The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5. NEW BUSINESS 10/06/2009 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department Mount Prospect MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2009 SUBJECT: PZ-23-09 / 900 TOWER LANE / REAR YARD SETBACK VARIA 11 ANDREW VENAMORE - PETITIONER The Petitioner proposes to construct a building addition at the northeast corner of the home to enlarge the existing family room. The building addition will allow the property owner to expand the existing family room and add a fire place. In order to accommodate the expansion, the addition would encroach into the required rear yard by 7.54'. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a 17.46' rear yard setback along the north lot line when the Zoning Ordinance requires a 25' rear yard. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the request on Thursday, September 24,2009, and by a vote of 5-2 recommended denial of a Variation to allow a 17.46' rear yard setback along the north lot line for the residence at 900 Tower Lane. Details of the proceedings and items discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing are included in the attached minutes. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their October 6, 2009 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. H:\PlAN\Plannlng & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2009\MEJ MEMOS\PZ-23-09 900 Tower Lane (Variation-Rear Yard),doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-23-09 Hearing Date: September 24, 2009 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 900 Tower Lane PETITIONER: Andrew Venamore of Airoom Architects PUBLICATION DATE: September 9, 2009 PIN NUMBER: 08-13-108-024-0000 REQUEST: Variation - Rear Yard Setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Theo Foggy Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist ST AFF MEMBER PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Andrew Venamore, Steve Gewartowski, Paul Chartouni, Kay Petosa, Hardik Patel Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Youngquist made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 23, 2009 meeting; Mr. Donnelly seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 7-0. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-23-09, 900 Tower Lane, a request for a Rear Yard Setback Variation, at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development, stated the Petitioner was requesting a Rear Yard Setback Variation for a proposed one story addition to the rear of the home. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac on Tower Lane. It is located in the Village's R-I Zoning District and currently contains a one story single-family residence. The subject property complies with the R-I District bulk requirements. Mr. Simmons showed a site plan of the proposed one story addition. It would be located in the northeast corner of the subject property. It would be a one story addition in the rear of the home. In order to construct the addition, the Petitioner requested relief from the rear yard setback requirement which required a 25 foot setback from the rear property line. Ms. Simmons said the Petitioner proposed a 17.46 foot rear yard setback, so they would be encroaching approximately 8.5 feet. Mr. Simmons presented a chart referencing the R 1 District Bulk Requirements: Rl Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' 33.39' No change Side (west) 7.75' 20.68' No change Side (east) 7.75' 13.67' 10.65' Rear 25' 27.79' 17.46' Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 24, 2009 PZ-23-09 Page 1 of 5 I LOT COVERAGE 45% Maximum 32% 36% Mr. Simmons re-stated that the property complied with all the bulk requirements. As proposed, there would be no changes to the front and side yard (west) setbacks; the sideyard (east) setback would be reduced 13.67 feet to 10.65 feet and still comply with the 7.75 foot requirement. The rear yard setback was the request for a Variation by reducing from the current setback of27.79 feet to a proposed 17.46 feet. Mr. Simmons summarized the Variation Standards from the Zoning Code. He said a Variation could be supported if there was a hardship. Staff reviewed the proposed request and did have some concerns that were discussed with the Petitioner before the Variation request was submitted and provided some options. Mr. Simmons stated there was still a buildable area in the northwest corner of the property. The Petitioner could construct a second story addition to the home as it currently complies with the setbacks. Building the home up would have no effect on encroachments. Staff also reviewed lot dimensions for the property to determine if there were any unique qualities that were non existent to other properties in the Village. Mr. Simmons said the dimensions were slightly different for the immediate area as it sits on the bulb of the cul-de-sac. He compared this design to other cul-de-sacs in the Village. The subject property's design was consistent with other cul-de-sac lot dimensions. Staff reviewed the history of other cul-de-sacs in the Village to see if a Variation has been approved for a property similar to the subject property, no precedent has been set. Staff recommended denial of the Variation request. Chairman Rogers stated there was a drop off of two to three feet towards the back of the fence. He wanted to confirm there was a storm water inlet in the backyard. Mr. Simmons stated this was correct. Chairman Rogers said whatever was done in the backyard would affect the inlet. Mr. Simmons said Engineering placed conditions that no grading would be done on the subject property in the easement area. Mr. Roberts asked where the storm water inlet was located. Mr. Simmons did not know the exact location, but it was somewhere within the 8 foot easement along the north property line. Chairman Rogers swore in Andrew Venamore of Airoom Architects and Builders, 6825 N. Lincoln Avenue, Lincolnwood, Illinois. Mr. Venamore stated that he was proposing a kitchen and family room addition to the rear of the home encroaching into the rear yard setback. He showed an existing site plan with the building envelope and current setbacks. Mr. Venamore said the existing setbacks left him with little area to work with. Mr. Venamore acknowledged meeting with Staff to discuss alternatives for the addition to the east or west ofthe home or adding a second level addition. He stated that they proposed to add a room that the home currently does not have, a family room. Also, the Petitioner would be expanding the dining room that is located in the rear of the home. Due to the expansion of these two rooms, a second story addition would not make sense and was ruled out. Mr. Venamore said if an addition was added to the west side of the home where the bedrooms are located, they would have to reconfigure the entire layout of the home. The east side expansion did not work for the property owner as well. Mr. Venamore said the home was in need of modernization. The property owner has owned the home for 47 years. He stated that the only request was for a rear yard Variation, everything else with the project does comply with Code. Mr. Venamore discussed the comments by the Village's Engineering Department. He stated that there would be a 17.5 feet setback and would not be near the easement in the backyard. Mr. Venamore said the drainage is on the east side ofthe easement and he has no intention of disrupting the inlet and causing any problems. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 24, 2009 PZ-23-09 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Venamore stated the Staffs report indicated there was no hardship for this case. He said the depth of the lot is less than 90 feet, this is the issue. Mr. Venamore showed a copy of the zoning map for the southern portion of the Village. He stated there are very few cul-de-sacs in the southern portion of the Village and that the Tower Lane cul-de-sac appeared to be smaller in size. Mr. Venamore said the subdivision ordinance states that if a new subdivision was created in the Village, it would have to have a minimum depth of 120 feet. Mr. Venamore stated he provided lot dimensions in the case packet provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Village Board. The subject property's depth is less than 95 feet, the next shortest in the surrounding neighborhood is 107 feet. Mr. Venamore said there was a hardship because no other properties in the immediate neighborhood have similar dimensions to the subject property. Mr. Venamore addressed other items in regards to the Variation standards. He re-stated that the homeowner has lived at the subject property for 47 years, there is no desire for financial gain as the homeowner intends to live in the house for many additional years. The Variation is intended to provide the owner a satisfactory home not financial gain. Mr. Venamore also addressed the public welfare and neighborhood character standard. He stated that he has designed an addition that was intended to look like the existing house and maintain the neighborhood character. Chairman Rogers swore in the property owner, Steve Gewartowski, 900 Tower Lane, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Gewartowski said it is congested in his home. He stated there was no room inside the kitchen. Mr. Gewartowski agreed that the easiest thing to do would be to build a second story addition, but due to medical reasons this would not be an option. He also stated that adding to the east or west of the home would make no sense. Mr. Gewartowski said this addition is being added for convenience, not for a profit. Mr. Venamore summarized Mr. Gewartoski's wishes to keep the layout as presented. Chairman Rogers stated a second floor could be installed on the property by moving the bedrooms upstairs and then creating the family room where the bedrooms were on the first floor. He understood that the owner's intentions were to avoid climbing stairs, but this was one alternative to the restrictions of the Code. Chairman Rogers said it is not normal to take the minimum easements out. He also understood that the subject property is an extremely short lot, but with the proposed plan is substantially into the rear yard easement and something they normally do not allow. Mr. Youngquist said the proposed floor plan does not show an expansion of the kitchen area. He stated the plans provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission showed the expansion to the back (rear) and (east) side of the home. Mr. Youngquist recommended that the Petitioner push the addition 2.5 feet into the rear yard, this would allow a nice size dining room and a 21 foot by 14 foot family room. Mr. Venamore showed an existing site plan with the proposed addition. There was general discussion regarding the size of the kitchen. Mr. Youngquist stated the family room proportionally was too large for the subject property. He asked the Petitioner if the basement was finished at the subject property. Mr. Gewartowski said the basement was finished. Mr. Youngquist reiterated that if the Petitioner would expand 2.5 - 3 feet to the rear and ran it east, the design would allow for a decent dining space, larger kitchen, and a family room. Mr. Donnelly asked the Petitioner about the minimum lot length that was quoted at 120 feet, he wanted to know if that was measured from the curb to the back or is it measured on the side yard. Mr. Venamore stated that if a new subdivision was created the minimum dimension would be 120 feet. Mr. Simmons clarified that the measurement would be from the curb/front property line to the rear property line. It would not go along the sides due to the shape. Mr. Donnelly confirmed that the subject property length is significantly less than what current Code allows. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 24,2009 PZ-23-09 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Floros asked if the subject property would not conform to today's standards. Mr. Simmons stated that the subject property is below the current requirements. Mr. Floros stated this would be a hardship; the property owner is stuck with something undersized. Mr. Foggy stated he agreed with Mr. Youngquist, he thought the Petitioner could design the addition with the same square footage, but with a slightly different configuration. He asked the Petitioner ifhe looked at the design with the current requirements. Mr. Foggy stated that there are other options. Mr. Venamore stated there was consideration to try and make the proposed plan work, but it was the desires of the homeowner to encroach into the rear yard setback. He said the lot commanded some sort of relief due to its irregular size. There was additional discussion on alternative options for the proposed addition. Chairman Rogers stated the Planning and Zoning Commission was not trying to redesign the subject property, they just wanted to show that there were other options that could work. Mr. Beattie asked where the 25 foot setback was on the site plan presented by the Petitioner. Chairman Rogers said that based on the site plan, the Petitioner could extend the current home three feet and still be within the 25 foot rear yard setback. Mr. Youngquist asked for the dimensions of the kitchen. It was determined that it was approximately nine feet by 11 feet. Mr. Youngquist stated the kitchen is so small compared to the proposed family room. Mr. Gewartowski said the neighbors to the east and west of the subject property have no issues with the proposed plan. Chairman Rogers asked about the neighbor to the north. Chairman Rogers swore in Paul Chartouni, 101 W. Sunset Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Chartouni stated his property is the parcel directly north of the subject property. He stated his major concern was not with the setback now, but in the future. Mr. Chartouni said that ifthe setback is granted and the house is sold, he would be stuck to something that is really close to his property. Mr. Roberts asked if Mr. Chartouni was supportive of a one story addition. Mr. Chartouni stated that this was correct, but he was concerned in the future if a second story was added. There was general discussion about the Variation and how it would run with the land forever. Mr. Simmons clarified that if the Variance was granted, the future land owner could build up on the new setback in the rear yard. Mr. Floros ask if the Planning and Zoning Commission could preclude other areas where the property owner could construct. Mr. Simmons said no conditions could be place. Mr. Floros asked if the height could be restricted in any way. Mr. Simmons stated he believed the Planning and Zoning Commission could place a restriction on the height. Mr. Floros suggested that the height of the proposed addition be limited. There was additional discussion regarding placing conditions on a Variation. Mr. Roberts asked in addition to restricting the height, could a stipulation be placed in the motion that the lot coverage could not increase any further. Mr. Simmons said this would not be enforceable because the property owner was still below the maximum permitted lot coverage. He stated that if a height limitation condition was placed, it would be anything within the Variation setback area. Chairman Rogers swore in Kay Petosa, 910 Tower Lane, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Petosa stated her main concern was flooding. She said the water flows from the north near the subject property and heads south towards her property. Ms. Petosa said water from the neighborhood floods her home. She was concerned with all the new additions being added in the neighborhood that this would continue the flooding issues. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 24, 2009 PZ-23-09 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Venamore wanted to clarify that the subject property and properties to its north drain into the easement and inlet as previously discussed. He did not believe the proposed addition would cause significant flooding. Mr. Donnelly asked if there was ever standing water with the inlet. Mr. Gewartowski said never. Chairman Rogers swore in Hardik Patel, 103 W. Sunset Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Patel stated his property is also directly north of the subject property. He said his property is approximately one foot lower than the subject property. Mr. Patel stated that he will have approximately six inches of water that sits on the last five feet of his yard. Mr. Beattie asked how often Mr. Patel has this problem. Mr. Patel said usually when it rains more than a couple of hours five-six times a year. Chairman Rogers stated he was concerned if the addition went up; chances are the subject property would be resodded and the slope could be even higher. Chairman Rogers asked if anyone in the audience wanted to discuss this case. Hearing none, the discussion was brought back to the board. Mr. Floros made a motion to approve a Variation to allow a 17.46' rear yard setback along the north lot line, as shown in the attached drawings for the residence at 900 Tower Lane, Case No. PZ-23-09, with a condition to restrict the maximum height to one-story, not to exceed 15 '6". Mr. Roberts seconded the motion. Mr. Roberts stated there is a shortage of senior housing in Mount Prospect. Regardless of the outcome of this case, a change in development will be seen that will not be suitable to seniors. He said would rather see one story additions than building large multiple level homes. Mr. Roberts requested ways to keep seniors in their home and the community. Mr. Roberts said the Planning and Zoning Commission needed to show flexibility at times and he believed there was an existing hardship in the case due to the size and shape of the lot. Chairman Rogers commented that there is a possibility to add a one-story addition without encroaching in the back. He asked if there was any additional discussion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Roberts NAYS: Beattie, Donnelly, Foggy, Youngquist, Rogers Motion was defeated 5-2. After hearing one additional case, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Youngquist, to adjourn at 8:33 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ~^' ~~~ ,/ :(" / ~''r // :f- Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 24, 2009 PZ-23-09 Page 5 of 5 1 CASE SUMMARY - PZ-23-09 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department . LOCATION: - 900 Tower Lane PETITIONER: Andrew Venamore OWNER: Steve Gewartowski PARCEL #: 08-13-108-024-0000 LOT SIZE: 0.2 acres (9,685 square feet) ZONING: Rl Single Faniily Residence LAND USE: Single Family Residential REQUEST: Variation (Rear Yard Setback) LOCATION MAP CASE SUMMARY - PZ-23-09 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department LOCATION: 900 Tower Lane PETITIONER: Andrew Venamore OWNER: Steve Gewartowski PARCEL #: 08-13-108-024-0000 LOT SIZE: 0.2 acres (9,685 square feet) ZONING: Rl Single Farriily Residence LAND USE: Single Family Residential REQUEST: Variation (Rear Yard Setback) LOCATION MAP \ MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RICHARD ROGERS, CHAIRPERSON FROM: CONSUELO ANDRADE, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLANNER DATE: SEPTEMBER 9,2009 HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 SUBJECT: PZ-23-09/ 900 TOWER LANE / VARIATION (REAR YARD SETBACK) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the September 24, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Andrew Venamore (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 900 Tower Lane (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to encroach 7.54 feet into the required rear yard. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the September 09,2009 edition of the Journal & Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located in a cul-de-sac and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single Family Residence and is bordered by the RI District on all sides. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The attached exhibits illustrate the Petitioner's proposed improvements to the existing home, which include a wood deck, a service walk in the rear yard, and a building addition at the northeast comer of the existing home. The building addition will allow the property owner to expand the existing family room and add a fire place. In order to accommodate the expansion, the addition would encroach into the required rear yard by 7.54'. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a 17.46' rear yard setback along the north lot line when the Zoning Ordinance requires a 25' rear yard. It should be noted that there is an existing 8' easement along the rear property line. Per the Public Works Department, a change in grade within the 8' easement will not be approved. The applicant should also realize that there is an existing storm sewer inlet near the back property line. Care should be taken to insure that the drainage patterns to this inlet are not obstructed by the proposed improvements. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The Subject Property currently complies with the Village's zoning regulations. The following table compares the Petitioner's proposal to the RI Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. The italicized text denotes items that require zoning relief from the Village Code's bulk regulations. PZ-23-09 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 24, 2009 Page 2 Rl Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' 33.39' No change Side (west) 7.75' 20.68' No change Side (east) 7.75' 13.67' 10.65' Rear 25' 27.79' 17.4 6 ' LOT COVERAGE 45% Maximum 32% 36% VARIATION STANDARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section l4.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: . A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; . Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and . Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner is proposing to expand the existing home to create additional living space. Staff explored a couple of options with the Petitioner that would allow for extra living space while complying with Code requirements. A second story addition or a one story building addition at the northwest comer of the home are two options that could be constructed to comply with Code requirements. The Petitioner found the two options to be not feasible and is requesting the rear yard setback variation for the proposed 487 square foot addition. The Petitioner states in the attached application that the irregular shape of the property creates a hardship because of the original platting of the land, and the subsequent location of the home further back from the 30' setback. Although the Subject Property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, the lot dimensions are not atypical of other lots located in a cul-de-sac. Similar lot dimensions exist for lots located in other cul-de-sacs in the Village and are therefore not unique to this property. The lot dimensions of cul-de-sac properties relate to subdivision design and not zoning chapter regulations. Additionally, the house could have been constructed at the 30' building setback line but was not, and the potential exists to construct building additions that comply with Code. Therefore, the rear yard Variation request fails to meet the standards for a Variation because there is no hardship for the Subject Property. Staff researched other properties located in cul-de-sacs and did not find any zoning history for supporting rear yard setback variations. RECOMMENDATION The Variation request for 17.46' rear yard setback does not meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section l4.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance for the reasons previously noted. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a 17.46' rear yard setback along the north lot line, as shown in the attached drawings for the residence at 900 Tower Lane, Case No. PZ-23-09." PZ-23-09 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 24, 2009 This case is Village Board final since the Variation exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. I concur: ney, AICP, Director of Community Development fit H:\PLAN\Planlling & Zoning COMM\P&z 2009\Sta(f Rcporl\PZ-23-09 900 Tower Lane (V AR. Rear yard).doc " \ Page 3 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT l\'lollnt Prospect ~~OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 50 S. Emerson Street . Mount Prospect, JIIinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Variation Request ~ The Planning & Zoning Commission has fmal administrative authority for aU 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 - - 09 ..... r- ~~ Development N arne/Address O~ Date of Submission ~e ><e. r..:l Hearing Date ~ Common Address(es) (Street Number, Street) gOo sYvTl-l. Tax J.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) Z 08 - 13- 108- 02.4 - 0000 0 ..... r- ~ Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) 0 loT 12.. IN CoUNTR'1 (LV'~ T ~RR.A(fi:, I Bt\N(j A.. .9J6D\\f\S\OW a:: t:P..'A.-r ~ ~ at: lei \6" \!Q It-.J ~~ ,S;~D\VI:SIOr--J ot: S~T\O\"") \~ lOAIl'JS\4. \ P 4 \ r..:l I t: ~OIUW. . RAN(-,~~ '\1 EA.~T c::n: TWt Tw.\RL> 1=1<.\1'00 PLS. l-1sR.\ b~Ni IN 00 . CooK. Co..JN\'Y \ LL n....}DIS . I Z Name Telephone (day) 0 AN'DRB'N \f'twt::..\J\O'RJS 84"11 2...\~-52..S~ ..... r- ~I Corporation Telephone (evening) f\\RdOtv\ 0.... ~ c:: Street Address Fax ~ .~ ~]: f,<a2.5 I'J LI NCD'--~ 6411i6S-08Bb :;J<( City State Zip Code Email 01 =: L\"-ICOLNWOO0 IL 601 \ L o.ve.namore@QI'roo\Y'\.Cl:JY'f\ t.:l ::.c Interest in Property U < ~IQCX)~ IS \lJOQ\::"'\",K:::> FOQ OW N'C.-\Q... G,~~ GcV\lt::::...R \' O\Ns.~ \ =:l Z Name Telephone (day) 0 l-' S-n=.V\S GSWA.R\OWS,\.C \ 84i /3q2- 3-64 0 Eo- '~ ~ Corporation Telephone (evening) o g ~6 ~YY)e- ~i Street Address Fax 0.00 TOWER ~~ oct =:1 t.-' City State Zip Code Email :::C U HI. \==Qospsc-r \L bCXJ5b < ~ Developer t-JjA Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Email Attorney NJp,. Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Email Surveyor Z Name CENTQr-.-L .s;UQVE'-1 Telephone (day) ~I b3\- S-2-6CS 0 1 l-' bLi \ 5 N. CA\....DW"EL.L. Eo- VJ Address Fax ~!'TS-'20l' ~1 C~~ICA60, IL {j:)S4b Email (e'v')-\y-a.hJ'1"~ o.o\.CO~ 0,2 ~~ ~~ Engineer N/A Name Telephone (day) 08- =:"0 Address Fax t.-' > :::Co u 1 Email < ~ Architect s,,,-,, n~ b..\~COM ~QC.~ \ltC'S Name D \ (--,C. Telephone (day): 8411 '2...'~- 5253> I Address 6B'l.S N LINCDL-N Fax 64~ Ilb3-~6 \..,.\Nc.ov-Jv-nOb. tL o<J\\2- Email d<<;nwl-""@OrfOON\. COM 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 Code Section(s) for which Variation(s) is (are) Requested \4.<=105.6. L - Q.-1., 12-EAR- YARD - 25 ~Ec\ Summary and Justification for Requested Variation(s), Relate Justification to the Attached Standards for Variations P\.Ef:::.<b~ &.C A'f'iAC'I:-4e...D R)"(2... VA..'R..\~\\b~ ~\::>~NA-r\ 'ON ~ f;Iil ~ ~m Of;lil U 009 ~ u < 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. ation provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and o Date~24lo9 Print Name 1 A~D\~ \J~p..Na~ 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 m4~ ' Pmp'rtyOwn" ~ (,~ Det' e/"/o: Print Name ST~ ~V\JI4.R...\OW'c\<:""'\ 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 EXPLANATION OF VARIATION VILLAGE OF MT. PROSPECT 900 South Tower Lane - Steve Gewartowski The Planning & Zoning Commission is guided by seven standards listed in Zoning Code Section 14.203.C.9. Those standards relate to conditions applicable to the property for which the Variation is requested, the owner's motives for requesting the Variation and potential effects on nearby properties. The standards for Variations are: 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a specific hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations was to be applied; The hardship facing this owner is directly related to the irregular shape of the lot, and the location of the residence on this lot. Being at the end of the cul-de-sac, 900 Tower Lane is a pie-shaped lot whose lot depth was significantly reduced by the layout necessary for the design of this block when the subdivision was created. As can be seen from Figure One on the next page, this lot is dramatically shorter than the surrounding homes in the neighborhood by as little as 13 feet, as much as 84 feet. If the average lot size in the vicinity can be assumed to be 125.00 feet, then 900 Tower Lane lot is approximately 31.00 feet shorter than the 'standard'. Since the zoning ordinance requirement for the rear yard setback does not account for the depth of any lot and simply identifies a 25.00- foot setback on all lots in the R-I zoning district, this unfairly impacts the subject lot. With a depth of only 94 feet, this lot is faced with a specific hardship rather than a mere inconvenience. Taking into account the required front yard of 30 feet, the buildable depth of the lot is only 39 feet (i.e. 94 feet - 30 feet [front yard] - 25 feet [rear yard] = 39 feet), whereas the lot with the next smallest depth in the neighborhood (at approximately 107 feet) still has a buildable depth of 52 feet; an increase of 13 feet that allows for more appropriate development on that specific lot. Additionally, the original builder of the home set the foundation for the residence almost 3~ feet back from the stipulated 30.00- foot front setback which further reduces the buildable depth (to 36 feet), hampering any reasonable addition off the back of the home. 2. The conditions upon which an application for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variation is sought and area not generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification; The uniqueness of this lot is based on the irregular shape of the property, which is best indicated by Figure One. As is evidenced by this picture and further by reviewing depths of lots in adjacent neighborhoods, the minimal depth of the subject property is not generally applicable to other lots within the surrounding R-I zoning district. The required 25.00 foot rear yard is proposed to be reduced to 17.46 feet to accommodate a dining room and family room expansion, creating a 7.54-foot encroachment. \G1 SUNSET RD '"" c.... 1M ~ ftMt ~ ~ ,.,. ~ ~ ~ ~ 'Il ~ ~ :;.. i{ " w. -010 iHi .(l32 ~ Appr~x. Iil 178 Feet -033 "A.'. .()12 -034 19 .019 ti III I':> -027 .035 8 .013 8;\ w d , i 137 Feet ; .(J28 iI -014 III "iij .()20 ..038 (j -< r- ... .() Hi -021 !e n 2: is :2 8, -037 ,~ lorIo{l It. 100 ~ ~ ".. 1'.\ ~ An ~ iii 125 Feet ii .038 :! III y FIGURE ONE - Property directly surrounding 900 Tower Lane (identified as yellow highlighted property). Notice the depths of the adjacent lots shown by Orange arrow. 3. The purpose of the variation is not based primarily upon a desire to increase financial gain; The desire of the owner, who has been a resident of this neighborhood for many years, is to continue living in the home, and the proposed addition simply seeks to update the residence by giving it the necessary family room that is part of modern day living. There is no specific interest in the financial gain as a result of the addition, but rather to modernize the home for today's living standards. With only a very small dining and sitting room adjacent to the existing kitchen, the home is desperately lacking the sort of living space modem homes require. The addition seeks to provide an enlarged dining room space and new family room which will update the layout of the residence. 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Chapter and has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property; The hardship is directly related to the irregular lot shape that reduces the ability of the owner to use his property in a manner that reflects an appropriate use of the lot. The hardship was created by the original platting of the land, and the subsequent location of the home further back from the 30.00-foot setback. 5. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; The addition to the rear of this home will not impact any surrounding property in a detrimental manner. The addition will be located in the rear yard of this property, which then backs up to the rear yards of the Sunset Road properties. Since the addition is only a single story and almost 171f2 feet will remain from the back of the addition to the north property line, there will be no impact on property values. Typically, additions that are seen to be improving the existing housing stock have the tendency to improve the value of homes within the locale. 6. The granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and Since this will match the existing I-story architecture of the home and is located approximately 60 feet back from the front property line (while meeting all remaining zoning parameters other than the rear yard setback), the proposed variation request will not alter the essential residential nature of the neighborhood. 7. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or impair natural drainage or create drainage problems on adjacent properties, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The addition is I-story and only encroaches into the rear yard setback and will therefore not impact the supply of light and air to adjacent property. It will also not increase congestion, or danger from fire nor will it impair the natural drainage. Since the total Lot Coverage is only 36%, whereas 50% is permitted, and the addition is setback 10.65 feet from the east side property line and 17.45 feet from the rear property line, the amount of additional coverage is well within the permitted level for the lot and will not create an issue for neighborhood drainage. As previously stated, the project will also not detrimentally impact property values within the neighborhood since the addition has been proposed to appear like the existing residence. ~ ~~ Q ~:~~ ~ ~ s. ~ ~ 0. 0 C'll ::J'a. ~~ ~. ~ Co~. o (jj 0 s -g :. III :l. a glU3 ~~ ~ 51a.lll -~~~ o 0 ~ .0. ~-g (") C'll ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 51 ~~ ~~~ m >< -aCii .:::! )>z zG> en =i m ~~ rD~ ~ 3 g )J !!.:;;: 00 o 0- . 0- ~~ ,...'" ~- 0"' 0.0 '" ~ ~ ,... ,... () W~SQS:;O :E ~ m' ~~~. m,,,-z~r .. YJ..:g ...... II ('1) f: """""""" ~ ::r:r> s: : ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ en ~iii!!~~g!!~d _ _=r=r :r> cr o 3 N o ~ iff ~ a.::" Z ~ g ~ ~ ~ i~' ~ i.J, :? ;:; ~i ~ i \ ~ \ ~ 3-]-------\ \ ~ ''\''- ~ i II g \\\1 ' g ~Q~ - ~ ~ / i /\ ~ i ~/~ \ ~ ,I' v' \, / . . /< ,,\ ~, /!t'" "-. x>\ "- -< \. v ~,,: ~ ' . / v~ ~ .~. l '" ~ \ \ ." '" ~ c 0"'- a 3'(') ffi ID CDQ-O Co ~.~~~ ~ g::1I'g Cir (Jl CD :J"- ~@~g> C1l (Jl ::J :< ~a~~ ~9!.(t)1 ~.g'g h ::Jo:EQ. -'> m-lll 0 o !l~~m :r III 0.: C1l =r 5.~ ~~ ~~~~ a -:< o.@ CD:Eg:; ~ffiE"~ ~~~?I ::::I C1l ~Q) ~~, ~~ \'tl rE. ::J (')(JlI\J- Q~8?6 CD ('[l tOtO !J,,,,Qoa 9l~~S w<;_o. rn:'~~ ~ 3 ffi '" < -gg~~ ~ Q1w"O'O ~ ]'': ~ ::.'" s,g918 ~~~a. ~urmg. ~?AgE CD ~ ~-o' s-~~g' ~ p. ~. 0 , ",- ! '" I :!) , '" i B; ~ I 0 i ~ 27.79L i , I ---.J / I r i i g " -g' @ i ,;, ,OJ :: / / (f) iii co So ~&c& "'.. '\~Iy~ ~s>70; 0" o.celt; ~ .e~, S?'/.1I~Odl:'e -............ / ;>, _ f')ee .............../ .co ............... ~ () o C :J .:<: So () o o 7< ~ ~ S' o iii' "" ." OJ 3 '" ;;0 o '" 1i ~ @ -'0- ~ + oC/) zffi mm -I ;;0 o n " N N '" I West Line of Country Lane ." o ~ o c. ~ .. ;:: ~ ~ ~ !=IO Q '" '" w ~ ~ m ~ o en '" ~ ~ '" m z :;; 01 Oil<> o~ 3'" 3 :; ~~ ~;~ CD :J ~ aJ 0 (JI- 0:;;: en _::JC r-Olc:r Ol",Q. ::J .. :;;::. r- ~~~:~ CD 00 Q) ~ d~ ; &~;~ (1) ..., CD n c.. r- Q. :::!. ~<.O ~ 0' 'S. gJ_CD :: o' '-" s:.'" ::J en'-.., -",,0 -no:;;: :-+U'l~ 'O::r CD -, ,,'0 :-A 5Z o 0 ijl' ~3: ." ~ n o I ." o , n o '0 o o ~ ~ 0 ~ i o ' J,. ::? w ~ i ~ /~ r sa. -.J '" 3' o o C ~ -< o c: c:r .., ~ li] " !" c:r CD 3 <0 Ol en C c:r a. <: iii' 0' :J 2. '0 Ol ::l. 2. r sa. 0'" ::T~ -. .... :;lCll ccZ O' '"=~ '0:: ::e ",!l!- 0- ",> ~< "'!' -c - Q) P+ o ~ en c: :2 CD '< -.f' o CD ~ - ... !. ::0 Ol :J <0 '" en c < CD '< r r o ::: m Ol ~ 2. :;c CD .., ~ a. =\l 3 " '0' ~ s: ~ 0: Oi .:J 3' o o o 7< o o C :J -:< 3' o iii' ! h CD :l ... ;J-::;-::; iij"l"l C~~ C!"l'" CD"lc.> '< CIl .... . . . nNCIl OON 3"lCll ....CIl 'TI1J ~::T )( 0 :l CD m ~~ 0 ~~~ ~ a ~5 2- m 3' a. 3 ~~~. ~ oaa g~ g" ....0:::;- ~ ;J. 0 gQl3 ~~ ~ :lg,~ .ft~~' ~ ~ c: .0. ~"'8 <D n co:] 0 ~~~ e ~~~ ~ 0. (J g ~ ~ .,,"0 ~~~ 5'S,~ ~ ~"8 ~ to S" !Jl tn :;>:;: 0= i' or ~ 3 o' :JJ ~' !O:;: o~ ~O" ",0" cg'~ ::!1i:n 3~ r", ~~ ~'" 0.0 Ul c: :< .!)! 5' '" r r () i! i11 m Zz c: 0 3 < O"ro ~~ -~ O>~ 6~ 0", ;S ",0 ~ ~C/l ~ ~ ~ iP-=1 ~ f11 Y'l Z i co ~!'D Ph n~' . co Ci)., - co ~ i""""""""" 5. ::f'> S:)J-l (1)~~reco'<~ ClJz ffi~~~Q~"~~gg Vlm-([ia.~-~5:r ? a '" o 0 3 " '" ~ en-C -:;0 ""0 m-C -cO -en >m Zc 0' ~ CD "'" r- Q) :::s CD o 00:> ~ ~ 3'C"'J CD t'D ~ ~ or f,;? Co ~.~5.a. ;. o-",@ (ii" ~~ ~U; @rn~~ (1] (1)::rro :r::3(D'< o6r@! ~g:g() ?:~~g. ~ tl~~rn :r 03 cr~~ a~Q~ :1":23", 5~ ~2 ~' 0;:1 9:~~~ 1::- ~ ~ cE ~ ... w c:- k ag~!.~ fa m~' 25 0 (i3 cg ~J ~ o 0-' o ~ 0 co :::::: -... (jj<.e ~~'Qa -::r-C:: ~~aa Q)=:l_CIl "'3- :7 af ~ <D3<D C ~ g~~ ~ ~ g,9, ~ m co "tl Ci) oge[8 ;;(1] :,..a. o;~,@g- ~?Agq ~~@~ N :J 3 ~ 0 g ffi~:3 ~ '" ''IT ~ ~ 5 I ~ Z a. I t :E o m -n o " ::9 I Qo ~ ~--l'I' ~ ~ I \ g I .., \ ,I ~ \1 /:-'" 'U' "'. \ \ ~ 8- Ul [ '" w o ~ o "- ~ '" ~ '-, ''y/ ,-uoo/ ", /:y'v "b-'(''\. / ':'" \ / ::_~__ <t.,.:. \ // ~ g::i> ~\ .\ \ is '<9 Cl', \ '" ~ "' '~ ~ o. ! \ \ \ \ 1_70~ \ ; ! 12.08 13.27 27,79'~ ~ " go f 0' ^ ..... Qo .c.. " ~ a; ~ 3 C '" ~ :0 en '" '" Ul w Ci A '" .; :J OJ () '" ~ b ': 0' a o " is' ~ @ () o ~ ......... .I /~j" '1ec&-I1.... ,;; \ ......... 70~ ! , l:'J<" ......... r 8. ~os; OdCe ~............... . ~, .S?, /.t'.000' ~ ........ ?v. e"Ce 11,4(..' ("l o c:: :J -< S. (") 5' o 0 ~ Ci)' '. -Ci)- o go ~ pc ." OJ 3 i / '" ~ " '" ......... ;lJ ~ n " '" " en N '" -100 :effi om -I West line of Country Lane -n ~ 0. ti>- " en " '" ~ '" m r Q. -.J f\\l S' o o c: 2- ~ o C- O' -1 ~ C3 co '" 0' '" S to OJ CfJ c: 0' to. <' (ii' 0' :J S. '0 OJ ::l S. r Q. O'l oQO o ~ 30) 3 S ~~ '" :J ~~~ OJ 0 en o"'CfJ _Oc: rOJO' ~~~r- Q. CD r.n'~ ~8~r~ ~c;ls.o fr:;:CfJ~ co ~ ctl n ~ r Sl ~. C.D tll o'"S- o, ffi :J 0" co - -'-::l '" s:-'" CfJr..., .0-00 -no'" ~~ ~ '" -, ,,'0 :->A z '" -n " ro '" ~ -n 0 0 n 0 " i!. -n 0 0 ~ ~ en '" 0 " 0 " ~ 0 / /q Z S'z 00 r.n'~ :0 OJ :J to '" (')C> :T"" c:r ~ ~Z o' - (') :=~ ct ::: ell 0'>= ~~ ..,.< O'>~ -c - Q) r+ o ..., en c: .., < CD '< --f" ("") m ::l .... t;j := en c: .., < m '< r I ("") m OJ ~ S. 5' '" ..., 0- a: ::? s co '6 ~ s: ~ 0: 0;' _0 S' o o o ^ o o c o '? ~-n"C ~Ql:T ~ >< 0 . :l (') ell <1l ::l ... ...~~ Ill"""" -""",, UlWW t: -- ~::j~ '< (J1..... n':"'c:n 00'" 3 "" Cl) .....(J1 S' o (ii' I' e ~ ." '''''C O::c 00 ::C""C ""CO .en )>m zC en ~ ,~ "Ill -< Z '" ... ... o o " " ... l> Z ill :ii ill 111 ~ ',I Wh[ r ~r~ i i1 ~ I I I , I' .s .... .'::"'l:l ~ 1 '" I :0 '" G I " ~ ~ 0 ~ ... ... I 0 0 " " > I~ z I I i !. 'L' ~ ~ ,~ I l I -tin----- I i I~ o l~!~ ---il I-Ill: i~ I r I . G ~ ~ I ,I -:::-::11:::-::::-::::::: 1. III mI, ill UII I,ll c;::.=JI , WJ ~ / '. I' I' r:o-- rr====\I I I! ir~l! I! ~ @ '"; Ii r.-----=---o.; 0 ,:. U i I: ' r---- i"', '" ,~'i~I";":". /~ n 'h-J lLl.l.ili ,,~', II '~Ii'-------'? 'I r-----' , ".;"---U--M. .: r=~ wi rl ~ I~~ I: i :8]"1' II - r,~'~' !! L,);'.j1 L....~...J ---=-- ~ 11:1. ,.1 if! i ,~ / I II ! 'II / Ii ~ ~ ~ (I. I I ~ I ~ h :1 ." r- om 0>< ::cCii ""C::j rz )>Q Z en 10".1{ oi . ~I g! ! ! ~ j !! ! .' Ii 'I~ P > 'I '1!1jl III: illl ,,1"'1' "1'1,,,,~1111 nf" > ~!illl ! I ." ~ I : dill II I:. II a ~ I~~ J: ~ III III i: I -f en I" I '11'11" '1'1' "'I' 'I,"I! . '@5 ,.. 1'1 'I II, 'I ,I , I ,~c I; 10 I r- .... r'! m ill II', : i -II II" , I ~-!e. .. :E ::I: '~II' ", ill' ' , , g ~ ~ I ! 0 1Il "1 C J: I '" III !! III ::I: - "1'1 0 ~ 0 ',lIld'lI liI'!II'!ln', 3_0 ~ ~I~ I '" > >;08 i! ;l:l z ~ ~ .. I ;c Iii": 1:11 i I I !!'-f I' ~g.g, I II Ii l m ., 0- i"l! ..... 0 I I; 'I m m I'll "h I ':1111.11,111, J;~~ [. ~:3 III S;..... ,... :E ~ ! i zZ '" m II ' m -f 11111 ',I "I I' I I''!' !! ;>:j~ ~~ i;~~ " " i I,! i in j!: , i I' 1_: IN Hs , m; ~ '" .... I " I I , il. I~I I I I I I~' I 1~1 !b;:; I 1 I I . "1'1 I' I I \,--.._,..,tI\..-..__<oo'\i.1'-ocr,_ _~""" _ 11I,I..,.... o]t. '" ~z ~~ III o c: "' :t m .... m < > "' o z m-c 1:;0 me ~-c -to -en Om Zc en II !II '. I Ii ! I -~i I I I I I ~ ---l-r-------- I I I I I I I I I I II II I I II I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I...r---- m 1m m)( <- :r>en -t::! -z ~G) en ~m ')( '... ~1Il "' Z Cl III o c: "' :t m .... m < > "' o z ~ ~ ! H II m l~ I I !lll!: Ill: illl , > ~ ' I II 3 ~ III Iii ii ! . I", 'IPII!! ~ I m I ! en 11",1. I -II .- 9 . :,,'" m It! I : "T1 '~I'II'1 i'j' "f':Z' " ",0 :E Il! m ::: 00 0 :J: b!! l~ilH ~~ < ~ n ~ I "'.. )> I "! I w ,,0 :xl II 'i l II'j", III :r> .... "< m:E m '"' " -! ~~:E :e ..~~ -l 1;'1 C ';'11111 I'll ::l~::-: :!.; w 0 .... ~:=:~ m Iji!l, "a !'I ,~,~9. n : 3: 0 n~ ~ ~~ :E II · AJ hi in 'I: >~, ~l 2 0 "'z tIl O~ Om ;0:: -t :;l-...lQ\ ~~ III ~ " I I 1'111 ". III 3-l;o I' '" .... ~~~ I I v !. I~! I I '"' ! I I \\~_,_\",..._ooe\>.l-""-+~_ _ ..".,....... 1 '" I ~;:! ~m , I: :~ <>< ~Vi \ I ;:! -l f IlrtJC111 ~ 0 Z '" Cl , -l I :t ;:! m 0 r- '" m -l < :t I J> m -l r- I 0 m I < [JI z J> -l \ 0 z [J [Ji =[J [J n I I ~ ,- :II: ~ ~ ~i~ W ~I~\~ ~ I " \ \ \\........................,~...__,...__.....-__ """""'..... '" o o ... o ~ " r;; ~ ! I c;, I', "' ! ~ Ii ::a .... o :!E 1Il ::0:: ... II HI < I i II e ill I 'IP b I! j , if. !~ ! I!II~ I "111 Ii ' l I'll lj I II ' II I I , I I !1!ljl 1:1: illl i ! 1::: t' 181',; 'Illig!! I i ~ ~ 11",1. I '" ,oJ 2- ~ 1'1', iij' ,~" !iiW i;~i !iil !1!I!i !1!'I!I;I,!ll\!! I !~,~ I"II~ !I!l hI! I II IliH!11111 ~~g 11'11 :.1 "I I I 'I I! i ~~;; II Iii 'II: i I i I: ',!II,'dl ~~g; i1lli ~iil II I I I ~ 1_llgl '2~:::: ,j' FI I I, I 1-\ ,-I ,~~ CJ) :!!J: <m mm ~ J> i' 1 ~ 2;'~ 8 " " ~13 ~ I ~~ II II I I Ii I il d Ii i ~ ~I;:( ~u; ~ z Cl m l> III "" m ~ m < l> "" o z i I I ~:I , I ,I Ii, I \ I ~ / Ii II I I iil , I i 'I i i I ~ I Ii! .. <z l~ m l> III "" m ~ m < l> "" o z rl....__ I I I I I I I I , , , I I I II I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ___J I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1---- r-I I I "---1 Ii Ii II I Ii Ii !! II ~In I; :un l: Cl II! lilt ' m ,... m III I ~ I; l r- ", :E ill 3 ~ I~ .. :0 m "'ril:! 0 < ~iQ!~ I Ul :I> I r Ii I ", ;ll )> "' ~ ~~I~ n ~ ,-< 0 ... '" ...,. ;:: :E ! I 0 >i~l~ I '" tIl z II; Q ::0: VI :;: ... '" \\~~..,,,,,..-u-__1U-_,_'-__ - """,",-0.'" '~I~ ! Ifill Id i: "I I II Ii i I: 'I " II ' II I I I I <m 'x ~tii ~ z Cl :E m III "" m ~ m < l> "" o z II ~ . '1,5 iii" II v ~ s: 00:;' ~ ""'t ;0 11'1" ,! ' II i I ;ljg V> 0 0 Ii'," I -I, 1',-zO -~ l~!!i Ii!! IiI! i~UI!il:HIII !ill I ! I i a~ ~ ~ 5 8 !!III' '11'l ull ,[,!.I. "ii' lillll i - =5 g. = ~ "'I~ I II'! 1'1'1' 'I I i,o I e, ~- 0 - . ;I I I I ~ ~~::!C"""'to Ill, "II I II, I, 11'1'1 1!1,@.""".c-' III ", "I " 11'1 I ,,,- "I-~ Ii iu 1'1: I, i I ! II! ii~ ~~s~.c;,' ~91. !llj! ," II 1'.1 'II Ii' I-Iii. g~-~ C C:~J~ ! I' I~I I I i I I ! ,- -I ., N" n . en en:t: -m Xm ~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION (REAR YARD SETBACK) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 900 TOWER LANE, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, Andrew Venamore (Petitioner), has filed a petition for a Variation to allow for a 17.46 foot rear yard setback along the north lot line for property located at 900 Tower Lane (Property) and legally described as: Lot 72 in Country Club Terrace, being a Subdivision of part of Lot 16 & 18 in Owner's Subdivision of Section 13, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois. Property Index Number 08-13-108-024-0000; and WHEREAS, the "Petitioner" seeks a Variation to allow for a 487 square foot addition to the existing single family structure as shown on the "Petitioner's" site plan prepared by William R. Webb dated August 10, 2009, Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Variation being the subject of PZ-23-09 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 24th day of September, 2009, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 9th day of September, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and negative recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect on the request being the subject of PZ-23-09; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the requests herein and have determined that the request meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Variation would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: Approval of the Variation is subject to compliance with the condition that the maximum height permitted for the addition be one(1) - story; not to exceed 15.6'. SECTION THREE: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant approval of a Variation to allow for an addition to the existing single family structure and create a 17.46 rear yard setback along the north lot line, all as shown on the site plan dated August 10, 2009 a copy of which is attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." 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. 3 Page 2/2 PZ-23-09 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 4th day of October 2009. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H .\CLKO\WI N\ORDI NANCE2\ V AR-PZ-23-09900toweroct2009.doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 1 Mount Prospect r MEMORANDUM ~ 1:>j:). K Tt, 10 ~ eft TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2009 SUBJECT: PZ-25-09/ 50 S. EMERSON ST. / TEXT AMENDMENT TO CH (SECTION 15.301) The Community Development Department is seeking approval of a Text Amendment to modify Sec. 15.301, which would delete subparagraph (B) in its entirety and re-Ietter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted public hearing to review the request on Thursday, September 24,2009 and by a vote of7-0, recommended approval of the text amendment. Details of the proceedings and items discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing are included in the attached minutes. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their October 6, 2009 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. H:\PLAN\PlalUling & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2009\rvfEJ MEMOS\PZ.25-09 Tex.t AmClldn;cut Olapler I).doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-25-09 Hearing Date: September 24, 2009 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: September 9, 2009 REQUEST: Text Amendment (Chapter 15 - Section 15.301) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Theo Foggy Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist ST AFF MEMBER PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTY: None Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Youngquist made a motion to approve the minutes ofthe July 23,2009 meeting; Mr. Donnelly seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 7-0. After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-25-09, a Text Amendment for Chapter 15 - Section 15.301 ofthe Village Code, at 8:31 p.m. Mr. Simmons stated this case was a housekeeping item for Chapter 15 of the Village Code. In 2004, the Village approved some changes to require any adjustments of lot lines between new properties or consolidation of two or more lots that are owned by the same owner to require an administrative plat. This was done so these items would not have to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Village Board for approval. Mr. Simmons said this authorized the Director of Community Development to sign off on these types of plats. Mr. Simmons stated Staff recently noticed a conflict with the new section and another language within the Code. The conflict originally stated that if there was a minor change, the item would not have to go through the administrative plat process. Mr. Simmons said the plat process was reviewed with the Village's Legal Division, who made the recommendation that criteria be placed to remove the language. He stated that this has been the Village's practice for the past several years, but the conflict has been found and is being addressed to clean up. Chairman Rogers asked if this has been reviewed by the Village Attorney. Mr. Simmons said the Village Attorney made the recommendation. Chairman Rogers asked ifthere were any questions for Staff. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve a Text Amendment to modify Sec. 15.301, which would delete subparagraph (B) in its entirety and re-Ietter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly, Case No. PZ-25-09. William Beattie seconded the motion. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 24,2009 PZ-25-09 Page 1 of2 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Foggy, Roberts, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Youngquist, to adjourn at 8:33 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ~1~ Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 24, 2009 PZ-25-09 Page 2 of2 MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RICHARD ROGERS, CHAIRPERSON FROM: CONSUELO ANDRADE, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLANNER DATE: SEPTEMBER 14,2009 HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 SUBJECT: PZ-25-09 - TEXT AMENDMENT (CHAPTER IS-SECTION 15.301) VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT - APPLICANT BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the September 24, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by the Village of Mount Prospect (the "Petitioner") regarding a proposed amendment to Chapter 15, Section 15.301 of the Village Code. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the September 9, 2009 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL In 2004, the Village Board added Section 15.310 entitled "Administrative Subdivision" to the "Subdivision Procedures and Standards" article of Chapter 15 of the Mount Prospect Village Code. Section 15.310 permits the administrative subdivision in the following two instances: a) An adjustment of a lot line between two (2) adjoining lots; or b) The consolidation of two (2) or more lots, parcels or tracts of land, either in whole or part, into a single lot of record, when all of the properties are under the same ownership. The section also states that an administrative subdivision is permissible only if no nonconformities are created with respect to these regulations and that a final plat is still required. This language contradicts the language found in Section 15.301.B. of Chapter 15 of the Village Code, which exempts "the sale or exchange of parcels of land between owners of contiguous and adjoining land that does not create a nonconforming lot" from the subdivision regulations. The matter was reviewed with the Village's legal department and the Village Attorney believes that any lot line changes should be performed via the platting process. Therefore, Section 15.301.B. needs to be deleted to remove the contradiction found in the current Code provisions. Staff is requesting to amend Chapter 15, Section 15.301 of the Village Code to delete subparagraph (B) in its entirety and to re-letter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly. STANDARDS FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS Section 14.203.D.8.b lists standards for the P&Z to consider for text amendments to the Zoning Code. The standards relate to: . The general applicability of the amendment to the community, rather than an individual parcel; PZ-25-09 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting September 24, 2009 Page 2 · Consistency of the amendment with objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan; · The degree to which the amendment would create non-conformity; · The degree to which the amendment would make the Zoning Code more permissive; and · Consistency of the amendment with Village policy as established by previous rulings. The proposed amendment satisfies the standards for text amendments as required in the Village Zoning Code. The proposal to amend the Village's existing subdivision procedures and standards of the Village Code would be applicable on a community-wide basis and is not proposed in response to individual parcels within the Village. The amendment is necessary to remove the existing contraction found in the provisions and to achieve consistency. The proposed change is intended to reflect current Village objectives and policy. RECOMMENDATION The proposed text amendment meets the standards contained in Section 14.203.D.8.b of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve the following motion: "To approve a Text Amendment to modify Sec. 15.301, which would delete subparagraph (B) in its entirety and re-Ietter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly, Case No. PZ-25-09." The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: WJL 1< ~ William J. Cooney, AICP, Dir ctor of Community Development lit H:\PLAN\PlalUlmg & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2009\SlaffRcporl\PZ.2S.09 OlapLa 15 Text Amaldmcntdoc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 "SUBDIVISION, DEVELOPMENT AND SITE IMPROVEMENT PROCEDURES" OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, the Petitioner (the President of the Village of Mount Prospect) has filed an application for certain text amendments to Chapter 15 (Subdivision, Development and Site Improvement Procedures" of the Village Code of Mount Prospect to amend certain regulations; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks an amendment to the following section of the Village Code: Section 15.301 SCOPE OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the proposed amendment, being the subject of PZ- 25-09, before the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 24, 24, 2009, pursuant to due and proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on September 9, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect and the President and Board of Trustees of the Village have considered the requests being the subject of PZ-25-09. 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: Section 15.301 entitled "Scope of Subdivision Regulations" of Article III "Subdivision Procedures and Standards" and Chapter 15 "Subdivision, Development and Site Improvement Procedures" of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting subparagraph (B) in its entirety and re-Iettering the subsequent paragraphs accordingly. SECTION TWO: 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 October, 2009 I rvana Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H. \CLKO\WI N\ORDI NAN CE2\chapter1 50CTOBER2009. DOC iManage238578_1 c Mount Prospect Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS ~ · J..t~ IOf.ldt FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY FINAL REPORT FOR ZONES 9, 14, 15 & 17 The Engineering Division in collaboration with KLOA Inc., the Village's traffic engineering consul 1, have recently completed post-studies at the one year mark after implementing the approved intersection control and speed limit plans in four neighborhoods. These neighborhoods, Zones 9, 14, 15 & 17, represent completion of the Neighborhood Traffic Study for a total of seven of the eighteen zones as part of this Village-wide program. This report highlights the post-studies for these four neighborhoods and provides fmal intersection control and speed limit recommendations. Zone 9 Zone 9 is bounded by Rand Road to the north and east, Central Road to the south and Route 83 to the west. The neighborhood has 33 intersections and approximately 6.9 miles of streets under the Village's jurisdiction. Busse Park, Gregory Park and Emerson Park are within the neighborhood. The fIrst post-study was performed approximately six months after implementing the sign changes. Each property in the neighborhood was mailed a letter highlighting the results of the study. A web page on the Village web site was also created with additional infonnation. The second post-study, performed one year after implementing the sign changes, focused on those locations that were deemed to require' additional evaluation based on the results of the fIrst post-study. Therefore, the second post-study involved gathering vehicular volume and speed data at only 13 locations compared to 30 locations from the fIrst post-study. However, similar to the fIrst post-study, the Village also monitored pedestrian activity at 1 intersection and reviewed accident records at all 33 intersections in the neighborhood. Below is a summary of the results: First Post-Study Daily Volume (comparing data before sign changes to data from fIrst post-study) - Stayed consistent or decreased at 20 locations (67%) Increased by 15% or more at 10 locations (33%) Average Speed (comparing data before sign changes to data from fIrst post-study)- Stayed consistent or decreased at 27 locations (90%) Increased by 5 mph or more at 3 locations (10%) Accident Rate (# accidents in the neighborhood)- 3-year period before the sign changes: 19 6-month period after the sign changes: 1 68% reduction ns:loP 1 nf7 Neighborhood Traffic Study - Zones 9, 14, 15 & 17 September 30, 2009 Second Post-Study Daily Volume (comparing data before sign changes to data from second post-study)- Stayed consistent or decreased at 11 locations (85%) Increased by 15% or more at 2 locations (15%) Average Speed (comparing data before sign changes to data from second post-study)- Stayed consistent or decreased at 12 locations (92%) Increased by 5 mph or more at 1 location (8%) Accident Rate (# accidents in the neighborhood)- 3-year period before the sign changes: 19 I-year period after the sign changes: 6 6% reduction Neighborhood Access along Rand Road In addition to implementing intersection traffic control and speed limit modifications, access changes were made at the four neighborhood streets that intersect Rand Road. In summary, Highland Street is now a two-way street and permits full turning movements except for the through movement between Highland Street and Highland Avenue. Isabella Avenue, Louis Street and Hemy Street now have similar restrictions: no right turns into the neighborhood and no left turns out of the neighborhood during both the morning and afternoon peak travel times. And Louis Street continues to prohibit left turns into the neighborhood at all times. As a result of these changes, traffic in the neighborhood has been redistributed as residents now have alternative and more direct ways to access Rand Road. Highland Street and Louis Street now have greater access resulting in an increase in traffic while other intersecting streets such as Hemy Street have experienced a reduction in traffic. And just as important, the other surrounding neighborhood streets have not experienced a noticeable change in traffic as a result of these changes. In addition to traffic volumes, traffic speeds along these four neighborhood streets that intersect Rand Road have not significantly changed and there has actually been a reduction in the accident rate. For a three year period prior to the changes, Rand Road at the four intersecting streets (Highland Street, Isabella Avenue, Louis Street & Hemy Street) were experiencing on average 4.3 accidents per year. During the past year, the four intersections experienced only 2 accidents. Evaluation The results of the post-studies indicate that the operating characteristics within the neighborhood have generally improved since implementation of the intersection traffic control and speed limit modifications. It is recognized, though, that access along Rand Road has been enhanced, specifically at Highland Street and at Louis Street. As such, traffic in the neighborhood has been redistributed as residents now have alternative and more direct ways to access Rand Road. While some streets have experienced an increase in traffic volume and/or speed, the number of such locations has been limited even with the increased access along Rand Road. Only Highland Street and Louis Street have experienced a noticeable traffic volume increase. Overall, traffic volumes and speeds are within acceptable ranges and the accident rate has slightly decreased. Recommendation Based on the two post-studies performed by the Engineering Division and KLOA Inc., there are no recommended adjustments to the intersection control or speed limits in the neighborhood nor to the access regulations along Rand Road. naop. ? nf'7 Neighborhood Traffic Study - Zones 9, 14, 15 & 17 September 30, 2009 Zone 14 Zone 14 is bounded by Lincoln Street to the north, Route 83 to the east, Golf Road to the south and Busse Road to the west. The neighborhood has 53 intersections and approximately 11.4 miles of streets under the Village's jurisdiction. Mount Prospect Golf Course and Sunset Park are within the neighborhood. The fITst post-study was performed approximately six months after implementing the sign changes. Each property in the neighborhood was mailed a letter highlighting the results of the study. A web page on the Village web site was also created with additional information. The second post-study, performed one year after implementing the sign changes, focused on those locations that were deemed to require additional evaluation based on the results of the first post-study. Therefore, the second post-study involved gathering vehicular volume and speed data at only 16 locations compared to 54 locations from the first post-study. However, similar to the first post-study, the Village also monitored pedestrian activity at 4 intersections and reviewed accident records at all 53 intersections in the neighborhood. Below is a summary of the results: First Post-Study Daily Volume (comparing data before sign changes to data from first post-study)- Stayed consistent or decreased at 38 locations (70%) Increased by 10% or more at 16 locations (30%) Average Speed (comparing data before sign changes to data from fITst post-study)- Stayed consistent or decreased at 54 locations (100%) Increased by 5 mph or more at 0 locations (0%) Accident Rate (# accidents in the neighborhood)- 3-year period before the sign changes: 10 6-month period after the sign changes: 2 20% increase Second Post-Study Daily Volume'(comparing data before sign changes to data from second post-study)- Stayed consistent or decreased at 5 locations (31 %) Increased by 10% or more at 11 locations (69%) Average Speed (comparing data before sign changes to data from second post-study)- Stayed consistent or decreased at 16 locations (100%) Increased by 5 mph or more at 0 locations (0%) Accident Rate (# accidents in the neighborhood) - 3-year period before the sign changes: 10 I-year period after the sign changes: 4 20% increase Evaluation The results of the post-studies indicate that the operating characteristics within the neighborhood have generally improved since implementation of the intersection traffic control and speed limit modifications. While some streets have experienced an increase in traffic volume, the increase has generally been within the expected daily variations and/or the volumes have been in the range typically found on collector and local streets. Further, average speeds have remained within acceptable ranges and the accident rate continues to be low. The eleven locations that have experienced a 10% or more increase in traffic volume continue to have daily volumes typical for the street classification. Eight locations are on local streets that only have daily volumes between 130 and 400 vehicles while three locations are on collector streets that have daily volumes less than 1200 vehicles. Average speeds continue to be below the neighborhood speed limit and Dae:e 3 of7 Neighborhood Traffic Study-Zones 9,14, IS & 17 September 30, 2009 .' no locations experienced a significant average speed increase. And with respect to the accident rate, of the four accidents that occurred in the one-year period, no one intersection presented itself as problematic. Recommendation Based on the two post-studies performed by the Engineering Division and KLOA Inc., there are no recommended adjustments to the intersection control or speed limits in the neighborhood. Zone 15 Zone 15 is bounded by Northwest Highway to the north, Mount Prospect Road to the east, Golf Road to the south and Route 83 to the west. The neighborhood has 70 intersections and approximately 14.6 miles of streets under the Village's jurisdiction. Lions Park Elementary School, Lions Memorial Park, Sunrise Park and Countryside Park are within the neighborhood. The first post-study was performed approximately six months after implementing the sign changes. Each property in the neighborhood was mailed a letter highlighting the results of the study. A web page on the Village web site was also created with additional information. The second post-study, performed one year after implementing the sign changes, focused on those locations that were deemed to require additional evaluation based on the results of the fIrst post-study. Therefore, the second post-study involved gathering vehicular volume and speed data at only IS locations compared to 57 locations from the first post-study. However, similar to the fIrst post-study, the Village also monitored pedestrian activity at 6 intersections and reviewed accident records at all 70 intersections in the neighborhood. Below is a summary of the results: First Post-Study Daily Volume (comparing data before sign changes to data from first post-study)- Stayed consistent or decreased at 44 locations (77%) Increased by 10% or more at 13 locations (23%) Average Speed (comparing data before sign changes to data from first post-study)- Stayed consistent or decreased at 56 locations (98%) Increased by 5 mph or more at I location (2%) Accident Rate (# accidents in the neighborhood)- 3-year period before the sign changes: 44 6-month period after the sign changes: 3 59% reduction Second Post-Study Daily Volume (comparing data before sign changes to data from second post-study)- Stayed consistent or decreased at 13 locations (87%) Increased by 10% or more at 2 locations (13%) Average Speed (comparing data before sign changes to data from second post-study)- Stayed consistent or decreased at 14 locations (93%) Increased by 5 mph or more at 1 location (7%) Accident Rate (# accidents in the neighborhood) - 3-year period before the sign changes: 44 I-year period after the sign changes: II 25% reduction Evaluation The results of the post-studies indicate that the operating characteristics within the neighborhood have generally improved since implementation of the intersection traffic control and speed limit modifications. page 4 of7 Neighborhood Traffic Study - Zones 9, 14, IS & 17 September 30, 2009 It appears the sign changes have improved the flow of traffic within the neighborhood and enhanced safety. Overall, traffic volumes and speeds are within acceptable ranges and the accident rate has decreased. While some streets have experienced an increase in traffic volume and/or speed, the number of such locations has been very liptited. The two locations that have experienced a 10% or more increase in traffic volume are near the elementary school. The original data at these two locations were collected during the summer months while the post- study data was collected during the spring and fall. Therefore, the increase in traffic volume can be attributed to school traffic. With respect to traffic speed, only one location experienced an average speed increase of 5 mph and it still is below the posted speed limit. And with respect to the accident rate, of the eleven accidents that occurred in the one-year period, ten accidents occurred along collector streets where there are greater traffic volumes compared to local streets. No one intersection presented itself as problematic. Recommendation Based on the two post-studies performed by the Engineering Division and KLOA Inc., we are recommending two changes to the intersection control that affect the Village Code but not actual sign changes: 1. Lincoln Street & Main Street - Before the study began this intersection was controlled with four stop signs. As part of the original traffic study, KLOA Inc. recommended that the stop signs on Lincoln Street (collector street) be removed making it a two-way stop controlled intersection. The recommendation was approved by the Village Board of Trustees. Shortly after removing the stop signs on Lincoln Street the Village received many calls from concerned residents. Vehicles traveling east on Lincoln Street from Route 83 were doing so at speeds exceeding the neighborhood speed limit. The stop signs had served as a control to transition motorists into a neighborhood environment. Without the stop signs, motorists were continuing their highway speed into the neighborhood. The Village Manager's Office directed Staff to reinstall the stop signs on Lincoln Street and the intersection today is controlled with four stop signs. The intersection has operated safely over the last year (no accidents) and is recommended to remain a four-way stop. The Village Code, however, no longer recognizes Lincoln Street as having stop signs at Main Street. Recommendation: Amend the Village Code to add stop signs on eastbound and westbound Lincoln Street at Main Street (Section 18.2004A). 2. Milburn Avenue & Emerson Street - Before the study began this T -intersection was controlled with a single stop sign on Milburn Avenue. As part of the original traffic study, KLOA Inc. recommended no change to the intersection control at this intersection and the Village Board of Trustees approved this recommendation. Today, the intersection continues to operate safely with only a stop sign on Milburn Avenue. The Village Code, however, reflects both a stop sign and a yield sign on Milburn Avenue at Emerson Street. Apparently, many years ago the intersection operated with a yield sign on Milburn Avenue but when it was replaced with a stop sign the Village Code was not amended. Recommendation: Amend the Village Code to remove the yield sign on eastbound Milburn Avenue at Emerson Street (Section 18.2004B). The Engineering Division has no other recommended adjustments to the intersection control or speed limits in the neighborhood. n"17,. ~ nf7 Neighborhood Traffic Study-Zones 9,14,15 & 17 September 30, 2009 .' Zone 17 Zone 17 is bounded by Golf Road to the north, Route 83 to the east, Dempster Street to the south and Busse Road to the west. The neighborhood has 41 intersections and approximately 8.3 miles of streets under the Village's jurisdiction. Robert Frost Elementary School and Kopp Park are within the neighborhood. The fIrst post-study was performed approximately six months after implementing the sign changes. Each property in the neighborhood was mailed a letter highlighting the results of the study. A web page on the Village web site was also created with additional information. The second post-study, performed one year after implementing the sign changes, focused on those locations that were deemed to require additional evaluation based on the results of the fIrst post-study. Therefore, the second post-study involved gathering vehicular volume and speed data at only 11 locations compared to 43 locations from the first post-study. However, similar to the fIrst post-study, the Village also monitored pedestrian activity at 5 intersections and reviewed accident records at all 41 intersections in the neighborhood. Below is a summary of the results: First Post-Study Daily Volume (comparing data before sign changes to data from first post-study)- Stayed consistent or decreased at 37 locations (86%) Increased by 10% or more at 6 locations (14%) Average Speed (comparing data before sign changes to data from first post-study)- Stayed consistent or decreased at 42 locations (98%) Increased by 5 mph or more at 1 location (2%) Accident Rate (# accidents in the neighborhood)- 3-year period before the sign changes: 12 6-month period after the sign changes: 1 50% reduction Second Post-Study Daily Volume (comparing data before sign changes to data from second post-study) - Stayed consistent or decreased at 11 locations (100%) Increased by 10% or more at 0 locations (0%) Average Speed (comparing data before sign changes to data from second post-study) - Stayed consistent or decreased at 10 locations (91 %) Increased by 5 mph or more at 1 location (9%) Accident Rate (# accidents in the neighborhood) - 3-year period before the sign changes: 12 I-year period after the sign changes: 1 75% reduction Evaluation The results of the post-studies indicate that the operating characteristics within the neighborhood have generally improved since implementation of the intersection traffic control and speed limit modifications. It appears the sign changes have improved the flow of traffic within the neighborhood and enhanced safety. Overall, traffic volumes and speeds are within acceptable ranges and the accident rate has decreased. While some streets have experienced an increase in traffic volume and/or speed, the number of such locations has been very limited. None of the eleven locations as part of the second post-study have experienced a 10% or more increase in traffic volume. Average speeds continue to be below the neighborhood speed limit and only one location has experienced an average speed increase of 5 mph. That street, Chestnut Drive, has experienced an average speed of 21 mph which is still below the speed limit as well as average speeds on many other ....1I.....aoJ:. ^f"'7 Neighborhood Traffic Study-Zones 9,14,15 & 17 SepteD1ber30,2009 residential streets. And with respect to the accident rate, only one accident occurred in the one-year period. This is lower than the four accidents the neighborhood averaged during the three years prior to the sign changes. Recommendation Based on the two post-studies performed by the Engineering Division and KLOA Inc., there are no recommended adjustments to the intersection control or speed limits in the neighborhood. Resident Notification A couple of weeks prior to the upcoming Village Board Meeting residents within the four neighborhoods were notified of the one-year post-studies. The notices summarized the results and directed them to the Village web-site for additional information. They also provided notice of the October 6th Village Board Meeting where the results and [mal recommendations would be presented by the Engineering Division. Residents were invited to attend and participate in the meeting. Decisions made by the Village Board of Trustees at this upcoming Village Board Meeting will serve as closure to the Neighborhood Traffic Study for Zones 9, 14, 15 & 17. Final Recommendations In summary, the Engineering Division recommends the following changes to the Village Code: Section 18.2004A: Stop Signs Ordinances to be Added Name of Street Direction of Traffic Movement At Intersection With Lincoln Street East and Westbound Main Street Section 18.2004B: Yield Signs Ordinances to be Repealed Name of Street Direction of Traffic Movement At Intersection With Milburn Avenue Eastbound Emerson Street Please include this item on the October 6th Village Board Meeting Agenda. Representatives from the Engineering Division and KLOA, Inc. will be in attendance to present the results of the post-studies and final recommendations as well as answer questions. Attachments Neighborhood Traffic Study Zone Map Zone 9 - Traffic Regulation, Volume, Speed & Rand Road Access Maps Zone 14 - Traffic Regulation, Volume & Speed Maps Zone 15 - Traffic Regulation, Volume & Speed Maps Zone 17 - Traffic Regulation, Volume & Speed Maps c: Village Clerk Lisa Angell h: lengineeringltrqfficlritcplzones9-15\vb Jinatreport _9-14-15-17.doc n~ge 7of7 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT f@ t VILLAGE TRAFFIC ZONE MAP &l w ~ Cl "" l;; "" :::> J: 3 ~ 8 7 12 11 LINCOlN ST 14 116 r '!loo"" QUI.... >1>0 17 DEMPSTER ST II~ II IL '~ 1 ~ ~~ lr -l 8 ~~I' [ 1'0 r(~ "1)- ~ II IL OAKTON ST SEMLNOlE LN 1 CAMP MCDONALD RD 2 Cl "" '" w > ;;;: EUCLID AV 4 5 KENSLNGTON RD 6 9 Cl "" 10 ~ 0 ~ CENTRAL RD 15 GOlF RD D POST-STUDIES COMPLETED & PREVIOUSLY APPROVED &l w ~ Cl "" l;; "" :::> J: ~ w D POST-STUDIES PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING THE: RESIDENTLAL SPEED LIMIT PROGRAM & RESLDENTLALINTERSECTlON TRAFFLC CONTROl PROGRAM NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY - ZONE 9 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 'OJ t eE- loaD l om '~~~ IDoDO'D'D JODDD'D': l D~Dt;Dt;D~THDA~Tt;[JussE t; , o ~ :IE 8 Z PARK !!! ~ a.. ...J J: ~ 5 ~ ~ w ~ 0 ..J W J DDDD~'~ liDO' Q 8 CENTRAL RD I II r--l II r--l r--llllll eE- J IT ANN R LEGEND ~ EXISTING STOP SIGN ~ EXISTING YIELD SIGN 8 EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ALL STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE A 25 MPH SPEED LIMIT LEGEND NOT TO SCALE 00 = ORIGINAL STUDY TRAFFIC COUNTS (SEPTEMBER 2006) (00) =FIRST POST STUDY TRAFFIC COUNTS (MA Y 2008) [00J =SECOND POST STUDY TRAFFIC COUNTS (NOVEMBER 2008) JUDITH ANN DR 1073 08 ~ :""': 'r nl ~~i'J o "" "" N N-_ N ~ f'0 ~ N ':?~ GREGORY 225 PARK D (I ) DMEMDRY LN [1152J 101<1 GREGORY ST O E(~p~RR~: 0 D- (?7~lj) Q Lf) 0- ""I'-- "'" "'" - "" "" - () 1067 \'0 ~ D D [: 'I 0 ~~ ~ ~::3~i~ ~DN ,":J ~'3:~~ D D (378~USSE !:; 1'--::: U"1 "'" ~ PARK D 0: <1 HENRY S T 627 U;- n -~-~ --' :i t -., (J) "" "" lD (J) N f'0 :::!: ~ ~ Vl_ "" "'" r-~CO -~:::: Cl w L R illllllllllnnl II PROJECT: TITLE: EXIS TING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 5 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPEC T SECOND POST STUDY ZONE 9 PROJECT NO: 08-121 KLDA FIGURE NO: "3'" ~'-'" NOT TO SCALE '" .b. ~ LEGEND 00 = ORIGINAL STUDY SPEED SURVEYS (SEPTEMBER 2005) (00) = FIRST POST STUDY SPEED SURVEYS (MA Y 2008) [00J = SECOND POST STUDY SPEED SURVEYS (NOVEMBER 2008) t JUDITH ANN DR HIGHLAND 5T ",,,, ,-",Ul '" --J 22 24 22 24 22 24 (21) (23)(20 (23) (IB) (22) [20] [21J GREGORY PARK "'''' "'0 D~:: D GREGORY 5T n ~~~; 23 25 elFIn Lj <25~~5l <20ll25' tJ U lP!e D I ~~ I [] [(II 1?2l1'~~ l~~?:~, g~j ;[j2~' :;;;;, ~:;~, I~~' I D '::-!'::-!SpUASRSKE a:: .b NN ~.b..b. N- Ul '" '" ~(J")--J ;:::;- ~~N HENRY 5 T N~~ ~ ~- (f) 19 23 I 19 (25) (26) (21) (22) [24J t;; [24J [16J ~ [20J 24 30 ~ 29 g (27) z (2B) ~ (25) ~ [27J 3 [26J ~ [25J ~",'" "'(J")'-'" '-"'- 25 25 t;; 23 (25) (24 ~ (24) [25J ~ w R I 1111 II II Ii II II I ~ (f) ~ PROJECT : TITLE: PROJEC T NO: OB-121 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT SECOND POST STUDY ZONE 9 COMPARISON OF AVERAGE SPEEDS KLDA FIGURE NO: 6 PROJECTr t N. T .S. \J 6l trIO LEFJ nAI _ lQ OlIO LilliS 51 AT "" TK @ IG RIOII I\JII _ lQ OlIO LilliS 51 6.'W4 .. 4~ IGHAr @ NOun 11..- LClJIS 51 (J(fO AN(I AD 6..... , ..... 'OHR' TlTLEr PROJECT NOt 06- 300 RAND ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS STUDY MT. PROSPEC T. ILLINOIS RECOMMENDED ACCESS RESTRICTIONS TO/FROM LOCAL/RESIDENTIAL ROADS KL~ FIGURE NOt 4 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY - ZONE 14 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 'f!!J LEGEND .- EXISTING STOP SIGN ~ EXISTING YIELD SIGN 8 EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL t IIU' LINCOLN ST MOUNT PROSPECT GOlF COURSE 3 i 8 II ALL STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE A 25 MPH SPEED LIMIT W ...J <( U Vl ~:= ~ ~ ~ ~ II ~ I U) 00 0 IL 0 z 0 U z W 0::: :::J 0 LL ... :JLJLJLJI I Dl (!7~~) 3AYISl11-H LEi~ JAY Y'13d-YM. >ltl\id 13SNnS J^, YlOO-NY) gll~ I I g/ I ... u waJ CL:::J (f)~ ~U CLLL f-~ ZD :JLl o L J^Y ~JlS'f'JNVl ~) 7}1 ~- oq-iS'S!: ~~r; ~ I -.--, 'V CO C\J(}) 3~L-..J a:: ~ [ZIU o S8Z (50Z) Nl OOOM3903 ZLZ (~ ~) ., YMSJrO ~!7 l I Ilu U Oij 3SSna o Z W <....:) W ----! U 0---0 LL LL LL LL -- IS) 0:: IS) >-- IS) 0 IS) I-N o IS) =:)N '.,.-., =:)N I- ..,--- '--' I- (f) <....:) DZ (f)----! Z =:)0---0 1-0---0 I- 0:: I- U LL LL <r: 0::: f- >- ----! <r: o LL o z o Vi 0::: <r: CL 2 o u w ~ f- f- 1-" Uw itz VlO ON 0:: tL t- U W --, o 0::: CL >- 1-0 Z::::J ::::JI- OVl ~I- I..L.Vl 00 tL W DO <l:Z --.JO --.JU >~ w -' c( U III ~~ ..... o z ~~ (ll [2 a~ 3ssn8 I I Ilu II w --' u f- 0--< 0 f- LL W LL W -CSl 0... Z O:CSl Vl 0 I--N >-CSlON 0 N o CSl =:l 0:: >-0 =:lNI--O 0... Oz I-- (f)Z >- =:l 0--< (f)--, 0--< f- 0 1--0: --,1--0: z :J (f)D- I-- - IL. Vl ZI-- I-- I-- Z W 0 0 W o--<Z (f) Z a:> 0... 0 8=:l 0: =:l U 0: w W 0: a 0--< a W =:l 0 0 --' au LL U (f) (f) <( Z II II f- ---l 0 II U ---l U ,--, w > W CSl CSl CSl -, Vl 0 CSl CSl CSl a: 0.. ~ I cD <X) 0 I L 0 z 0 I f- Z ([8 3j~1 a~ jS~nH"13 u w w -, a: 0 =:J 1""')C\j;;; a: ~ NN~ 0.. lJ... JAYI\l11- ZZI ZZ JAY Yl13d-YM "''''N ......=~ ",in NN Vl o w w (L Vl ,'"'' N(O' w o <! 0::: W > <! In l.D~ N~~ LL o ..... u Wen CL:::J (f)--, :iu CLu. .....--' zO :::Jo o L IZZ 1611 162> 61 LZ z o Vl 0::: <! (L 2 o u (8l> 82 ~ ~ Nl aOOM3903 "'''' N~ N!9~ "';::: NN NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY - ZONE 15 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 'fi/ t RECOMMENDED TO ADD EXISTING STOP SIGNS ON LINCOLN STREET AT MAIN STREET INTO VILLAGE CODE RECOMMENDED TO REPEAL YIELD SIGN ON MILBURN AVENUE AT EMERSON STREET FROM VILLAGE CODE LEGEND .- EXISTING STOP SIGN ~ EXISTING YIELD SIGN 8 EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ~ ~ f ~ ~ ALL STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE A 25 MPH SPEED LIMIT EXCEPT PROSPECT A V (30 MPH) .... ...J c( U Vl ~~ I- o Z , ~-~ "'.... ~tb> I r-....NOO ~r? - ~~ ~ If) I w :2 ~I w :=J U1~ ---.J -0: 0: (89111 I .Sll II U - LL IS NJ.o'I.O LL I I ~~ <J: 1S "1)QHJS ...J 0::: JJLJ U1~~ U1 ~ I- 2 0: 20:0: 0 - w ::i: ---.J - <J: %8 0 LL 0 9fZ Z [661] 0 If) - 0::: <J: 0.... :2 0 u (f) SUI f- (9.S11 Z [fO\:I] W :=) U ...J 0 ~ t- U U LL t- ~ LL LL U LL <I- ~ -N w - DO: \f) a (f) f-- a N f- 1O 0 :=)W Cl:: >-IS;) :=) f-m 0.... >- L o IS;) f- (f)L 0 :=)N (f) f-W f- ::::J --.J f-o: (f):> Z f- 0 f-_ ::::J \f) Z W (f)w (f) co Do a W e...:> --.Jm o IS;) o-~ ~ f- e...:> e...:>o- (f) >- OZ U :=) w ~W 0: \f) 0 IS;) IS;) IS;) 0: L....J CL ~ I lf) co 0 0 2 0 I t- 2 U w w -, n:: 0 ::J n:: C> CL LL O~ lJ3dSO~d lNno~ uJ ...J ... U 1Il ~::? l- e z ;D ~ ::.",-- ~~ N I CD o <0 o z o z W 0::: ::J C) lJ... u 21 ~ 21 12\l 120> [22 [2]] ~ NE1 1 . tJ) r;;:;::' 0 N ..,N NN W N- w N!9 (L ",1 . tJ) ~~ W 1 N' 1::' Nj~U .... C) N~ <( 0::: W > <( lL. 0 Z 0 tJ) - 0::: <( (L 2 0 u Ul >- Ul W ~~~ >- > w a: ~~~ w :=) --' > Ul f- a: 0 f- :=) 0 w~ Ul wOO W O.-lSl I- Lfl 0 W UllSl u W 0.- N w Ul w W >-a: n.. Z 0.- >- Ow Vl 0 Ul Ul ~ 0 N I- U) 0 :=)CO 0:: >-lSl :=) I-L: n.. >- L: OlSl I- UlW 0 :=)N Ul 1-> l- => --.J I-a: UlO z I- 0 I-~ => Vl Z w UlW Ul 00 O~ 0 W t..:) --.JCO o lSl 0.- ::1' l- t..:) - 1..1... 0 --1 --.J :z:W I- :Z:W 0 n.. .........1- ......... t..:)0.- Ul >- 0> > Ua: w .........W a: Vl 0 lSl lSl lSl 0::: '--' Cl.. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY - ZONE 17 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT '&/ t LEGEND eE- EXISTING STOP SIGN ~ EXISTING YIELD SIGN 8 EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL I L-J L-J L 8 i!i 3 u ~ i!i z ~ i!i ~ ~ 0; ... .. w ~ c " t- III " ::J :c :& -' w i!i i ~ c ~ ~ 5 KOPP PARK 8 II DEMPSTER ST 8 II 8 II ALL STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE A 25 MPH SPEED LIMIT EXCEPT LINNEMAN RD (30 MPH) W --J "" U V'l ~~ I- o Z CL~ CLa: D<r ~CL O~ NV~]NNIl [O\7ZJ (Z9Z) ~o SS]~dAJ 8ZZ (911) ~a ])V~9 LII (9\7Z) ~a aOOMH)]]8 SO~ [IZ9J (91Ll ~o j~J80~ OOL [o91J (9LD ~a HJ~I8 9S1 (SLD ~o N~JJ 091 >-(f) f- Oz- ::::J::::Jf'.. f-OCSl (f)u~ --.JUC) <It-<z ZLLt-< OLLo: t-<<I(L O:O:(f) Of-_ >- o ::::J (f) f- f- (f) Z ::::J_ f-Oro (f)UCSl ~~~ f-LL--.J (f)LL--.J 0: - o ::::J f-(f) (f)f- Z- f-::::J() (f)OCSl OuCSl (L N O~C) ZLL~ OLLo: U<I(L WO:(f) (f) f- _ II II II Wo Oz <(0 -'u -'w >Vl CSl CSl CSl CSl CSl CSl L-J ~ W I <D ..J co .. 0 U II> ~~ t- O 0 Z 0 z Ii z W 0::: ::::J c.:> LL Vl 0 W W 0.... Vl W C) <J: 0::: W > <J: LL 0 ~ '" Z a: ~ 0 Ii' ~ Vl 0 - 0::: <J: 0.... :2 0 u ~ :J :J ~ ::JO =:J~ ::J ~I 3^V A 1~3^VM "';;; NN '" '" N~ ~D ~~ .....c;;~ "'N~ O~ NV~2.NNIl 0__ I"")~~ NO NN o..~ 0..0::: 0<[ ~o.. ~~5 n~~ "';:: NN 3^V~31SVJNVl """ N~ O~ NV~3NNIl ~ - "'''' I""'l~~ r--\D~ NN~ ~o I~J8D~ _ ~;:: N~~ ~ M ~ ,...,'" N~ ro-Jon NN~ ~O HJ~18 Na>N N=~ o D~ Do::: 3<[ Do.. w 0::: ..,;;; NN 0;;; : ~ -::a ~O N~ J .,,'" N~ ~o N~JJ "'.., N~ >- 0 >- :::J 0 f- :::JU) U)U) >-U) f->- >-- 0>-_ (f)W f-WO"' :::JWr--- (f)>lS:l f->lS:l f->Q3 Oo.:::lS:l U)o.:::lS:l (f)o.:::lS:l (L:::JN :::IN O:::JlS:l U)C) ---.JU) (LU)N 0 0 <I C) f-O---.J ZOZ Z ZOZ OWn:: W ~W~ U)W---.J UW(L C) C)Wo.::: o.:::W- o f-:=J Zf- :=JVl o ~f- Vl LLO 00... Wo ClZ <l:0 -1U -1W >Vl ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 ENTITLED 'TRAFFIC CODE' OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 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: That Subsection A, "STOP SIGNS," of Section 18.2004, of "SCHEDULE IV _ STOP AND YIELD SIGNS," of Chapter 18 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by inserting the following: "Name of Street Lincoln Street Direction of Traffic Movement East and Westbound At Intersection with Main Street." SECTION TWO: That Subsection B, "YIELD SIGNS," of Section 18.2004, of "SCHEDULE IV- STOP AND YIELD SIGNS," of Chapter 18 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the following: "Name of Street Milburn Avenue Direction of Traffic Movement Eastbound At I ntersection with Emerson Street." SECTION THREE: 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 October, 2009 Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell, Village Clerk H:\CLKO\WIN\ORDINANCE2\CH 18-Z0NEs9, 14, 15& 17oct2009doc 1)