PLAN COMMISSION AGENDA

BOARD ROOM

NORTHBROOK VILLAGE HALL, 1225 CEDAR LANE Tuesday, February 17, 2015

7:30 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. MINUTES APPROVAL - FEBRUARY 3, 2015

3. COMMUNITY PLANNING REPORT

4. HEAR FROM THE AUDIENCE

5. REVIEW OF NEW APPLICATIONS

A. DOCKET NO. 14-14: 3000, 3040, 3080 WILLOW ROAD - WILLOW CROSSING SUBDIVISION. Public hearing on an application by Pulte Home Corporation as contractual purchaser of the property commonly known as 3000, 3040, 3080 Willow Road which is owned by Highland Development Group II, LLC for the purpose of: (A) Annexation (following disconnection from the Village of Glenview) of 3040 and 3080 Willow Road; (B) Rezoning of Subject Property from the R-1 to the R-5 Single Family Residential District; (C) Zoning Code Text Amendment to allow by variation an increase in permitted building height in a planned development in the R-5 District; (D) Special Permit for Final Plan and Site Plan Approval for a Planned Development; (E) A Zoning Code variation to allow for an increase in permitted building height; (F) A Zoning Code variation to reduce the required front setback from 25 to 15 feet; (G) Subdivision & Development Code variations to allow combined approval of the tentative plat, final engineering plans, and final plat; (H) A Subdivision and Development Code variation to reduce the minimum required right-of-way width from 60 to 50 feet; (I) Subdivision and Development Code variations to reduce the required minimum cul-de-sac right-of-way diameter from 140 to 115 feet and to reduce the minimum required cul-de-sac pavement diameter from 107 to 89 feet; and (J) Approval of other relief as may be necessary.

6. OLD BUSINESS

7. NEW BUSINESS

8. ADJOURN The Village of Northbrook is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting, or who have questions regarding the accessibility of this meeting or the facilities, are requested to contact Greg Van Dahm or Debbie Ford (847-664-4014 or 847-664-4013, respectively) promptly to allow the Village of Northbrook to make reasonable accommodations for those person. Hearing impaired individuals may call the TDD number, 847-564-8645, for more information. VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Tuesday, February 17, 2015

1

TO: PLAN COMMISSION

FROM: DAVID SCHOON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2015

SUBJECT: PCD-14-14 – 3000, 3040, & 3080 WILLOW ROADREQUEST FOR A REZONING AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTIONOn February 17, 2015 the Plan Commission will conduct a public hearing on Docket No. 14-14, an amendedapplication submitted by Pulte Home Corporation (the “Applicant”), as a contractual purchaser and developerof 3000, 3040, and 3080 Willow Road (the “Subject Property”). The Subject Property is owned by HighlandDevelopment Group II, LLC (the “Owner”). The Applicant is seeking Village approvals to allow the constructionof 18 detached single-family homes as part of a planned unit development and a rezoning. The followingzoning relief was noticed for the February 17, 2015, public hearing:

A. Annexation (following disconnection from the Village of Glenview) of 3040 and 3080 Willow Road;B. Rezoning of the Subject Property from the R-1 to the R-5 Single Family Residential District;C. Zoning Code Text Amendment to allow by variation an increase in permitted building height in a

planned development in the R-5 Single Family Residential Zoning District;D. Special Permit for Final Plan and Site Plan Approval for a Planned Development;E. A variation of the Zoning Code to allow for an increase in permitted building height;F. A variation of the Zoning Code to reduce the required front setback from 25’ to 15’;G. Variations from Section 3-102, 3-202, and 3-203.A of the Subdivision and Development Code to allow

a request for final plat approval made concurrently with a request for tentative plat of subdivision andfinal engineering plan approvals;

H. A variation from Section 4-102.A.6 of the Subdivision and Development Code to reduce the minimumrequired right-of-way width from 60 feet to 50 feet;

I. Variations from Section 4-102.H.6 of the Subdivision and Development Code to reduce the requiredminimum cul-de-sac right-of-way diameter from 140’ to 115 feet and to reduce the minimum requiredcul-de-sac pavement diameter from 107 feet to 89 feet; and

J. Approval of such other zoning and subdivision relief as may be necessary to accommodate thedevelopment of the Subject Property as proposed by the Applicant.

It should be noted that a public hearing had been scheduled for February 3, 2015, on the proposeddevelopment, but following the notice of the public hearing staff discovered that the development exceedsthe density limits of the R-4 District. If to be approved, the development would require a rezoning to the R-5District, so a re-noticed public hearing was scheduled for February 17, 2015. In addition to the change for therequested zoning district, the revised notice also includes a Zoning Code text amendment to allow relief toallow an increase in permitted building height for planned developments in the R-5 District since the proposedhomes will exceed the maximum allowed height in the R-5 District of 30’ (The R-4 District allows a maximum

VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK MEMORANDUMDEVELOPMENT & PLANNING SERVICES

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 3

Att

ach

men

t: 1

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- S

taff

Rep

ort

2-1

7-15

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

2

height of 35’. Also, given the different zoning district the requested front setback variations is to reduce therequired front setback from the minimum allowed in the R-5 district of 25’ to 15’. This memo will addressthe rezoning to the R-5 District, the building height text amendment, and the front building setback. Pleaserefer to the February 3, 2015, staff report and attachments for the other requested relief. The Commissionpreviously received copies of these materials.

A sign has been posted on the Subject Property indicating the time and date of the Plan Commission publichearing. The Applicant has submitted evidence that the mailed notice requirements of the Zoning Code andthe Subdivision and Development Code have been satisfied. The Plan Commission hearing was properlynoticed in the January 29, 2015 edition of the Northbrook Star. As of the date of this memo, staff has notreceived any written correspondence from the public regarding the application.

DEVELOPMENT SUMMARYTo refresh Commission member’s memory, the Applicant is currently proposing an 18-lot detached singlefamily residential planned development. The proposed development would be accessed by a public road asan extension of the existing Jasper Court cul-de-sac located east of Landwehr. The road will have sidewalks onboth sides; however, there are no sidewalks around the cul-de-sac of the Jasper Court extension on the eastside of the Subject Property. The Applicant is proposing a 50-foot right-of-way for the Jasper Court extensionand is requesting a variation of the Subdivision Code to reduce the required right-of-way from 60 feet to 50feet. The Applicant is dedicating the southernmost 50’ of the property to IDOT for future widening of WillowRoad. In addition to the 50’ being dedicated, another 20’ of the southern portion of the property is beingreserved for future roadway improvements for Willow Road.

Figure 1: Depiction of Right-of-Way Dedication and Future Reserved Right-of-Way

The Applicant is proposing to install landscaping and a board on board fence on the north side of the futureright-of-way reservation area, as well as an extension of the public sidewalk along the north side of WillowRoad. The future roadway reservation area will be maintained by the homeowner’s association for thedevelopment until its dedication in the future.

The development will consist of eight homes on the north side of the street and ten homes on the south sideof the street. Though the individual lots will range in size from 6,580 square feet to 9,112 square feet, the lotarea per dwelling unit over the entire development, excluding land dedicated for right-of-way, is 9,738.5

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 4

Att

ach

men

t: 1

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- S

taff

Rep

ort

2-1

7-15

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

3

square feet. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit in the R-5 District is 7,500 square feet and the previouslyrequested R-4 District is 12,000 square feet. The proposed homes will range in size from 2,945 square feet to3,271 square feet. The proposed site plan submitted by the Applicant indicates the buildable area for eachindividual lot. The homes would be situated within these areas, leaving at the minimum a distance of 12’between each home (excluding roof eaves).

Figure 2: Current Proposed Site Plan

The Applicant is proposing one large detention basin located in the northeast corner of the Subject Property.The detention will be ten feet deep at the center, with a gradual slope on the west side, the use of retainingwalls on the east and south sides, with a gradual slope and retaining wall located on the north side of thedetention pond to assist in separation from the detention area to the north of the Subject Property. TheApplicant is proposing to install a fence around a portion of the detention area for safety reasons given theheight of the retaining walls. The Applicant has proposed a 15’ storm sewer and detention easement area inthe rear of all of the proposed individual lots. Noting that the 15’ easement area in the rear of each lot mustremain clear with minimal planned landscaping, there is a result of only 10’ of useable rear yard for eachhome. The Applicant has provided some schematic site plans that show the homes located within thebuildable areas with patios in the rear of each home, and none of the patios appear to encroach into theeasement areas.

The Applicant is proposing a secondary emergency vehicle only access point on the southeast corner of theSubject Property. The access drive will have a gate which will limit its use to emergency vehicles off of WillowRoad.

There is one existing Heritage Tree located on the Subject Property, just west of the proposed cul-de-sac,which the Applicant is preserving. During the preliminary review the Board had requested that the Applicantwork at saving the tree. The Applicant has created an additional outlot in the development which wouldcontain the Heritage Tree. When the 8-Lot Aida Estates subdivision was reviewed and approved, it includedpreserving this heritage tree.

ANNEXATION, REZONING, AND ZONING VARIATION REQUESTThe 3000 Willow Road parcel is zoned R-1, while the two parcels within the Village of Glenview have aGlenview residential zoning designation requiring a minimum lot size of one acre. These parcels are governed

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 5

Att

ach

men

t: 1

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- S

taff

Rep

ort

2-1

7-15

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

4

by the Willow Road Corridor Agreement between the Villages of Northbrook and Glenview. The Agreementstates that the Subject Property shall only be redeveloped for single family residential detached dwelling units.If any Glenview property on the north side of Willow Road is to be redeveloped at a residential density greaterthan one lot per acre, the Agreement states that Glenview, upon receipt of such a petition, will disconnect theproperty and allow it to be annexed into Northbrook. The Agreement goes on to state that Northbrook shalluse its best efforts to encourage redevelopment that is comprehensively planned with the other properties inthe area and shall provide no access or curb cuts for such redevelopment onto Willow Road unless no othermeans of access to such property is possible. Given that the Applicant is proposing a detached single familydevelopment, the proposed plan is in compliance with the Willow Road Corridor Agreement and thedocument will not need to be amended.

The Northbrook Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the two Glenview parcels as not withinthe Northbrook corporate limits, while the property within the Northbrook limits as appropriate for single-family residential standard lot uses (SFS). The Comprehensive Plan designates the R-3, R-4, and R-5 residentialzoning districts as potentially appropriate districts for areas designated for single family residential standardlot uses.

As previously stated, the Applicant now requests that the Subject Property be rezoned to the R-5 Single FamilyResidential District rather than the previously requested R-4 District, because the property exceeds themaximum density allowed in the R-4 District (3.63 units/acre, excluding rights-of-way). The Applicant hasprovided the attached document stating its justification for rezoning the property to the R-5 District. As notedon the following excerpt from the Zoning Map, many developments along Willow Road between the Tri-StateTollway and Shermer Road, located within the Northbrook corporate limits, are zoned R-5 or a multi-familydistrict.

A planned development provides some flexibility for a property to comply with the underlying zoning district.Rather than each individual home having to meet the minimum lot area and minimum yard requirements ofthe R-5 District, the Subject Property is treated as one zoning lot, which means the lot as a whole must complywith the yard and other requirements of the district. The front yard for this planned development is the westproperty line, while the rear is the east property line, and the south is a corner side, while the north is aninterior side yard.

For the proposed plan, the Applicant complies with most of the bulk standards for the R-5 Zoning District, withthe exception of the required front setback. Lot 18 of the proposed development requires a front setbackvariation to reduce the required yard from 25’ to 15’. While it is unclear which model home will beconstructed on Lot 18, the buildable lot area is 15’ from the property lot line. Attached is a copy of theApplicant’s justification for this variation. The justification focuses on how the natural features of theproperty impact the design of the subdivision. These features include the preservation of a heritage tree on

SubjectProperty

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 6

Att

ach

men

t: 1

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- S

taff

Rep

ort

2-1

7-15

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

5

the eastern side of the property as well as the location of the detention basin in the northeast portion of theproperty due to that being the natural low point of the Subject Property.

TEXT AMENDMENTThe Applicant is requesting a text amendment to allow for a height in excess of the maximum allowed heightof 30 feet in the R-5 District. In the materials submitted for the February 3 scheduled public hearing, theApplicant included elevations for the proposed homes as well as a proposed top of foundation (T/F) versusexisting grade exhibit and tables (a copy of this material is also included with this staff report). Given theZoning Code’s definition of grade and the grade change the Applicant plans for the site, the proposed homescannot comply with the maximum height limit of 30 feet in the R-5 District.

The following table lists the maximum height, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot width, andminimum yards and setbacks allowed in the single family zoning districts. The combination of theserequirements and the maximum floor area allowed, which is 40% in all single family residential zoningdistricts, are the fundamental standards that create the characteristics of a traditional subdivisiondevelopment. Given the small size of lots and the rather small yards allowed in the R-5 District, the ZoningCode limits the maximum height to 30 feet.

Requested Front YardBuilding Setback Variation

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 7

Att

ach

men

t: 1

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- S

taff

Rep

ort

2-1

7-15

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

6

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENITL DISTRICTS -BULK, SPACE, AND YARD REQUIREMENTS

R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5

A. Maximum Height of Principal Structure(whichever is less)1. Feet 40 35 35 35 30

2. Stories 3 3 3 3 2

B. Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit (sf) 50,000 30,000 20,000 12,000 7,500

C. Minimum Lot Width

a. All Interior Lots (feet) 175 125 100 85 60

b. All Corner Lots (feet) 175 125 110 100 75

D. Minimum Yards

1. Yards and Setbacks for Residential Structures

a. Front Yard (feet) 60 40 35 30 25

b. Side yards (feet)

1) Corner Lotsi) Corner side 60 40 35 30 25

ii) Interior side 40 12 10 9 6

2) Interior Lots

i) Minimum per interior side yard 40 12 10 9 6

ii) Minimum total 25% of total lot width

c. Rear Yard (feet) 40 40 40 40 40

The Zoning Code defines building height for single-family homes as the vertical distance measured from“grade” to the highest point of a structure, excluding chimneys. Grade is defined as the normal contour of theland at the location of the proposed structure or development prior to the construction of such structure ordevelopment, as established by the Village Engineer. Prior to construction has been defined as prior to gradechanges as part of the grading for an overall subdivision. The Village Engineer has indicated in this instancethat grade would be defined as the highest existing ground contour (prior to re-grading) within each proposedbuilding envelope.

As previously stated the Applicant has provided elevations for the proposed homes as well as a proposed topof foundation (T/F) versus existing grade exhibit and tables. Given the Zoning Code’s definition of grade andthe grade change it plans for the site, its proposed homes cannot comply with the R-5 maximum height limitof 30 feet. It should be noted that height is measured from grade, based upon the information the Applicanthas provided, which is height measured from top of foundation, an additional 0.7 feet should be added toeach provided measurement to arrive at the height of the structures as defined by the Zoning Code. Theheight of the proposed homes would range from 30.03 feet to 33.89 feet. All would be less than 35 feet inheight.

The Applicant requests that the Zoning Code be amended to authorize the following type of variation:

To increase the maximum allowable building height in a planned development in the R-5 Single FamilyZoning District.

In the material submitted by the Applicant, the Applicant has provided its justifications for both the text

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 8

Att

ach

men

t: 1

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- S

taff

Rep

ort

2-1

7-15

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

7

amendment and then the requested variation. Regarding the appropriateness of the text amendment, theApplicant states that “This definition appears to be targeted toward traditional, individual residential teardown construction within an established neighborhood that was previously engineered for stormwatermanagement, thus resulting in little need to materially change the final grade around a new structure fromthe previously existing grades.” The Applicant goes on to state “By contrast, this definition creates apotentially unnecessary obstacle by unduly restricting the maximum allowable building height within a new,full-scale development such as Willow Crossing where mass grading is necessary to properly engineer surfacewater flow across multiple lots of record at minimum slopes to ensure positive drainage away from all housesand toward onsite detention facilities.”

Regarding the specific requested variation, the Applicant argues the need for the variation is due to thegrading that was necessary for the storm water drainage, and that it would be appropriate on the site,because the zoning districts of residential zoned properties in the area allow heights of 35 and 40 feet.

When considering this request, the Commission will want to determine if it’s appropriate to allow tallerbuilding heights in the R-5 District, under what circumstances, and by what form of zoning relief (e.g.variation, exception, or special permit)? The Applicant suggests that the taller building heights only beallowed as part of a planned development in the R-5 District when approved by the granting of a variation.The Commission will also need to determine if it is necessary to grant such zoning relief in this situation.

ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMISSIONOn February 12, 2015, the Architectural Control Commission (ACC) reviewed and recommended, by a vote of5-0 (two members absent) approval of the proposed building designs, colors, and materials, the design of thelandscaping, including fences and retaining walls, and the design of the entryway signage, subject to thefollowing:

a) The Applicant shall comply with the monotony code restrictions for the proposed homes as presentedto the ACC at the meeting;

b) The homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance of all landscape elementsthroughout the development, including the landscaping on individual lots; and

c) The building heights shall be consistent with the heights in the table presented to the ACC. (A copy ofthis table was previously referenced in this staff report and is included in the attachments.)

Overall the Commission found it to be an attractive development and a welcomed addition to the community.

SUMMARYIn addition to the information provided in this report and its attachments, the Commission should refer tothe February 3, 2015 staff report and all of its attachments and Applicant’s submittals.

Staff suggests the Plan Commission consider the following policy questions while reviewing the requestedrelief for a combined concept and final planned development approval and combined tentative and final platapproval:

1. Is the proposed 18-unit detached single-family residential development appropriate for theSubject Property? If so, would it be appropriate to annex 3040 and 3080 Willow Road, followingdisconnection from the Village of Glenview and to rezone all of the Subject Property to the R-5Single-Family Residential District?

2. Is it appropriate to amend the Zoning Code to allow any applicant to request a variation toincrease the maximum allowable building height in a planned development in the R-5 District?

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 9

Att

ach

men

t: 1

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- S

taff

Rep

ort

2-1

7-15

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

8

3. If the Commission finds it appropriate to rezone the Subject Property, is it appropriate to grantspecial permit approval to allow for a combined concept and final planned development approvaland to grant approval to allow a combined tentative and final plat approval?

4. If the Subject Property is appropriate for an 18-unit single family residential planned development,is it appropriate to grant the following zoning and subdivision relief?

a. a variation to reduce the required front setback from 25’ to 15’ to accommodate one lotin the proposed plan?

b. a variation to reduce the required right-of-way from 60’ to 50’ to accommodate theproposed extension of Jasper Court?

c. a variation to reduce the required right-of-way for a cul-de-sac from 140’ to 115’?d. a variation to reduce the required cul-de-sac pavement diameter from 107’ to 89’ to

accommodate the proposed cul-de-sac on the Subject Property?e. a variation (or some other zoning relief) to allow the heights of the homes to be greater

than 30 feet.

5. Is the proposed site plan adequate for an 18-lot planned development? In specific,

a. Is the separation of 12’ between homes appropriate?b. Is it acceptable to have approximately 10’ of usable rear yard for each lot in the

development?c. Is there adequate area for traffic circulation and parking on the Subject Property?d. Is adequate screening and buffering of the surrounding properties being provided?

6. Should the proposed development be required to provide some affordable housing units?

The Applicant and staff will attend the February 17 meeting to answer any questions.

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 10

Att

ach

men

t: 1

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- S

taff

Rep

ort

2-1

7-15

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

5.1.

b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 11

Attachment: 2 - Willow Crossing - Applicant Submittal - Revised Zoning Relief Justification (2934 :

{33300: 068: 01551064.DOCX : }

EXHIBIT A TO ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT WORKSHEET

Exact Wording of Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment

11-503 E. Authorized Variations.

1. Permitted Variations. Subject to the prohibitions set forth in Paragraph E2below, and subject to the other provisions of this Section, the Zoning Board ofAppeals may vary the provisions of this Code in the following cases and in noothers; provided, however, that only the Board of Trustees may vary theprovisions of this Code as provided in Subparagraphs E1(i), E1(j), E1(m),E1(n), E1(o), and E1(p) below:

* * *

(q) To increase the maximum allowable building height in a planneddevelopment in the R-5 Single Family Residential Zoning District.

Purpose and Appropriateness of Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment

The zoning code requires a structure’s building height to be measured from the grade thatexists prior to construction of such structure or the development within which suchstructure is constructed. The proposed text amendment is intended to provide flexibilityfrom the maximum allowable building height for projects such as Willow Crossing,which is designed as a planned development in accordance with the Village’s R5 districtregulations relative to overall development density and all other applicable R5 districtregulations. The applicant believes this flexibility is especially appropriate in a situationwhere, like Willow Crossing, the applicant seeks planned development approvalconcurrently with tentative and final subdivision approval and final engineering planapproval.

As previously stated, the zoning code’s definition of building height requires a verticalmeasurement from the existing grade prior to construction of a structure or developmentto the point of the structure located at the highest vertical distance above the grade,excluding any chimneys, if applicable. This definition appears to be targeted towardtraditional, individual residential tear down construction within an establishedneighborhood that was previously engineered for stormwater management, thus resultingin little need to materially change the final grade around a new structure from thepreviously existing grades. By contrast, this definition creates a potentially unnecessaryobstacle by unduly restricting the maximum allowable building height within a new, full-scale development such as Willow Crossing where mass grading is necessary to properlyengineer surface water flow across multiple lots of record at minimum slopes to ensurepositive drainage away from all houses and toward onsite detention facilities.

The village should be allowed to evaluate new, full-scale developments on a case-by-casebasis to determine whether relief from the maximum allowable building height isnecessary and appropriate. The proposed variation will enable the Village to do just that,

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 12

Att

ach

men

t: 2

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Rev

ised

Zo

nin

g R

elie

f Ju

stif

icat

ion

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

{33300: 068: 01551064.DOCX : }

but only (i) within the R5 district, (ii) when a development is proposed to be constructedas a planned development and (iii) if an applicant is able to satisfy the applicablestandards of review and justification.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 13

Att

ach

men

t: 2

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Rev

ised

Zo

nin

g R

elie

f Ju

stif

icat

ion

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

{33300: 068: 01551064.DOCX : }

EXHIBIT B TO ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT WORKSHEET

Statement of Justification Relative toZoning Code Text Amendment for Authorized Variation

Request for Rezoning from R1 to R5 Single-Family Residential

1. No variation shall be granted pursuant to this Section unless the applicant shallestablish that carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this Code wouldcreate a particular hardship or a practical difficulty.

Carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the zoning code would create aparticular hardship or a practical difficult.

The maximum permitted building height within the R5 district is 30 feet as measuredfrom existing grade. Yet, the maximum permitted building height within the R1zoning district is 40 feet as measured from existing grade, and that within the R2through R4 zoning districts is 35 feet.

The Subject Property is contiguous to properties located within the R1 and R3 zoningdistricts. The applicant seeks to develop the Subject Property with building heightscomparable to that of contiguous properties. Although the applicant’s proposedhomes range in height from 28.83 feet to 29.38 feet when measured from the top offoundation to the ridge of the roof (i.e., highest point of the structure, excludingchimney in accordance with the zoning code), the homes have a height of as much as32.88 feet when measured from the existing grade of the Subject Property to the ridgeof the roof, as required by the zoning code.

No apparent planning or zoning goal or objective is advanced by limiting the buildingheight of structures on the Subject Property to a maximum of 30 feet as measuredfrom existing grade. The residentially zoned properties contiguous and to the northand east of the Subject Property are allowed a maximum building height of 35 feetand 40 feet, respectively. In addition, two substantial neighborhoods within thevillage and within the Willow Road corridor between Pfingsten Road east to ShermerRoad are currently located within the R4 district, which establishes a maximumbuilding height of 35’ within at least a portion of that corridor. The maximumproposed building height on the Subject Property is less than 35’.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 14

Att

ach

men

t: 2

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Rev

ised

Zo

nin

g R

elie

f Ju

stif

icat

ion

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

{33300: 068: 01551064.DOCX : }

2. The subject property is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to the sameprovision by reason of a unique physical condition, including presence of anexisting use, structure or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular orsubstandard shape or size; exceptional topographical features; or otherextraordinary physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject propertythat amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that relate to orarise out of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of thelot.

The Subject Property is exceptional as compared to other properties subject to the R5building height limitation due to (i) the residential zoning districts that immediatelysurround the Subject Property and (ii) the peculiar topographical conditions unique tothe Subject Property.

As previously stated, the Subject Property is contiguous to properties located withinthe R1 and R3 zoning districts in which the maximum allowed building height is 40feet and 35 feet, respectively. The applicant seeks to develop the Subject Propertywith single-family homes have a building height of less than 35 feet.

In addition, the Subject Property is generally too flat to achieve sufficient positivedrainage to effectively route stormwater to the proposed detention facility. TheSubject Property must be mass graded for the purpose of (i) eliminatinginconsistencies in the Subject Property’s existing topography due to previousdevelopment thereon and (ii) elevating the proposed roadway and building envelopes.This will allow the Subject Property to maintain its existing drainage ridgelines andcreate sufficient positive drainage for the proposed development to provide properstormwater management facilities.

3. The aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action or inactionof the owner or his predecessors in title and existed at the time of the enactment ofthe provisions from which a variation is sought or was created by natural forces orwas the result of governmental action, other than the adoption of this Code, forwhich no compensation was paid.

The presence of properties located within the R1 and R3 zoning districts, contiguousto the Subject Property and within which the maximum building height is 40 feet and35 feet respectively, is not due to any action or inaction of the applicant or owner ofthe Subject Property, but is instead a result of the Village of Northbrook’s policepower zoning authority. The existence of these zoning classifications and associatedbuilding height restrictions demonstrates the appropriateness of allowing a maximumbuilding height on the Subject Property of at least 32.88 feet, as proposed.

As previously stated, the Subject Property is generally too flat to achieve sufficientpositive drainage to effectively route stormwater to the proposed detention facility.This condition is also not due to any action or inaction of the applicant or owner ofthe Subject Property.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 15

Att

ach

men

t: 2

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Rev

ised

Zo

nin

g R

elie

f Ju

stif

icat

ion

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

{33300: 068: 01551064.DOCX : }

4. The carrying out of the strict letter of the provision from which a variation issought would deprive the owner of the subject property of substantial rightscommonly enjoyed by owners of other lots subject to the same provision.

The carrying out of the strict letter of the provision from which the proposed variationis sought would deprive the applicant of the right to develop the Subject Propertywith houses having a building height that is compatible with and, ultimately, still lessthan, the maximum building height allowed on those properties that are contiguous tothe Subject Property and located within the R1 and R3 zoning districts in which themaximum allowed building height is 40 feet and 35 feet, respectively.

5. The alleged hardship or difficulty is not merely the inability of the owner oroccupant to enjoy some special privilege or additional right not available to ownersor occupants of other lots subject to the same provision, nor merely an inability tomake more money from the sale of the subject property; provided, however, thatwhere the standards herein set out exist, the existence of an economic hardshipshall not be a prerequisite to the grant of an authorized variation.

The above-described hardship or difficulty from which a variation is requested is notmerely an effort by the applicant to enjoy a special privilege or right or an effort tomake more money out of the Subject Property. To the contrary, the proposedvariation is intended to allow a modest increase in the maximum allowable buildingheight only to an extent that is compatible with and, ultimately, still less than, themaximum building height allowed on those properties that are contiguous to theSubject Property and located within the R1 and R3 zoning districts

6. The variation would not result in a use or development of the subject property thatwould not be in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which thisCode and the provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or thegeneral purpose and intent of the Official Comprehensive Plan.

The proposed variation will not result in a use or development of the Subject Propertythat is not in harmony with the general and specific purposes of Village’s zoning codeor the general purpose and intent of the Village’s Official Comprehensive Plan. Morespecifically, the proposed variation, as a component of the applicant’s projectproposal for the Subject Property will help to (i) establish a rational land use patternand encourage the most appropriate land uses throughout the Village by, for example,utilizing the R5 zoning district as a transition to R3 and R4 zoning districts in relationreduced proximity to Willow Road within the immediate vicinity of the SubjectProperty, all while maintaining a consistent building height, (ii) protect the characterof, and encourage compatibility with, existing residential areas of the Village byallowing a new building height that is compatible with existing building heights, (iii)protect and enhance taxable land values, (iv) maintain a diverse housing stock and (v)encourage redevelopment.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 16

Att

ach

men

t: 2

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Rev

ised

Zo

nin

g R

elie

f Ju

stif

icat

ion

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

{33300: 068: 01551064.DOCX : }

7. Essential Character of the Area. The variation would not result in a use ordevelopment on the subject property that:

a) Would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious tothe enjoyment, use, development value of property or improvements permitted inthe vicinity;

b) Would materially impair an adequate supply of light and air to the propertiesand improvements in the vicinity;

c) Would substantially increase congestion in the public streets due to traffic orparking;

d) Would unduly increase the danger of flood or fire;

e) Would unduly tax public utilities and facilities in the area; or

f) Would endanger the public health or safety.

The proposed building height variation will have no detrimental impact upon thepublic welfare or the enjoyment, use, development value of property or improvementspermitted in the vicinity of the Subject Property. As previously stated, the proposedvariation will allow a maximum building height on the Subject Property that will becompatible with, yet still less than, the lower permissible building height onresidentially zoned properties contiguous to the Subject Property. As a result, theproposed variation will not materially impair an adequate supply of light and air tothe properties and improvements in the vicinity of the Subject Property.

Furthermore, the proposed building height variation will have no impact upon (i)congestion in the public streets, (ii) the danger of flood or fire, (iii) impact uponpublic utilities and facilities or (iv) any danger to the public health or safety.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 17

Att

ach

men

t: 2

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Rev

ised

Zo

nin

g R

elie

f Ju

stif

icat

ion

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

{33300: 068: 01551062.DOCX : }

AMENDED EXHIBIT A TO REZONING & MAP WORKSHEET

Statement of Justification RegardingRezoning and Zoning Map Factors Relative to

Request for Rezoning from R1 to R5 Single-Family Residential

a) The existing uses and zoning classifications of properties in the vicinity of the subjectproperty.

The existing uses within the immediate vicinity of the Subject Property are detached single-family residential and a synagogue. The immediately surrounding Village of Northbrook zoning classifications are R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and IB. The portion of the Willow Road corridor nearest the Subject Property and spanning from the Tri-State Tollway east to Shermer Road consists predominantly of residential zoning classifications located within the R4, R5, R6 and R8 zoning districts.

Residential neighborhoods zoned within the R5 district currently exist to the immediate west of Landwehr Road, at the northwest intersection of Willow Road and Landwehr Road (i.e., Stonegate), and to the immediate north of Highland Road, at the northwest intersection of Pfingsten Road and Highland Road (i.e., Windham Manor).

b) The trend of development in the vicinity of the subject property, including changes, if any, in such trend since the subject property was placed in its present plan designation of zoning classification.

The trend of development within the vicinity of the Subject Property and the aforementioned portion of the Willow Road corridor nearest the Subject Property is single-family residential and multi-family residential, which is consistent with the requested rezoning and proposed project at the Subject Property.

c) The extent to which the value of the subject property is diminished by the existing plan designation or zoning classification applicable to it.

The value of the Subject Property is considerably lower by the existing R1 zoning classification it currently carries within the Village of Northbrook and the Village of Glenview than its value would otherwise be under the proposed R5 zoning classification. Moreover, the minimum 50,000 square foot area required by the Village of Northbrook R1 zoning classification is out of character with the 7,500 square foot minimum lot size applied to the overall development density as required for the existing developments located within the R5, R6 and R8 zoning districts located within the aforementioned portion of the Willow Road corridor nearest the Subject Property.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 18

Att

ach

men

t: 2

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Rev

ised

Zo

nin

g R

elie

f Ju

stif

icat

ion

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

{33300: 068: 01551062.DOCX : }

d) The extent to which such diminution in value is offset by an increase in the public health, safety and welfare.

There is no increase in the public health, safety and welfare achieved by way of zoning the Subject Property R1 instead of R5. To the contrary, the R5 zoning classification is more appropriate for the Subject Property than the R1 zoning classification, as evidenced by the zoning of properties within the aforementioned portion of the Willow Road corridor nearest the Subject Property.

e) The extent, if any, to which the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties would be affected by the proposed amendment.

The use and enjoyment of adjacent properties will not be affected by the proposed map amendment; it will allow the Subject Property to be developed in the same manner as certain neighboring properties within the vicinity of the Subject Property and within the aforementioned portion of the Willow Road corridor nearest the Subject Property. Additionally, the Subject Property will be developed with single-family detached houses, just as that to the north, south, east and west of the Subject Property.

f) The extent, if any, to which the value of adjacent properties would be affected by the proposed amendment.

The value of adjacent properties will be either unaffected or otherwise enhanced by the proposed map amendment because it will allow the Subject Property to be developed in an attractive manner that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and trend of development within the aforementioned portion of the Willow Road corridor nearest the Subject Property, rather than otherwise sitting idle in the Subject Property’s present, unimproved and unmanicured state.

g) The extent, if any, to which the future orderly development of adjacent properties would be affected by the proposed amendment.

The Subject Property is an infill parcel. With very limited exception, adjacent properties are already developed with attractive housing compatible with that proposed by the Applicant. As a result, the proposed map amendment will not affect the future orderly development of adjacent properties.

h) The suitability of the subject property for uses permitted or permissible under its present plan designation and zoning classification.

Given the heavy traffic level on Willow Road and the character of development surrounding the Subject Property, the Subject Property is more suitable for a higher density residential development without ingress and egress to Willow Road, such as that proposed by the Applicant, than it is for 1.25 acre lots requiring direct ingress and egress to Willow Road as permitted under the Subject Property’s present zoning classification.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 19

Att

ach

men

t: 2

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Rev

ised

Zo

nin

g R

elie

f Ju

stif

icat

ion

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

{33300: 068: 01551062.DOCX : }

i) The availability of adequate ingress to and egress from the subject property and the extent to which traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property would be affected by the proposed amendment.

Adequate ingress and egress to and from the Subject Property presently exists via Jasper Court. Secondary, emergency access is also provided to and from Willow Road in accordance with the proposed plan of development submitted herewith. The proposed development avoids potential vehicular conflicts that would occur from new curb cuts to and from Willow Road. Instead, the proposed development utilizes existing minor roadways, which already carry residential traffic similar and compatible to that proposed hereby.

j) The availability of adequate utilities and essential public services to the subject property to accommodate the uses permitted or permissible under its present plan designation and zoning classification.

Adequate utilities and essential public services are currently available to the Subject Property to accommodate the uses permitted or permissible under both its present and proposed zoning classification.

k) The length of time, if any, that the subject property has been vacant, considered in the context of the pace of development in the vicinity of the subject property.

The Subject Property has been vacant for several years following removal of the detached single-family residential structures that previously existed thereon. The Subject Property exists as an island of development potential within the already developed, immediately surrounding neighborhood and the aforementioned portion of the Willow Road corridor nearest the Subject Property. Several development proposals have been proposed for the Subject Property during that time, but none have come to fruition.

l) The community need for the proposed map amendment and for the uses and development it would allow.

The Applicant has determined there is a market demand for housing of the type proposed at the Subject Property in conjunction with this Application. The proposed development is intended to address such demand and associated need.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 20

Att

ach

men

t: 2

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Rev

ised

Zo

nin

g R

elie

f Ju

stif

icat

ion

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

{33300: 068: 01551065.DOCX : }

AMENDED EXHIBIT A TO ZONING VARIATION WORKSHEET

Statement of Justification Regarding Zoning Variationfrom Required Front Yard Setback Relative to Lot 18

The Applicant seeks a variation from Section 3-110.C.1.a of the Zoning Code to allow areduction in the minimum required front yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet solely with respect to proposed Lot 18.

a) No variation of the Zoning Code shall be granted unless the applicant shall establish that carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the Zoning Code would create a particular hardship or a practical difficulty. Such a showing shall require proof that the variation being sought satisfies each of the standards set forth below.

Carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the Zoning Code would create a particular hardship or a practical difficulty. The requested variation is required toefficiently engineer the Subject Property in a manner consistent with its existing topography and to avoid a building envelop encroachment within the tree protection zone of the sole Heritage Tree located at the Subject Property.

The proposed Outlot B, upon which the proposed development’s sole detention basin will be constructed, is intentionally located at a natural low point on the Subject Property. The placement of the basin at this location requires lots that could otherwise be placed on the north side of Jasper Court to instead be placed on the south side thereof. Yet, the Heritage Tree and its associated tree protection zone requires those lots placed on the south side of Jasper Court to be shifted westerly to avoid a building envelop encroachment within the tree protection zone.

b) The subject property is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including presence of an existing use, structure or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular or substandard shape or size; exceptional topographical features; or other extraordinary physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject property that amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that related to or arise out of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of the lot.

As previously stated, the Subject Property is characterized by at least two exceptional characteristics: (i) natural topographic conditions, which require the proposed development’s sole detention basin to be most efficiently constructed in the northeast corner of the Subject Property and (ii) a Heritage Tree and associated tree protection zone that requires lots located on the south half of the Subject Property to be shifted westerly to avoid a building envelop encroachment within the tree protection zone.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 21

Att

ach

men

t: 2

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Rev

ised

Zo

nin

g R

elie

f Ju

stif

icat

ion

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

{33300: 068: 01551065.DOCX : }

The Subject Property’s long history of failed redevelopment proposals is testament to its unique topography and engineering challenges. Though the Applicant and its project engineer have overcome those obstacles by the proposed final improvement plans, the Heritage Tree and its associated tree protection zonecreate a further layer of complication to the Subject Property’s redevelopment. The particular location of the Heritage Tree and its distance from the proposed detention basin require the open spaces upon which those development features are located to be separated, and forces the lots on the south side of the proposed right-of-way to be pushed westward to preserve the Heritage Tree by precluding development within its tree protection zone.

c) The aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action or inaction of the owner or his predecessors in title and existed at the time of the enactment of the provisions from which a variation is sought or was created by natural forces or was the result of governmental action, other than the adoption the Zoning Code, for which no compensation was paid.

The Subject Property’s existing topography and the Heritage Tree located thereon present unique physical conditions that are not the result of any action or inaction by the Subject Property’s owner or its predecessor in title, but were instead created by natural forces.

d) The carrying out of the strict letter of the provision from which a variation is sought would deprive the owner of the subject property of substantial rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other lots subject to the same provision.

The carrying out of the strict letter of the provisions of the Village Zoning Codefrom which the requested variation is sought would deprive the Applicant of its ability to develop the Subject Property in a financially feasible manner due to the land area lost to properly preserve the Heritage Tree and efficiently engineer the Subject Property by placing the detention basin at a natural low point in the northeast corner thereof.

e) The alleged hardship or difficulty is not merely the inability of the owner or occupant to enjoy some special privilege or additional right not available to owners or occupants of other lots subject to the same provision, nor merely an inability to make more money from the sale of the subject property; provided, however, that where the standards herein set out exist, the existence of an economic hardship shall not be a prerequisite to the grant of an authorized variation.

The land area lost to properly preserve the Heritage Tree and efficiently engineer the Subject Property by placing the detention basin at a natural low point in the northeast corner of the Subject Property presents an actual hardship or difficulty that does not typically impact owners of lots within the R-4 zoning classification.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 22

Att

ach

men

t: 2

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Rev

ised

Zo

nin

g R

elie

f Ju

stif

icat

ion

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

{33300: 068: 01551065.DOCX : }

The requested variation is necessary to make the Applicant’s development of the Subject Property financially feasible.

f) The variation would not result in a use or development of the subject property that would not be harmony with the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Code and the provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or the general purpose and intent of the Official Comprehensive Plan.

Article I of the Zoning Code provides that the code is designed to “protect the character of the existing residential areas” and “protect and enhance the taxable value of land and buildings.” The required variation is necessary to preserve and enhance the established residential neighborhood that surrounds the Subject Property and to improve the tax base within the Village by adding high-quality development to the Subject Property. In addition, Element One of the Village’s Official Comprehensive Plan identifies as overall goals a need to maintain diverse housing stock and encourage redevelopment within the Village. The proposed planned development redevelops the Subject Property to provide a housing type that is compatible with, yet different from, the housing types currently available in the immediate area surrounding the Subject Property.

As previously stated, the proposed variation is requested to allow a reduction in the minimum required front yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet solely with respect to proposed Lot 18, which will allow the house to be constructed on Lot 18 to be placed nearer to the Subject Property’s western lot line. Yet, the location of the at least 109-foot wide stormwater detention easement and detention basin on the adjacent Northbrook Community Synagogue property precludes placement of another structure within close proximity of the house to be constructed on Lot 18. As a result, there will be no opportunity for a detrimental effect to follow from the proposed variation.

g) The variation would not result in a use or development on the subject property that:

i. Would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development value of property or improvements permitted in the vicinity;

ii. Would materially impair an adequate supply of light and air to the properties and improvements in the vicinity;

iii. Would substantially increase congestion in the public streets due to traffic or parking;

iv. Would unduly increase the danger of flood or fire;

v. Would unduly tax public utilities and facilities in the area; or

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 23

Att

ach

men

t: 2

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Rev

ised

Zo

nin

g R

elie

f Ju

stif

icat

ion

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

{33300: 068: 01551065.DOCX : }

vi. Would endanger the public health or safety.

The requested variation will not result in a use or development on the Subject Property that will be detrimental to the public welfare; injurious to property or improvements permitted within the vicinity of the Subject Property; impair an adequate supply of light and air; substantially increase congestion in the public streets; increase the danger of flood or fire; unduly tax public utilities and facilities; or endanger the public health and safety.

As previously stated, the location of the at least 109-foot wide stormwater detention easement and detention basin on the adjacent Northbrook Community Synagogue property precludes placement of another structure within closeproximity of the house to be constructed on Lot 18 such that said house’s placement could not be detrimental to the public welfare; injurious to property in the vicinity of the Subject Property; impair an adequate supply of light and air; increase the danger of flood or fire; or endanger the public health and safety. The proposed variation also will not have any impact upon congestion in the public streets or public utilities and facilities. As a result, there will be no opportunity for a detrimental effect to follow from the proposed variation.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 24

Att

ach

men

t: 2

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Rev

ised

Zo

nin

g R

elie

f Ju

stif

icat

ion

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

~2

9'-

11

1/4

''2

9'-1

1"

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 25

Att

ach

men

t: 3

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Bu

ildin

g E

leva

tio

ns

& H

eig

hts

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

~2

9'-

11

.31

''2

9'-1

1"

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 26

Att

ach

men

t: 3

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Bu

ildin

g E

leva

tio

ns

& H

eig

hts

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

~2

9'-

10

.97

''2

9'-1

1"

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 27

Att

ach

men

t: 3

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Bu

ildin

g E

leva

tio

ns

& H

eig

hts

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 28

Att

ach

men

t: 3

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Bu

ildin

g E

leva

tio

ns

& H

eig

hts

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 29

Att

ach

men

t: 3

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Bu

ildin

g E

leva

tio

ns

& H

eig

hts

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 30

Att

ach

men

t: 3

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Bu

ildin

g E

leva

tio

ns

& H

eig

hts

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

~2

9'-

41

/2''

29

'-41

/2"

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 31

Att

ach

men

t: 3

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Bu

ildin

g E

leva

tio

ns

& H

eig

hts

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

~2

9'-

4.8

7''

29

'-41

/2"

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 32

Att

ach

men

t: 3

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Bu

ildin

g E

leva

tio

ns

& H

eig

hts

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

~2

9'-

4.4

8''

29

'-41

/2"

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 33

Att

ach

men

t: 3

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Bu

ildin

g E

leva

tio

ns

& H

eig

hts

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

NO

. 14-

14:

3000

, 304

0, 3

080

WIL

LO

W R

OA

D -

WIL

LO

W C

RO

SS

ING

S)

SOUTH LOTS

670

675

680

685

690

695

670

675

680

685

690

695

NORTH LOTS

670

675

680

685

690

695

670

675

680

685

690

695

PROJ. MGR.:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

SCALE:

SHEET

PROJ. ASSOC.:

DA

TER

EV

ISIO

NS

DR

AW

N B

Y

WIL

LOW

CR

OS

SIN

G

VIL

LAG

E O

F N

OR

THB

RO

OK

, ILL

INO

IS

PR

OP

OS

ED

T/F

VS

. EX

ISTI

NG

GR

OU

ND

EX

HIB

IT

5.1.

c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 34

Attachment: 3 - Willow Crossing - Applicant Submittal - Building Elevations & Heights (2934 : DOCKET NO. 14-14: 3000, 3040, 3080 WILLOW ROAD - WILLOW CROSSINGS)

Lot No.

Highest Existing Grade in Proposed

Building Envelope T/F Elevation Delta

1 680.9 683.9 3.00

2 682.9 684.1 1.20

3 683.3 684.4 1.10

4 683.3 684.7 1.40

5 683.3 685.1 1.80

6 683.4 685.1 1.70

7 683.6 684.9 1.30

8 682.6 684.5 1.90

9 682.7 684.0 1.30

10 681.7 684.3 2.60

11 684.1 684.8 0.70

12 681.8 684.8 3.00

13 681.7 684.8 3.10

14 684.3 684.8 0.50

15 681.0 684.5 3.50

16 681.6 684.2 2.60

17 681.3 683.9 2.6018 681.6 683.9 2.30

Model T/F to Roof Peak

Crestwood (Elevation 1) 29.08

Crestwood (Elevation 2) 28.83

Crestwood (Elevation 3) 29.08

Bloomfield (Elevation 1) 29.25

Bloomfield (Elevation 2) 29.25

Bloomfield (Elevation 3) 29.25

Saratoga (Elevation 1) 29.38

Saratoga (Elevation 2) 29.38

Saratoga (Elevation 3) 29.38

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 35

Att

ach

men

t: 3

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Bu

ildin

g E

leva

tio

ns

& H

eig

hts

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET

Lot No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

Crestwood

(Elevation 1)

Crestwood

(Elevation 2)

Crestwood

(Elevation 3)

Bloomfield

(Elevation 1)

Bloomfield

(Elevation 2)

Bloomfield

(Elevation 3)

Saratoga

(Elevation 1)

Saratoga

(Elevation 2)

Saratoga

(Elevation 3)

32.08 31.83 32.08 32.25 32.25 32.25 32.38 32.38 32.38

30.28 30.03 30.28 30.45 30.45 30.45 30.58 30.58 30.58

30.18 29.93 30.18 30.35 30.35 30.35 30.48 30.48 30.48

30.48 30.23 30.48 30.65 30.65 30.65 30.78 30.78 30.78

30.88 30.63 30.88 31.05 31.05 31.05 31.18 31.18 31.18

30.78 30.53 30.78 30.95 30.95 30.95 31.08 31.08 31.08

30.38 30.13 30.38 30.55 30.55 30.55 30.68 30.68 30.68

30.98 30.73 30.98 31.15 31.15 31.15 31.28 31.28 31.28

30.38 30.13 30.38 30.55 30.55 30.55 30.68 30.68 30.68

31.68 31.43 31.68 31.85 31.85 31.85 31.98 31.98 31.98

29.78 29.53 29.78 29.95 29.95 29.95 30.08 30.08 30.08

32.08 31.83 32.08 32.25 32.25 32.25 32.38 32.38 32.38

32.18 31.93 32.18 32.35 32.35 32.35 32.48 32.48 32.48

29.58 29.33 29.58 29.75 29.75 29.75 29.88 29.88 29.88

32.58 32.33 32.58 32.75 32.75 32.75 32.88 32.88 32.88

31.68 31.43 31.68 31.85 31.85 31.85 31.98 31.98 31.98

31.68 31.43 31.68 31.85 31.85 31.85 31.98 31.98 31.9831.38 31.13 31.38 31.55 31.55 31.55 31.68 31.68 31.68

Height Restriction

10 Foot First Floor Restriction

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 36

Att

ach

men

t: 3

- W

illo

w C

ross

ing

- A

pp

lican

t S

ub

mit

tal -

Bu

ildin

g E

leva

tio

ns

& H

eig

hts

(29

34 :

DO

CK

ET