.o" ¡¡ y¡+j!¿1 M ',/\ - /,~ ~ _"_, , { !. ~"~~~ '\ \" ~ '\ /\( \ ,1.\ \t-" /'-/ ¡-;~\:"I¡ '\,~' ¡1h \ \,t' ,¡'I, \1'1 iii! \\ \ \\:'-- >ì;! '\ \ \( w; \\ 'I"", ","H"'H'.""""'-" '>¡¡, "-.\ to,"/","'- 1,," "" . ~--\ ~'\ ,~ '~.r , \ ~ . .-.~.~~_. ""iT;¡;--"-:--""- I 8m::! lNnH ¡ p: : " '~~ " ",,- ~ 1! ðii .." co w Z Z ",--,~""" ~ ~,,-8 s;~p w'"'s ~Ol w... w... ¡¡¡51; t: :IE :H! ;:¡ :::::11 &.2 2:-A ~':'I~H ...... I . ~i!¡ : ~ c:r:p¡ '!; i1l I;; ~t~1 I Ih~ ~I ~ 1m ~i ~ I,:" <: . I'I~~I ~ ¡!Ilh;l g .'1'::: I ~ m.b.) ~ ~- ~ I . G t~" ,;1: "'-0 (;;;;;;::-';;;;'=~-;;¡.-;-";¡;;"'I 1;:"':--;:::"~".'::7.";;;- I o..!~'tf. '-!.8~ ,!!.2:!.'!!. J ~" ~,~--~~-, _ro~~-~,~-~~-- --_.._.~.=....~..._-"~..__.__. ! ::: I r:::::J r:::::J !iIìiIïID!i!! c::::=J r:::::J ,,-~ :: S E:Ti:.':i:;' '~;'"; , "' , "I"M_'_~-.-"'-"~' , 'I>' M.- - _. ",. ,. ~ . .'--'-(~-" --. ;: ':'0";:::: ::::~:... ;: =-. '::';:..;;- ".~ "- . . . 0.. ( ->- A I .. @ 0 " -.- ~.~M 0" ::. ... ( ~,~-~ -..- ~~- no_, -- "'- "'~ -,~ ~"~ " -- n '..'- :"~~. ..".-- 0 ~.- .. ,- .,- , ':;:-'~ .~.,- "- ~H- --~ "",. ~~ ",,", ~~.. ,.,.. _.~ ..,.. -~,..,- '","" ~=~. ~~ ~,- ,._,.. ,w__. ,.,.w -,A, V SIT E LAND USE 'OTALSITE"'" æF.i~-¡¡'> "'" srnCIEFAlIlty ,....-..,-- ,-,,'" ... "'~~"" """""""" D A T A TOTAL srr"'EACE ~.m;: ~."'Sf "'."'Sf "."'Sf , ""Sf TOtN1!OIlES ,....m~. , """IJIW." """ "lID." , """IJIW." --¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡, 01"""","","- """".","'"'" """"""""" """"'OT" '~' , 20 , " " ,~ ,~ ~ ¡¡¡¡- (5"> "'.".. "'IN/" "-I 511!'" '-I""""'" R-2 LOT COVERAGE "" '"'... (rom"""'1 """'" ='~roI1R1S - ""~""""""""oo" ""~"""""... :::ij¡~¡ :::¡::¡ 1::::;1 :~: TOTAL Sm: DENSITY il.¡ .;: 51""" ,. " '.""1" """ CROSS CROSS ... ""S8"I L I N \\H- . II I Ii I , I I Ii )~ ! I n;:: .14". .. to. "'on" ~."'" "". """, ,.," "-"'" 7"" iioou' "'" '~."'" "... .' ,-",,-------=~ /---' /--:?/{oY' ""'" r'\\ ) II ~ iš C=:J '-"-,""«,,,",",,""'.'-',~" ::::;:;:::~::::-':::"i,,':¿" ~., "/7"-"~,-,-",-",,, . ""-"---'-'-',"" """""--(~-') C=:J ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ c;::::] C=:J ::::::::::::::;.- ¡: '::..";::::'::::7:- /~-11~~;::":;~~';":;::' , I ", I' f j I j Ii MULTIFAMILY R4 ZONING @ " 0 0,. ( '" " "- " . )1 ~ -. ~,,~ ,-~, _.~-,~ .~- -- ~,,~~. ~.~ u,,'~ ....-...,- .,.~ "",,'~ ~._.~ '... ,- -- - "'.. "'". ""--~ D -, " , 0 =:: ç:.:::> } )1 f -----:-~_____mm___':J m 1,0(1 j Ic'_"""""':r., " c:~ 1~- / ;::;'.;~;:;,;'".. u ( 1 .1 STEEPLE VIEW MITROFF GROUP LID. "',"""'C'.""'" ."""WC ",.,,' ---'--~-'----------iJ----n' ___--_~m___---'-~- ~ \ '\ \] PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN MULTIFAMILY R4 ZONING (;;;;;;;;;,;;;;.;;;;..--;;..",;;;;"\ I"":~~..:;'t-:':{",~:~'rv":::r;.- I J;':Œ '-.!.8~ !!2::!!'!!. J Ii] HAEGER ENGINEERING II :;:::o::::'..!. ~=="::'= .::::: I """- TH n- ". c- ", """ "",' ""'" . , 0- ,,-,,~, ,-'" ~-"" -l ¡ I / I I / / / , /// // -----_/ PLANT MATERIAL KEY 5CALE I" ~ 30'-0' 0 ,"".,=. 2.5'.'A~~""",.'Ao'.'0<Þ0Q",o~.y......""S,_'IWM""" . ',"o=,os."",G,"",.""',""Ho~""."""'f',"~.IW_',""'."""",' S...,I M.", °," """,,><. 'Skyl'O'" c,,~,,' "" """'"" IW' IW M.,.. ... ,"",.00> ^ ",..~~Tlu.¡;'.~.Co=",ñl.A,,"~o""~W""",~.~,,"oG.U"S"""', ""1:) 'o~"S,ro~.,",Em~,"A""'ro"'" ø ~:,::;~.~~:~~~;;::::",';;:""" c""""",,,~, 00"_' 'A",~o 5".~ 4- '~I"u"S"".lð'.2""""',yJ~F'<',"D<=V~, &f ~'::::o~;-;: ~::':;~~~;;~;:"""" Hy""'~, Ow.., 5"",,, M. 'M,~ <m' W.o, "'- ~:~:~"~:.::': ;;;~~:':;~:;;';::;:I:"'I CO<Oo="'. ',"' '"'" %~ ",~".. Q""~. ~ ~;;;"'%:;';~'i~~:g;;',;.',;;';;,~~:;=:~:,=:;~,:"CI""N'",,9w"hG"", C3 6:;;;:~é~:'~ ~,,¿~,;;:;o~:::..;:~~":~~;~;~:'1~,=~~,~~:,,":' W'm'~.uF'<' NOTE5 ,~,"",.""""""","~,~--~"_.,,-~,.",,,",,... , ",","""~,~,,,~.~_..,.. : ~~:~,:;':::::~:7':-'~;:'.:":;;"::::;:~"~~,::;:;,"':;:;::;;:;=~.'::::"':;;';~':'-:=:~",_..... ;o'",~"~.~".,.~""",...."~",......~"_..,~..~...,,",,,.,..~~,,,-,,- ;:"¿;:,,";;;~,;::;:;~~.:~:'::::::':~~:::~.,",",.- ,. ".",..~.","""""""'~"'-"""" ;. ;::;:~~i~i!i:?-::L;~':::~::::~::..::.:'::::,:::~:;',:~'::::::: :-:~~::;:;: ~::;:..';:'::""::.:;:i,:;;:::~';;'='::""~"~o',"'~'~"'.'-~~"-> -'"'~'-" 'o"-"'~"."-~""""'~"""'."'~-~."~"'- ".M.~~....w""'~'."'"'-"'-'""""""~"~'~'--".""""_""""." ,-"~~".- 4'."O~_"L,'~,"~f~~. Suooto""'"Uo E,'..no< S,on ENTRANCE 51GN AND PLANTING5 5CALE I" ~ 10'-0" ORNAMENTAL FENCE DETAIL N.T.5. ~....~...."..~...._..... ..,."' """'-""-"'"""""."~w,,,'~,"..-o.~,.. .,..".".",.'w"'.. ,'.""'....._,.,,.. ........, "."".,."-"",,",w.,n...."..","....~.~""',,," ~[]~ STEEPLE VIEW 0~ ræ ¡: :::1=-.1 ;1¡~ fijPUGSLEY & LAHAIE LTD. P;;Ü~ìnary Landscape Plan '-w"""",-'J"'" LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND CONTRACTORS r-w""--"-",,,, '~'14 N. Old -oHMI, Rd. CO'" "riot>. ,m"", 600"-890' !~~ .t:\~r~ff Group, Ltd. ~ M'.~.~' ". M'.~"" ,...., --~~ I I / / ) ~ ) þ ~ )1 j(Jt I I TYPICAL FOUNDATION LANDSCAPE PLAN - 5 t G UNIT, MULTI-fAMILY BUILDINGS SCALE I" - IO'-D" NOTE, T"~"O""""O'P""'~"'p'",m'"p"."""""Y"""""'W"""","'","m,~"""""""'""" ~ ~ 1) ) 5 [at ----- ~ '" ~ " ~ ----- " \ \ \ TYPICAL fOUNDATiON LAND5CAPE PLAN - 4 UNIT, MULTI-fAMiLY BUILDING5 5CALE I" = I (M)' NOTE, Typ'~"~"""""""""~."",~,m""',"",,m'~"y'",",,""""""""""""'"'"""""o,.,"'~. ----- " ~ ~ 7 ----- ----- 6 8,250 sq. ft. 0 1894 acres TYPICAL FOUNDATION lANDSCAPE PLAN - 5INGLE-fAMILY HOME5 5CALE I" = 10'-0" NOTE, T",~","""""""","~..p~_"."'",m,m"~"y""""'""'w""",""",",.."'"""""",,~-",. -"'"""""'"""""""'"""""""" ~. m. " -. ..... ...", .. ..-oo., ~. ,".."~.. 00-"'"'" -"" ..... . ."....,..".."... .".M-...~ "oo.. ~..."......_..,.._. ~[]~r STEEPLE VIEW ~D lS::;;f=t;~1}ó70, IDjPUGSLEY & LAHAIE LTD. 1;11 N ¡ ~ P;;;Ìi~jnary Landscape Plan ¡ ¡:::"::::;~:=:ji::m~,. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND CONTRACTORS I ' I ~ t'~..w__.-,¡œ "'" N. 'Xd ","M,> Rd."". "".,. """", 600"-"" IN . E~:;. !i\~.r~ff Group, Lld - ¡o. ~ ~'.'~M" ,~.,"'- ~... ,-...-,- U .-J " . ¡' '-.SCHAIN, BURNEY, Ross & CITRON, LTD. LAW OFFICES PATRICK T. BRANKIN Direct Dial (312) 422-7642 E-Mail: pbrankin@schainlaw,com Suite 1910 222 North laSalle Street Chicago, lUinois 60601-1102 312- 332-0200 Fax 312-332-4514 May 4, 2005 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS William J. Cooney Director of Community Development Village of M t. Prospect 50 South Emerson Street Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 Re: Mitroff Group - Steeple View 1101 S. Linneman Road PZ-11-05 Dear Mr. Cooney: As you know this law firm represents Mitroff Group, the applicant for the above-referenced project. Enclosed are revised plans for the above-referenced development. These plans incorporate hvo "stop signs" and "stop bars" at the corner of the east-west street traversing the developnwTlt, Linneman Road Zlnd Htmt Club Drivel as recommended by the Planning <1nd Zoning Commission. In additionl the sidewalk jog along Htmt Club Drive has been eliminated and a note regarding the restrictor for the single-family lot detention system has been added. I would also like to emphasize on behalf of my client that despite the split negative recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, we believe that the weight of the testimony provided at the hearing supports our conclusion as well as staff'sl that this is an appropriate project fur tbis location. Just a few of tlw reasons for this are as fo!jmvs: . Density. The density j.: in keeping with the surrounding area. As you know, thC':'(' are high density aparbnents both to the south and eastl townhornes to the west and duplexes to the northeast. The combination of townhomes and single-family homes provided in this project makes it appropriate in terms of density and in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The placement of single-family homes next to these high density uses makes no sense from either a planning or marketing standpoint. . Hei~hJ. The height of the tov,-nhomes acts as a step down from the tall aparlrnent buildiJ !:.~c; to the south and east and acts as a buffer for the single ,family homes to the " , -.SCHAIN) BURNEY) Ross & CITRON, LTD. William J. Cooney May 4, 2005 Page - 2 - . Height. The height of the townhomes acts as a step down from the tall apartment buildings to the south and east and acts as a buffer for the single-family homes to the north. The height of the townhomes is necessary in order to utilize attractive architectural design and maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. . . Engineering. As testified in great detail at the Planning and Zoning CoInITÙssion, the engineering for the site will be designed to meet Village Code and will not only adequately handle the storm run off from this development, but also solve other engineering issues that presently exist in the area surrotmding the proposed development. We appreciate the opportunity to present this matter to the Village Board and look forward to continued work with staff on this matter. Thank you. PTB/djm Enclosures """"""'" . cc: Mitroff Group ptb /lellC'rs / letters5-05 /Cooney-ltr-S..3-0S 'j¡ ¡;, 831 .Ie. 8.20 At. 1.179 Sf' 1,090 Sf 18.114% ',310 Sf' Ø41% ','104 Sf 23,21% 1,104 S1 18.18% I,OM Sf' 51.84% C) 71,'" ",00' ~" "'0" No'." P,op"" ".. ro R'ML.. s "'S"'" '" U..U' ! .....' I ..,..' I ",00' II ". jus' :c --- /~i <1\ \ 1 ~ ( II I f, i f , MULTIFAMII R4 ZONING >J £ §--~~~~~~-~- ÇJ ¡/ P!',,~SE 1 !! ::::> / , '" , , I / I / / -'" --- ---- ---" I "-" ) ~I' ;.~ ~~ " II ",,--------- .'" II \ i 0 'I ¡i # " 'I ., --'ã nm~ n,¡¡.~ ;:~~ ~ H;~~ ~m ~;f¡; ; ~~ ,¡ mn . ~~~¡ ~'t : : \ ~-'" '~~~",~'o_~ -. . . ;if 4 f I I i I ! S . I i t r,-- ; I ~IJ'~~I , I i'l 'I' . 1- r I ! Ii ~JI I I I: ~I~I II ~ )It: -_J HI !J~ . ...1 = .~. I > E ¡.. u...., ::¡ r¡lì~ ~~~ It' = !."m . I .......' >co;!! I ~ .'= ",in> r .: ~ [g~ I. '(= i .,,~. ,.I1J~ ~' . t:z:r . ,.. , z : I ~ ..,. ---- "'-~ " " /... ¡:: ¡!n i ¡U t II' 0( , I ~ rnl! 51 If lš lif i 1'1 ~\~~¡¡¡:::~1¡1.J.l'I,,¡I.' I OOllOi ....' ,,; I '¡¡"""r'i"'O.¡ "U¡pr¡!f!fnr!l '.~ J ,.. . p,.'ir'!: " Jr.'!"II"P'II"'I ¡¡Ii rH I r,m rm¡ " . II.:' " ':""""Ir¡t I I, ,I ¡!! df I I~¡¡II I. 0->T'^f'" f ~II Ho ! ¡ ;~ !i .! . , I . -ll. -F==-- STEEPLE VIEW SUBDIVISION Mt. Prospect, IL Detention Calculations \","Ilt/IUIII \\ II ",,""'\\n þ... SH...q/~'///11' " C\V """""""" ~~ 1',.. " O'V ..., "" '/ '1.' .' '. ...<\". ~., ~ ~{~ ~ .l 55417 '\ ~ == ! REGISTERED \ = § * ¡ PROFESSîON;\L g "k ê ~ ~ ENGINEER f £; ~ \. OF ,.,: ~ , ~ ~... ~ '" .."';:- '/ "" "",, 1'1' / f. ',............,.., ~ " 1'1'1'/11 L I N 0 \ \\\",:, IIIII/J)IIIIII\\\\ ~ Expires 11-30-05 Prepared For: Mitroff Group Ltd. Prepared By: HAEGER ENGINEERING, HC 1911 A Rohlwing Road Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 394-6600 Fax: (847) 394-6608 Date: November 9, 2004 R~vised 12-23-04 Revised OÇ-O7-05 Job No. 04-172 C EXHIBIT A Storm Water Detention Facility Worksheet For North Basin Area Only (Per 2003 Village Requirements) A. TOTAL TRIBUTARY AREA (A) Site 0.830 acres (1) B. DEVELOPED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT Pervious Area = Impervious Area = 2003 Pervious Runoff Coefficient = 2003 Impervious Runoff Coeffici&nt = 0.42 0.42 0.50 095 acres acres [Max. 50% Lol Coverage Combined Runoff Coefficent = I 0.73 c. RELEASE RATE CALCULATION Site Release Rate O(Slte). Per 2003 Village Requirements Allowable Release Rate 0 = 0.20 cIs per acre = 0.17 cIs Tr.d~Off Release Irom South Area' Ou = ciA = 0_09 cIs . Required to gel reslrictor diameter to be equal to 2-inches in diameler Maximum Release Rale = O(site) - Ou = 0.26 D. Detention Storage Calculations for 10o-Yesr Storm based on Actual Release Rate: Area Requiring Detenlion = 0.83 AcreS(1)-(2) tOO-year. 24,hour Rainfall Depth = 7.58 inches [Bulletin 70, Table 13, NE Sechon] Runoff Coof!. c Storm Duration t (hours) Rainfall Intensity i(100) (inlhr) Drainage Area A (acres) Inflow Rale (ì)=ci(100) (cfs) Release Rate 0(0) (cis.) Siorage Rate 0(1)-0(0) (cIs.) Siorage Required 01)-0 o)'! 12 acre-f!. 0.73 0.08 11.37 0.83 6.84 0.26 6.59 004 --'-C.73 ---o.-'-ifïj- 9.53 -----0:-83 ---5:74 ------.--, 0.26 --5:4ã-'-'õõã ----0:73 --------0:25 -8.19 '---083-'-"'---4-:93 ---- 0.26 --4.67 -------¡¡;"'õ '-------0:73---------Õ33 ----6.97 -------0:83' ----4".19- -------0:26---3.94 ------0.11 ------0:7'3----- 05Õ -----Š~61 --------0.63- ---'3.38' ------Ó:26- - ---3.12 -"õ:ï3 ------..- -- -Ó:73- '---Õ,Ó------4:56 - -----0.133 - - -- 2. 75 026-----¿~;¡9--------o.i'¡ - -----, C_73 --------o:e3- '-"'-3:97- _h -Õ.B;j---- 2.39- ----_u 0.26 0. 214- --- 0.150. ---------- --Ö~73 -------':Õö-----'3:S6 ""0à3-¿:14 ----------Õ.¿6-"I'ii§ o.lis -----'" 0.73 ---'---1~50--2.6S-Ù~83------Úö- '-----0.26- ---1.3.;: ---O:i7 '----Ö:7'3 ---2-00 -----2:20 --- '--0.8j Ü'2- -----Õ~26- --" -1:07 010 . -0_73 -----"ioo ---i6'2- -- --- -" 063 '------0:97 ---------0:26 ---().ñ' 0:1Š-- -----. -- "Ö:73 ------'¡:OÕ ----1:2'8 0.6j -Õ:7'i ------¡Ù6--" hö:5'2---- --017 -----0~7'3 -----'5.00 ----1:08- ÖS3 - - ---Õ:¡;s - -Oh---õ:2ë-- -"'0.39--0."6 -------ö~i3 - "-'6:OO'----Õ95- ----"'oãJ' . 0~s7-----"-O:-¿6'------o-31- ,- ---016' --------Ü3 ------7.00- ------0.à'3--'Ö.83 -------0:50- -----0.26 ----0.25 "-"'0.14 ---0.73 -ã~õõ- ----6.75 "'--'õ,à'3 --..-- 0.45- -------026-' --(j~1--9------o.13 ----0.-7'3 - 9.00 --,- -õ¡¡ã ------ 0,83- ÕA1- 0.26 --- -Ö-15----O:-i2 h--__-õ:7'3 '------IÕ~OO ----0:63--------Õ83" "-- 'Qja - --õ:2¡;- - ----. 0.12 . ---0.10 'Ò.73 - 11.ÖO --o:5g-------'ÕS3 ------ö.'i;---------õ:26"--Öl0 ------ÕÖ§ ---------------0:73 "---1'200 --0.š5 'ö ijj--Õ:33-Õ:26 -------õ.Ö7- m_-- ó.ói . ----o.7-~-'-----""iîc!.q:-----~ OS] --- 08) . -Õ:~1~ :=~-:-'::':_'::§~: -=0.05: "'" "oj~. 0.73 14.00' 0.48 0.83 0.29 0.26 0.04 0.04 073 m- 1:~-ÕÕ- - ----0T6 -----Õ83 0-26 - - 026 --0.02' ------õ:ä2' ----- 073-------iè;õ-ö- 0.43 -- --Õ~83 ------o.2'i'-- --Õ26 -"--o:ö1------ü.öï- ---07'3------1700 -----6:41 -------Õ:8'3 ---0~2'5-----Õ:28---0-:ÕÕ' ------õoo- -----ëÙ3 ---'--1800 -----Õ~40- ------0-:83' ----Õ~24 "-- Õ.26 --.- -Ö:'õo ---- 0.00- --'-------(ji3 - ----¡g:õo _m -ö:56 - ----O:ã3 . "0:2'3- -------Õ26 -0:00 ----"0.00- --0:73 .._-~Õ- - '-- 0-36 --- -o:ãj- ---"'-0~22 --- 0.26 ------- 0.00------0.'00- --0:73 '--~õo----ö:35 ----0.83 ---õ:'21------ö:2¡¡--o.õö- ---- --O:öõ- -0:73-- ---'¿¿:ÕÕ -- 0-34 0.83 -0-2Ö- -------0.26 ----Õ.oo O:Öa 0:73 ""'---:i3-:ÕÕ- --033- -o:ã3 --ö.2õ- .--.----- 026 0.000.00' --""0.73 --------24.00 -----"'Q.32 -----Õ.'83019---'õ:2¡¡' ----Õ.OO--O:OO STORAGE REQUIRED = 0.179 Ac-(I. STORAGE PROVIDED = 0.180 Ac-ft. HAEGER ENGINEERING LLC 04172/MISC/04172C-DETENTION,xIS EXHIBIT B Storm Water Detention Facility Worksheet For South Basin Area Only (Per 2003 Village Requirements) A. TOTAL TRIBUTARY AREA (A) Site 7483 ac'es (1) B. DEVELOPED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT Pervious Area = Impervious Area = 2003 Pervious Runoff CoeHlclenl = 2003 Impervious RunOff Coefflcienl = 3.74 3.74 0.50 0.95 acres acres (Max. 50% Lol Coverage) Combined Runoff Coefficenl = I 073 C. RELEASE RATE CALCULATION Site Rele8Se Rate O(Slte) - Per 2003 Village Requirements . Allowable Release Rate 0 = 0.20 cIs per acre = 1.50 cfs Trade-ON Release to SF Area (North Basin Area) Ou = ciA = -0.09 cis Maximum Release Rate = O(sile) - Ou = 1.41 D. Detention Siorage Calculations lor 100-Year Storm based on Actual Release Rate: Area Requiring Delenlion = 748 AcraS(I)-(2) tOO-year, 24.hour Rainfall Deplh = 7.S8 Inches (Bullehn 70. Table 13. NE Secllon] Runoff Coeff c Storm Duration I (hours) Rainfall Intensily i(IOO) (imhr) Drainage Area A (acres) Inliow Rate Oli)=ci(100) (cis.) Release Rele 0(0) (cis.) Storage Rale 0(1).0(0) (cfs.) Storage Required O(i-Oo't 12 (acre-H. 0.73 0.08 1137 7.48 61.69 1.41 60.28 0.40 ------Õ.73'-- 0.17--9"53 -"--"'----i:48 -'--'51~ii- ----,';¡t--S(}3ï- -----Ö.70 '-'-----Ò.i3 0.25 8:19'--"--' 74ã- ----44:4100 I 4' 430i ""--0.9ã' -Õ.73 '-033 ---š-97 ------7:48 -'---3'7'00- 141 36.39 '-hï.oo O.73-"OO-O-ŠÕ -S.61- '7'.48 -"3Ö:;¡'3 ---1":41 '--2"9:02----"21 "'---Õ.73 ., u_----"-ò-S'7' -- --4:56 ---'---'T4s--2476,OO_-'i.41-----n:3s---'1.3o -=-=:OOÕ:7~ -------"683 --"'3:97 -,n_--746 21.S6 ',41' "---2'õ'ï5 -"--1;¡0 073 '--'---i'OO-----:¡-Š6'-- OO---7AB' 1933 "-ï:;¡'-----¡i92'--149 --------Õ73 ÙO----2-ŠS ----7:'48 1439 1.41 '--'-'2-99'-----"1:62 ----'-'C)i3 . 2iio -"- - 'l.W i.48 i 1--93 " -"'141 l'OS2 . Lis' '----O~73 '-----'3TJö 1.62 - '-7,4ë---'Ù'i 1.:¡--7:3j---'\:¡j;¡' --..----'--õi3 '----'4:00 - 1.28----¡:46-'6.9st4: ---5];5 "'i.Ë~5 --- -. 'ï)~i3 ' 5OÒ""Õ8-- - '----748 -'-1;'.87 i4 t 4:46 -"----¡:8-6 --"--"-0.7"3 -- -'--'6:00 - 09'i;-'-:¡4S' -- 's~i4 --I'4i'- -----3i3' ----'Tãf ----'----0:73'-'----7-:-00 . --083-'7.48 -"4.52 --------;Ai--- "3-,;2 -----1:ã2 ---- 0.73 ,-" '---ã:Öo- u---õT5 ---'----'7'48----4'06' ----141- "------:i6S----W ---"'---0.73-'" "-"'9'00- --o:6ä- '---""'"'7:"48' '---~7Õ ----"1.4t ---- 229- ~i2 '----0:73 , -, --"'0.00 ---'-Õ63 ----7.48 Úi "'----1:41'" ..,_. 2.01 Œ'i' 0.73 -----""11.00 "0:59" 7.48 3.18' . 1.41 1.77 1.62 0.73 - 12.00 ----0:55- ----7:48 '2::96- "-"'-Hi:41'-'157'-"-~ --Õ73 13.06 """---0-:51 748 -'2~79 ---""141'-----1:'3'š---!:So --.--------.'Q73 -~- "'0.48-- - 7.48 "----2~6'2 ;4': --_n"122--ïA2: 0,73 '-'-15.00 -, -õ~i¡ --i'4š-------2.48 -, 141 I'-Œ-- '-ï-3"4- ----0.73---"'-' 16.00"'-"-' "'IJ "74"8 -2.36- 1.41 OilS 127 -------O,73 -------;-]:õõ '----Oo 0,~J,-__._":.I4S OOi2š------,:-41 ----" '0.84 '119 ---OO"'..'77-~" _00___3189",.0000-- 0.40 ",7:':', --22'~.01oG~ ":=='~'~I',,_44'.'1,. -----'--_00,:.,,76~5"::.. 11'.C:> ' ,-,,:oJ:f .,--, 748' '" 0ì3 --- 20.00 036 '-------7'48'1:--97' H- ---,:4:- ---" 057--Õ'95 0.73 - '-'2ï:OO~~-:'=Q]5- '..,. "- - -:;AS' -¡-gO ---""'-' '41- --"1549 --õaa --"--""'0.73 2200' -~:J4.... 748 1.83" ""----'41 ---'_OOÕA3 "'- 0.78 0.73 '23~õO 033""~i:77' . ----- 1.41 ------6:3'6- "..---a.70 ----- 0.73 -.. 2400 '~2-' ---'jAB- ---,:7i- 1.41 --"o.3"'i ------Õ:6-'- STORAGE REQUIRED: 1,87 Ac-ft. STORAGE REQUIRED PER MWRD #86-403 = 0.56 Ac-ft. TOTAL STORAGE REQUIRED = ".43 Ac.lt. TOTAL STORAGE PROVIDED @ 665,5 FEET = 2.45 Ac-ft, HAEGEF ENGINEERING LtC 0417~'MISC,04172C,DETENTlON"xls . . EXHIBIT C STEEPLE VIEW SUBDIVISION SOUTH DETENTION POND VOLUME Average Cumulative Elevation Area Area Depth Volume Volume Volume [feet] [sfJ (sfJ [feetJ [cubic feetJ [acre feetJ (acre feet] 660 O . 0.00 1586 1 1586 0.04 661 3,172 . 0.04 7669 1 7669 0.18 662 12,166 0.21 16080 1 16080 0.37 663 ,19,994 0.58 . 27195 1 27195 0.62 664 34,396 - 1.21 34202 0.5 17101 0.39 664.5 34,007 1.60 - 35509 0.5 17754 0.41 665 37,010 2.01 38419 0.5 19209 0.44 665.5 39,827 2.45 43200 0.5 21600 0.50 666 46,572 2.94 STEEPLE VIEW SUBDIVISION NORTH DETENTION POND VOLUME UNDERGROUND DETENTIOt! VOLUME SIZE OF SEWER = AHEA OF SEWER = LENGTH OF SEWER = VOLUME PROVIDED = VOLUME PROVIDED = ¿:d iI..JCH 12.57 ~~¡-- 625 LF 7,854 CF 0.180 AC-FT 125 HAEGER ENGINEEf1!NG LLC 04172/MISC/04172C-DETENTION.xls EXHIBIT 0 STEEPLE VIEW SUBDIVISION RESTRICTOR DESIGN A. NORTH RESTRICTOR DESIGN Allowable Release Rate = 0.26 cfs Q = CA((2gh)^O.5) c= A= h= HWL= Invert = Orifice Center = 0.61 for sharp-edged orifice pi(r)^2 HWL - Invert 664.0 658.0 658.08 Orifice Size = 2.00 " Q= 0.26 cfs Use 2.00 "orifice B. SOUTH RESTRICTOR DESIGN Allowable Release Rate = Allowable Release Rate (MWRD #86-403) = TOTAL 1.41 cIs 0.68 cfs 2.09 cfs Q = CA((2gh)^O.5) c= A = h= HWL = Invert = Orifice Center = 0.61 for sharp-edged orifice pi(r)^2 HWL - Invert 665.5 659.8 659.99 Orifice Size = 5.76 " Q= 2.08 cfs Use 5.76 ,. orike C. MAXIMUM TOTAL RELEASE RATE To(é~1 Area of Site = Release Rate = Maximum Site Release Rate = 8.31 acres 0.20 cfs/acre 1.66 cfs Allowable Release Rate (MWRD #86-403) = D.6e cIs TOTAL ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE = 2.34 CFS RELEASE RATE FROM Nurn I ¡ E\.I-\SIN = HELEASE RATE FROM SOUTH BASH\! ~ . TOTAL ALLOWABLE RELEASE RAT{ = 0.26 cfs 2.08 cIs 2.34 cIs HAEGER ENGINEERING LLC 04 1721MISC/04172C-DETENTION .xls kad 5/6/05 jc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1101 LINNEMAN ROAD WHEREAS, the Mitroff Group (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner'l, has filed an application to rezone certain property generally located at 1101 Linneman Road (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property'), and legally described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 21N COURTS OF ST. JOHN, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST, OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDNING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED ON AUGUST 21, 1986, AS DOCUMENT NO. 86368276, ALL IN COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS. Property Index Number: 08-14-401-151-0000 and WHEREAS, the Petitioner has requested the Subject Property be rezoned from R-X (Single Family Residence) to R-1 (Single Family) and R2 (Attached Single Family) District, as shown on the attached exhibit A; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for rezoning being the subject of PZ-11-05, before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 28th day of April, 2005, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 13th day of April, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendation to deny the request, to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have considered the request being the subject of PZ-11-05 and have determined that the best interests of the Village of Mount Prospect would be served by granting said request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The Official Zoning Map of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, as amended, is hereby further amended by reclassifying the property being the subject of this Ordinance from R-X (Single Family Residence) to R-1 (Single Family) and R2 (Attached Single Family) District as shown on the attached exhibit A; and D 1101 Linneman Road Page 2/2 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. Irvana K. Wilks Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:ICLKOIfilesIWINIORDINANCIREZONE 1101 linneman rd,twnhms,may 05.doc .' Kad 5/5/05 jc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1101 SOUTH LINNEMAN ROAD WHEREAS, Mitroff Group (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner") has filed a petition for a Conditional Use in the nature of a Planned Unit Development and Variations with respect to property located at 1101 Linneman Road, (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") and legally described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2 IN COURTS OF$T,. JOHN, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE WEST HALFQF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST, OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDNING TOTHE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED ON AUGUST 21 1986, AS DOCUMENT NO. 86368276, ALL IN COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS. Property Index Number: 08-14-401-151-0000 WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks to develop the Subject Property as a residential Planned Unit Development consisting of a 50 unit townhome with 7 single family residences; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use permit and Variations being the subject of Case No. PZ-11-05 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 28th day of April, 2005, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the MountProspect Journal & Topics on the 13th day of April, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and a negative recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the requests herein and have çletermineçlJbê.ttherequests meet the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development, and a Variation to allow the town homes to measure no more than 33.5' from the mid-point of the roof as shown on the attached exhibit B 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, ILL INOIS: ~ Page 2/3 PZ-37-02 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: That the Conditional Use Permit in the nature of a Planned Unit Development being the subject of this Ordinance is subject to the following conditions: A. Modify the site plan so the sidewalk and easement/ROW do not jog as shown on the plan; 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; , C. 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; D. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall respond to Engineering's comments: 1) increase the stormwater detention volume to comply with Village Code requirements, 2) note the sides of the detention pond slope and do not exceed 4:1 (horizontal:vertical), and 3) note the proposed rim elevations so Staff can confirm that the structure are below the design high water level; E. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall submit a lighting plan that complies with the Village's lighting regulations for the lighting within the development; F. 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 public/improved; G. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of Resubdivision that creates 7 individual lots of record for the single-family residences and at least one-lot for the town home development; H. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval; I. 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; J. The emergency access gate and paved drive at the southernmost access to Hunt Club Drive must have traffic pre-emption devices; and K. As the impact of both the Steepleview and St. John Lutheran Church developments may result in the need for road improvements as a result of an expected increase in .' Page 3/3 PZ-37-02 traffic on the local road system, a Traffic Impact Study will be required by the S1. John Lutheran Church and must include the Steepleview traffic forecast prior to approval of the church development. Should road improvements be necessary based on a review by the Village's Traffic Engineer, both developers will be required to pay for their share based on their respective impact to the local road system; funds will be escrowed. L. 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, öff-site improvements to Kopp Park that meet the public benefit requirement for a planned Unit Development. SECTION THREE: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant approval of a Conditional Use permit and building height Variation as provided in Sections 14.203.F.7 & Sec. 14.203.C.7 of the Village Code, for a Planned Unit Development for a 50 unit townhome and 7 single family residences, all as shown on the Site Plan dated May 2,2005, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. SECTION FOUR: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION FIVE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2005. Irvana K. Wilks Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\C USE,VAR-11011inneman road sl john may OS.doc INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF FINANCE MAY 12, 2005 2005 BUDGET AMENDMENT NO.1 PURPOSE: Present a recommendation that the annual budget be amended for fiscal year beginning January and ending December 31,2005. BACKGROUND: Ordinance 5475, adopted December 21,2004, established the annual budget for the year ending December 31,2005. DISCUSSION: Governments often find themselves in a position of having to amend their current year's budget to reflect material variations in revenues and expenditures. Many times this is as a result of fluctuations in the economy affecting revenues (either positively or negatively), extraordinary or unanticipated charges for expenditures or the timing of projects causing work to occur in different fiscal periods. A proposed ordinance amending the 2005 Annual Budget is attached for the Board's consideration. This document includes the budget changes you have reviewed and recommended be brought to the Board. In total, weare increasing our revenue projections by $358,731 and increasing the budget for expenditures by $1,015,358. Amendments to the budget impacting revenues are made up of grants, developer donations and other reimbursements. There are only three significant expenditure amendments related to capital projects for infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure projects utilizing carryoverfunds include $153,610 for Traffic Signal Replacement, $161,709 for Street Resurfacing and $129,455 for Train Station Improvements. The balance of the amendments to expenditures is either carryovers from the prior year or adjustments to the current year's budget amount. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board adopt the proposed ordinance amending the 2005 Annual Budget. L,ß.:,.:,,{./¿/;', ¿f/:-. DAVID O. ERB DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Copy: Finance Commission Department Directors DOE! 1:\Budget 2005\Amendments\Board Memo Amendment #1 - May 2005.doc F ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNUAL BUDGET ADOPTED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1,2005 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2005 WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have passed and approved Ordinance No. 2342 which sets the finances of the Village under the "Budget Officer System"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforesaid Ordinance and the Statutes of the State of Illinois an annual budget for the fiscal year commencing January I, 2005 and ending December 31, 2005 was adopted through the passage of Ordinance No. 5475 approved by the Corporate Authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect on December 21,2004; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have further reviewed certain additions and changes to the aforesaid budget for the fiscal year beginning January, 1, 2005 and ending December 31, 2005; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect believe the changes, as specified on the attached January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 Budget Amendment No.1 to be in the best interest of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the Village has now revised the revenue projections or has reserves in each of the Funds in which the budget is being increased adequate in amount to cover the budget changes reflected in Budget Amendment No.1, attached hereto. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That the fiscal year budget for January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 for the Village of Mount Prospect is hereby amended, as detailed on Budget Amendment No.1 attached hereto. SECTION TWO: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet fonn as provided by law. AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this - day of ,2005. Irvana K. Wilks, Village President ATTEST Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No.1 Fiscal Year January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 Revenues Item No. Fund/Program/Classification Original Amended Revenue Increase Revenue Account # Account Description Estimate (Decrease) Estimate 0010000-400100 Property Taxes - Current 6,524,885 (304,206) 6,220,679 0010000-400371 Property Taxes - Pol. Pen. 949,840 127,805 1,077 ,645 0010000-400372 Property Taxes - Fire Pen. 998,734 176,401 1,175,135 0010000-435900 Other Grants 8,000 1,900 9,900 8,481,459 1,900 8,483,359 24,641,229 0 24,641,229 33,122,688 1,900 33,124,588 General Fund Property Taxes Property Taxes Property Taxes Intergovernmental All other General Fund accounts Total General Fund Capital Improvement Fund Intergovernmental Revenues 5100000-435225 Central Corridor Improv. 0 112,400 112,400 Reimbursements 5100000-470900 Other Reimbursements 0 78,876 78,876 0 191,276 191,276 All other Capital Improvement Fund accounts 40,000 0 40,000 Total Capital Improvement Fund 40,000 191,276 231,276 Downtown Redevelopment Fund Reimbursements 6300000-435205 Norwood Reimbursements 0 36,100 36,100 0 36,100 36,100 All other Downtown Redevelopment Fund accounts 2,085,975 0 2,085,975 Total Downtown Redevelopment Fund 2,085,975 36,100 2,122,075 Parking System Revenue Fund Intergovernmental Revenues 6300000-435205 LAO Grant 0 129,455 129,455 0 129,455 129,455 All other Parking System Revenue Fund accounts 107,370 0 107,370 Total Parking System Revenue Fund 107,370 129,455 236,825 Total Estimated Revenues Funds being changed 35,356,033 358,731 35,714,764 All other Village Budget accounts 35,746,344 0 35,746,344 Total Estimated Revenues After Changes 71,102,377 358,731 71,461,108 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No.1 Fiscal Year January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 Expenditures Current Amended Item Budget Increase Budget No. F u nd/Prog ra m/Cla ssification Account # Account Description Amount (Decrease) Amount General Fund Community Development - Economic Development Contractual Services 0012103-540247 Economic Development Program 17,600 22,850 40,450 Commodities & Supplies 0012105-570040 Clothing Supplies 1,150 700 1,850 Fire Department - Operations Personal Services 0014202-500400 Specialty Pay 172,496 14,145 186,641 Commodities & Supplies 0014204-570276 Fire Safety Education Supplies 2,000 1,900 3,900 Public Works - Forestry Contractual Services 0015203-540725 Tree Removals 72,100 11,975 84,075 Contractual Services 0015203-540726 Stump Removals 30,900 3,400 34,300 Community & Civic Services - Holiday Decorations Contractual Services 0016104-540962 White Light Installation 38,000 7,000 45,000 334,246 61,970 396,216 All other General Fund Accounts 33,593,169 0 33,593,169 Total General Fund 33,927,415 61,970 33,989,385 Motor Fuel Tax Fund Traffic Control and Street Lighting Contractual Services 0505405-540660 Traffic Light Maintenance 79,500 40,000 119,500 Infrastructure 0505405-690058 Traffic Signal Replacement 16,000 153,610 169,610 Street Improvement Projects Infrastructure 0507706-690005 Street Light Improvements 35,000 53,272 88,272 Infrastructure 0507706-690099 Bridge Rehab 175,000 43,040 218,040 305,500 289,922 595,422 All other Motor Fuel Tax Fund Accounts 1,566,250 0 1,566,250 Total Motor Fuel Tax Fund 1,871,750 289,922 2,161,672 Community Development Block Grant Fund CDBG-Assessibility & Neighborhood Improvements Building Improvements 0702306-640012 Orchard Village Rehab 37,000 18,850 55,850 37,000 18,850 55,850 All other CDBG Accounts 691,123 0 691,123 Total CDBG Fund 728,123 18,850 746,973 Capital Improvement Fund Village Improvements & Equipment Building Improvements 5107701-640038 Architect - Fire Station 14 95,000 25,000 120,000 Community Improvement Projects land Imprövements 5107702-620008 Corridor Improvements 0 21,030 21,030 Infrastructure 5107702-690005 Residential Street Lights 15,000 44,884 59,884 110,000 90,914 200,914 All other Capital Improve. Fund. Accounts 465,000 0 465,000 Total Capital Improvement Fund 575,000 90,914 665,914 Series 2003 Project Fund Office Equipment Office Equipment 5267701-650040 Village Hall Furnishings 0 22,000 22,000 0 22,000 22,000 All other Series 2003 Project Fund Accounts 0 0 0 Total Series 2003 Project Fund 0 22,000 22,000 2 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No.1 Fiscal Year January 1, 2005 through December 31,2005 Expenditures Current Amended Item Budget Increase Budget No. Fund/Program/Classification Account # Account Description Amount (Decrease) Amount Downtown~Redeve/opment Construction Fund Downtown Redevelopment Costs Infrastructure 5507703-690059 DIT Streetscape 0 36,295 36,295 Infrastructure 5507703-690065 Brick sm 10,000 3,050 13,050 10,000 39,345 49.345 All other Downtown Redevelopment Constr. Fund. Accounts 241,719 0 241,719 Total Downtown Redevelopment Constr. Fund 251,719 39,345 291,064 Street Improvement Construction Fund street Improvement Projects Infrastructure 5607706-690084 Resurfacing - St Imp Const Fund 1,000,000 161,709 1,161.709 1,000,000 161,709 1,161,709 All other Street Improvement Fund Accounts 4,000 0 4,000 Total Street Improvement Fund 1.004,000 - 161.709 1,165,709 Flood Control Construction Fund Flood Control Projects Infrastructure 5907704-690102 Weller Creek Improvements 0 35,875 35.875 0 35,875 35,875 All Other Flood Control Construction Fund Accounts 547,538 0 547,538 Total Flood Control Construction Fund 547,538 35,875 583.413 Water and Sewer Fund Water Distribution Maintenance & Repair Other Equipment 6105505-670038 Booster Pump/Panel Replacement 115,000 25,000 140,000 Water & Sewer System Improvements Distribution Systems 6105510-680010 Combined Sewer Improvements 500,000 50,000 550,000 615,000 75,000 690,000 All Other Water and Sewer Fund Accounts 8,589,528 0 8,589,528 Total Water and Sewer Fund 9,204,528 75,000 9,279.528 Village Parking System Fund Village Improvements & Equipment Infrastructure 6205110-690103 Parking Lot Improvements 115,000 22,118 137,118 115,000 22,118 137,118 All other Village Parking System Fund Accounts 125,367 0 125,367 Total Village Parking System Fund 240,367 22.118 262,485 Parking System Revenue Fund Village Improvements & Equipment Building Improvements 6307701-640014 Train Station Improvements 0 129,455 129,455 0 129,455 129,455 . All other Parking System Revenue Fund Accounts 136,614 0 136,614 Total Parking System Revenue Fund 136,614 129,455 266,069 Vehicle Replacement Fund Motor Equipment Replacement Mobile Equipment 6707709-660115 PW Department Vehicles 310,690 64,300 374,990 310.690 64,300 374,990 All other Vehicle Replacement Fund Accounts 964.645 0 964,645 Total Vehicle Replacement Fund 1,275.335 64,300 1,339,635 3 Item No. Fund/Program/Classification Risk Management Fund Forestry Program Contractual Services All other Risk Management Fund Accounts Total Risk Management Fund Total Village Budget Funds being changed All other Village Budget Accounts Total Village Budget after Changes VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No.1 Fiscal Year January 1, 2005 through December 31,2005 Account # 6905203-540740 Expenditures Account Description Tree Hazard Study 4 Current Amended Budget Increase Budget Amount (Decrease) Amount 10,300 3,900 14,200 10,300 3,900 14.200 5,669,350 0 5,669,350 5,679,650 3,900 5,683,550 55,442,039 14,354,049 56,457.397 14,354.049 1,015.358 0 69.796,088 70,811,446 1,015,358 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois To: Village Board of Trustees Village Manager Michael Janonis Assistant Village Manager David Strahl Village Clerk Velma Lowe/Deputy Village Clerk Kimberly Dewis Finance Director David Erb From: Mayor Irvana Wilks Date: May 13, 2005 Subject: Appointments for Finance Commission, SW ANCC Director and Alternates, NWMC Alternate and O'Hare Noise Commission Alternate At the May 17 Village Board meeting I would like to bring forth a number of appointments. They will appear in various parts of the agenda. Also in your board packet is an Interoffice Memorandum which follows the format used by Mayor Farley to make his appointments. Under appointments ~ Finance Commission: I will bring forth Charles Bennett for Chairman, John Kellerhals for new member. I am asking Chuck and John to appear at the meeting in case you wish to ask them questions. Under new business - Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County: I have asked and Trustee Corcoran has agreed to remain as a director to this agency. . Trustee Hoefert will continue to be our alternate. Joint Action Water Agency: By ordinance, we must designate representatives to this agency. I will name Trustee Lohrstorfer as alternate director. O'Hare Noise Commission: As Mayor, I automatically become a delegate to this Commission; this was established by those putting the organization together. But to serve as alternates I can choose any persons whom I wish. They do not need to be elected officials. Because of their knowledge about the issues pertaining to this commission, I am naming Gerald "Skip" Farley and David Strahl. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. You can see that with the change in the leadership of the village, these matters had to be addressed. If you have questions, please contact me. IRVANA K. WILKS c: Charles Bennett, Finance Commission John Kellerhals, Finance Commission Gerald L. "Skip" Farley Public Information Officer Maura EI Metennani kad 4/28/05 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTORS TO THE SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN CqOK COUNTY BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The Village of Mount Prospect is a member of the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (the "Agency") and, pursuant to the Agency Agreement establishing the Agency, is entitled to appoint a Director and one or more Alternate Directors to the Board of Directors of the Agency. SECTION TWO: The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village appoints Trustee Timothy J. Corcoran as the Village's Director on the Board of Directors of the Agency, and Trustee Paul W. Hoefert and Mayor Irvana K. Wilks as Alternate Directors, in each case for a term expiring April 30, 2007, or until a successor is appointed. SECTION THREE: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2005. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:ICLKOIflles\WINIRESISWANCC reps 2005.doc G kad 4/28/05 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING REPRESENTATIVES TO THE NORTHWEST SUBURBAN MUNICIPAL JOINT ACTION WATER AGENCY FOR THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect is a member of the Northwest Suburban Municipal Joint Action Water Agency, as authorized by Ordinance No. 3081; and WHEREAS, Section 9 of the Joint Action Water Agency Agreement and Articles II and III of the by-laws to said Agency require the members to designate and appoint both a representative and alternate representative of the Village to the Board of Directors of the Joint Action Water Agency and the Executive Committee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That Irvana K. Wilks, Village President, is hereby appointed as Director, and Richard Lohrstorfer, Village Trustee, as Alternate Director of the Board of Directors of the Northwest Suburban Municipal Joint Action Water Agency, for a term beginning May 1, 2005, and expiring April 30, 2007. SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2005. Irvana K. Wilks Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\CLKOIfílesIWIN\ORDINANCIJAWA reps,200S-07.doc H RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT TO THE O'HARE NOISE COMPATIBILITY COMMISSION WHEREAS, the O'Hare Noise Commission Compatibility Commission was created in 1996 to build and maintain coalitions of communities and citizens dedicated to the reduction of aircraft noise at and near O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois, and thereby enhance the quality of life for area residents; and WHEREAS, the Village President and Members of the Village Board has determined that the quality of life of the residents of the Village of Mount Prospect is directly affected by the aircraft noise at and near O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois, such that the Village of Mount Prospect has become a member of the O'Hare Noise Commission Compatibility Commission to assist in developing meaningful methods of reducing the impact of aircraft noise on our surrounding neighborhoods through home and school sound insulation, and to reduce wherever possible, aircraft noise at its source; and WHEREAS, it is essential that the Village President and Members of the Village Board appoint qualified individuals to serve on the O'Hare Noise Commission Compatibility Commission on behalf of the Village of Mount Prospect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby appoint the following individuals to represent the Village of Mount Prospect on the O'Hare Noise Commission Compatibility Commission: Irvana K. Wilks, primary representative; Gerald L. Farley, first alternate representative, David Strahl, second alternate representative. SECTION TWO: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Passed and approved this _day of May, 2005. Irvana K. Wilks, Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk H:\CLKO\files\WIN\RES\RESOLUTION O'Hare Noise Commission2.doc I.