PLAN COMMISSION Village of Deerfield Agenda. November 9, 2017 Deerfield Village Hall, Franz Council Chambers

Transcription

1 PLAN COMMISSION Village of Deerfield Agenda November 9, 2017 Deerfield Village Hall, Franz Council Chambers Public Hearing & Workshop Meeting 7:30 p.m. Public Comment on a Non-Agenda Item PUBLIC HEARING (1) Public Hearing on the Request for Approval of a Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) with Necessary Variations; a Rezoning of 464 and 502 Elm Street from R-3 Single Family Residential District to R-5 General Residence District; and an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to Allow the Redevelopment of 464 and 502 Elm Street properties with Eight Townhomes and Two Single Family Homes (Avanti Construction Group, Inc.) WORKSHOP MEETING (1a) Discussion of Rezoning and Residential Planned Unit Development for Eight Townhomes and Two Single Family Homes at 464 and 502 Elm Street. Document Approval Items from the Commission Items from the Staff Designation of Representative for the next Board of Trustees Meeting Adjournment

2 MEMORANDUM TO: Plan Commission FROM: Jeff Ryckaert, Principal Planner and Dan Nakahara, Planner DATE: November 3, 2017 RE: Public Hearing on the Request for Approval of a Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) with Necessary Variations; a Rezoning of 464 and 502 Elm Street from R-3 Single Family Residential District to R-5 General Residence District; and an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to Allow the Redevelopment of 464 and 502 Elm Street properties with Two Single Family Homes and Eight Townhomes (Avanti Construction Group, Inc.) Subject Properties The subject properties consists of 464 and 502 Elm Street, which are both, zoned R-3 Single Family Residential, and consists of 1.08 acres. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning The surrounding properties are zoned residential (see attached zoning map and aerial photo). To the north, east and west of the subject property is zoned R-3. South of the property is zoned R-5 General Residence (Poplar Lane Townhomes), and R-3 Single Family Residential. The Deerfield Crossing Condominiums are across the road (Elm Street) and southwest of the subject property are multi-family dwellings although the zoning is R-3. These condominiums were allowed to be constructed as a result of a lawsuit many years ago and the zoning for the property was not required to change to R-5 (the multiple family zoning district). For background purposes is the approval information on the Poplar Lane Townhomes that were rezoned and approved as a residential planned unit development in the late 1980 s. Proposed Plan The petitioner is proposing an infill development on Elm Street. They are proposing to raze the existing structures on the two (2) properties and develop the property with two (2) single-family dwellings in front and eight (8) townhomes behind the single family dwellings. The petitioner s materials includes a project description, including site concept and what the developer believes meets the anticipated lifestyle of the future homeowners. The proposed density of the development is 9.3 units per acre (10 units/1.08 acres = 9.3 units per acre) 1

3 Comprehensive Plan Attached is the Future Land Use plan that designates 464 Elm and 502 Elm Street as single-family residential. The Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended to allow 464 and 502 Elm Street as multi-family residential. Zoning Conformance In order to accomplish the project, the developer would need seek approval of the following zoning actions: 1) Rezone the 464 and 502 Elm property from R-3 to R-5. The Rezoning standards are below. The petitioners have provided written responses to the rezoning standards in their submittals. Rezoning Standards Article D Findings Where the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment is to change the zoning classification of particular property, the Plan Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to the following matters: 1. Existing Uses Existing uses of property within the general area of the property in question. 2. Current Zoning in Area The Zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question. 3. Suitability of Present Zoning The suitability of the property in question for the uses permitted under the existing zoning classification and the proposed classification. 4. Trend of Development The trend of development, if any, in the general area of the property in question, including changes, if any, which may have taken place since the day the property in question was placed in its present zoning classification. A map of the Zoning Districts superimposed over an aerial photo is attached as an exhibit to aid in the review and analysis for the rezoning standards. 2

4 Spot Zoning At the July 13, 2017 Prefiling Conference meeting, the issue of spot zoning came up in discussion. Staff asked for a legal opinion on the issue of spot zoning. The questions and responses are attached to this staff memorandum. 2) Approval of a Preliminary Development Plan for a Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD), including the necessary variations. Planned Unit Developments are done in 2 steps, a preliminary PUD and a final PUD. The final PUD would come back to the Plan Commission if the petitioners receive approval of the Preliminary PUD from the Board of Trustees. A Residential PUD is only allowed in the R-5 zoning district. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) standards are below. The petitioners have provided written repsonses to the Planned Unit Development standards in their submittals. Residential Planned Unit Development Article D,2,c Findings A Planned Unit Development shall not be recommended for approval unless the Plan commission shall find the following: 1. Effect on Community That the proposed Planned Unit Development will not be significantly or materially detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety or general welfare of the community. This shall include consideration of the impact of the development upon physical development, tax base, and economic well-being of the Village. 2. Effect on the Neighborhood That the proposed Planned Unit Development will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted nor will it diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 3. Effect on Development of Surrounding Property That the proposed Planned Unit Development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. 4. Adequacy of Utilities and Facilities That the applicant has demonstrated that adequate sewer and water, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities are present or will be provided. 3

5 5. Adequacy of Ingress and Egress That the applicant has demonstrated that adequate means of ingress and egress designed to handle the traffic contemplated are present or will be provided. 6. Conformity to Regulations That the proposed Planned Unit Development meets all the regulations of this Ordinance except as such regulations may in each instance be modified by the Board of Trustees. Approval as a Residential PUD At the start of this project, the petitioner approached staff on developing a multiple family development on one of the lots in this development. Staff discussed with the petitioner the potential of providing a larger property for this proposal as a residential planned unit development, which requires a minimum of one (1) acre of property. Staff believes that when a property is developed as a PUD, it is in the best long-term interests of the Village. As a PUD, the Village has more oversight when the property is being developed because the Village examines compatibility/the degree the development fits in with the surrounding neighborhood, and the appearance of the development are specified in detailed plans submitted for the PUD. When the project is approved as a PUD, the Village reviews the site plan, landscaping, signage, lighting, building elevations, etc. In addition, any future changes to the approved PUD plans requires Village approval (Article Changes to Approved PUD) Below is an Analysis of How the Proposed Elm Street Development Complies with the Requirements of a Residential Planned Unit Development (Article 12.02): Minimum Size of Site Required: A minimum gross area of one (1) acre is required for consideration of a residential PUD. Provided: The subject property is 1.08 acres in size. Minimum Land Area Per Dwelling Unit Required: In a Residential PUD in the R-5 General Residence District, the following land area per dwelling unit is to be provided: 4,000 square feet for each four (4) bedroom unit in multi-family structures; 3,500 square feet for each three (3) bedroom unit in multi-family structures; 3,000 square feet for each two (2) bedroom unit in multi-family structure; 2,500 square feet for each unit with one or no bedrooms in multi-family structures. 4

6 For every single-family detached dwelling, there shall be provided nine thousand (9,000) square feet land area per dwelling unit. The developers are proposing ten (10) units, 2 single family structures and 8 units of multiple family, all with 4 bedrooms. 4 Br Multiple Family Dwellings: 8 units x 4,000 square feet of land area for each 4 br. unit = 32,000 square feet. Single-family detached dwellings: 2 units X 9,000 square feet of land area for each single family detached dwelling = 18,000 square feet Total land area required based on unit mix: 50,000 square feet of land area (32,000 square feet for 8 mulitiple family units + 18,000 square feet for 2 single family units = 50,000 square feet which is 1.15 acre) is required based on the mix of units in the proposed development Provided: 46,848 square feet or 1.08 acres of land area is provided. Variation required. Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width No minimum lot area or minimum lot width shall be required. Minimum Setbacks The following minimum setbacks shall be provided and maintained in a Residential Planned Unit Development in the R-5 General Residence District: Between Buildings Required: The setback of the buildings and structures within the site must take due consideration of public safety especially with regard to fire hazards, traffic site lines, and access for emergency equipment. Proposed: As shown on the site plan. The Deerfield Bannockburn Fire Protection District have indicated that they are in the process of getting the site plan approved from the Deerfield Bannockburn Fire Protection District. Front Yard (along Elm Street) The Zoning Ordinance has a provision that if 40% or more of the houses on a block have front yards of greater depth than required for the zoning district in which they are located, new buildings shall not be erected closer to the street 5

7 than the average front yard established by the existing buildings. The average front yard setback is feet and therefore a home has to be setback 37 feet from the front property line. Provided: East (front yard) setback is feet from the east property line to the new building as shown on the site plan. A variation is required for the building being in the required 37 feet front yard setback. Perimeter Setback Required: A yard of not less than 25 feet, plus one (1) foot for each one (1) foot by which the building exceeds thirty (30) feet in height, shall be provided and maintained along the exterior boundaries of the Residential PUD. This perimeter yard shall be kept free of buildings and parking and shall be maintained in landscaping. The height of the proposed townhouse building will be 35 feet. This height will determine the required perimeter setback. Therefore, a 30 foot minimum perimeter setback is required (25 minimum, plus an additional 5 feet equals 30 feet required perimeter setback). Provided: At the closest point in the north perimeter setback, Building B is approximately feet from the north property line, the A/C condenser unit is feet from the north property line and the asphalt drive between Building B and Building C is feet from the north property line. At the closest point in the south perimeter setback, Building B is approximately feet from the south property lin, the A/C condenser unit is feet from the south property line and the asphalt drive between Building B and Building C from the south property line. At the closest point in the west perimeter setback, the A/C condenser units for Building C is approximately feet from the west property line. Variations to the north, south, and west setbacks would be needed to allow structures to be located in the required 30-foot perimeter setbacks of this development as shown on the petitioner s site plan. 6

8 Maximum Lot Coverage Allowed: The total ground area occupied by all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the gross area of the site. Proposed: 35 percent lot coverage A variation would be needed to allow the total ground area occupied by all principal and accessory buildings to exceed (30) percent of the gross area of the site as shown on the petitioner s site plan. Minimum Usable Open Space Allowed: Not less than 20% of the gross area of a Residential PUD shall be devoted to permanent usable open space. The Zoning Ordinance defines usable open space as an area of land or water or a combination of land and water, which may include complimentary structures and improvements within the site, excluding space devoted to parking, designed and intended for common use and enjoyment. Provided: The petitioners plans indicate that they will provide 40% of usable open space. Building Height Allowed: The maximum allowable building height in the R-5 Multi-Family Zoning District is 35 feet. The Zoning Ordinance defines height as the vertical distance as measured from the pre-development grade for a property, to the highest point of the coping of a mansard roof or a flat roof, to the highest point of a hipped roof, to the highest gable of a pitched roof, to the ridge of the gable or hip roof, or to the highest point of a turret or ornamental tower, whichever point is higher. Proposed: The townhome building is 35 feet at its highest point as shown on the building elevation drawings. The petitioner s building elevation plans show the highest portions of the building. Parking Required: Efficiency and one (1) bedroom units are to provide one and one-half (1-1/2) parking spaces for each dwelling unit, and two (2) or more bedroom units are to provide two (2) parking spaces for each dwelling unit. Based on the mix of units in the development, a total of 20 parking spaces would be required. 7

9 Single-Family Dwellings: 2 units X 2 parking spaces for each single family dwelling unit = 4 4 br: 8 units x 2 parking spaces for each 2 br. unit = 16 parking spaces Total: 20 parking spaces Provided: 26 spaces: 20 spaces in the 2 car garages (10 units X 2 spaces per garage), plus 6 exterior guest parking spaces in designated parking spaces. There will be no parking in front of the garages, (If a vehicle parks in front of the garage there will not be enough room for vehicles to pass.). Landscaping Plan As part of a preliminary development plan, the petitioners are required to provide a landscaping plan for the subject property. Landscaping will be provided around perimeter of the proposed development. The perimeter planting will consist of evergreens, ornamental trees, shade trees, shrub plantings, and groundcover. Tree Preservation The Village s tree ordinance applies to residentially zoned properties. Any tree over 8 inches in diameter at 4 ½ feet above the ground is considered to be a protected tree. The petitioners would be required to replace (mitigate) the protected trees they remove. The amount of tree replacement is dependent upon the species and condition of the trees to be removed as outlined in the Village s tree manual. The trees to be removed are shown with an X on the preliminary engineering plan. The petitioners have indicated that this information will be coming for the Public Hearing. Signage Identification Entry Signs Number and Content Allowed: Not more than one (1) identification entry sign at each entrance into the PUD. Such sign shall indicate only the name of the development and an identifying symbol of the development. Proposed: The petitioner has submitted a sign plan for single entry sign at the entrance into the planned unit development with the text 500 Elm St. 8

10 Type: Allowed: May be either monument signs or lettering mounted on a decorative wall. Proposed: The petitioner is proposing a post mounted ground sign. Area: Allowed: No more than one face. The gross surface area of the sign face shall not exceed 27 square feet. The sign is measured by determining the area of the smallest single rectangle, which encompasses all of the lettering, and any symbol used to identify the development. Proposed: The petitioner is proposing a double-faced sign with a gross surface area of approximately 11 square feet, 5.39 square feet per sign face (1.75 feet high by 3.08 feet long per sign face =5.39 square feet). A variation is required for having a doublefaced sign. Location: Allowed: On the same zoning lot as the principal use and in any required yard but no closer than 25 feet from any property line. Proposed: The petitioner has ground sign closer than 25 from the east property line. A variation is required for the ground sign being closer than 25 feet from the east property line. Site Lighting Required: The Zoning Ordinance requires that all exterior lighting be directed away from adjoining highways, streets, and properties and not spill over the property line. Provided: The petitioners have indicated there will be surface mounted lighting the buildings as shown on the elevation drawings. Rooftop HVAC/Mechanical Screening Any roof HVAC/mechanicals need to be screened from view. The AC units are located on the ground level as shown on the petitioner s site plan. Storm Water Drainage and Utilities Underground storm water detention chambers for the property will be provided in the front and rear of the property as indicated in the preliminary engineering plans. 9

11 The water mains, sanitary sewer lines and storm sewer lines on the subject property in this development are proposed to be private. The Home Owners Association will be responsible for the maintenance of these private improvements in the development. Bike Facilities The Zoning Ordinance requires that, where appropriate, all multi-family developments in the R-5 General Residence District have to provide for bicycle storage, safe and smooth internal circulation, and connections to adjacent developments and bike paths. The petitioner s plans indicate bike storage facilities are shown on the first floor plans for each building type. Sidewalks The existing sidewalks located in the Village right-of-way along Elm Street will remain. Parking on Elm Street According to the Village Municipal Code, parking is not allowed on both east and west sides of Elm Street, from its intersection with Poplar Lane to a point 150 feet north. Parking is also not allowed on both north and south sides of Poplar Lane, from its intersection with Elm Street on the north to its intersection with Elm Street on the south. See attached map for the parking restrictions on Elm Street and Poplar Lane. Neighborhood Meeting The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on October 19, 2017 at Deerfield High School to address questions and concerns from the public regarding the proposed development prior to their public hearing. The petitioner s material indicates that comments from the neighbors include that there are still too many units; happy with two single family homes; concerns about storm water and storm water overflow onto neighboring properties and concerns about building heights. Impact Fees If the project is approved, the developer will be required to pay impact fees to the Village that are required by the Village s impact fee ordinance. Based on the 10-four bedroom units, an impact fee of $155, is required. $18, (per 4 bedroom detached unit) X 2= $ 37, $14, (per 4 bedroom attached unit) X 8 = $117, Total Impact Fee =$155,

12 Prefiling Conference Minutes The Prefiling Conference minutes from the July 13, 2017 meeting are attached. 11

13 Workshop Meeting July 13, 2017 Page 3 (3) Prefiling Conference: Redevelopment of 464 and 502 Elm Street properties with Townhomes (Avanti Construction Group, Inc.) John Schiess addressed the Commission and introduced himself as the architect guiding the approval process. Mr. Schiess introduced Gene Revzin, President and Erik Johnson, Project Manager, both of Avanti Construction. Mr. Schiess resides at 400 Ashland Ave. in River Forest, IL with a studio in Oak Park, IL. Mr. Revzin s company is on Skokie Valley Rd. in Highland Park and Mr. Johnson resides in Eagle Creek, WI. Mr. Schiess showed a rendering of the streetscape for the proposed townhome development. The development team is working with Avanti Construction as well as consultants for civil engineering, utility placement, and landscape architecture. Mr. Schiess provided an overview of the project s process. He said Village planning staff guided them from over 16 units down to the current proposed 12 units. The development team has had numerous conversations with consultants to discuss civil engineering and water utilities. Mr. Schiess stated that they want to be sure to bring the right product to the area. Their company attempts to build, make a reasonable profit, and leave behind an asset to the neighborhood. The development team submitted a concept plan, got feedback from staff, made adjustments, and those adjustments are currently presented to the Commission. The landscape plan was also then added. Mr. Schiess stated they are here to listen and gain candid feedback. After this meeting they will make adjustments based on what is heard and schedule a meeting to present to neighbors. They will then submit a formal final application in hopes to move through the approval process. Commissioner Bromberg asked if any neighbors have been contacted yet. Mr. Schiess replied that no neighbors have been contacted yet but they plan to address this. Mr. Schiess described the proposed development. He stated that it sits on just over an acre at 46,848 square feet. There are five proposed buildings of attached row homes: one building of four units and four buildings of two units each which totals 12 row homes. Each has three or four bedrooms with ground floor living. Mr. Revzin added that the marketing team has done market research and they are hoping to appeal to different market segments, not just one market type. Mr. Schiess went on that six guest parking spots are on site. Commissioner Bromberg asked about the elevators in units shown in the plans. Mr. Schiess commented that there are provisions for elevators and that the marketing team worked those in to appeal to an underserved market segment of empty nesters who may have difficulty with stairs. The elevators are a key distinguishing part of marketing because other townhomes do not offer this. Mr. Schiess presented an image of the context photo showing adjacency to neighbors and zoning. There are other multi-family structures to the east and south. Commissioner Bromberg clarified that the closest structure is a single family home and commented that the proposed development is very close to this adjacent house. Mr. Schiess presented the next image showing adjacent homes and boundaries. Mr. Nakahara stated that the neighboring house directly to the south is zoned R3, and the rest are zoned R5. Mr. Schiess went on stating that the site plan shows how the garage doors are tucked away from street view and the buildings form a courtyard. He then showed the parking and garage plans which fall within the setback requirements. Chairperson Pro Tem Jacoby asked how many parking spaces each unit gets. Mr. Schiess replied that each unit has two garage spaces and there are six total visitor spaces. Commissioner Shayman asked about the variances being requested for air conditioning units and parking. Mr. Schiess explained that the variance for the location of parking spaces is for the

14 Workshop Meeting July 13, 2017 Page 4 guest spaces located in the side yard. Mr. Nakahara added that variances would be required for not only the guest parking, but also air conditioning units and buildings. Mr. Nakahara reported that the required perimeter setback is 30 feet and the front yard is an average on the block of 37 feet and that the building, parking and air conditioning units are inside the setback, some at 30 feet and some at 20 feet as indicated in the staff memo. Mr. Schiess added that air conditioning units can be moved to be zoning compliant if required but that the parking makes sense where it is proposed because it is a valuable asset to the neighbors to keep guest parking on site. Commissioner Forrest inquired about the height of the structures. Mr. Schiess replied that the buildings are 35 feet high. Mr. Schiess then shared the streetscape rendering. Commissioner Bromberg asked if there are balconies are all toward the center and not facing the outside. Mr. Schiess replied that yes, they all face the courtyard to help create community among residents and to not be intrusive to neighbors. Chairperson Pro Tem Jacoby asked what their target market is. Mr. Schiess replied that the three bedroom units look to capture a younger market being close to the rail line which is why they have a lower purchase price than the larger units. He stated that the units are for sale individually and there is an association that protects the shared parking spaces and private road, which will be maintained by the association. For building materials they plan to use stucco, brick masonry and high quality double hung windows. This architectural style is consistent with the small village feel they are trying to create. Mr. Schiess explained that every elevation will have high quality materials. Mr. Schiess stated that Village staff encouraged the development team to evaluate water utility and storm water management. They worked with a team with engineers and determined that they could have built a giant pond as a feature and for storm water holding. However the Village Ordinance stresses usable exterior space, so they determined instead to place storm water storage underground and allow for greater surface area. Article 12 of the Ordinance calls for 20% open space and they are at 44% due to underground storm water storage creating more usable space. Mr. Schiess explained that the storm water storage plan flows through inlets that lead to underground storage tanks. They collect the water and temporarily store it and release it into the municipal system at a prescribed rate that the Village would approve. This allows the sewers to not back up and cause problems. Commissioner Bromberg asked how it will handle storm water as compared to the two current single family homes on this site. Mr. Schiess replied that he would need the engineering consultants to answer that who will be attendance for the public hearing. Chairperson Pro Tem Jacoby asked that with no parking in front of the garages and six guest spaces available, what happens when all spaces are taken. Mr. Schiess responded that if they were to provide parking for these infrequent events, there would be too much parking. He added that during special events, some cars will end up parking in front of garages. He added that many of their projects get approved on this scale and that residents become a small village who communicates well. Mr. Ryckaert clarified that further down Elm St. there is street parking available. Mr. Ryckaert asked how they plan to keep cars from parking in front of garages on a routine basis. Mr. Schiess replied that there will be covenants in the purchase agreement to address this matter. Commissioner Shayman asked if there is enough room for a car to pass behind if someone parked in front of a garage. Mr. Schiess replied that a car would stick out eight feet into the 22 foot drive, leaving 14 feet for a car to get by. However, an emergency vehicle may not be able to move in and out. Commissioner Bromberg asked if they will seek fire

15 Workshop Meeting July 13, 2017 Page 5 code approval to address this and other life safety issues. Mr. Schiess replied that yes, they plan to work with the Fire Marshal to address this but have not as of yet. Commissioner Shayman stated that the report shows that a recent project density was approved at 10 units per acre and that those went through neighborhood input and rezoning hearings. He added that density could become an issue as they are asking for 20% more than this previous project. Mr. Schiess replied that density is always an issue and they are here to discuss this. He shared that they started at 14 units and came down to 12 and that at 12 the economics are teetering and there is a financial element to their project. When they first worked with Village staff, they discussed one property and it was suggested to acquire more property to qualify for a residential PUD. He added that the economics of the project grew and more land was acquired. Commissioner Shayman mentioned that Taylor Junction s setback from the building to the neighbors ranged from feet, and approximately 12.5 feet to their privacy screens. Additionally, Taylor Junction s front or east side has a 25-foot setback to the building with 17.5 feet to the balcony and 15 feet to the front walk stairs. He also noted a setback variation along their west property line, as well. Chairperson Pro Tem Jacoby asked about the landscape screening adjacent to the neighboring residential properties. Mr. Schiess replied that the landscape screen along the property lines with neighbors contain a screen and a series of swales. There will possibly be a fence as well. Mr. Schiess stated that they are open to recommendations for screens with adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Bromberg replied that the neighbors will let them know what they want. Commissioner Forrest commented that he is concerned about density, building height and the neighbors closest to the setbacks as well as the landscape screening. Commissioner Bromberg said that compared to Taylor Junction, there are not as many residents close to the property line. Mr. Schiess said that the screening of air conditioning units should be improved or moved and that they already lowered the height of the building from 37 to 35 feet. They are also completing a traffic report and analysis, professional landscape plan, working with Village public works on engineering plans, and scheduling neighbor meetings at a public place off site. At this meeting they will get a chance to hear neighbors and will send a letter about the neighborhood meeting to all who receive the Plan Commission public hearing notice. In their developments they like to talk about how they will give back to the community, make it their developments sustainable. They believe that towns need to have varied and diverse housing types to stay healthy. Mr. Schiess went on that their proposed development compliments the character of similar uses and will support adjacent property values. He stated that they are asking for a zoning change from R3 to R5 and community approval with variances for setbacks as well as waivers for the fiscal impact study, market study, and traffic study. He stated that residential development causes the lowest amount of traffic and they hope the Commission will not require the traffic study. Chairperson Pro Tem Jacoby commented that she is fine with granting these waivers. Commissioner Bromberg asked about the real estate taxes generated by the proposed development versus the previous properties at this location. Mr. Schiess replied that they will have this data at the public hearing. Commissioner Bromberg commented that the reaction of neighbors will be of interest relative to the setbacks and density. Mr. Schiess stated that they are agents of change and help folks be accepting of this. He added that when discussing density he likes to ask how this manifests itself with traffic, impacts on schools, library usage,

16 Workshop Meeting July 13, 2017 Page 6 and amount of fire calls. He stated that one more unit really does not make a difference in these metrics. Chairperson Pro Tem Jacoby asked where they have had other successful developments in the area. Mr. Revzin responded that he has completed two similar developments; one in Chicago and one in Park Ridge. Commissioner Bromberg stated that another thing to address with neighbors is how construction will impact them. Mr. Schiess replied that he likes to manage construction expectations and talk about the schedule, start dates, work hours, and also provide a contact phone number for concerns. Mr. Revzin added that the general contractor finalist candidates have been in the business for over 30 years and are well qualified to manage the project well. Mr. Revzin added that the project targets not only empty nesters but also plans to make these homes as flexible as possible to accommodate families as well. There were no other comments from the Commissioners. Stanley and Wendy Olmem of 454 Elm St. addressed the Commission. Mr. Olmem stated that their house is just south of this proposed development. They moved there in 1983 when Elm St. was all single-family homes and there are now townhouses on the south and west of them. With the addition of this proposal it creates spot zoning. Mr. Olmem stated that they own one of the oldest homes in Deerfield and they chose Deerfield for their single family home and have a real issue with more townhomes being built. He stated that there is no question that their property values will go down and that he agrees with the Commissioners concerns about parking. He thanked them for their time. Andrew Marwick addressed the Commission. He stated that this proposal shows that there is a demand for this type of housing although it has plusses and minuses in this location. Adjournment Commissioner Bromberg moved, seconded by Commissioner Moyer to adjourn the meeting at 8:49 P.M. Said motion passed with the following roll call: Ayes: (4) Bromberg, Forrest, Moyer, Shayman Nays: (0) None Respectfully Submitted, Laura Boll

17

18

19 Village of Deerfield 2017 Zoning Ordinance Map Subject Property

20 CT Zoning Districts Superimposed Over Aerial Photo Map Created on10/24/2017 Aerial Imagery from 2014 DEEP DENE COVE LOMBARDY CT ANTHONY LN LOMBARDY LN Zoning District DEERPATH DR DEERPATH CT C-1 C-2 C-3 I-1 I-2 MALLARD LN P-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 LN PRICE JONQUIL TER CENTRAL AVE BROOKSIDE LN FOREST AVE SUNSET CT GROVE AVE CHESTNUT ST OSTERMAN AVE PARK AVE DEERFIELD RD ROBERT YORK AVE ELM ST 502 Elm St. MILFORD WHITTIERAVE RD LONGFELLOW AVE HERMITAGE DR KENTON RD KIPLING PL OXFORD RD BYRON CT DARTMOUTH LN PINE ST PRINCETON LN RADCLIFFE CIR HACKBERRY RD CIR MONIER CAMBRIDGE CIR POPLAR LN LOCUST PL FOUNTAIN VIEW DR S COMMONS CT 464 Elm St. KELBURN RD TAUPO LN AMBERLEY LN WAUKEGAN RD WILLOW AVE ISLAND CT ISLAND CT LAKE VIEW ROSEWOOD AVE KATES RD

21 Deerfield Comprehensive Plan FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES (MAP INDICATES UPDATES THROUGH MAY 23, 2017) Village of Bannockburn Single-Family Residential - Areas that contain or are appropriate for single-family residential development. Two-Family Residential - Areas intended to accomodate a mix of single-family and two-family development. Multi-Family Residential - Areas that contain townhouse developments, condominiums or other large multi-family buildings. Retail Services - Areas intended to accomodate consumer-oriented retail services and commercial uses. Within the Village Center this land use category may include mixed-use developments with residential above the ground floor. City of Highland Park Hotel - An establishment that provides lodging and services for travelers an other paying guests. Office/Research - Areas intended to accomodate various types of office uses. Light Industrial - A wide variety of employment-oriented land uses are included under this land use category such as: light manufacturing uses, warehousing, distribution, data processing/telecommunications and related office uses. Village of Riverwoods Public - This category identifies the major public uses including schools, Village facilities, library, and post office. Institutional - Identifies quasi-public facilities in the Village, including private schools and places of worship. Transportation/Parking/Utilities - This land use category includes commuter rail facilities, commuter parking and utilities. Open Space - Both public and private open space is included in this land use category. Major land owners include the Village, the Deerfield Park District and Briarwood Country Club. VILLAGE CENTER Village of Northbrook FIGURE 3.1 UPDATED: FUTURE LAND USE MAP

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31 2 865 I 85s -J j _J J _J MapOffice n _J J.J I J I _J -_/..J _J _J N 0 I!) ft (J) E UJ,..._ I!) - LJ Poplar Ln I -J O.O mile I -j )Jpch e aw83 feet I Q. 'SI' I o Poplar Ln 11'1 j.,------:liij (/

32 Poplar Lane Townhomes Background Information

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57 FOR BACKGROUND PURPOSES ONLY Taylor Junction Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Ordinance

58

59

60 VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD LAKE AND COOK COUNTIES, ILLINOIS ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE TAYLOR JUNCTION TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, THE REZONING OF PROPERTY AT 836 CHESTNUT STREET TO THE R -5 GENERAL. RESIDENCE DISTRICT, A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL PUD OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE AND AN AMENDMENT To nn,", VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD, LAKE AND COOK COUNTIES, ILLINOIS, this 15th day of June _ --, Published in pamphlet form by authority of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Deerfield, Lake and Cook Counties, Illinois, this 15thday of June _, 2015.

61 VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD LAKE AND COOK COUNTIES, ILLINOIS ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE TAYLOR JUNCTION TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, THE REZONING OF PROPERTY AT 836 CHESTNUT STREET TO THE R -5 GENERAI. RESIDENCE DISTRICT, A 'ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL. PUD OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, Jacobs Venture 11, LLC ( the " Petitioner "), the owner and developer of a 0. 9 acre parcel of property legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and commonly known as Chestnut Street ( the " Subject Property "), has petitioned the Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield for: ( i) an amendment to Article D of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Deerfield to allow a residential planned unit development of less than one ( I ) acre in size in the R - 5 General Residence District; ( ii) an amendment to the Village Comprehensive Plan to designate a portion ofthe Subject Property ( 836 Chestnut Street) for multi - family development; iii) rezoning of a portion of the Subject Property ( 836 Chestnut Street) to the R -5 General Residence District; ( iv) approval of a special use authorizing the proposed Taylor Junction townhome development as Residential Planned Unit Development of the Subject Property in the R -5 General Residence District, including certain modifications of the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Deerfield; and ( v) approval of a Final Development Plan for the Taylor Junction townhome Residential Planned Unit Development ( the - Project"), in accordance with the Final Development Plan authorized pursuant to this Ordinance; and

62 WHEREAS, the Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield held a public hearing on February 12, 2015 and February 26, 2015 to consider Petitioner' s application for said zoning ordinance text amendment to allow a residential planned unit development ofless than one ( 1) acre in size in the R -5 General Residence District, to rezone a portion of the Subject Property as R -5 General Residence District, to approve a special use authorizing the proposed Taylor Junction townhome development as Residential Planned Unit Development of the Subject Property.. to approve an amendment to the Village Comprehensive Plan designating a portion or the Subject Property for multi - family development, and to approve a preliminary development plan for the Project as Special Use Residential Planned Unit Development, said hearing being held pursuant to public notice and conforming in all respects, in both manner and form, with the requirements ofthe statutes of the State of Illinois and the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Deerfield; and WHEREAS, the Plan Commission previously submitted its written report to the Board of Trustees of the Village of Deerfield recommending approval of. (i) a text amendment to Article D of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Deerfield allowing a residential planned unit development of less than one ( I) acre in size in that part of the R -5 General Residence District bounded by Deerfield Road, Forest Avenue, Walnut Street and Chestnut Street; ( ii) an amendment to the Village Comprehensive Plan to designate a portion of the Subject Property for multi- family development; ( iii) rezoning a portion of the Subject Property to the R -5 General Residence District; ( iv) approval of a special use authorizing the proposed Taylor Junction townhome development as Residential Planned Unit Development of the Subject Property in the R -5 General Residence District, including certain modifications of the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Deerfield; and, ( v) approval of a the preliminary development plan for 2-

63 the Project as a Residential Planned Unit Development, subject to presentation and approval of a final development plan in substantial conformance therewith; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Deerfield concurred in the recommendation of the Plan Commission and determined that it is in the best interests of the Village of Deerfield that the Comprehensive Plan of the Village of Deerfield be amended as provided herein to designate a portion of the Subject Property ( 836 Chestnut Street) for multi- family development so that the entire Subject Property is designated for multi- family development pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan of the Village of Deerfield; and, WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Deerfield concurred in the recommendation of the Plan Commission and determined that it is in the best interests of the Village of Deerfield that the text of Article D of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Deerfield be amended to allow a residential planned unit development of less than one ( I) acre in size in that portion of the R -5 General Residence District bounded by Deerfield Road, Forest Avenue, Walnut Street and Chestnut Street; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Deerfield concurred in the recommendation ofthe Plan Commission and determined that it is in the best interests of the Village of Deerfield that a portion of the Subject Property ( 836 Chestnut Street) be rezoned to the R -5 General Residence District; and, WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Deerfield concurred in the Plan Commission recommendation and approved the preliminary development plan for the Taylor Junction townhome development on March 16, 2015, including certain modifications of the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Deerfield, subject to the subsequent presentation and approval of a final development plan in substantial conformance with 3-

64 the approved preliminary development plan; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner has now petitioned the Plan Commission forapproval of final development plan for the Project pursuant to Article F, Paragraph 3, of the Zoning Ordinance ofthe Village of Deerfield, and WHEREAS, the Plan Commission has submitted its written report to the Board of Trustees of the Village of Deerfield finding that the final development plan for the Project is in substantial conformance with the preliminary development plan heretofore approved by the Board of Trustees and recommending that the Board of Trustees approve the final development plan for the Taylor Junction townhome development project pursuant to Article ', Paragraph 3. of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Deerfield, as a Special Use Residential Planned Unit Development of the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Deerfield concur " ith the finding and recommendation of the Plan Commission that the final development plan for the Project in in substantial conformance with the preliminary development plan heretofore approved by the Board of Trustees and should be approved pursuant to Article F, Paragraph 3, of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Deerfield, as a Special Use Residential Planned Unit Development of the Subject Property in the R -5 General Residence District; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD, LAKE AND COOK COUNTIES, ILLINOIS, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows: SECTION I: That the above and foregoing recitals, being material to this Ordinance. are hereby incorporated by this reference and made a part of this Ordinance as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: That Article D ( Minimum Size of Site) of Article 12 of the Zoning 4-

65 Ordinance of the Village of Deerfield, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended to read as follows: D Minimum Size of Site L Except as provided in subparagraph 2, the minimum gross area of one 1) acre shall be required of each site for consideration of a Planned Unit Development in the R -5 General Residence District. 2. The minimum gross area of 0. 9 acre shall be required of each site for consideration of a Planned Unit Development in that part of the R - 5 General Residence District bounded by Deerfield Road, Forest Avenue, Walnut Street and Chestnut Street. SECTION 3: That the Future Land Use Plan contained as Figure 3. 1 of the Comprehensive Plan of the Village of Deerfield adopted on October 4, 2004 be and the same is hereby amended to show the entire Subject Property as Multi - Family Residential. SECTION 4: That the Zoning Map of the Village of Deerfield, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended to reclassify and rezone that portion of the Subject Property commonly known as 836 Chestnut Street as R -5 General Residence District so that the entire Subject Property described shall be zoned as R - 5 General Residence District. SECTION 5: That the President and Board of Trustees do hereby find that the Taylor Junction Townhome Development fully complies with the requirements and standards set forth in Article C, Paragraph 8, Article and Article of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Deerfield, as amended. SECTION 6: That the President and Board of Trustees do hereby authorize and approve the Final Development Plan for the Taylor Junction Townhome Development as a Special Use Residential Planned Unit Development of the Subject Property in the R -5 General Residence District, including certain modifications of the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Deerfield as provided in Section 7 of this Ordinance, subject to the conditions, 5-

66 regulations and restrictions set forth in Section 8 of this Ordinance. SECTION 7: The following modifications of the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Deerfield for the R -5 General Residence District are hereby authorized for the construction, development, and use of the Taylor Junction townhome development as a Special Use Residential Planned Unit Development of the Subject Property in conformance with the Final Development Plan hereby authorized and approved: A. A modification to allow the following structures to be located in the north perimeter setbacks ofthis development including: the new building located feet from the north property line, the new patio located feet from the north property line, the new privacy screen feet from the north property line, and one air conditioning unit as shown on the final site plan. B. A modification to allow the following structures to be located in the south perimeter setback of this development including: the new building located feet from the south property line, the new patio located feel from the south property line, the new privacy screen located feet from the south property line, and two air conditioning unit as shown on the final site plan.. C. A modification to allow the following structures to be located in the east perimeter setback of this development including: the new building located feet from the east property line, the new balcony located feet from the east property line, the new stairs located feet from the east property line, and one air conditioning unit as shown on the final site plan. D. A modification to allow the following structures to be located in the west perimeter setback of this development including: the new building located feet from the cast property line, the new balcony and patio located 24.0 feet from the east property line and two air conditioning units as shown on the final site plan. E. A modification to allow a monument sign to located 3 feet from the front property line as shown on the site plan. SECTION 8: That the approval and authorization of said Final Development Plan for the Taylor Junction Townhomes Development as a Special Use of the Subject Property in the R -5 General Residence District is granted subject to the following additional conditions, regulations M

67 and restrictions: A. That the construction, development, maintenance and use of the Subject Property shall be substantially in accordance with the documents, materials and exhibits comprising the Final Development Plan for the Subject Property attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B. B. Compliance with all representations submitted and made by the Owner to the Plan Commission and to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Deerfield. C. Execution and delivery of a Development Agreement and an Impact Fee Agreement, each substantially in the form of the drafts of such documents listed on Exhibit B, and compliance with the terms and conditions thereof. SECTION 9: That this Ordinance, and each of its terms, shall be the effective legislative act of a home rule municipality without regard to whether such Ordinance should: ( a) contain terms contrary to the provisions of current or subsequent non- preemptive state law; or. ( b) legislate in a manner or regarding a matter not delegated to municipalities by state law. It is the intent of the corporate authorities of the Village of Deerfield that to the extent that the terms of this Ordinance should be inconsistent with any non - preemptive state law, this Ordinance shall supersede state law in that regard within its jurisdiction. This Space Left Blank Intentionally] 7-

68 SECTION 10: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form as provided by law. PASSED this 15th day of June ' AYES: Farkas, Jester, Shapiro, Seiden, Struthers NAYS: None ABSENT: Nadler ABSTAIN: None APPROVED this 15th day of June x C l Village Pres dent ATTEST: illage Clerk IM

69 Exhibit B Documents Comprising the Final Development Plan for the Taylor Junction Townhomes Development Chestnut Street I. Final Site Plan for Taylor Junction by BSB Design, revised Site Plan for Taylor Junction by BSB Design, dated Landscape Plan Sheet L. 1 for Taylor Junction by Tree & Timber, Inc., dated Existing Tree Locations, Sheet D -1 for Taylor Junction by Tree & Timber, Inc. 5. Civil Engineering drawings by Pierson, Brown & Associates, Inc. for Ta) for Junction consisting of nine ( 9) sheets with an original issuance date of 04/ 07/ 15,, lob No Character Elevations for' I' aylor Junction by 13SB Design, dated consisting of five ( 5) sheets with Elevation - 1, Elevation -2, Elevation -3, Elevation -4. Elevation -5, Elevation -7, Elevation -8 and C -Alt Rear Elevation. 7. Building Assembly Plans by BS13 Design, dated for Taylor Junction depicting main Floor assembly, upper floor assembly, roof plan and Building Assembly Plans by BSB Design, dated for Taylor Junction depicting lower floor assembly. 8. Floor Plans for Taylor Junction Residence A -1, A -2, and C by 13SB Design, dated and consisting of five ( 5) sheets. 9. Fence Details Sheet for Taylor Junction by BSB Design, dated Taylor Junction Monument Sign Plan by Signarama, dated 12/ 2/ Tear Sheet for Kichler Portman Square Collection Outdoor Wall Sconce, 49158SS. 12. Development Agreement liar the Taylor Junction Townhomes. 13. Impact Fee Agreement for the "Taylor Junction Townhomes. 14. Declaration of Party Wall Rights, Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for the Taylor Junction Townhome Association, in its final form.

70 Plan Development Application for The Townhomes on Elm Street Elm Street Deerfield Illinois Developer: Designer: Agent for applicant: Avanti Construction Group, Inc Skokie Valley Road Highland Park, Illinois Erik Johnson, Avanti Designs 2070 Skokie Valley Road Highland Park, Illinois John Conrad Schiess Architect, Ltd. 400 Ashland Avenue River Forest, Illinois Submitted: November 1, 2017

71 The Townhomes on Elm Street Elm Street Village of Deerfield Documents Submitted Project Narrative, Character + Design Features Owner s Statement of Authorization Planned Unit Development Findings Plat of Survey Zoning Map Site Plan Building Elevations Floor Plans Landscape Plan Preliminary Engineering Plans Environmental Report, as deferred submittal Construction Schedule Codes Covenants + Restrictions Neighborhood s Meeting Notes Submitted November 1, 2017

72 Project Narrative, Character + Design Features The development as proposed in this Application has its beginnings with a different concept that included only the property at 464 Elm Street. With the support and encouragement from Village Staff and consideration by the Developer, the property at 502 Elm Street was acquired and included into the proposed development. The addition of the latter property gave the Applicant the ability to propose a development with lower density and greater green and open spaces. The proposed development now features 8 townhomes and two single family homes arranged around a common driving court that helps to serve as the focal and identity piece for the development. The homes are divided into five buildings which help to minimize the development bulk. That design feature, along with the multi-layer roof design and building s volumetric complexity help to create a rhythm that is reminiscent of a small village. With that site concept in place, the architectural designer chose a modern interpretation of the vernacular farmhouse architectural style with a masonry base and board and stucco-like finishes for the upper levels. The units are appointed with generous outdoor living spaces that flow from indoor living and dining areas. Additional outdoor living has been designated at the rear of each home. So as to meet the anticipated lifestyle of the future homeowners, the homes have larger floor plans, finely appointed kitchens, bathrooms and designated bike storage on the ground level. All of the concepts and features outlined above flowed from the Developer s understanding of the local Real Estate market and the need for distinctive homes in the anticipated price range.

73 Zoning Classification Findings Elm Street Deerfield, IL Submitted November 3, Existing Uses Existing uses of property within the general area of the property in question Whereas the proposed development is currently designated as an R-3 zone property that allows residential use and whereas the properties to the south specifically the properties along Poplar Lane are zoned R-5 which also allows for a residential use. Additionally, whereas the property to the east was approved as an R-5 zone district and built under that zoning but the property was then re-zoned back to the R-3 zone, both zone districts allowing for a residential use. And whereas the applicant has submitted a zoning map that demonstrates the above listed uses in the general zone district. 2. Current Zoning in Area The current classification of the property within the general area of the property in question Whereas the proposed development is currently designated as an R-3 zone and whereas the properties to the south specifically the properties along Poplar Lane are zoned R-5. Additionally, whereas the property to the east was approved as an R-5 zone district and built under that zoning but the property was then rezoned back to the R-3 zone. And whereas the applicant has submitted a zoning map that demonstrates the current classifications within the general area of the property in question.

74 3. Suitability of Current Zoning The sustainability of the property in question for the uses permitted under the existing zoning classification and the proposed classification. Whereas the property in question is located in an R-3 zone district. And whereas the property in question is currently improved with two single family homes on two separate lots of record within the afore said zone district. And where as the property in question has been shown by public testimony on behalf of the Applicant to have been in disrepair prior to the Applicant s purchase. And whereas the Applicant has attempted to improve the property through various pro forma methods and design options. And whereas the Applicant, in working with Village of Deerfield Staff and Deerfield residents, so as to accommodate an improvement solution that also is acceptable to Lending institutions as a private risk development venture by presenting site design and unit density modifications as presented on two neighborhood meetings. Now therefore, the Applicant has demonstrated that the properties in question with the current improvements, and without development, are not sustainable and may lead to further disinvestment in the properties. 4. Trend of Development The trend of development, if any, in the general area of the propert in question, including changes, if any, which may have taken place since the day the property in question was placed in its present zoning classification. Whereas the Applicant has submitted a Zoning Map of the general area that shows the current zone districts in the general area. And whereas the properties to the south along Poplar Lane have recently been developed as R-5 zoned properties. And whereas the property to the east was approved as an R-5 zone district and built under that zoning but the property was then re-zoned back to the R-3 zone, both zone districts allowing for a residential use. Now therefore, the development trend in the general area shows a pattern of orderly development of existing properties from the R-3 zone district to newer developed properties built under the R-5 zone classification.

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

76 ' ' TE' IJ%'.;-.-2%&'!"#$$%&'($)*'+%,%"-./%$*'K)""'$-*')/.%&%'*J%' ' LJ%;%#2'*J%'.;-.-2%&'!"#$$%&'($)*'+%,%"-./%$*')2'#';%2)&%$*)#"' *J%'.;-.-2%&'!"#$$%&'($)*'+%,%"-./%$*')2'"-F#*%&'2-'*J#*')*'&-%2' *J%;%<-;%='IJ%'.;-.-2%&'!"#$$%&'($)*'+%,%"-./%$*'K)""'$-*' )/.%&%'*J%'$-;/#"'&%,%"-./%$*'#$&')/.;-,%/%$*'-<'*J%' ' ' 3E' #FF%22';-#&2='&;#)$#1%'#$&'-*J%;'$%F%22#;H'<#F)")*)%2'#;%'.;%2%$*' -;'K)""'A%'.;-,)&%&E' ' LJ%;%#2'*J%'.;-.-2%&'!"#$$%&'($)*'+%,%"-./%$*'J#2'A%%$' 2%;,)F%'#$&'#FF%22';-#&2'#;%'.;%2%$*'#$&'#,#)"#A"%'*J%'2)*%'#2' 2J-K$'-$':J%%*'C'-<'C'Q!;%")/)$#;H'+%,%"-./%$*'!"#$R'&#*%&' SETECDE'N$&'KJ%;%#2=')*')2'#$*)F).#*%&'*J#*'*J%'^)""#1%_2'%$1)$%%;)$1' K#*%;='#FF%22';-#&2='&;#)$#1%'#$&'-*J%;'$%F%22#;H'<#F)")*)%2E'B-K' #$&'K#*%;='#FF%22';-#&2='&;#)$#1%'#$&'-*J%;'$%F%22#;H'<#F)")*)%2' #;%'.;%2%$*'-;'K)""'A%'.;-,)&%&E' ' ' ' '

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b'?-*' +%,%"-./%$*'F-/.")%2'K)*J'N;*)F"%'C8'-<'*J%'M-$)$1'`;&)$#$F%')$' #""'-*J%;'#2.%F*2E'B-K'*J%;%<-;%='*J%'.;-.-2%&'!"#$$%&'($)*' ' '

78 Application Item 1 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION

79

80 Application Item 2 ZONING ANALYSIS + Statement on R5 Compliance Statement of Compliance As evidenced by the attached Zoning Analysis Sheet dated The proposed development as part of this Application is compliant with all sections of the R5 Zone District except the following: 1. Perimeter setbacks side yard requirements

81 DEVELOPMENT ZONING ANALYSIS! Project Name Townhomes on Elm Street Date: November 1, 2017 Project Address Elm Street Deerfield IL Prepared By: John Conrad Schiess Architect number of Units 10 Building Area 16,648 Lot Area 46,933 Lot Coverage 35% ZONING DATA! ITEM SECTION REGULATIONS ALLOWED / REQUIRED PROVIDED ALLOWANCE Zone District Map R3 residential uses Re-Zone to R5 Permitted Uses 4.05-B.1.d R5 Multiple-Family dwellings Multiple-Family dwellings Mininum Lot Area 4.05-F.1.c minimum lot area per unit 3,500 sf per unit Allowable Height Max F.5 building height from grade to roof 35 feet 35 feet allowed allowed allowed Setbacks Min. Front 4.05-F.3.a front yard set back 25 feet 27 feet allowed Rear 4.05-F.3.e rear yard setback 25 feet 30 feet allowed Side south 4.05-F.3.b interior side yard setback 8 ( plus combo min 20" ) 12 feet relief sought Side north 4.05-F.3.b interior side yard setback 8 ( plus combo min 20" ) 12 feet relief sought Lot Coverage 4.05-F.4 building coverage 35% max 35% allowed Parking 8.02-E.1.b 2 spaces per dwelling unit 24 spaces 24 garage spaces+ 6 guest spaces allowed

82 Application Item 3 PLAT OF SURVEY

83

84 Application Item 4 ZONING MAP

85

86 Application Item 5 SITE PLAN

87

88 Application Item 6 BUILDING ELEVATIONS

89 Development Streetscape Courtyard View of Duplex Homes

90 View into Courtyard from the Public Way

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101 Architect 1 3' 10 1/2" 1'-9" 4 1/2" 5 1/2" 3'-1" 5 1/2" Sign Elevation SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" 500 Elm St. 4' wood posts, trim and panel - metal lettering Developer Avanti Construction Group 2070 Skokie Road Highland Park, IL Ashland Avenue River Forest Illinois Deerfield Development AvantiBuilt.com (847) /3/17 S1

102 Application Item 7 FLOOR PLANS

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115 Application Item 8 LANDSCAPE PLAN Revised landscaping plan shall be submitted by the Applicant prior to the first Public Hearing.

116 CONCRETE APRON JOB NO.: 1708 DATE: REVISIONS: DRAWN BY: LJ DRAWING NAME: S:\Project Files\Active Jobs\2017 Jobs\1708 Deerfield Development\Drawing Data\A-Exhibits\ _LandscapePlan.dwg DATE PRINTED: Nov 01, :17pm 5-COR 6-VIB 3-COR 5-VIB 10' UTILITY EASEMENT ' (M) 1-QUE 10' EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES & DRAINAGE 1-GYM 1-GYM 3-VIB 1-PIP 3-COR 5-VIB ' (R&M) 5-COR GARAGE 1-PIP BARN ' (R&M) CONCRETE GARAGE 10' EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES & DRAINAGE 1-GYM 1-PIC 1-GYM 8" CONCRETE WOOD DECK TYP. BUILDING 10' EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES & DRAINAGE 6-SYR WOO DECK ASPHALT DRIVEWAY 6-SYR NOT TO SCALE 1-PIP 2 STORY FRAME BUILDING #464 CONCRETE BALL DIA. +24" (MIN. 2x ROOT BALL DIA.) 6' DIA. MIN. 5-VIB 2 STORY FRAME BUILDING #502 1-PIP 5-VIB CONCRETE 19-SPH BUILDING ASPHALT DRIVEWAY 19-SPH PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER, BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES MARK THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TREE IN THE NURSERY, AND ROTATE TREE TO FACE NORTH AT THE SITE WHENEVER POSSIBLE REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 1 3 OF BALL; CUT AND REMOVE AS MUCH WIRE BASKET AS POSSIBLE FROM THE ROOT BALL. 2" LAYER OF MULCH. DO NOT PLACE IN CONTACT WITH TRUNK EXISTING GRADE PLANTING MIXTURE.TAMP FIRMLY WITH FOOT PRESSURE 45 OR LESS COMPACTED PLANTING MIXTURE. LOOSEN HARD PAN (24" MIN.) DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING 3-SYR 6-DIH 3-SPH 9-SAC 14-IBS 1-BUX 1-BUX 6-CLE 9-SAC 6-IBS 1-BUX 14-IBS 6-DIH 9-SAC 3-SPH 3-SYR ASPHALT DRIVEWAY ASPHALT DRIVEWAY ASPHALT DRIVEWAY 1-QUE 3-PIC 9-SAC 1-AME 6-IBS 6-CLE 1-BUX 1-ACE ' (M) CONCRETE WALK CONCRETE WALK GRAVEL AREA GRAVEL AREA 1-AME 2-ACE ASPHALT PAVEMENT 60.00' R.O.W. 1-AME 2-PIC EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN 2" LAYER OF MULCH. DO NOT PLACE IN CONTACT WITH TRUNK 4" SOIL SAUCER AROUND TREE TRENCH. VERTICALLY CUT EDGE. 8" TYP. BALL DIA. + 24" (MIN. 2x ROOT BALL DIA.) 6' DIA. MIN. TOP OF ROOT BALL SHALL BE 1-2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE IN SLOWLY DRAINING SOILS. REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOT BALL; CUT AND REMOVE AS MUCH WIRE BASKET AS POSSIBLE FROM THE ROOT BALL. EXISTING GRADE (OR FINISH GRADE- SEE SPECS.) PLANTING MIXTURE. TAMP FIRMLY WITH FOOT PRESSURE COMPACTED PLANTING MIXTURE. LOOSEN HARDPAN (MIN. 24") EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE 8" 6" PLANT LIST BALL DIA. + 12" 45 OR LESS SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE LOCATION MAP TOP OF ROOT BALL SHALL BE 2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE BEFORE BACKFILLING. CUT AND REMOVE BURLAP, TWINE, AND/OR WIRE FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOT BALL. 2" LAYER OF MULCH. 4" SAUCER AROUND PIT. EXISTING GRADE (OR FINISH GRADE-SEE SPECS.) TRENCH. VERTICALLY CUT EDGE. PLANTING MIX. SEE SPECS. COMPACTED PLANTING MIX. SEE SPECS. LOOSEN HARD PAN (8" MIN.) SUBJECT SITE WAUKEGAN RD Deerfield Development 2017 The Lannert Group, Inc. Lannert Group Landscape Architecture Planning Community Consulting c 464 Elm Street Deerfield, Illinois LANDSCAPE PLAN John Conrad Schiess Architect, ltd. (630) Fax (630) Fulton Street Geneva, Illinois lannert.com SHEET NUMBER 1 1 OF Ashland Avenue Chicago, Illinois NORTH 20' SCALE 1"=

117 Application Item 9 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLANS

118

119 Application Item 10 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT This documentation shall be submitted by the Applicant prior to the first Public Hearing..

120 Application Item 11 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

121

122 Application Item 12 CODES, COVENANTS + RESTRICTIONS Statement from the Applicant: The developer shall submit a draft of the proposed Codes, Covenants and Restrictions for the development prior to final approval for review and comment by the Village of Deerfield. The intention for submittal and comments is to insure that certain restrictions with respect to the development such as maintenance, appearance, landscaping and other improvements are protected as approved through the Plan Development and Permitting process.

123 Application Item 13 NEIGHBORHOOD S MEETING NOTES

124 john conrad schiess architect, ltd 400 Ashland River Forest, IL Tel February 6, 2017 Avanti Group Neighborʼs Meeting Notes Topic: Development of Elm Street Properties Location: Deerfield Highschool Date: Thursday, October 19, 2017 Time: 7PM thru 8:30PM Attendees: aproximately 22 residents, one person not identified; Gene Revzin, Kerry Wolfe, consultant; Gene, general contractor; John Schiess New Site Plan and Renderings presented Reduced number of units from 12 to 10 Conversion of front units to single family homes Reduced building heights Storm Water Management will meet Village and County requirements Comments from Neighbors There are still too many units Happy with two single family homes Concerns about storm water and storm water overflow onto neighboring properties Concerns about Building Heights even though maximum height for rear units was lowered

125 CORRESPONDENCE FROM NEIGHBORS REGARDING 464 & 502 ELM STREET PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

126 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: M+M Gardner Daniel Nakahara OwendyO; Allyson Scopelliti 464/502 Elm St Development Proposal Thursday, August 3, :50:25 PM We have lived at 532 Elm St for 31 years, and we live in the 3rd home North of the proposed development at 464/502 Elm St. We have only recently been made aware of the 12 town home project to be built on 2 home lots on our street, and our concerns are as follows: 1) We adamantly oppose the spot zoning change from R3 to R5 that will be necessary to insert this 12 unit town home project between 3 single family homes North, South, and West of this location where 2 single family homes currently sit. We would welcome, along with our neighbors, rehab or replacement of the existing single family homes on each of these properties. 2) Stated in the Plan Development Application is "the concepts and features from the developers understanding of the local Real Estate market and the need for distinctive homes in the anticipated price range." However, in Deerfield there are currently large single family homes on large parcels of land that are listed well below the price points of this proposed development, having the same approximate size or larger. 3) Elm St is already the most heavily traveled neighborhood street in Deerfield due to traffic from Deerfield Public Works, Patty Turner Senior Center, Park & Soccer Fields, Water Treatment Facility, and Shepard Middle School (one way exit only onto Elm). In the Pioneer Press article dated page 13, the Deerfield Commissioner, Elaine Jacobi, said that it would be acceptable to waive a fiscal impact, marketing, and traffic study because of the size of the plan as requested by John Conrad Schiess (an architect and consultant for the plan). However, an explanation of the exact logic supporting this waiver was not given. 4) The plan document shows there will be curbs out onto Elm St, yet there are no curbs on Elm St. How will this be accomplished? 5) There is no street parking on Elm St or its cross streets. Even Commissioner Jacobi said that she was concerned about available parking for guests. It was also stated in the above noted Pioneer Press article that in addition to the 2 car garage for each unit, there would be only 6 additional outdoor parking places spread over the project to accommodate all additional parking needs for the 12 units. What is the evidence that this will suffice? 6) Where is the objective study and evidence that the proposed flood mitigation (underground detention) aspects of this plan will actually be adequate to prevent flooding of the adjacent properties during heavy or prolonged rain after most of the existing land is covered by buildings and driveways? 7) On page 6 of the Memorandum from July 7, 2017 to the Plan Commission it states

127 "There will be no parking in front of the garages. (If a vehicle parks in front of one of the garage, there will not be enough room on the East-West drive for vehicles to pass.) This is not an alley, this is the only means of access for fire and rescue vehicles. This is another example that the density of the project is inappropriate for the land size. Sincerely Concerned, Mark & Mary Gardner

128 To the Plan Commission: We live at 514 Elm St., next door to the 464/502 Elm St. properties under consideration for development. These properties are zoned single family and despite what the developer s graphic shows, on both sides of the proposed development it is zoned R-3 on Elm. Asking for rezoning to R-5 will spot-zone the neighbors at 454 Elm. This is completely unacceptable, and in many municipalities, unlawful. It is just not right. The Village needs to look out for its residents. We did not buy our houses to have a monolith of townhomes plunked down 20 ft. from our property line. In addition, to construct something like this will raze all the mature trees from the two properties, and there are many large beautiful shade trees. What happened to replacing trees that you take down in construction with equal caliper inch trees? Also I am very disappointed that the traffic study has been waived. The traffic on Elm St. is another major issue. We are, in effect, a no outlet street because of the one-way through Shepard School. There is only one way of egress from our neighborhood. Our block of Elm St. shoulders all the traffic from: Shepard Middle School Kids walk along both sides of our street many days when school lets out; cars and school busses get backed up from Osterman all the way down Elm to the proposed development site at the end of every school day, especially when they get stopped because of the train crossing at Elm and Osterman. It s a huge problem trying to leave our driveway in the mornings when school starts as well. Public Works trucks, machinery, park district trucks, village vehicles (such as police and fire trucks getting fuel), city workers coming in and leaving their shifts Patty Turner Senior Center classes, meetings, etc. Brickyards Park all the public access and use that a park entails Construction Traffic/Water Reclamation Facility - Deerfield construction projects dump material there, and pick up stored material there. We have easily, 5-7 huge semi trucks up and down our block on an hourly basis many times, during the height of the season. Traffic has grown over the 23 years we have lived here to become a literal nightmare for the greater part of the year. We plan our daily schedule around traffic patterns! To say that we should ADD to the density of homes is ludicrous on a street with one way out and that many public uses. We do not need to add to the traffic, parking, and safety issues. We are not opposed to building on the properties, just very opposed to rezoning and consequently increasing the density of families and traffic beyond what it SHOULD be. Allyson & Joe Scopelliti 514 Elm Street, Deerfield

129

130

131 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Amy Daniel Nakahara Len; Casey Personal; Rezoning and variance request decision Sunday, August 13, :29:31 AM 6 years ago I bought a home in Deerfield because of the great schools, great neighborhood, and great community. My husband and I (like many families in Deerfield) wanted the home, with the back yard, picket fence and welcoming neighbors. Our neighborhood is wonderful. However, there is a decision before the board, that if granted, will turn this neighborhood into the apartment/condo neighborhoods we left behind. I live at 512 Cambridge circle in Deerfield and oppose re-zoning 464 and 502 Elm/Chestnut street. I bought a home in a single family neighborhood with decent lot sizes. I confirmed that this was a single family neighborhood and it was part of the reason I bought here-i wanted to live in our dream neighborhood-our current neighborhood. If you approve this request, this will no longer be a single family neighborhood. Separate from the reduced property values, increased parking load (in an area close to a school that is already overburdened) and increased water problems (already a problem with basements and sewers backing up), this will ruin the dream that my husband and I had of raising our children in a neighborhood filled with small single family homes. I specifically request that you disapprove the following: 1. Rezoning the lots to anything other than single family 2. Any variances on current minimum set backs 3. Granting approval to exceed lot coverage 4. Skipping any normally required steps/studies required for variance requests or rezoning. Please place yourselves in our shoes and consider if this was placed across from your front window. Each day I will wake up and instead of my eyes focusing on kids riding bikes in the circle framed by mature trees, my eyes will be drawn to the behemoth apartment building looming over our homes. Thank you, Amy Sanders Sent from my iphone

132 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Daniel Nakahara "Bill Vaananen"; Jeff Ryckaert RE: Deerfield Goals Tuesday, October 24, :57:00 AM image001.png image002.png 7 PUD Req Findings.pdf Section 3.3 Housing_ Deerfield Comprehensive Plan.pdf Art Plan Commission.pdf Hi Len, Please see our responses below. I hope this helps. Sincerely, Dan Daniel Nakahara Planner From: Len Bland [mailto:len.bland@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 22, :16 PM To: Daniel Nakahara <dnakahara@deerfield.il.us> Cc: 'Bill Vaananen' <bvaananen@district30.org> Subject: Deerfield Goals Dan, I plan to attend the planning commission meeting on rezoning for Elm street. Can you please help me understand some of the planning commissions and Deerfield s goals that inform our property decisions? 1. Does Deerfield need more housing stock? (Why/Why not?) See attached Section 3.3 (page 28-29) from the Village s Comprehensive Plan on Housing. 2. What are the village goals for this properties and properties like it? See attached Section 3.3 (Goal Page 29) 3. Is the planning commission interested in increasing property values? See attached PUD standards. The developer will have to demonstrate to the Plan Commission that these standards are met. 4. What are the other goals for the planning commission?

133 Thank you, See attached Zoning Ordinance Article Len Bland

134 3.3 HOUSING The purpose of this element of Deerfield s Comprehensive Plan is to document the present and future housing needs within the Village of Deerfield, including affordable and special needs housing. The condition of the local housing stock has been considered in developing the strategies, programs, and other actions to address Deerfield s housing needs, and provide current and future residents with a range of housing options. AFFORDABLE HOUSING Given the full development of the Village and the derogation of local land use planning and zoning powers provided by the Affordable Housing Planning and Appeal Act, 310 ILCS 67/1, et seq. (the "Act"), it is determined that compliance with the Act is impractical and not in the best interests of the Village; therefore, pursuant to its home rule powers, the Affordable Housing Planning and Appeal Act, 310 ILCS 67/1, et seq., will not apply within the Village of Deerfield and shall be superseded within the Village by the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan of the Village of Deerfield. The Village recognizes the need for affordable housing within the Village and the region in which the Village is located and will give due consideration to those needs and to the opportunity to accommodate new affordable housing options within the Village when opportunities are presented to develop or redevelop significant parcels for residential uses in the Village of Deerfield. The enforcement of federal and state fair housing laws shall be and remain a priority for the Village. 28

135 Goal: Maintain the variety of the existing housing stock and supplement it in suitable locations with safe, wellconstructed housing of a density*, scale* and character compatible with adjacent housing. Objectives Help maintain the desirability of Village neighborhoods. Policies Encourage maintenance of the existing housing stock. Endeavor to increase the variety in the housing stock, so that there will be types and prices of housing to satisfy the needs and preferences of a wider variety of residents, while maintaining the single-family dwelling as the basic form of housing unit in the Village. Protect residential areas from incompatible uses through effective land use controls, proper screening and buffering. Maintain streets, parkway trees, sidewalks, street lighting and other community facilities in good condition. Encourage good architectural and site design, individuality and character in new housing. Accommodate new housing in a manner that does not adversely impact the residential character of the Village. Encourage only those developments which conform to the Land Use Map and which are thoughtfully designed with respect to traffic generation, traffic patterns, topographical and drainage conditions and small scale* of existing developments. Apply Deerfield s impact fee ordinance to residential development. Encourage redevelopment that is designed to be compatible with adjacent developments. * - Term defined in the Glossary. 29

136

137 3. Testimony All testimony by witnesses at any public hearing provided for in this Ordinance shall be given under oath. The Chairman or Acting Chairman may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. 4. Minutes and Records (Ord ) The Board of Zoning Appeals shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each member upon every question, or if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact. The minutes of all hearings and meetings and all recommendations of the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be filed in the office of the Director of Building and Zoning and shall be of public record. 5. Rules of Procedure The Board of Zoning Appeals shall adopt its own rules of procedure, not in conflict with this Ordinance or the Municipal Code. An official copy of these rules shall be filed with the Office of the Director of Building and Zoning, where they shall be open to public inspection during normal business hours PLAN COMMISSION A Defined The Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield as established in accordance with the Municipal Code is the Plan Commission referred to in this Ordinance B Jurisdiction For the purposes of Article 13, Administration and Enforcement, the Plan Commission is hereby vested with the following jurisdiction and authority: 1. Amendments To hear and make recommendation to the Board of Trustees on all applications for amendments to the text and/or map which make up this Ordinance. 2. Special Use To hear and make recommendations to the Board of Trustees on all applications for Special Uses. 3. Planned Unit Developments and Planned Residential Developments 13-4

138 To hear and make recommendations to the Board of Trustees on all applications for Planned Unit Developments and Planned Residential Developments. 4. Annexations To hear and make recommendations to the Board of Trustees on all applications for annexations to the Village of Deerfield. 5. Review of the Comprehensive Plan To review on a regular basis the Comprehensive Plan and to hear and make recommendations to the Board of Trustees regarding any proposed changes. 6. Review of Zoning Ordinance To review this Ordinance on a continuing basis and to hear and make recommendations to the Board of Trustees to improve its effectiveness. 7. Other Matters To hear and make recommendation upon all other matters referred to it by the Board of Trustees or upon which it is required to pass under this Ordinance C Meetings and Rules 1. Open Hearings and Meetings All Plan Commission hearings and meetings shall be open to the public. 2. Calls and Quorum Meetings shall be held at the call of the Chairman, or in his absence, the Vice-Chairman, or at the request of any three (3) members, at such times and places within the Village as the Commission may determine. A majority of the members currently on the Plan Commission shall be necessary for a quorum at each meeting. 3. Testimony All testimony by witnesses at any public hearing shall be given under oath. The Chairman, Vice Chairman or Acting Chairman may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. 4. Minutes and Records The Plan Commission shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each member upon every question, or if 13-5

139 absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact. The minutes of all hearings and meetings of the Plan Commission shall be filed in the Office of the Director of Building and Zoning and shall be open to public inspection during normal business hours. 5. Rules of Procedure The Plan Commission shall adopt its own rules of procedure not in conflict with this Ordinance or the Municipal Code. An official copy of these rules shall be filed in the Office of the Director of Building and Zoning, where they shall be open to public inspection during normal business hours ZONING CERTIFICATES/PERMITS A Certification Required No permit pertaining to the use of land or buildings shall be issued by any officer of employee of the Village unless the application for such permit has been examined by the Director of Building and Zoning or his authorized representative, and the Director or his authorized representative has certified that either the proposed structure or use, or both comply with all of the provisions of this Ordinance. Any permit issued in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be null and void B Submission of Necessary Information All applications for a permit shall be accompanied by such information as the Director deems necessary to determine and provide for the enforcement of this Ordinance. Such information may include, but is not limited to, scale drawings, a legal description of the subject property, proof of ownership, or, if the land is held in trust, a disclosure of all beneficial interests, and a fee CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY A Intent Certificates of Occupancy shall certify that the structure or use for which it is issued is in full compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance and that such structure is habitable and in conformance with all applicable building regulations B Certificate Required 1. New Structure, Addition or New Use No structure or addition to an existing structure constructed after the date of this Ordinance shall be occupied, and no land vacant on the effective date of this Ordinance shall be used for any purpose, until a Certificate 13-6

140 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Len Bland Daniel Nakahara "Carole Bland"; "Casey Personal"; "Amy"; "Julie Kahn"; "Ed and Maria Uyehara"; "Hope Weis"; "Tom Howe"; Cheryl Miller; 502 Elm Street Zoning Request Monday, August 14, :37:02 AM Dan, We have been Deerfield homeowners for 27 years at 506 Cambridge Circle. In that time, we've seen some terrific developments completed and changes made: The complete overhaul of downtown Deerfield. Increasing the safety for our kids by requiring everyone leaving Shepherd Jr. High to leave on Elm Street instead of adding more traffic to Grove. Making a commitment to a green community with terrific tree lined streets and back yards by making it more expensive to remove trees. These changes have made our neighborhood and home better, safer, and more beautiful. In 2005, we wanted a bigger house. We love our neighbors and community of single family homes. Living on a quiet street near downtown and transportation has been great. Our award winning schools and our reputation for one of the safest communities in the state also formed the basis for our decision. As a result, we could think of nothing better than to invest in expanding our home instead of moving. We completed that expansion within the zoning guidelines for Deerfield. We made the town better and our neighborhood better. The present proposal to rezone Elm Street to allow 12 units of 3 story town homes will destroy the character of our neighborhood. I am a business person, and I welcome the opportunity for real estate developers to improve our housing and make money. We have watched dozens of nearby homes torn down and rebuilt with larger, desirable single family homes. The developers made money on this work and are making money on similar projects throughout the village. A zoning decision to build 12 large units on the space of 2 single family homes is egregious enrichment that will begin destroying the character of our neighborhood. I oppose the zoning changes for the following reasons: High Traffic Levels: This will add to high traffic levels from Shepherd Jr. High and the Patty Turner Center that already clog up the streets in the morning and when school lets out. When street repairs are made on Deerfield road it severely impacts travel times. Increased Flooding: It s easy to see the slope of the land from the railroad to the creek. When we pave over open land, there is less ground to absorb the water. We already have problems with basement flooding and pools of water in our back yard. We ve seen the creek at levels that nearly flood the walking bridge. The water displacement from covering over so much land will only make the problem in our back yard (and everyone else s from here to the river) worse.

141 Destruction of Greenery: These two properties have terrific greenery that we can see from our window every day. If you allow these zoning changes, we will be looking out our windows onto a high rise devoid of the greenery that Deerfield is known for. No developments or houses over 2 stories are on this side of the train tracks. Increased Crime Potential: I'm also concerned that this will lead to a domino effect where homes on the street next door turn into multi-family dwelling high rises. We are already beginning to see auto theft in our neighborhood for the first time since we lived here. I m aware of only murder in the time we have been living in Deerfield. That occurred across Elm Street in multi-family units. This type of density is correlated with higher crime rates. I m confident that the developer can earn a terrific return on their investment and make our community better while staying consistent with our zoning rules. Please deny their overly aggressive building request that changes the nature of what we love about Deerfield. Regards, Len Bland 506 Cambridge Circle

142 From: To: Subject: Date: NASCRAG Daniel Nakahara Proposed Town homes Elm Street Monday, August 14, :44:04 AM My name is Carole Bland and I reside at 506 Cambridge Circle, Deerfield since I love my neighborhood with its quiet street, and great neighbors. When we made a decision to buy our home it was because of its suburban appeal. I have some major issues regarding the development of 464 & 502 Elm Street and the impact it will have on my beloved neighborhood. My first issue is the size of the project proposed. The amount of square footage, 46,000 sq feet of living space (4 bedroom-400 sq ft *8, 3 bedroom 3500 sq ft *4) is quite a bit for that space - that is the same square footage as the old Jewel site on Lake-Cook Road! It feels like it is an overreach by the builder to cram as much profit into the land without respecting the neighborhood. My second issue is the height of the buildings, which will be significantly taller than the surrounding single family homes. They will just be too high at this location to maintain a suburban neighborhood feel to this area. My third issue is the setback modification. These proposed town homes are already invasive. Shortened the setback space makes them even more so, especially since they contain parking spaces! My last issue is drainage of groundwater in the area surrounding the proposed townhouses. I don't feel that the surrounding neighbors will have any recourse if the solution proposed by the builder proves insufficient. Please do not approve this zoning change or request for variances. Imagine if it was next to your home. Sincerely, Carole Bland

143 1128 Church Street Evanston, IL August 19, 2017 Dear Mr. Nakahara and the Deerfield Plan Commission: My mother has lived at 864 Brookside Lane in Deerfield since 1971, which is also where I grew up and attended the nearby Shepard Middle School. We have always valued the family friendly, close-knit, quiet atmosphere of our neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods on Elm, Grove, and Central streets. The proposed new higher density housing development for Elm Street would disrupt that. I am a freelance reporter for the Lake Forest Leader newspaper, and I regularly report on plan commission, zoning commission, architectural review board, and historic preservation meetings in Lake Forest and Lake Bluff. The city governments of those towns are very careful about preserving their trees, open lands, and single-family homes in the face of development proposals, knowing that residents have chosen to live in those communities because of those features. I trust the government of Deerfield has the same mindset and will appreciate the concerns of my mother and her neighbors about Avanti Builders' proposal for townhomes on Elm Street. Condominiums and townhomes already line the railroad tracks between Robert York Avenue and Elm Street, but we believe that the west side of Elm Street should remain zoned for single-family homes with existing setbacks. One of Deerfield's most historic homes, which was once owned by the farmer who sold his land for development in the 1950s, sits on the west side of Elm Street. There are other restored and well-preserved older homes along Elm Street which the owners are undoubtedly proud of. Townhomes just down the block from them would create a mish-mash without aesthetic value and would bring unwelcome congestion. Neighbors on Elm Street as well as Brookside Lane's cul-de-sac, who back up to Elm Street, are understandably concerned about the proposed removal of mature trees, the high elevations of the townhomes, and possible drainage issues that would come from increased impervious surface area on those lots. Basically, the townhomes could ruin the neighborhood, their lots, and probably decrease the values of their homes. Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this matter. Thank you also for respecting the concerns of the existing area homeowners. Sincerely, Katie Copenhaver

144

145

146 November 3, 2017 Deerfield Planning Commission Re: 464 and 502 Elm St. Dear Sirs: My name is Steven Kahn. My wife and I purchased our home at 843 Brookside Lane in We picked our home based on its location in a single family home neighborhood and also based on the serene nature of the street-- namely, well-kept homes on a mature tree-lined street. Applicant s project as proposed will damage this neighborhood we call home. Applicant has requested zoning changes and variances to build 12 (or 10) units on two combined lots where currently only 2 single family homes exist. Applicant s plans as proposed do not meet the current R-3 zoning classification which only allows for single family homes. Moreover, even if R-5 zoning is granted, applicant s plans still do not meet even the R-5 zoning requirements for perimeter setback. Instead of the required 30 setback, applicant is proposing a variance to the R-5 zoning to allow a 21 setback. This is nearly a 33% setback deficiency. In other words, applicant is asking that the setback provisions, which are promulgated to ensure that new construction buildings do not tower over adjacent properties, are set aside so applicant can build its 35 high buildings closer to the neighboring properties than even the requested R-5 zoning would allow. Based on the 1 : 1 ratio for setback variance/height adjustment requirement, it s as if Builder were building a nearly 40 tall building. At some point, the requested changes and variances, if granted, completely negate the purposes for the zoning requirements. I believe applicant s proposed plans more than surpass that point. I am all for progress and renewal in our Village. There is, however, a point at which we would be trading the character and enjoyment of our neighborhood for the benefit of one builder who is trying to maximize his own profit. Further, by allowing such a gross variance to the zoning ordinance, neighboring home values will most likely be negatively affected. For the above reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission rejects applicant s project as proposed. Sincerely, Steven and Julie Kahn 843 Brookside Lane

147 From: To: Subject: Date: Cal Gehrke Daniel Nakahara Elm Street Zoning Tuesday, August 15, :32:31 PM My wife and I find the new zoning 5 proposed buildings on Elm to be very upsetting to the neighborhood that we live in. It's already busy enough with parents racing their students up Grove to school. Now you want to add more busy traffic to what is supposed to be a quiet subdivision. The rules that were written early on were not made to be broken by a developer who's just in it for the money. Please look at your neighborhood, the trustees neighborhoods, and where the mayor lives. I'm sure that none of you would want to hurt your lifestyle or property values by having a complex of this 5 designation next door. Sincerely, Calvin and Merilyn Gehrke

148 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Neil Daniel Nakahara Proposed 464 and 502 Elm Street Development Monday, August 14, :52:57 PM Dear Mr. Nakahara, I am writing this letter to express my concern over the proposed Multi Family development proposed for the lots currently occupied by 464 and 502 Elm Street. From the information that I have seen, this development will greatly impact our neighborhood, not only directly on Elm St, but also on Brookside Ln and Cambridge Circle. I believe that the density of the development is not in keeping with the general character of the area. The proposed variances to allow edge to edge use of the lots does not leave enough green space and will impact many old growth trees. With the recent flooding experienced across much of Deerfield, I am also concerned that this development will negatively affect drainage in the area and may cause flooding for existing residents My nearby neighbors will have paved areas directly abutting their properties. This will result in increased noise in what is otherwise a quiet neighborhood. The lighting required to make those paved areas safe would shine directly into the yards and windows of the existing houses. I do not think that a development of this size and density is the appropriate use for these properties. I ask that you consider the wider impact of this development and how it will negatively affect the current residents. Best Regards, Neil Hurley 906 Brookside Ln Deerfield, IL

149 From: Neil Sent: Thursday, September 7, :34 PM To: Jeff Ryckaert Subject: Proposed Multi Family Development and 502 Elm Street. Jeff Ryckaert Principal Planner 850 Waukegan Road Deerfield, IL Dear Mr. Ryckaert, We are writing this letter to express our concern over the Multi Family development proposed for the lots currently occupied by 464 and 502 Elm Street. We strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of this property from R3 to R5. We do not think that a development of this size and density is the appropriate use for these properties. We are concerned about our neighbor on Elm Street whose property would be the lone R3 property crammed between two R5 developments. This property was conveniently left out of informational illustrations provided to the public thus far. This will affect their quality of life as well as limit their resale opportunities in the future. This development will greatly impact our neighborhood, not only directly on Elm St, but also on Brookside Ln, Cambridge Circle and Grove Street. We believe that the density of the development is not in keeping with the general character of the area. We are also concerned how the additional traffic by this development would affect the safety of the area. A large number of students from the Junior High regularly use Elm Street as their exit path from school and to the downtown businesses. In addition, the railroad crossing at Osterman currently gets backed up on both Osterman and Elm throughout the day. We have seen people driving unsafely in order to pass other vehicles, which are stopped for the crossing, putting both other vehicles and pedestrians at risk. The influx of additional traffic from this development will only exacerbate an already dangerous situation. The proposed variances to allow edge to edge use of the lots does not leave enough green space and will impact many old growth trees. With the recent flooding experienced across much of Deerfield, I am also concerned that this development will negatively affect drainage in the area and may cause flooding for existing residents. The residents on Cambridge Circle are directly in the path of any additional runoff from the proposed development. Our property is on the same level of the slope as theirs and may also be affected by added water flow.

150 Our nearby neighbors will have paved areas directly abutting their properties. This will result in increased noise in what is otherwise a quiet neighborhood. The lighting required to make those paved areas safe would shine directly into the yards and windows of the existing houses. We ask that you consider the wider impact of this development and how it will negatively affect the current residents. Best Regards, Neil & Joanna Hurley 906 Brookside Ln Deerfield, IL

151 From: To: Subject: Date: Daniel Nakahara 502 Elm Street Zoning Request Tuesday, August 15, :47:00 PM Dan, I have lived in Deerfield for almost 30 years, 23 of which have been where I raised my three children at 914 Brookside. Deerfield has been a safe and wonderful place to raise a family, offering a fabulous school system, park system and sense of community. I have chosen to remain in my home and continue to pay taxes even though I no longer have children at home taking advantage of all that is offered. In the interest of traffic congestion and continued neighborhood safety on all levels, I am strongly opposed to this development. In addition, I see no benefits to developing our neighborhood by removing our beautiful surroundings and adding more buildings and parking lots. This is a neighborhood built on single family homes, not a busy urban area zoned for multifamily high rises; this is not and never will be a welcome addition to Deerfield. I am in support of change and progress that benefits an entire community, this does not. I urge you to deny the request for zoning to accommodate this project. Best regards, Hope Weis 914 Brookside Lane, Deerfield

152 From: To: Subject: Date: Couto, Jim Daniel Nakahara Proposal Thursday, October 12, :41:01 PM Hi Not sure how we go about raising issues of a proposal to build 12-3 STORY town homes on Elm behind our house. The homes would be less than 100 feet from my back patio and my neighbors backyards as we are on a cul de sac on Brookside Lane with small backyards. This is a quiet neighborhood and Elm Street already has to handle traffic from Shepard Middle School, the Village garages, Turner Senior Center, water treatment center, Brickyard Park, existing condominiums and town homes. I was shocked to see that the commission agreed to waive a fiscal impact, and marketing and traffic studies. This makes no sense. I hope the Village doesn't embarrass itself and go for some tax revenue and ignore the families that already live in the neighborhood. We anticipate significant drops in our property values if this project is approved. Thank you

153 From: To: Subject: Date: petekre Daniel Nakahara Elm street townhomes Monday, August 14, :36:46 PM Hello I live at 513 Elm Street here in Deerfield. I oppose putting up the proposed townhomes on my street. I have a son with Autism and a son with Down Syndrome. The increase of traffic in the last 15 years, on my street, is very alarming to me. Im scared to have my kids in the front yard and by the street. Putting up these new townhomes would increase the traffic even more. What about the parking and street parking for these units? When we are putting our kids on their special education busess: people honk at us, go around the stopped bus and swear at us. TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. Please consider the neighbors voice in this situation. The traffic is out of control. Thank you for taking your time to read this. Peter and Stacy Krebill Happy Connecting. Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S 5

154 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Joe Lokaj Daniel Nakahara Sue Lokaj Comment for Mary Oppenheim, Chairperson of the Deerfield Plan Commission Thursday, August 17, :08:22 PM Ms. Oppenheim, Due to rescheduling of the Public Hearing regarding rezone of two properties on Elm Street we, Joseph and Susan Lokaj, cannot be present to comment in person on a request from The Avanti Construction Group to change those lots from R-3 to R-5 use. We regret that a planned trip allows us only to comment in writing at this time. We intend to participate in person in the fall, as the public process continues. For now, we take some of our valuable vacation time to register this written comment through . We strongly oppose the rezone of a combined one acre parcel for the express purpose of creating a high density use area on our low density single family residential street. The construction of 12 town homes on an acre, more similar to those east of the railroad tracks where higher density was planned, would change the character of our block and adversely affect our property value. Ours is one of the more modest houses on the block and, as such, the value would be one of the most affected by such a change. We are even more concerned for our neighbors who abut the parcel, as the negative impact on them will be clear and immediately detrimental. We are long term residents. Sue grew up in Deerfield and attended Shepard Middle School around the block from our house. Our residence of 20 years on Elm is the only house that we have owned. We chose it because it is a few blocks east of Sue's childhood home, where her mother still resides, and has the same neighborhood feel as that part of the village. During Sue's life and especially during our time together on Elm Street, we have seen benefits from managed growth in Deerfield, but we also have seen missteps. Ordinances now are in place to minimize clear cutting of trees and the infill of buildings that clearly are too large for the neighborhood lots where they are built ("McMansions" with minimal set back), to the obvious detriment of neighbors. The Avanti proposal is an attempt to circumvent the good sense that has prevailed in recent years, changing the character of an older tree-lined street to the point of losing an important aspect of the suburban Deerfield feel that we value. Putting together two parcels into a one acre lot and proceeding with a planned unit development project ignores the rest of Elm Street, the feel of Poplar Lane, and the characteristics of the nearby school and park. The proposal in question is driven by a plan to maximize a developer's profit at the expense of our neighborhood. We don't object to development or to profit, simply to questionable plans that seek to maximize numbers in a spreadsheet (unit counts and sales numbers) at our expense and contrary to what is expressed in the village's comprehensive plan. The construction group's argument, presented during a preliminary meeting on August 7th, that a rezone would be a simple extension of a nearby R-5 area ignores the character of those existing residences. Their height and setback allows them to fit in on Poplar Lane, around the corner, in an easy transition from Elm to a slightly different type of block. Instead, the argument as presented is that "there are medium density R-5 residences that would share a property line with the development, so it's reasonable for us to ask for R-5 with the intent to build a high density enclave of 3-story town homes set between single family houses on Elm Street." The fault in the construction group's argument is underscored by the way their

155 presentation during the August 7th meeting ignored the creation of an "island" with a single house surrounded by R-5 zones and fenced off from the rest of Elm Street. We list the following specific concerns that we took away from the preliminary meeting. Six times the current residence density on Elm Street is out of character with our area of the village. No traffic study was done or planned for this project. Elm Street already has significant traffic and has seen changes from Patty Turner traffic flow now feeding onto the same access street as existing multifamily along Poplar and existing school and public works and water treatment plant traffic. There is only so much that can be funneled onto a local street before it becomes another collector road with a different character. Elm may already have crossed that line, even without the addition of 10 more residences to a one acre lot that today contains only two, not 12. It is not reasonable to assume no impact without data. The aesthetic appearance of multiple 3-story residences west of the railroad tracks, in a fenced compound surrounded by lower lying houses. We considered the illustrations presented not to fit in with either Elm Street's character or with Poplar Lane's character. The developer proposal appears to be some third thing that might fit in another part of the village closer to the train station or to the east where such was planned for, but not in Elm. The residential character changes to come, particularly in that it is difficult to imagine how existing mature trees can fit into this high density plan, or even how replacement trees will be placed in this proposed plan for intense infill. It seems likely that we will lose all existing mature trees on these lots, further changing the landscape both along Elm and abutting Cambridge Circle to the back. The trees will be sacrificed and replaced with out-of-place 3" diameter trees per the developer's landscaping plan. Neighborhood reaction was clear on August 7th. The net result of this proposed rezone would be to put an out-of place block of tall town homes with minimal set back in a location surrounded by single family houses whose value will be diminished in the process. That negative impact in one case would be from being walled off from the neighborhood feel that was there before; in other cases from abutting such a drastically different residence style; and for the rest of us from the addition of high density housing onto our low density block. We appreciate the Plan Commission's consideration of our concerns. Joseph and Susan Lokaj

156 From: To: Subject: Date: Jacquie Luby Daniel Nakahara zoning request Sunday, August 13, :24:29 PM Dear Mr. Nakahara, As an owner and long-standing resident of one of the homes that border the location for which zoning changes are being considered to accommodate a proposed twelve-family condo complex on Elm Street, I am writing to say that I oppose the concessions being requested by the developers, and I am asking that you vote against them. Sincerely, Jacquie Luby 515 Cambridge Circle

157 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Jacquie Luby Daniel Nakahara Elm Street housing proposal Sunday, August 13, :34:58 PM As a long-time home-owner in a single-family neighborhood, I prefer to keep it zoned R3 for singlefamily homes, and I d just as soon it stay that way. If they want to change it, put two new homes in place of the old ones. As having water problems in the past, I don t want to see the grassy areas covered with asphalt and buildings. Our area doesn t need any increase in traffic, which is already horrendous around this neighborhood at the beginning and end of the school day. Sincerely, James Luby 515 Cambridge Circle

158 From: To: Subject: Date: Jacquie Luby Daniel Nakahara zoning request Sunday, August 13, :24:29 PM Dear Mr. Nakahara, As an owner and long-standing resident of one of the homes that border the location for which zoning changes are being considered to accommodate a proposed twelve-family condo complex on Elm Street, I am writing to say that I oppose the concessions being requested by the developers, and I am asking that you vote against them. Sincerely, Jacquie Luby 515 Cambridge Circle

159

160

161

162 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Couto, Jim Jeff Ryckaert William Vaananen; Daniel Nakahara RE: Study Tuesday, July 25, :26:31 AM Hi I meant Spot Zoning not variance. Sorry Jim From: Jeff Ryckaert [mailto:jryckaert@deerfield.il.us] Sent: Monday, July 24, :13 PM To: Couto, Jim <JCouto@aap.org> Cc: William Vaananen <bvaananen@district30.k12.il.us>; Daniel Nakahara <dnakahara@deerfield.il.us> Subject: RE: Study Mr. Couto, Thanks for your , I am copying the other planner in the office and he will put it in the Plan Commission packet for the public hearing. Warm regards, Jeff Ryckaert, AICP Principal Planner Village of Deerfield From: Couto, Jim [mailto:jcouto@aap.org] Sent: Monday, July 24, :02 AM To: Jeff Ryckaert <jryckaert@deerfield.il.us> Cc: William Vaananen <bvaananen@district30.k12.il.us> Subject: Study Hi I was advised to contact you regarding the proposed town home project on Elm. In an article they mentioned that the developer asked that impact studies be waived and one of the planning commission members said that was acceptable. I know they are expensive but a traffic study is really needed. They are proposing to build 12 units (too many for this size site) so there will be at least 24 more cars on Elm most days. If you have ever been in the neighborhood during the school year you would know that Elm street is sometimes backed up from Osterman to Poplar at rush hour. You also have the Turner Senior Center, Brickyard park, soccer fields and the Village yard/garages on this small street in addition to Shepard middle school.

163 Can you also make sure the members of the commission are aware of a spot variance? Thank you. Jim Jim Couto, MA Director, Division of Hospital & Surgical Services American Academy of Pediatrics 141 N.W. Point Blvd Elk Grove Village, IL Phone: 847/ FAX: 847/ Responsible for: Section on Neonatal - Perinatal Medicine Committee on Fetus & Newborn Surgical Advisory Panel Task Force on SIDS NICU Verification program

164 Proposed Townhomes We have been residents of Deerfield for 24 years and have watched many changes take place. Many were much needed and some not so much (did we really need a car wash squeezed into the middle of the village so we can listen to the blower all day long?) We hope the village does not approve this project just because of a potential tax revenue increase. The Village might only break even when all our market values go down. This development should not be approved for many reasons. Reasons to question approval of this project: Spot Zoning Development would put one single family home in between two R5 properties Too many units for the size of the lot (10 per acre) Exceeds 30% lot coverage rule. Variance Setbacks for North and South perimeter do not meet requirements. Should be 30 feet, plan calls for 20 feet. It s bad enough they are proposing a 35-foot-tall building that will literally block out the sun for the Brookside backyards. Our backyards are only 40 feet deep so if they are granted permission to do this, those 3 story buildings would only be 60 feet from my patio door. Parking is also planned in this perimeter space. It would be like we are living in a multiple dwelling development with no personal space. LARGE Variance. Perimeter guidelines were created for a reason, why allow a variance? Not enough parking. These are all 3 and 4 bedroom homes. Many will have children so there will be several 3 car families. Use of train lot parking? I am sure the townhome owners will be thrilled to hear that solution. Walk from there in cold, rain or snow? Limited hours? All mature trees to be removed! Traffic a problem because of current heavy traffic due to: o Shepard o Brickyards o Turner Center o Village garages o Water Treatment facility o Soccer and baseball fields o Train commuters Property values will go down and we will have a difficult time selling our home. Before we purchased our home, we looked at a very nice home on Price Lane. Very interested until we went into backyard. There was an apartment building behind the home. We left and house stayed on the market for many weeks and sold way below asking price. Saw letter from realtor trying to sell home near new project by Zion church. Same story. Proposed sewer setup seems very precarious. Store huge amounts of retention water underground a few feet from our properties? With vents? Before we purchased our home, we called the village and asked if they could build behind us. they said they couldn t build that far back and its zoned for single family so no multiple dwellings could be built behind us. Called again a few years ago when then neighbor offered to sell us some of her backyard. Was told the same thing so we didn t purchase any of her land. Company not to be trusted? New as far as this kind of development. Not very professional so far:

165 Initial letter came in plain envelope with 4 stamps on it. Thought it was from one of my young nephews No letterhead or business cards First neighbor meeting they pulled up wrong presentation 2 nd neighbor meeting they were late getting there and then during presentation we kept seeing a slide of an old VW bus. Attention to detail? Obviously not. Overpaid for the properties Other problems: 1. Left R3 off map in proposal and again at neighbor meeting that shows one home would be trapped between to R5s 2. Trying to avoid impact studies, including financial 3. Trying to not address North and South perimeters being too small (20 instead of 30). Even showed South as being 28 ¾ when it really Thank you for considering turning down this unnecessary project. Jim & Nancy Couto 849 Brookside Lane

166 Back yard only 4o feet from lot line.

167 From: To: Subject: Date: Ed Uyehara Daniel Nakahara Re-zoning R3 to R5 Tuesday, August 15, :45:52 AM Mary Oppenheim Chairperson of the Deerfield Plan Commission We the resident at 865 Brookside Lane STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed re-zoning of said properties located at 464 and 502 Elm Street from R3 to R5. The traffic and marketing survey should have been allowed, especially the traffic survey which impacts our children during the school year. Avanti Builders should not be allowed to change variances concerning setback from property lines; and the drainage and elevation concerns us because we experience flooding in our back yard during rains. With this proposed project we anticipate increase flooding. They should also not be allowed to change setbacks for AC condenser units and parking spaces from property lines. Lot coverage also exceeds the township limits should not be allowed. So far, there is no allocated management association to maintain the proposed property maintenance. Avanti Builders are also not experienced in constructing projects of the size and they should not be allowed to build this proposed project.

168

169