The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5. OLD BUSINESS 08/07/2007 MEMORANDUM , Mount Prospect J ~r ~b. ~I~ at' ctJ Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER SUBJECT: PZ-15-07 -1) REZONE FROM 11 TO R4 MULTI-FAMILY, 2) CONDITIONA FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 701 E. PROSPECT AVE. STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTION LLC, TIM LOUCOPOULOS - APPLICANT FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: AUGUST 3, 2007 The Village Board reviewed the Petitioner's proposal to construct a 12-unit rowhome development at their July 17,2007 meeting. The Petitioner revised the site plan in response to comments made at the July 17th meeting. The attached site plan illustrates the design of the proposed rowhome development. The plans show that the number of units has not changed, but the setback along Edward Street has been increased to 20-feet. In addition, one unit has been relocated from the rear to the Prospect A venue frontage. Consequently, the amount of lot coverage has increased to 51.6% which is 636 sq. ft. over the Village's 50% lot coverage limitation. The site would contain one 5-unit building (Prospect Ave. frontage), one 4-unit building (Edward St. frontage), and one 3- unit building (accessed form the alley). Minor modifications would have to be made to the elevations, but they would be in keeping with the general look of the previous elevations. Staff requests the Petitioner provide final elevations for administrative review and approval prior to applying for a building permit. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their August 7, 2007 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. t~~J/~ William J. Cooney, Jr., i\ICP H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2007\MEJ Memos\PZ-lS.Q7 MEJ MEMO II (701 E Prospect).doc ) EXISTING 2 STORY APARTMENT BUILDING ~" - R-4 DISTRICT EXISTING PARKING LOT RECESSED PORCH UGHT, TYP. ~22' :!:15' I I I I I I I G I I I I ~-~ 1) I --~- -"'---jl .~ ------- , '-. Site Data: SRe Area: 40,486 s.f. Dwelling Units: 12 Proposed ZOning: R-4 PUD R-4 Zoning Comparison: --. ._------~ Proposed PUD Complies 40,486/12 = 3,370 s.1. per dwelling Yard Req'mnts. Fron1 (Edward): 30' I :1:20' (excluding enlry stoops & bays) Exterior Side (Proepect): 20' :1:12' (excluding enlry stoops & bays) Intsrior Side (alley): 10' :1:8' Rear: 25' :I: 15' Relief Requested Relief Requested Relief Requested Relief Requested Relief Requested Relief Requested Complies 40' 80' 8' EASEMENT 20' EXISTING ALLEY Category I R-4 Requirements Lot Size 2,700 s.f m1n per dwelling (16 units per acre) Building Impervious Area: Pavemen1lmpervious Area: Total Impervious Area: :I: 11,502 sf :I: 9,377 sf :I: 20,879 = 51.6% EXISTING GARAGES ~ I GARAGES I Structures Construction LLC Site Plan 701 E. Prospect Avenue, Mount Prospect, Illinois Lo1 Coverage 50% max. Impervious area 40,486 x .50 = 20,243 Helgh1 I 34' Umila1lons Parking 2 1/2 spaces per dwelling 2112 x 12 = 30 spaces t5 o a: ~ o w en Ifl-1I ~ I I :1:36'-4' Garage (2 per unit): Pad (2 per unit): Street: Total: Ratio 24 24 14 82 5.16 per dwelilng ...... 20" .........="=:'A';:;:: III ' j , I Job No 01003 Ot':;'~ I ~, ~ ~ July 19. 2007 AM:tMCTa. I'l..ANERlJ, tIC. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-15-07 Hearing Date: June 28, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 701 E. Prospect Avenue PETITIONER: Structures Construction LLC / Tim Loucopoulos PUBLICATION DATE: May 9, 2007 PIN NUMBER: 08-12-428-004-0000 REQUEST: 1) Rezone from II Limited Industrial to R4 Multi-Family 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: George Wiedemann, Rodger Kruse, Steve Hautzinger, Tim Loucopoulos, Mark Hopkins, Tom Manion, Helen Lenz, Myroslava Lenz, Matt Bradley Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Marlys Haaland moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. After hearing six previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-15-07, a request for Rezoning from II to R4 and a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development at 701 East Prospect Avenue, at 8:32 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located at the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Edward Street, and currently contains a vacant industrial office/warehouse building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned II Limited Industrial and is bordered by the Rl Single Family District to the east, R3 Low Density Residential to the south, and R4 Multi-family to the west. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's proposal includes the demolition of the existing building and the redevelopment of the site as a 12-unit rowhome development. The Subject Property is currently zoned II Limited Industrial, and the Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to R4 Multi-family. The R4 district allows a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre for multi-family developments. She said the Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 13 units per acre (12 units/0.92 acres), which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R4 District. Ms. Connolly stated that in addition to the requested rezoning, the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the rowhome development. This request is due to the Village Code's requirement that two or more multi-family residential buildings may be located on the Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 2 same zoning lot only as part of an approved PUD. The PUD process also allows for unified zoning control over the entire development, which would require formal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed in the future. Ms. Connolly showed a site plan illustrating the proposed layout for the l2-unit rowhome development. The development would consist of three groups of 4-unit buildings: one group would have frontage along Prospect A venue, the second group would have frontage along Edward Street, and the third group would be accessed from the existing alley, but have frontage to an interior courtyard area. Each of the rowhome units would have a separate entrance, a two-car garage, and a two-car driveway. She said the pavement width of the access aisle/driveway throughout the development is 22-feet and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development, although the Village Code requires a 24-foot width for 2-way traffic. Ms. Connolly stated that the proposed site plan indicates that the buildings will be located 12-feet from the Prospect Avenue property line, 10-feet from the Edward Street property line, and approximately 9-feet from the alley lot line. She showed a table listing the Bulk Regulations for the R4 District and showed that all of the proposed setbacks require relief from the R4 Bulk Regulations. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner's site plan indicates that the project would have approximately 49.9% lot coverage, which is below the 50% limitation. The project is subject to all development requirements as detailed in Sec. 15.402 of the Village Code. Ms. Connolly showed elevations indicating the architectural composition of the rowhomes. The units are 3-story rowhomes, with attached rear loading garages on the first floor, and a deck above it. She said each building will have a flat roof, but the height of the roofline will vary for each individual unit, and the end units include a turret. The overall average height of the buildings is 36-feet, 4-inches and requires relief from the Zoning Ordinance as the height limitation in the R4 District is 34-feet from the mid-point of the roof. The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of stone, and two different types of brick as well as decorative trim. Ms. Connolly stated that in response to Staff comments, the Petitioner prepared a turn radius plan showing that vehicles can access all of the garages. The Petitioner took a field measurement and confirmed a 20-foot wide alley width, which meets the Fire Department's requirement for access. Currently, there are utilities that would block access to the rear garages, and plans to relocate the utilities will be reviewed as part of the Building permit process. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's proposal indicates that there will be at least two types of floor plans for the rowhomes. Each unit would include at least 3 bedrooms plus a bonus room, which could be converted to a bedroom or an office. She stated that 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 a 2-car garage plus two driveway parking spaces per unit. In addition, the Petitioner's plans indicate 15 on-street parking spaces are available along the south side of Prospect Ave. and the west side of Edward Street. However, the on-street spaces are not available for overnight parking. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that a variety of new landscaping materials will be planted throughout the development. The plan was revised to reflect a 5-foot fence along the west lot line, which complies with the minimum fence height limitation. Ms. Connolly said the property is located along a collector street and it is adjacent to an apartment complex, townhomes, and single family residences. The recently updated Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the subject properties as Multi-family Residential, which allows for the R4 zoning district. She stated, as previously noted, the proposal does not comply with the R4 Bulk Regulations and requires relief from the Code. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 3 Ms. Connolly stated that the standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.a of the Village Zoning Ordinance. When a Map Amendment is proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to, but not limited to, the 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. Ms. Connolly said the Subject Property is adjacent to an existing townhome development, a multi-family apartment building, and across the street from single-family residences. It would be consistent with recent developments approved in the Village and it would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property. She said the proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property. Ms. Connolly stated that the standards for approving a Planned Unit Development are listed in Section 14.504 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Planned Unit Development. These standards relate to: . The proposed development complies with the regulations of the district or districts in which it is to be located; . The principal use in the proposed planned unit development is consistent with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan of the village for the area containing the subject site; . That the proposed planned unit development is in the public interest and is consistent with the purposes of this zoning ordinance. . That the streets have been designed to avoid inconvenient or unsafe access to the planned unit development and for the surrounding neighborhood; and that the development does not create an excessive burden on public parks, recreation areas, schools, and other public facilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned unit development. She said the proposal is consistent with the recently updated Village's Comprehensive Land Use Map. Also, the rowhomes are in keeping with previously approved redevelopment projects in the downtown area of the Village. Although the proposal does not comply with the R4 Zoning District regulations, the project location is in close proximity to the B5 District and the proposal has similar setbacks as other recently approved rowhome developments. However, it is unclear how the project creates a public benefit as noted in Sec. 14.501; she stated that previously approved PUD projects included off-site improvements when it was not possible to provide an on- site amenity. She said there are many options available to the developer. Ms. Connolly stated that the proposed Map Amendment and Conditional Use requests meet the standards for each request as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28,2007 PZ-15-07 Page 4 "To approve: 1) a Map Amendment to rezone the property from II Limited Industrial to R4 Multi-family Residence; 2) a Conditional Use permit for a 12-unit rowhome Planned Unit Development subject to the following: A. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall: 1. prepare and submit a turning radius plan; [met] 2. update the Site Plan to note the actual alley width; [met] 3. identify the public benefit as noted in Sec. 14.501; B. Variation approval to allow: 1. 12' Front yard 2. 8' Interior side yard 3. 10' Exterior side yard 4. 9' Rear yard 5. 22' Drive aisle width 6. 36'4":i: Building Height C. Development of the site in general conformance with the site plan and landscape prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, revision date June 8,2007. D. Development ofthe units in general conformance with the floor plans prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, revision date June 8, 2007; E. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the plans prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, revision date June 8,2007; F. 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; G. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval that include text stating on-street over night parking is prohibited; H. 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; and I. The alley and rear drive will be a dedicated 20-foot Fire Lane." Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case, 701 E. Prospect Avenue, Case Number PZ-15-07. Chairman Rogers asked why the project is being recommended for approval when none of the setback requirements have been meet. Ms. Connolly stated that this project is very similar to and consistent with other Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 5 rowhome products in the area and due to its proximity to the B5 District, which has no setback requirements, Staff felt this project fit into the area. Mary McCabe asked what the lot coverage requirement is in the II District. Ms. Connolly said the II District has a 75% lot coverage requirement. The Subject Property currently is close to 90% lot coverage and the proposed project will take it down to less than 50%. Leo Floros asked if the Fire Department has signed off on this project. Ms. Connolly confirmed the Fire Department approval, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Chairman Rogers swore Mark Hopkins of HKM Architects at 43 South Vail Street, Arlington Heights, Illinois. Mr. Hopkins thanked Staff for a thorough presentation. He stated he would like to focus his presentation on some of the design concepts of the project. He showed exhibits displaying the traditional style of the brownstone-style rowhomes. He explained that several of the mature trees on the property will be maintained in the proposed project. The open space indicated on the exhibits are added greenspace to decrease lot coverage. He gave a brief overview of the floor plans for the three-story units. He showed elevations and gave a summary of the proposed building materials. Chairman Rogers stated that he likes the project and it is a good mix that will fit into the development of the downtown. He asked for clarification on the materials being used to face the turrets. Mr. Hopkins stated that the material is a cementitious hardy board. Chairman Rogers asked if the roofing over the entry ways are shingle- roofs. Mr. Hopkins confirmed the entrances have shingle-roofs. Chairman Rogers asked for clarification on the existing trees in the landscape plan. Mr. Hopkins stated those trees are currently located in the parking lot in landscape plots. Leo Floros asked who the target market is for these townhomes. Mr. Hopkins said they will be geared at young professionals and empty-nesters that are willing to climb stairs. Mr. Floros asked what the price range is on the units. Mr. Hopkins stated that pricing will start in the mid-$500,000 range. Mr. Floros asked if the new median being placed on Prospect Avenue will affect the parking at the townhomes. Ms. Connolly stated that the Engineering Division indicated there is currently no intention to extend the median plantings that far down Prospect Avenue. Ronald Roberts asked if the current building is vacant and how long it has been vacant. Chairman Rogers swore in Tim Loucopoulos, owner of 701 East Prospect Avenue, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Loucopoulos stated that the building has been vacant for nearly two years. There was general discussion regarding previous tenants. Mr. Loucopoulos said they have owned the property for six months and could not confirm previous occupants or tenants. Marlys Haaland stated that the project is very appealing and will make a nice addition to the downtown. Mr. Roberts concurred. Mary McCabe said that the existing building has an industrial appearance and does not fit into the character of the neighborhood; the proposed rowhomes will fit into the area. Ms. Connolly asked the Petitioner to clarify where the HVAC units will be located. Mr. Hopkins said the condensers will be located on the roof, behind the parapets. Mr. Roberts asked if any of the condensers would be visible from the street; Mr. Hopkins stated that the condensers would be concealed by the parapets and would not be visible from the street or sidewalk. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 6 Chairman Rogers called for questions or comments from the audience. Chairman Rogers swore in George Wiedemann of 801 E. Prospect Avenue, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Wiedemann said he understands that this comer does need to be redeveloped and agrees that townhomes are most likely the best fit for the property. He does not agree with the proposed 10-foot setback along Edward Street. He stated that this development, with the proposed setbacks, does not fit in with character of the neighborhood. He also said the height of this project is out of character with the neighborhood. He offered suggestions to the Petitioner on ways to address these concerns. Mr. Wiedemann also indicated that he has concerns that the Staff memo was unable to identify the public benefit of this project as sited in Village Code Section 14.501 and would like more information regarding this requirement. He stated that he is also concerned with the parking for the proposed development. He is concerned that the new parking lot entrances and the on-street parking will create a blind spot and that the additional traffic volume will be more than the neighborhood streets and alley's can handle. There was general discussion regarding the parking in the area. Mr. Wiedemann concluded by stating that unless the setbacks is changed to 25-feet along Edward Street and the parking concerns are addressed, he would like to see the Commission vote "no" on this project. Chairman Rogers swore in Thomas Manion of 501 S. Edward Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Manion stated he has similar concerns regarding the parking in the neighborhood. He said he had been on a committee when the neighborhood had issues with the DMS building. He stated that he does not feel the parking issue has been fully addressed; he would like to see "No Parking" signs posted in front of some of the single family homes. Chairman Rogers clarified that the project is providing more parking per unit without including the on-street parking than the Code requires. Mr. Manion said he does not want additional parking conflicts to start in the neighborhood. Chairman Rogers swore in Rodger Kruse of 515 South Louis Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Kruse stated he is not in favor of the proposed setbacks of the project, but parking is a nightmare in the neighborhood and he is most concerned about the parking. He stated in the morning there are 15 cars parked on Sha Bonee Trail, creating a one-lane situation. Chairman Rogers asked who is parking in the street; Mr. Kruse stated that it is the residents ofthe Sha Bonee condos. Chairman Rogers swore in Matt Bradley of 714 East Sha Bonee Trail, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Bradley said his driveway exits into the alley directly across from the proposed townhome. He said his vehicle requires a wide turning radius and he currently uses the parking lot to assist in turning his vehicle. He stated the proposed driveways will make the turn radius into his garage a tight turn. Chairman Rogers swore in Myroslava Lenz 420 South Edward Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Lenz stated she lives directly behind the entrance of the proposed townhomes. She is concerned that the project will add a lot of traffic. Chairman Rogers asked if they have adequate parking for their tenants. Ms. Lenz confirmed there is enough parking, but she is worried about the traffic increase in the alley and added difficulty to snow removal. She also asked how the refuse collection would be handled for the new development. Chairman Rogers deferred to Mr. Hopkins to address resident concerns. Mr. Hopkins stated the 10-foot setback is required to maintain the aesthetics of the project and keep the relationship with stairs and the sidewalk. He said they had explored the idea of moving the units back, but that would require the garages being moved to face Edward Street. Mr. Hopkins said pushing the units back would increase lot coverage and would not fit on the lot as well. Mr. stated if the units on Edward Street were pushed back, there would not be adequate room to maneuver cars in and out of the garages. There was general discussion regarding setbacks and configuration of the project. Mr. Hopkins said from a planning standpoint, this layout is very similar to other suburban-center developments. He said this is a nice transition from urban center of Mount Prospect to the suburban neighborhood aspect of Mount Prospect. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 7 Mr. Hopkins stated that garbage cans will be stored inside the garages and the trash collector will pull the truck into the development's driveway to collect the refuse. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:28 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-15-07 granting rezoning and a Conditional Use at 701 East Prospect Avenue. Mary McCabe seconded the motion. Chairman Rogers stated that he sees the benefit of having this type of transitional space between the downtown area and the single family residence and understands that residents don't necessarily want this in their backyard, but it has to occur somewhere, and this project is attractive and fits into the character of the neighborhood. He said this project will not resolve the existing parking situation, but the Planning and Zoning Commission does not have control over parking regulations. He stated that the parking issue would need to be brought to the Village's attention and handled in the proper manner. Mr. Floros stated that he prefers this design to having the garages in front of the properties. He also said he would like Staff to take note of the residents concerns regarding the parking along Edward Street and pass that along to the Village Board. Ms. Connolly stated that she already directed Mr. Wiedemann to speak to Matt Lawrie, Village Traffic Engineer, regarding his parking concerns. There was general discussion regarding the overnight parking in the neighborhood. Chairman Rogers stated that the Petitioner understands there are conditions attached to this approval and the Petitioner concurred. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Haaland, McCabe, Roberts, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing three additional cases, Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at 11 :04 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant H\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&.Z 2Q07\Minutes\PZ-1 5-07 701 E. Prospect.doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 1 Mount Prospect J MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JULY 13, 2007 SUBJECT: PZ-15-07 -1) REZONE FROM 11 TO R4 MULTI-FAMILY, 2) CONDITIONAL USE FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 701 E. PROSPECT AVE. STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTION LLC, TIM LOUCOPOULOS - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-15-07, a request to 1) rezone the Subject Property from 11 Limited Industrial to R4 Multi-Family, and 2) approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development, as described in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at the June 28, 2007 meeting. The Subject Property is located at the intersection of Prospect Ave. and Edward Street, and currently contains a vacant industrial office/warehouse building with related improvements. The Petitioner's proposal includes the demolition of the existing building and the redevelopment of the site as a 12-unit rowhome development. The development would consist of (3) groups of 4-unit buildings and the proposed site plan indicates that the buildings will be located 12' from the Prospect Avenue property line, 10' from the Edward Street property line, and approximately 9' from the rear (alley) lot line. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the request at length. They noted that the type of housing, rowhomes, is an appropriate transitional use between the multifamily to the west and the single family to the east. Several neighbors presented concerns that visitor parking would become an issue, that the buildings were too tall, and that the proposed setbacks would limit their ability to access their property as they currently use the on-site parking spaces when parking in their garages. The Commissioners clarified that the project exceeds the Village's parking requirements and that the neighbors have the option of working with the Village's Safety Commission to evaluate the current parking situation. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve 1) a Map Amendment to rezone the property from 11 Limited Industrial to R4 Multi-family Residence; and 2) a Conditional Use permit for a 12-unit row home Planned Unit Development subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report for the property located at 701 E. Prospect Ave., Case No. PZ-15-07. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their July 17,2007 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. ~~~ William J. . ooney, Jr., ICP H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2001\MEJ Memos\PZ-) 5.07 MEJ MEMO (701 E Prospect).doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-15-07 Hearing Date: June 28, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 701 E. Prospect Avenue PETITIONER: Structures Construction LLC / Tim Loucopoulos PUBLICATION DATE: May 9, 2007 PIN NUMBER: 08-12-428-004-0000 REQUEST: 1) Rezone from 11 Limited Industrial to R4 Multi-Family 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Leo FIoros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: George Wiedemann, Rodger Kruse, Steve Hautzinger, Tim Loucopoulos, Mark Hopkins, Tom Manion, Helen Lenz, Myroslava Lenz, Matt Bradley Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Marlys Haaland moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. After hearing six previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-15-07, a request for Rezoning from 11 to R4 and a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development at 701 East Prospect Avenue, at 8:32 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located at the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Edward Street, and currently contains a vacant industrial office/warehouse building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned 11 Limited Industrial and is bordered by the Rl Single Family District to the east, R3 Low Density Residential to the south, and R4 Multi-family to the west. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's proposal includes the demolition of the existing building and the redevelopment ofthe site as a 12-unit rowhome development. The Subject Property is currently zoned 11 Limited Industrial, and the Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to R4 Multi-family. The R4 district allows a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre for multi-family developments. She said the Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 13 units per acre (12 units/0.92 acres), which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R4 District. Ms. Connolly stated that in addition to the requested rezoning, the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the rowhome development. This request is due to the Village Code's requirement that two or more multi-family residential buildings may be located on the Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 2 same zoning lot only as part of an approved PUD. The PUD process also allows for unified zoning control over the entire development, which would require formal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed in the future. Ms. Connolly showed a site plan illustrating the proposed layout for the l2-unit rowhome development. The development would consist of three groups of 4-unit buildings: one group would have frontage along Prospect A venue, the second group would have frontage along Edward Street, and the third group would be accessed from the existing alley, but have frontage to an interior courtyard area. Each of the rowhome units would have a separate entrance, a two-car garage, and a two-car driveway. She said the pavement width of the access aisle/driveway throughout the development is 22-feet and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development, although the Village Code requires a 24-foot width for 2-way traffic. Ms. Connolly stated that the proposed site plan indicates that the buildings will be located 12-feet from the Prospect Avenue property line, 10-feet from the Edward Street property line, and approximately 9-feet from the alley lot line. She showed a table listing the Bulk Regulations for the R4 District and showed that all of the proposed setbacks require relief from the R4 Bulk Regulations. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner's site plan indicates that the project would have approximately 49.9% lot coverage, which is below the 50% limitation. The project is subject to all development requirements as detailed in Sec. 15.402 of the Village Code. Ms. Connolly showed elevations indicating the architectural composition of the rowhomes. The units are 3-story rowhomes, with attached rear loading garages on the first floor, and a deck above it. She said each building will have a flat roof, but the height of the roofline will vary for each individual unit, and the end units include a turret. The overall average height of the buildings is 36-feet, 4-inches and requires relief from the Zoning Ordinance as the height limitation in the R4 District is 34-feet from the mid-point of the roof. The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of stone, and two different types of brick as well as decorative trim. Ms. Connolly stated that in response to Staff comments, the Petitioner prepared a turn radius plan showing that vehicles can access all of the garages. The Petitioner took a field measurement and confirmed a 20-foot wide alley width, which meets the Fire Department's requirement for access. Currently, there are utilities that would block access to the rear garages, and plans to relocate the utilities will be reviewed as part of the Building permit process. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's proposal indicates that there will be at least two types of floor plans for the rowhomes. Each unit would include at least 3 bedrooms plus a bonus room, which could be converted to a bedroom or an office. She stated that the Village Code requires 2 Y:z parking spaces per dwelling unit for multiple-family dwellings containing 3 bedrooms or more. The Petitioner's proposal contains a 2-car garage plus two driveway parking spaces per unit. In addition, the Petitioner's plans indicate 15 on-street parking spaces are available along the south side of Prospect Ave. and the west side of Edward Street. However, the on-street spaces are not available for overnight parking. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that a variety of new landscaping materials will be planted throughout the development. The plan was revised to reflect a 5-foot fence along the west lot line, which complies with the minimum fence height limitation. Ms. Connolly said the property is located along a collector street and it is adjacent to an apartment complex, townhomes, and single family residences. The recently updated Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the subject properties as Multi-family Residential, which allows for the R4 zoning district. She stated, as previously noted, the proposal does not comply with the R4 Bulk Regulations and requires relief from the Code. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 3 Ms. Connolly stated that the standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.a of the Village Zoning Ordinance. When a Map Amendment is proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to, but not limited to, the 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. Ms. Connolly said the Subject Property is adjacent to an existing townhome development, a multi-family apartment building, and across the street from single-family residences. It would be consistent with recent developments approved in the Village and it would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property. She said the proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property. Ms. Connolly stated that the standards for approving a Planned Unit Development are listed in Section 14.504 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Planned Unit Development. These standards relate to: . The proposed development complies with the regulations of the district or districts in which it is to be located; . The principal use in the proposed planned unit development is consistent with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan of the village for the area containing the subject site; . That the proposed planned unit development is in the public interest and is consistent with the purposes of this zoning ordinance. . That the streets have been designed to avoid inconvenient or unsafe access to the planned unit development and for the surrounding neighborhood; and that the development does not create an excessive burden on public parks, recreation areas, schools, and other public facilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned unit development. She said the proposal is consistent with the recently updated Village's Comprehensive Land Use Map. Also, the rowhomes are in keeping with previously approved redevelopment projects in the downtown area of the Village. Although the proposal does not comply with the R4 Zoning District regulations, the project location is in close proximity to the B5 District and the proposal has similar setbacks as other recently approved rowhome developments. However, it is unclear how the project creates a public benefit as noted in Sec. 14.501; she stated that previously approved PUD projects included off-site improvements when it was not possible to provide an on- site amenity. She said there are many options available to the developer. Ms. Connolly stated that the proposed Map Amendment and Conditional Use requests meet the standards for each request as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 4 "To approve: I) a Map Amendment to rezone the property from 11 Limited Industrial to R4 Multi-family Residence; 2) a Conditional Use permit for a 12-unit rowhome Planned Unit Development subject to the following: A. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall: I. prepare and submit a turning radius plan; [met] 2. update the Site Plan to note the actual alley width; [met] 3. identify the public benefit as noted in Sec. 14.501; B. Variation approval to allow: I. 12' Front yard 2. 8' Interior side yard 3. 10' Exterior side yard 4. 9' Rear yard 5. 22' Drive aisle width 6. 36'4":t Building Height C. Development of the site in general conformance with the site plan and landscape prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, revision date June 8, 2007. D. Development of the units in general conformance with the floor plans prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, revision date June 8,2007; E. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the plans prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, revision date June 8, 2007; F. 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; G. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval that include text stating on-street over night parking is prohibited; H. 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; and I. The alley and rear drive will be a dedicated 20-foot Fire Lane." Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case, 701 E. Prospect Avenue, Case Number PZ-15-07. Chairman Rogers asked why the project is being recommended for approval when none of the setback requirements have been meet. Ms. Connolly stated that this project is very similar to and consistent with other Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 5 rowhome products in the area and due to its proximity to the B5 District, which has no setback requirements, Staff felt this project fit into the area. Mary McCabe asked what the lot coverage requirement is in the 11 District. Ms. Connolly said the 11 District has a 75% lot coverage requirement. The Subject Property currently is close to 90% lot coverage and the proposed project will take it down to less than 50%. Leo Floros asked if the Fire Department has signed off on this project. Ms. Connolly confirmed the Fire Department approval, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Chairman Rogers swore Mark Hopkins of HKM Architects at 43 South Vail Street, Arlington Heights, Illinois. Mr. Hopkins thanked Staff for a thorough presentation. He stated he would like to focus his presentation on some of the design concepts of the project. He showed exhibits displaying the traditional sty Ie of the brownstone-sty Ie rowhomes. He explained that several of the mature trees on the property will be maintained in the proposed project. The open space indicated on the exhibits are added greenspace to decrease lot coverage. He gave a brief overview of the floor plans for the three-story units. He showed elevations and gave a summary of the proposed building materials. Chairman Rogers stated that he likes the project and it is a good mix that will fit into the development of the downtown. He asked for clarification on the materials being used to face the turrets. Mr. Hopkins stated that the material is a cementitious hardy board. Chairman Rogers asked if the roofing over the entry ways are shingle- roofs. Mr. Hopkins confirmed the entrances have shingle-roofs. Chairman Rogers asked for clarification on the existing trees in the landscape plan. Mr. Hopkins stated those trees are currently located in the parking lot in landscape plots. Leo Floros asked who the target market is for these townhomes. Mr. Hopkins said they will be geared at young professionals and empty-nesters that are willing to climb stairs. Mr. Floros asked what the price range is on the units. Mr. Hopkins stated that pricing will start in the mid-$500,OOO range. Mr. Floros asked if the new median being placed on Prospect Avenue will affect the parking at the townhomes. Ms. Connolly stated that the Engineering Division indicated there is currently no intention to extend the median plantings that far down Prospect Avenue. Ronald Roberts asked if the current building is vacant and how long it has been vacant. Chairman Rogers swore in Tim Loucopoulos, owner of 701 East Prospect Avenue, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Loucopoulos stated that the building has been vacant for nearly two years. There was general discussion regarding previous tenants. Mr. Loucopoulos said they have owned the property for six months and could not confirm previous occupants or tenants. Marlys Haaland stated that the project is very appealing and will make a nice addition to the downtown. Mr. Roberts concurred. Mary McCabe said that the existing building has an industrial appearance and does not fit into the character of the neighborhood; the proposed rowhomes will fit into the area. Ms. Connolly asked the Petitioner to clarify where the HVAC units will be located. Mr. Hopkins said the condensers will be located on the roof, behind the parapets. Mr. Roberts asked if any of the condensers would be visible from the street; Mr. Hopkins stated that the condensers would be concealed by the parapets and would not be visible from the street or sidewalk. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 6 Chairman Rogers called for questions or comments from the audience. Chairman Rogers swore in George Wiedemann of 801 E. Prospect Avenue, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Wiedemann said he understands that this comer does need to be redeveloped and agrees that townhomes are most likely the best fit for the property. He does not agree with the proposed 10-foot setback along Edward Street. He stated that this development, with the proposed setbacks, does not fit in with character of the neighborhood. He also said the height of this project is out of character with the neighborhood. He offered suggestions to the Petitioner on ways to address these concerns. Mr. Wiedemann also indicated that he has concerns that the Staff memo was unable to identify the public benefit of this project as sited in Village Code Section 14.501 and would like more information regarding this requirement. He stated that he is also concerned with the parking for the proposed development. He is concerned that the new parking lot entrances and the on-street parking will create a blind spot and that the additional traffic volume will be more than the neighborhood streets and alley's can handle. There was general discussion regarding the parking in the area. Mr. Wiedemann concluded by stating that unless the setbacks is changed to 25-feet along Edward Street and the parking concerns are addressed, he would like to see the Commission vote "no" on this project. Chairman Rogers swore in Thomas Manion of 501 S. Edward Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Manion stated he has similar concerns regarding the parking in the neighborhood. He said he had been on a committee when the neighborhood had issues with the DMS building. He stated that he does not feel the parking issue has been fully addressed; he would like to see "No Parking" signs posted in front of some ofthe single family homes. Chairman Rogers clarified that the project is providing more parking per unit without including the on-street parking than the Code requires. Mr. Manion said he does not want additional parking conflicts to start in the neighborhood. Chairman Rogers swore in Rodger Kruse of 515 South Louis Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Kruse stated he is not in favor of the proposed setbacks of the project, but parking is a nightmare in the neighborhood and he is most concerned about the parking. He stated in the morning there are 15 cars parked on Sha Bonee Trail, creating a one-lane situation. Chairman Rogers asked who is parking in the street; Mr. Kruse stated that it is the residents of the Sha Bonee condos. Chairman Rogers swore in Matt Bradley of 714 East Sha Bonee Trail, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Bradley said his driveway exits into the alley directly across from the proposed townhome. He said his vehicle requires a wide turning radius and he currently uses the parking lot to assist in turning his vehicle. He stated the proposed driveways will make the turn radius into his garage a tight turn. Chairman Rogers swore in Myroslava Lenz 420 South Edward Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Lenz stated she lives directly behind the entrance of the proposed townhomes. She is concerned that the project will add a lot of traffic. Chairman Rogers asked if they have adequate parking for their tenants. Ms. Lenz confirmed there is enough parking, but she is worried about the traffic increase in the alley and added difficulty to snow removal. She also asked how the refuse collection would be handled for the new development. Chairman Rogers deferred to Mr. Hopkins to address resident concerns. Mr. Hopkins stated the 10-foot setback is required to maintain the aesthetics of the project and keep the relationship with stairs and the sidewalk. He said they had explored the idea of moving the units back, but that would require the garages being moved to face Edward Street. Mr. Hopkins said pushing the units back would increase lot coverage and would not fit on the lot as well. Mr. Roberts stated if the units on Edward Street were pushed back, there would not be adequate room to maneuver cars in and out of the garages. There was general discussion regarding setbacks and configuration of the project. Mr. Hopkins said from a planning standpoint, this layout is very similar to other suburban-center developments. He said this is a nice transition from urban center of Mount Prospect to the suburban neighborhood aspect of Mount Prospect. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 7 Mr. Hopkins stated that garbage cans will be stored inside the garages and the trash collector will pull the truck into the development's driveway to collect the refuse. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:28 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-15-07 granting rezoning and a Conditional Use at 701 East Prospect Avenue. Mary McCabe seconded the motion. Chairman Rogers stated that he sees the benefit of having this type of transitional space between the downtown area and the single family residence and understands that residents don't necessarily want this in their backyard, but it has to occur somewhere, and this project is attractive and fits into the character of the neighborhood. He said this project will not resolve the existing parking situation, but the Planning and Zoning Commission does not have control over parking regulations. He stated that the parking issue would need to be brought to the Village's attention and handled in the proper manner. Mr. Floros stated that he prefers this design to having the garages in front of the properties. He also said he would like Staff to take note of the residents concerns regarding the parking along Edward Street and pass that along to the Village Board. Ms. Connolly stated that she already directed Mr. Wiedemann to speak to Matt Lawrie, Village Traffic Engineer, regarding his parking concerns. There was general discussion regarding the overnight parking in the neighborhood. Chairman Rogers stated that the Petitioner understands there are conditions attached to this approval and the Petitioner concurred. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Haaland, McCabe, Roberts, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing three additional cases, Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at 11 :04 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2007\Minutes\PZ-] 5.07 701 E. Prospect.doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 15-07 LOCATION: 701 E. Prospect Ave. PETITIONER: OWNER: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: Structures Construction LLC, Tim Loucopoulos Tim Loucopoulos 08-12-428-004-0000 0.92 acres I 1 Limited Industrial Office/warehouse building (vacant) 1) Rezone from II to R4 Multi-Family 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development LOCATION MAP j ] S ABONEE,A ITIHH:EJ TIg"'''''''''''' I Ul i i I: .~ III m o .~ ~ l.o ~ I II> .~ \ 1 II> ~ Iii .~ -, I EC;OUNC;ILTRL_ I \ ,---, \ r \ I ""-.... .. MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RICHARD ROGERS, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JUNE 21, 2007 HEARING DATE: JUNE 28, 2007 SUBJECT: PZ-15-07 - MAP AMENDMENT & CONDITIONAL USE (PUD ROWHOME DEVELOPMENT) 701 E. PROSPECT AVE. - STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTION LLC (APPLICANT) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the June 28, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Structures Construction LLC (the "Petitioner"), regarding the property located at 701 E. Prospect Ave. (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking: I) to rezone the Subject Property from II Limited Industrial to R4 Multi-Family, and 2) approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development. The P&Z Commission hearing was properly noticed in the May 9, 2007 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 at the intersection of Prospect Ave. and Edward Street, and currently contains a vacant industrial office/warehouse building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned II Limited Industrial and is bordered by the Rl Single Family District to the east, R3 Low Density Residential to the south, and R4 Multi-family to the west. The Metra rail road tracks are across Prospect Avenue, north of the Subject Property, and metered parking is currently available along .the north side of Prospect Avenue, and two hour parking is currently available on the south side of Prospect Ave., west of Edward Street. SUMMARY The Petitioner's proposal includes the demolition of the existing building and the redevelopment of the site as a 12-unit rowhome development. The various elements of the proposal are outlined below: Rezoning Request - As noted previously, the Subject Property is currently zoned 11 Limited Industrial, and the Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to R4 Multi-family. The R4 district allows a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre for multi-family developments. The Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 13 units per acre (12 units/0.92 acres), which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R4 District. PZ-15-07 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 28, 2007 Page 3 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 rowhome 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 formal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed in the future. Site Plan - The attached site plan illustrates the proposed layout for the l2-unit rowhome development. The development would consist of (3) groups of 4-unit buildings: one group would have frontage along Prospect Ave., the second group would have frontage along Edward St., and the third group would be accessed from the existing alley, but have frontage to an interior courtyard area. Each of the rowhome units would have a separate entrance, a two-car garage, and a two-car driveway. The pavement width of the access aisle/driveway throughout the development is 22-feet and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development, although the Village Code requires a 24-foot width for 2-way traffic. The proposed site plan indicates that the buildings will be located 12' from the Prospect Avenue property line, 10' from the Edward Street property line, and approximately 9' from the rear (alley) lot line. The following table lists the Bulk Regulations for the R4 District and shows that all of the proposed setbacks require relief from the R4 Bulk Regulations. Building Design - The enclosed elevations indicate the architectural composition of the rowhomes. The units are 3-story row homes, with attached rear loading garages on the first floor, and a deck above it. Each building will have a flat roof, but the height of the roofline will vary for each individual unit, and the end units include a turret. The overall average height of the buildings is 36'4" and requires relief from the Zoning Ordinance as the height limitation in the R4 District is 34' from the mid-point of the roof. The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of stone, and two different types of brick as well as decorative trim. The Petitioner's Site Plan indicates wall mounted lights will be installed. This was called out in response to the Police Department's requirements. Also, the Crime Prevention Unit requires that the addresses be installed under the photocell light fixtures and that the front and rear of the units display the address. This will ensure optimal visibility/identification for emergency vehicles. Site Access - The Petitioner's plan shows that residents will access the development from the existing alley, off of Edward Street. The proposed access requires relocating the existing on-site utilities. A 22-foot wide drive aisle provides access to the rear-loading garages. Staff has concerns that access to/from a few of the garages may be difficult to negotiate due to the pavement width and garage location. Therefore, Staff recommends the Petitioner prepare a turning radius plan before the case is presented to the Village Board that illustrates vehicles can easily access all of the garages. Also, in order to comply with the Fire Department's requirements, the Petitioner shall take a field measurement and update the site plan to reflect a 20-foot wide alley width. Plans to relocate the utilities will be reviewed as part of the Building permit process. Parking - The Petitioner's proposal indicates that there will be at least two types of floor plans for the rowhomes. Each unit would include at least 3 bedrooms plus a bonus room, which could be converted to a bedroom or an office. 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 a 2-car garage plus two driveway parking spaces per PZ-15-07 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 28, 2007 Page 4 unit. In addition, the Petitioner's plans indicate 15 on-street parking spaces are available along the south side of Prospect Ave. and the west side of Edward Street. However, the on-street spaces are not available for overnight parking. Lot Coverage - The Petitioner's site plan indicates that the project would have approximately 49.9% lot coverage, which is below the 50% limitation. The project is subject to all development requirements as detailed in Sec. 15.402 of the Village Code. 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. Flowering shrubs and perennials will be installed along the foundation of the units. Also, the plan indicates that an 8-foot tall fence would be installed along the west lot line. However, the maximum fence height allowed between two residential properties is 5-feet; therefore the proposed fence will have to be modified to comply with the 5-foot height limitation. Engineering _ The Petitioner submitted preliminary storm water detention plans as part of their initial submittal. However, the site is eligible to participate in the Village's 'fee in lieu of program (Sec. 16.606). The Petitioner is required to prepare site engineering plans as part of the Building permit process and Staff will review the plans at that time to confirm code compliance. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING The property is located along a collector street and it is adjacent to an apartment complex, townhomes, and single family residences. The recently updated Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the subject properties as Multi-family Residential, which allows for the R4 zoning district. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE As previously noted, the proposal does not comply with the R4 Bulk Regulations. The following table provides zoning district information for the property's proposed zoning classification and summarizes the proposed setbacks. R4 Zoning District Pro PZ-15-07 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 28, 2007 Page 5 The following exhibit illustrates the existing setbacks for the adjacent properties. '''-" '~4i Ol\>ll 1t~ 28' front yard 8' side yard - bldg 3 units total fA m o .~ .;a o i _E SIlA BONEETRL_ MAP AMENDMENT STANDARDS The standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.a of the Village Zoning Ordinance. When a Map Amendment is proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to, but not limited to, the 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 an existing townhome development, a multi-family apartment building, and across the street from single-family residences. It would be consistent with recent developments approved in the Village and it would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property. PZ-15-07 . Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 28, 2007 Page 6 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The standards for approving a Planned Unit Development are listed in Section 14.504 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Planned Unit Development. These standards relate to: . The proposed development complies with the regulations of the district or districts in which it is to be located; . The principal use in the proposed planned unit development is consistent with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan ofthe village for the area containing the subject site; . That the proposed planned unit development is in the public interest and is consistent with the purposes. of this zoning ordinance. . That the streets have been designed to avoid inconvenient or unsafe access to the planned unit development and for the surrounding neighborhood; and that the development does not create an excessive burden on public parks, recreation areas, schools, and other public facilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned unit development. The proposal is consistent with the recently updated Village's Comprehensive Land Use Map. Also, the row homes are in keeping with previously approved redevelopment projects in the downtown area of the Village. Although the proposal does not comply with the R4 Zoning District regulations, the project location is in close proximity to the B5 District and the proposal has similar setbacks as other recently approved row home developments. However, it is unclear how the project creates a public benefit as noted in Sec. 14.501. RECOMMENDATION The proposed Map Amendment and Conditional Use requests meet the standards for each request as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve: 1) a Map Amendment to rezone the property from II Limited Industrial to R4 Multi-family Residence; 2) a Conditional Use permit for a 12-unit row home Planned Unit Development subject to the following: A. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall: a. prepare and submit a turning radius plan; b. update the Site Plan to note the actual alley width; c. identify the public benefit as noted in Sec. 14.50 I; B. Variation approval to allow: . 12' Front Yard . 8' Interior Yard . 10' Exterior Yard . 9' Rear Yard . 22' Drive Aisle . 36'4"2: Building Height PZ-15-07 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 28, 2007 Page 7 C. Development of the site in general conformance with the site plan and landscape prepared by HKM Architects + Planners, revision date June 8, 2007. D. Development of the units in general conformance with the floor plans prepared by HKM Architects + Planners, revision date June 8, 2007; E. Development of the elevations in general confonnance with the site plan prepared by HKM Architects + Planners, revision date June 8, 2007; F. 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; G. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval that include text stating on-street over night parking is prohibited; and H. The Petitioner shall construct all units according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: the installation of automatic fire sprinklers, fire hydrants and roads must be located and constructed according to Development and Fire Code standards." The Village Board's decision is final for this case, 701 E. Prospect Avenue, Case No. PZ-15-07. I concur: tk k Ijmt H:\PLAN\Pllooinl At. Zonina COMM\Pc!tZ 2OO7\Sllrr Memo\PZ.1 5..07 MEMO {70 I E Prospect Ave lownhome projcct Rezone Conditional USC).dlX VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Mount Prospect COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Pnone 847-8]8-5328 FAX 847-8]8-5328 Map Amendment Request ~ z o 1= -<:~ ~c 00 ~e z 1::..... .......-:.. . ;.<S ~ Q Z - Case Number P&Z Common Address(es) (Street Number, Street) 10l E. PIU'SPI!:~T A.." e. . Site Area (Ac.) Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Proposed) t:'.~'Z.~ Il ['-4- 3'2., 'l~+ Proposed Development and Land Use Setbacks (Prop.) Front Rear Side Side I I I 10 . ,~ 'I 8 Building Height Lot Coverage (%) # of Parking Spaces Z 55'- 1.e.,1 vt.. C, ~ 0 15 - ~ Tax 1.0. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) -<: ~ ( PI t-l) : fP~ - ! Z - 4'2.,t; - 00+ -0000 ~ 0 ~ Z - ~ Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) ~ - rfJ ~&E. ~rT AC.t..fE.b ~ ... E-IS-T - - Proposed Zoning Change (Z.. 4- Describe the Justification for the Proposed Map Amendment -Se;E! ;. r r Ac:::.1ifo;; D Slkt;;6T Q >.:l ~~ O>.:l ;>.;, ~Oi <~ ~oo :;Z ;'0 Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed (attach additional sheets if necessary) 00.... f-< U <( ~ ,. r r J'~l4BO C;; \+-e1B,- 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 alJ supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the VilJage of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection ofthe subject property. I hereby affirm that alJ information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this.application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ~~ Date Of/P6/07 Applicant Ifapplicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting material. Property Owner Date Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois 3 Phone 847.8] 8.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TOO 847/392-6064 Map Amendment Request (attached additional sheet) Legal Description LOT 8 IN GLEICH'S INDUSTRIAL PARK, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE WEST % OF THE NORTHEAST ~ AND PART OF THE WEST % OF THE SOUTHEAST ~ OF SECTION12, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO PLAT THEREOF REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ON AUGUST 6,1957, AS DOCUMENT 1752354. TOTAL NET AREA: 40,486.9 sa. FT. COMMONLY KNOWN AS: 701 PROSPECT AVENUE, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS Describe the Justification for the Proposed Map Amendment The present 11 zoning no longer remains viable due to the nature and requirements of modern industrial facilities and no longer meets the following objectives as outlined by the Village of Mount Propect Comprehensive Plan (pages 8, 9, 11): · Orderly expansion of existing industrial area would be prohibited due to surrounding zoning and existing residential developments . The existing parcel does not necessarily exist in a concentrated area of similar or compatible use . Continued industrial use would potentially negatively impact neighboring land uses · The existing parcel does not necessarily exist near major transportation facilities . Not located in the village's identified desirable southwestern industrial area as outlined in the comprehensive plan An R4 change will be consistent with the surrounding existing zoning as the site is encompassed by 85 zoning from the North, R3 zoning from the South, R1 zoning from the East, and R4 from the West. Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed The proposed three buildings shall be residential in nature. Each building shall be two and a half stories in height and composed of residential"row-homes" each separated by code required fire walls. Of the three buildings, the one along Prospect Avenue shall contain six row-homes, the building along Edward Street shall contain five row-homes, and the building running within the parcel along the alley shall contain four row-homes. In total among the three buildings there will be fifteen row-homes. The activities shall be typical of a residential use. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.8] 8.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Application for Conditional Use Approval Mount Prospect ~ Z Case Number e P&Z- E-< <: ~ Development Name/Address ~- =:6 o ~ ~S Date of Submission ....0 ><:--- ~ Hearing Date Z .... Address(es) (Street Number, Street) '7.e>1 E . P~$ Ii"6C-T ~~G. Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) P..~z.t:t Pe:NPltJ~ ~-4 3'2 ,6-4- Setbacks: Front I Rear . Side $' Side Z l~ . 0 ., lc::s .... E-< Building Height Lot Coverage (%) Number of Parking Spaces <: ~ !J~:- I D I( ~,.~~ 15 =: 0 Adjacent Land Uses: "- North South East West Z - e>5 ~3 tz.1 rz.4- '"" E-< Tax 1.0. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) - rf.J \,;) ( PH.!) : to /!. - I '2. .. 4- ~ - t'O 4- .. 0(:)00 Z .... E-< rf.J - ><: '"" Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) S/fAi. Aff' At tHiTJ S HlZ-fi:r Z Name Telephone (day) 0 TIM l-~ J(:.C pe- J L t!f? ~ ,-, ~ -G->l' ~4~14- - f-<. <: Corporation Telephone (evening) :;t ==1 ~ ~TJ f.e,<$. ~f.J'$.TJU.l~r (e.(V L.LG 1"~-~l1..Gjb1+ 0_ "- s:: Street Address Fax Z rs - .- ,..v e:~lJG ~ 1Z-. S~3 '.-1 ~~~ Qc.. 2--z..lC:; W. t::i,....f\fo>JD z 0- ;;;;,< City State Zip Code Email 01 == ?1+l~{;,O U... ~t/JI'Z. ~ lv!tee '1 "",^e e .U-1L1 ~ ::c:: Interest in Property I U <: ~ INN rG~ I Pe:Je t..ere e.. = ~ Name Telephone (day) 0 l....,Jc::cpe>J t.~~ - I.M 113 -~\,- q~.14- f- ~ :;:1 Corporation Telephone (evening) " ~ o c e, r ~~f'~r I-~e"'\le, ~ ~ 'e-I L.L..c.. "\ 13> -c,.~, . G\ ~, 4- ~o Q f' Street Address Fax: ~ & -' 0 ~Z.l1 we~T ~fZ16t.l P ~~6. SoI'Z. - $(,93" e:; (P It;... o .... ,,0.. 1.-'1 City State Zip Code Email ~ U C::::::,d- I c....,,& 0 1.-1.... +k!....el v!tee '1 ~ ~t!<(J . C-", M ~ ~t'~t -z. = Developer . I Name ~rz..J6nJ ru:! ~ ~ ,...0;;,. rz.J t::. T lc:::tJ Telephone (day) 312 - ~3.~tJt:JO Address '1 't- l e!J ~. 61Z--~ f.J D ~.J~ . Fax '31'Z- SobS 'q~lc, Ca-! t ~ A&~ lL., c.."C,12 Email ce:...f~r 1~@~+Ylldv(~.fC#lICI-("chMIk:. ~ Attorney Name M,4.fZ.l tJO t A t$~tjt. lEG i Pc::.. Telephone (day) 110. U 4- ..qloo Address !o ~\-e' tJ. ~AJLL€M AJB. Fax ,,'3-$04 -q 1 t:f"2. cC-tt ~, ~\... a,~~ ~ 4- Email ....e MAYI t1.t)P',.eI4J~<;"";de.II\.v()fi,ce, K f . Surveyor to. ~c;.~ c::. l A. T e: 0 Z. Name r~ f~lt:' ,..;l"L -7.11-'\1 g\{ Telephone(day) ~4-' ..~"S. ~e7ce> 0 - I E-o '" Address , Lei'" t:> t..l . TfZ-1 Pp ~..J6 Fax ~4' . ~,.S . '2.1(....1 <"'@ :; 8 !:C: .Vi L.lt-Jce'-I!JW~C> I If..,. ~-""'2. o~ '"" 0 EmaiJ Z. ... _0.. ~i:: Engineer Z. Cl) ~ E Name M~ftJ'~ jt. rz...o ~.J'5JL"T I t.l6t Lit) Telephone (day) c,~tJ "~l..~St7o o g. !:C:o Address ~-b~ Fult.e"( ~.. 0" 5\.1, re 5ID Fax c;l ;. (;,~..~ 1...~SBS ~ Cl) UO \"'01-1 ~ f!:-D ll- c...cl4~ <' CQ Email Architect Name f.I~M t:,JC. Telephone (day): ~4ri. ~"'2."~ ~e::; Address 4-3 ~JTt\ .J " \ '-" ~V~.., U~ Fax ~4-1. ~1'2" 4't'~ "'~ L..t rJ~ "'6 N ,....e.k;l..i~1 h.. ~CJ(J5 Email Landscape Architect Name _1.f~M l='fJC. Telephone (day): ~4-'''Yi'Z -'JUt) Address 4-~~... J'T14 V " ll.. ".J.EI.hJG Fax f,k' - 3~2-1tl~ ~ "l....U;:;,- ~N it E It:.,,, T~. h.. U>tXIS Email Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect IJIinois www.mountprospect.org 2 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TOO 847.392.6064 Proposed Conditional Use (as listed in the zoning district) ~ S. I?.e~ t.l U ~,J Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and How the Proposed Use Meets the Attached Standards for Conditional Use Approval (attach additional sheets if necessary) Sfifi-, /!ffiP'l-cl-fIib 5" 1fh,.J'i;"/ o r.:l ~~ Or.:l ;><;;:J ~O <w.l :;;~ :;;~ ;;:JO 00- F- U < Hours of Operation r1Pt~"t.. 1Ze$loeNTI~L. 2 1" ~J~ v$G r.:lz !::O 00- oF- w.l< ~~ Q..O 0... ~z Q...... Address(es) (Street Number, Street) 'eol e.. rfZ-t;~p J....JB Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning &>. ~ '2.- C; Setbacks: Front ~- Rear 4' Side Side ,~ Building Height ~S'- leo-If Lot Coverage (%) ~').." d I ~ Number of Parking Spaces I.::JJ c i5 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 given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affinn that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Applicant ~ ~ -r;, If applicant is not property owner: Date OW~b/07 . I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting material. Property Owner Date Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois www.mountprospect.org 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TOO 847.392.6064 Conditional Use Approval (attached additional sheet) Legal Description LOT 8 IN GLEICH'S INDUSTRIAL PARK, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE WEST % OF THE NORTHEAST % AND PART OF THE WEST % OF THE SOUTHEAST % OF SECTION12, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO PLAT THEREOF REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ON AUGUST 6,1957, AS DOCUMENT 1752354. TOTAL NET AREA: 40,486.9 SQ. FT. COMMONLY KNOWN AS: 701 PROSPECT AVENUE, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and How the Proposed Use meets the Attached Standards for Conditional Use The proposed three buildings shall be residential in nature. Each building shall be two and a half stories in height and composed of residential "row-homes" each separated by code required fire walls. Of the three buildings, the one along Prospect Avenue shall contain six row-homes, the building along Edward Street shall contain five row-homes, and the building running within the parcel along the alley shall contain four row-homes. In total among the three buildings there will be fifteen row-homes. The activities shall be typical of a residential use. As per the seven Standards for Conditional Use Approval, this application complies as follows: 1. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare 2. The conditional use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes to be permitted, and should enhance property values within the neighborhood 3. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted 4. As per the submittal adequate public utilities, access roads, drainage and lor necessary facilities will be provided 5. The elimination of two curb cuts ensures that adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion 6. As per the Village's comprehensive plan the conditional use complies by a. Creating substantial common open space, via public right of way access and pass through and reduction of lot coverage from 80.7% to 62.6% for an increase in green space of 94%. b. Preservation of topographic and geographic features c. Maintains the predominant single-family image and character of the Village d. New multi-family along major streets, andlor adjoining existing multi-family development e. Should include distinctive landscaping and open space system as integral part of design f. Medium density should be located near major activity centers g. The development will reflect quality of design & construction 7. In all other respects the conditional use conforms with applicable regulations ~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 701 EAST PROSPECT AVENUE WHEREAS, Structures Development (" Petitioner''), has filed an application to rezone certain property generally located at 701 East Prospect Avenue (" Subject Property''), and legally described as follows: Lot 8 in Gleich Industrial Park, being a subdivision of part of the West % of the Northeast ~ and part of the West % of the South East ~ of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to Plat thereof registered in the office of the Registrar of Titles of Cook County, Illinois on August 6,1957 as Document 1752354. Property Index Number: 08-12-428-004-0000; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner has requested the Subject Property be rezoned from 1-1 (Limited Industrial) to R-4 (Multi-Family) District; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for rezoning being the subject of PZ-15-07, before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 28th day of June 2007, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof having been published in the Mount ProsDect Journal & TODics on the 9th day of May, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect in support of the request being the subject of PZ-15-07; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have considered the request being the subject of PZ -15-07 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 ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: 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 1-1 (Light Industrial) to R-4 (Multi- Family) District. 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 July 2007. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M: Lisa Angell .f\. _ ~ Village Clerk 1-\ r ./ H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\mapamendment701 eastprospectavenue2007 .doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 701 EAST PROSPECT AVENUE WHEREAS, Structures Development ("Petitioner"), has filed a petition for a Conditional Use permit in the nature of a Planned Unit Development and Variations with respect to property located at 701 East Prospect Avenue ("Subject Property") and legally described as follows: Lot 8 in Gleich Industrial Park, being a subdivision of part of the West % of the Northeast Y.. and part of the West % of the South East Y.. of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to Plat thereof registered in the office of the Registrar of Titles of Cook County, Illinois on August 6, 1957 as Document 1752354. Property Index Number: 08-12-428-004-0000; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks to create a Planned Unit Development providing for the construction of a twelve-(12) unit row home development; 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-15-07 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 28th day of June, 2007, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 9th day of May, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect in support of the request being the subject of PZ-15-07; 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 Variations to allow the following set-backs; a twelve foot (12') front yard, an eight foot (8') interior side yard, a ten foot (10') exterior side yard, a nine foot (9') rear yard, a twenty-two foot (22') drive aisle width and thirty six foot and four inch (36'4") building height as shown on the attached "Exhibit A," 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 ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: 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. Development of the site in general conformance with the site plan and landscape prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, revision dated June 8, 2007with the following set-backs: 1. 12' front yard 2. 8' interior side yard 3. 10' exterior side yard 4. 9' rear yard 5. 22' drive aisle width , Page 2/3 PZ-15-07 6. 36'4" building height B. Development of the units in general conformance with the floor plans prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, revision dated June 8, 2007; C. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the site plan prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, revision dated June 8, 2007; D. 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; E. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval that include text stating on-street over night parking is prohibited; and F. 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. G. The alley and rear drive will be a dedicated 20-foot Fire Lane. H. The Petitioner shall make a monetary donation of $1 0,000 specifically earmarked for general park improvements at Lions Park at the completion of the proposed row home development to comply with the Village's Public Benefit requirement." SECTION THREE: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant approval of a Conditional Use permit and Variation as provided in Sections 14.203.F.7 & Sec. 14.203.C.7 of the Village Code, for a Planned Unit Development for a twelve (12) unit row home development, all as shown on the Site Plan revision dated June 8, 2007 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 July 2007. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H :\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\C USE, V AR-701 eastprospectaveuejuly2007 .doc