Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/2004 P&Z minutes 29-04 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-29-04 Hearing Date: July 15,2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 100 S Emerson Street PETITIONER: Norwood Construction, Inc. 7458 N. Harlem Avenue Chicago, II. 60631 PROPERTY OWNER: Village of Mount Prospect PIN#: 08-12-108-002, -003, -004, -040 PUBLICATION DATE: June 23, 2004 Journal/Topics REQUEST: Conditional UseIPlanned Unit Development to allow as-story mixed- use building with retail on the first floor and condominiums on the upper floors and other relief from the Village Code, including setbacks and parking, as may be required to allow for the proposed development. MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers - Acting Chair, Merrill Cotten, Joseph Donnelly, Leo Floros; Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Arlene Juracek, Matthew Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner, and Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Bruce J. Adreani, Kim Berki, Jane Blunck, Amy Ciolek, Charles Crump, Howard Dakoff, Valerie De Luca, David & Carolyn Droll, Matt Haylock, Edward Kurzeja, Tony Manno, Steve Messutta, Walter & Bette Nohelty, Patricia & Peggy O'Connor, Wesley Pinchot, Ryan Powers, Michael Rossman, Jennifer Tammen, Caroline E. Vullmahn, Chris & Kristin Walsh, Tom Zander Acting Chair Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Rogers announced there were six cases on the agenda, but four will be continued and one was withdrawn. He announced that the minutes of the June 24th meeting would be held over for approval at the August 26th meeting. He noted that PZ-25-04, PZ-30- 04, and PZ-31-04 were being continued to the August 26th meeting and asked for a formal motion. Leo Floros made a motion, seconded by Merrill Cotten, and members unanimously approved the continuance of the three cases to the August 26 meeting. Mr. Rogers noted that the 100 S. School Street case would be postponed to a future meeting, and that PZ-32-04 had been withdrawn. At 7:41 p.m., Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-29- 04, 100 South Emerson Street, a request for approval of Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development for Norwood Builders. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. The Subject Property is located at the southwest comer of Busse Avenue and Emerson Street, and consists of a 2-story municipal building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned B5C Central Commercial Core and is bordered by the B5C District on all sides and the Rl Single Family District to the northeast. '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.W..W"N""'.'.""".wmm.WN.wmmmNN"""""- "'UuUU""UU"n...mm..... . ................... Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-29-04 Page 2 The Mount Prospect Downtown Strategic Plan, which was adopted by the 'Image Board as part of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998, created a vision for the dOwntO\'ill based on work by the Ad Hoc Committee with input from the residents of Mount Prospect. In the time since the plan was adopted, a great deal of downtown redevelopment has been completed. The most recent is the construction of a new Village Hall and parking deck. As you recall, Phase lA of Downtown Redevelopment, The Village Centre Residences, consists of 205 condominiums and a public parking lot. The project was approved in 1999 and the final building is nearing completion, pending minor interior modifications. Phase 1B of Downtown redevelopment, The Lofts & Shops, consists of a mixed-use development at the northeast corner of Main Street and Northwest Highway. This phase of the plan is complete, pending minor interior changes per tenant requirements. Phase III includes the soon-to-be vacated Village Hall site. The Petitioner's application calls for the development of the Subject Property as a mixed-use Planned Unit Development, or PUD. The Petitioner's plans are consistent with the Mount Prospect Downtown Strategic Plan and call for first floor retail with four stories of residential condominiums above the retail tenants. Per the Vìllage' s Zoning Ordinance, the review procedure for a PUD requires review and recommendation by the P&Z Commission and final action by the Village Board. In reviewing the current application, the P&Z Commission should consider that the Petitioner has been working with the Village Board on this proposal and that the proposed density was negotiated as part of the agreement. Also, the development proposal is somewhat conceptual since the Petitioner has not secured leases for the first story retail and has to finalize floor plans for the residential units. As illustrated on the proposed site plan, the Petitioner is proposing a mixed-use development consisting of 14,000 square-feet of ground floor retail; at least 52, but no more than 54, residential condominium units; and modifications to the existing surface parking lot that is currently shared by the Village and the adjacent retailers' employees and customers. In addition to the proposed 5-story building, the development would include on-street parking and landscaping of private and public areas. The proposed development is consistent with the Village's Downtown Strategic Plan, which calls for the Subject Property to be a 4 to 5 story, mixed-use development. The Petitioner is seeking approval for the proposed Planned Unit Development. The proposed development consists of one building located on multiple lots of record. The site plan indicates that the building is "L" shaped and would front on Emerson Street and Busse Avenue. The proposed building would include underground parking for the residences and its design entails using the existing ramp currently used only by residents of the Lofts & Shops development. The Village's Zoning Ordinance does not require building setbacks for the B5C District for most developments. Building setbacks are specified only when a site is adjacent to residential development. The Subject Property is not adjacent to residential. However, the Site Plan indicates that the proposed building would have varying setbacks, but no less than 12.5' from the east (Emerson Street) property line and no less than I-foot from the north (Busse Avenue) property line. Therefore, the proposal meets the Zoning Ordinance's minimum setback requirements. The submitted plans specify a building height of 65.5' height at the top of roof, but it appears that a small portion of the building may extend slightly past this height. The B5C District allows a maximum building Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-29-04 Page 3 height of 80 feet and the Petitioner's elevations indicate that the building height would not exceed this limitation. Final building plans indicating the correct height should be submitted prior to Village Board review. The color elevation indicates that the style of the proposed building would be in keeping with other buildings recently constructed as part of the downtown redevelopment. The building incorporates elements of existing developments, but has staggered heights and uses a variety of building materials. However, the building materials must be finalized prior to Village Board review to ensure the proposed building is in harmony with the surrounding buildings. The building elevations indicate that each residential unit will include either a balcony or roof terrace, depending on the unit location and size. While the floor plans have not been finalized, the conceptual plans call for a variety of unit designs to be used in this phase of the development and include some 2-story 'duplex-type' units. The Petitioner submitted information that calls for I-three bedroom unit, 28-2-bedrooms units, and 23- one-bedroom units. The Petitioner's Landscape Plan provides the size, general type, and location of proposed plantings for the Subject Property. The plan indicates hardscape improvements such as planter boxes in front of the storefronts, brick pavers, and Village logo incorporated into the streetscape design at the corner of Emerson Street and Busse Avenue. The interior parking lot landscaping proposal is in keeping with the ViHage's adopted streetscape program. However, the improvements proposed for the public right-of-way require approval from the Director of Public Works. The color elevation indicates that each storefront wiH have an awning and a sign band above each window. In order to ensure the storefronts maintain the character of the downtown core, the Petitioner must include provisions in the tenant leases for signage to be installed prior to each tenant obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. The proposed development calls for 52 units, but no more than 54 units on 0.74 acres, or 70.2 units per acre. The Zoning Code requires a maximum density of 30 units per acre in the B5C District, but Sec. 14.504.c.4 allows for up to 80 units per acre. The Petitioner's site plan shows that the surface lot will be reconfigured, but still be utilized by the existing retailers and the tenants of the proposed development. The ViHage's Zoning Ordinance requires new office/retail developments in the B5 District to provide 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet in excess of 1,500 square feet of floor area. The Petitioner submitted a site plan that illustrates proposed improvements to the existing surface parking lot. The improvements include eliminating a driveway on Busse Avenue and reconfiguring the lot so all parking spaces are 90-degree angles. Also, the existing trash enclosure area will be relocated by providing an internal refuse area, and landscaping and hardscaping will be added throughout the lot. In addition, on-street parking will be available on Emerson Street and Busse Avenue. The proposal includes approximately 14,000 square feet of retail space on the first floor of the structure. Village Code requires 50 parking spaces for the retail space. The site plan provides 13 on-site spaces in addition to the 45 spaces located on the surrounding interconnected surface parking lot. In conjunction with this proposal, the Village is proposing streetscape improvements that will provide 11 diagonal spaces on the west side of Emerson Street, 13 spaces along the north side of Busse Avenue and 7 along the south side of Busse Avenue between Main Street and Emerson Street. These spaces and the 383 spaces constructed in the Village Parking Deck are intended to serve the subject development and other commercial properties within the Village's downtown. ....':':"":':':':'.........'".'.".'.'.'.'."'-""""'==.'"""':':"'=""""":':':':'.'.>.~'>C.,..... ..'m....'m,'",,':"":':'X':=.'.>.'.'.'.'.'.'..mN.'m.'.w.'.=.'.'.'.""" '~~-".w.'.'.'.wm=.w."~".v':':'."~""'.' Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-29-04 Page 4 Residents who live above the retail development would have an underground parking lot exclusive to their use. The amount of parking required for the residential units is based on the number of bedrooms. The Petitioner' S plans indicate that access to the underground parking lot would require using the existing ramp, which services the underground parking lot for the Lofts residences. The proposed underground lot would be separate £Tom the Loft lot and would include 58 standard parking spaces and one handicap space for the residents. However, the Petitioner is required to provide additional handicap spaces as required by the Illinois Accessibility Code because the building is new construction. Therefore, the parking configuration would be adjusted to include 3 handicap spaces, which results in 54 standard spaces. The Petitioner's submittal indicates that the proposal will not comply with the Village's parking regulations. However, they may have the ability to utilize parking spaces that have not been sold or assigned in the adjacent Lofts development. The Petitioner must demonstrate that they are providing sufficient parking or modify the underground garage to accommodate sufficient spaces. The standards for Conditional Uses listed in the Village Zoning Ordinance include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards. The Zoning Ordinance states that the purpose of the B5 district is to accommodate retail and. specialty shops and business, professional uses characteristic of a traditional downtown area, and permit higher density multi-family residential uses. The proposed mixed-use commercial and residential development is in keeping with that purpose statement. Also, the Conditional Use request is proposed to fulfill the provisions of the Village of Mount Prospect Downtown Strategic Plan. The proposed development would add another focal point to the downtov\'11 redevelopment and complement the new Village Hall. In general, the proposal supports and furthers the goals of the Strategic Plan. Subject to compliance with the conditions of approval, the proposal will comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The development will have a positive effect on nearby properties and stimulate further development of the downtown core area. The development is designed to 'match' the Lofts & Shops development and foster pedestrian activity and multiple-use trips. Therefore, the development will have a limited adverse impact on the adjacent neighborhoods, utility provision or public streets. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Petitioner's request for Planned Unit Development proposal, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the site in conformance with the site plan and general floor plans prepared by Haylock Design, me, dated June 9, 2004, but revising the underbYfound parking to reflect the required number of handicap stalls; 2. Development of the building in confonnance with the elevations prepared by Haylock Design, Inc, and DLK Architecture, dated June 9, 2004; 3. The Petitioner shall demonstrate the ability to provide alternative spaces or mcrease the number of underground parking spaces to 67 to meet Village Code requirements. 4. The Petitioner shall have each tenant lease include provisions that awnings and wall signs are installed prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy; 5. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall submit: . Building material samples; Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-29-04 Page 5 . Detailed floor plans for the residences; Details on how refuse will be handled for the Lofts & Shops development; and Details on how refuse will be handled for the proposed new development. . . 6. Prior to obtaining a Final Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner shall prepare a plat of Resubdivision that consolidates the Subject Property to one-lot of record, with the plat including the applicable easements as required by the Village Code; and 7. Develop the site in accordance with ail applicable Village Codes and requirements including but not limited to Fire Prevention Code regulations, lighting regulations, Sign Code regulations, and building regulations. Mr. Rogers asked if the requested PUD was for this property alone; Ms. Connolly said yes. Mr. Donnelly asked on which property the ramp was located. Ms. Connolly said the petitioner could clarify that as there is a cross easement over the ramp. Discussion followed regarding surface, underground, commercial, residential and Village Garage parking usage. All speakers for Norwood Builders were sworn in at once and then Bruce Adreani, President of Norwood Builders, introduced Jennifer Tammen, Director of Planning, Steve Messutta, Attorney, Caroline Vullmahn, Director of Finance, Tony Manno, Intern, and from Haylock Designs: Matt Haylock with his project managers Edward Kurzeja and Ryan Powers; and from DLK Architecture: Kevin Kent & Charles Crump. He also introduced Howard Dakoff of Levinthal Pearlstein to answer any questions on Condominium Law. Mr. Adreani said he is glad to be here and proud of the award-winning buildings he has built in the Village to date. Jennifer Tammen stepped up to the podium and presented the redevelopment proposal for the Village Hall Site. She explained the underground parking for residents and said the surface parking for the retail would be for the common good of all the stores in the immediate complex. The owner of the northwest portion of the property would maintain parking and trash. Prior to the Village Board meeting they will be revisiting their plan for handicapped parking. Kevin Kent of DLK Architecture presented the plans and elevations of the proposal via the poster boards at the easels. Mr. Kent pointed out that the walls on the first floor could be moved to accommodate larger retail stores, if needed. The second and third floors would contain one-level residential units and the fourth and fifth floors would contain a mix of one and two-level units. The "L" shaped building will be developed with an asymmetrical roof, having brick, limestone and stucco building materials used in the construction. Mr. Rogers asked and was assured that the stucco to be used was indeed stucco, not Dryvit. Charles Crump of DLK Architecture was the next speaker and addressed the landscape and streetscape plan. He stressed the idea of "drawing in" the downtown and instilling a community feeling with the landscaping. They have worked with Public Works staff to determine the best type of plants and trees to use, They feel this plan ties in quite well with the other downtown landscaping, given the limited setbacks. Mr. Rogers asked if they stayed within the staff guidelines and he responded, "absolutely". Ms. Tammen said that concluded their presentation. Mr. Rogers asked her to address the parking issues brought up earlier, particularly the conveyance of the seven spaces from the Lofts property. Steve Messutta, General Counsel for Norwood Builders, said that there are many components to the Lofts building. He added that Bill Cooney and he had discussed how to handle the different components, especially the ramp space. They decided that eventually when the Village Hall site was redeveloped, the Village Lofts, LLC entity would retain title to the ramp area and grant easements to the association and condos until it was . '.----------'_'_"'NN_-_'m_'_"'-'-""_~_="NN_'_-mm.,~.',.~,-,---._-.~._-. ....---------.... - -~""-'-"'-.-.'=-~.w--_-m~m_'_'_'---,-~-- . -' _._~mm_w_w_'-'-'_'_-_"mm_'_'_'----~,~,-,---- _.n mm.. n"""..-.-.-.-mm.-."......-_..m.... Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-29-04 Page 6 known what would be done with the Village Hall site. At that time, the Village Lofts, LLC would convey the ramp and the ramp area to the association or to another owner on the block, granting all the easements necessary to the association to gain access through the ramp to either the garage and the existing building and the Lofts or the new building being considered this evening. Mr. Messutta said that was one agreement, and indicated there were several more, among those are several recorded agreements relative to cost sharing for building, and sharing the ramp. He said there are insurance provisions, cross-easements, and many things that work quite well, which is where he had hoped to work out an agreement to exchange parking spaces between the Lofts and Village Hall properties. Originally it was thought that retail store employees could park on this site and when it became obvious that would not work, arrangements were made for them to park in other Village parking lots until the Village parking structure became available. At that time, the Village employees would be moved there and the Village Hall parking spaces would be available for retail store employees and customers, with the right to have extended hour or even overnight parking if necessary. Mr. Donnelly asked which entity owned the parking lot. Mr. Messutta said the commercial stores owned the rear parking lot, but the parking lot has multiple easements and the Village will continue to maintain the lot for parking and snowplowing purposes. Mr. Rogers opened the hearing to the public for questions. Chris Walsh, 40 E. Northwest Highway, Unit 307, was sworn in and testified that he was recently elected Board President and the committee members like the building and look forward to the development of Mount Prospect, but they have several concerns. Two weeks ago they attempted to purchase an underground parking place and were told none were available although when they purchased their condo they were told there were 34 condos and 56 spots. They live in the building and feel they should get first right of refusal for the spaces. He also questioned the scale of the elevation drawings of the proposal. Kim Berki, 40 E. Northwest Highway, Unit 306, came forward and testified that the parking has made them miserable and they think they will need to move because her husband has no place to park his car. They have explored all options and there is no answer. They invite guests and there is no place for them to park; they must wait for customers to leave Oberweìs before they can park. This new proposal will take away another whole strip of parking spaces and make the situation much worse. Mark Baumhart, 416 HiLusi, has lived in Mount Prospect 25 years and wanted to thank the Board and Norwood Builders for spending the last 5-7 years making Mount Prospect a modem community and one of the nicest northwest suburbs. Mr. Rogers thanked him for his comments. Valerie DeLuca, 40 E. Northwest Highway, Unit 202, was sworn in and said she was one of the people who had e-mailed staff with a list of questions about parking and building elevations. She said one of her questions was about the ramp and asked what will happen to their parking while the building is being constructed. She asked whether they would be able to use the underground garage spaces. She added that when they purchased their unit, they were allowed one parking space and were discouraged ITom purchasing another space. She said the sales staff told them that Loft Residents would not have a problem using another space or surface parking. They were not told another building like theirs would be built to share their parking. They feel their one-bedroom unit should be counted as two-bedrooms when allocating parking spaces because it actually has as many square feet. They like living in Mount Prospect and are in favor of development, but feel they were deceived. Wes Pinchot, 747 White gate, was sworn in. He is a fonner architect and a longtime resident. He feels this is too ambitious a project and also overly ambitious for parking. He feels the issue of the ownership of the extra spaces in the original underground parking needs to be clarified. He also said the developer of all these downtown condos should persuade a food shop to open downtown to serve all these condominium dwellers. One gentleman said he came in ITom Texas heading into Arlington Heights through Mount Prospect, loved it, loved the logo, bought his condo and settled here. He said he was happy he did, up until this point. He ................... Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-29-04 Page 7 indicated the other condo owners and said they had all invested $300,000-$500,000 and were not aware they would have to be co-sharing garage space with another building and have to go through many different doors, sharing lobby space, and have the inconvenience and lack of security of carrying more keys for opening more doors. Richard Rogers said there seems to be a certain amount of disappointment from the current residents of the Lofts and asked the petitioner to address their comments. Ms. Tammen came forward and said the original Lofts development agreement required a parking ratio of 1.4 spaces per unit, irrespective of bedroom mix. With respect to communication of any excess spaces and who would control ownership of those, Ms. Tammen said she wanted to read into the record the sales department response: Christine Cudzlo, Sales Manager, had contacted the salespeople on-site and referenced discussions with Mr. and Mrs. Walsh specifically in which she told them no additional parking was available in the municipal lot and should any underground spaces be left after all units are sold, the remaining spaces are the property of the management, Village Lofts, LLc. Ms. Tammen said it is true that in the beginning they did sell second spaces with units but as it became evident they would have the opportunity to build a second building and need more spaces for that building they decided not to seU any more spaces with those units. Ms. Tammen said surface parking was not figured in the calculations. It is a downtown development and parkers will probably have multiple tasks in the area. Mr. Donnelly asked if an individual who is not a condominium owner could buy a parking space. Howard Dakoff, a partner with Levinthal Pearlstein and Counsel for Norwood Builders, responded to Mr. Donnelly's question. Mr. Dakoff said that many condos do allow non-unit owners to purchase parking spaces, but Village Lofts, LLC has easements forbidding such sales. These easements were all written up in the original Disclosure Statement given to all prospective buyers. Section D said the developer might bring in an additional building as part of this development and The Lofts would share common elements with it. This Declaration was recorded before the first closing. Legally, this is ail one property and the buyers and/or their lawyers were responsible for readinglinterpreting the Disclosure/Declaration. Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Cotten asked who owned the surface parking of the complete development. Steve Messutta said the Village is responsible for the maintenance and signage ofthe surface parking. Mike Jacobs, Deputy Director of Community Development, said he was not able to confirm what was in the stack of condominium documents in the Director's absence but he had some comments regarding parking. There is a development agreement between the Village and Norwood for the Shops and Lofts for 1.4 spaces per unit, which results in 48 spaces. 34 spaces went to unit owners and 6 spaces have been purchased, leaving 8 spaces. This proposal requires 67 spaces and the petitioner is planning to use the remaining spaces from the Lofts Building but still needs a Variation for 2 additional spaces. The P&Z members must decide if they are comfortable granting that request or do they wish to deny or modify the request. There is some flexibility regarding surface parking for restaurants dm;vntown as opposed to restaurants in a strip mall. In this case there are on-street spaces and an over 380 space parking deck nearby for employees and customers of businesses, the Village, and Library. Joe Donnelly asked if overnight parking was allowed on the surface retail lot and was told it was not. Steve Messutta came forward and read from a Village document that "overnight parking shall be allowed from April I up to and including November 1 annually", so that snowplows would not have to go around parked cars. Mr. Messutta said Norwood has no objections to overnight parking, it is up to the Village to remove the restriction. Keith Youngquist said he knows there will be complete turmoil on the surface parking lot during construction, and asked whether there is a way to expand the underground parking to accommodate the missing surface - --'.'.'.'_-.'mmc.-.'.,.,...,.>.«......,......n.,v.. w-=..',v,.',',','"""""""""""..,., ,~.,~ n",- - -. n"._.« - "~^~"C""""""""'.'.WN.wm_W.......'.w...~.w.'.'...'m,',',v",-,'m,-m,-,-,-, <0, ,~,',..,n mm~"", '=--._'.'.'m.'.'>.'.'.'.'m,w.-.. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-29-04 Page 8 parking. Mr. Adreani said that when you go down the ramp there are two garage doors. The Loft residents turn left and the Village Hall side will turn right and the two spaces they are seeking a variance for could also be placed to the right. He said that underground parking spaces are very expensive; he has never been compensated fully for the cost of one; but he agreed to install the spaces if it was required to obtain project approval. Mr. Youngquist said he agreed that it is difficult and expensive to build underground parking spaces. Ms. Tammen said the architect is sketching changes to the garage design to detem1ine whether the two spaces could be provided and asked for time to confer privately. Mr. Rogers said he would allow several audience members to come forward and speak while the Norwood people conferred. Wes Pine hot came to the podium again and said the current Loft owners are concerned about parking and he would like to know how the on-site parking could satisfy the retail requirements. Ms. Connolly said that the parking deck supplementing the on-site and street parking would satisfy the retail parking requirements. Mr. Messutta asked when the Village Board meeting would meet and was told August 17th. He asked that the Zoning Board approve the Variation for the 2 parking spaces and if they find the space exists for the 2 spaces before the Village Board meets, they will do that in lieu of the Variation. Mr. Rogers took another question from the audience. Ms. De Luca explained the inconvenience of parking underground and bringing groceries up to their unit and said if they can find room for 2 more spaces why can't they find space for 8 more spaces. Mr. Adreani said that was not possible due to physical property constraints and property line limits. Mr. Rogers told the Loft owners who wanted another space to take advantage of extra spaces for sale under the new building before the new unit owners realize they need another space and want to purchase them. He then closed the Public Hearing at 10:34. Joe Donnelly made a motion to approve the request for approval of: a Conditional Use/Planned Unit Development to allow a 5-story mixed-use building with retail on the first floor and condominiums on the upper floors; and other relief from the Village Code, including setbacks and parking, as may be required to allow for the proposed development of the Property at 100 S. Emerson St., PZ-29-04, with the 7 recommendations set forth by staff and with the 67 parking spaces. Leo Floros seconded the motion, with reservations about future parking problems. Mr. Jacobs suggested if they had concerns, P&Z Members could add an amendment that 67 spaces are provided solely under the proposed structure. Mr. Rogers said he thought that 7 spaces wouldn't help; that the downtown area itself will not have enough parking. He said that the deck would alleviate, but not cure the parking detìciency and congestion. He added that it was not fair to penalize Norwood for the general parking situation because they have adequate parking for their structure, as required by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. He said he thought the Village needed to do more to provide additional parking. Mr. Jacobs said all Village employees had already begun parking their cars in the new parking deck on a daily basis to free up the lot behind Village Hall. Mr. Floros said that has helped and other area business owners and employees should do the same. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-29-04 Page 9 Mr. Rogers asked for a vote on the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Flores, Rogers, Youngquist NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. At 10:35 p.m., Joe Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Leo Horos. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP Deputy Director of Community Development HIPLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2004\MinutesIPZ-29-04 (JC ,"visions) 100 S Emerson S! Norwood Bldrsdoc ...... n.-..................~.w..~"".>x.,.,...,...............,..,.=,.=w.""""",~,:",'.".'7.:.-.~..~.... ."m., "-'.' '.n.n.w'~""W':':""'X""""W".'.'.'.W.n".w'w>'"