agenda - wednesday, august 21, 2019

Page | 1

AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

BOARD ROOM 300 PLAZA CIRCLE

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2019 7:00 PM

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. ATTENDANCE

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

MINUTES FROM AUGUST 7, 2019

MOTION TO APPROVE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING MINUTES FROM AUGUST 07, 2019.

V. PUBLIC COMMENTARY

VI. OLD BUSINESS

VII. NEW BUSINESS

FINDINGS OF FACT - PZC-11-2019 - THE CROSSINGS OF MUNDELEIN

MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS PUBLISHED FOR PZC-11-2019 RELATING TO A VARIATION FROM SECTION 20.28.030, TABLE 20.28-3 TO ALLOW FOR A 15 FOOT CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR BUILDINGS 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 25, 27 AND 30 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 0 ILLINOIS ROUTE 60, 29080 AND 29172 NORTH ILLINOIS ROUTE 83.

MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS PUBLISHED FOR PZC-11-2019 RELATING TO A VARIATION FROM SECTION 20.28.030, TABLE 20.28-3 TO ALLOW A MINIMUM UNIT WIDTH OF 20 TO 30 FEET, WITH

Page | 2

NO MORE THAN TWENTY (20) UNITS BEING 20 FEET IN WIDTH, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 0 ILLINOIS ROUTE 60, 29080 AND 29172 NORTH ILLINOIS ROUTE 83.

VIII. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Minutes of a Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2019

Page 1 of 5

MINUTES OF A PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

Meeting called to order at 7:01 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ATTENDANCE

Present: Kevin Anderson, Kerry Garesche, Thomas Georges, Joseph Herchenbach, Ray Rose, Sophia Schneckloth, Terry Roswick (Chair)

Absent: None Also present: Amanda Orenchuk, Director of Community Development; Taylor Wegrzyn, Planner; Ann Watson, Recording Secretary REVIEW/APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by J. Herchenbach, seconded by R. Rose to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission

Meeting minutes of July 17, 2019.

AYES: J. Herchenbach, R. Rose, K. Anderson, K. Garesche, T. Georges, S. Schneckloth, T. Roswick

NAYS: None ABSENT: None

MOTION CARRIED

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTARY

NONE

OLD BUSINESS

NONE

FINDINGS OF FACT – PZC‐08‐2019, 132 EAST MAPLE AVENUE

Motion by J. Herchenbach, seconded by R. Rose to approve the Findings of Fact for PZC‐08‐2019 relating to a variation from Section 20.28.030, Table 20.28‐2 to allow for the impervious surface area of the lot to exceed 50% of the total area of the lot on the property located at 132 East Maple Avenue. AYES: J. Herchenbach, R. Rose, K. Anderson, K. Garesche, T. Georges, S. Schneckloth, T.

Roswick NAYS: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED

Packet Pg. 3

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

ug

7, 2

019

7:00

PM

(M

inu

tes

fro

m A

ug

ust

7, 2

019)


Page 2 of 5

PUBLIC HEARING – PZC‐11‐2019, THE CROSSINGS OF MUNDELEIN Motion by J. Herchenbach, seconded by R. Rose to open Public Hearing PZC‐11‐2019.

T. Wegrzyn, Planner, gave a brief overview history of the property and variations being requested. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. (Lennar) is the contract purchaser of 40 acres of land, of which 27 acres are proposed for the construction of 186 townhouse units (Concept was presented to the Village Board in November, 2018) and the remainder as open space. The unimproved property is along Route 83, located behind the existing Mundelein Crossings shopping center and is zoned R‐5: Multi‐Family Residential. CalAtlantic (Lennar) requests relief from the Zoning Ordinance’s required 20 foot corner side yard setback standards to allow for a setback of 15 feet for their rear‐loaded garage product and a variation to the requirement that no townhouse unit be less than 30 feet in width in the R‐5: Multi‐Family Residential Zoning District.

SWEAR IN PETITIONER(S)

Tom Burney, Client’s Attorney (40 Brink Street, Crystal Lake, IL) gave a brief overview of the project and the variations being requested. He stated that the request for reduction in unit widths is market driven. Rich Olson, Land Planner with Gary R. Weber (402 W. Liberty Dr., Wheaton, IL), referred to the site plan, included in the packet. When initially reviewed by the Village, police and fire requested larger radiuses for easier maneuvering of emergency vehicles, and its effect on certain building setbacks. Richard (Rich) Murphy, Land Planning and Entitlements Manager for Lennar (1141 E. Main Street, East Dundee, IL) briefly explained their product and market demand and how it related to their request for a reduction in unit width. A traditional townhouse is normally 1,500‐1,750 sq. ft. If they were to introduce a larger footprint, 1,495 – 2,185 sq. ft. range, it becomes similar in size to single family homes and prices out of the townhouse market. Madeline Larmon, Civil Engineer with Mackie Consultants (9575 W. Higgins Ave., Rosemont, IL) was present to discuss any matters relating to engineering.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Anderson asked if Police and Fire had reviewed and approved the layout of the subdivision. T. Wegrzyn stated that yes, both Fire and Police approved the layout. The commission also discussed the Traffic Study that was done and rendered findings that did not warrant a traffic light at the intersection of Fieldcrest Drive and Route 83. Ms. Larmon stated that a Traffic Study was completed and provided feedback that the State felt the results did not warrant a traffic light and that there would be some widening done to accommodate a

Packet Pg. 4

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

ug

7, 2

019

7:00

PM

(M

inu

tes

fro

m A

ug

ust

7, 2

019)


Page 3 of 5

left turn lane into the subdivision from northbound Route 83 and a right turn lane from southbound Route 83. The Commission discussed the townhouse material types, specifically those on the buildings requesting the setback relief. There was additional discussion regarding sight lines, right‐of‐way, and safety initiatives to prevent speeding of people cutting through the neighborhood, and fencing. Commissioner Rose asked if there was any consideration or discussion regarding an additional surface or way into the subdivision for emergency vehicles, specifically to access the northern most area of the development. It was stated that plans are set to be reviewed and this is something that can be investigated. PUBLIC COMMENT

Valerie Matsunaga (2610 Fieldcrest Dr., Mundelein) stated her concern over not having a traffic light installed at the intersection of Fieldcrest and Route 83. She previously voiced her concern to the State and received a letter, that can’t be found at the moment, stating there would not be a light installed unless the property across the street (proposed development site) was developed. Duane Beelow (29300 North Highway 83, Mundelein) voiced his concern regarding the traffic on Route 83. His other concern was stormwater. There is a history of flooding and drain tiles failing or becoming obstructed in the area. His concern is that the development would lead to additional water coming to the Beelow and Wirtz properties located closer to Route 60. Mr. Beelow wanted to know how that would be handled. Ms. Larmon stated the existing retention site behind the commercial building would be used as well as a wetland area on the site. Mrs. Orenchuk stated that she would pass along the notes of the meeting with Mr. Bellow’s concerns to Mr. Boeche, Director of Public Works and Engineering, as this matter was not something that could be decided during the meeting. David Ellsworth (2310 Chadwick Way, Mundelein) stated his concern over the findings of the Traffic Study and that people will cut through the development and shopping center property to access Route 60/83. He and his family moved here because of the schools and their resources, how will this development affect the resources. He stated that since the Village is aware there are concerns for this area and the State is not taking action, he believes it is the Village’s responsibility to not make the problem any worse. Commissioner Schneckloth stated that she lives in the neighborhood off of Route 83 and can attest to the difficulties of pulling out onto Route 83, but that the State has jurisdiction and the Village has no influence.

Ms. Larmon stated that the traffic study did not warrant a right turn lane from southbound Route 83 but it was added to the plan, beyond what was recommended.

Packet Pg. 5

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

ug

7, 2

019

7:00

PM

(M

inu

tes

fro

m A

ug

ust

7, 2

019)


Page 4 of 5

Commissioner Herchenbach reiterated the concern over traffic and asked Ms. Matsunaga to bring the letter from the State if she is able to find it. He also suggested a restriction to avoid those that will cut through the neighborhood.

Motion by R. Rose, seconded by J. Herchenbach to recommend approval of a Variation from Section 20.28.030, Table 20.28‐3 to allow for a Minimum Unit Width of 20 feet for no more than twenty (20) total units throughout the subdivision for the property located at 0 Illinois Route 60, 29080 and 29172 North Illinois Route 83, Mundelein, Illinois, the Mundelein Crossings Residential Subdivision.

AYES: R. Rose, J. Herchenbach, K. Anderson, K. Garesche, T. Georges, S. Schneckloth, T. Roswick


MOTION CARRIED

Motion by R. Rose, seconded by S. Schneckloth to recommend approval of a Variation from Section 20.28.030, Table 20.28‐3 to allow for Corner Side Yard Setbacks of 15 feet for buildings 8‐12, 14‐15, 25, 27 and 30 for the property located at 0 Illinois Route 60, 29080 and 29172 North Illinois Route 83, Mundelein, Illinois, the Mundelein Crossings Residential Subdivision.

AYES: R. Rose, S. Schneckloth, K. Anderson, K. Garesche, T. Georges, J. Herchenbach, T. Roswick


MOTION CARRIED

Motion by J. Herchenbach, seconded by K. Anderson to close Public Hearing PZC‐11‐2019.

AYES: J. Herchenbach, K. Anderson, K. Garesche, T. Georges, R. Rose, S. Schneckloth T. Roswick

NAYS: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by K. Anderson, seconded by J. Herchenbach to adjourn the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting of August 7, 2019

AYES: K. Anderson, J. Herchenbach, K. Anderson, K. Garesche, T. Georges, R. Rose, S. Schneckloth, T. Roswick

NAYS: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED

Packet Pg. 6

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

ug

7, 2

019

7:00

PM

(M

inu

tes

fro

m A

ug

ust

7, 2

019)


Page 5 of 5

Meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Watson Recording Secretary AW/AO/tw cc: Mayor Steve Lentz Board of Trustees John Lobaito, Village Administrator Peter Vadopalas, Assistant Village Administrator Sol Cabachuela, Village Clerk Pete Schubkegel, Director of Building Department Adam Boeche, Director of Public Works Amanda Orenchuk, Director of Community Development Colleen Malec, Planner

Taylor Wegrzyn, Planner Ann Watson, Administrative Assistant Planning & Zoning Commission Members

Packet Pg. 7

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

ug

7, 2

019

7:00

PM

(M

inu

tes

fro

m A

ug

ust

7, 2

019)

Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: 08/21/19 07:00 PM 300 Plaza Circle Department: Planning and Zoning Commission Mundelein, IL 60060 Category: Findings of Fact Prepared By: Ann Watson

SCHEDULED Initiator: Taylor Wegrzyn

Sponsors:

FINDINGS OF FACT (ID # 3860) DOC ID: 3860

Updated: 8/19/2019 1:33 PM by Ann Watson Page 1

FINDINGS OF FACT - PZC-11-2019, THE CROSSINGS OF MUNDELEIN

Public Hearing Date: August 7, 2019 0 Illinois Route 60, 29080 and 29172 North Illinois Route 83

Variation from Section 20.28.030, Table 20.28-3 - Corner Side Yard Setbacks On August 7, 2019, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a

variation from Section 20.28.030, Table 20.28-3 to allow for a 15 foot Corner Side Yard Setback for buildings 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 25, 27 and 30 for the property located at 0 Illinois Route 60, 29080 and 29172 North Illinois Route 83. No variation from the provisions of this Ordinance shall be granted unless the Zoning Administrator, Planning & Zoning Commission, and Village Board makes specific written findings based on the standards imposed by this section. These standards are as follows: (1) The strict application of the terms of this Ordinance will result in undue hardship.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the strict application of Section 20.28.030, Table 20.28-3 results in undue hardship for the Petitioner. Requests by the Village’s Public Works and Engineering Department to increase the radius of the proposed streets to accommodate the Village’s fleet of emergency and maintenance vehicles reduced the ability of the Petitioner to provide the required corner side yard setbacks on corner buildings as the radius of the curve encroaches the setback areas. Furthermore, the composition of the proposed development, featuring both rear-loaded and front-loaded garages, creates a scenario in which there are different required setbacks applied depending on the building type. To create a uniform design to the subdivision, certain side yard setbacks have been proposed to be reduced in order to match the setback applied to adjacent building structures. Applying the required side yard setback to buildings 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 25, 27, and 30 would result in alternating building lines, as seen from the public right of way, that detract from the overall character of the subdivision.

(2) The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request is due to unique circumstances. See response to Finding (1).

(3) The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Subject Property is located within the R-5 Zoning District and is adjacent to a commercial shopping center to the south-southwest, wetlands to the northwest, a park to the south, and several rural, unincorporated residential lots. As such, the property is not located within an area which has a uniform identity or development pattern. The proposed

Packet Pg. 8

Findings of Fact (ID # 3860) Meeting of August 21, 2019


development provides street and pedestrian connections to adjacent right of ways and is buffered from the shopping center by a retention pond and landscaping. The Commission finds that the five foot reduction to the setback does not substantially alter the residential character of the proposed development nor does it impact the character of adjacent developments.

The Zoning Administrator, Planning & Zoning Commission, and Village Board, in making its findings, may inquire into the following evidentiary issues, as well as any others deemed appropriate. (4) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific

property involved, a particular hardship or difficulty to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the property do not impose a particular hardship on the owner. The location of existing wetlands and the shape of the Subject Property are an inconvenience to the Petitioner in developing the site; however, these conditions do not present a hardship in and of themselves.

(5) The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having a proprietary

interest in the property in question.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the difficulty or hardship was created by a person presently having a proprietary interest in the property in question. While the site plan and the resulting side yard setbacks were impacted by requirements made of Village Staff, these alone did not necessitate the variation request.

(6) The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare in the neighborhood in

which the property is located.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds granting the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare in which the property is located.

(7) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property,

substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or impair property values within the neighborhood.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the proposed variation will not endanger public safety, impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase danger of fire, or impair property values within the neighborhood. During the Public Comment period, members of the Public and the Commission expressed concern over the lack of a signalized intersection at Fieldcrest Drive. No evidence was presented to support that the proposed subdivision or variation necessitate a traffic signal. Additionally, a traffic study which accompanied preliminary plans submitted to the Village and noted by the Petitioners as having been accepted by the Illinois Department of Transportation does not support a traffic signal. Setbacks between the proposed development and all adjacent properties

Packet Pg. 9



will not be impacted by the request and therefore the request does not impair light and air to those properties nor does it contribute to the congestion of public streets. Furthermore, the proposed buildings will be built in conformance to the Village’s Fire and Building Codes. The Commission also finds that the request will not impair property values within the neighborhood as a result of the requested variation.

(8) The proposed variation is consistent with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance and Village land use

policies.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the proposed variation is consistent with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance and Village land use policies. The property is zoned R-5 Multi-Family Residential, a zoning district which accommodates multi-family structures. The Commission finds the proposed development to be reflective of the Village’s overall desired character and is consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan and land use policies.

(9) The value of the property in question will be substantially reduced if permitted to be used only

under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds it is not apparent that denying the requested variation would or would not reduce the value of the property in question. Strict compliance with the Ordinance would alter the site plan or product within the proposed development.

TW/AO/aw

MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS PUBLISHED FOR PZC-11-2019 RELATING TO A VARIATION FROM SECTION 20.28.030, TABLE 20.28-3 TO ALLOW FOR A 15 FOOT CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR BUILDINGS 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 25, 27 AND 30 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 0 ILLINOIS ROUTE 60, 29080 AND 29172 NORTH ILLINOIS ROUTE 83.

Packet Pg. 10

Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: 08/21/19 07:00 PM 300 Plaza Circle Department: Planning and Zoning Commission Mundelein, IL 60060 Category: Findings of Fact Prepared By: Ann Watson

SCHEDULED Initiator: Taylor Wegrzyn

Sponsors:

FINDINGS OF FACT (ID # 3861) DOC ID: 3861


FINDINGS OF FACT - PZC-11-2019, THE CROSSINGS OF MUNDELEIN

Public Hearing Date: August 7, 2019 0 Illinois Route 60, 29080 and 29172 North Illinois Route 83

Variation from Section 20.28.030, Table 20.28-3 - Unit Width On August 7, 2019, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a

variation from Section 20.28.030, Table 20.28-3 to allow a minimum unit width of 20 to 30 feet, with no more than twenty (20) units being 20 feet in width, for the property located at 0 Illinois Route 60, 29080 and 29172 North Illinois Route 83. No variation from the provisions of this Ordinance shall be granted unless the Zoning Administrator, Planning & Zoning Commission, and Village Board makes specific written findings based on the standards imposed by this section. These standards are as follows: (1) The strict application of the terms of this Ordinance will result in undue hardship.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the strict application of Section 20.28.030, Table 20.28-3 results in undue hardship for the Petitioner. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated to the Commission that the proposed unit widths, being less than 30 feet but no less than 20 feet in width, are consistent with industry and market standards. Strict application of the Ordinance would result in a hardship to the Petitioner because a thirty foot unit width would increase costs to a point at which the townhouses would be priced similarly to a single family dwelling a hardship which would adversely impact the ability of a developer to improve the Subject Property with townhouse units as intended by the Village’s R-5 zoning designation.

(2) The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request is due to unique circumstances. The Petitioner demonstrated that the proposed townhouse unit widths are driven by market demands. The current industry standard and market demand is for a townhouse product with a width less than those required by the Ordinance.

(3) The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Subject Property is located within the R-5 Zoning District and is adjacent to a commercial shopping center to the south-southwest, wetlands to the northwest, a park to the south, and several rural, unincorporated residential lots. As such, the property is not located within an area which has a uniform identity or development pattern. The proposed development provides street and pedestrian connections to adjacent right of ways and is buffered from adjacent properties through the use of landscaping, existing wetlands, and retention basins.

Packet Pg. 11



The Commission further finds that the reduction to unit widths does not alter the character of the locality as they maintain a residential character consistent with adjacent residential properties while also providing adequate buffering from the adjacent non-residential uses.

The Zoning Administrator, Planning & Zoning Commission, and Village Board, in making its findings, may inquire into the following evidentiary issues, as well as any others deemed appropriate. (4) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific

property involved, a particular hardship or difficulty to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the property do not impose a particular hardship on the owner. The location of existing wetlands and the shape of the Subject Property are an inconvenience to the Petitioner in developing the site; however, these conditions do not present a hardship in and of themselves.

(5) The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having a proprietary

interest in the property in question.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the difficulty or hardship was created by a person presently having a proprietary interest in the property in question. While the site plan and the resulting unit widths were impacted by these features, these alone did not necessitate the variation request.

(6) The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare in the neighborhood in

which the property is located.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds granting the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare in which the property is located.

(7) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property,

substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or impair property values within the neighborhood.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the proposed variation from the required unit widths will not endanger public safety, impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase danger of fire, or impair property values within the neighborhood. Additionally, a traffic study conducted by a consultant to the Petitioner and submitted to Staff for review demonstrates satisfactory conditions on public streets. The proposed variation does not further impact traffic conditions. Furthermore, the proposed buildings will be built in conformance to the Village’s Fire and Building Codes. The Commission also finds that the request for unit width reductions will not impair property values within the neighborhood as a result of the requested variation.

Packet Pg. 12



(8) The proposed variation is consistent with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance and Village land use policies.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the proposed variation is consistent with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance and Village land use policies. The property is zoned R-5 Multi-Family Residential, a zoning district which accommodates multi-family structures. The Commission finds the proposed development to be reflective of the Village’s overall desired character and is consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan and land use policies.

(9) The value of the property in question will be substantially reduced if permitted to be used only

under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located.

Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission finds it is not apparent that denying the requested variation would or would not reduce the value of the property in question. Strict compliance with the Ordinance would alter the site plan or product within the proposed development.

TW/AO/aw

MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS PUBLISHED FOR PZC-11-2019 RELATING TO A VARIATION FROM SECTION 20.28.030, TABLE 20.28-3 TO ALLOW A MINIMUM UNIT WIDTH OF 20 TO 30 FEET, WITH NO MORE THAN TWENTY (20) UNITS BEING 20 FEET IN WIDTH, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 0 ILLINOIS ROUTE 60, 29080 AND 29172 NORTH ILLINOIS ROUTE 83.

Packet Pg. 13

agenda - wednesday, august 21, 2019

Documents