HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. NEW BUSINESS 6/15/04
kad
6/2104
6/8/04
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING CERTAIN PROPERTY (PUBLIC RiGHT OF WAY)
OWNED BY THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect have determined
that the best interests of the Village of Mount Prospect would be served by vacating that
portion of unimproved right of way, legally described as follows:
That part of a public street, known as S. Kenilworth Avenue, lying South
of the North line of lots 15 and 16 extended and lying North of the South
line of Lots 15 and 16 extended in Northwest Hills Country Club, a
Subdivsion of parts of the Southwest 'V4 of Section 11, Township 41
North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois.
generally iocated at Kenilworth Avenue, Mount Prospect, Illinois; and
WHEREAS, the public right of way being the subject of this Ordinance shall benefit
adjacent property owners; and
WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect have determined
that the Village of Mount Prospect has no need for that portion of right of way being the
subject of this Resolution, and that the best interests of the Village will be served by
selling the vacated right of way to the owner of Lot 1 in the Viken's Subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: The corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect have
determined that the best interests of the VHlage would be served by vacating the public
right of way legally described above and it is hereby vacated.
SECTION TWO: Upon passage and approval of this Ordinance by the affirmative vote
of five members of the corporate authorities, the Village Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to file a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with a copy of the Viken's
Plat of Resubdivision indicating the vacation parcel being the subject of this Ordinance,
with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds.
ß
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
,2004.
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kimberly Ao Oewis
Deputy ViHage Clerk
H:\ClKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\Plat of vacation, lincoln kenilworth jun 04.doc
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
~b. \J.~
t../,S IO~
FROM:
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
JUNE 11,2004
SUBJECT:
PZ-IO-04 -PLAT OF VACATION & VIKEN RESUBDIVISION
1209 W. LINCOLN STREET
PAUK VIKEN - APPLICANT
The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation regarding Case PZ-IO-04, an application to
vacate the existing unimproved Kenilworth Avenue right-of-way, and resubdivide the vacated Kenilworth Avenue
right-of-way and adjacent property at 1209 W. Lincoln Street into two new lots. The Planning & Zoning
Commission heard this request, which is outlined in greater detail in the attached staff report, at their May 27, 2004
meeting.
The property located at 1209 W. Lincoln Street is zoned Rl Single-Family Residence and currently contains a
single-family home with related improvements. The unimproved Kenilworth Avenue right-of-way, located directly
west of the 1209 W. Lincoln Street property, is currently vacant. The Petitioner's proposal would create a 2-10t
subdivision, with each lot measuring approximately 82 feet \vide and 150 feet deep (approximately 12,300 square
feet). The proposed subdivision complies with all of the applicable ViUage Code regulations and exceeds the R-l
District's minimum lot width (65 feet) and lot area (8,125 square feet) requirements. The Petitioner's request was
properly noticed by posting Public Hearing signs on the Subject Property and Staff mailed a courtesy notice to
property owners within 250-feet of the Subject Property.
The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's plans for the proposed 2-lot subdivision. The
Petitioner confirmed that the new homes would be built according to ail applicable Village Codes and that they
were not seeking any type of relief. Several neighboring property owners voiced their concerns regarding the sale
of the Kenilworth A venue r-o-w and its potential impact on the existing character of Lincoln Street. In addition,
several residents noted that the proposed lot widths are not in keeping with many of the existing lots on the south
side of Lincoln Street. During review of this request issues were also raised regarding the potential redevelopment
of the property at 1301 W. Lincoln Street. Staff indicated that although 1301 W. Lincoln Street is also owned by
the Petitioner, the property is not part of the proposed subdivision. In addition, Staff noted that the existing home at
1301 W. Lincoln Street is actually located on two existing lots of record. Due to these circumstances the property
at 1301 W. Lincoln Street could be redeveloped as two separate lots without requiring any type of formal approval
(provided any redevelopment of the property complied with aU applicable sections of the Village Code).
After extensive testimony and discussion regarding the requested Plat of Vacation and Plat of Resubdivision, the
motion to approve the Petitioner's request failed by a vote of 0-6. In addition, the Planning & Zoning Commission
recommended (by a vote of 6-0) that the Vil1age Board not sell the existing unimproved KeniIworth Avenue right-
of-way.
PZ-IO-04 11209 W. Lincoln Street
June 15,2004
Page 2 of 2
Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their
June 15,2004 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter.
"
~c H:\PLAN\P1a"",ng I!!. Zn"ÌIIg COMM\P&Z 2"IJ4\MEJ Mcmos\PZ-IO-1J4 MEJ MEMO (1209 W Lincoln pl,,'S).doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETL~G OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-1O-04
Hearing Date: May 27,2004
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
J209 W. Lincoln
PETITIONER:
Paul Viken
PUBLICATION DATE:
May 12, 2004
REQUEST:
Vacate ROWand create two-lot subdivision
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Arlene Juracek, Chair; Joseph Donnelly; Leo Floros; Richard Rogers;
Matthew Sledz; Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Merrill Cotten
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development;
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Rich Bondarowicz; Mary & John Ostrum; Donna Range; Dave Cahill;
Denise Kreb; S. Mibdowski; Tim Conlon; Edwin & Zaida Muniz; Bob
Kopp; Bob & Nancy Winkates; Jim Sherwood; Ken Payne; Leah &
Richard Schlott; Scott Stratton; John Heidkamp
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve
the minutes of the April 22, 2004 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were
approved 5-0, with one abstention by Joe Donnelly. At 7:55, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-IO-O4, a
request to vacate a ROWand create a two-lot subdivision. She noted that the request would be Village Board
final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She explained that the Petitioner is seeking to subdivide the
site, which necessitates the Village vacating the Kenilworth right-of-way, to create the proposed two-Jot
subdivision. The Petitioner's proposal was properly noticed by posting Public Hearing signs on the Subject
Property. In addition, Staff mailed a courtesy notice to neighbors within 250-feet of the Subject Property. The
notice included a brief explanation of the request and a sketch of the proposed subdivision. She noted that the
Subject Property is located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, between Ojibwa and We Go Trails, and
currently contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Kenilworth right-of-way was not
improved (street, curb, gutter, etc. were not installed) and contains only some existing landscaping. The Subject
Property is zoned Rl Single Family Residence and is bordered by the RI District to the east, west, and north and
the CR Conservation Recreation District to the south.
The Petitioner's proposal includes creating two lots of record from 1209 W. Lincoln Avenue and the
unimproved Kenilworth Avenue right-of-way. Currently, the Kenilworth right-of-way measures 66' x 150',
which is a buildable lot in the Rl district, and the 1209 W. Linco]n Avenue property measures 98' x 150'
(consisting of two parcels measuring 62.22' x 150' and 35.78' x 150'). In response to inquiries regarding the
Petitioner's request, Staff researched the Subject Property's original subdivision file, Northwest HiHs Country
Club. The information included within the file does not indicate that the Village approved any type of covenant
or regulation that would require the proposed lots to have a larger lot width or more restrictive bulk regulations
than those listed within the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed lots, each measuring 82' x 150', would
exceed the Village's minimum requirements. The Petitioner does not have specific plans for the proposed new
residences, but they have not requested any relief from the applicable zoning regulations. Consequently, the
structures and site are require-d to be developed according to aU applicable Village regulations.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-I0-04
Page 2
In previous cases where the ViUage vacated rights-of-way, the land was divided in half and donated to each
adjacent property mvner. Recently, however, the Village Board has required a developer to compensate the
Village if the requested right-of-way vacation is part of a larger resubdivision. In this case the Village is
continuing its policy of allocating the land to the adjacent property owners because the Petitioner owns the
properties on both sides of the Kenilworth right-of-way. However, because the right-of-way is a buildable lot
the Village Board is requiring compensation from the Petitioner for the right-of-way land.
The plats under review would change the site from an unimproved right-of-way and an existing lot consisting of
two parcels to two conforming lots. The plats and new lots would comply with the Village's Development Code
requirements and the Petitioner is not seeking relief from the Development Code or Zoning Ordinance. Other
Departments have reviewed the plat and found that it was prepared in accordance with all applicable Village
Codes.
The proposed Plat of Vacation and Viken Resubdivision seek to create two new lots of record. The plats and
new lots comply with the Village's regulations and the Petitioner is not seeking relief from the Development
Code or the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning
Commission recommend the Village Board approve the Plat of Vacation and Viken Resubdivision, Case No,
PZ-1O-O4. The Village Board's decision is final for this case,
Ms. Juracek clarified that the Plat of Resubdivision was contingent upon the Plat of Vacation, Ms. Connolly
said it was. Mr. Rogers asked if the structure at 1209 Lincoln would be torn down if the subdivision were
granted and Ms. Connolly said it would but the houses were not part of the discussion, any new houses would
have to meet Code. Mr. Youngquist said he was concerned that new homes on those lots could be built with just
a 30' setback while other .homes on Lincoln typically are setback 60 to 80 feet. Mr. Floros asked how the
Village arrived at a compensation for the ROW. Ms. Connolly said an appraisal had been done. Ms. Juracek
asked the petitioner to address the board.
Paul Kolpak, Attorney, Paul Viken, 502 W. Fairview, Arlington Heights, Petitioner, and Rich Bondarowicz, 944
Scarsdale Court, Arlington Heights, were sworn in. Mr. Viken said the Village required a preliminary
Engineering study regarding flood control. We did topographical surveys. Along the back of the lots there will
be an intricate piping system underground to tap into the storm water sewer, so the lots will be better for
neighboring lots than they are at present. There will be no runoff to neighboring lots, Regarding the setbacks
along Lincoln, Mr. Viken said he purchased the property at 1301 about a year ago and lived there for about eight
months. He walked the area and studied it. The adjoining neighbor, 1205, in his opinion is at the 30' setback
and the only property set way back is the 1301 property. There was discussion about setbacks at the other
homes and Mr. Viken said he thought many homes were setback only 30' from Lincoln to take advantage of
having a large backyard on the golf course, which would also afford safety. He affirmed his intention to
maintain a 30' setback on newly subdivided lots. Rich Bondarowicz came forward to say what was most
important to consider in building the new homes would be the distance from the tee-box; that is how the existing
home was planned to afford the greatest privacy. Mr. Viken said he is contemplating brick and stone masonry
exteriors for the homes having cedar shake roofs with copper gutters. These will be beautiful homes on nice
locations on the golf course and great assets to the Village. The houses will be custom or semi-custom built to
the customers' specifications. The golf course is the crown jewel in Mount Prospect and these homes will be an
asset to the Village and compliment the new clubhouse. Mr. Viken will have no problem with the covenant to
tear down the present home before building the new homes within the accepted timeframes.
Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Viken ifhe would accept a condition to build his new homes at a greater than 30' setback.
Mr. Viken said he would adhere to the same setback as the house next door, which he was sure was 30' or 35' at
most. Mr. Jacobs reminded the P&Z that Rl Code did call for 30' setback.
Mr. Sledz said it appears that the property at 1301 consists of two parcels and this consolidation would be
creating four lots of record. Would we be looking at four new homes? Ms. Juracek said the Board recognizes
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-I0-04
Page 3
that the four homes is not the subject up for discussion tonight, but asked just as a context.
Mr. Youngquist asked what size of home was being contemplated. Mr. Viken said the market seems to dictate a
3500 to 4400 sq.ft. 2-story or ranch, whatever the client wants. He said the home presently on the property is
3600 sq.ft. Mr. Viken said he plans to occupy one of the homes that he builds.
Jim Sherwood, 1205 W. Lincoln, was sworn in and said he wanted to make comments he thought were
representative of many people in the audience. His concerns as an immediate neighbor are of aesthetics and
continuity. Presently the frontage averages at 120'. The unique quahty of the area will be disturbed. The town
should step back and be sure things are being done the right way. The sale of the ROW concerns him. He has
spoken to many people and no one wants the Village to sell the ROW. Everybody thinks just three homes and
not four homes would be the right amount to complete the area. There are precedents for this in the Waverly
and the Lancaster ROWs. Those were split and acquired by the adjacent homeowners to enlarge their properties
not to split them and develop new homes. As to the value of the ROW, if the Village deems it necessary to sell
the ROW for the purpose of generating revenue, in conversations with realtors we come up with a comp of
closer to $336,000. He urged the P&Z to table this issue at this time and put the ROW up for public auction
with the owners having the right of first refusal or having it reappraised quickly and cheaply. Finally, we can
use our discretion to do what is best for the community and not what is best for a few people and reach a
reasonable compromise. P&Z members asked Mr. Sherwood what was his setback and when he said he didn't
know, they questioned if his garage was set forward of his house, but he did not know that either. It was
suggested that he have this information ready for the Village Board meeting.
Ms. Juracek said the P&Z has no jurisdiction over the sale of the ROW or at what price it would be sold.
Chuck Lettering, 1007 Lincoln, was sworn in. He testified that his garage is about 40' or 50' back from the lot
line and most homes are much more than 30' back Horn the lot line. He said he doesn't know where the zoning
carne from, but it doesn't make sense that all their lots are larger than 65' and suddenly 65' lots are to be
allowed. He said someone had made the comment that this would be like looking at a group of townhouses and
he agreed.
Donna Rungee, 400 S. WaPel!a, at the comer of Lincoln, was sworn in. She testified that the golf course is a
jewel in Mount Prospect and she enjoys seeing the openness when driving down Lincoln. She asked if we are
just to see garage doors when driving through Mount Prospect. If each of these houses has 3-car garages that
would be 12 garage doors facing Lincoln. This will become Park Ridge. When she looks out of her house now,
all she sees is a two-story brick wall. Is that aU the Lincoln St. neighbors will see? We need to see greenery.
Rolling Meadows has a covenant and she hopes Mount Prospect does the same.
Tim Conlon, 126 S. We-Go Trail, was sworn in. He concurred with other comments that Lincoln was a unique
neighborhood and the Board should respect that. He also said they should realize that the ROW was utilized on
the 4th of July by residents to view fireworks and in winter months by cross-countly skiers. He is puzzled by
this proposal because it is presented as a partial proposal and not as the complete proposal for the four homes it
will actually become. The decision made tonight could set a precedent because many of the homeo\\'11crs with
large lots could subdivide and build several homes.
Dick Schlott, 1204 W. Lincoln, was sworn in and testified that he supported the previous gentlemen's remarks
and had only a couple of additional comments. If we vacate this property, Code 15.305.A.l states a block
cannot be more than 1,500' long and this block seems to be getting very close to that. The other aspect raised is
that ROW is a very useful to us and finally, all other vacations that have been done have been split between two
properties or have not been buildable as a single lot. This is a single lot being sold to a single owner. This lot
should be put up for competitive bidding.
John Rathbone, 1400 W. Platt, spoke of an article in the Daily Herald about a property in Arlington Heights at
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-IO-04
Page 4
1812 N. Hernandez, a home that was built on two lots. The person who bought that home wanted to build two
homes but the neighbors were concerned and because of that the Village did not allow it. Ms. Juracek said she
was not aware of that case but the circumstances in this case were not the same. The house on this parcel is on
one parcel and the petitioner has the right to build another house on the other lot.
John Ostrom, 1009 W. Lincoln, was sworn in and testified that he has lived in his home 44 years, when the golf
course was privately owned. At that time, there were plans to convert the course to a private development. The
Village authorities and the Park District were able to acquire the course and enhance the property and the
adjacent homeoV\rners have enhanced their properties. The lots average over 100'. His lot is over 130'. He
could divide his lot but would not. It doesn't take a great deal of insight to realize that cramming four houses
into the space of two houses changes the character of a neighborhood. Mr. Ostrom said the Board should get a
fair market value for the property and extract from the developer contractual liability not four homes but three to
remain in character with the community.
Kevin Kreb, 1103 W. Lincoln, was sworn in and testified that he lived in Mount Prospect in 1993 and moved to
Arlington Heights in 19960 He moved back 2-1/2 years ago because he had enjoyed living in Mount Prospect
and was attracted to this neighborhood surrounding the golf course. He said he also feels this proposal would be
detrimental to the neighborhood. He said if the lot is buildable it should be put up for auction and Mr. Viken, as
adjacent landowner should have the right of first refusal and be allowed to match the highest bid, in order to
maximize the profit to the Village.
Ms. Juracek reminded the audience that the hearing had nothing to do with whether or not the ROW was sold
but did appreciate hearing all the neighbors' viewpoints.
John Heidkamp, 400 S. We-Go, was sworn in and testified that there are at least as many people interested in
this case that are as not here tonight. He said he had lived here since 1981 but had moved to Virginia Beach for
a few years, searched around the Chicago area for a few years, and moved back to the Country Club area to the
comer of Lincoln and We-Go. In the 30s and 40s, people weren't smart enough to create covenants as they
should have and now what the owners do have is being challenged by people who want to maximize their profits
on two lots.
Jack Brogan, 1718 Myrtle Drive, was sworn in and testified that Myrtle Drive is not located in the
neighborhood; it is two blocks west of Busse. While he can sympathize with aU the comments made tonight, he
and his wife have made it a personal goal to move into the Country Club neighborhood within the next three
years. Financially, they cannot accomplish that now. He wanted people to realize that builders who are
frustrated in their plans to build multiple smaller homes resort to building less homes but are much larger in
scale, but may not fit with the neighborhood character. As an example, he cited a home built on Busse Road
that he feels is much too large for the neighborhood. He said he would rather see four well-designed, smaller
homes built that match the neighborhood than two huge homes that do not match the neighborhood.
John Ostrom asked who had control over the sale of the Village lot. Ms. Juracek said that was the purview of
the Village Board, but the P&Z could recommend an action to the Village Board.
Jolm Rathbone asked if the entire case shouldn't be tabled until the Village Board makes a decision on the sale
of the ROW.
Ms. Juracek said they will make that decision at the end of the hearing after gathering all information.
Scott Stratton, 350 S. We-Go, (at Lincoln) was sworn in and identified himself as a fairly new resident. He has
lived in Wilmette and Kenilworth previously. He strongly agrees with comments made by the long-time
residents regarding the uniqueness of character of the area and should strive to maintain it.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-IO-04
Page 5
Paul Kolpak came forward to remind the P&Z that the project exceeds all requirements of the zoning district.
He said he is confused by residents' conflicting statements that "someone should buy the 66' lot and build on it"
and yet "everyone should be required to have a 100' lot". A substantial home can be built on an 82' lot, with a
sideyard, a fTont setback and a backyard that will not impact the neighbors' properties. He said there were
remarks that the homes would be similar but they would be unique. They will be custom or semi-custom to the
clients' specifications.
Keith Youngquist said he has an issue with regards to the setbacks. These lots are closer to the RX
configuration than the Rl. R.X carries a deeper setback, 40' vs. 30'. He thinks the solution would be to sell the
ROW to 1209 and 1301 Lincoln, resulting in 3 different lot sizes. He does realize the homes on 1209 and 1301
could be demolished and 3 homes built on the 3 lots. He does not think it would be a good idea to sell the 66'
lot to one individual to build one home.
Mr. Rogers said the ROW should not even be sold. The house on 1209 could be re-done or left as it is. The
1301 property could be divided in half, which they have the right to do and a 40' setback should be made a
condition. He feels this is a no-win situation for the community and feels that building four homes would be a
travesty. He said he does not want the ROW sold.
Mr. Donnelly asked if the Park District expressed an interest in buying the property. Mr. Jacobs said they were
notified of the hearing but did not respond. Mr. Donnelly suggested changing the zoning of the lots on that side
of the street. Ms. Juracek said that would be something that would have to be "Noticed" and done as a Map
Amendment at a different hearing. Mr. Donnelly agreed but said it would not be fair to expect one lot to be
penalized to hold to a 40' setback when other lots in the zoning district are not.
Mr. Jacobs said the Commission needed to deal with the request for a Subdivision before them and that the
Petitioner's request meets the Code and requires no relief; that issue needs to be acted on. Tied to that is the sale
of the ROW, which is ultimately the Village Board's decision. If the P&Z wants to make recommendation to
the Board to not sell that property or to sell that property in a ditIerent manner, that is up to the Commission.
Mr. Jacobs said he is not comfortable requiring a greater setback than required by Code. lfthe developer wants
to agree to that or if the Board wants to make that a condition that staff look into, P&Z could do that but if the
proposal meets Code it cannot be denied.
Ms. Juracek clarified with staff that the sale of the ROW is what dictates what will be built on Lincoln,
Mr. Youngquist said that he now realized that the proposed total combined properties could be divided into five
buildable lots and he was in agreement with Mr. Rogers that the ROW should not be sold to the petitioner,
Mr. Paul Kolpak came forward to assure the P&Z that their intention is to build just four homes.
Leo Floros said he felt that three buildable lots would be acceptable, not four and certainly not five. How could
that be achieved? Mr. Rogers asked if three homes would be acceptable to the petitioner. Mr. Kolpak said no, it
becomes a matter of economics. They would be paying a fair market value for the ROW, certainly much more
than they had anticipated, and could not afford to build only three new homes to replace them.
Mr. Jacobs noted that the best way to assure that just three homes were built on the property would be for the
Board not to allow the sale ofthe ROW.
P&Z members discussed several ways of voting in order to accomplish just three homes built at the site.
Ms. Connolly reminded the P&Z of the case at 809 Edgewood where the Village vacated a ROWand divided it
between two property owners. The property south of the ROW had to reimburse the Village because they were
subdividing the property and creating two new lots of record. The property north of
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-IO-04
Page 6
the ROW would need to reimburse the Village should the property be subdivided and two new lots of record
created in the future. The only ditTerence here is it is the same owner of the lots on both sides of the ROW.
A resident came forward to remind the Board of the ROW at Waverly and Lancaster that was sold to two
adjacent property owners to enlarge their properties.
Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing at 9:26 and asked for a motion, explaining that a motion is usually
worded in the affirmative.
Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve the resubdivision with the conditions that the house is torn down and
the ROW is vacated with 100% of the land going to the lot at 1209 Lincoln as proposed. Keith Youngquist
seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: None
NAYS: Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek
Motion was denied 6-0.
Joseph Donnelly made a motion to recommend to the Village Board not to sell the ROW. Richard Rogers
seconded the motiono
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Donnelly, Floras, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 6-0.
Ms. Juracek said we have a positive vote to recommend the ROW be preserved. She noted that although the
request was denied a total of three new homes could still be built, which would include the property at 1209
Lincoln and the two existing lots at 1301 Lincoln.
Joe Donnelly said if the Village Board did sell the ROW to the petitioner he would recommend it would be
divided equally between 1209 and 1301 Lincoln. Mr. Rogers added, with the stipulation that only three homes
could be built on the lots, not four. Ms. Juracek said that would come before them again and they would vote on
that at that time. Mr. Jacobs informed the audience this case would be heard by the Village Board 011 June 15th.
Mr. Rogers urged the residents to make their voices heard.
At 11 :05 pom., Richard Rogers made motion to adjourn, seconded by Matt Sledz. The motion was approved by
a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Michael Jaco ,AICP
Deputy Dire .or of Community Development
HIPLANIl'lenning & Zcoing COMMIP&Z 2004IMinutesIPZ-IO-O4 ¡ 209 W Li"co!n Viken Re,ubùivi,ioll.doc
CASE SUMMARY - PZ~ 10-04
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
LOCATION:
1209 W. Lincoln Avenue and the adjacent unimproved Kenilworth Avenue right-of-way
PETITIONER:
Paul Viken
OWNERS:
Paul Viken (1209 W. Lincoln Avenue) & Village of Mount Prospect (right-of-way)
PARCEL #:
08-11-302-010-0000
LOT SIZE:
0.56 acres (24,600 square feet)
ZONING:
Rl Single Family Residential
LA1~ USE:
Unimproved right-of-way & Single Family Residence
REQUEST:
Plat of Vacation and Plat of Resubdivision (create a two-lot subdivision)
LOCATION MAP
314
316
Lincoln Street
0;
...,
on
<:>
.....
-
- ..,
... ==
..... -
- . -
ë
'"'
<:>
<:>
-
-
.... ";
g 460 ,¡..,
- e-<
Q
~
I
<:.,)
3:
lVlount Prospect
Country Club
I 408
416
420
~
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MOtJNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON
FROM:
JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE:
MA Y 20, 2004
HEARING DATE:
MAY 27, 2004
SUBJECT:
PZ-IO-O4 - VIKEN'S RESUBDIVISION
1209 W. LINCOLN AVENUE (PAUL VIKEN, PROPERTY OWNER)
BACKGROUND
A public hearing has been scheduled for the May 27,2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the
application by Paul Viken (the "Petitioner") regarding the unimproved Kenilworth Avenue right-of-way and
adjacent property located at 1209 W. Lincoln Avenue (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking to
subdivide the site, which necessitates the Village vacating the Kenilworth right-of-way, to create the proposed
two-lot subdivision. The Petitioner's proposal was properly noticed by posting Public Hearing signs on the
Subject Property. In addition, Staff mailed a courtesy notice to neighbors within 250-feet of the Subject Property.
The notice included a brief explanation ofthe request and a sketch of the proposed subdivision.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property is located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, between Ojibwa and We Go Trails, and
currently contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Kenilworth right-of-way was not
improved (street, curb, gutter, etc, were not installed) and contains only some existing landscaping. The Subject
Property is zoned Rl Single Family Residence and is bordered by the RI District to the east, west, and north and
the CR Conservation Recreation District to the south.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The Petitioner's proposal includes creating two lots of record from 1209 W. Lincoln Avenue and the unimproved
Kenilworth Avenue right-of-way. Currently, the Kenilworth right-of-way measures 66' x 150', which is a
buildable lot in the RI district, and the 1209 W. Lincoln Avenue property measures 98' x 150' (consisting of two
parcels measuring 62.22' x 150' and 35.78' x 150').
The Village Code contains minimum lot width, lot depth, and lot size requirements. The following table
summarizes the Village Code's requirements and the Petitioner's proposaL
Rl Single Family District
Minimum Re uirements
Lot 1
ro osed)
Lot Width
Lot De th
Lot Size - Interior Lot
65'
120'
B, 125 s . ft.
82'
150'
12,300 s . ft.
82'
ISO'
12,300 s . ft.
Pz~ 1 0-04
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting May 27,2004
Page 3
In response to inquiries regarding the Petitioner's request, Staff researched the Subject Property's original
subdivision file (Northwest Hills Country Club). The information included within the file does not indicate that
the Village approved any type of covenant or regulation that would require the proposed lots to have a larger lot
width or more restrictive bulk regulations than those listed within the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed
lots (each measuring 82' x 150') would exceed the Village's minimum requirements. The Petitioner does not
have specific plans for the proposed new residences, but they have not requested any reiief from the applicable
zoning regulations. Consequently, the structures and site are required to be developed according to all applicable
VElIage regulations.
In previous cases where the Village vacated rights-of-way, the land was divided in half and donated to each
adjacent property owner. Recently, however, the Village Board has required a developer to compensate the
Village if the requested right-of~way vacation is part of a larger resubdivision. In this case the ViUage is
continuing its policy of allocating the land to the adjacent property owners because the Petitioner owns the
properties on both sides of the Kenilworth right~of-way. However, because the right-of-way is a buildable lot the
Village Board is requiring compensation from the Petitioner for the right-of-way land.
The plats under review would change the site from an unimproved right-of-way and an existing lot (consisting of
two parcels) to two conforming lots. The plats and new lots would comply with the Village's Development Code
requirements and the Petitioner is not seeking relief from the Development Code or Zoning Ordinance. Other
Departments have reviewed the plat and found that it was prepared in accordance with all applicable ViHage
Codes.
RECOM..1VIENDA TION
The proposed Plat of Vacation and Viken Resubdivision seek to create two new lots ofrecord. The plats and new
lots comply with the Village's regulations and the Petitioner is not seeking relief from the Development Code or
the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission
recommend the Village Board approve the Plat of Vacation and Viken Resubdivision, Case No. PZ-IO-04. The
Village Board's decision is final for this case.
¡ concur:
ij~
L.
ector of Community Development
ijc H\I'LAN\Planoing iJl. Z"""'g COMMIP&:Z 20"'\SWfMeoooIPZ."'." MEMO (\209 W Lincoln - pia! 0(,.."",10" and ,"".b) doc
I:::-
-:z
:..
""'"
~
'"
"-
~\
ri°
~
'\
"
D
s.
:'
6ì
'I¡
~
~,
'>\
i'\'
~
/f')
rlA)«r~
(
(
\,
/")
c7{/Y/ V'(!;~'1
'N. ~1~~Wv)
1
l7-01
Ké/1,//¿ÞVORTH
(".¥-QT /-o/""",o,V.,.-.o)
A V¿/t/</"ê'
"
",'
,~ ,
"
"
..~
>
":,
'-"
----------
"
'II
"
"
I,
!~
'f>.
'il
!
'r- - -
f\¡
~
-:'"
'"
c,
6'
/50~O "
"
-- ~-:5T' -::::-.-:v~_o~¿~- :::'9'2 - - ~ - -_.-.
,
í
I
I
¡
ill
/11
¡
i'l
i,
i!
!I
'I
II r\
1\ II ~
'" I "
~ ~ I~~
I," I': III
.,.-0.' if' ~ "1\ II
\J I,
~ Ii
J!
~'I
ì
I
ii
I:
II
Ii
I
Ii "'I,'
r 1\ '
/ ~I
---~J
i
i
I
I
I
,I
U
,<>....rA>~' '. "-'ff" "~""':----o~./50;:'Oh' ,
,,', --' . ' ;;¡
, /7:/+ "
~~ '~ 0
~ " ~ '" _R'/C'~ "'-""'CÆ:'" \
¡~~n h . ~; ~ ~~;:-:;,:::~;:,,-- --j-'\ ,< -~.9:/o~; ':..
"~,'j,, ~', 05,<:; - -<"/'S' ,j 1
~I :: ': ;~ ~ :1 'A,{ ~,~ ~ H ~ ~ â, !J
~I :tr-;' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; (~
\~' 0:1\ \~ .."'§'
"', ~, '1. ~'- -, -- ,t.., \; ,~ ~ k '\ Í\ . ,'0 ,"
'>. . '+/""<//' " ,,/,('-<;
~ Z-o ~~ "~L11-,,, c;.: <',
-..;" II C :. -- u->:"5';..'!.~ ~ .' ~
'- "--J...- ~I /"'-'9\,T /dCt< ?<
<lA/e"""""'<r " "I ß/Uc+
~ 1,"~ 'A7:"'---< -f"">-o:':-
?Z ~ <-V"'<....- c"'~~
',}f ~~- ~~r - - -- - -- -- -- -
?~:¡ ".. ~ ~ '-
L7~...-...... r"':,--?,n-o ~ \~ ~ ~ \~: ß¿4"---T>::>..o ¿?Æ:/F'C"-'Y/9y
-------f'-~-~':~\:'" . ¡ ßÆf'/¿"'- ---L_--c"""",-",¿""",,-r
f7<-O*;:~
~
~
~
d
f\
~
\,.,
~
~
~
en
en
.
0
r IMr oj Vt\. CC1~ VIÀ
( I A
l ~ì\MV~ l2¿f. øf. W'~)
v J
r--
a
-¡
---
0)
:iE
"
150.0
r
--
z
(")
0
r
z
S.KENILWORTH AVENUE
en
m
..
0
HERESY VACATED
en
-i
:u
f11
fTI
-1
150..0
r--
a
--;
---
(J-¡
I!IQN rll'E fOlm on
NORm AM) ON LINE
fJ(ID()E])
s:~
-~
~~
'>
~ ::s
f'
-~
~
\'"
",j
~
~~--
~
~-~
-
':,,:~
IRON ITE fO(H) Ojl -
SOIffi NO ON UHE
Ðm:NDED
--'
W. - LINCOLN ----r\- HOffTM LM OF mE SOU1Y~ST 1/4 - - -----
I Of SECTION 11- 41 - II
'0
,~
IROfI. PIPE SET
'SUfI
82.0"~'"
1G&.01 820
I .
b" ,
'1
,',' to
,::,¡ ~
'"
, I' I '
.~ ¡ ",
~"I ,I ~
.:. I I ~
~ I I
i I I
~ I ~
" 13, I ~ I
~ b ~
i d ~I
~ ~131
15 I æl
a I il
~ I "I
t: ~I
~ Þ &51
~,
I t I ",...,
I I L,) ¡ ; ¡::,
/, I ~ I - ~' ,,;
k 11;;
. , ',~
L~-,--
Jon,
l,U
]
I
I
r1
0 I:
0 ~I
LO :31
g,
~I
~I
~I
~I
~I
~ ,
I ~
-I"~ .'
0) , ...
L___:,_-----,--
166.01 82.17
..)
("
¡J..!
"-~,
::::i:
::1::
~,..,
0':
:~:;: lOT
-...1
r?;¡ I
LOT
2
..:','"
",'.
'",',:
("",
.....:
l.u
I"",
~:::f
;,,)
'<c
...., . "'-'11 82.1~
10 fT. EASEMENT fOO ~
Niue UnuTIES I!I()tI PIPE SET
AN> PMINIIGE
10 n. EASEMENT fOIl
rueuc onLlnES
~ OOAlNAliit
STREET
/ROIl I'ft f'OIJN)
!3!\.111
," , ;¡:¡iI'l
+~
I
I
II
¡~
I~ q
I~ 0
I~ to
I~
Ii
I~
W1
(
:!
;1
~
~
: ,"', '7"1 ' ,°
L..'-...' I ¡ ¡ i.¡,
~ I
~ I
k I
- - - <':J
IRON PII'E I-"O\H)
kad
6/2/04
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT OF RESUBDIVISION
FOR PROPERTY lOCATED AT 1209 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE
WHEREAS, the Petitioner, Paul Viken, has requested approval of a Final Plat of Resubdivision for
the purpose of subdividing one lot and vacated right of way to create two lots of record at 1209
West Lincoln Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the
resubdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That the resubdivision of one lot of record and vacated right of way is
hereby granted for the property at 1209 West Lincoln Avenue and the Final Plat of Resubdivisjon
attached to this as Exhibit "A" is hereby approved for appropriate execution and recording. Such
Plat and its legal description are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution.
SECTION TWO: That the Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified
copy of this Resolution with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County.
SECTION THREE: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption,
approval and publication in pamphlet form as provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this
day of
,2004.
Gerald L Farley
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kimberly Dewis
Deputy Village Clerk
H:IClKOlfilesIWINIRËSIPlat of Resub-1209 W Lincoln Ave jun 20044odoc
G
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM:
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
JUNE 11,2004
SUBJECT:
PZ-12-04: CONDITIONAL USE (PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT) & VARIOUS RELIEF FROM VILLAGE CODES
1500 S. BUSSE ROAD (LAKE PARK VILLAGE APARTMENTS)
MICHAEL TOBIN - APPLICANT
The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-12-04, a
request for Conditional Use approval for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development and reIieffrom Village
regulations as part ofthe proposed condominium conversion of the existing Lake Park Village apartment
complex located at 1500 S. Busse Road (the "Subject Property"). The Planning & Zoning Commission
heard the request at their May 27,2004 meeting.
The Subject Property is located on the west side of Busse Road, between Pheasant Trail and Dempster
Street, and contains an existing apartment complex. The apartment complex, originally developed within
Cook County, contains two building clusters (consisting of 16 individual buildings), an outdoor
swimming pool and club house, parking garages, and a surface parking lot. The Petitioner proposes to
convert the existing apartment units into condominiums.
The Village Code requires condo conversions to meet all of the Village's applicable development
regulations. The Petitioner's proposal contains a schedule of proposed improvements that include general
site improvements as well as updates to the interiors and exteriors of the existing buildings. As part oftbe
proposed condominium conversion the Petitioner is seeking relief from various Vi!1age Code
requirements (including setbacks, parking and detention) that could not be met due to physical site
constraints or financial impracticalities.
The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's request and related issues. They
concluded that the Tree Survey requested by Staff might help to identify possible areas where additional
parking spaces could be provided. The P&Z Commission noted that the proposed improvements would
be an asset to the Village and surrounding neighborhood. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6-0
to recommend that the Village Board approve the Conditional Use permit for Preliminary PUD approval
and relief from Village regulations, Case No. PZ-12-04, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff report.
Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the ViHage Board for their review and consideration
at their June 15,2004 meeting. Staffwill be present to answer any questions related to this matter.
4
ICP
(;e HIPLANIP'rnm!ng &. Zoning COMMIP&Z ""'\ME! Me.....IPZ-12"14 ME) MEMO (lake paili "muge).doe
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-12-04
Hearing Date: May 27,2004
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
Lake Park Village
1500 S. Busse Road
PETITIONER:
Michael A. Tobin
PUBLICATION DATE:
April 7, 2004 & May 12,2004 Journal/Topics
PIN#:
08-15-400-024
REQUEST:
Conditional Use (Preliminary PUD) & Relief from Village Code
Regulations
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Arlene Juracek, Chair; Joseph Donnelly; Leo Floros; Richard Rogers;
Matthew Sledz; Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Merrill Cotten
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development;
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Michael A. Tobin
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve
the minutes of the April 22, 2004 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were
approved 5-0, with one abstention by Joe Donnelly. At 9:30 p.m., Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-12-04,
a request for Conditional Use approval for Preliminary POO approval and relief from ViUage Code Regulations.
She noted that the request would be Village Board final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She noted that, as part of an eventual Condominium
Conversion, the Petitioner has requested Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development and relief
from VìUage Code regulations for: 1) parking and parking lot design, 2) required setbacks, 3) private property
landscaping requirements, 4) lot coverage, and 5) stonnwater detention. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed
in the May 12, 2004 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. The
Subject Property is located on the west side of Busse Road, between Pheasant Trail and Dempster Street, and
contains an existing apartment complex. The complex consists of two building clusters containing a total of 16
individual buildings, an outdoor swimming pool and club house, parking garages, and a surface parking lot. The
Subject Property is zoned R4 Multi-Family and is bordered to the north and west by the RX Single Family
District, Timberlake Apartments and Colonial Green Apartments, to the east by the RA Single-Family Districts,
and to the south by the Rl Single Family District, CornEd Easement.
The Subject Property was originally developed under Cook County regulations. In 1964, following a petition by
the property owner, the Subject Property was annexed into the Village of Mount Prospect and rezoned to R4
Multi-Family. As part of the Annexation Agreement, the Village limited the development to a maximum of 168
units, which VIlas the number of existing units at the time of annexation. The Annexation Agreement is still
applicable, therefore the Petitioner is allowed to maintain 168 units on the property.
The Petitioner, who is also the current property owner, proposes to convert the existing apartment units into
condominiums. The Vìl1age Code requires condo conversions to meet an ViHage development regulations,
which can be challenging for existing developments. After meeting with Staff, the Petitioner prepared a
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-12-04
Page 2
schedule of site improvements, interior and exterior building improvements, and applied for Planned Unit
Development approval, which is required for developments that include two or more multi-family buildings on
the same zoning lot. The Petitioner is seeking relief from Village regulations for requirements that could not .be
met due to physical site constraints or financial impracticalities.
The Petitioner has prepared a booklet that details the proposed improvements for each unit. The interior
improvements are generally cosmetic, but also address specific life safety issues including the installation of fire
sprinklers in each unit. The Petitioner is not proposing any significant modifications to the floor plans of the
units. Ms. ConnoHy summarized the proposed interior improvements. She noted that the Petitioner proposes to
make several site improvements, which include, but are not limited to, remodeling the clubhouse, installing
gazebos by the play lots, installing more landscaping where possible, constructing a fence along the CornEd
easement as requested by the Police Department, and making general repairs to the property as needed. In
addition, the Petitioner proposes to increase the site's stom1water detention capabilities.
Although the Subject Property does not currently experience flooding issues, the Petitioner is required to
provide stormwater detention as part of the condo conversion. The Petitioner's application states that the
development currently does not have stormwater detention or retention facilities. The Petitioner proposes to
provide stormwater detention, but less than the amount that is required by current Vil1age Code standards. . The
Petitioner's Engineer has submitted a preliminary design and calculations. The ViUage's Engineering Division
found the proposed design and amount of detention to be reasonable given the site constraints. and .current
conditions. However, an exception to the Development Code is stm required since the amount of the proposed
detention is less than that required by the Village Code. It is important to note that the site will now provide
some detention, which is an improvement over the current situation.
The existing development consists of 168 one and two-bedroom units and contains a.total of243 parking spaces.
The Village Code requires 2 parking spaces per unit, which results in a total of 336 required parking spaces.
The Petitioner could provide 38 additional parking spaces by removing seme existing landscape islands. This
approach would reduce the parking deficiency, but increase the amaunt .of lot coverage.
The site has an existing lot coverage of 62%, while the Village's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum lot
coverage .of 50% within the R-4 District. The addition of 38 new parking spaces would result in an increase .of
lot coverage by 2% since some existing landscape islands would be removed. Although the CUI1'ent amount of
parking and lot coverage is an existing condition, the Village Code requires the site to meet current regulations
or .obtain variation approval. In this case, the Petiti.oner could reduce the am.ount .of the parking deficiency, but
that w.ould require increasing the amount of the non-con farming lat coverage.
In addition to exceeding lat. caverage . and having an insufficient number of parking spaces, the design of the
parking lot does not meet current Village Code requirements, Village Code requires 90-degree parking spaces
to have stall sizes of either 9.'xI8' .or 9'xl6.' with a two-foot overhang and a.24-foot wide drive aisle for 2-way
traffic. The Petitioner's site plan indicates that many .of the existing parking stalls and drive aisles da not meet
the Village's current requirements. . Due to the. layout .of the existing complex and lack of existing setbacks,
there are practical difficulties in trying te modify the existing parking spaces and. drive aisles t.o meet the
Village's current requirements. The Petitioner's attorney has provided a letter dated May 4,2004 indicating that
the existing design of the parking lot . and its substandard stan. sizes and aisle widths have proven more than
adequate to serve the development. . The. Zoning Ordinance currently requires a 1O-fo01 parking setback. The
existing parking lot and garage spaces encroach into therequired setback and provide no setback. The Petitioner
is seeking a Variation for the existing conditions because the development .of the site limits his ability to relocate
the parking spaces.
The Petitioner is required ta install parking lot lights as detailed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner's
application does not indicate the installation of parking lot lighting. However, since .00 relief from the Village's
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-12-04
Page 3
lighting requirements has been requested, the Petitioner will be required to meet an of the Viìlage Code's
lighting requirements.
Other departments have reviewed this case and did not object to the Petitioner's requests. However, the Police
Department stated that installing a 6' wroughfiron fence in a 2' brick base along the CornEd right-of-way would
help minimize inappropriate activity ín this area. In addition, the Police Department noted that the overall site
lighting must be upgraded. The Petitioner has agreed to instaIl a fence, but did not provide fence or lighting
details. In addition, the Engineering Division noted the parking lot design deficiencies such as stall size and
drive aisle and that the Village Code requires the installation of perimeter curb and gutter. The Fire Department
noted that the site must meet all applìcable codes regarding the installation of sprinklers and fire alarms. Also,
the Village Manager's Office recommended that relief from Village Code requirements be contingent upon
approval of the condo conversion; if the site does not convert to condominiums, the zoning relief approvals
would be revoked.
Before starting the condo conversion process, the Petitioner is seeking relief from Village Code regulations by
applying for zoning approval. The request requires Variations, Exceptions from Development Code
requirements, and Planned Unit Development approval because the Subject Property has multiple buildings on
one lot of record. The PUD and relief from Village Codes requires a public hearing and recommendation by the
Planning & Zoning Commission followed by final review and action by the Village Board. Staff is
recommending the Petitioner's concept be reviewed as a preliminary POD, with final POD approval contingent
on satisfying a number of conditions.
The standards for conditional uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The section contains seven specific
findings that must be made in order to approve a conditional use. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards. .She
said that the proposed POD involves an existing multi-family development. Although the Petitioner proposes to
improve the Subject Property, some of the proposed improvements and existing conditions do not meet current
standards. Due to these circumstances, the Petitioner's requests must meet the standards for Planned Unit
Developments With Other Exceptions. PODs which do not comply with the requirements of the underlying
district regulations or which require modification of the subdivision design standards may be approved when
such approval is necessary to achieve the objectives of the proposed planned unit development, but only when
the exceptions are consistent with the following standards: any reduction in the requirements is in the public
interest; that the proposed exceptions would not adversely impact the value or use of any other property; that
such exceptions are solely for the purpose of promoting better development, which will be beneficial to the
residents or occupants of the planned unit development as well as those of the surrounding properties; and that
in residential planned unit developments the maximum number of dwelling units allowed shall not exceed by
more than ten percent (10%) the number of dwelling units permitted in that zoning district except that planned
unit developments in the B-5 core district may have densities not to exceed eighty (80) units per acre.
The Petitioner is seeking relief from Village Code requirements for: 1) the amount and design of the off-street
parking, an existing condition; 2) 62% lot coverage, an existing condition; 3) Parking lot and garage setbacks,
existing conditions; 4) private property Jandscaping;.5) stormwater detention.
The Petitioner is requesting that the existing parking situation remain as it is currently designed because it has
proven adequate to serve the development. A site inspection confirmed that removing the landscape islands to
create additional parking spaces would require removing mature trees. Also, the new parking spaces would
require more pavement and the site already exceeds the maximum lot coverage limitation. Staff recommends
that prior to final PUD approval, the Petitioner prepare a Tree Survey that identifies which trees, their size, and
their condition that would have to be removed to accommodate additional parking spaces. Based on this
information, additional parking spaces may be added throughout the site, depending on the condition of the
trees. At this time however, Staffrecommends approval ofthe existing parking lot design, stall size, drive aisle,
and location of parking spaces only, subject to: 1) the site converting to condos; and 2) the contract with the new
buyers include information on the number of parking spaces made available to the new condo owner.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-12~O4
Page 4
The Petitioner proposes to install new landscaping throughout the site. However, the existing buildings and
structures limit the Petitioner's ability to install landscaping as required by current code requirements. The
Petitioner's narrative . and related materials. indicate that the new landscaping will meet the .intent of the
Landscape Ordinance and that. the new landscaping wi!! improve the aesthetics of the Subject Property and
surrounding properties. Therefore, Staffrecommends that the Petitioner prepare a Landscape Plan as required
by the Zoning Ordinance that dearly illustrates the location and quantity of the new landscaping priorJo final
PUD approval.
The Petitioner's request for a Variation from lot coverageand.setbacks are for existing conditions. Inthis case,
the Subject Property was developed under Cook County regulations and 'retro-fitting' the Subject Property to
the Village's current code requirements would require significant modifications to the site. Also, the Petitioner
proposes to provide stormwater detention when the site currently does not have any detention. Although the
proposed amount of detention does not meet current code requirements, the detention will minimize the impact
of excess lot coverage and some detention will be provided. As such, the Petitioner's requests for a Variation
and Development Code exception meet the standards for relief because it is in the publidnterest; the design will
benefit occupants of the PUDas weB as those in the surrounding area. The amount of lot coverage "\fill be
finalized as part of Final PUDapproval, subject to the findings of the Tree Survey.
The Petitioner's request for relief from density regulations is not needed because the Annexation Agreement
al1owed the existing number of units to remain. Therefore, the relief from density regulations does not require
action.
The Conditional Use requestfor a Planned Unit Development meets the standards for. a Conditional Use subject
to completing the proposed improvements because the development would not have a detrimental effect on the
adjacent properties, or adversely impact the enjoymentor value of properties in the vicinity. Also, the Petitioner
proposes to provide stonnwater detention and install fire sprinklers. The proposed. use complies with. the
Village's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and improvements would. be made according to Village
regulations.
Based on Staff's analysis, the proposed Preliminary PUD and relief from Village Code as noted in the
Petitioner's application meets the standards for a Conditional Use and relief from ViUageCodes. Staff
recommends approval of the PreliminaryPUD and related relief, subject to the following conditions being
addressed prior to Final PUDapproval:
1) Development of the site as noted in the booklet prepared by BW Phillips, titled 'Lake Park Village
Apartments Budgetary Infonnation For Condominium Conversion' date stamped May 11, 2004, but revised
to include:
a) Parking lot and site lighting as required by the Police Department and detailed in Sec. .14.2219 of the
Zoning Ordinance;
b) Installation of perimeter curb and gutter as required by the Development Code;
c) Installation of a 6' "Wrought iron fence in a 2' brick base, or a similar base to ensure the integrity the
fence, along the. CornEd right -of-way;
Installation ora Fire Sprinkler system and fire alarm system as approved by the Village's Fire Chief;
Submitting a detailed landscape plan as required by the Landscape Ordinance;
Submitting a Tree Survey thatidentifies whichtrees and their condition that would have lobe removed
to accommodate additional parking;
g) Converting aU the buildings to condominiums in no more than 2-years; and
h) Completing the Condominium Conversion Plat Procedures as outlined in theVillage's Subdivision
Code, Section 15.307:8.
d)
e)
t)
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-12-04
Page 5
Joe Donnelly asked Ms. Connolly about handicapped parking for residents. Ms. Connolly said disabled
residents would need to talk to the owner and he would need to provide a space near their unit Mr. Doffi1elly
also asked about the fence blocking access to the bike path. Ms. ConnoUy said the Police Department would
work with the Petitionertodesign accessina safe manner.
Michael Tobin, Mike Zimmerman, Mike Lucich, Tom Schaffer and Tim Largo, were sworn in.
Michael Tobin, 457 Ashland Place, Highland Park, the petitioner and part owner of the property stepped up to
the podium and introduced Mike Luckach, Civil Engineer from GeWalt Hamilton, Mike Zimmerman, Attorney
with Raysa & Zimmerman, Tom Schafer, Architect, and Tim Largo from B. W. Phillips, managers of the
property. Mr. Tobin said he had planned several remarks for the hearing but since Judy had done an outstanding
job presenting the caSe he doesn't have much to add. He said they have some exhibits of the landscaping to
show and he does want to say that their goal in converting to condos is to improve the property. They have
owned the property for about six years and as a rental property it no longer generates enough income to support
the improvements they wish to make.
Ms. Juracek asked who their target market is, whether it includes the cun-ent renters. Mr. Tobin said they expect
many of the present renters to purchase their units. They anticipate marketing the units for under $100,000 for a
one-bedroom and shghtly over $100,000 for a two-bedroom.
Richard Rogers asked if they had spoken to CornEd regarding leasing their easement for parking. Mr. Tobin
said they had considered that, but had not done so because it is considered a park and the Viìlage might not
approve the request, and also CornEd is slow-moving, which would hold up the progress on the project.
Mr. Donnelly asked about parking and garages used for storage. Mr. Tobin said they planned to sell the garage
spaces and assign parking spaces. He said they would not have a legal right to tell people how to use the garage
space that they own, but they would not be allowed to use their garage for storage and then keep their car in a
parking space.
When asked about the lake, Mr. Tobin said it was one of the reasons they had purchased the property. They
would not want to convert that to a dry detention area. They have been searching for years for a proper pump to
operate the waterfall to their liking. He called on their engineer to explain their efforts.
Mike Lucich, Civil Engineer from GeWalt Hamilton, said the pond is cuITently a retention pond, which means it
has standing water.
Leo Florosasked Mr. Tobin if there is a parking problem at the complex. Mr. Tobin said no, but acknowledged
that it is tight when aU the units are occupied. He said that would not happen when the units are owned as
opposed to rented because there are fewer residents in owned units than in rented units.
Keith Youngquist asked if there is a potential for combined units should someone want a larger unit. Mr. Tobin
said it would be possible physically, but he doesn't think the market is there. The units are large - the 2-
bedroom is 1,100 sq.ft. and the I-bedroom is 765 sq.ft.; I-bedroom units being buHt today are typically 650-675
sq.ft and 2-bedrooms are under 1,000 sq.ft
Mr. Tobin asked for a definition of converting to condominiums by two years because they cannot guarantee
sales of all condos in two years.
Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing at 10:08.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ~12-04
Page 6
Leo Floros made a motion to recommend. that the Village Board approve the request for Conditional.Use
approval for Preliminary PUDapproval and relief from Village Code Regulations for the property located at
1500 S. Busse Road, Lake Park Village, Case No. PZ-12~O4, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff report.
Keith Youngquist seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Donnelly, Floras, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 6-0.
At 11 :05 p.m., Richard Rogers made motion toadjoum, seconded by Matt Sledz. The motion was approved by
a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
,
f I
jut I c{¡1¡¡ tl \. j!;1 ¿òb S
Michael Jacobs, AICP // í M )
Deputy Director of Community Devèlòþment
H.\PLANIPlaming & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2004\Minut",\PZ-12-04 1500 S Busse Lake Park Village.doc
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
CAS E S {J :VI )1 A R Y - P Z - 1 2 - 0 .t
LOCATION:
1500 S. Busse Road (lake Park Village)
PETITIONER:
Michael A. Tobin, Northem Realty Group, Ltd.
O\VNER:
Michael A. Tobin, Northern Realty Group, Ltd.
PARCEL #s:
08-15-4úO-O24-0000
LOT SIZE:
92 acres (approximately)
ZONli~G:
R4 Multi-Family
LAJ.'fD USE:
Apartment Complex
REQUEST:
Condominium Conversion & Conditional Use (Preliminary Planned Unit Development &
relief from V iUage Code regulations)
LOCATION MAP
Maonolia Lane
;:;e.¡~13.~;:Jê~;::;:;:: ¡¡;s~a;
:2:;:-_f:"q--- ~....~~....~
~..t..""""'M""""'M"~""'N=
..::.1"""""""'" ---.... ~~~Ë
:!!;;!::!:~...........~!::!:
F . Hi. ~. w.. ei""
iAlOe fI,,""'"
Ap"""'OU
~..~II...I
....
"...
!)
c;:... J
~
~
~
~
~
c
Dempster Street
1407
1409
1411
1413
1415
1';17
"'19
";21
1423
1425
¡Hi
UZq
1431
14JJ
";35
150t
1505
~
MEMORANDUM
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
TO:
MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON
FROM:
JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE:
MAY 20, 2004
HEARING DATE:
MAY 27,2004
SUBJECT:
PZ-12-04: CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION & CONDITIONAL USE
(PRELIlV1INARY PUD & RELIEF FROM VILLAGE CODE REGULATIONS)
LAKE PARK VILLAGE -1500 S. BUSSE ROAD
BACKGROUND
A public hearing has been scheduled for the May 27, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the
application by Michael A. Tobin (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 1500 S. Busse Road (the
"Subject Property"). As part of a Condominium Conversion the Petitioner has requested Conditional Use
approval for a Planned Unit Development and re1iefftom Village Code regulations for: 1) parking and parking lot
design, 2) required setbacks, 3) private property landscaping requirements, 4) lot coverage, and 5) stormwater
detention. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the May 12,2004 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper.
In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property O\\'l1ers within 2SD-feet and posted a
Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property is located on the west side of Busse Road, between Pheasant Trail and Dempster Street, and
contains an existing apartment complex. The complex consists of two building clusters (containing a total of 16
individual buildings), an outdoor swimming pool and club house, parking garages, and a surface parking lot. The
Subject Property is zoned R4 Multi-Family and is bordered to the north and west by the RX Single Family
District (Timberlake Apartments and Colonial Green Apartments respectively), to the east by the RA Single-
Family Districts, and to the south by the Rl Single Family District (ComEd Easement).
Sl~IMARY OF PROPOSAL
The Subject Property was originally developedunderCook County regulations. In 1964, following a petition by
the property owner, the Subject Property was annexed into the Village of Mount Prospect and rezoned to R4
Multi-Family. As part of the Annexation Agreement, the Village limited the development to a maximum of 168
units, WhlCh was the number of existing units at the time of annexation. The Annexation Agreement is still
applicable, thus the Petitioner is allowed to maintain 168 units on the property.
The Petitioner, who is also the currentpropertyO\V!H::r, proposes to convert the existing apartment units into
condominiums. The Village Code requires condo conversions to meet all Village development regulations, which
can be challenging for existing developments. After meeting with Staff, the Petitioner prepared a schedule of site
improvements, interior and exterior improvements, and applied for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval,
which is required for developments that include two or more multi-family buildings on the same zoning lot. The
PZ-12-04
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting May 20, 2004
Page 3
Petitioner is seeking relief from Village regulations for requirements that could not be met due to physical site
constraints or financial impracticalities.
Interior Improvements
The enclosed booklet extensively details the proposed improvements for each unit. The improvements are
generally cosmetic and also address specific life safety issues (including the installation of fire sprinklers in each
unit). The Petitioner is not proposing any significantmoditìcations to the floor plans of the units.
Exterior Improvements
The Petitioner proposes to replace the roof, repair/replace stairs and landings as necessary as well as replace the
existing gutters, downspouts, fascia and soffits. The buildings will be painted as needed and the garages and
storage lockers will also be repaired as needed.
Site Improvements
The Petitioner proposes to make several site improvements, which include, but are not limited to, remodeling the
clubhouse, installing gazebos by the play lots, installing more landscaping where possible, constructing a fence
along the CornEd easement as requested by the Police Department, and making general repairs to the property as
needed. In addition, the Petitioner proposes to increase the site's stormwater detention capabilities.
Stormwater Detention Although the Subject Property does not currently experience flooding issues, the Petitioner
is required to provide stormwater detention as part of the condo conversion. The Petitioner's application states
that the development currently does not have stormwater detention or retention facilities. The Petitioner proposes
to provide stormwater detention, but less than the amount that is required by current Village Code standards. The
Petitioner's Engineer has submitted a preliminary design and calculations. The Village's Engineering Division
found the proposed design and amount of detention to be reasonable given the site constraints and current
conditions. However, an exception to the Development Code is still required since the amount of the proposed
detention is less than that required by the Village Code. It is important to note that the site will now provide some
detention, which is an improvement over the current situation.
Parking & Lot Coverage The existing development consists of 168 one and two-bedroom units and contains a
total of 243 parking spaces. The Village Code requires 2 parking spaces per unit, which results in a total of 336
required parking spaces. The Petitioner could provide 38 additional parking spaces by removing some existing
landscape islands. This approach would reduce the parking deficiency, but increase the amount of lot coverage.
The site has an existing lot coverage of 62%, while the Village's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum lot
coverage of 50% within the R-4 District. The addition of 38 new parking spaces would result in an increase oflat
coverage by 2% since some existing landscape islands would be removed. Although the current amount of
parking and lot coverage is an existing condition, the Village Code requires the site to meet current regulations or
obtain variation approval. In this case, the Petitioner could reduce the amount of the parking deficiency, but that
would require increasing the amount of the non-conforming lot coverage.
In addition to exceeding lot coverage and having an insufficient number of parking spaces, the design of the
parking lot does not meet current Village Code requirements. Village Code requires 90-degree parking spaces to
have stall sizes of either 9'xl8' or 9'xI6' with a two-foot overhang and a 24-foot wide drive aisle for 2-way
traffic. The Petitioner's site plan indicates that many of the existing parking stalls and drive aisles do not meet the
Village's current requirements. Due to the layout of the existing complex and lack of existing setbacks, there are
practical difficulties in trying to modify the existing parking spaces and drive aisles to meet the Village's current
requirements. The Petitioner's attorney has provided the attached letter (dated May 4, 2004) indicating that the
existing design of the parking lot and its substandard stall sizes and aisle widths have proven more than adequate
to serve the development.
PZ-12-04
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting May 20, 2004
Page 4
Setback Requirements: The Zoning Ordinance currently requires a 10-foot parking setback. . The existing parking
lot and garage spaces encroach into the required setback and provide no setback. The Petitioner is seeking a
Variation for the existing conditions because the development of the site limits his ability to relocate the parking
spaces.
Parking Lot Lighting: The Petitioner is required to install parking lot lights as detailed. in Sec. 14.2219 of the
Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner'.s application does not indicate the installation of parking lot lighting.
However, since no relief from the Village's lighting requirements has been requested, the Petitioner will be
required to meet all of the Village Code's lighting requirements.
Review bv Other Village Departments: Other departments have reviewed this case and did not objecUo the
Petitioner's requests. However, the Police Department stated that installing a 6' wrought iron fence in a 2' brick
base along the CornEd right-of-way would help minimize inappropriate activity in this area. In addition, the
Police Department noted that the overall site lighting must be upgraded. The Petitioner has agreed.to install a
fence, but did not provide fence or lighting. details.
In addition, the Engineering Division noted the parking lot design deficiencies (stall size, drive aisle) and that the
Village Code requires the instaHationofperimeter curb andgutteL The Fire Department noted thatthesite must
meet all applicable codes regarding the installation of sprinklers and fire alarms. Also, the Village Manager's
Office recommended that relief from Village Code requirements be contingent upon approval of the condo
conversion; if the site does not convert to condominiums, the zoning relief approvals would be revoked.
Approval Process - Before starting the condo conversion process, the Petitioner is seeking relief from Village
Code regulations by applying for zoning approval. The request requires Variations, Exceptions from
Development Code requirements, and Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval because the Subject Property
has multiple buildings on one lot of record. The PUDand relief from ViHage Codes requires a public hearing and
recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission followed by final review and act1onbythe Village
Board. Staff is recommending the Petitioner's concept be reviewed as a preliminary pun, with finaL POO
approval contingent on satisfYing a number of conditions<
REOUIREDFINDINGS
Conditional Use Standards
The standards for conditional uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.7 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section
contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a conditional use. These standards relate
to:
.
The conditional use wiH not have a detrimental effect 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 ¡TIthe
vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties;
It
.
Adequate provision of utilities and drainage and design of access and egress to minImiZe
congestion. on Village streets; and
Compliance of the conditional use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code,
and other Village Ordinances.
It
The proposed PUD involves an existing multi-family development. Although the Petitioner proposes to improve
the Subject Property, some of the proposed improvements and existing conditions do not meet current standards.
PZ-12-04
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting May 20, 2004
Page 5
Due to these circumstances, the Petitioner's requests must meet the standards for Planned Unit Developments
With Other Exceptions, as detailed in the following section,
Standards For Planned Unit Developments 'With Other Exceptions
PUDs which do not comply with the requirements of the underlying district regulations or which require
modification of the subdivision design standards may be approved when such approval is necessary to achieve the
objectives of the proposed planned unit development, but only when the exceptions are consistent with the
following standards:
.
Any reduction in the requirements is in the public interest.
The proposed exceptions would not adversely impact the value or use of any other property.
That such exceptions are solely for the purpose of promoting better development, which will be beneficial
to the residents or occupants of the plarmed unit development as wen as those of the surrounding
properties.
That in residential planned unit developments the maximum number of dwelling units allowed shall not
exceed by more than ten percent (10%) the number of dwelling units permitted in that zoning district
except that planned unit developments in the B-5 core district may have densities not to exceed eighty
(80) units per acre.
.
.
.
'"
The Petitioner is seeking relief from Village Code requirements for:
1) The amount and design of the off-street parking (existing condition)
2) 62% lot coverage (existing condition)
3) Park lot and garage setbacks (existing conditions)
4) Private Property Landscaping
5) Stonnwater detention
The Petitioner is requesting that the existing parking situation remain as it is currently designed because it has
'proven adequate to serve the development.' A site inspection confinned that removing the landscape islands to
create additional parking spaces would require removing mature trees. Also, the new parking spaces would
require more pavement and the site already exceeds the maximum lot coverage limitation, Staff recommends that
prior to final PUD approval, the Petitioner prepare a Tree Survey that identifies which trees, their size, and their
condition that would have to be removed to accommodate additional parking spaces. Based on this information,
additional parking spaces may be added throughout the site, depending on the condition of the trees. At this time
however, Staff recommends approval of the existing parking lot design (stall size, drive aisle, and location of
parking spaces only) subject to: 1) the site converting to condos; and 2) the contract with the new buyers include
infonnation on the number of parking spaces made available to the new condo owner,
The Petitioner proposes to install new landscaping throughout the site, However, the existing buildings and
structures limit the Petitioner's ability to install landscaping as required by current code requirements. The
Petitioner's narrative and related materials indicate that the new landscaping will meet the intent of the Landscape
Ordinance and that the new landscaping will improve the aesthetics of the Subject Property and surrounding
properties. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Petitioner prepare a Landscape Plan as required by the Zoning
Ordinance that clearly illustrates the location and quantity of the new landscaping prior to final PUD approval.
The Petitioner's request for a Variation from lot coverage and setbacks are for existing conditions. In this case,
the Subject Property was developed under Cook County regulations and 'retro-fitting' the Subject Property to the
Village's cum:nt code requirements would require significant modifications to the site. Also, the Petitioner
proposes to provide stormwater detention when the site currently does not have any detention. Although the
proposed amount of detention does not meet current code requirements, the detention will minimize the impact of
excess lot coverage and some detention will be provided. As such, the Petitioner's requests for a Variation and
PZ-l2-04
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting May 20, 2004
Page 6
Development Code exception meet the standards for relief because it is in the public interest; the design will
benefit occupants of the PUD as well as those in the surrounding area. (The amounLof lot coverage will be
finalized as part of Final PUD approval, subject to the findings of the Tree Survey.)
The Petitioner's request for relief from density regulations is not needed because the Annexation Agreement
allowed the existing number of units to remain. Therefore, the relief from density regulations does not require
action.
The Conditional Use request for a Planned Unit Development meets the standards for a Conditional Use subject to
completing the proposed improvements because the development would not have a detrimental effect on the
adjacent properties, or adversely impact the enjoyment or value of properties in the vicinity. Also, the Petitioner
proposes to provide storm water detention. and install fire sprinklers. The proposed use complies with the
Village's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and improvements would be made according to Village
regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, the proposed Preliminary PUD and relief from Village Code as noted in the
Petitioner's application meet the standards for a Conditional Use and relief from Village Codes, Staff
recommends approval of the Preliminary PUD and related relief, subject to the foHowing conditions being
addressed prior to Final PUD approval:
1) Development of the site as noted in the booklet prepared by BW Phillips, titled 'lake Park Village
Apartments Budgetary Information For Condominium Conversion' date stamped May 11, 2004, but
revised to include:
a) Parking lot and site lighting as required by the Police Department and detailed in Sec. 14.2219 of
the Zoning Ordinance;
b) Installation of perimeter curb and gutter as required by the Development Code;
c) Installation of Ii 6' wrought iron fence in a brick base (or a similar base to ensure the integrity the
fence) along the CornEd right-of-way;
2) Installation of a Fire Sprinkler system and fire alarm system as approved by the Village's Fire Chief;
3) Submitting a detailed landscape plan as required by the landscape Ordinance;
4) Submitting a Tree Survey that identifies which trees and their condition that would have to be removed to
accommodate additional parking;
5) Converting all the buildings to condominiums in no more than 2-years; and
6) Completing the Condominium Conversion Plat Procedures as outlined in the Village's Subdivision Code
(Section 15.307:B).
The Village Board's decision is final for this case.
IN"il7. ~J.
William J. Cooney, AICP, DIrector of Community Development
';0 ¡"PL~NII'I...in~ '" Zoning COM¡'H&Z 1()().!\StaffM"".,PZ-12.o.¿ MI;MO ¡UJre P"t-Pl:D).doc
.
RU55EI..I. M. BAPlNE'fT
WIf..f..14 o1 G. RAYSA
JO"" J. %,....£"'.........
4¡C""'£L. F. %,....£"'.........
£I.£NA B. PENICK
0'- :O~";H;:-
ERWiN W. JENTSCH
DEI.IIERT L. U,-"'EICH
RAYSA&ZIMMERMANN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
May 4, 2004
Via FedEx
~I.r. William Cooney, Director
Ms. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner
Department of Community Development
Village of Mount Prospect
100 S. Emerson
Mount Prospect, n.. 60056
Re:
Lake Park Village, Petition for P.D.D.
Dear .Mr. Cooney and Ms. Connolly:
On behalf of Lake Park Associates, LLC, I am submitting an addendum to our
application for zoning relief previously filed on March 11,2004. The addendum
seeks approval of the existing development as a P.U.D. with exceptions. My client
requests that the project appear on the May 27th P & Z agenda. Enclosed with this
letter please find:
III
1 Addendum to ZooiD!.! Application filed 1.\tlarch 11.2004
15 36" x 48" plats of survey
Check payable to Village of Mount Prospect for $750 (difference between
P.O.D. fee of $1,250 and $500 previously paid.)
III
III
It is my understanding that Village staff performs aU required public notices,
induding the compilation of the list of adjoining property owners. If you have any
questions, or this. application is incomplete in any way, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Raysa & Zimmermann, Ltd.
~[FZ:jmp
Enclosures
cc: Michael Tobin. Northern Realty Group
22. 50'-11">'" WAS"""CTON "VENUE ?ARI< RIDCE. ILLINOIS 60066
T: 84 7.434..0200 ~: 847..434-0 164
II
RAY5A&ZIMMERMANN, LTDo
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Village of l\'Iount Prospect
Community Development Department-Planning Division
Addendum to Zonio2 Application filed i\'iarch 11. 2004
Applicant:
rvlichael Tobin, rvranager
Lake Club Associates, LLC
Address:
P.I.N.
Zoning Disc
Site Area
Exhibits:
1500 SoB usse Road
08-15-400-024
R-4
9.2 Acres
.
Plat of Survey (previously submitted, 15 additional full sized
copies induded with this addendum)
Exhibit A-Existing Conditions (Previously submìttedby Gewalt
Hamilton Associates)
Exhibit B-ProposedConditions.(previously submitted by Gewalt
Hamilton Associates)
.
"
NoR. All site and ownership data submitted on the application of March It 2004 is
herebv incorporated into this addendumo
I Purpose of the Request
Applicant desires to gradually convert the development to condominium ownership in
accord with the Village Code and Section 25 of the Condominium Property Act, 765
ILCS 605/250 The property is legaUy non-conforming with the zoning code in several
respects: (l)off-street parking~ (2) yard encroachment of parking lots; (3}perimeter
landscaping: (4) impervious lot coverage; (5)stormwater retention/detention; and (6)
several principal structures on one zoning lot. Village staff have instructed that to
convert to condominium ownership, the development needs to be brought into full
compliance with the zoning code. Compliance with the strict letter of the code is
impossible as explained below. Accordingly, the applicant seeks approval of the
existing development as a P.U.D.
II Request for Conditional Vse--
Preliminary and Final PoU.D. Approval
A.
Request for P.C.D.
Applicant requests approval of the existing development as a Planned Cnit
Development with exceptions from the zoning code in accord with section 14.504(c)
of the zoning code. There are several reasons for the request. The property "vas
1
II
RAYSA&ZIMMERMANN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
developed approximately 40 years ago. Located on a single zoning lot, the
development contains 2 apartment buildings, 2 garages, a recreation building, a
swimming pool, large common areas, and a decorative lake. Having several principal
structures on a single zoning lot. the development's existing physical characteristics
are in keeping with the design accommodations of a modern planned unit
development.
B.
VariationfExceptions from.tne underlying: zonin\~ requirements
.
Parking. Variation/Exception from Section 14.222 of the zoning code from
required 336 off-street parking spaces to the existing 243 spaces; and from
Section 14.2226, Figure 1 to allow existing parking aisle dimensions. The
development is an existing apartment complex of 168 1- and 2-bedroom units
builtin the 1960's. The applicant seeks a variation from the required 336 off-
street parking spaces to the existing 243 spaces. This is a variation of 93
spaces (1.45 spaces/unit instead of 2 spaces/unit). Applicant has shown a
proposed additional 45 spaces than currently exists on its Exhibit B-proposed
conditions. However.a.pplicant is concerned about the subtraction of green
space and landscaping necessitated by the addition of 45 parking spaces. If
the Village prefers to require the addition of the 45 spaces the required
variation would be 48 spaces not 93 (1.75 spaces/unit instead of 2
spaces/unit). As. for drive aisles and staB design, the aisles range in width
from 19 to 26 feet. The code calls for 24 feet. The 19 foot aisles, though not
ideal. have proven more than adequate to serve the development.
.
Yard Encroachment. Variation/Exception from Section 14.1304. B to allow
encroachment afthe parking lot into the required yards. The existing
development was built with parking lots encroaching into subsequently
required yards. This would be a variation to reflect existing conditions.
..
Lot Covera~e. VariationlEx<:eptionfrom Section 14.304(c) a/the zoning code
from required 50% maximum impervious Lot coverage to the proposed 64%
Lot coverage. This would be a variation to reflect existing conditions and the
addition of 45 parking spaces. If the addition of 45 spaces is disfavored by the
Village the then the actual impervious surface will be 62%. Attempts to
reduce the impervious spaces equate to reducing the amount of parking.
Accordingly. substantial reductions in impervious surface (i.e. reductions in
parking spaces) would create a parking problem at the site where one
currently does not exist.
.
Perimeter Landsc;¡pin2:. \/ariation/Excepcionfrom section 1..J..2306 and
14.2308 of the zoning code from the required perimeter landscaping. The
ex.isring development ..vas built \vith parking lots encroaching into
suqsequently required yards. This .."ould be a variation to reflect ex.isting
..,
m
R.AYSA&ZIMM.ERMANN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
conditions. There will be landscaping enhancements. but likely not. to the
extent called for in the code due to the existing parking conditions at the site.
.
SWrTnwater. VariationJExceptionIrom Article Vlafthe Municipal Code
from the required 2.5acrefeet alan-site storage to .5 acre/eet afon-site
stOrage of stonnwater. The complex was built prior to existing stormwater
management requirements. Currently, there are no stormwater
retention/detention facilities.onthe property. . Developer proposes to route
stormwater to the existing decorative lake on the prernises and install a 10-
inch restrictor at the control structure. This would provide ..5 to .7 AC-Ff of
detention subject to field verification.
. Densi tv. Variation/exception from section 14.304.A.l jrQm the required
maximum of 16 unitsper acre to permit the existing 18.2 units per acre.
Allowing an exception to the density regulations in the R-4 district will
acknowledge the existing conditions and allow for the proposed
improvements to the property. It must be emphasized that a change to
condominium ownership will not intensify the use at the subject property.
AccordinglY, allowance of this exception is urged so thatthe property can be
improved as set forth.
III Summary and Justification for requested
approval(s), as related to appropriate
Village Standards for P.D.D.
A.
General standards for P.D.D.s
1. Except as modified by and approved in the final development plan, the proposed
development complies with the regulations of the district or districts in which it is to
be located.
The development complies with aU regulations of the district except as
noted.
2. The principal use in the proposed planned unit development is consistent with the
recommendations of the comprehensi ve plan of the village for the area contai ning the
subject site.
Applicant believes that muUi~family use is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
3. That the proposed planned unit development is in the public interest and is
consistent with the purposes of this zoning ordinance.
Applìcant believes that the approval of this F.U.I).and the subsequent
conversion. to condominium ownership are in the public interest. The
conversion to condomlnium ownership will anow applicant as developer to make
certain capital improvements which win improve the development and its impact
3
B
RAYSA&ZIMMERMANN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
on surrounding properties. First, the applicant will install a fence around the
perimeter of the property. which will provide security and aesthetic
enhancement. Second, the developer will install nre..suppression systems inside
the buildings as required by the Village code wbichare currently lacking.
Third, the.developer will routestormwater run~offrom the development into the
site's existing lake. It is believed that the lake is currently a decorative
landscapef'eature which provIdes no stormwater detention. Finally, the
developer will make other physical upgrades to the property which may include
additional 45 parking spa.cesas well as general upgrade of existing dwelling
units.
4. That the streets have been designed to avoid:
a. Inconvenient or unsafe access to the planned unit development;
b. Traffic congestion inthe streets which adjoin the planned unit development;
c. An excessive burden on public parks, recreation areas, schools, and ather
public facilities which serve or are proposed ta serve the planned unit
development.
This standard does not apply as there are no public streets in the
develop men t.
B.
Additional Standards For Planned Unit Developments With Other ExcePtions:
1. Any reduction in the requirements of this chapter is in the public interest.
See response to general. standard No. 3
2. The proposed exceptions would not adversely impact the value or use of any other
property.
See response to general standard No.3
3. That such exceptions are solely for the purpose of promoting better development
which will be beneficial to the residents or occupants of the planned unit development
as well as those of the suITounding properties.
Applicant believes that condominium ownership and the capital
improvements which it proposes are beneficial to the residents and will promote
a better development.
4. That in residential planned unit developments the maximum number of dwelling
units allowed shall not exceed by more than ten percent (10%) the number of
dwelling units permitted in that zoning district except that planned unit developments
in the B-3 core di$trict may have densities not to exceed eighty (80) units per acre.
This existing development cannot comply with this standard and
applicant asks for an exception to this standard.
4
m
RAYSA&ZiMMERMANN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
5. That all buildings are located within the planned unit development in such a way as
to dissipate any adverse impact on adjoining buildings and shallnotinvade the
privacy of theoccl.lpantsofsuchbuHdings .and shaH conform to the following:
a. The . front, sideorrearyardsetbacks on the perimeter of the development
shall Rotbe less than that requiredin the abutting zoning district(s)or the
zoningdistrictundedyingthesubject .site., whichever is greater.
b. All transitionaLyards.and transitional landscape yards .of the underlying
zoning district are complied with.
c. . If required transitionaL yards and transitional landscape yards are not
adequate to protect the pri vacy and enjoyment of property adjacentto the
development, the planning and zoning commission shall recommend either
or both of the following requirements:
(I) AU stru.ctures located on the perimeter of the planned unit
development must set back by a. distance sufficient to protect the
privacy and amenity of adjacent existing uses;
(2)All structures located along the entire perimeter ofthe planned
unit development must be permanently screened with sight proof
screening in a manner which is sufficient to protect the privacy and
amenity of adjacent existing uses.
d. That the area of open space provided in a planned unit development shall
be at least that required in the underlying zoning district.
See the P(at of survey fot" existing conditions. The buildingsb.ave been located
in a functionaland . aesthetically pleasing manner on the site~ With the
exception of the iterns listed above, the development meets the design
requirements of the underlying 'Zoning district.
Alternative application for Variation
In the event that the Village believes that. variations on each exception listed above
are more appropriate than PoU.D. approval, applicant asks that this application be
treated as an application. for variations on those items instead of an application for
PoDoDo approvaL
Respectfully Submitted,
& Zimmermann, Ltd.
'\
°chael F. Zimmermann
Attorney for Applicant
5
Northern Realty Group, Ltd.
,,3 Nurlh De:Irbo.." Su.:et
Suite 1200
Chicago, tIIinol5 60602
1..1 .3 ¡ 7) .~4&4fl( n
fa" ßI':) 34i(~13'J8
May 11.2004
Via Facsill1lle
(847) 818~5329
Ms. Judy Connolly
P}anning; Coordinator
ViHage ofMt. Prospect
100 S. Em~n
Mt. Prospect. tL 60056
Rc;
Lake Park Village: Zoning Variation Application
D~ar Judy:
You win be receivine, ro,iay. under separate covt::f.fiftetm (15) cOpics of exhibits tor our
application for variances for Lake Park Ví1ìagc:. 1500 S. Busey Road in Mt. Prospect. As we
have discussed, it ¡sour hope thatthercquested varianccs will be:: granted SO that we can convert
t.'le property to condominium owncnsnip. it i:s our pl~ to convert thE:! property in phases to
respond to the current market dt:mand for condominiums in the area. We believe that it will take
appro;>timatelyt\vO years. to co.mplete the COlwcrsion process. As a result, the capital
improvtrmcnt shown on the attachedttxhibits will be completed in stages as the cOnVt:ThiUH
process progressès. Exterior work wJll begin when the conversion is started, and inteJior
iWPfovt:rfJGncs win be completed as each ()fthe unit." are brought to the l11arket.
I hope these exhibitS are acceptable and dear. If you have additional questio11$ please-: feel free to
give me a cal1.
,
Michael A. Tobin
Mat1aging Principal. Development
Direct Dial (312) 346-9170
:;ViA T:tmv/] O}3
Endo5ures
cc:
Mikc Zirnmcrmar:
Tom SChZlftðf
Dean KutrwT1&'1CS
GS-ll-ti!4
15:26
RECEIVED FROH:312 346 4398
P.S2
BW.~hi!JJp5
Premier Center
1033 W. Van Buren St
ChIcago. Illinois 60611
Ph' ~1? ~?Q A4Q.4 ¡:'Y' .'~1? ~,q R"\70
Memo
To:: Judy ConnoJly
From: Tim Wargo
Date; 511912004
CC:
He:
Mike Tobin, Dean Kutlumanes
scope of work. for lighting at Lake Park VIII_iii'
Thank you for the tnformatiiOn ~inø thellghttng ordinance. I spoke with Mi'. Tobin regarding
this mater and the scope wm be as follows:
Lake Par1< Village haa&xtstiJ'lgllghtJnginttte parking .area and on the exterior of thøbuildin{þ.
We wUlundertake astudyofl!tXi$tinglighting Myels toinsu!'e we meet the zoning ortfinance,
&5-19-~4
12:57
RECEIVED FROM:
P.G2
~
ØÎ
RUSSELL M. BARNETT
WILLIAM G. RAYSA
JOHN J. ZIMMERMANN
MICHAEL F. ZIMMERMANN
ELENA B. PENICK
ERWIN W. JENTSCH
DELBERT L. ULREICH
RAYSA ZIMMERMANN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Via Facsimile & First Class 1\rtail
Mr. William Cooney, Director
Ms. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner
Department of Community Development
Village of Mount Prospect
100 S. Emerson
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
May 28, 2004
Re:
Lake Park Village, Petition for P.D.D.
Dear Mr. Cooney and Ms. Connolly:
On behalf of Lake Park Associates, LLC, I request that the Village Board suspend the
rules and waive first reading on the above petition for P.D.D. to be heard at the June
15tb Board meeting.
Also, I would greatly appreciate it if the Village Attorney could forward a draft of the
ordinance at his earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call. Thank you for your courtesy.
Sincerely,
Raysa & Zimrnennann, Ltd.
MFZ:jrnp
cc: Everett M. Hill, Klein Thorpe & Je ns
Michael Tobin, Northern Realty Group
22 SOUTH WASHINGTON AVENUE PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS 60068
T: 847-434-0200 F: 847-434-0164
kad
6/2/04
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE NATURE
OF A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND RELIEF FROM
VILLAGE CODE REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTY
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1500 SOUTH BUSSE ROAD
WHEREAS, Michael A Tobin (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner), has filed a petition for
a Conditional Use permit in the nature of a Preliminary Planned Unit Development and
relief from Village Code regulations with respect to property generally known as 1500
South Busse Road, (hereinafter referred to as Subject Property); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is legally described as follows:
The East 582 feet as measured at right angles to the East line thereof of that part of
Lot 2 in Edward Busse's Division of part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15 and
the Northeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 41 North, Range 11, East ofthe Third
Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded in the Recorder's Office of
Cook County, Illinois, December 17,1919 as document number6696216, lying South
of the North 759.54 feet thereof, as measured on the East and West lines of said Lot
2 and lying Northerly of a line drawn from a point on the West line of the East Half of
the Southeast Quarter of said Section 15; 335.56 feet North of the Southwest corner
of said East half of the Southeast Quarter to a point on the East line of said lot 2,
539.80 feet North of the South line of said Section 15 (as measured along the East
line of said Lot 2) in Cook County, Illinois.
PIN: 08-15-400-024-000
WHEREAS, Petitioner desires a preliminary Planned Unit Development approval providing
for the long-term conversion to condominiums of a 168 unit apartment development; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the requests for a Conditional Use permit
including relief from Village Code regulations, designated as P&Z Case No. 12-04, before
the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 2ih day of
May, 2004, pursuant to due and pro~er notice having been published in the Mount
ProsJ;?ect Journal and Topics on the 12 h day of May, 2004; 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
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the ViUage of Mount Prospect have
considered the requests of P&Z 12-04 and have determined that the best interests of the
Village of Mount Prospect would be served by granting to the Subject Property the
Conditional Use permit including relief from Village Code regulations as requested in P&Z
12-04.
D
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESiDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, iLUNOIS:
SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth above are incorporated as findings of fact by the
President and Board of Trustees. of the.ViUage of Mount Prospect.
SECTION TWO: The Conditional UseÎs subject to the following conditions prior to Fina!
PUD approval:
1) Development of the site as noted in the bookiet prepared by BW Ph¡¡¡ips, titled 'Lake
Park Village Apartments Budgetary Information For Condominium Conversion' date
stamped May 11...2004. but revised to indude:
a) Parking. lot and site Hghting as required by the Police Department and
detailed in Sec. 14.2219 of the Zoning Ordinance;
b) Installation of perimeter curb and gutter as required by the Development
Code;
c) Installation of a 6' wrought iron fence in a 2' brick base (or a similar base to
ensure the. integrity the fence) along the CornEd right~of~way;
2) Installation of a Fire Sprinkler system and fire alarm system as approved by the
Village's Fire Chief;
3) Submission of a detailed landscape plan as required by the landscape Ordinance;
4) Submission of a Tree Survey that identifies which trees and. their condition that
would have. to be removed to. accommodate additional parking;
5) Conversion of all the buildings to condominiums in no more than 2 years; and
6) Completion of the Condominium Conversion Plat Procedures as set forth in the
Village's Subdivision Code (Section 15.307:B).
SECTION THREE: That the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect do hereby grant relief from Village Code regulations, as provided in Section
14.203.C.7 ofthe Village Code, to allow:
1) Less. than the required amount of off-street parking spaces (final amount to be
determined subject to the Tree Survey findings);
2) Design of the off-street parking lot as it currently exists (documented on the
Petitioner's Si.te Plan prepared by Gewalt Hamilton dated April 14,2004);
3) More than 50% lot coverage (finai .amount to be determined. subjectto the Tree
Survey findings)'
4) The existing parking lot and garage setbacks (documented on the Petitioner's Site
Plan. prepared by Gewalt Hamilton dated April. 14, 2004);
5) less than therequiredamountotprivate property landscaping (final.amount to be
determined based on the Landscape .Plan to be submitted);
6) 0.5 to O.7.acre feet of on-site stormwater detention.
SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law,
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this
day of
,2004.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Kimberly A. Dewis
Deputy Village Clerk
H:\CLKO\fi!es\WIN\ORDINANC\Con Use,1500sbusseroad pud condo conver.doc
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
~.~.
fø ISIOì
~
TO:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE:
JUNE 11,2004
SUBJECT:
PZ-22-04 - CONDITIONAL USE (AMEND POD)
999 N. ELMHURST ROAD
RANDHURST I BUFFALO WILD WINGS - APPLICANT
The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-22-04, a
request to amend the Randhurst Shopping Center Planned Unit Development to allow the construction of
a restaurant on an existing outlot. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their May 27,
2004 meeting.
The proposed 225-seat restaurant would be constructed on the existing outlot located along Euclid Road,
between Steak'N'Shake and Jewel Foods (see attached staff report for more details). The proposed
restaurant, Buffalo Wild Wings, is a fast-growing franchise operation with restaurants located in 29 states
(including 9 in Illinois).
The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's request during the May 271h meeting. In
response to the recommended conditions of approval included within the Staff Report, the Petitioner
indicated that the proposed southern entrance from the mall's ring road is necessary to provide delivery
trucks with sufficient access to the site. In addition, the Petitioner noted that they could not provide a
connection to the adjacent Jewel parking lot due to lease limitations and related agreements. The P&Z
Commission discussed the building materials in addition to the proposed ingress and egress. Following
review of various issues the P&Z Commission concluded that the southern drive should be modified to a
right-in/right-out only, the Petitioner should work with the Village's Traffic Engineer to create pedestrian
links to the surrounding parking fields, and the proposed dryvit treatments be constructed in a manner that
would prohibit the accumulation of moisture.
The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the ViJIage Board approve the
Conditional Use request for the proposed restaurant, Case No. PZ-22-04, subject to the conditions listed
in the Staff Memo as well as those outlined above. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to
the Village Board for their review and consideration at their June 15,2004 meeting. Staff will be present
to answer any questions related to this matter.
~~
William J.
lie II:IPLANIPlmmiog I< Zoning COMMIPl<l 200~\M~J M""osIPZ-22"" ME! MEMO (,"ndllI~st boffitlo wild wings).d",
MIl"1JTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-22~O4
Hearing Date: May 27,2004
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
999 N. Elmhurst Road
Randhurst Shopping Center
PETITIONER:
Buffalo Wild Wings
PIN#:
03-27401-261/262/264/265/266/040
REQUEST:
Conditional Use to amend PUD
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Arlene Juracek, Chair; Joseph Donnelly; Leo Floros; Richard Rogers;
Matthew Sledz; Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
MelTill Cotten
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development;
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p,m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve
the minutes of the April 22, 2004 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were
approved 5-0, with one abstention by Joe Donnelly. At 10:15 p.m., Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-22-04,
a request for a Conditional Use to amend a Pli'D to construct a Buffalo Wild Wings Grill and Bar in an outlot at
Randhurst Shopping Center. She noted that the request would be Village Board final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She noted that the Subject Property is located at the
northeast comer of Rand and Elmhurst Roads, between Kensington Road and Euclid Avenue, and contains a
regional shopping mall with multiple outlots. The Subject Property is zoned B3 Community Shopping PUD and
is bordered to the north by single-family residential (Prospect Heights), to the east by the RX Single Family
District, to the west by the RX & R1 Single-Family Districts and the B4 Corridor Commercial District, and to
the south by the B3 & B4 Commercial Districts and the RX Single Family District.
The Petitioner is seeking Conditional Use approval to construct a restaurant with an outdoor dining area on an
outlot at Randhurst. This outlot is located along Euclid Road, between Steak'N'Shake and Jewel Foods. The
Subject Property is one of two remaining outlots within the mall property. The proposed restaurant, Buffalo
Wild Wings, is a fast-growing franchise operation with restaurants located in 29 states, including 9 in Illinois.
The proposed building would be constructed primarily of face brick with dryvit accents on the sign band. The
proposed brick color would be in keeping with the existing Jewel building and the Costco building currently
under construction. It should be noted that the color elevations indicate the COlTect building elevations, while
the plan drawings indicate the correct wall sign locations.
The color elevations indicate that the south (building entrance) and west (outdoor dining area) elevations will
include windows, awnings, and signage. However, the north and east elevations will only have wall signs. Staff
contacted the Petitioner to discuss the elevations and the Petitioner agreed to prepare a concept drawing for the
P&Z meeting that would indicate how the north and east elevations would include similar elements of the south
and west elevations. The intent is to unify the aesthetics of the building so that all elevations include similar
decorative elements where possible.
The Petitioner's landscape plan includes a variety of plants, trees, and shrubs throughout the site; however,
minimal landscaping has been provided along the west side of the building and the outdoor dining area. Staff
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-22-04
Page 2
recommends installing a hedge to buffer the outdoor dining area from the adjacent drive aisle. It should be
noted that additional landscaping was not proposed within the detention area because it could adversely impact
the storn1water management system.
The proposed development includes full access :trom Mall Entrance Drive, a private road that is perpendicular to
Euclid Avenue, and an entrance only :trom East Drive, which is the ring road that loops through the malL The
Petitioner's proposal includes 51 parking spaces for the Buffalo Wild Wings Restaurant; however, the Village's
Zoning Ordinance requires at least 1 00 parking spaces for the proposed use. The Petitioner has a shared parking
agreement that permits restaurant patrons to park in other parking fields at Randhurst. This shared parking
agreement allows the restaurant to meet the Zoning Ordinance's applicable parking requirements. Despitethe
existing shared parking agreement, the proposed Buffalo Wild Wings site plan does not provide a direct link to
any of the adjacent parking fields. Customers win most likely park in the Jewel parking Jot when the
restaurant's parking lot is full. Customers who park south of the Buffalo Wild Wings lot will have to cross the
ring road in an area that is not conducive to pedestrian traffic. To address this issue Staff recommends that
pedestrian links to the adjacent parking fields be provided if a vehicular connection to the Jewel parking lot is
not possible.
The site plan shows that vehicles could enter the site from Mall Entrance Drive or East Drive. Staff conducted
several site inspections and determined that a safer design would entail closing the proposed southern entrance.
The curve of the ring road could create traffic hazards when vehicles are turning left to. enter the site. In
addition, the proposed southern entrance appears to be slightly offset from the parking aisle across the ring road,
which requires vehicles to make an awkward turning movement to access the site,
The site includes three 90~degree parking spaces at the northwest comer of the parking lot and 48 angled
parking spaces. Although abalTier curb win be provided throughout the parking lot, Staffis.concemed.that
vehicles entering and exiting .the three90-degree parking spaces may conflict with pedestrian movements near
the restaurant's entrance. Therefore, Staff recommends eliminating the two northern most 90-degree parking
spaces to create a buffer between vehicles and pedestrians and modifying the third 90~degreespace to an angled
parking space. There is an opportunity to gain two additional parking spaces near the southwestern comer ofthe
parking lot, which would maintain the same 51 parking spaces that the Petitioner proposes.
The Petitioner proposes to install wall signs on all elevations of the building, which is permitted by the Sign
Code. In addition, the windows will have black decorative awnings with yellow and black trim at the base. The
size of the proposed wall signs complies with the Village's Sign Code. The proposal does not include a
freestanding sign, which would require Planning & Zoning Commission approval because the Sign Code only
permits one freestanding sign per property, per street frontage. The . adjacent uses already have. freestanding
signs, which were approved as part of the original development plans.
The Petitioner's application states thatthe lighting plan will mirror the Costcoplan. The Village Board recently
approved a lighting plan for Randhurst that allows taller light standards and brighter light levels. TheVillage's
Comprehensive Plan designates the.. Randhurst Shopping Center as community commercial. uses, Man
management is currently implementing site and structural changes to. improve the. appearance of the . mall
property. The proposed Buffalo Wild Wings Restaurant is an appropriate use within a regional mall and would
enhance existing and future uses within the mall and sulTounding outlots.
The comments :trom the Village's Traffic Engineer were incorporated into the Parking and Site~ Access section
of the Staff report. In addition, other Village departments reviewed the proposal and noted that the project must
comply with all applicable code requirements (including, but not limited to, the DevelopmentCode,Building
Code and Fire Code).
The Subject Property is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the B-3 Community Shopping District. In order
to construct the proposed restaurant the last PUD ordinance must be amended. The pun amendment process
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-22-04
Page 3
requires a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission followed by final review
and action by the Village Board. The standards for conditional uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. There
are specific findings that must be made in order to approve a conditional use, which relate to: the conditional
use will not have a detrimental effect 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; adequate provision of utilities and drainage and design of access
and egress to minimize congestion on Víllage streets; and Compliance ofthe conditional use with the provisions
of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances.
The proposed conditional use would be located within the Randhurst Shopping Center, which is an existing
PUD in the B~3 Community Shopping District. The Petitioner proposes to construct a restaurant on an outlot
that is in close proximity to the movie theater. The location of the outlot and type of restaurant would be an
asset to Randhurst, but would have minimal adverse impacts on the surrounding properties. The proposal meets
the standards for a Conditional Use subject to minor modifications to the site plan and landscape plan.
Based on this analysis, the proposed restaurant complies with the Conditional Use standards listed in the Zoning
Ordinance. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that Village Board
approve the proposed restaurant subject to the following conditions: I) Development of the site in accordance
with the site plan prepared by Chipman Adams, LTD date stamped May 12, 2004 revised to reflect one
entrance/exit only to the site from Mall Entrance Drive and the two 90-degree parking stalls located closest to
the building be replaced with a landscape island and the third 90-degree space be changed to an angled space; 2)
pedestrian links to the adjacent parking fields be provided if a vehicular link to the eastern parking field (Jewel)
is not possible; 3) the building elevations, including the proposed wall signs, prepared by Chipman Adams,
LTD, date stamped May 12,2004, be revised to reflect the correct directions, a continuation of the front façade
(entrance) of the building to the north elevation of the building, and signage on the east elevation; 4) the color
rendering prepared by Chipman Adams, LTD, date stamped May 12,2004, be revised to eliminate the wall sign
on the east elevation; 5) the floor plans prepared by Chipman Adams, Ltd. date stamped May 12, 2004; 6) the
landscape plan prepared by David R. McCallum Associates, date stamped May 12, 2004, be revised to reflect a
100 linear foot hedge along Mall Entrance to . screen the outdoor dining area from vehicular traffic; 7) the
proposed improvements shall be constructed according to aU applicable Village Codes and regulations; and 8)
the Petitioner obtain permits from all appropriate agencies, including, but not limited to, mOT, MWRD, and
CCHD.
Robert Cohen, Urban Retail Properties, Petitioner, was sworn in and introduced three owners of Buffalo Wild
Wings: John Wieler, Terry and Mary Winkler, who are Mount Prospect residents, and Architect Rob Chandler.
He said that Urban's planners feel the second entrance is necessary for trucks and the turnover for parking,
which is every hour and 15 minutes. He asked Mr. Wieler to speak.
John Wieler came to the podium and said Judy had done a great job in presenting the case. He said BWW is
looking forward to coming to Randhurst and Mount Prospect. He said that he and the Winklers have two
BWWs in the area, one in Algonquin and one in Skokie, and in the last 3-4 months have been in the top five of
the 261 stores nationwide. They hope to become active members of the community. They would like to
sponsor teams and school organizations. They will participate in fund raisers and have sports activities. They
will have forty TVs, five of them being the large screens. They will have 50-60 trivia games that the kids can
play with their parents. The restaurant will be 6,250 sq.ft. and will serve wings, burgers, chicken sandwiches,
tortillas, etc. and have a full bar. He also stressed the need for the second entrance/exit road.
Richard Rogers asked Mr. Wie1er the hours of operation. He said they were open 11a.ill. - la.m. Monday
through Thursday; 11 a.m. through 2 a.m. Friday and Saturday; 11 a.m. - midnight Sunday. He said the
restaurant has a sportsbar theme. It was started in 1982 at Ohio State University by Sally Smith, the President.
There are tables with wait people and counters.
Discussion ensued regarding the ring road, traffic, entrance, exit and walkways. Mr. Wieler said they will talk
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-22-04
Page 4
to Jewel about a combined effort for a walkway.
It was decided that there was no easy fix to the problem of the ring road and this project should not beheld
hostage. until the problem was solved.
Richard Rogers asked the ArchitectRob Chandler to substitute the ElFS with a Masonry wall. Mr. Chandler
described the building elevations and confimled that the EIFS would be installed per Village regulations.
Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing at 11 :03.
Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend the Village Board approve the request for a Conditional Use to
amend a PUD to construct a Buffalo Wild Wings Grill and Bar in an outlot at Randhurst Shopping Center, Case
No. PZ-22-04 with staff's conditions and the conditions that a non-pourous substrate be used with the proposed
dryvit treatments, additional landscaping is provided around the patio, and the southern entrance be. right-
in/right-out only. Matt Sledz seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 6-0.
At 11:05 p.m., Richard Rogers made. motion toadjoum, seconded by Matt Sledz. The motion was approved by
a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
~c~:t!:. ~a fA bS( JM<-c)
Deputy Director of Community Development
Ul~/
H:IPLANIPlanning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2004IMinutesIPZ-22-04 999 N Elmh"rst Rd R..,dhurst BWW.doc
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 22~O4
LOCATION:
999 N. Elmhurst Road - Randhurst Shopping Mall
PETITIONER:
Buffalo Wild Wings
OWNER:
Rouse-Randhurst Shopping Center, LLC
PARCEL #5:
03-27 -401-261/262/264/265/266/040
LOT SIZE:
100 acres (approximately)
ZONING:
B3 Community Shopping - Planned Unit Development (PUD)
LAl'ID USE:
Regional Mall
REQUEST:
Conditional Use (Amend Planned Unit Development approval- Outlot Restaurant)
LOCATION MAP
Euclid Avenue
~
GJ Œ
~
"
~
f"'ì
QC
<101
...
::I
Q
¡:=:
Randhurst Mall
Shopping Center
'C
œ
e'
~
~
...
:I
.c
e
~
999
EJ OJ [!]
.;>~
'" r;:
[I
=:J
~
Kensington Road
MEMORANDUM
Village of Mou.nt Prospect
Community Development Department
TO:
MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON
FROM:
JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE:
MAY 20, 2004
HEARING DATE:
MAY 27,2004
SUBJECT:
PZ-22-04 - CONDITIONAL USE (AMEND PLAm.rED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
999 N. ELMHURST ROAD (RANDHURST SHOPPING MALL)
BACKGROUND
A public hearing has been scheduled for the May 27,2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the
application by Buffalo Wild Wings (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 999 N. Elmhurst Road (the
"Subject Property"). The Petitioner has requested an amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the
Randhurst Shopping Center to aUow the development of a restaurant on an outlot, which requires Conditional Use
approval. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the May 12, 2004 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 at the northeast comer of Rand and Elmhurst Roads, between Kensington Road
and Euclid Avenue, and contains a regional shopping mall with multiple outlots. The Subject Property is zoned
B3 Community Shopping pun and is bordered to the north by single-family residential (Prospect Heights), to the
east by the RX Single Family District, to the west by the RX & Rl Single-Family Districts and the B4 Corridor
Commercial District, and to the south by the B3 & 84 Commercial Districts and the RX Single Family District.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The Petitioner is seeking Conditional Use approval to construct a 225-seat restaurant with an outdoor dining area
on an outlot at Randhurst This outlot is located along Euclid Road, between Steak'N'Shake and Jewel Foods,
and was the Subject Property for the recently proposed Jewel Express gas station (which was denied by the
Village Board). The Subject Property is one of two remaining outlots within the mall property. The proposed
restaurant, Buffalo Wild Wings, is a fast-growing franchise operation with restaurants located in 29 states
(including 9 in Illinois). To assist in your review of this request, the following is a brief summary of the various
development elements:
Buildillf! DesÏfw: As illustrated on the enclosed plans, the proposed building would be constructed primarily of
face brick with dry'VÍ1 accents on the sign band. The proposed brick color would be in keeping with the existing
Jewel building and the Costco building cun-ently under construction. It should be noted that the color elevations
indicate the con-eet building elevations, while the plan drawings indicate the COITeet wan sign locations.
PZ-22-04
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting May 27, 2004
Page 3
The color elevations ~indicate that the south (building entrance) and west (outdoor dining area) elevations will
include windows, a\\TIings, and signage, However, the north and east elevations are plainer and will only have
wall signs, Staff contacted the Petitioner to discuss the elevations and the Petitioner agreed to prepare a concept
drawing for the P&Z meeting that would indicate how the north and east elevations would include similar
elements of the south and west elevations on the north and east elevations. The intent is to unify the aesthetics of
the building so that all elevations include similar decorative elements where possible.
LalldsCfloe Plan: The Petitioner's landscape plan includes a variety of plants, trees, and shrubs throughout the
site; however, minimal landscaping has been provided along the west side of the building and the outdoor dining
area. Staff recommends installing a hedge to buffer the outdoor dining area from the adjacent drive aisle. It
should be noted that no additional landscaping has been proposed within the detention area. Although
landscaping in this area would help to enhance the mall's entrance drive it could adversely impact the stormwater
management system,
Parkin!! and Site Access: The proposed development includes full access from Mall Entrance Drive, a private
road that is perpendicular to Euclid A venue, and an entrance only from East Drive, which is the ring road that
loops through the malL The Petitioner's proposal includes 51 parking spaces for the Buffalo Wild Wings
Restaurant; however, the Village's Zoning Ordinance requires at least 100 parking spaces for the proposed use.
The Petitioner has a shared parking agreement that permits restaurant patrons to park. in other parking fields at
Randhurst. This shared parking agreement allows. the restaurant. to meet the Zoning. Ordinance's applicable
parking requirements. Despite the existing shared parking agreement, the proposed Buffalo Wild Wings site plan
does not provide a direct link to any of the adjacent parking fields, Customers will most Iikelyparkinthe Jewel
parking lot when the restaurant's parking lot is full, Customers who park south of the Buffalo WHd Wings lot
will have to cross the ring road in an area that is not conducive to pedestrian traffic, To address this issue Staff
recommends that pedestrian links to the adjacent parking fields be provided if a vehicular connection to the Jewel
parking lot is not possible.
The site plan shows that vehicles could enter the site from Mall Entrance Drive or East Drive, Staff.conducted
several site inspections and determined that. a safer design would entail closing .the proposed southern entrance,
The curve of the ring road could create traffic hazards when vehicles are turning left to enter the site.. In addition,
the proposed southementrance appears to be slightly offset from the parking aisle across the ring road, which
requires vehicles to make an awkward turning movement to access the site,
The site includes three 90-degree parking spaces at the northwest comer of the parking lot and 48 angled parking
spaces, Although a barrier curb will be provided throughout the parking lot, Staff is concerned that vehicles
entering and exiting the three 90-degree parking spaces may conflict with pedestrian movements near the
restaurant's entrance. Therefore, Staff recommends eliminating the two northern most 90-degree parking spaces
to create a buffer between vehicles and pedestrians and modifying the third 90-degree space to an angled parking
space. There is an opportunity to gain two additional parking spaces near the southwestern comer of the parking
lot, which would maintain the same 51 parking spaces that the Petitioner proposes,
SÙmOfle: The Petitioner proposes to install wal1 signs on all elevations of the building, which is permitted by the
Sign Code. (Please note that the line drawing does not indicate a sign, but the Petitioner has agreed to install a
sign on the East elevation as indicated on the. colore!evations.) In addition, the windowswiH have black
decorative awningswithyel1ow and black trim at the base. The size of the proposed wall signs complies witbthe
Village's Sign Code. The proposal does not include a freestanding sign, which woIJid require Planning & Zoning
Commission approval because. the Sign Code only permits one freestanding sign per property, per street frontage.
The adjacent uses already have freestanding signs, which ""ere approved as part of the original development
plans.
PZ-22-04
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting May 27,2004
Page 4
Liglltb'f! Plan: The Petitioner's application states that the lighting plan will mirror the Costco plan. The Village Board
recently approved a lighting plan for Randhurst that allows taIllight standards and brighter light levels.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: The Village's Comprehensive Plan designates the Randhurst Shopping
Center as community commercial uses. Mall management is currently implementing site and structural changes
to improve the appearance of the mall property. The proposed Buffalo Wild Wings Restaurant is an appropriate
use within a regional mall and would enhance existing and future uses within the mall and surrounding outlots.
REVIEW BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The comments from the Viliage's Traffic Engineer were incorporated into the Parking and Site Access section of
this memo. In addition, other Village departments reviewed the proposal and noted that the project must comply
with all applicable code requirements (including, but not limited to, the Development Code, Building Code and
Fire Code).
APPROV AL PROCESS
The Subject Property is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the B-3 Community Shopping District. In order to
construct the proposed restaurant the last POO ordinance must be amended. The PUD amendment process
requires a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission followed by final review
and action by the Village Board.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
Conditional Use Standards
The standards for conditional uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.7 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section
contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a conditional use. These standards relate
to:
.
The conditional use will not have a detrimental effect 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;
.
.
Adequate provision of utilities and drainage and design of access and egress to mlmmlze
congestion on Village streets; and
Compliance of the conditional use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code,
and other Village Ordinances.
.
The proposed conditional use would be located within the Randhurst Shopping Center, which is an existing PUD
in the B-3 Community Shopping District. The Petitioner proposes to construct a restaurant on an outlot that is in
close proximity to the movie theater. The location of the outlot and type of restaurant would be an asset to
Randhurst, but would have minimal adverse impacts on the surTounding properties. The proposal meets the
standards for a Conditional Use subject to minor modifications to the site plan and landscape plan.
PZ-22-04
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting May 27,2004
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, the proposed restaurant complies with the Conditional Use standards listed the
Zoning Ordinance. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning. and Zoning Commission
recommend that Village BoardaIlProVC the proposed restaurant subject to the following conditions:
1) Development of the site in accordance with:
. The site plan prepared by Chipman Adams, LTD date stamped May 12,2004 revised to reflect:
a. One entrance/exit only to the site from Mall Entrance Drive;
b. The two 90-degree parking stalls located closest to the building be replaced with a landscape
island and the third 90-degree space be changed to an angled space;
c. PedestrÍ.an links. to the. adjacent parking fields be provided if a vehicular link to. the. eastern
parking field (Jewel) is not possible.
.
The building e1evations, including the proposed wall signs, prepared by Chipman Adams, L TD, date
stamped May 12, 2004, be revised to reflect:
a. The correct directions;
b. A continuation of the frontfaçade (entrance) of the buiIdingto the north elevation
of the buHding,Le. faux windows, awnings, etc.;
c. Signage on the east elevation.
.
The color rendering prepared by Chipman Adams, L TD, date stamped May 12, 2004, be revised to
eliminate the wall sign on the east elevation;
.
The floor plans prepared by Chipman Adams, Ltd. date stamped May 12,2004;
.
The landscape plan prepared by David R. McCallum Associates, date stamped May 12, 2004, be
revised to reflect a 100 linear foot hedge along Mall Entrance to screen the outdoor dining area from
vehicular traffic.
2) The proposed improvements shall be constructed according to an applicable Village Codes and
regulatìons; and
3) The Petitioner obtains permits from all appropriate agenCIeS, including, but not limited to, IDOT,
MWRD, and CCHD.
The Village Board's decision is final for this case.
I concur:
~~ lo~:tor of co=unl ~ Development
Ii< H ll.~N",PI",.u,~ &l ZOIl'"1 CO^N,P&Z :oo<S..ffMo:mo',lZ.2H' M~~'O ,JYnd 'U'" BulT.'e Wild Wirt¡¡Slebe
V lLLf\.\Jt ur IVIUU1"! 1 rl,-Vk)rDL 1
=Otv&rU~1TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division
00 S. Emerson Street
"fount Prospect, lHinois 60056
)hone 8-+ 7.818.5328
;¡~'( 847.818.5329
Application for Conditional Use Approval
z
sa
¡...
<--
~"Ê
::::°
'"" C!.I
>¡;, CJ
zE
-0
>e:-
~
""
-
Z
-
z
9
í-
-.(
~
""
-
"""
....,
~
Z
-
¡;..¡
í-
Cñ
e"
z
¡:
:n
-
~
;,,0;
z
....
'"'
-
~
:2:
::::
-.
~
:; ;;
"- =:
::: c...
z c...
;::<
~
::::
:.;
?t;
...,
-1:
:Q
O~se Number
P&z - -
Development Nameí Address
Date of Submission
Hearing Date
Address(es) (Street Number; Street)
Outlot - Site Vacant 999 N. Elmhurst Road Mt. Prospect, Ill. 60056
Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site)
1.23 B-3 P.U.D. N/A
Setbacks:
Front N/ A
Rear
Side
Side
N/A
N/A
N/A
Lot Coverage (%)
N/A
Number of Parking Spaces
N/A
Building Height
N/A
Adjacent Land Uses:
North South
Detention Area Randhurst Mall
Tax 1.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s)
East
Jewel/Oseo Store
West
estaurant/Randhurst M 11
P- I N
. 03-27-/101-266
Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary)
See Legal Description attached - Exhibit itA"
:'-<ame
Buffalo Wild Wings
Corporation
Here's Win£s Real Estate LLC
Street Address
330 E. Main Street Suite 212
Telephone (day)
847-381-3864
Telephone (evening)
847-854-2419
I Fax
847-381-3866
City
Barrington,
Interest in Property
State
I Zip Code
60010
Pager C<..l( ~7 . .()
N/A r:5~o lot¡
Ill.
T '::><:<:;<:>0
.e:..
,..,
:::::
r-
<
~I
:t: ~
0 c:
;;.,~
z......
- ;>..
Q-
z [j
;:; Q..
0 e
:(~
0'
~
u
«(
=
Z
91
¡... en
«";
~ §
~..¡;;
o~
.... 0
'!;r.\:
I Q ë
Z u
::J e
0 §-
¡:t:ü
c.'ì >
~ :u
UO
-«I
:::I
i "'.Hu,"
Rouse/Randhurst Shaping Center, LLC
Corporation
c/o Urban Retail Properties
Art-,..... ...., ,-'
Street Address
900 North Michigan Avenue
Co.
City
Chicago
s~
Ill.
Zip Code
~('¡¡; 1 1
Developer
Name Hprp'!,; WinEs Rf'>~l Fst~te LLC
Address 330 E. M:1Ín St. if 212
Barrington} Illinois
f.()(ì10
Attorney
Name T~rry G¡¡zik
Address
330 E M,q; n Strper 4Þ?14
Barrington, Illinois
60010
Surveyor
Name George D. Harker & Assoc.
Address 1800 Woodl and Ave.
P.::Irk- ~j rlge, Tn itloi$
60068-1909
Engineer
Name Se!:or:¡ Engineering Co
Address
1') t';¡
c;l.::lrìp Sl"rppt
P~latioe Illinois
60067
Architect
Name Chipman åd,ams, ltrì
Address 1550 N. Northwes t Hw'Y. 4th Floor
PPirk Ridge, Illinois
60068
Landscape Architect
Name David R. Me Callum Assoc. Ioe.
Address
1")0 N. Mi h,¡aukpe Avenue
T ihprt-yvi lIe, Iniools
60048
\[ount Prospect Department of Community Development
lOa South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois
,'AVw.mountprospectorg
2
I . ~~~~~~~~~;~10
Telephone (evening)
NIA
Fax:
312-915-2615
pager
N/A
Telephone (day) 847-381-3864
Fax
Telephone (day)
Fax
847...381-3866
847-842-8881
847-842-8882
Telephone (day) 847-696-2480
Fax
Fax
Telephone (day)
8<'17-776-7'1.00
H47-776-7239
Fax
Telephone (daY):8/1 7 291j 6900
847-298-6966
Fax
Telephone (day):g47-362-0209
Phone 847.818.5328
Fax 847.818.5329
TDD 847.392.6064
r
c
~
¡-
¡&;r.
0"':
>5
C=:;.;;:
<"""
~-
:ï:~
~c
rJj~
c.;
4(
~z
t:c
(;.1)-
Qí-
~4(
oo:è
oc::
Q.,-
o~
~Z
Q.,
Proposed Conditional Use (as listed in the zoning district)
,... - (",...';11 !l D~-
Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and How the Proposed Use Meets the Attached Standards for
Conditional Use Approval (attach additional sheets if necessary)
Pl"opnc::prl RHff:;¡ln Wilrl Wings (',ri11 & B;;r site to consist of 6,177 s.E. restaurant
Ani! MY- wit-h pnrlnc::prl ;::¡rPA f()r tr;:¡~h,rprpivinE, Ami cmt<:dd@ coo1er~. Parking
area to b~ pnl~rgon
R¡dlrlinE tn hp mAsonry to closely match the Jewel/Osco
property.
Landscaping to co~p¡iment shopping center and additional outlots.
-
SitG lighting to be expanded with similar ]ight polpc:: I1C::PI1 hy l.nstcn.
Wri - -pn rpc;pnnc;ps to thp St;mdards for Conditional Use Approval are on
Exhibit liB"
Hours of Operation
Monday - Thursday 11:00 am - 1.00 :!Am
Frida)' &: Sat'Jrday 11 .no !:1m - 7.nn Am
Sl1nn;::¡y 11.nn Am - Mirlni&t
Address(es) (Street Nwnber, Street)
qqq N 1"1 Rn~rl
Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning
1 ? 1 R- ~ PlTn
Setbacks:
Front
151' 0"
Building Height
25' 0"
Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site)
(.. 117
Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed Use
6.700
Rear
N/A
Lot Coverage (%)
Side
N/A
Number of Parking Spaces
6.015
Side
N/A
11.4%
Please note that the application will nor be reviewed until this petition bas been fully completed and all required plans and other materials
have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. It is strongly suggested that the
petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the
tine of submittal.
In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given
to this reque'. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the O\ovner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the
property g:.lt employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for
visual inspection of the subject property.
I hereby affum that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and
accurate to the be~ of my bowIe. dge.
n [L \
Applicant I / L
If applicant is J property Q\\lner:
Date
t¡/'/:t- D Y
I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent fOf the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the
associ;w:d supporting material.
Property O\\l1er
Date
y{ount Prospect Department of Community Development
100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois
\\'\\1,\1. mountp ro spec!. org
3
Phone 847.818.5328
Fax 847.818.5329
TDD 847.392.6064
EXHIBIT ""8"
TO
BUFFALO WILD WINGS GRILL & BAR
(HERE'S WINGS REAL ESTATE LLC)
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL
RANDHURST MALL SHOPPING CENTER
ST ANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL:
1. That the establishment. maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will
not be detrimental to. or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort
or general welfare.
The operation of the Buffalo Wild Wings GriU & Bar Restaurant constructed
in accordance with aU Village of Mount Prospect codes, with attractive full
masonry architecture and substantial landscaping, will in no way be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or
general welfare.
2. That the conditional use wiH not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of
already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values
within the neighborhood in which it is to be located.
Located adjacent to all commercial uses. The Buffalo Wild Wings Grill &
Bar will compliment existing uses of properties within the immediate
vicinity.
3. That the establishment of the conditional use wiH not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the district.
ButTalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar will provide for the continued development
and improvement of the shopping center. and offer dining services to the
individuals and families of Mt. Prospect. as well as patrons and employees
of all businesses in the Randhurst Mall Shopping Center.
4. That adequate public utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary
facilities have been or will be provided.
The proposed Buffalo Wild Wings GrilL& Bal" site wiHbe fully engineered
to comply with all Village of Mount Prospect engineering..requirements. All
adequate utilities, roads and other necessary utility facilities are available and
will be provided to the site.
5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and
egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets.
The Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar site has been engineered.
6. That the proposed conditional use is not contrary to the objectives of the
current Comprehensive Pian for the Village.
Located at the fringe of the Randhurst Mall Shopping Center, the
proposed conditional use is.consistent with the .continuing commercial
development of that property.
7. That the conditional use shall, inaB other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except
as such regulations may, in each instance, be modified pursuant to
the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The intent of the site. landscaping and enginee.ring plans for the proposed
Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar project is to provide for a project that
complies with all regulations of the B-3 Planned Unit Development.
page 2
EmmIT C TO
APPLICATION FOR CONDiTIONAL USE APPROVAL
AMENDMENT TO RAi'ffiHURST B~3 PLAl"'lNED lJNIT DEVELOPMENT
GROSS LEASABLE AREA AND PARKL.""lG
Small Store alA
Carson Pirie Scott
Circuit City
Borders
Bank One
General Cinema
Steak 'n Shake
Jewel Osco
Home Depot
LaSalle Bank
Egg Factory
Cotsco
Buffalo Wild Wings
TOTAL
Square Feet
308.942
241,113
36,420
25,000
65,202
56,450
3,748
65,230
122,750
5,904
6,922
148,735
6, ¡ 17
1,092,533
,.,
Parking Spaces
6,015
~~fr b)(~B\T--
1Z-16CO M~ Df¿f) ~ G es
1ô
lor
'::' ,1
~
c:.,hM IVI~
~OO r
Ç..~ 11 s ;
Ie COt\~~re.
~ð ;:).. \ \
()..'r t - ~
~
r
a}J
r Jr¡JD
~~c-e5
",'
I
I
->
'f ' .
¡
t. '
(, ~ .I
Ij%
í .
6\1 ~.
~~.-
,,\å~
~{,~%~
,
\
, .'. í%
C!r; .
,6~oi ,-- UMl~ A-T(;. p..~SS
._~
- !
1'11-
,°
"
--.
.----- .~
., .'"
. . : '.~~ .
ì ~ .
..,....,..~..__'....'mm.."'.n'.'.....,..,.."...---._---._....n...............................
JUN- 1-04 'IUE
8:44 AM
INGTON S,ERV;
,.;
~
NO,
:34'7 842 12
I
J, -
".
HERE'S WINGS, LtC
A BUFFALO WILD WJ~,J3S FAANCf,¡fSEE
330 E. MAIN STREET SUITE; 212
BARRINGrON, IlUNOIS 60010
P 847-381.3864
F. 847-381-386e
EMAJL:fíERES W'INGS@S!;ICGLOb-"L.NET
Jt@:STAlIaA."'!'LOCI¡nOI'1S,
461 S RANDAU, ROA1> -AU;ONQ17J:!'<,IL1,INOIS
7020 CAIII't.'lTJ:R ~AD - SKOJ<n:, n-tmolS
SO~ E. ~OU.INS ROAJ) - ROVN.D l.ÆIIJ! JI:tACR. JLUNOI,S
'2> þ. ~-r~
(./1'5 °T
,^
June 1,2004
Mr. Willian-.! 1. Cooney, AICP
Director of Community Development
ViHage of Mt. Prospect
1 00 S. Emerson Street
Mt. I'>rospcct, IUiDOÍS 60056
Dear Mr. Cooney:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended apprO\'al of our Conditional Use
Amended pun - P2-22-04 by a 6 - 0 vote. Our case is scheduled to go before Village
Board for the ordinance's first reading on June 15th 2004.
I am requesting that the ViUage Board '\'<live the second reading, tentatively scheduled
for the second Village Board Meeting, and take final action at the June 1.5lh meeting. This
action would enable tis to initiate construction 3 - 4 weeks sooner and hopefully open for
business before the 2004 Holiday Season.
r appreciate your assistance in faciHtating this request. Should you have any questions,
feel free to contact me. at 847-38] ~J864.
1, ceã I '
J hn A. Weiler
ere's Wings, LLC
330 E. Main St. Suite 212
Barrington, Illinois 60010
lW/kd
e6-!;)1-Ð4
19:43
RECEIVED FROM:847 842 124Ð
P.C92
kad
612104
c
6110/04
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDiNG ORDINANCE NO. 5238
GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
FOR PROPERTYlOCATEDAT999 NORTH ELMHURST ROAD
WHEREAS, Buffalo Wild Wings (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner') has filed a
petition to amend the Planned Unit Development being the subject of Ordinance No.
3604, as previously amended by Ordinances 3629, 4454, 4466, 4579, 4623, 4673, 4748,
4851, 4956, 4972, 5165, and 5361 for a Conditional Use permit and with respect to
property at 999 North Elmhurst Road (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property'),
and legally described as follows:
Lots 1,2 and 3 in Randhurst Shopping Center Resubdivision No.1, being a
resubdivision of loti. in Randhurst Center, being a subdivision of part of the
southeast Quarter (1/4) of Section 27, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the
Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois;
Property Index Number(s):
03-27 ~401 ~O40
03~27-401-261, 262, 264, 265, 266
and
WHEREAS, Petitioner seeks a Conditional Use to amend the Planned Unit Development
for 999 North Elmhurst Road, toaHowthe construction of an outlot restaurant with an
outdoor dining area; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the requests being the subject of PZ-22-04
before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 2yth
of May, 2004, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the .Journal and
Topics newspaper on the 12th day of May, 2004 and mailed to adjoining property owners
in accordance with the provisions of the Village's Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings on the
proposed amendment to a Planned Unit Development to the President and Board of
Trustees; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have
determined that the best interests of the Village of Mount Prospect would be attained by
granting the requests in PZ~22~O4.
E
Buffalo \Niid Wings
Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAiNED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated herein as findings of
fact by the President and Hoard of Trustees of theViHage of Mount Prospect.
SECTION TWO: That Ordinance No. 3604, passed and approved on February 4, 1986,
is hereby amended by granting a Conditional Use permit, a provided by Section
14203.Fo? of the Village Code to allow the construction of an.outlot restaurant with. an
outdoor dining area, as shown on the Site Plan, a.copyof which .is attached hereto and
hereby made apart of hereof as 'Exhibit A'.
SECTIQNIHREE: This amendment being the subject of this Ordinance is subject to the
following conditions:
1) Development ofthe site in accordance with:
" The site plan prepared by Chipman Adams., l TO date stamped June 9, 2004
revised to. reflect:
a. A landscape island instead of the painted island in front of the restaurant
entrance, north of the three angled parking spaces;
b. Pedestrian links to the adjacent parking fields be provided .ifa vehicular
link to the eastern parking field (Jewel) is not possible.
It The building elevations, including the proposed wall signs, prepared by
Chipman Adams, L TO, date stamped June 9, 2004, be revised to reflect:
a. A continuation of the frontfaçade(entrance) of the buildinglothe north
and west elevationsofthe building toindude fauKwindows;
b. Sheet A~8 revised to reflect a wall sign on the East elevationofthe
building as shown on the color elevations.
. The floor plans prepared by Chipman Adams, Ltd. date stamped June 9,
2004;
. The landscape plan prepared by David RMcCaliumAssociates,date
stamped June 9, 2004, be revised to reflect
a. A continuation of Jandscaping along the west Jotiine, along MalJEntrance;
b. a landscape island instead of the painted island by the front entrance,
north of the three angled parking spaces.
Buffalo Wild Wings
Page 3 of 3
2) The proposed improvements shall be constructed according to all applicable
Village Codes and regulations; and
3) The Petitioner obtains permits from aU appropriate agencies, including, but not
limited to, IDOT, MWRD, and CCHD.
SECTION FIVE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this
day of
,2004.
Gerald L Farley, Vmage President
ATTEST:
Kimberly A. Dewis
Deputy Village Clerk
H:\CLKO\fiJes\WIN\ORDINANC\Amend ConUse,PUD,CU Buffalo Wild Wings,june 04.doc