The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4. OLD BUSINESS 8/2/05 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-11-05 - 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-ll-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 H:\PLAN\PlallllillX & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2005\MEJ MCl1los\PZ.II-05 MEJ {1101 Liulleman 51 John- Milrofl).doc 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: 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 Rl & 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 MEMJ,3ERS 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 Sc1apini; 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 Floras 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 east side of Linneman Road, between Golf Road and Dempster Street. The site currently contains the S1. John Lutheran -,~ Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-Il-05 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 to\vnhome 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. 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 oflO 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 town home development. The Petitioner is not seeking PUD approval for the 7 single- family residences. The proposed 7-10ts of record would comply with the RI 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 town home 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 easf!otline. 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-II-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 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 ~ould 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 offioor 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- 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. 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 RI 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 percenta~e 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. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-Il-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 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 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. 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 town home 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: I) 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 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-ll-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: 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 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 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; 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 S1. 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 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, 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 J uracek, Chairperson PZ-I1-05 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 1 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 corner. 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 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 oftownhome. 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-II-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 Brianvood, 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 I 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. He 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. CCiSC(irano was. s<lti.~fied . \\lith. the explanation and thanked Todd Schaeffer. Richard Rogers pointed out that Mitroffwould be solving the Courts ofSt 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 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. J uracek 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-ll-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 townhomesis nofgoing to hurt the quality oflife 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 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 R 1. & 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 town home development at 1101 S. Linneman Road, Case No. PZ-ll-05. Matt Sledz seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Floros, and Juracek NA YS: 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\Documents and Sellings\kdcwis\Local Setlings\TempOrOlf'Y Internel FiIcs\OLK:!'.,PZ-II.05 1101 S Linneman Rd. MltroffGroup doc Village of Mount Prosp-ect Community Development Departnlent CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 11-05 LOCATIO]\;: 1101 Linneman Road PETITIONER: OWNER: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: Mitroff Group. LId (Contract Purchaser) S1. John Lutheran Church 03-34-410-044-0000 8.31 acres RX Single-Family Residence School 1) Rezone from RX to Rl Single Family Jnd R2 Attached Single Family 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development 3) Variations - Bulk Regulations (Building Height) LOCATIO:\' l\IAP Gulf Rn:ld "= " o == ~ ~ ~ .z: E W ~. '" ~ :; o == ...."t.'" ::~:;.:::: MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN'NING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY C01\TNOLL Y, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: APRIL 21, 2005 HEARING DATE: APRIL 28, 2005 SUBJECT: PZ-I1-05 - MAP AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE, AND VARIATIONS (50-UNIT PUD TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT WITH 7 SINGLE FAMTL 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 MitroffGroup, Ltd. (the "Petitioner"), regarding the property located at 1101 S. Linneman Road (the "Subject Propelty"). The Petitioner is seeking: 1) To rezone the Subject Property from RX Single- 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. John), R4 Multi- Family Planned Unit Development to the east and south, and RX and R4 to the north. ZODiD District Noted Above RX - Single Family R2 - Attached Sin Ie Famil R4 - Multi-Famil Residence Max. Densit 1 SFR Dwelling 10 units/acre 16 units/acre 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 RX 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 to\vnhome 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-ll-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 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: Rezoning Request - As noted previously, the Subject Property is currently zoned R.X 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 dwel1ing 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 pem1itted 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 or 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 fonnal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed in the future. The Petitioner is not seeking PUD approval for the 7 single-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 il1ustrates 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 on-site. Building Design - The enclosed 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 sho\'/J1 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 wiJl designate specific areas of the development as Fire Lanes as necessary to ensure adequate emergency vehicles access. PZ-I1-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting April 28, 2005 Page 4 Right-of-Way Improvements - 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 as' 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 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 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. Landscape Plan - 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. Lot Covera~e - 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 RI 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 Pern1it 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 will disperse the traffic so that one street wilJ not be burdened with all the development traffic. The Village's Traffic Engineer found that the delay at key intersections (Hunt Club/Golf, Linneman/Golf, Linneman/Church/Willow) would not be significantly affected with the added traffic. However, the Vil1age'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-05 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 lmportant 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 ",,'ill 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) Coveral?:e Side Setbacks Setbacks Limitations I 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' ] 0% of front yard 25' 28' Rl 9,375 sq ft corner lot or 10' (lesser) Proposed Rl 9,846.25 /8,250 Would Would Would Would Would Comnlv Comnlv Comply comply Comply VARIATION STANDARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: · A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; · Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and · Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner is seeking relief from the Zoning Ordinance to allow portions of the town homes to exceed 28' from the mid-point of the roof; the single-family homes would comply with Village 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, sandv,:iched 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 thernaxlmumbuilding height permitted in the adjacent RX Zoning District. Therefore, because only portions of the buildings \vould 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 AMENDl\IENT STANDARDS The standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.a of the Village Zoning Ordinance. VYhen 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 sunounding property with the permitted uses listed 111 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 cunent 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 (S1. 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. RECOMMENDA TION 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 R.X to Rl and R2 as shown on the Petitioner's site plan dated April I!, 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); 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 recei ving sanitary PZ-II-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 shO\\'n, as required by Village Code, 2) note the sides of the detention pond slope and do not exceed 4: 1 (horizontal:vertica]), 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 Village for the eastern 9' of the property along Hunt Club Drive in the event the road is made public/improved; G. Prior to obtairiing the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of Resubdivision that creates 7 individual Jots 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; 1. 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 Deve]opment 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. 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 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, off-site improvements to Kopp Park that meet the public benefit requirement for a planned Unit Deve]opment. 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-ll-05. I concur: /" I /' '71'.:./ A I , ., \.,. I I l'\tl: "-lVV"'! r-..... .,/ \f i , ~' oney, AICP, Dikctor of Community Development ~ H:\PLAN\Plannillg &. ZOllillg COMt.r.r&Z 2005'.SI.rr MCnJoiPZ-11-QS MEMO (llllllCnt.&J1 Rood 50 To\'m!lOIll($ 7 SFR. MitTorr,l doc VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT ?\1ouIlt Prospect COM_..vH.J1\lTY DEVELOP~1El'T DEP ART\fENT - PlanI1ing Division 50 S_ Emerson Street Mou:1t Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 8~7.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Application for Conditional Use Approval Case Number P&Z ;,>;i:'<.:, .. '",C, ',p,'.:;,;.'-'':'> ;'~';.:~:~:,/~.:;'i'; <:J0...i",S>'i::'c~ z o - - <;::; :E= ....~ -.... C " ~ u ZE; ;<S?- ~ =: z - Development Name/Address Date of Submission Hearing Date "". '._,.--..,- , <-<.. Address(es) (Street Number, Street) Rd I it1' (;.::;. Sre c.. T, IL 600Sb /100 5' LII],le;}1CUl f: Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning Total Building Sq Ft. (Site) I g. 31 3 ~8 R.x. . ~/OD Setbacks: . .'.-- .... Front Rear I Side Side oJ I X)' io~ Lor W,..>;-,. Z '10 t~r€" PI GI2 := 2-:; I Ii..lTE~/': ~ i 0 Or:!... Ie' - :.:: Building Height Lot Coverage (%} Number of Parking Spaces I , .... t/~-/? / E S- f"",,,,4.eC.-t::: 8,iOO ~ - Ie...'%, c:: Adjacent Land Uses: 2 - z :\orth (2x South /2-(';'11 f7fL. 111 F East wu..,) 0 West ;?z ;:?t./ r.:J /11, - ;t( -'-I IO~..:..J . , JI,vG(-'-t' ;:4iJ1l(....,. /'1 PUj) ;<x: C~eCt7 ... - Tax LD. Number or County Assigned Pin ~umber(s) VJ U O?j'- i+~ ~O/ -IS! -Ct~ z .... ~ :r. .... X ;.:; Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) 5C'E A-TT4cff~O z. Name PAN )(ov4CEi"/6, P4vJP /J1lrjZvPF Telephone (day) 0 5co 7T 5c I{ oOV,' t: c) Ih;.l4t...j) 1111T/tOrr (~t!.17) 39r- 30ft, i: <: Corporation Telephone (evening) ~ "" /l1/17?orr cr-,eOJ/~ LFj) f?ql) 39'?~J't 3(, - I 0_ to. c Street Address . FaX~ z. [3 it/DoE - .- 16.:;5"A~ IlRLlrl/~t0/./ IIl3/~O '69'7) :Yf?-9/90 0'2. z c::.. ::l< City State I Zip Code pa(?q~ 393- ():)79 01 /! /!L./ ~?~a,,{) Ife-/<Y1/rS -. b-C~/ 0:: -LL u :.:: Interest in Property ~ U -< &'!'~~cr "Z'bf/4- 5'E'.e :::::i . z: :."iame Telephone (day) '"" (?t.f7) 593-7~~7C/ "'" Jc /lit) L'(.-) 1-H€:R41\../ C;. <: 5f: IfU;eCII r ~ .... Corporation Telephone (evening) ~ ~ ~ 3 z::::: - .>-. '"" - Street Address Fax: - .... z: ~ L/4~E;J11A/ ;(0. (j'f7) 5*95-2?O( = c lieD :: 1*0,...... ~- I; I :::::: City State Zip Code Pager ...", ;If r: /lfOSr'E c-r .- (, (.")[JSG ~ -LL Developer dJ G . Telephone (day) (%17) 316- :)0Jf~ Name vl7&;/~ ;7f'OI:/~ Lr() Address 4' 7'"~/ /! ' I m- ,Pi) Fax (o/Lj 7) 3t)~ t: I CfC} .,5) ;eL//vcr/V././ . ~'i rE lout. AI?LIri./tr flJN lIE/GilD: IZ~ Attorney DAvIe;> D'KCt!FE Telephone (day) (f;2) J ~Z - 02 C<::? Name 5C-1f4/1J A/.eNCIf /'0;:; cI c. imO/I./ Address 222 /\/ L4 ..SA LL ~ Si: Fax (3;2) ?i2 -L/S7~ SL_t[ rr 19/0 {:-il C.4~0 I TL &CJ?CJ ( Surveyor Telephone (day) (i~f7) 31 'i - ~?co . H.4.ftir,::: ~-:"'"/\/4--IIf/fF f'/A/t,:- Z Name C I t?q7) 3V~ - c,;Op - IC( J I A ({off If,,(//I!J.:r ~ .... '" Address Fax <~ - - .t c I<OUIIv'& f}lf+DOvJS I ._. 0ctz:~r ,..., -- ~L '" - '" 9~ - c Z ~.... - - ,-.. "';:: Engineer ~ g 70vp 5itArrfl? (g4-7) 394- ~e:,&CfU ..,.' ;: Name Telephone (day) C 0- Q::"U Hltz:c.rER EN GI Iv ~EK".llvG- (Jd) 3':;<f- - &b02 c; :> Address Fax ~~ /9/14 ROHLH//A/u- ;<CY\D r. V I -< ::: J(()U...fN'& ,'l,1EADovvs:IL 0CCO'f: Architect BSt3 A/~Jc;+lrEC~ y- PLrt/VNEt2.s Telephone (day): (871) 70S-- 2.Z{j~J Name Address (530 E. lJU1v10F-E RD Fax (ifT) 705 -220; 5 '? VI rE: ~c. 0 PAL-A T7Aif": ; IL 0C007 . Landscape Architect S/.h4K. ON .::Ji:;,v€: S Telephone (day): ff7)Lf- 3i? -Co/3 Name PUG-5LE7 of LA HA/e..' Lr-f) Address ;).;414 ()L{) /11 cHeN i?Y ~D Fax (?47) L/- 3:? -a~-y L4KE ZU.R.ICH I IL ~o'f7 . Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois \\:ww. mountprospec t.org 2 Phone 847.818.532S Fax 847.8 I 8.5329 TDD 847.392.60M . Proposed Conditional Use (as listed in the zoning dIstrict) Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and Ho\v the Proposed Use Meets the Anached Standards for Conditional Use Approval (attach additional sheets if necessary) SEE An-ACHeD ::: ~ ~ 1.n o~ >:::J ~g ~ - 'J) ~ 2: i ::J "'" -.J 'J)- ""'" U < Hours of Operation ":_l:.'" ,~,.; ,-""...,~:"', . . Address(es) (Street Number, Street) I ..:: r--2: Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) , Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed l'se -0 'J)~ ?3; )];' R-I ;<-2 fu(J 50 0'10 ,R-t 5"'I,ee,.l Sf" . Ro.t;.) J~l,C:7:h. ""'~ $F R'2 P,.:') :J7,:l 1705," ~< I 'J):E Setbacks: 0::: Front ((- \ - 3e' Rear (2- I - ZS-' Side p., I ~ ~. Side R-I' ",-;' :"'0 0:... r< - t-::> 30 I R'LP,-') 2')' (<,.( Pt..'D .:2 5' I f?-2 PI.-' D.;; <s / ~2: :..,- Building Height Lot Coverage (%) ::-;urnber of Parking Spaces fR.;NT' J. 3. <; I 48. ll:, ola :J.. 5';J... i2~4..2. 33. c: I Please note that the application will 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. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time of submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be give:l to this request. The applicant is the o\\-ller or authorized representative of the o\\-ller of the property. The petitioner and the o\\-ller of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents pennission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all rr..aterials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ' Applicant -.Dt /,L--- , fJ/IJ~;CJ / I 111/ rtZi)~ ($7eiJv,o U-t) , If applicant is not property o\mer: Date 3/i7/0S- l ' 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. /_ /} ~ MITi!"..;r tf~vr: LiUj c..v/j,.~'72..,r;C""" rv'e[Htf5E~ Property Owner ~ I? L--.. ) ~/IJ( /'pt!':""" Date 3/;7/0S- ~ f Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois W\\IW.mountprospec t. org 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 ~ ,;~ - /1/ ..... ,I' ~"- :''//' . ,<: /;'1 .',,~"f:" , o~ '" -! ,,>'/' '0 ~..<tr-o-dJ--~--6-'~_ .. " , --- /;''> " - -~ f?\ ',~ I,F., .. I . i. . \ ~ 'u .. '..' \l' )~ . "., -< -=-== .. ....':"'. n,-=-,' .....h........---.. H ~ ~ ....-. ......:..- O -.,.- ~ . :.--.-----~ <9=--------.- r1 ~ --'~"--,~ ~. c-."'..-...11 t"'\ ~'J ,.F:.., . :: ::.~....~ ~.--.....~9j Q~ iF(.-----.~ DETE~TION, ct~.--.,--.-t;;) g ~ 2 (3 ~ =- ,;t:;J @:' J:~ OPE' SP>c. ~:uu_-g ~_~ Q;uc.~~ ~..:-... ,9 r:----:-~ =~ '. ~\l'" H .. ' , .. U -~ :;-:3C'.-..-- 1;:... ..;,. .--.-. __ ~.. . : ~ --..::... I";'~'" ._ . ~~ ,'l.- go.. ..= ~O :: =..--..--~ (9=----. ----.:;9 .i .... ':"'-~ _ ~'I '-~ -1 ., '., o :_.___..._~ (9::......,--: ;j ~0 f-:-mm.:g @----'3..~' ~ ?<:':I (9::-.. .,~ ~ g---....~ (S;E--...--- =;__8_...~ ~-.--.--~~: ~ ~ j -::.,__.__~ ~_ ,~'_._....~ ~ :~ .- ~~ (Sp......----I ~ U _:..--...~ 0"': ~----- ~U" ""-:-:0; .. "c;j , I! I, .-.,...~_._.... . I.. ~ ~_. .__ ._ :,:,,-~'~'r~_ _ t;)~ , ;: < x ex: = z = = e.ocDIl:1:loC'l\ AlX%S! ~""'-E~ ""-..:>5C':": '<..!.. "-'. ....... DlA,..,O;- ~A-~tf..o\~ "-~ '------. 5-: .,'.!: .=.)::,.: O ~" ~-,'._' '." "'_. -.-..... ,~-....- . ~..=-.-o:..'~'"':..:::;.::._\:..=;~.~'~:::. ~~....:: .::-- --=- ~ ~ ........ ft.' Of .;: :.-..: r' _'~'.' '.., _ , . "'It ~_ ~ .,.. :._.... __!ar..., _.:_'.....__, "OT'~ ~.... ' ": .... .,~~ : --............ --',~ . :..: ~ ,; ~ '. .......:. ---. :. .. .......'. ....._OC ... .....~ _, ~..._-... -:-.~...,.--,. ~. L::;.,...= ". '_, .... _"_ .. --......"..........................- .-..::::..::~"";~"....:.:..-.-....... . ." -'-,' ,'~- . .....:-...~ .. ... .---.- ...-.-.......... ....,_.. 1..__.._...._.-_..... . .-..--...-.-...-......---...-..-. . '-'. ....-....-. . .. - - --- - ._----_....~.... ..,... ... ..-" ....... --'-' .-.... :....~..A'\4c: :-.~., ':'\.:,P.':"T',.':.:- ":., ~, ,. ~~rmilli i ',(; ! I L ! \ \ \ Ill: \ ,\, ., i I II III d \) ; J'I i : ~ \ ! : 1111, ~ I ! \ ,1 ~ : r. , II ~ , , l i . l \ ; . [ ~ . .. >-__~'U' .. :... .....:..;.. '''4;,.~.' ......'\:':~.'..... ...-.......:., "'-. ;...;~ ..~ '.~"- ;.-. '-..; '.. .-.... ::~:: :.;..,:,.:--~::.'~;.::_::: :~~:':';;:'.'~-~'....:;;:: . --...- ...-.......- p-........ .....- -.. ..--..-.....--.. ....... . ~---_. ....-.......- - ......_, .......-.....- :.-==::-."':.:"_7....:.:.:;.:- -=.-...: '-._:: ':.:"~"'..:':":. '._' :..:: -: ~ . ..::_-::~.. .. _ --__4_..__...__ ..'_._--..._-~--,..."...,.....,...., .....- ':~~.A'.':N-l"L.. .=-~,\C.:: ::>t:-~.. 'j. :- .. .. . ... ..,. .... .........~ ."... .... ..,...... ,. ,...-....- .. .... ..... il~ :=-r',7' I ~ TE E P ~E \'! E: il' I I 8 I ._~ .1 11t~.: I? I ?reIJrr.I,nd~< ~an':~~a';lt" ::Iar. . , :'hP ijll,.~" ....,..c:'..Ifl .le' ~.---- ~-. .. -. .' . "-."," ....,... ...- .' --"-' ~".''''' - 04 '. _ _ ~, ~ . I 'I: ==~:':'~lliJPUGSLEY & LAHAIE L TD i i ~I i -- --. j::;- II '.-o,:.p, '.:~'"":'5 .~, :,.."'.""~, I-=- I~ I ~ :"~.:': -:-- ~:_:: 1_ ~_ _ .___ 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. There 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 I 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 front of each building. The buildings are planned on the site to offer views of the facades from 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 from 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 (l00 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 form ofa 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 !ow- 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-l 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 will 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 w/ROW R-2 pun Area Total Site Area Development Standard Total Units Proposed Density Front Yard Interior Side Yard Corner Side Yard Rear Yard Building Height Total Building SF Lot Coverage Parking Spaces Site Area (Acres) 2.10 Ac 6.21 Ac. 8.31 Ac. Total Site SF 91,762 SF 270,369 SF 362,131 SF R-l 7 3.33 DulAc. 30' 6 -, .:> 20' 25' 28' Max. R-2 Total Site 50 8.05 DulAc. 6.86 DulAc. 30' 25' 25' 30' 28.5' (Front); 33.5' (Rear) Variance Requested 80,000 SF (.30 FAR) 48.12% 2 Gar/2 Stackll Guestl Unit 250 Total 26,600 ~F (.46 FAR) 45% Max. 2 Gar/2 Stack! Unit 28 Total Seeking Relief for Variation of Allowed Building Height. Based our new approach to this community under an R-2 PUD 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 roof) 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 measures 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 front of,the building, and, by stepping down the ends of each building to a lower height. Page 3 -- WOOD SIGN WITII SAND BLASTED LETTERS 10'-6" J'- -l-t 11'-10". I STEEPLE VIEW~ -i 4'-6" ~itroff. Group, Ltd. Signage Plan . STEEPLE VIEW . Mount Prospect) Illinois Submitted: March 15,2005 Submitted: March 15, 2005 .~i Archllt:clo; and Pl;lllllt"I!>. 1m:, "AI Bloodgood Sharp Bl1s~e! 04-11-2005 '2:57PM FROM-IAi PRC'SFECT PARI( [: i $7 c~i-2~~-:t;8 T-732 P 002/002 F-50~ . ~... -.;j: ':.,. ~'B:,.;J'~ ilCy~;: ! '..... MITROFF t. it tJ II,. \, P l\'1. : 1 f:. ~J F f G Ii. C) U f', L T D , :~55 >~~>~,Tf ,.;"~. ',,~.r;:.'j l-I;,i(;r'T: P...-"'..) ~~: :-: l.~l:~)- ~ \'"1 ,\,:.,1"._':.::::'.,; r-: .ICI~'i . : I \~\~;I:J~)"'; b -1"7 J ':, () ..5 /.):' j~ ' ",:, t; ~ -: j '~I;:; 2 ~ f.. (i April S, 2D05 Dear kIr. E1U1esser: Nt: 'ffDJ B> \.-( t~, ?r'LDSfE.c'r p f(l-lj., D l STr-~ c 1- ~1~1. Co-lT j , EN ~E: SS2\1.. J f-- 1-- \ l,oS Mr. Lou Ennesser Director of P~lrks and Planning IvIT. PROSPECT PARK DISTRICT 1000 W. Central Mt. Prospect, [L 60056 Mitroff Grmlp, Ltd. is the conu'act purchaser of 8.3 acres on LilUlt~man Road in Mt. Prospec1 currently owr.ed by St. John's Lutheran Church. W.e; are seeking Village approval of a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) consisting of 50 townhomes and 7 slngle family homes. It is our desire to provide a p\lbEc benefit upon the approval of our P.U.D. by the Vill3ge. Therefore, contingent upon final approval and plat recording of the P.U.D., and provided that there are no other fees 01' costs payable to the District in C01U1ection with the construction of the development, Mitroff Group, Ltd. proposes to contribute $60,000 to the Ml. Prospect Park District for the following work related to the renova1ion of the ~)all !1e1d at Kopp Park: . Preparation of Topographic Survey for ball field area, . Removal and disposal of existing backstop ;jnd sideline fencing, including concrete footings, . Removal and dispo$31 of existing bleacher::; and bleacher pads, . Furnishing and installation of new backstop, sideline and dugout fencing, piayer's benches, bleachers and bleacher pads, . Renovution of infield, and . Restoration of all disturbed areas. As we discussed, any leftover funds may be used in other areas of the park, while any shonfail wiil be funded by 1he Fark DiSTrict iniis:iolc discretion. VV'f; art:: pleased to \-vork. with the Park District to promote youth baseball in the Village. Thank you for the opportunity_ SincerelY, - / f. / ./') j,.--- ..-~ ,I / .'1- ,..\ '" ~ ~.._. I 0" _ '---.-._o'------ Daniel P. Kovacevic Chief Financial Officer DPK/njk ~ . &. C () M M I g ( ,1\ I I) I V I I l \ I' M I N I fi" 1\ I~ I) ~ I II .\ I; I ' 94 11 G 5 12.52 RECEIVED FROM:647 255 1438 P.G2 /. ~1 /' ""- . . MITROFF GAOUP LrD MITROFF GROUP, LTD. 1655 ~OInH AklINGTO" HEIGHTS ROAD SUITE lOO-hsT. ARLINGTON HEIGHTS. Il 60004 8473983636 FAX: 847.398 8190 April 7, 2005 Ms. Judith M. Connolly, AICP Senior PlarL.'1er 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 Norma in our office to let her know how many you need. Please call me with any questions. Sincerely, . .J]f f /L---~ , Daniel P. Kovacevic Chief Financial Officer DPK/njk Attachment R I "I () r NT I A L & COM M l R L I ^ I () I \ I t \ \ I' \\ I 0: t & g R 0 f.- 1\ ,\~, I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I f I r I ~ KENIG, liNDGREN, O'HARA, ASOONA, INC. L.::J. 9575 V\/. Higgins Road. Suite 400 Rosemon!, Illinois 60018 (847) 518-9990. Fax (847) 518-9987 email: kloa@kloainc.com MEMORANDUM TO: Dan Kovacevic Mitroff Companies FROM: Luay R. Abaana, 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\\nhomes and seven single-family homes with access being provided via a new east-west road (Steeple View Drive) connecting Linneman Road with Hunt 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 determine 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 of the analysis included a reconnaissance of the site and its environs to determine the physical and operational aspects. of the existing road network. Traffic counts were conducted at the critical intersection in the area to determine 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 determined 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 5. Evaluation and Recommendations. Based on the analyses described above, the traffic impacts of the new development were evaluated and recommendationS v.r.~r~ detem1ined with respect to roadway improvements and site access needs. Existing Conditions Transportation conditions inthe site area were inventoriedto obtain a da~~R~$eIor projecting future conditions. Three general components of existing conditions were considered: (1) the geographical location of the site, (2) the characteristics of the roadways and traffic control devicesin the site area, and (3) traffic characteristics on these roadways. Site Location As indicated previously, the site of the proposed development is located between Linneman Road and Hunt Club Drive sO\lth 01 Golf ROll(f. ..Thesi1e..i$c\l,IIen~ly occupied by the St. John's Lutheran School (closed). Major land uses include single family homes to the north, the Hunt Club Condominium building to the east, the Countryside Apartments to the south and a tOwnhome development southwest of the site. The Imman\leIBiiJleChl.lr9hi:ln(f!he StJQ};m'$ll1therC1I1 Church are located west of the site. Figure I shows the site . location as weHas the trllffic cOI1,troland geometries of the surrounding roadways. Site Accessibility The principal roadways in the vicinity of the site are illustrated in Figure I and described in the following paragraphs. Golf Road (IL Route 58) is an east-west arterial that is under 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 lllneat itsinJersec;t!QIlwithLiooemillJRolid .C1I1gHlil1t 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 Strategic Regional Arterial (SRA) in this area by IDOT and as such the roadway adheres to stricter.access Goptrot$t<gldNg~.. Linneman Road is a 11Orth-so\lth two-laI1ecollectgrroi:ldway that extends from Golf Road sO\lth to its terminus at Algonquin Road. The roadway is under stop sign control and provides an exclusive left-turn laneand an excIusiye right-turn lane at its intersection with Golf Road. LinnelT18f\: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 stpp sign control at this intersection and provides an exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. Linneman Rpad has 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 intersection with Dempster Street. 2 I I I I I I ,1 I I I I I r I ,- ,- ~ I , /,', f n I . .~' ~ . ..... /: ~'. j J.:.;.: I ! ,J'", i~ f( ;''''''''''1 ';;. .tl~ : j~ . ~'.t "J'~''''_~~ . ". - .. ... I ~ . '. J . ., ~ '''t' 1 ~ /. I I I I I I I I I I I I .,., I , I I I I '~.I I I I ") -' I I I I I I I Hunt Club Drive is a north-south t\vo-lane collector street that extends from Golf Road south to Huntington Commons Road and has a posted speed limit of 20 mph south of Golf Road. North of Golf Road the road is named S. Wa-Pella Avenue and has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. At its unsignalized intersection with Golf Road, Hunt Club Road and S. Wa-Pell~ Avenue are under stop sign control. No exclusive turning lanes are provided on either leg. Hunt Club Drive is unaer the jurisdiction of the Village of Mount Prospect Willow Lane is an east-west two-lane residential street that extends from Church Road \\'est to its terminus at Tome Drive. At its unsignalized intersection with Church Street, \Villow 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 Hunt 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 morning (7:00 to 9:00 A.M.) 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 condi tions 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 a: 2: et ~ ::lw ~w 0 ~::l et::l t:' ClZ ~~ w w w> > 5: wet etet GOLF ROAD en Z 1399 (1431> --+ 21 (12) -. c et 0 a:: Z PALM DR < ~ w 0 <t Z a:: ~w 2: <t::l ..J ::z: u ~~ cr: > ,:) <t<( :r Z u +- 1286 (1716) r 16 (25) <( ..JW ..J::) ~~~~z ...,00 w --- > NON<(<~ 1 ) ll5: := 12~~ (8) <17191 (37) j( (10) J li( 1404 (1417)--+ ~N 22 (26) ~ &;_0 ","N _Ol'"'l ~ ~ ~ "'" co ..Dor- N .... ~ BEL AIRELN w > a: NOT TO SCALE c a:l ::l ..J U ~ Z ::l :t: ASH DR - ~en- O_N - -- N en..... N )!l ~ 2 (2) WILLOW +-- 4 (4) LAN~ r 21 (26) 7 (2) 3 (!) --+ ji( 17 (45'-. EVA COooU3 l.Ol"'1N ~ ~- LANE NO"lN N N PARTRIDGE LN r'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-' j ! . , I . i I i f ,--------------, ,. i ,. i .~. i , . . I , . ~ I ~~. SITE i \ j " i " i i. i \ i ! j L._._._._._._._._._._._'_'_'_" IVANHOE LANE LEGEND 00 - A.M. PEAK HOUR (7 :30 - 8:30 A.M.) (00) - P.M. PEAK HOUR (-4:-45-5:~5 P.MJ c <( o a: c a:: < ..J ..J < :E ~ ..J < 3: Z ..J z c:( :E w z Z ..J ..J < :;:) o s ~" t-J\ t-J\ 0 ~ Neo ~u~1\t'lG10 PROJECT: TITLE: PROJECT NO: 05-09G STEEPLE VIEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT M T. PRO SPEC T. ILLINOIS EXISTING PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ~ KLOA, Inc. nCURE NO: 2 5 a: 2 <( ~ <( ..JW :>w ~w ..J:::::l 0 ~:::::l <(:> Wz CJ CJZ ~~ ~w w <(> W w> > ~<( ~ W <( <(<( GOLF ROAD VJ ;2 50% ... .. 13% .... .. c <( 0 ex: ;2 PALM DR <( :E w W > <( 2 a: NOT TO SCALE ~w ;2 Q <(:> ..J :r: c:l u ~~ :> ex: > ..J :> <(<( u J: 2 BEL AIRE LN u ~ 2 :> :r EVA LANE ;'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-' ; i j ! . , I . i ! ,--------------. ; i I i I . / ! / J ~ j ~< SITE i " i " i " i i i \ ~ I L. _'_' -. -' -'-' -. -. -' -. - .-. -.-". ASH DR 2% ~ .. WILLOW LANE IVANHOE LANE PARTRIDGE LN Q <( Z ~ 0 ..J ..J a: <( 2 0 3: <( ex: ..J ~! <( :E ..J ~ W ..J :::::l 2 <( 0 ;2 ~ ~O~S ..J NCO~ \\\,}N~\NG~O LEGEND 00% - PERCENT DIS TRIBUTION PROJECT: TITLE: PROJECT NO: STEEPLE VIEW RE SIDE NTIAL DE VEL OPMEN T MT. PROSPECT. ILLINOIS ESTIMATED DIRECTIONAL DIS TRIBUTION ~ \!i. 05-096 KLOA, Inc. FIGURE NO: 3 n I I I I I I I I I I I r r r I Table 1 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION 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 of a 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 7tll Edition of the Trip Generation .\1anual. Table 2 shows the estimated peak hour traffic generation for the proposed development with seven single-family homes and 50 townhomes. Table 2 ESTIMATED SITE-GENERATED 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 - Tovmhome 230 50 Units 5 25 .,.., oL.,) II Total 6 29 29 15 7 I I I I I , l I ! I Comparative Analysis It should be noted that although the St. John's Lutheran elementary school is not operational, based ()ndiscussions with.. St.. John's Lutheran school officials the school at. One tiIl)~ .h~~L'l.StUcl~I1t",. population of 145 students, 18 staff personm{seven volunteers and '13 office wOf.k.ers. <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;lnc. 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 COMPARATIVE PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ANALYSIS Weekday Peak-HollTTr~ffj~",~Q)u.rl1~~....... A.M. P.M. Out In ,Out Proposed Land Use - Single Family ITE Code In 1 4 -Size' 6 23 +29 4 11 +15 7 Homes 210 230 50 Units ~ +6 25 - T ownhome +29 Total Previous Land Use Elementary School Difference 145 Students -35 -29 +29 +15 ..,- -.(..) 520 -t-4 lIt should be noted that the P.M. 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 \\'ill 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 J I I In addition a 27 -acre parcel located in the southeast quadrant of the Dempster Street intersection \\ith 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. This assignment also includes a two percent growth rate per year applied to the existing traffic for one year. The total traffic assignment shovm in Figure 5 was analyzed to determine 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 tovvnhome 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 of an additional 16 tovmhome 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 will 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 vvith 9 a:: ;2 .... ;,:jW 0 ~;,:j '" ~z W W w:> ~ w< en GOLF ROAD < ....W <::J ~~ > << z 4- 2 (l) r 1 (5) < ...IW ...I::;) Wz A.w 0:(> 3:< o (2) -+ ~ 1 (2). . I ( 4- 1 (51 .- 2 f7J 5 (31 -+ ~ I' 0<21. II ::;;::j c ~ ~ ct N Lll o a:: ,... -- -~ ~ -' Nr- c a: :r u a: ;:) ::t: U < I-w <::;) ~f5 :> <<C Z z ct :E LlJ Z Z ..J NOT TO SCALE PALM DR BEL AIRE LN w > a:: c a:l ::J ..J (.) .... Z ::;) ::t: /'- O"l WI LLOW +-- 1 (0) LANE r 9 (5) o (1)-+ ( EVA Oi LANE N PARTRIDGE LN c < z 0 ..J a:: Z < :E w Z 2 ..J N r'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-"N! I i~ 7 (~) ) i '-. Ir 10 (5) / !.. - - - - - - - - - - - --j ./',r 9 (5).J i 1 ./ & 3 <ll -.. i r; /~ i !< '" SIT E i 0 ~ ! " I i i i i i i " ; L._._. _. _._._. _. _0 -. -. - '-'-'- ,," ASH DR IVANHOE LANE ~ ...I < 3: ,... ~ r'1 ..J < ::> o ~s ~~o ..\ CO G~O\" \,\\,)N~\~ LEGEND 00 - A.M. PEAK HOUR (7:30-8:30 A.M.l (00) - P.M. PEAK HOUR (ll:45-5:45 P.M'> PROJECT; TITLE; PROJECT NO: 05-096 STEEPLE VIEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MT. PROSPEC T. ILLINOIS SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT W KLOA, Inc. FIGURE NO: 4 '\ 0 I I I I I I I I I I f t I t a: :2 <: .-. ::lW I-w ~::l ::l 0 e"Z <:z e" w 3w w> > LlJ wet <:et :: en :2 GOLF ROAD 1~27 (1461) --+ 22 lIS) ~ Q et 0 a: :2 PALM DR et :E w et Z C Z a: '-'w et::l ..J :r 3ffi u a: > ::J etet :r Z U N~ r-'"ll'- +- 1313 (1751) r 18 (32) < ..JW ..J::l wz nooD.W --- > N ON< et"-- 1 J ~ t...~ ;= 13~g (8) (J 760J (45) , ( 1 (10) J 1~39 <1450>--+ 22 (2B)~ Ii, ~r-- It"1 N 5 ,...~ NO""" ...; ...; ...; U)L(1 l"1 dOOU'l - U\ BEL AIRE LN w > a: Q CXl ::l ..J U I- Z ::l :t NOT TO SCALE ~ ~r-'"l 0"lU) -- ASH DR ~ ~O"l~ 9=~ N O"l .- N J!t... '- 2 (2) WILLOW +- 5 (4) LAN~ r 32 (32) 7 (2) 3 (2) --+ ,i( 17 (45) ~ ~ ~ ~ U)c:ol'- EVA ~~':::? LANE NCTlV N N PARTRIDGE LN r-- N ,'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_ N C), N It"1. 1"-- 7 (~) ) I \ Jr 10 (5) .i /~:-----9-~5~~-. I r /~ I 3 <1l ~ /('v & .'Cb ~ ~... '\; 'It " \ \ , , , I L._._._._._._._._'_'_'_'_'_'_ Q et Z ::.! 0 ..J ...I a: <( Q ;: Z a: <( <( ...I :E ...I < W ..J ::l Z oct o S z :E 1S\~O~ ..J CO G~O~ 00 \'\\,)~"{\~ PROJECT: TITLE: STEEPLE VIEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MT. PROSPECT, ILLINOIS ~CT1 r-'"lV SITE C)r-'"l IJ:) IVANHOE LANE LEGEND - A.M. PEAK HOUR (7:30-8:30 A.M.l (00) - P.M. PEAK HOUR (4:45-5:45 P.M.) PROJECT NO: 05-096 TOTAL TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT W KLOA, Inc. t/GURE NO: 5 11 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 BuntClubRoad 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 Seryice, please see the Appendix.) "".. ".. . " ,,,',.;,, C:.:~,~'~:' . Table 4 .- LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Existing Conditions Future Conditions A.M. 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 Road/ 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 Road/ Steeple View Drive A 8.7 A 9.1 Hunt Club Drive/ 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 I I I I I. I I I I I t ( I I , I r opinion that this westbound movement will be minimal as motorists have to travel at 25 mph on Willow Lanee 40 mph on Golf Road) and come to a complete stop at two intersections (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 Deve10pment in Mount Prospect April 5 2005 lrajm 13 Appendix I I I I I I ,I I I I I r I I I J I I LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIONALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Total Delay (SECNEH) A $10 B > 1 0 and:=; 15 C >15 and 525 D >25 and :=;35 E >35 and :=;50 F >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. 03/05/2005 17:40 E:-I ;'3-1 ;::7 -I -1 '3 t',1;:::.L'::.H [IEEF'F IELD PAGE 01/0::: TO: MT. PROSPECT 20l\1JNG BO,\RI) RE: ST. JOHN L~RAN PROPERTY DEVELOPfovfENT PROPOSAL CASE NO. PZ J 1-05 FROM: ALZVEJNIEKS 695 BEL AIRE LANE 847-437-7181 94-2S-85 99:94 RECEIVED FROH:8479487449 P.Sl 03i0Gi2005 17:~O :::.4 7'j4 :::; ~ ~ '3 ;...-:L::,H [,EEFF I :::U' F'iC,,:,E O::::i (I :: AI Zvejnieks 695 Bel Aire L3 ne i\Jt Prospoct, III 847-437-7181 RE: CASE NO. PZ 11-05 For the past few days I have been re\.iewing tbe l\lITROFF GROUP"s revised plans for developing the St. .John Lutheran property. As a reminder, their first plan/proposal was rejected unanimously by the .l\ft. Prospect Zoning Board. I wish to make the following comments on their new proposal: 1. \Vasn't jf 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 num ber by a total of tbirteen - from seventy to fifty seven units - take that into consideration? It was also mentioned that the direction in 1\ft. Prospect is to go to single family dwellings. The audience present at tbe first meeting cheered these comments. 2. They have added seven residential homes in their new proposal. Fine - bowever - the)' are requesting a Zoning change from the current R.X 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 totally change the character of our neighborhood. \Ve bavelarge lots, they wish to build on sma)) 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 bu.ild as many bomes in a row as possible on that swamp area. 94-28-85 G9:G5 RECEIVED FROM:8479487449 P.92 03iObi2005 l~:~O :::..\ 7'3..\ ::::7..j..\3 i..,!,:c,L::,H IEE~'FJ :::U' F'r:;~E (1) I):: \Ve don't need to see ao)' standing water as a result oftbis new construction. Let's keep the area for residential h.omes 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 ",rill still be the result of their new construction proposal. Some consideration should still be made to reduce the number of un.its proposed. 'Vby townhomes? ''''hy not more single family homes in their plan? 5. The height of the new buildings being proposed is esthetically overwhelming. If townhomes 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 the new buildings in the downtown area of Mt. Prospect follow a like design pattern. Let's keep the character of our area as is. An of us living here are bappy with it. We obviously chose our homes in this area. because we liked the area. LeCs not allow dramatic changes to occur to our neighborhood. 84-28-85 t;J9:G5 RECEIVED FROM:8479487449 P.El3 r, -:2 /) jJ .J!cvru~Gl Y :jCJ:PJ! q [;0 i!A lU :L''J.e<;'76 J./ I } . , ) ! ..:'). r- //,'. ) :::-1'..-7_i:, . '1" I,{ 1--2/ . /1 L) / '~';} {.j (,' Y\....t:...Jl! o.~vL, /L {, 0.' -A. .~.J_/.-> .t'tu -Ie (]'i;?L-t2.t.L ))Z'Lf G. ?/aKC elL ".L(J-tD{~~;,,--(.', a_/~(.(.-r r t / ,I / ..#<J .X2-r.-L.6f(~(LT I t. . cS) ..A-e:x2.e~Cz[G cL~ / / (j I ~ rei (~t.c6 ~t - {lJ-t. N,L 2.t7L-L-j- ~ / / ..; .~ tit j OLv~0 (!id ~th! i'/t<-'~~C,A-"!-,~~'/u.:) d1' 'u-l. dnM7I) c/z;uCi~1 -h,:(tjun .7 rht:J ddU-LD ,: WLf>C/v:L(ALi ~(J._<2ffLgl7{ u.p,:'!/- ri~ )'lt~~'4 W-Lll. ~ j(uj)uuUJ-/ dt.. f'-C,. tht ~'?.'/J-I f:/2J-u..u...ii...- ()...-1c.---'"....L /)'-f'1.71 {j-l-z;J /free f t' C';l' ., ,. r"7 . J'^' I '" i.tIu ii'liJlJ&7LI(K2u>L /JxC~7 of jLlQ.7: k;:rlalu~j tke: '/1L<f--'~Y ,;~h 6ro J,XJtt, d '-/t-cUtJ-~:J} tleJ- IOU~)[ J.ffIo-p tIu . ,.'. t!vl. i. !t-, (r~. ?~~. ~j~' e. lMU';( tk-L. "l~-J-(n.. ,,,,{ {>-<-l ,<< ".t;<- _ Ct )1'-" ,< .( . ! ~tJ-t (Lei fbJJv/o t-,::L(.~" "0 /?t-C71 '1-ci7<-lyo , i: ~C!-LL LG (Yf.......,,( /17iVt..c i/f1--c:'t~_C ~ .. Dc 11-7'-,/ ex 7' c" L '-i~4'- Clh! J dLL<C o{~L ~.i u-Ifc c' :~rc!1fU)1 fiI~tL7 ~/u? .ill .'/./? ~L (:ru-.:--~ <c( :.'.23~-~l~<-~/PO G...,t L''...) .(:cL.t:. ...{....,r.A (LtC &~m. r ~.C' J"'LC>J'L.-t:id:::::"-<:, ,. /' 0 I /J :) ) i~. &~! I/lj~c( ~juI; _~r rJiu::L~ v. i7 !C.< (~:'K:I];i?;o K'~_" , :,.,...f:k., ~ 8' ~~.( 1..u't;L<o (", / ~~~.7 b'tJI f-A.-t Y?i-.'c--L'J,Lt--. -7'?~ 'f'/ 7::J...blCZ":l1 ., ( .~ ~-7 ,fI.-t. ';j---ci-< .[;/ y: ":> GJL C*-L<L L('7'-j fc. (-JU. &.r7<-I;'l . /eI '~.i ~ '1JUL(/ ~ ~ ~/S/N.c 0'''-'- /' i-?!:!..rr U ~ a~c :cu/~/"- jV ~t~.V{-{. I :1 cJ4.o O--I(L/ Oft{ ct!~~K Cc -fl?(l~ ,0u. if'<"F /*,,( o.~-yt'^C i:~ (jCl~4... *"' /'1717 cl.'/Le -t.. a'IL-~{ ,-6vtc-/~ ~-tJ..c t~'OI..sc-- : i . ,. iJ i); I ," ;. /,,;. . .... -... . / ,.:-\'--- ,7 t:{{;(. --..t' (X~;,c{ ~/L '-/~-<",,-'c";J {}.{&1L&-x-c; d-o Ji,H.----c( (:>l .J.t4..(.. .~ pi..L-''if1 Cl<.LJ.~1 Jz &..'<-<,t - c"'3-lv'11 CfL<:-( e,l 0/ ov..-I 15-1 ~~t- (~j!;~ I . :t/ , ,. , . ,." ,'\ ~ /. , ;,...:.-(. (x.t:)2 K:- -- L-: ~*.{, c { ~ '1"1 I,) \j yr..-(; 2~t - I\9--CA...L..C ",; -( ).iL.. <. A ".., ('." ""'. Q.-cuicl ~t Ll 'K",vi t1.\.( ;t <I". .~J '/:.<i de. /1 'f':', rvJA'1 )~. .~;' L ., -,~,. iL I tJ U . I ~.,.. '\ " "i",,... . ~ . _ ~ /.~ _;I" oU I' (.) I .~~. cL-~L.t. -(LU~-":'--). tC. -) . .. .' (\, , . / tJ-t ,'fV! 4../ ~ Cl~L v I,. -L-<...(-(( C-F(.:u-uc-rL (vtkt./ tJ.-{,U'~C{~'7~/ bM~ICu"-ttt tJ.-fu-~ CC~{ IX eLC.ru..S t<!l~n.c FL.n.7 (!. L,.b- ~A . .~ vr- 't-ztb: vdo. c ~t-T[M ~ (j~ . .~ rJ--t.-rc .J//~/U....>>\J' X1~'qlif7 aA.<>-u-lL-c{ t/U JJ(/'~-'/'-- ~ ~;'vl ~v~ [Xg Jv~,,-:r, .tu-71 C-1.k~L ~ d < Wo . t~~1f~'>L7 . a'~~ tfk ik"'-<L', aL,eLe- Cl .G;ft . ~ . k/~ (t'lIJ;J Of ,1),>:'1. eY/.INhLCc - ~<:> p,,?, 1. ) ../YW O-~f l crt ~, ~_ . , () I jJ \ .- tI ~ \. I) L. . . , 1::::;;,;:1 ,Cw:?::J ,-cK.< UJ.({CI'}~ CJ'!'ct,L'~ 7!-<l-o OL'~{: :>.r;r. / :-:. ~ u'*t C'f-cLL k- O't-t"- O"{l.v>Lt <>"1. - y,.......]tJ..(1. Uk_LI Jd ~ Ii \J ~ '-n -1-' 1; ,!J 1 J i ,lX-- ~)~.t.(I u"-1-ce(J2-c ~ I &L-tJ-t.-L. (,1'7'l-<( l::.iLt v --tJL-{ &.~ ---:DO',,....A w--V--t, or t:.P..~" )-ncJt-CLUA. )) C4v. of T-'-- , () '" - ~ '!) ,\ ,'J., \ /1 .~ O--;vt7u~~ '-{Uk--\..- ()J"/Let cf 011 I \ Ju..()..t-~ 9/L"-O--C, C-, ';~~I L:.--' -l ~ f,:J !F)l.&t.<.d Il a c0- "': l \_~~/ ey7~ Lf7;1- 9c:2L7Y .; ~e0) 1I~J2A/)10 , it 0 l {hINT CL-,UP DILl \JE: : M ~ 'IL V)OCfJc; - 4- 2~ r~~';~~;:;"):;:... '~:' .', ~". ..' \. . f'~~-"-- ..lU '\.. : \ \h. IIlI'e \ 9 :'.- j..' '. \ " W" \.: \ . ~;p:~::~\:r~ii".,"~~ \ \~ ~', ~.:~r.~~~~~:~'. ~.",..;'.- lS t' ~ ~ ~ ~ -) ~ ~ II ~ 'fr V'. 'fr Church Pastor Jeff G. Gavin AprilS, 2005 "cfirist's J'amify 'R..e1Ufiing Out In Lovell TO: The Village of M1. Prospect Board of Planning and Zoning FROM: The Council of S1. John Lutheran Church of M1. Prospect, Illinois The Council of S1. John, representing nearly 500 members, most of who are residents and tax paying property owners within M1. 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 firm, its heart for M1. Prospect, and a proposal that would enable S1. 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 S1. J~hn Lutheran Church - M1. Prospect, Illinois ,--..~ " ~f/ /J ~-A~j~ ,i1t q- ,fLt#{r &< C?~. v+tJ(J!~~.~ 0, ~~~~ ttC#-vz- :;J4!~d~.~ cXf7U7~~ ~~~ 1100 Linneman Rd. Mount Prospect, IL 60056. (847) 593-7670 www.luther95.net/SJLC-MPI U SIT E ~ 'MAL sm: AlIEA =i{:1~, ror~ 'SijCLEf.unLY ~I-if- R-lsmAltl. 1'O'flLSl'11m 1'ftUC!llITSQt D A T A 'lOJALSTf ACRr.AG[ Cl SINGLE FAMILY R)/ ZONING :.e.. sri U'Ik r:~; ~ ':~ ~ 352..131 Sf Ulk. t.~.~~ 't'i";~::~'.~;~:;-:;:'!! .....t'" 5UIJ2S; a,S66sr fOfilftiiES .,. .-~-] 81OOl'&U1lDDfCS ~ UNIT aunDlNCS C1Jllll!UlWlNCS TOl'AL1IlIm_ c.wu '.wDIC j~/Ulll'f1 fllfllalCVlI!TPllllmlC """"'''''''' ~ i,1 Ii :i J \j ! J::j I ...-;_.~Y" ,~ ,~ .. '" ($,0.11 ~ '.01 hi'" .;~\ \ \, ) " " " iO " !=L'!!!..~ 11-2 IJIK'lITt' (m) R~21DT COVEllACE :c~&Rti('lllmlDll1uu) ........... l'1llWli1lTO~ 1Ot1J.0ll'I:lmUlCO'flllW;I to'l'.lJ.IJJlllStAnmJ. =~::= I::]) ~~: TOTALSlTEDDISlTY =~~li!i\al 'l'OTAL~ -"".... -"""""" m,l"''' 6O.~!lPllUd 11JlIV Ull ~.?Otft 2:1Z11 nOJ"" 441ft 14&.08OSf 61.&41 """' """" "- .31... tilt hI"" ..!;.~......."'. I. ....n~'~...' /~ (::> t'l__ 1 ...-.:: ~ I: I II " I, ~I ~ PHASE 2 '\Il.~T;;iASE-;- I, J l' ! ) ! /1 / ,fi HN'U-U.:':~"'" '-1hl "- -n ,- i::i.~r~,~~:~' D MULTIFAMILY (, R4 ZONING ,_ ;;: .:;;; ,."~.tI -;j ..-..-; l I~_a;",.~...i'::.cr.~:'~ I \:!.'7f,I. !...!B~ !!2.:!!'!l. J MULTIFAMILY R4 ZONING C::::J 7"__.~o...r.r..,..;.IIC.c 1..i....-._C~.;_1./III.8 ....",...,.,._,_(C,-,; CJ r t/r_ s..,..... c-. C"on I. ,_ 1'. "'" C "/'Z.IIR__eo..n..'...,,.1.....1J a......- _ c-w rea-a) !illl1!!!m c::::J C::::J ~:'::-aC='IJ>J~ l'~...~t:_ .'~"-,c,,,_ ~~ - ., c.__ " - (,. -~ n.-.d{tolS<<:,..... ~- " ('J. -.. ~- -- -- ~'M.....'........ 1Il0,,,._ "" .. "''''''''1<>/ ",. '- "- - ~ltc..n., --~ () ~'- ~,- ,. L~-~J_~:~ , , ~~l~-~~l~~~;~tt~-:~.~~~~-~= PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN STEEPLE VIEW MITROFF GROUP L TO, .,~r.UIIOII mil HAEGER ENGINEERING ==~~~-:':'=:'~ ()Qoo/Ig"""TJe ~T.l8 ~,...s s..Ill "'100' sr- I <It ~ Dolot. M-I~.O~ "~,.,,. o<"I)lC --==:f-ll.- I: ~ I 5 jl [ ~ .1 ~ j ::; i:i: S ;:f: ~ ill' z i [ I'! ~ : s::s: :; , I', ';~ ll! -~i-H~J.t; ~ I u' JvH 1-. TJ II , i j' _ . l ,I l! i I! .ltli'IPll'~dl " 1~I~Jlfl!!!;.lii!!fs.}!jii;1 111 JH i . Il, I. f j-''1'' :i~ , , ~ H !! hfi H'\I i.~ II l! Q :'~ ':" ,I, i:m ~j!! ~1 {~ ~~. '\.. ,~" , ,~... f<J {t ) it ~:,; , ci ~ ~~S >::> 3 o. WltG ;iClI w.. w"- 1;; i ; I: :E c.:Il' : " ;i! i:i ~H U'l c::; :,11" n ::::n: . i ESt" B ffih "; c:: rl ",' ==1 -c, ~11 ,II! r-- I.! ~ I Iht 1.1 1:1; ill 1 li~ !' '-I -I llit..; I Il,!- :j I"!~ ~ I ~~:J ~\. co ~ ~ I ''\.J ) [=:J l'8_"'~<r<.ew..o.l:IatO'.'1P*1."".C r_....""f1._,'~I""*',.".lI .'~._,,..,.....(c,,_.} ../l"f)!I....;_s....",.c..."...l:'lou..'r..-1..".c 11/'1.~.."""""'_'Co"""'.r1l>'1.1h8 ,.~_C......(c.-') [=:J ~ c::::J c::=:J J.~c__~""'''' '.P-&SI<><m_'~..... '"ll_s.."_c""",, II'~._C_ '~i:;~~''''''\'\ 'I f' I., --;~ i \ \'" '''\ j , \"'. \\ , .. .._ " \/\ ,t I ,J~ )/------- ~ .~ Ii ",.,,1 / /,~ \. I' . \ . \' IJ _ ' _, ; -) \;.c, ,-' \ I e -1 ( Y'--""'.(\. ,,(<""'0" '. \\ I ____fT--II" r,J L, rl 1\ \~ "", "'1' j' 1'-'1 /i-,"il '\ ~,.~".l : ,I "~ T~ -'HI . '\ ). L ....., '. . 'f I .'." \ . p"" ~""I (,. Y' \ _, "-"e:] I rt \ v i ~i !i:1 :! ~ II i I-~ n " =.. ~~ . . . 0,. ( ->-- A I .. :<J e, I", r...~, .~~ fM{~INt. -- l' l.,.,Po.. '(1--- '",-:1'11'9......__ ",...,- Go.o<r~ /SIP_,'" .-- T__l""><o ". - """lIC<<11... 1loP....._c~ c...,.~ -~:.. ......~ c.-.tlo..,_ ..=ro. eo.,.......,.. c.c_r," c___r... ~0i7ie ('v; ::; ~ 0,. ."'~ J o ...._..)~~:..:;;..?:!:r:-~';'" ..' 1. . .-. 'I:;, ..,IEli'~~~~~.=::;;~~~_.. .:.--.l-~t';'-l'~'-'i~-~S-~-- PREUMINARY GRADING PLAN STEEPLE VIEW MITROFF GROUP L TO. .1_tl.~ (;;:;;:=,;;;;",-;;.;-~\ I E::"Z"':f.."...~~.~'%~ I ~.~./!:. !.i8~ !!2.::!!'!!.) ffIl HAEGER ENGINEERING =~"":':::::"'.":'~~~ ~l"'" bit ""0' u.. OS-IS.Q!> 1....' C__ TAS ~, III 3 ......-NIl D<..ll1C SIT E WID USE roTAL sm: AREA !tii~V:-~lml ""I. SINCLE ffiij[y I~I-I) II-I Sift W.A 'IIlfAL Sf wrs AvtllACl:lDt5lZl ToINHOIff.S ~ GUNtTBI1lUlINCS hllll1T8UJU1lNCS 4UNlTBUIlDlNGS ~ Cl/lAGt'lllXI1IC(2/1llflt) T.IlIDDt;UlSfP.lJlQlC .....",,,,"" ~ ~ 11-2 DDISrrT (1Il'T) R-2 lOT COVERACE msmlll!A(T'IllNtfOIttAlltJ,) ""''''' PORalES,IAIJCll I'lllYATEilTtOwum 'ilUL Imllf\llI.IS comwll TOT.lLJ.llIflSOO'tAW ==g ~g~ 1~"P g.~: TOTAL SITE DENSIlY ~~o~~_f:.~l 1lJtALIlIIriS- CflOSSSI1t.lllF.ll CROSS SlIt DDlSTn' \\Hese, H,lIIlZSI" 27ll,I711sr :I2.onsr 3S2,U!SI' D A T A - TOTAL srr- AC~9E Cl '" ,( I" Ink '''k .7tk l>k If I ! ! I n.M2~ ....... \.J '1'10 . " 3~ .. I" I" .. ... ($01) ~~~ &.0110./"'- :m.l1t3P' ....." "'10$1 12,'101 SF' I:lOJ04Sf 140.* Sf IS.SoIt UII ZULli; ~ 51.841 ""'" """" ~ 83lAc U/lf1t>/Ar J L I N "~"_-", ,C:'~:~),)~'"\'\'\ , J' --11- --"1 I \ ,\-d', .' I ), _ \~c', (>\, , .~_\, I! \ )1',,:\ \~ L rrr )/', MULT.r~tMIL\ , I ,,,J _ \ .' .2 ~U,O, \20NINo" I j \, 9"');"). A II I' T , r' - '-----...,,-~-..--'r/l \Z'rc \:. \\ .I i, ,j.. \\1, ",!i"'" , . j, "-~Jl IrrLJu.. iI--', 'I i \,'N- \ I Ii' .. j '!i ",,"- ,'j I \ ,.',,'" // l """ c,: U '~ ir'll () / ~ "[I l ' . / ~I~ "'.'("'j \."T....4', .1",,1" -_/ ~ . . c~;: ,.. I <://~~---~-- > ", ...."....- ''7 \ -'- ii:;'~~~:~~:::" -H--~)r 8 \ i --t -m-'lhl n MULTIFAMILY R4 ZONING (:::z ;;:.;;;;;/0<-;;;....-;;<>17'":"';;;;"'" Ii:":"''':::..'"'''':k':::'.'~'''::,!;,'- I Jri..'II. !.is!!!} !!2~'!!. J \~7\ \ \\ ) [:=:J 1"&1............ <;~""". ee..-. eMU I. f}'PO 2. iii. I; :r &'r~_.t S- C__. T," 2. W", . '.'I~"_',,"_f(;o-t) [:=:J , 1/;"_.. ~ C_. lkn I, r_ 2. ",-. C ",'z"fJ"""",..,."tJ,""4'C"'I'H. '_:>,lIi.8 '.A~_c........(C."') ~ c=:J [:=:J 5.PCtC_.....~ '.CA-!SI__CG...... ,.lM_....."""""c_ ,.~....""""" MULTIFAMILY R4 ZONING b;""', " " ~(""s..c,...., 1""9 'o/<''''~f -~~ " 0, H '0 -..,=0'$ <> .--) , lj~fPo" 1.""I__rJ.nooo lIUt>""'- c..,-,.;,. "''-''eI '" () :.=. :: ~t~~~~~"= PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN STEEPLE VIEW MITROFF GROUP L ro. IIr,"ItOSPECt,UIIOIOIS 111 HAEGER ENGINEERING ~::!.~~":'~~-:''== ~T,jll .... 0_ T JII C"-;ktd: 1 AS 5_' (II , PrujodNG. OL.171C -I I I / / ! / I I / ---- ~-".",,,,,,,,---- PLANT MATERIAL KEY 5CAlf I" = 30'-0" O 5"~de T,~. 2.5" . 'Aut~mn Pu...".e' ~i'I. 'Debar,i" Nor\\/~~ Maple, '~ec1 5u~' /l.ed Ml~ . '!'nn.::.et(lf'l 5em')" G,,,"". '5l:)iI,"e' l1one:yloXlI3t. Lrtt!ele.l/ ,,'den, Red""""" lo"<let'. 'eornlfe' SU':l/lr Miple, 01110 6lJCkeye. '5loy'l;I<:l<d Cotumr~ 0,'<, 'Sowh;III Red' Red Miple, "'10:1 Wt1FteO"k 04- 8:f f~er~u:" 511.....1:0, le'.24' - '~IIay' J""'peral'ld D~eYew Entrllnce 5,'31'1 tb @ Ewe.",.",." r~. G'.e,'. COf'IGolo' for. Au!otrun Pin.!, W11~.e ".ne. Colora"QG~~. "lO.....,1' :;f'!'IU. ,rid EmefAld ArOOnoIUe O"',,,"enbl Tree. f;.(Y. 'Pra,nl"",' Crabaf'l':'le. CO....l!!llanc/lerry Dc<awG>O<:l. 'Autumn fl,r,llano:.e' Serv'eel>er'Y. '!'lei Common W,tehhaw DeC;td\JOu~ "-1''''''' Si'lI'\Il:I. ~6'..4e.' _ 'Annal:>el:e' I"ydri~, Owarl ~ BlI!oh, 'M~!o 1<."",. LII,,:., a"<:l 'AutumnJ'uArrow."ood V,b.....""", ,.- Dec,dllou!o 5""11 Snrut>, lS'-36" . C.....I>"'''"Y Cotorea:.ter. 'Jet r'oaIl ','lkltf! ~IO'''''~''''3 O..ru. "lo....an' 5p,ru, ..lid C.,tle.J' 5~el'~~N~t:lc" ~ C:l CrnamerTt#1 GraY... I eal. - .3 ~at. . 'IU,I P~M Reed Gra". 'CIoI/d ":,noe' SWItch Gra5~. f>urp"ce~n,,' P1atne Gr,lllo'J. anol 'H;Jmel,,' Owarl fo.mU'" G'a" f>cre"'ulfGro.......GO\II!r. I <3.11. "'~Qllu:>t'l>"ma A..e"'Q~, 'elvc Wed-aeNOOd' HO'J~.R::rUMe' Crane!l~ll. 'Golc:l5t<\lm el,lck-e"yed SV!>,Iln. Ru,,,,,1n Sa.,e. "Autum" jQ>/ Sc.::Ium. ar.d Purplel60f W'rTtcr~eeper NOT:5 , ""'''_'"~ 10.""..... ,"... n.~~'" _...... ...,.ddU ...,;,.~ ....0;;. .,i4'.-,;;:;;-;r-y l. ....;''''".,..,.........~."......d.''H'., 3. ''''AI''''''''''''' "',"" 10. u......... ,~.~. ''''''' ~..t"'" ~~" ...~,,.....~",.<<_.. _ oM-t......... ~..,,_. ~ All _'~~l '*"'1' ,," ...".. "",,""d"~ .........,"'~. ,~.d,"~ """\"l.,."~....,, t.?ltt _.d....... """"'_'..q. ~..~'... e'.... ~.:;d~~~."."~$.~,...;..;~~~~~~.::::.~=;.:. 10.. ...t<k,J ..~~. "'<l,..q. ~"'~.... el."" O<<d ..d ....,._.. , eo...,....... ....II~. ..'f~"..IoI. '<>, _..~""~ "....".... ,.....10 p"""-'''' ~. ...~..,"""'ot\.~.! ,>.. t. ...""'........,1". """'........ e a..."'........ ........_., ........~, '. '..vc,...... ,,,. t~u _~ ""....'".. I' '''_.,...c,- "I""od _.t.".. ........... ..dpl.on.'".".."'''I.....~,' " 0,.........., ."..,~... .,."""!... o. .~c......""" ',<>. w....". '"P''''' (~... I<>!'I ,..0<1...... ............,..... up. '~",I>""''' .,.-n.. ..........G....,""C'l..,.......l""",...."...,.._,""... '""<,j'~"'" ,.~~,...."...........~_.. 1....'''lO<>'''''........ .....c.......'........l'.'.t'<>""__"'~ '0 .Yf',~ll""........~ '...-..... ....." be .d""~,, ~."'.."'" """...........,.d _.."'".. ~~....;::~:::.~"'.:.~OI...... 'A _......... ...41>..... r...I'<'OtC<lt....t'lool"'''''...d...,Cllev,..~.'...,,''YO.P......''' ~NTRANCE SiGN AND PLANTINGS 5CAlE I" - I 0'.0" ORNAMENTAL FENCE DETAIL N.T.5. ...c.~ .......... ,..c ,......u.. ........ _"""..'''''M" .C."'''~ ....... ....~ .......~~.o... c.......... ....w. ............................... u.......... ....... '.........'H. ..0....' '.. ...n ....... H,,".. .................. .. .... ~........,. ........................ ....,.....~ ..........."........ UY ................ cTO ~1~m(;?ll?EPLE VIEW J0! i ::=:: 2~~- ~1}{'o;<<> J fijJ r.~~~:~~;:~:~~:~3.~~~~ .s.R.~...."".....,.........,- U"~ I, R.~Hd ~... .~ ,._'" . 3/H/W J ~ ! lJ I Preliminary Landscape Plan !"-~""-~'-'''] l I~ \.~~14e..Hl::~rr ~roup, LLd " ) J) ) p ~ ) I ! / / TYPICAL FOUNDATION LAND5CAPE PLAN. 5 . G UNIT. MULTI.FAMILY BUILDING5 SCALE I" = 10'.0' NOTe, Typ.e.ol 'o...~,,~I,('In 1".3n ,M?W,> af'f'rOJO"".te pbntl~~ Inten~'ty and 'Mar. l:Je '<&"(.<1 ~.~ en 10..1<:1.,,"3 t)ipe an" ~CtOl1 ~ 1) ) ~ " \ \ \ "----/ I TYPICAL FOUNDATION LAND5CAPE PLAN. 4 UNIT. MULTI.FAMILY BUILDING5 5CALE I" - I 0'.0' NOT~: Ty?lul fo..."".toon pia" ,1101'0" af'P"o~om'te ~l'Itm"l 'nteM'~y .n'" wllt>e ~i"ed I:J.~ OI'II:>\I.ld'"" ey~.'II:I orOl!!nl.ll'Ofl, ....c.,.................... ,......u........ or ....<>.....'......~_.......". ....." ...............O:'..........,".......L'-"...._....... (rij r;::;-J r71 rSTEE PLE VIEW 11["111 ' t~ J II p;.~ii;;;inary Lan.dsca, pe Pia, n IN, The Mitroff Group. Ltd .../ '-- \..~~~_.__. ,-- 6 8.250 sq, ft o 1894 acres TYPICAL FOUNDATION LANDSCAPE PlAN . 5INGLE.FAMILY HOME5 5CALE I" - I 0'.0" NOTe:, T1F"UI IoYn"OIt,on plan :.~"w!> iFpto..''''.!e ~nt,n':'l ,n!en~1 and ,hall be ~ned N~"" b~t'd'''9 ~oe ~ or,etIta:",., .....~FI'~'"'"...:...J...~.:..;::.:::~: ~:,::~"... 'liJ" "..._m."......_."._._~.. ..........m..:.:.:::::~.., , II' Il::::::::::,~::::::::~:>:: PUGSLEY & LAHAIE LTD. IlJ li, ~-::::: ~.,~~~'{~J LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND CONTRACTORS ~. 2-4414 N. Old "'er<V1'y RIl. Lok. Z...rletl, 11I11'I0'- 60047-8904 J ~ ~o. . ~: "7,4~ClOU ""0< "'7,""',_ -..... _......,.......~- . . 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'), 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 2 IN 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, ACCORDING 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 A 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: Lisa Angell Village Clerk HICLKOIfileslWINIORDINANCIREZONE 1101 linneman rd,twnhms,may OS.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 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 WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks to develop the Subject Property as a residential Planned Unit Development consisting of a 50 unit town home 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 Mount Prospect 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 determined that the requests 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, ILLINOIS: 'J '/ /<. , ~i-) 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 alighting 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 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; 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 f Page 3/3 PZ-37 -02 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. 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 ofthe 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 ATTESi: Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\C USE,VAR-1101Iinneman road sl john may 05.doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department Mount Prospect MEMORANDUM ~ TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER ~.~~~ 11" os' FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JULY 15,2005 SUBJECT: PZ-2l-05 - CONDITIONAL USE (CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY) 1016 MEADOW LANE ANNA & KATHERINE WOZNIAK - APPLICANTS The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-2l-05, a request for a circular driveway, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their June 23, 2005 meeting. The subject property is located in the Wedgewood Subdivision. The Petitioner is in the process of tearing down the existing 900 sq. ft. house to construct a new 3,000 sq. ft. ranch house and related improvements. The Zoning Ordinance requires Conditional Use approval for new circular driveways. These have been approved in the past for safety concerns, not for convenience. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the lot size, its comer location, the amount of pavement in the front yard, and the substandard street width of Meadow Lane. The Petitioner stated that the circular portion of the driveway was intended to be used by her guests to minimize conflicts with other vehicles traveling on Meadow Lane and to minimize inconveniences experienced during inclement weather. The P&Z discussed the fact that relocating the driveway away from the intersection of Meadow and Wedgewood Lanes was a safer design than the existing driveway location. In addition, the P&Z discussed how the proposed circular driveway would provide off-street parking, which is safer than parking on the street due to Meadow Lane's substandard street width. However, several Commissioners stated their concerns regarding the amount of pavement in the front yard as well as the impact of overnight parking within the circular portion of the driveway. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a Conditional Use permit for the construction of a circular driveway at 1016 Meadow Lane, Case No. PZ-21-05 subject to the following conditions: 1) overnight parking on the circular portion of the driveway is prohibited; and 2) the Petitioner shall landscape the perimeter of the driveway to eliminate light (headlights) trespass for the adjacent property. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their July 19,2005 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. lJJl , MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-21-05 Hearing Date: June 23, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1016 Meadow Lane PETITIONER/OWNER: Anna & Katherine Wozniak 1811 Seminole Lane, Mount Prospect, IL PUBLICATION DATE: June 8, 2005 PIN#: 03-27-307-008-0000 REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: Conditional Use approval for a circular driveway. Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Mr. & Mrs. Gerechowicz Joe Vaccarella Anna and Katherine Wozniak Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the minutes of the May 26, 2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue PZ-18-05, a request for Variations for St. John Lutheran Church at II DOS. Linneman Road. Leo Floros moved to continue PZ-18-05 and Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-21-05 a request for Conditional Use approval for a circular driveway for 1016 Meadow Lane. She said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. She said that the Subject Property is located at the south corner of Wedgewood and Meadow Lanes, is zoned RX Single Family Residence and is bordered by single- family zoning districts on all sides. The Petitioner is in the process of demolishing the existing house and constructing a new single-family residence with related improvements. Similar to other requests for circular driveways, this neighborhood does not have sidewalks or curb and gutter, and the street pavement width is 19- feet, which is 9-feet less than the current code requirement. The neighborhood does not contain curb and gutters and the Subject Property is drained by a ditch and culvert system. The Petitioner is currently constructing a new house and related site improvements that will meet Village Zoning regulations. However, the proposed circular driveway requires special approval. The proposed circular driveway measures IS-feet wide and would connect to a 'standard' 22.5 -23' wide driveway. The Petitioner's site plan shows that the proposed driveways, to be constructed of concrete, would cover 51 % of the front yard. The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in the Village Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards and said that as with other requests for circular driveways, Staff evaluated traffic patterns in the Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-21-05 Page 2 neighborhood of the Subject Property. It has been Staff policy to support requests for circular driveways when the Subject Property fronts on an arterial street and/or the traffic volume is such that a circular driveway is necessary to resolve a safety conflict. In this case, the street has a substandard pavement width, but it is a Local Street intended to serve only vehicle trips generated within the neighborhood. The Village's Traffic Engineer did not find that the volume of traffic along Meadow Lane would impede the Petitioner from backing out of the driveway. The Petitioner's submittal calls for a IS-foot wide concrete circular driveway, and results in 51 % front yard lot coverage. Historically, Staff has used the 35% front yard coverage referenced in the Zoning Ordinance as a guideline to determine the impact of the circular driveway on the neighborhood character. The proposed 51 % front yard coverage is a concern despite the overall site complying with lot coverage limitations because the amount of paved surface in the front yard would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Since the proposed circular driveway is not needed to resolve a safety issue, the amount of front yard lot coverage exceeds 35%, and the Petitioner is not using a decorative material to minimize the impact of a 'paved' front yard, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to deny a Conditional Use permit for a circular driveway for the residence at 1016 Meadow Lane, Case No. PZ-21- 05. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Anna Wozniak, 1811 Seminole, Mount Prospect, and Katherine Wozniak, 2423 E. Olive, Arlington Heights, were sworn in. Ms. Anna Wozniak said she is the Petitioner and general contractor of the Meadow Lane home. Ms. Katherine Wozniak said she plans to live in the Meadow Lane home upon completion of construction.. Anna brought attention to the revised site plan she had presented to the P&Z tonight and asked Katherine to explain the changes. Ms. Juracek noted that she did not see any difference. Anna said there was not much difference in the design, just some corrections to the grading. Katherine said there are two properties with circular driveways in the neighborhood, 1011 Wedgewood and J002 Mead()wLane, sothey'don'ffe-el they are introducing anything new to the area. She said the street is very narrow and when cars are parked on the street it is difficult to see approaching traffic when leaving the driveway. She said there is a fire hydrant in the front of the property so guests cannot park in front of the site. There are no curbs and the water drains in a ditch at the side of the road and passengers step into water, snow or ice upon exiting from a parked car. Marlys Haaland asked for a description of what would be constructed in the back of the house. Katherine said it would just be a back yard. Anna took this opportunity to say that they would not shine car headlights into the picture windows of the adjacent neighbors. She also said that in wintertime it is impossible to park in the street because of the snow piled up in the street. . Richard Rogers said they will be using up 35% of the front of the property with driveway and not have enough landscaping in the front of the property. Ronald Roberts asked how they know so much about the property if they have not lived there. Anna said it has been in the family since 1973 and that she inherited it from her parents. Katherine said she will live in the house and it will not be for sale. She also said they would be happy to provide any landscaping that would be needed to ensure sufficient screening for her neighbors. Joe Vaccarella, 1014 N. Meadow Lane, was sworn in. He stated that he was concerned that the headlights would shine into his living room because of the angle his picture window faces Anna's house and how drivers would exit the site using the circular driveway. He also said there is a new house behind him and the back of his lot now floods during heavy rain and he hopes the construction of another new house will not increase the flooding. Ms. Juracek said she would ask staff to address the issue. Ms. Connolly said Engineering is already looking closely at the Petitioner's engineering plan; she said the design submitted has not been approved by Staff. Siom Ding, 3 Oxford Place, was sworn in and said he had lived in the same area for 35 years under the same conditions as the Subject Property, i.e., traffic going through Wedge wood; snowplows dumping snow. He has Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-21-05 Page 3 these same problems, too, but he shovels the snow to the side, or looks both ways before pulling out of his driveway. He doesn't understand why Ms. Wozniak would 'leed a circular driveway when nobody else has one. He asked how many cars will they have parking there. John Gerechowicz, 1105 Wedgewood Lane, was sworn in. He said that he was confused and asked whether the circular driveway was supposed to provide parking for this house or something in the future that he doesn't know about? He asked whether it was customary to build a driveway before the house was built. Ms. Juracek explained that the Petitioner wanted to obtain the Conditional Use for the circular driveway before they built the house, that they were doing the driveway in conjunction with the new house. Katherine Wozniak came forward again and said there is currently a small, 900 sq. ft. ranch home with a detached 2-1/2 car garage at the site with a long driveway that allows for multiple cars to be parked there. She said that she is building a larger 3,000 sq. ft. ranch with just a 2-car attached garage which will provide a much shorter driveway. In order to prevent hazards for guests and spare them getting tickets for parking in front of a hydrant, she said she felt a circular driveway would be desirable and could park 4-5 cars at a time. Ms. Juracek confirmed with her that the circular driveway at lOll faces Wedgewood and at 1002 faces on Meadow Lane. Leo Floras asked how common are circular drives in the area. Judy Connolly said she was aware of the one installed at 1002 Meadow Lane. She said that circular driveway received Conditional Use approval based on its proximity to Route 83, for safety reasons. Ms. Juracek informed the Wozniaks that they were not guaranteed approval for the proposed circular driveway because 1002 Meadow Lane received a Conditional Use permit for a circular driveway. Katherine said she was moving the garage to the other side to have it in a safer location and that she wanted to have a turret on the corner of the house that also faced the corners of both streets. Ms. Juracek asked if there were any more questions from the audience; since there were none, she closed the hearing and asked for a motion. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend Conditional Use approval foracirculardrive~ay, Case No. PZ-21- 05, with the conditions that 1) additional landscaping is installed to address lighting concerns and 2) that overnight parking on the circular portion of the driveway is prohibited. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. P&Z members discussed the enforceability of no overnight parking on the driveway; they noted that the neighbors would have to make Staff aware of any violations. Ms. Haaland thought there was too much concrete in front of the house. Keith Youngquist said he appreciated the need for getting the cars off the "ditch" type street and liked the use of a turret on a ranch-type home. He also liked that a 2-car garage would be built rather than a 3-car garage. Ellen Divita informed the Petitioner that the Public Works Department would monitor the site to ensure that parkway trees would not be removed from the parkway area. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Floros, Haaland, Roberts Youngquist and Juracek NA YS: Donnelly and Rogers Motion was approved 5-2; a positive recommendation will go to the Village Board. Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 8:52 pm, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. H'\PLANlPlanning '" Zoning COMM\P"'Z ~OOS\Minules\PZ-21.0S 1016 Meadow Lane,doc J ~ ~ ....: ">f ~ .. !~ I ~ ~ \II-) ~ Q:;> td'j ~ \ , i --4 I I I I I , I I I ...---'" --- / / / I , .-- /----\ / \ / \ \ \ \ ,00'001 / ( .' .,' 1'- .~~_.n 1 :! o . :~ . >II . !~ ,,1' iii' :1 l I'! 1\ ! c, .' .fl'i !.--- ! l i:- i;F.' ,~ .f . j !ofr ..~ " ~~ ~}~ ~~ ......11&= ., !ti it: : / !I: !. ^. ./'! : I! ~;;. .1 " 'I" h. if ) ~~ o ;/ 3~~ ...~~ ----' :::U'" I I J I I J I r .J II I ~~ '. 111~'~' " Jr~~. Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUM:\L\RY - PZ- 21-05 LOCATION: PETITIONER: O\V~'ERS: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LA.~ USE: REQUEST: 1016 Meadow Lane Anna Wozniak Frank & Anna Wozniak 03-27 -307 -008-0000 0.46 acres (20,096 square feet) R.X Single Family Residence Single Family Residential Conditional Use - Circular Driveway LOCATION MAP Euclid Annue ! ~ 0 ~ ~ . . ~ ;; 11:0 11'. ...J Itn ! ! ! ~ ! = IllS 1116 . Ill' Stratford Place :l ~ 1113 1111 l1U =' ~ ~ ~ It" . '" 1109 0 :! > ~ 111)0 M x; '" :; o :::: ~ .. o :::: .. .. J ,,' ~ Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department M E :VI 0 R A :\f DUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE nJRACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CON "NOLL Y, AICP, SENIOR PLAl"fNER DATE: J1JNE 16,2005 HEARING DATE: J1JNE 23, 2005 SUBJECT: PZ-21-0S - CONDITIONAL USE (CIRCULAR DRIVE) 1016 MEADOW LANE (WOZNIAK RESIDENCE) BACKGRO~1) A public hearing has been scheduled for the June 23,2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Anna Wozniak (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 1016 Meadow Lane (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner has requested Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a new circular driveway. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the June 8, 2005 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property O'Mlers within 2S0-feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Petitioner is in the process of demolishing the existing house and constructing a new single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is located at the south corner of Wedgewood and Meadow Lanes. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single Family Residence and is bordered by single-family zoning districts on all sides. Similar to other requests for circular driveways, this neighborhood does not have sidewalks or curb and gutter, and the street pavement width is 19-feet (which is 9-feet less than the current code requirement). The neighborhood does not contain curb and gutters and the Subject Property is drained by a ditch and culvert system. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Petitioner is currently constructing a new hOLlse and related site impro\'cments that meet Village Code requirements. However, the proposed circular driveway requires special approval (Sec. 14.2215 .A.l). The proposed circular driveway measures IS-feet wide alld would connect to a 'standard' 22.5 -23' wide driveway. The attached site plan shows that the proposed driveways, to be constructed of concrete, would cover 51 % of the front yard. GENERU ZONI:.\'G COMPLIA.~CE As previously noted, the Petitioner is in the process of constructing a new single-family residence. The proposed house and related improvements will comply with Village regulations. The table on the follO\ving page compares the: Petitioner's proposal to the bulk requirements of the R.X Single Family Residence district. PZ-2l-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 23, 2005 Page 3 ~x Single Family District Requirements Proposed MI~l)n.rM SETBACKS Front 40' 40' Interior 10' or 10% oflot width 10' Exterior 25' 25' Rear 30' 87' LOT COVERAGE 35% 29% CONDITIONAL USE STA.''DARDS The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. The circular drive is listed as a Conditional Use in the parking section of the Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 14.22l5.A.I). The following list is a summary of these findings: · The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; · The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; · Adequate provision of utilities and drainage and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and · Compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. As with other requests for circular driveways, Staff evaluated traffic patterns in the neighborhood of the Subject Property. It has been Staff policy to support requests for circular driveways when the Subject Property fronts on an arterial street and/or the traffic volume is such that a circular driveway is necessary to resolve a safety conflict. In this case, the street has a substandard pavement width, but it is a Local Street intended to serve only vehicle trips generated within the neighborhood. The Village's Traffic Engineer did not find that the volume of traffic along Meadow Lane would impede the Petitioner from backing out of the driveway. The Petitioner's submittal calls for a 15-foot wide concrete circular driveway, and results in 51% front yard lot coverage. Historically, Staff has used the 35% front yard coverage referenced in the Zoning Ordinance as a guideline to determine the impact of the circular driveway on the neighborhood character. The proposed 51 % front yard coverage is a concern despite the overall site complying with lot coverage limitations because the amount of paved surface in the front yard would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. RECOMMENDA TION The proposed circular driveway fails to meet the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance because the circular driveway is not needed to resolve a safety issue, the amount of front yard lot coverage exceeds 35%, and the Petitioner is not using decorative materials to minimize the impact of a 'paved' front yard. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to deny a Conditional Use permit for a circular drive\vay for the residence at 1016 Meadow Lane, Case No. PZ-21-05. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: W ooney, AI , Director of Community Development .jc Ii PL~"'-P1MVI'"I,I,: ZOOLn~ COMMPU :OOf$IJIT M..:rno'P'Z-:I..vS \-tEMO IlCol6 ~lc.J".....l..&.n1: . CL' Ci'Cu.L4I In. C'! doc , VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Mount Prospect .~ CONL.v[UNITY DEVELOP:V1ENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division :50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 600:56 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Application for Conditional Use Approval . .i ":~"""""""";""{-''''':'':~'"'-'C,-,';:~-\'''''";i,,_'::V"":,Si-,;H.;#,.,{,;;.,,,,'i,~,.'i.".7".~4_j:.';'.,,,,~>:";,;:~,,'i.;Vi''''),Y1<.'.;;--'''':-': }, " Z Case Number ..... P&Z .... - - - - <-- Development Name/Address lo/f? f11 Elf k-rJ L AJ - >. ~~ ../rJO ZAJ I /rK. Fff/1f LV ,y ..... - .... o ~ :. <J Date of Submission z ,- ~ -..... :<~ , ;;.j Hearing Date " - z - z o - t-c -< ~ o '- ~ to.l Eo- - CIl o z ~ ;!; ~ ~ Address(es) (Street Number, Street) o If; PleA tlt:J I-IJ Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning I /v p-.. - )( Setbacks: Front I 'fO Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) , OCO.kse Side I tJ I Side G-XT. ;;...s , Lot Coverage (%) ~~ OQ Number of Parking Spaces tJ East N~rr:;/f$.&~ - 0-r /2.~E:.- r West !J . >lK-&e:.1' l ~6P6E.[AMtJY Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) .~;)~~,~ tt - ", z :-.iame Telephone (day) 0 ItN N A- WZlVrkK g.Q7 g(';. 9q qc, 1- <: Corpor:1tion .,Ie Telephone (evc:ning) - oI!!: 0::: o Iv f.i € e. C c I..;"i fZ. AC .,.. Or 0":' ;.. :: Street Address Z ~ L~ Fax - .:! S~UtJOL;::: oc. (g(r z'"- ::l< ------ -.-., - I Pager .. _.. --- 0 I City State Zip Code . ::r: J--t T . f~sf-EL-r It,.. fot90~ v :.t:: In<<,e" ;np,~ v ~ Ou,lN-t:~ Cc Ar( {!.Ac.:rb r2. -. .., ~ ....='.- .,,~ ~ App licant: Anna Wozniak 1016 Meadow Lane Mount Prospect, lilinois 60056 Legal Description Lot 15 in Block 5 in Wedgewood Terrace, being a subdivision of part of the East Halfof the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois. Commonly known as: 1016 Meadow Lane, Mount Prospect, lllinois z ' ~ame Telephone (day) 0 '{}NN~,,~(lAiJK l0i.IZNi,A-t ~}7"qq1i E= ~~e. ) g~7 <( 4-11l'IfI.,.,' W02A.1[trl(. (N~ :1;1 Corporation \ Telephone (evening) =: t o c "" ~ fg (/ zO - >. Q !: Street Address Fax: Z ::J ::l c.. StE.f\1/~OL~ LN o 2 I g (I ::z:::l.. (,jl City State Zip Code Pager :t U (Vtf. f~s P i:-C( /L- 0CQs~ <( = Developer !'\AiNA \..J C2 AJ ( A' 1(. ~tt.1 gr;, . ?i99 Name Telephone (day) Address I ~ (( s,..tl'{ r rJO L ;- LJ Fax ."'''',-. rvq-, ~~~P-r::C-T , IL l.ooo~b Attorney Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Surveyor fo30. 3~? YloO z Name !Jv ~( 2.0 N ecrv$uJ-flrJ6- Telephone (day) 0 I - fo30. 1~('. lflo3 E-o~ Address iff W 5"if() 1/-e.f;.L-ING-elt 1?.D Fax ~ .1 E. L}, iJf?,.)J j 'L (Ootl9 o ,r; ;;.- z: 2 _c.. .' Cl C Engineer _ CIII lL- (1iMor~y J sp,e<i.) z: ~ !1f-7. 511, 8kJ8 ~ r:: Name Sfft:C J.. ~soe. IAlc" Telephone (day) ogo ~u S""l;cr \v ,c.kMPtJS ]t.tve SCf7. r-77. 0 ^"- 1 C) > Address Fax ~ u UCl k t.LIl\{ r;-rQl\) ~~c.~r50"L ~r; -(I ~ >OiL ~~~. L~t.Wiliev ~lf-1 ~54J "/O(<? h Architect il<Telephone (day): b ~O. .st.t --:Jjoo Name II ~ ~ rr f\1./ff-P.ON€,Tk/ivL ~(U1vy~s. ~fU Address I goo IWfW1~N ~ Lt(1VE 51/(r~O Fax &;0' .s0~. 2,>70 \ve;;r Cff1Q.Rw, II.- I.pO(g( Landscape Architect g~7' Y/3- 7999 :--;amc C~'~'efl Telephone (day): i A.ddress fax -.....~.O... - .. " \ {aunt Prospc:ct Department of Community Development ;0 South Emerson Street, :\-loullt Prospect fIlinois \ 'w'""'.mountprospect. org 2 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.8! 8.5329 TOO 847.39Z.60~ ::: i:.<J '- ~~ o~ >o::l ~g <...; ~- ~~ ~o rJj- ~ u < ~z Co rJj.... Qf-o ~< ~~ =-0 O~ ~z =-- Propos~d Conditional Use (as listed in the zoning district) Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and How the Proposed Use Meets the Attached StandardS for Conditional Use Approval (attach additional sh~ets if necessary) Uvr 1. . Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) ? (}Q() Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed Use f :{'" t') 0 -z; Lfor Rear (r~~;o' Side Side 10 ' 2-- S; I B~eight Lot Coverage (%) - &&liI'(J N umber of Parking Spaces 'rJlk Please note that the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satlsfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time 0 f submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the O\\nU of the property grant employees of the Village of ;\-Iount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection orthe suhject property. I hereby affirm that all infomution provided herein and in all makrials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the be~i my knoowwll,edge, ~. t- ../ j z., r, ~ ~~ Applicant l).------cL _ ~ Date uj; If., ( I I.... ffapplicam is not property o\"ner: f hereby design:ne the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the .bsnci:lll'd sllpponinnaterial. I, ~ _, " ~. ~. ~~~ ..I z.-(';Ojr- Property O\ma ~=wvt-t-- c-t.YO~- Date. . J- /2-- ~-Io :i :--'!ollnt Prospect Department of Community Development I' ;- 50 South Emerson Street, \.lount Prospl'ct [}linois www.mollntprospecl.org 3 Phone 8../7.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TOD 847.392.6064 /C:' (X if f,' rH ',' PLAT OF SURVEY LOT 15 IN BLOCK 5 IN WEDGEWOOD TERRACE SUBDIVISION, COOK COUNTY, ILUf'-JOIS. Scaie I" = 20' o~C' PRO-"~RTY Of.5CR1PTION LOT '5 IN BLOC,", ~ ,',' WWGfWOOQ1fPF.'CE. Bfi"lG ., ~UeorVI~lON Of ""PT Of TMI;' 1'....5'1 I1Al' Of TH[ 5C\LlTI''I,'[ST OUARTf.ll: Of 5r'CTrON 27, WVINSl1rp 42 NO<<TtI. ~A"IGt' ; I. fAST or TMt' :I"lIP.o "l!:'UClrAl, M1:R:IOF~N. IN COCA. COUro/T"(. IlliNOIS ~~ 'v~ -% '. ~o. /. >"" 0 tv I"~ . ......./ .... . / /',:',,1 ,', "I .t. '.:j' /..../ Ii.: ':, ,'~/I /. .... .,' I,/'.'c(~?<:~i/ /' . .,,~,., . / .~;~:>' . /.. ',,,,.j~, ~'>'b' ...............J. ~~" \ . . ~ V ~ .. '~'" ,....~' "<<'" .......:.:? ",. , , V <'-<14 (:' (,.0"""-10"l1\" 1':.NOIM.r ",,?, tOI;; Mf:Af>OYi LAN! MOUWT P"',05"(C1. H.;.INOlo; 0'> ~O ~ 0> ~ /';" <I) '''i,:'. ..:'- (~ " ~~r;~~ ':~ " '. 1L@'if p ~ L~GE~E -1\OlItIQ"""00'..~."Vl!~~ . 'OU'<C ~\IltVty........u~ 5TArfCfflUII,JOl5 I J5.5 COUNTY Of MNf I THiS IS TO CtRTIf'Y 1.,.r THt PlAT SHOWN I"'!REON 15 A cOlUlLer fi!!PRCSfNT....TION or A SURVEY l"fJtfOItMW AT "",,0 lINorll: MY OllltCTION TM:5 P'ROft5510>>AL 5t~VICt CONI'OIP.MS TO n~t CUJo:.R;tNT ILlltlOj5 MltJIMUM STANDARDS FOR A. WUIlJDAItYSUll!\ltlV. AU DlMtN5rON5 5HOo\...... AP..t IN rUT AND OtclMAl. ",UT5 T,~~::l_A':~_r~> GIVf:N UNDfR MY MANO AND St .~ ':I~~;~.P1,'!.:8t~t '.1 UAA.Y. ....D. 2005 ~ ~!, ~~,'~p .;~f Tel: (6]0) ]65'''100 (115)754-1155 (888) 754-7755 h~: (630) 365-"10] PLAT OF SURVEY Of LOT 15 IN BLOCK.:5 IN WEDGEWOOD TERRACE SUBDIVISION, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PREPARED fOR.. f"lf.DD<l'!1. 2/8/05 - HorIzon e'!!'.!!u..!~!ng Croup ,-,-:;,,"",.....,......'liIt'QU,......,............~...1 44 W 540 KfSLlNGfR ROAD El&URN, ILLINOIS 60119 WWW.HOJUlONSURVEYING.COM ANNA W021~IAK 181 I E. SEMINOLE LANE MOUNT PROSPeCT, ILLINOIS G005G O1UXl!DIY )T5 25 ,... ,t. . -. PIU)PfllT1' OUCR'"ION LOT I'" ILOCK S III WlOOIWOOtl TERRaCE 8flNG'" SUIIPtVlStOH OF ,.AIlT 0' THE lAST Hl,AJ' OF THE $OUfHWEST Ot.lAATlR OF SI!:CTIOH 27, TOW/lISHIP 42 HOR'". RANGE' I, EAST OF T~ THRIO N1INCIPAlM[RlDIAN. IN COOl( colJlrv UJ.IN04$. COMMONLY .NOWN AS' 101:1 MUDOW "lllll: MOUHT llflOSKCT./U.oHOtS j / i I . I '-->-1---~-r-----{-;-- . I , ! 'l-..--_>------ _,__:----__~., r ----M~1 .."... "".'1,.:: ".".., ...,.", .,~ -iJ4,6.- 61~_ 1i71~ *. /1 I I , ~ .~ I.'.....h ~.~ '-i i i ( I I ( I I i Y ! I I I -i I I I I I I 1 i I I I r i , r I ",:-,==-..oc -~ \ ..' " ;..........-:--.- =ucn '... ) 'Iill~>-- Ii .' --......... I" \ . "- ,-.='" ,~I\'\ -; I I,) \ l----_... _.... TR(( PROTECTiON OETAIL ~t..;~~. ~ \ \ \ \ \...~ ~- I i. I I I I \ \ ." 0"" _ ..". ,..... _ -67~ _ _ - ..,n. '::0"'0<,/" -!.~- - ."0- to'f"lOl,;. ~ --o._S"''''''1l1 ~ -or(oOW~1 ... _to__, .. -""'IO"("1.IO't..u:....,. ~ -"111...0...... '''- <::;o""r \ l /' '...... -- -- " / / /' // "- "- \ \ \ " ' .... t:~ :\1.// . / .,> ""/.....--: "", ..... ' e~----"""/ \ I \ ...... "- -- -- -- b~1. ,.,..- "''lo '''''1 ~.J" CplES 0' & ASSOCIATES INC, ". w'" C,.,", D'''' 1 - . "'~UN.~rCN "'(,>;1115. IlliNOiS 6000. \/~:!:...!~gln.et' - land Su.......YO,,~__ PI1 ij41~778d~a fAX a41~"0229 --.-'- PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1016 MEADOW LA;,-/E MOUNT PROSPECT, IL ----- kad 06/28/05 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USEPERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1016 MEADOW LANE WHEREAS, Anna and Katherine Wozniak (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner") has filed a petition for a Conditional Use permit with respect to property located at 1016 Meadow Lane, (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") and legally described as follows: Lot 16 in Block 5 in Wedgewood Terrace, being a subdivision of part of the East half of the South west Quarter of Section 27 Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois Property Index Numbers: 03-27-307-008-000 and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Conditional Use to construct a circular driveway; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for the Conditional Use permit being the subject of PZ Case No. 21-05 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 23rd day of June, 2005, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 8th day of June, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and positive recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ 21-05; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Conditional Use would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BoARD.. OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. c Page 2/2 1016 Meadow Lane SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Conditional Use, with these conditions: 1) no overnight parking on the circular portion of the driveway; 2) prior to Village Board review submit a landscape plan for staff approval, that indicates how perimeter of driveway will be screened, for staff approval, as provided for in Section 14.203.F.7 of the Village Code, to allow the construction of a circular driveway, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: That 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 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: Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\C USE. 1016 Meadow Lane, circular drive.doc