HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. Old Business 02/21/2012Village 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
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
1A outit PrAoNspect 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. MaWszak
Fax: 847 /392 -6022
Steven S. Polit
TDD: 847 /392 -6064
Michael A. Ladel
www. noun fl) roSneck.ore
Village of Mount Prospect
50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2012
SUBJECT: DESIGNATION OF PERMITTED INTERSECTIONS FOR CHARITABLE
SOLICITATIONS AND OTHER RELATED CODE MODIFICATIONS
BACKGROUND
At the February 7, 2012 Village Board meeting staff presented recommendations to amend
Chapters 18 and 23 and Appendix A of the Village Code regarding Street Solicitation on Streets
and Highways. As part of the discussion several members from local charitable organizations
commented on the proposed revisions. While there appeared to be general support for the
revisions intended to enhance participant safety, the representatives indicated the elimination of
the high volume traffic intersections would significantly impact their fundraising efforts.
In consideration of the charitable organization's request to maintain their highest revenue
generating intersections the Village Board directed staff to re- evaluate those intersections as
permitted solicitation intersections.
DISCUSSION
At the request of the Village Board staff re- evaluated the list of intersections removed from the
list of permitted intersections. While the high traffic volume and complexity of these locations
are still considered high risk public safety intersections, staff reinserted the following locations to
the permitted intersection list. However, as these intersections are considered "cautionary"
solicitation locations, staff recommends appropriate re- assessment of these or any other
permitted solicitation intersection presenting safety concerns as warranted.
Elmhurst Road (Rte 83) & Rand Road
Main Street (Rte 83) & Kensington Road
Rand Road & Kensington Road
Central Road & Northwest Highway
Rand Road & Mount Prospect Road
Central Road & Mount Prospect Road
Rand Road & Central Road
Mount Prospect Road & Northwest Highway
Appropriate staff will be available to answer questions and facilitate discussion.
Alexander Bertolucci
Administrative Intern
H: \CLKO \WIN \Alex Projects \Memos \Tag Days \amendchapter23solicit02162012 (2).doc
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, eti s id e „ b ess r-e dis +r +, 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 €ef charitable organizations,
as hereinafter defined, shall be allowed upon the streets and highways within this
village only at the following sweet intersections
� a ftill Snap
280354_1 1
Euclid Avenue and Wolf Road
yLfl�a S6rG°o Whl 8 ") T�oa d
TU�'0 T�oa d rt
Kensington Road & Wolf Road
Central Road & Prospect Avenue
Toad & Norflm(G° q qu mal
Main Street (Rte 83) & Central Road
TU�'0 Toad & Nloll ab pro <q)ccr Toad
Toad & Nlolua pro q)s °rA I�oad
S. Main Street (Rte 83) and Northwest Highway
S. Main Street (Rte 83) and Prospect Avenue
Emerson Street and Northwest Highway
NlollW tiro q)ccr T�oadrte:NouVgm al
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 eha-: able a* gar pr-a& aFgatqiz4iatq or- a *her- „ 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
23.1502 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:
280354_1 2
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
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
a 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