Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. New Business 11/16/2010Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM 1 11 W TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2010 SUBJECT: PZ -13 -10 / 950 E. RAND ROAD / CONDITIONAL USE (DRIVE - CHASE BANK Pare) /to H) / The Subject Property is one of the outlot buildings of the Mount Prospect Plaza shopping center. The petitioner proposes to demolish the former Brown's Chicken restaurant and construct a Chase bank with a drive through on the east side of the building. The Petitioner is seeking approval of a Conditional Use for the drive - through. The Planning & Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the request on Thursday, October 28, 2010, and by a vote of 7 -0 recommended approval of a Conditional Use for a drive- through at 950 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ- 13 -10, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. 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 November 16, 2010 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. Cooney, Jr., AICP \ \Vtl \vhthcdS\PLAMPIannuig & Zoning COMAM 2010Vv1EJ McnimTZ -13 -10 950 E. Rand Road (CU -Drive T1w gh1).dacz four (4) stacking spaces for each drive through window. Since the Petitioner's proposal included four drive - through windows, a total of 16 stacking spaces were required. Ms. Andrade showed a slide stating that the proposal would comply with the required stacking spaces. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner submitted a landscape plan that detailed the proposed plant materials and sizes. As currently drawn, the landscape plan did not comply with the landscape requirements. The landscape plan would need to be revised to comply with Code requirements. Ms. Andrade said the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. The following is a summary of these findings: that The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; And that adequate provision for utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets are provided. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner's request to construct a drive - through bank met the standards for a Conditional Use. The bank would not have a detrimental impact on the adjacent retail center and access to the bank would not change from the existing access points or traffic patterns. The use or value of the adjacent properties would not be impaired. Additionally, the use as a bank complied with the Comprehensive Plan and would be constructed according to Village Codes. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers swore Mike Metzger, Chase Retail Real Estate, 131 S. Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois and Jason Golub, Nudell Architects, 307 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Metzger stated that Chase has many customers in the area and he believed the proposed location would be a very successful site. He stated that they are prepared to submit items for a building permit and open sometime in the third quarter of 2011. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioners if they had a chance to review the conditions that Staff has recommended. Mr. Golub said the only question he had was related to the signage. He stated that Chase would be submitting a separate sign package to the Planning and Zoning Commission at a future date. Chairman Rogers advised the Petitioners that the Village would only allow two signs; the elevations showed four signs. Mr. Metzger said consultants are working with the Village on the signage. He stated that Chase may be allowed more than two signs due to the calculations of the square footage for the building. Chairman Rogers just wanted to inform the Petitioners that the Village was very sensitive to the sign code. Mr. Golub showed the four elevations with the signs and the octagon symbol. Mr. Golub referenced the site plan in relation to Staff's comments. Mr. Golub stated that Staff noted that a ten foot setback was needed in the Southwest corner of the site; this would be modified by the Petitioners. The Brown's Chicken front entrance was to the south facing Rand Road; the front of the proposed Chase Bank building would face west. By doing this, the Petitioners were able to add eight parking spaces, including two ADA spaces. Mr. Golub said that a dual drive lane would be on the south side of the site that would lead into the four drive - through lanes and one bypass lane east of the proposed building. Mr. Golub noted Staff's concern to the landscaping on both sides of the bypass lane; he stated that it would be brought to Code. Mr. Golub discussed the materials that would be used to build the proposed bank. The drive through canopy would match the architectural elements of the building. Mr. Golub showed a picture of how the bank would be illuminated during the evening hours. Mr. Foggy asked if the Chase symbol would be pressed into the EIFS. Mr. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -13 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Donnelly asked Staff if a revised copy of the landscape plan was required before the Village Board Meeting. Mr. Simmons stated that it was not a requirement to be submitted before the Village Board meeting, but the revisions to the plan could be made at the time the Petitioner applies for a building permit. After hearing one additional case, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Foggy to adjourn at 10:41 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -13 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 PZ -13 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 3 2. Provide handicap ramps and detectable warnings for the new handicap access parking spaces. 3. Reduce the row of parking spaces located southeast of the drive - through lanes from eight (8) spaces to seven (7), and increase the radius between the westernmost parking space and the new driveway. 4. Stripe the arrow at the exit from the south corner of the parking lot. Parkin — The Village Code requires three (3) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for a bank. The proposed 4,241 square foot bank requires thirteen (13) parking spaces. The Petitioner's proposal will meet the required parking spaces by providing a total of twenty four (24) parking spaces. As per the attached site plan, sixteen (16) parking spaces will be situated to the northwest of the building and eight (8) spaces will be provided to the southeast. The Village Code also requires four (4) stacking spaces for each drive through window. Since the Petitioner's proposal includes four drive - through windows, a total of sixteen stacking spaces are required. The proposal would comply with the required sixteen (16) stacking spaces. Lighting Plan - The Petitioner is required to submit a lighting plan for parking lot lighting as part of the Building Permit process. The Petitioner has not requested relief from the lighting regulations and will be required to comply with the Village's regulations. Landscaping - The attached landscape plan details the proposed plant materials and sizes. As currently drawn, the landscape plan does not comply with the landscape requirements. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide a mixture of plantings within the southwest and southeast perimeter areas of the site. A mixture of evergreen and deciduous shrubs shall be provided in these two areas. Sig_nage — The attached sign package illustrates the proposed signs for the bank. As proposed, the signs proposed on the building exceed the number permitted. Specifically, the northeast and southeast building elevations show two wall signs per elevation when the Sign Code only permits one wall sign per elevation. The Petitioner has not requested relief from the sign regulations and will be required to comply with the Village's regulations. A thorough review of the proposal will be performed as part of the building permit process. Additional comments may be generated at that time. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The proposed building's setbacks and number of parking spaces will comply with the minimum Code requirements. The lot coverage will also comply with the maximum seventy -five percent (75 %) permitted lot coverage. Per the Petitioner's application, the lot coverage within the leasing parcel will decrease from eighty- nine percent (89 %) to seventy-five percent (75 %). As previously noted, the parking lot setback at the west corner of the site does not comply with the minimum ten foot (10') parking lot setback requirement from the Rand Road property line. The site plan will need to be revised to comply with the parking lot setback and other Staff comments as noted earlier on this report and additional comments that are generated as part of the building permit process. CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.2031.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. The following list is a summary of these findings: • The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; o Name Telephone (day) a Patty Mahoney 630 - 954 - 7326 i✓ Corporation Telephone (evening) a 5 o J Mid America 4 � All Ah 630 -954 -7326 Street Address Fax: a One Parkview Plaza 636-g5 73Z J i x City State Zip Code Email Oakbrook Terrace IL 60181 PMahoney @midamericagrp.com Developer Name Chase Bank Telephone(day) 3 12 - 325 -6532 Address 131 S. Dearbo 5th F loo r Fax 312- 256 -9289 Chicago, IL 60670 Michael.a.Metzger @char . Email Attorney Name Freeborn & Peters, LLP /Ann Garr Telephone(day) 312 - 360 - 6500 Address 311 S. Wacker Dri Ste 30 Fax Chicago, IL 60606 Email agarr @freebornpete Surveyor O Name Spaceco/ Rebecca Popeck, PLS Telephone(day) 847 -696 -4060 Address 9575 W. Higgins Road, Ste 700 Fax 847 - 969 - 4065 .° Rosemont, IL 60018 C c eck @s acecoinc Email zP o P P G 0 Engineer .S Name Woolpert/ Tim Reber, PE Telephone(day) 630 - 42 4 -9 O o J Address 1815 S. Meyers Rd, Ste 120 Fax 630- 495 -3731 �i Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 °e Email im . reber@woolpert . Architect Name Nudell Architects/ Jason Golub 312-558-1144 'relephone(day): Address 307 N. Michigan, #818 Fax 888- 244 - 11 3 2 Chicago, IL 60601 Email j golub@jhn.com Landscape Architect Name Woolpert/ Tim Reber, PE Telephone(day): 630- 424 -9080 Address 1815 S. Meyers Rd, Ste 120 Fax 630- 495 -3731 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 Email tim. reber@woolpert. c com .com r.1fil 1.11V Dm Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.motititprospect.org 2 TDD 847.392.6064 PARCEL EAST THAT PART OF LOT 1 IN PLAZA SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO PLAT THEREOF REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ON JULY 16, 1979 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER LR 3104778, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A PARC =L TAKEN FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS BY CONDEMNATION REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NUMBER LR 3201616, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RAND ROAD (US ROUTE 12) AS DEDICATED BY SAID PLAZA SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 32 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 09 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL, 35.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 57 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 36.76 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON- TANGENT CURVE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 6.82 FEET, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID NON- TANGENT CIRCLE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 32.00 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS NORTH 26 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 37 SECONDS EAST, 6.81 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 32 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST, 89.19 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE EASTERLY 48.51 FEET, ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CIRCLE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 24.00 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS SOUTH 89 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 38 SECONDS EAST, 40.66 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 31 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 28 SECONDS EAST, 51.42 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 21.81 FEET, ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CIRCLE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS SOUTH 44 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 15 SECONDS EAST, 21.64 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 56 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 01 SECONDS EAST, 143.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 32 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST, 124.30 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RAND ROAD (US ROUTE 12); THENCE NORTH 57 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID LINE, 207.85 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 31,093 SQUARE FEET OR 0.714 ACRES MORE OR LESS. D: \LGL.SUR- 03.doc PAY ONLY THIS AMOUNT 36 BY 12/01/09 (on time) AID LATE 12/02/09 01/01/10 $ 37,313.01 2008 Second Installment Property Tax Bill Property Index Number (PIN) Volume Code Tax Year (Payable In) Township 03 -35 -302- 011 -0000 235 38020 2008 (2009) WHEELING IF PAID LATE 01/02/10 - 0210110 IF PAID LATE 02102/10 - 03/01/10 $ 37,864.43 $ 38,415.85 1TAX rA LCULATOR.� THANK YOU FOR YOUR FIRST INSTALLMENT PAYMENT OF: LATE PENALTY $ 35,671.59 ON 02 -24 -09 33.17 674.56 939.97 I IS 1.5% PER MONTH, I. PAY THIS BILL AT COOKCOUNTYTREASURER.COM OR ANY CHASE BANK. i BY STATE LAW. 0.096 Property location and classification for this PIN 940 E RAND RD MOUNT PROSPECT IL 60056 2567 Property Classification 5 -28 Taxing District 2008 Tax 2008 Rate 2008% Pension 2007 Tax 2007 Rate 4, 635. 14 0.439 8,094.82 MISCELLANEOUS TAXES Northwest Mosquito Abatement 88.47 0.008 0.12% 84.47 0.008 Metro Water Reclamation District 2,786.74 0.252 3.85% 165.87 2.776.86 0.263 Mount Prospect Park District 4, 500.81 0.407 6.21% 431.28 4,339.51 0.411 0.682 Miscellaneous Taxes Total 7, 376. 02 0.867 10. t 8% 7,200.84 Dist 512 strict 214 Taxes Total MUNICIPALITY/TOWNSHIP TAXES Mount Prospect Spec Sery Area 5 Mount Prospect Ubrary Fund Village of Mount Prospect Road 8 Bridge Wheeling General Assistance Wheeling Town Wheeling Municipallty/Townsh/p Taxes Total COOK COUNTY TAXES Cook County Forest Preserve District Consolidated Elections County of Cook Cook County Public Safety Cook County Health Facilities Cook County Taxes Total 2, 830.98 17, 549. 84 24,837.39 45, 2 18.21 0.256 1. 587 2.246 4.0 3.91% 24.23% 34.29% 62.43 33.17 674.56 939.97 2.746.19 17, 115. 12 24,643.33 44, 503. 70 0.260 1.621 2.334 4.216 1,061.62 0.096 1.47% 1,066.40 0.101 4, 876. 80 0.441 &. 73% 4, 635. 14 0.439 8,094.82 0.732 11.18% 1,714.06 7.918.81 0.750 132.70 0.012 0.18% 126.70 0.012 99.53 0.009 0.14% 95.03 0.009 420.22 0.038 0.58 %. 401.22 0.038 14,685.69 1.328 20.28% 14,243.30 1.349 563.98 0. 051 0.78% 11.05 559.60 0.053 0.00 0.000 0.00% 126.70 0.012 2,477.11 0.224 3.42% 763.03 1,963.86 0.186 1 161.14 0.105 1.60% 1,763.25 0.167 , 951.03 0.086 1.31% 981.93 0,093 5,153.26 0.466 7.11% 5,395.34 0.511 2007 Assessed Value 371.265 2008 Assessed Value 371,265 2008 Slate Equalization Factor X 2 9786 2008 Equalized Assessed Value (EAV) = 1.105,850 2008 Local lax Rate X 6. 550% 2008 Total Tax Before Exemptions 72.433 18 Homeowner's Exemption _ 00 Senior Citizen Exemption 00 Senior Assessment Freeze Exemption 00 2008 Tota'. Tax After Exemptions 72,433.18 First Installment Pq m 'G C M1 '0 0 Z ,.M 0 0 rM 0 v C/1 aot pay these totals) 72,433. 11--_-8-550 100. 00% 71, 343.18 6.757 r A/C. + t 0 j_ � 1 DAT'E EN 1. -- -_.._ PROSPECT PLAZA 1 PA Dt)`r•::.y ��_ ^� 1' PARKVIEW PLAZA OAKBROOK TER IL 60181 -4401 35.671.59 Seccnd Installment + 36,761 59 Total 2008 Tax (Payable In 2009) 72,433.18 IF YOUR TAXES ARE PAID BY MORTGAGE ESCROW, BE SURE NOT TO DOUBLE PAY. } MAIN ENTRANU Ij II POE El fA IF CHASE BANK Ppuj�c. N, N. UATIE REVISION 01 0 1100 RAND ROAD VILLFGE OF NIOWT PROSPECT OE! SITE PLAN' fig i i o 40 l ip rip ALBERT STREET 4 A v "ev I MP OUTH MOW -Bi li CA I f ar WESTGATE ROAD 5 . . ........... r0R`1a04 `. 9iU /]010 ! ,W •. -._�. _.. __.. ..._.. .__.. _.. -. v��_ •...•i .n .. _ nr.. e... u� c,.....r\e..n\cme \u \TnvT _ cren.F]u I I • euas '.:.I I 1 —m_ 10:50:.5 AN 1 � S 1 I I 1 I I/ I I i 1 \ \ r \ \ e 1 7 1 I I r \ I \ r \\ SSI I. \ r• 3 \ Lam_\ 1 9 i W IIIi;;I w p p 7 Qq7 u u 00060 i j i i l 1%* 00 coo IS c 6 gig A E I I 1 ( p pg rl ppp m i 1 I i I I I r68 ®¢ C i FF I I I I@p E ill�iii 8 [ m I I I I I I I j € 0 to I 11, I � � � P $ r Im + ®emeop•Oeo was mme.p•mmme .ee..c.m go F i S SS CHASE BANK PROJECT NO: o DATE REVISION 1815 South Maters Roos 70537 0 1100 RAND ROAD � s °It. IZD DATE SEF 4010 � G VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT O•Mfrook Terrooe, IL 60181 pES. lA 0 630. 24.900D DR. ON COON COUNTY, ILLINOIS FA%' fiJ0.495. }731 m0aum CND. TII t EXISTING CONDITIONS /DEMOLITION PLAN / I � I I I I • euas '.:.I I 1 —m_ 10:50:.5 AN 1 � S 1 I I 1 I I/ I I i 1 \ \ r \ \ e 1 7 1 I I r \ I \ r \\ SSI I. \ r• 3 \ Lam_\ 1 9 i W IIIi;;I w p p 7 Qq7 u u 00060 i j i i l 1%* 00 coo IS c 6 gig A E I I 1 ( p pg rl ppp m i 1 I i I I I r68 ®¢ C i FF I I I I@p E ill�iii 8 [ m I I I I I I I j € 0 to I 11, I � � � P $ r Im + ®emeop•Oeo was mme.p•mmme .ee..c.m go F i S SS CHASE BANK PROJECT NO: o DATE REVISION 1815 South Maters Roos 70537 0 1100 RAND ROAD � s °It. IZD DATE SEF 4010 � G VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT O•Mfrook Terrooe, IL 60181 pES. lA 0 630. 24.900D DR. ON COON COUNTY, ILLINOIS FA%' fiJ0.495. }731 m0aum CND. TII t EXISTING CONDITIONS /DEMOLITION PLAN .a i.we ar n.aia. a /i. /imoimo:Ee vM. -, o... .. -.. - -- - : \x \n�.m• \N.arlVDVO - cn.« ae.. M n.pn \c.gc.aa \caVDan aao -G« 1. l I , , � I , , , , I i {2C = G I � y 8 O '+ g a g s S I ,r — — — — tj6 - -— rg a o "^tn aaa . a O fs4 p �9 � ! c� $ae$a$ p � 6 y L 1`0 1 CHASE BANK 1100 RAND ROAD VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COUNTY, ILLINOIS 6u south Mgan Rood aae 12C 030.424. 11-1. IL 60161 6]0.441.9060 FAX; 60G 495.]7]1 �� rNU 70337 DA E sEP sDtD DES. OI pRCOOK NO. GRADING/EROSION CONTROL PLAN I MAIN ENTRANCE U104 Byt—, 2/14/2010 10:45:01 - c... IN. .1 P— N-1. 2011% 1-1 1 MAIN ENTRANCE SISS11 tat so go z > Ils go I s. 4 + + + IFF1 0 8 Jill > T 1 IR m > m R opt 01 111 . I 1 1;;.:: 11 R5 m I m o I ( ! Z P IP Pit m 0*1 m 151 1i 1 !11,.0 I 1 12 ; IR x s m 21 z UP R Roll RI RIF R Q q Is 1j; r 'i" i ; I. . ilip No IE TI WIN 1 11 H cl It to PROJECTNI, N.. DATE REVISION T CHASE BANK I I S,— R-d 70537 0 100 RAND ROAD DATE W 2010 60181 DES. AN 080 VILILA E OF VOUNIPROSPECT 530.42*4'97 OE 0*11- , COOK COUN-. ILLINOIS FAX: 630.495.3731 CKO. LANDSCAPE PLAN Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM M ?�ba g T h 11 1,6 10 TO; E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF CONEVIUNTTY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2010 SUBJECT: PZ -1410 / 999 N. ELMHURST RD. / CASTO / VARIATIONS (FENCE HEI & LIGHT FIXTURES) & AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL USE FOR SIGNS The petitioner, Casto Lifestyle Properties, is seeking approval of Variations to increase the height of a fence and to allow non -full cutoff light fixtures, and to amend the Special Use for large scale development signs for four pylon sings for the Randhurst Village property located at 999 N. Elmhurst Road. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the requests on Thursday, October 28, 2010 and made the following recommendations on the zoning requests: L Approval of a Variation to increase the height of the perimeter fence along the east property line from six feet (6') to eight feet (8'). 2. Approval of a Variation to allow non -full cutoff light fixtures along the Main Street portion of the Randhurst Village PUD as shown on the plans prepared by WLS Lighting Systems. 3. Denial to amend the approved Special Use for Large Scale Development Signs for the four pylon signs as illustrated on the plans prepared by Doyle General Sign Contractors dated October 27, 2010. 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 November 16, 2010 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. Wki, - &�P� William J. Cboney, Jr., A CP NiWANW%m1w*7Aw6w rr*AU *7.711iNAAF1W.w Apylt10999N PIwW�Nw.LNwNksa WII�wYVmmlYns wN QI �w.wlwiwlthre Mr. Simmons showed a site plan indicating the placement of the two lighting fixtures on the Randhurst property. The first fixture "860" would be installed on the main entrance coming off of Elmhurst Road, to the traffic circle and also along the perimeter of the existing Sports Authority and Bed Bath & Beyond stores, and then to the back of the development. The second fixture as proposed would go down Main Street along the main portion of the shops and down in front of the movie theatre as well. Mr. Simmons said the light Code was changed approximately six years ago. Since then, there have been no zoning cases requesting to allow non -full cutoff light fixtures. The subject case is the first to request such a Variation. There has been no previous precedence for it Based on the existing Code, Staff recommended denial of the Variation request for non -full light cutoff fixtures. Chairman Rogers suggested that the Commission discuss each zoning request separately. The Planning and Zoning Commission would be casting three separate votes on each item that was presented before them. Mr. Donnelly asked if there were alternate fixtures available that would meet Code. Mr. Simmons stated there were different fixtures that could possibly comply with Code. He stated that he did not research whether or not the same style that the Petitioner wanted had full cut -off. Chairman Rogers swore in Jim Conroy, Director of Development for Casto Lifestyle Properties, 55 E. Euclid, Mount Prospect, Illinois and Joe Doyle, Doyle Sign Company, 232 W. Interstate, Addison, Illinois. Mr. Copy stated that Randhurst was a unique project and discussed how the economy has changed since the approval of the Randhurst redevelopment project back in 2008. He provided the Commission with copies of aerials of the project and a status of the current project. Most of the Main Street buildings are currently having the brick work being done and will be under roof soon. The movie theatre is set to open in April of 2011 and PNC Bank was set to open on November 1'. Pei Wei Asian Diner will soon be tamed over for the interior work to begin. Mr. Conroy stated that the Main Street is surrounded by the outer buildings and parking lots. He said that the goal of the lighting was to bring a pedestrian feel to the Main Street portion of the project. Mr. Conroy stated that the lighting was shown in the original plans and renderings; he said Staff never addressed the lighting as a Variance with the original proposal. Mr. Conroy said that they were trying to enhance Main Street and highlight it in a couple of ways. He stated they were making bigger sidewalks, larger landscaped areas, brick pavers, stamped concrete, planters, and benches to make the area a special environment. Mr. Conroy said that the original lifestyle center tenants were no longer expanding. He stated that they needed to make somemmor modification to those who were expanding and to create a balance between retail and restaurants. Mr. Conroy stated the importance of the type of lighting being proposed. It would be brought down to a pedestrian level. He said the lighting would create the special type of area that the project needed. Mr. Conroy did address that there were other light fixtures available with full cut -off, but they did not create the sparkle effect that he was looking for. He was afraid that if this type of lighting was not approved, it would create a vanilla effect. Mr. Conroy understood Staffs recommendation, but asked the Commission to look at th position of the lights and how they would accent Main Street and funnel traffic into the development. He said most of the shopping would be done in the evening hours and he wanted customers to feel comfortable with the lighting. Mr. Beattie asked why the lighting goes around Sports Authority and Bed, Bath, and Beyond, but not Carsons. Mr. Conroy said Bed, Bath, and Beyond wanted to feel included with the development and Main Street. He discussed some of the exterior work that was being completed. Mr. Conroy stated that Bed, Bath, and Beyond Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -1410 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 9 Mr. Simmons discussed the second request of a Variation to install an eight foot (8') fence along the east property line. This item was originally requested with the original PUD approvals. The Petitioner was unsure with the original proposal if they wanted a 6 or an 8 foot fence, but they wanted to have the right to pursue an 8 foot fence if they felt the opportunity was needed. At the time of the original request, Staff recommended denial of the 8 foot fence, in which the Village Board denied the request. Since the project has moved forward, the Petitioner re- visited the height of the fence and was asking for reconsideration of the 8 foot fence. Staff has also re- evaluated the request looking at how the area has developed and looked at the intensity of the uses on that site that included a parking garage, loading areas, and traffic along the drive aisle on the east side of the property. Mr. Simmons stated that the 8 foot fence would provide adequate separation from the more intense commercial property . Staff believed that this area was more intense than any part of the Village due to the size of the development; which would warrant the 8 foot fence. Mr. Simmons stated that Code only permits 8 foot fences for industrial properties or properties that front a railroad right -of -way. Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for an 8 foot fence. Chairman Rogers asked if there would be any landscaping required with the fence. Mr. Simmons stated that the Petitioner would be proposing some landscaping in that area There have been shrubs already installed. Mr. Simmons said there were some issues with the power lines above the fence line, so the Petitioner was limited with what could be installed. Mr. Donnelly asked if the proposed fence would run to Euclid. Ms. Andrade said there was a restaurant located behind Jewel and the proposed fence would only run to where the restaurant property begins. It would run to approximately the midpoint of the Jewel store. Mr. Donnelly asked if the restaurant had a 6 foot fence. Ms. Andrade said there was no fence between the restaurant and Jewel. Mr. Foggy asked if there were any elevations or plans of the fence. Ms. Andrade said the Village did not have drawings of the proposed fence; she believed the Petitioner was still evaluating various types of fences. Mr. Conroy stated that the proposed 8 foot fence would be similar to what is currently along the east property line. He said that Casto has a meeting set-up in November to coordinate the type of fence with the Boxwood Association. Mr. Conroy said the existing fence does not belong to Casto or Randhurst. It was originally built by the homeowners along Boxwood. Although the existing fence was not in disrepair, Mr. Conroy said the new fence would clean up the site and give the residents of Boxwood some additional privacy. He stated that Casto already has an approved landscape plan all along the east drive. Mr. Conroy would be in agreement to extending the fence on the Jewel side property so the restaurant would not have to look into the Jewel truck loading zone. W. Beattie asked if an 8 foot fence has been discussed with the residents in the Boxwood neighborhood. Mr. Conroy stated he has not talked to the residents, but the higher fence would create the buffer that was needed between residential and the more intense use of the Randhurst property. Mr. Beattie asked if the existing fence was 6 feet. Mr. Conroy stated that the height varied, but it was six feet at its highest point. Mr. Floros asked whose property the new fence would lie on. Mr. Conroy stated that if he received the eight foot Variation, the fence would have to be on Casto's property. Mr. Floras asked how many Boxwood Associations were there. Mr. Simmons stated there were several. Mr. Conroy said he would like to meet with a few of the associations for the initial meeting who would then inform all of the residents and property owners on what Casto would like to do. Mr. Conroy stated he had until April 22, 2011 to get the fence up because that is when the theater opens. Chairman Rogers asked how many access points would there be from Boxwood to the Randhurst property. Mr. Conroy said he would like some controlled access points. One would be by Jewel and another would be by the Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -14 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 9 Mr. Simmons said the Petitioner has had conversations with existing tenants and potential tenants who requested to change the original signage. Mr. Simmons showed a slide of the revised proposal. He then showed a table comparing all the signs that have been proposed: Type of Sign Height Width Area No. of Tenants Primary Entry Sign (1.1) 15 ft. 36 & base 375 sq. ft. 3 (South Elmhurst Rd (25 ft sign area) Entrance Only) Secondary Entry Sign 20 ft. 19 ft. 380 sq. ft. 6 (3.1) (North Elmhurst Rd, Euclid and Kensington Entrances Original Proposal 22.33 ft. 23.83 ft. 270 sq. ft. 8 (All four entrances (15 ft. sign highlighted above ) area Revised Proposal 24.75 ft. 27.67 ft. base 470 sq. ft. 8 (All four entrances (19 & sign hi hli kited above) area Mr. Simmons explained to the Commission how the square footage was measured for signs; the square footage calculations do not include the base. Mr. Simmons said the revised signs were developed to be consistent with the rest of the development and to meet leasing requirements with tenants. Staff was more comfortable with the revised proposal, but would need additional time to review how the tenant panel portion of the sign was designed. Mr. Simmons stated that Staff requested that the Petitioner stay with a maximum of 6 tenants per sign. Mr. Simmons stated that Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the revised proposal elevation subject to Staffs conditions. Chairman Rogers confirmed that the proposal in the Staff packet was the original proposal and that the Petitioner has resubmitted the revised proposal. Chairman Rogers said he originally objected to the 20 foot original sign that was approved 2 years ago, but had many issues with a 24 foot tall sign due to the Village updates on the Sign Code. He felt that 6 panels for the number of tenants was too high. Chairman Rogers was more comfortable with the original lower signs because of the height and the uniformity of the design. Mr. Beattie confirmed that the original design of the signs had a black background with uniform white lettering. Chairman Rogers did not see a need for all larger tenants to be on all of the proposed signs. Mr. Donnelly asked how many Variances have been granted to the Subject Property for signage. Chairman Rogers said that per Code, the largest sign could only be 12 feet. He discussed the larger sign at Mount Prospect Plaza. Mr. Donnelly felt that the Village had granted the tenants (Jewel, Costco, and Bed Bath and Beyond) a Variance for larger wall signs since they could not be seen from the road Mr. Donnelly felt that there needed to be some sort of balance in regards to the Variances for signage. Mr. Simmons discussed the signage on the oudot building that houses Five Guys. By Code, the tenants in the outlot are allowed to have signage face the parking lot and street. Since this outlot was not next to a residential zone, they could have a sign on each fagade. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -1410 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 9 Mr. Foggy stated the multiple colors and logos on the sign did not agree with the scope of the signage for the Randhurst project. He asked if there was a sign design that the Commission and Petitioner could deal with. Mr. Foggy said the sign was too high and that to reduce the height would be to focus on 6 tenants per sign. Mr. Conroy stated that if the mall was limited to six panels per sign, it would be hard to attract new tenants who would not have their names on any of the proposed signage. Mr. Foggy discussed the need for common ground regarding signage on the Subject Property. There was additional discussion regarding the use of the tenants' colors and logos on the signs. Chairman Rogers said the original concept of the signs were to bring traffic into the Randhurst Village development with a few key tenants listed on the signage, not a large multi- tenant sign. Mr. Conroy reiterated that the proposed signs would be different than other multi- tenant signs in the Village. Mr. Donnelly said 3 of the 4 signs were placed at traffic light controlled intersections. He stated that commuters would see and read the signs. There was additional discussion on whether or not consumers and residents knew what types of stores were included within the Subject, Property currently and prior to re- development. Mr. Conroy felt the size of the sign was appropriate due to the number of anchor stores for the project. Mr. Roberts said he did not believe what was being proposed before the Commission would be agreed upon by the Petitioner and the Commission. He stated that regardless of what has been negotiated with the tenants, the rules and regulations of the Village must be abided by. Mr. Roberts suggested that the case be voted on or tabled until a future meeting to work on a compromise. Chairman Rogers let the Petitioner decide on whether or not to continue the Special Use request for signage or have the Commission vote to make a recommendation. Mr. Conroy stated based on timing, he requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission vote. Mr. Foggy asked if there was a negative recommendation, could the request be overturned. It was stated that the Village Board could overturn the item if it was not approved. Mr. Simmons stated that if the Petitioner received a denial from the Village Board, the Petitioner would have a year to resubmit, unless they significantly revise the plan due to comments from the Planning Division. Mr. Youngquist asked Mr. Doyle if they attempted to do anything else besides the straight panel signs. Mr. Doyle stated that a couple of different things were looked at They looked at repositioning the logos across the sign in different areas on the stonework. Mr. Doyle said after discussions with Mr. Conroy and the Planning Department, it was determined to bring back elements of the original design. Mr. Donnelly asked if 8 tenants could be listed on the original sign. Mr. Doyle and Mr. Conroy said that it was difficult to read and see the 6 tenants in 10 inch letters. Mr. Beattie stated that other malls in the area do not have signs like the proposal for Randhurst Village. Mr. Beattie said he liked the original design of the sign because it was for Randhurst Village. Mr. Conroy discussed why The Glen in Glenview was having issues due to limited signage and visibility. Mr. Floros asked the Petitioner to address a previous comment regarding malls like Woodfield or Deer Park do not have signage like what was being proposed. Mr. Conroy said that Woodfield has drawing power from Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -14-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 8 of 9 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY — PZ -14 -10 LOCATION: 9 999 N Ehuhurst Road PETITIONER: C CLP /SPF Randhurst LLC, c% Casto Lifestyle Properties OWNER: S Same as Petitioner R RLEc op l y P PARCEL #: M Multiple LOCATION MAP PZ -14-10 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting October 28, 2010 Page 3 between the commercial development and the residential neighbors to the east. The eight foot (8 tall fence would provide further screening than a six foot (6') tall fence would along the east properly line and would provide entrances at locations aligned with some of the larger buildings (AMC Theatre, padang garage, self storage building) of the development. Landscaping will also be installed along this property line to soften the appearance of the fence. The proposed fence will screen the development reducing the impact of the parking garage and loading areas on this side of the property fiom the adjacent residential uses. By providing key access points, the fence will provide sufficient means for adjacent residents to access the Randhurst Village property safely, Although 8 foot fences are typically only permitted along railroad ROW or in industrial areas, staff is supportive of this request as there will be a large number of vehicles transversing this drive aisle and accessing the development, including increased truck traffic for deliveries. The magnitude of the development differentiates it from other commercial properties in the Village. The eight foot fence will provide a more effective buffer between the mall and adjacent residential uses. Staff recommends a roval of this request. Variation to Lwkt ftftm The Petitioner proposes to install non -fu11 cutoff light fixtures along the main drive and walkways of the Randhurst Village project. The light fixtures were shown on the PUD drawings submitted in 2008, but did not receive zoning approval for a variance from the code. The attacked fixture cut sheets detail the proposed fixtures (" 860" and "8101' that will not be full cutoff. Since the Village Code requires all outdoor light fixtures to be fall cutoff the Petitioner is seeking approval of a Variation to allow non full cutoff light fi dures. The development's photometric plan on file indicates the light poles would be twelve feet (12) and fourteen feet (14) tall. The Petitioner notes in the attached application that the non full cutoff fixtures are necessary to create the desired pedestrian scale and to differentiate the Main Street component from the rest of the property. Although non-full cutoff fixtures are proposed, the majority of the site lighting for the parking lot and perimeter outlot buildings will utilize full cutoff fixtures. The Petitioner further notes that Rest Village is a unique development that requires an exceptional Visual imagery to appeal to the pedestrian shopper. While Staff can appreciate the Petitioner's will to add visual imagery to the development, it does not constitute a hardship necessary for approval of a Variation. Full cutoff fixtures can be installed that provide visual imagery to the development while complying with the Code rests. Additionally, the Village has not supported this type of request since the requirement was added to the Code. Staff recommends denial of this waiver request. Sbecial Use forLaree Scale Deydwx entSirnage The Petitioner has redesigned the primary entry and secondary entry signs that were approved as part of the original PUD plans in 2008. The signs have been revised to accommodate a number of t=Mt panels. Since the revised pylon signs do not closely reflect the design as was approved in 2008, an Amendment of the Special Use is required. As proposed a total of four (4) pylon signs would be placed at the development: 1) at the eastern most driveway at Kensington Road, 2) the north and 3) south entrances along Elmhurst Road, 4) and the primary entrance from Euclid Avenue. The following table compares the original sign designs with the revised signs proposed: PZ -1410 Pig & Zoning Commission meeting October 28, 2010 Page 5 The Village Board's decision is final for this case, for the property commonly known as the 999 N. Elmhurst Road, Case No. PZ -1410. I concur. r ��. - William J. , AICP, Dilectar of Community Development �tz� ooeeNPamias�xgmuz. µ�os�sxed. eno. apes�omva�v�axd�are�e reaiso�arsu�a�r,vea.t;�na�aaaoa 860 3 -Type m 70W MN - Metal NO& Al- Wa8 Mount 120Y Baz - Bronze 5 -Type V I= PSMN - Pukesdrt A2 - Cding Moma 1 205V BLK - Black HIM Medl tddde A3 - Ceft Mount2 24W PLT - Pkdnwn 25M BPS -HljhPressus m- PaleMount 277V KW-Buff Sodum 4mv WNT -Whee V-MOIO" MT- MuldTap' on - Green CC - Custom Color 860 5 100 MH A4 -240 BRZ Approved W. Mj p�OSPEC ■ Loa Wort: ME WLS LISHTIll SYSTEMS PD-B"100519 a Fort Worth, TX 76185 r 800.633.8711 r Fa)c 817.735.4824 r W W W.wlsUghttng com ■ Consider the Impacd azo one" I t! Z ALMdu— 4gqog papM am—maqmoa v c Z O - :Yn isin,MIVS 4dVdl:) e S d CL . . .. . . t 0 j8dOPA30 U3 -i H. k , 3niewarcm ------ "N AIL �. 1 E - e 7 M. Uffln F 711" at 00 'R"llm C! C. c n �� DIti1lINl111HHHHHHII� ��"!�'�"� ?P an 1 5-1 umumNamogunown - awuluminlwtaam ll �x SEP 10 2010 V111.40 or Mt. riopect cooinwrilly Dwelopment RLE COPY .VILLAGE OF MI PROSPECT ap October 14, 2010 Brian Simmons, Deputy Director Community Development Program Village of Mount Prospect 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 RE: Randhurst Village — Pylon Signs /fence height/site lighting Mount Prospect, IL Dear Brian, In response to Consuelo's email dated 10/7/10, i am enclosing the following: 1. Copy of the list of names and addresses along with the map highlighting the properties within 250' that required notices be sent. All notices have been sent via US mail. 2. A check in the amount of $700 to cover the cost of the variance/PUD modification fees will be submitted next week (currently lost in mail). 3. Summary of the standards for variation for modification to an approved PUD for the proposed fence height variation. 4. Summary of the standards for variation for modification to an approved PUD for the proposed deviation from the Mount Prospect lighting standards. S. Summary of the standards for variation for modification to an approved PUD for the proposed pylon sign modifications to the previously approved PUD signage. 6. The proposed pylon sign location remains unchanged from the original PUD plans. Brian, please review the enclosed and please do not hesitate to call should you require additional information. Thanks. CC: File Mary Pat Baxter ��jlAGE OF Wj PROSPECt' 1 OCT 14 2010 o f Mt C�cM D` :.. N 0 in N 0 0 in 0 In N 00 REWIVINISt WNWP ■ 999 N. Mmhmr-t Road, Suite 120 ■ Mt Progx , IDmois 60056 ■ Standard 7 - The approval of the proposed PUD modifications for the pylon signs will not adversely affect the development's ability to conform to other aspects of the applicable regulations. Proposed deviation from the lighting regulations to permit the proposed site lighting fixtures along the Main Street area of the project. This light fixture was previously identified in the original PUD submittal on the site photometrics and project renderings; however, it was brought to our attention that the fixture does not comply with current lighting regulations so we are requesting your re- review/approval. Please note: Standard 1- We do not believe the approval of this deviation from the lighting regulation will be detrimental to, or endanger public health, safety, morals or general welfare. The lights are necessary to emphasize the transition that has occurred in transforming Randhurst from an enclosed regional mall to a mixed -use open air retail center. The lights are necessary to create the desired pedestrian scale and to differentiate the Main Street component from the perimeter outlot uses and big box tenants. They are primarily located within the defined building structures of Main Street to minimize the impact to the surrounding properties. • Standard 2 - This approval will not diminish area property values but will seek to create a vibrant, successful retail development that will lead to improving the desirability of the Randhurst Village parcel and subsequently other parcels within the surrounding area. Most of the lights are within the center of the 100 acre parcel which will minimize the visual impact to adjoining properties. • Standard 3 - The approval of this more stylish light fixture will not impede the development and improvement of the surrounding property. The lighting will have Tittle visual impact on adjoining properties and will help direct the traffic toward Main Street. • Standard .4 —The project has adequate public utilities and access roads provided. • Standard 5 - Ingress and egress will not be affected and traffic congestion on the streets will not be impacted by this request. • Standard 6 - The light fixture is not a full cut-off fixture so it does not comply with Mount Prospect lighting regulation requirements; however, Randhurst is a unique development within the Village of Mount Prospect and Main Street is a unique interior component of Randhurst and requires an exceptional visual imagery to appeal to the pedestrian shopper. We feel it is a necessary amenity to create the desired shopping environment. • Standard 7 -The approval of this light fixture will not prevent the development from complying with all other aspects of the zoning ordinance and local regulations. FOLIE (D(OP. Y VILLAGE OF MT. PROSPECT ��J F rn S a 9 P y fiC' z 10 a. g g ji Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS TO: VILLAGE I,b FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER _ I I ' DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 2010 SUBJECT: 'NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY FINAL REPORT FOR ZONES 1, 2,5 & 6 The Engineering Division in collaboration with KLOA Inc., the Village's traffic engineering consultkut, 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 1, 2, 5 & 6, represent completion of the Neighborhood Traffic Study for all eighteen zones as part of this Village -wide program. This report highlights the post- studies for these four neighborhoods and provides final intersection control and speed limit recommendations. Zone 1 Zone 1 is bounded by Seminole Lane to the north, River Road to the east, Camp McDonald Road to the south, and the western Village limits. The neighborhood has 42 intersections and approximately 6.7 miles of streets under the Village's jurisdiction. Frost Elementary School and Aspen Trails 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 15 locations compared to 38 locations from the first post- study. However, similar to the first post-study, the Village also monitored pedestrian activity at 6 intersections reviewed accident records at all 42 intersections in the neighborhood. Below is a summary of the results: First Post Studv Daily Volume (comparing data before sign changes to data from first post- study) - Stayed consistent or decreased at 27 locations (79%) Increased by 10% or more at 11 locations (21 %) Average Speed (comparing data before sign changes to data from first post- study) - Stayed consistent or decreased at 38 locations (100 %) Increased by 5 mph or more at 0 locations (0 0 /6) Accident Rate (# accidents in the neighborhood) - 3- year period before the sign changes: 18 6 -month period after the sign changes: 2 nav i of(. Neighborhood Traffic Study — Zones 1, 2, 5 & 6 November 11, 2010 Average Speed (comparing data before sign changes to data from first post- study) - Stayed consistent or decreased at 32 locations (100`/0) Increased by 5 mph or more at 0 locations (0 9 /6) Accident Rate (# accidents in the neighborhood) - 3 -year period before the sign changes: 7 6 -month period after the sign changes: 0 Second Post -Study Daily Volume (comparing data before sign changes to data from second post- study) - Stayed consistent or decreased at 7 locations (64 %) Increased by 10% or more at 4 locations (36 %) 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: 7 1 -year period after the sign changes: 1 57% 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. The four locations from the second post-study that have experienced a 10% or more increase in traffic volume are all local streets where the average daily traffic increased between one and two vehicles per hour. On these streets, the average daily traffic remains within the typical range for local streets. With respect to traffic speed, the one location that experienced an average speed increase of 5 mph during the second post-study is still at a level below the posted speed limit. One intersection that has been given extra scrutiny during the post -study review is Columbine Drive and Tano Lane. This T- intersection was converted to an all -way stop - controlled intersection as part of the changes in June 2009. The primary reason for this decision was the limited sight distance available to motorists looking north along Columbine Drive when stopped on Tano Lane at the intersection. The curve along Columbine Drive coupled with the row of private property bushes at the northeast comer of the intersection makes it difficult for motorists to safely turn onto Columbine Drive. And in order to provide a higher level of safety for all motorists traveling through this intersection, the Village made the decision to stop all directions. Neighborhood Traffic Study — Zones 1, 2, 5 & 6 November 11, 2010 Accident Rate (# accidents in the neighborhood) - 3 -year period before the sign changes: 5 1 -year period after the sign changes: 1 40% 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. The four locations from the second post -study that have experienced a 10% or more increase in traffic volume are all local streets where the average daily traffic increased between one and four vehicles per hour. On these streets, the average daily.traffic remains within the typical range for local streets. With respect to traffic speed, no locations experienced an average speed increase of 5 mph during the first or second post- studies. 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 6 Zone 6 is bounded by Kensington Road to the north, Wolf Road to the east, the southern boundary of the Kensington Business Park to the south, and Rand Road to the west. The neighborhood has 17 intersections and approximately 4.6 miles of streets under the Village's jurisdiction. Kensington Business Park and Hill Street Nature 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 9 locations compared to 22 locations from the fast post- study. However, similar to the first post - study, the Village also reviewed accident records at all 17 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 22 locations (100 %) - Increased by 10% or more at 0 locations (0•/0) Average Speed (comparing data before sign changes to data from first post - study) - Stayed consistent or decreased at 22 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: 24 6 -month period after the sign changes: 0 ..a..e C ..ff m J Q Z Oa a3Ala / z /In� Q V V U �tidd Cn N Ll, a0 Habd W W C� O w Q ��OJ� JVPy P 4 z W J W Q C7 U 4' y � 3 Nltlanw z J Z Q J W W Y •� 3 ON H333S a J NI Hsne ONINung Q W LU J IL 0 c) x x 93 IL NI tl013N0 0 N Q G� c a LL W Z a o`'�` ° o N W J W d o �— w a •� Q N w w f a 0 N3dStl Q Q > y U J •� Z Q J T LU Q K W W 0 z = C Z 0 O a0 tllltlatl — u O N m O = � U De r 0 J m N ® by LU W LL- z w Q w _ F- U) F— � N ? by Hp z /L > ypp Y O Z Ny V) M �• W = 0 w O h co 0 —� cDQ LU Q w� z > r w r � J t (n = , n 1— U; �-n z O CO Cn C Z U)U� ��� -.C\j -'I ( -'L LL H O LL �QZ Q z Q c ) W LL T LL W U' — ( LL, O z � W , o X a O z w cr c? L� q as a3A18 CLI97 v v (£S8) v 0° O t51 C3C 80 >121Vd b£1 J LJJ �n M ��F pF` � 6S Si ti v �� ° ° v Q N M U� �S [ISB] ".' ? W m v J� P (606) z v C� J� 2i0 >+dvd O z 3 CP{1SOLo� y (0 �� 698 > w U — z 008b7 N (I8b) I (S£b) LL N­1 vdnA Q 06£ SIb M D M Z � J ¢ z (901) O w ° D J 0H H0339 3 y r 9£I C — O z o _ c Q M. 11961 199SI] (£b6) (99bI) LL- NI HSfl9 ONINdnq O (8SOI) ZOS 06ZI J Z 996 p -j O M VOI3N0 Cy � N� �� V9 — U. a z o b �pP ¢ N m m y� w Z a ° IL z � �� Q Q ¢ o 60 N3dSV b� N O Z OL9 ti N < d U = w (985) a (19£) Y 80 VIlV8V 16S ZH (£SL) QlD HG 3NIevinio0 — 80 1381AVl L£L W Z III o M 0- O O CY a_ ? N�bh, V�p N Cl (ISII v I86F1 F p� 3 O 091 ^ o �££ = — — — — — — — — — — — (n 00 CL Ld O O Q Z N �30NVW J O U J U V) O d U U 0 Z ILZ] (L Z) 8Z ILZ] (LZ) 6Z r o C W W U W W q %. � W �WQ OWW l i l Z C_ L t W W Cn W LL- 0 8 a3A1a N N O i tD m O O Z � Z O W W cr O LD W W V W c� Q W Q LL- O z Q O C_ ) a0 Navd N N O N (£Z) £Z Q CBI1 I6I3 C (L I) > v N N 8I LI b0 N a0 Nava �QF N Z O i N NN 0 y 2 X22 J� 1821 P S C2 (6Z) IIZ £Z] I£ (bZ) (00) (61) k v O (12,) 191 ILI] O (n SZ d 61 (81) 811 t 91 m9[ Z 81 81 - � s l6 , .7 3 � Z J U M N M N N N W Z N n N N N1 vanw _ N u N Z Oa H0339 W J .~+ m O (ZZ) (£Z) V (ZZ) £Z IZ ZZ bZ V1 N1 HSn9 ONINan9 ° m O N1 v0I3NO y Y Ib Z] LL � 2 a BZ) (OZ) 8I) 8Z 6I SI W (£Z) Q a L N � a0 N3dsv Z U W N V 80 vllvav (lZ) aZ) ZZ ZZ N N m N 80 13anv1 F " .-. N Z2, 1L �) �Z r o C W W U W W q %. � W �WQ OWW l i l Z C_ L t W W Cn W LL- 0 8 a3A1a N N O i tD m O O Z � Z O W W cr O LD W W V W c� Q W Q LL- O z Q O C_ ) a0 Navd N N O N (£Z) £Z Q m 80 3NI9An100 m 0 C w > v (3 C:) b0 l/ o �QF `F6 Z O i O J U 0 y 2 X22 �- a U S C2 191 ILI] O (n d 91 m9[ Q m 80 3NI9An100 m U W w W Z v (3 C:) 0- O V) (V l/ Q Z O `F6 O i O J U D_ Lu � V) O (n d �j�ly� N ti Atop ZZ) Q (f Z) N v o ° OZc£Z O w (3 C:) -7- Q Z N1 130NbW O O J U Lu � V) d as a3nla J Q _V Z a0 Natld C w Z i 11 Cn V lJ l9 c.� rc � c Q U D Y Z W N W LL j Y W v O Q z U I w O --j W Q NI mnvs z a a Y J fn I— J Z = O z U z O O 0 NI tlWtll �• J N102108 D o d1 Y a ? J 7 � NI Hsna ONINHne W J < � < 0 Nltl3HIIV I O O T. j Z fn 0 NI Wild J LU 0- Q < I Q rL �• N O UI Y ~ Q W J Z LU = C a 0 z O ~ r Oy0 l 331NVS N Y �y 6 �6 d 0 0 Q W 1 N O ce z J J QEP LLI 9 O m O O = J J O z Y a Cn a U o U N L W U LL PEP w LL Q U L _ IL O z O MA "OE� W O Z 0R W _ cz :�i \NO�00 N m O \GOGC J Q = w � i Oa dIOM Z w � J U � :I7 cn Cn N — ;n I— O Z Z ul O _..J� (-nC U Z Imo_.. l LL Z Oz J LL f � W LLJ J O :Z) CD Oa a3AI8 : �r as Ndvd b9 (b0£) o (66) i m 10 m m w 98Z N1 >1f1VS ~ ? a V III Z z ° U w � O SLZ) w a NI VWV� ' z Q °° z b I I6Z o u m m o U U n ° L z d NO Q W LL a V (ZII) ~ a = LL- N1 0809 a Q 9 �O my ma 19LZII ^ N m e a (OZII) EC NI HSf18 ONINang m J £LIT [bZWI — (0£bZ) Q NI HSf19 ONINane I6£Z (IZI) m LL- NI V3H1lV M z O Lbi > J O w O w ys ° Z z �V) NI VWId O Q Q W m ti Y z Z W (� N N ~ J ~ V) O Q Z r� NI 331NVS CD O (SZSI o r to m (b9Stl � �5 vN NI OOOMSSV9 ° z P CV ° z z z U w J J J J W LLB Z ° .� m O ty O ° tD 00 u Q F- M � Q N 3 "° REE LN w Y z a_ w } > H Q Z � 493 ~ MANDEL LN (48 1N w L (n O O 319 a- 1� O1G0 80013 CO O G� Lg2 Q Z r J O 0d 3-1OM C-) J U O N d J O Z oa a3AI6 ( 1 � cn C ~ LL Ln I F - LL �'D Q LD Z C C Z C LIL �� C=) LL J LL CL LLL rY a- LL LLJ � V7 L� C (n Lf J cr) II II II C N N N p as Ndv _ z W CbZ] 9Z] o Cf p (SZ p Y m m ( SZ ) SZ Y CIZ] o CIZ] o N w (bZ) o(bZ) (IZ) z (2) IZ £Z ZZ a IZ NI Nnvs Z Y ^ N = U O Nl N O ° N a N N u NI 331NVS NI VWVI (02 5 � 2 Nl V3H1lV z CD CD o Z N z J O N bZl J (SZ) p O z W J �l VN W OOOMSSV9 N acm SZ O £Z W V g a V) N ° � bZ ? C NI oaoa U (SZ) (9I) (sz] Q Isz] SZ 91 ~ Li `" ° (LZ) ° (£Z) z .. rJ OHO a I ', SZ�) m p � � N N u NI 331NVS (02 5 � 2 Nl V3H1lV 2l ZZ U LLJ J�Ol 12 31 J N LLJ Z O N N N W J �l VN W OOOMSSV9 N acm F W V N V) N z J bZ ? C gOGJ (SZ) (9I) Y (81) SZ 91 ~ Li `" o 2w z rJ OHO a 6 N NN (QZ N M r OZ N . N K p Z 2 a [02] J OZ] J oz (OZ) p (02 l m ° LT °o ZZ a U 3 U a 161 `� 61 O N_ MANDEI- LN O N N N t�O�GO N NI Hsn9 9NINano a d o S� c �Z) rsi c C OZ 3 / 2 ma a z y Z J I m I.- NI HSn9 ONIN8n9 ~ m tD N N u W Z w J a p_ J w z w U NI VWId NI 331NVS 5 � ab') U LLJ J�Ol 12 31 LLJ Z O N N N W J �l VN W OOOMSSV9 N F F O M 1 � O Lli w V I W a LiJ Q LL- 0 Z O V/ ( Y - ^ Q ^ O U V � U LLJ W LLJ Z O V) N 2 £Z ° 0 bZ 81 iN ✓ } PEP�j�E. z LLJ a Z p � � J O (n DR w � 1ND100 H- LL cn O O a_ W 0 C, Q Z J O Oa 3lOM L W LLJ CD n J Q Z Q N W 0 W 0a 2'13Al21 a NI IMOw 0 S J W Q W N > N1 S003d Y >> �— NI ovwns Y Q a Q J 0a a ? ~ F- - U) > to w Y z a a Z NI xnols o u J C) NI HS n8 ONINun9 W W V) Q N f W C < W W Q O N J 00 w a ❑ 0 LO N Z W = a Y Q co Q U to i 0 m W > a Q 2 0 O LO W O 0 m n J a v� �? W z _ U Q U w z _ ~ O W U O U fJ N W Q tY v w O w w W O Z w ? m LL N = O i14 3'Jtl1n13H —J O Q m O O dIOM ,_ _V ui Q W z � > Lal o cn ° (n (n o Ln F-- c S OT LnO O z `� U �g U � U ;� O C--) LD �� O Z C1 Z LL LL LL Z LL --� F— LL '� �--� �<L� O Z III LH Q J CnQJ GL n- <1 L-1 2 I U Z W U) II LL cn W W II O a G a- Li 08 a3Aia v (011) NI INoy, 191 2 ` C96] LtJ UZI) NI S003d £il J 0 Y J (601) Q d n n N� OVWf1S Q (/1 U P Q L H — LL Z �O P W 0 LL ti ti fA co Q N N LU YF Y Q O d 0 (69L1) z J 1191 ° Q l g� 91 U N1 X 10I S ,1 Q cL1p S ZSII 266` .9 HSng ONINaf19 0 z J � Z W o O Z ° F- 0 W Z J O p In Nu J _ (D Z O ? , ^ V/ J V) a Q O CO W L^ 2 Nl L W _ J Z _P Q N N Y ^^Q U G P H ti M P N r1 a N m W V) 0 U 0~ (£95) Lzl 9 F- F- J a Z9 6 �p1 w v� OV1N2E un a N k J C (32g �gn5� �OyS� v LL J w Z a o J ~ (5 a O N rl Lb O U F- O W Z H Z H U F- W U O /1 0 } z } U O W z a o F- MV) W W o m W L n 00 D_ £6£ a0 3OVlIa3H W 0 Q Z J O Oa IOM w --i O f � > w (n o d a O � N - o r r r LLI O ff[A1 LD <L IL.J _l -Lj 2<L H tZ <-L - 1 1 L7 U J-n En LLI J ii n n (9I) ? Oa 83AI8 (9p LI >' S[ N -I INoyl 61 0 6 N � _ N N Nl SOJ3d mQ,m Y z Ycc (ZZ) } (SZ) ° Q - d SE > bZ NI OVWf1S <0 62 ? J az 0 (TZ) a (bZ) CO ZZ 3 o bZ W �c oC Z a0 et) a m N l t 6IJ N Z g J ti O N N ^ �_ ° N� XlOIS 9N Hsng ONIMnS 9N Z � J Z O O Z z [£Z] J CTZ7 [0_7] 3 IOZI J ? o z > (ZZ) a (£Z) OZl N RZI a w (ZZ) Cf (ZZ) In a OZ OZ 61 w z m Z bZ) = (£Z) (IZ) o w o a z a tZZ) £Z ZZ Y a tOZ) (6I) £Z SZ ZZ a [Z m w 61 w OZ 3 h h n N N M K1 N N d N N N a 'QUINCE w V J �n N a I7 06 3�OM will 1 w tY C7 W Ld (Z LL) 0 Q (Y W Q LL 0 z 0 CY Q O U Ln U W W z d O (n IV O r � a z -) F- 0 Cn V) 00 w � o a z F J O O J U --3 W O (1) (Y tZ as zilom 0- J Q 0 Z � Z Z (, W N U Z N N p W CL O p W L < Yv LAKEVIE O W ~ J J N >" F- ss Z J J C) Q W = W W N L 2 � <� W L 10 NO1S`)NIH N p Q ce W W Q w = U p N w 0z o ' 0 m co z = p ! ~7 < C Z I 9 PJ�� w 0 Z z af w Y W Z � Z W — W V _ W 10 NNVW8318 W W 10 J U W J Q W Z O z p o a31N3O SS3Nisno N V U LL Oa JNIl33HM LL. Q U w p N 0 aO NVWISV3 0 -- '< OF '< 10 NVWISV3 O O = H Z 0 O O 3 0 _ (D J af O LL x aa381HSIInn = Lu �O�O Q as aosONIM W � z j J Q N O — M LLI � 1 Lo O z O Z � Z O W W 0 Q= O (.7 0_ tl l8l bLOZ W o m N 2 O <E (160[) Y- i=1 NOIS9NIA 09, J ~ U � G — �� U LL- 0 z C ' LL Q L2 _L �Q T o LL Z ~ Q ~ ) J 0 O � t ~ J^ X64. ) z �Zy n n Li 0 Y CL O LL J) — `�ti ! ^i (Z99U Q tN vNrwa3(e � 5681 O U 18b8011 0 = W bn N31N3S SS3NIS�A N N — H �IOii 106BLI Q0 (Ie!!) CH 9NIT3_HM C_) W W z 1518 0- O UZI) (991) V) N HO NVNISV3 1S NVNISV3 O OSI 091 c ti L K ati a�N N r 0 0 �n r in S , ?'r, N H- C) bOB N a y z 098 ` COM z E- (9M O (n 068 as -aas IM 2 8£ H o O CSLI] W o N (98I ) � Pa0 O O Na LOSONIM 9�1j W �- S 6 CD W a z J O U J U W O (n 0_ § . o S z :a ><Om 3 z 7 e z \ Ld = z rn all, ` rn « « w c w s y / �-n � o »> / / m / w a m d / w % « w LL- @ « » / o «� 6 / w « z ®� w © o % C / U') ° z » d ^ y 4 6 « d w a / c m « a , \ , w / / o c y y U / - e e \ \N a+» / Z \\ 2=8 Cl NVAIIV , z /gin o � � o s \ \OZ)(R)2Gr! £§2 e c g>e 2 ;2 z « / \ /j3 2 oz R) ® \ 2 z \ 2 2 \ @ 9 0 / m »: o c ag < z ) > � \ e ±