Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4. NEW BUSINESS 10/15/02Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS PROJECT ENGINEER OCTOBER 10, 2002 SEPTEMBER SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING STOP SIGNS AT TIlE INTERSECTION OF COLUMBINE DRIVE, LARCH DRIVE & ONEIDA LANE The request for Stop signs at the intersection of Columbine Drive, Larch Drive and Oneida Lane was discussed at the September Safety Commission Meeting~ The Safety Commission denied request by a vote of 8-0. According to Safety Commission procedures, when the Safety Commission denies a request, the Village Board is notified of their decision via the Safety Commission Meeting Minutes. However, a petitioner has the option to appeal the decision, in which case the request is brought before the Village Board. In this case, Mr. Jim DeMar, the petitioher, has 'requested tl~at the Village Board reconsider the Safety Commission'~ decision. Following is the Safety Commission's recommendation. The Safety Commission transmits their recommendation to deny Stop signs at the intersection of Columbine Drive, Lurch Drive and Oneida Lane. Mr. Jim DeMar, 1515 N. Larch Drive, submitted a petition to the Village requesting consideration for Stop signs at the intersection and No Thru Traffic signs on Columbine Drive at Camp McDonald Road and on Alderman Avenue east of Wolf Road. A location map is attached for your reference. He believes the new train station along Wolf Road south of Camp MkDonald Road is the source of increased traffic in the neighborhood. His neighbors have also voiced concern over vehicle speeds and lack of courtesy by motorists. During the months of July and August 2002, Staff performed a traffic study of the intersection. Results show there have not been any accidents at the intersection over the past five years. Also, there are only approximately 700 vehicles per day (350 on Columbine Drive, 110 on Larch Drive and 240 on Oneida Lane) that enter the intersection. Average recorded speeds along the streets near the intersection are below the 25mph speed limit. Finally, there are no sight obstructions near the intersection that appear to limit drivers' view of oncoming vehicles. Staff sent out 14 surveys to residents who live within 200' of the intersection per the Notificatiori Policy. 4 surveys were returned to the Village. 2 responses supported Stop signs because of close calls at the intersection and the other 2 responses opposed any signs because of the lack of traffic. This issue was discussed at the September 9, 2002 Safety Commission Meeting. The petitioner, Mr. DeMar, and his wife were the only residents present to speak on the issue. Commission members dtscussed different options such as 1-way, 2-way and 3-way Stop signs as well as Yield signs. The issue September Sgfety Commission Meeting October I 0, 2002 of speeding ,,,.'as also discussed and different options the Police Department could implement to address this concern. In the end it was determined neither Stop nor Yield signs ~vere appropriate at the intersection but Commission members did support No Thru Traffic signs on Columbine Drive and on Alderman Avenue. By a vote of 8-0, the Safety Commission recommended to deny Stop signs at the intersection of Columbine Drive, Larch Drive and Oneida Lane but approve No Thru Traffic signs. Since the meeting, a No Thru Traffic sign has been posted on Columbine Drive and the CiD' of Prospect Heights has been requested to do the same on Alderman Avenue. Also, the Police Department set up the radar trailer along Larch Drive for a period of time and officers have been assigned to the neighborhood to perform speed enforcement. A couple of speeding tickets have been issued but overall there has been very little speeding observed by the Police Department. Enclosed are the Safety Commission Minutes from the meeting that go into greater detail describing the traffic study as well as the wan'ants and criteria for Stop and Yield signs. Also, a letter from Mr. DeMar ~s enclosed appealing the decision made by the Safety Commission. I would like to provide some background information concerning comments in Mr. DeMar's letter relative to this request. First, Mr. DeMar claims "the Safety Commission had already made a firm decision to not approve the Stop signs" before the meeting even started. The logistics of the evening was explained to Mr. DeMar as well as the process after the Safety Commission's decision. Both the approval process and appeal process were explained as is typically done with all requests brought before the Safety Commission. Second, the letter states "the Safety Commission made a recommendation to not install Stop signs and the floor was now open for discussion." As is routine with the Safety Commission meetings, only the Staff recommendation was made to the Safety Commission prior to discussion by the audience. The Safety Commission did not make any recommendations until the issue was thoroughly discussed. Third, Mr. DeMar claims he made the "request to review this intersection four months ago and the safety study was performed one and a half hours before the Safety Commission meeting." In addition to collecting volume and speed data for a week's period in July and August, measurements were taken at the intersection to identify any sight obstructions in August. Also, periodic morning, afternoon and early evening observations were made in July and August including one just prior to the meeting as is standard. Finally. the letter states "the petition shows a positive response from the area residents requesting Stop s~gns...". The standard petition form Mr. DeMar submitted simply showed there was support in pertbrming a traffic study at this intersection. When 14 surveys were sent to nearby residents to solicit their opinions, only 4 ;vere returned. And 2 of the surveys not only were opposed to Stop signs but were from residents who signed the petition. The Safety Commission based their debision on the curreht conditions at the intersection.' They did, however, agree to revisit this issue in a year to determine if conditions have changed such as the addition of train stops at the Prospect Heights Metra Station that may result in increased traffic in the neighborhood. eptember Safety Commission Meeting October IO. 20(32 Please include this item on the October 1Sth Village Board Meeting Agenda. Staff will be present to provide a brief overview of this issue and answer any questions from the Village Board of Trustees. Matthew P. Lawrie cc: Village Clerk Velma Lowe x fi its en gineer',tra fficXsa fecomm\recs&minXsept02 ree2.doc G[en R. Andler Sean R Dorsey M. L~sa Angell Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2229 Phone 847/870-5640 Fax 847/253-9377 TDD 847/392-1235 MINUTES OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION DRAFT CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Mount Prospect Safety Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on Monday, September 9, 2002. ROLL CALL Present upon rOll call: Absent: Others in Attendance: Chuck Bencic Lee Beening Joan Bjork Carol Tortorello John Dahlberg Buz Livingston Paul Bures Matt Lawrie John Keane Chairman Vice 'Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Police Department Fire Department Public Works Public Works/Engineering Division Commissioner See attached aRendance sheet APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Tortorello, seconded by Mr. Bures, moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Safety Commission held on June 10, 2002. The minutes were approved by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Keane arrived at 7:10pm. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD Mr. Chris Lenz, 214 S. Louis Street, wanted to thank Commissioner Beening for his years of service on the Safety Commission and his dedication to the Village. No further citizens came forth to discuss any topics that were not on the current agenda. OLD BUSINESS A) NO TURN ON RED SIGNS IN DOWNTOWN 1) Backg[ound Information At the June 10, 2002 Safety Commission Meeting, Mr. Norm Kurtz of 32 W. Busse Avenue requested the Commission consider posting No Turn on Red VrT~en Pedestrians Are Present signs in the downtown area to enhance safety for pedestrians. Staff was asked to inspect the area and provide the information back to the Commission. No Turn on Red signs exist for northbound and southbound Route 83 at Northwest Highway and for westbound Prospect Avenue at Route 83. No other such signs exist in the downtown area. Any new signs along Route 83 or Northwest Highway would have to be installed by EDOT as they have jurisdiction of the roads. The Village has jurisdiction over Emerson Street and Prospect Avenue. 2) Discussion Traffic Engineer Lawrie provided a brief overview of the existing No Turn on Red signs in the downtown area. Chairman Bencic asked if the Village has had other similar requests or concerns raised by other residents. Both Traffic Engineer Lawrie and Commander Dahlberg responded they were not aware of any recent incidences. After some more discussion, it was decided the issue should be revisited after more development of the downtown area has occurred. Commissioner Keane, seconded by Commissioner Bjork, moved to not take any action at this time but to have Staff monitor the issue over the next year and bring the item back to the Safety Commission in one year. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0. 2 B) l) SEE-GWUN AVENUE TRAFFIC Discussion Chairman Bencic provided Traffic Engineer Lawrie some traffic count data he gathered on July 23, 2002 while meeting with the resident at 502 See-Gwun Avenue. Other than one particular vehicle, the traffic volume and speed appeared to be typical for residential streets. Commissioner Keane too had spent some time observing traffic and did not see anything unordinary. Commander Dahlberg noted the Police Department has dedicated a significant amount of time monitoring traffic speed along See-Gm Avenue and officers have not seen an issue. Traffic Engineer Lawrie responded that Staff is planning to restudy the issue the week of September 16th. No more discussion took place on this issue. NEW BUSINESS A) REQUEST FOR TWO-WAY STREET DESIGNATION ALONG MAIN STREET 1) Background Information The driveway at 317 S. Main Street has direct access to Main Street between Route 83 and Lincoln Street. The block is currently posted one-way northbound. The property to the north has direct access to Route 83 and the property to the south has direct access to Lincoln Street. Mr. David Baird,.317 S. Main Street, requested:th, at:the .block become a two-way street so that he may have the opportunity to travel south on Main'Street. .: 2) StaffStudy Main Street between Route 83 and Lincoln Street is an asphalt road with curb and gutter. The width of the road is 25'. The block is posted one-way northbound. Also, there are No Left Turn signs posted for southbound Route 83 at Main Street and No Right Turn signs posted for northbound Route 83 at Main Street. In addition, left tums are prohibited for northbound Main Street traffic at Route 83 and at Lincoln street. Finally, parking is prohibited on the east side of the block and 2-hr parking is allowed on the west side. Legally, the property owner at 317 S. Main Street must drive northbound when exiting the driveway. At Route 83, the property owner can then only head northbound. This becomes an inconvenience when the destination is south of the house. The road is wide enough to handle two-way traffic. Therefore, to make it more convenient, it is reasonable to allow this block to be a two-way street designation. The sole benefit would be to provide the opportunity for the property owner to head south on Main Street to easier access the community. The turn prohibition signs on Route 83 would remain in place so as to not create a potential unsafe situation with turning vehielesat the intersection. At the intersection of Main Street & Lincoln Street, stop signs are posted for northbound, eastbound and westbound traffic. By allowing two-way traffic on Main Street between Route 83 and Lincoln Street, a stop sign should be posted for southbound traffic as well. 3 3) 4) A survey was not distributed as the property owner at 317 S. Main Street is the only affected party. Recommendation Based on the study performed by Staff: The Village Traffic Engineer recommends approval of eliminating the one-way street designation along Main Street between Route 83 and Lincoln Street and making it a two- way street designation; and installing a stop sign on southbound Main Street at Lincoln Street. Discussion Traffic Engineer Lawrie provided an overview of the report to the Commission. Commissioner Beening commented that with parking prohibited on the east side of the street along this block, allowing two-way traffic would require vehicles to be facing southbound when parked on the west side. This may be confusing as some motorists would continue to face northbound and park on the west side and others may turn around using the driveway at 317 S. Main Street and face southbound. Chaiman Bencic opened up the discussion to the audience. No one spoke on the issue. Chairman Bencic brought the issue back to the Commission. There was some discussion about the turn restrictions at the intersection of Route 83 and Main Street. It was decided that these signs would be left in place and no changes made. Chairman Bencic questioned whether a No Right Turn sign should be posted for southbound Main Street and Lincoln Street if the two-way street designation is approved. Traffic Engineer Lawrie agreed. There was some more discussion about modifyifi~ the parking restrictions for the block to make it safer for motorists. Also, after some discussion, it was decided no changes would be made concerning the driveway at 315 S. Main Street. Mr. Bures, seconded by Commissioner Beening, moved to approve eliminating the one-way street designation along Main Street between Route 83 and Lincoln Street and make it a two-way street designation; installing a stop sign and No Right Turn sign on southbound Main Street at Lincoln Street; prohibiting parking on the west side of Main Street beO, veen Route 83 and Lincoln Street at all times; and restricting parking to 2 hours on the east side of Main Street between Route 83 and Lincoln Street. The motion was approved by a vote of 8~0. 4 B) l) 2) REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONIROL SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLUMBINE DRIVE, LARCH DRIVE AND ONEIDA LANE Background Information Mr. Jim DeMar, 1515 N. Lamh Drive, is concerned with cut through traffic and would like to see 3-way stop signs at the intersection. He believes the new train station along Wolf Road south of Camp McDonald Road is the source of increased traffic in the neighborhood. His neighbors have also voiced concern over vehicle speeds and lack of courtesy by motorists. Staff Study The Engineering Staff performed a traffic study inclUding reviewing accident reports, gathering volume and speed data, identifying sight obstructions near the intersection, surveying the residents and monitoring cut through traffiC. There have been zero recorded accidents the intersection over the past five years. Representative speed surveys were performed at all three legs of the intersection between July 26~h and August 2ha, and between August 16~h and 23'°. The average speeds varied between 18- 21mph and the 85th percentile speeds varied between 23-26mph. The speed limit on all three streets is 25mph. Based on the results, there doesn't appear to be an overall speeding problem. However, the data did show some motorists did drive above the speed limit as is evident on most residential streets. Traffic volume data was guthemd in July and August. ' Based on the. results, there are approximately 700 vehicles per day that enter the intersection. 350 vehicles travel on Columbine Drive, 110 vehicles on Larch Drive and 240 vehicles on Oneida Lane. The peak hour of the day (typically 5pm-6pm) experiences approximately 60 vehicles that enter the intersection. A total of 14 surveys were sent out in August 2002 to collect the residents' comments on this request. 4 surveys (29%) were returned to the Village. 2 of the responses supported Stop signs because of close calls at the intersection and the other 2 responses opposed any signs because of the lack of traffic. Based on an inspection of the intersection, there is not any landscaping at any of the comers causing a severe sight obstruction. However, since this is an uncontrolled intersection, there is to be sufficient stopping sight distance for all three legs of the intersection. Stopping sight distance is the distance a vehicle travels from the point when a motorist sees an approaching vehicle on the cross street, reacts and comes to a full stop. A motorist should have enough clear vision to be able to stop, if necessary, before reaching the intersection. Our measurements show there aren't any sight obstructions near the intersection that should interfere in allowing a motorist to come to a full stop before reaching the intersection if necessary. The fact there hasn't been any accidents over the past 5 years supports this determination. The petitioner claims many motorists are avoiding the traffic signals at Camp McDonald Road and Wolf Road during peak travel times. ' As a result, the neighborhood is. experiencing cut through traffic. Looking at the volume data, {t appears the peak affei'noon hour (Spm-6pm) experiences approximately 15 vehicles traveling north on Columbine Drive and turning left onto 5 3) Larch Drive. The same volume is seen for motorists traveling east on Larch Drive and turning right onto Columbine Drive. This is not a significant amount of traffic. Also, many of the motorists may live 'in the neighborhood or have reason to be traveling on the st/'eets. This leaves only a few motorists possibly cutting through the neighborhood. Since the volume data was collected in the summer, most of the arterial streets such as Camp McDonald Road and Wolf Road typically experience below average volume. Cut through traffic may have been minimal during the study if the arterial streets did not experience significant back-ups during peak travel times. Should there be more cut through traffic at different times of the year, No Thru Traffic signs can be effective. While not necessarily enforceable by the Police Department since the streets in the neighborhood are public streets, the signs do deter some motorists from cutting through. Recommendation 3-xvay Stop signs are normally warranted at intersections where there is a condition of severely restricted view, accidents or a significant amount of vehicles and pedestrians. Based on an inspection, there are not any sight obstructions immediately at the intersection that would cause a full stop to be necessary at all times for all four directions. In addition, there have been 0 accidents over the past 5 years. In order to meet the criterion for a multiway stop sign installation, there is to be 5 accidents in a 12-month period. Finally, the peak hour of the day · ·.~experi'en~es~pproximately 60 :vehicles enteriXag..the' intersection.- In order leo meet the criterion, the volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches is to average 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of the day and 200 vehicles per hour for the same 8 hours from the minor street approaches. Based on the data, 4-way Stop signs are not warranted at this intersection. 1-way or 2-way Stop signs are normally warranted at intersections where the criteria for a 4-;vay Stop sign installatiofi is not met but where a full stop is necessary at all times on one street in order to clarify the right-of-way. As stated above, there are not any sight obstructions immediately adjacent to the intersection that would cause a motorist to have to come to a full stop in order to safely proceed through the intersection. Also, there is not'a significant amount of :.traffic at the intersection. A routine motorist: may become accustomed to not seeing any traffic at the legs of the intersection. This, in turn, may result in disobedience of a full stop by motorists creating a potential safety 9oncern for other motorists, and pedestrians. Motorists may also feel the need to make up for "lost" time after stopping at the intersection resulting in higher speeds at the midblock. Based on the existing conditions, 1-way or 2-way Stop signs are not recommended at this intersection. At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should be given to using less restrictive measures such as Yield signs. Yield signs assign right-of-way to traffic when the normal right-of-way rule appears to not be effective. 0 accidents i~ the past 5 years appears to reveal that motorists are safely negotiating driving through the intersebtion without Stop or Yield signs. Based on the speed data, motorists appear to have sufficient clear vision to come to a full stop before reaching the intersection if necessary. Based on the existing conditions, Yield signs are not recommended at this intersection. 4) Based on the traffic study performed by Staff, The Village Traffic Engineer recommends: denial of Stop or Yield signs at the intersection; but approval of a No Thru Traffic sign at Camp McDonald. l{6ad and Columbine Drive. Discussion Traffic Engineer Lawrie provided an overview of the report to the Commission. Commissioner Bencie opened up the discussion to the audience. Mr. Jim DeMar, 1515 N. Larch Drive, provided a brief power point presentation detailing his concerns with vehicle speed and cut through traffic, and emphasizing the need for 3-way stop signs at the intersection. Chairman Bencic brought the issue back to the Commission. Commissioner Beening commented that he believed Metra was planning to double the number of train stops at the Prospect Heights station over the next five years. He also mentioned he thought the bus stops at the intersection were after the morning rush hour. Commissioner Beenmg,eXplained to the audience how stop signs are not effective in controlling a speeding issue. Motorists may actually increase speed past'the intersection to make up for "lost time". Commander Dahlberg said the intersection of Basswood and Cree is a similar configuration to this intersection and has 3-way stop signs. He suggested that Mr. DeMar spend time watching traffic at that intersection and watch the number of motorists who disobey the stop signs. Stop signs are only effective when people obey them. That may be why the standards are so high to warrant 3-way stop signs explained Commander Dahlberg. He offered to have an officer meet with Mr. DeMar to monitor traffic speed to identify if them is a speeding issue. Chairman Bencic commented that stop signs at unwarranted locations can provide a false sense of security to pedestrians. Since the intersection has a bus stop, a child may cross the street assuming a motorist will stop if there is a sign posted. The safety of the child may be compromised if the motorist is used to not stopping at the sign. Traffic Engineer Lawrie explained the warrants for stop signs and how accidents are seen at intersections that have stop signs that may not be warranted. He also explained why uncontrolled intersections may be the appropriate decision if there is low traffic volume, low speeds and sufficient vision for motorists to react to oncoming vehicles. Mr. Bures noted that some issues are revisited as conditions Change. With more and more trains in the future, the traffic in the n~ighborhood may change. However,' based onthe current study, stop signs are not Warranted. Mr. Bures stated the Commission does not want to approve something that could possibly create even more problems. Some discussion took place regarding speed enforcement tactics such as use of the speed trailer, drone cars and actual radar enforcement to control any speeding concerns. Commander Dahlberg will set up a schedule and involve Mr. DeMar in the process. Commissioner Beening, seconded by Commissioner Keane, moved to deny Stop or Yield signs at the intersection; approve a No Thru Traffic sign at Camp McDonald Road and Columbine Drive; have Staff contact the City of Prospect Heights and request a No Thru Traffic sign be installed at Wolf Road and Alderman Avenue; and revisit the issue in a year. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0. c) l) 2) REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CON'It[OL SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF PINE STREET AND SHABONEE TRAIL Background Information Ms. Susan Cozine, 423 S. Pine Street, lives at the northeast corner of the intersection and believes many motorists are not aware it is an uncontrolled intersection since all of the other intersections along Shabonee Trail in the area have either Stop or Yield signs. She is aware of multiple accidents in recent years and is concerned for the safety of the families with young children in the area. Staff Study The Engineering Staff performed a traffic study including reviewing accident reports, gathering volume and speed data, identifying sight obstructions near the intersection and surveying the residents. There have been three recorded accidents the intersection over the past two years. Representative speed surveys were performed at all four legs of the intersection between August 16th and 23~a. The average speeds varied between 20-2mph and the 85th percentile speeds varied between 25-30mph. The speed limit on Pine Street and Shabonee Trail is 25mph. Based on the results, there doesn't appear to be an overall speeding problem. However, the data did show some motorists did drive above the speed limit as is evident on most residential streets. Traffic volume data was gathered in August. Based on the results, there are approximately 900 vehicles per day that enter the intersection. 250 vehicles travel on Pine Street and 650 vehicles on Shabonee Trail. The peak hour of the day (typically 5pm-6pm) experiences approximately 100 vehicles that enter the intersection. A total of 21 surveys 'were sent out in August 2002 to collect the residents' comments on this request. 10 surveys (48%) were returned to the Village. All of the responses favored either Stop or Yield signs because of speeding moforists along the streets and many children living in the neighborhood. 8 Based on an inspection of the intersection, there is not any landscaping at any of the comers causing a severe sight obstruction. However, since this is an uncontrolled intersection, there is to be sufficient stopping sight distance for all four legs of the intersection. Stopping sight distance is the distance a vehicle travels from the point when a motorist sees an approaching vehicle on the cross street, reacts and comes to a full stop. A motorist should have enough clear vision to be able to stop, if necessary, before reaching the intersection. Our measurements show landscaping near the homes and even the homes themselves at the intersection may not provide sufficient stopping sight distance for motorists. Therefore, Stop or Yield signs would assist in clarifying the right-of-way and possibly reduce the potential for an accident. Recommendation 4-way Stop signs are normally warranted at intersections where there is a condition of severely restricted view, accidents or a significant amount of vehicles and pedestrians. Based on an inspection, there are not any sight obstructions immediately at the intersection that would cause a full stop to be necessary at all times for all four directions. In addition, there have been 3 accidents over the past 2 years. In order to meet the criterion for a multiway stop sign installation, there is to be 5 accidents in a 12-month period. Finally, the peak hour of the day experiences approximately 100 vehicles entering the intersection. In order to meet the criterion. the volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) is to average 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of the day and 200 vehicles per hour for the same 8 hours from the minor street approaches. Based on the data, 4-way Stop signs are not xvarranted at this ~ntersection. 2-way Stop signs are normally ~warranted at intersections where the criteria for a 4oway Stop sign installation is not met but where a full stop is necessary at all times on one street in order to clarify the right-of-way. As stated above, there are not any sight obstructions immediately adjacent to the intersection that would cause a motorist to have to come to a full stop in order to safely proceed through the intersection. Also, there is not a significant amount of traffic on the major street (Shabonee Trail) during the day. A routine motorist on the minor street (Pine Street) may become accustomed to not seeing any traffic on Shabonee Trail at the intersection. This, in turn, may result in disobedience cfa full stop by motorists creating a potential safety concern for other motorists and pedestrians. Motorists on Pine Street may also feel the need to make up for "lost" time after stopping at the intersection resulting in higher speeds at the midblock. Based on the existing conditions, 2-way Stop signs are not recommended at this intersection. At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should be given to using less restrictive measures such as Yield signs. Yield signs assign right-of-way to traffic when the normal right-of-way rule appears to not be effective. 3 accidents in the past 2 years reveal this may be the case. Also, the speed data shows that because of the proximity of the homes to the intersection, motorists may not have enough time to see other vehicles on the cross street, react and stop before reaching the }ntersection. Motorists 9ontrolled by Yield signs would need to ,low down beforo reaching the intersection resulting in a shorter distance to come'to a full stop if necessary. Finally, when installed, Yield signs should be placed on the minor street. Similar to unwarranted Stop signs, Yield signs on major streets may lead to disobedience by routine motorists creating a potential safety concern. 4) Based on the traff~c study performed by Staff, The Village Traffic Engineer recommends: approval of Yield signs on Pine Street at Shabonee Trail. Discussion Traffic Engineer Lawrie provided an overview of the report to the Commission. Commissioner Bencic opened up the discussion to the audience. Ms. Susan Cozine, 423 S. Pine Street, said that between Route 83 and the park district pool, all of the intersections along Shabonee Trail are controlled by either Stop or Yield signs except for Pine Street. Many motorists traveling Shabonee Trail assume Pine Street traffic will stop. She explained there are many children living near the intersection and there have been recent accidents. Chairman Bencic brought the issue back to the Cornn~ssion. Commander Dahlberg noted that two of the three accidents involved residents in the neighborhood. Even though these motorists are aware this is an uncontrolled intersectiom it supports the belief there may be a sight obstruction issue that reduces the reaction time to avoid a collision. Commissioner Bjork, seconded by Mr. Bures, moved to approve Yield signs on Pine Street at Shabonee Trail. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0. COMMISSION ISSUES Chairman Bencic acknowledged this is Commissioner Beening's last meeting as he is moving to Indiana. He thanked him for his years of service on the Commission and to the Village. Traffic Engineer Lawfie presented Commissioner Beening a couple of street name signs with his and his wife's name on them as a token of the Village's appreciation. Chairman Bencic asked each of the Commissioners to consider a new Vice Chairman as Commissioner Beening is retiring. He asked that they approve a new Vice Chairman at the next regular meeting. No other Safety Commission items were brought forth at this time. 10 DJOURNMENT With no further business to discuss, the Safety Commission voted 8-0 to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. upon the motion of Commissioner Keane: Commissioner Tortorello seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, Matthew P. Lawrie, P.E. Traffic Engineer x:\files\¢ngineer~sa fecomm\tra£Ec~recs&min~scptO2min.doc 11 NAME VILLAGE DF MOUNT PRDSPEnT sAFETY CDMMI-m-~ION MEETING ATTENDANCE SHEET Sepfember 9, 2009 7:30 P.M. ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER Jim DeMar 1515 N. Larch Drive Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 September 14, 2002 Mr. Michael Janonis Village Manager Village of Mt. Prospect 100 S. Emerson Street Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 Re: Request to appeal Safety Commissions ruling regarding a stop sign request Dear Mr. Janonis: On April 24, 2002, I had sent a letter to Mr. Matt Lawrie at the Village of Mt. Prospect Public Works Department requesting the addition of three stop signs at the three-way intersection of Larch Drive, Oneida Lane, and Columbine Drive. On May 10, 2002, Mr. Lawri¢ihformed me that th~ ~illage would be'willing to perform a traffic study if ' there was interest from the area residents. The village must receive a petition form from the area residents with a m/nlmum number a signatures. On June 6, 2002, I submitted a petition form to the village with almOst triple the necessary signatures and a very positive response from the residents. On July 29, 2002, I received a letter stating the village is in receipt of the petition and will be performing a traftic study in the near future. Traffic counters were installed that week at the intersection to gather traffic information. I w~ also asked to make a presentation at the September 9, 2002 Safety Commission meeting. On S~I~tember 9a, I came home from work at 5:30 pm and noticed a village track and employee that was first performing an inspection of the intersection, an hour and a half before the Safety Commission meeting. When I arrived at the Public Works facility *hat evening for the .Safety Commission meeting I was greeted by Mr. Lawrie. After a very brief discussion of the meetings agenda, Mr. Lawrie informed me that ifI was unhappy with the Safety Commissions ruling that I could send an appeal to the City Council and continued to explain the appmpriale procedures. At this poim I felt that the Safety Commission had already made a firm decision to not approve the stop signs and I was very discouraged before the meeting even started. As the meeting progressed'the stop sign request wa~ discussed. The traffic study had' revealed there were no accidents al that intersection, there were no visual obstructions, r and the traffic count results did not warrant stop signs. With this information the Safety Commission mad~ a recommendation to not install stop signs and the floor was now open for discussion. ^i this time I asked ifI could make a brief presentafior~ I came prepared with my laptop computer and a projector. My first slide had shown a map of the neighborhood to familiarize everyone with the intersection. My presentation explained the reason behind the request for stop signs is due to increased traffic cutting through the neighborhood due to the two railroad crossings on Wolf Road and Camp McDonald Road. During rush hour there are several trains that stop at the Prospect Heights train station. When the trains approach the station the gates come down on Wolf Road and Camp McDonald Road. Theses gates stay down the entire time passengers are boarding and exiting th~train. During this time the intersection of Wolf Road and Camp McDonald Road is grid locked and traffic is severely backed up. After the train clears the intersection and the gates go up, it takes a couple of traffic light cycles to clear the backed up traffic from this area. While motorists are very impatient and frustrated they start to look for new ways to avoid this intersection. The new way to avoid this intersection is to use Alderman Avenue, Larch Drive, and Columbine Drive. The only intersection on this route that does not have any traffic control is the intersection of Larch Drive, Oneida Lane, and Columbine Drive. We now have an incmnse of fruswated drivers aggressively using this route and when motorists approach this intersection they fail to yield the right of way, look both directions, and several near accidents have been witnessed. Area residents have also complained about an increase in liter discarded in the parkways, which is clearly evidence of non-residents cutting throu~ the neighborhood. Several other safety issues were raised during my presentation regarding this intersection and the Safety Commissions Traffic Study did not reveal. This intersection serves as two '"" ' school bm stops, Holmes Middle-School-and-Wheeling.High .School. There is a hearing impaired child that lives close to this intersection, and there was recently an accident at Larch Drive and Alderman Avenue / Maya lane which is part of the new traffic cut through route. Previous requests have been made for stop signs at this intersection and that was before the new train station was in operation. Earlier this year another Larch Drive resident complained to.the police depathnent ab°ut an increase in traffic speed. The police department responded by placing a drone car and the speed radar trailer on Larch Drive for a week to increase traffic enfomement awareness and slow down traffic. At this time Commander Dalflberg asked ifa traffic speed study trod been performed on this Cut through route. The only traffic speed dam that had been collected during the traffic study was at the intersection of Lamh Drive, Oneida Lane, and Columbine Drive. At this point vehicles are already slowing down for the mm and the speed data collected is not accurate. Commander Dahlberg offered to place the speed radar trailer and a manned patrol car at different locations on the cut through mute during rush hour for the balance of the week. The very first day two tickets where issued. Two residents had also inquired with the police officer patrolling the area if he was addressing the safety issues at Larch Drive, Oneida Lane, and Columbine Drive. One resident said "I hope you do something with that intersection before somebody gets killed". The Safety Commission discussion came to an end, they decided to nqt install stops.and sugges!ed "No Thru Traffic" signs, at Columbine Drive and Camp McDonald, and Alderman Avenue and WolfRoad. The Safety Commission agreed to have these signs installed within ten business days. t this time, I would like to go on record to request an appeal of the Safety Commissions ruling regarding the stop sign request. As you can see there were several safety issues the Safety Commission was not aware of and I feel the Safety Study is incomplete and was not performed in a timely manner. I made my request to review this intersection four months ago and the safety study was performed one and a half hours before the Safety Commission meeting. When discussing my concerns with the commission I felt like I was talking to the village lawyers. The responses to my questions appeared to be addressing the villages' Iiability by making changes to this intersection. I have looked at other intersections in the village that fit the same criteria and they have stop signs. I feel the village has a greater liability having been notified of the safety issues at this intersection and choosing to do nothing about it. Another intersection was also discussed during the Safety Commission meeting. This intersection had three accidents during the last two years and the commission decided to install only a yield sign at that intersection. It's a shame that the village has chosen to wait for accidents, damage to vehicles, loss of property, and possible personal injury, all at the residents expense before the make safety improvements to the community. Another issue was discussed at the Safety Commission meeting regarding a resident complaining about the increased speed of vehicles traveling on his street. The commission went to the resident's house and spent one hour on one- day visually monitoring traffic and determined there was not a problem. It makes me wonder why the Safety Commission does not take residents seriously. I have lived in my neighborhood for nine years. I travel through the main entrance to Castle Heights every day, the intersection of Larch Drive, Oneida Lane, and Columbine Drive. This means at aminimum, I have. had th~oppommity to observe the traffic .at this '.m. tersection three thousand two hundred and ~ighty five times. Your traffic study fora few hours on one day, considerably less. Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to review this request. The petition shows a positive response from the area residents requestingstop signs and addressing the safety issues related to this intersection. Neighbors stopplng to talk with the police officer patrolling the area additionally confirm the residents concerns. With the additional railroad tracks under construction as I write this letter and the number of trains stopping at the Prospect Heights train station soon to increase, this problem will inevitably get worse in the .near future. I look forward to hearing from you or your office. Sincerely, Jim DeMar illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER . ]~)1 I FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2002 e~ SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE ORDINANCE NO. 5037 Attached to this memorandum is a request from Dennis Miller requesting an additional extension of Conditional Use Ordinance No. 5037. The Conditional Use Ordinance granted the right to construct a 5-unit townhome development at the SE comer of Emerson Street and Prospect Avenue. The Village Board previously granted a 6- month extension back on 4/16/02 and that extension would therefore expire on 10/16/02. The petitioner has indicated that he has been delayed on this project because he has been working on merging fomes with a new partner, Vail Development, to complete the project. They are nearly complete with the Village permitting process and have submitted a demolition permit to the County to demolish the existing garage structure on the property. Staff does not object to approving a 3-month extension that would provide the petitioner the opportunity to begin the project this year. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their October 15a meeting. Staffwill be present at that meeting to answer any questions related to this matter. ctober 10, 2002 Mr. Bill Cooney Village of Mt. Prospect 100 S. Emerson Mt. Prospect, fl 60056 Dear Bill, Due to poor econom/c cond/t/ons, I have merged with Va/l Development. A construction company besed in Mt Prospect. The main reason for the delay was the many details that had to be worked out between the two corporations. All Utilities in the gm'age have been turned off, and we have applied for a Cook County Demolition Permit. Demolition of the 8~'ase will occur within 60 day. Construction w/Il beg/n after permits are Thank you for you couperafio, Iff) Dennis P. Miller VWL 10/10/02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5037 GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 105 EAST PROSPECT AVENUE WHEREAS, Dennis Miller (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner), was granted a Conditional Use permit and Variation with respect to property located at 105 East Prospect Avenue, (hereinafter referred to as Subject Property); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is legally described as follows: Tract 1 All of Lot 1, Lot 2 (except the west 31 feet thereof) and that part of the west 31 feet of lot 2 and all of Lots 3, 4, and 43 taken as a tract, lying north of a line drawn 102 feet north of and parallel with the south line of lot 43, as measured along the west line of said Lot in Waldemar Krause's Addition to Mount Prospect in the E % of the NW¼ of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County Illinois. Tract 2 That part of Lots 2, 3, 4 and 43, taken as a tract lying north of a line drawn 102.00 feet north of and parallel with the south line of Let 43 in Waldemar Krause's Addition to Mount Prospect in the E % of the NW¼ of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, beginning at the northwest comer of said Lot 4, thence south along the west line of Lots 4 and 43, 166.67 feet to the south line of said tract; thence west along the south line of said tract 75.08 feet, thence north parallel with the west line of Lot 4 a distance of 103.77 feet; thence northeast 14.47 feet to a point on the north line of said tract that is 96.62 feet southeast of the northeast corner of said tract; thence northwest along the north line of said tract ¼ to the point of beginning, in Cook County Illinois. WHEREAS, Petitioner desires to create a Planned Unit Development providing for the construction of a five (5) unit townhouse development, with associated landscape improvements on the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, as provided in the Section 14.203.F.11 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, the Petitioner is required to complete any approved requests and all conditions within twelve (12) months of the approval of the said request, unless otherwise stated in approved Ordinance; and WHEREAS, Petitioner hereby requests an additional three (3) months from the date of approval of this Ordinance, in which to complete construction of the requested five-unit townhouse development and landscape improvements on the Subject Property, as stated in Ordinance No. 5037. WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have considered the requests being the subject of this Ordinance and have determined that the best interests of the Village of Mount Prospect would be served by granting to the Petitioner the Conditional Use permit and Variation extension, for a term of six months from this date of approval. 105 Prospect Ave. Page 2/2 WHEREAS, the Conditional Use permit and Variation are subject to all conditions as approved with the passage of Ordinance No. 5037 on August 17, 1999, to be completed within the designated six- month period. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That the recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION -I'~NO: That the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant an extension of the approved Conditional Use permit and Variation until January 15, 2003, as provided in Section 14.203.F.11 of the Village Code, to allow the Petitioner to meet ail requirements as set fodh in Ordinance No. 5037. SECTION THREE: 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 ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Fadey Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H :tG ENLfiles\WIN\ORDINA NC~Exien d Con Use105 ProspectAve twnhome,Oct,02.doc illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM· TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNI'I'~r DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 11, 2002 PZ-26-02 - CONDITIONAL USE (CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY) 216 YATES LANE NEBOJSA & SLAVICA ASANIN' APPLICANTS The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to deny Case PZ-26-02, circular driveway, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their September 26, 2002 meeting. a request gor a~'~ '~ The subject property is located on a local street in a residential neighborhood. Zoning Ordinance requires Conditional Use approval for new circular driveways. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the large amount of front yard lot coverage the proposed circular driveway would require. Also discussed was the fact that the request was driven from convenience, as opposed to resolving a safety concern. The Commission discussed alternative designs that did not require Conditional Use approval with the petfioners and noted that the alternatives could accommodate more vehicles and still be done in an attractive manner and preserve more of the front yard. The Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 7- 0 to recommend that the Village Board deny a request for a Conditional Use permit for the construction of a circular driveway at 216 Yates Lane, Case No. PZ-26-02. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their October 15, 2002 meeting. Staffwill be present to answer any questions related to this matter. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-26-02 Hearing Date: September 26, 2002 PETITIONER: Nebojsa & Slavica Asanin PROPERTY ADDRESS: 216 Yates Lane PARCEL NUMBER: 03-35-413-016 PUBLICATION DATE: September 11, 2002 REQLrEST: Conditional Use - Circular Driveway MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Men'ill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene ~umeek, Chairperson None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community planning INTERESTED PARTIES: Nebojsa & Slavica Asanin Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 22 meeting, seconded by Richard Rogers. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 25 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The August minutes were approved 4-0 with Rich Rogers, Matt Sledz, and Keith Youngquist abstaining. The July minutes were approved 6-0 with Joe Donnelly abstaining. At 7:57, after hearing another case, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-26-02, a request for Conditional Use approval to construct a new circular driveway. She said the case would be Village Board final.. Judy Counolly, Senior Planner, reported that the subject property is loeated on the west side of Yates lane, directly across from Jeffery Drive cul-de-sac. She said that the existing home on the subject property is currently set back slightly more than 30-feet from the front lot line and includes a standard 16.5' wide driveway. The petitioner is currently adding on to the existing house and the addition meets Village Codes, however, the circular driveway requires Conditional Use approval. She said that the proposed circular driveway measures 12-feet wide and would connect to the standard driveway. The standard driveway and circular driveway would cover 50.6% of the front yard, but the site complies with overall lot coverage regulations. Ms. Counolly said that in order to approve the Conditional Use, the driveway must meet the standards for a Conditional Use listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standards and reported that Staff evaluated traffic patterns in the neighborhood of the Subject Property, which is consistent with other requests for circular driveways. She said that in this case, Staff did not find that a circular driveway is needed to resolve traffic or safety issues since the Subject Property is on a local street, which typically does not have a high traffic volume. Also, this request is different from other circular driveway requests previously considered because the lot is not oversized or have an oversized lot width. A site visit confmned that the proposed circular driveway would not be consistent with the character of the neighborhood since it would require more pavement in the front yard than is characteristic Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-26-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 of other nearby properties. In addition, the Petitioner's reasons for requesting a circular driveway relate to the number of vehicles they own and for aesthetics associated with the addition. Ms. Connolly said that although the proposed circular driveway would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, it is not needed as a solution to a traffic safety issue or because the street has a substandard right-of- way or pavement width, which was the case in previous requests. She said that the Petitioner's reasons for the circular driveway are for convenience and that the circular drive would not be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, Staffrecommends that the Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to deny a Conditional Use for a circular driveway for the residence at 216 Yates Lane, Case No. PZ-26-02. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Richard Rogers said that based on the design submitted for review that the petitioner would probably get fewer cars on a circular drive than on the present driveway. Ms. Cormolly said she reviewed alternatives to the circular driveway with the petitioner before accepting the Conditional Use application. She said that one alternative was a wider, standard driveway and that the Zoning Ordinance permitted driveways up to 26-feet for the size of the petitioner's lot. Nebojsa & Slavica Asanin were sworn in. Mr. Asanin said there is no way to park four cars on their driveway and a circular drive would be useful when they have company and have to move cars around. He said that with the addition to the house that the house would be bigger and a circular driveway would be more proportional. They said they didn't want to remove a large tree from the front yard, which would be necessary if they made the driveway larger. Ms. Juracek said she agreed with Mr. Rogers that a 12' wide driveway would not allow easy movement of cars parked in the driveway. Keith Youngquist said if they made a 26' driveway starting at the northern edge of their current garage door and moved it towards the west property line it would be a wider driveway and could be done with brick pavers to be more decorative, and get more cars on the driveway than a circular one. He said that aesthetically, this would be a much better solution and that it would enhance their addition. Ms. Juracek agreed and said that they would have much more green space in their front yard. Leo Floros also concurred with the previous statements and said that he was sympathetic to their parking problem, but that the circular drive would not be wise from a planning standpoint. Mrs. Asanin said there were some circular driveways in the vicinity on the same lot size and asked when and why those had been approved. Mr. Floros said those driveways might have been in place when annexed into the Village or installed before circular driveway required special approval. Ms. Juracek said it was not productive at this venue to attempt to guess why those circular driveways had been approved. She suggested the petitioners research previous cases with the appropriate Village Depratment2 Ms. Juraeek closed the public hearing at8:13 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use to permit a circular driveway for the residence at 216 Yates Lane, Case No. PZ-26-02: Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-26-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Cotten, Dormelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, Sledz and Juracek Motion was denied 7-0. At 8:50 p.m., after hearing three more eases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Co~r}h611~,,[Sen'~or Pl~n~er y Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 26 -02 LOCATION: PETITIONERS: OWNERS: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: 216 Yates Lane Nebojsa & Slavica Asanin Nebojsa & Slavica Asanin 03-35-413-016 0.23 acres (10,166.25 square feet) R1 Single Family Residence Single Farrfily Residential Conditional Use - Circular Driveway LOCATION MAP Lowden Lane 213 212 211 210 209 208 207 206 205 204 203 202 ~201 200 305 222 303 220 301 218 215 214 213 212 211 210 209 208 207 206 205 204 203 202 201 200 Small Lane Thayer Street PZ-26-02 216 Yates Lane .~ Asanin Residence N Conditional Use - Circular Driveway Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 SUBJECT: PZ-26-02 - CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A CIRCULAR DRIVE 216 YATES LANE (ASANIN PdESIDENCE) BACKGROUNI) A public hearing has been scheduled for the September 26, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Neojsa & Slavica Asanin (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 216 Yates lane (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner has requested Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a new circular driveway. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the September 11, 2002 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 west side of Yates Lane, directly across from the at the Jeffery Drive cul- de-sac, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single Family Residence and is bordered by the RI district on ali sides. The existing home on the Subject P~:operty is currently set back slightly more than 30-feet from the front lot line (30.73') and includes a standard, 16.5' wide driveway. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL As illustrated in the attached exhibits, the Petitioner is currently adding on to the existing house. The ongoing addition and other site improvements meet Village Codes. However, the proposed circular driveway requires special approval. The proposed circular driveway measures 12-feet wide and would connect to the standard driveway, which measures 16.5-feet wide. The standard driveway and cimular driveway (which requires an additional curb cut on to Yates Lane) would cover 50.6% of the front yard. The street has a standard curb and gutter configuration. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE As previously noted, the existing home and addition comply with the Village's zoning regulations. The table on the following page compares the Petitioner's proposal to the bulk requirements of the RI Single Family Residence district. Z-26-02 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting September 26, 2002 Page 3 RI Single Family District Requirements Existing Proposed MINIMUM SETBACKS Front 30' 31' 30' Interior 10' or 10% of lot width 11' & 17' 10' & 17' Rear 25' 54' 50' LOT COVERAGE 45% 24% 31% CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.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 the parking section of the Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 14.2215.A.1). 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. As with other requests for circular driveways, Staff evaluated traffic patterns in the neighborhood of the Subject Property. In this case, Staff did not find that a circular driveway is needed to resolve a traffic or safety issue. Also, this request for a circular driveway differs from other requests previously c0n~idered, in that the Subject Propcnty does not have an unusually oversized lot width. A site visit continued that the proposed circular driveway would not be consistent with the character of the neighborhood since it would require more pavement in the front yard than is characteristic of other nearby properties. In addition, the Petitioner's reasons for requesting a circular driveway relate to the number of vehicles they own and for esthetics associated with the addition. RECOMMENDATION While the proposed circular driveway would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, it is not needed as a solution to a traffic safety issue and/or because the street has a substandard right-of-way or pavement width. The Petitioner's reasons for the circular driveway are for convenience, but the circular drive would not be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, the request fails to meet the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staffrecommends that the P&Z make a recommc~ndation to the Village Board to denv a Conditional Use for a circular driveway for the residence at 216 Yates Lane, Case No. PZ-26-02. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. 1 i iam . ooney, AICP, irectorofCommunityDeve opment VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT coMMUNITy DEVELOP~ ~EpARTMENT ~ Pl~n~ Di~i~i°n 100 S. Emerson Strcct Mount Prosl~ct, Illinois ~05~ Phone 847.818.53:28 FAX 847.818.5329 Application fOr Conditional Use Approval Case Number P~Z Developr~nt N~me/Address 'Dat~ of Submlss~i~n Hearing Date Address(es) (Stze~t Number, Street) Site Area (Acres) .PToperty Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) / ~t ~ l~.Sg Setbacks: Front Rear Side Side Lot Coverage (%) Number of Parki~ Spaces ~-~0 °/o Adjacent Land Uses: North I South Eas~, 1) ~4.TiA~ West Tax I.D. Numb~ or County Assigned Pin Number(s) Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) Nam~ Telephone (day) 1 Co.ration Tel~hone (ev~) S~et Ad'ss  Ci~ ~ S~ Zip ~o~ Pager Name Telephone (day) Slreet Address ~ax: C~ty ' State Zip Code Pager Developer N~m~e Telephone (day) Address ,,, Fax Attorney Nan~ Telephone (day) Address . Fax Surveyor Nam~ Telephone (day) Ax~tress Fax ....... Engineer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Architect Name X~ ~),,~ I/~ U~ T¢I~phone (day): Landu:a~e Ar~hiteet ! Name Telephone (day): Address .,, Fax Mount Prospect Deparm~nt of Community Development 100 South Ew.~rson Slreet, Mount Prospect Ill/nois www.mountprospect.org Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 n Proposed Co ~n~titi~nal Use ~as listed in the zoning district) Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities ProPOsed and HOw the Proposed Use Meets the Aliached Standards for Conditional Use Apl~val (allach additional sheets if necessary) Hours of Oporat/on -- ~/A Address(es) (St~*t Number, Street) Sq. Ft Deco,ed m Prope~ U~ Site Area (Acres) ~roperty Zon/ng Total Build/rig Sq. Ft. (Site) ~tgOJ~ ~ ~ {~ ' X* [~:~ ' ]~'~ ` 1('4~l~:~l*T' A*t Setbacks: Front Rear Side Side Buildint Height" Lot Coverage (%) Number of Park/ng Spaces Please note that the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all requ/rcd plans and other mate~als have been satisfactorily submitted t~ the PI~.-inS 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 compl~ess at t~ time of submlttal. In comiclerafion of thc information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested ~at approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the properly. The petitioner and the owner of the propen'y grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property du6ng reasom~ble hours for visual inspec~on of ibc subject property. I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application arc true and If applicant is not property owner: I hereby desig~nte the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) descn'bed in this application and fae associated supponlng material 100 South Emerson S~eet, Mount Prospect Illinois ~ Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospcct.org 3 TDD 847,392.606~ Describe in Detail the Buildings and ~lctivities Proposed and ttow the Proposed Use Meets the ~lttached Standards for Conditional Use ~ipprova~ Based on the Standards for Conditional Use Approval of the 7 items listed, the proposed circular ddveway for 216 Yates Lane, does not adversely affect any nearby properties or public properties. We moved to the Mount Prospect area 2 years ago and we find the area quiet, friendly and beautiful all four seasons. We are a growing family of 6, and we are planning to expand our existing 3 bedroom, 1 ~ bath home, to a 5 bedroom 2 '~ bath home. We find these improvements meet our needs and will greatly enhance the neighborhood. With the submittal of our plans for the new addition we wanted a circular driveway to balance out the appearance of the house fTom file outside. Not only is file circular driveway needed for aesthetic reasons, we own 4 trucks and a trailer and due to limited space in the existing driveway {30' x 16') we park the vehicles with hesitation each day, knowing that our children, guests, neighbors or even daily traftic could cause damage/harm to our vehicles or themselves. Parking on the city streets in the evening hours is not permitted and on many occasion our overnight guests find a ticket on their windshield. The circular driveway will be a combination bricldconcrete "Herringbond Design", as well we will landscape the surrounding area with shrubs and plants to further enhance the newly remodeled home. When we found out that we would need to go through an application process and a public hearing to get Conditional Use Approval for the circular driveway we hesitated a little and we thought about other altematives to the driveway situation. One suggestion was to widen file existing driveway a few feet. However, this would not work because there is a tree approximately 5 feet north of file driveway, and to widen the driveway would mean removal of this beautiful tree. If Conditional Use is not approved we have a suggestion to the city of Mount Prospect to allow parking on the streets, because eventually families of our size with children growing and wanting vehicles of their own will need to park them somewhere, especially if riley only have a 30' x 16' driveway. We enjoy living on the quiet, tree-lined street of Yates Lane and would like to remain here as long as we can. We firmly believe that file proposed circular driveway will not be an eye sore to the neighborhood but when completed will be more a work of art, inviting and a complement to file newly remodeled home. However, if Conditional Use is not approved you will leave us with no other alternative but to sell our home and relocate to another town that will be supportive in our efforts to beautify our home and their town as well. IND CATE$ EXISTING ! EXTENSIOI~ OF SECOND F~OOR TO REI'flAIN~ 25'-¢ REAF~ 5ETE~ACF-.. 24'--I 1/2' EXISTINr~ E, RIOK AND FP-C, ME MULTI-.5TORT I I 2"'['-¢ 112" I "" 12'-¢)' {2'-2, I/2" NEW SINGLE 5TORT' FRAME ADDITION EXTENSION OF EXISTING F I ~.,.~ T FLOOR -- NEtg SECOND FLOOR ADDITION NEW ~=XTE~IOR ENTRY 5TEF:'5 AND LANDING ":::~:: "T' A T E 5 L A N E ! ! ! I { oB I I ~ooo ~o xmnoo (> (moNm~ ~o ~Lvis I==~. OC = 4ou! ~- :=looS, ?SOB 2;~/OOO :oN J=PJO '3SNY'~)~ °S OV~YQ ~ P=~=P~O Z O&B .[0-1 w~ 10/10/02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2i6 YATES LANE WHEREAS, Nebojsa and Slavica Asanin (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioners") have filed a petition for a Conditional Use Permit with respect to property located at 216 Yates Lane, (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") and legally described as follows: Property Index Number: 03-35-413-016-000 Lot 210 in 3rd addition to Bluett's Fairview Gardens, being a subdivision of part of the E ~ of the SE ¼ of Sec. 35 Township 42 North, Range 11, E. of the 3rd Principal Meridian, according to plat thereof registered in the Office of the Registrar of Titles of Cook County, IL on January 19, 1962, as Doc4¢ 2016922 and Certificate of Correction thereof registered on March 14, 1962 as Doc# 2023843. and WHEREAS, the Petitioners are requesting a Conditional Use permit to construct a circular driveway; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for the Conditional Use permit being the subject of PZ-26-02 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 26th day of September, 2002, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 11~ day of September, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and negative recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees for the request being the subject of PZ-26-02; 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 same · meetS the standards of the Vi age. and that the granting of the proposed Conditional Use would be in the best interest of the Village: Page 2/2 216 Yates Lane NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE:. The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated 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 a Conditional Use permit, as provided for in Section 14.203.F.7 of the Village Code, to allow the construction of a circular driveway, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit '%." SECTION THREE: That 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 3rovided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED andAPPROVEDthis day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Fadey Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: .~DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COIvlMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 11, 2002 PZ-27~02 - CONDITIONAL USE (CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY) 115 S. BUSSE ROAD NICK & LIZ TSAMBARLIS - APPLICANTS The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-27-02, a request for a circular driveway, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their September 26, 2002 meeting. · The subject property is located on an arterial road, which is also under the jurisdiction of the Cook County Highway Department. The Zoning Ordinance requires Conditional Use approval for new circular driveways even though the circular portion of the driveway would be located 140-feet from the front property line and is accessed from Busse Road from a single curb cut. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the large lot size and Busse Road frontage, the deep set back, and traffic volume on Busse Road. They noted that the circular driveway would allow the petitioner to access Busse Road in a safe manner and provide guest parking off of Busse Road, which has a gravel shoulder in front of the Subject Property. The Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 7-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a Conditional Use permit for the construction of a circular driveway at 115 S. Busse Road, Case No. PZ-27-02. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their October 15, 2002 meeting. Staffwill be present to answer any questions related to this matter. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COM2MISSION CASE NO. PZ-27-02 Hearing Date: September 26, 2002 PETITIONER: Nick & Liz Tsambarlis 1423 Semar Court PROPERTY ADDRESS: 115 S. Busse Road PARCEL NUMBER: 08-11-100-014 PUBLICATION DATE: September 1 I, 2002 REQUEST: Conditional Use - Circular Driveway MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Yonngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Planning INTERESTED PARTIES: Nick & Liz Tsambarlis M. Hamvanich Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 22 meeting, seconded by Richard Rogers. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 25 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The August minutes were approved 4-0 with Rich Rogers, Matt Sledz, and Keith Youngquist abstaining. The July minutes were approved 6-0 with Joe Donnelly abstaining. At 8:14, after hearing two cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-27-02, a request for a Conditional Use to allow a circular driveway and said the case would be Village Board final. Judy Cormolly, Senior Planner, reported that the subject property is located on the east side of Busse Road, south of Central and north of Bonita. She said that the Petitioner proposes to demolish the existing home and construct a new home with a side loading garage and a circular driveway. Although the new driveway will maintain a single curb cut onto Busse Road, the proposed configuration of the driveway requires Conditional Use approval. The Petitioner states in the application that a circular drive is necessary for safety reasons and maintains that the circular configuration will allow them the ability to enter and/or exit Busse Road in a safe manner. Ms. Connolly said that the circular portion of the driveway will be setback 140-feet from the front lot line and will not be easily visible from Busse Road. She said that the Petitioner is in the process of designing the landscaping for the front yard and anticipates screening the circular portion of the driveway, which will be constructed with decorative pavers. Ms. Connolly reported that the new home and related improvements would comply with zoning regulations. She said that in order to approve the Conditional Use, the driveway must meet the standards for a Conditional Use listed in the Zoning Ordinance and then summarized the standards. Ms. Connolly reported that staffevaluated traffic patterns in the neighborhood. She said that Busse Road is a very busy road that has limited on street parking and that the posted speed limit is 35 mph. The subject property has Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-27-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 100-linear feet of frontage onto Busse Road, which exceeds the RX District's minimum requirement of 85-feet. Ms. Connolly said that the standard 22-foot wide driveway would have only one curb cut onto Busse Road and would cover 22% of the front yard. She said that this mount of front yard lot coverage is in keeping with the Village's policy of open, 'green' front-yards. Also, the circular portion of the driveway will be setback 140-feet from the front lot line. Ms. Connolly said the circular portion of the driveway would not have a negative impact on the adjacent area, utility provision or pubhc streets. The proposed Conditional Use would not affect the essential character of the neighborhood, nor would it have any significant effect on the public welfare. She said that Busse Road is designated as an arterial road and, therefore designed to handle greater traffic than a local road. Also, the limited on-street parking justifies granting the Conditional Use request. She said that based on these findings, Staff reco~mnends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to-approve a Conditional Use for a circular driveway for the residence at 115 S. Busse Road, Case No. PZ-27-02. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Jumcek said three differences distinguish this request from the previous circular driveway case: (1) the heavy traffic on Bussee Road, (2) the large setback, and (3) the amount of front yard coverage. Richard Rogers said the existing driveway serves the property to the south and asked what would happen to the shared driveway when the petitioner removed their portion of the driveway. Ms. Connolly said that the existing, shared driveway is 20' wide and that the petitioner will saw cut the 10-feet on their property and that the remaining 10-feet of driveway will continue to serve the adjacent property. She said that the driveway width meets code regulations. Liz & Nick Tsambarlis, 1423 Semar Court, were sworn in. Mrs. Tsambarlis said at present there is one driveway that splits to two. She said that they have a current plat of survey that shows the existing driveway and noted that it is split down the center, with 10-feet on their property and 10-feet on the adjacent property. They plan to put a new circular driveway to enable them to turn around in front of the home rather than backing out onto Busse. She said that this driveway would also provide parking for guests, which is not available on Busse Rd. Their property has 100' frontage on Busse Road and is 740' deep. Mr. Tsambarlis presented the Commission with the current plat of survey. Ms. Juracek remarked that the design was a creative use of the property. Mr. Rogers commented on the beautiful trees on the property. Ms. Tsambarlis said they would keep as many trees as possible. Mr. Floros asked how long they had lived on Semar Court. Ms. Tsambarlis responded 7 years and that they loved the neighbors, the area, and want to remain close by. Mr. Floros asked if the neighbor to the south had objections to the request. He was told that the Churoh had bought the property and that the pastor lives in it and has no objections. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Mr. Rogers said the new house is designed very well, that the deep setback from Busse Road and circular driveway with a single entry makes sense. He urged the petitioners to save as many trees as possible. Joseph Donnelly moved to make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use to permit a circular driveway for the residence at 115 S. Busse Road, Case No. PZ-27-02. Keith Yoengquist seconded the motion. la~'mg & Zoning Commission PZ-27-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 UPON ROLL CALL: Juraeek AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, Sledz and NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 8:50 p.m., after hearing two more cases, Joseph Dormelly made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY PZ- 27 -02 LOCATION: PETITIONERS: OWNERS: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: 115 S. Buss~ Road Nick & Liz Tsambarlis Nick & Liz Wsambarlis 08-11-100-014 1.69 acres (73,835 square f~et) RX Single Family Residence Single Family Residential Conditional Use- Cimular driveway LOCATION MAP Central Road Busse Avenue Semar Court Bonlt~Avenue 210 209 PZ-27-02 115 S. Busse Road ~ N Tsambarlis Residence Conditional Use - Circular Driveway Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 PZ-27-02 - CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A CIRCULAR DRIVE 115 S. BUSSE ROAD (TSAMBARLIS RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the September 26, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Nick & Liz Tsambarlis (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 115 S. Busse Road (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner has requested Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a new circular driveway. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the September 11, 2002 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staffhas 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 east side of Busse Road, between Central Road, and Bonita Avenue, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single Family Residence and is bordered by the R1 Single Family District to the east, west, and north and by RX Single Family zoning district to the south. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Petitioner proposes to demolish the existing home and cOnStruct a new home with a side loading garage and a circular driveway. Although the new driveway will maintain a single curb cut onto Busse Road, the proposed configuration of the driveway requires Conditional Use approval. The Petitioner states in the attached application that a circular drive is necessary for safety reasons and maintains that the circular configuration will allow them the ability to enter and/or exit Busse Road in a safe manner. The circular portion of the driveway will be setbaek 140-feet from the front lot line and will not be very visible from Busse Road. The Petitioner is in the process of designing the landscaping for the front yard and anticipates screening the circular portion of the driveway, which will be constructed with decorative pavers. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The new home and related improvements will comply with zoning regulations. The table on the following page compares the Petitioner's proposal to the bulk requirements of the RX Single Family Residence distri6t. PZ-27-02 Me~ting of September 26, 2002 Page 3 R1 Single Family District Requirements Proposed MINIMUM SETBACKS Front 40' 100' Interior 10' or 10% of lot width 10' Rear 30' 500' LOT COVERAGE .. 35% Less than 35% CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.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 the parking section of the Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 14.2215.A.1). 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. As previously noted, the proposed circular driveway will be located 140-feet from the front lot line. As with other circular drive requests, stalt has evaluated traffic patterns in the subject property's neighborhood. In this case, Bus.se Road is a very busy road, with limited on street parking (there arc portions of unpaved shoulder), and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The Subject Property has 1004i~ear feet frontage on Busse Road, which exceeds the R.X District's minimum requirement of 85-feet. The standard 22-foot wide driveway would have only one curb cut onto Busse Road and would cover 22% of the front yard (40'x100'). This amount of front yard lot coverage is in keeping with the Village' s policy o f open,' green' front-yards. The circular portion of the driveway would not have a negative impact on the adjacent area, utility provision or public streets. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be affected by the proposed Conditional Use, nor would it have any significant effect on the public welfare. Busse Road is designated as an arterial road and, therefore, is designed to handle greater traffic than a l?cal road. This, coupled with the limited on-street parliing, justifies granting the C0nditional Use request. Z-27-02 Me~tlng of September 26, 2002 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION The proposed circular driveway meets the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to .approve a Conditional Use for a circular driveway for the residence at 115 S. Busse Road, Case No. PZ-27-02. The Village Board's decision is final for this ease. ~illi~ J.~o~r ey,~( P,~DDi~eetor Of Community Development -VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - P~ Divisi°n 100 $. Emerson Sub-et Mount Pwspect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5528 1AX 847.815.$~29 Application for Conditional Use Approval ~ ~ Dnte of Submission ~ Heari~ Date Address(es) (S~reet Number, S~eet) Setbacks: Buil~ H~ ~t :ov~e (%) N~r of P~ ~a~u~: ~,.,A. ' , z Name Teleplmne (day) 0 Coq~afion " Telephone (evening) Street Address Fsx · · ~ ~'" 'S~t ,d~e~ . F~: - ~':: '""' ~0 .Ci~..'. .... ' "...': ".' .'.' '.' .' ."..' ,Sm~ .' .'~ "Zip Su~eyor ... ~' ~e ..:....... ; :; . <.".. ~_ .... ..-. N~ Tel~ho~ (~y) ........ Land*~ ~rchit~t N~ Tel~hone Mount. Prospect -Depm'tm~nt oF Commuaity Development I00 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Phone 84~.818.5325 reposed Conditional Use (as listed in the zoui~tg disUicO - es nbc m Detail the Bmldings and Aciiv~hes Proposed and How the Proposed Use Meets the Attached Standards for -- Conditional Use Approval (attach additional sheets ir'necessary) ~o~ o~r~aon ~ 0 Sito ~ (A~res) Pro~ ~g Total Bu~g ~. Ft. (Sito) Sq. Ft. D~vetod to Proposed Use  Front Re~ ' ' Si~ Side ' B~d~ He~t ~t Coverage (%~ _ Nmber of P~g Spaces Please note that the application will not be reviewed until ~ petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have b~n satisfactorily submitted to the planning Division. Incomplete submitaals will not be accepted. It is strongly sugge~ed that the l~fitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the ~ 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 thls request. The applicant is thc ownerorauthorizedrcprcsontativeOftbe owner ofthepmpeny. The petitioner end the owner ofthe property grant employees of the Village of Mount ProspeCt and their agents permissi0n t° enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby alTu'm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are hue and accurate to the best of my knowledge. .. I bereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting material. Property Owner Date Mount Prospect Department of Commtmity Development Phone 847.818.5328 I00 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 Ill Affidavit of Ownership COUNTY OF COOK ) ) STATE OF ILLINOIS ) I, the sole ail an authorized officer ofthe commonly described as , under oath, state that I am ) ) owner of the property ) and that such property is owned by as of this date. Signature Subscribed and swom to before me this . . day of ,20 Notary Public Mou~t Prospect Deparlment of Community Development Phone 847,818.5328 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 .I ? ? .. / ,L / Niclt & Liz Tsarabarlis 1423 Sernar Ct. Prospect, Il. 60056 847-952-8976 10/01/02 William J. Cooney, AICP Director of Community Development Village of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Dear Mr. Cooney, Ref: PZ-27-02 Conditional use (Circular Driveway 115 S. Busse Road) The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of our Conditional Use project for our circular driveway by a unanimous vote. Our Conditional Use request is scheduled to go before Village Board for the ordinance's first reading October 15, 2002. We are requesting that the Village Board waive the second reading, tentatively scheduled for November 6th 2002, and take final action at the October 15th meeting. We are anxious to start the project as soon as possible. I appreciate your assistance in facilitating this request. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact us at 847r952-8976. Sincerely, Nick & Liz Tsambarlis 115 South Busse Rd. Mt. Prospect I1. 60056 10/10/02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 115 SOUTH BUSSE ROAD WHEREAS, Nick and Liz Tsambarlis (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioners") have filed a -petition for aCenditional~Use permit with respect to property located at..~l ;15 South Busse_ T _~.~.~_ Road, (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") and legally described as follows: Property Index Numbers: 08-11-100-014-000 That par[ of Lots F and J in Kirchoff's Subdivision of the NW ¼ & the N. 10 chains of the SW ¼ of the NWl/4 of Sec. 11, Township 41 North, Range 11, E. of the 3rd Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the W. line of said Lot F 100'N. of the SWC thereof; thence E. on a line 100' N. of & parallel to the S. line of lots F & J, as measured on the W. line of said Lot F, 742.02' to the center of Weller Creek; thence Northerly along the center of Weller Creek 100' to a line 200' N. of & parallel with the S. line of Lots F & J, as measured on the W. line of said Lot F; thence W. on said parallel line 738.35' to the W. line of Lot F; thence S. on the W. line of Lot F 100' to the place of beginning. and WHEREAS, the Petitioners are requesting a Conditional Use permit to construct a circular driveway; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for the Conditional Use permit being the subject of PZ-27-02 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 26~ day of September, 2002, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount ProspeCt Journal & TopiCs on the 11th day of September, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and positive recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ-27-02; 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 same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Conditional Use Permit would be in the best interest of the Village. Page 2/2 115 S. Busse Road NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEE8 OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: 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 a Conditional. Use, as provided for in Section 14.203.F.7 ofthe Village Code, to allow the construction of a circular driveway, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: That 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 APPROVEDthis day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNrr¥ DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 11, 2002 PZ-29-02 - CONDITIONAL USE (PORCH) 1817 BONITA DRIVE NEUMANN & TENUTA- APPLICANTS The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-29-02, a request for an unenclosed covered porch, as described in detail in the attached staffreport. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their September 26, 2002 meeting, The subject property is located in a single-family residential neighborhood. The enclosure would be located in the center of the house and create a covered entry into the house. The porch would be constructed from cement and have wooden mil'rags and columns. The proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval because it encroaches four-feet into the front setback. In response to questions and cone, ems raised by neighbors regarding the size of the addition, the Planning & Zon'mg Commission noted that the proposed porch is the only aspect of the house that is under review for Conditional Use approval. The Co,,~,,ission confirmed that the porch would be done in a scale that is appropriate for the house and that it would balance the front elevation. The Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 7-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a Conditional Use permit for the construction of an unenclosed covered porch within 26 feet of the front property line at 1817 Bonita Drive, Case No. PZ-29-02. Please forward this menvylandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their October 15, 2002 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. ~' '~li~ '?rJ. (tooney, Jrt.," CP MINUTES OF TH~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-29-4)2 Hearing Date: September 26, 2002 PETITIONER: Frank Neuman & John Tenuta 204 S. Evergreen Arlington Heights., IL 60005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1817 Bonita PARCEL NUMBER: 08-10-209-001 PUBLICATION DATE: September 11, 2002 REQUEST: Conditional Use - Porch in Front Yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Cormolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Planning IAVI'ERESTED PARTIES: Frank Ncuman John Tenuta Chairperson Arlene Jumcek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 22 meeting, seconded by Richard Rogers. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 25 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The August minutes were approved 4-0 with Rich Rogers, Matt Sled~ and Keith Youngquist abstaining. The July minutes were approved 6-0 with Joe Dormelly abstaining. At 8:35, after hearing four cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-29-02, a request for a Conditional Use for a pomh to encroach 4' into the required front setback and said the case would be Village Board final. Judy Cormolly, Senior Planner, reported that the subject property is an existing home located at the southwest comer of Bonita and Hatlen Avenues. She said that the existing home is currently set back 30.05'from the front lot line. The petitioner is in the process of adding onto the existing structure and proposes to construct a 4'x9' unenclosed porch or portico. She said that the porch would be located in the center of the house and that the unenclosed, roofed stmcturc would encroach 4' into the required front setback, and that the stairs extend further into the setback. The stairs and service walk are permitted encroachments, and do not require any special approval. She said that the porch requires Conditional Use approval because it W~'ll encroach 4' into the 30' setback Other than the prbposed porch, the e~isting 'home and addition comply with zoning regulations. M~. Connolly said that in order to approve the Conditional Use request, the porch must meet the standards for a. Conditional Uselisted in the Zoning Ordinance. She 'summarized the standards and said that Staff found that the porch would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utilities or public streets and that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirernents. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-29-02 Page 2 Based on these findings, Ms. Connolly relayed Staff's recommendation that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board approve a Conditional Use permit for an unenclosed porch to encroach four-feet into the required front setback for the residence at 1817 Bonita Drive, Case No. PZ-29-02. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Keith Youngquist asked if the pomh/portico structure was part of the Building Permit application. Ms. Cormolly said when the Building Permit was issued, it was Conditionally Approved to allow a 5'x5' stoop. She said that another department reviewed the permit and was not sure of the details, and said that perhaps the petitioner decided the 5'x5' stoop was not a sufficient width and came forward for the conditional use at a later date. Ms. Connolly said that the Village has issued building permits for additions and allowed the work to proceed while the petitioner pursued Conditional Use approval for the porch. John Tenuta, 204 S. Evergreen and Frank Neuman, 2407 S. Cedar Glen Heights in Arlington Heights, and Joe Pisaro, 904 S. Roselle Road in Schaumburg, were sworn in. Mr. Tenuta explained that Mr. Neuman was originally going to live in the house, but it was larger than he requires so now they will sell it. Mr. Tenuta said the drawings submitted to the Building Division for review showed the portico and that they were under the impression that the portico shown on the plans met code regulations. Then it came to their attention that the size of the portico was beyond the 5'x5' approved by the Building Division. Mr. Tenuta said that they feel a portico larger than 5'x5' would look better and conform to the new home size. Mr. Tenuta said the house would not have EIFS as was originally approved and shown on the drawings. He said that they were informed that the Village was in the process of not permitting new buildings be constructed with EIFS in the near future, so he substituted all brick instead. Ms. Juraeek asked if the location of the porch/portico would be the same as the pre-existing porch. Mr. Tenuta responded yes. Mr. Tenuta said the original house had been 1,100 s.f. and the new addition would increase it to 3,500 square feet. Ms. Juracek pointed out that the R-1 zoning permits 45% lot coverage and that this home would have 36% coverage and that the setbacks meet the requirements and only the porch needs the Conditional Use approval. Mr. Rogers asked if they understood and would inform the ftrmre buyers of the house, that the porch could never be ~nclosed. Mr. Tenuta responded yes. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience had come to address this case. Dale Draznin, 220 S. Hatien, was sworn in. She said that her home was kitty comer to this house and that the neighborhood is an area of smaller homes and larger yards. She said that this is now an extremely large home with very little yard. She said since the house was being allowed to have such a large addition that the porch should be confined to what Village Codes requires. Ms. Draznin said that the house was too big and detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Juracek said the Conditional Use would be for the porch portion only. She said that the other part of the addition was within Code and permitted by fight, She asked for the size of the new porch and was told 6'x9' and that the old one had been 5'x5'.- She asked if figs had really been a tear down or an addition. The three builders responded it w~ an addition and that they had kept the same walls and floor deck. Ms. Draznin called out to ask Mr. Tenuta how many feet the house had been raised up. Mr. Pisaro responded 16"18" in order to provide a 9' basement, which is the current standard. lanning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-29-02 Page 3 Mr. Rogers said the proposed portico was within the character of the house. He said very large homes are now being built all over and ar~ allowed by Code. Mr. Youngquist pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance permits unenclosed porches that receive Conditional Use approval to encroach five-feet into the front setback and that the porch could be 4' wide as proposed, but 20' long if desired. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to recommend to the Village Board approval of a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach 4-fcet into the required front setback for the residence at 1817 Bonita Drive Case No. PZ-29-02. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, Sledz and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 8:50 p.m., Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ~ J~d~ ConnSll~, ~ehior ~l~'~t&' ~' Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ~ 29 -02 LOCATION: PETITIONER: OWNER: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: 1817 Bonita Frank Neuman & John Tenuta Frank Neuman 08-t0~209-001 0.23 acres (10,000 square feet) R1 Single Family Residence Single Family Residential Conditional Use- Porch in front yard LOCATION MAP Lincoln Street 318 1913 320 2001 322 2003 324 PZ-29-02 1817 Bonita Avenue Tenuta & Neuman Residence Conditional Use - Unenclosed Porch Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 ItEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 SUBJECT: PZ-29-02 - CONDITIONAL USE (PORCH) 1817 BONITA DRIVE (NEUMANN & TENUTA RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the September 26, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Frank Neumann & John Tenuta (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 1817 Bonita Avenue (the "Subject Propeay"). The Petitioner has requested Conditional Use approval to allow the construction ora new porch in the front yard. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the September 11, 2002 edition &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, located at the southwest comer of Bonita and Hatlen Avenues, contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single Family Residence and is bordered by the R1 district on all sides. The existing home on the Subject Property is currently set back slightly more than 30-feet from the front lot line 00.05'). SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The attached exhibits outline the Petitioner's plans for the addition, new garage, and driveway. The Petitioner is in the process of adding on to the existing structure and proposes to construct a 4'x9' unenclosed porch (portico). The proposed porch would be located in the center of the house. The roofed structure would encroach four-feet into the required front setback, but the stairs extend even further into the setback. The porch requires Conditional Use approval because it encroaches four-feet into the required 30-foot front yard. The stairs and service walk are permitted encroachments, thus do not require any special approval. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE As previouslY noted, the existing hOme and addition comply wigh zoning regulations. The table on the following page compares the Petitioner's proposal to the bulk requirements of the RI Single Family ReSidence district. Z-29-02 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting September 26, 2002 Page 3 R1 Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' 30.05' 26' Interior 10' or 10% of lot width 29' 13.83' Exterior 20' 30.47' 30.4' Rear 25' 43' 25.5' LOT COVERAGE 45% 22% 36% CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a COnditiOnal Use. The following list is a summary of these findings: · The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental ~ffeet 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. The proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood; utility provision or public streets and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. RECOMMENDATION The proposed unenclosed porch meets the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & zoning co~mi~lbn ~ake ~ recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach into the required front setback for the residence at 1817 Bonita Drive, Case No. PZ-29-02. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. William J. (3ooney, AICP, Director of Community DevelOPment VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Plarafing Division 100 $. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Application for Conditional Use Approval Developmen, t Name Address Date orSubm~s~on Hearing D;~te - ~o~on r~ph?~t .~t Ad~e~ , F~ : ' Intent ~ Prope~ roposed Conditional Use (as listed in the zoning district) Describe in Detail the.Bull.dings and Activities Proposed and How the PrOposed Use Meets the Attached Standards for Conditional Use Approval (attach additional sheets if nccess .ary) - -, / r 1; /' Hours of Operation Site ~ (Acres) , . ] P.roperty Zoning Total Building Sq, Ft. (Site) Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed Use Building Hei~,~t,, Lot Covera...g~ (%) Number of Parking gpaces Please note fl~.~ the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all required!plans and other materials have been satisfactorliy submitted to the Planning Division. Incomplete subn£_, _t~_.__.!s will not be accepted. It is slrongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Viliage staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuray, 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 ofthe owner ofthe propeny. Thepefifi~ner andthe owner ofthe propen'y grant employees o f the Viliage of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm th~ all information provided here~in and in all_materials submitted in association with this application are true and If applicant ~s not property owner. I hereby d~signate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of s~king the Variation(s) described in this application ang thc associated supporting material. Property Owner Date Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 lf~C~ q~nth grn~rcnn Rtroot Mmmt Prosl~ect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 BONITA DRIVE o o o LINE II .£ %6 o 0 i-..3 EXISTING ) wd 10/11/02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCA;FE~ A~ 1817 BONiTA AV~NOE WHEREAS, John Tenuta (hereinafter referred toas "Petitior)er") has filed a petition for a Conditional Use permit, with respect to property located at 1817 Bonita Avenue (hereinafter referred to as the Subject Property), and legally described as folloWs: Property Index Number: 08-10-209-001-000 Lot 61 in Hatlen Hts. Unit #2 a subdivision in the S. % of the NE ¼ of Sec. 10, Township 41 North, Range 11, E. of the 3rd Principal Meridian, according to plat thereof registered in the Office of the Registrar of Titles of Cook County, IL on February 27, 1956, as doc~ 1653233; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Conditional Use permit to construct an unenclosed porch encroaching four feet (4') into the required front yard setback; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Conditional Use permit being the subject of PZ-29-02 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 26~ day of September, 2002, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 11th day of September, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the Pres!dent and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ-29-02; 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 same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Conditional Use permit 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: 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. Page 2/2 1817 Bonita Drive SECTION 'I'WO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Conditional Use permit, as provided for in Section 14.203.F.7 of the Village Code, to allow the constrUction of an unenclosed porch encroaching four feet (4') into the required front yard setback, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: That 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 APPROVEDthis day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Fadey Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: OCTOBER 8, 2002 MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER LOFTS AND SHOPS - OFF-SITE PARKING AGREEMENT Attached to this memorandum is an agreement between the Village of Mount Prospect and Village Lofts L.L.C. (Norwood Builders) that would provide employees at the Lofts and Shops development the opportunity to lease off-site parking spaces from the Village on a monthly basis. The agreement provides employees the right to lease up to forty parking spaces in the Maple Street parking lot for $25 a month. The employees will not be required to lease these spaces but would have the right to do so if they are unable to find alternate locations in the downtown area. Employees are not permitted to park in any of the surface lots surrounding the Lofts project Sin6e the~ ~P~ces Will be reserved for 2:hour cuStomer parking. Norwood can nullify the agreement if they are able to provide alternative parking within 1000' of the development at any time in the future. Please forward this memorandum to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their meeting on -. October 15, 2002. Staff wilI be present at that meeting to further discuss this matter. Willia~J~Cooney Jr. PARKING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of September, 2002, by and between the Village of Mount Prospect, an ~nos municipal corporation ("Village") and Village Lofts, L.L.C., an IllinOis limited liability Company ("Lofts LLC"). WHEREAS, Lofts LLC is the developer of that certain real estate development within the Village styled as the "Shops & Lofts at Village Centre" commonly to be known as 2-90 East Northwest HighWay ("Shops & Lofts"); and WHEREAS, the Village owns a certain municipal parking lot on Maple Avenue between Prospect Avenue and Lincoln Avenue in the Village ("Maple Street Lot"); and WHEREAS, the Village owns several other additional municipal parking lots · within the Village ("Additional Lots", and cOllectiVely the Maple Street Lot and the Additional Lots may be referred to as the "Surface Lots"); and WHEREAS, the Village is about to redevelop and build a municipal parking garage on Emerson Street between Busse Avenue and Central Road ("Village Garage"); and WHEREAS, the Surface Lots and the Village Garage (if and when built) all are located within 1,000 feet of Shops & Lofts; and WHEREAS, Lofts LLC or its affiliates has an option to develop the Village's Village Hall property into a mixed use residential and ret~il/c~mmercia! deve!opment ("Village Hall Redevelopment"); and WHEREAS, the parties agree and acknowledge that it is in the best interests of the parties to improve downtown parking facilities and provide for improved traffic flow in the downtown area; forth, it 1. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set is agreed by and between the parties as follows: Lofts LLC shall lease from the Village, on an annual basis, monthy parking permits for the Maple Street Lot and the Additional Lots, in that 'order of priority, up to a maximum of 40 such permits in aggregate at any given time. These permits shall be for the use of the commercial and retail tenants of the Shops & Lofts and for excess parking for the owners and occupants of the residential condominium units of the Shops & Lofts. If and when the Village Garage is made available for use by the public, these permits may be transferred to that location if approved in writing by the Village. If from time to time and at any time Lofts, LLC requires additional parking pursuant to the Village Code, Lofts LLC shall lease frOm the Village additional monthly parking permits on the same basis. Lofts LLC will pay the rental fee established by the Village. All parking permits for the Surface Lots shall be monthly permits and shall be payable monthly in advance. The fee shall be $25 per permit per month for the first five (5) years after the effective date of this Agreement, provided that there shall never be a monthly fee of any kind for parking spaces on the block on which Shops & Lofts is located. To the extent that any of the permits are transferred to the Village Garage within the initial five (5) years' period, the same monthly fee shall apply for the unexpired portion of that period after the transfer date. Parking permits will be available for purchase reasonably in advance of each year and shall be available to be purchased for the entire year or any portion of the year in full monthly increments). Payment for parking permits shall be made at the time of issuance; issuance shall not be unreasonably delayed. Lofts LLC Shall have the right to rebill actual permit holders for their respective share of the actual parking fees as a condition of delivery of each such permit. Permit holders shall abide by all Village rules and regulations of general applicability for display of the permits and use of public parking facilities in the Village in effect from time to time. Lofts LLC shall not be responsible for compliance of such permit holders. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a period of five (5) years from and after its effective date. This Agreement shall be mutually renewable for successive pedods of five (5) years. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Lofts LLC at any time acquires or provides, permanently through other means, 40 parking spaces (alone or in combination with additional spaces and/or uses) for exclusive use of its tenants within '1,000 feet of the Shops & Lofts, Lofts LLC shall have the right to terminate this Agreement effective as of the end of any calendar month on not less than 30 days' prior written notice, and the Village agrees to rebate and refund parking fees paid in advance for calendar months thereafter. Lofts LLC shall have the dght freety to assign its rights under this Agreement to the successor owner and assignee of the commercial and retail areas of the Shops & Lofts and to the successor owner and assignee of the commercial and retail areas of the Village Hall Redevelopment (to the extent applicable). Lofts LLC shall notify the Village of each such successor and assignee. Upon each succession and assignment and the successor's and assignee's agreement to abide by the agreements of Lofts LLC under this Agreement, Lofts LLC shall be released from this Agreement to the extent of each such succession and assignment. If any provision of this Agreement is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, that provision shall be severable from the rest of this Agreement and the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions will in no way be effected or impaired. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year first written above. VILLAGE LOFTS, EL.C, an Illinois Limited liability company VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, an Illinois municipal corporation By: Norwood Construction, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, its Manager By: By: Bruce J. Adreani, President 2 ,,,wi 10/11/02 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND VILLAGE LOFTS, LiL.C: (NORWOOD BUILDERS) FOR OFF-STREET PARKING FOR THE LOFTS AND SHOPS DEVELOPMENT, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, the Corporate Authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect have determined that it would be in the best interests of the Village to participate with Village Lofts, L.L.C. ("The Lofts and Shops") to provide off-street parking as part of the development of the The Lofts and Shops development; and WHEREAS, it has been further determined that it would be in the best interest of all concerned to enter into an agreement to provide parking, in conjunction with the development of said project; and WHEREAS, the Agreement shall specify the number of spaces and costs to be paid to the Village. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign and the Clerk is authorized to attest his signature on the Agreement between the Village of Mount Prospect and the The Vilage Lofts, L.LC. being the subject of this Resolution, a copy of said Agreement is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". SECTION TWO: This ResolUtion shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley, Mayor Velma W, Lowe, Village Clerk H:~GEN~fileS\WIN~RESV~Jth agrmt,VOMP & Nonvood,pa rking,Oct,02.doc illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER ! OCTOBER 8, 2002 LO TS s oPs-EASE NT COST LOCAT ON Attached to this memorandum is an agreement between the Village of Mount Prospect and Village Lofts L.L.C. (Norwood Builders) that establishes necessary easements between the Lofts property and the Village Hall property and defines cost sharing arrangements for the long-term maintenance and parking enforcement on the Lofts parking lot. The Agreement is necessary to establish guidelines that will ensure the orderly redevelopment of the Village Hall parcel. It delineates responsibilities between the current owners (the Village of Mount Prospect and Village Lofts L.L.C.) and any future owners of the two properties. The agreement also provides for the reimbursement of monies spent on the construction of the ramp serving the underground parking lot and for structural supports that have been installed to allow for the construction o£ a new building on the existing Village Hall lot, The attached Agreement is the result of many months of negotiation between Village staff and Norwood Builders. Please forward this memorandum to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their meeting on October 15, 2002. Staff will be present at that meeting to further discuss this matter. Willia This instrument was prepared by, and upon recording shall be returned to: Stephen S. Messutta, Esq. 7458 N. Harlem Avenue Chicago, IL 60631 [The above space is reserved for the Recorder! EASEMENT AND COST ALLOCATION AGREEMENT THIS EASEMENT AND COST ALLOCATION AGREEMENT (,'Agreement") is made and entered into as of this day of October, 2002 ("Effective Date") by and between VILLAGE LOFTS, L.L.C., an Illinois limited liability company ("Developer") and the VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, an Illinois municipal corporation ("Village"), with the consent of Norwood Construction, Inc., an Illinois corporation ("Norwood" or "Optionee"). RECITALS A. This Agreement relates to certain real estate in the Village legally described on Exhibit A (the "Redevelopment Area"): B. Pursuant to two agreements made and entered into on August 18, 1999, by and between the Village and Norwood, Norwood acquired the right to purchase the entire Redevelopment Area from the Village (the "Acquisition Agreements") under an Agreement for the Sale and Redevelopment of Land ("Phase I-B Contract"); and an Option Agreement ("Phase 1-C Option"), recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County, Illinois on August 6, 2001, as Document Number 0010712474; C. The Village approved a Master Plan ("Master Plan~) for the Redevelopment Area with two mixed-use buildings each having first floor retail/commercial space, upper story residential units and an underground parking garage. One of the buildings and its underground parking garage is situated in the southerly portion of the Redevelopment Area ("Shops & Lofts") designated as the Phase I-B subdivision, and the remaining building and its underground parking garage will be situated in the northerly portion of the Redevelopment Area ("Village Hall Redevelopment") designated as the Phase 1- C subdivision. The underground parking garages for Shops & Lofts and the Village Hall Redevelopment will be accessible via a single, two-way vehicular ramp fronting on Emerson Street and to be physically located within the southerly end of the footprint of the northerly building ("Ramp"). D. The Phase 1-B resubdivision comprises that portion of the Redevelopment Area legally described on Exhibit B and comprises three contiguous lots as follows: "Lot 1", consisting of the land area for Shops & Lofts and the Ramp, which will be retained by Developer pursuant to the Phase 1-B Contract; "Lot 2", consisting of land area partially surrounding the Shops & Lofts' building, which will be conveyed to the Village to become public sidewalk; and "Lot 3", consisting of the land area immediately north of the Ramp, which will be conveyed to the Village for the Village Hall Redevelopment as part of the Phase 1-C resubdivision; E. The Developer prepared plans for the Shops & Lofts, the Ramp, and certain portions (as more particularly described in Section 2.a.iii. of this Agreement, "Structural Supports") of the future Village Hall Redevelopment. On March 27~ 2001'i and with the agreement of the Village, Norwood assigned its interests in the Phase 1-B Contract to Developer. F. On March 27, 2001 ("Phase 1-B Conveyance") pursuant to a "Closing and Reconveyance Agreement" between the parties, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C ("Reconveyance Agreement"), the Developer acquired from the Village, on a temporary basis, all of the land that became the Phase 1-B resubdivision. The Reconveyance Agreement contemplated that, when Phase 1-B was resubdivided and the Village so requested, the Developer would reconvey Lot 2 and Lot 3 in the subdivision to the Village. G. Concurrently with the Phase 1-B Conveyance, the Village and Developer entered into a "Temporary Easement Agreement" recorded in the Office of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds on March 30, 2001, as Document Number 0010253771 (the "Temporary Agreement") which is incorporated in full as though set forth in this Agreement. H. The Village has requested the reconveyance of Lot 2 and Lot 3 of the Phase 1-B subdivision, and the parties have determined that it is in their best interests not only to ratify and amend certain easements granted under the Temporary Agreement, but also to memorialize certain additional agreements and to grant certain additional easements to each other with respect to Phase 1-C, the Ramp and the Structural Supports as hereinafter defined; and I. The parties also agree and acknowledge that it is in the best interests of the parties to improve downtown parking facilities and provide for improved traffic flow in the downtown area to enter into this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, and for and in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants of this Agreement, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows: 1. Conveyance. Promptly upon execution and delivery of this Agreement by and to the parties, Developer shall convey to the Village Lots 2 and 3 of Phase I-B in accordance with the Reconveyance Agreement, which Agreement shall survive such conveyancing, until all obligations of the parties thereto have been fully satisfied and agree that the Temporary Agreement shall be deemed of no further force and effect. Lot 2 shall be deemed part of the public right of way (sidewalk) and no further easements shall be necessary to permit and allow access, ingress and egress to and from the adjacent streets to and from the Shops & Lofts building. a. Door Easements, The Developer hereby reserves easements over those portions of Lot 2 as reasonably are necessary to allow for the swing of retail store doors that are legally required to swing out and open from the Shops and Lofts building not to exceed a depth of two (2) feet from the Shops and Lofts building on and over Lot 2. b. Utility Easements. The Village acknowledges that the Developer installed sewer mains, surface and subsurface structures, and inflows thereto (including but not limited to downspouts), all underlying Lot 2, pursuant to and in accordance with the Phase 1-B engineering plans approved by the Village for the Shops and Lofts, and shall be owned, maintained, repaired, and replaced as required, by the Developer to the point that said mains enter the right of way for South Emerson Street (and thereunder intercept the Village's sewer mains therein and thereunder). The Village hereby grants to the Developer, and the Developer hereby reserves for itself, easements for the continued location of such utility mains, structures and inflows and for access thereto for maintenance, repair (and replacement thereof as may be required) from time to time and at any time. c. Si,qn & Related Retail Store Licenses. The Village hereby acknowledges and, subject to compliance With applicable Village codes and ordinances, any and all retail signage and appurtenances attached to the Shops and Lofts building and projecting over (and in case of entry canopies attached to) the public way adjacent to said building, shall be deemed licensed encroachments thereover and thereon. 2. Ramp and Ramp Area Matters. a. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them: i. "Ramp Area" shall mean and include that certain real estate legally described on Exhibit D: ii. "Ramp" shall mean ali of the improvements from time to time located within the Ramp Area and any additions to and replacements of such improvements, that constitute the vehicular ramp to and from Emerson Street to and from the underground parking garages associated with each of the Shops & Lofts and Phase 1-C Redevelopment buildings. The Ramp shall exclude specifically, however, the Structural Supports. iii. "Structural Supports" shall mean those certain underground improvements located within the Ramp Area and installed for future use as part of the structural supports, footings, foundation and retaining walls for the Phase 1-C Redevelopment building. b. Ownership. i. Subject to the remaining terms, covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in this Agreement: (a) Developer is the sole owner of the Ramp Area and Ramp, and (b) Norwood is the sole owner of the Structural Supports, ii. At such time as the Village issues a building permit for redevelopment of Phase 1-C that utilizes the Ramp and the Structural Supports, the legal owner of Phase 'I-C shall, subject to the provisions of Section 2,c. below, reimburse Developer for 50% of the costs and expenses of the Ramp construction together with interest on such costs and expenses at Developer's cost of funds from the date of this Agreement to the date of reimbursement ("Ramp Costs") and shall reimburse Norwood for 100% of the costs and expenses of the Structural Supports construction together with interest on such costs and expenses at Norwood's cost of funds from the date of this Agreement to the date of reimbursement ("Structural Costs"), at which time the legal owner of Phase 1-C shall be deemed to be the co-owner of the Ramp with Developer and the sole owner of the Structural Supports. As of the date of this Agreement, the combined Ramp and Structural Costs to be paid to Norwood are $396,631.40 and interest shall accrue thereon until paid at the rate of 1% over the prime rate of interest from time to time in effect per annum as published in the Midwest Edition of the Wail Street Journal. iii. The reimbursement rights granted hereunder are personal to Developer and Norwood, respectively, and shall not be deemed transferred or assigned without their respective affirmative and separate written consent after this Agreement is fully executed and exchanged among its signatories. c. Cross-Easements. i. Developer hereby grants the Village a permanent non-exclusive easement to use of the Ramp for ingress and egress to the underground parking garages, subject to the following restrictions: (a) The Ramp shall be used solely by the owners of the residential portions of the Redevelopment Area solely for accessing the underground parking garages for parking bicycles and motorized vehicles, for accessing underground storage spaces, and for emergency egress for persons from the garages as needed; but not for commercial deliveries. (b) Except for emergency egress, owners and tenants of the retail and commercial portions of the Redevelopment Area and their respective invitees and licensees, shall have no direct right to use of the Ramp to access underground parking facilities whatsoever. (c) The foregoing shall not prohibit an owner of a residential portion of the Redevelopment Area from leasing an underground parking and/or storage space to an owner or tenant of the retail and commercial portions of the Redevelopment Area, provided that commercial vehicles are prohibited from using the Ramp. (d) Any residential condominium associations having jurisdiction over common elements including the underground parking garages, may adopt such other and further rules and regulations that are reasonable for keeping the Ramp in good repair and condition at all times. ii. Developer hereby grantS Norwood a permanent and exclusive easement to access and use the Structural SupportS and the air rights above the Ramp, to construct a bUilding in the Village Hall Redevelopment. iii. Air rights for over the Ramp for access, ingress to and egress from the lower level parking garages, shall be limited to the minimum clearance necessary for such access, ingress and egress as determined from the plans and specifications approved by the Village for the Shops and Lofts building and the building, if any, constructed in the Village Hall Redevelopment. iv. The Ramp may be enclosed with a secure overhead door system so long as all owners of the RedeveloPment Area shall have access to the door system, for themselves and such other persons as from time to time have the right of use of the Ramp. d. Cost Allocations. i. Ramp. Prior to substantial completion of the Village Hall Redevelopment, the current owner of the residential portions of the Shops & Lofts, at its sofe cost and expense, shall keeP and maintain the Ramp in good repair and order, including capital repairs and replacements as required. The declaration of condominium ownership for the residential portions of the Shops and Lofts building ("C°nd0~ini~m DeClaration') Shall require the formation of a condominium association composed of the unit owners (together with their respective percentage interests in the Common elements ther~0f) of such portions ("Condominium Association"). Such Declaration shall specify that upon substantial completion of the Village Hall Redevelopment, the Condominium Association shall be responsible for the foregoing Ramp responsibilities, costs and expenses~ together with the costs and expenses of ordinary repair and maintenance of the interior surfaces of the over-grade Ramp enclosure area and the costs and expenses of rePair, maintenance and capital repair and replacement of an overhead garage door system at the Emerson Street Ramp entry/exit and ordinary maintenance of the Ramp enclosure area. Said responsibilities shall be shared ("Proportionate Share") based upOn the ratio of the number of underground parking garage spaces accessible from the Ramp within each development building to the total number of such spaces located in the entire Redevelopment Area, and the owner or owners of the Village Hall Redevelopment shall reimburSe the Condominium Association promptly for each such expenditure based upon its and their Pr0p0rti0r~&te sf~re. The failure and refusal of the owner or owners of the Village Hall Redevelopment to make such reimbursements to the Condominium AsSociatiOn to prevent the filing of a mechanic's lien or other lien fOr labor and materials for such parposes against the Condominium AsSociationl fee title to t6e s~0ps and Lofts building and/or the Village Hall Redevelopment, shall entitle the Condominium Ass0~!a~!0P pay the amounts due and to a~sert ~nd re~rd ~ lien against fee title t° the Village Hall Redevelopment to the extent of each sdch Q~Paid Pr0p0rti0nate Share, together with interest at the rate of !.5% per month Until reimbursed in full; provided that the Condominium Association shall have the right to contest any such charges for labor and materials for undertakin~ SuCh responsibilities So long as the Condominium Association provides the Village Hall Redevelopment with reasonable security over any mechanic's lien recorded for non-payment thereof. ii. Structural Supports. The owner from time to time shall keep and maintain the Structural Supports and the building constructed over the Ramp, in good repair and order, including capital repairs and replacements as required. Nothing herein shall require perpetual maintenance of that building, however, and the owner thereof may, at its sole discretion and at its sole cost, at any time demolish the building so long as the Ramp itself is restored to the condition immediately prior to the building's construction; removal of the Structural Supports shall not be required, however. e. Construction, Utilities. Developer hereby grants the Village and its successors and assigns a temporary easement over that portion of Lot 1 to construct the Village Hall Redevelopment, and to close, pending such construction, access to Phase 1-C. Such right shall include the right to remove any underground wall improvements installed by Developer at the time of Ramp construction, to connect the underground garage to serve the Village Hall Redevelopment; provided that access to and use of the Ramp is not materially affected in any way by such construction. Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using the Ramp at any time, however. 3. Temporary Agreement Matters~ Termination and Restatement. a. Developer Parking LOt. DeVeloper, at its sole cost and expense, shall complete the Shops & Lofts, including, without limitation, the surface parking lot and related improvements ("Developer Parking Lot"), in accordance in all material respects with the building permits heretofore issued by the Village. i. Maintenance & Repair. From and after final completion and Village acceptance of the Developer Parking Lot on Lot 1, the Village shall repair and maintain the Developer Parking Lot in a first-class condition, provide snow removal services, and police the Lot as any other comparable surface public parking lot in the Village, subject to the easements granted in subsection ii. below. Snow and ice removal and road maintenance services shall be done pursuant to the regular Village schedule(s) for such services. ' Developer agrees to pay the Village its proportionate share of such costs, based upon the number of lots, parking spaces and light poles serviced by the Village and the Village's allocation of resources for such services. ii. Easement Grants. The Developer hereby grants Village and its successors and assigns a non-exclusive easement in common with Developer and its successors and assigns, over and across the Developer Parking Lot, as and for a means of access, ingress and egress, to and from, Lot 1 and Phase 1- C, to and from the adjacent public rights of way. The Village may impose reasonable rules and regulations of general applicability to the public with regard to the uses and types of vehicles that may be allowed in the Developer Parking Lot; provided, however, that Village employee parking is prohibited. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at no time shall the maximum parking time be less than two (2) hours; overnight parking shall be allowed from April 1 through and including November 1 annually; and the Developer and its successors and assigns shall have the right to reserve short~term posted "pick-up" and "carry-out" and Similar short-term "reserved" parking spaces for tenants of the retail and commercial portions of the Shops & Lofts. b. Village Parking Lot. i. Maintenance & Repair. From and after the date of this Agreement, and excepting onlY the period of time dudng which actual construction of the Village Hall Redevelopment occurs, the Village, at its sole cost and expense, shall repair and maintain the Village Parking Lot, and shall enforce all posted traffic and parking regulations, the same as the Developer Parking Lot, like any other Village public parking lot or area. Snow and ice removal maintenance services shall be pursuant to the Village's regular schedule(s) for s~ch service~ f~o~ ~i~ ~0'timel ii. Easement Grants. The Village hereby grants Developer and its successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement in common with the Village and its successors and assigns, over and across the Village Parking Lot, as and for a means of access, ingress and egress, to and from, the Resubdivision and Phase 1-C, to and from the adjacent public rights of way, The Village hereby reserves the dght to impose reasonable rules and regulations of general applicability to the public with regard to the uses and types of vehicles that may be allowed in the Village Parking Lot and the right to issue traffic and parking citations. After completion of the Village Hall Redevelopment, and so long as it contains retail and commercia! space, Village employees shall be prohibited from parking on the Village Parking Lot; at no time shall the maximum parking time be more than two (2) hours; reasonable accommodations for after-hours parking shall be allowed from April 1 through and including November 1 annually; and the Village shall have the right to reserve short-term posted 'pick-up" and "carry-out" and similar short term "reserved" parking spaces for tenants of the retail and commercial portions of the Village Hall Redevelopment. 5. Indemnity and Insurance. a. Insurance. Each party shall insure its respective interests under this Agreement in commercially reasonable amounts at all times and shail provide the other with a certificate of insurance of continuous coverage thereof naming the other as an additional named insured as its i~tereStS may appear. Each partY shall waive its insurance carriers' rights of subrogati°n against the other in the case of all risks for which the carrier otherwise would have such rights. The Village may self-insure all or any portion of these requirements. b. Indemnity. To the extent that proceeds of insurance do not make a party whole in case of an insured loss, each party (as "indemnitor") hereby indemnifies and holds the other (as "indemnitee") harmless from and against any and all loss, cost, liability and expense (including attorney fees and court costs) paid or incurred by the indemnitee arising from any claim or cause of action resulting from the act or neglect, or breach of this Agreement, by the indemnitor. 6. Remedies. 7 a. Self-Help. The parties and their respective successors and assigns each shall have the right of self-help in the event of a breach by another party in that other party's obligations under this Agreement and the failure or refusal of the party in breach to cure the breach within fifteen (15) days after receipt of notice from the party (les) not in breach, provided that if cure of the breach in question would require reasonable additional time, the party in breach shall have a reasonable additional time for cure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each party shall have the right to immediate self-help without prior notice of (a) emergencies and (b) at the applicable owner's sole cost and expense for additional snow and ice removal services. b. Default Rate. Any unpaid obligation of a party shall bear interest on the principal balance outstanding and unpaid from and after it is due and payable (all monetary obligations shall be net 30) until it is paid in full, at the rate of 4% in excess of the prime rate of interest per annum from time to time announced in the Wall Street Journal - Midwest Edition. c. General. Each party shall have all of the remedies set forth in this Agreement and all remedies each may have at taw and in equity. Each party shall have a lien against the real estate of the other party (ies) from Which a party is entitled to a reimbursement under this Agreement. Each and every obligation to perform or not perform an act other than the mere payment of money shall be deemed material and the damages from a breach thereof shall be deemed impossible to determine; each party aggrieved by such performance or non-performance shall be entitled to injunctive relief against the party in breach of performance or non-performance obligation. The prevailing party in any action or dispute shall be entitled to recover from each other party to the action or dispute and not so prevailing, its attorneys fees, court costs and other costs of litigation or dispute resolution. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Village shall not be deemed to be an obligor or guarantor of any obligation of either the Developer or Optionee or any third party. 7. Binding Effect, Covenant Running. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties, and their respective successors and assigns, except with respect to the rights of reimbursement made personal to Developer and Norwood as set forth in Section 2. The easements created and granted in this Agreement shall be covenants running with the land constituting the Redevelopment Area and each portion of it. Ekcept as to the foregoing rights of reimbursement, all references to the Developer shall include its respective successors and assigns. Developer shall be released from its obligations under this Agreement upon (a) recording of a declaration submitting the Shops & Lofts (or any portion of it) to the Illinois Condominium Property Act and (b) conveyance of the retail and commercial areas of that development to a grantee thereof, and Norwood shall be released from its obligations under this Agreement upon (a) recording of a declaration submitting the Village Hall Redevelopment (or any portion of ti) to the Illinois Condominium Property Act and (b) conveyance of the retail and commercial areas of that development to a grantee of fee simple title thereto. 8. Notices. Notices under this Agreement (including changes of name and address for notice) shall be served upon the parties at their respective addresses listed below, by personal receipted delivery, by overnight receipted courier service, by certified mail with return receipt service, or by properly machine-acknowledged electronic transmission followed by mailing a copy of the transmission (with machine-acknowledgement of service) in properly preposted US postal service first class mail service within 24 hours after the machine- acknowledgement: To the Village: Village Manager Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 With a copy to: Village Attorney Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, ~llinois 60056 To Developer: Village Lofts, L.L.C. 7458 North Harlem Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60631 With a copy to: Stephen S. Messutta, General Counsel Village Lofts, L.LC. 7458 North Harlem Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60631 To Norwood: Norwood Construction, Inc. 7458 North Harlem Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60631 Attn: Bruce J. Adreani, President With a copy to: Stephen S. Messutta, General Counsel Norwood Construction, Inc. 7458 North Harlem Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60631 9. General. a. This is the entire Agreement of the parties and supersedes any and all prior representations and statements between the parties with respect to the subject matter covered by this Agreement. b. This Agreement may be amended, supplemented or modified in any respect whatsoever, or rescinded in whole or in part, only in a written instrument duly executed and acknowledged by all the parties hereto and recorded in the land records of Cook County, Illinois. c. This Agreement shall be interpreted to give full effect to all of its provisions and to its intent. If any final and non-appealable order of any court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction determines that any provision or provisions is or are void as a matter of law, that provision or those provisions shall be deemed severable and severed and the fullest effect practicable shall be given to the remaining provisions of this Agreement. d. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Illinois, including its laws pertaining to conflicts of law. e. An original of this Agreement shall be recorded with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County, Illinois. WITNESS the parties' execution of this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, an Illinois municipal corporation ("Village"): By: Print Name: Title: VILLAGE LOFTS, LL.C., an Illinois limited liability company ("Developer"): By: Norwood Construction, Inc., an Illinois corporation, its Manager By: Print Name: Title: NORWOOD CONSTRUCTION, INC., an Illinois corporation ("Norwood" and "Optionee") By: Print Name: Title; l0 STATE OF ILLINOIS) ) SS. COUNTY OF COOK) I, the Undersigned, being a notary public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that , as of the VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, an illinois municipal corporation, and , as of said corporation, personally known to me to be the same persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument, appeared before me this day and acknowledged that they signed, sealed and delivered said instrument as their free and voluntary act and as the free and voluntary act of the corporation pursuant to authority granted by the Board of Trustees of the corporation, for the uses and purposes therein set forth. Subscribed and sworn to before me this __ day of .... ,2002 Notary Public STATE OF ILLINOIS) )SS. COUNTY OF COOK) I, the Undersigned, being a notary public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that .... as of Norwood Construction, Inc., an Illinois corporation, the Manager of the VILLAGE LOFTS, EEC., an Illinois limited liability company, personally known to me to be the same person whose name is 'subscribed to the foregoing instrument, appeared before me this day and acknowledged that he signed, sealed and delivered said instrument as his free and voluntary act and as the free and voluntary act of the corporation and company, for the uses and purposes therein set forth. Subscribed and sworn to before me this __ day of ,2002 Notary Public 1] STATE OF ILLINOIS) )SS. COUNTY OF COOK) I, the Undersigned, being a notary public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that , as of Norwood Construction, Inc., an Illinois corporation, personally known to me to be the same person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, appeared before me this day and acknowledged that he signed, sealed and delivered said instrument as his free and voluntary act and as the free and voluntary act of the corporation, for the uses and purposes therein set fodh. Subscribed and sworn to before me this __ day of ,2002 Notary Public t2 CONSENT OF MORTGAGEE Parkway Bank and Trust Company, which is the holder of a first mortgage dated as of the and recorded in Cook County, Illinois on __ as Document No. , hei'eby consents to the recording of the within Easement and Cost Allocation Agreement and agrees that its mortgages shall be subject to its terms and conditions. Dated: ,2002. PARKWAY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY By: Marianne L. Wagener Assistant Vice President ATTEST: STATE OF ILLINOIS) COUNTY OF COOK) ) SS. I, , a Notary Public in and for said County and State, do hereby certify that Marianne L. Wagener and , respectively, the Assistant Vice President of Parkway Bank and Trust Company ("Mortgagee"), appeared before me this day in person and acknowledged that they signed, sealed and delivered the within instrument as their free and voluntary act, and as the free and voluntary act of the Mortgagee, for the uses and purposes therein set forth. GIVEN under my hand and Notarial Seal this __. day of ,2002. Notary Public 13 · EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT AREA Lots 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in Block 13 in Busse & Wille's Resubdivision in Mount Prospect in the West Half of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the Plat thereof recorded March 31, 1906, as Document Number 3839591, also, the West 22 Feet of Lot 8 and all of Lots 9 and 10 in Block 15 in Mount Prospect Subdivision of Part of the Northwest Quarter North of Railroad in the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the Plat thereof recorded September 2, 1874, as Document Number 188460, all in Cook County, Illinois. PINS: Phase 1-B resub: 08-12~108-005,-006,-010, -011,-012,-020, -025,-027, -028, -033, -034, -035, -036. The Village Hall Parcel is: 08-12-108-002, -003, -004. EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PHASE 1-B Lots 1, 2 and 3, inclusive, in Village Centre Phase l-B, according to the Plat thereof recorded December 6, 2001 as Document Number 0011155055 in Cook County, Illinois. EXHIBIT C RECONVEYANCE AGREEMENT [Attached AFTER Exhibit D] EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RAMP AREA That part of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Village Centre Phase l-B, according to the Plat thereof recorded December 6, 2001 as Document Number 0011155055 in Cook County, Illinois, lying on the West line of Emerson Street as per Document Number 3839591; thence South 00 degrees 13 minutes 20 seconds West, along said West line, 27.63 feet to the Point Of Beginning; thence continuing South 00 degrees 13 minutes 20 seconds West, along said West line, 32.80 feet; thence North 89 degrees 39 minutes 11 seconds West, 85.76 feet; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 49 seconds East, 4.53 feet; thence South 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West, 66.01 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West, 40.86 feet; thence South 58 degrees 22 minutes 39 seconds East, 25.00 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East, 130.58 feet to the Point Of Beginning. 14 vwl 10/11/02 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT TO ENTER INTO AN EASEMENT AND COST ALLOCATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND THE VILLAGE LOFTS AND SHOPS, L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Corporate Authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect have determined that it would be in the best interests of the Village to participate with The Village Lofts, L.LC. in establishing easements between the Village Lofts property and the current Village Hall parcel, and in providing for reimbursement of specific funds in conjunction with the construction of a parking ramp; and WHEREAS, it has been further determined that it would be in the best interest of all concerned to enter into said Agreement in conjunction with the development of The Village Lofts and the redevelopment of the Village Hall parcel at 100 South Emerson Street. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign and the Clerk is authorized to attest his signature on the Agreement between the Village of Mount Prospect and the The Village Lofts, L.L.C., being the subject of this Resolution, a copy of said Agreement is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". SECTION TWO: This Resolution shall be in full fome and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley, Mayor Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk H:\GEN~files~WIN~RES~uth agrmt. VOMP & The Loffs,easement, Oct,02.doc F LA W OFFICES TO: FROM: DATE: RE: KLEIN, THORPE AND JENKINS, LTD. Suite 1660 20 North Wacker Ddve Chicag:), Illinois 60606-2903 Telephctae (312) 984-6400 Faesln~!e (312) 984-6444 (312) 606-7077 Orland Park Office 15010 S. Ravlnia Avenue, Suite 17 Orland park, IL 60462-3162 Tuieplmne (708) 349-3888 Faeslmile (708) 349-1506 Wfiter=s Direct Dial (312) 984-6420 Wfiter=$ E-Mail emhill~kt[net.~gm MEMORANDUM Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager Village of Mount Prospect Everette M, Hill, Jr. September 26, 2002 Recommended Recapture Ordinance From time to time a developer will request that we adopt an ordinance permitting the developer to recoup some of the cost of public improvements from other parties who might subsequently benefit from the improvements. The recoupment occurs at the time when the subsequent user connects to the improvement. Our Code dealt with such recaptures in three different places, two of which were in conflict. This ordinance eliminates the conflict and adopts very tight standards for such recapture ordinances. Traditionally, there have been two approaches to recapture. The more conservative approach is to permit recapture only when the Village requires the developer to oversize the improvement or to extend it beyond the point of necessity for the developer. The other approach permits recapture anytime someone other than the developer uses the improvement even though we did not request oversizing or an additional extension. This ordinance will accommodate either approach. In the past, Mount Prospect has permitted recapture anytime a subsequent user benefits by the improvement. Whichever approach is used in the future, it is incumbent on us to treat all developers the same. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me. eh/bm I0/11/02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MouNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION 1: That Section 16.609, entitled "Recapture Ordinances" of Chapter 16 of the Mount Prospect Village Code, shall be deleted in its entirety and a new Section 16.609 shall be inserted to be and read as follows: If: 1 ) a Municipal ordinance of the Village requires the installation of any water mains, sanitary sewers, storm drains, roadways or other public facilities; and 2) in the opinion of the Corporate Authorities such facilities may be used for the benefit of additional property not controlled by the person of whom installation is required; and 3) such water mains, sanitary sewers, storm drains, roadways or other facilities are to be dedicated to the public, the Corporate Authorities may, by ordinance, require other property which benefits by such facilities to contribute a fair and reasonable portion of certified costs of installation, including engineering costs, to the installing party. 1. The Village shall have the sole authority to determine the following: The amount of interest, if any, to be charged to a benefitted property owner (not to exceed 10 percent simple interest/annum); The method by which the costs are to be certified; c. The fair and reasonable apportionment of costs;' d. The party responsible for collection of the apportioned costs; The service charge due the Village for establishment of the recapture ordinance; The amount of time (not to exceed 10 years) that the ordinance is to remain in effect; The amount by which the apportioned costs are to be reduced due to depreciation; h. The method by which the ordinance is to be enforced; i. Any other matters pertinent to the adoption of the ordinance. Bo Any ordinance adopted pursuant to this Section shall be reCOrded against all parcels to be benefited by the facilities with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. It shall be the responsibility of the installing owner to record the ordinance whether so stated in the recapture ordinance or not. The recording of the ordinance, in this manner, shall serve to notify persons interested in such additional property of the fact that there will be a charge in relation to such property for the connection to and use of the facilities constructed under the ordinance. The Village shall be held harmless by the installing property owner and successors against any claims 'made on account of the adoption of the recapture ordinance, any attempted implementation of the ordinance and any failure on the part of the Village or its officials to collect the recapture amount. SECTION 2: Article VII entitled "Water and Sewer Main Recapture Agreements" of Chapter 22 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be deleted in its entirety. SECTION 3: That this Ordinance shall be in full fome and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVEDthis day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Fadey Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\GEN\flles\WJN\ORDINANC\Recapture,Secl 6.6 ~ 0.amd.ord,Holly, Buzz.doc