Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6. New Business 02/07/2012
Chalice Development, ftd 702 Howard Avenue • Des Plaines Illinois 60018 • 847- 612 -1419 January 29, 2012 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department Attn: Mr. Bill Cooney Director of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Re: PZ -30 -11 Conditional Use (Circular Driveway) Dear Mr. Cooney: Please allow this letter to serve as written request to waive the second reading on the above referenced case scheduled to be heard at the February 7, 2012 Village Board meeting. We are respectfully asking that the Village Board take final action that evening. Please feel free to contact me at 847 - 612 -1419 if you have any further questions or if any additional information is needed. Sincerely, Jennifer Tsalapatanis Chalice Development Cc: Property Owner, Kevin & Lisa Lindell, 910 Carlow, Des Plaines IL 60018 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JANUARY 27, 2012 SUBJECT: PZ -30 -1 1 1 1440 W. LINCOLN ST.1 CONDITIONAL USE (CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY) / CHALICE DEVELOPMENT — APPLICANT The Petitioner, Chalice Development, is seeking approval of a Conditional Use to construct a circular driveway for the property located at 1440 W. Lincoln Street. The Petitioner is currently constructing a new single- family residence and proposes to construct a circular driveway in the front yard. The Village Code requires Conditional Use approval for a circular driveway. The proposed circular driveway will comply with the applicable zoning and the additional minimum requirements for a Conditional Use approval for a circular driveway. The circular drive portion of the driveway will measure a minimum of twelve (12) feet wide and include a turning radius of forty five (45) feet. Also, the lot coverage will not exceed the Code's lot coverage limitation of thirty five (35) percent. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the request on Thursday, January 26, 2012 and by a vote of 5 -0, recommended approval of a Conditional Use for a circular driveway for the property at 1440 W. Lincoln Street. Details of the proceedings and items discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing are included in the attached minutes. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 7, 2012 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. Cooney, Jr., Al I P RWLANOanning &Zoning CnMKAP& Z2u1AkM1McmoSVq ,50- 111440W.Linoa1nSQCUQrcWu Driv y).do MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -30 -11 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBER: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBER ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Hearing Date: January 26, 2012 1440 W. Lincoln Street Chalice Development January 11, 2012 08 -11 -104 -018 -0000 Conditional Use (circular driveway) Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Keith Youngquist Jacqueline Hinaber, Alternate William Beattie Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTY: Jennifer Tsalapatinis Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve the minutes of the December 8, 2011 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes were approved 4 -0 with Mr. Floros abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 30 -11, 1440 W. Lincoln Avenue at 7:32 p.m. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner for PZ -30 -11 was requesting a Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a circular driveway for the property located at 1440 W. Lincoln St. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner is currently constructing a new single - family residence on the Subject Property, and proposed to construct a circular driveway in the front yard. The Village Code requires Conditional Use approval for a circular driveway. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner's site plan indicated that the property measures 135 feet wide, which complied with the Village Code's minimum seventy -five (75) foot lot width requirement for circular driveways. Ms. Andrade stated the circular driveway would measure twelve (12) feet at its narrowest point, which met the Code's minimum width required for circular driveways. The lot coverage in the front yard would be thirty-four (34) percent, which is under the Village Code's maximum thirty-five (35) percent front yard coverage limitation. Ms. Andrade referenced the following table: RX Single Family District Requirements Proposed Setbacks: Front Min. 40' 41' Side Min. 10' 14' Side Min. 10' 40' Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -30 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 1 of 3 Rear Min. 30' 80' Lot Coverage: Front Yard Max. 35% 34% Overall Max. 35% 25% Lot Width for Circular Drivewa s Min. 75' 135' Turning Radius Min. 15' 45' Driveway Width circular portion Min. 12' 12' The table compared the Petitioner's proposal to the ViIlage's RX district bulk requirements. The house and circular driveway would comply with the Village Zoning regulations. The house would comply with the minimum setback requirements and the overall lot coverage will be thirty -four (34) percent, which is under the maximum thirty-five (3 5) percent permitted. The circular driveway would meet the minimum fifteen (15) foot turning radius and minimum twelve (12) foot driveway width. Ms. Andrade said the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. The following is a summary of these findings: The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; And that adequate provision for utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets are provided. Ms. Andrade stated that it has been previous Village policy to support requests for circular driveways when the Subject Property fronts on an arterial street and/or the traffic volume is such that a circular driveway is necessary to resolve a safety conflict. However, recognizing that circular driveways are not always requested for a safety issue, but as part of a larger residential improvement project, the Village passed Ordinance #5547 in 2006, which set forth minimum requirements for circular driveways. The Petitioner's proposal for a circular driveway complied with the applicable zoning and the additional minimum requirements for a circular driveway. In addition, the Subject Property is in a neighborhood that currently consists of homes with circular driveways. Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the motion listed in the Staff Report. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers swore in Jennifer Tsalapatinis, 702 Howard Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois. Ms. Tsalapatinis stated she represented the property owners and is also the owner of Chalice Development who is the General Contractor for the Subject Property. Ms. Tsalapatinis discussed the lot size and how the proposed circular driveway met code requirements. She also mentioned the traffic volume along Lincoln Avenue as well as how the Subject Property conformed to the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Tsalapatinis also discussed safety issues for children and the Subject Property owners along Lincoln Avenue. Chairman Rogers asked if the owners were aware that the Village did not want the circular drive being utilized as a parking lot. Ms. Tsalapatinis said that the owners understood. Chairman Rogers asked if there was anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 7:3 S p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -30 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Mr. Youngquist made a motion, seconded by Mr. Donnelly to approve a Conditional Use for a circular driveway for the residence at 1440 W. Lincoln St., Case No. PZ- 30 -11. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Hinaber, Youngquist, Rogers, Floros NAYS: None The motion was approved 5 -0. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Mr. Beattie arrived at 7:39 p.m. After hearing two (2) additional cases, Chairman Rogers asked if there were any citizens in the audience waiting to be heard. Hearing none, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Ms. Hinaber to adjourn at 9:21 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. '0 Z / /-I�p Z,7* Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -30 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 25, 2012 Page 3 of 3 I Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY — PZ -30 -11 Mount Prospect LOCATION: 1440 W. Lincoln Street PETITIONER: Chalice Development OWNERS: Kevin & Elizabeth Lindell PARCEL #: 08 -11 -104 -018 -0000 LOT SIZE: 0.56 acres (24,435 square feet) ZONING: RX Single Family Residence LAND USE: Single Family Residential REQUEST: Conditional Use (circular driveway) LOCATION MAP Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM IL Ptospwtl TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RICHARD ROGERS, CHAIRPERSON CONSUELO ANDRADE, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLANNER JANUARY 6, 2012 JANUARY 26, 2012 PZ -30 -11 / 1440 W. LINCOLN ST. / CONDITIONAL USE (CIRCULAR DRIVE) (CHALICE DEVELOPMENT) A public hearing has been scheduled for the January 26, 2012 PIanning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Chalice Development (the "Petitioner ") regarding the property located at 1440 W. Lincoln Street (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner has requested Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a circular driveway. The P &Z hearing was properly noticed in the January 11, 2012 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 on the north side of Lincoln Street, two lots east of Busse Road. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single Family Residence and .is bordered by RX District on all sides. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Petitioner is currently constructing a new single - family residence on the Subject Property, and proposes to construct a circular driveway in the front yard, The Village Code requires Conditional Use approval for a circular driveway. The attached site plan shows the circular driveway will measure twelve feet (12') wide and will connect to a three car garage. The driveway and front walk would cover twenty five percent (25 %) of the front yard and would comply with the Code's front yard coverage limitation of thirty five (35 %). GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The house is currently under construction and the proposed circular driveway will comply with the Village Zoning regulations. The table below compares the Petitioner's proposal to the bulk requirements of the RX Single Family Residence district. PZ -30 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 3 RX Single Family District Requirements Pro osed Setbacks: Front Min. 40' 4'_ - Side Min. 10' 14' Side E Min. 10' 40' Rear Min. 30' 80' Lot Coverage: Front Yard 35% max 34% Overall 35% max 25% Minimum Lot Width for Circular Driveways 75' min. 135' Turning Radius 15' min. 45' Minimum Driveway Width circular portion 12' min 12' CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The standards for Conditional Uses are Iisted in Section 14.2031.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. The circular drive is listed as a Conditional Use in Section 14.803.A of the Zoning Ordinance. The following list is a summary of these findings: • 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 Village streets; and • Compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. It has been previous Village policy to support requests for circular driveways when the Subject Property fronts on an arterial street and/or the traffic volume is such that a circular driveway is necessary to resolve a safety conflict. However, recognizing that circular driveways are not always requested for a safety issue, but as part of a larger improvement project for a residential property, Ordinance 5547, passed on February 7 2006, set forth minimum requirements for circular driveways. This ordinance limits consideration of Conditional Use approval for circular driveways to lots that measure seventy five feet (75') or greater in width. Applicable zoning and the additional minimum requirements (Sec. 14.2215) listed below must also be met in order for consideration of Conditional Use approval: • The circular drive portion of the driveway shall have a minimum turning radius of fifteen feet (15'); • The circular drive portion of the driveway shall have a minimum width of twelve feet (12'); The Petitioner's proposal for a circular driveway complies with the applicable zoning and the additional minimum requirements for a Conditional Use approval for a circular driveway. The proposed circular drive portion of the driveway measures a minimum of twelve feet (12') wide and has a turning radius of forty five (45). Also, the lot coverage will not exceed the Code's lot coverage limitation of thirty five percent (35 %). The Subject Property is in a neighborhood that currently consists of homes with circular driveways. PZ -30- I 1 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 RECOMMENDATION Page 4 The proposed circular driveway will not be harmful to the neighborhood character, does not violate the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance, and will meet the minimum requirements listed for circular driveways (Sec. 14.2215). Based on the above analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve a Conditional Use permit for a circular driveway for the residence at 1440 W. Lincoln Street, Case No. PZ- 30 -11." The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: �kl- " William J. ooney, Al Director of Community evelopment fit H:NLAW1anning &Zoning C0kMP& Z7011%'uffRep0n0Z•301111440W.LLr ]nSt.(CU- Cinulutiriw).d= VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT — Planning Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 Q FAX 847.818.5329 Zoning Request Application 1 li z Case Number 5` o P &Z F d ^ a, Development Name /Address 0 x ow ❑ Variation from Sec. ❑ Text Amendment: Section(s) u Street Date of Submission � O f- • P & Z Final ❑ Hearing Date • Village Board Final p z ZONING REQUEST (s): 'Telephone (day) O C onditional 6=reM10s W Q 5 Use for iyL ❑ Zoning Map Amendment: From to x ow ❑ Variation from Sec. ❑ Text Amendment: Section(s) u Street (Office Only) ❑ Other: f- • P & Z Final ❑ C-2- • Village Board Final p State Zip Code Email O � a W ad SUMMARTY OF REQUESTED ACTION: 1 '' Ai , A ��— 6 001 �� /C � e - O Interest in Property N Q m JJ ti v o z Name 'Telephone (day) O �--- N r; / a r / Q 5 Corporation Telephone (evening) x ow A ,c iG'� --VeL0 He ;177 ' � u Street Address Fax M D2 D Gt�Gt r /I C-2- City State Zip Code Email O � 9 C7 2 C4 P ��— 6 001 �� /C � e - Interest in Property Q m ) Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 1 TDD 847.392.6064 i U° Z O F Q a O w z_ w t7 Z F-� X w ❑ Pra e owner same as appficant Proposed Use (as listed in the zoning . - Name Telephone (day) Corporation Tele hone (even ng) Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and How the Proposed Use Meets the Standards for the Zoning - a�-o -� Street Address Fax Ci / State Zip Code Email Address(es) (Street Number, Street) Lot Area (Sq.Ft) Zoning District Total Building Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed / oo eO --j Use A Setbacks: Front Rear Side Side Building Height Lot Coverage ( %) Standard Parking Spaces Accessible Parking Spaces l I Adjacent Land Uses: Houiy Operation North South East West y Property Index Number(s): -- -- / f __ _ 1 ` _ (attach additional sheets if additional sheets if necessary) Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) / ' ' /2 . Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 2 TDD 847.392.6064 Proposed Use (as listed in the zoning . - Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and How the Proposed Use Meets the Standards for the Zoning .. • val. (attach additi • I sheets if necess -40/ l I Houiy Operation I / ' ' /2 . Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 2 TDD 847.392.6064 Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 3 TDD 847.342.6064 Addresses) (Street Number, Street) p G Fr Lot Area (Sq.ft) Zoning District Total Building Sq. Ft. Sq, Ft. Devoted to Proposed c'`7 J� D jD Use d j /� CO f 7 5 Setbacks: o Front f / Rear Side Side / '7 3D C) oz Building Height Uot Coverage ( %) Standard Parking Spaces Accessible Parking Spaces c ' - off 3 De veloper J j _� Name f�} / ��/�� �� f Telephone {day} Address [lj Fax �Jo p i �� !! - �X� �Cl +� a Email .�- o Attorney 1 Name Telephone (day) Addres is. a r - Fax � o� a Email � v � C7 a U Surveyor Q Name Telephone (day) C�7— Address� Fax /��• z, & 2 Email ,�1�!(� Engineer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Email Architect Name t�S� Qf � Telephone (day) U l 7 r!a --� Address W� Fax 7 - 7 — Email Landscape Architect Name elephone (day) 0 % — Address O V Fax Email Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 3 TDD 847.342.6064 Please note that the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Community Development Department's Planning Division. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time of submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agent's permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Appliean r / Date ( " P rint Name _ J P72 6 1F — P, 19-79 If applicant is not property owner: g �- I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seekin a zonin uest(s) described in this application and the associated supporting material. ll Print Name _ E ( ZAF5F^ I l i A . L.1 N QE L1 Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 4 TDD 847.392.6064 ZONING REVIEW CHECKLIST nr�TF (DO NOT FILL IN SHADED AREAS) I ADDRESS: ZONING: LOT AREA [A]: OU , 50Q [ [ [3] [41 PROPOSED SETBACKS g �-p8 MEASUREMENT (FT)0 FRONT YARD 0 �.A SIDE YARD EXTERIOR /SIDE YARD* >' - rb i REAR YARD 3D ' a ROOF /DRIVEWAY - " g MEASUREMENT(FT) ROOF HEIGI IT {MID - POINT TO AVG. GRADEJ 3 DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT GARAGE DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT LOT LINE /�x FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) AREA [EXISTING + PROPOSED] (SQ FT) FIRST FLOOR + ..ATTACHED GARAGE [B] �� YN..,_,_ DETACHED GARAGE [C] _ �} SECOND FLOOR AND /OR ATTIC I ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1 * ** [G] ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 2 * *'e [H] C� BASEMT * * ** EN y 9 � , } TOTAL FAR (TOTAL / [A]) �`� W , 3on 6 LOT COVERAGE (* *footprint of all structures, existing or new, need to be included * *) AREA [EXISTING + PROPOSED] (SQ FT) HOUSE FOOT PRINT + ATTACHED GARAGE [B] DETACHED GARAGE, [C:] DRIVEWAY [D] _ 8 C1 (D WALKWAYS [E] C� (p PATIOS AND /OR DECK [F] 3 7 1 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1 * ** [G] D r; ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 2 * ** [H] F� i C0p t "DDAI„X ; Q�g TOTAL LOT COVER GE ( TOTAL / [A]) , If you live on a corner lot, the exterior setback is the longer dimension of the two fmntage s facing the street. ** An attic must be included in the: FAR calculations if it has a ceiling height of seven (7) feet or greater. z * Au accessory structure is defined as n subordinate structure detached front but located on the same lot as the principal structure, the use of which is incidental and accessory to that of a principal structure. Said structures may include, but are not limited to, garages and sheds, as further defined by the Villaa Code. * ** A baserent crust be included in the FAR calcularion if basement level is three (3) feet above average grade. PLAT OF SURVEY - OF- LOT 2 iN NERDALE ESTATES, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER . OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. i i FCUMO vm PIPE SHED OMER M 475' S. OF IDI UNE FOUND IRON PIPE AT IDI CORNER 0.40 E OF LOT 135.00' f SCALE- 1' = 30' elt I i I � E .� � +-' 1IcwFF PADO, co D'b7110 E� 0 37.43' w r.�ati uc I FOM IRON PPE S3 AT Ull tOFNE2_\ .. . THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONFORMS TO THE CURRENT ILLINOIS MIAIMUM STANDARDS FOR A BOUNDARY SURVEY. COHPARE YOUR POINTS BEFORE IRMPING BY THE SAME AND REPORT STATE OF ILLINOIS) ANY DIFFERENCES IMMEDIATELY. COUNTY OF COOK )SS CHECK LEGAL DESCRIPTION WITH DEED AND REPORT ANY DISCREP- 1, JASON R. DCLAND, AN ILLINOIS PROFESSIONAL LAND ANCY IMMEDIATELY. REFER TO 717LE POLICY FOR POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL SURVEYOR, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED EASEMENTS OR BUI4DING LINES NOT SHOWN HEREON. PROPERTY HAS BEEN SURVEYED, UNDER NY SUPERVISION, IN THE MANNER REPRESENTED ON THE PLAT HEREON DRAWN. DOLAND ENGINEERING LLc DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN IN FEET AND DECIMAL PARTS THEREOF. -CIVIL ENCINEERIEV7 � LAND SURVmm - LAND PLANNINF DATED AT PALATINE, ILLINOIS 09/14/1 334 EAST COLFAX STREET, surTE C _ ----------------- PALATINE, ILLINOIS 60067' (847) 99Y-501949 847 984 -3427 FAX ___-_-__......______________ ____________________,,,..'----- 14L1NOiS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR NOTES: WAlIIl SFM1Cf tmiES 1. F�IFC muw SFAICE 14 A[ Afl�won[o, n NAF K GmR01i n( NMIE PFF mn Y OF 111E FPM nM51 g REMmtO FM BWNU[0. uO IK Wq N4FA f¢RPoNiN ro n[ FVBIIC w s M➢1. s ar EaFauml xaous . gDOLE. nx smut N,m ac Poa¢e xo a nAwess sua R[F,W Ewv M)sl a usm. r w senoEE ros VIXO. 111E CLSiEn: CIXP Ai ME VW 9101Ee NC PLW%➢ NVP OYPf➢. 1XE SFRAef PNry PE PBNIPLYR� Ntl iH IEEP ENRLe 9nNIR FD OIIIllE� b[ FI6PrvC WIPfIG P XfF FY5N4 kaC WSi BF ABAFAPEA el9 n mn a n( 114E IPAFMONFnf gn4tµq Fpa OO,n CpPlrc Nlp 4- &a114Fa 1. PE [ASPPG SWiM( SfMGC SNEMI ry$F K ""0 1FEf2 6 AACIM1E VM P ylsr K F¢ D. s K Emrw um� M su srsl4,ac ma Ims � u A w aixx n+vsl a< W.® 4x wE loll wNE oaiFen a wsi D, . I[* . r >� Fxnlnln stroxc a ry 000P eomle[x oaaui —D, s41En wei'� a .a1NE[o nx[c»IC ro >Ia• Fxsrrw wE ooxec*ox ro L E G E N D —< IIS.M SANI *1 Y%FM EX6M. SHIM 1144181E — WW — D5W1G MAE. — qv FM5E6 FA WO"I ---« ---- E)ISAW STWM $E> 1J ❑15SW. WC3XIN ® DSiIK SICRM "WIE - -�+ - -- 015iI% CONAR EN SiIM NR M �.— FMSYIW FENCE 1l450 UCOIN AYENIC \ 1 \4 l i 4 V I�nY9.g5� 1 1 \ l. l ' 1NSe NMCVJI AYFMIE 1 \ ' a \ ��+nli xc emclllw!1 rxE Nwls a rE mart a wu. t �POVCF LINCOLN RYENUV "[ SyI1g�GpyNN. (3 F oa Ci]� 7 '�u s m W+ ❑��d m ra � O S Q© Q W , O W Q g Z j J I- � p u Z a W F– S w.E mo„I, cI � H EiWATED6wk4,T,0,ixlSwa uf LEH ON SO E. / | / | / | | | / | R �----------------|------ --- ^ = | | / | / | / | / " | / | ---- F ------------- --- | | � LJ Wz C: ,. �_ EXISTING PROPOSED ^ = | | / | / | / | / " | / | ---- F ------------- --- | | � LJ Wz C: ,. �_ L I_INI o0s� I_INI i s >liu r I - - — �.w._ _ ; I f oYv9 l t I l j I 1 i 1 o sed New „o• cj U f . II 2 yy Brick & . , I r r. ,,, , ,.. ,', <, •� [ : E' one 1lesidence I .... ' I ;rat' ,.; ,,.,I .� •;.; ;, .. ._ ,. [i [� r F -- - mdyxdaaYw+r I Ka r;rYaro", r aa• MaldLw I ! i vffi' I I I I 'EL�.� �ti V------------ - - - - -- - -- LINDELL: WEE f ELEVATION :: L I I :,•'�, ;r L--- -------- - - > d _4 `--- `----------- ------ - -- --, a^;�'w"• '� -- '-___�_� .1. ,:'r�.i„'14•F ' _ IYT s.' plat Plan 14 1 INC01 N AVE. -� MT I'ROPECT fL JI nl,L Lot Area, Lot Coverage, Floor Area, & Building Height; :+i " _ _ Imam Albrabb KI r A— (F.A.R� � (.SS x tar) s B,505.q.IL ', �, wand Raw Ano uppw [a1.r k Famlly Raam)a Y,799 aq.R. t Total Flora =1,310 1411. 9.300 .q.11 S {0 ' Sr Ma.lmum Ilo- p � .q. COrwaQa 1} a d}}0pSS .q.f1 Imp awn amwo Surraa C9. 5.908. m. y (inaludlnQ houw laxdprinf, polio, wralk• /.h W. and dri.•woy) Mod— Allowable BulldMg H.19h1 n 35 If. {m.an of roof) Prapo.ed Mid] Q H.19h1 : 33' -2" < 35' (O.N.} 400 iq she• rtveray 990 jq• N1 0 1p —ho. dd--y roll Han..ha. Orlwwoy A— o 1,946 . ol. L f 1, a n1 690 aq.ff. (U K) h Maximum Alknrobh [ 1I 40 x 13S 5 w - F---- - - - - - M I rs,'r'$ 1 -y _I L,INDEL J" 12h.- 1' [IIFNCF. . L_________ ---- ______-- I I I S I '' 11 �---- ----+ 1441) E _ -__, „ y LL " �„ _ -,� L N! I ILN [IV F.. I r - - -- - -- - - - - -- Nr, hrtu�r F..1.T, fl.1- 1111fs LIND:1_ I.: FAA 1' T -t -F A i F I 1� DE i 1 __ _. ,m T, w I�s - -- ------- - - - - -- -- r - -- -- r r . I AJ r CONSTRUCTION . ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE (CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1440 WEST LINCOLN STREET, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, Chalice Development, ( "Petitioner "), has filed a petition fora Conditional Use permit for a circular driveway for property located at 1440 West Lincoln Street ( "Property ") and legally described as: Lot 2 in Iverdale Estates, being a Subdivision of part of the south half of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 11, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois. Property Index Number: 08 -11- 104 - 018 -0000; and WHEREAS, the "Petitioner" seeks a Conditional Use to construct a circular drive; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Conditional Use permit being the subject of PZ -30 -11 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 26 day of January, 2012, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 11 day of January, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ- 30 -11; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the request meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Conditional Use for a circular driveway, as shown on the site plan prepared by Doland Engineering, dated October 28, 2011, and attached as Exhibit "A," would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant approval of a Conditional Use for a circular drive, all as shown on the site plan dated October 28, 2011 a copy of which is attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION 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. c Page 2/2 PZ -30 -11 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of February, 2012 Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk HACLK0\WIN \0RDINANCE2 \C USEcircu lard rive 1440lincolnstreetfeb2012 .doc V0 Ra I n a A i;g q M I ni 181.09' - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - 7 W -1 /r •• � �\ / i ' IS � p / e , I �� '�� / z� (67 - -T --- -------- 18 1.00' X > I - c I c L - - - - - -- SITE IMPROVIEVENT DDLA-ND ENGINEERING. L—C 1 440 LINCOLN AVENUE UE 3:34 FA,17 CVL�A)l "7'HVFI �Ull� C 'AT,ATINF ILLINOIS 60067 N VT H �11 (847) 991-5086 (84 934-342 1 4 January 31, 2012 RE: PZ -32- 11/1108 N Elmhurst Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois Consuelo Andrade Bill Cooney Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Dear Ms. Andrade and Mr. Cooney: I received your letter dated January 27, 2012 regarding upcoming meetings of February 7 and February 21, 2012. Both my husband and I will be at the February 7 meeting but will be out of town on the 21 If you need to reschedule the February 21 meeting, please do so and let us know the date. Sincerely, Linda Davis Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JANUARY 27, 2012 SUBJECT: PZ -32 -11 / 1108 N. ELMHURST ROAD 1 VARIATIONS (FLOOR AREA & LOT COVERAGE) / LINDA L. DAVIS — PETITIONER The Petitioner is seeking approval of variations to the floor area and lot coverage for a building addition at 1108 N. Elmhurst Road. The Petitioner removed a portion of the wood deck that is located in the rear yard and started construction of a two -story building addition without a permit. As a result, Village Staff issued a Stop Work Order in November of 2011. The Petitioner applied for a building permit subsequently, but was denied by the Planning Division as the Subject Property exceeds the maximum floor.area and lot coverage permitted. The Petitioner now seeks Variations to increase the floor area and overall lot coverage to allow the building addition to remain and be completed. A maximum of 7,000 square feet (20,000 x 0.35 = 7,000) is allowed for floor area and lot coverage at the Subject Property. The petitioner provided information which indicates the property has a floor area of 7,088.63 square feet and 11,600.63 of lot coverage. Therefore, the subject property exceeds the maximum floor area permitted by 88.63 square feet (7,088.63 — 7,000 = 88.63) and the maximum lot coverage permitted by 4,600.63 square feet (11,600.63 -7,000 = 4,600.63). The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the requests on Thursday, January 26, 2012, and by a vote of 6 -0 recommended denial of the requests for 1) a Variation to increase the floor area from 7,000 square feet (35 %) to 7,088.63 square feet (35.44 %) and 2) a Variation to increase the overall lot coverage from 7,000 square feet (35 %) to 11,600.63 square feet (58.02 %) for the residence located at 1108 N. Elmhurst Road. Details of the proceedings and items discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing are included in the attached minutes. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 7, 2012 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. Cooney, Jr., Al HRLANTI.. d & Zo—g COMMT&Z 2111 1W Mcmo W,37-11 1108 N. E[mLutsl Rd (Vanadaus).do MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -32 -11 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBER: REQUESTS: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTY: Hearing Date: January 26, 2012 1108 N. Elmhurst Road Linda Davis January 11, 2012 03- 27- 305 -014 -0000 1) Variation to Increase Floor Area 2) Variation to Increase Overall Lot Coverage Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist Leo FIoros Jacqueline Hinaber, Alternate None Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development Linda Davis Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve the minutes of the December 8, 2011 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes were approved 4 -0 with Mr. Floros abstaining. Mr. Beattie arrived at 7:39 p.m. After hearing one (1) previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 32 -11, 1108 N. Elmhurst Road at 7:39 p.m. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner for PZ -32 -11 requested Variations to increase the permitted floor area and lot coverage for the property located at 1108 N. Elmhurst Road. Ms. Andrade stated the Subject Property is located on the west side of Elmhurst Road and currently contains a single - family residence with related improvements. Upon receiving a complaint, Village Staff conducted an inspection of the Subject Property in November 2011 and found that a two (2) story building addition was being constructed without a building permit. Consequently, Village Staff posted a Stop Work Order on the Subject Property. The Petitioner subsequently applied for a building permit, but was denied by the Planning Division as the Subject Property exceeded the maximum floor area and lot coverage permitted. The Petitioner was seeking a Variation to increase the floor area and overall lot coverage to allow the building addition to remain and be completed. Ms. Andrade said the two (2) story building addition measures approximately eighteen (18) feet wide by twenty (20) feet deep. Per the Petitioner's floor plans, the addition would consist of a bedroom on the first floor and a loft on the second floor. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -32 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 1 of 4 Ms. Andrade showed pictures that were taken during inspections that indicated the building addition's wood framing and vinyl siding finish. Upon completion, the building addition would measure approximately twenty - two (22) feet in height. Ms. Andrade referenced the following table: Setbacks: R.X District Minimum Requirements W/O Building Addition W/ Building Addition Front Min. 40' 49.58' No change Interior Side Yard .) Min. 10' 8.50'(non- conformin No change Interior Side Yard (S. ) Min. 10' 18.17' No change Rear Min. 30' 54.76' 50.74' Building Height Max. 35' 21' -8" No change Floor Area Max. 7,000 sq.ft. .35 6,463.63 sq.ft. .32 7,088.63 sq. , (.3544 Lot Coverage Max. 7,000 sq.ft. (35 %) 11,240.63 sq.ft. (56 %) non - conformin ) 11,600.63 sgft. (58.02%) Ms. Andrade stated the table compared the Petitioner's proposal to the RX District's bulk requirements. The Subject Property consists of nonconformities that include the principal structure, floor area, and lot coverage. The principal structure is setback eight and one half (8.5) feet from the north property line when the Village Code requires a minimum of ten (10) feet. With the two (2) story building addition, the floor area increased from 6,463 square feet to 7,088 square feet, which exceeds the maximum 7, 000 square feet floor area permitted. In regards to overall lot coverage, it currently measures fifty -eight (58) percent, when the maximum permitted is thirty-five (35) percent. The Petitioner was seeking Variations to allow increases to floor area and lot coverage. Ms. Andrade said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven (7) specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following is a summary of these findings: • A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; • Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and • Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner mentioned that the replacement of the wood deck area with the building addition did not affect the lot coverage. While the petitioner stated that the lot coverage did not change, the lot existing coverage was non - conforming and the Village Code requires the new structure to comply with Code requirements. The Petitioner also stated that the building addition is for a family member in declining health. Staff understood the Petitioner's personal needs for the addition; however, it does not constitute a hardship. The alleged hardships presented in this case have therefore been created directly by the property owner's own interest in the property and not by the zoning code. There are no unique conditions on the property which would not exist elsewhere within the Village. Ms. Andrade said Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the motions listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers confirmed with Staff that the work was started without permit, and then stopped, and then the Petitioner applied for the permit. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -32 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Chairman Rogers swore in the property owner, Linda Davis, 1108 N. Elmhurst Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Davis stated that her request was to build an addition to her home for an immediate family member who is in declining health. She said the request for the room addition would be built on an existing deck. Ms. Davis discussed that she was given a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) in 2004 with the deck already in place. She did not believe by replacing the deck with the room addition would affect the impervious surface on the Subject Property, Ms. Davis said her husband is the General Contractor on the proposed project. She stated that they knew they needed permits for the project, but they were trying to accommodate her mother. Ms. Davis discussed that the proposed addition would be private living space for her mother. Chairman Rogers confirmed that there are four (4) existing bedrooms at the Subject Property. Ms. Davis said there are three (3) bedrooms on the first floor and one (1) bedroom on the second floor. She stated that her mother could not utilize the second floor bedroom. The proposed living space would be close to a first floor bedroom. Ms. Davis said the other bedrooms are occupied by her and her husband and her daughters. There was additional discussion on the work being conducted without permit. Mr. Donnelly asked if the Petitioner looked into other ways of reducing the impervious surface so the room addition would comply. Ms. Davis said she would need to talk with her husband, but asked if she were to reduce some of the impervious surface would she still be allowed to build the addition. Mr. Donnelly asked Staff if the amount of impervious surface on the Subject ,Property was grandfathered in or was the Subject Property always a part of the Village. Mr. Simmons said when the Subject Property was originally developed and issued permits in the 1980's there was no lot coverage requirement. The lot coverage requirement was not in effect until the early 1990's. There were floor area ratio requirements at the time the original permit was issued. Mr. Simmons stated that there are non - conforming provisions in the Code that allow existing conditions on properties that do not meet current Code to be grandfathered in. However the Petitioner is modifying the property and would need to conform to the current Code. There was additional discussion regarding bringing the Subject Property's lot coverage into compliance with the Code. The consensus among the Commissions was that the property would have to be brought down significantly from 11,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet in order to comply with Code. Mr. Youngquist said that with the way the Code has been written, there was no way the addition could be allowed. Ms. Davis asked if the property was no longer grandfathered in on lot coverage because the deck was removed. Mr. Simmons stated that was correct. He said the non - conforming provisions are what were grandfathered in. As soon as any part of the structure is removed with current zoning, the "grandfather clause" from the non- conforming code section is lost. Mr. Youngquist discussed with the addition that the Petitioner is also over on the floor area ratio (FAR). There. was discussion on having the Petitioner remove the second floor of the proposed addition; however the lot coverage would still be over what the current Code allows. There was additional discussion regarding the Petitioner's living situation in relation to what the proposed addition would provide. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner investigated purchasing the Iot to the south that was in foreclosure. Ms. Davis stated that she has looked into purchasing the property in question, but the bank and attorneys for the property to the south would not speak to her. She said the home to the north is in disarray and was not interested in purchasing the property. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner could purchase the land to the north, demolish the existing home and make the Subject Property and the property to the north one (1) lot of record. Ms. Davis stated that this would be really costly for her. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -32 -1 l Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 3 of 4 Chairman Rogers asked if there was anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 8:00 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Ms. Hinaber. made a motion, seconded by Mr. Donnelly to approve a Variation to in the floor area from 7,000 square feet (35 %) to. 7,088.63 square feet (35.44 %); and a Variation to increase the overall lot coverage from 7,000 square feet (35 %) to 11,600.63 square feet (58.02 %) for the residence located at 1108 N. Elmhurst Road, Case No. PZ- 32 -11. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Hinaber, Youngquist, Rogers The motions were denied 6 -0. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. After hearing one (1) additional case, Chairman Rogers asked if there were any citizens in the audience waiting to be heard. Hearing none, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Ms. Hinaber to adjourn at 9:21 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -32 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 4 of 4 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY -- PZ- 32 -11- LOCATION: 1108 N. Elmhurst Road PETITIONER: Linda Davis OWNER: Same as Petitioner PARCEL #: 03 -27- 305 -014 -0000 LOT SIZE: 0.46 acres (20,000 square feet) ZONING: RX — Single Family Residence LAND USE: Single Family Residential REQUEST: 1) Variation to Increase Floor Area 2) Variation to Increase the Overall Lot Coverage . r� LOCATION MAP Village ®f Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RICHARD ROGERS, CHAIRPERSON CONSUELO ANDRADE, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLANNER JANUARY 9, 2012 JANUARY 26, 2012 T Nloom Ptospea PZ -32 -1 11 1 108 N. ELMHURST RD. / VARIATION TO F.A.R. & LOT COVERAGE / LINDA DAVIS A public hearing has been scheduled for the January 26, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Linda Davis (the "Petitioner "), regarding the property located at 1108 N. Elmhurst (the "Subject Property "). The Petitioner is seeking Variations to increase the permitted floor area and lot coverage. The P &Z Commission hearing was properly noticed in the January 11, 2012 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250 -feet and posted Public Hearing signs on the Subject Property, PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the west side of Elmhurst Road and currently contains a single- family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single: Family Residence and is bordered by the RX District on the north, west, and south sides. The Subject Property borders the B3 Community Shopping PUD district (Randhurst Village) on the east side. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Petitioner removed a portion of the wood deck that is located in the rear yard and started construction of a two -story building addition without a permit. As a result, Village Staff issued a Stop Work Order in November of 2011. Subsequently, the Petitioner applied for a building permit, but was denied by the Planning Division as the Subject Property exceeds the maximum floor area and lot coverage permitted. The Petitioner now seeks a Variation to increase the floor area and overall lot coverage to allow the building addition to remain and be completed. The two -story building addition measures approximately eighteen (18) feet wide by twenty (20) feet deep (360 sq.ft.). Per the attached floor plans, the addition would consist of a bedroom on the first floor and a loft on the second floor. The elevations indicate the addition would be constructed out of vinyl siding and measure approximately twenty two (22) feet in height to the midpoint of the roof. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The Subject Property does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations. The following nonconformities exist on the property: PZ -32 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 3 • The principal structure is setback eight and one half (8.5) feet from the north property line. Village Code requires a minimum of ten (10) feet. • The detached garage encroaches into an existing ten (10) foot easement. Village Code prohibits any building, structure, or other obstruction to be constructed within any easement. • The driveway width measures approximately seventy three and one half (73.5) feet when the maximum permitted is fifty four (54) feet, as approved by a Variation (Ord. No. 3550) granted in 1985. • The floor area ratio exceeds the maximum permitted in the RX District. The floor area is 7,088.63 square feet (.3544 of lot area) when the maximum permitted is 7,000 square feet (.35 of lot area). • The lot coverage exceeds the maximum permitted in the RX district. As per the attached Plat of Survey, the overall lot coverage is 11,600.63 square feet (58.02 %) when the maximum allowed is 7,000 square feet (35 %). No Variations were approved for the non - conforming items listed above. The following table compares the RX District's bulk requirements with the Subject Property: When the petitioner applied for the two -story building addition in December 2011, the PIanning Division denied the permit as the property exceeds the maximum permitted floor area and lot coverage. Per the Village Code, the maximum permitted floor area and lot coverage are both 7,000 square feet (20,000 x 0.35 = 7,000). The petitioner provided information which indicates the property has a floor area of 7,088.63 square feet (3544 of lot area) and 11,600.63 of lot coverage. Therefore, the subject property exceeds the maximum floor area permitted by 88.63 square feet (7,088.63 T 7,000 = 88.63) and the maximum lot coverage permitted by 4,600.63 square feet (11,600.63 - 7,000). It should be noted the floor area calculation method has changed since the property received a variation in 1988 and now includes accessory structures in its calculations. The Village did not have any lot coverage requirements when the home was originally permitted. Nonconforming Structures Per Section 14.402 of the Zoning Code, the replacement of any structure on the property requires the new structure to meet bulk regulations for the zoning district. In this case, the replacement of the deck with -the building addition is not permitted as the overall lot coverage is non - conforming and the floor area exceeds the maximum permitted. Without the building addition, the floor area would be 6,463.63 square feet (.32), which would meet Code. Furthermore, without the building addition or the original deck area the overall lot coverage would be reduced to 11,600.63 square feet (56.20 %), which would still exceed Code, but reduces the overall nonconformity. Staff reviewed the permit history for the Subject Property to determine when the wood deck was constructed and found no record of a deck permit. RX District Minimum Requirements W/O Building Addition W/ Building Addition Setbacks: Front Min. 40' 49.58' No than e Interior Side Yard Min. 10' 8.50' (non-conformin No change Interior Side Yard (S.) Min. 10' 18.17' No change Rear Min. 30' 54.76' 50.74' Building Height Max. 35' 21'4" No change Floor Area Max. 7,000 s .ft. .35 6,463.63 s .ft. .32 7,088.63 s . t. (.3544 Lot Coverage Max. 7,000 sq.ft. (35 %) 11,240.63 sq.ft. (56 %) non- conformin 11,600.63 sgft. (58.02 %) When the petitioner applied for the two -story building addition in December 2011, the PIanning Division denied the permit as the property exceeds the maximum permitted floor area and lot coverage. Per the Village Code, the maximum permitted floor area and lot coverage are both 7,000 square feet (20,000 x 0.35 = 7,000). The petitioner provided information which indicates the property has a floor area of 7,088.63 square feet (3544 of lot area) and 11,600.63 of lot coverage. Therefore, the subject property exceeds the maximum floor area permitted by 88.63 square feet (7,088.63 T 7,000 = 88.63) and the maximum lot coverage permitted by 4,600.63 square feet (11,600.63 - 7,000). It should be noted the floor area calculation method has changed since the property received a variation in 1988 and now includes accessory structures in its calculations. The Village did not have any lot coverage requirements when the home was originally permitted. Nonconforming Structures Per Section 14.402 of the Zoning Code, the replacement of any structure on the property requires the new structure to meet bulk regulations for the zoning district. In this case, the replacement of the deck with -the building addition is not permitted as the overall lot coverage is non - conforming and the floor area exceeds the maximum permitted. Without the building addition, the floor area would be 6,463.63 square feet (.32), which would meet Code. Furthermore, without the building addition or the original deck area the overall lot coverage would be reduced to 11,600.63 square feet (56.20 %), which would still exceed Code, but reduces the overall nonconformity. Staff reviewed the permit history for the Subject Property to determine when the wood deck was constructed and found no record of a deck permit. PZ -32 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 4 VARIATION STANDARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: • A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; • Would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; • Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and • Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner states that the replacement of the wood deck area with the building addition did not affect the lot coverage. While the petitioner states that the lot coverage did not change, the lot coverage was non - conforming and the Village Code requires the new structure to comply with Code requirements. The Petitioner also states that the building addition is for a family member in declining health. While Staff understands the Petitioner's personal needs for the addition, it does not constitute a hardship. The alleged hardships presented in this case have therefore been created directly by the property owner's own interest in the property and not by the zoning code. There are no unique conditions on the property which would not exist elsewhere within the Village. RECOMMENDATION The Variation requests for a 7,088.63 sq.ft. floor area (35.44 %) and 11,600.63 sq. ft lot coverage (58.02 %) lot coverage do not meet the standards for Variations contained in Section 12.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance for the reasons previously noted. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P &Z deny the following motions: "To approve 1. A Variation to increase the floor area from 7,000 square feet (35 %) to 7,088.63 square feet (35.44°/x), as shown in the floor plans prepared by Koziol and Brown Architects and Engineers dated December 12, 2011; and 2. A Variation to increase the overall lot coverage from 7,000 square feet (35 %) to 11,600.63 square feet (58.02 %), as shown in the Plat of Survey dated December 7, 2011 for the residence located at 1108 N. Elmhurst Road, Case No. PZ -32 -1 U' This case is Village Board final since the lot coverage Variation exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. I concur: William J. ooney, AIC Director of Community Development A H:IP[.AMFlatudng & Zoning C0MMT&Z 2ol l%Staff RWrtt%P2 i2 -1 l IM N. Elmhurst Rd. (VAR -F.A & Lot Cowrap).d= v L VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT �� x�ntl'ras�ecx COMMUNH. Y DLVI:I.OPMI NI llI'-PAR'1'Mi NT- - Planning Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5 329 Zoning Re ,Application y Casa Number -- - — --~ _- — - -- c— PKZ --- �, Devolopment NamcYAddress M � C Date orSttbslUSSion Y. v IIcaring Date Y. ZONING Rl3QIJIiST (s): ❑ Conclitional l.Jsc for —. .— ❑ Zoning Map Amendment: From ._- - - - to — �€ Variatiost Imill Scc._114,305 : GUI* L cnq ? - 1 - cxl. Anlcndinew: Sections) -- L*C'; LOT CwcVV t (011 - sce only ) El' I � 0111" villa�- Board i'istai C d _ _ SlJV1MAlt'k'Y ()I' RF;QIJESTF,D; C" ON: _.�ti.Qf�-- t3C.¢izf?.9Y i S._►n_?�ta'r. LgcAT�cAn•- -- -- --- -- __ - - - -- -- - .06-0P br CZ_ - LET__CSV + L .r._�4i- -_5 �`ya \Mount Prospect Department ofCommunily Development rnonc Olt 1.0 1 a.),co 50 South Emerson Street, \Mount Prospect 1lliiloiS Fax 847.818 -5329 .�rv�t.monnfiprospcct.org 1 TDD 847.392.6064 -- Pro ert" Owner Sallie as applica l Name l elep lione (day) 07- Total Build Sq. I't, Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed /... C c 9t ®�taoe� (-� -�C 3� t + :G erne E -' C5 Cor orali p Telephone (cvcnin) U O o Fax - Street Address ce z c. F i city State Zip Code Email Mount Prospect Department 'O Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 SOU111 rnwrspai Slrcet, lutOcnil Prospect Illinois Pax 847.818:5329 www.inola III Pros pect,org 2 TDD 847.392.6064 Address(es) (.Street Number, Street) Lot Area (Sell']) 7oninu District Total Build Sq. I't, Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed Use Mee the Standards for the Zoning 9t ®�taoe� (-� -�C 3� t + :G erne E U11 5etliacks: Front hear Side (P4 Side F Ss. -f e' la.sv 1 - 1 1 r Building Height Lot Coverage (%,) Standard. Parking Spaces Accessible Parking Spaces S8 �oL N fl ]-lours of Operation q� , Adjacent hand Uses: 3orth V,-Y, :Souris R: x ��ISt r�•-3 - west R Y, w E ekes RES�PPnZ'r�]Z- �(SyNtY��UR�TY S7k�t'Q1r�ft ��tSi N icdaL.. Property Index Number(s): a . j .._'�_." d_ Q r En (attach a dd itional sheets if ncee:ssaljr) - — - - -- - W w Legal Mscription (attach additional sheets if necessary) -r ea_JC;F s:�c�atvcstar►_� RAV- or _ .fv,9S7. RL G tr�n na4. ii. FAST nFTa-1jC Tric¢,1] cr1G� � CYt�e�� Arr1.2�i � �G �H� 4t..f#'T` TNFt�fu�C> =- 2.rccnrcr�,u� cYtr}ec� ±- i,r�9!�f� gs��LA k ].EA=_.tl> )oaA uL i _i1n f�� COL 1 I LLLI G. Mount Prospect Department 'O Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 SOU111 rnwrspai Slrcet, lutOcnil Prospect Illinois Pax 847.818:5329 www.inola III Pros pect,org 2 TDD 847.392.6064 Proposed Use (as listed 'ill the zon diwict) Dpsc,l'tbc -in Detail. ti le Rnd Activities Pro.p b9cd and 1'lnw the Prop osed Use Mee the Standards for the Zoning Request..A.pproval (attach additional sheets If netessary) ]xC C Fi `rt 0 Q N 6 �fl -Q(�� i [!t]— rrttr..._z�t�nt���t�. Lo >✓ C�r1�¢R�rF QR�� n rte,,._ Cy ; •_ An t .r.! �CISTrJ4 t CCU,w� RCK,�?. fn ]-lours of Operation q� , Mount Prospect Department 'O Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 SOU111 rnwrspai Slrcet, lutOcnil Prospect Illinois Pax 847.818:5329 www.inola III Pros pect,org 2 TDD 847.392.6064 Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 547.81$•5328 56 South ]Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois l °a 547.81.8.5329 www.mountprospect.org 3 T] N) .84 7.3916064 Address(es) (SIrcei Number, Street) ELM sr p 1,61 Area (Sq,l Zaning Eaisnict Total Building Sq, Ft. Sq. Ft. Devoted' to Proposed } qa� Use 5 Setbacks: - -- C) O FTOnt Bear _..__... Side OUS - SidCns t= % . d �giJ CE' J�d•'ls' // __---- $"50 t i z L ` }� eg �X3ST[ IJt, C Buildin H eig ht E �D l C[lV[:i'a �C °fin ( ) Standard Parking Spaces Accessible Parking Spaces n � 515 ��0�. Iv Ov Oevelolicr Name ��► Telephone (day) Address Fax ) c Attorney Name Telephone (da w Address Fax lniail c � U [` Snkveyor Q Nainc f Lca� �-ta.t���� ri CA. Telephone {day) � 4 6a5P E3s37 m Address ;— Email uco 6mR tit, cam }n�iitcc� Name Telephone (day) Address �_ ___... _ -._ -- Fax — --- Email Fl rcliiteCt - - - Nance Telephone (flay) _ &3); LjS5 Address I6 a1 Oj� Fax: -- Email ,iuE•- c•. VM Lm dscape Arch:ilect - -- Name X11 Ps T lephone (clay) Address . __ _ . _ ...... __ Fax -- Email Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 547.81$•5328 56 South ]Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois l °a 547.81.8.5329 www.mountprospect.org 3 T] N) .84 7.3916064 Pleasc note that the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfaclorily submitted to the Cr MMUnity Development Departim m's Planning Division. Incomplete submittals will not he acce pted, It i strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appoinlrllent With the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewod for accuracy and completeness at the time of submittal. In consideration of the information corntaincd in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is rcqucstcd that approval be givell to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner or the property grant employees of the Village of Mount prospect and their agent's permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Applicant ' �� bate (signature Print Nanlc I f applicani is. not property .owner: I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the zoning request(s) described in this 'application and tile.:associatcd supporting material - Property (owner _ Date (51 gna, lire) Prilli Nome Mount prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South t luerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois rax 847.818:.5329 mm.rilountplos.pect.org 4 TDD 847.392.6064 KOZIOL ENGINEERING SVCS., LTD, Professional Engineers 1621 Ogden Ave, Lisle IL 60532 630 - 435 -8686 FAX 630 -435 -8689 December 12, 2011 Village of Mount Prospect Building Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Su�b'_eat 1108 N. Elmhurst Road Calculations for subject property: Floor Area Ratio: 7,088 SF (floor area) / 20,000 SF (lot area) = 35.44% - Variance required since > 35% Lot Coverage Ratio: Existing: 11,600 SF (building, deck, conc. drive, brick pavers) / 20,000 SF (lot area) = 58.02% Proposed: 11,600 SF (building, deck, conc. drive, brick pavers) / 20,000 SF (lot area) = 58.02% - Variance required since > 35% Please contact our office at (630) 435 -8686 with any questions or comments. '\ Sincerely, James E. Koziol, PE, LEED AP Koziol and Brown, Architects and Engineers Cc: Don Davis ZONING REVIEW CHECKLIST FRONT YARD ADDRESS: 1 t rYS u2 ZONING: R �c LOT AREA [A]: -- Q o, o6Q PROPOSED SETBACKS (�� I SIDE YARD L EXTERIOR /SIDE YARD* 13 =4 1 1 a G t1i b ROOF /DRIVEWAY MEASUREMENT(FT) [2l ROOF HEIGHT [MID -POINT TO AVG. GRADE] _ o 6` DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT GARAGE ` DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT LOT LINE __..( FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) [3] FIRST FLOOR + ATTACHED GARAGE [B] DETACHED GARAGE [C] SECOND FLOOR AND /OR ATTIC ** [ I ] ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1 * ** [G] ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 2 * ** [Ii] BASEMENT* * ** [ J ] TOTAL FAR (TOTAL / [A] ) (DO NOT FELL IN SHADED AREAS) MEASUREMENT (FT) !4 5g ` t g t&k4T AREA [EXISTING + PROPOSED] (SQ FT) ga ra `2, 08e�- LOT COVERAGE (* *footprint of all structures, existing or new, need to be included * *) AREA [EXISTING + PROPOSED] (SQ FT) HOUSE FOOT PRINT + ATTACHED GARAGE [B] q,3 i 0 DETACHED GARAGE [C] PATIOS AND /OR DECK [F] ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1 * ** [G] ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 2 * ** [H] TOTAL LOT COVERAGE ( TOTAL / [A] ) * If you live on a comer lot, the exterior setback is the Ionger dimension of the two frontages facing the street ** An attic must be included in the FAR calculations if it has a ceiling height of seven (7) feet or greater. * ** An accessory structure is defined as a subordinate structure detached from but located on the same lot as the principal structure, the use of which is incidental and accessory to that of a principal structure. Said structures may include, but are not limited to, garages and sheds, as further defined by the Village Code. * *** A basement must be included in the FAR calculation if basement level is three (3) feet above average grade. Beam to wall Beam Chek v2011 Licensed to: Phyl1ls Brown Reg # 1194 -67463 Davis Residence Shear (inz) TL Defl (in) Date: 12/12/11 Selection 4x 12 Western Cedar #2 41.68 Lu = 0.0 Ft Conditions NDS 2005 OK OK 56% 19% Min Bearing Area R1= 2.2 W R2= 2.2 in (1.5) DL DO= 0.23 in Data Beam Span 11.58 ft 1.00 1.00 Beam Wt per ft 9.57 # Reaction 1 TL 924 # Reaction 2 TL 924 # Bm Wt Included 111 # Maximum V 924 # Max Moment 2675# Max V (Reduced) 774 # 1.00 TL Max Defl L i 240 TL Actual Defl L 1597 Attributes Actual Critical Status Ratio Values Adiustments Loads Section (In 3) Shear (inz) TL Defl (in) 73.83 39.38 0.23 41.68 7.49 0.58 OK OK OK 56% 19% 40% Uniform TL: 150 =A Uniform Load A ZLI Ri - 924 R2 = 924 SPAN = 11.58 FT Uniform and partial uniform loads are Ibs per lineal ft. a = f^ BRO WN (P n� 001.,01,3433 If PSA �f�i�r�, A R Gi��I % Fb psi Fv psi E psi x mil) Fc psi Reference Values 700 155 1.0 425 Adjusted Values 770 155 1.0 425 CF Size Factor 1.100 Cd Duration 1.00 1.00 Cr Repetitive 1.00 Ch Smear Stress NIA Cm Wet Use 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Cl Stability 1.0000 Rb = 0.00 Le = 0.00 Ft Uniform TL: 150 =A Uniform Load A ZLI Ri - 924 R2 = 924 SPAN = 11.58 FT Uniform and partial uniform loads are Ibs per lineal ft. a = f^ BRO WN (P n� 001.,01,3433 If PSA �f�i�r�, A R Gi��I % Bea mChek v2011 licensed to: Phyllis Brown Reg # 1194 -67463 Davis Residence Main floor Beam Date: 12/12/11 Selection 8x 12 Western Cedar #1 Lu = 0.0 Ft Conditions NDS 2005 Min Searing Area R1= 4.3 in R2= 3.9 in (1.5) DL Defl= 0.44 in Data Attributes Actual Critical Status Ratio Values Adjus t ments Beam Span 14.58 ft TL Deft (in) 165.31 Beam Wt per ft . 20.96 # Reaction 1 TL 1842 # Reaction 2 TL 1657 # Bm Wt Included 306 # Maximum V 1842 # Max Moment 7758'# Max V (Reduced) 1672 # TL Max Deft L 1240 TL Actual Deft L 1400 Section (in 3) Shear (in TL Deft (in) 165.31 86.25 0.44 95.49 17.92 0.73 OK OK OK 58% 21% 60% Loads Uniform TL: 156 =A Point TL Distance B = 924 5.83 Uniform Load A Pt loads: 0 R1 = 1842 R2 = 1657 SPAN = 14.58 FT Uniform and partial uniform loads are Ibs per lineal ft. s Z * P cis BROWN N r L7� 001- 013433 IL G� ��Tlill1��� Fb psi Fv psi E psi x mil) Fc (psi) Reference Values 975 140 1.0 425 Adjusted Values 975 140 1.0 425 CF Size Factor 1.000 Cd Duration 1.00 1.00 Cr Repetitive 1.00 Ch Shear Stress NIA Cm Wet Use 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Cl Stability 1.0000 Rb = 0.00 Le = 0.00 Ft Loads Uniform TL: 156 =A Point TL Distance B = 924 5.83 Uniform Load A Pt loads: 0 R1 = 1842 R2 = 1657 SPAN = 14.58 FT Uniform and partial uniform loads are Ibs per lineal ft. s Z * P cis BROWN N r L7� 001- 013433 IL G� ��Tlill1��� V e BeamChek v2011 licensed to: Phyllis Brown Reg # 1194 -67463 Davis Residence column requied Prepared by: Date: 12/12/11 Selection (4) 2x 6 SPF South #2 Nailed Built -Up Wood Column Conditions NDS 2005, Using values for 2x and 4x solid sawn, Dimension Lumber. Laminate built -up nailed columns per NDS 15.3.3.1 or per local code. Load 1842 # Column Area 33.0 in' Kf 1.00 Actual Height 8.25 ft led 1 Effective Ht 99 in c 0.80 Unbraced L1 8.25 ft le d2 Effective Ht 99 in KcE 0.30 Unbraced L2 8.25 ft Ke Buckling Mode 1.0 FcE 1019 Attributes and Values Controlling d is 5.5 inches Note: A wood plate under this column must have an Fe value, perpendicular to the grain, greater than 56 psi. Data leld psi Area (in 2) Adjusted Values Actual 18 56 33.0 1.00 Cm Wet Use Critical 50 731 2.52 Status OK OK OK Ratio 36% 8% 8% Note: A wood plate under this column must have an Fe value, perpendicular to the grain, greater than 56 psi. Data 14 BROWN n 001-01 AR Fe II (psi) E (psi x mil) Reference Values 1000 1.1 Adjusted Values 731 1.1 CF Size Factor 1.10 Cd Duration 1.00 Cm Wet Use 1.00 1.00 Cp Stability 0.66 14 BROWN n 001-01 AR FLAT Of SURVEY LEGAL D25CRIPTION: LOT 8 IN BLOCK I IN WEDGEWOOD TFRRACE, A 5UBDIV1510N OF EUCLID AVENUE PART OF THE FAST HALF OF 5ECTION 27, TOWN51 42 NORTH, RANGE 1 1, EAST Of THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MARCH 4, 1 946 A5 DOCUMENT NUMBER 13732 J 46, 1N COOK COUNTY, ILLINOI5. I � f N l� %" I 1 K 20' 40' ml LUCO CON5TKUCTION CO. P ' 99135 , �Llfur ura[ I I JIM KOZIAL c.,y, a 600 s 847.658.tl537 7 VNL. &47.459.0714 Cu nlLV wcvr. sumry vrpwu g,. LOT 7 a eo nneo C11R6 ,E -07.�r FNU 112" 1 1-28531 PND I(2" g MAP. REBAR Q N 89 t (A55UMED) 200.09' MEAS. 200.0' FtCORD :. O . 5' WOOD FENCE Q - cz I 0.36' vj 103.55' 1 V O -- 75.06' • U O I .d5 0 w WOOD ° "T' Q LOT 8 • O <j .7A' OECK v I LhIIMNEY n'dz' om om •a to O ••� n8.65' _ IY Q f 7.66' E '.' 4 _ �• 'T• O N c d 2'J AS' - b - L1R1C.K PAVE WRI R Ln _ - `STEP •• �� • h h y ••' � 30.Id •; "• 49.s L.L 6) FRAME ,, cgvc. .� m #1 105 a = u GARAGE '• ' TWO STORY BRICK FRAME °` m • b ••• RE5IDLNCE w o a N - Y.731 - 5:65' aA.Lrvarrrnsrrrr _ L CDNL. RIBBON m n RE R E - A L $AIDS "RYEY ALL AEOVE O I AK- PWVE $AR ORREGrLYREP CTA— olsrnxccs APestpm� IH rccrArmoccwALSrleucor. CONC. PoeBON 5'WOOD PENCE .�ro�ue.orol r�AO� oo umrlEs 5 89 °55'41" W 200.34' MEA5. 200.0' Rl!CORD E"Easnc" vx 1HE Aswe vESCRIeEarnaECnx LEG1 sruxuROg rvn. souuour+suRVti FND 112' __• C.T�A4E!SEE0.Uxpg P"OEEgsp - wcsumeYVnm —1. KE13AP LOT 0 FND I P u C rME9E8CRiPl10HOi ttrE MArSNMpEE0. "ror,nePaumrarneES � ®rl'f vErcA ae PEOwmu"r g4rdM1AEWEl "OIER N'fl£" � ®av urnrclESwmnM1Exseu [xrs + uLE UO+srgwu,sAEa+. cnouwumincs Ixcwwue sur rlvr uulrev to E ' cowu+sn,loc.eLESI�P Axrr "A xoreEE "srravrr ' ' ®rn HENCON. YC105NM1grR fNIEEO 6EAL9RRE0 STAUP, ' N l� %" I 1 K 20' 40' ml LUCO CON5TKUCTION CO. P ' 99135 , �Llfur ura[ Rw�s31 JIM KOZIAL c.,y, a 600 s 847.658.tl537 a, u7, DAVIS &47.459.0714 Cu nlLV wcvr. sumry vrpwu g,. 's�cr nv. rou m eo: eo nneo ,E -07.�r Wr 1 1-28531 �. A pAViS F ES1Pk - hIGE .rw.wrmu.ra, nae Otl�iYiIAA�AlL 1[CClp ItCCR ILNi i °�^ M�OII%SITArCM�FA %MlYyeyy � I EMS NE fiE KOZIOL AND BROWN: ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS PROJECT DIRECTORY: OWNER: DON DAVIS INIS A ELMHURST READ MOUNT PROSPECT, IL 40066 ARCHITECTr 0z1DL AND BROWN ARtlHTECTS AND LNDINLLRS '671 OWEN 0.YENJE LISLE IL 60559 wl4)5 969R DESIGN FIR. II84 CIVIL ENGINEER: KNIEL ENGINEERING SERVICES 1621 OWEN AYCNUE USER, !L 6059$ 6)01455405 DES]w FIRN NMf000968 CITY OF NAPERVILLE: B'JILDIND MPARTNENT 400 5 EAGLE $T NAPERVILLE, IL 60610 6)0!4206070 �W W cm : .. Luo Lu La qp k i Lu ] r W4 F 7C ei y w I hERE BT CERTIFY THAT THESE PLANS WERE 1106 N ELMHURST W. MOUNT PROSPECT, R. PREPARED BY at OR UNDER MT OUMRVISION ADDITION TO EXISTING HOUR AND TO THE BEST OF TAT KNOWLEDGE RESIDENIIAL COMPLIES WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES. 111U��U PHTLLI5 6. BROWN LIOENSEV A"ITECT Z T! EA S A-0 PAGED A -O THRWWI E -) a 40 Dole 55X OF THE TOrA1 LOT AREA SETBAOKS FcDoeo.. A -17 SHEET INDEX: ARCNITECTOXAI A-0 LIVER FADE Al CUNSTRUCTIONS NOTES • SPECIFICATIENS A+2 MR0105E0 ELEVATIONS A -2 PROPOSED ELoO.R PLANS PROJECT INFORMATION: PROJECT AODRU55: 1106 N ELMHURST W. MOUNT PROSPECT, R. PROJCCT DCSCRIPT10% ADDITION TO EXISTING HOUR PROPERTY USE RESIDENIIAL SITE ZM!Mt R -x MAX 5U:LDINS HEIDNT: 2A STORIES I )9 MAX ROOF PEAK HEIOHT- 40 MAx LOT OMMOE RATIO: 55X OF THE TOrA1 LOT AREA SETBAOKS FcDoeo.. FEN YARD: W SICE YARD. 8- MIN. PER SIDE 12P TOTAL AFAR YARD, 95X LOT OEPTN, NOT TO EXCEED )0' EXISTING: FRONT YAR1 31.65 NORTH SIX YARD. 15.75 SOUTH SIDE YARC. 16.96 REAR YkiD 11949 PROPOSED: FRONT TAW. MAV - NORTH SIOE TARO N.T9 1 SOUTH s!X YARD: REAR TARO: I6?5' R2.50 PROPOSED ADDITION DOES NOT EXTEND INTO SIDE AND REAR YARD RT84CK6 TOTAL HEIGHT OF PROPOSED ADDITION 9R-Nin- FROM AYG OkADE NO PART OF THE PPM05CD ADDITION L NC R OAC :E ON ANS Y OF THE RESIDGITIAL i N I SCALE, N/A LOCATION MAP: VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BUILDING CODES. 2006 INTERNATIONAL 5VILDING CODE WITH LOOL AMENDMENTS 2OC6 INrCFNAI[DNAL RES1DENr1AL CODE WITH LNT AME0MEN1`5 20DI I11iERMA110NAL FIRE OOOE 2006 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY 4AIN7ENANCE CODE DOSS INTERNATIONAL FLECTRIC COOS 2006 INTERNATIONAL FEEL ONG WOE 2006 IN ERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CEDE WOOS INMR Ttt%AL PLUM5:N0 0 2005 NATIONAL LLCCTRIC CODE 9004 ILLINOIS STATE PLUMBIND CODE ILLINOIS AOCESSAILITY CODE, CURNE4r COITION 2009 M .URATIONAL ENE99T CONSERVATION COOS KDULIN� A-N ADDIT CONSTRUC NOTES °°nro +nae aAaeom�a.ren.rr ° nG ma,�x rode r na an wmL av° npamq srow mewlaR Srywewi, e!c AB ""+��ALavaLK�B rAn a w.BL unr Axae xx maprpA! mu+ro d pH m d efanL�.rmu e B.ru, w"dm pP de mwmd OWL AaLr roL wL Lue sww ww��W s *yR [nA ne �sAlcl! mLLr wa+no on pawoxa Aww aex+rR.y eooe5 ° dM (GB.. OASdr 6iuW6pa M rn.4r+[! un n,MV ,B. IweeowfA m• [ � m uA l ALnmxArc wTwle :oc�Br' aAV, rae r AG RiMV4 Lr euCrl� s 'W�SS�'0•� Y ,vrwa! nnx vrtRlAS N4AkRMi, e°r w y vs[ syu xu}M.aA50 fi RgpLulMS w Bvivnw° r[WU,wm. BcOes, 2, n CONCRETE FPUNDA 6 SLAB CONS mrc x aWrn ro a Amo w. a miro d ..v rmRaa aAdi exTtAV AlAan r.unve ptpn! Ar• L4 [m! wu0 e�RQ,s¢�sMSGWhtplWlxikm .r00 Lv�5"��M 4v Wimluwe° au 0. wl�wn f Wneesm rooi'.x y w TM 3 Txi'e n sR Mva Hwu xs�e:e eix� isce nt r1F`dGUm W S yngatte u ydraBa.a A..0 a eau G +Mxld uy AmYlo °w r emrin56wG u fiAew 6 preASw+aa tr ryllya ow0. B nxLB L �irMx b una A+af w rusk aA. w M u [a Lsixe U. J STRUCTURAL STEEL a aaa 6tth w'M p:i.ILp51=rryll,.lttGTpa yuLl a Fa[mL ettx nR Hass eOnAd A�wL tr BraL mrsmGAwM tr M W[Aw,v pillNr[ ¢c+etL LVa a rwl Li CV4T 1Y r,wS[ a l X °" C.L p1 rn�'r'L1 � Sx.IL n eap r� °01 o'v`'c' R p++ L ' um r w wu"ia e:" oT n m aw. Af L -m' °u 6.ucn.ln x.,px eLe�la <o w p' m.wlrc rotund +.0 r r.xu.eoauq nBdn#�oA+IVnV �Aws witf fm6yr! PM .c01x6 alydae wArx L, a°M xu •tuvnA r.ow n. r9 4. STRUCTURAL LUMBER sra m y r.n n u 4PdNRiZti�ir w�rF n �o�Rzu w�srNG w �a �n oa x � wew°..i "'a'"er°�roM On Tn[rwAOn opAww m.Lr.m ».,,m. x xis��xC ` Jasrx a uLwnxrsn, > i :*I"o-L nn 6n �ia� u elu eiesaLO. x fR Wd mrveLSo- sixWl #6vALL a�B�LVA'�fLaryAhrMDl. wTO Vw 5. w INSULATION I IIATFAPROOFING !nti•'A[ nparwB pLina 1... pT— vum —11. n naia L xlU+m eL6ermeBe .+wemo d T.! °F.;wes MLinn x.xe.[TUUIe lW'IBLw.11nx Mn AAeaB FsraancRnonte u(fA a,wiatto o.tFnABa p °'w e.e .w6. nao 3x.33 s . LLA�° R. Wae..' aLaanw�.wennrww,ww.wsTe.,.00L[x aTV.se p5 B eLSe�rwR w um"w wn wn ei rlw w` x ITe:"a�n.p`"`"I Aau Aop • u «�w �o<�".I� 1 ,"`1,15 a: wB"� c pA MaAIm,MmnAmAS :waLaru�:m «eras. airr.L. M.xeamraA 6, MISCELLANEOUS �� vd+ p a +, pfrLtrMSF4L ROn0ma. m's.M iWMW x or SR[5 �ve T' .R+ic.M:e nlm m. wnels B Sn'i[RB npM eP w yxA wur a non° cr;, A Lp u4l¢uANxr�61 iB[iTMUMR ll M i RR [, ovx x M i eN � s wi Nilu ii wx wu n. a�av nrr•. L _ °tt noM�w Wuue x T >w�IX U�w.r n°sw�wx w� u n• tiaa of xwnq lietu�reo rt raxr n• rAw Luxnolrn ew, �` me mr.,� "wm:x eriwe� a.n i naeAi x Alm tae Awwm,L o- r`'A„rz wnM xr wa. °e.awxiwlAL.R•xaw4ra nlxr %n+/�PWrp 9' 0.4VKL 10 ut r S, 'ruA[n amen efaeLU �LVCO°na rx.,l L! �ianil[NS� N `�' ° `mma"a p TO aTfuo 1 KL oaAr,cB m'sAp AnB wq batK[ FAIGtlx. P1J W mµrxw+px n. Avx;y AwA'ro Bxr wan M wmv,lx an Wwsm,c.wr s ae.. B aeT- �� »rs� sr�e�iR� d ' a pdp0e 6.se rµu tae .v wrRlns .MlT.t 6.5[ v4a1 al.r�iau �rro as e Kr� �wrr. rx3'kT°at1 -1— TL'�.RLAA rB°pkr LA f newrr vudc�i0ela L._ rrvwrm wrenlrf Mc6mwrWN L rw Yw✓� a" iMTµABe IMAM[ _ x _ Me Mm — — lef rMR q o xi'4q ypT'• 4 f SUa! a6r, w xOW I I N 89 °58'55' E (ASSUMED) 200.09' WAS. 200.0' RECORD ra o j ii �ca�m0>va� 0 mll wGF.7 �✓� 25.06' �# ©ooa�w A I�Iw:a* o �rr>�rmm�aa�000�a X00 ©J0 =!• ��CFI.I�Ji:7•' o�m • ��]:arc�rrmrr�.Tw ©m { rviMNEY orn r6 Y Refir PRUPOSLD - a ©col �a�ii 6 w f newrr vudc�i0ela L._ rrvwrm wrenlrf Mc6mwrWN L rw Yw✓� a" iMTµABe IMAM[ _ x _ Me Mm — — lef rMR q o xi'4q ypT'• 4 f SUa! a6r, w xOW I I N 89 °58'55' E (ASSUMED) 200.09' WAS. 200.0' RECORD EUCLID AVENUE LIG HT & VENT S CHED U LE 'DOA! TITLE AREA REO " ALT RED "ALT RCAAR[S a.w _ .. I odc. I LOT 7 I CURB I I N 89 °58'55' E (ASSUMED) 200.09' WAS. 200.0' RECORD ra o j OUB sLKE u 25.06' � - I voo JdY LOT 8 { { rviMNEY orn r6 Y Refir PRUPOSLD - N L� 6 w V ADDITION 23,15 S LK A W. .SSA U'Y Ln I-- zs.r• I _ •. mhl,wlwe a n V , 4ry 1E %IS7[MG FRAME r` so.ro r°nrfe. A EXISTING a` S GARAGE TWO STORY BRICK & FRAME I To •• RESIDENCE 1 { . S,]n LJ .7 RA I z5.ns' o.2s• 66.51• P rl' CQBC, RIBSOry I ��rc vlloo 22rvce V _ cove. RIRRDry I LOT 9 I I I w N SITE LAYOUT Pn O ¢ . C'3 ° a y ' 1 © 8p (� 6 mQ s . I C YN Z O �AU O N ff z z k} ., -: AVE WWF � 9 : \ ! ur g § ■| 9 E |! � � \� ) \y2 ,@ ®\) (� § § \ �t § ! � • SOUTH ELEV TON «EST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION ,�,� . . p WALL SECTION $ 2 §qLw LL +CT:m UNE%CAVATE➢ W ' � � � GNE)fCAVA7EN w " FRU PLAN ire SI l u in �tMtIS b N Ga LM �1+.IX0 °M6rnlbt nry° N e ilr u,rume . Rn°x xm.wae n,re,u, a.el m.xm a v vw xaiwx n, ).,,m R., 4 ur. sl �, S6s'm+ -+ue sr)pes eai x Inwreo.r . wsx) wi ro vem ,s. ------------ Wv9. 64N 61� '� V !� pe xott v OPEN To AKVE y w # ___�&w+ { due wil _ »� »• -_. S fez w xQ �n � 5a �C �F eke g� 5d �. w -E R OOF PLAN ROOF VENT SCHEDULE w 19T FLOOR ELEC PLAN 2ND FLOOR EI_FC PLAN y nxe� r�ry `ro ee�`� °.� uid, eci � u� s A eu misr W i W er e er e emer ea, rare+ �eeo� ° :x`� ° r,a u ` riPeM1li]�iw�nS �ue �°� wrwiLUi�edhM[0 A -3 w " 2NR XL00R PLAN 5 w m 1ST FLOOR PLAN ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1108 NORTH ELMHURST ROAD, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, Ms. Linda Davis (Petitioner) has filed a petition for Variations with respect to property located at 1108 North Elmhurst Road ( "Property') and legally described as follows: Lot 8 in Block 1 in Wedgewood Terrace, a Subdivision of part of the east half of Section 27, Township 42 north, Range 11, east of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the Plat thereof recorded March 4, 1946 as document number 13732148, in Cook County, Illinois. Property Index Number: 03 -27- 305 - 014 -0000; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks Variations to (1) increase the floor area from 7,000 square feet (35 %) to 7,088.63 square feet (35.44 %) and (2) increase the overall lot coverage from 7,000 square feet (35 %) to 11,600.63 square feet (58.02°/x); and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Variations being the subject of PZ -32 -11 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 26 of January, 2012, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal on the 11th of January, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and negative recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees in denial of the requests being the subject of PZ- 32 -11; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the requests herein and have determined that the requests meet the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Variations to (1) increase the floor area from 7,000 square feet (35 %) to 7,088.63 square feet (35.44 %) and (2) increase the overall lot coverage from 7,000 square feet (35 %) to 11,600.63 square feet (58.02 %) for the two (2)- story building addition would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant Variations, to (1) increase the floor area from 7,000 square feet (35 %) to 7,088.63 square feet (35.44 %) and (2) increase the overall lot coverage from 7,000 square feet (35 %) to 11,600.63 square feet (58.02 %) for a two (2)- story building addition as shown on the petitioner's site plane prepared by Koziol Engineering Services dated December 12, 2011, a copy of which is attached to and made part of this Ordinance as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. �7 Page 2/2 PZ -32 -11 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 February, 2012. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H: \CLKO\ WIN\ ORDINANCE2\ Variations1108nelmhurstroadfeb ,2012.doc . ,, v>p. pFF r T ..F a,, p n v> n v T F F rT• F o� n v ns . 3 sit R R R i- ' g EiEgBaAR 9, s E toll i i 3 o i NI C x 13 F � . �� ¢ R P Ma t S� rn ° D Q C 1 � A o � 88 i� j r, 6. $ f @ E yE E R99 a FlSlS,R m 1a�i - �i 9 g e e i R T$ �t`3,# O 2 i iA aRY[BFFg ° # @$ a � 0 g °F a e x � Q � i ■@ � (�j g FR S z g ;3` ag F i7a� € f ^ ^[ ER R{( H R Y� # o € g C I 9 G a5 Re#s�eE aEfiA R $ i tp eeS a x R � Si. •� �� 1� � G$ Gf Y €�j yq m ¢ eE R g �itt 6 E f , : 6 2 a '�� 1� � o NI Ir $Riy S ig - RR� cs FS A Is 0 a R S g a; F 0 °07'21' E 99.71' MEAS. 100.0' RECORD k Ib. 4 4w 41.11' S x f p pill @ ! ik$ jSE i��d� LFFGGRG FFFFF�RA : I I I511 `s g • 'I .• F r 36.41' n 0 °07'21' E 99.71' MEAS. 100.0' RECORD k Ib. _ _�_ _ _r 30_EInLpING LIME r _ _- _ a ELMHURST ROAD 8F tF�� f R e a fit l 5 m C n r d D m z C m NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS � " am 6s I G41;f F,CI .. Sf' EF /O PVG ENGINEERING SERVICES Kn01ie D �MN� 6YDWFgA/D. -- FK +lFCVPSG T `� &T1DF h PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS DAMS RESIDENCE caDlmw- caF,cocu.- in°us•,•. Mount Pmspem lEnmis v me�.ir m~.n� w� usmr r:im�ul.r�e _'-10' EASENEN 41.11' rn _ D D. • 'I .• r 36.41' n z • 13 MIDO VAL Ln • Z. 410 u\ s• E 0^ pA N y m C X a Zp Z G M W X M W X � 35. 3' s �A� m__ N o mxn '� c _ D• .0 rn a m � r O ry o 0 e610 C A m f'1 O _ _�_ _ _r 30_EInLpING LIME r _ _- _ a ELMHURST ROAD 8F tF�� f R e a fit l 5 m C n r d D m z C m NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS � " am 6s I G41;f F,CI .. Sf' EF /O PVG ENGINEERING SERVICES Kn01ie D �MN� 6YDWFgA/D. -- FK +lFCVPSG T `� &T1DF h PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS DAMS RESIDENCE caDlmw- caF,cocu.- in°us•,•. Mount Pmspem lEnmis v me�.ir m~.n� w� usmr r:im�ul.r�e Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JANUARY 27, 2012 SUBJECT: PZ -31 -11 1701 E. PROSPECT AVE.1 AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & VARIATIONS (DENSITY & LOT COVERAGE)1 CONSTANTINE FOURLAS - PETITIONER The Petitioner previously received Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of a twelve (12) unit townhome development. The residential development was not constructed and the Petitioner now seeks to amend the original PUD from twelve (12) townhomes to twenty four (24) condominium units. The number of buildings, elevations, and site layout has not changed from the originally approved plan. However, an amendment to the original PUD and variations to density and overall lot coverage are now required in order to allow the revised proposal. A maximum of fourteen (14) dwelling units are permitted on the Subject Property. The Petitioner's revised proposal includes a density of twenty six (26) units per acre (24 units /0.92 acres), which exceeds the maximum density permitted within the R4 District. Therefore, the Petitioner seeks a variation to increase the density from the permitted fourteen (14) to twenty four (24) dwelling units. The Petitioner's proposal complies with the required fifty three (53) parking spaces, including five (5) guest parking spaces. However, a variation to lot coverage is required. The increase to lot coverage is due to the new guest parking spaces provided, which were not part of the original PUD. The Petitioner intends to use pavers for the driveway aprons and guest parking spaces. In addition to the proposed off - street parking spaces, there is currently on- street parking available on the north and south sides of Prospect Avenue (west of Edward Street). The Planning & Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the requests on Thursday, January 26, 2012, and by a vote of 6 -0, recommended approval of the following motions: 1} Amendment to the Planned Unit Development being the subject of Ordinance No. 5642 to allow the construction of twenty four (24) condominium units; 2) Variation to increase the density from the permitted fourteen (14) to twenty four (24) dwelling units; and 3) Variation to allow a fifty four percent (54 %) lot coverage, subject to the installation of permeable pavers as per the pavement exhibit prepared by HKM Architects + Planners, Inc., dated December 13, 2011, and the conditions of approval listed in the staff report for the property located at 701 E. Prospect Avenue. Details of the proceedings and items discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing are included in the attached minutes. PZ -31 -11 January 27, 2012 Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 7, 2012 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. Cooney, J , AICP MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -31 -11 Hearing Date: January 26, 2012 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 701 E. Prospect Avenue PETITIONER: 701 E. Prospect Avenue, L.L.C. —Constantine Fourlas PUBLICATION DATE: January 11, 2012 PIN NUMBER: 08 -12 -428 -004 -0000 REQUESTS: 1) Amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) from twelve (12) townhomes to twenty -four (24) condominium units 2) Variation to increase density 3) Variation to increase lot coverage MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist Leo Floros Jacqueline Hinaber, Alternate MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Constantine Fourlas, John Klimick, Mark Siviero, Carolee Esposito, Nancy Vincent, Bradley Lenz, Nicholas Marino, Tim Loucopoulos Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve the minutes of the December 8, 2011 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes were approved 4 -0 with Mr. Floros abstaining. Mr. Beattie arrived at 7:39 p.m. After hearing two (2) previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 31 -11, 701 E. Prospect Avenue at 8:02 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner for PZ -31 -11 was seeking to amend the Planned Unit Development from twelve (12) townhomes to twenty -four (24) condominium units and Variations to increase density and lot coverage for the property located at 701 E. Prospect Avenue. The Subject Property is located at the intersection of Prospect Ave. and Edward Street, and currently is vacant. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner previously received Conditional Use approval for a PIanned Unit Development consisting of a twelve (12) unit townhome development and a density of thirteen (13) dwelling units per acre. The residential development was not constructed and the Petitioner was seeking to amend the original PUD from twelve (12) townhomes to twenty -four (24) condominium units. An amendment to the original PUD and Variations to density and overall lot coverage are now required in order to allow the revised proposal Ms. Andrade showed a comparison of the original and revised site plans indicating that the only difference is five (5) guest parking spaces were added as part of the revised PUD proposal. The number of buildings and site layout would remain the same. As in the original PUD, the development would consist of three (3) principal buildings: one (1) building would front Prospect Avenue, another Edward Street, and the third building would front the existing alley. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 1 of 6 Ms. Andrade said the proposed building elevations match the original PUD's elevations. Each building would be constructed primarily out of brick and include a stone base and decorative trimming. The overall average height of the buildings would be thirty-six (36) feet and four (4) inches, which received zoning relief as part of the original PUD. Ms. Andrade showed a drawing that illustrated the proposed development looking south from Prospect Avenue. Ms. Andrade referenced the following table: Ms. Andrade said the table compared the Petitioner's revised Planned Unit Development with the Village Code requirements and the original PUD. The proposed buildings would comply with the setback Variations approved as part of the original PUD. With the addition of the five (5) guest parking spaces, the overall lot coverage increases to fifty -four (54) percent which requires Variation approval. Additionally, a Variation is needed to allow a density of twenty -four (24) dwelling units per acre when the Village Code allows a maximum of fourteen (14) dwelling units at the Subject Property, Ms. Andrade stated the Village's parking requirement for multi - family residential is two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit and one (1) guest parking space for every ten (10) required parking spaces. Therefore, the Petitioner's proposal for twenty -four (24) dwelling units would require a total of fifty -three (53) parking spaces, including five (5) guest parking spaces. The site plan indicated the development would comply with the required fifty -three (53) parking spaces. However, a Variation to lot coverage is required. In addition to the proposed off - street parking spaces, there is currently on- street parking available on the north and south sides of Prospect Avenue. Ms. Andrade said the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in' Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. A summary of the standards include: The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; Adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and Ms. Andrade stated Staff found that the request to amend the PUD is consistent with the original PUD approval and the Village Comprehensive Plan. The layout, bulk, and elevations match the original approval. The proposed access point has not changed from that of the original PUD either. The Petitioner still intended to eliminate the two (2) existing curb cuts off of Edward Street to provide one principal access drive into the development thus minimizing traffic congestion on Edward Street. The proposed land use as multi - family is a permitted use in the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 2 of 6 R4 District Minimum Requirements Original PUD _ LZoning Relief Granted Amendment to PUD Setbacks: Front Edward St. 30' 20' No change Exterior Side Yard (Prospect Ave.) 20' 12' No change Interior Side Yard Alle 10' 8' No change Rear 25' 15' No change Building Height 35' 36 No change Lot Coverage 50% 51.6% 53.69 Ms. Andrade said the table compared the Petitioner's revised Planned Unit Development with the Village Code requirements and the original PUD. The proposed buildings would comply with the setback Variations approved as part of the original PUD. With the addition of the five (5) guest parking spaces, the overall lot coverage increases to fifty -four (54) percent which requires Variation approval. Additionally, a Variation is needed to allow a density of twenty -four (24) dwelling units per acre when the Village Code allows a maximum of fourteen (14) dwelling units at the Subject Property, Ms. Andrade stated the Village's parking requirement for multi - family residential is two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit and one (1) guest parking space for every ten (10) required parking spaces. Therefore, the Petitioner's proposal for twenty -four (24) dwelling units would require a total of fifty -three (53) parking spaces, including five (5) guest parking spaces. The site plan indicated the development would comply with the required fifty -three (53) parking spaces. However, a Variation to lot coverage is required. In addition to the proposed off - street parking spaces, there is currently on- street parking available on the north and south sides of Prospect Avenue. Ms. Andrade said the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in' Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. A summary of the standards include: The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; Adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and Ms. Andrade stated Staff found that the request to amend the PUD is consistent with the original PUD approval and the Village Comprehensive Plan. The layout, bulk, and elevations match the original approval. The proposed access point has not changed from that of the original PUD either. The Petitioner still intended to eliminate the two (2) existing curb cuts off of Edward Street to provide one principal access drive into the development thus minimizing traffic congestion on Edward Street. The proposed land use as multi - family is a permitted use in the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 2 of 6 Ms. Andrade said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven (7) specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. A summary of the findings include: • A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; • Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and • Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner was seeking a Variation to increase the density from the allowable fourteen (14) to twenty -four (24) dwelling units. Per the Petitioner, the twenty -four (24) unit multi- family development would allow the project to be financed under the present economic housing market conditions. Staff was supportive of this Variation request as the proposed density would be consistent with the density found in the surrounding multi - family developments along Prospect Avenue. Developments adjacent to the west of the Subject Property include densities of twenty -eight (28), twenty -nine (29), and thirty-one (3 1) units per acre. Additionally, the proposed two and one half (2.5) story buildings would blend in with the neighborhood character as the surrounding apartment buildings along Prospect Avenue measure two to three stories tall. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner sought a Variation to allow fifty -four (54) percent lot coverage. The increase to lot coverage is due to the new guest parking spaces provided, which were not part of the original PUD. Per the Petitioner, pavers with a 0.80 runoff coefficient would be used for the driveway aprons and guest parking spaces. The Petitioner determined the runoff coefficient based on the Village of Winnetka's treatment of brick pavers. The Village of Winnetka considers only eighty (80) percent of an area covered with brick as impermeable surface. Staff was not supportive of the Petitioner's Variation request to lot coverage as the Village of Mount Prospect considers brick pavers as impervious. The Village of Mount Prospect's definition of impervious surface includes pavers. Ms. Andrade stated due to the presence of available on street parking on Prospect Avenue located adjacent to the development, Staff would be supportive of a Variation to reduce the required parking for the development from fifty -three (53) spaces to forty -eight (48) by eliminating the proposed five (5) guest spaces in lieu of the lot coverage variation. Guests of the development would be permitted to use the on- street parking per the Village parking regulations established along Prospect Avenue. Ms. Andrade said Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning approve an amendment to the Planned Unit Development allowing twenty -four (24) condominium units along with a Variation to increase the density as listed in the Staff Report. Staff also recommended that the Planning &Zoning Commission deny the Variation to increase the lot coverage also noted in the Staff Report. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers confirmed with Staff that the Petitioner has updated the plan from a two -story townhome unit to two (2) one -story condominium units. He asked if the second story unit would be supported by only one staircase /exit. Mr. Simmons stated that the Fire Department reviewed the proposed project and was comfortable with the one (1) staircase. He also said that the staircase would have to be sprinkled as well. Chairman Rogers stated his concern with increasing the density from fourteen (14) to twenty four (24) units. He asked Staff to clarify the parking situation and the motions. Mr. Simmons clarified that Staff would be supportive of a Variation to decrease parking by removing the five (5) additional parking spaces in lieu of the lot coverage Variation the Petitioner has requested. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Floros asked if the commuter parking on the north side of Prospect Avenue extended to where the Subject Property is located. Mr. Simmons stated no, it was just hourly parking in the immediate area of the Subject Property. Ms. Hinaber commended Staff for providing an alternative to the lot coverage Variation. She did not believe Eve (5) guest spaces were sufficient for twenty -four (24) units. She stated guests of those living in the proposed condominiums would be parking on the surrounding streets. Ms. Hinaber said Prospect Avenue was not very difficult to park on during the weekends. There was additional discussion regarding the density and parking. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioner /Co -Owner of the Subject Property, Constantine Fourlas, 2300 W. Diversey Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Fourlas stated that the additional five (5) parking spaces were added based on feedback from the neighbors who had parking concerns when the PUD was originally approved in 2007. He said that they tried to address the lot coverage issue with the proposed permeable pavers. Mr. Fourlas discussed that each condominium unit would have its own garage and storage unit. He explained how many of the existing condominium owners in the area utilize their garages as storage; not as a place to park. Mr. Simmons confirmed that the proposed development met the Village's parking requirements from a minimum parking standpoint. The proposed development requires two (2) parking spaces per unit (parking space in the garage and a space on the parking pad). Mr. Simmons stated the proposal with the five (5) guest spaces met the Code's requirements. Chairman Rogers questioned whether or not the five (5) additional spaces were required. Mr. Simmons said the Code requires one (1) guest space per every ten (10) spaces that is required. He stated that in order for the Petitioner to conform to the required number of parking spaces, additional lot coverage was needed. Staff was in favor of a parking Variation to eliminate the five (5) additional parking spaces to utilize the on -street parking. Thus, the lot coverage Variation would not be needed. Mr. Fourlas discussed how the real estate market has changed since the original PUD was approved. He stated there is more of a need for smaller two (2) bedroom units as compared to large townhomes. Mr. Fourlas said that everything is the same as the original PUD, with the exception of the townhomes that are now condominiums and there are five (5) proposed guest parking spaces. There was general discussion on the marketability of the condominium units. Mr. Floros asked what the price point would be for the proposed condominium units. The units will have (2) bedrooms, one (1) bath, approximately 1,000 square feet and would be sold between $175,000 and $200,000. Ms. Hinaber asked about the proposed bonus room on the ground floor. Mr. Fourlas stated that the bonus room could be sub - divided as additional storage for the two (2) property owners. There is no plumbing and electrical in the bonus room. Chairman Rogers swore in John Klimick, 706 E. Shabonce Trail, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Klimick stated that his townhome is part of the Shabonee Townhome Association that is directly south of the Subject Property, Mr. Klimick had concerns regarding the density and additional traffic within the alleyway. He said the parking is already an issue in the area. Mr. Klimick also mentioned concerns and beliefs that condominiums would attract more renters than owners. Chairman Rogers swore in Mark Siviero, 716 E. Shabonee Trail, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Siviero discussed the placement of five (5) parking spaces on the street for the Subject Property. He felt that his townhome association deserved additional parking since they only have one (1) parking space in the garage. He believed that if the proposal remained as townhomes it would raise the values of the surrounding properties. Chairman Rogers explained to Mr. Siviero that if the five (5) guest spaces for the proposed development were moved to the street, they would have to abide by the Village's overnight parking ban. Ms. Hinaber clarified by moving the guest Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -31 -11 PIanning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 4 of 6 spaces off of the Subject Property to the public street would not be striped only for the new condominiums. Ali residents and guests can park on Village streets during the day up until the overnight parking ban. There was additional discussion regarding the street parking and guest spaces for the proposed development. Chairman Rogers swore in Carolee Esposito, 712 E. Shabonee Trail, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Esposito had concerns with the Iot coverage. She wanted to know where the water would go if the lot coverage Variation was granted. Chairman Rogers stated this was why Staff presented the option of removing the guest spaces from the proposal to keep the lot coverage from increasing. Mr. Floros asked if there was a flooding problem in the area. Ms. Esposito stated that there has not been a problem so far. There was additional discussion regarding parking on Prospect Avenue. Mr. Simmons confirmed that there was two (2) hour parking restrictions along Prospect Avenue where the Subject Property lies. He said cars do park along Prospect Avenue, but Staff never saw the street fully occupied with parked cars during its review. Mr. Simmons said after 6 p.m., there are no hourly parking restrictions until the overnight ban goes in effect. Chairman Rogers swore in Nancy Vincent, 507 S. Edward Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Vincent stated that her property is located approximately five (5) houses south of the Subject Property. She said the design of the proposal would fit well within the neighborhood, but she did have concerns with density. Ms. Vincent also asked for clarification on where guests would be asked to park. Chairman Rogers stated wherever the closest street space is to the Subject Property/unit. Ms. Vincent wanted to know if there was a perceived parking issue, would the units be tougher to sell. She also questioned the traffic flow for the Subject Property and wanted to know if there was an entrance off of Prospect Avenue. Chairman Rogers said that the residents for the proposed development would enter off of the alley to the south of the property. There was additional discussion regarding the bonus room for the ground units of the proposed development. Chairman Rogers swore in Bradley Lenz, 718 E. Shabonee Trail, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Lenz had concerns with the additional density, traffic, and the size of the alleyway. He stated that parking can be tight at times. He wanted to know if there was a study completed how the proposed condominiums would have on the values of the surrounding adjacent properties. Chairman Rogers stated according to the plans submitted, the alleyway is twenty (20) feet. He understood that it may be tight, but it does allow for two (2) way traffic. Chairman Rogers swore in Nicholas Marino, 5800 Dempster Street, Morton Grove, Illinois, Mr. Marino stated that he owns four (4) townhomes that are rentals on Shabonee Trail. He believed the design and elements of the proposed development fit in with the surrounding properties. Mr. Marino discussed his real estate background and believed that if the townhomes were built as proposed in 2007, they would still be sitting vacant. He said the townhomes he rents has one (1) garage space and he has not heard any complaints regarding parking on the street. Mr. Marino believed the alleyway is adequate for the proposed development. Chairman Rogers swore in Tim Loucopoulos, 2300 W. Diversey, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Loucopoulos is a Co- Owner of the Subject Property and said the commercial building that once stood at 701 E. Prospect Avenue was approximately in the sixty -five (65) to sixty -six (66) percent range for lot coverage. Chairman Rogers asked if there was a preference for the location of the additional guest parking spaces. Mr. Loucopoulos said there were no issues with on- street parking on the Prospect Avenue or Edward Street side of the Subject Property. He stated the parking spaces were placed on the property with the pavers so there would be fewer objections. There was additional discussion regarding the brick permeable pavers. Mr. Floros asked if there was financing in place for the proposed project. Mr. Loucopoulos stated that there is preliminary financing in place. There was discussion on there being a current market for the type of housing that is being proposed. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 5 of 6 Chairman Rogers asked if there was consideration to put pavers in the driveways and parking spaces. Mr. Loucopoulos said the architect calculated only eighty (80) percent of the areas covered with pavers as impermeable to bring the lot coverage to the 51.6% as originally proposed. However, the Village Code does not define brick pavers as a permeable surface. Chairman Rogers believed the Petitioner would be under the fifty (50) percent Iot coverage if permeable pavers were used throughout the proposed development even though the Code does not give the Petitioner credit for the lot coverage. Mr. Loucopoulos said the Village's Engineering Division did not have enough time to review. There was additional discussion regarding the marketability of the overnight parking. Mr. Loucopoulos did not believe a potential buyer would pay more for a unit knowing there were five (5) overnight guest spaces. There was discussion regarding alternative pervious surfaces. Ms. Vincent felt better about the parking situation in the neighborhood knowing that many of the townhomes in the area only have one (1) parking spot. She discussed the limited visibility on Prospect Avenue due to the plantings that were recently placed in the median. Chairman Rogers said that median was not under their jurisdiction, but Staff would report to the proper department. Mr. Klimick stated that he was still concerned with the amount of traffic in the alley. He said he would feel better if there was another entrance for the proposed development off of either Prospect Avenue or Edward Street. Chairman Rogers closed the public portion of the case at 9:16 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. There was general discussion regarding the motions and conditions. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to approve a Variation to allow a fifty -four percent (54 %) lot coverage, subject to the installation of permeable pavers as per the pavement exhibit prepared by HKM Architects + Planners, Inc, dated December 13, 2011, and the conditions of approval listed in the Staff Report for the property located at 701 E. Prospect Avenue. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Hinaber, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None The motion was approved 6 -0. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Donnelly to approve an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development being the subject of Ordinance No. 5642 to allow the construction of twenty -four (24) condominium units and a Variation to increase the density from the permitted fourteen (14) to twenty -four (24) dwelling units. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Hinaber, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None The motions were approved 6 -0. The Village Board's Decision is final for this case Chairman Rogers asked if there were any citizens in the audience waiting to be heard. Hearing none, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Ms. Hinaber to adjourn at 9:21 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 6 of 6 A Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY PZ -31 -11 LOCA'T'ION: 701 E. Prospect Avenue PETITIONER: 701 E. Prospect Avenue, L.L.C. - Constantine Fourlas OWNER: Same as Petitioner PARCEL #: 08 -12- 428 - 004 -0000 LOT SIZE: .92 acres (40,486 sq.ft.) ZONING: R4 Multi - Family Residence LAND USE: Vacant . REQUEST: 1) Amend the Planned Unit Development from twelve (12) townhomes to twenty four (24) condominium units 2) Variation to increase density 3) Variation to increase lot coverage LOCATION MAP Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RICHARD ROGERS, CHAIRPERSON CONSUELO ANDRADE, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLANNER JANUARY 6, 2012 JANUARY 26, 2012 rr PZ- 31- 111701 E. PROSPECT AVE /AMEND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & VARIATIONS A public hearing has been scheduled for the January 26, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Constantine Fourlas (the "Petitioner "), regarding the property located at 701 E. Prospect Avenue (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking to amend the Planned Unit Development from twelve (12) townhornes to twenty four (24) condominium units and Variations to increase density and lot coverage. The P &Z Commission hearing was properly noticed in the January 11, 2012 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250 -feet and posted Public Hearing signs on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located at the intersection of Prospect Ave. and Edward Street, and currently is vacant. The Subject Property is zoned R4 Multi- Family Residence and is bordered by the R1 Single Family District to the east, R3 Low Density Residential to the south, and R4 Multi - family to the west. The Union Pacific Northwest rail road tracks are across Prospect Avenue, north of the Subject Property. SUMMARY OF REVISED PROPOSAL The Petitioner previously received Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of a twelve (12) unit townhome development. The residential development was not constructed and the Petitioner now seeks to amend the original PUD from twelve (12) townhomes to twenty four (24) condominium units. The number of buildings, elevations, and site layout has not changed from the originally approved plan. However, an amendment to the original PUD and Variations to density and overall lot coverage are now required in order to allow the revised proposal. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE PUD Proposal —As in the original PUD, the development would consist of three principal buildings: one building would front Prospect Avenue, another Edward Street, and the third building would front the existing alley. Instead of the buildings consisting of townhomes, each building would now consist of two - flats. The building fronting Prospect Avenue would include five two -flats (ten (10) dwelling units). The building fronting Edward Street would include four two -flats (eight (8) dwelling units). Finally, the building fronting the alley would PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 3 include three two -flats (six (6). dwelling units). Overall, the development would consist of twenty four (24) dwelling units. Each two -flat would have a separate entrance, two -car garage, and a two -car driveway. Densi - The R4 Multi- Family Residence District allows a maximum density of sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre for multi - family developments. Since the Subject Property measures .92 acres, a maximum of fourteen (14) dwelling units are permitted. The Petitioner's revised proposal includes a density of twenty. six (26) units per acre (24 units /0.92 acres), which exceeds the maximum density permitted within the R4 District. Therefore, the Petitioner seeks a Variation to increase the density from the permitted fourteen (14) to twenty four (24) dwelling units. Site Plan — The attached site plan matches the original PUD, with the exception of five (5) new parking spaces provided for guests. With the addition of guest parking spaces the overall lot coverage increases to fifty four percent (54 %) which requires Variation approval. ,Access to the development will be from the existing alley off of Edward Street. A twenty two (22) foot wide drive aisle would provide access to the garage and guest parking spaces. A Variation for the twenty two (22) foot wide drive aisle was approved as part of the original PUD. As shown, the driveway accessing the site will be required to provide a ten (10) foot turning radii and include curbs that allow for fire department access from all directions. In addition, the relocation of existing utility poles may be required. In order to comply with the Fire Department's requirements, the Petitioner shall ensure that a twenty (20) foot wide access road (alley) is provided. The proposed site plan indicates that the buildings would comply with the setback Variations approved as part of the original PUD. The buildings would be setback twelve (12) feet from the Prospect Avenue property line, twenty (20) feet from the Edward Street property line, fifteen (15) feet from the .west property line, and eight (8) feet from the south (alley) property line. The following table compares R4 District's bulk requirements with the proposed development. The site plan also indicates that a five (5) foot tall fence would be installed along the west lot line. The proposed five (5) foot height complies with the Village Code's maximum fence height allowed between two residential properties. Building Design — The attached building elevations match the original PUD. Each building would be constructed primarily out of brick and include a stone base and decorative trimming. As designed the end units would include a turret. The overall average height of the buildings is 36'4 ", which received zoning relief as part of the original PUD. The floor plans indicate each two -flat would consist of two garage parking spaces, storage space, and a bonus room on the ground floor. The second and third floors would consist of two- bedroom condominium units on each floor. Parking - The Village Code requires two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit and one (1) guest parking space for every ten (10) required parking spaces. The Petitioner's proposal for twenty four (24) dwelling units would require a total of fifty three (53) parking spaces, including five (5) guest parking spaces. The site plan indicates R4 District Minimum Requirements Original PUD (Zoning Relief Granted Amendment to PUD Setbacks: Front (Edward St. ) 30' 20' No change Exterior Side Yard Pros cct Ave. 20' 12' No change Interior Side Yard Alle 10' 8' No change Rear 25' 15' No change Building Height 35' 36 No than e Lot Coverage 50% 51.6% 53.6% The site plan also indicates that a five (5) foot tall fence would be installed along the west lot line. The proposed five (5) foot height complies with the Village Code's maximum fence height allowed between two residential properties. Building Design — The attached building elevations match the original PUD. Each building would be constructed primarily out of brick and include a stone base and decorative trimming. As designed the end units would include a turret. The overall average height of the buildings is 36'4 ", which received zoning relief as part of the original PUD. The floor plans indicate each two -flat would consist of two garage parking spaces, storage space, and a bonus room on the ground floor. The second and third floors would consist of two- bedroom condominium units on each floor. Parking - The Village Code requires two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit and one (1) guest parking space for every ten (10) required parking spaces. The Petitioner's proposal for twenty four (24) dwelling units would require a total of fifty three (53) parking spaces, including five (5) guest parking spaces. The site plan indicates PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January, 26, 2012 Page 4 the development would comply with the required fifty three (53) parking spaces. However, a Variation to lot coverage. is required. In addition to the proposed off-street parking spaces, there is currently on- street parking available on the north and south sides of Prospect Avenue (west of Edward Street). As shown, the guest parking spaces do not comply with the required parking lot setback. The guest parking spaces are setback approximately five to six (5 -6) feet from the west property line when the Village Code requires a minimum of ten (10) feet. If approved, the guest parking spaces will be required to be setback a minimum of ten (10) feet. Landscaping - The Petitioner's elevation and perspective drawings indicate foundation plantings would be provided. However, a landscape plan specifying the quantity and landscape materials for the overall development was not submitted. A detailed landscape plan that complies with Village Code will be required at time of building permit. Li htin - The Petitioner's site plan indicates wall mounted lights will be installed. The Petitioner did not submit fixture cut sheets or a photometric plan, which will be required at time of building permit and shall comply with Village Code lighting requirements. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING The Village Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as Multi - family Residential. The property is located along a collector street and it is adjacent to an apartment complex, townhomes, and single family residences. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Petitioner's request is considered a major change to the original PUD approval. In order for the Village to consider the Petitioner's request to amend the original PUD to allow twenty four (24) condominium units, the request is required to comply with the Village Code's PUD standards. The following list is a summary of these findings: 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. 2. The principal use in the proposed Planned Unit Development is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan of the Village for the area containing the subject site. 3. That the proposed Planned Unit Development is in the public interest and is consistent with the purposes of this zoning ordinance. 4. That the streets have been designed to avoid: a. Inconvenient or unsafe access to the planned unit development; h. Traffic congestion in the streets which adjoin the planned unit development; c. An excessive burden on public parks, recreation areas, schools, and other public facilities which serve or are proposed to serve the Planned Unit Development. Staff found that the request is consistent with the original PUD approval and the Village Comprehensive Plan. The layout, bulk, and elevations match the original approval. The proposed access point has not changed from that of the original PUD either. The Petitioner still intends to eliminate the two existing curb cuts off of Edward Street to provide one principal access drive into the development thus minimizing traffic congestion on Edward Street. The proposed land use as multi - family is a permitted use in the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 VARIATION STANDARDS Page 5 The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: • A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; • Would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; • Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and • Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to increase the density from the allowable fourteen (14) to twenty four (24) dwelling units. Per the Petitioner, the twenty four (24) unit multi - family development would allow the project to be underwritten under the present economic housing market conditions, which is desirous of smaller efficient' housing Iayouts. Staff is supportive of this Variation request as the proposed density would be consistent with the density found in the surrounding multi - family developments along Prospect Avenue. Staff reviewed the density of existing multi- family developments within the R4 Multi - Family Residential District Iocated to the west of the Subject Property, and found that the proposed density of twenty four (24) dwelling units would be in keeping with existing density. The development to the west (Timberiane Apartments) of the Subject Property includes a density of twenty eight (28) units per acre (72 units/2.56 acres). Moving west along Prospect Avenue, Prospect Garden Condos includes a density of thirty one (3 1) units per acre (40 units/1.30 acres). Finally, Bast Prospect Apartments includes a density of twenty nine (29) units per acre (24.81 acres). Additionally, the proposed two and one half -story buildings will blend in with the neighborhood character as the surrounding apartment buildings along Prospect Avenue are two to three stories tall. The proposed development would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. The Petitioner also seeks a Variation to allow a fifty-four percent (54 %) lot coverage. The increase to lot coverage is due to the new guest parking spaces provided, which were not part of the original PUD. The attached plans indicate pavers would be used for the twelve (12) driveway aprons and five (5) guest parking spaces. Per the Petitioner, the pavers would have a .80 runoff coefficient, which was based on the Village of Winnetka's treatment of brick pavers. The Village of Winnetka considers only eighty percent (80 %) of an area covered with brick as impermeable surface. Staff is not supportive of the Petitioner's Variation request to lot coverage as the Village of Mount Prospect considers brick pavers as impervious. The Village of Mount Prospect defines impervious surface as "a surface that has been compacted or covered with a layer of material so that it is highly resistant to infiltration by storm water. Such surfaces include hard pavements, such as concrete, asphalt, brick, slate, gravel and boulders; wood decks and structures." Due to the presence of available on street parking on Prospect Avenue adjacent to the development, staff would be supportive of a variation to reduce the required parking for the development from fifty -three (53) spaces to fourty -eight (48) by eliminating the proposed five (5) guest spaces in lieu of the lot coverage variation. Guests of the development would be permitted to use the on- street parking per the Village parking regulations established along this roadway. RECOMMENDATION The requests to amend the original PUD approval to allow the construction of twenty four (24) condominium units and Variations to density and lot coverage meet the standards for these requests as listed in the Zoning Code. Based on Staff's review of the lot coverage request, Staff recommends that the P &Z deny the following motion: PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 A. A Variation to allow a fifty four percent (54 %) lot coverage. Page 6 Based on Staff's review of the Amendment to the PUD and density, Staff recommends that the P &Z• the following motions: "To approve: B. An amendment to the Planned Unit Development being the subject of Ordinance No. 5642 to allow the construction of twenty four (24) condominium units; C. A Variation to increase the density from the permitted fourteen (14) to twenty four (24) dwelling-units, subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Development of the site in general conformance with the site plan prepared by HKM Architects + Planners, Inc., dated December 13, 2011; 2. Development of the units in general conformance with the floor plans prepared by HKM Architects + Planners, Inc., dated December 13, 2011; 3. Development of the building elevations in general conformance with the elevations by prepared by HKM Architects + Planners, Inc., dated December 13, 2011; 4. Submittal of a landscape plan that complies with Village Code; 5. Submittal of a photometric plan that complies with Village Code; 6. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval that include text stating on- street overnight parking is prohibited; and 7. The Petitioner shall construct all units according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: the installation of automatic fire sprinklers, fire hydrants and roads must be located and constructed according to Development and Fire Code standards." The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: William J. Co ney, AICP Director of Community D elopment HRLANTIanning &Zoning C0M W&ZgalELSraEfReponS%17,l1.1S 701 E.Prospect Ave(AW-APUP. VARs),doc �- VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Prosp COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT — Planning Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Zoning Request Application Z . Case Number _ r7 Interest in Property Owner Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 1 TDD 847.392.6064 Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 2 TDD 847.392.6064 LX] Emertyowner same as a licant i Name Telephone (day) L C Lot Area (Sq.Ft) Zoning District C C Corporation Telephone 40,486 R -4 PUD (evening) Use 28,464 Setbacks: Z Front p c Street Address Fax aa�a. 20'(@ Edward St.) 15' (@ Adjacent Property) 12' (@ Prospect Ave.) City State Zip Code Email Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 2 TDD 847.392.6064 Address(es) (Street Number, Street) . Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and How the Proposed Use Meets the Standards for the Zoning Request Approval (attach additional sheets if necessary) 701 E. Prospect (currently vacant, data based on current PUD) See attached sheet. o� Lot Area (Sq.Ft) Zoning District Total Building Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed 40,486 R -4 PUD 28,464 Use 28,464 Setbacks: Z Front Rear Side Side 20'(@ Edward St.) 15' (@ Adjacent Property) 12' (@ Prospect Ave.) 8' (@ Alley) H Building Height Lot Coverage ( %) Standard Parking Spaces Accessible Parking Spaces 36'4" 51.6 53 Not applicable Adjacent Land Uses: Z North . South East West B5 R3 R1 R4 Gn Property Index Number(s): 0 8 -- 1 2 -- 4 2 8 -- 0 0 4 - 0 0 0 0 (attach additional sheets if necessary) o W Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) See attached sheet. Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 2 TDD 847.392.6064 Proposed Use (as Iisted in the zoning district) R -4 PUD Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and How the Proposed Use Meets the Standards for the Zoning Request Approval (attach additional sheets if necessary) A See attached sheet. o� Z �o U Q Hours of Operation Residential use. Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 2 TDD 847.392.6064 w Address(es) (Street Number, Street) 701 E. Prospect Avenue p A Lot Area (Sq.ft) 40,486 Zoning District R -4 PUD Total Building Sq. Ft. 28,464 Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed Use 28,464 Setbacks: z Front ~" 20' (@ Edward St.) Rear 15' (@ Adjacent Property) Side 12' (@ Prospect Ave.) Side 8'(@ Alley) 0, Building Height 36 Lot Coverage ( %) 51.5 Standard Parking Spaces 67 Accessible Parking Spaces Not Applicable Z O � Developer Name Structures Construction LLC Address 43 South Vail Avenue Arlington Heights, IL 60005 Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 3 TDD 847.392.6064 a Please note that the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Community Development Department's Planning Division. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time of submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agent's permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affn7n that all informa ' provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best of my edge. fJ Applicant Date 12/15/11 Print N6me Constantine Fourlas If applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applicant t ct my agent for the purpose of seeking the zoning request(s) described in this application and the associated supporting mate lal. Property Owner Date 12/15/11 Print Name Constantine Fourlas Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 4 TDD 847.392.6064 Zoning Request Application (attached additional sheet) — 12115111 Legal Description LOT 8 IN GLEICH'S INDUSTRIAL PARK, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE WEST OF THE NORTHEAST' /4 AND PART OF THE WEST %z OF THE SOUTHEAST' /4 OF SECTIONI2, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO PLAT THEREOF REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ON AUGUST 6, 1957, AS DOCUMENT 1752354. TOTAL NET AREA: 40,486.9 SQ. FT. COMMONLY KNOWN AS: 701 PROSPECT AVENUE, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and How the Proposed Use Meets the Standards for Variations and Conditional Use Approval. Each building shall be two and a half stories in height and composed of two flat condominiums that from the exterior are indistinguishable from the original approved PUD (Ordinance No. 5642 817/2007). Of the three buildings, the one along Prospect Avenue shall contain five two flats, the building along Edward Street shall contain four two flats, and the building along the alley shall contain three two flats. In total among the three buildings there will be 24 condominiums. The total square footage has remained the same, 28,464. The proposed three buildings and activities shall be residential in nature. As per the Standards for Conditional Use Approval, this application complies as follows: 1. 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; 2. The conditional use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes to be permitted, and will enhance property values within the neighborhood; 3. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district; 4. As per the submittal and original PUD, adequate public utilities, access roads, drainage and for necessary facilities will be provided; 5. The elimination of two curb cuts and addition of private road ensures that adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion on public streets; 6. As per the Village's comprehensive plan the conditional use complies by a. Creating substantial common open space; b. Preservation of topographic and geographic features; c. New multi- family along major streets, and/or adjoining existing multi - family development; d. Includes distinctive landscaping and open space system as integral part of design; e. Medium density should be located near major activity centers as the development is within walking distance of the Village center; f. The development will reflect quality of design & construction; 4' 7. In all other respects the conditional use conforms to applicable regulations. As per the Standards for Variations, this application complies as follows: 1. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property do not cause a specific hardship; 2. Due to the specific row home design, the condition upon which the application is based is unique to the property and not generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification; 3. The purpose of the variation is not based primarily upon a desire to increase financial gain but to enable the project to be underwritten under the present economic housing market conditions, desirous of smaller more efficient housing layouts; 4. The hardship has not been created by an person presently having an interest in the property; 5. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood; 6. The granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as it will remain of a high residential quality consistent with the neighborhood; 7. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets (private interior street will absorb traffic), or increase the danger of fire, or impair natural drainage or create drainage problems on adjacent properties, or endanger public safety, or diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. oil 1 1 A ll 9 a n9 _ 90 z� y gA ° z d 4 s 40 g� o IM �z n *� 0 N 3� v : � Ill iii� • y� rF i ill 11 l SS i ANA{ � .� matt `�, q�ea �e ��ao0o0 •sit 11 l3 �� �� � R R kk RRRRkk�R iR CRR Rk RRR RRRRt+RR�d �R M A I R I F a,� s Ik' Ik STRUC ses cor4 Auc noN — M a n h a rd MOUPrr PROSPECT, ILLINOIS CONSULTING LTD . ...w TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY w"w.a- U] N O c 0 r 6 ? W N j Z > 2 -� 0 m D �r m m c mm j M c m C �n m > m n F 0 m Z m c z 0 0 0 mm m 0 0 I Z CO 0M C O Z -0 "i m O CD C `D m � _ m E� a 00 wS3 O O m v m m C C!a 0 z 0 mu c 0 C) 0 cn m u rn 0 C m If fit l it M 0 �tj fA rr C (D co n O 3 .�r r n O C v m r�r� gg xt 3�S�C v a c I >� R � - 2 0 o Z i i G O f � I f a a a a s. I f yCD -- - -- -- C. U7 m ' a S. EDWARD S7. e 1 . 1 2 y N �i 4 1 a U �� y co O ...... . . ... % x % M N j m M `. a � �p 7 gil l ¢er I R I � � �� � �4 4 21 � 2. g 3 P FF °� N R � � °a C: 0 c� gg g a U �� y co O ...... . . ... CO O N 0 O 7 N C a O r r n o `° CD c o =r a _ _ a r r CO) m 0 0 y rr C O r r n O 0 rF Q. O r rt O a if 4 ■ A 0 0 P m � K S A m . Z G y T �m 1 N c c m m n O c 0 r r n O C � 7 p C. CD O � r � R 0 =�o z � m �oQ K g 2 1 c C !D 0 O 7 O r r c� O O w 0 O 3 N of 4 R b_ gig STS fo p Structures Construction January 11, 2012 Consuelo Andrade Development Review Planner Village of Mount Prospect 50 S. Emerson Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 Re: Paver Background Information — 701 Prospect Ave., Proposed Revisions to PUD Dear Ms. Andrade: We request you disseminate the following attached information to the Commissioner's and Trustees to consider as part of their evaluation in regard to the "Pervious Pavement Exhibit' as part of the original submission package as prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, Inc and submitted to you on December 15, 2011. 1. Letter from HKM with their rationale behind the use of a 0.80 runoff coefficient. 2. Email from Brian Norkus, Assistant Director of Community Development at Village of Winnetka, citing language from the Village of Winnetka's zoning ordinance which dictates that pavers be counted at 80% of total area in regard to lot coverage. 3. Article from Stormwater Magazine, written by Bruce Ferguson, August 31, 2009 titled "Porous Pavements Q&A ", 4 pages total, http: l/ www. stormh2o .com /SW /Articles/7630.aspx Sincerely, Timothy Loucopoulos Member — 701 E. Prospect LLC 2300 West Diversey, Chicago Illinois 60647 P (773) 598 -8698 j F (773) 598 -4780 ARCHITECTS + PLANNERS, INC. ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE INFERIOR ARCHITECTURE Memorandum To: Tim Loucopoulos Structures Construction From: Mark Kurensky Date: 1 -06 -2012 Subject: Pavers The use of permeable pavers can provide many benefits to site development, including reducing stormwater runoff. A runoff coefficient (C value) is used to measure the percentage of water that runs off different surface types. There is no national standard we are aware of that qualifies a C value for permeable pavers. According to the City of Chicago* the following are typical runoff coefficients: Pavement -- asphalt 0.95 Pavement — concrete s Pavement — brick 0.85 ARCHITECTS + PLANNERS, INC. ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE INFERIOR ARCHITECTURE Memorandum To: Tim Loucopoulos Structures Construction From: Mark Kurensky Date: 1 -06 -2012 Subject: Pavers The use of permeable pavers can provide many benefits to site development, including reducing stormwater runoff. A runoff coefficient (C value) is used to measure the percentage of water that runs off different surface types. There is no national standard we are aware of that qualifies a C value for permeable pavers. According to the City of Chicago* the following are typical runoff coefficients: Pavement -- asphalt 0.95 Pavement — concrete 0.95 Pavement — brick 0.85 Pavement — gravel 0.75 Pavement — porous unit pavers 0.50 Turf — average slope (1 -3 %) 0.20 Turf — hilly slope (3 -10 %) 0.25 * City of Chicago — Chicago Green Home Program According to a national paving manufacturer,(Uniiock) permeable pavers have 0.00 runoff coefficient, until the permeable base reaches saturation. At this point in the rain event, the runoff would be limited by the existing soils under the base. As such, this would be the same as lawn elsewhere on the site. We believe the 0.80 runoff coefficient proposed is a very conservative approach to defining a C value for permeable pavers. 43 SOUTH VAL AVENUE ARIJNGFGN HEIGHTS, IlLINOIS6DDD5 P 32.92DD F 947.392 52 M, Porous Pavements Q &A J Articles J Stormwater September 2009 http:// www. stormh2o .com/SW /Articles/7630.aspx ?format =2 Porous Pavements Q &A Answers from the man who wrote the book on the subject Monday, August $1, 2009 By Bruce Ferguson Comments As the use of porous pavements grows, designers and agencies all over North America are teaming for the first time this new approach to stormwater management. People like me have been asked to speak to them hundreds of times in the last five years, in workshops, webinars, consulting sessions, and agency testimonies and reviews. The questions that are raised from all the diverse groups have a lot in common. Since 2005, 1 have saved 230 files of porous pavement questions conveyed in e- mails, telephone calls, and conference question -and- answer sessions. This article summarizes the questions that I have received most commonly over the years. My answers to them are based on 12 years of research and experience in the field, including surveying research reports, interviews with national experts, and firsthand observations in the field. There is a huge amount of knowledge about porous pavements now, and it is continuing to grow rapidly. The questions reported here are what people most frequently say they need to know. R$S Share Save Print Email Create a Link to this Article You may also be interested in... • Does Your Vegetation Establishment Practice Pollute Surface Waters with Nutrients? • CH2M Hilll Wins Project of Year Award • Staten Island Bluebelt Program: A Natural Solution to Environmental Problems • Private Facility Inspection and Maintenance: "Deluxe with Bacon" or "Maintenance Lite "? • Use of Innovative Tools to Increase Nitrogen -Use Efficiency and Protect Environmental Quality for Temperate and Tropical Regions • Pollutant Loading Analysis, for Stormwater Retrofitting in Melbourne Beach, Florida Q: Is there a recognized measure, or index, of permeability for paving materials? A: Pervious concrete and permeable pavers that are properly designed, installed, and maintained have surface infiltration rates of 140+ in /hr. An example of research suggesting this is "Study on the Surface Infiltration Rate of Permeable Pavements," accessible through the North Carolina State University Web site listed at the end of this article. Q: What is the runoff coefficient? A: Almost the only runoff coefficient that has ever been measured on properly built porous pavements is zero: There is no runoff, because the surface permeability is so high. But surface runoff coefficient does not take into account the limited capacity of the pavement's base reservoir: In a long, intense storm, the base could become saturated and overflow, either across the surface or through a perforated drainage pipe if one is provided. At that point, the pavement would in effect be generating runoff. So it would be prudent to use some positive number —not zero for the runoff coefficient. An example would be to set the runoff coefficient equal to that of the local jurisdiction's " predevelopment" condition, which might be forest, meadow, or grass. To assign a coefficient larger than predevelopment would be arbitrary. A predevelopment grass surface generates some runoff during large storms, so it provides a valid analogy for porous pavement hydrology. Q: How much credit should be given for the pavement as a "pervious" surface? A: Correctly designed, installed, and maintained pervious pavements have surface infiltration rates higher than that of almost any natural soil, and several times greater than the maximum possible rainfall intensity anywhere in the country —in other words, greater than anything that is already called "pervious." So a surface of this type must be f 1 of 6 1/4/2012 2:59 PM Porous Pavements Q &A I Articles I Stormwater http://www.stormh given complete credit for "100% perviousness," as would a meadow or forest. Giving it any credit less than 10Q% pervious would fly in the face of scientific evidence. Q: What is involved in maintaining the pavement: "right"? A: if you are in a municipality where sand or cinders are spread on the roads for winter traction, then vacuuming will be necessary at least once per year: in the spring, following snowmeit. The key word is vacuuming, with or without simultaneous washing, to lift material out and restore the open, permeable pores. Any washing or sweeping without simultaneous vacuuming would just drive sediment farther down into the pores. In areas where there is no.sanding or other routine source of sediment, no special maintenance is needed except when something happens such as construction vehicles tracking sediment onto the surface; then the sediment can be removed by vacuuming Q: Flow long will the system last before it becomes a "non- permeable" surface? A: Just make sure that your pavement is selected, designed, installed, and maintained correctly. If you are duly careful with all these steps, then the installation should be permeable indefinitely. Q. Pretreatment using a filter strip or vegetated Swale is required, right? A: Absolutely not: Don't do that! Any upstream soil, even soil that is grassed or mulched, can erode and generate pavement - clogging sediment sometime. Adding a grass strip or forebay would just add more erodible upstream soil. Wherever earth drains down toward a pavement edge, a swale should be added to divert runoff and sediment away from the pavement. It is okay to drain impervious roofs or pavements directly onto a porous pavement, because those surfaces don't produce sediment the way soil does. Q: Should porous pavement be avoided where trees are present? Should overhanging trees be removed? A: The only thing overhanging trees do to porous pavements is deposit their annual drop of organic debris. The debris decomposes to a minute fraction of the volume it started with. Vacuuming might be called for after a number of years, to reopen the pavement's pores. Trees are immensely helpful for water resource management, counteracting the urban heat island, shading urban open spaces, and absorbing carbon, and they should not be discouraged. Q: What is recommended when you have a large chemical spill or hazardous material spill? A: The same as if a spill occurred anywhere else in your city: Immediate and complete cleanup is the legal responsibility of the industry that spilled it, at their expense. No pavement or drainage anywhere is designed for this contingency, outside of the grounds of the industry that produces the chemicals. Q: What are the risks associated with hydrocarbon (oil) contamination? A: Letting oil into a porous pavement's voids is the whole idea in water - quality improvement. In the pavement, naturally occurring microorganisms 2 of 6 1/4/2012 2:54 PM Photo: Bruce K. Ferguson Permeable pavers in Minnesota correctly installed with highly permeable single -sized aggregate in the joints Porous Pavements Q &A I Articles I Stormwater http://www.stormh2o.conVSWIArticies/7630.aspx'?format- biodegrade hydrocarbons before they migrate to the bottom of the pavement. The constituents go off as carbon dioxide and water vapor, and very little else; the hydrocarbons cease to exist as water - quality pollutants. An example of the research suggesting this, accessible on several Web archives, is C. Pratt's 1999 paper, "Mineral Oil Bio- Degradation Within a Permeable Pavement: tong Term Observations." Q: What's the use of porous pavement on a clay soil, or where there is a shallow water table, and water cannot be absorbed into or treated in thesoil? Is a subdrain necessary to ensure good performance? Can a porous pavement work here? A: On clay soils, permeable pavements do not make the 100 -year stone disappear; a perforated drainage pipe is ordinarily required to discharge excess water. But most of the water - quality benefit of any permeable pavement occurs within the pavement structure, without regard to the underlying soil; the soil is only a redundant "backup" system. Porous pavements on clay soils do: • Reduce runoff coefficient and impervious cover • Detain peak flows • Treat water quality • Recharge aquifers by gradual infiltration of rainwater from small, frequent, year -round storms Q: What is the cost difference between standard and porous pavements in the same situation? A: Pervious concrete costs approximately 20% more than conventional impervious concrete, because of its high cement content and specialized quality control. Permeable pavers cost about the same as pervious concrete. When you use these materials intelligently in a site plan to absorb and treat stormwater, and the municipality gives you credit for their stormwater functions, then the use of porous paving ordinarily reduces total development cost by reducing or eliminating the need for additional stormwater facilities. Q: How does the use of pervious concrete affect the pavement life in cold climates? A: Properly installed pervious concrete is free from freeze -thaw issues as long as the surface concrete layer drains freely down into an open - graded aggregate base, thence rapidly into the soil or a perforated drainage pipe. The material's durability is ensured by adequate strength, which comes from proper installation; further help comes from air entrainment and reinforcement with polymer fibers. Q: Salt used for deicing... does it clog the paving? A: Deicing salt does not clog porous pavements. The whole idea of deicing agents is that they dissolve readily in snow and water, lowering the water's thawing temperature. The dissolved salt flushes through with meltwater and does not accumulate. Ongoing research at the University of New Hampshire suggests that many porous pavements require less salting than impervious pavements, because the thawed meltwater drains so readily away through the pores. Q: Do you use traditional trench backfill material under porous pavement, or do you use open - graded material instead? A: The base material must be open -graded (single- sized) aggregate such as ASTIVI No. 57, so it can store and convey water. Q: Are there standard specs (DOT type) for pervious concrete? A: The American Concrete Institute has adopted Specification 522.1, Pervious Concrete. In addition, the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association has a specialty certification program to help identify qualified pervious concrete installers. it is vital that industry standards such as these be followed— failures have occurred where established standards have been ignored. Q: we need options for cost, appearance, etc. 3 of 6 1/4/2012 2:59 PM Porous Pavements Q &A I Articles J stormwater http: / /www.stormh2o.com/SW /Articles /7630.aspx ?format A: A material that deserves to be used more is permeable pavers, also known as open jointed block or.PICP (permeable interlocking concrete pavement). These are manufactured units with openings in the joints where single -sized aggregate gives the pavement its permeability. Pavers manufactured to ASTM standards (as almost all of them are) are extremely strong and durable units. It is rather easy to install them correctly --just stick to the long - established guidelines of the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute. This is not the same construction as bricks on sand! Firmly specify that only single -sized aggregate must be used for the base, setting bed, and joint fill. Q: For what parts of the country are porous pavement available, in terms of freeze-thaw, etc.? What site conditions, such as soil type, limit its use? A: Properly selected, designed, constructed, and maintained porous pavements work wherever they are located. Improperly selected, designed, constructed, and maintained ones do not. Q: How widespread is this usage? How much (and how rapidly) is it changing? What is the future for widespread adoption? A: Porous pavements are still a small proportion of all the paving being done in the world, but they are growing at an exponential rate. Developers and suppliers are ready to install these new materials; their motivation is to meet today's environmental requirements in economical ways. The potential future application of porous paving is vast. Q: What can my municipality do to encourage the use of porous pavements? A: Make sure your municipality is not an unnecessary impediment. When a developer proposes porous paving, give it credit for what it can do to satisfy your stormwater requirements: It reduces impervious cover; lowers the runoff coefficient; and absorbs, detains, and treats stormwater. Q: Where might I find research reports? I need data. A: Watch Web sites such as the following for broad new information, links to detailed sources, and continuing updates: • Concrete Pavement Technology Center: www.cptechcenter.org (search for "pervious') • Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute: www.icpi.orq • PCA Southeast: www_secement.org /pervious concrete.htm • Pervious Concrete: www.perviouspavement.org • North Carolina State University: www.bae.ncsu.edu£nfo /permeable - pavement • University of New Hampshire: www.unh.edu /erg /cstev • Many additional Web sites run by proprietary suppliers Author's BiorBruce Ferguson is the Franklin Professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of Georgia and a member of Stormwater's editorial board. He is the author of the 2005 book Porous Pavements. 4 of 6 1/4/2012 2:59 PM Photo: Bruce K. Ferguson Avital step In correctly installing pervious concrete Is covering It quicklywith plastic sheets and keeping it covered for seven days. m Lin 'N' M) U) rn n Y es sg CD C d O C n Z r T C/) N C a G� V J ' Q / n �/ v ~ I J f n c� I '! NIP gap Q CL 0 ro Q LO rrb 0 a rb Q 4 C C r r �1 n n / 0 r Vl ~ m C/ ) CD =) rn o r in o V q T D i1 Z p M v p tJ7 C13 G') 9 m m �a - Na S V) � m 6 r rn m a Z G? Ln a Q 3 � n ~ o G1 rn � C Z CM n L/3 Andrade, Consuelo From: Janet Cook orcook914 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:12 PM To: Andrade, Consuelo Subject: Case PZ- 31 -11, aka 701 East Prospect Avenue LLC Planning and Zoning Commission 50 S Emerson Street Mount Prospect IL 60056 RE: Case # PZ -31 -11 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: Regarding your recent Notice of Hearing for the above -named case, I recommend denial of the Petitioner's request to a their planned unit development from 12 townhomes to 24 condominium units. Zoning Ordinances are designed to protect the community and should not be lightly set aside for the developer's benefit, allowing the developer to increase its profit margins by overbuilding the site. It would not be in the best interest of the community to allow the developer to overbuild the subject site, as the area immediately surrounding the subject site is already very densely populated. The subject site is located within the "block" bounded by Prospect Avenue, William Street, Sha -bonee Trail, and Edward Street, which currently houses a very large apartment complex, seven 4 -unit townhome buildings, and two smaller apartment buildings. The "alley" that opens /terminates between William and Edward streets already handles heavy traffic from the existing apartment buildings and townhomes. Allowing the Petitioner relief from the Zoning Ordinances for its proposed project would ultimately result in increased noise and congestion for the neighbors. Thank you, Janet Cook 500 S Louis, Mt Prospect IL 60056 This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Sccurity.cloud service. For more information please visit http: / /www.symanteccloud.com ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5642 RELATIVE TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) AND GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 701 EAST PROSPECT AVENUE WHEREAS, Constantine Fourlas ( "Petitioner'), has filed a petition to amend the Planned Unit Development being the subject of Ordinance 5642, approved August 7, 2007 for a Conditional Use permit in the nature of a Planned Unit Development and Variations with respect to property located at 701 East Prospect Avenue ( "Subject Property ") and legally described as follows: Lot 8 in Gleich's Industrial Park, being a subdivision of part of the West 1 /2 of the Northeast' /4 and part of the West ' /z of the South East % of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to Plat thereof registered in the office of the Registrar of Titles of Cook County, Illinois on August 6, 1957 as Document T1752354. Property Index Number: 08 -12- 428 - 004 -0000; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks an amendment to the Planned Unit Development being the subject of Ordinance 5642 to allow the construction of twenty -four (24) condominium units and Variations to: (1) increase the density from the permitted fourteen (14) to twenty -four dwelling units and (2) allow a fifty -four per cent (54 %) lot coverage; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request to amend the Conditional Use permit and to grant Variations being the subject of PZ -31 -11 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 26 day of January, 2012, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 11 day of January, 2012; 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 in support of the request being the subject of PZ- 31 -11; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the requests herein and have determined that the same meets standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed amendment to the Conditional Use permit and Variations would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant an amendment to the Planned Unit Development being the subject of Ordinance 5642 to allow the construction of twenty -four (24) condominium units and Variations: (1) to increase the density from the permitted fourteen (14) to twenty -four (24) dwelling units and (2) to allow a fifty -four percent (54 %) lot coverage, as shown in the petitioner's site plan prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, Inc., dated December 13, 2011 and made a part of this Ordinance as Exhibit "A ". SECTION THREE: Approval of the Conditional Use in the nature of the amended Planned Unit Development and Variations are subject to compliance with the following conditions: Page 2/2 PZ -31 -11 1. Development of the site in general conformance with the site plan prepared by HKM Architects + Planners, Inc., dated December 13, 2011; and 2. Development of the units in general conformance with the floor plans prepared by HKM Architects + Planners, Inc. dated December 13, 2011; and 3. Development of the building elevations in general conformance with the elevations prepared by HKM Architects + Planners, Inc., dated June 25, 2007; and 4. Submittal of a landscape plan that complies with Village Code; and 5. Submittal of a photometric plan that complies with Village Code; and 6. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval that include text stating on- street overnight parking is prohibited; and 7. The Petitioner shall construct all units according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: the installation of automatic fire sprinklers, fire hydrants and roads must be located and constructed according to Development and Fire Code standards; and 8. Installation of permeable pavers as per the pavement exhibit prepared by HKM Architects + Planners, Inc., dated December 13, 2011. SECTION THREE The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION 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 February, 2012. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H: \CLKO \files \WIN \ORDINANC\amendPUDC USE, VAR- 701eastprospectaveuejfeb2012 .doc R fi o 1S akivma3 'S d N' CO) cr �I I E ll, F 1 A /f a 7 � - o N W F 2 N S J J ' y C V L N C O U w a� L L v/ I co � I I I s 1.0 $It A RIn it N « II a x x x Q Nrr �O f N 7 7 o 1S akivma3 'S d N' CO) cr �I I E ll, F 1 A /f a 7 � - o N W F 2 N S J J ' y C V L N C O U w a� L L v/ MAYOR outit Prwospewct VILLAGE MANAGER lrvana K. Wilks Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES VILLAGE CLERK Paul Wm. I loefert M. Lisa Angell Arlene A. Juracek A. John Korn Phone: 847/392 -6000 John J. Matuszak Fax: 847 /392 -6022 Steven S. Polit TDD: 847 /392 -6064 Michael A. Ladel unuw.moun fl) roSneck.ore Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DAVID STRAHL, ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2012 SUBJECT: DESIGNATION OF PERMITTED INTERSECTIONS FOR CHARITABLE SOLICITATIONS AND OTHER RELATED CODE MODIFICATIONS PURPOSE To review the existing street solicitation regulations and to discuss possible solutions to the presented safety concerns for participants and motorists. BACKGROUND In February of 2010 the Village Code was modified to limit the number of street solicitation "Tag Day" permits issued to qualifying organizations to one (1) permit per calendar year. Since this time additional safety concerns have been identified. 1) Eligible organizations are able to request a "Tag Day" event throughout the year. Most organizations hold their event in conjunction with a nationwide, state or multi- community fund - raising campaign which occurs between March and October. However, there are organizations that apply for solicitation permits during the winter months, and with reduced visibility and hazardous road conditions there is a safety concern for the participants and motorists. 2) Street solicitation can be held at all street intersections where all traffic is required to come to a full stop. The concern is not all full stop intersections are conducive to the safety of the participants and motorists. An example of a hazardous intersection is one which has a high traffic volume or where vehicles travel at a high rate of speed. Also split jurisdiction intersections pose a safety hazard. While one municipality grants permission for solicitation the organization can solicit unannounced in the neighboring municipality by crossing the street. The proposed list of Permitted Intersections for solicitation is on page two (2) of this memo. 3) Currently, the application submission deadline is ten (10) days prior to the event. Normally organizations conduct a "Tag Day" in conjunction with a larger fund - raising campaign with a pre- determined date. This allows organizations to request a "Tag Day" permit months in advance of their event. However, an organization is also allowed to submit an application using the ten (10) day deadline. This leaves staff with limited time to properly prepare for the event and could negativity affect the safety of the participants and motorists if the application review process is rushed. DISCUSSION Therefore, to address the safety concerns associated with street solicitation activities staff recommends: 1) Permits shall only be issued for solicitation activities to be conducted during the period when Daylight Savings Time is in effect. (i.e. March 11, 2012 to November 4, 2012 or as amended by the appropriate designating body.) 2) Solicitation of contributions by charitable organizations shall be allowed upon the streets and highways within this village only at the following intersections and no others: Euclid Avenue & Wolf Road Kensington Road & Wolf Road Central Road & Prospect Avenue Main Street (Rte 83) & Central Road S. Main Street (Rte 83) & Prospect Avenue S. Main Street (Rte 83) & Northwest Highway Emerson Street & Northwest Highway Golf Road & Busse Road Dempster Street & Busse Road Algonquin Road & Busse Road 3) A written application, verified under oath, for a permit to conduct solicitation activities in any of the streets designated shall be filed with the Village Clerk at least thirty 30 days prior to the date such activities are to commence. These proposed modifications will enhance safety regarding street solicitation, "Tag Days." It is important that these events continue to be a safe venture the participants and motorists. Staff recommends favorable consideration of these proposed modifications. Appropriate staff will be available to answer questions and facilitate discussion. Respectfully, Alexander Bertolucci Administrative Intern 2 H: \CLKO \WIN \Alex Projects\ Memos \amendchapter23solicit02022012 .docx STREET SOLICITATION INTERSECTIO MAP T VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT KEY • PROPOSED NON - PERMITTED INTERSECTIONS PROPOSED PERMITTED INTERSECTIONS SEMINOLE LN �)* SPLIT JURISDICTION * * * •2) �3) CAMP MCDONALD RD �4) Lu Lu 5)� 6 ) * 7)* 8 ) * 3 ) * EUCLID AV 10) 11) 12)* • 13) f KENSINGTON RD • 19)* 15)& • f 16) 18) w •21) I _ 20) �2 y�� _� LL LU �0 28) 23)* 0 0) •31)* %%/ ?� %r I 27) CENTRAL RD U U: 32) 33) 0- , 0 34)* • 36) 35)* 0 PROPOSED NON - PERMITTED INTERSECTIONS: •37) 1) "RIVER RD & SEMINOLE LN • 2) "CAMP MCDONALD RD & SCHOENBECK RD 3) "ELMHURST RD (RTE 83) & CAMP MCDONALD RD 38) 4) "RIVER RD & CAMP MCDONALD RD 5) RAND RD & SCHOENBECK RD 6) "RAND RD & EUCLID AV 7) "ELMHURST RD (RTE 83) & EUCLID AV GOLF RD 8)'EUCLID AV & RANDHURST ENTRANCE n * 9) 'EUCLID AV WHEELING R L 10) EUCLID AV & SYCAMORE LN •40) 11) EUCLI D AV & BURNING BUSH LN 12) "RIVER RD & EUCLID AV 0 41) 13) ELMHURST RD (RTE 83) & RANDHURST ENTRANCE 14) ELMHURST RD (RTE 83) & RAND RD - - 15) MAIN ST (RTE 83) & KENSINGTON RD 16) RAND RD & KENSINGTON RD 17) KENSINGTON RD & RANDHURST ENTRANCE 18) KENSINGTON RD & WHEELING RD 19) "RIVER RD & KENSINGTON RD *0. 43)// ry 44) 45)* 20) MAIN ST (RTE 83) & GREGORY ST 42) ' 21) OL I • f JJ • ..• R D RD & BUSINESS CENTER DR DEMPSTER ST w 23) "CENTRAL RD & ARTHUR AV ' f "�l///! /� F 24) CENTRAL RD & BOSCH ENTRANCE - 25) "CENTRAL RD & BUSSE RD Q 26) CENTRAL RD & NORTHWEST HIMY 27) CENTRAL RD & OWEN ST 1 W �<CpN •46) 23) RAND RD & MOUNT PROSPECT RD V H 29) CENTRAL RD & MOUNT PROSPECT RD P ��N •47)* 30) RAND RD & CENTRAL RD � R 31) BUSSE RD & WESTBROOK SCHOOL ENTRANCE m 32) BUSS RD & LINCOLN ST = 33) ELMHURST RD (RTE 83) & LINCOLN ST 00 "MOUNT 34) MY RD & NORTHWEST HY PR HI W 35) "MOUNT PROSPECT RD & PROSPECT AV 36) ELMHURST RID (RTE 83) &COUNCIL TR 37) ELMHURST RD (RTE 83) & LONNQUIST BLVD 38) "GOLF RD & MEIER RD 39)'ELMHURST RD (RTE 83) & GOLF RD 40) BUSSE RD & WILLOW LN OAKTON ST •48)* 41) ELMHURST RD (RTE 83) & HUNTINGTON COMMONS RD 42)'ALGONQUIN RD & BRIARWOOD DR 43) ALGONQUIN RD & DEMPSTER ST 44) DEMPSTER ST & LINNEMAN RD 45) °ELMHURST RD (RTE 83) & DEMPSTER ST 46) ALGONQU IN RD & LINNEMAN RD 47) "ELMHURST RD (RTE83) & ALGONQUIN RD 43) E L MHURST RD (RTE 83) & OAKTON ST ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18 AND 23, AND APPENDIX A OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS, REGARDING SOLICITATION ON STREETS AND HIGHWAYS WHEREAS, Section 11 -1006 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (the "Code "), 625 ILCS 5/11 -1006, prohibits a person from standing on a highway for the purpose of soliciting rides, employment or business from the occupant of any vehicle, and from soliciting contributions from the occupant of any vehicle, except within a municipality which expressly permits the soliciting of contributions by municipal ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Code and its home rile powers, the Village of Mount Prospect adopted Section 18.1006, "Pedestrians Soliciting Rides or Business ", of Article 10, Pedestrian's Rights and Duties, of Chapter 18, Traffic, of the Mount Prospect Village Code (the "Village Code "), to prohibit such solicitation of rides, employment or business, and Article XV, Solicitation on Streets and Highways, of Chapter 23, Offenses and Miscellaneous Regulations, to permit certain solicitation of contributions; and WHEREAS, the President and Members of the Village Board have considered the safety of the solicitors and motorists, the orderly flow of traffic, and interference with the operation of official traffic control devices, and determined that Article XV of the Village Code shall be amended to, among other things, permit such activity only at certain intersections within the Village, and Section 18.1006 of the Village Code should be amended to clarify the prohibition of soliciting for employment, business or contributions. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, PURSUANT TO ITS HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION 1: Subsection B of Section 18.1006, "Pedestrians Soliciting Rides Or Business ", of Article X, Pedestrian Rights and Duties, of Chapter 18, Traffic, of the Village Code shall be amended by deleting the phrase "outside a business or residence district ", to be and read as follows: B. Except as may be provided otherwise in the Municipal Code of the Village of Mount Prospect, ati�s d ., business o side e° disc -:,et no person shall stand on or in the proximity of a roadway for the purpose of soliciting employment, business or contributions from the occupant of any vehicle. SECTION 2: Section 23.1501, "Street Intersections Where Solicitation Permitted ", of Article XV, Solicitation on Streets and Highways, of Chapter 23, Offenses and Miscellaneous Regulations, of the Village Code shall be amended by deleting the text in its entirety and replacing it with the following: 23.1501: STREET INTERSECTIONS WHERE SOLICITATION PERMITTED: Solicitation of contributions by fer charitable ^r a *her- tqa* f p - fi organizations, as hereinafter defined, shall be allowed upon the streets and highways within this village only at the following meet intersections .. h er-e all *raffi e i ° - 280354_1 1 Euclid Avenue and Wolf Road Kensington Road and Wolf Road Central Road and Prospect Avenue Main Street and Central Road S. Main Street (Rte 83) and Prospect Avenue S. Main Street (Rte 83) and Northwest Higliway Emerson Street and Northwest Highway Golf Road and Busse Road Dempster Street and Busse Road Algonquin Road and Busse Road SECTION 3: Section 23. 1502, "Organizations Qualifying for Street Solicitation ", of Article XV, Solicitation on Streets and Highways, of Chapter 23, Offenses and Miscellaneous Regulations, of the Village Code shall be amended as follows: A. Delete the introductory paragraph and replace it with the following: No organization shall conduct solicitation activities on or within any of the above designated meet intersections within the Village, unless such organization is: B. Insert the phrase "and in an amount not less than that set forth in Appendix A, Division I of this Code" in Subsection F, to be and read as follows: F. Able to furnish a valid certificate of liability insurance with an insurer approved by the Village and in an amount not less than that set forth in Appendix A, Division I of this Code naming the Village as an additional insured with respect to such solicitation activities; SECTION 3: Section 23. 1503, "Permit Required ", of Article XV, Solicitation on Streets and Highways, of Chapter 23, Offenses and Miscellaneous Regulations, of the Village Code shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: A. An organization eligible to conduct solicitation activities shall apply for a street intersection permit for such solicitation from the village cleric. The village cleric shall review the application for compliance with the eligibility requirements set forth in section 2 3. 15 02 of this article. B. No permit shall be issued unless all requirements are met. C. Not more than one permit shall be issued to any organization within any calendar year D. No permit may be issued for more than three (3) consecutive calendar days. E. Permits shall only be issued for solicitation activities to be conducted during Daylight Savings. SECTION 4: Section 23.1504, "Application ", of Article XV, Solicitation on Streets and Highways, of Chapter 23, Offenses and Miscellaneous Regulations, of the Village Code shall be amended as follows: A. Delete the phrase "ten (10)" in the introductory paragraph and replace it with the phrase "thirty (30) ", to be and read as follows: A written application, verified under oath, for a permit to conduct solicitation activities in any of the streets designated in this article shall be filed with the 280354_1 2 village clerk at least thirt y (30 days prior to the date such activities are to commence. Such application shall contain the following information: B. Delete the word "organization" in Subsection C, to be and read as follows: C. A statement of the statewide fundraising activity of which the local solicitation effort is a part. SECTION 5: Appendix A, Division 1, "Bonds, Salaries, Insurance and Miscellaneous ", of the Village Code, shall be amended by inserting the following, numerically, under Chapter 23, Offenses and Miscellaneous Regulations: Section 23. 1502, Organizations Qualifying for Street Solicitation C. Insurance —not less than one million dollars ( "$1,000,000 )per loss SECTION 6: 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 , 2012. Irvana K. Wilks, Village President ATTEST: Lisa Angell, Village Clerk 280354_1 3