The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5. OLD BUSINESS 03/04/2008 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department Monnt Prospect MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER 'B~. \-A-n, ~) ,..lei FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 15,2008 SUBJECT: PZ-05-08 - V ARIA nON (SECOND DRIVEWAY) 1750 AZALEA PLACE JOAN AND LARRY SCHRAMBECK - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-05-08, a Variation for a second driveway, as described in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at the January 24, 2008 meeting. The Subject Property is located on the west side of Basswood Lane, between Euclid Avenue and Azalea Place, and contains a single family residence with related improvements. The Petitioner currently parks a recreational vehicle on a gravel pad, located in the backyard along Basswood Lane. A gravel pad is not an approved surface and not allowed per the Village Code. Therefore, the Petitioner proposes to install a second driveway to park the vehicle on in order to comply with Village regulations. Variation approval is required for the second driveway on Basswood Lane as the Village Code allows only one driveway per lot. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's request and commented on the fact that the pad is located behind a fence and not visible from the street. They reviewed whether the pad could be considered a legal nonconforming structure because it had been in place for several years; staff eXplained that had already been researched and found the request did not qualify for legal nonconforming status. The Commission discussed why the second driveway was needed and its impact. Several neighbors addressed the Commissioner and spoke in favor of the Petitioner's request. One neighbor, who was in support of the request, expressed concerns of cars entering the subdivision and using the proposed apron as a turn around to avoid freight train traffic. The Commissioners discussed several design options and concluded that constructing the apron of semi-pervious pavers, if allowed by Village Code, would address the neighbors concern and be easy to remove prior to the Petitioners selling their house. They noted that the property had frontage on three streets, which was a unique feature, and that the request would have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve a Variation allowing a second driveway to be installed off of Basswood Lane as shown on the Petitioner's exhibit date stamped January 17,2008, for the property at 1750 Azalea Place, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the sale of the home, the right-of-way improvements (apron) shall be removed; and 2. The Petitioner is encouraged to use a semi-pervious paver for the right-of-way improvement. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 19,2008 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. ~~loo~~ H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\MEJ Memo\PZ-05-08 MEJ .MEMO (1750 Azalea PI VAR 2nd driveway),doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-05-08 Hearing Date: January 24, 2008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1750 Azalea Place PETITIONERS: Larry and Joan Schrambeck PUBLICATION DATE: January 9, 2008 PIN NUMBER: 03-25-303-027 -0000 REQUEST: Variation - second driveway 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: Larry Schrambeck, Joan Schram beck, Garry Schrambeck, David Gates, Sheila Gates, Bob Guthrie, Chris Guthrie, Rosemarie Kern, Ted Kern, Phil Leong, Chris McLaughin, Marcy Mueller, Ron Mueller, Steve Vels, Frederick Brill 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 four previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-05-08, a request for a Variation for a second driveway at 1750 Azalea Place, at 9:32 p.m. Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the west side of Basswood Lane, between Euclid A venue and Azalea Place, and contains a single family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single Family and is bordered by the R1 District on all sides. The Subject Property was developed under Cook County jurisdiction and annexed into Mount Prospect in the early 1970s. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner currently parks a recreational vehicle on a gravel pad, located in the backyard along Basswood Lane. Sec. 14.2209 of the Village Code allows recreational vehicles to be parked in a residential district but only if the vehicle is parked on an approved driveway or parking pad; gravel is not an approved surface and not permitted. Staff learned of the gravel pad during a Systematic Inspection and contacted the Petitioner about removing the gravel pad. The Petitioner proposes to install a second driveway to park the vehicle on in order to comply with Village regulations. However, Sec. 14.2215 of the Village Code allows only one Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-05-08 Page 2 driveway per lot. As the Petitioner already has a driveway in the front of the house on Azalea Place, Variation approval is required for the second driveway on Basswood Lane. Ms. Connolly showed a table that compared the Petitioner's proposal to the Rl single family residence district's bulk requirements. It showed that the subject property complies with the Village's Zoning Regulations, with the exception of the gravel pad. Ms. Connolly stated that Staff reviewed old aerial photos and could not determine when the gravel was installed. In conversations with the Petitioner, Staff learned the gravel was laid around 1976. Also, the Village does not have a record of construction for a gravel pad. Since the gravel pad was installed without the benefit of a permit and it was constructed after the property was annexed into Mount Prospect, it is not considered a legal non-conformity and is not allowed to remain. Ms. Connolly said that the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. Ms. Connolly summarized these findings: . A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; . Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and . Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner proposes to install a curb cut and driveway on Basswood Lane and construct a driveway in lieu of the existing gravel pad. The recreational vehicle would be parked on an approved surface, which would comply with Village Codes. Prior to applying for the Variation, the Petitioner researched alternatives such as parking the vehicle in front of the house on the existing driveway. They found that the vehicle may extend over the sidewalk, and that the vehicle would be highly visible in this location. They researched selling the vehicle, but found that option to be financially prohibitive. They also contacted storage facilities to determine whether it was feasible to park the vehicle off-site. They found the cost to be somewhat significant, but another consideration was the inadequate level of security the facilities provide. Based on this, the Petitioner opted to apply for the Variation for the second driveway. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's application included a petition signed by several neighbors and an email from a neighbor, both supporting the Petitioner's request, and the email noting how minimal of an impact the driveway would have on the neighborhood. However, Staff found that the request for a second driveway was not based on a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, but would serve as a convenience to the Petitioner. Staff appreciates the Petitioner's desire to store the vehicle on-site, which is permitted by Village Code, but in order to do so, a second driveway is needed, requiring relief from the Village's Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner has taken considerable steps to screen the vehicle in this location and would modify the surface it is parked on, but the lot is typical of most lots in the Village, and the request would not be unique to the Subject Property. Ms. Connolly stated based on this analysis, the Variation request for a second driveway fails to meet the standards for a Variation as listed in the Village's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation allowing a second driveway be installed off of Basswood Lane as shown on the Petitioner's exhibit date stamped January 17,2008, for the property at 1750 Azalea Place." Ms. Connolly said the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-05-08 Page 3 Joseph Donnelly asked if a circular driveway was considered with a drive to the backyard so the RV could be parked on the side of the house while being fenced in. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner wanted to screen the vehicle as much as possible and that is why they wanted to keep it in the current location. The Petitioner did consider selling the current vehicle and purchasing a smaller RV to park on the driveway, but there was concern that the neighbors would see it as an eyesore. Chairman Rogers said he would be concerned if the RV was parked on the side of the house as the entire vehicle as opposed to only seeing the front. Further discussion continued whether or not the entire side of the RV could be seen from Euclid. Chairman Rogers swore in Garry Schrambeck, 2205 Oak Leaf Lane, Lake Villa, IL. Mr. Schrambeck was speaking on behalf of his parents', the Petitioners. Mr. Schrambeck stated that they are asking for a Variation to install a second driveway with access from Basswood Lane into the backyard of the residence. Currently, there is a gravel pad that is neat and free of weeds. The Petitioners have parked RV vehicles since 1975 and have never received one complaint from neighbors or Village employees. The location of the residence is within a few blocks of the Village Manager and several trustees who have never filed complaints. Mr. Schrambeck said in the summer of 2007, they were informed that his parents were in violation of Code 14.2209 that took effect in 1993. They called for an inspector and met with Robert Roels. According to Mr. Schrambeck, Mr. Roels stated that the backyard was kept nice and neat and believed there would be no reason why the gravel pad would not be grandfathered in since it has been there since 1975. He said Mr. Roels would provide a follow-up after speaking with his boss. He stated Mr. Roels would ask for this RV be grandfathered for the next 10-15 years and the next homeowner would not be granted use. Mr. Schrambeck said no response ever came from the Village. He stated that the Petitioners are not refusing to put in a second driveway to conform to Village Code. They are willing to pay for this major out-of-pocket expense. Mr. Schrambeck said a second driveway would require a second depression, but only one depression is allowed per Village Code. He has spotted several homes in the neighborhood that contain a second depression (circular driveway). He said the Petitioners' RV should not be an issue due to all the depressions. He continued by stating that the RV is on the road most of the year. Over the past 36 years, the Petitioners have never been in violation of any Village Codes and they're not ready to start now. Mr. Schrambeck continued by stating the Petitioners should be grandfathered in and be granted approval installing a second driveway. Parking the RV in the front of the home would be an eyesore and it would also block the viewing of a bus stop for neighbors. He said that they have letters and a petition from 25 neighbors stating that the RV should be left where it is at. The Petitioners have explored the options of storing the RV off site, but the cost, security, and loading/unloading process would take its toll on the Petitioners. Mr. Schrambeck said that several Village inspectors have been to the house over the years regarding the fence and shed, but nothing has been said about the RV. He said the Petitioners have not kept the RV a secret from the Village as a vehicle sticker has been purchased over the past 32 years. Mr. Schrambeck concluded by stating that this would be a travesty if the Petitioners lost this RV at this point in their life. Chairman Rogers asked that if the Petitioners were willing to make a permanent parking pad that contained concrete or asphalt and would run it to the street if allowed. Mr. Schrambeck agreed. Chairman Rogers said he saw the property with the gate. He stated that the RV could be seen, but it is not intrusive. He said something needs to be unique in order for a hardship. Chairman Rogers said the property is unique being bordered by three streets: Euclid, Basswood, and Azalea. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-05-08 Page 4 Chairman Rogers swore in Ronald Mueller, 1780 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Mueller said he has resided at this address for 36 years and stated that the RV is concealed. He stated that the second driveway is not a bad idea, but it would lower the value of the home. He said the gravel pad has been maintained by the Petitioners and cannot be seen from the street. He concluded by stating the property and the motor home are both well maintained by the Petitioners. Chairman Rogers swore in Robert Guthrie, 1784 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Guthrie has resided at this address for 16.5 years. He said the RV is not an eyesore and he has never had a problem. He does not understand why a second driveway cannot be installed. Chairman Rogers swore in Frederick Brill, 1762 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Brill stated that he wrote a letter to the Commission. He stated that the Petitioners have been able to drive over the parkway all these years without damaging it. He said the Petitioners maintain the parkway. He does not see gravel and mentioned that there use to be trees along Basswood Lane that would hide the RV even more. These trees were diseased and eventually removed by the Village. He hopes that the Petitioners could be grandfathered in with a cement or asphalt pad without a driveway to the street and cutting of the curb. Mr. Brill concluded by stating that if a second driveway was installed, this would create a loss of parking on Basswood and would detract the beauty of an unbroken parkway. Chairman Rogers said that a driveway would be required. He said that they can't allow the Petitioners to continue driving over the grass and the curb. He realizes that the Petitioners have done a great job maintaining the parkway without any damage. Chairman Rogers swore in Chris McLaughin, 1756 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. She said she hopes this case could be grandfathered in. She is concerned with the safety if a second driveway is built. She stated that cars would use the driveway apron as a quick turnaround. Ms. McLaughin also mentioned that if the RV was on the front driveway, it would block her view of the bus stop for her children. Chairman Rogers asked if there were any provisions to take action on grandfathering the existing conditions. Ms. Connolly said no because of the way the case was published and the actual request. She said the request came in for a second driveway, not to grandfather in the gravel pad. Ms. Connolly stated that she has reviewed this case with the Petitioners. The Village Code gradually evolved over time from requiring a parking pad to be a dustless hard surface, no gravel and no clay, to where it arrived to today requiring concrete, pavers, or asphalt. Ms. Connolly said she discussed gravel pads with Public Works and they stated that gravel has been a problem over the years in the storm sewers. She appreciates the Petitioners being diligent in maintaining the parkway, but the Village cannot allow one person to be the exception, as ruts in the parkway are a significant property maintenance Issue. Mr. Donnelly asked what year the property was annexed into the Village. Ms. Connolly confirmed the year was 1971 and she was told that the pad was installed in 1976. She said Staff could not grandfather this in because the pad did not exist when the property was annexed. Discussion continued amongst the Commission and Staff regarding the grandfathering option. Mr. Donnelly asked if there could be a Conditional Use on disabilities. Ms. Connolly replied that a condition of approval could be placed on a Variation. Mr. Donnelly said he would like to leave the property the way it is; Ronald Roberts agreed with Mr. Donnelly. Mr. Roberts stated that the Schram becks sound like wonderful people and neighbors. He continued by stating that a driveway would be there forever and a hardship would decrease the property value. He would like to find a way for the Petitioners not to install a second driveway. The way the case is written is to approve a second driveway, Mr. Rogers said he would vote to approve this. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-05-08 Page 5 Mr. Donnelly asked if they can hold off voting tonight and have the Petitioners come back with a new proposal. He wanted to know if republishing was an option. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioners could withdraw this case and submit another application. Mr. Roberts suggested that the Commission vote on the second driveway and the Petitioners could always change their plan within a certain limit of time. Ms. Connolly confirmed that the Variation is good for one year. Mr. Donnelly asked what recourse the Petitioners would have if the Commission voted on the second driveway. Ms. Connolly said that she could talk to the Village attorney about grandfathering, but as she understood the issue, there was no basis to grandfather the parking pad in as it was not there when the property was annexed. Chairman Rogers said he cannot support allowing the Petitioners to drive over the parkway, it has to be an approved surface. Mr. Roberts stated that the Commission is approving one option for the Petitioners, a second driveway. He stated that the Petitioners could seek other options. Mr. Roberts continued by mentioning that the Planning and Zoning Commission does not have the authority to say whether or not the Petitioners can drive over the parkway. He said the case being presented is for a second driveway, whether they implement this option is up to the Petitioners or the Village Board to decided. Mr. Donnelly asked if the driveway could only be where the tires are, so the driveway would not have to be the whole width. Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Code allows paving strips. There was general discussion regarding if paving strips were present, there would be less likelihood for cars to use as a turnaround. Mr. Schrambeck wanted clarification that the Petitioners could just do strips for the tires rather than do a complete apron. Further discussion involved grandfathering in the RV and the 1993 Zoning Code. Ms. Connolly stated that the 1993 Zoning Code was updated to create provisions for RVs to be parked in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Donnelly followed up this point by stating before 1993, the Village Code did not have provisions for parking RVs in residential neighborhoods. The Petitioner, Larry Schrambeck, stated that he put in a gravel pad without a permit because he thought it was not a permanent structure as it could be removed at anytime. This was the ruling in Niles, where Mr. Schrambeck worked, and he thought he did not need a permit in Mount Prospect. Gary Schrambeck said if the second driveway is approved this evening on an approved surface, it would include the strips. Ms. Connolly stated that the parallel paved strips are an approved alternative by code. However, the curb cut/depression would still be required. Further discussion involved whether or not the strips could go into the backyard. Also, it was stated that the gravel pad would still have to be removed. Ms. Connolly confirmed that they are not reviewing the materials, as those requirements are defined in Chapters 15 and 16 in the Development Code, the case presented tonight is just for the second driveway. The Petitioners could go back and revisit the paving materials after Village Board approved the second driveway. Mr. Donnelly suggested if the Petitioners create a paved surface in the backyard to market this as a patio. If strips were placed, they would have to be removed upon the sale of the home. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-05-08 Page 6 Chairman Rogers asked Ms. Connolly if the Code allows paving bricks that allows the grass to grow through as an approved material. Ms. Connolly said she would have to check with Engineering as brick pavers are allowed in the right-of-way. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 10:07 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion that the Commission approve the second driveway with the condition that the driveway apron be removed upon sale of the property; Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers NAYS: None 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. 4~ Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\Minutes\PZ-05-08 1750 Azalea Place (Var-2nd Driveway).doc CASE SUMMARY - PZ-05-08 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department LOCATION: 1750 Azalea Place PETITIONER: Larry and Joan Schrambeck PROPERTY OWNERS: Larry and Joan Schrambeck PARCEL #: 03-25-303-027 -0000 LOT SIZE: 0.28 acres (12,410 sq. ft.) ZONING: Rl Single Family LAND USE: Single Family Residence REQUEST: Variation - second driveway LOCATION MAP MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RICHARD ROGERS, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JANUARY 17,2008 HEARING DATE: JANUARY 24, 2008 SUBJECT: PZ-05-08 - V ARIA nON (SECOND DRIVEWAY) 1750 AZALEA PLACE (SCHRAMBECK RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the January 24, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Larry and Joan Schrambeck (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 1750 Azalea Place (the "Subject Property"). The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the January 9, 2008 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted two Public Hearing signs on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the west side of Basswood Lane, between Euclid A venue and Azalea Place, and contains a single family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single Family and is bordered by the Rl District on all sides. The Subject Property was developed under Cook County jurisdiction and annexed into Mount Prospect in the early 19705. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Petitioner currently parks a recreational vehicle on a gravel pad, located in the backyard along Basswood Lane. Sec. 14.2209 of the Village Code allows recreational vehicles to be parked in a residential district but only if the vehicle is parked on an approved driveway or parking pad; gravel is not an approved surface and not permitted. Staff learned of the gravel pad during a Systematic Inspection and contacted the Petitioner about removing the gravel pad. The Petitioner proposes to install a second driveway to park the vehicle on in order to comply with Village regulations. However, Sec. 14.2215 of the Village Code allows only one driveway per lot. As the Petitioner already has a driveway in the front of the house on Azalea Place, Variation approval is required for the second driveway on Basswood Lane. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The Subject Property complies the Village's zoning regulations, with the exception of the gravel pad. Staff reviewed old aerial photos and could not determine when the gravel was installed. Also, the Village does not have a record of construction of the gravel pad. Since the gravel pad was installed without the benefit of a permit and it is not clear when exactly it was constructed, i.e before or after the property was annexed into Mount Prospect, it is not considered a legal non-conformity and is not allowed to remain. The following table compares the Petitioner's proposal to the Rl Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. PZ-05-08 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 24, 2008 Page 3 Rl Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' 30.53' no change Exterior 20' 26' no change Interior 8.5' 10.41 ' no change 25' - house 75.37' Rear 15' - patio 63.37' no change LOT COVERAGE 45% Maximum 21 % (without gravel pad) 24 % (with pad) VARIATION STANDARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: . A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; . Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and . Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner proposes to install a curb cut and driveway on Basswood Lane and construct a driveway in lieu of the existing gravel pad. The recreational vehicle would be parked on an approved surface and would comply with Village Codes. Prior to applying for the Variation, the Petitioner researched alternatives such as parking the vehicle in front of the house on the existing driveway. They found that the vehicle may extend over the sidewalk, and that the vehicle would be highly visible in this location. They researched selling the vehicle, but found that option to be financially prohibitive. They also contacted storage facilities to determine whether it was feasible to park the vehicle off-site. They found the cost to be somewhat significant, but another consideration was the inadequate level of security the facilities provide. Based on this, the Petitioner opted to apply for the Variation for the second driveway. The Petitioner's application includes a petition signed by several neighbors and an email from a neighbor, both supporting the Petitioner's request, and the email noting how minimal of an impact the driveway would have on the neighborhood. However, Staff found that the request for a second driveway was not based on a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, but would serve as a convenience to the Petitioner. Staff appreciates the Petitioner's desire to store the vehicle on-site, which is permitted by Village Code, but in order to do so, a second driveway is needed, requiring relief from the Village's Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner has taken considerable steps to screen the vehicle in this location and would modify the surface it is parked on, but the lot is typical of most lots in the Village, and the request would not be unique to the Subject Property. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, the Variation request for a second driveway fails to meet the standards for a Variation as listed in the Village's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the following motion: PZ-05-08 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 24, 2008 Page 4 liTo approve a Variation allowing a second driveway be installed off of Basswood Lane as shown on the Petitioner's exhibit date stamped January 17,2008, for the property at 1750 Azalea Place." The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: UJl ~, ~, William J. ooney, AICP, uector ofCommumty Development Ijmc H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\StaffReport\PZ-05-08 MEMO (1750 Azalea Lane. VAR. second driveway).doc VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Mount Prospect COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP AR TMENT - Planning Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Variation Request The Planning & Zoning Commission has final administrative authority for all petitions for fence variations and those variation requests that do not exceed twenty-five (25%) of a requirement stipulated by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. PETITION FOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW Village Board Final Z Case Number 0 pz- -08 .... r-o 0('-" Development Name/Address ~-2 I 7 s- C' /J 2/1 Leit fi. ~o o ~ Date of Submission ~~ Z.... ....0 ><'-' r;ol Hearing Date Q Z .... Common Address(es) (Street Number, Street) /15t /17/t"L ,//i P.L. .' f &;.--t:. Tax J.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) Z (.-;;].- -2 .r - 3 c .3.~ e;;.. 7- (~ () C (~ 0 .... ~ 0( Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) ~ ~ 0 ~ Z .... r;ol ~ .... IJ) Z Name Ld 1>2/C-LI Sc'H/r/lm get'-/( Telephone (day) 0 J'Ljt]- (, ? 1- '2 .S' 8 .... 1".:: rh\>f S; C It;l ,f r) ) 13 ,q c..)-::: r-o 0( ~ LI1 /~ lUJ f-t ill b .:Je IT '" C" (HA~/tl}ll{,f=Cj( Telephone (evening) ~ ~ I 1-,) V / IV (..- 7/? /) 5T '-':(-7-9(" J>c/?_ ? 79- (,.z (is) 0 - ~ := Street Address Fax Z ell .... .::! /75c iT 2.A'L-ed /) Q 0.. y-'l.. . z 0- ;J ~ City State Zip Code Email 0 I ~ /)j7-: /'/fOf/f't:'-: r-- .J:L C. ct';i. ~ ~ Interest in Property U 0( -., C Le,: i'yiO~ = rli c' 11 tC 12 r '1 z o E= < ~I ~ ... o ~ ~ ~ zo ~t' z ~ ;J g- O ... ~o.. 1.:)1 ~ U < = Name .1- 'T''f... (f:, <-I ,$ (':..-1-1 I'hto i 8&' CJc ~J C.1- rJ j S(' H diJ-t1l OEi.C/<" Corporation Telephone (day) fi if? _ ts 7 q _ G 2. s- ~Y Telephone (evening) f <I ') - G 1 9 - & :J.. S y 1.!-; {;;. J!,.(., ..f il/,', :f,;'/i;"/ $CI NA~1(}; /bE:.' oc I~./ P/A!(.~ Iff}!'? t i' .-' t ... ~. "'7_ (J (;.~ Street Address I r1 '~.-. I~ -7 ..;:.../ ~ 1- I ) t,. .. I i-/ / _-c:; I, Fax P L- 1/ (' i::: City J1]J: p'(~C$ PCic r Developer Name State Zip Code rz._ (,. (; c. :) '- Email Telephone (day) Address Fax Email Attorney Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Email Surveyor Z Name Telephone (day) 0 1 ... Eo< '" Address Fax <(;i ~ a ~ "Vi Email o~ ~ 0 Z ... ...0.. Q'O Engineer :z: ~ ;J Ei Name Telephone (day) o g- ~Q) Address Fax ~ ;> ~ ~ UCl <I Email = Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Email Landscape Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Email Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 2 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 ~ w r.,f;; OW >:;;;J ~O' ~~ :;[2 :;;;JO V'J.... Eo- U <( Code Section(s) for which Variation(s) is (are) Requested Please note that the application will not be accepted until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. 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 prior to 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 affirm 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. if' ' APPlicant~~ ~~ Print Name /.rflc/e' SeA j(JtfJ/l e~O( f! _il t':,. , J/"} ,j';, <U,-(V} '/ "je. 'vl.tI:. .., --.r.... c. l c;, /" ~' Date (.d.-if-t"',! :1;;, It /v' Sc /7/?d111 Fe,), If applicant 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 Print Name Date Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 EUCLID <:> . ... _-L_ Existing Conditions AVE. ....;..1 ..... 5 ..... ': ,0)" UTILITY . ~MJ'~ME.NT ~ . , . . I ----..--...a....---t. . vI, ~/:- ..., .. ,tJ,'.I,,,1 _" J-Mf. . J~,"; "ul /~I' ;::~1',."'4~1 1. ~ (,",1,,1 -,;;,;.j) C*"'J' ~ N "i. . ':/,0' -. P" /\,0 .: 0)' : cp ~. . 8 ., ..- 5.0.:... ---- ~ cq: -1 ~ U o ~ .-1 ...j o ~ ~ ~ '-J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~JI'~'C . - """r- 1750 Azalea Place rage 1 Ul L. Print Close Printed: 12/05/2007 04:09:57 PM DISCLAIMER This GIS data is provided 'as is' without warranty or any representation of accuracy, timeliness or completeness. The burden for determining accuracy, completeness, timeliness, merchantability and fitness for or the appropriateness for use rests solely on the requester. http://dbl/pvweb2-mtprospect/orint.do?title= 1750+ Azalea+Place&oaoer=letter&orientatio... 12/5/2007 /' .~,;~" (fl;rrtiHcatr u{ ~uruey ~; , "' ';'"'-;.:.: B. A. FENGER LANJ) SI1HI'f.rOR, , ROOM 900' 173 .W M"D\SOtl ST l'hnn...,1 1,17'-' . our.AGO or "ore.1 Manor Uni; No.5 in Ih~ S.w. 'I. .o/" Sedion 25 rownship 42 'n<Je 11 Co., of Ih. 3"" Principot.M.ridian, in Cook Coon/y,TH,nois. -. .' .... \ 'p,~'. UTILITY, EA5EMENT./:' --1!:-- - - --- - - --- - - -"+. : '. " _: EUCLID , : ::: ! ;.,: . .: ~ ; '.1 ,; :' . " .: 'r. I . i to-.. ~~'- r'l (~ .~ ~ . ,I",,,'" ,.J 19-' It,,.'"'''' t. ) ~ (,..,1./ ",,~,;,~ ,~ .' , I ~ ! """/,,,,1 ,..J .Jr_f. 6.....1' "",.F4' .".,4/: "" '" ~ " ' " ..'- 85. 0 .~... AZflfA , :' ~....'.' I . I ~1"':f ',-':' >~\~I~::~~;,;!,ll(:': , I k,!,' ~. , .' , 'I ,::\'~l!' il'i'ii~~:~~;:,>: J '<"J .:: . ".' . ....."....:.._~,., ..........._....._.....~_.:._lL. ...... . "':;;':~ "'-'., -, ...... AVE.. ; i ~ ~ ~ .-J ~ ~ ! ..: ): :. ~ ~ ~ ~ U . '=:to 0 ...... ~ I :t : )... 'j t,., "1 , , ~ 0 ,J: '--" I' ~ s "i. .').,0 -, t&' : '. . ~ \ , PLACE , . _.1. ....#:.-~:., ~ ~; ( . .\ " ~;.;~:-.. :',"; EUCLID '0 . ... _-1-_ Proposed Conditions AVE. \ "i(~/. UTILITy..... 5. ~.~.~.EMENT -4 . . --... ~ cq: -J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ['.11" ~ ~ '-.J .!' t 4-. JJt {!\l\ '( l"r: rj.~ V\ . . , -------~---r. ./1;. /",; _~ J;..t. . .,1;*,',.1 #..1 rr-, 1f',.,,"II,.,~, I. ) ~ (,..,1,1 "1,,'/....; ~....." ,,:/-0' ", .. f\.o .: ~. ~. . ..".,,,,:- ~ N "l. d-/'- ..... .. 8 ., ..- 5.0.:... )~~ /' C-'( 1750 Azalea Place NIS. December 17,2007 TO: The Village of Mt. Prospect RE: Motor Home Joan & Larry Schrambeck 1750 Azalea Place To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to advise that the motor home parked in the yard of the Schrambeck's is neither a detriment nor eyesore to our neighborhood. We are Ted & Rosemarie Kern 1223 Basswood Lane & Frank & Betti Pierri 1225 Basswood Lane. We look directly at the motor home parked across the street, and truth be told, we hardly know when it is there or they are on a trip. The Schrambeck's and our families have been neighbors for 30 plus years and they have always had a motor home. How suddenly this has become a problem to the village is simply amazing. If the "neighborhood" people aren't bothered, and the village has passed a recent law, they should be "grandfathered". Thank you, Ted & Rosemarie Kern. ./ ~ ~ 1(:~~/nLd-'L~.?~>~/7~___ '---.... ,/ I Frank & Betti Pierri ( / d-,ifd~ ~ '- t: Cr~ j' ':) J~~ i) / f\j~ ~~__ }-- I\f (: /t '') ,...': ,'1 ../\ D j}., r~:": .I it) 7'/'/ i:..;" ,./} 1}-1 (3 (~"': ('...J^( .5 ,,~...' / ,:7 Sv () J..cJ~.:7 /}.(_ c. ft- ., , . ..._~ ,. - :') ~q. :.-: j L. /1 .... P. /Jj', ('J:.- ii ,'] A~ 1\ ......,... \.-.,.,.. _f t, /__" / -'f /'. /- J;/' /:'-: r. ,., ) \1 ... 1 1 /'1"1/: ,:' rC'/c':'- t) /'iT' U J2 .1 1-[.~ 1...,.,....,;4 c.. ,1 ',,-: :',' /_. I~'" l () i) I~ I k t.~. r-/1 ,l: i'l} (~-T'''(~) /(~ ILy (':/"1) ,l;;' ;.:.:' /\/ c.--.. . _ , j .__.~., 1~....~.._><...,....=~=~....._..?..~~_.~~_~::~~_)~:.::!::L.'~:':-"~~"""'_''''''''h'' . / S,A !).tS:.~C:~,.? J F3',~/e. ,;? C ('\ 17 " n . v . ......_.._.._.._..-i-;;;;~.~-~~r-/~~~-;;.;;_...-.....--.Ir-Pfl.~~.~:...;.:..~.-~.=-:,. L) L) P (;;',$..:;, f " ' 1/ r,-/ j '-J'-" / /1 !'~ E~-1~L/~Lt<..._.J~ ...'-..'~..K-i::':_~~[:~:......-.-~.~=__-]~e~~I!1 f\ : I IL z..r /\/ PJ t\S.g WiI (J () L IJ/ 1~1 r?j{ (),~ r1-::c ILL I --;--.-.... ...:::::...._-_..._-_....._.........._..-._..-..~-..... .......-.... .........-........-..-..............--....-t............ ...~......-_. ....-..-........ ........ -.....- -........-t.......-............. _...---................... f (:../ p:.(.) 1)0,1!..,7:. ..-1" 1-<.;;::::: t<- J.-,' i ! ~: .~t-.-igf.~~=)77.t:~D<J:)....t';)...._.~..\.L_JLl1~f?E'::t~--.._-----..,!.PB.~b. '''' ~~.I-fif.D 17 t.' t 7 I, t }. .. ..: ; () c /'"-<:, . . ...__~Lil:s'.. ,L...../v... ..:"._.__1. :!z...-. L~..?.?.._._?v. ~..L:..~_':..:.L....jtjL...B::...:.;;.../.2.e/~~(__..:i ........._........................ ._........._...._.. ......_....... ....-Ii. . ,r ;:'1 Q'I ., .,' {i."'j(;c --f.. C'.t+(L./S",_ ~ /; '-r; . ':1.' _ i ! . ". ..... .!..-.......-.......--.........--... , ~ 1.., f'" (\..1- ~.,: , 1/ 1 ~ ,.?~ ~ I~ ..L?-r..t...:_.~.:~.:~~.0~~...._<:::....(....I; l((9...!}r~ I .. . r ?4-t<eA. 5J/~i ul'..{ P/h/ iP /. bA.'1E5 : . ...! .. i~(d!o'"~~-xi7jlfrl&~-:,i~---~_..._.---)-------------Vjl/<:~Y3!$? l118 /1 t'11 [tfll ;1 I... ~1 'II f(1.o 5 ;1 r:- (r 1/311 (' k.. =~;:}~~~~:J~;e~~~~r~~~-~.:~~~~;-~~.T--=--~=:~-~=TBA~~=_ / 7 7 if /J Z ,~L.-t.:: J} P) I1f /.,; ~ ) Jh"'-. f l' . IF'1 oJ( ....----.........-.--......-..............---...---...-...-.-...,--.. .-_....._-_.................__.._..l'1({<z:t..-._.~......--.........._-,.......--.......------..........-...............-................-.-..1.....--.......-..............-. ..-.... ......... a~)l.$(..c:.~..:(rJI(J) I \' ;Q;z.cL6f} ! ~AC'K - ~-7JJt...L-;ff/I;3f-:79T~-----~i~Ktif{jj;r'W-;;(ri'%~~--. FZr...:2- Jh..de.<<.. J JJzr PrD;i~ b(. Ul1des:,..:"h1e. i blteK (J &" GU~~:<<.----I-------+--------------------T-~----::--- t. /, '. r'.2i /7, /~ i cffC'i- C"?l.- ._ . /7 C ~ (. ~dt~J-:1-" /i(z U.Ju-~k'~.~.T. I( -----3t-.;.~:.;- \);-~I-------~----U--=------- --- -T ---.-.--------1.eA1 ---il~~;i;-c~~f:(~L~L--..-_.-..--I.....--.-._-----tz;i~{--. --tih1jttJ1~~2~L~~f~iJ~--1!....----.-... . ... :.1....}39;).... .-_.,J...JSJ-R..&ci.ler:/\.J1 ..,_ a~.: t1(;SPecf1l:{.. f}~~.__. .~'fe ~v~ { .~ l '- f~',,) ;' T C }\... t.)' f} .Ie. t.). .'1 ,.... (,-,',;"l/o;:) /Y) iJ 6 ('-i'( _? ./ 'il ~S' (~.": /1. ~~2~ /;1. L c:.: /1 J:.....L /j- (' ~(/ () If ,~~ i) >1 c' {j i'!Kl~:: r~/1 L'::::' 17}..:e,;--(./e /-l(~/h!; C'/\! r/f[' F'/c;' ~);\/T {) /0' Il/.E: f.,{,.-"','7 7' ._"_....,,._~~~:____2~~~~~~,,__...!~:.~~..~.:_~:.~._):.~~}:.~~. .r..~...~~......~..., '--~'~'-""''''.____..........__~_w.._"._ _..~....___.__..__~._~..._.~__..._._...._,__.,.,..~._,~..~...__ ~........_. ~..._____.~_ _.._ ''"1.1 ". ..' , ( 'i I 17 I ) .:-[' ,i;.'-:'1 } I'?' J.-::: A'" I......, ...N t".._.,...~.~.. . ,'f'i-- ~_. .~~? c.> (-~, r;i ') :;:;::"11,')" ^t........f.. V -J. ,;I I, f- 'l v . / IT I',y i..- ."~"."'--.. -..-.-.-.-......_... I 'J I ,'. '. ; Iff' \.,}..- Y /, n j ..)1". I /7 1\ .. .....--.-.".. "'-'.' """"_'__.. ......h.~._..~.'".~,.. .w. it; in c , /1 D D P. (;5~S ~'\ L..-e v ;1 -1/7..- 1'J'( .~ ..! i' 1.>-.-" i{' ~1 (J/v;'C. { 1 ._1. .J:~', t#: f /.: v'Ii).2 c. I ~' i i l m.... .._" _. __ _'~'"'"""_."'___""""~'~_'_'~._ .._.._...._....,__...._._., I /\ f I """'r"~'-"-""'_-.__-L____...",,, _." ~ ( x .( ',) ^ <t ,!".' /) ,ji.,'\ \.J ; 7,(1- r-'\ '2.A LEA .. - . ;'} 1/ L . 1,,6\ r [1Z.t~~~-./ _._..__...._--"""--"-,.,..~.~...,..~.._...~.__.~~-..~~-._--~.-_.._.~A_-,.-.._,..._......._.,..._..'_.N._.__......,........ '~""" ; ..._~..-t.., ._..._.~.^',--~._..__..... .,,_...,..... - ._~ ---".- ..,iH t': t . -'- ~.. , , I i >( _.........- ....._R..~'..~ ~ ~..~M___'.~.....'..~..H.__. "~'M .. _.-i~.. ._._. -~'-"~"'--"."'_."_.'~'.'~'__h__ _..__. I .... .........-._.-..--~._-..-........~-..---l.-..A~...-_._._-. i jl: i I 'f j IX ._..._._.__.._+._,-,...._..__..._.._~...~.-...- .Jl!1..~:~L()_::.S'..j;:~..<:'.I.~.li:2..(t/:;:7t~.. _:LZ. 6()._.d?c!/~..t;:.,d ..(,~1.L,./.Jr:)~!:~B.lJ" Z I · '7/'/ .'.17 'I' .." -7' , 1;/1 . I' , ." , . I l..;'L:' 7 '-A-'y..... c..- /-1 b ."- I tJ!9_~Jf",-'t:.r_QE__C:!HLiEJ.._Lo__--L11J"-_i-:';--___:;J_ .... '~".. ''-r.~ ~.~ \,;.'_'." . J ,j ~. i'" . ... " ~ ~ (...\,,,," 1'" ...~ \el-F*RoSE.M~~/'e Ni~lw(~ ) __....L.._............._.__..._....__......__...,... .._........... .............. ..___......... .........,..... j ~\ Ct 8 Pt, ~<;. l.uU()D ! )~'\tfJ~Q,$.-E~~1......_...L..____..h._... _._.__..",.._.._...__._._-~~,_..."' ~~--....~ ".~'''''.''.'''_h..,__...._..... "'''-'~-'"'.".-.,- ....~-..~~ _...~."...~.._..,.~".~...-_.._y."-.._.~...".._,,---~_....,,.._.._. ...---. ... . ._......--._"._.~. ~._...."A..~._._......_._.~_.._". , I ! .+.....-....,..---...-... ---......--.---...........--....---......./............................--.-........ -.._. .. -"~_....-.-..__...--~'".-,-<>.... . ...--....--.........-. y.- ., .......~.._,,_...~....~.-.'-'" -_......._---......~~-.. --"-'.' -_.-..."-,_...~..-..~..._- ....-...-- -'"..-..- "L~_ .--.~. .".~._.----~f---~.~---~_.-._........~._-...-. i ( t .-.--...-...-.~...._-_.-..---.._------_......-..-..._..._---_...-...._--...........-...----....-.........~---...............-...-......-............-.....-.-.-.....~.....,..-.--,,--.....-.---.. ... .-....---.......r"........-.......-.....--....--...-- . i I ! , i ..._~~--......-_....--......._..,........._-......_.-......_.-.."..-.._..-..---..........---..-....--.f-.-...----__,...._.__.. ~.-.-..._~~.....-..,...--'"~...-.-...,,"-__..__......_~_w_.~_"...___u_.___.__~~~._...~_..",.....,_..~..._..^ -'----------..----...-.----~-..---.-.._._-...-............,-_......._.-----..-..-.-.-....----,..--.-..-..---.-.---........--~---...T...---------.---......---...- , ! ! ; i ..................... ......-................-...................... ""r- - .....___...__..'_..A..~."__._~~__..,.__,_..._____.._.._....~...__.._....~_..___."._._~__ _"'___". i . ! -------.---.-------.-.-..,----"'..----.--...-.--........----..-.-....-............- -.............--._-.-._-.._~-,.. .................-....- ...-.---...... --.-..---...... ......-........ .1.......-........-..-..---..--..----. ""_..........1~..__.._._.,_ ."~..,.. ...~."_..._..._.,,. i i .t..... l ~,~-~-~, ---'.,~ ----.---,-.--. '~"_""'''''~c , i I ,.... ............-.------.....- Page 1 of2 Connolly, Judy From: Frederick Brill [fred_info@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 7:41 PM To: Connolly, Judy Subject: Case PZ-05-08 1750 Azalea Place Request for Variation Judy Connolly Community Development Department Village of Mount Prospect Re: Case No. PZ-05-08 Common Address: 1750 Azalea Place Pin# 03-25-303-027-0000 Owners: Larry & Joan Schrambeck Judy, Further to our conversation regarding the upcoming hearing at the Planning & Zoning Commission, I decided to write this short email to express our feelings about this case. Although I will try to appear the night of the hearing, in case I am not able, please pass this on to Mr. Richard Rogers for me. Statement from: Frederick & Sharon Brill 1762 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect (847) 635-7925 Dear Mr. Rogers & Members of the Commission We have lived on the same block with the house in question since July of 1971, about the same time that the Schram becks purchased their house. Through these 35+ years, we've never heard any of our neighbors express the slightest concern about the parking a motor home behind the Schrambeck's home. Rather, the Schrambecks have earned an enviable reputation of being major contributors to the neighborhoods beautification. They've maintained the parkways that surround their home and have landscaped and maintained the easements that border their home with Euclid which present visitors to Boulder Point (the builder's name for our area) the best possible expectation. Specific to the matter in question, we pass the Schrambeck home several times a day and are almost oblivious to the motor home's presence behind their house. The reason for this is that it is mostly blocked from view by their house and the fence. Until recently, the parkway trees along Burning Bush and the shrubbery behind their property mostly screened the motor home. Those trees were just removed by the village and the replacements are still quite small, but as they grow, they will again hide the motor home from most eyes. We understand that the ordinance requires vehicles to be parked on paved driveways (instead of gravel surfaces), but even that requirement seems unnecessary given the location of the parking spot. If the reason for this ordinance is appearance or the possible migration of gravel into the public way or storm sewers, we can attest to the fact that this is not a problem in this situation. We walk daily, east on Azalea, turning north on Basswood and then later returning the same route home from the local park. We've never seen gravel on the sidewalk or adjacent parkway along their east fence which encloses their motor home, let alone on the street (Basswood Lane.) The idea of requiring them to pave their parking pad which is wholly within the fenced- in backyard, seems to be an unreasonable and expensive requirement to condition the granting of the requested variance. Moreover, requiring a driveway to be extended across the parkway to the street will detract from the beauty of the landscaping and should not be required, in our opinion. Mr. Schrambeck is well versed in maintaining landscaping, having worked in that capacity with the Village of Niles these past 36 years until his retirement. He's moved that motor home across the parkway through the years without ever leaving visible damage of ruts or tire tracks, so that a permanent driveway apron there would only serve in detracting from the Page 2 of2 continuity of the landscaped parkway with no benefit to the Village and considerable expense to Mr. and Mrs. Schrambeck. Sharon and I thank you for considering our opinion that the Planning and Zoning Commission should consider recommending an unrestricted variance be granted by the Village Board. Sincerely I Sharon A. Brill Frederick Brill January 30, 2008 William 1. Cooney, AICP Director of Community Development Village of Mount Prospect 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Dear Mr. Cooney, The Plaiming & Zoning Commission n:commended approval of our request for a second driveway by a 4-0 vote. Our request is scheduled to go before Village Board for the ordinance's first reading February 19,2008. Weare requesting that the Village Board waive the second reading, tentatively scheduled for March 4, 2008, and take final action at the February 19, 2008 meeting. We are anxious to start the project as soon as possible. I appreciate your assistance in facilitating this request. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact us at 847/699-6258. Sincerely, ;?~ ~~A~ v(.(~.O~ Joan and Larry Schrambeck 1750 Azalea Place Mount Prospect, IL 60056 REVISED FEBRUARY 20, 2008 Mia 2/20/08 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1750 AZALEA PLACE WHEREAS, Larry and Joan Schrambeck, ("Petitioners"), have filed a petition for a Variation with respect to property located at 1750 Azalea Place ("Property') and legally described as follows: Lot 1 in the Subdivision of Forest Manor Unit NO.5 in the south west X of Section 25, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois. Property Index Numbers: 03-25-303-027 -0000 and WHEREAS, the Petitioners seek a Variation to allow the installation of a second driveway; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Variation being the subject of PZ-05-08 before the Planning and Zoning Commission ofthe Village of Mount Prospect on the 24th of January, 2008, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Journal & Topics Newspaper on the 9th of January, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees in support of the request and encouraging the Petitioner to use a semi-pervious paver for the right-of-way improvement, being the subject of PZ-05-08; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Variation for a second drive-way as shown on attached Exhibit "A" date stamped January 18, 2008, 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 are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: That as a condition of the Variation, the right of way improvements (apron) shall be removed prior to the sale of the home. (The Petitioner is encouraged to use a semi pervious paver for the right of way improvement.) That as a condition of the Variation, the driveway shall be removed from the right-of-way and exterior side yard setback, prior to the sale of the home. SECTION THREE: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect grant a Variation, as provided in Section 14.203.C.7 of the Village Code to allow for installation of a second drive-way as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped January 18, 2008, which is attached to and made a part of this Ordinance. c I .. PZ-05-08, 1750 Azalea Place Page 2/2 SECTION FOUR: The Village Clerk is 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 March, 2008. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H :\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDI NANC\Variationseconddrivewaypz-05-081750azaleafeb08.doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department Mount Prospect MEMORANDUM FROM: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~~. ~~ ~ 't c& TO: DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2008 SUBJECT: PZ-03-08 -1040 W. NW HIGHWAY - RESIDENT ISSUES Concerned residents raised several issues at the February 19th Village Board meeting relating t e proposed townhome development at 1040 W. NW Highway. Listed below is a summary of each issue raised and a staff response: 1. Density, the amount of the units in the proposed development a. The development has been reduced to 14 units which results in a net density of 7 units per acre. This is equal to the density of the adjacent Villas at Sevres development and lower than most town home developments in the Village. 2. Storm water and sewage possibly taxing the system a. The development will have to meet current Village regulations for storm water detention which will be an upgrade to the existing conditions. The Public Works Department has reviewed the Village's infrastructure that will serve this development and are confident that there is sufficient capacity to handle it. 3. Possible odors leaking from the back-up/retention area a. The detention is located under ground and is not mixed with sewage; therefore the possibility of odors emanating from the retention area is remote. 4. Sizes of the garage (19' x 19') and the driveway (18' x 18') a. The garage and driveway sizes are large enough to park 2 cars on each and comply with the minimum standards for parking. 5. Parking a. The petitioner is providing 5 parking spaces per unit on the site which far exceeds Village regulations. 6. Emergency Access for Fire Department a. The Fire Department has reviewed the plans and all of their concerns have been addressed. 7. No basement plans; neighbors want to know where the escape windows are in relation to the Air Conditioning units and the decks a. The plans do illustrate the locations of all of these structures. 8. Current housing market, a few homes may be sold; the possibility of the homes becoming rentals a. While the Village Code does not prohibit the rental of these units, it is highly unlikely that the developer would pursue this avenue as the economic return would warrant the expense. . 9. Snow removal a. The Association will be required to contract the removal of excess snow from the site. 10. Cul-de-sac blocking utility easements a. It is not uncommon to have paved areas over utility easements in many developments in town. If a utility company needs to excavate in this area, the Association would be required to make any necessary repairs. 11. light study; amount of light on neighbors properties a. The new development will be required to meet our current lighting standards that regulate the lighting levels on private property. Our regulations limit the amount of light allowed at the property line in residential areas. 12. Water shut-off in the middle of driveways a. The final locations of the b-boxes will be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division at time of permit. 13. Location of utility meters a. This level of detail is not typically provided until utility companies have been involved and permits are issued. 14. Transformer locations a. Same as #13. 15. Current development being held as a precedent for future developments in the area a. Approval of this plan would not set a precedent for any other property in the Village as we would review any future plan on its' own merits. 16. Sharp turns into driveways a. Although the turn into some of the driveways is slightly greater than 90 degrees, individuals will not have difficulty maneuvering this turn given the low speed limit and space provided on the private drive. 17. Residents would like to see elevations from their properties a. Elevations have been provided for all sides of the proposed units. 18. Northwest Highway parking was originally refused by lOOT during a previous proposal on this property a. Staff will work with the petitioner to determine lOOT's willingness to approve the parking along NW Highway. Parking exists one block to the west of this property indicating that lOOT has permitted this in the past. This parking would be in addition to the 5 parking spaces provided on site for each of the units. I have also attached the petitioner's responses to the neighbor's concerns for the Village Board's review. In addition to the above issues, the residents had requested, and the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended that the developer provide an additional 25% storm water detention above what our current code requires. Staff does not support this requirement and recommends that the condition be removed from the attached ordinance. I have attached a memorandum from Project Engineer Chuck lindelof outlining our position. Please forward this memorandum and attachment to the Village Board for their review and consideration at the March 4th Village Board meeting. ~~~~ William J. ooney Jr. ' Director of Community Development Mount Prospect Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: SENIOR PLANNER JUDY CONNOLLY FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER CHUCK L1NDELOF DATE: JANUARY 28,2008 SUBJECT: PZ-3-08; UNNAMED PUD (1040 WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY) We understand that the proposed unnamed Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 1040 West Northwest Highway was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) with the additional recommendation that 125% of the stormwater detention volume typically required by the Village Code be installed. We have analyzed the site as part of our review of the requested PUD, and find no reason to support the P&Z's recommendation for the additional volume. It must be understood that the Village Codes regarding stormwater detention have become stricter since the State Farm site was first developed in 1988. The Code now incorporates more accurate rainfall data, accounts for greater runoff rates, and allows for smaller restrictors. The result of these changes is that stormwater runoff would be better controlled on the proposed site than on the existing site and would actually have a positive impact on the neighborhood's drainage system. See below: State Farm Site Proposed Development Chanqe Restrictor Size Discharge Rate Volume Provided 3" 0.63 cfs 0.35 ac-ft 2.5" (estimated) 0.41 cfs 0.50 (estimated) 34% slower 42% greater The plans submitted for the P&Z review are not required to include final engineering details, so we can only estimate the proposed restrictor size and storage volume. However, the design submitted meets the Village Code, and represents a significant improvement over the existing condition. Consequently, we recommend approval of the proposed development without the requirement to provide the additional detention volume. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. H :\Engineering\Development\Reviews\ 1 040NorthwestHwy\PZ-3-08\DrainageRecommend-1 .doc DESIGNBRIDGE LTD. 1415 West Grand Ave. Chicago, IL 60622 MEMO Date: February 26, 2008 To: William Cooney Phone: 847-818-5328 Fax: 847-818-5329 From: Jacob Swindler Phone: 312-421-5885 Fax: 312-421-5889 Re: Updates to Planning and Zoning Submission 1040 W. Northwest Highway, Mount Prospect, IL On Friday February 21 we received comments, raised at the February 19 Village Council meeting, to our proposed row-home development at 1040 W. Northwest Highway. I have summarized these comments, and our response in the following points. Revised plans are attached that document the changes we have made. 01. Density, the amount of the units in the proposed development We have responded to previous comments about density by reducing the number of units to the absolute minimum required by our client and any financial institution funding this project. The number of dwelling units per acre is significantly less than what is allowed by B2 zoning. 02. Storm water and sewage possibly taxing the system The storm water system has been designed to meet or exceed the current village code, which was recently revised to a stricter standard. The proposed system is significantly better than the existing system on this site through the adoption of greater permeable coverage and an underground storm water retention vault. The village engineers have reviewed our proposed system and the downstream sewer system, and determined that our development would not overly tax the village sewer system. 03. Possible odors leaking from the back-up/retention system The storm water system is designed to retain only rainwater and pass sanitary waste directly into the village sewer. Although every attempt has been made to prevent back up, and the vault is sealed, no system is perfect. If an event occurs which causes sanitary waste to back-up into the vault, resulting in odors, the association will be responsible, as would any homeowner, of resolving this Issue. 04. Sizes of the garage (19'x19') and the driveway (18 'x18') We have revised the plans to increase the width of the garage in the A & C units to 19'6" and in the B units to 20'-0". With these changes the new garage dimensions are: A Type - 19'-0" deep x 19'-6" wide; B Type - 19'-0" deep x 20'- 0" wide; C Type - 19'-0" deep x 19'-6" wide. This is a clear dimension and does not include areas for storage of trash and recycling. In our experience we have found that the garage size and driveway provided is sufficient for any homeowner who would purchase one of these units. 05. Parking We have provided parking as required by the village code. Weare willing to increase the number of parking spaces, however, we cannot do this without exceeding the permeable coverage required for this site. Each additional parking space will increase the non-permeable coverage by approximately 0.1 percent. If the village is willing to allow a variance to accommodate the additional non-permeable coverage required by the requested parking we will make this change to the site plan. 06. Emergency Access for Fire Department We worked closely with village staff to provide roadways that would accommodate the largest of village emergency vehicles. Our plan was reviewed by the fire department and approved. Scenarios can be imagined which would limit access by emergency vehicles to any house or any development. We trust that village fire officials are aware of these possibilities and considered them as part of their review prior to approval of our design. 07. No basement plans; neighbors want to know where the escape windows are in relation to the Air Conditioning units and the decks. Although we have not provided plans of the unfinished basements, we have indicated clearly on our plans the locations of the decks, air conditioning units, and escape windows. Basement plans will be developed in conjunction with foundation engineering, to meet all village codes, including emergency exits, moisture control, etc., and will be submitted to the village as part of our documentation for permit application. 08. Current housing market, afew homes may be sold; the possibility of the homes becoming rentals. These homes will not be complete for at least 18 months. It is impossible to predict what the housing market will be at that time; however, this project would not be considered if our client did not anticipate that the units would be sold. It is clearly not our client's intention to rent the units. 09. Snow Removal Given restrictions on permeable coverage there is no space on site for snow storage. The current plan calls for snow to be removed from the site, as occurs at other locations in Mount Prospect. We have already committed that this will be required as part of the homeowner's association documents. 10. Cul-de-sac blocking utility easements Only a small portion of the cul-de-sac roadway intrudes upon the utility easement at the rear of the site. As is the case in similar conditions it is understood that it will be the responsibility of the homeowner's association to make any repairs to the roadway should utility companies need to dig up this portion of the easement. 11. Light Study; amount of light on neighbor's properties A lighting study was not required as part of the PUD application process and therefore has not been completed at this time. Weare aware of village code requirements and will work with a lighting engineer to design the site lighting to meet or exceed this code. We are aware of the neighbor's concerns and have designed our landscape plantings to create a barrier to light that would otherwise spill onto neighbor's properties, particularly from car headlights. 12. Water shut-off in the middle of driveways There are number of industry standards for water shut-off. Our civil engineer has selected a shutoff valve that is at an accessible location at the front of the property. I have attached a detail, provided by our engineer, showing how this shutoff valve operates. A separate interior shutoff valve will be provided where the water supply enters each unit, as is the standard in all homes. 13. Location of Utility meters and Transformers I have updated our plans to indicate our preferred location for gas and electric meters. The location of the meters and transformers cannot be fixed until we have completed final engineering and confirmed the plan with CornEd and Nicor Gas. In any event these will be located at the rear or the side of the buildings in a manner that minimizes their visual impact. 14. Current development being held as a precedent for future development in the area. It is not our place to determine what is considered precedent for Mount Prospect. It is our understanding, however, that each project and PD has to stand on its own merit. This project has gone through a great deal of scrutiny, revisions, and accommodations to arrive at its present configuration. The proposed residential use is more in keeping with the neighborhood. It provides significantly more green space and permeable surface than the present use. We feel that this is a good step forward for this site and will ultimately be a good fit with its surroundings. 15. Sharp turns into driveways We discussed this situation with staff when we first submitted this plan to the village. We have updated our plans to accommodate their concerns and reached agreement that the current plan will not be hinder driveway access. 16. Residents would like to see elevations from their properties. In addition to the four elevations we provided showing each of the facades of the A and B type units, including the 'rear' fayade facing neighbor properties, we have enclosed a new side elevation of the C type unit showing the one-story living space. These drawings present all the building facades, and in combination with the rendering, should provide a good sense of the project. 17. Northwest Highway parking was originally refused by IDOT during a previous proposal on this property We have at no time considered parking on Northwest Highway as part ofthis proposal and do not request that this be changed. If the village would like to pursue this option, the developer would not be opposed to it. However we feel that the project is self sufficient in its present configuration. Please contact us if you have any further questions or comments. Jacob Swindler DesignBridge Ltd. Enclosed: Revised Sheet A-I.I Revised Sheet A-I.2 Additional Elevation Sheet A-I. 5 Water Supply Shutoff Valve Detail TYPE'B' 4-BED OPT. SCALE, '18"~ ",0" NORTH TYPE'A'&'B' TOWNHOME PLANS - FIRST FLOOR SCALE, IIJ6.~ "-0. TYPE'A'&'B' TOWNHOME PLANS - SECOND FLOOR NORTH ~~ ,,,,,Il,,,, '<~l~':r.H, GENERAL NOTES ~:: I:::::; ~EVISlOO DESIGNBRIDGE OOE~,lm "'S~ll~^""MJEC"*CI.uo.Il..c..ll Tf\:)IH11_SS!!SF,"'-JI1,~ll.~ <........',,Jk.~D_'_ Il!I . SCALE; '/16.~ "-0. '040 WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS MOUNT PROSPf:CT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, liC TYPE 'A' & '8' TYPICAl UNIT PLANS LTID~ c:nD~ NORTH TYPE'A'&'C' TOWNHOME PLANS - FIRST FLOOR SCALE; 1/16"= 1'-0 TYPE'A'&'C' TOWNHOME PLANS - SECOND FLOOR NORTH P'l'1'~" l:~~l~)c m~}: SCALE; 1/16"= 1'-0" DBBD GENERAL NOTES :/S Fill 2001 1l1J.AGl:1IE\lfW 11Fel2tCII w.v.G(lIev1rw NO. OAT( ....{VI$lOO "" OESIGNBRIDGE OE~.(ro "JSWElTc.<N<l_...,,;C~.ILKoln lfl.:]IUll.S8fi~ f.''-lll.'l'.5lIM f~""''''''''-~(t,(ltII III ; . I I 040 WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY MOUNT PROSPECT, IWNOIS MOUNT PROSPECT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, UC TYPE 'A' & 'C' TYPICAL I UNIT PlANS I ~;;07-ABBB '-+- o I- o C/) >-., u Q) Cj I- > - 0 I- ~u::J cQ o CD I -+-' l- I UJ Q) Ll) ~ -+-' I- 0 Q)$ o Q) I--.e 01-- GATE Box Per Municipal Standard With Screw- Type Depth Adjustment "Water" Shall Be Cast Into Box Lid Valve Per Municipal Standard Water Main 6" Max. "". " Concrete Thrust Block VALVE IN BOX Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM 1 Mount Prospect J ~. ~t.. ~~ ~ ,q \oA TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2008 SUBJECT: PZ-03-08 - MAP AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE (TOWNHOME PROJE ) 1040 W. NORTHWEST HIGHWAY VICTOR DZIEKIEWICZ, DESIGN BRIDGE, L TD - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-03-08, a request to construct a 14-unit townhome development requiring Map Amendment and Conditional Use approval, as described in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at the January 24, 2008 meeting. The Property Owner previously employed another design firm, who appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Village Board. 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. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's request in detail and heard testimony from several neighbors. The neighbors' concerns related to the density of the project, emergency vehicle access within the development, the amount of proposed storm water detention, the impact of the development on the sanitary sewer system, and guest parking on holidays and other special events. Several of the Commissioners felt the proposal was an improvement over the previous submittal. They discussed the elevations, the building materials, and the proposed 20-foot rear setback when Village Code required a 25-foot setback. There was discussion about the amount of required storm water detention vs. the benefit of increasing the capacity of the proposed vault by 25%. The Petitioner agreed to 'over-engineer' the site if there was a need or a justification, and clarified that the proposed below grade storm water detention design would comply with the Village Code requirements. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend that the Village Board 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 14-unit townhome Planned Unit Development subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and the following additional conditions: a. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall revise the landscape plan to include additional landscaping along Northwest Highway (on private property); b. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall work with the Mt. Prospect Park District to identify an off-site improvement to meet the Public Benefit requirement; c. Revise the engineering plans to increase the storm sewer vault capacity by 25%; and PZ-03-08 February 15,2008 Page 2 d. The Home Owners Association Documents shall state that snow will be removed and deposited to an off-site location. Included with this packet is a memo from Project Engineer Chuck Lindelof, which provides an analysis of providing 125% storm water detention for the project. Staff discussed the recommendation and found the need to provide more storm water detention than the amount required by V illage Code has not been established through documented calculations, and originated from neighbors' complaints. Also, providing more detention than the Village Code requires places a burden on this property unlike any other property in the Village. Therefore, staff recommends the site be designed according to Village Code requirements. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 19,2008 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. ~1~l:of~ H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\1vrEJ Memo\PZ.03.08 ME) MEMO (1040 W NW HWY).doc Mount Prospect Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: SENIOR PLANNER JUDY CONNOllY FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER CHUCK L1NDElOF DATE: JANUARY 28, 2008 SUBJECT: PZ-3-08; UNNAMED PUD (1040 WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY) We understand that the proposed unnamed Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 1040 West Northwest Highway was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) with the additional recommendation that 125% of the stormwater detention volume typically required by the Village Code be installed. We have analyzed the site as part of our review of the requested PUD, and find no reason to support the P&Z's recommendation for the additional volume. It must be understood that the Village Codes regarding stormwater detention have become stricter since the State Farm site was first developed in 1988. The Code now incorporates more accurate rainfall data, accounts for greater runoff rates, and allows for smaller restrictors. The result of these changes is that stormwater runoff would be better controlled on the proposed site than on the existing site and would actually have a positive impact on the neighborhood's drainage system. See below: State Farm Site Proposed Development Chanae Restrictor Size Discharge Rate Volume Provided 3" 0.63 cfs 0.35 ac-ft 2.5" (estimated) 0.41 cfs 0.50 (estimated) 34% slower 42% greater The plans submitted for the P&Z review are not required to include final engineering details, so we can only estimate the proposed restrictor size and storage volume. However, the design submitted meets the Village Code, and represents a significant improvement over the existing condition. Consequently, we recommend approval of the proposed development without the requirement to provide the additional detention volume. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. ~ Chuck Lindelof H:\Eng ineering\Development\Reviews\ 1 040NorthwestHwy\PZ -3-08\DrainageRecommend-1 .doc 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 B 1 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 ST AFF 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 B1 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 B1 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 14-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 IDOT 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, 2008 PZ-03-08 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 of2008, all pipes in Mount Prospect will have a rating of3-2-or-1, 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.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 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 14-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-I.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-l.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 Staff's 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 1 00 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-l.O 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 Y:z 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 Villas 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. ~:1#- Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\Minutes\PZ-03-08 1040 W. Northwest Hwy,doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ-03-08 LOCATION: PETITIONER: OWNER: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: 1040 W. Northwest Highway Victor Dziekiewicz, Design Bridge, Ltd Mount Prospect Development Group, LLC 03-33-407 -025-0000 2.08 acres B 1 Business Office Office building (vacant) 1) Rezone from B 1 to R2 Attached Single Family 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development LOCATION MAP ~ Iii w ~ I __ W,!,"AYER$C MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RICHARD ROGERS, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JANUARY 17,2008 HEARING DATE: JANUARY 24, 2008 SUBJECT: PZ-03-08 - MAP AMENDMENT & CONDITIONAL USE (PUD TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT) 1040 W. NORTHWEST HIGHWAY - VICTOR DZIEKIEWICZ (APPLICANT) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the January 24, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Victor Dziekiewicz (the "Petitioner"), regarding the property located at 1040 W. Northwest Highway (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking: 1) to rezone the Subject Property from B1 Business Office to R2 Attached Single Family, and 2) approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development. The P&Z Commission hearing was properly noticed in the January 9, 2008 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250- feet and posted Public Hearing signs on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the 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 B1 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 and received zoning approval in 2002. SUMMARY 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. 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. The various elements of the proposal are outlined below: Rezoning Request - The Subject Property is currently zoned B I 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. PZ-03-08 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 24, 2008 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 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. Site Plan - The attached site plan illustrates the proposed layout for the 14-unit townhome development. The development would consist of 4 townhome buildings: (2) 4-unit buildings and (2) 3-unit building. Each of the townhome 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 24-feet and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development. Also, the plan reflects the Fire Department's requirements for a Fire Lane throughout the site. Building Design - The enclosed elevations indicate the architectural composition of the townhomes. 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 Renassance stone. Also, wood decks will be included on the rear elevation of all units, and the buildings will be staggered, creating a sense of privacy. Site Access - The proposed site plan indicates that the development will be accessed from Northwest Highway and have one means of ingress/egress. The access aisle/driveway that loops throughout the development provides access to the individual driveways. The Petitioner included a turning radius plan to demonstrate that Emergency Vehicles can access the site. The Petitioner's Engineer worked with the Village Fire Marshal to ensure the site allows access for the Department's vehicles. The enclosed plan documents that the vehicle will be able to safely enter and exit the site. Parking - 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 12 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; on-street parking is not allowed on Northwest Highway. However, Engineering reviewed the feasibility of creating on-street parking along Northwest Highway and found it could be done, subject to IDOT approval and designing the on-street parking in a manner that provides an unobstructed view for a motorist exiting the site. Lot Coverage - The Petitioner's site plan indicates that the project would have approximately 49.9% lot coverage, which is below the 50% limitation. 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. Preliminary Engineering - The Petitioner has submitted preliminary storm water detention plans and is working with the Village Engineer to document that the design will comply with Village Code regulations. A final design is typically submitted as part of the Building Permit process. However, the following comments were noted and Engineering noted the issues are fairly minor, and can be worked out as part of the Building PermitlReview process: 1. The parkway trees are not shown, and may be in conflict with the proposed driveway. If the driveway cannot be modified to accommodate the tree, it will have to be removed and a fee for replacement paid by the Developer. PZ-03-08 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 24, 2008 Page 4 2. Revised landscape plans indicate shrubs to be planted in the cul-de-sac island. However, it is under this island where underground storage chamber for stormwater detention shall be installed. It is unclear if sufficient space would be provided above the detention chamber to allow for the planting of the shrubs; the final design must address this concern. 3. A fee shall be paid for new parkway trees, which shall be planted by the Village. The number, type, and locations of the trees shall be determined by the Village and can be addressed at time of building permit application. It should be stressed that the proposed development will be subject to all development requirements, as detailed in Section 15.402 of the Village Code. The comments noted above represent a cursory review, and are provided as a courtesy to facilitate the submittal, review, and approval of the plans for a Building Permit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING 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 properties as Single Family Residential, and the development is consistent with a townhome development approved by the Village Board in 2002. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The following table provides zoning district information for the property's proposed zoning classification and summarizes the proposed setbacks. Zoning District R2 Proposed R2 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. PZ-03-08 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 24, 2008 Page 5 . 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 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. 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 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. The proposal is consistent with recently updated Comprehensive Land Use Map. Also, the townhomes are in keeping with previously approved redevelopment projects in this area of the Village and the proposal complies with the R2 Zoning District regulations. The development has been designed in a manner that provides safe access to and from the development. 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 Bl Business Office to R2 Attached Single Family Residence; 2) a Conditional Use permit for a 14-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 January 14,2008; 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; PZ-03-08 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 24, 2008 Page 6 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 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, 1040 W. Northwest Highway, Case No. PZ-03-08. I concur: ~Jll ~. William J. Cooney, AICP, Dir tor of Community Development Ijmc H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\StaffRepott\PZ.Q3-08 MEMO (1040 W NW HWY townhomeproject Rezone Conditional Use).doc VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT MountProspcct COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Pnone 847-818-5328 FAX 847-818-5328 Map Amendment Request ~ Z Case Number 0 P&Z - - .... Eo-< -<--- Development Name/Address ~-a O~ Date of Submission ~S ....0 ~'-' ~ Hearing Date Q Z .... Z.o Proposed Development and Land Use l+ ..1.... z - ~-r,ra.. Setbacks (Prop.) Front lot T'C:>VNI ::)M6S Rear ,,0' Side "1 0' (~,," # of Parking Spaces f Pf...... UNn' .,.. 17 (, ~rr ~ 75 1"0 Side "S" o' ( ~.sT z o .... Eo-< < ~ =: o roo. Z .... ~ Eo-< .... r.n Lot Coverage (%) ~1.~'ll Tax l.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) 03- ~ ~ - 4t>7- Ol,,~ "0000 ... Building Height z4' S ~I Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) ~ ~'"..f\.. ~-cT^,,,~, ~ Itr;M' .. 1 .... (1) c:: Z ~ 00 ~c < .... ~ g. ~ e oc.. r...1 Z - ~ ~ o ~I ~ .... ~ (1) u i5 -< .c =:l .~ c.. I Z 91 Eo< '" <;; ~ .~ OJ! r... 0 Z .... _c.. ~i:: Z (1) ;:;J S ogo ~o ~ > ~ (1) uCl <I =:l Name G LLe. Zip Code boO'~ 1ft. "'" ''l. City c.. "..~ b Developer Name 111'. 'P1t'='S~'T 1)~~PMJn' CollOQ' c.\.(. Address 1.1'0 p...avli-f1. It-At> Zip Code , 061.. "L nf:~ 'P\ANf:S ,IL ~OOI~ Attorney Name .J1I1'GIi R.lICM.lV1 Address 30D" l)tJ-31)~ii. \\.0. J SUaTh. .4111" tJown\ 1S fb ," , :t l 6tH' , \... Surveyor Name JJ/rn~ ~~IU~'t 10 S 0"'1''' MIGlt4t,AN ~"" , too Q\lCA4". j'L {,o' ():r . Address Engineer Name i::. e. I'- ~....., 'E:^,"I"";~~NC. , Tf\. \i'$""' ~,-c..r... ~~ I $4.)\";"" A ~M"s c.~"'fi. ,;r. L 6o() '1 0 Address Architect ~rl~IV<<"''')~f\.. LTi). Name -Ii 1'5""" t...). " '\.i~ il\ vi, . Address C. It I (~4 0 ::t.L , 0 , 1.... "L Landscape Architect Name Address '3 07 ~. t1~to\l~ ~~ . ~n.. '0 \ . Clot \CA'7? :t l , 0' 0 , , Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois 2 Telephone (day) 706.....+$'-Z,5~tJ Telephone (evening) Fax 70'0 ~ 000 Pager Telephone (day) "'It.. - ~'2.1 ~ S" 85" Telephone (evening) Fax: 3\1.. -1''2.1 - 5 f)JC:; Pager Telephone (day) 7011.... of S'. ~)~" Fax 7 0 b - 66 tJ. ~O PD Telephone (day) Ml ~27't. 'Z.~&O Fax 847 ..l.7t... dP1ts Telephone (day) ogl'z... 6~"- q+ So '512..630 -~84 Fax Telephone (day) Fax :rn~ - +lI. S" $t;. S" Telephone (day): ", 1ft. 41,'- r~l>Cj Fax Telephone (day): 311..- "~. s-..~ .11'L- &j3- "~'17 Fax Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847/392-6064 Proposed Zoning Change RJ;1.~ "fibM 131- Too R'- Describe the Justification for the Proposed Map Amendment THi ^,i\~~ 19'-'t""~b ,~ C -.l'M M ~Il c tAt. ~M') (z'JSlbir~L tV c.lM"\.ti,"1t~1l &oJ "" MQ\.1" 'F-4MI Vi ANt'} "'~"f\. fAMI&.'1 H !)M~.s "0 -AlFl... e,u-r AIIh) ~C' S1" or-- "N~ ~ M'f; . o I~ R. pn,Pnn..1) nc:"M....MI'T w,c.c, IoIA"..'AI'1.f.. CI (."'..d1..AG-r~^ , ro.l IItJ 7C: (\'fof ~ of SC:A..fi. , \! 'n. ~r- -mho 11..) , ....i) I ^",S I "NI) Eo< ...00 O~ ~cW.H9-U C'ft"N MA"T5llaAU . ....0 ==:ro.l <==: ~oo ~z ;JO Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed (attach additional sheets if necessary) 00..... Eo< U 1... S:"T''17f'-'t A T~1It{i. b 5lM~ J:' -4'" I t. '1 tft}M~{ < 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 prop'erty. ein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and Applicant Date ('2.. t\ .c>t for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the Property Owner Date t 1,. l ,. 01 Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847/392-6064 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Mow1t Prospect ~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Application for Conditional Use Approval Z Case Number 0 P&Z - - .... E-o <~ Development Name/Address ~= o~ Date of Submission ~E i:SO ><:--- ~ Hearing Date ~ Z .... z o .... E-o < ::; =: o ~ z .... ~ E-o .... "-1 ~ Z .... E-o "-1 ~ ~ 71' s-s' Building Height '2.- S 1':> Adjacent Land Uses: North Rear Side Side ,)" Number of Parking Spaces 11..1 l1.0 I Lot Coverage (%) East R.'L. It it "\.- R. A Tax I.D. umber or County Assigned Pin Number(s) D ~ - I ~ - 407 - 01..~ - 0000 Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) .. SE.F.. A -n-Acl-)~~ ~~fL"t. z Name Telephone (day) 0 V \C"1"oi\ "glz - 4'2.1.. S-S,:S- .... E-o. < Corporation Telephone (evening) ~I 0.... (..'11>. ... c Fax Z ~ - .- '''I ~o. vf- . 3\2.- 4"Z-1- S",~ z p.. ;:J<r: City Zip Code Email 01 =: C \-\\CA' 0 J:.l b '" t.:t- '~J . ,~ I.:i ~ U < = "r... z Name Telephone (day) 0 .... 7o~ -...+~.!>~ ~ & f-< ~ ~ ~ Corporation Telephone (evening) o ~ t1O&WT ~~~--'"T \)E '"' ~ ~.J't 6..,,11) L.Lc.. zo ;;;e Street Address Fax: Z Q) ;;I Q. o 2 '11, ~ 1t.",e:a. ~ o~b 70tJ .. 660 - '000 ~Cl.. ~I City State Zip Code Email ~ u ~ 'D&.s P&.A~ .s lL '001 ! = Developer Name t1"cJltJT' 1=9,s~, ~vfc,.PHIN GtvQP u.c.. Telephone (day) 7~ -..+r. ~'S" Address l't~ 0 p hJl\f',. rz..:>>~ Fax 709 . 610 - SO" 40 ~~$ ~.s :tL. , '0" Email Attorney Name t-'111C.l\ (l. tJ GM, M Telephone (day) 84-7-'L;'L-1.&O(j Address '100 'Dl\"'~F..h f'2 .0.\ b ({ '"""- 41L- Fax &47- \. 7'L" (}O;~ ^"~"'-r,, 13n..~ I J:L ~ 0061.- Email Surveyor ~,,,r: '1 z Name Nt'T\~\,. Telephone (day) II'Z..- 'to. c:;4~o 91 ~ '" Address 'I (] S 0Ia"t" MlC.WMNf\ ,4\IL, -'"tit 'Z ~ Fax 1'1. . 630- 'H- !>~ <(;l ~ .~ "MlcA4 0 I :t.L '0'03 o~ ~ 0 Email Z .... _Cl.. QE Engineer Z <1J ~IU~~.^, \;^,"INf-..f..J~ ;:J S Name L.TD. Telephone (day) M7 .. "2.-a..3 -4~01.- o g. ~o Address If-r C 111-4 ~lUfI.. b~ . STr-. A- Fax ~ I.:l > ~ <1J . UO 'l't~fSL~tc-i.. .I .:r L , 00 1 ~ <' = Email Architect Telephone (day): '312... 4'l.'- $"~b S'" Name L) ~SI~""1t&tb(iL LTlL Address 1.1 tS"" LJ. t;MNb ~\i:.. Fax l' ,.. tt.t- S't8, CIt I ~ .::> ~L (, Db "" "\. Email Landscape Architect Name '-J.,c.fy:.. ~.sc-.4P;.. A ~"'rrli.cn1'\.f\.. Telephone (day): 1'"2.- 6//5. S'i14 Address J07 AJ. t1 ",,,,e ~~ A~ .wh. b D\_ Fax 11'.- h6! - .ri11- . ~co ~L ho~ Email Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois www.mountprospect.org 2 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 Proposed Conditional Use (as listed in the zoning districL f;- rp U~'"fUt'vl!."D. ~ 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) - "5",f: .q~~ ~ Hf.,);....S - Q ~ ~&; O~ >oP ~O <~ :E~ :E~ PO en.... ~ U < Hours of Operation N/^ ~z t:O en.... Q~ ~< ~~ =-0 O~ ~Z =-.... Address(es) (Street Number, Street) I 0 + 0 LJ i.s T H:)'\r"Tl ~ iT Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning z. De ~... 1. Setbacks: Front ~O' Building Height '( Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) ~ .,O~ Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed Use Rear Zv' Lot Coverage (%) 1"C1 .1~ Side SO' fe.t.tr ) Number of Parking Spaces -+ k !Jill IT -t 17 t,~', Side j 0 · ( L.Jf:n \. 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. If applicant is not property in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and I hereby affi accurate to t Applicant Date l~' lI' 0":1 I hereby designate the applicant to act as my a nt for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this orting material. Date I ~", !l.. \)1 Property Owner Mount Prospect pa 50 South Emerson Stree , www.mountprospect.or t 0 Community Development unt Prospect Illinois 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 DESIGNBRIDGE DESIGNBRIDGE, LTD. 14 J 5 WEST GRAND AVENUE CHICAGO, ILUNOIS 60622 312.421.5885 FAX3J2.42J.5889 December 10, 2007 Ms. Judith Connolly, Senior Planner Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Re: Supplementary Materials for Application for Conditional Use Approval Dear Ms. Connolly, Following are the supplementary materials for the referenced application. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1 in Statefarm subdivision. Being a subdivision of part of the east 1/2, of the southeast 1/4, of section 33, township 42 north, range 11 east of the third principal meridian, in Cook County, Illinois as shown on the [enclosed] plat thereof recorded September 28, 1988 as document number 88447034. Area = 90,780 square feet or 2.0840 Acres. SUMMARY OF ACTIONS REQUESTED Our proposal is to develop the property into 14 2-story attached single-family homes. The neighborhood is commercial and residential in character with multi-family and single-family homes to the East and West of the site. Our proposed development will harmonize in terms of scale, character, use of the buildings, and construction materials. DESIGNBRIDGE DESIGNBRIDGE, LTD. 141 5 WEST GRAND AVENUE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60622 3 J 2.421.5885 FAX 312.421.5889 December 10, 2007 Ms. Judith Connolly, Senior Planner Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Re: Supplementary Materials for Application for Map Amendment Request Dear Ms. Connolly, Following are the supplementary materials for the referenced application. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1 in Statefarm subdivision. Being a subdivision of part of the east 1/2, of the southeast 1/4, of section 33, township 42 north, range 11 east of the third principal meridian, in Cook County, Illinois as shown on the [enclosed] plat thereof recorded September 28, 1988 as document number 88447034. Area = 90,780 square feet or 2.0840 Acres. -----Original Messag - From: Jacob Swindler mailto:jswindler@designbridgeltd.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:47 PM To: Connolly, Judy Subject: Re: For tonight's Zoning Board Meeting (' ?vrt~OYleVS A<;C?nCAa1'v Judy- Thank you for forwarding the memo. I believe we have responded to all of the concerns outlined except the general issue of density. We have prepared the following statement which we will read at the beginning of our presentation. Our powerpoint slides will include the changes listed. I am forwarding it to you in case you wish to include it in your memo to the P&Z board. On Monday January 21 we met with neighbors from the Meadows Association to the Northwest and the Villas development to the East of our site. We have made the following changes and corrections to our proposal in response to feedback we received at this meeting. On sheet A-1.0 the unit count for the 'A' -type units has been corrected to 10 units, from the 12 units previously indicated. The summary of total square footage for the development has been correctly reduced to 31,736 sqft which results in an updated FAR of 0.35. On sheets A-1.2 and A-1.3 we have identified the area of each deck and included the proposed location of AC condensers. We have also added basement window wells for each unit. On sheet 1-1.1 we relocated the hedges on the East side of the site to provide extra space for existing arborvitae at the Villas and to extend the row of arborvitae along the south end of their fence. We removed the Gazebo structure from the center of the cul-de-sac. We have also added information indicating the proposed species of new plants. Thank you. -Jacob January 23, 2008 Dear Planning & Zoning Commission, My name is Jan Ramion and I live at 715 French Way, the Villas adjacent to 1040 Northwest Hwy. I attended the Neighbor/Architect/Owner meeting held Monday, January 21. The following points are of concern to me regarding the 14-unit townhouse development: + Looking at eight units along our property line, while we have three units that face that same area. Density is still an issue. + The plans to date did not address the placement of window wells and a/c units. + The question of snow storage was raised and they agreed land was limited so snow removal will have to be part of the association requirements. The Villas has several areas for our snow storage yet we did have to have snow removed once due to large snowfalls. It was very expensive. Why set up a community with that type of problem situation? I still feel that this is not the best plan for this parcel. Sincerely, Jan Ramion 847-394-0076 Connolly, Judy From: Sent: To: Subject: Nancy [nancy@nicholasquality.com] Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:58 AM Connolly, Judy For tonight's Zoning Board Meeting Dear Zoning Board, Re: Proposed development at 1040 West Northwest Highway The surrounding residents met with the architect and owner (at their request) for the proposed development on January 21st to discuss the project before the zoning board meeting. I will be out of town on Thursday so I would like to convey my concerns to the Board via this email. The residents of the Villas have many of the same concerns of Nancy Fritz and the neighbors - that the density of the project is too much for this inlet of land - with only one access - surrounded by 1/2 acre homesites and the 7 villas on the corner. We are still concerned since there are still unanswered questions like the window wells - they are not shown yet the architect says there will be basements - but he is not sure where window wells will be. He is not sure where he will put the air conditioning units - he said they might be placed on the decks - but he was not exactly sure. The quality of building materials is yet to be determined by the builder. The Villas of Sevre residents are primarily concerned with: 1. The 2 rowlike massive structures of the eight townhomes adjacent to our property. 2. Architect/Owner assured us that their proposed bushes along our fence line - will not be too close to our fence - so as to kill our arborvitae. 3. They also assured us that they would plant arborvitae along the remainder of our fence on their proposed site so as to shield us from the massive row structures. Thank you for listening. Nick Papanicholas President of the Villas of Sevre 1 DESIGN BRIDGE LTD. 1415 West Grand Ave. Chicago, IL 60622 MEETING MINUTES Date: January 22, 2008 To: Victor Dziekiewicz Phone: Fax: From: Jacob Swindler Phone: Fax: Cc: Tom Litwicki, Judy Connolly, Nancy Fritz, Jan Ramion Re: Community Meeting pre Planning and Zoning Participants: Victor Dziekiewiz Tom Litwicki Jacob Swindler Judy Connolly Nancy Fritz Jan Ramion Concerned Neighbors I have summarized the comments made during the meeting in the bullet point list below. I have included our response in bold. We plan to address several of the issues prior to the planning and zoning meeting on January 24th. Issues Raised During the MeetinQ · The unit count listed on sheet A-1.0 for Type A units is listed incorrectly as 12, it should read 10. We will correct this error prior to the P&Z meeting. · The density of housing on the site is too high. Neighbors are concerned that this will create traffic congestion and will overload the existing sewer system. We cannot reduce the number of units beyond what has been done already. The project currently meets all standards for traffic, and parking required by village ordinances. The sewer system was designed by our engineer to accommodate a worst-case condition. The storm water retention vault was designed to handle a 100-year storm event. This has been reviewed by village engineers and has been deemed capable of supporting the anticipated load. · The fire lane and cul-de-sac are too small to accommodate village fire services. The problem could be compounded if people park in the fire lane. We have prepared a fire-truck simulation using data provided by the Mt. Prospect fire department. The fire department has reviewed our plans and confirmed that our roadway will meet their needs. Although we understand the concern that individuals may illegally park in the fire lane, many possible situations can be conceived. We design our project with the assumption that residents will obey village laws. · The location of the cul-de-sac and off-street parking will create light pollution for neighbors on the NorthEast corner of the site. We have designed landscaping along the East and North sides of the site to prevent headlights from projecting past our lot line. Our design calls multiple layers of evergreen shrubs and trees, which our landscape architect has confirmed, will be sufficient to stop the light. I will update our landscape plan to clarify the species of plantings prior to the January 24th meeting. · There is insufficient parking provided for each town home. The parking space and garage space provided are too small. Overflow parking is insufficient for the density of housing. We have designed the parking to meet village ordinances for both size and number. Individuals who require more than four parking spaces or require exceptionally large parking spaces are not in our target market for this kind of product. Providing additional off-street parking would force a reduction in landscaping and would negatively impact the quality of this development. · Snow storage is not explicitly identified in the plan. The resident association will need to contract with a snow removal company to remove the snow for off site disposal. · The quality of materials to be used in the development is unclear. We will prepare a sample of materials, which have been used in past, similar, projects. This will, at the latest, be available for the village board meeting on Feb. 19. · Basements are not detailed in the plan. Escape window wells are not shown. Basement plans are not required for review by the planning and zoning committee. We will update our elevations and site plan to identify locations of the escape window wells prior to the meeting on January 24th. · Landscaping on the West side of the site should not crowd the existing fence or impact the existing arborvitaes. The neighbors request we plant arborvitaes along the south end of the west property line. We will update our landscape plan to address these concerns prior to the meeting on January 24th. · The air-conditioning condensers are not identified on the plans. We will update our plans to locate the air-conditioning condensers prior to the meeting on January 24th. · The village has requested a fence be installed in prior plans. The neighbors would prefer to not have a fence so long as security is not considered an issue. If the village requests that a fence be installed we will update our plan to accommodate their request. Unless that happens we will proceed without a fence. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1040 WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY WHEREAS, Victor Dziekiewicz, Mount Prospect Development Group ("Petitioner), has filed an application to rezone certain property generally located at 1040 West Northwest Highway ("Property') , and legally described as follows: Lot 1 in State Farm Subdivision, being a subdivision of part of the East % of the southeast % of S~c. 33, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois, as shown on the plat thereof recorded September 28; 1988 as document number 88447034 Property Index Number: 03-33-407-025-0000; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner has requested the Subject Property be rezoned from B-1 (Business Office) to R-2 (Attached Sipgle Family Residence) District; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for rezoning being the subject of PZ- 03-08, before the Planning and Zoning Commission ofthe Village of Mount Prospect on the 24th day of January 2008, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof having been published in the Journal & Topics Newspaper on the 9th day of January, 2008; and 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 are incorporated 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 further amended by reclassifying the property being the subject ofthis Ordinance from B-1 (Business Office) to R-2 (Attached Single Family Residence) District. D PZ-03-08, 1040 West Northwest Highway Page 2/2 SECTION THREE: This amendment of the Official Zoning Map from B-1 (Business Office) to R-2 (Attached Single Family Residence) is based upon a conditional use permittor a planned unit development for the construction of a fourteen (14) unit town home development, pursuant to Ordinance No. , and, in the event that such conditional use shall become null and void or revoked pursuant to Section 14.203F(11) ofthe Mount Prospect Zoning Code, the zoning shall automatically revert back to B-1 (Business Office) and the Official Zoning Map shall be so amended. SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of March 2008. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\mapamendment1 040WNWHWYpz03-08feb2008.doc mla be 2/20/08 REVISED FEBRUARY 20, 2008 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1040 WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY WHEREAS, Victor Dziekiewicz, Design Bridge, Ltd. ("Petitioner") has filed a petition for a Conditional Use permit in the nature of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), with respect to property located at 1040 West Northwest Highway ("Property") and legally described as follows: Lot 1 in State Farm Subdivision, being a subdivision of part of the East Y2 of the southeast X of Sec. 33, Township 42 north, range 11 east of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois, as shown on the plat thereof recorded September 28, 1988 as document number 88447034 Property Index Number: 03-33-407-025-0000; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks to create a Planned Unit Development providing for the construction of a fourteen (14) unit townhome development; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use permit being the subject of Case No. PZ-03-08 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 24th day of January, 2008, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Journal & Topics Newspaper on the 9th day of January, 2008; 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-03-08; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the requests and have determined that the requests meet the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Conditional Use permit for a PUD, fourteen (14) unit townhome development 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 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 (showing a 20' rear yard) and landscape prepared by Design Bridge, Ltd., revision dated February 12, 2008. B. Development of the units in general conformance with the floor plans prepared by Design Bridge, Ltd., dated February 12, 2008; e: Page 2/2 PZ-03-08 C. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the site plan prepared by Design Bridge, Ltd., revision dated February 12, 2008; and 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 which shall include statement that snow will be removed and deposited at an off-site location, 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 automatic fire sprinklers, fire hydrants and roads must be located and constructed according to Development and Fire Code standards; and G. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall revise the landscape plan to include additional landscaping along Northwest Highway (on private property); H. Prior to Village Board reviev:, the Petitioner shall work with the Mt. Prospeot Park District to identify an off site improvement to meet the Publio Benefit requirement The petitioners shall donate $14,000 to the Mt. Prospect Park District to upgrade the playground equipment at Meadows Park. The donation shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project; and I. The Petitioner shall revise the engineering plans to increase the storm sewer vault capacity by 25%. 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 fourteen (14) unit townhome development, all as shown on the Site Plan revision dated February 12, 2008 a copy of which is attached to and made a part of this Ordinance. 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 March, 2008. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\C USE,VAR-1040nwhighwayfeb2008.doc Mount Prospect Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois ~ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM FROM: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL DALLAS, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST FEBRUARY 28, 2008 'Bb · ~~ ~ I..f I ce TO: DATE: \ SUBJECT: REVISED CLEAN AIR REGULATIONS , ~~~~~i~~he Village Board's approval to replace Chapter 19, Article VIII, of the muni~p~e, entitled "Clean Air Regulations" with a revised version that primarily regulates the placement, installation, and use of smoking shelters, as well as prohibits smoking on public usage property. BACKGROUND On February 19, 2008, the Village Board reviewed the revised Clean Air Regulations. During the meeting, the Board identified several concerns and directed staff to make changes. DISCUSSION Du ring the week, staff examined the issues identified by the Board and made the following revisions: · Under Sec. 19.802, redefined a "smoking shelter" so that businesses will not be able to circumvent the intent of this ordinance by building a structure and calling it a gazebo rather than a smoking shelter; · Under See 19.804 (A) (9), added the section numberofthe International Building Code that defines the term "non-combustible." Notably, this requirement prohibits any wood structures, such as a gazebo, to be built and used as a smoking shelter. However, staff firmly believes that prohibiting these types of materials prevents potential fire hazards, adds to the ease of administration and enforcement of the ordinance, and avoids any future re-inspection issues. · Under Sec. 19.804 (B), restricted the location of shelters to Mount Prospect licensed businesses located only in industrial and commercial zoning districts; · Under Sec. 19.805, defined the penalties for violating smoking in public usage places ($100- $500 per day per offense) and for violating regulations related to smoking shelters ($250- $1000 per day per offense). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board adopt the amended version of the "Clean Air Regulations" ordinance. F Michael Dallas Administrative Analyst AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE INSTALLATION OF SMOKING SHELTERS AND PROHIBITING SMOKING ON PUBLIC USAGE PROPERTY IN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect is a home rule unit pursuant to the provisions of Article VII Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois; and WHEREAS, the Village has authority and power to regulate for the protection of the public health and welfare; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of 65 ILCS 5/11-19 I-I-II the Corporate Authorities of the Village have the authority to prescribe by ordinance the regulation of the use of lands connected with the emission of air contaminants and may abate operations activities or uses causing air contamination; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees have discovered that business owners throughout the Chicago metropolitan area, in response to the municipal and state regulation of smoking indoors and outdoors within 15 feet of any entrance, exit, open window, or ventilation intake that serves an enclosed area, are proposing or have already installed temporary or permanent smoking shelters adjacent to their facility; and WHEREAS, the health and safety of the community is at risk due to the type of materials used to construct these shelters and the mechanical and electrical devices installed to light, heat, and entertain it; WHEREAS, the smoking shelters' design and installation are often inconsistent with the business facility's appearance, as well as the appearance and character ofthe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, a potential risk exists that the smoking shelter may be used as an outdoor lounge for consuming food and liquor. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE: Chapter 19, Article VIII, entitled "Clean Air Regulations," of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall hereby be amended by deleting the current Article VIII and substituting a new Article VIII to read as follows: ARTICLE VIII Sec. 19.801 TITLE This article shall be known as CLEAN AIR REGULATIONS and shall be in addition to the provisions of any state or federal legislation. (Ord. 5607, 1-2-2007, eff. 3-15-2007). H:IV1LMIMDallaslSmoking OrdinancelSmoking ShelterslBoard Meeting - 3.4.08\Smoking Shelter Ordinance V7.0 - Exhibit A.doc EXHIBIT A Sec. 19.802 DEFINITIONS CLEAR OPENING: A portion of a shelter that is not covered by any material and is completely open to the air and traversable. SMOKING: The inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying of any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or other similar object. (Ord. 5607, 1-2-2007, eff. 3-15-2007). SMOKING SHELTER: f.nv s~c:.I~e~ ~vl1ere smol'in!!. is p~r:n~i!tcd bv a busin~ss _ ~wn_er and is not an "enclosed area" as defined by the Smoke Free lIlinois Act. Sec. 19.803 PUBLIC USAGE PROPERTY: Smoking on or in any train station, platform or bus shelter owned or used by any public transportation agency or in any municipal garage is prohibited. Sec. 19.804 SMOKING SHELTERS A. A smoking shelter shall be designed, constructed, and installed according to the following requirements: I. The shelter must be detached from any other building. 2. The shelter may be no larger than one hundred fifty (150) square feet. 3. The shelter must have at least one permanently clear opening that is not less than eighty inches (80") in height and sixty inches (60") in width. 4. The walls of the shelter must be made ofa clear, transparent material. 5. The shelter may utilize UL approved outdoor lighting fixtures and UL approved electrical heating fixtures. Such fixtures shall be hard wired and installed and operated according to manufacturers specifications. The shelter may not contain any other electrical devices or any other mechanical devices, such as televisions or generators. 6. Seating may be installed in the shelter. While the shelter is in operation, the seating must be permanently attached to the shelter or to the ground. No stools or chairs (freestanding or attached) are permitted inside the shelter. 7. Tables, bar counters, signs, or any other type of furnishings are prohibited. 8. The shelter must have at least one, but no more than two, tobacco waste receptacles and must be approved by and listed with a recognized fire or life safety agency. The shelter must also have at least one garbage receptacle. 9. Materials used to construct the shelter, seating, and all waste receptacles must be non- combustible, as defmed .ip.S.e(;t!on }!J3 .4 ,1_of~eI!l~el1l!l~i<:>n~! ~~ildJl!K c::<:>~e:r_ _ 10. The shelter and any approved fixtures, devices, or furnishings must be constructed and installed in accordance with the Village's building and ftres codes, as well as adhere to all applicable load requirements as set forth by the International Building Code. H:IVILMIMDallaslSmoking OrdinancelSmoking She~ers\Board Meeting - 3.4.08ISmoking Sheller Ordinance V7.0 - Exhibit Adoc - Deleted: A structure that is designated by a business owner to be used solely for the purpose of smoking legal tobacco products. .1 Deleted: by - Deleted: . 13. Forp\lrposes ofthel\.1<?unt Pros()ecl~oning,(ode, a smoking shelter is not .dllelUedl() ~e!lI1 accessory .' structure_}~iliin~JLinilJlstri~LQLfQJ:l}lnt::I~j!!I~Q!1jDg..~jj5!ri~J. Accordingly, a smoking shelter may only be " located as follows: 1. On the.premises of a MOtJl}tProsp(;ct Ii(;cnsc<!,pusiness,. 2. On an approved surface. 3. Not less than fifteen (15) feet from any entrance, exit, open window, or ventilation intake that serves an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited. 4. The shelter must conform to the zoning setback requirements for the property. If the structure cannot meet the setback requirements due to physical constraints, then the structure may be located in a required side or rear yard.JlliJ.y so long as it is located no closer than ten (10) feet from any lot line. C. The service and/or consumption of any drinks or food in the smoking shelter are strictly prohibited. D. The installation and modification/remodeling of a smoking shelter requires a building permit. A non- refundable fee is required for the initial permit application. An additional fee is required for each subsequent modification/remodeling permit. These fees shall be in the amount set forth in Division II, Appendix A of this Code. E. Maintenance ofthe smoking shelter is the responsibility of the property owner. Sec. 19.805 PENALTY Any person violating any provisions of this article shall be subject to a fme as set forth in Appendix A, Division III of this Code. If the premises is licensed for the service of alcoholic beverages and an alcoholic beverage is served or consumed in the smoking shelter, it shall be a violation of the liquor license. SECTION 2: Appendix A, Division II shall be amended by adding the following to Chapter 19: Sec. 19.804 SMOKING SHELTERS: D. Nonrefundable Fee: $250.00 Each subsequent modification/remodeling permit: Fee $50.00 r Deleted: , I I I I '- Deleted: ALTERNATIVE#I-B. A smoking shelter's location is subject to the location regulations set forth under Chapter Fourteen, Section 14.306 of the Village's zoning code, entitled "Accessory Structures." The following exceptions. though, supersede any conllicting provisions in the zoning code:' , <#> The shelter must be located at least fifteen (15) feet from any entrance, exit, open window, or ventilation intake that serves an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited; , 'I' " <#>If there is no space available in the ., required rear yard to install a smoking ., shelter, then the shelter may be located in '!, a required front yard or required side yard " so long as it is located no closer than ten ':"",', (lO) feet from any lot line. 'lI 'I ';,: ALTERNATIVE #2- Deleted: z Deleted: c Deleted: same Deleted: as the Deleted: whose patron it serves SECTION 3: Appendix A, Division III shall be amended by 'peletin~ ScctionI9.8Q9~Penaltv ... . _ -{ Deleted: adding (Clean Air Regulations). in its entirety and replacing it with thc.fQIJ~,,::~g; _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _". _ . Section 19.805 PENALTY~. ~moker violating Section 19.803 of this code;. Not less than $100.00 nor more than $500.00 (leI' .'...., day per offense~" -' .. - - - _. - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, . . . Anv vioL~tion of Section 19.804 of this cod~: Not less than $250.00 nor more than $ I 000.00 per day per otlense.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ H:\VILMIMDallaslSmoking OrdinancelSmoking ShelterslBoard Meeting - 3.4.08ISmoking Shelter Ordinance V7.0 - Exhibit A.doc , , , Deleted:. the . Deleted: to Chapter 19 Form.tted: Font: 11 pt Deleted: Fine: $ Form.tted: Indent: First line: 0.5" FonnlItted: Font: 11 pt Forll1lltted: Font: 11 pt Form.tted: Font: 11 pt SECTION 4: That 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 ,2008 Irvana K. Wilks, Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell, Village Clerk H:\VlLMIMDallaslSmoking OrdinancelSmoking ShelterslBoard Meeting - 3.4.08lSmoking Shelter Ordinance V7.0 - Exhibit A.doc