Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3202_001Q-1 C0Loj\,,,1Yc\1 5a)t ;NIH0".,` B.aj 4d�11, c.rernpanb` n ne) 1417 PICADILLY a MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056 m 312!393-2660 Village Board Village of Tait. Prospect Mt. Prospect, Illinois September 1, 1981 Dear Board Members: In regard to Old Orchard Joint Venture, Permit # A6753, issued in 1979 for seven unit toimhouses- 200-212 Fairmont Mt. Prospect, I respectfully request an extention of time for completion of these buildings. Due to economic conditions we need at least a one year extention. on building permits. When work will resume we will call for inspection as in normal conditions. With regard to a letter dated June 24, 1981, Mr. Lawrence Bazaar, listed the following items to be taken care of. l.) The removal of all trash and debris from the site 2.) Limiting weed and grass growth at all times to 8 inches 3.) Sealing all openings to the basements, including window wells 4. Either dismantle and remove or properly secure all masonry walls of the seven uncompleted units 5.) Removal of all dicarded and non usable framing from the site 6.) The screening of usable construction and building material and the following recommendation: 7.) Rough grading and graveling of the south portion (front) of the townhouses The above items have been done and we will continue to maintain the property in a proper way. If there are any problems please contact me and I'll do my utmost to correct them. Respectfully submitted, - `Frank Di Maria MOUNT PROSPECT FIRE DEPARTMENT TO: BUREAU OF CODE ENFORCEMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Lawrence A. Pairitz, Fire Chief DATE: September 3, 1981 SUBJECT: Frank Di Maria's "Old o Orchard Joint Venture" FROM: Lawrence A. Bazaar, Code Enforcement officer As per your request, I am enclosing specific letters, documentations and information concerning the Old Orchard Joint Venture project. The following is here provided: 1. Memo concerning the September 2, 1981 meeting between Mr. Frank DiMaria, Ken Fritz and Larry Bazaar, in response to Assistant Village Manager Ed Geick's memo to you of August 27, 1981. a_ 2. A copy of Assistant Village Manager Ed Geick's memo of August 27, 1981. 3. A copy of a memo from Nancy Finn to Lawrence Bazaar on August 31, 1981, concerning all monies being held on the project. r= 4. Copies of all permits issued to date for the 'Old Orchard Joint Venture' project. 5. A copy of a memo to you from Lawrence Bazaar on July 7, 1981, concerning the complaints received from the June 8, 1981 "Coffee with the Council" and the June 6, 1981 letter addressed to Mayor Krause from the Colony Country Homeowners' Association. 6. A copy of a letter to Captain Wuollett from Frank Di Maria, dated June 29, 1981, requesting an extension of time on the Old Orchard Joint Venture permits and promising to "keep buildings safe from hazardous conditions" and to "keep weeds cut when necessary". 7. A copy of Certified Letter No. 0395882, on June 24, 1981, to Frank Di Maria from Lawrence Bazaar, outlining necessary job site improvements needed, as put forth by the Colony Country Homeowners' Association. (it should be noted that these items were virtually all done within two weeks). 8. A cop' h g g , , e Jure " h "Coffee � � with Council " from the,"�"". tI� "'' y of a memo dated � � .. June 22 1981, tea~`I de aa•tment directors, nycern.ng more saecifical�i" :the, Old Orchard Joint venture. minutes �rnc3. P 9. A copy of a memo to the Village Manager, dated June 8, 1981, from Ken Fritz, concerning the minutes from the June 6th "Coffee with Council", which outlined the complaints and demands of the Colony Country Home- owners' Association. 10. A copy of a letter, dated June 6, 1981, to Mayor Krause from Lee Hilfman, President of the Board of the Colony Country Homeowners' Association, which outlines the Associations' complaints and requests remedies for ME140 to Chief Pairitz from L. Bazaar regarding Old Orchard Joint Venture September 3, 1981 the Old Orchard Joint Venture project and... Pa ge 2 11. A copy of the Village Municipal Codes Chapter 21, Section 21.203B, concerning building permit requirements. In retrospect, several points should be enumerated upon. First, that the project, even though solvent and viable, is at a virtual standstill. (This is per Mr. DiMaria) Mr. DiMaria appears to have made every effort possible to sell these units. To.date, he has sold three units, the last sale coming since the June 6th "Coffee with Council". Secondly, that without an extension of time granted upon the previously issued permits, the project is dead. This will still leave the Village with the problem of what to do with each of the different stages of the project. Thirdly, the Association has requested that the developer, Mr. DiMaria, "complete all exteriors of the building structures, including final grading and sodding, by October 1, 1981" if he has the financial ability to do so. Mr. DiMaria will not have the financial ability to do this until additional townhouses are sold. The Association requested that "if the developer does not have the financial ability to meet this requirement, we request that" - specific action, as outlined in the June 6, 1981 letter to Mayor Krause, be taken. To date, Mr. DiMaria has taken all the necessary action requested by the Association with the exception of dismantling the partially constructed masonry walls. As long as the Village recognizes this project as an ongoing one with valid permits, we do not have the power or authority to have these walls taken down. The dismantling of these walls can only take place with an abandoned project or invalid permits. Fourthly, the Association considers the present condition of the Old Orchard Joint Venture project an eyesore, and detrimental to the resale of other units in the area. This may or may not be true. It is my opinion that the adver- tising of these comparable units at $114,000.00 gives other unit sellers in the area a distinct advantage in the resale of their respective units. At present, these "used" units have been selling for around $100,000.00. Lawrence A. Bazaar Code Enforcement Officer LAB/nf cc. Captain Wuollett and file "MOUNT PROSPECT FIRE DEPARTMENT TO: BUREAU OF CODE ENFORCEMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Lawrence A. Pairitz, Fire Chief *' DATE: September 2 1981 p SUBJECT: Assistant Village os Manager Memo of August 27, 1981 FROM: Lawrence A. Bazaar, Code Enforcement Officer A meeting was held in the Bureau of Code Enforcement offices on September 2, 1981 between Frank DiMaria, developer of the "Old Orchard Joint Venture"; Ken Fritz, Director of Community Development, and Larry Bazaar, Code Enforcement Officer of the Bureau of Code Enforcement. The Old Orchard Joint Venture Development was discussed in detail, with the "principle objectives" pointed out in Ed Geick's memo as top priority items. The following points were made and agreed upon at this meeting... That: 1.. Mr. DiMaria has in the past responded to and cooperated with the various village departments with respect to all complaints arising from his development. 2. The development site at present has overgrown weeds which need cutting again. Mr. DiMaria stated that he would cut these. 3. The development site at present has covered openings (basements and window wells) that need better securing. Mr. DiMaria stated that he would secure these openings. 4. The development site at present has unit masonry partition walls that are secured against collapse. 5. The development site at present has unfinished units (foundation and unit masonry partition walls only) that are not abandoned. 6. The development site has three (3) -units sold, three (3) units completed but unsold, four (4) units ready for drywalling and seven (7) units with foundations and masonry walls only. 7. The village permits on all unfinished units have expired. 8. Mr. DiMaria has previously made a request in writing to the Bureau of Code Enforcement for an extension of time on all outstanding permits (This letter is enclosed). 9. Mr. DiMaria must make a request to the Village Board, through the Village Manager's Office, for an extension of time on all outstanding permits. (The letter and request was confirmed by the Village Manager's Office on 9/2/81). MEMO to Chief Pairitz from L. Bazaar Page 3 regarding old Orchard Joint Venture September 2, 1981 10. Mr. DiMaria must make a request through the Village Manager's Office to be put on the agenda for the next Village Board Meeting. (This was confirmed by the Village Manager's Office on 9/2/81). 11. In the opinion of Mr. Ken Fritz and Mr. Larry Bazaar, the permits for the project need a minimum of twelve (12) month extension for final completion. 12. Due to the present economic conditions prevailing, that an extension of time on the project permits is a logical approach to the problem, and... 13. Mr. DiMaria has made every effort to sell the finished units of the project. At this time, the meeting was adjourned. Lawrence A. Bazaar Code Enforcement Officer LAB/nf cc. Captain bluollett and files t. MOUNT PROSPECT FIRE DEPAKi'MENT DATE: August 31, 1981 BUREAU OF CODE ENFORCEMENT SUBJECT: Old Orchard Joint Venture INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Lawrence A. Bazaar, Code Enforcement Officer FROM: Nancy Finn, Secretary In regard to Frank Di Maria's project of three townhouses called "Old Orchard Joint Venture", I have attached copies of all permits issued. The amounts circled at the bottom of the permits are the only monies that we are holding in escrow for this project. I checked with the Engineering Department, and no Development Guarantee exists. As you will see, we are holding $2,400.00 in all: $700.00 on each of the three buildings and $100.00 on each of three temporary sign permits. NF Bureau Of Code Enforcement TO: .Lawrence A. Pairitz, Fire Chief FROM: Lawrence A. Bazaar, Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: DiMaria Townhomes, old Orchard Country Club DATE: 7/7/81 In regard to the complaints registered at the "June Coffee with Council", concerning the Di Maria Townhome Development at Old Orchard Country Club, a certified letter was sent to Frank Di Maria on June 24, 1981 (here provided), outlining the respective problems as presented by the Colony Country Homeowners Association: All items have been complied with as of July 6, 1981, with the following exceptions: Item # 4 concerning the securing of masonry walls. Three or four of the walls have been braced while the remaining ones have not. Item # 6 concerning the screening of usable construction and building material. Much of the building material has been removed. The remainder of the on-site building material has been neatly piled. Respectfully yours, Lawrence A. Bazaar Code Enforcement Officer LAB/nf CC. Captain Wuollett file P.S. See also the attached letter from Frank Di Maria, dated June 29, 1981 Arpentry FRANK DI MARIA CONST. 8113 NORTH OLCOTT AVENUE 0 NILES 48, ILLINOIS Supt. PAUL ANSTEDT, JR. FL 8-0723 Capt. Leslie H. Iduollett 100 : South Emerson Fit. Prospect, 111. Dear Sir: June 29, 1981 In regard to Old Orchard Joint Venture, Permit # A6753, issued in 1979 for seven unit townhouses 200-212 Fairmont, Mt. Prospect, I respectfully request an extention of time for completion of these buildings. Remodeltng FRANK Di MARIA 965.0674 Due to economic conditions we need at least a six month extention. 11hen work will resume we will call for inspection as in normal conditions. We will also keep buildings safe from hazardous conditions. :Je will keep weeds cut shen necessary. If there are any problems please call me. °"" I. el Frank Di filaria FDM/ jf . _.,-. K MOUNT PROSPECT FIRE DEPARTMENT Bureau Of Code Enforcement 100 S. Emerson - Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 PHONE: 312-392-6000 June 24, 1981 CERTIFIED: NO. 0395882 Mr. Frank DiMaria 8113 Olcott Niles, IL 60648 Dear Mr. DiMaria: As per our on-site inspection and conversation of Monday, June 22, 1981 at your townhome construction site at Picadilly Circle, it will be necessary for your correction of the following items: 1.) The removal of all trash and debris from the site. 2.) Limiting weed and grass growth at all times to eight (8) inches or less. 3.) Sealing all openings to the basements, including window wells. 4.) Either dismantle and remove or properly secure all masonry walls of the seven (7) uncompleted units. 5.) Removal of all discarded and non-usuable framing from the site. 6.) The screening of usuable construction and building material, and the following recommendation: 7.) Rough grading and graveling of the south portion (front) of the townhomes. The Bureau of Code Enforcement is granting you fifteen (15) days from the date of this letter for compliance. If you have any questions concerning this matter, feel free to call me at 392-6000, ext. 180. Respectfully Yours, Law. nce A. Bazaar Code Enforcement Officer LAB:rm. cc: Chief Pairitz Captain Wuollett File Villa9a of M. nt Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUMllib TO: TERRANCE L. BURGHARD, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: KENNETH H. FRITZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT�^'� DATE: JUNE 8, 1981 SUBJECT: COFFEE WITH COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 6, 1981 Trustees in attendance were Ed Miller, Ted Wattenberg and Leo Floros. Staff: Kenneth Fritz. Rand Burdette of 250 Parliament Place, Colony Country Development, represented the Homeowners Association transmitting a letter to the Mayor signed by Lee Hilfman, President of the Colony Country Association, concerning the townhouse development being con- structed by Frank DiMaria on Picadilly Circle involving 17 town- houses. Mr. Burdette indicated that 10 of the 17 townhomes have been completed but only 6 of the 10 have been finished and land- scaped. The remaining 7 townhouse units have foundations and. basements with partially constructed walls. 1,1r. Burdette in- dicated the Colony Country Association's concern over the lack of activity having a detrimental effect on any potential resale of townhouse units in their Association because of the condition of the incomplete townhomes by Mr. DiMaria. Mr. Burdette and the three other property owners representing Colony Country are asking the Village to require the developer to resume construction and complete all exteriors of the building structures including final grading and sodding by October 1,1981. Further, should the developer not have the financial ability to follow through with these items, they are asking the Village to cause the following to take place: 1. Dismantle the partially constructed masonry walls of the seven incomplete units and remove all materials in- cluding the stacked wood framing from the site and store same in the basements of these units. 2. Seal all possible openings to the basements of the incomplete units. 3. Remove all trash from the project area. 4. Rough grade remaining ungraded areas of the project and limit weed growth to 8 inches or less at all times. Coffee With Council June 8, 1981 Page Two Staff was asked to look into these items and see what appli- cation of the Property Maintenance Code and the Building Code would be appropriate. Mr. Burdette indicated that Peg Cot'e of the Colony Country Association, could be contacted for further information at the recreational center under the Colony Country Community Association telephone listing. A copy of the letter with exhibits is attached to this report. Mr. William Matousek of 16 N. Waverly Place asked what traffic control arrangements are being considered for the July 4th carnival at the MSD property. Mr. Matousek and a neighbor, Mr. Alex Liesih of 7 North Waverly Place were brought up to date on the arrangements for the parade regarding additional parking which would occur to the West of the carnival site on MSD property leased by the Village of Mount Prospect. Por. Matousek was concerned about additional recreational activities and specifically other carnivals that might take place on this property. Trustee Miller assured Mr. Matousek that the Village, at this time, only contemplates one such activity during the entire year, that being on the 4th of July. Trustee Floros asked that the traffic control_ arrangements regarding the July 4th carnival be reported to him for his information. George VanGeem appeared to inform the Trustees of the Bralen Townhomes Association's concern over the proposed Westport Condominium Development at the intersection of Linneman Road near St. John's Lutheran Church. His greatest concern is the over -development of multiple units in this particular area indicating the desirability of maintaining the property and open space as was discussed in the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan statement. He indicated that discussion among the Bralen Townhome Association has included the option of partici- pating in the cost of purchasing such open space together with the Village and Mount Prospect Park District. He wanted the Trustees to be aware of the direction that the homeowners in the area were about to take with regard to the rezoning petition. Mr. Dick Storck of 401 S. Pine indicated a concern for on -street parking of his neighbor, Mr. Walsh at 401 S. Elmhurst. He indicated Mr. Walsh is parking his car on the street, although in conformance with the four-hour posted parking zone, on the same day as garbage pickup. He indicated that on the same day as garbage pickup the street sweeper generally comes by and therefore is not able to sweep completely at the curb because of the parked cat. Mr. Storck asked the Village to contact Coffee Wit h C ounc; June 8, 1981 Page Three Mr. Walsh in order to apprise him of the problem and see if he can make other arrangements for parking of his car. Trustee Wattenberg asked Mr. Storck if he had attempted to contact his neighbor directly regarding the problem and he said no, that he thought this was the responsibility of the Village. Staff advised that as long as Mr. Walsh was living up to the Ordinance with respect to on -street parking there was little that the Village could do in this regard. Mrs. Storck, a crossing guard at the S-curve on Route 83, would like to see police patrol during the day while school is in session to aid the crossing guards with regard to the speeding motorists on the S-curve during this period of time. Mr. Storck added that the crossing guards at this location are in need of a shelter during the winter months. His wife does not have a car that she can seek shelter in during the extreme cold periods and further noticed that summer crossing guards get some protection from the sun during their patrol periods. Mr. & Mrs. Storck were advised by the trustees that such an item is not in the budget. Trustee Miller suggested that the school district be contacted regarding placing a shelter in this location as a possibility. Mr. Storck also asked what efforts might the Village participate in re- garding snow removal on the island in the S-curve since this is not being done at the present time. Trustee Ted Wattenberg questioned the need for the Saturday "Coffees" especially with respect to the time devoted to citizen complaints of a short-range problem nature. He would like to see the trustees spend more time dealing with policy matters such as the condition of the municipally owned buildings in Mount Prospect. Trustee Floros said the "Coffees" have value, if only to serve as a public relations conduit with the citizens who feel a%face-to-face contact is more effective. The meeting concluded at approximately 11:55 a.m. Respectfully Submit d, Kenneth H. Fritz, Director of Community Development Depa~. tment KHF: hg Attach. N Mayor Carolyn H. Krause Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois In Re: Frank DiMaria Construction Company Project Picadilly Circle, Mount Prospect, Illinois t. Colony Country On Old Orchard Association 1455 Picadilly Circle Mount Prospect, Illinois June 6, 1981 The Board of Managers of Colony Country On Old Orchard Master Association, representing its' 382 condominium owners, has been petitioned by the membership to present this complaint to your Office against the Frank DiMaria Construction Company and a request for prompt action by the Village in enforcing its' applicable ordinances and codes with respect to the subject development project. whereas officials of the Frank DiMaria Construction Company appeared before our Board on June 21, 1979 to present renderings of the proposed seventeen townhouses to be constructed on the land (Shown bordered in red on the attached plat) and further identified by Permanent Real Estate Volume 233, Index Number 03-27-100-031-000 and assured our Board that all construction and grading would be completed on or before December 31, 1979, these assurances remain unfulfilled. As of the date of this complaint only ten of the planned seventeen units have been constructed and final grading and sodding has been done for only six of the units. Foundations, base- ments and partially constructed walls for the remaining seven units were installed during the summer months of 1980 at which time all work on this phase of the project ceased and it remains uncompleted. This incomplete and dormant project with its' decaying construction, unsightly materials, unsealed openings into'the basements, disarrayed terrain and excessive weed growth is an -eye -sore to our community and poses a safety and health hazard for the residents of the area. In add- ition these conditions are a depressant to both the sales opportunity and the sales value of the condominium units of our Association. It is specifically affecting the ability of owners of units at 250 Parliament Place, immediately adjacent, to sell their units. It is reported that this developer plans to resume construction on the remaining partially constructed seven units after sale of the ten units, now constructed and near completion, has been accomplished. When this developer assured completion of the entire project by 12-31-79 it was not contingent upon the early sale of any of the units. Considering the observed level of this developers creative and aggressive sales effort which has resulted in the sale of only two of the ten units which were completed and ready for sale over a year ago, plus the bleak economic outlook for residential development in the forseeable future, a final completion of this project within any reasonable time period appears a poor possibility. 5 C~ Therefore, our Association requests that appropriate officials of the Village"of Mount Prospect require this developer to resume construction and •complete all exteriors of the building structures, including final grading and sodding, by October 1, 1981. If the developer does not have the financial ability to meet this requirement we request that the following actions be taken by either the developer or the Village without any further delay: (a) Dismantle the partially constructed masonry walls of the seven units and remove all materials, including the haphazardly stacked wood framing, from the site or store same in the basements of these units. (b) Seal all possible openings to the basements of the incomplete units which now constitute an attractive nuisance to children in the area. (c) Remove all trash from the project area. (d) Rough -grade the remaining ungraded area of the project and limit weed growth at all times to eight inches or less. We are hopeful that existing Village ordinances and codes, vigorously enforced, are adequate to accomplish these needed corrections and improvements without the necessity for expensive, time consuming litigation. Respectfully, Colony Country Association Lee Hilfman President of the Board Attachments Building permits are issued with the understanding that construction shall' start within sixty (0) days after issuance of the permit and to be carried to ccmpleticn within one (1) ,year. If building operations are not started within sixty (o) days after issuance of the permit, or if after building operations have been started, such operations shall cease for a period of thirty (30) days, such building permit shall aut atically e.,Tire and the permit fee shah, be forfeited to the Village. I.Lcyp er f' r , " b'ila,t T tog good , building" t. . t..._one ar theboa:rd o n�a�� r err ftoloora l�,tionror continue can � � ���operations, within' without pr of the Vi ll � c of Mount 'rasp et may reinstate' ApPla t adapt f. h �. her wa ent of an addita:onal exa�aa.t ° cause as aai to " ,a issues' within th.art y (3Cl) days after written notice Of application approval by the Director of Building and Zoning. l'Ailure of applicant to cbt.a:n said peraLlt within thirty (30) days after written notice of approval will cause cpplicration to be voided. in no case may a building permit be granted for the construction of any su.xiliary building such as a garage or shed on any lot until the principal buildingisand , ccarastruction. No permit shall be granted for so- called aua,holl or skelatovl' btaildings i•ihich are hereby defined to mean, buildinZg or structures vl�aich are not completed or finished at the time of occlaporary. Application for a permit is to be made on a form furnished by the Depart- ment of Building and Zoning must be accompanied by the following documents, naively; plans, specifications, plats, certificates and estimates of costs ahereafter specified; dot-with examination , r. -6r , on all aPplications shclring a cow and for ex nation of plans, specifications and plot plan. (1) Plans and specifications must be in duplicate, one set to be left on file frith the L`epartment of Building and Zoning, the other, after being approved and properly stamped by the Director of Building and Zoning, to be kept on the job while the work is in progress. (2) It shall be unlawful to alter any lines or figures shown on the stcznped permit plans. If during the progress of work, owner desires to deviate in any mannor from tho pe Tait plans, he shall submit plans in duplicate of such changes and secure written approval from the Director of Building and Zoning before proceeding with the work. 4 r E%r (3) Plans and specifications must be signed and sealed by a licensed architect or engineer as proved in "An Act to Provide for the Licensing of Architects and to Regulate the Practice of Architecture as a Profession and to P.epoal"Certain Acts Therein-namod", approved June 2b, 1919, or as amemdcd, commonly ],-no-,m as the "The Illinois Architectural Act" and in " "An Act to Pevise the Lair in Relation to the Regulation of the Practice" of Structural Engineering", approved June 2l, 1919 as amended. 4 f 4 Village ofProspect Mount Prospect, INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM to TO: Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager FROM: Kenneth H. Fritz, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: ZBA-10-Z-81 and 11-V-81 Donald Burns LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Linneman and Church Roads DATE: September 3, 1981 The petitioner's request is for a rezoning from R -X to R-4 and two variations. The public hearing was held on August 27, 1981. The variation for maximum height was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals and this decision was final. The remaining variation before the Village Board is to permit 4 buildings on one lot of 3.1 acres currently owned by St. John's Lutheran Church. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied both the rezoning and the variation for four buildings on one lot by a vote of 6-0-1, with George VanGeem abstaining. The Community Development staff recommended against approval of the petitions as the development is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and alternative residential uses with lower density would have less impact on the surrounding land uses. Copies of the report of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Community Development staff report are attached. KHF: hg Attach. t. CaROLYN H. KRAUSE " " mayor rr TRUSTEES RALPIA W, AR rHUR Y i� GERALD L. FARL.E.Y LED FLOROS EDWAJMURAUSK Village of Mount Prospect MILLER NORMaJ. MLIFxaI.ISKfS THEODORE J. Wai TENRE:RG TERRANCE L. RURGHARD 100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect. Illinois 60056 village manager Phone 312 / 392-6000 REPORT OF PUBLIC HEARING Hearing Date: August 27, 1981 Report Date: September 3, 1981 TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR A14D THE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REFERENCE: ZBA-10-Z-81 and 11-V-81 PETITIONER: DONALD BURNS OWNER: Same PROPERTY: Southeast Corner of Linneman and Church Roads APPLICATION: The petitioner is requesting a rezoning for 3.1 acres from R -X Single Family to R-4 Multiple Family and variations from Section 14.101.F to permit four structures to be built on one lot and Section 14.1505.A.(1) and A(2) to permit a maximum height of ceiling of 32.5 feet and maximum overall height of 36.5. Petitioner wishes to construct 48 dwellings in four buildings on the property for a density of 15.5 units per acre. NOTICE PUBLISHED: Yes NEIGHBORS NOTIFIED: Yes FINDINGS ON VARIATION The request is for a 48 dwelling complex on this 3.1 acre site. All requirements for yards, bulk, and off-street parking are met by the site plan presented. The variation to permit more than one building was requested to allow flexibility in the site design and to ensure coordinated maintenance of the project. Testimony for the petitioner was given by Bernard Lee, Attorney; Richard Stalzer, Engineer; Thomas Witowski, Architect; Donald Burns, petitioner; and David Link, of St. John's Church. Edward Page, 808 S. CanDota; Alan Eisinger, Vicar for St. John's and Bill Mohlenhoff, principal of St. John's School spoke in support of the petition. Testimony included the financial need of the Church, the quality of the development and structures, the presence of existing multiple family zoning in the area, and the existing open space in the area. Approximately 60 parishioners stood in support of the sale of the 3.1 acre parcel. t.. Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing - August 27, 1981 Page Two Testimony in opposition was given by Ray Gulick, President of Bralen Townhome Association; Chris Mahaffey, President of Huntington Commons Master Association; Maureen Weiner, 802 Partridge; John Green, 1327 Dove Court; Cathy Duffy, 695 BelAire Lane; Wendy Lindmark, 645 BelAire Lane; Adolph Sitkiewicz, 1003 NaWaTa; Mike Regan, 1103 Beechwood; George Zastrow, 1111 Church; Witond Staniak, 1001 Church and Robert Grippo, 1104 Church. Testimony included support for the Comprehensive Plan, the need for open space in the area, the negative impact of the density, the lack of transition in density, and the suitability of the site for single family. Three petitions were submitted in op- position to the proposal; one from property owners adjacent to the subject property, one from owners within 850 feet of the property, and one from surrounding neighborhoods. The Community Development staff recommended against approval of the petitions because of conflict with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the existence of alternative land uses with lower density than that proposed, which would reduce impact on adjacent land uses. In considering the request for rezoning the Board found that: 1. The density of development decreases from Huntington Commons to the South and East to the single family to the West and North of the subject parcel. 2. The property values of single family zoned property are reasonable in this area of the Village. 3. The proposed development would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 4. The only hardship caused by the existing zoning is reduced economic return while the public would receive no benefits. 5. The property can be developed as single family and alternative uses exist to that density proposed. 6. The property has remained vacant as it was part of the larger Church property and not intended for development. 7. The existing zoning is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed change is in conflict with the Plan. 8. No evidence was submitted that determined more apartments are needed in this area. In considering the variations requested the Board determined the following: 1. The variations are not necessary to give a reasonable return on the property. Village of N(I—lnt Prospect Mount Pr: t, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Gil Basnik, Zoning Board of Appeals`"Chairman FROM: Community Development Staff SUBJECT: ZBA-10-Z-81 and ZBA-11-V-81, Donald Burns d K LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Linneman Road'and Church Road DATE: August 20, 1981 REQUEST The first petition is a request to rezone 3.1 acres from R -X to R-4 Multiple Family. The second petition is for two variations: Section 14.101.F. to permit four structures to be built on one lot and Section 14.1505.A.(1) and (2) to permit a maximum height of ceiling of 32.5 feet and maximum overall height of building of 36.5 feet. Petitioner wishes to construct 48 dwellings in four buildings on the subject property. VILLAGE STAFF COMMENTS The Public Works Department raised two concerns. The petitioner has not yet submitted final engineering plans. These should include all improvements for both the site and.the public right-of-way, including pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, parkway trees, utilities, street lights, etc. Before any development was permitted, and prior to recording of the subdivision plat, these plans must be approved. Second, although detention is now shown on the site plan, location and adequacy of the storm sewer used must be rosolved. N As stated in the previous staff report-, compliance with the land donation ordinance would be required if the petition is approved. COM14UNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF RECObtMENDATIONS The petition before the Board is primarily the same proposal as sub- mitted for consideraiton in June. The density of the development remains the same; approximately 15.5 dwelling units per acre. Several modifications, however, have been made in the request and in the site plan which should be noted: 1. The site plan indicates 105 parking spaces, sufficient to comply with the ordinance now that the,"parking bonus" clause of a Planned Unit Development is not involved. 2. On-site storm water detention has been added as recommended by the Village Engineer. Gil Basnik - Page Two August 20, 1981 3. The Western driveway onto Linneman Road has been eliminated which- reduces potential traffic hazards. 4. The Southern driveway has been shifted, eliminating the previous encroachment on a drainage easement. 5. The structures have been reduced slightly in size as no variance is requested for Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The proposed FAR is at the maximum permitted (0.50). 6. The setback of the structures (minimum 34 feet) exceed the required setbacks of the R-4 District. Thus,, several improvements have been made to the proposal oF,. originally submitted. The construction and landscaping as initially Iwi"oposed remain unaltered and appear of high quality. The basic pr(,,i�)ise of the Development, 48 units for a density of 15.5 units per ::acre, also remains unaltered from the initial proposal. The development of this par°cel, at this density, is the principal question .in this petition. The previous staff report still remains valid in several. cases. The proposal is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, adopted April 1981 and with objectives in the Pelan relating to provisiron of open space and prevention of higher, nsity housing concentrations. The petition is -for the highest density residential zoning district in the Village. Alternative housing types exist, at lower densities, which would be more compatible with surrounding land uses. The higher density apartments in Huntington Commons are reduced in impact by the adjacent lower density Bralen Townhomes.- This development would reverse this "transition" trend by inserting another higher density development; creating a greater impact on the single family residences and upon the townhomes. A range of alternative residential types exist which would reduce the impact, if the land use recommended by the Compre- hensive Plan is not feasible. Therefore, because of the conflict with the objectives and recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan and the existence of alternative uses for the property, the Community Development Staff would recorunend against approval of these two petitions. The Board should also note the requirement of Section 14.806.D. of the Zoning Ordin<>»ce re- quiring a two/thirds (2/3) vote of the President and Board of Trustees to approve a rezoning petition within six months of adopi-ing the Comprehensive Plan. This would apply until October 8, I,Ull. KHF: hg Village r Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM w z5 "w M,. uMy wa d&„, a L`hP.vwvwa �w TO: Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager„ FROM: Kenneth H. Fritz, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: SELF-SERVICE GAS STATIONS AND THEIR CONFOR1ANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE DATE: April 16, 1981 Attached is a memorandum from Steve Park to myself regarding the issue of self-service versus full-service gas stations and their relationship to our Village codes. We've discussed this as a staff and I concur with the concept as elaborated by Steve in the attached memo. I am also aware, in talking with the Village Clerk, that the impression has been left through previous legal interpretations that everytime an existing full-service non -conforming gasoline service station is proposed to be converted to self-service, the Village has, previous to present Community Development Department staff, interpreted the change as an intensification requiring a rezoning to B-4. We, of course, do not agree with this concept. KHF: hg cc: Steve Park Bill Amundsen Carol Fields t Village of M, nt Prospect,.,, Mount Prospect, Illinois �h INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Kenneth H. Fritz, Director of Community Development FROr2: Stephen M. Park, Village Planner SUBJECT: GAS STATIONS-CONFOR1ANCE TO ZONING ORDINANCE DATE: April 16, 1981 I have reviewed the memorandum sent to you by the Manager as to the status of self-service versus full-service gas stations and our Village codes. I concur with his position that there is insufficient distinction between self- and full-service stations to have separate land use regulations. As you'll recall, Bill Amundsen and I reviewed several codes in March when a similar question came up and found no such distinction. With reference to Trustee Richardson's understanding; we will research the specific cases he raises and all applicable ordinances. As a matter of policy; I would suggest that no distinction be made between the two types of gas stations. If anything the full-service may be more objectionable as storage of materials and inoperable vehicles is normal. While all commercial areas may not be reasonable for a gas station, the self-service should not be prohibited from areas which permit full-service stations. I recommend this be our initial approach in the revision to the Zoning Ordinance. SMP:hg r- (--zAPTER 21 - ARTICLE VIII The following Sections of Article VIII have been changed: Section 21.802. Rules Adopted. - First paragraph only. Section 21.809. Section 21.802._Rules Adoped. For the purpose of establishing rules and regulations for the installation of all electric wiring and equipment provided for in this Article, there is hereby adopted the 1981 Edition of I the National Electrical Code, promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association, except such portions thereof as are hereinafter expressly deleted, modified or amended. _ _Equipment, .� r_es. Equipment and/or Section 21.809. Prohibited Procedures. procedures referred to in the following Articles of the 1981 Nationae E2ec Aicat Code are hereby prohibited and not approved for installation in the Village: A. Exception to Article 110-16 (e) . B. Exception to Article 110-16 (f). C. Exception #2 to Article 230-47. D. Article 230-50. E. Article 230-51. F. Article 230-52. G. Article 230-54 (b,c and d). H. Article 339-3 (a) (4) . and the following in their entirety: I. Article 320. J. AAti.c ee 321 So " to etiina to an exposed wi,4-Zng z y6tem rpt i p iz,ing mezz eng eA wi)Le. K. Article 324. L. Article 330. M. Article 333. 2 - (Article VIII) N. Article 334. 0. Article 336. P. Article 337. Q. Article 338. R. A&ti..cte 347 - Unde&gADund only and encased in 2 inches o6 conc&ete.. So " to e imi.nate the use o4 non-meiatt i.c conduit except ass indicated above. S. Artile 349. T. Article 350, with certain exceptions being: 1. Maximum 6' whips for fixture wiring. 2. Remodeling jobs where fishing outlets into finished walls is necessary. 3. In the wiring of fixed and/or stationary appliances, such as disposals, dishwashers, kitchen hood fans, attic exhaust fans, electric water heaters and in some cases, electric baseboard heaters. 4. In commercial and industrial wiring: any motor or power consuming device where vibration is a factor. 5. in all occasions where installations must be dry and not hazardous. U. Article 352 (b) . CHAPTER 21 - ARTICLE XV The following Section and Subsection of Article XV have been changed: Section 21.1501.A. Section 21.1501.8. Section 21.1501. Fire Prevention Code Adopted. A. The 1981 Edition of the BOCA Basic Fire Prevention Code including all appendices is hereby adopted in it's entirety. B. In the event that any provisions of said Code are in conflict with the provisions of the Fire Prevention Code of the Village, the latter shall prevail and the conflicting provisions of the adopted Code shall be of no effect.