Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/2008 P&Z minutes 03-08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-03-08 Hearing Date: January 24, 2008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1040 W. Northwest Highway PETITIONER: Victor Dziekiewicz, Design Bridge, Ltd PUBLICATION DATE: January 9, 2008 PIN NUMBER: 03-33-407 -025-0000 REQUEST: 1) Rezone from Bl to R2 Attached Single Family 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Andrew Skic, Building Inspector Ryan Kast, Administrative Assistant INTERESTED PARTIES: Victor Dziekiewicz, Jacob Swindler, Tim Fulk, Barbara Glombowski, Paul Glombowski, Mark Kaitchuck, Jan Ramion, , Lou Sbarboro, Mary Simon, Jean Spejcher Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Marlys Haaland made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 25, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 3-0 with Chairman Rogers abstaining. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to continue Case Number PZ-38-07 to the February 28, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; Mr. Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. After hearing two previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-03-08, a request to Rezone from Bl to R2 attached Single Family and a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development at 1040 W. Northwest Highway, at 8:12 p.m. Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the developer arranged a meeting with interested parties on Monday, January 21, 2008. Therefore, some of the information presented may be adjusted due to this meeting, however the general concepts and the number of units remain the same. She said that the Subject Property is located on the north side of Northwest Highway, between Dale and Forest Avenues. The site currently contains the vacant State Farm office building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Bl Business Office and is bordered by the RX Single Family District to the north and east, railroad tracks to the south, and by an R2 Attached Single Family Planned Unit Development to the west, the Villas of Sevres. The Villas development has 6.4 units/acre density and received zoning approval in 2002. Ms. Connolly said the Property Owner previously employed another design firm, who appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Village Board, seeking approval of a 17-unit townhome development. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-03-08 Page 2 After making numerous modifications to the project and retaining the services of a different design firm, the Property Owner has submitted plans for a 14-unit townhome development. Ms. Connolly stated that the Subject Property is currently zoned B 1 Business Office. The Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to R2 Attached Single Family. The R2 district allows a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre for multi-family developments. The Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 6.7 units per acre (14 units/2.08 acres), which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R2 District. Deducting the drive aisle as it is similar to a street, the site measures 1.77 acres, which is 7.9 units per acre. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development for the townhome development. This request is due to the Village Code's requirement that two or more multi-family residential buildings may be located on the same zoning lot only as part of an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD process also allows for unified zoning control over the entire development, which would require formal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed in the future. Ms. Connolly clarified that if the Petitioner wanted to increase the amount of units or change the design, they would need to go before the Village Board for review and approval. Ms. Connolly stated that the site plan illustrates the proposed layout for the l4-unit townhome development. The development would consist of: (2) 4-unit buildings and (2) 3-unit buildings. The Development will be accessed from Northwest Highway and have one means of ingress/egress. The access aisle/driveway that loops throughout the development measures 24-feet wide and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development. The cul-de-sac designs and required fire lane have been reviewed by the Fire Department and found to comply with the Village Code requirements. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's site plan indicates that the project would have approximately 49.9% lot coverage, which is below the 50% limitation. Ms. Connolly said the elevations indicate each building will have peaked roofs and each unit will have a front- loading 2-car garage. The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of stucco, two types of brick, and Renaissance stone. Also, wood decks will be included on the rear elevation of all units. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner's proposal indicates that there will be multiple types of floor plans for the townhomes. Each unit would include at least 3 bedrooms, with some floor plans including a loft. 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 proposes 14 guest parking spaces to be shared by the development; currently on-street parking is not allowed on Northwest Highway. She said Village's Engineering Division reviewed the feasibility of creating on- street parking along Northwest Highway and found it could be done, subject to mOT approval and designing the on-street parking in a manner that provides an unobstructed view for a motorist exiting the site. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner did not include this in their proposal, but she wanted to clarify that this could be done per IDOT's approval. Ms. Connolly stated the Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that a variety of new landscaping materials will be planted throughout the development. She mentioned that changes were made due to comments and feedback by the neighbors at the meeting. The Petitioner will review the plan in greater detail during his presentation. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner has submitted preliminary storm water detention plans and is working with the Village Engineer to document that the design will comply with Village Code regulations. A final design is will be submitted as part of the Building Permit process, and the minor comments noted in the Staff report can be addressed at that time as well. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 200S PZ-03-0S Page 3 Ms. Connolly stressed that the proposed development will be subject to all development requirements, as detailed in Section 15.402 of the Village Code. Ms. Connolly addressed comments from a meeting with neighbors. She contacted Public Works and learned that this area is not a known problem area with respect to the sanitary sewer infrastructure. In fact, the area is rated average or better. Also, the Village has been replacing pipes in poor condition. By the end of200S, all pipes in Mount Prospect will have a rating of 3-2-or-l, with 5 being the worst. Ms. Connolly confirmed with the Project Engineer that the new development is creating less impervious surface, which will put less water in the storm system. The Petitioner can go into more detail if need be, but basically the new storm water detention will improve current conditions. Ms. Connolly stated that the property is located along a state highway, on a commercial corridor. It is adjacent to a townhome development (Villas of Sevres), and single family residences. The Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the Subject Property as Single Family Residential, and the development is consistent with a townhome development approved by the Village Board in 2002. Ms. Connolly said the standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.S.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 stated that the Subject Property is adjacent to an existing townhome development and 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. Ms. Connolly said 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. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-03-08 Page 4 Ms. Connolly stated that the proposal is consistent with the recently updated Comprehensive Land Use Map. Also, the townhomes are in keeping with previously approved redevelopment projects in this area of the Village. The development has been designed in a manner that provides safe access to and from the development. Ms. Connolly said 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 B 1 Business Office to R2 Attached Single Family Residence; 2) a Conditional Use permit for a l4-unit townhome Planned Unit Development subject to the following: A. Development of the site in general conformance with the site plan and landscape prepared by Design Bridge, revision date to be confirmed; B. Development of the units in general conformance with the floor plans prepared by Design Bridge, revision date January 14,2008; C. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the site plan prepared by Design Bridge, revision date January 14,2008; 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; and F. The Petitioner shall construct all units according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: the installation of fire sprinklers, fire hydrants and roads must be located and constructed according to Development and Fire Code standards." Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case, 1040 W. Northwest Highway, Case No. PZ-03-08. Chairman Rogers requested that the building elevation be displayed as it did not match the elevation in his Commission packet. He said there seemed to be some differences as the peak roof and garages look different and that there is no stucco shown on his elevation, it is all brick. Joseph Donnelly suggested that the view on sheet A-1.3 (dated January 14, 2008) is an angle view, this would explain why Chairman Rogers is not able to view the sides. Chairman Rogers said the peaked roofs are not the same. Ms. Connolly checked the materials on sheet A-1.3 and said the Petitioner could discuss why there is possibly a discrepancy in the rendering elevation. Chairman Rogers said there is brick on the projection and stucco on the back wall. Ms. Connolly stated that is correct. Chairman Rogers swore in Victor Dziekiewicz, Principal of Design Bridge, Ltd, 1415 W. Grand Avenue, Chicago, IL, and his assistant, Jacob Swindler, 1232 W. Huron, Chicago, IL. Chairman Rogers asked if there is a different elevation shown in the Staffs presentation than the copy of the elevation provided to the Commission. Mr. Dziekiewicz eXplained that they should be the same. He said that this development is unique unlike most developments set in rows. The proposed elevation rotated the buildings so Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-03-08 Page 5 they're offset from one another. The 3D view is a clear representation of what will be seen on site. This would be a different than looking head on. Stucco would only be used in a small area; the rest of the sides, front, and back would be two (2) different colors of brick. Chairman Rogers mentioned that this was an innovative design and was surprised in the way everything fit while providing neighbors with some green space. Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that he did review Village tapes of previous meetings and he spent time listening to the things that were said. There is more yard space between the proposed development and the neighbors on the East and West side. He took a cue from Northwest Highway and created the rotation of the site, and he was able to squeeze the development in. The facades facing the neighbors would not just be flat, but would be staggered so there would be a significant amount of expression rather than having just a plain wall. The original proposal included 17 units and he believes 14 is a good compromise for the project to be viable; anything less would not work for his client. Mr. Dziekiewicz briefly discussed the 3D view. There would be 10 "A" units, 2 "B" units, and 2 "C" units. The basic "A" units are a standard 3 bedroom layout. The living day functions on the ground level with parking. The bedrooms would be upstairs. The units contain a 2 car garage with an additional two parking spots on the driveway. The buildings are staggered to create private entryway and each unit faces its own driveway. The "B" and "C" units vary with the option of having the master bedroom on the ground floor. Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that he met with neighbors and wanted to address some of their concerns. He discussed the landscaping and stated that all units would have basements. The escape windows and air conditioning unit would be in the back of the unit, the decks measure 12' x 18'. He also mentioned the circular turn area in the development would be the area for underground detention. He stated that the water on the property would go through a restrictor and would be designed according to the Village requirements and the requirements of dealing with a 100 year storm. Mr. Dziekiewicz said that emergency vehicle access works with the Fire Department equipment. He created a template for the Fire Department to review and it provided ample maneuvering room, meeting Code requirements. Mr. Dziekiewicz reviewed the plan for the existing trees and created a new landscape plan. Concerns were raised from the townhome neighbors to the West, this allowed the Petitioner to change the type of shrubberies. He also stated that trees and bushes would shield the auxiliary parking area for the neighbors. He said that the proposed landscaping will contain more green space that is currently on the property. Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that the setback on the East side is 50 feet; the last proposal was at 40 feet. He also mentioned that there is a 30 foot set back on the West side. He added that the setbacks are greater in this new proposal and asked if any of the Commission members had a question. Chairman Rogers mentioned that there was little landscaping along Northwest Highway. He said more parkway trees were needed along with more landscaping in the 30 foot setback. Ms. Connolly mentioned that the Village would require that trees be planted, by the Village, on the parkway at the developer's expense. The trees would be planted during the spring or fall Village planting schedule. Mr. Donnelly asked what the price range is on the townhomes. Mr. Dziekiewicz said between the low $500,000s and middle $600,000s. Mr. Donnelly mentioned that part of the PUD requires that there has to be a benefit to the community, he asked Staff how this requirement was met. Ms. Connolly said that in the past, Petitioners have been allowed to make a donation to the Park District for improvements to a local park. She asked that the Petitioner have this benefit prepared prior to the Village Board meeting. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-03-08 Page 6 Mr. Donnelly noticed that the rear setback requirement for R2 is 25 feet and the proposed setback is 20 feet. He wanted to know if we needed to include this as part of the amendment; Ms. Connolly said she would look into this. Mr. Donnelly stated that this set back was indicated on a chart in the Staff report on page 4. Mr. Donnelly continued and referred to page A-1.0 of the Petitioner's packet. He asked if the 14th parking space is handicap or if the parking is 14 plus one additional handicap space. Jacob Swindler confirmed there are 14 spaces; they had to remove a handicap space due to the lot coverage limitation requirements. Mr. Donnelly asked the Petitioner to adjust the exhibits accordingly. Ms. Connolly advised that she received e-mails from the neighbors and stated that they were included in the Commission's packet. Chairman Rogers confirmed that these would be submitted into the records. Chairman Rogers swore in Mary Simon, Vice President for the Homeowner's Association, 803 W. Isabella, Mount Prospect, IL. Ms. Simon stated that she is representing the association and its concerns. She stated that she met with the Petitioner on Monday, January 21 and mentioned that the Petitioner has only covered a few items. She said that the first zoning change on the property was for State Farm and now there is a request to have the zoning changed again to multi-family units that use to be Y2 acre lots. She stated that prior to State Farm, the whole neighborhood was zoned RX Single Family. Ms. Simon's biggest concern is density. She said that in the past, there were 17 units proposed and that the Village Board said that was too much. She mentioned that the Village Board said the highest amount it would allow on the site would be 14. She agreed with the previous mention of 12 units or under, 14 units are too many. Ms. Simon feels that the Village is using the townhomes (Villas) to the West as precedent for the area. She feels that multi-family developments are going to continue in the area based on previous cases. She said that when the V illas were built, only one property was affected. This proposal directly affects nine homes and the entire neighborhood. She is concerned with the storm sewers and water. Water is backed up all the time and the neighborhood was built over a creek. She said sump pumps are constantly going off and fears the addition of 14 townhomes (laundry, dishes, toilets, bath, etc.) would tax the system. Ms. Simon told the Petitioner that she is still confused on the location of the windows, and location of the air conditioning units. She also said the last time this property went to Village Board that the Police Department wanted a fence. A fence is not addressed in this proposal and she is confused by what the Village wants. Other concerns included snow removal and where would cars be placed if all the parking spaces were filled. She states that extra cars would park in the neighborhood with people cutting through yards. Ms. Simon said she learned that the storm water goes through the neighborhood as mOT does not allow it to go to Northwest Highway. She said the plans on the garages included a 19' x 19' size. She spoke with an architectural student and questioned what size a garage should be. She found out that the minimum size should be 20' x 22' and stated that the Petitioner is making the smallest garage to say it's a 2-car garage. She has additional concerns on the real estate market, and believes that a couple units may sell and fears the remaining would become rentals. Ms. Simon calculated the lot coverage on her own by using the buildings, decks, and parking spaces. She came up with 50% coverage and wants the numbers that the Petitioner provided to be checked. Ms. Simon disagrees that this development is compatible with the neighborhood. She briefly discussed the elevations and what the neighbors would eventually see from their point-of-view. She concluded by stating that this new proposal is much better than what was submitted in the past, but still believes that 14 units is too dense and it will be a detriment to the neighborhood. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-03-08 Page 7 Chairman Rogers wanted to clarify the lot coverage. Ms. Connolly said the calculations are based on the Petitioner's information and her understanding is the road is included when figuring out lot coverage; she asked the Petitioner to verify. Mr. Dziekiewicz says that he is able to accurately measure lot coverage with today's computer technology, and that 49.9% is correct. Ms. Simon said that she is confused because she added the square footage of every building and ended up with 50%. She also wanted to clarify an error stating that page A- 1.0 in the Petitioner's packet contains an error, this page states that there are 12 "A" units as opposed to the correct number of 10. Mr. Dziekiewicz confirmed that square footage is dimensional as it would include the 2nd story, etc. Ms. Simon said she now understood the Petitioner's calculations. Chairman Rogers swore in Tim Fulk, 1003 Isabella, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Fulk stated his property backs up to the proposed location and has been following the project since previous proposals at neighborhood meetings. He said that it is difficult to develop the site. According to Mr. Fulk, other townhome developments that have been approved have never been to 7 single family homes in the RX zoning district. He discussed the possibility of having 11 or 12 units as this would increase the distance from the lot lines and create more green space. Mr. Fulk concluded by stating that he wants quality and not quantity, and he urged the developer to build fewer units. Chairman Rogers swore in Paul Glombowski, 206 MacArthur, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Glombowski wanted to reinforce some of the objections that were discussed by his neighbors. He is concerned with the proposed development being surrounded by the RX zoning. He said the current proposed property does not have a pass through access road like the adjacent townhomes (the Villas). The proposed site is landlocked. He forecasted a worst case scenario in which parking over busy holidays would obstruct emergency response equipment. He disagrees that there is adequate turning room for emergency vehicles. Mr. Glombowski stated that the Fire Department was doing drills last summer on the State Farm site. He advised them not to spray water as the lot would fill up as it does not drain fast. He mentioned that there is currently a restrictor that services the Northwest Meadows Association. He believes that this is plugged up as it fills up fast and drains slower than a 2.5 inch restrictor would normally allow. Mr. Glombowski also disagrees with the Public Works assessment stating that the sewer and sanitary lines are average or better. He stated that the additional taxing on the 50 year old system would cause expensive repairs and believes that Staff and the Commission should talk to Public Works. Ms. Connolly clarified that she spoke with the Water Superintendent, who stated that they are currently working on a spot repair program, where Public Works is lining four to five miles of sewer a year. This is a CIP project with over $3 million spent to correct worst case scenarios. They use a scale of 1-5 to classify the condition of the pipes with 3,2,1 (average to best) and 4's and 5's are the worst. Public Works projects there will be no pipes worse than a 3 by the end of 2008. Chairman Rogers asked when the Villas were built, he said the water went to through the neighborhood. Mr. Glombowski advised no. He said the sewer from State Farm goes directly through his property. Chairman Rogers asked again where does the water run from the Villas? Mr. Glombowski said down Dale Avenue (the other direction from the surrounding neighborhood). Mr. Glombowski continued by stating that with the storm last summer, there was a lot of water overflowing at the State Farm building. He said most of the storm water was absorbed by the surrounding properties with the exception of one neighbor. Chairman Rogers clarified that there would be more green space on the proposed property than the current amount. Mr. Glombowski stated that he is aware of the change, but not certain it will do its job and has his doubts. Mr. Glombowski concluded by stating that the Staff recommends that this proposal be accepted, and he disagrees vigorously. Ms. Simon mentioned Meadows Pool and the giant basin that was installed to catch the water. She stated that they had to re-design the parking lot to be a retention basis. She wanted to know if these 14 units had the same problem. What would be done to fix it? She said the site is landlocked and wanted to know what the Petitioner would do. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-03-08 Page 8 Chairman Rogers swore in Lou Sbarboro, 702 French Way, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Sbarboro said he is concerned with parking. He never heard anything about anyone seeking to put parking on Northwest Highway. He briefly discussed his safety concerns with traffic turning onto Northwest Highway and was surprised to hear that this subject came up. Chairman Rogers said this is not an option being proposed, but he does know people are looking into this is as a possibility, and he understood Mr. Sbarboro's concerns. Mr. Donnelly stated that he drove through the Villas and asked where the homeowners park extra cars when residents have parties. He noticed that there isn't substantial parking on their property. Mr. Sbarboro said that the subdivision is a unique situation; families allow others to park on each others' driveways and it all works out. Chairman Rogers swore in Jean Spejcher, 202 MacArthur, Mount Prospect, IL. She stated that her backyard has the largest impact to the proposed development. Her concern is about the water and she stated that she does understand that there will be more green space. She said with the addition of 14 units, there is going to be more need for the water to be absorbed. She concluded by stating that the proposed development will have higher needs and feels there will be an imbalance in the current system. Chairman Rogers asked if there were any other questions from the audience. Hearing none, he asked the Petitioner to address questions raised by the neighbors. He asked the Petitioner what they have done to protect the homeowners: Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that the parking lot would be its own detention pad. Currently, there is a substantial non-permeable surface. He suggested that the current restrictor on the site may not be working. He tried to maximize the side yard spaces so that they could be as far away from the homes as possible, and they also created as much green space as possible. Mr. Dziekiewicz also wanted to clarify and separate the sewer system and the water detention system, even though they will eventually connect. He said that they are considered separate from an engineering stand point. The vault and inlets are designed for a storm. Storm water will eventually end up in the system, but the vault was built to allow it to enter the system at a slower rate. Mr. Dziekiewicz said by creating a great amount of permeable space, the significant amount of rain water will go away as it was intended to if there was no development at all. When storage for natural percolation would not be sufficient, that is when the inlets would take over and water runs into the storm system vault. The water would be contained on-site and would flow at a rate it is intended to be compatible with a 100 year storm. There was brief discussion on water that would enter the sewer system. Chairman Rogers mentioned the biggest problem seems to be storm water. He asked the Petitioner how much acreage feet is in the vault. Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that his engineer was not at the hearing, but the overall size of the vault is 21,800 cubic feet. Based on the plans, the vault looks like it measures 60' x 50'. Chairman Rogers asked if the poured concrete vault could be increased by 25% more than what is required. There was a brief discussion about possibly increasing the size of the vault by 25%. Mr. Dziekiewicz said he would need to discuss this with his Civil Engineer, but would consider increasing the size of the vault if there was a valid need to do so. Chairman Rogers said increasing the vault size would allow water to stay on the site for a longer period of time. Chairman Rogers asked about the 19' x 19' size of the garage stating that 20' x 20' is usually the minimum size. Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that he has a 19' x 19' garage and it works out fine. Mr. Donnelly asked to confirm that there was a separate area in the garage for garbage and recycling containers. The Petitioner stated that there is an area for the containers and it is not included in the 19' x 19' dimension. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-03-08 Page 9 Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner about snow removal. Mr. Dziekiewicz replied that the homeowners' association documents could be written to require off-site snow removal. Chairman Rogers asked if this could be made a requirement; the Petitioner agreed to the condition. Mr. Donnelly asked if the Police Department required a fence, he stated that the Developer would have to install due to specifications provided by the association. Mr. Dziekiewicz asked Staff if they knew if a fence was required or not. Ms. Connolly said that the Police made a recommendation for a fence with the last proposal as a way to deter crime or a cut through. They did not make this comment this time. Ms. Connolly questioned if the Police Department did not address this matter on this submittal since neighbors strongly objected to a fence last time. Mr. Donnelly said he remembered the discussion. Mr. Dziekiewicz said if a fence would be required, it would be installed. Chairman Rogers asked for a motion to include the increase of the storm sewer detention be increased by approximately 25%. Mr. Donnelly added in the benefit for the community. Ms. Connolly repeated the additional conditions of approval: A. Install additional landscaping along Northwest Highway; B. Note a 20-foot rear setback; C. Identify the public benefit before Village Board review; D. Increase the storm vault capacity by 25%; and E. Require the association to remove snow off site. Ms. Connolly asked if anything else needed to be added. Mr. Donnelly asked about the fence requirement; Ms. Connolly stated that she would confirm with the Police Department. Chairman Rogers said the consensus with the Petitioner and neighbors is no fence, which he supports. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-03-08, the rezoning of 1040 Northwest Highway from Bl to R2 attached single family and to approve a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development with the conditions listed in the Staff Report and the additional conditions agreed upon tonight and just noted by Staff, for the property located at 1040 W. Northwest Highway, Case No. PZ-03-08; Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Haaland, Rogers NAYS: Roberts Motion was approved 3-1. After hearing two additional cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 10:08 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ,/7 / /,,' /I /<./:" ;;-;:>1::1- Ryan Kas(, Community Development Administrative Assistant H.\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\Minutcs\PZ.03-08 HMO W. Northwest Hwy,doc