Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/2005 P&Z minutes 11-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-ll-05 Hearing Date: April 28, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1101 S. Linneman Road PETITIONER/OWNER: MitroffGroup, 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 Planned 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 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: 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 Tertel; 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 Floros seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 with abstentions by Chair Arlene Juracek, Richard Rogers and Keith Youngquist: Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-11-05 a request to 1) rezone the Subject Property from RX to R1 & R2 (Map Amendment), 2) Conditional Use approval for a Planned 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. She said that this case would be Village Board Final. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-II-05 Page 2 Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. The Subject Property is located on the east side of Linneman Road, between Golf Road and Dempster Street. The site currently contains the St. John Lutheran School with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single-Family Residence and is bordered by the RX District to the west, 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 resommended 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. 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. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-Il-05 Page 3 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. 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 should not 'jog' as shown onthe 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 of 2 bedrooms with a den while Unit B would have 3 bedrooms with a bonus room. The Village Code requires 2- 1'2 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 Rl Zoning District. The Petitioner has submitted 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 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. 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 because the school'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 seconds. 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 Club/Golf, Linneman/Golf, 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 new/additional 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 responsible for a percentage of the improvements. Therefore, if Steepleview gets approved first, Staff recommends that one of the conditions of Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-11-05 Page 4 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. 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 ban 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 28' 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 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." 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 heighUs 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. 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 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 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 April 11, 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 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; Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-11-05 Page 5 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 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: 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 ofthe 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 townhome 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; 1. 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 traffic on the local road system, a Traffic Impact Study will 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 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. 3) Variation to allow the rear elevation of the townhomes to measure no more than 33.5' from the mid-point of the roof. Richard Rogers asked if Mitroff was developing the proposed custom homes. Ms. Connolly said Petitioner would respond to that question. Patrick Brankin, the attorney for Mitroff with Schein, Birney Ross & Citron in Chicago came forward and thanked Ms. 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 I 57-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 ingress/egress onto Hunt Club and moving a right-of-way further south to avoid a dangerous comer. Mr. Smith said the only way to follow Village Code and have ingress/egress 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 corner 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 storrnwater 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 sworn 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 sworn in and said he was the Congregation Chairman for St. John and a licensed Real Estate salesman. He was on the Selection Committee and they 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 create 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 be residing 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 Linneman Road. IIe had 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 the explanation 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 concessi<;ms 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 has. Mr. Schaeffer again returned to the podium to respond to Mr. Szumanski's objections. He referred to the aerial exhibit and pointed out the way the restrictor would operate. He also said he will continue to work with 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 concerns, 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-11-05 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 of townhomes. 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 I & 2. Mr. O'Malley said it was not intentional, perhaps because they were limiting the total number of townhomes. 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-1l-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 adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner C:\Documems and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporarylnternet Files\OLK2\PZ-II-05 1101 S. Linneman Rd. MitroffGroup,doc