Village of Lincolnwood Plan Commission Meeting Tuesday, July 10, :00 P.M.

Transcription

1 Village of Lincolnwood Plan Commission Meeting Tuesday, July 10, :00 P.M. in the Council Chambers Room Lincolnwood Village Hall North Lincoln Avenue Agenda 1. Call to Order/Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approval of Minutes June 6, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes 4. Approval of Minutes June 28, 2018 Joint Village Board and Plan Commission Workshop Minutes 5. Case #PC-07-18: 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue Review of a Final Plat of Subdivision Request: Consideration of a request by John Pikarski, Petitioner, on behalf of Willis Jones, Executor of the Estate of Mary M. McDonald as property owner of existing Lot 7, and Chicago Title Land Trust, Trustee, for existing Lot 8 under the Trust Agreement # dated 12/29/97, to approve a Final Plat of Subdivision. 6. Case #PC-08-18: 6636 North Leroy Avenue Review of a Final Plat of Subdivision (Continued from June 6, 2018 and July 5, 2018) Request: Consideration of a request by Erik Tibu, Petitioner, on behalf of Mihai Mike Smalberger, property owner, to approve a Final Plat of Subdivision that would result in two parcels being created from one existing parcel in the R-1, Residential Zoning District at the property commonly known as 6636 North Leroy Avenue. 7. Case #PC-09-18: 4656 West Touhy Avenue Review of a Special Use Related to Parking in the Front Yard and Variations Related to Building Setback, On-Site Parking Capacity, Landscaping Adjacent to a Residential Property, and Minimum Drive Aisle Width Request: Consideration of a request by Onsite Healthcare Inc., SC, property owner, to approve a Special Use to permit two on-site parking spaces to be located in the Front Yard, and Variations to: 1) allow the building to be set back greater than the required 15-foot build-to line along Touhy Avenue in the B-3 Zoning District; 2) reduce the number of on-site parking by fourteen spaces; 3) waive the requirement of a ten-foot-wide landscape setback along the north lot line abutting a residential zoning district; and 4) allow the reduction in the minimum width of a drive aisle from twenty-four feet to twenty-one feet, two inches. 8. Case #PC-06-18: Zoning Code Text Amendment Sign Regulations for Large-Scale Developments, Freestanding Sign Location, Portable Sign Requirements, and Temporary Signage (Continued from May 2, 2018, June , and July 5, 2018) Request: Village Board Referral of Zoning Code Text Amendments to consider modifying the permissibility and requirements for certain signage including: 1) Permitting Electronic Message Signs, with specific regulations, for properties and/or developments deemed to be large-scale ; 2) Amending existing regulations related to Temporary Signs for Special Events and Grand Openings; 3) Permitting Temporary Sign Coverings/Panels on Freestanding Signs; 4) Amending required setbacks for Temporary and Permanent Freestanding Signs; and 5) Amending existing regulations related to specific design limitations for Portable Signs. 9. Next Meeting: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 Plan Commission Meeting (Rescheduled from August 1, 2018) 10. Public Comment 11. Adjournment POSTED: July 6, 2018

2 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION JUNE 6, :00 P.M. LINCOLNWOOD VILLAGE HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6900 NORTH LINCOLN AVENUE LINCOLNWOOD, ILLINOIS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mark Yohanna Sue Auerbach Steven Jakubowski Adi Kohn Henry Novoselsky Anthony Pauletto Don Sampen MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Steve McNellis, Community Development Director Doug Hammel, Community Development Manager Kathryn Kasprzyk, Community Development Coordinator I. Call to Order Chairman Yohanna noted a quorum of six members and called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Yohanna recognized today s date, June 6, 2018, as the 74 th Anniversary of D-Day and the 50 th Anniversary of the death of Robert F. Kennedy. III. Approval of Minutes Motion to recommend approval of the May 2, 2018 Plan Commission Minutes was made by Commissioner Sampen and seconded by Commissioner Novoselsky. Aye: Sampen, Novoselsky, Auerbach, Jakubowski, Kohn, and Yohanna Nay: None Abstained: Pauletto Motion Approved: 6-0

3 Village of Lincolnwood Plan Commission Minutes June 6, 2018 IV. Case #PC-07-18: 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue Review of a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision and a Subdivision Variation Chairman Yohanna announced Case #PC for consideration of a request by John Pikarski, Petitioner, on behalf of Willis Jones, Executor of the Estate of Mary M. McDonald as property owner of existing Lot 7, and Chicago Title Land Trust, Trustee, for existing Lot 8 under the Trust Agreement # dated 12/29/97 to approve: 1) a Consolidation and Resubdivision of existing Lots 7 and 8 (two parcels currently making up the lot commonly known as 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue) into two new parcels in the R-1, Residential Zoning District; and 2) a Subdivision Variation that would allow the lot line of the proposed Lot 8 fronting on a cul-de-sac to be less than fifty feet in length. Chairman Yohanna swore in the Petitioner s representative, Mr. John Pikarski, Jr., 55 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois The single-family residence at 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue is in the R-1, Residential Zoning District. The current lot is two distinct parcels totaling 37,231-square feet. The existing structure overlaps the current parcel line, thereby prohibiting development of the eastern lot. The proposed Subdivision would relocate the property line to accommodate the required Side Yard setback of ten percent of the western parcel s lot width. The resubdivision would result in two new parcels, resulting in parcels of 17,485-square feet (west lot) and 19,746-square feet (east lot). The minimum lot size in the R-1 District is 9,000-square feet. The proposed consolidation/ subdivision results in a non-compliant frontage for the east lot of feet where 50 feet is required for properties on a cul-de-sac. All other Code requirements have been met. Development Manager Hammel outlined the Required Approvals for a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision, as per Section of the Subdivision Ordinance, and approval of a Subdivision Variation, as per Section 16-9 of the Subdivision Ordinance, to allow a lot frontage on a cul-desac of feet where 50 feet is required per Section (C)2). Staff recommends revision to the Side Yard setback for the west lot from twenty-five feet to ten feet. No comments were received regarding this request. A revised Preliminary Plat was distributed to the Commissioners incorporating revisions from the Village Engineer. The Subdivision Design Standards and Variation Standards were presented for consideration and discussion. Staff stated that even though a site design plan has not yet been submitted, there is a possibility that future Variations may be required. A fully-compliant site plan could be achieved. Mr. John Pikarski, attorney for the Petitioner, stated he has been in contact with the potential purchaser regarding the possibility of future Variations. Development Manager Hammel stated he met with the potential purchaser to discuss the subdivision and zoning issues. Mr. Pikarski stated this request meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and complies with the Variation Standards. Chairman Yohanna asked if there was anyone from the audience who would like to address the Plan Commission on this matter. Let the record state that no one came forward. Page 2 of 6

4 Village of Lincolnwood Plan Commission Minutes June 6, 2018 Motion to recommend approval of a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision and Subdivision Variation to allow frontage on a cul-de-sac of feet and to confirm the side lot of the existing property may require a Variation, along with confirmation of the southern lot line setback by staff prior to Final Plat of Consolidation approval, was made by Commissioner Pauletto and seconded by Commissioner Sampen. Case #PC-07-18, as it relates to the review and approval of the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision, will be heard at the June 19, 2018 meeting of the Village Board. Aye: Pauletto, Sampen, Auerbach, Jakubowski, Kohn, Novoselsky, and Yohanna Nay: None Motion Approved: 7-0 V. Case #PC-08-18: 6636 North Leroy Avenue Review of a Final Plat of Subdivision Chairman Yohanna announced Case #-PC for consideration of a request by Erik Tibu, Petitioner, on behalf of Mihai (Mike) Smalberger, property owner, to approve a Final Plat of Subdivision that would result in two parcels being created from one existing parcel in the R-1, Residential Zoning District at the property commonly known as 6636 North Leroy Avenue. Chairman Yohanna swore in property owner Mike Smalberger. The subject property is in the R-1, Residential Zoning District with a lot size of 19,140-square feet. The proposed Subdivision would subdivide the two lots into a northern lot area of 9,903- square feet and a south lot area of 9,243-square feet. The minimum lot size in the R-1, Residential Zoning District is 9,000-square feet. The northern lot would be 75 feet in width, and the southern lot would be 70 feet in width. Development Manager Hammel outlined the required approval for a Final Plat of Subdivision as per Section of the Subdivision Ordinance. This request qualifies as a Minor Subdivision which waives the requirement for Preliminary Plat approval. Staff received five s opposing the proposed Subdivision. Concerns included reduced housing values, incompatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood, flooding and stormwater management, loss of mature trees, sewer capacity, a benefit to the developer versus the neighborhood, and could potentially set a precedent to subdivide future lots. Staff stated the Petitioner has met all the objective criteria regarding this request. The Plan Commission s review is to identify potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Development Manager Hammel reviewed the Subdivision Standards and Minor Variation Standards for consideration and discussion. Staff reviewed the Subdivision Standards and determined this request does meet the Minor Subdivision standards. There was much discussion as to the standards and intent of a Minor Subdivision and if this request meets those requirements. Development Manager Hammel reiterated this request meets the Minor Subdivision standards. Mr. Smalberger stated the house is in poor shape as it has been vacant for years. Mr. Smalberger contacted the Village before purchasing the property to confirm the lot could be subdivided. Page 3 of 6

5 Village of Lincolnwood Plan Commission Minutes June 6, 2018 Commissioner Pauletto asked Mr. Smalberger if he believes this request would be detrimental to the character of the Towers. Mr. Smalberger disagreed. No trees will be removed. Chairman Yohanna asked Mr. Smalberger if he would withdraw his petition and remodel the existing residence. Mr. Smalberger replied he has no plans to remodel due to the residence s poor condition. Development Hammel said the width of the subdivided lots is consistent with some other lots in this portion of the Village. This request meets all Subdivision Design Standards. Chairman Yohanna swore in the witnesses. Mr. Joel Perzov, 6650 North Leroy Avenue, read into the record his letter to staff listing his concerns. Mr. James Kucienski, 6720 North Leroy Avenue, reiterated the same concerns as Mr. Perzov and stated that character is critical to this area. Ms. Mimi Rosenbush, 6643 North Le Mai Avenue, said she would like to see the current house remodeled to retain the aesthetics of the area. Ms. Judy Perzov, 6650 North Leroy Avenue, agreed with previous statements. Ms. Perzov asked Mr. Smalberger to maintain the property. Commissioner Sampen was torn as to whether or not this request should be granted. Commissioner Sampen agreed that new homes are good for the Village, but recognizes the concerns expressed by the residents. Commissioner Novoselsky acknowledged Mr. Smalberger has no legal obligation to not subdivide this property. Commissioner Pauletto disagreed, stating that legally this request would be granted, but personally feels this action would adversely affect the surrounding area. There was much discussion whether or not this request meets the definition of a Minor Subdivision, specifically the Standard that reads does not adversely affect the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining properties. There was disagreement about the definition; specifically whether it affects the adjoining property or affects development of the adjoining property. Chairman Yohanna made a request to Trustee Nickell, who was in the audience, to convey to the Board of Trustees to consider properties in the R-1 Zoning District to require a frontage of 75 feet. Chairman Yohanna asked if there was anyone from the audience who would like to address the Plan Commission on this matter. Let the record state that no one came forward. Motion to approve recommendation of a Final Plat of Subdivision was made by Commissioner Novoselsky. There was no second to this motion to approve. Commissioner Jakubowski asked for more evidence as to the real impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Sampen stated the Commissioners should vote on the matter before them. Mr. Smalberger was asked to come back with design plans to appease the neighbors. Development Director McNellis Page 4 of 6

6 Village of Lincolnwood Plan Commission Minutes June 6, 2018 explained that a motion, either positive or negative, requires a vote to be considered by the Village Board. Motion to recommend continuation in order to get legal analysis from the Village Attorney as to the meaning of does not adversely affect the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining properties was made by Commissioner Jakubowski. There was no second to this motion to continue. Motion to recommend continuation of Case #PC to a date certain of Thursday, July 5, 2018 was made by Commissioner Novoselsky and seconded by Commissioner Pauletto in order for the property owner and interested parties an opportunity to present admissible evidence as to whether or not the development of this parcel would adversely impact adjoining properties. Note: The Thursday, July 5, 2018 meeting of the Plan Commission has subsequently been rescheduled to Tuesday, July 10, Aye: Novoselsky, Jakubowski, Pauletto, Auerbach, Kohn, and Yohanna Nay: Sampen Motion Approved: 6-1 VI. Case #PC-06-18: Zoning Code Text Amendment Sign Regulations for Large-Scale Developments, Freestanding Sign Location, Portable Sign Requirements, and Temporary Signage Chairman Yohanna announced Case #PC for consideration of a Village Board Referral of Zoning Code Text Amendments to consider modifying the permissibility and requirements for certain signage including: 1) permitting Electronic Message Signs, with specific regulations, for properties and/or developments deemed to be large-scale ; 2) amending existing regulations related to Temporary Signs for Special Events and Grand Openings; 3) permitting Temporary Sign Coverings/Panels on Freestanding Signs; 4) amending required setbacks for Temporary and Permanent Freestanding Signs; and 5) amending existing regulations related to specific design limitations for Portable Signs. Development Director McNellis reviewed the proposed Text Amendments for electronic signs for large-scale developments, temporary signs for special events/grand openings, temporary sign panels, sign location, and portable sign design. Commissioner Jakubowski asked Development Director McNellis if businesses have been canvassed to get their views on sign regulations. Development Director McNellis replied the Text Amendment information is on the Village website, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and the Chamber of Commerce website. The goal is to make the process easier for the business community. Commissioner Novoselsky indicated electronic message center boards should not be limited to only large-scale developments with multiple tenants. Commissioner Novoselsky asked staff about the provision to only allow one monument sign on large properties. Development Director McNellis asked the Plan Commission to continue this Hearing in order to gather more information and to present proposed legal language to amend the existing regulations related to Temporary Signs for Special Events and Grand Openings, Temporary Sign Page 5 of 6

7 Village of Lincolnwood Plan Commission Minutes June 6, 2018 Coverings/Panels on Freestanding Signs, to amend the required setbacks for Temporary and Permanent Freestanding Signs, and to amend existing regulations related to specific design limitations for Portable Signs. Chairman Yohanna asked if there was anyone from the audience who would like to address the Plan Commission on this matter. Let the record state that no one came forward. Motion to recommend continuation of Case #PC to a date certain of Thursday, July 5, 2018 was made by Commissioner Sampen and seconded by Commissioner Auerbach. Note: The Thursday, July 5, 2018 meeting of the Plan Commission has been rescheduled to Tuesday, July 10, Aye: Sampen, Auerbach, Jakubowski, Kohn, Novoselsky, Pauletto, and Yohanna Nay: None Motion Approved: 7-0 VII. Next Meeting The next meeting of the Plan Commission is scheduled for Thursday, July 5, Note: The Thursday, July 5, 2018 meeting of the Plan Commission has subsequently been rescheduled to Tuesday, July 10, VIII. Public Comment Chairman Yohanna asked if there was anyone from the audience who would like to address the Plan Commission. Let the record state that no one came forward. IX. Adjournment Motion to recommend adjournment was made by Commissioner Sampen and seconded by Commissioner Pauletto. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Aye: Sampen, Pauletto, Auerbach, Jakubowski, Kohn, Novoselsky, and Yohanna Nay: None Motion Approved: 7-0 Respectfully submitted, Kathryn Kasprzyk Community Development Coordinator Page 6 of 6

8 VILLAGE OF LINCOLNWOOD PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES PLAN COMMISSION WORKSHOP VILLAGE HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS JUNE 28, 2018 Call to Order President Bass called the Committee of the Whole meeting of the Lincolnwood Board of Trustees to order at 9:06 A.M., Thursday, June 28, 2018, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 6900 North Lincoln Avenue, Village of Lincolnwood, County of Cook and State of Illinois. Roll Call On roll call by Deputy Village Clerk Charles Meyer the following were: PRESENT: President Bass, Trustees Ikezoe-Halevi, Hlepas Nickell, Spino, Patel, ABSENT: Trustees Cope and Sugarman A quorum was present. Also present: Charles Meyer, Assistant to the Village Manager; Steve McNellis, Community Development Director; Jim Kucenski and Maureen Erhrenberg representing the Economic Development Commission; and Beryl Herman. Call to Order Chairman Yohanna called the Plan Commission meeting to order at 9:29 A.M., Thursday, June 28, 2018, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 6900 North Lincoln Avenue, Village of Lincolnwood, County of Cook and State of Illinois. Roll Call On roll call by Deputy Village Clerk Charles Meyer the following were: PRESENT: Commissioners Auerbach and Kohn ABSENT: Commissioners Pauletto, Jakubowski, Novoselsky, and Sampen Brainstorming session with Tucker Development regarding the proposed improvements to the former Purple Hotel site Keith Campbell, Vice President at Callison RTKL, provided a presentation of the draft designs and concepts related to the proposed development at the former Purple Hotel Site. Mr. Ellison presented previous designs completed by his firm that would be used as inspiration for the proposed development in terms of uses, materials, public space, and green space. Mr. Ellison clarified aspects of his presentation in response to questions presented by attendees to the meeting. Richard Tucker, President of Tucker Development and Contract Purchaser for the Property, commented that they are looking at incorporating the Village bike path and ComEd right-of-way into the function of the proposed development and also incorporating the bridge into future renderings.

9 The workshop included discussion of turning this development into a hub for the Village that includes restaurants and other draws for pedestrians. The attendees discussed a desire to have a taller structure as part of the development that would add distinction and bring in more clients using the Optima Building in Skokie and the Rotary Building in Evanston as examples of designs that succeeded in that goal of being unique and noticeable. The discussion continued where the group discussed the idea that the design should create the impression that you have arrived in Lincolnwood and incorporate green space and green amenities into the design. It was discussed to market how residents can bike to work and incorporate biking into the design and structure. It was discussed having opportunities for quick serve restaurants or other opportunities that incorporate food and shopping. Mr. Tucker stated that there were specialty stores in terms of retail and commercial space that would complement the clientele who would be living in the apartment buildings. There was a desire by the public members in attendance to have authenticity and to be able to utilize the view from the proposed development and activating the roof space for the development. It was discussed that Lincolnwood is known for restaurants and their schools and amenities. It was discussed of harnessing those positive aspects of the community in targeting potential tenants and uses for the space. The workshop discussion included the possibility of incorporating a hotel for the site. Tucker Development stated that they have looked at that possibility and the members of the workshop discussed a desire to incorporate a hotel into the site. The Mayor thanked everyone in attendance and summarized the discussion as being a collaborative effort and that the Village would like to work with Tucker Development on this project. Mr. Tucker stated that they have submitted their plans and application as of today and they will continue to evolve the design and to incorporate the comments from this meeting into future renderings. Adjournment At 10:39 A.M. Trustee Hlepas Nickell moved to adjourn the Village Board meeting. The motion was seconded by Trustee Spino. The motion was approved via a voice vote. At 10:39 A.M. Commissioner Kohn moved to adjourn the Plan Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auerbach. The motion was approved via a voice vote. Respectfully Submitted, Charles Meyer Deputy Village Clerk

10 Plan Commission Staff Report Case # PC July 10, 2018 Subject Property: 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue Zoning District: R-1 Residential Petitioner: John Pikarski, on behalf of behalf of Willis Jones, Executor of the Estate of Mary M. McDonald as property owner of existing Lot 7, and Chicago Title Land Trust, Trustee for existing Lot 8 under the Trust Agreement # Nature of Request: Review of Final Plat of Subdivision. (The required Subdivision Variation was previously recommended for approval by the Plan Commission on June 6, That recommendation is still valid.) Notification: Mailed notices dated June 21, 2018 were sent to properties within 250 Feet. Background The property commonly known as 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue is currently made up of two parcels and hosts one single-family home. The total area of the zoning lot is approximately 37,200 square feet (.85 acres). The single-family home overlaps the parcel line delineating the two parcels on the overall zoning lot.

11 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue July 10, 2018 The Petitioner is requesting approval of consolidation and resubdivision of the two existing parcels. The proposed resubdivision would result in a new lot line located to the east of the existing lot line that bisects the zoning lot. This is necessary in order to create a new vacant lot on the east, and a new lot on the west that provides a compliant side yard setback for the existing single-family home. Required Approval The proposed Subdivision requires the following approval: Proposed Lot Width (X) Existing Lot Line Existing SF Home Proposed Lot Line Required Side Yard Setback (10% of X) Approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision As per Section (E) of the Subdivision Diagram of Proposed Subdivision Ordinance, review of a Final Plat of Subdivision by the Plan Commission is required prior to Village Board approval. It should be noted that the following required steps pertaining to this request have already been completed: On June 6, 2018, the Plan Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision and a request for a Subdivision Variation related to the length of the parcel frontage on the cul-de-sac for the proposed eastern lot. On June 19, 2018, the Village Board adopted a Resolution approving the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision and acknowledging the required Subdivision Variation. Considerations The following may be considered by the Plan Commission when discussing the proposed Subdivision: Zoning Setbacks During the June 6, 2018 Plan Commission review of the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision, there was discussion related to the required zoning setbacks. Since that meeting, staff has researched other similar situations where properties lie at the end of a cul-de-sac. Plats of Survey for those properties indicate a required 25-foot setback from the arc segment fronting on the cul-de-sac, and a required 10-foot setback from the east-west lot line intersecting the arc segment. At staff s request, the petitioner has modified the Plat of Subdivision to reflect this interpretation. Public Input Village Staff received no public input regarding the requested Subdivision 2

12 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue July 10, 2018 Subdivision Design Standards Chapter 16, Article 5 of the Subdivision Regulations identifies design standards against which a proposed Subdivision should be assessed. (See Attachment 5.) Staff has found the proposed Subdivision to be in compliance with all the design standards, with the exception of the non-compliant lot line that would be addressed by the requested Subdivision Variation that has been recommended for approval by the Plan Commission. Requested Action The Petitioner seeks approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision that would result in the creation of two parcels in the R-1 Residential zoning district. Documents Attached 1. Proposed Final Plat of Subdivision 2. Subdivision Application 3. June 6, 2018 Plan Commission Staff Report 4. June 6, 2018 Plan Commission Minutes (Draft) 5. Relevant Code Sections 3

13

14

15

16

17 Plan Commission Staff Report Case # PC June 6, 2018 Subject Property: 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue Zoning District: R-1 Residential Petitioner: John Pikarski, on behalf of behalf of Willis Jones, Executor of the Estate of Mary M. McDonald as property owner of existing Lot 7, and Chicago Title Land Trust, Trustee for existing Lot 8 under the Trust Agreement # Nature of Request: Review of Preliminary Plat of Subdivision and a Request for a Subdivision Variation. Notification: Notice was published in the Lincolnwood Review on May 10, 2018, Public Hearing Signs were installed at 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue, and mailed legal notices dated May 9, 2018 were provided to properties within 250 Feet. Background The property commonly known as 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue is currently made up of two parcels and hosts one single-family home. The total area of the zoning lot is approximately 37,200 square feet (.85 acres). The single-family home overlaps the parcel line delineating the two parcels on the overall zoning lot.

18 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue June 6, 2018 The Petitioner is requesting approval of consolidation and resubdivision of the two existing parcels. The proposed resubdivision would result in a new lot line located to the east of the existing lot line that bisects the zoning lot. This is necessary in order to create a new vacant lot on the east, and a new lot on the west that provides a compliant side yard setback for the existing single-family home. Required Approvals The proposed Subdivision requires the following approvals: Proposed Lot Width (X) Existing Lot Line Existing SF Home Proposed Lot Line Required Side Yard Setback (10% of X) Approval of a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision Diagram of Proposed Subdivision As explained in additional detail below, the proposed Subdivision includes a characteristic that requires a Variation from the Subdivision Ordinance. This Variation does not allow the proposed Subdivision to be considered a Minor Subdivision, meaning it must go through both Preliminary and Final Plat review. At this point in the process, the proposed Subdivision requires Plan Commission approval of the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision. Approval of a Subdivision Variation The proposed eastern lot includes an arcshaped lot line along the Longmeadow culde-sac right-of-way. As per Section (C)2 of the Subdivision Ordinance, all lots located on the radius of a cul-desac shall have a minimum front lot line of 50 feet. The Subdivision Ordinance defines the front lot line as the line separating the lot from the street. The proposed eastern lot has a front line with a length of feet. Therefore, the proposed Subdivision requires a Variation from Section (C)2 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Non-Compliant Front Lot Line Location of Non-Compliant Lot Line 2

19 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue June 6, 2018 Considerations The following may be considered by the Plan Commission when discussing the proposed Subdivision: Staff Review of the Draft Plat of Subdivision The Village Engineer conducted a review of the draft Preliminary Plat of Subdivision submitted by the Petitioner with his application. (See Attachment 2.) During that review, the Village Engineer noted the following required revisions: Show building setback lines per the current Zoning of the property. Add a School District Certificate to the plat. Label the existing 8-foot easement as to the type of easement it is. The County Clerk & County Recorder Certificates can be removed from the plat. Cook County Recorder & Clerk uses their own stamps to certify plats. As of the drafting of this report, Village Staff has not received a revised Plat of Subdivision addressing these comments. The Plan Commission may consider recommendation of a conditional approval of the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision, with these comments to be addressed prior to Village Board consideration of the Preliminary Plat. Public Input Village Staff received no public input regarding the requested Subdivision Subdivision Design Standards Chapter 16, Article 5 of the Subdivision Regulations identifies design standards against which a proposed Subdivision should be assessed. (See Attachment 3.) Staff has found the proposed Subdivision to be in compliance with all the design standards, with the exception of the non-compliant lot line that would be addressed by the requested Subdivision Variation. Subdivision Variation Standards Chapter 16, Article 9 of the Subdivision Regulations identifies design standards against which a proposed Subdivision Variation should be assessed. (See Attachment 3.) The Plan Commission should consider these standards when considering a recommendation regarding the requested Subdivision Variation. Requested Action The Petitioner seeks approval of a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision that would result in the creation of two parcels in the R-1 Residential zoning district. The length of the arc abutting the public right-of-way for the proposed eastern lot requires a Variation from Section (C)2 of the Subdivision Ordinance. If the Plan Commission recommends approval of the requested Variation and Preliminary Plat, staff recommends that the approval include the condition that comments provided by the Village Engineer be addressed and that a revised Preliminary Plat of Subdivision be submitted prior to the Village Board consideration of the Preliminary Plat. 3

20 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue June 6, 2018 Documents Attached 1. Subdivision Application 2. Preliminary Plat of Subdivision 3. Relevant Code Sections 4

21 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION JUNE 6, :00 P.M. LINCOLNWOOD VILLAGE HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6900 NORTH LINCOLN AVENUE LINCOLNWOOD, ILLINOIS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mark Yohanna Sue Auerbach Steven Jakubowski Adi Kohn Henry Novoselsky Anthony Pauletto Don Sampen MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Steve McNellis, Community Development Director Doug Hammel, Community Development Manager Kathryn Kasprzyk, Community Development Coordinator I. Call to Order [Redacted for brevity.] II. Pledge of Allegiance [Redacted for brevity.] III. Approval of Minutes [Redacted for brevity.] IV. Case #PC-07-18: 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue Review of a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision and a Subdivision Variation Chairman Yohanna announced Case #PC for consideration of a request by John Pikarski, Petitioner, on behalf of Willis Jones, Executor of the Estate of Mary M. McDonald as property owner of existing Lot 7, and Chicago Title Land Trust, Trustee, for existing Lot 8 under the

22 Village of Lincolnwood Plan Commission Minutes June 6, 2018 Trust Agreement # dated 12/29/97 to approve: 1) a Consolidation and Resubdivision of existing Lots 7 and 8 (two parcels currently making up the lot commonly known as 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue) into two new parcels in the R-1, Residential Zoning District; and 2) a Subdivision Variation that would allow the lot line of the proposed Lot 8 fronting on a cul-de-sac to be less than fifty feet in length. Chairman Yohanna swore in the Petitioner s representative, Mr. John Pikarski, Jr., 55 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois The single-family residence at 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue is in the R-1, Residential Zoning District. The current lot is two distinct parcels totaling 37,231-square feet. The existing structure overlaps the current parcel line, thereby prohibiting development of the eastern lot. The proposed Subdivision would relocate the property line to accommodate the required Side Yard setback of ten percent of the western parcel s lot width. The resubdivision would result in two new parcels, resulting in parcels of 17,485-square feet (west lot) and 19,746-square feet (east lot). The minimum lot size in the R-1 District is 9,000-square feet. The proposed consolidation/ subdivision results in a non-compliant frontage for the east lot of feet where 50 feet is required for properties on a cul-de-sac. All other Code requirements have been met. Development Manager Hammel outlined the Required Approvals for a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision, as per Section of the Subdivision Ordinance, and approval of a Subdivision Variation, as per Section 16-9 of the Subdivision Ordinance, to allow a lot frontage on a cul-desac of feet where 50 feet is required per Section (C)2). Staff recommends revision to the Side Yard setback for the west lot from twenty-five feet to ten feet. No comments were received regarding this request. A revised Preliminary Plat was distributed to the Commissioners incorporating revisions from the Village Engineer. The Subdivision Design Standards and Variation Standards were presented for consideration and discussion. Staff stated that even though a site design plan has not yet been submitted, there is a possibility that future Variations may be required. A fully-compliant site plan could be achieved. Mr. John Pikarski, attorney for the Petitioner, stated he has been in contact with the potential purchaser regarding the possibility of future Variations. Development Manager Hammel stated he met with the potential purchaser to discuss the subdivision and zoning issues. Mr. Pikarski stated this request meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and complies with the Variation Standards. Chairman Yohanna asked if there was anyone from the audience who would like to address the Plan Commission on this matter. Let the record state that no one came forward. Motion to recommend approval of a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision and Subdivision Variation to allow frontage on a cul-de-sac of feet and to confirm the side lot of the existing property may require a Variation, along with confirmation of the southern lot line setback by staff prior to Final Plat of Consolidation approval, was made by Commissioner Pauletto and seconded by Commissioner Sampen. Case #PC-07-18, as it relates to the review and approval of the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision, will be heard at the June 19, 2018 meeting of the Village Board. Page 2 of 3

23 Village of Lincolnwood Plan Commission Minutes June 6, 2018 Aye: Pauletto, Sampen, Auerbach, Jakubowski, Kohn, Novoselsky, and Yohanna Nay: None Motion Approved: 7-0 V. Case #PC-08-18: 6636 North Leroy Avenue Review of a Final Plat of Subdivision [Redacted for brevity.] VI. Case #PC-06-18: Zoning Code Text Amendment Sign Regulations for Large-Scale Developments, Freestanding Sign Location, Portable Sign Requirements, and Temporary Signage [Redacted for brevity.] VII. Next Meeting [Redacted for brevity.] VIII. Public Comment [Redacted for brevity.] IX. Adjournment [Redacted for brevity.] Respectfully submitted, Kathryn Kasprzyk Community Development Coordinator Page 3 of 3

24 Attachment #5: Relevant Subdivision Ordinance Sections Chapter 16, Article 5: Subdivision Design Standards Consistency with Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan; technical standards. The proposed subdivision shall conform to all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan goals include maintaining the existing environmental assets of the Village, preserving and protecting mature trees and existing landscaping, and guiding, controlling, and encouraging development that is consistent with the Village's character Lots. (A) General. All lots shall be designed and subdivided in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, including, without limitation, compliance with the lot area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Outside the corporate limits, the minimum area of each proposed lot shall be not less than the minimum lot area required by the zoning regulations of the County of Cook for the district in which the proposed lot is located. (B) Lot shapes. Every lot shall have four sides. Exceptions may be approved when the applicant demonstrates that a four-sided lot is not feasible because of peculiar topographical conditions, abutting lots of record or abutting parcels, or preexisting parcels not owned directly or indirectly by the applicant. A lot of other than four sides will not be approved if it appears that it has been formed solely to comply with the minimum area, depth and width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. As nearly as practicable, intersecting lot lines shall form right angles with each other. (C) Lot width. (1) Residential districts. All lots located in residential districts shall be of a minimum width in accordance with the applicable standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. (2) Culs-de-sac. All lots located on the radius of a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum front lot line of 50 feet.

25 (D) Consolidations. (1) Two lots. For the consolidation of two lots into one lot, the total side yard setbacks for the new lot shall comply with the setbacks required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district in which the lot is located, and the individual side yard setbacks shall be subject to the review and approval of the Plan Commission. (2) More than two lots. No consolidation of more than two lots shall be permitted unless a variation is granted pursuant to Article 9 of this Chapter 16. In granting any such variation, the Board of Trustees may, pursuant to Section of this Code, impose certain conditions, including, without limitation, any one or more of the following conditions: (E) Street frontage. (a) The installation of additional landscaping on the lot; (b) An increase in the width of any required yard or yards on such lot beyond what is required by the Zoning Ordinance; (c) A restriction on the gross floor area for the lot that is less than what is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance; and (d) A restriction on the maximum impervious surface on the lot. (1) Required. All lots shall front on a public street; provided, however, that a lot may front on a private street if such private street has been or is to be approved as part of a planned unit development. (2) Prohibited. Unless in existence as of the effective date hereof, no lot shall have access to a street solely across another property or through any portion of such property by means of an easement. (3) Single-family residential districts. Unless in existence as of the effective date hereof, the following shall be prohibited in single-family residential districts of the Village: (F) Through lots. (a) Lots oriented in a front-to-rear, front-to-side, or rear-to-rear pattern; and (b) Through lots. (1) A multifamily residential use located on a through lot shall contain only one curb or access point to the street. (2) A landscaped berm or uniform masonry wall, to be designed and constructed with materials, and in a manner, to be approved by the Community Development Department, shall be located

26 on each through lot along the lot line fronting along the street on which there is no curb cut or access point to the property. (G) Design. A subdivision, and the lots therein, shall not be designed as to render an existing permanent structure in violation of this Chapter 16 or of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Tree preservation and protection. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that trees and mature landscaping, as well as the ecology of the community, are important characteristics of the Village and should be preserved and protected. In furtherance thereof, the Village has enacted tree preservation regulations in Chapter 14, Article 16 of this Code. All subdivisions shall comply with the Village's tree preservation regulations in Chapter 14, Article 16 of this Code Landscaping. Street trees shall be installed along all parkways in the subdivision, in accordance with Section (G) of this Code. In addition, when the Village determines that additional landscaping is desirable or necessary to mitigate the impact of any new buildings or structures on any lot to be created within a subdivision, the subdivision approval may be conditioned upon the installation of additional landscaping on such lot to screen any new buildings or structures on that lot from an adjacent lot or from the street, or both. If such additional landscaping is required, the applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the Village, a detailed landscaping plan depicting the additional landscaping. In addition, the Village may require the applicant to provide performance security and guaranty security for the landscaping, which security shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of this Chapter Grading and stormwater drainage. The subdivision shall be developed in strict accordance with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, and regulations related to grading and stormwater retention, detention, and drainage, including, without limitation, Chapter 12, Article 6, of this Code, as well as in strict accordance with the grading plans and profiles approved as part of the approved engineering plans. No grade change shall be permitted that would: (a) modify stormwater drainage on the property or an adjacent lot; (b) adversely impact the capacity or operation of the Village's stormwater system; or (c) affect the structural stability of an adjacent lot, unless the Village Engineer, in his or her sole determination, approves in writing an alternative means that will adequately provide for the collection and diversion of stormwater. No grading plan shall be approved that, in the Village Engineer's determination, poses potential adverse impacts to the environment, including, without limitation, significant change to the rate of stormwater runoff, rate or volume of sedimentation, or location of discharge Utilities and utility lines. (A) General. All utilities necessary for the subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with Article 6 of this Chapter 16, and shall be installed underground, except as expressly provided in this Section or if approved by the Village Engineer upon payment of a fee to the Village in an amount equal to the costs of burying the utilities underground, as determined by the Village Engineer. When the Village Engineer determines that a storm sewer, sanitary sewer, or water supply system should be designed and

27 constructed larger than is immediately required to serve the subdivision, the applicant may be reimbursed for the additional costs of such oversizing, as determined by the Village Engineer, pursuant to a recapture agreement in accordance with applicable state statutes. (B) Burial of utility lines. (1) Except as otherwise provided, all utility lines to be newly installed, or, for major subdivisions, to be reinstalled from existing overhead facilities, shall be placed underground within easements or dedicated public rights-of-way. Specifically, and without limitation of the foregoing, all existing overhead utility lines located on property that is the subject of an application for approval of a major subdivision pursuant to this Chapter 16, or on a public rightof-way adjacent to such property, shall, as a condition of such approval, be placed underground within a dedicated easement or a public right-of-way. No utility lines shall be constructed within a storm or sanitary sewer easement, except for crossings, without the advance written approval of the Village Engineer. (2) The Village Engineer may, upon receipt of a written request therefor, waive the burial requirement for electric distribution transformers, switch gear, meter pedestals, and telephone pedestals, in accordance with accepted utility practices for underground distribution. Such facilities and equipment shall be screened from public view wherever possible and shall be placed in locations to be approved by the Village Engineer. (3) Notwithstanding any provision of this Chapter 16 to the contrary, no applicant shall be required to place the following utilities or utility lines underground. (a) Temporary overhead utility lines used in connection with construction, but only during periods of construction; and (b) Service connections, meters, and similar equipment normally attached to the outside wall of the premises that they serve Easements and dedications. (A) Easements shall be provided where necessary for the provision of sanitary sewer, water, storm drainage, gas lines, electric lines, telephone, cable television, streets, pathways, sidewalks and other necessary public or private purposes in order to adequately serve the proposed subdivision. (B) The easements shall be depicted on the preliminary and final plats of subdivision in accordance with Sections and of this Code. (C) The size and location of all such easements shall be subject to the approval of the Village Engineer, and the terms of all such easements shall be subject to the approval of the Village Engineer and Village Attorney. (D) Easements for Village utilities, including, without limitation, sewer, stormwater or water utilities, shall be no less than 20 feet in width, and shall, to the extent practicable, be located at the rear of each

28 lot and along such other lot lines so as to provide continuity of alignment of such easements from block to block. (E) The final plat shall provide for dedications of rights-of-way easements of land necessary for any bicycle paths, greenways, storm- or floodwater runoff channels and basins, ways for public facilities, parks, playgrounds, school grounds, and other public grounds, as may be required by the Plan Commission or Board of Trustees in order to conform with the Comprehensive Plan. Any public lands so designated within the Comprehensive Plan and lying within the proposed subdivision shall be dedicated for the use designated by the Comprehensive Plan Lot access and circulation. All subdivisions shall be designed to provide appropriate public street access to all lots in the subdivision, which access shall be designated on the preliminary and final plats of subdivision Survey monuments. Permanent survey monuments constructed of iron pipe not less than one inch in diameter and 30 inches long, or as otherwise approved by the Village Engineer, shall be installed at all street corners, at all points where street lines intersect the exterior boundaries of the proposed subdivision, and at angle points and points of curve in each street.

29 Plan Commission Staff Report Case # PC July 10, 2018 Subject Property: 6636 North Leroy Avenue Zoning District: R-1 Residential Petitioner: Erik Tibu, on behalf of Mihai Smalberger, Property Owner Nature of Request: Review of Final Plat of Subdivision. Notification: Notice was published in the Lincolnwood Review on May 10, 2018, Public Hearing Signs were installed at 6636 North Leroy Avenue, and mailed legal notices dated May 9, 2018 were provided to properties within 250 Feet. (Note: On June 6, 2018, this case was continued to the July 5, 2018 Plan Commission meeting. However, that meeting was cancelled, and the case was automatically continued to the July 10, 2018 special meeting of the Plan Commission. Property owners within 250 feet of the subject property were sent a courtesy mailing on June 15, 2018 notifying them of the change in the July meeting date.) Background The property commonly known as 6636 North Leroy Avenue is currently comprised of one parcel with an area of approximately 19,140 square feet (.44 acres). The property is zoned as R-1 Residential, and has a single-family home located on it. All adjacent properties are also zoned as R-1 Residential. The Petitioner is requesting permission to subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels. The northern proposed parcel would have a lot width of 75 feet and a lot area of 9,903

30 6636 North Leroy Avenue July 10, 2018 square feet. The southern proposed lot would have a lot width of 70 feet and a lot area of 9,243 square feet. Required Approvals Based on a determination by staff prior to the publishing of the original legal notice on May 10, 2018, the proposed subdivision qualifies as a Minor Subdivision. Therefore, the requirement for review of a Preliminary Plat of Approval is waived. The proposed Subdivision requires Plan Commission approval of the Final Plat of Subdivision as per Section of the Subdivision Ordinance. Lot 1: 9,903 SF Lot 2: 9,243 SF Proposed Subdivision Considerations The Plan Commission may wish to consider the following when discussing the proposed Subdivision: Potential Impacts of the Proposed Subdivision During the June 6 public hearing, the Plan Commission suggested that they lack the information necessary to determine the potential impacts of the proposed Subdivision. Staff has prepared the following summary of potential impacts related to permissibilities on the current lot compared to permissibilities if the proposed Subdivision were approved. Impervious Lot Coverage The Zoning Ordinance permits up to 60% of a lot located in the R-1 District to be covered by impervious surfaces, including structures, driveways, patios, sidewalks, and other impervious elements. Since this regulation is based on lot area, the maximum permitted lot coverage of the current parcel is equal to the total maximum permitted lot coverage of the two proposed parcels. Therefore, there is no change in potential impact. Building Coverage The Zoning Ordinance permits up to 35% of a lot located in the R-1 District to be covered by structures. Since this regulation is based on lot area, the permitted lot coverage of the current parcel is equal to the total permitted lot coverage of the two proposed parcels. Therefore, there is no change in maximum potential impact. 2

31 6636 North Leroy Avenue July 10, 2018 Minimum Setbacks The Zoning Ordinance requires minimum building setbacks as follows: Front yard: 25 Rear yard: 30 Side yard: 5, or 10% of the lot width, whichever is greater Since the front and rear yard setbacks are constant regardless of property characteristics, there is no change in the potential impact of these setbacks, as building façade(s) relate to the street or the rear property line. However, since the side yard setbacks are dependent on lot width, the homes constructed on the proposed lots could be placed closer to the side lot lines of the current lot, than a single home on a larger lot. The northern required minimum setback of the north lot would be reduced from 14.5 feet to 7.5 feet, and the southern required minimum setback of the south lot would be reduced from 14.5 feet to 7.0 feet. Reduced Side Yard Setback Requirement Reduced Side Yard Setback Requirement Tree Preservation Section of the Subdivision Existing and Proposed Setbacks Ordinance states that all subdivisions shall Existing Setbacks to be Eliminated comply with the Village's tree preservation regulations in Chapter 14, Article 16 of this Proposed Setbacks in New Location Code. That section, included as part of the Building Regulations, includes provisions related to the preservation of trees and the permitted removal of trees, and specifically allows for the following: Village review of the proposed removal of trees on a property; The ability of the Village to request that an Applicant attempt to modify the submitted plans in order to preserve additional desirable trees; The replacement of removed trees through the planting of new trees as part of the Applicant s development plan; and A fee in lieu of replacement option for the Applicant to provide funds for the planting of trees in other parts of the Village. Existing and Proposed Setbacks Remain the Same It has typically been the custom of the Village to allow the removal of trees, though the Village is entitled to request that plans strive to preserve trees to the greatest extent possible. In addition, the removal of trees requires either replacement of those tree inches or a payment in lieu of replacement. Whether or not the proposed Subdivision is approved, the right of any property owner to request approval to remove trees on the existing property does not change. Given that fact, staff is unable to determine or anticipate the 3

32 6636 North Leroy Avenue July 10, 2018 potential impacts of either scenario on the existing trees, absent a specific plan for a single home on one larger lot or two homes on two smaller lots. Stormwater Management Several zoning regulations, such as the maximum permitted impervious lot coverage described earlier in this report, aim to minimize the impact of flooding related to stormwater. The Village also requires review of a site engineering and grading plan for any improvement that impacts more than 500 square feet of a property. The substantial redevelopment of the existing lot, or the development of the two proposed lots, would be subject to such a review. During that review, the Village Engineer can require specific treatments, such as grading, on-site detention, or the transfer of stormwater through underground infrastructure, aimed at minimizing stormwater impacts on the subject property or surrounding properties. Therefore, staff anticipates that stormwater impacts of either the redevelopment of the existing lot or the development of two lots resulting from the proposed Subdivision would be at least no worse, and potentially reduced, compared to the impacts caused by the existing development. Design Character Residents in the neighborhood surrounding the subject property expressed concerns related to the impact the proposed Subdivision could have on the character of the area. While the design character of a development is not addressed in the Subdivision Design Standards (Section 16-5 of the Subdivision Ordinance), staff has found the following: The proposed lot widths of 75 feet and 70 feet are lower than the typical lot widths of other properties in this portion of the Village, though some lots on adjacent blocks are as narrow as 72 feet to 75 feet. (See Attachment 8 for a map of lot widths on surrounding properties.) While the design plans for the homes that could be developed on the proposed parcels are not required as part of the Subdivision review, they would be subject to zoning review based on the standards included in Sections 6.08 and 6.09 of the Zoning Ordinance. These standards would be equally applicable whether the existing parcel was to be redeveloped or subdivided. Based on these findings, staff is unable to determine or anticipate if the proposed Subdivision would have any impacts on the character of the subject property or surrounding neighborhood. Property Values Residents expressed concerns related to the potential impact the proposed Subdivision could have on the value of their properties. It is not possible for staff to quantify what real impacts may be experienced by surrounding properties since value is subject to several factors beyond the scope of the proposed Subdivision. Precedent During the June 6, 2018 public hearing, residents and Plan Commissioners expressed concerns related to the precedent that the approval of this request could establish. An analysis of properties in the R-1 district west of I-94 and south of Pratt Avenue indicates 4

33 6636 North Leroy Avenue July 10, 2018 that there are four other properties in this general portion of the Village with lot areas greater than 18,000 square feet, meaning they could be legally subdivided, presumably with no other zoning or subdivision relief. (There are several properties located along the I- 94 corridor with lot areas greater than 18,000 square feet, but these properties would require a Variation in order to be subdivided.) See Attachment 9 for a map of lots that could be legally subdivided. Public Input Prior to the June 6, 2018 public hearing regarding this request, the Village received and provided to the Plan Commission correspondence from five residents opposing the proposed Subdivision. Since that date, staff has received additional correspondences from three residents, each stating their opposition to the proposed Subdivision. All of this correspondence is included in Attachment 7 of this report. Subdivision Design Standards Chapter 16, Article 5 of the Subdivision Regulations identifies design standards against which a proposed Subdivision should be assessed. (See Attachment 10.) Staff has found the proposed Subdivision to be in compliance with all the design standards. Requested Action The Petitioner seeks approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision that would result in the creation of two compliant parcels in the R-1 Residential zoning district. Should the Plan Commission take action on this request during its first hearing, the Village Board would consider the recommendation of the Plan Commission at the July 17, 2018 Village Board meeting. Documents Attached 1. June 6, 2018 Plan Commission Staff Report 2. June 6, 2018 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes (Draft) 3. Subdivision Application 4. Current Plat of Survey 5. Final Plat of Subdivision 6. Plat of Topography 7. Public Input 8. Map of Lot Widths on Surrounding Properties 9. Map of Lots That Could be Legally Subdivided Based on Lot Area 10. Relevant Code Sections 5

34 Plan Commission Staff Report Case # PC June 6, 2018 Subject Property: 6636 North Leroy Avenue Zoning District: R-1 Residential Petitioner: Erik Tibu, on behalf of Mihai Smalberger, Property Owner Nature of Request: Review of Final Plat of Subdivision. Notification: Notice was published in the Lincolnwood Review on May 10, 2018, Public Hearing Signs were installed at 6636 North Leroy Avenue, and mailed legal notices dated May 9, 2018 were provided to properties within 250 Feet. Background The property commonly known as 6636 North Leroy Avenue is currently comprised of one parcel with an area of approximately 19,140 square feet (.44 acres). The property is zoned as R-1 Residential, and has a single-family home located on it. All adjacent properties are also zoned as R-1 Residential. The Petitioner is requesting permission to subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels. The northern proposed parcel would have a lot width of 75 feet and a lot area of 9,903 square feet. The southern proposed lot would have a lot width of 70 feet and a lot area of 9,243 square feet.

35 6636 North Leroy Avenue June 6, 2018 Required Approvals The proposed subdivision meets the definition of a Minor Subdivision. Therefore, the requirement for review of a Preliminary Plat of Approval is waived. The proposed Subdivision requires Plan Commission approval of the Final Plat of Subdivision as per Section of the Subdivision Ordinance. (A subdivision is considered a Minor Subdivision of it (a) is located in a residential zoning district; (b) will not contain more than two lots upon approval by the Village; (c) fronts on an existing improved street; (d) does not involve any new right-of-way or the extension or installation of any public improvements; (e) does not adversely affect the development of Lot 1: 9,903 SF Lot 2: 9,243 SF Proposed Subdivision the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property; (f) does not require a variation from any provision of this Chapter 16; and (g) is not in conflict with any provision or portion of the Zoning Ordinance or this Chapter 16. The proposed Subdivision meets all of these standards.) Considerations The following may be considered by the Plan Commission when discussing the proposed Subdivision: Staff Review of the Draft Plat of Subdivision The Village Engineer conducted a review of the draft Plat of Subdivision submitted by the Petitioner with his application. All comments were addressed by the Petitioner, and the resulting Plat of Subdivision is attached to this report. (See Attachment 3.) Public Input Village Staff received one correspondence from a nearby property owner expressing concerns regarding the potential impact on the character of the neighborhood if the subject lot is permitted to subdivide and two new homes are built. (See Attachment 5.) Subdivision Design Standards Chapter 16, Article 5 of the Subdivision Regulations identifies design standards against which a proposed Subdivision should be assessed. (See Attachment 6.) Staff has found the proposed Subdivision to be in compliance with all the design standards. 2

36 6636 North Leroy Avenue June 6, 2018 Requested Action The Petitioner seeks approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision that would result in the creation of two compliant parcels in the R-1 Residential zoning district. Should the Plan Commission take action on this request during its first hearing, the Village Board would consider the recommendation of the Plan Commission at the June 19, 2018 Village Board meeting. Documents Attached 1. Subdivision Application 2. Current Plat of Survey 3. Final Plat of Subdivision 4. Plat of Topography 5. Public Input 6. Relevant Code Sections 3

37 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION JUNE 6, :00 P.M. LINCOLNWOOD VILLAGE HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6900 NORTH LINCOLN AVENUE LINCOLNWOOD, ILLINOIS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mark Yohanna Sue Auerbach Steven Jakubowski Adi Kohn Henry Novoselsky Anthony Pauletto Don Sampen MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Steve McNellis, Community Development Director Doug Hammel, Community Development Manager Kathryn Kasprzyk, Community Development Coordinator I. Call to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Approval of Minutes IV. Case #PC-07-18: 6739 North Longmeadow Avenue Review of a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision and a Subdivision Variation V. Case #PC-08-18: 6636 North Leroy Avenue Review of a Final Plat of Subdivision Chairman Yohanna announced Case #-PC for consideration of a request by Erik Tibu, Petitioner, on behalf of Mihai (Mike) Smalberger, property owner, to approve a Final Plat of Subdivision that would result in two parcels being created from one existing parcel in the R-1, Residential Zoning District at the property commonly known as 6636 North Leroy Avenue. Chairman Yohanna swore in property owner Mike Smalberger.

38 Village of Lincolnwood Plan Commission Minutes June 6, 2018 The subject property is in the R-1, Residential Zoning District with a lot size of 19,140-square feet. The proposed Subdivision would subdivide the two lots into a northern lot area of 9,903- square feet and a south lot area of 9,243-square feet. The minimum lot size in the R-1, Residential Zoning District is 9,000-square feet. The northern lot would be 75 feet in width, and the southern lot would be 70 feet in width. Development Manager Hammel outlined the required approval for a Final Plat of Subdivision as per Section of the Subdivision Ordinance. This request qualifies as a Minor Subdivision which waives the requirement for Preliminary Plat approval. Staff received five s opposing the proposed Subdivision. Concerns included reduced housing values, incompatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood, flooding and stormwater management, loss of mature trees, sewer capacity, a benefit to the developer versus the neighborhood, and could potentially set a precedent to subdivide future lots. Staff stated the Petitioner has met all the objective criteria regarding this request. The Plan Commission s review is to identify potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Development Manager Hammel reviewed the Subdivision Standards and Minor Variation Standards for consideration and discussion. Staff reviewed the Subdivision Standards and determined this request does meet the Minor Subdivision standards. There was much discussion as to the standards and intent of a Minor Subdivision and if this request meets those requirements. Development Manager Hammel reiterated this request meets the Minor Subdivision standards. Mr. Smalberger stated the house is in poor shape as it has been vacant for years. Mr. Smalberger contacted the Village before purchasing the property to confirm the lot could be subdivided. Commissioner Pauletto asked Mr. Smalberger if he believes this request would be detrimental to the character of the Towers. Mr. Smalberger disagreed. No trees will be removed. Chairman Yohanna asked Mr. Smalberger if he would withdraw his petition and remodel the existing residence. Mr. Smalberger replied he has no plans to remodel due to the residence s poor condition. Development Hammel said the width of the subdivided lots is consistent with some other lots in this portion of the Village. This request meets all Subdivision Design Standards. Chairman Yohanna swore in the witnesses. Mr. Joel Perzov, 6650 North Leroy Avenue, read into the record his letter to staff listing his concerns. Mr. James Kucienski, 6720 North Leroy Avenue, reiterated the same concerns as Mr. Perzov and stated that character is critical to this area. Ms. Mimi Rosenbush, 6643 North Le Mai Avenue, said she would like to see the current house remodeled to retain the aesthetics of the area. Ms. Judy Perzov, 6650 North Leroy Avenue, agreed with previous statements. Ms. Perzov asked Mr. Smalberger to maintain the property. Page 2 of 4

39 Village of Lincolnwood Plan Commission Minutes June 6, 2018 Commissioner Sampen was torn as to whether or not this request should be granted. Commissioner Sampen agreed that new homes are good for the Village, but recognizes the concerns expressed by the residents. Commissioner Novoselsky acknowledged Mr. Smalberger has no legal obligation to not subdivide this property. Commissioner Pauletto disagreed, stating that legally this request would be granted, but personally feels this action would adversely affect the surrounding area. There was much discussion whether or not this request meets the definition of a Minor Subdivision, specifically the Standard that reads does not adversely affect the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining properties. There was disagreement about the definition; specifically whether it affects the adjoining property or affects development of the adjoining property. Chairman Yohanna made a request to Trustee Nickell, who was in the audience, to convey to the Board of Trustees to consider properties in the R-1 Zoning District to require a frontage of 75 feet. Chairman Yohanna asked if there was anyone from the audience who would like to address the Plan Commission on this matter. Let the record state that no one came forward. Motion to approve recommendation of a Final Plat of Subdivision was made by Commissioner Novoselsky. There was no second to this motion to approve. Commissioner Jakubowski asked for more evidence as to the real impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Sampen stated the Commissioners should vote on the matter before them. Mr. Smalberger was asked to come back with design plans to appease the neighbors. Development Director McNellis explained that a motion, either positive or negative, requires a vote to be considered by the Village Board. Motion to recommend continuation in order to get legal analysis from the Village Attorney as to the meaning of does not adversely affect the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining properties was made by Commissioner Jakubowski. There was no second to this motion to continue. Motion to recommend continuation of Case #PC to a date certain of Thursday, July 5, 2018 was made by Commissioner Novoselsky and seconded by Commissioner Pauletto in order for the property owner and interested parties an opportunity to present admissible evidence as to whether or not the development of this parcel would adversely impact adjoining properties. Note: The Thursday, July 5, 2018 meeting of the Plan Commission has subsequently been rescheduled to Tuesday, July 10, Aye: Novoselsky, Jakubowski, Pauletto, Auerbach, Kohn, and Yohanna Nay: Sampen Motion Approved: 6-1 VI. Case #PC-06-18: Zoning Code Text Amendment Sign Regulations for Large-Scale Developments, Freestanding Sign Location, Portable Sign Requirements, and Temporary Signage Page 3 of 4

40

41

42

43

44

45 Hammel.Douglas From: Sent: To: Subject: Lee Harris Monday, May 14, :10 PM Hammel.Douglas Plan commission hearing-june 6, 7 pm-6636 Leroy subdivision request Hi I ve owned my home at 6635 N. Leroy for about 20 years. I regret to say this, as I ve watched my investment shrink to 50% of what I ve invested in the home, as I ve watched the real estate taxes soar. I ve tried to sell the home over the past 12 years since I ve moved out without any success. But still, I continue to pour money into the home maintaining it beautifully. I grew up only 2 miles away (Edgebrook), and for 64 years have loved the Towers. I ve seen many poor decisions by the past Mayor & Council which contributed to the current market state, and outrageous residential real estate taxes (once diversified with thriving Commercial & Retail income). For the builder/developer who purchased 6636 N. Leroy, which has a nice lot but applying to divide it into TWO homesis not in the conformity of the streets wide, tasteful & stately lots. It will destroy the unique character of this beautiful core Lincolnwood Tower street. I see it as yet another nail in the coffin of the most beautiful street in the Towers...once a prestigious address. This application to divide into 2 homes is simply a strategy to maximize profits, at the cost of maintaining a quality block of beautiful homes on beautiful lots. Every neighbor should be vocalizing outrage against this application. With the aging housing stock, lack of new homes Mr. Smallberger will certainly do fine, renovating the stone home, or building ONE single new home on this lot. Real Estate Investment & Building has been my expertise for almost 40 years (as well as real estate broker from ), I know what I m speaking about. Dividing & jamming 2 homes onto 1 nice (but not large) lot will push values lower. Thank you, Lee Harris Harris Properties Owner 6635 N. LEROY Sent from my iphone Sent from my iphone 1

46 Hammel.Douglas From: Hammel.Douglas Sent: Wednesday, June 6, :56 AM To: Hammel.Douglas Subject: FW: Plan Commission meeting, Wednesday, June 9, 2018 Original Message From: James J. Kucienski Sent: Monday, June 4, :45 AM To: McNellis.Steve Subject: Plan Commission meeting, Wednesday, June 9, 2018 Steve, I hope that you will pass my onto the members of the Plan Commission. My name is Jim Kucienski. We moved into our home at 6720 North Leroy Avenue in We raised our family here and plan to continue to live here for a long time. We like Lincolnwood for its small village feel and its easy access to Chicago s amenities. The Village has a nice mix of residential neighborhoods. We specifically choose a house in the Towers neighborhood because of its large houses of different styles on large lots. I understand that an item on your agenda Wednesday evening is about a lot at 6636 North Leroy Avenue for which there is a request to divide the lot into two smaller lots. To create smaller lots in the Towers will provide a precedent to change the unique quality of the neighborhood that the original zoning was indented to create. It s my guess that the owner or developer is seeking a greater profit from the sale of two houses versus one house on the original lot. This is not a sufficient reason to change this zoning of this neighborhood. Dividing the lot does nothing to benefit the neighborhood it only benefits the developer. That s not a good reason for approving this request. Jim Kucienski Professional Grandparent 6720 North Leroy Avenue M: H:

47 Hammel.Douglas From: Sent: To: Subject: Mark Collens Tuesday, June 5, :35 PM Hammel.Douglas; Bass, Barry; Wiberg, Tim; Cope.Ron; Nickell.Georjean; Ikezoe- Halevi.Jean; Patel, Jesal; Spino.Jennifer; Sugarman.Renan Plan Commission meeting regarding Lot Split at 6636 N. LeRoy Mr: Hammel: My wife and I have lived at 6633 LeRoy for nearly forty years and are directly across from the Subject Property. I want to provide the Plan Commission and the Board with my comments regarding the request by the property owner to split the existing lot into two lots. Perhaps a little history of LeRoy Street is in order. LeRoy is the central street in Lincolnwood Towers with arguably the largest individual lots in the Village. Most of the homes on our block and for that matter the Towers are uniquely designed and were built around the time of the second world war. The house on the Subject Property was built and lived in by the Allgauer family - very famous restaurateurs. Spacious lots and an abundance of trees characterize the Street. This unique street adds to Lincolnwood's character and should continue to be protected by the Village. In furtherance, it has come to my attention that not only the Subject Property but other lots on Longmeadow in the Towers are targets for splits. This is exactly the wrong thing to do and I agree with my neighbors that doing so will have a downward pressure on home values and detract from the beauty of the neighborhood. Homes in the Towers that have been replaced are not smaller but if anything, are larger and spectacularly designed and built. We should continue this trend to the benefit of the neighborhood and the Village. Two more matters for your consideration: As you all know the sewer capacity in the Towers is troublesome. There is a bottleneck as the sewers run under the Eden's expressway and additional sewer pipes would be expensive to say the least. Residents and Village leaders have been working on this problem for years. So does adding more homes to the housing stock add additional stress to an already stressed system- A question that should be answered. Since it is apparent that it is the intention of the owners of the subject property to build two houses what happens to all of the trees? Trees seem to be the front line to limit flooding and removing them would certainly detract from the beauty of the neighborhood and impact the capacity of the land to retain water. The only contact that I have had with residents of the Subject Property is with a distressed family who rented the house for one year and who told me they now had to move because the Owner were tearing down the house. So as a result neither I or any neighbors with whom I have spoken have any idea what the future plans are for the Subject Property other than to building two houses. I would urge the Commission not to proceed with this lot split. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 1

48 Mark Collens 6633 LeRoy Avenue -- Mark B. Collens 5550 W. Touhy Avenue Suite 300 Skokie, IL (mobile) To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments that do not expressly state otherwise) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter[s]. The intended recipients of this communication and any attachments are not subject to any limitation on the disclosure of the tax treatment or tax structure of any transaction or matter that is the subject thereof. NOTICE and DISCLAIMER: This message and any attachments contain confidential information belonging to the sender. This information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message and the attachments is prohibited and may violate both state and federal civil and criminal laws. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by telephone at immediately and remove all copies of this message and any attachments. Neither the typed name of the sender, the firm, nor anything else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. 2

49 Hammel.Douglas From: Eileen King Sent: Monday, June 4, :09 PM To: Hammel.Douglas Subject: Plan Commission meeting, Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Dear Doug, I was given your name from my neighbor, James Kucienski, who was told that you were the person in charge of handling the petitions to stop the building of two homes on the property at 6636 North Leroy. This is currently a single residence. My name is Eileen King. We moved into our home at 6740 North Leroy Avenue in We have raised our 3 children here and have enjoyed the beauty and safety of this community. Having moved from Sauganash, we found our home and fell in love with the abundance of land that our home offered. My kids were thrilled to be able to have a huge backyard to enjoy and run around in. It was a welcome change from our small lot in Sauganash. We also loved the charm of each of the homes on our street. There was so much character in each the homes facades. You don't find that in many of the neighborhoods these days. There is an item on your agenda Wednesday evening that will discuss the lot at 6636 North Leroy Avenue. The request is to divide the lot into two smaller lots and build 2 smaller homes. To create smaller lots in the Towers will provide a precedent to change the unique quality of the neighborhood that the original zoning was indented to create. This is not a sufficient reason to change this zoning of this neighborhood. Dividing the lot does nothing to benefit the neighborhood it only benefits the developer. That s not a good reason for approving this request. I am all for improving the quality of the home that currently sits on this property but I am not at all pleased with learning that 2 smaller homes will be squeezed onto these lots. The look and feel of our neighborhood will forever be affected. Mrs. Eileen King 6740 North Leroy Avenue Lincolnwood, Il

50 Hammel.Douglas From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sunday, June 3, :03 PM Hammel.Douglas Bass, Barry; Wiberg, Tim; Cope.Ron; Nickell.Georjean; Ikezoe-Halevi.Jean; Patel, Jesal; Spino.Jennifer; Sugarman.Renan Proposed Subdivision of Lot at 6636 N. LeRoy Avenue Mr. Hammel: My wife and I have lived at 6650 N. LeRoy for almost 40 years. Our house is directly north of the subject property. I have several serious concerns about the proposed subdivision of the property. My first concern is that dividing the property so that two new houses can be built will greatly detract from the aesthetics of the block. What has characterized this neighborhood is the spacious and wooded nature of the area. I would ask that members of the Plan Commission look at the 6600 block of LeRoy as well as the surrounding blocks. It will be noted that all of the houses are on very spacious lots and typically have at least 30 or more feet of area between the homes. At a time when declining home values have impacted the area and have been a hardship on those who have tried to sell their properties, allowing the division of existing lots will only add to the depression of home values. My second concern is about the impact that allowing the construction of two houses will have on the flooding problem we have in our backyard. When there are heavy rains our backyard floods. There is standing water that remains for several days. The terrain on the 6600 block of LeRoy slopes down from south to north. While I have not seen any plans for the new construction, it is reasonable to assume that the footprint of those two houses will substantially exceed that of the existing house. There will be less green area to absorb rainfall and the already bad flooding problem will become worse. Still another consideration will be the loss of many mature trees. Any development of two houses which must have a significantly different footprint from the existing house will necessitate the removal of many of them. Will the Village allow the removal of many trees, and is the developer aware of any restrictions on such removal? Having been a resident of Lincolnwood for so many years and having been active with past issues involving the Lincolnwood schools, I have had the pleasure of meeting many residents. I have spoken with many neighbors and can say that without exception everyone I have spoken with is concerned and against the subdivision of this lot. I would appreciate it if you would include this letter in the packet for the June 6 meeting of the Plan Commission or would forward copies to its members. I have sent copies to the Village President, Manager and Trustees. Thank you for your consideration, Joel Perzov 6650 N. Leroy Ave. 1

51 Hammel.Douglas From: Sent: To: Subject: McNellis.Steve Thursday, June 7, :03 AM Hammel.Douglas FW: Case No PC Doug, Can you please respond to this gentleman letting him know that you have received his comments and will provide them to the Plan Commission. Thanks, Steve Steve McNellis Community Development Director Village of Lincolnwood Ph E. Original Message From: Tim Wood Sent: Thursday, June 7, :01 AM To: McNellis.Steve Subject: Case No PC I would like to register my objection to any subdivision of property in Lincolnwood Towers. I am already very discouraged by the drop in our property values and increases in our property taxes (which is contrary to the trend in both Sauganash and Edgebrook. Subdivision of lots would undoubtedly exacerbate this situation. Therefore, please deny the request to subdivide 6636 North Leroy. Thank you. Tim Wood Sent from my ipad 1

52

53

54 Hammel.Douglas From: mimi r <msrosenbush@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 5, :52 PM To: Hammel.Douglas Cc: mimi rosenbush Subject: For Rescheduled Plan Commission Hearing 7/10/18 To: Lincolnwood Plan Commission From: Mimi (Miriam) Rosenbush 6643 N. Le Mai Avenue RE: Case #PC N. Leroy Ave. I am writing regarding the proposed plan to build two houses on the property at 6636 N. Le Roy. At the first meeting, my neighbors and I expressed concerns about building two houses on that property. Unfortunately, I have a conflict on the evening of the next meeting, so am submitting, via , points I would have made at the meeting. I realize that Mr. Smalberger is within his rights to build two houses in place of the one house at Inherent in the two-house plan, however, is an increased possibility that the houses will be similar and will stand out even more within in the context of the neighborhood. It is my understanding, for example, that Mr. Smalberger recently built two houses on the Skokie (north) side of Pratt just east of Central. These two homes are modern and quite similar. On that side of Pratt where there are far more post-war homes (especially homes built in the 1970s and 1980s), the two new homes are not problematic in terms of aesthetically blending into the area. However, if one house is built at 6636 in something resembling that modernist style, it will be problematic in an area of mostly pre-war homes, but if two similar homes are built, the property will be inconsistent with the antimonotony culture of Lincolnwood in general and the Leroy/LeMai/LaPorte area of Lincolnwood Towers, specifically. Thank you for taking the time to meet again regarding this issue, and for all your efforts on behalf of our Lincolnwood community. Mimi Rosenbush 1

55 Surrounding Lot Widths Leroy

56 Lots over 18,000 Square Feet in R-1 R-2 R-1

57 Attachment #5: Relevant Code Sections Section : Definitions SUBDIVISION, MINOR: A subdivision that: (a) is located in a residential zoning district; (b) will not contain more than two lots upon approval by the Village; (c) fronts on an existing improved street; (d) does not involve any new right-of-way or the extension or installation of any public improvements; (e) does not adversely affect the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property; (f) does not require a variation from any provision of this Chapter 16; and (g) is not in conflict with any provision or portion of the Zoning Ordinance or this Chapter : Review of minor subdivisions. If the proposed subdivision is a minor subdivision, the proposed subdivision shall be reviewed solely in accordance with and pursuant to the final plat review process set forth in Section of this Code. The application for review of a minor subdivision shall be filed in accordance with the final plat application set forth in Section of this Code. No development agreement shall be required for a minor subdivision. Chapter 16, Article 5: Subdivision Design Standards Consistency with Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan; technical standards. The proposed subdivision shall conform to all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan goals include maintaining the existing environmental assets of the Village, preserving and protecting mature trees and existing landscaping, and guiding, controlling, and encouraging development that is consistent with the Village's character Lots. (A) General. All lots shall be designed and subdivided in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, including, without limitation, compliance with the lot area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Outside the corporate limits, the minimum area of each proposed lot shall be not less than the minimum lot area required by the zoning regulations of the County of Cook for the district in which the proposed lot is located. (B) Lot shapes. Every lot shall have four sides. Exceptions may be approved when the applicant demonstrates that a four-sided lot is not feasible because of peculiar topographical conditions, abutting lots of record or abutting parcels, or preexisting parcels not owned directly or indirectly by the applicant. A lot of other than four sides will not be approved if it appears that it has been formed solely to comply with the minimum area, depth and width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. As nearly as practicable, intersecting lot lines shall form right angles with each other.

58 (C) Lot width. (1) Residential districts. All lots located in residential districts shall be of a minimum width in accordance with the applicable standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. (2) Culs-de-sac. All lots located on the radius of a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum front lot line of 50 feet. (D) Consolidations. (1) Two lots. For the consolidation of two lots into one lot, the total side yard setbacks for the new lot shall comply with the setbacks required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district in which the lot is located, and the individual side yard setbacks shall be subject to the review and approval of the Plan Commission. (2) More than two lots. No consolidation of more than two lots shall be permitted unless a variation is granted pursuant to Article 9 of this Chapter 16. In granting any such variation, the Board of Trustees may, pursuant to Section of this Code, impose certain conditions, including, without limitation, any one or more of the following conditions: (E) Street frontage. (a) The installation of additional landscaping on the lot; (b) An increase in the width of any required yard or yards on such lot beyond what is required by the Zoning Ordinance; (c) A restriction on the gross floor area for the lot that is less than what is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance; and (d) A restriction on the maximum impervious surface on the lot. (1) Required. All lots shall front on a public street; provided, however, that a lot may front on a private street if such private street has been or is to be approved as part of a planned unit development. (2) Prohibited. Unless in existence as of the effective date hereof, no lot shall have access to a street solely across another property or through any portion of such property by means of an easement. (3) Single-family residential districts. Unless in existence as of the effective date hereof, the following shall be prohibited in single-family residential districts of the Village: (a) Lots oriented in a front-to-rear, front-to-side, or rear-to-rear pattern; and (b) Through lots.

59 (F) Through lots. (1) A multifamily residential use located on a through lot shall contain only one curb or access point to the street. (2) A landscaped berm or uniform masonry wall, to be designed and constructed with materials, and in a manner, to be approved by the Community Development Department, shall be located on each through lot along the lot line fronting along the street on which there is no curb cut or access point to the property. (G) Design. A subdivision, and the lots therein, shall not be designed as to render an existing permanent structure in violation of this Chapter 16 or of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Tree preservation and protection. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that trees and mature landscaping, as well as the ecology of the community, are important characteristics of the Village and should be preserved and protected. In furtherance thereof, the Village has enacted tree preservation regulations in Chapter 14, Article 16 of this Code. All subdivisions shall comply with the Village's tree preservation regulations in Chapter 14, Article 16 of this Code Landscaping. Street trees shall be installed along all parkways in the subdivision, in accordance with Section (G) of this Code. In addition, when the Village determines that additional landscaping is desirable or necessary to mitigate the impact of any new buildings or structures on any lot to be created within a subdivision, the subdivision approval may be conditioned upon the installation of additional landscaping on such lot to screen any new buildings or structures on that lot from an adjacent lot or from the street, or both. If such additional landscaping is required, the applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the Village, a detailed landscaping plan depicting the additional landscaping. In addition, the Village may require the applicant to provide performance security and guaranty security for the landscaping, which security shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of this Chapter Grading and stormwater drainage. The subdivision shall be developed in strict accordance with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, and regulations related to grading and stormwater retention, detention, and drainage, including, without limitation, Chapter 12, Article 6, of this Code, as well as in strict accordance with the grading plans and profiles approved as part of the approved engineering plans. No grade change shall be permitted that would: (a) modify stormwater drainage on the property or an adjacent lot; (b) adversely impact the capacity or operation of the Village's stormwater system; or (c) affect the structural stability of an adjacent lot, unless the Village Engineer, in his or her sole determination, approves in writing an alternative means that will adequately provide for the collection and diversion of stormwater. No grading plan shall be approved that, in the Village Engineer's determination, poses potential adverse impacts to the environment, including, without limitation, significant change to the rate of stormwater runoff, rate or volume of sedimentation, or location of discharge.

60 Utilities and utility lines. (A) General. All utilities necessary for the subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with Article 6 of this Chapter 16, and shall be installed underground, except as expressly provided in this Section or if approved by the Village Engineer upon payment of a fee to the Village in an amount equal to the costs of burying the utilities underground, as determined by the Village Engineer. When the Village Engineer determines that a storm sewer, sanitary sewer, or water supply system should be designed and constructed larger than is immediately required to serve the subdivision, the applicant may be reimbursed for the additional costs of such oversizing, as determined by the Village Engineer, pursuant to a recapture agreement in accordance with applicable state statutes. (B) Burial of utility lines. (1) Except as otherwise provided, all utility lines to be newly installed, or, for major subdivisions, to be reinstalled from existing overhead facilities, shall be placed underground within easements or dedicated public rights-of-way. Specifically, and without limitation of the foregoing, all existing overhead utility lines located on property that is the subject of an application for approval of a major subdivision pursuant to this Chapter 16, or on a public rightof-way adjacent to such property, shall, as a condition of such approval, be placed underground within a dedicated easement or a public right-of-way. No utility lines shall be constructed within a storm or sanitary sewer easement, except for crossings, without the advance written approval of the Village Engineer. (2) The Village Engineer may, upon receipt of a written request therefor, waive the burial requirement for electric distribution transformers, switch gear, meter pedestals, and telephone pedestals, in accordance with accepted utility practices for underground distribution. Such facilities and equipment shall be screened from public view wherever possible and shall be placed in locations to be approved by the Village Engineer. (3) Notwithstanding any provision of this Chapter 16 to the contrary, no applicant shall be required to place the following utilities or utility lines underground. (a) Temporary overhead utility lines used in connection with construction, but only during periods of construction; and (b) Service connections, meters, and similar equipment normally attached to the outside wall of the premises that they serve Easements and dedications. (A) Easements shall be provided where necessary for the provision of sanitary sewer, water, storm drainage, gas lines, electric lines, telephone, cable television, streets, pathways, sidewalks and other necessary public or private purposes in order to adequately serve the proposed subdivision. (B) The easements shall be depicted on the preliminary and final plats of subdivision in accordance with Sections and of this Code.

61 (C) The size and location of all such easements shall be subject to the approval of the Village Engineer, and the terms of all such easements shall be subject to the approval of the Village Engineer and Village Attorney. (D) Easements for Village utilities, including, without limitation, sewer, stormwater or water utilities, shall be no less than 20 feet in width, and shall, to the extent practicable, be located at the rear of each lot and along such other lot lines so as to provide continuity of alignment of such easements from block to block. (E) The final plat shall provide for dedications of rights-of-way easements of land necessary for any bicycle paths, greenways, storm- or floodwater runoff channels and basins, ways for public facilities, parks, playgrounds, school grounds, and other public grounds, as may be required by the Plan Commission or Board of Trustees in order to conform with the Comprehensive Plan. Any public lands so designated within the Comprehensive Plan and lying within the proposed subdivision shall be dedicated for the use designated by the Comprehensive Plan Lot access and circulation. All subdivisions shall be designed to provide appropriate public street access to all lots in the subdivision, which access shall be designated on the preliminary and final plats of subdivision Survey monuments. Permanent survey monuments constructed of iron pipe not less than one inch in diameter and 30 inches long, or as otherwise approved by the Village Engineer, shall be installed at all street corners, at all points where street lines intersect the exterior boundaries of the proposed subdivision, and at angle points and points of curve in each street.

62 Plan Commission Staff Report Case # PC July 10, 2018 Subject Property: 4656 West Touhy Avenue Zoning District: B-3 Village Center PD Petitioner: Onsite Healthcare, SC, Property Owner Nature of Request: Approval of a Special Use to allow parking spaces in the front yard, and approval of Variations to 1) allow the building to be set back greater than the required 15-foot build-to-line along Touhy Avenue in the B-3 Zoning District; 2) reduce required on-site parking by fourteen spaces; 3) waive the requirement of a ten-foot-wide landscape setback along the north lot line abutting a residential zoning district; and 4) allow the reduction in the minimum width of a drive aisle from twenty-four feet to twenty-one feet, two inches. Notification: Notice was published in the Lincolnwood Review on June 14, 2018, Public Hearing Signs were installed at 4656 West Touhy Avenue, and mailed legal notices dated June 14, 2018 were provided to properties within 250 Feet. Background Onsite healthcare, SC, property owner of 4656 West Touhy Avenue, is seeking zoning approvals that would allow for the redevelopment of the property with a two-story medical office facility. The proposed building would include a total of 17,800 square feet of interior space, and would generally use the footprint of the existing structure. Parking for

63 4656 West Touhy Avenue July 10, 2018 the proposed facility would be provided by an on-site parking lot and through an agreement with the property owner of 4600 West Touhy Avenue, immediately to the east. The property is located in the B-3 Village Center PD District. Per the Zoning Code, the intent of this district is to create a mixed-use commercial area and pedestrian friendly environment. As such, development in this district is subject to special standards specifically applicable to the B-3 district. Required Approvals The proposed redevelopment of the subject property requires the following approvals (location of each request is shown on the diagram on page 3 of this memorandum): 1. Special Use for Parking in the Front Yard Per Section 7.06(5) of the Zoning Code, open-air, off-street parking spaces located in the front yard of a property in the B-3 district require a Special Use Permit. The proposed site plan depicts two spaces that lie in the area qualifying as the front yard of the proposed redevelopment. 2. Variation for the Proposed Building Setback Section 4.11 of the Zoning Code identifies a build-to-line of 15 feet along Touhy Avenue for properties in the B-3 district. The proposed building is shown to have a setback of 25 feet. (While the proposed building would use the same foundation and setback of the existing building, the demolition of the existing building would require compliance for any new improvements to the property. Therefore, a Variation for the proposed setback is required). 3. Variation for Required On-site Parking Section 7.10 of the Zoning Code establishes on-site parking requirements for uses throughout the Village. Specifically, it states that a medical office use is required to provide four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Additionally, the Zoning Code specifically exempts certain interior spaces from the parking requirement. When those spaces are removed from the total floor area, the proposed building has 8,133 square feet of floor area subject to the parking requirement. Based on these requirements, the total 2

64 4656 West Touhy Avenue July 10, 2018 required on-site parking capacity is 33 spaces. However, the proposed development includes 19 on-site spaces, meaning that the development requires a Variation for 14 required parking spaces. (The Considerations section of this report describes additional parking near the subject property that, while not qualifying as legal parking for the purposes of this requirement, may be taken into account when considering the appropriateness of this request.) 4. Variation from a Required Ten-foot Landscape Setback Section 6.16(1) of the Zoning Code requires a ten-foot landscape setback for properties in the B-3 district along the length of any property line adjacent to a property zoned residential. (In this instance, while there is an alley between the subject property and the residential property, the Village has typically interpreted this condition as triggering the referenced requirement.) The Code also defines the type of landscape screening that must be provided within the setback area. However, the north façade of the proposed building lies essentially on the north property line, with no setback available for landscaping material. This lack of a building setback is consistent with the siting of the existing building. 5. Variation for the Driveway Aisle Width Section 7.06(6)a of the Zoning Code establishes minimum dimensional requirements for parking facilities. As per this section, drive aisles that host two-way traffic and provide access to ninety-degree parking spaces are required to be at least 24 feet in width. The proposed development plan indicates a drive aisle on the east side of the property with a width of 21 feet, two inches, which would require a Variation of two feet, ten inches Site Plan showing Locations of Requested Variations 3

65 4656 West Touhy Avenue July 10, 2018 Considerations The following may be considered by the Plan Commission when discussing the proposed Subdivision: Site Design and Operational Characteristics Staff has identified several characteristics of the proposed development plan that may factor into the Plan Commission s recommendation regarding the Variation requests. They include the following. Operational Parking Demand and Off-site Parking Capacity The Petitioner commissioned a parking evaluation that was done by KLOA, a transportation and traffic planning consultant. That evaluation, included as Attachment #3 of this report, found the following: The Village s Zoning Ordinance requires a total of 33 on-site spaces for the proposed development, requiring a variation of 14 spaces. Using a parking ratio of 3.2 parking spaces per thousand square feet as recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the proposed use would require 26 spaces, requiring a variation of seven spaces. Based on the operational characteristics of the proposed use and assuming peak occupancy, 23 parking spaces would be needed, requiring a Variation of four spaces. However, the study points out that staff may often be transporting patients, which could reduce the demand for parking at any given time of the day. The evaluation also highlights peripheral off-street parking opportunities that could supplement the 19 spaces included in the proposed development plan. The evaluation presented the following findings related to these parking opportunities: The perpendicular parking on Kilpatrick Avenue includes 12 spaces that are open to the general public. During a workday, KLOA observed a maximum occupancy of seven spaces, meaning five spaces were left available. Typically, there were up to seven spaces available, which would allow the proposed use to meet its operational demand West Touhy Avenue, located immediately east of the subject property, has a total of 85 parking spaces, which exceeds it requirement according to the Zoning Ordinance. However, KLOA observed a peak-hour occupancy of approximately 30 vehicles, resulting in a parking excess of approximately 55 spaces. It should be noted that staff is aware that Psisteria, located across the street on Touhy Avenue, uses a portion of this parking during lunch and dinner. However the number of spaces they occupy is not known. In fact, a non-permanent, terminable Parking Easement Agreement exists between the owners of 4600 West Touhy and 4656 West Touhy. That agreement, included as Attachment #4 to this report, provides additional clarity regarding the availability of parking between the two properties. This agreement states the following regarding parking: The 13 spaces along the west lot line of 4600 West Touhy are made available to 4656 West Touhy through a non-exclusive easement. 4

66 4656 West Touhy Avenue July 10, 2018 The 12 spaces along the east lot line of 4656 West Touhy as indicated on the proposed development plan are made available to 4600 West Touhy through a nonexclusive easement. 13 Shared 61 Dedicated to Public Dedicated to Shared Aerial Imagery showing On-site and Peripheral Parking Opportunities Short of any agreements that modified the terms of this original agreement, these facts lead staff to the following findings: Because the agreement is terminable, the spaces made available by 4600 West Touhy cannot be counted toward the required parking for 4656 West Touhy. There are a total of approximately 93 combined parking spaces available on both 4600 West Touhy and 4656 West Touhy, based on recent aerial imagery. Collectively, these spaces satisfy the Village s parking requirements for both properties, assuming a certain portion of the square footage of the building at 4600 West Touhy is exempt based on the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Since the agreement between the properties provides non-exclusive easement, it does not specifically preclude each property owner from using their own parking in the areas covered by the agreement. Therefore, the spaces along the east lot line of 4656 West Touhy could potentially be used by the users of the proposed medical office building. The total number of spaces potentially available to 4656 West Touhy on these two properties is 33 spaces. However, based on staff s understanding of the Parking Easement Agreement, the number of spaces dedicated solely to use by 4656 West Touhy Avenue is seven spaces. 5

67 4656 West Touhy Avenue July 10, 2018 Alternatives to a Reduced Drive Aisle Width The proposed development plan indicates a drive aisle on the east side of the property with a width of 21 feet, two inches, while the Zoning Code requires a minimum width of 24 feet. Based on discussions with the Petitioner, staff understands that this was undertaken in an attempt to meet Village requirements related to the minimum width of sidewalks along the sides of the proposed building. There are several variables in this area, and while the final solution may still require a Variation, staff has identified the following design alternatives: Reduce the width of the sidewalk along the east side of the proposed building to four feet. This would require a Variation for both the sidewalk width and drive aisle width, but would expand the drive aisle width to 22 feet, two inches. Design all of the parking spaces located on the subject property as compact spaces, allowing their depth to be 16 feet rather than 18 feet. This would allow the drive aisle to be 25 feet, 2 inches in width, meeting the minimum required width of 25 feet for a drive aisle that provides access to compact spaces. (There is no restriction in the Zoning Ordinance related to the maximum number of compact spaces permitted on a lot.) Incremental Impacts due to Building Height The north façade of the building is placed close to the north lot line, prohibiting the development from providing the required ten-foot landscape setback. This is consistent with the existing structure. However, the proposed building would be approximately twice as tall as the existing building. This will result in a taller structure close to residential properties north of the alley, without the benefit of any screening or buffering. Image Showing Proximity to Nearby Residential Properties Public Input Staff received correspondence from one member of the public regarding the requested approvals. (See attachment #8.) Moshe Davis, manager of 4600 West Touhy Avenue (property immediately east of subject property), stated that 1) the request for parking in the front yard reflects the current condition on the property, 2) he has concerns over the reduced drive aisle width. He feels that there is adequate space to provide both the sidewalk and the required drive aisle width, and believes that a narrower drive aisle would make access to the parking spaces difficult. Variation and Special Use Standards Section 5.15 establishes Variation standards and Section 5.15 establishes Special Use standards against which the requested approvals should be assessed. These standards can be found in Attachment 9 to this report. 6

68 4656 West Touhy Avenue July 10, 2018 Requested Action The Petitioner seeks approval of a Special Use to allow parking spaces in the front yard, and approval of Variations to 1) allow the building to be set back greater than the required 15-foot build-to line along Touhy Avenue in the B-3 Zoning District; 2) reduce the number of on-site parking by fourteen spaces; 3) waive the requirement of a ten-foot-wide landscape setback along the north lot line abutting a residential zoning district; and 4) allow the reduction in the minimum width of a drive aisle from twenty-four feet to twentyone feet, two inches. Documents Attached 1. Special Use Application 2. Variation Application 3. Parking Evaluation by KLOA 4. Parking Easement Agreement Made March 21, 2000 Between 4600 West Touhy Avenue and 4656 West Touhy Avenue 5. Plat of Survey 6. Proposed Site Plan 7. Proposed Building Plans 8. Public Input 9. Relevant Regulations 7

69

70

71

72 ADDNEDUM TO SPECIAL USE STANDARDS 1. Please explain how the use is necessary for the public convenience at this location and the subject property is deemed suitable for the use. (Please explain in detail) Allowing for parking spaces 1 and 6 as demonstrated on the Site Plan supports public convenience because it maximizes the number of parking spots closest to the entrance of the planned building at 4656 Touhy. The previous occupants of 4656 Touhy were medical offices and a healthcare business occupies 4600 Touhy. Onsite Healthcare, Inc. SC plans to upgrade the building at 4656 to be the administrative offices of their mobile healthcare services operations and serve, in small part, as a medical office. 2. Please explain how the use is so designed, located, and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety, and welfare will be protected. Allowing for parking spaces 1 and 6 ensure that there are as many parking spaces as possible as close to the entrance of the proposed building at 4656 Touhy. Maximizing the number of spaces in the parking lot ensures that there is as little use of street parking. The sidewalks surrounding the parking lot comply with ADA requirements. 3. Please explain how this use would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located. Surrounding neighborhood property value will remain unaffected. First, maximizing the number of parking spaces minimizes the possibility of employees and visitors from parking on surrounding neighborhood streets. Also, parking spaces 1 and 6 are the spaces closest to Touhy Ave. and are part of the parking lot between the two commercial buildings at 4656 and 4600 Touhy Ave., away from residential areas. Maximizing the number of parking spaces in this lot helps to ensure that traffic to these buildings remains on commercial areas to the greatest extent possible. 4. The Special Use is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan has the following Objective: Promote the growth and redevelopment of business and commercial areas. In support of this Objective, the Comprehensive Plan has issued the following policy: Encourage the location of new and expanding business in existing commercial locations that would benefit from redevelopment (Village of Lincolnwood Comprehensive Plan, pg. 25). The subject address is located in an area specifically targeted for potential redevelopment entitled West of Utility ROW (Village of Lincolnwood Comprehensive Plan, pg. 25). The Special Use directly supports the efficient operation of the expanding business planned to operate at the address. The existing structure was used as a medical office and will be redeveloped as the administrative building of a mobile healthcare services company. 5. The Special Use would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the underlying Zoning District.

73 The subject property is located in the west end of B-3. The purpose of this district reads, in pertinent part, as follows: B-3 Village Center Planned Development District. The B-3 Village Center Planned Development District is established with the understanding that its role is to serve as the focal point of Lincolnwood's downtown activity corresponding to recommendations contained within the Lincoln Avenue Corridor Plan. Similar to the B-1 District, the district is intended to create a mixed-use commercial area and pedestrian friendly environment. First, the planned development at 4656 Touhy contributes to the commercial development of B- 3. Secondly, the proposed building at 4656 complies with all of the village requirements regarding sidewalks, thereby ensuring that the area remains a pedestrian friendly environment. 6. Please explain how the Special Use is so designed to provide adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, or necessary facilities. Allowing for parking spaces 1 and 6 do not impede any utilities, access roads, drainage, or any other necessary facilities. Onsite developed the plans for the proposed building not only to comply with relevant standard but also to take advantage of any opportunities to improve upon compliance with any standards. 7. Please explain how the Special Use is so designed to provide ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The Special Use will have the affect of minimizing traffic congestion on public streets. Allowing for spaces 1 and 6 ensure that the planned parking lot has maximum spaces thereby minimizing the need and potential use of public street parking.

74

75

76

77

78 9575 West Higgins Road, Suite 400 Rosemont, Illinois p: f: MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Frederick Bernardo Jurisprudence Health Care Group PC William R. Woodward Senior Consultant Luay R. Aboona, PE, PTOE Principal DATE: May 18, 2018 SUBJECT: Parking Evaluation On-Site Healthcare Medical Office Building Lincolnwood, Illinois This memorandum summarizes the results of a parking evaluation conducted by Kenig, Lindgren, O Hara, Aboona, Inc. (KLOA, Inc.) for the proposed medical office building to be located at 4656 West Touhy Avenue in Lincolnwood, Illinois. Figure 1 shows an aerial of the existing site. The existing site includes an approximate 9,300 square-foot, single-story building, which is currently vacant, with an off-street parking supply of approximately 20 parking spaces. The proposed plans call for a medical office building. The existing building will be expanded to include an approximate 8,500 square-foot second floor for a total building square footage of 17,800 square feet. The site will provide a total of approximately 19 off-street parking spaces, which includes two handicap accessible parking spaces. The purpose of the study is two-fold: To determine the adequacy of the proposed parking supply compared to the off-street parking that is required by Village Code. To determine if the proposed parking supply will be adequate based on the intended use of the development as well as published parking generation rates (i.e. ITE) and whether additional parking will be needed. KLOA, Inc. Transportation and Parking Planning Consultants

79 ^ N SITE Aerial View of Site Location Figure 1 2

80 Existing Development Characteristics The site is located at 4656 West Touhy Avenue in Lincolnwood, Illinois and is developed with an approximate 9,300 square-foot, single-story building and 20 off-street parking spaces. The building, formerly occupied by medical office uses, is currently vacant. Proposed Development The development plans call to expand the existing building from 9,300 square feet to 17,800 square feet with the addition of a second floor of approximately 8,500 square feet. The second floor will be limited to office use with administrative staff only. The first floor will include patient rooms and imaging services to provide basic primary medical care. The parking lot will be improved to meet current Village Code standards for parking stall dimensions for both standard and accessible parking spaces, thereby providing a total off-street parking supply of 19 parking spaces, which includes two accessible parking spaces. Proposed Operations The proposed building will be occupied by On-Site Healthcare which provides mobile medical assistance where drivers provide door-to-door service of transporting medical personnel to patients at their residence. On-Site s current office, located at 7301 North Lincoln Avenue in Lincolnwood is staffed with administrative employees only and is used as a base of operations for the drivers involved in the transporting service. No medical care is being provided at the current location. The operations at the proposed building will be as follows. The proposed second floor of the building will be limited to office use with administrative staff only, similar to current operations. There are approximately 14 to 16 employees. This includes the drivers noted above that will use this new location as their base of operations. No new hires are planned with this expansion and relocation. A medical clinic, providing basic primary medical care will be located on the first floor, which will include four to five patient rooms and imaging services. The clinic will have up to four medical staff members during peak appointment hours. Outpatient surgeries, applications of anesthesia, or overnight stays will not be provided. The clinic anticipates general operating hours of 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, and closed on weekends. The administrative offices will have similar hours and will also be closed on weekends. Ambulances will not transport patients to/from the clinic. The drivers, noted above, will also transport patients to/from the clinic. 3

81 Parking Evaluation A parking evaluation was conducted based on Village Code, industry standards (i.e. ITE), and the parking needs of the intended use based on information provided by the development. Table 1 summarizes the parking evaluations and is detailed below. Parking Evaluation Based on Village Code The Village of Lincolnwood s off-street parking code for medical office buildings requires 4.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Further, reductions in square footage can be taken for unusable space (e.g. stairwells, closets, bathrooms, open area, etc.), which lowers the total net square footage of the overall building to 8,133 square feet (from 17,800 gross square feet). Therefore, per Village Code, a total of 33 parking spaces are required, resulting in a parking deficit of 14 parking spaces. Parking Evaluation Based on ITE According to parking generation rates published in the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 4 th Edition for a Medical-Dental Office Building (Land-Use Code 720), the average peak parking demand rate is 3.2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, thereby needing a total of 26 parking spaces to meet peak parking demand (based on 8,133 net square feet, as noted above). This results in a parking deficit of seven parking spaces. Parking Evaluation Based on Intended Use As noted, the intended use of the development includes office space on the second floor and a clinic on the first floor, thereby needing 23 parking spaces, as described below. Administrative staff. The existing staff at the current location will transfer to the proposed location. Under existing conditions, some staff members are either dropped off or take public transit to work and some rideshare. As a result, 14 parking spaces are needed for the administrative staff on the second floor. Medical Clinic staff. Four medical staff members are planned for peak appointment hours. Patient Rooms. Four to five patient rooms are planned, suggesting five parking spaces. Based on this information, this results in a parking deficit of four parking spaces. However, it is important to note the following, which may result in a reduction of actual parking needed. The 14 parking spaces needed for the administrative staff includes the drivers that are offpremises providing transit between medical personnel and patients. These same drivers will also bring patients to/from the clinic thereby reducing the amount of parking needed for patients. 4

82 As noted, existing administrative staff rideshare or take public transit. It is anticipated that public transit and ridesharing will continue at this location because of the building being in close proximity to public transportation. Table 1 PARKING EVALUATION SUMMARY Parking Based on: Required Parking Provided Parking Surplus/ (Deficit) Village Code 4/ksf (14) ITE 3.2/ksf (7) Intended Use (4) Parking Alternatives In addition to the proposed 19 off-street parking spaces that will be provided, there are adjacent parking areas that may be utilized to accommodate projected peak parking demands, as noted below. Kilpatrick Avenue. On the east side of Kilpatrick Avenue there are 12 perpendicular public parking spaces that are located along the west face of the proposed medical office building. Parking occupancy counts conducted at four different hours (8:00 AM, 11:00 AM, 1:00 PM, and 4:00 PM) on Thursday, May 10, 2018 show that the maximum occupancy was seven vehicles, which occurred at 4:00 P.M. when by that time administrative staff from the proposed development will be leaving for the day, and the clinic will be completing the final appointments for the day. The remainder of the day shows that, on average, up to five spaces were occupied. Therefore, throughout the day, there are approximately 5 to 7 spaces available, which, coupled with the provided off-street parking (19 spaces), would satisfy the parking needed for the intended use of the development (23 spaces), as well as meet the ITE estimation of 26 spaces West Touhy Avenue. The proposed development site has a renewable access agreement (not permanent) with the adjacent property located at 4600 West Touhy Avenue. This site has a parking capacity of approximately 85 parking spaces. Parking occupancy counts conducted for the same four hours on the same weekday as the counts done for Kilpatrick Avenue, as noted above, show that this parking lot had a peak parking occupancy of 30 parking spaces resulting in a minimum of 55 parking spaces that are available throughout the day. As such, the parking residual from this site, coupled with the provided off-street parking of the proposed development, would be more than adequate to satisfy the parking required by Village Code, ITE standards, and the intended use of the development. 5

83 Conclusion A parking evaluation was conducted for the proposed medical office building to be located at 4656 West Touhy Avenue in Lincolnwood, Illinois. The existing building will be expanded to a total of 17,800 square feet by modifying the existing 9,500 square-foot one-story building to include an approximate 8,300 square-foot second floor. In conjunction with the proposed development, the existing off-street parking spaces will be modified to meet parking stall dimensions, as required by Village Code, thereby providing a total of 19 parking spaces. The parking evaluation shows that the proposed off-street parking supply of 19 parking spaces will not be adequate to satisfy the requirements established by Village Code, industry standards (ITE), or the needs as established by the intended use of the development. However, parking occupancy counts of the adjacent Kilpatrick Avenue parking area show that there is adequate capacity of these 12 parking spaces throughout the day to satisfy the peak parking demand as established by both ITE and the intended use of the development. Further, occupancy counts of the adjacent property to the east show that there is more than adequate residual capacity to satisfy the parking that is required by Village Code, as well as accommodate the peak parking demands established by ITE and the intended use of the development should the development s peak parking demand exceed the provided 19 off-street parking spaces. 6

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96 NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS: ERECT NEW 2ND. FLOOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICE MEDICAL OFFICE OVER EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. REVISIONS: BUILDING DATA: SQ. FT GSF GSF GSF SITE PLAN AND NOTES RESERVED PARKING $150 FINE 4656 W. TOUHY AVE. LINCOLNWOOD, IL SHEATHING STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA: 1. ROOF: MINIMUM FOOR LIVE LOAD 15 PSF. SCOPE OF WORK: PROJECT: REMODELING 12 SCALE: VARIES DATE: SHEET: T1 1 OF 12

97

98

99

100

101

102

103 Hammel.Douglas From: Sent: To: Subject: Moshe Davis Monday, June 18, :29 PM Hammel.Douglas 4656 W. Touhy Thanks again for your call today Doug. After we spoke I went to check out the site and I noticed that the "Front Yard" parking request may actually be documenting existing conditions as well. I am attaching some pictures where you can see the property already has parking spaces east of the building line all the way to the public sidewalk. Furthermore I was wondering, if the current drive aisle measures over 30' and their goal is simply to add a 5'- wide walkway alongside the building (and in the process "push" the parking east and narrow the drive aisle), they still shouldn't need to narrow it more than 25'. The numbers don't add up. Unless I'm mistaken about something which is of course entirely possible! I do think that narrowing the drive aisle more than absolutely necessary will be challenging. It could make it difficult to turn into and out of spots when cars are parked on both sides of the aisle. Just some thoughts. 1

104 Attachment #9. Relevant Regulations 7.06 General standards for off-street parking facilities. Off-street parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with regulations hereinafter set forth. (5) In yards. Subject to the provisions set forth in this Section 7.06, open-air, off-street parking spaces may be located in: (a) any rear yard, in any zoning district; and (b) in a front yard or a side yard abutting a street, but only within the B-1, B-2, B-3, O-1, M-B, and P Districts, and only upon the issuance of a special use permit therefor pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 5.17 of this Zoning Ordinance Off-street Parking Schedule Use Category Required Parking Spaces Health services Hospital 1 space per bed for 100 beds or less, 1.1 spaces per bed for 101 to 300 beds, 1.2 spaces per bed for 301 to 500 beds, 1.3 spaces per bed for over 500 beds Massage therapy Medical clinic Office, medical (out-patient only) 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area Section Definitions FLOOR AREA (FOR DETERMINING OFF-STREET PARKING AND OFF-STREET LOADING REQUIREMENTS): "Floor area," when prescribed as the basis of measurement for off-street parking spaces and off-street loading spaces for any use, shall be the sum of the net horizontal area of the several floors of the building, excluding: Areas used for accessory off-street parking facilities The horizontal areas of the basement and cellar floors that are devoted exclusively to uses accessory to the operation of the building Restrooms Locker rooms for employees

105 Hallways Stairways Elevator shafts Equipment areas: including mechanical, telephone and electrical equipment All horizontal dimensions shall be taken from the exterior faces of the walls. Section 7.06(6) Design and maintenance. a. Open and enclosed parking spaces. Parking spaces may be open-air or enclosed in a building and shall be accessed by a private drive that meets the following minimum aisle width standards: Table Width Length One-Way Two-Way Parking Angle (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Parallel Compact

106 4.13Area, bulk, density and setback standards: Business and Office Districts. Building Standards Maximum building height (feet) 38 feet/3 stories 38 feet/3 stories 65/5 stories 3 stories/38 (Note 1) (Note 1) (Note 1) Minimum floor area per DU (SF) 1-bedroom/studio (SF) bedroom (SF) 1,500 1,500 1,500 3-bedroom (SF) 2,000 2,000 2,000 Required setbacks (Note 4) Minimum front setback (feet) (Note 5) N/A 25 N/A 25 (Note 3) Minimum build-to-line (feet) 5 (Note 3) 15 on Touhy N/A 5 on Lincoln Minimum interior side setback (feet) N/A N/A N/A 10 Minimum corner side setback (feet) N/A 25 (Note 2) Minimum rear setback (feet) N/A Landscape buffer and screening requirements between zoning districts. (1) A minimum ten-foot landscaped setback and screening area shall be located along the length of any property line located in the B-1, B-2, B-3, O, or M-B Zoning Districts when adjacent to property zoned residential. a. Required screening shall be a minimum height of six feet at time of installation and may be comprised of berms, masonry walls, a double row of densely planted landscaping, or a combination thereof. b. Screening shall be continuous along the property line. c. Berms shall be utilized to the maximum extent feasible.

107 d. Evergreen trees and shrubs shall be used to the greatest extent feasible in a fashion so as to inhibit views from residential property. e. The surface of the setback area shall be suitably covered with grass, ground cover or similar vegetation and periodically mulched. Impervious materials such as asphalt, concrete or a layer of stone is prohibited. The landscape buffer shall not be used for the purposes of parking, loading, servicing, or storage. f. An eight-foot high masonry wall within a five-foot landscape setback area may be utilized as an alternative to meeting the minimum ten-foot width requirement. Masonry walls are subject to the regulations set forth, Article III, Section 3.13, Fences and natural screening, of this Zoning Ordinance Major Variations (7) Standards. In determining whether in a specific case there are practical difficulties or particular hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of this Zoning Ordinance, there shall be taken into consideration the extent to which the following facts are established: a. The requested major variation is consistent with the stated intent and purposes of this Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; b. The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the subject property would bring a particular hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of this Zoning Ordinance is enforced; c. The conditions upon which the petition for the variation is based would not be applicable generally to other property within the same zoning district; d. The variation is not solely and exclusively for the purpose of enhancing the value of or increasing the revenue from the property; e. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property; f. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; g. The variation granted is the minimum change to the Zoning Ordinance standards necessary to alleviate the practical hardship on the subject property; h. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; and i. For variations from Article XI of this Zoning Ordinance: (1) The proposed variation is consistent with the statement of purpose set forth in Section of this Zoning Ordinance;

108 (2) The proposed sign complies with any additional standards or conditions set forth in Article XI of this ordinance; (3) The proposed sign will substantially enhance the architectural integrity of the building or other structure to which it will be attached, if any; and (4) The proposed sign conforms with the design and appearance of nearby structures and signs Special Uses (4) Decisions. The Board of Trustees, upon report and recommendation of the Plan Commission and without further hearing, may approve or deny an application for a special use, or may refer it back to the Plan Commission for further consideration. In determining whether to approve or deny an application for a special use, there shall be taken into consideration the extent to which the following facts are established: a. The special use is necessary for the public convenience at that location, and the subject property is deemed suitable for the use; b. The special use is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected; c. The special use would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located; d. The special use is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; e. The special use would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the underlying zoning district; f. The special use is so designed to provide adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, or necessary facilities; and g. The special use is so designed to provide ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.

109 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Chairman Yohanna Member of the Plan Commission Steve McNellis Community Development Director DATE: July 10, 2018 SUBJECT: Case #PC-06-18: Zoning Code Text Amendments Sign Regulations for Large-Scale Developments, Freestanding Sign Location, Portable Sign Requirements, and Temporary Signage At the June 6, 2018 Plan Commission meeting, staff presented background information and recommended Sign Code revisions for consideration. The Plan Commission discussed the proposed Amendments and directed Staff to work with the Village Attorney to prepare Code language for discussion. In addition, staff was directed to find an appropriate method to survey existing businesses to determine their thoughts regarding the proposed conceptual Sign Code revisions. All of this work is in progress. Given the agendas proposed for the July 10, 2018 meeting, and the Special Plan Commission meeting two weeks later, on Tuesday, July 24, 2018, staff proposes to continue this Public Hearing, without public comment or discussion, to the July 24, 2018 meeting, in order to balance the two agendas and permit sufficient time to discuss each of the items. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to continue, without discussion, Case #PC-06-18, to the July 24, 2018 Special Meeting of the Plan Commission.