Zoning and Planning Commission - Elmhurst Extended Care Center

ZoningandPlanningCommission February22,2017
ContinuedPublicHearing 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
EECCSFORMERPLAN 8
SouthElevation
EastElevation
WestElevation
EECCSFORMERPLAN
9
EECCSFORMERPLAN 10
Stormwater Storage(sq ft)
StorageRequired:0
BMPsRequired:2,200
TotalRequired:2,200
StorageProvided:14,000
BMPsProvided:2,200
TotalProvided:16,200
EECCSFORMERPLAN
11
EECCSFORMERPLAN
12
EECCSFORMERPLAN
13
EECCSFORMERPLAN
14
EECCSFORMERPLAN 15
16
ReducedLotCoverage
Red=oldadditionfootprint
White=revisedadditionfootprint
andnew2ndStoryonexistingbuilding
17
18
19
20
21
22
1st FloorPlan
TotalEECCbedcount:108
TotalDining/Activity/LivingSpace:4,715sq ft
Sq.Ft.ofDining/Activity/LivingSpaceperbed:44sq. ft.
23
2nd FloorPlan LowerLevelFloorPlan
24
ConstructionPhasingPlan
25
26
27
ThankYou
28
REMARKS DATE NO. REMARKS DATE NO. LLI
ELM HURST,I S
NOI 4065
4060 Fax:(847)696-
Phone:(847)696-
9147P-ENG.DGN
,I
Rosem ont l
l s60018
noi
i
ELM HURST EXTENDED CARE
P-ENG
REVISION PER BUILDING 08/15/16 1

1
5
t
nsRoad, Sui
ggi
9575 W .Hi e 700,
06/08/2016
SITE PLAN PER NEW 01/31/17 2

FILENAME:
OF
JOB NO.
DATE:
SHEET
9147
PLAN MI
PRELI NARY ENGI NG
NEERI
TOTAL STORAGE PROVIDED = 11,075 C.F. (SWALE & PAVERS)
7. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITY EVERYWHERE
ITEMS WILL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, SILT FENCE,
EROSION CONTROL PLAN TO BE COMPLETED DURING FINAL

REQUIRED MONITORING AND REPORT. EROSION CONTROL
PROGRESS - DRAFT ONLY

5. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING
AND MAINTAINING ALL EROSION CONTROL AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING ALL
TEMPORARY SEEDING, CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, INLET

PROTECTION, LINED APRONS, ETC., DESIGN OF INITIAL
BMP CROSS SECTION

MAX DETENTION STORAGE REQUIRED = 11,070 C.F.*
4. TOPSOIL RESPREAD AND SEEDING SHALL BE REQUIRED
40
6. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR TYPE AND MATERIAL FOR
12" STORM SEWER

AND PROVIDE ANY DISCREPENCIES TO ENGINEER.
EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
1. ALL CURB AND GUTTER IS ASSUMED TO BE B6.12.
SECTION A-A
*EXACT VOLUME TO BE DETERMINED AS PART
1" = 20
BMP STORAGE REQUIRED = 1,110 C.F. (1.25")
12.70
NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA = 10,660 S.F. (35%)
BUILDING FF= 683.50
N.T.S.
PRESSURE CONNECTION 8. ALL SETBACK PER ARCHITECTURAL PLAN.
3. ALL SPOT GRADES ALONG CURB LINE ARE
2. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE FINISHED GRADE.
20
SCALE
DISTURBED AREA = 30,750 S.F.
TOP OF BMP= 682.50

STROMWATER SUMMARY
FOR ALL PERVIOUS AREAS.
OF FINAL ENGINEERING
24
HARDSCAPE SURFACES.
0
12" TOPSOIL RESPREAD
INFILTRATION MEDIA
30" BIO-RETENTION
R=680.5
DESIGN.
NOTES:
TOP OF BMP= 682.50

MEET EXISTING SW
EXTENSION DISTURBANCE
FULL DEPTH PAVEMENT
ELEV= 684.82
(B/W)= 683.00
WALL AS REQD
(T/W)= 684.80
SANITARY MANHOLE
STORM STRUCTURE
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
PERMEABLE PAVERS
22
SANITARY SEWER
RESTORE STORM
LOCAL DRAINAGE
FINISHED FLOOR
N
STORM SEWER
INFILTRATION MEDIA
30" BIO-RETENTION
VALVE VAULT
WATER MAIN
REMOVAL
EXISTING WEST
PROPERTY LINE
ELEV= 685.0
LEGEND
XXX.XX
F/F
680.
6
EP=680.
42
PERMIABLE PAVERS COLOR, PATTERN, & MANUFACTURE TYPE TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER.
TYPICAL PERMEABLE PAVEMENT SECTION
68
AGGREGATE BASE (12") CA-1
0 4CHAI
N
SETTING BED (1.5") CA-16
AGGREGATE BASE (4") CA-7
1
0MAST N,
S LI
NK FENCE
5 8MAST N,
S
TYPE: UNI-LOCK PAVER, PATTERN: ECO-PRIORA
680.
7
WI
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
EP=679.
88 RE
S EP=680.
17 TC=680.
67 EP=680.
61
EP=680.
08
EP=680.
07
TC=680.
72 681
.22
EP=679.
93
E FL=680.
19
P=
68 5 EP=680.
13 8"
0. WI
RE 681
.04
22 680.
49
S TC=680.
27
EP=680.
18
681 1
2"8" 681
.1
68
1
681
.74
TC EP=680.
80
W T/WALL681
.74 TC=680.
76
=68 TC
681
.99 68 1 .
88 =68
0.
FL=680.
17
0.
83 31 EP=680.21
EP=680.
58 TC
OR APPROVED EQUAL
682.
01 TC=682.
26 =68
TC=682.
26 1 680.
68
681.
83 .
60
682.
09 68
PROPOSED PAVERS
0.79
68
N.T.S.
68
1 TC=682.21 ET EP 1
68 TC=682.25 TC
=68
RE =6
81
.
681.
06
680.
681092
.
2 681
.58 68 2.
2. 24
03
TC=680.
88
FL=680.
40
ST 01
EP=680.
44 KE EP=681
.04
FILL JOINTS
681
.3
EP=680.
89 TC
686.
67 30
9.
18 =68 LA TC=681.
51
FINISH GRADE
2.
27
682.
04 68 FL=681
.02
68 68 0.96
EP=681
.12
TF=679.
18 1.
94 1
.58
TC=682.24 68
TC=682.21 2.
22 68 681
.4
695.
27 681
.87 0.99
681
.86 68 681
.01
682.25
27 68 1.
60
2.
25 68
TC=682.
19 TC=682.25 2.26
682.1
2 681.86 TC=681
.73
680.
93 68 TC=681.
25 FL=681.
19
2.27
FL=680.77 EP=681.
28
6
8
EP=680.80
68
681
.86
2
TC 681
.23 R=
6
=6
1
82 6
8
68 .38 68 SE 81
1
1. .66
681
.71 2.12 68 27
1
.80 E, I =6
68
2.
W 76 681
.50
40 68 I=6 .7 681
.5
72 6,
13
TWO STORY 68 . 1 8 TC
68
2.
1.
81 TC=681.
41 36 "
. DI FL =682
46 68 FL=680.92 P EP =681 .
04 8
+/-WOOD
BRI
CK R=681
.26 2.40 =6 . 55
EP=680.95
2
81. SOUND WALL

"
HANDI
CAP 681
.47 66
5
APARTMENT E I
=679.
81,
8"DI
P 68 R=
.
UNKNOWN 2.47 6
2
PARKI
NG" T/WALL682.
79
S 81
8
BUI
LDI
NG .
5
VALVE =6 6
6
TC I C
682.
40 "
CLERGY =68 E 79
68 2.50 I=6 .
2
681
.04 682.
27 2. N 6,
49
682.
18 PARKI
NG" 24 7 6"
=6 9.
I 681
.72
2.
"
DOCTORS 1 D
TC=681
.97 W TC=681
.99 682.
31 79 6, 8" I P
68
TC=681.
93 681.
85 681.
87
PARKI
NG ONLY" 3-
8MAST N,
S .96, R C
8
681
.27
2" P
1
681
.98 1
2.
R=682.
57 682.
41 681
.85
682.
682.7
979
682. 81
682.81
682.78 CONC BLOCK RC
68
682.54 683.
05 GUY WI
RE 16" P 682.
681
.9 37
682.50 TC=682.
00
S I
=681
.07, RAI
LING 682.
65681 WALL T
682.64.
83 C=68
TC=682.04
4"
DIP 683.
33
TC=682.
03 68 2.51 TC=682.05
5
683.23 682.
66 TC=682.08 2.
682.69 07
2. 27 FL=681
.56
8
682.
08
.
681.
85 68 FL=681
.54
R
SW I
=680.
57, 682.70 EP=681
.52
2
682.
73 EP=681
.65
8
@DO
6"
CLAY 682.
690.409 682.
12 682
6
688.
26 T/WALL682.
70 W
682.
13
8
SI
TE TC=682.46 682.
01
2
3.
682.88 682.
22
3
681
.24 682.
71 682.
12 FL=681
.94
682.
89 682.
08
EXISTING STRUCTURE
BENCHMARK 682.
53
8
EP=681.
96
WI
682
6
690.
38 682.
11
681
.30
1
AUTO TC=682.57
RE
681
.34 682
.8
682.42
2
"
ELMHURST 682.
22
EXISTING 8" PIPE
7
682.
3
8
2
SPRI
NKLER
S
=6
9
0
.
3.
EXTENDED
C
2
TC=682.83
T
67
68
8
TC=682.
38 682.
05
8
2.
FL=682.
43
6
CARE"SI
GN "
HANDI
CAP R=681
.55
CONNECT TO
6
682.
40 TC=682.41
EP=682.
31 682.
1
3
65
68
FL=681.
84
2
. PARKI
NG" R=682.
20 681
.81 E I
=680.
09,
8"DI
P
6
EP=682.06
68 682.
70
8
T/PI
PE=677.
80 S I
=679.
45,
6"DI
P
2
682.
60 682.
61 T
C=
BENCH TC=682.
42 68 TC=682.
64
68
74
2. 682.34 2. 682.
37 FL=682.
10
68 49
2.
2
EP=682.
29
2
68
3
54
1
.
3.
682.79 682.
50 2
682.59 .
3
T/W 54
682.
80 R=681
.68
8
A
8
682. LL TC=683.
12
77
6
6
T/WALL682.
66 682.
56 684.
683.72 1
2 W I
=679.
38,
8"DI
P 682.74
683.
3 684.
684.
13 13 684.
12
682.91 684.
681
.51 682.
66 682.
683. 92
68 682 10 682.56 N,
NE I
=679.
28,
6"DI
P 682.
21
.
57
4-8" D.I.P.
683.69 683.
73 TC=683.20 T
683.02 FLAG POLE 684.14 TC=682.
58 TC=683.1
3 T C 682.
58
681
.51 682.
88 682.
74 9 682.
80 C= =6
.8 682.
37 682.69 68 82
683.
69 TC=683.
10
683.
70684.
2 3 . 6 682.66
19 684.
18 684.
13 6
8
TC=683.
23 15 9
. FL=682.
58 682.7
683.
74 TC=683.
28
90
@ 0.60%
684.
20 68 TC=682.
87 682.
74
2. 68 2
684.
682.
682.86
88
682.48 TC=682.
89 682.
80
68 2 .77 1
7
682.51
.91 BENCH TC=682.
70 682.
62 TC=683.
14
CROSSING
683.98683.
68296 T/WALL TC=682.
79 TC=683.
28
683.
00 .
90 .03 2.91 FL=682.
48
683.
683.1
853 684.
10 683 68
682.
46 EP=682.
58
684.
00 682. 91 TC=683.
38 EP=682.
77
682.
702
6
684.1
0 682
8
CONC BLOCK 682.

39
684.19 682 .93 683.
33
3
684.181 683 TC=683.

15 TC=683.
35
.
682. 93
0
684. 7 68 .
T/STM=674.4
682.7795
682. 684.15 96 WI
NDOW 682.83 682.
87
1
WALL 683.90
683.22 T/WALL 683.96 EP=682.
76 683.
0
EP=682.
80
3
BENCH 2. TC=682.
55
683. 05 93 TC=683.40
7
TRANS ON 79
.
683
T/WALL683.
82 684.
00 WELL 682
.
82
WATERMAIN
682.
39 682.
81 2. R=682.
48
2
683 682.
97 48 TC=683.
48
682.96 =68 TC=683. 68
68
683.
82 682.
89
BENCH CONC PAD
683.
24 683.
15 U 2 8 EP 682.
96 683.
09
3
W I
=681
.33,
8"DI
P
=
683.96 682.
91 .2 .2
686.
05
BRICK WALL .18 3 3
EP
682.
81
3 8 68 683.
01
68 6 683.
27 683
.27
CONNECTION TO
683.5
I=681.30,SE
PROVIDE PLUG FOR
BACKUP GENERATOR
R=682.50
683.
0
I=672.05,NW
683.32
TWO PUMPS (35 GPM)

T/WALL686.
02 688.65 EP=682.
98
682.
9 68 5WOOD FENCE
8-24"
3.
@ 0.20%
686.
05
683.
31 683.
686.02 5 682.
9 3 3
682.
78
3
ELEC ENCLOSI
NG
68
693.
1 44
OVERFLOW STRUCTURE
W/ OVERSIZE GRATE
R=682.50
I=672.10
686.1 GAS METER 683.37 683.41
683.
22
683.23
SWI
TCH TRASH AREA
686.
02 683.27 683.
1
688.
30
R=682.
91 EP=
682.
682.91682.
92 92
R=682.
85 CLEANOUT
S I
=677.
71,
8"PVC (
W PI
PE) 683.
37
B/STRUCT=665.
65 36 683.
683. 37
689.
01 682.
99
S I
=677.
71,
6"PVC (
E PI
PE) ELEVATOR 683.
TC=54
683.
10
683.
2
NO VI
SIBLE PI
PES 683.
22 684.
05
N I
=677.
71,
8"PVC (
AT GRADE) EP=683.
06
8
683.
14
34
4
3.
74
683.
3.
T/WALL684.
05 68
8
8
681
.91
6
684.
6
6
WI
NDOW
@DOOR
683.
14 WELL 683.
683.
2630683.
18
0
3
1
.
682.
15 683.
30
4
CONC
3.
3.
3
TC=684.1
3
8
ONE & TWO 683.58 685.

0
8
BLOCK
6
683.
54
6 STORY BRI
CK WALL 3
5
.3 WI 683.
8
2
3
3.
5
3I
RON RE
27
68 0 BUI
LDI
NG
68
3.
3 S
W/ OVERFLOW WALL
8
3 RAI
LING #200 688.
53 TC=684.
13
6
68 683.
8
68
683. 14 683.
14
OUTLET CONTROL
683.71 W
683.
61683.
58 68 685.
1
0
683.26 3 6
4 83
4
.
3.
72-24"
@ 0.20%
683.
51@DOOR 7 .
16 684.
10 684.
09
4
4
8
03
683.47 6 WI
RES
STRUCTURE
0
4
6
.
.
AND RESTONE
OPEN CUT PAVEMENT
5.
R=684.00
I=676.00
683. 57
5
4
683. 64
68
7
7
67
1WI
RE
6
6
3
.13 684.
64
R
684.
15 684.
2 685.
6
O
T/WALL684.
15
38
@DO
CONC BLOCK 683.

45
684
3.
68
WI
NDOW 1
674.
47@DOOR EDGI
NG W
3.
5
674.
30
7
8
SNOW PI
LE IR
3.
39
6
5
O
3.
682.
34 WELL
5 WIRES
E
@DO
682.
40 683.
76683.
74 683.64
4"DRAI
N
68
CLEANOUT 683.
70
6
689.
39
683.2683. 683.
59 684.
13
67 4
32
8
T/WALL683.
80
8
682.
8 3
3.5
684.
48
68
4.
683.
2 684.
35 684.
4
4
684.
8
.
.
4
44
683.
0 683.
0
4
683.
80
3
6 683.1 T/WALL684.
35
WI
NDOW 68
6
8
8
3 3. 685.
53
8
6
.3 683.25 683.
25 68 T/WALL683.
98 17
3.
3.
T/WALL683.
69 6 WELL CONC BLOCK 68 18 T/WALL684.
22 683.
5
29
3.
684
5
683. 23 23 683.
2 683.3 684.33 CLEANOUT
3
3.
683.69 684.
687.
23
WALL 683.
2 684.
684.35
34 TC=685.21 TC=685.21
684.41 38 683.
2 684.
22
683.
98 684.
48 684.
53 684.
74
8
8 683.
1 TC=685.
686.13
09
.0
688.
43
6
683.
40 41
683. 683.
.340 WOOD 683.3
3 683.95 685.
5
683
683.43 683.43 8 683.

20 685.4
6 T/WALL683.
95 685.
0 685.
40
.3
8 PERGOLA 685.
45 685.
66
685.
0
3 683.35 683.
62 683.
61 684.
1
8 683.83 T/WALL683.
90 684.
8 1
2" 685.
2
6 683.
2 683.4 683.
21 684.1
3 1
2" 1
2" 8" 685.
5
METAL SHED 683.
21
OW
5
683.82 683.31 683.
30 683.
61 684.3 6WOOD
0
683.3 683.
4 683.
90 2 WI
RES
T/WALL683.
83
3.
8
683.38 683. 684.
418
683.
9 683.71
34 683.79 281 684.
RFL
684.7 683.
2 683. 685.
1
685
6
683.06 FENCE
68
EP=682.
71 683.73 T/WALL683.
82 683.
5 685.
0 6CHAI
N 684.
9
684.
95
RES
I=672.25,NE
2 WI
R=685.00
WATER QUALITY UNIT
I=675.85,W
FENCE
E
683.13 GUY WI
RE LI
NK FENCE
V
71-24"
@ 0.20%
O
POST 685.
7 02
686. 685.
70
EP=682.
48
RES
EP=682.
54
GUY WI
RE
EX.
(
BELOW 684.
98
FRAME
GRADE)
I
9
SHED 686.
2
2.
685.05
685.0 686.
68717 6.
3 W
.
49 686.
687 13
82
86
43-24"
@ 0.20%
68
685.
685.
770 9
685.
92 685.
6
EXTENSION DISTURBANCE
TO EXISTING CONDITION
RESTORE STORM
683.
5 684.
96 685.
4
683.
84 685.1
SECURITY FENCE
685.
9
682.
43 683.
2
682.
9 686.
2
FRAME
PROPOSED BUILDING EXPANSION
34
32
4CHAI
N 684.
1
GARAGE
.
686.
28
.
686.
28
86
FRAME
6
4
LI
NK FENCE 683.
2
8
68
6
6
GARAGE
=
EP=
683.2 TW
683.0 BW
9.88
EP
683.
9 686.
26
684.
1 BRI
CK FI
RE 686.
24
683.
6
R=682.0
I=676.1
PI
T
686.
686.
686.330
33
686.
6 34
86.
36 686.
57
4
685.
9
685.
9
686.
04 686.
21 686.18
8
685.
6 6 686.
20 EP=686.13
EP 8
6
=68 686.
27 6
6.
1 .3
4 0
683.
2 EP=686.
10
683.
3
R=682.7
I=679.2
684.
8
684.
9 EP=685.
94
684.
56
FF=683.50
684.
2 EP
=6
85
36" .61
4" UNDERDRAIN
6
2
68
686.
39
.5
2.
STORM SERVICE
684.
4 4 1
68
682
684 7 .
. 7
5 5
684.
0 8 8
683.
7 683.
6 =6 =6
684.0 TW
683.0 BW
P P
E E
53 686.
4
682.
71 6.
68
685.
68 EP=686.
33
684.
4
683.
7 683.
9
684.
50 684.
5
54-24"
@ 0.20%
34
6. EP=686.34
1
68
8 0
1
0
6 .
4. 68
.
R=680.5
I=676.8
51
6
EP=686.29
6
8
686.
51
6
70-12"
@ 0.50%
EP=686.
25
33684.
R=686. 6 685.
8 691
686..
52
0
686.
691. 43
42 686.
36
686.
31 68
0
686.
30
HWL=682.5
E I
=681
.13,
6"CLAY (
N PI
PE) 6.
.3
37
.
686.
1
5
5
68
E T/6"VERTI
CAL CLAY TF=686.
31
6
68
R=682.5
I=676.2
TREE TO BE REMOVED
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
5.
95 PI
PE=681
.53 (
S PI
PE) 691
.41
686.41
BOTTOM=681.0
684.
77
NWL=681.5
EP=686.18
684.
79
WATER SERVICE
685.98 686.32 686.

35
79
686.55 684.7 685.

0 686.
20
691
.44
686.59
4.
684.
73
68
686.
63
SANITARY SERVICE
686.62 684.
4 684.
2 24"
685.
0 684.
8 685.
2 684.
7
685.
33
685.0 TW
683.0 BW
684.
7 684.
5
BY OTHERS
685.
7
686.
36
6
686.
2
1
.1
8
5
685
TF=686.
36
6
5
8
68
6
TWO STORY
36-12"
@ 0.50%
EP=
691
.56
BRI
CK &
691
.17 FRAME ONE STORY
0
71
42-24"
@ 0.20%
TWO STORY
7
BRI
CK
.
RESI
DENCE
5.
686.
61
A
9
85
4" UNDERDRAIN
5
9
691
.53
2.
684.
5
68
FRAME 685.
2
3.
2.
683.4
RESI
DENCE
SECURITY GATE
6
68
68
68
RESI
DENCE
684.
3
685.
82@DOOR 684.
9
685.
3
40-12"
@ 0.50%
.0
68
68
683
5.
R=683.4
I=676.3
5.
30" GAS METER

71
76
5.53
22
685.0 TW
683.0 BW
6.
60-12"
@ 0.50%
685.
86
I=677.1,SE
68
I=678.8,N
18
=
. 686.
6910
.
04 692.
70
P
6
R=682.7
E
TF=686.
07 684.
4 685.
0 684.
6 686.
0 689.
25 =6
684.5
E
684.
5 686.
1 689.21 P 692.
44 690.
05
E
P
685.
5 688.
93 688.
88
691.01
=6
693.76 685. 33 686.
0
686.02
686.
07
8
686
8
688.
82
5
685.
680.
686. 5
09
76 685.
5 .62 688.
82
6
685.47
.
684.
9
97
689.
80 686.
62 688.
22 688.
20
.
0
R=680.5
I=676.6
686.
20 686.
13
68
6
686.
89 686.
85
R=680.5
I=676.9
5
689.
36 684.
4
59-12"
@ 0.50%
685.
90 686.
30 686.
28
8
685.
34
6
686.
07 686.
01
6
5
685.
92 686.
01 686.
04
3.5%
68
686.
07
858
.6
685.
4 30"
6
684.
6
684.7 TW
683.0 BW
685
9
685.
00
684.
77
4
.
EP=684.
68 EP=684.
58
43
4
4.
8
684.
7
6
684.
57 684
68
684.
88 684.
6 684.
57 .6684.
0 58
56
40" 684.
65
685.
0 684.
08 684.
50
40" 684.8 684.
77 684.
55
684.
53 684.
58
684.
8 684.
87 EP=684.
48 EP= 684.
47
36" 684.
8 684.
74 684.
64 684
24
684.7 684.
82 684.
58 .54
CONNECT TO EXISTING
7
684.
16
396
4
4.
684.
76
684.
75 684.77 684.
85 684.79 684.
48
68
684.
29 684.
46 684.82 EP=684.
44
684.
78 B EP=684.
32
BY OTHERS
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
TREE TO BE REMOVED
=
SANITARY MANHOLE
EP=684.
61 EP=684.
63
TC
684.
66 24" 28
4.
R=684.5
684.
21 =68
684.
33 684.
61 3" EP
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN

BY OTHERS
TREE TO BE REMOVED
TC=684.
50
24" 684.
19 684.
20 TC=684.
67 TC=684.
18 TC=684.54
EP
684.
05 684 684.
23 TC=684.
58 FL=684.
23 FL=684.
13
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN

BY OTHERS
TREE TO BE REMOVED
E
FL=684.1
1
E
P
FL=684.
16 EP=684.
31
P
=
683.
71 EP=684.
25 EP=684.19
=6
EP=683.
84
68
=6
EP=683.
66 TC=684.
40 EP=684.
28 R=684.
95
8
683.
86 TC=684.
30
8
4
FL=684.
08
4.
4
.2
BY OTHERS
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
TREE TO BE REMOVED
TC=684.
24 FL=683.
86
.
E,
W I
=679.
35,
12"
CLAY
16
27
EP=684.
19
7
FL=683.
77 EP=683.
98
EXISTING WATERMAIN
CONNECT TO
TC=683.
83 TC=683.
67 684
FL=683.
60 EP=683.
86
R=684.
42 684.
74
38
FL=683.
43 EP=683.
69
.
EP=683.
50 684
N:\Projects\9147\PRELIM\9147P-ENG.dgn Default User=jbacha

4
E,
W I
=679.
02,
12"
CLAY 44
.86
8
7 4. 68
3
2
6
4. 68
FREEM ONT AVENUE 4. 684.
63
=
02 79
68
FL
4.
W
68 TC=684.
40
68 4.
IR
63 TC=684.
79 EP=684.
49 TC=684.
36
TC=684.
72
E
EP=684.
54 FL=684.
29
TC=684.
59 FL=684.
34
S
EP=684.
39
TC=684.
37 FL=684.14 EP=684.
43
FL=684.00 EP=684.25 684.
69 FL=684.
23
684 TC=684.1
6 EP=684.1
4 684.
63
684.
63 TC=684.
58 TC=684.
61
TC=684.
05 FL=683.
74
TC=683.
87 EP=683.
85 FL=684.23
FL=683.
57 684.
26
FL=683.40 GUY WI
RE 684.
36
EP=683.
61 684.
16 EP=684.34
EP=683.49 24"
B RES
3 WI B 4" U
24"
683.
72 683.
84 684.
89 684.
57
B 684.
65 684.
62
3 WI
RES R=684.
66
684 1
2" 20"
684.
74 684.
42 E,
W I
=679.
66,
12"
CLAY
65 684.
EP=684. 53 B
684.
74 684.
83
684.
71 684.
87 684.
76 684.
78 684.53
684.
74 684.
82
E
684.
95 684.
35
684.
61
P
684.
27 684.
89
=6
684.
63 684.
66 684.
75 684.
61
684.
81
8
3 684.
97 684.
87 685 684.
83
4
5
E
. 684.
77
.
E
6
683.
49
66 4 68 684.
52
S
684.
63
P
7
P
8 4.
=6
684.
84
E
6
=6
684.
53 684.
77 684.
79 86 684.
71
685.
6 R=684.
46
8
685 685.
17
8
I
4.
685.
19
4
684.
56 684.
88
75
.
W
8
T/MUD&I
CE=681
.46 684.
68
8
685.
36 685.
44
3
6 68
8
685.
28 NO VI
SIBLE PI
PES
4 4. 685.
33
.
5 58
4
688.
90 689.
28
684.
32 684.
32
685.
17 684.
37
ORIGINAL 2 STORY ADDITION PROPOSAL
LOT COVERAGE:
ELMHURST EXTENDED CARE ADDITION

- PROPOSED ADDITION ON PARCELS 2 & 3=
179.95' 12,236 SF/29,894 SF= 41%
NEW 2 STORY SNF
ADDITION W/ PARTIAL LOT COVERAGE:
LOWER LEVEL ADDITION - NEW ADDITION ON PARCELS 2 & 3=
(15,481 SF PER FLOOR) 7,235 SF/29,894 SF= 24%
166.22'
PARCELS 2 & 3= TOTAL LOT SIZE
29,894 SF (PARCELS 1,2,&3)=
(ZONED R2) 76,264 SF- SEE PLAT OF
SUBDIVISION- ELMHURST
113.61'
EXTENCED CARE
389.33'
PROPOSED TOTAL LOT
70.56'
COVERAGE:
EXISTING BLDG
58
+ADDITION=
.7 5' PARCEL 1= 23,205 SF/76,264 SF= 30%
46,370 SF
11.39'
(ZONED C2)
EXISTING 2 STORY SNF LOT COVERAGE:

270
FACILITY W/ LOWER LEVEL - .76
' - EXISTING BLDG + PARTIAL ADDITION
7,724 SF PER FLOOR ON PARCEL 1=
(7,724 SF + 8,246 SF)/46,370 SF= 34%
EXISTING BUILDING LOT COVERAGE

NEW LOT COVERAGE SITE PLAN
W/ NO ADDITION ON PARCEL 1=
1
A5.2 1" = 50'-0"
15,140 SF/46,370 SF= 33%
Architect
300 N. State St. #3812
Chicago IL 60654
P. 312 661 0140
E. 2401architects@gmail.com
Structural Engineer
Civil Engineer
EXISTING NEW
M.E.P. Engineer
34' - 8"
28' - 51/2"
ASPHALT SHINGLES Interior Designer
HARDI-TRIM BOARDS
EXISTING BUILDING HARDI-TRIM PANELS

BRICK VENEER
BRICK VENEER
2 NORTH ELEVATION - LAKE ST.

A5.1 1/8" = 1'-0"
200 E Lake St, Elmhurst, IL 60126

NEW EXISTING
34' - 8"
28' - 51/2"
ASPHALT SHINGLES
HARDI-TRIM BOARDS
HARDI-TRIM PANELS
BRICK VENEER EXISTING

BUILDING
BRICK VENEER
1 SOUTH ELEVATION - FREMONT AVENUE

A5.1 1/8" = 1'-0"
34' - 8"
28' - 51/2"
ASPHALT SHINGLES
REVISIONS
Mark Date Description
1 Date 1 Revision 1
HARDI-TRIM BOARDS
HARDI-TRIM PANELS
BRICK VENEER DATE OF PRINT
2/20/2017 12:15:30 PM
PROJECT STATUS
EXISTING REVISED LOT

BUILDING
3 EAST ELEVATION BRICK VENEER
COVERAGE DWGS
A5.1 1/8" = 1'-0" SHEET TITLE
NEW EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
SHEET NO.
A5.1
LOCAL ZONING INFO:
Existing SNF Building on Parcel 1 Zoning District- E. FREEMONT AVE.

Zoned (C2) Community Shopping & Service
New Proposed SNF Addition on Parcels 2 &3 Zoning District- NEW
Zoned (R2) Single Family Residence- Permitted as Conditional Use DRIVEWAY Architect
R4 Zoning District- Limited General Residence District- Nursing home 300 N. State St. #3812
Chicago IL 60654
Permitted as Conditional Use PROPERTY LINE 179.95' P. 312 661 0140
Structural Engineer
Minimum Setbacks:
45' - 11"
28' - 6"
R2 Min. Required Side Setback: 5' Minimum (9' - 8" Proposed from 5' - 0"
GRASS 5' - 0"
92' - 2 1/2" 73' - 0" 4' - 8 7/8"
West P.L.) Civil Engineer
R2 Min. Required Front/Rear Setback: 25' Minimum (50'- 5" SETBACK LINE UP
Proposed from Freemont Ave. P.L.)
R4 Min. Required Side Setback: 5' Minimum NEW MTL
21' - 11 5/8"
22' - 3 1/2"
M.E.P. Engineer
R4 Min. Required Front/Rear Setback: 25' Minimum SECURITY
GATE
C2 Min. Required Side Setback: None required (9' - 11" Existing

EXIT
from West P.L.)
Interior Designer
C2 Min. Required Front/Rear Setback: None required (55'- 5"
Existing from Lake St. P.L.)
F.A.R.
C2 Zoning District- 2.0 (.69 Proposed on C2 parcel)
NEW CONC. WALK
NEW CONC. WALK

NEW PARKING
R2 Zoning District- Not Listed (.48 Proposed on R2 Parcels)
PROPERTY LINE 166.17'

R4 Zoning District- 1.0
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
Proposed Total F.A.R. for Combined Parcels- .61
11
108' - 0"
Building Height:
115' - 11 1/4"
C2 zoning district- 3 stories or 35'
R2 Zoning District- 2 1/2 stories or 35'
R4 Zoning district- 3 stories or 35' NEW 2 STORY SNF
NEW MTL ADDITION W/ PARTIAL
FENCE
Maximum Lot Coverage: LOWER LEVEL ADDITION
(15,481 GROSS FLOOR

C2 zoning district- 50% AREA PER FLOOR)
R2Zoning district- 30% NEW
R4 Zoning district- 40% PATIO
12' - 0"
EXISTING PROJECT INFO: PROPERTY LINE 113.61' 9' - 10 7/8"
5' - 6 3/8" 24' - 0" 18' - 0"
Existing Lot Area: 46,370 SF
253' - 10 7/8"
Existing Building Gross Floor Area: 15,140 SF (1st Floor), 7,666 SF EXIT
(2nd Floor), 10,531 S.F. (Lower Level)

Existing # of Stories: 2 Story w/ Lower Level
Existing Building Height: ~ 26 FT
PORTION OF
Existing # of Sleeping Units: 2 Private Units, 34 Semi-Private Units EXIT
NEW ADDITION
# of Licensed Beds: 108

EXISTING 2 STORY W/ LOWER
Automatic Fire/Smoke Alarm Sytem: Existing 9 LEVEL SNF FACILITY
OVER EXISTING
PORTION OF
Supervised Automatic Sprinkler System: Existing ( 7,724 GROSS FLOOR AREA BUILDING TO BE
Automatic Standby Generator: Existing PER FLOOR ) REMOVED
Existing Site Parking: 48
(7,506 SF)
PROPOSED ADDITION PROJECT INFO:
EXISTING CONC. WALK

New Addition Gross Floor Area: 15,481 SF (1st Floor), 15,481 SF MAIN
ENTRY
(2nd Floor), 2,944 S.F. (Lower Level) /EXIT
# of Stories: 2 Story w/ Partial Lower Level

58
.75'
# of Licensed Beds
New Building Height: ~ 34'-8"
New Proposed Site Parking: 11 Additional Spaces
11.39'
11 EXIT
EXI
STI NEW CONC.
N GP
WALK
AR
KIN
G
EXIT
23
70' - 2 7/8" 10' - 1 7/8"
"
3/8
REVISIONS
-5
55'
PR
E. L
OP
ER
TY
A KE
LINE
270
ST
.76
' 5
.
84' - 7 1/2"
DATE OF PRINT
2/2/2017 3:35:26 PM
PROJECT STATUS
REVISED LOT
1 NEW ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN COVERAGE DWGS
C 2.0 1/16" = 1'-0" SHEET TITLE
NEW SITE PLAN
SHEET NO.
C 2.0
NEW
DRIVEWAY E. FREEMONT AVE.
Architect
300 N. State St. #3812
PROPERTY LINE 179.95' Chicago IL 60654
P. 312 661 0140
GRASS E. 2401architects@gmail.com
Structural Engineer
Civil Engineer
SETBACK
M.E.P. Engineer
EXIT
NEW PARKING
Interior Designer
STAIRS
1 BED 1 BED
1 BED 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED

1 BED 1 BED GRASS
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
11 1 BED 1 BED
1 BED 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED
1 BED 1 BED
1 BED 1 BED
1 BED 1 BED 1 BED SPA
1 BED 1 BED
1 BED

NEW 1 BED
1 BED PATIO
1 BED
1 BED
1 BED
MED.
C.U. N.T.
DIN./ ACT.
MED.
1271 SF
DIN./ACT. C.U. N.T. N.S. N.L.
1271 SF
EXIT
N.S. N.L.
C.U.
2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 1 BED 1 BED
LOUNGE
C.U. UP
BISTRO
2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 1 BED 591 SF
2 BED 1 BED- SC EXIT
ELEV. SUB-N.S.
LOUNGE
1 BED
BISTRO
ELEV. SUB- N.S. 612 SF

CORR.
NURSING
1 BED
N.T S.U.
TOI. 1 BED
N.T. S.U. C.U
TOI. J.C. 1 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED
LIVING
ADMIS.
RECPT.
DIALYSIS S.U. TUB TUB 485 SF
VEST. C.U. 1 BED
TUB TUB LIVING OFF.
2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 485 SF
2 BED 2 BED
S.U.
1 BED
SPA
1 BED 1 BED
2 BED 1 BED
1 BED 1 BED
1 BED 1 BED
EXIT
STAIRS
1 BED
EXI
STI
STAIRS
1 BED
N GP
AR
1 BED 1 BED
KIN
1 BED 1 BED
G EXIT
REVISIONS
NEW 2ND FLOOR PLAN NEW 1ST FLOOR PLAN & SITE PLAN E. L
A
2 1
A 2.1 1/16" = 1'-0" A 2.1 1/16" = 1'-0"
KE
ST
.
1ST FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA= 23,205 GSF 1ST FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA= 23,205 GSF DATE OF PRINT
2/2/2017 3:35:15 PM
TOTAL LICENSED BED COUNT THIS FLOOR: 56 BEDS TOTAL LICENSED BED COUNT THIS FLOOR: 52 BEDS
PROJECT STATUS
TOTAL DINING/ACTIVITY/LIVING SPACE: 2,368 SF TOTAL DINING/ACTIVITY/LIVING SPACE: 2,347 SF

REVISED LOT
COVERAGE DWGS
SHEET TITLE
NEW FLOOR PLANS
SHEET NO.
A 2.1
Architect
300 N. State St. #3812
Chicago IL 60654
P. 312 661 0140
Structural Engineer
Civil Engineer
M.E.P. Engineer
UNEXCAVATED
Interior Designer

OFFICE SUITE STOR.
1205 SF 1211 SF
MED.
LOCKER REC.
ELEV.
KITCHEN VEST.
CONF. B.K. DINING
CORR.
UP
STAIR DIET. CLEAN
STAIR LINEN STOR.
ROOM MAINT.
EXIT
KITCHEN
STOR. EXIT
BOILER BEAU. CORR. ELEV. SOIL.

EQ. LINEN
CHILLER
ROOM
OCCUPATIONAL
SOCIAL CENTRAL
ELEC. PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICE SUPPLY
GEN. RM EQUIP. OFFICE MECH. EQUIP.
UNEXCAVATED
REVISIONS
DATE OF PRINT
2/2/2017 3:35:16 PM
1 NEW LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
PROJECT STATUS
A 2.2 3/32" = 1'-0"
REVISED LOT
COVERAGE DWGS
LOWER LEVEL GROSS FLOOR AREA= 13,475 GSF SHEET TITLE
NEW LOWER LEVEL PLAN
SHEET NO.
A 2.2
20X20 20X20 Architect
BEDSIDE BEDSIDE
20X20 20X20 24X30 300 N. State St. #3812
TABLE TABLE
BEDSIDE BEDSIDE
6' - 1"
WARDROBE 41X86 Chicago IL 60654

TOI. TABLE TABLE BED EXIT P. 312 661 0140
24X30 41X86 RECLINING E. 2401architects@gmail.com
49 SF WARDROBE BED CHAIR
12' - 0"
RECLINING
CHAIR Structural Engineer
12' - 0"
1 BED
30X60 ROLL- 217 SF
8' - 9 1/4" 8' - 9"
5' - 6"
IN SHOWER 1 BED Civil Engineer

238 SF TV
DESK
TV
1 BED 1 BED
30X60 ROLL- M.E.P. Engineer
TV TOI. IN SHOWER
DESK
5' - 6"
30X60 ROLL-
4' - 10 1/4"
1 BED TOI. 48 SF
30X60 ROLL- IN SHOWER 1 BED 1 BED
5' - 6"
IN SHOWER
238
SF 48 SF
5' - 0" 3' - 4 3/4" 7' - 9 1/4"
Interior Designer
12' - 0"
TV
4' - 10 1/4"
RECLINING
1 BED
CHAIR 217 SF
24X30 41X86
TOI.
WARDROBE 20X20 BED
6' - 1"
20X20 6' - 10" 3' - 4 3/4" 7' - 10 1/4" 1 BED 1 BED

49 SF
BEDSIDE BEDSIDE
TABLE TABLE 2
12' - 0"
A 2.3
RECLINING 1 BED 1 BED
CHAIR
41X86
24X30 BED
WARDROBE 20X20 20X20
5' - 0" BEDSIDE BEDSIDE
TABLE TABLE
7' - 2" 16' - 2"
9' - 0"
1 BED
1 BED
2 TYPICAL 1 BED ADA ACCESSIBLE SLEEPING UNIT- TYPE 'A' 18' - 1"
A 2.3 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 BED SPA
3 TYPICAL 1 BED ADA ACCESSIBLE SLEEPING UNIT- TYPE 'B'

A 2.3 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 BED

1 BED
1 BED
NEW
PATIO
MED.
C.U. N.T.
DIN./ ACT.
1271 SF
N.S. N.L.
EXIT
C.U.
2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 1 BED 1 BED
LOUNGE
591 SF UP
EXIT SUB-N.S.
BISTRO
ELEV.
1 BED
CORR.
NURSING
N.T S.U.
1 BED
TOI.
3
LIVING RECPT.
2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED ADMIS. A 2.3
TUB TUB 485 SF
VEST. C.U. 1 BED

OFF.
S.U.
MAIN
ENTRY
/EXIT
1 BED 1 BED
REVISIONS
1 BED 1 BED Mark Date Description
EXIT
STAIRS
1 NEW 1ST FLOOR PLAN 1 BED
DATE OF PRINT
A 2.3 3/32" = 1'-0"
2/2/2017 3:35:20 PM
1ST FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA= 23,205 GSF 1 BED 1 BED PROJECT STATUS
REVISED LOT
TOTAL BED COUNT THIS FLOOR: 52 BEDS
COVERAGE DWGS
SHEET TITLE
TOTAL DINING/ACTIVITY/LIVING SPACE: 2,347 SF EXIT
NEW 1ST FLOOR PLAN
SHEET NO.
A 2.3
6' - 1" 5' - 8 1/2" 5' - 8 1/2" 6' - 1"
Architect
300 N. State St. #3812
Chicago IL 60654
P. 312 661 0140
17' - 9" E. 2401architects@gmail.com
STAIRS Structural Engineer
9' - 0"
9' - 0"
TOI. TOI.
7' - 2"
7' - 2"
49 SF 49 SF
1 BED 1 BED Civil Engineer
30X60 ROLL- 30X60 ROLL- 20X20 20X20
IN SHOWER IN SHOWER BEDSIDE BEDSIDE
24X30 TABLE TABLE 24X30
WARDROBE 41X86 41X86 WARDROBE 1 BED 1 BED
24X30 24X30 BED BED
M.E.P. Engineer
3' - 0"
WARDROBE WARDROBE
12' - 0"
3' - 4 3/4"
3' - 0" 3' - 4 3/4" 4' - 3 5/8" 3' - 4 3/4" 3' - 11 7/8"
41X86 41X86 Interior Designer
BED TV TV BED
4' - 10 1/4"
CHAIR
20X20 2 BED 2 BED 20X20 1 BED 1 BED

BEDSIDE BEDSIDE
17' - 0 1/2"
17' - 0 1/2"
TV TV
4' - 4 3/4"
TABLE 253 SF 253 SF TABLE
20X20 20X20 30X60 ROLL- 30X60 ROLL-
BEDSIDE 5' - 0 3/4" BEDSIDE 1 BED 1 BED
IN SHOWER IN SHOWER
TABLE TABLE
5' - 6"
TOI. TOI.
48 SF 48 SF
3' - 3"
41X86 TV TV 41X86
BED BED
CHAIR CHAIR
3' - 0"
24X30 24X30
WARDROBE WARDROBE 8' - 9" 8' - 9"
1 BED 1 BED
1 BED 1 BED
12' - 2 1/2" 12' - 2 1/2"
2 TYPICAL 2 BED ADA ACCESSIBLE SLEEPING UNIT- TYPE 'C' 3 2 BED ADA ACCESSIBLE SLEEPING UNIT- TYPE 'D' 1 BED
A 2.4 1/4" = 1'-0" A 2.4 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 BED

1 BED
MED.
C.U. N.T.
DIN./ACT.
1271 SF
N.S. N.L.
C.U.
2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 1 BED 1 BED- SC

2 BED 2 BED
LOUNGE
612 SF
BISTRO
ELEV. SUB- N.S.
1 BED
N.T. C.U
S.U.
1 BED
DIALYSIS TOI. J.C. S.U.
TUB TUB LIVING 2 BED 2 BED

2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED 2 BED
485 SF 1 BED
SPA
2
A 2.4 2 BED 1 BED
3
A 2.4
1 BED 1 BED
REVISIONS
STAIRS
1 BED
1 NEW 2ND FLOOR PLAN DATE OF PRINT

A 2.4 3/32" = 1'-0"
1 BED 1 BED 2/2/2017 3:35:23 PM
PROJECT STATUS
1ST FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA= 23,205 GSF
REVISED LOT
TOTAL BED COUNT THIS FLOOR: 56 BEDS COVERAGE DWGS
SHEET TITLE
TOTAL DINING/ACTIVITY/LIVING SPACE: 2,368 SF

NEW 2ND FLOOR PLAN
SHEET NO.
A 2.4
View from New Parking Driveway

View from E. Freemont Ave. Sidewalk
ELMHURST EXTENDED CARE CENTER
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 2-23-17
REVISED STANDARDS RESPONSES
XI. STANDARDS
A. Map Amendment
a. Existing uses of the property within the general area of the property in
question;
This section of Lake Street is dominated on the north by I-290.
Both Lake Street and East Fremont Avenue enjoy a mix of various residential and
commercial uses and zoning districts. Along Lake Street between York Street and the
Care Center, there are single-family homes, two apartment complexes, an office building
and two retail buildings (one of which was previously a gas station). All westbound
traffic from the apartment buildings, the office building and the Care Center, as well as
from the single and multi-family homes, is funneled onto East Fremont Avenue.
East Fremont Avenue itself includes single-family homes, a three unit apartment building
and 3 two unit apartment buildings, and a large apartment complex at the east end
terminus. Properties along Fremont Ave are zoned in the C2, R2 and R4 zoning districts.
The businesses fronting York Street at the west terminus of Fremont also use Elmcrest to
East Fremont Avenue for ingress and egress. These land uses include a retail building
and a 104 unit senior housing establishment called Liberty Village.
b. The zoning classification of property within the general area of the property
in question;
The Subject Property is currently zoned in both the C2 and R2 zoning districts, and is
surrounded by a mix of C2, R2 and R4 zoning and land uses.
c. The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the
existing zoning classification as well as the proposed zoning classification;
A nursing home is a conditional use in the R2, R4 and C2 zoning districts, so has been
found by the Elmhurst City Council to be an appropriate and desirable land use in any of
these districts. As set forth in this application, the Care Center has existed on the subject
property since 1960. As such, the existing land use will be maintained but simply
expanded in square footage to comply with new State of Illinois building and
accessibility codes. The development of this proposed modern skilled nursing and
rehabilitation facility will generate new real estate investment for the disabled in the
immediate area, and will achieve land use goals detailed in the Elmhurst Comprehensive
Plan for the Lake Street planning area.
1
2-23-17
d. The current Comprehensive Plan for the City of Elmhurst.
The proposed development is in harmony with the Elmhurst Comprehensive Plan, as

evidenced by the following excerpts:
Policies the following policies provide a framework for guiding the

creation and implementation of a land use and development
strategies(7) Protect and enhance the commercial land use functions of
the Lake Street and Grand Avenue Corridors (Elmhurst
Comprehensive Plan p. 19)
Comment: The modernization and expansion of the 56-year old Care

Center will enhance the mixed land uses along Lake Street and extend its
life as a fixture of Lake Street.
Area 6 Lake Street Corridor Recommendations 3. Buffer commercial

developments from adjacent residential communities with appropriate
landscaping. Urban Design and Circulation Adequate landscape buffers
should be provided to screen the commercial parking lots and
loading/unloading areas from the adjoining single-family homes.
(Elmhurst Comprehensive Plan p. 34)
Comment: The Lake Street Corridor analysis in the Elmhurst

Comprehensive Plan recognizes that there are abutting commercial and
residential uses throughout the sub-area. To the extent that these uses are
adjacent to each other, the Elmhurst Comprehensive Plan recommends
landscape buffering. The Care Center has provided housing for the
disabled for decades and seamlessly adjoined both single and multi-family
residential land uses since it opened in 1960, and its proposed expansion
will increase the landscape buffer. The Hitchcock Design Group has
prepared a detailed landscape plan to achieve this standard last revised
2/10/17.
2
2-23-17
Economic Development Goals and Objections Goal (3): Increase tax
revenues for the City through the expansion of the tax base rather than
through raising current tax rates. Objectives: (1) Expand the tax base and
alleviate reliance on residential property tax through the attraction of
commercial, industrial, and employment development. (Elmhurst
Comprehensive Plan p. 62)
Comment: EECC proposes to expand its existing and well-established

skilled care licensed housing for the disabled into a larger land mass of
76,264 square feet. This expansion will increase the value and thereby the
tax base, of the two properties along East Fremont Avenue.
B. Conditional Use
a. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the Conditional Use will not

be detrimental to, or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or
general welfare;
RESPONSE: It is a fundamental tenet of Illinois Municipal Law that the power to

control land use is directly tied to the protection of the general health, welfare,
and safety of the community. There are not many land uses that more directly
serve this function than a modern skilled nursing and rehabilitation facility with
housing for the disabled. EECC has consistently updated the Care Center and
adjusted its operations to keep pace with the rapid and challenging developments
in modern, elderly health care. This need to modernize and adapt the Care Center
to contemporary long term care trends has led to conflict between the growth of
the Care Center and the confinement of the available C-2 zoned lot along Lake
Street.
3
2-23-17
EECCs project architect, 2401, Inc., and landscape architect, Hitchcock Design
Group, went to great lengths to design the expanded Care Center for the disabled
in a residential architectural style similar to a townhome development to provide
assurance that the proposed expansion will be a visually attractive and cohesive
residential neighbor. This proposed expansion of the Care Center will also ensure
that the people of Elmhurst will retain quality care housing for the disabled,
compliant with Illinois building and accessibility codes for many generations to
come.
It is undeniable that the public health, welfare and safety of the disabled are
clearly best served by having a first-rate and modern code compliant facility to
care for Elmhursts disabled residents. In order to accomplish this essential goal,
it is necessary for EECC to expand and update the spatial attributes of the Care
Center.
b. The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor
substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood;
RESPONSE: As nursing homes are a conditional use in the C2, R4 and R2

zoning districts, the City has already made a finding that, nursing homes are
inherently compatible with other uses in the C2, R4 and R2 zoning districts. A
nursing home is considered to be a good neighbor for residential uses as traffic is
almost solely limited to visitors and staff and a vast majority of the activity takes
place indoors. The Care Center has been a staple in this Lake Street
neighborhood since 1960.
Both Lake Street and East Fremont Avenue enjoy a mix of various residential and
commercial uses. Along Lake Street between York Road and the Care Center,
there are single-family homes, two apartment complexes, an office building, and
two retail buildings (one of which was previously a gas station). All westbound
traffic from the apartment buildings, the office building and the Care Center, as
well as the single-family homes is funneled onto East Fremont Avenue. East
Fremont Avenue itself includes single-family homes, a three unit apartment
building, 3, separate two unit apartment buildings and a large apartment complex
at the east end terminus. The businesses along York Road also use East Fremont
Avenue for ingress and egress. Within this mixed use environment, EECCs
proposed 11 additional staff parking spaces will not increase traffic along East
Fremont Avenue to the point where such additional traffic is injurious to the use
and enjoyment of its neighbors along East Fremont Avenue or substantially
diminish and impair property values. In fact, the traffic profile from the
management parking lot on Fremont will actually be less than two single family
homes or two 2-flat apartments.
4
2-23-17
c. The establishment of the Conditional Use will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the district;
RESPONSE: As set forth in this application, the Care Center has existed on the
subject property since 1960. As such, the existing residences for the disabled will
be maintained and expanded. The development of this proposed modern skilled
nursing and rehabilitation facility will generate new real estate investment in the
immediate area and will achieve goals details in the Elmhurst Comprehensive
Plan for the Lake Street planning area.
d. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have

been or are being provided;
RESPONSE: See engineering plans prepared by SPACECO, Inc. dated 08/15/16

with a revision date of 1/31/17.
e. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress
so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets;
RESPONSE: See engineering plans prepared by SPACECO, Inc. dated 08/15/16

with a revision date of 1/31/17 and EECC reiterates its answer in (b) above.
f. The proposed Conditional Use is not contrary to the objectives of the current
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Elmhurst; and
RESPONSE: The proposed is in harmony with the Elmhurst Comprehensive Plan

as evidenced by the following excerpts:
Policies the following policies provide a framework for guiding

the creation and implementation of a land use and development
strategies (7) Protect and enhance the commercial land use
functions of the Lake Street and Grand Avenue Corridors
(Elmhurst Comprehensive Plan p. 19)
Comment: The modernization and expansion of the 56-year old

the Care Center will enhance the mixed land uses along Lake
Street and extend its life as a fixture of Lake Street.
Area 6 Lake Street Corridor Recommendations 3. Buffer

commercial developments from adjacent residential communities
with appropriate landscaping. Urban Design and Circulation
Adequate landscape buffers should be provided to screen the
commercial parking lots and loading/unloading areas from the
adjoining single-family homes. (Elmhurst Comprehensive Plan p.
34)
5
2-23-17
Comment: The Lake Street Corridor analysis in the Elmhurst
Comprehensive Plan recognizes that there are abutting
commercial and residential uses throughout the sub-area. To the
extent that these uses are adjacent to each other, the Elmhurst
Comprehensive Plan recommends landscape buffering. The Care
Center has provided housing for the disabled for decades and
seamlessly adjoined both single and multi-family residential land
uses since it opened in 1960 and its proposed expansion will
increase the landscape buffer. The Hitchcock Design Group has
prepared a detailed landscape plan to achieve this standard last
revised 2/10/17.
Economic Development Goals and Objections Goal (3):

Increase tax revenues for the City through the expansion of the tax
base rather than through raising current tax rates. Objectives: (1)
Expand the tax base and alleviate reliance on residential property
tax through the attraction of commercial, industrial, and
employment development. (Elmhurst Comprehensive Plan p. 62)
Comment: EECC proposes to expand its existing and well-

established skilled care licensed housing for the disabled into a
larger land mass of 76,264 square feet. This expansion will
increase the value, and thereby the tax base, of the two properties
along East Fremont Avenue.
g. The Conditional Use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable
regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations
may, in each instance, be modified pursuant to the recommendations of the
Commission.
6
2-23-17
RESPONSE: The Care Center expansion will confirm to the applicable
regulations of the district in which it is located.
7
2-23-17
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS - February 23, 2017
1 CITY OF ELMHURST
ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION/
2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
3
4
5
Thursday, February 23, 2017
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8
9
Case Number: 17 P-02
10 Elmhurst Extended Care Map Amendment, Amended
Conditional Use and Preliminary and Final Plat
11 Approval
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS had before Haley
21 Goodwin on Thursday, February 26, 2017,
22 commencing at 7:00 p.m. in reference to the
23 above-entitled cause.
24
1 APPEARANCES
2 ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION/
3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS:
4
5 MR. MUSHOW - Chairman
6 MS. CALLAWAY - Commissioner
7 MR. GARLAND - Commissioner
8 MS. ROSE - Commissioner
9 MR. UDITSKY - Commissioner
10 MR. WARNKE - Commissioner
11
12 STAFF MEMBERS:
13
14 MR. NATHANIEL WERNER
15 Zoning Administrator
16
17 MS. EILEEN FRANZ
18 Assistant Zoning Administrator
19
20 MR. MIKE KOPP
21 Assistant City Manager
22
23
24
1 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
2 FEBRUARY 23, 2017
3 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: Could
4 everybody sit, please? Thank you.
5 Okay. Than, would you
6 do a rollcall, please?
7 MR. WERNER: Good
8 evening, everybody. This is a
9 meeting of the Zoning and Planning
10 Commission February 23rd, 2017.
11 Commissioner Callaway?
12 COMMISSIONER CALLAWAY:
13 Here.
14 MR. WERNER:
15 Commissioner Corrado is absent.
16 Commissioner Garland?
17 COMMISSIONER GARLAND:
18 Here.
19 MR. WERNER:
20 Commissioner McCoyd is absent.
21 Commissioner Mushow?
22 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: Here.
23 MR. WERNER:
24 Commissioner Rose?
1 COMMISSIONER ROSE:
2 Here.
3 MR. WERNER:
4 Commissioner Uditsky?
5 COMMISSIONER UDITSKY:
6 Here.
7 MR. WERNER:
8 Commissioner Warnke?
9 COMMISSIONER WARNKE:
10 Here.
11 MR. WERNER: Chairman
12 Whistler is absent this evening. We
13 would need a motion to install an
14 acting Chairman, please.
15 COMMISSIONER ROSE: I
16 move to install Commissioner Mushow.
17 MR. WERNER: Is there a
18 second?
20 Second.
21 MR. WERNER: A voice
22 vote. All in favor, say aye?
23 (Chorus of ayes.)
24 MR. WERNER: Any nays;
1 none?
2 Seeing none, motion
3 carries.
4 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: I've
5 got one quick question, a little bit
6 outside of -- have you heard anything
7 about him?
8 MR. WERNER: No,
9 nothing new.
10 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: Okay.
11 I wish we could tell you something
12 more people, but unfortunately our
13 Chairman -- current Chairman is out,
14 and hopefully he's just out for a
15 couple of days. Anyway, thank you.
16 MR. WERNER: Could you
17 please put your mic in front of you?
19 I'm sorry. I can hear myself talk,
20 and that's -- sometimes it's better
21 if I don't hear myself talk.
22 Anyway, we do have a
23 period of time in which I think
24 everybody should be cognizant of that
1 might be -- that might want to say

2 something in regards to the City
3 itself. It should be an item that
4 is not being discussed tonight, but
5 other than that you're free to say if
6 you've got any complaints of anything
7 like that or any good things to say.
8 You're more than welcome to.
9 Not hearing anything
10 and not seeing anybody, I was -- oh,
11 we have somebody -- oh, Than. What's
12 up, sir?
13 MR. WERNER: Just to
14 make sure you do the minutes.
15 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: I'm
16 sorry?
17 MR. WERNER: We have to
18 approve the minutes from the last
19 meeting.
21 I was making it in reverse. Okay.
22 If you want to do it -- if you want
23 to be that way about it, we'll do
24 it.
1 Anyway, do I have a
2 motion to approve the minutes?
4 Motion to approve the minutes.
6 Second.
7 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: All
8 those in favor, signify by saying
9 aye?
11 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: Are
12 there any noes; no? Okay. We're
13 good.
14 Okay. I don't know, I
15 asked the people here to put up the
16 list of the procedures that we
17 follow. This might give you an idea.
18 I know that usually we keep a copy
19 of it in the back. If not, then you
20 have a chance, because this will give
21 you an idea of when the procedures
22 that we follow. We would hope that
23 you would all follow the same. Thank
24 you.
1 Okay. Now, we are

2 going to the next thing on the agenda
3 is Case No. 17 P-02, slash, Elmhurst
4 Extended Care map amendment. I think
5 there would be a little bit -- it
6 would be nice, Than, for him to give
7 a little synopsis on it, what this
8 issue is.
9 MR. WERNER: Thank you,
10 Mr. Chairman.
11 This is Case No. --
12 well, let me start out by going over
13 the case information. This is Case
14 No. 17 P-02, incorporated information
15 from Case 16 P-12. The date that
16 this application was re-filed was
17 January 30th, 2017. It's a request
18 for a map amendment, conditional use,
19 and subdivision. The applicant is
20 LKNY, LLC, Elmhurst Extended Care
21 Center. Mr. Dave is the owner. The
22 date of the legal notice of the
23 public hearing was February 2nd, 2017,
24 the date of the posting of the sign
1 was February 6th, 2017, the date of

2 the first-class mailing of the notice,
3 February 6th, 2017, bringing us to
4 tonight's meeting February 23rd.
5 Again, this is an
6 application, request for a map
7 amendment, conditional use, and
8 subdivision for the purpose of
9 expanding Elmhurst Extended Care
10 facility located at 200 East Lake
11 Street on the properties commonly
12 known as 193 and 197 East Fremont
13 Avenue which are currently zoned R2
14 and immediately south of abutting 200
15 East Lake Street which is currently
16 zoned C2.
17 The applicant Elmhurst
18 Extended Care Center withdrew its
19 application for variation and has
20 submitted revised documents reflecting
21 the changes made to the proposed
22 development plans. Case 16 P-12
23 application submittals were map
24 amendment, conditional use as amended,
10
1 and a subdivision are hereby

2 incorporated into this new Case 17
3 P-02 as well as all testimony from
4 the public hearings held on November
5 10th and December 8th.
6 And that's all I have,
7 Mr. Chairman.
8 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: Thank
9 you, Than. Appreciate that.
10 Also, I'm making sure
11 that all the board members got a copy
12 of the memo that was dated February
13 2nd, 2017 that came from Eileen's
14 desk, that everybody got a copy of
15 it, everybody had a chance to read
16 it, that's perfect.
17 Okay. We'll go on to
18 the next thing that we have, an
19 applicant. I understand that there's
20 been some changes, therefore, the
21 applicant -- the only thing that the
22 applicant's required to do is two
23 things; they're required to get sworn
24 in, number one, and number two is to
11
1 give the name. Other than that, you

2 give the address, that's up to you if
3 you want to it. It's not requirement.
4 So, at this time we
5 have the applicant with at least --
6 and everybody that might be attached
7 to him, please stand. That will be
8 great. That will -- this will save
9 us some time.
10 So, would you please
11 have them sworn in?
12 (Whereupon, the
13 witnesses were duly sworn.)
15 you, everybody. Appreciate that.
16 Okay. Now, go for it.
17 MR. DAY: Thank you.
18 My name is Scott Day.
19 I'm with the firm of Day Robert and
20 Morrison. I am here with my partner
21 Christina Morrison, and we have the
22 privilege of representing the owners
23 of Elmhurst Extended Care Center
24 located at 200 East Lake Street,
12
1 Elmhurst, Illinois.
2 What you see depicted
3 is a revised plan for this particular
4 property. The original request that
5 we submitted incorporated first a
6 conditional use application of the
7 nursing home regardless of what zoning
8 district this was placed in is a
9 conditional use. Second, we have a
10 combined preliminary final subdivision
11 application. Your staff has advised
12 us that we are in compliance with all
13 of the requirements of the City as a
14 nondiscretionary request we'll say.
15 Next, we have a map amendment, and
16 there are really three alternatives
17 for this parcel of property. The
18 first alternative would be to amend
19 the zoning to the R2 Zoning District.
20 Our northerly half is C2, our
21 southerly half is currently R2. The
22 first request is to zone it all to
23 R2, the second request is to zone it
24 all to R4, and the third request is
13
1 to zone it all to C2. It would be a

2 conditional use in all of those
3 categories. If none of the
4 re-zonings are granted, we can have
5 split zoning. The northerly half
6 would be C2, southerly half would be
7 R2. We still ask for the conditional
8 use even if you leave us in a split
9 zoning district, although your staff
10 has advised us and your attorneys
11 have advised us the split zoning is
12 not ideal.
13 We did have two
14 previous public hearings. We adopt
15 all the testimony. All of our
16 witnesses are here if anybody has
17 questions of the witnesses. They
18 will have a brief explanation of the
19 changes that we've incorporated into
20 the plan so that we can withdraw the
21 variation, but they're open to
22 questions on anything that may be
23 asked either by the Planning
24 Commission or the people in the
14
1 audience.
2 Development team is the
3 same. We have LKNY, LLC. That is
4 Love Dave and his family. We are the
5 owners of 200 East Lake Street. We
6 have Randal L. Kane who was our
7 architect, the same individual who
8 previously testified. Daniel Stevens
9 is here. He's the civil engineer
10 with Spaceco, and he will explain the
11 changes to the storm water plan.
12 Jeffrey Roehll is a landscape
13 architect with Hitchcock, and he will
14 explain the changes that they've
15 incorporated to the landscaping plan.
16 Bill Woodward is our traffic engineer
17 with KLOA. He is also prepared to
18 address the changes and modifications.
19 All have been sworn.
20 The prior plan is
21 changed. You can see that it was
22 originally licensed as a skilled care
23 facility back in 1951 for 108 beds.
24 We are leaving it at that 108 beds.
15
1 There are no new beds proposed for

2 this particular facility. We are
3 staying exactly where we are currently
4 licensed. Construction of private
5 rooms are needed to meet the market
6 standards. The former setback that
7 was in this plan previously submitted
8 to you was 28.58. You're going to
9 see that there's a new setback
10 substantially larger. The former
11 height was in compliance at two
12 stories 34 feet, 8 inches. That was
13 code compliant.
14 The previous plan
15 incorporated eleven parking spaces off
16 of Fremont. It was fenced. It
17 included a gated entryway. There was
18 former storm water vault under the
19 parking lot facility. It exceeded
20 the required volume that's in Slide
21 11. And then the former landscape
22 plan prepared by Hitchcock reflected
23 landscaping in this category. And
24 there were former renderings reflected
16
1 the property right up on Fremont

2 Street with a code compliant setback.
3 All of those plans have been
4 withdrawn.
5 Now, the purpose of the
6 plan is really to address some of the
7 objections that were raised by the
8 neighbors. Number one, they didn't
9 like the large mass on Fremont. They
10 didn't want a nursing home there at
11 all, right. But one of the issues was
12 they did not want to see a large
13 mass right up on Fremont. Two, they
14 proposed that we should go vertically
15 on Lake Street as opposed to on
16 Fremont. Reduce Fremont Street
17 increasing intensity along Lake
18 Street. Next, they looked at the
19 fence that we had proposed that would
20 incorporate the entire parking lot was
21 too imposing. And they really wanted
22 to see this site in an R2 land use
23 and meet the R2 bulk regulations.
24 So, what you have
17
1 before you is a proposal to meet all

2 the bulk regulations for every
3 district that we'd be zoned into.
4 Leaving it in R2 split with the C2,
5 leaving it all R2, all R4, all C2,
6 we'll be in compliance with the
7 height regulations, the lot coverage
8 regulations, the setback regulations.
9 We'd be in compliance with all of it.
10 So, the proposal is
11 really a modified plan, and the goal
12 was to leave you in a position where
13 we would not require a variation
14 regardless of what zoning
15 classification you elected to place
16 this in if approved.
17 At this time what I'd
18 really like to do is introduce Randal
19 Kane. He is our architect for the
20 project. He can explain to you what
21 the changes are to the elevations,
22 the changes are to the floor plan,
23 and how we've eliminated the lot
24 coverage issue and get down to thirty
18
1 percent, which is what is required in

2 an R2 District.
3 MR. KANE: Good
4 evening, everybody. Again, my name
5 is Randy Kane. I'm the architect for
6 the project. And I would like to
7 start with our new site plan which
8 you'll see in 2.0.
9 Okay. On the new site
10 plan as you can see, there's a wall
11 on the site plan, and it shows the
12 site orientated in the northerly
13 district. The light gray area is a
14 two-story building built on Parcels 2
15 and 3. And we have also included a
16 second story over the existing
17 northwest single-story building which
18 is adjacent to East Lake Street.
19 A little bit about why
20 we did this and we were able to make
21 some significant improvements on the
22 property facing Fremont Avenue, some
23 of these involved things like setback.
24 Our original setback was 28 feet, 6
19
1 inches. We were able to enlarge that

2 to 50 foot, 9 inches. The frontage
3 on the original proposal was 110
4 feet, 8 inches. We've now reduced
5 that to 62 feet, so it fits more
6 within the existing residential
7 community.
8 The lot coverage on our
9 original plan was forty-one percent.
10 We reduced it down to twenty-four
11 percent for these two parcels. And
12 these, again, are the two parcels
13 that face Fremont Avenue. And the
14 original overall lot coverage was
15 thirty-seven percent, and that was
16 combined with Parcel No. 1 which is
17 on the C2 or on the south side, and
18 it was -- the overall lot coverage
19 was thirty-seven percent and we
20 reduced that down to thirty.
21 The parking has stayed
22 the same. Our fencing has been
23 minimized. The overall frontage has
24 been minimized on Fremont Avenue.
20
1 We've increased the height of the

2 building along Lake Street, and the
3 only way we could over the existing
4 single-story building, and this would
5 be basically built on top of that.
6 Structural calculations and how to do
7 it, we have many options, but we're
8 not concerned about that at this
9 time. So, they moved the bulk of
10 the property -- or a large portion of
11 the property over to the Lake Street
12 Side.
13 I'd like to look at
14 Slide No. 17 which is our -- the new
15 versus the previous setback. On this
16 particular drawing, the dark red area
17 represents our original proposal, and
18 now the white area on the south
19 portion of the property represents
20 what we're proposing currently. And
21 this is with the change setbacks
22 modifications, like going to a setback
23 of 50 foot, 9 inches if I can go
24 through the numbers again, but we've
21
1 brought the building back, we've

2 narrowed the view on Fremont Avenue,
3 and increased the green space on the
4 site.
5 I'd like to review the
6 renderings now. Now, if you take a
7 look at these renderings versus the
8 ones we'd previously done, we have a
9 much smaller footprint -- obviously
10 the footprint, but the facade print
11 along Fremont Avenue. And, again,
12 that was reduced down from 110 feet,
13 8 inches to 62 feet, zero inches.
14 The -- I would like to
15 clarify that the setback is to the
16 building, a canopy and the columns
17 which extend out a few feet would
18 extend out into that, but we didn't
19 -- we consider a building setback and
20 not a canopy setback. It still needs
21 significant improvement on dropping it
22 back. From this rendering I think
23 you can see where the existing
24 residence is and the building beyond
22
1 ours, that our design is set back

2 further than that. And the other
3 site plan showed -- the previous site
4 plan showed that also.
5 Could we move to the --
6 we can flip through the different
7 elevations, but you can see how small
8 the foot -- the facade print is on
9 Fremont Avenue. That could be
10 mistaken for any single-family home in
11 the neighborhood.
12 And then the last one
13 just shows all the yards, the pillars
14 and gates that's providing the access
15 to -- that we originally promised you
16 in our original presentations. And
17 any of the additional gating was
18 actually done right by the patio just
19 to prevent -- you know, prevent
20 residents from wandering out of the
21 skilled care facility.
22 Could we flip to the
23 architectural elevations?
24 The architectural
23
1 elevations are very similar to what

2 we presented before. The materials
3 that we're using are hard siding.
4 We're using asphalt shingles. We're
5 using masonry construction, so it's --
6 and, again, we feel that the overall
7 design will fit well within the
8 neighborhood and actually compliment
9 it.
10 I'd like to go over the
11 -- these basically you've seen before.
12 We've provided typical one-bedroom ADA
13 accessible rooms, and stressed the
14 point of the ADA accessible. These
15 do meet all those requirements both
16 in the bathrooms and in the living
17 spaces. And we've also provided
18 floor plans for your review for
19 two-bedroom units, and I believe we
20 have three of those that's on the --
21 in the project. And, again, the
22 bathrooms were all ADA compliant, and
23 these bathrooms also have European
24 showers in them for residents, which
24
1 is a little bit different than what

2 they had been previously used to.
3 And then I'd like to
4 move on to the resident common
5 spaces. This is the proposed first
6 floor plan with a patio and the -- a
7 rather large -- we were able to
8 reconfigure the common area, so it
9 was just a better shape, a better
10 use. And we can provide
11 approximately forty-eight -- I think
12 48 square foot per resident of
13 living, dining, and activity which,
14 again, does exceed the minimum and
15 actually well exceed what proposed
16 design standards should be in the
17 future.
18 If we could go to the
19 second floor?
20 This is the second
21 floor and the lower level. And,
22 again, the second floor has a large
23 living, dining, and activity area in
24 the center floor. It would be
25
1 accessible by all residents. And in

2 the lower level there's -- we've made
3 a small lower level addition for some
4 office space and for some storage.
5 And then finally I'd
6 like to look at the facing plan.
7 The facing plan on this Phase 1 is
8 the construction of the two-story
9 wing. The problem -- in order to do
10 this project, it becomes a lot more
11 complicated because we have to build
12 a two-story wing. We can't occupy
13 the second floor. We have to move
14 residents from the northwest one-story
15 building into this two-story first
16 floor, provide a connecting tunnel to
17 the other side -- or the two-story
18 existing first floor so that everybody
19 can actually use the facility. It
20 wasn't as simple as our previous
21 plan, but in order to make these
22 changes this will work.
23 And then finally just
24 to review any comments or questions
26
1 from anyone?
2 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: Are
3 there any questions from the Board?
4 I had one kind of minor
5 question, and that is have you --
6 when you came up with the second
7 plan, which I know you spent a lot
8 of time on, you -- did you get
9 together with some of the neighbors
10 to find out what their feel was; you
11 know, stopping or --
12 MR. KANE: I was here
13 during the entire first and second
14 session -- or first and second
15 hearings, and spent a lot of time
16 listening to neighbor's comments and
17 concerns, and, you know, I -- no, I
18 didn't meet with the neighbors, but
19 we did take all the information under
20 testimony, reviewed it, and then came
21 up with our new design based on the
22 information that we had available to
23 us.
24 Did I answer that
27
1 question?
3 you.
4 Okay. Mr. Day, will
5 you come to the podium and --
6 MR. DAY: In addition
7 to changes to the site, I introduce
8 you to the storm engineer. So, Dan
9 Stevens is here from Spaceco. He
10 will briefly explain the modifications
11 to storm water issues.
12 Dan?
13 MR. STEVENS: Good
14 evening. I'm Dan Stevens with
15 Spaceco, the storm engineer on the
16 project.
17 In the previous
18 meetings, I covered existing lot
19 configuration, proposed consolidation
20 plat, the existing drainage division,
21 and the Fremont Avenue drainage, and
22 so I will not repeat that testimony
23 tonight.
24 The storm water
28
1 management plan for the City of

2 Elmhurst ordinance and DuPage County
3 ordinance, which really comes down to
4 the two thresholds that we have to
5 follow with being 5,000 square feet
6 of impervious will require a BMP
7 score in the best management, and --
8 or 25,000 new square feet of new
9 impervious required detention. The
10 previous plan had approximately 21,000
11 square feet of impervious. This new
12 plan it will reduce to approximately
13 17,000 square feet of which 6,000 of
14 that would be -- use pervious pavers.
15 The BMP volume which is required by
16 ordinance will be proposed in the
17 drainage bioswale and then the pavers
18 on the plan which is approximately
19 1200 cubic feet. Part of the
20 ordinance threshold, detention volume
21 was not required, however as in our
22 last plan and under due diligence we
23 recommended that even though detention
24 is not required that additional storm
29
1 water storage we provided. So, with

2 this plan an additional -- or a total
3 of 11,000 cubic feet is now proposed.
4 The storm water that's
5 from the site will be collected by
6 the pavers, drainage swales, storm
7 sewer conveyed to a dry shallow
8 planted BMP area, which because of
9 the smaller footprint of the building
10 we were able to expand. So, the
11 underground vault is no longer
12 proposed, but consistent with the
13 previous design we've proposed that
14 all the drain -- will a hundred-year
15 storm sewer to Lake Street.
16 If there are any
17 questions?
18 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW:
19 Something that's always been in the
20 back in my mind over the years, what
21 happens if these detention lines that
22 you set up are not sufficient? What
23 does the company do to alleviate the
24 problem?
30
1 MR. STEVENS: Well,

2 there can always be a bigger storm.
3 We're really based on codes that are
4 set by the State of Illinois and
5 DuPage County of what we design are
6 -- you know, which can also be backed
7 by statistics, so we always have
8 provided overlay of flow route, a
9 secondary drainage pass that would not
10 damage the buildings or adjacent
11 homes. And that's always a part of
12 the design.
13 So, in this case that's
14 what I mean by a hundred-year storm
15 sewer that in the event too large of
16 an event happens, they would go
17 through the storm sewer, out an
18 overflow structure, and onto Lake
19 Street as opposed to into the
20 building or into the adjacent houses.
21 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW:
22 Anything from anybody?
23 Okay. Mr. Day, we're
24 all set for you.
31
1 MR. DAY: Before I

2 bring up our landscape architect, one
3 more thing I would say about the
4 storm water.
5 The entire county is
6 now engineered to handle a storm
7 event. If you get 101-year storm
8 event, the entire county breaks down.
9 So, it's not just Elmhurst, it's not
10 just -- so, if you exceed capacity to
11 which engineering is -- a design, the
12 entire county floods. It's just the
13 way -- they've made a calculated
14 decision that they're going to
15 engineer the county at the hundred
16 year event after the hundred-year
17 event.
18 Next I would like to
19 introduce Jeff Roehll. With the
20 change in the storm water, the change
21 in the footprint, and we also have
22 change in the landscape plan, and
23 Jeff will explain that.
24 MR. ROEHLL: Thank you,
32
1 Scott.
2 Jeff Roehll with
3 Hitchcock Design Group. I'm the
4 landscape architect.
5 I would mention on
6 those permeable pavers, that's
7 probably one of the bigger changes in
8 the hard scape -- an asphalt parking
9 and now it's a brick paver parking
10 lot that allows the water to go
11 through. And that provides an
12 incredible storm water quality
13 measure. And an appearance, the
14 appearance now is a paved brick
15 parking lot as opposed to an asphalt
16 parking lot.
17 The other big
18 modification was the amount of open
19 space that we have. This BMP, best
20 management practice, is basically a
21 storm water basin that includes a
22 landscape. The native landscape that
23 has a primary edge of sod all the
24 way around it, so it still has a
33
1 residential feel, but the lower basin

2 of it will be filled with plants that
3 help filter the water. So, the water
4 -- the access water that comes off
5 the parking lot and the water that
6 comes off the roof does enter into
7 this basin and is filtered and also
8 stored, and so we do get a lot of --
9 the types of soils that are used in
10 that BMP to allow for infiltration of
11 the storm water, and we're getting a
12 lot, a lot of quality and enhancement
13 more than the previous plan.
14 We are showing the
15 parkway trees that are replacing the
16 existing trees that are out there
17 today, and also some additional
18 landscape and shade trees on the
19 south side of the building.
20 The other modification
21 was the fencing. We have fencing
22 along the east property line. That
23 has been eliminated. There is still
24 a screen shrub hedge that will go on
34
1 the eat side. You still have the

2 gated access point at the entry for
3 the parking lot, so it can control
4 who enters that parking lot. And
5 then the fence that was parallel to
6 the parking lot was eliminated, and
7 the only fencing we have now is
8 around the patio, and that is to
9 protect the residents so that they
10 don't -- and so, we've got a small
11 patio that stays.
12 The sidewalk that's on
13 the south side and extends around the
14 inside of this primarily is an exit
15 only for fire and emergency vehicles
16 and is not going to be an exit to
17 the building -- it's only an exit to
18 the building.
19 Other than that, the
20 landscape improvements around there,
21 we're meeting code. And I'll be happy
22 to answer any questions that you
23 have.
24 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW:
35
1 Susan?
3 Correct me if I'm wrong. It appears
4 as if there's less landscaping on
5 that west side than there was in your
6 previous one.
7 Do you have something
8 that shows the previous -- can you
9 put those up together?
10 MR. ROEHLL: I can let
11 you -- if that exists -- that if
12 there is less, we'll add it back in.
13 Yeah, there were two
14 trees on that side, and --
15 COMMISSIONER ROSE: You
16 had three trees actually on that
17 side.
18 MR. ROEHLL: Yeah, it's
19 -- yeah, we can add those back in if
20 they're important.
22 Yeah, I think it would be to be
23 honest with you. Yeah, it looks like
24 you have a smaller thing.
36
1 But you know what's

2 important also is kind of good
3 neighbor policy. What these trees
4 did was buffer that neighbor, and now
5 you have no buffering whatsoever.
6 MR. ROEHLL: We can add
7 those back in.
8 MR. DAY: Lastly before
9 you get to the standards, the really
10 good part, Bill Woodward is here from
11 KLOA. He can just briefly address
12 the traffic issues.
13 MR. WOODWARD: Good
14 evening. William Woodward, senior
15 consultant of traffic engineering with
16 KLOA.
17 I previously presented
18 testimony regarding a traffic
19 evaluation we prepared for this
20 development. I'm here before you
21 this evening to reaffirm my findings
22 and conclusions, that this development
23 that's currently proposed at 108 beds
24 will have a low traffic impact in the
37
1 surrounding roadway network.

2 Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: Mr.
4 Day?
5 MR. DAY: We previously
6 addressed the standards. We have
7 updated the standards to reflect the
8 new drawings that we have
9 incorporated, so we have the previous
10 footprint, et cetera. I think the
11 substance of the standards is the
12 same. But also at the end of the
13 copy of your comprehensive plan of
14 2009, there is a map that actually
15 does show this site -- and I believe
16 it's called Special District No. 6,
17 and it is specifically records that
18 is in part within your comprehensive
19 plan.
20 Those are the only
21 changes to the standards. If you
22 would like me to go through them
23 individually, I will. I think we
24 previously did, and I know in the
38
1 interest of remedying we'll ask simply

2 to adopt those.
4 just have a question.
5 So, the changes, did
6 you -- is that -- did you note those
7 in -- is that's -- are the changes
8 italic? I'm sorry, I'm looking at it
9 --
10 MR. DAY: We -- I
11 believe it's anything just like in
12 the standards with a variation because
13 we're no longer requesting it. The
14 standard is to how we meet the
15 conditional use and map amendment
16 issues, and those have been addressed.
17 The updates and modifications that may
18 be included are referenced in
19 drawings, because we have submitted
20 new drawings with the new footprint,
21 the new elevations, et cetera. Those
22 are referenced in the standards, but
23 the substance of the way that we meet
24 them is the same. The only other
39
1 thing that we added in is when we

2 discuss the comprehensive plan, we do
3 show you a copy of the map directly
4 pulled out of the comprehensive plan
5 that depicts our parcel in -- I think
6 it's called Special District No. 6;
7 is that right, Christina?
8 MS. MORRISON: Subarea.
9 MR. DAY: Subarea, yes.
10 With that, we are done
11 with our presentation. We think that
12 we are in full compliance with your
13 subdivision code and all of the
14 standards. We think that that is
15 supposed to be approved. We think
16 that we have met all the standards
17 for a special use. The zoning, it
18 is -- everybody's got their own ideas
19 on the zoning, but I think that the
20 neighbors really wanted to see the
21 parcel in an R2 land use. I think
22 they wanted to see us meet the bulk
23 regulations for the R2 District. We
24 are now in a position where we meet
40
1 all regulations for all of the

2 districts that we put in place. And
3 since we meet the standards for the
4 special use, we're going to ask for
5 your support to approve that.
6 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: Ms.
7 Rose?
9 have a question, which is I
10 understand why we don't want spot
11 zoning. Actually, I'm going to address
12 this to Than.
13 Can you explain to me
14 what is wrong with split zoning? Why
15 -- what does the City Staff and
16 attorney recommend when they're saying
17 that they don't recommend -- I do
18 understand why you don't want spot
19 zoning, but --
20 MR. WERNER: Split
21 zoning in itself in a situation like
22 this, you've got a commercial half
23 and a residential half. They both
24 have their own bulk requirements, they
41
1 both have their own uses. Especially

2 when it comes to bulk and setback,
3 it's very difficult to manage, so
4 we'd want it right off the bat issues
5 of lot -- zero lot line -- or zero
6 setbacks and things like that. We
7 just do not feel comfortable. We had
8 one in town before on the south side,
9 the split zone. It's a rental
10 property. And we cleaned that one
11 up. They tend to be problematic.
12 Nothing illegal about them. You
13 could certainly do it. It just makes
14 it much more harder for us to
15 administer issues in the future on
16 this property.
18 guess that was my question. So, the
19 difficulty with that would be some
20 kind of future for a particular piece
21 of property, a split zone? Some
22 people might suggest it is split
23 zone. You know, a nursing home
24 decides to move somewhere else, you
42
1 know, now we have some kind of --

2 where it was. But you're saying
3 that's problematic?
4 MR. WERNER: Because
5 they want to consolidate this parcel.
6 If it wasn't consolidated, we still
7 have to allow it, but a consolidation
8 we have it there.
9 MR. DAY: From the
10 applicant's standpoint, we can -- with
11 their split zoning, your staff and
12 your attorneys that don't think it's
13 a good idea for the City, we as an
14 applicant are only going to have one
15 conditional use. So, the split
16 zoning doesn't really give us
17 anything. It may be less than ideal
18 for the City, but there's a -- you're
19 going to have to have ten of fourteen
20 votes of City Council for this if you
21 get a certain number of members that
22 sign an objection for this petition.
23 So, even if we have nine City Council
24 people that want to vote in favor of
43
1 R2 zoning for this parcel, we get

2 stuck with split zoning.
3 So, all we're asking is
4 that as you make your recommendation,
5 we ask the recommendation for the
6 conditional use regardless of what the
7 zoning is even if it's left at split
8 zoning.
9 COMMISSIONER ROSE: And
10 I understand from the administrative
11 point of view just would be easier to
12 have it all in one, but I have a --
13 you know, I was just curious
14 theoretically why we would be opposed
15 to a split zoning.
16 Thanks.
18 not hearing any questions or anything
19 from any of the Board, so, Mr. Day,
20 you must have done a good job with
21 your staff so far.
22 Anyway, not seeing any,
23 I think we're going to close the --
24 this part of the meeting and we're
44
1 going to open it up to the people.

2 Okay. I'm assuming
3 that -- is there anybody in the
4 audience that would like to come and
5 -- okay. Great. What I'd like you
6 to do is if you can all stand, that
7 would be great, because then it will
8 give us a chance to swear in
9 everybody basically.
10 MR. WERNER: Even if
11 you think you may or may not, it's
12 just better to swear them now. Then
13 you have to stand up by yourself
14 later.
16 you, Than.
17 (Whereupon, the
18 witnesses were duly sworn.)
20 I'm going to -- I could go and say
21 anybody in the third row down, come
22 up, then anybody in the fourth row,
23 and so on and so forth. Pretty much
24 if you want to just come forward,
45
1 please, and state your name. That

2 would be the only requirement. And
3 please keep it within five minutes
4 time, that would be great.
5 MR. WERNER: We'll give
6 you a thirty-second and a ten-second
7 heads up.
8 MR. ZAPATA: Hello. My
9 name is Jorge Zapata. I live directly
10 across the street from the proposed
11 project on East Fremont. I'm going
12 to share some publicly available
13 information. Don't need a pedigree and
14 you don't need a certificate or
15 anything professional to look at this
16 data.
17 I have a prior
18 publication by the EECC. Their
19 attorney referenced new homes being
20 built on Elmcrest just north of
21 Fremont. The EEC made it seem like
22 a positive thing to have new homes
23 being built on Liberty Village. They
24 stated look at these great homes
46
1 right across from Liberty Village, and

2 that's true.
3 Let's look at some
4 facts and some numbers. The average
5 dollar of a square foot of the homes
6 on Elmcrest across from Liberty
7 Village are $219 a square foot.
8 Sounds like great progress. However,
9 if you look at just fifty yards south
10 on -- south of Fremont on Kenilworth,
11 yes, it's that's close, you have very
12 similar homes being built and sold
13 but not across from a large building
14 or a parking lot combination but
15 across from other single-family homes.
16 They are from nine hundred to north
17 of $1 million. More importantly,
18 what's the average dollar per square
19 foot of those Kenilworth homes? $255
20 a square foot, which is much closer
21 to the average selling point of
22 dollar per square foot for homes in
23 Elmhurst. The Elmcrest homes are $36
24 a square foot cheaper for the average
47
1 3,000 square foot newly constructed

2 home, such as mine. That's a loss
3 of $108,000. Why? Because you're
4 across the street from a parking lot
5 and a building.
6 Buyers don't care if
7 it's R2, R3, R4, C whatever, or
8 whatever you want to give these
9 applicants in terms of what is called
10 zoning. They care about where they
11 live, and what they see is building
12 and a parking lot that lessens your
13 value. How many people would be
14 interested in living across the street
15 from that?
16 The applicant doesn't
17 meet an obvious standard of
18 conditional use. It's black and
19 white. Numbers don't lie. They
20 can't be twisted or wordsmithed by an
21 attorney. After the math, and it's
22 universal.
23 Next, please.
24 Did everyone see this
48
1 article? Wow. What a great and

2 incredible article about Elmhurst.
3 Now, this is what I call progress.
4 It's fantastic news. There's a huge
5 demand to live in Elmhurst, and a
6 huge demand to live in large
7 expensive homes. Two points. One, I
8 don't think you want to stop this
9 large snowball effect of progress that
10 is rolling downhill, and I think you
11 want to add on to it. Right? I
12 mean, keep those Fremont lots as
13 buildable single-family homes only as
14 it once was before EEC destroyed the
15 character of our neighborhood by
16 removing what was a buffer at one
17 point. Keep the progress moving
18 forward don't, stop it.
19 Point number two, with
20 this type of demand in housing you
21 can easily sell this to a builder.
22 There's plenty of opportunities for
23 single-family homes here. During hot
24 times, it's easy to sell the front of
49
1 a building and a parking lot. It's

2 easy to sell those Elmcrest homes
3 right now because it's hot. But not
4 during an average market, and not
5 during a market that is down.
6 Don't put all of these
7 residents at risk when the height of
8 other homes and a normal market
9 condition.
10 In closing, the EEC's
11 new plan is the same as the old
12 plan. A big building with a parking
13 lot facing our residential homes.
14 That's not stopped progress for the
15 City. That's not stopped the progress
16 the City's experiencing it or slowed
17 it down. This is our opportunity to
18 continue to update an existing housing
19 stock and to meet the demands of such
20 a strong building market in Elmhurst.
21 I don't know about you, but I
22 wouldn't want to be the one known for
23 trying to slow down single-family home
24 developments in Elmhurst.
50
1 The EEC has plenty of

2 options, one which was documented, the
3 North York Road plan. Let's make the
4 right decision for the City and stick
5 with the standards of a conditional
6 use.
7 I've got a minute.
8 The changes don't help.
9 It's just a modified plan. It's not
10 helpful to all the residents.
11 They're appealing -- but it's the
12 same thing. 36-foot height all the
13 way down to the big old side yard
14 and backyard. Where is that picture
15 or elevation? I didn't see that. Not
16 one home has a gate on this street,
17 so what the architect has stated is
18 very misleading. A swale in the
19 water detention? You only see those
20 in commercial applications or in
21 malls. Did you ever drive really fast
22 where you're late for work or you
23 need to get home? The fact that
24 that will happen on my street with my
51
1 kids running or biking?

2 I have more, but I'll
3 leave it at that and be respectful of
4 the time.
6 you very much.
7 Just remember, women
8 and children first. But whoever
9 wants to come and testify?
10 MR. ZAPATA: Hello. My
11 name is Jorge Zapata if you do not
12 remember me from the last meeting,
13 and I'm an eleven-year-old boy that
14 is very active in the fifth grade at
15 Field School.
16 My friends and I have
17 always played outside together. We
18 like to ride out bikes and even on
19 the sidewalk up and down on Fremont.
20 Even though EECC has changed their
21 plans, I still do not believe this
22 will create a safe environment for me
23 and my friends on the block. We have
24 enough traffic on the street -- at
52
1 the end of Fremont. If the EECC

2 builds on, this will only add traffic
3 and make it more dangerous than it
4 already is.
5 As I ride my bike, I
6 see houses with families. I come
7 around and see EECC's empty parking
8 lots, and I wished families would
9 like there. I want families with
10 kids on those lots so I can make
11 more friends, and the future athletes
12 and leaders. What other Field
13 Elementary School kids is sitting
14 right across the street from a
15 nursing home on a residential street?
16 No one.
17 Before I leave, I want
18 all of you to know that I am doing
19 this for both you and me, and you
20 because this is a community that
21 works together. Once again, I am
22 giving you my time to stand up for
23 our town. Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: Do
53
1 you have any questions for this young

2 man? I think he's went through a
3 lot of trouble. If you have
4 anything, please?
5 MR. WERNER: Put in an
6 application to be on the Commission.
7 MR. MCNICHOLS: I'm
8 John McNichols with 185 East Fremont.
9 I wanted to show you
10 this. This is in the applicant's
11 conditional use application which is
12 dated September 12th -- thank you --
13 and following both cases, 16 P-12 and
14 17 P-02. On Page 9 in response to
15 standard effort during Elmhurst
16 comprehensive plan, the applicant
17 refers to Policy 7. That policy in
18 their application reads -- and that
19 is -- it's right here -- protect and
20 enhance the commercial land use
21 function to the Lake Street and Grand
22 Avenue corridors. And then they go
23 on to comment about that. What the
24 -- what that Policy 7 actually says
54
1 is protect and enhance the commercial

2 land use functions of the Lake Street
3 and Grand Avenue corridors and the
4 industrial land use functions of the
5 appointment area between Grand Avenue
6 and Lake Street and Route 83 and
7 York. Please note that they refer to
8 -- they place themselves in a
9 commercial are for the purposes of
10 the standard in the application.
11 I'd now like to read
12 you the summary of the Elmhurst
13 comprehensive plan. The future land
14 use framework is intended to provide
15 a blueprint of the future development
16 patterns in the City of Elmhurst by
17 indicating the type and organization
18 uses that will effectively help use
19 these comprehensive plan goals. The
20 land use plan works in conjunction
21 with the zoning ordinance, a
22 regulatory tool, the guidance of the
23 land use. The future land use
24 framework policy guide is intended to
55
1 provide general direction of life of

2 the comprehensive plan while a zoning
3 ordinance defines allowable uses on
4 specific parcels of land. The major
5 focus of the land use strategy is to
6 update the City zoning code to
7 reflect goals, objectives, and
8 policies recommended in the plan which
9 include reinforcing land use in
10 designated locations such as downtown
11 and subareas, and maintain strong
12 residential neighbors. So, the second
13 goal is to maintain strong residential
14 neighbors by protecting the volume of
15 existing housing stock.
16 So, the important point
17 to make here is that 200 East Lake
18 Street, 193 East Fremont, and 197
19 East Fremont are not in the Lake
20 Street corridor or Grand Avenue
21 corridors. It's certainly not
22 included in their application, which
23 is on record. I know they said they
24 provided a map to you tonight, but if
56
1 you look at that map East Fremont

2 Avenue is not part of the Grand
3 Avenue corridor. And you can see
4 clearly how the comprehensive plan
5 defines the Lake Street corridor,
6 between Grand Avenue and Lake Street
7 and Route 83 and York. They're not
8 between Route 83 and York. They are
9 east of York Street and not part of
10 that subdivision.
11 So, the comprehensive
12 plan of the City very clearly calls
13 for mixed use in designated areas.
14 The applicant is not in one of those
15 areas. That is extremely important
16 because I believe that the
17 comprehensive plan should be the
18 primary guide along with ordinances if
19 you use this to make this decision to
20 recommend it for or against.
21 Also, I wanted to point
22 out that in their application they --
23 I'm not sure their application is
24 actually relevant anymore because
57
1 their application calls for eleven

2 additional patient rooms on Page 6.
3 Not sure if that's accurate any
4 longer. It seems like an awful lot
5 has changed from their application
6 previously, and yet they didn't amend
7 it. They just submitted it from 16
8 P-12 to 17 P-02. So, it seems like
9 a lot of inaccuracy in their
10 application making it very difficult
11 for the residents I would think as
12 well as the staff and the Commission
13 to make good decisions about that
14 application.
15 In Section B of their
16 conditional use application, Elmhurst
17 Extended Care Center claims that the
18 City has already made a finding that
19 nursing homes are inherently
20 compatible with other uses in the C2,
21 R4, and R2 Zoning Districts. This is
22 untrue. Conditional use does not
23 equate to inherent compatibility.
24 It's quite the opposite. Your own
58
1 code, municipal code for Elmhurst,

2 clearly says a planned development and
3 conditional use is a privilege to be
4 earned and not a right to make any
5 claims that would be upon compliant
6 and relative standards establishment
7 in this chapter. It goes on to say
8 that the Commission shall recommend
9 and the City Council shall grant only
10 such increase -- which is consistent
11 with the benefit with the City, not
12 to an individual business.
13 In testimony we heard
14 at the previous hearing, it came to
15 light that over seventy percent of
16 the residents of Elmhurst Extended
17 Care Center are not from Elmhurst, so
18 the benefit of this conditional use
19 approval would be to other communities
20 as well as to the EECC primarily.
21 Most of the benefit would go to other
22 communities in the area, not to
23 Elmhurst. Their occupancy is low, and
24 their population is made up mostly of
59
1 people from other communities. That is

2 a fact that was read into the record.
3 It's a great business,
4 it's a great service, it's just not
5 fair to impose the penalties that it
6 would appear in the neighborhood;
7 decrease property values, increase
8 traffic. What my wife is about to
9 show you in terms of what the west
10 facade looks like. They didn't
11 include a rendering of the west
12 facade in their application for some
13 reason. But if you take a look at
14 what a 34, you know, foot building
15 will look like less than 10 feet from
16 my property line, you're going to see
17 what we think that will look like in
18 just a minute.
19 MR. WERNER: Jay, your
20 time is up.
21 MR. MCNICHOLS: Okay.
22 Thank you very much.
24 you, sir.
60
1 Next?
2 MS. MCNICHOLS: Hi,
3 everyone. My name is Julie
4 McNichols. I live at 185 East
5 Fremont, right next to the proposed
6 project. I have a couple things I
7 want to address. And I'm going to
8 go over some pictures here in just a
9 minute.
10 The first thing is in
11 this post-hearing written submittal,
12 their attorney representing EECC
13 states that traffic and parking is
14 not an issue. However, he left how
15 some key points. Failing at
16 underestimated current parking use
17 because EECC is currently operating on
18 sixty percent at capacity. An
19 increase in occupancy would likely
20 increase the need for additional
21 parking for staff and specialists, et
22 cetera -- you know, calculating trip
23 generation based on the extremely
24 small size for a comparison. Also,
61
1 Michael Stevo (phonetic) from Finn

2 Schwartz, the trip generation of the
3 single-family homes, he proposed a
4 trip generation may be as much as 136
5 percent during peak morning hours and
6 thirty-nine percent higher during the
7 evening peak.
8 My opposition to this
9 parking lot is the safety of my kids
10 and their enjoyment of the
11 neighborhood. So, I'll move on to
12 the next item.
13 Also, put in the map
14 amendment -- when called to provide
15 to responses to the four standards of
16 the map amendment, EECC states that
17 in such an angle Lake Street and East
18 Fremont enjoy a mixed of various
19 residential and commercial uses in
20 zoning districts. This is inaccurate.
21 East Fremont Avenue does not include
22 any commercial uses whatsoever. They
23 claim that in Section C the
24 development of this proposed modern
62
1 skilled nursing facility will generate

2 new real estate investment in the
3 immediate area and will achieve goals
4 detailed in the Elmhurst comprehensive
5 plan from Lake Street planning area.
6 As Jay mentioned, the
7 Lake Street planning area is upon
8 Route 83 and west of York Street, so
9 their claim is false and it included
10 inaccurate information with respect to
11 Requirement C zoning classification
12 and D, current comprehensive plan of
13 the map amendment standard. We feel
14 EECC has failed to meet the standards
15 required in Elmhurst's application for
16 a map amendment.
17 All right. Couple of
18 other things. These are the elevations
19 that they submitted, and as you can
20 imagine living next door I was most
21 interested in seeing the elevation
22 that's not included here. So, we see
23 the east, north, and south elevations,
24 but the west is not included, so we
63
1 had to make some assumptions that the

2 west elevation would look very similar
3 to the east elevation. So, I --
4 just putting that on the record, this
5 is just an assumption. If the
6 applicant wants to provide us with
7 that picture for our review, then
8 we'll take a look at that.
9 So, this is the current
10 view facing east from my backyard.
11 And taking the elevation from the
12 west side and flipping it over, this
13 is what it could potentially look
14 like from my back yard now. So, as
15 you can imagine, you know, there's
16 quite a change in the privacy and,
17 you know, the enjoyment of our
18 backyard.
19 Okay. Next is -- this
20 is the rendering provided by the
21 applicant, and, you know, the first
22 thing that we want to point out here
23 is the proximity of this building to
24 our home. I mean, it looks like
64
1 it's right on top of our house.

2 And then the other
3 thing is that I think it's a little
4 bit misleading that all of those
5 trees are in this rendering because
6 they're all going to be cut down.
7 And I know they're going to be
8 replaced, put some other landscaping
9 up, but our neighborhood is full of
10 these trees and it will definitely
11 change the character of the
12 neighborhood.
13 Next, this picture was
14 actually taken last night, and in the
15 -- that was submitted on 12/20/16,
16 they stated that they had one
17 motion-sensored light. This picture
18 shows what the back of the facility
19 looks like at night. There is
20 definitely more than one light.
21 They're not motion-activated, and, you
22 know, based on what was in that
23 response -- I never stated that the
24 lighting issue would drive our
65
1 property values down. It's just more

2 that lighting -- you know, a resident
3 of a single-family home would not
4 have as much lighting as the business
5 during the course of the night.
6 So, again, I have no
7 issue with the EEC itself. You know,
8 I hope they are successful in their
9 business. But I, you know, hope you
10 can understand. For many of us, our
11 homes are our biggest investment, and
12 we're trying to protect the character
13 of our neighborhood.
14 Thanks a lot for your
15 time.
16 MR. WERNER: Right on.
17 Seven seconds.
18 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: I
19 forgot the -- was there any questions
20 that you had of the previous lady as
21 far -- okay.
22 Yes, sir, go ahead.
23 Just state your name and --
24 MR. PELLICO: My name
66
1 is Greg Pellico. I live at 221 East

2 Fremont. I was not at the prior
3 meetings, but I did see the original
4 proposal and I saw the current
5 proposal, and what Elmhurst Extended
6 Care did was they -- listing on a
7 pig, but it's still a pig. My
8 position is that it's very basic.
9 Elmhurst Extended Care is intruding
10 into our quiet residential street and
11 our neighborhood, and -- which has
12 been a very pleasant street, but even
13 before my family built our house in
14 1961. It's a quiet cul-de-sac
15 street, and it has a charming quality
16 to it, and they want to intrude onto
17 our quiet street and bring down our
18 property values.
19 Their proposed building
20 with the parking lot extends across,
21 they call it two parcels, but
22 essentially it's three lots.
23 Sandwiched between our homes, which is
24 not in character with our street.
67
1 They -- we're entitled to have the

2 integrity of our neighborhood
3 maintained enough for us to have a
4 commercial business stressed upon us
5 on our quaint pleasant street. And
6 we have a right to have single-family
7 residents built on our street as is
8 being done throughout the entire city
9 on other residential streets. If
10 other residential homes are built on
11 our street like are being built on
12 other streets in the city, it will
13 increase our property value, not
14 decrease them.
15 Liberty Village was
16 mentioned. Liberty Village was there
17 on Elmcrest Street years before these
18 houses were dealt. Elmcrest is not
19 an attractive street. Cars are
20 parked on both sides of the street,
21 and turns Elmcrest into a one-lane
22 street. And you can't compare
23 Elmcrest with our quiet cul-de-sac
24 Fremont.
68
1 I have -- also I've

2 researched the other nursing homes --
3 the five other nursing homes in
4 Elmhurst, and not one of them --
5 we've talked about Liberty Village.
6 But not one of these other nursing
7 homes intrudes into a residential
8 street.
9 And to close, I would
10 just like to ask each one of you to
11 think how you would feel if you were
12 one of us living on our residential
13 street, and if you would want this to
14 happen to you.
16 you.
17 Next, please, sir. Go
18 ahead.
19 MR. SMALLWOOD: Hello.
20 My name is Ken Smallwood. I live at
21 212 East Fremont. 212 East Fremont
22 is across the street from the
23 proposed development and expansion
24 into the middle of the residential
69
1 block. I'm about three houses east

2 of the parking lot. I'm a licensed
3 realtor, I'm real estate broker, and
4 I work specifically with commercial
5 real estate investments.
6 When I purchased my
7 home, I looked out the front window,
8 I saw three residential homes that
9 were very much in character with the
10 neighborhood. Now, it's been torn
11 down. I see vacant lots. I see a
12 large commercial building, and I see
13 all the mechanical equipment serving
14 that building. It's very unsightly.
15 I want to be clear. I
16 think I've heard assertions that this
17 may be about fair housing violations
18 or discriminations against elderly and
19 handicap, and that's just not the
20 case. What this really is about is an
21 attempt to serve a business with an
22 approximate square footage of --
23 actually, it's kind of unclear from
24 the drawings what the square footage
70
1 is, but the whole building appears to

2 be somewhere between 50,000 and 67,000
3 square feet. And an eleven-vehicle
4 parking lot in the middle of the
5 block.
6 The homes on the block
7 range from approximately 1200 square
8 feet to 4,000 square feet. This
9 proposed development is not part of
10 the City comprehensive plan or in
11 character with the neighborhood. The
12 prior single-family homes were
13 purchased by EEC with this whole plan
14 in mind with no prior input from the
15 City or the community.
16 EEC is trying hard to
17 portray the property as a residential
18 use that's not commercial in nature.
19 However, the unquestionable reality is
20 that the EEC is a business with
21 income, expenses, employees, and
22 customers. EEC is not dependent on
23 the specific location. They could
24 relocate their project to an area
71
1 planned and zoned as such a use by

2 the City. In fact, a completely new
3 facility versus a renovation of this
4 one would be a great selling point to
5 their customers.
6 Furthermore, the value
7 of the underlying real estate behind
8 the EEC's property is supported by a
9 business income, which in turn --
10 commercial real estate. The property
11 itself could be purchased as part of
12 relief, for example, for alternatively
13 giving the existing owners structure
14 -- resulting in a net lease
15 investment property traded in the
16 commercial marketplace.
17 Please keep in mind
18 when you see these renderings provided
19 by the EEC that it only shows best
20 case scenario of this development.
21 They only show the angles they want
22 you to see. They do not show any
23 context to the size of the remaining
24 single-family homes throughout the
72
1 block. To reiterate the point, we're

2 going to be looking at what may be
3 an 67,000 square foot building, a
4 large parking lot in the middle of
5 our residential block. It's
6 completely out of character of the
7 neighborhood.
8 As a commercial real
9 estate professional, I see a lot of
10 proposed development renderings. The
11 truth is the actual property never
12 ends up what it looks like in a
13 rendering. When development starts,
14 the project is approved, the budget
15 becomes a major factor and corners
16 get cut. We all know this, you've
17 all seen it.
18 As a final note as
19 previously mentioned, it clearly shows
20 proof that significant reduction of
21 value occurs for residential
22 properties that are in the direct
23 vicinity of commercial property
24 developments such as this. For most
73
1 of us homeowners, this proposed

2 development represents a very real
3 tangible and large loss of our
4 biggest investment. We understand the
5 need for successful business growth in
6 the community, but not impact the
7 residents in a neighborhood.
8 I think you'll find
9 that EEC has clearly failed to meet
10 multiple requirements for a
11 conditional use approval. Thank you
12 for your time.
13 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: Any
14 questions? Seeing none, okay.
15 The next person, if
16 there's anybody on my left side?
17 MS. YOUNG: Hi, good
18 evening. My name is Mary Young. I
19 live at 167 East Fremont. I am also
20 -- I also have a real estate license.
21 I've sold here in town since 1999
22 with Shell Real Estate, and currently
23 have my license at LW Reedy. I've
24 sold on this block a number of times.
74
1 Here to talk a little

2 bit -- I know that Jorge directed a
3 great example of what is going on in
4 our neighborhood. Our neighborhood
5 has been spoken of as a transition
6 neighborhood or as a mixed-use
7 neighborhood. I do want to say, it
8 is a transition neighborhood to the
9 positive. I have lived there since
10 1998. When I got married, my husband
11 bought that house in 1991. As you
12 know the neighborhood, there are
13 generations of residents who have
14 grown up on that block.
15 Other people have also
16 noted the area we're talking about
17 from Kenilworth east is different from
18 Kenilworth west. Kenilworth west is
19 more of a mixed use. There is more
20 multifamily as well -- and there is
21 that new construction -- west of
22 Kenilworth, completely different. And
23 I encourage you if you haven't done
24 it yet, come and drive down the
75
1 street, walk down the street, bike

2 down the street in this great
3 weather, and really get a sense of
4 the neighborhood before you make your
5 decision.
6 But I've sold on this
7 block. I want to give you a sense
8 -- and you guys know what Elmhurst is
9 like. Elmhurst is a great real
10 estate market. Our buyers are very
11 specific about what they're looking
12 for. This type of development is
13 going to be a significant impact to
14 our neighborhood as far as our values
15 as we've talked about. But when we
16 talk about -- we have an appraiser
17 who has looked at appraise numbers --
18 in Elmhurst, I don't know how many
19 times I've got into a seller
20 situation and they're like, well,
21 here's what the appraiser told me how
22 much it's worth. That is not
23 necessarily what your house is. Your
24 buyer is going to tell you what that
76
1 house is worth, and it is going to

2 be different. I mean, you've all
3 seen an appraisal in this town in
4 which you quote your house and your
5 house -- come from north of North
6 Avenue and come Butterfield Road and
7 Spring Road. You and Elmhurst
8 residents know that those are two
9 completely different neighborhoods.
10 They may be the square footage, the
11 same size. Elmhurst buyers are going
12 to look at those different. This
13 neighborhood is the same.
14 Buyers, we're getting
15 over the fact that people are now
16 moving north of North Avenue. Thank
17 you for the North Avenue development.
18 We're loving that. But buyers are
19 looking for residential neighborhoods,
20 places their kids can bike around,
21 and they're looking for privacy.
22 They want decent-sized lots. I mean,
23 how many fences have you guys
24 approved; lots on the corners; fences?
77
1 People want privacy. They want to be

2 able to enjoy their backyards. They
3 pay for every square foot of their
4 lot, and they want to enjoy it.
5 This is going to significantly impact
6 every home on the east end of
7 Fremont.
8 What I'm significantly
9 worried about are those homes to the
10 east of this development. Currently --
11 an apartment building that is directly
12 east of this proposal. First of all,
13 it's not a conforming two-flat. If
14 you look at it, it looks like a
15 single-family home. This whole
16 neighborhood -- across the street,
17 they look like single-family homes.
18 They don't have parking lots next to
19 them. There's not eleven spots next
20 to them. It's not an apartment
21 building. We do have an apartment
22 building at the end of our block.
23 It has -- since I've sold on this
24 block, I have heard issues from
78
1 buyers that are concerned about it

2 because there is a parking lot there,
3 and it was sold to -- there's a
4 conditional use on it that it was
5 supposed to be six spots that were
6 going to be only for visitors.
7 There's no enforcement of that. They
8 are -- there are six spots at any
9 given time on any given night. Go
10 down there, there's ten cars parked
11 there. And those aren't visitors,
12 they're residents who park there every
13 night. They park in the cul-de-sac.
14 You cannot enforce that
15 conditional use when they say that
16 only the management is going to be
17 using that parking lot. Maybe
18 that'll be enforced by them, but five
19 years from now should they sell this
20 property after the development from
21 the owner, there's no usage saying,
22 well, only the managers are going to
23 be there. We're going to have all
24 kinds of use. There's now a parking
79
1 lot in the middle of our

2 neighborhood. There is not going to
3 be any enforcement to that.
4 But those homes to the
5 east of that, there's five homes
6 between that nonconforming two-flat
7 and the apartment building. You are
8 now --
9 MS. FRANZ: Thirty
10 seconds.
11 MS. YOUNG: All right.
12 You're now creating a domino effect
13 for those homes, because now they
14 will also be able to have asked for
15 this request, and those may also
16 become commercial developments in our
17 future. So, you've now started that
18 domino effect by inserting this
19 project into the middle of our
20 neighborhood.
21 Thank you.
23 you very much.
24 On the left side, on my
80
1 left side, is there anyone else in

2 the group of that that would like to
3 come up and speak?
4 MR. STEFEK: My name is
5 Scott Stefek. I've lived at 224 East
6 Fremont since March of 1961. I
7 remember when I was a kid in 1968,
8 that's when Elmhurst separated the
9 sanitary sewers from the storm sewers.
10 And I just don't believe that with
11 the expansion of the EEC, that just
12 could be supportive of that.
13 Thanks.
15 Thank you, Scott.
16 Next, is there anybody
17 else on the left side? Yes, this
18 lady in the group, please step
19 forward.
20 MS. OESER: Good
21 evening. My name is Eileen Oeser,
22 and I'd like to address some of the
23 -- I'm too short -- evidence
24 presented by Mr. Day on behalf of
81
1 EECC.
2 First I'd like to state
3 that the State of Illinois will never
4 consider skilled nursing home
5 facilities. They have to issue
6 what's called a certificate of need.
7 What that means is that you cannot --
8 and have one nursing home be
9 developed at the sake of another.
10 At the public hearing,
11 Elmhurst Extended Care did not submit
12 any hard evidence that there was a
13 need for additional beds in this area
14 or that the extended care facility is
15 suffering as a result. In the
16 documented minutes by Mr. Day on
17 December 22nd, he made a number of
18 assertions. He stated Elmhurst
19 Extended Care can longer increase
20 their bed count on 108 and would now
21 being adding eleven additional beds.
22 New Medicare regulations were cited as
23 to cost. However, nursing homes have
24 been aware of the coming changes for
82
1 years as participants in the process

2 providing feedback to Medicare.
3 On September 28th, 2016
4 the first phase of the new
5 requirements were released prior to
6 the first public hearing. The
7 applicant justified the needs of this
8 expansion that they were not
9 competitive without offering single
10 rooms. Mr. Day states that Elmhurst
11 Hospital refuses to refer patients to
12 Elmhurst Extended Care expressly
13 because of the lack of private rooms.
14 The letter from the hospital dated
15 December 15th states that Elmhurst
16 Extended Care has been adapted as a
17 referred partner and the discharge
18 planning team in the hospital has
19 noted a clear preference of patients
20 wishing to go to facilities that can
21 offer private rooms. They did not
22 state that they refused to refer
23 patients.
24 Statistics from the
83
1 Illinois Department of Public Health

2 are quoted to support their argue on
3 the need for increased room traffic.
4 They highlight that Lexington and
5 Elmhurst Extended Care have similar
6 occupancy rates with similar square
7 footage per bed. They neglect to
8 state that other nursing homes have
9 similar square footage based per bed
10 and larger occupancy rate, and that
11 was in the evidence presented to you
12 in the packet.
13 Elmhurst Extended Care
14 occupancy has been stable since the
15 current owners bought the business.
16 They have control of how they set up
17 their rooms. With no change, they
18 can go to thirty-nine single beds and
19 have more beds than Park Place. With
20 their live application, they do
21 eliminate the option for three or
22 four to a room -- all beds to
23 singles, but will continue to offer
24 double-occupancy rooms which is
84
1 compliant with Medicare.

2 In terms of the need
3 for beds in Health Service Area 7,
4 that's the DuPage County, that's how
5 they project need for a nursing
6 facility, new specifics have been
7 available since December 16th of 2016
8 updating the long-term care facility
9 calculating bedroom. Per the most
10 recent data of January 25th of 2017,
11 DuPage County which is Health Service
12 Area 17 will have an access of 156
13 beds. There are five planning areas
14 in this Service Area 7, and there
15 will be a projected access of 2,131
16 beds in the area of 7B to 7E.
17 Planning Area 7A is the only area
18 with a projected deficit, and their
19 numbers have changed with the new
20 adding of new facilities.
21 This year Elmhurst will
22 be adding seventy-plus senior housing
23 units which will provide member care
24 which is an important need for senior
85
1 housing. Elmhurst Extended Care talks

2 specifically about -- excuse me, I'm
3 getting dry mouth -- new modern
4 nursing home facilities. This is not
5 just a question of room size or
6 amenities. New facilities are being
7 built on larger tracks of land on
8 main arterials. They're often part
9 of continuing their communities such
10 as Park Place. Three of the new
11 facilities that are in the process of
12 being built all occupy land greater
13 than three acres. If you look at
14 each one of these facilities, they're
15 all only proposing sixty-eight beds
16 each. When Elmhurst Extended Care
17 was here last time, they said they
18 had sixty-three beds. They meet the
19 Illinois standard of ninety percent
20 occupancy compared to other
21 facilities.
22 The main objective of
23 the Elmhurst subdivision zoning
24 includes that any subdivided land
86
1 should take into consideration the

2 best use of the land and should
3 conform to the general provisions and
4 submissions of all current land use
5 and development plans for the future
6 development of Elmhurst. The City of
7 Elmhurst through you or to the
8 council need to weigh in the benefit
9 of maintaining the integrity of a
10 single-family neighborhood and the
11 development of three homes at the
12 minimum -- based on the current
13 growth of the area versus expansion
14 of this facility to a commercial zone
15 into a residential zone with no
16 substantial evidence of need.
17 Thank you very much.
18 Can I make one personal
19 comment? I'll be quick.
20 You asked about the
21 drainage and what happens. I live
22 kind of kitty-corner, and I'm the low
23 end of the block, and in April of
24 2013 because of the land -- we hadn't
87
1 thought properly -- we had a huge

2 rainfall. I had water streaming from
3 the back, streaming from everywhere.
4 Well, it depends on the severity of
5 the rain. And I have flooded every
6 year since I'd say about 2007 at
7 least multiple times. My garage is
8 trashed. So, water is an issue.
9 Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: Is
11 there any questions from the -- okay.
12 Next, anybody on the left -- on my
13 left side that -- here we go.
14 MS. MCCARTHY: Hello.
15 I'm Theresa McCarthy. I live on
16 Fremont Street.
17 And any time a resident
18 -- residential homeowner invests in a
19 single-family home, the surrounding
20 neighborhood is a factor in the cost
21 and desirability of a project. I
22 built a new home on Fremont Street.
23 Actually, the cost of my home was
24 more than the applicant paid for the
88
1 land that they purchased. The

2 petitioner has asked to expand from a
3 commercial-zoned property onto a small
4 parcel of land, .6 acres in the
5 middle of a residential neighborhood.
6 This is to benefit a single business.
7 The residential family
8 character of East Fremont has not
9 changed, and it is not a transitional
10 neighborhood. The most current
11 comprehensive plan and the market
12 report addresses a demand for senior
13 housing which encompasses independent
14 living, assisted living, and skilled
15 nursing. No need for further
16 expansion of skilled nursing
17 facilities was indicated in the
18 report. The recent North York plan
19 has identified areas for the
20 development of future senior housing.
21 Now, the Zoning
22 Committee has talked about different
23 situations. The applicant, the
24 petitioner compared their situation to
89
1 that of Park Place. And this is a

2 quote from this Committee dated May
3 17th, 2006 recommending Park Place,
4 and I quote, the proposed development
5 complies with the policy direction of
6 the 1990 comprehensive plan. The DPZ
7 spent much of the year of 2005
8 researching the need for senior
9 housing, the different types of
10 housing being offered to the citizens
11 and the potential locations for these
12 various types of senior housing. The
13 consensus of the Commission was that
14 Park Place provided a much-needed
15 housing option for seniors and
16 citizens in an appropriate residential
17 community environment.
18 Park Place contained
19 over eleven acres of land, okay.
20 There's only one side that neighbors
21 single-family homes, and it allows a
22 large buffer of backyards and a
23 parking lot. If everyone could have
24 whatever zoning he or she wished,
90
1 there would be no need for zones.

2 The fundamental fairness is that equal
3 properties should be treated equally.
4 I contend that allowing
5 the petitioner changes in the zoning
6 as requested is spot zoning by
7 definition. The area of land is .6
8 acres, a very small parcel in the
9 middle. Not the end, not adjacent to
10 single-family homes. With a land use
11 that is different that is designated
12 for tax. This area is currently
13 taxed R15 and Addison Township. This
14 is a commercial real estate component
15 in the middle of a block. The land
16 is not adjacent to an arterial
17 street, rather on a dead-end
18 cul-de-sac. It does not preserve the
19 character of the surrounding
20 low-density single-family neighborhood,
21 but rather injurious to increased
22 traffic, lower property values,
23 density and design. Past and current
24 zoning show that East Fremont is not
91
1 a transitional zoning area.

2 Elmhurst needs to
3 continue to follow past and best
4 practices, and should be consistent
5 with the policies in land use
6 designations set out in the
7 comprehensive plan. Thank you.
9 you very much, Theresa.
10 Any questions? Not
11 hearing any, not seeing any.
12 Next on the north side
13 of the aisle that haven't spoken yet,
14 anybody? Here we go. Thank you.
15 MR. HEBERT: Hi. My
16 name is Andrew Hebert. I live at 153
17 East Fremont. I just wanted to
18 pinpoint something very specific in
19 regards to the applicant's need
20 obviously to conform to the
21 comprehensive plan.
22 In that housing section
23 of comprehensive plan under the Goal
24 3 section, there's a specific policy
92
1 I'd like to read. It says new and

2 developed residential uses should be
3 compatible, in scale, and character
4 with the surrounding residential uses.
5 I think there's been a lot of
6 testimony already in regards to that,
7 but I wanted to specifically point to
8 that wording in the comprehensive
9 plan. I don't see how on any level
10 this new structure will be compatible
11 in scale to our street that's so
12 nicely done with single-family homes
13 to average, you know -- I mean, it's
14 literally -- I did some quick
15 calculations on volume, and it's
16 literally eight times, eight times
17 volume of a large say 4,000 square
18 foot house, and it's probably twenty
19 times the volume of my house. So,
20 as far as the scale goes, it's like
21 a whole other magnitude above and
22 beyond what we have on Fremont.
23 That's the whole reason I moved to
24 Fremont. You get the charm and feel
93
1 of the street.
2 The other thing I'd
3 like to address is the first time
4 that we met here on December 8th, I
5 think we were painted as kind of an
6 uncompassionate group of people by
7 Attorney Day. I'd like to quote from
8 that day on December 8th. Attorney
9 Day said I can say first and foremost
10 that this is not a commercial
11 enterprise, and anybody that tells you
12 that legally or factually this is a
13 commercial enterprise is incorrect,
14 this is a residential facility, by
15 operation of federal law this is a
16 residence and you are not amended to
17 view it as anything other than a
18 residential facility, you may like
19 that or your may dislike that but
20 that's what the law is, this is a
21 residential facility for the disabled
22 that's what this is. And I feel
23 like it was totally getting away from
24 the fact of the matter. We are --
94
1 we are really very passionate people,

2 but it's most definitely an
3 organization with a common goal which
4 is the definition of an enterprise,
5 and most definitely -- services for
6 money that is the definition of
7 commerce, so it's most definitely a
8 commercial enterprise. Even looking at
9 Page 6 of the EECC's conditional use
10 application, the quote is six existing
11 patient rooms in the west wing will
12 be converted to 2400 square feet of
13 physical therapy for both outpatients
14 and residents. Outpatients are
15 clearly not residents.
16 And so, I think, you
17 know, if we're going to have this
18 conversation, let's at least be honest
19 and straight forward about what it
20 is. And there's most definitely a
21 commercial component to this in the
22 middle of a residential facility.
23 And, therefore, going back to Policy
24 2 under Goal 3 in the housing
95
1 section, I don't think it's compatible

2 with the character of the
3 neighborhood.
4 Thank you.
6 Thank you.
7 Next, is there anybody
8 else? We have a gentlemen coming up?
9 Maybe not.
10 Anybody else on the --
11 on my left side of the aisle? I
12 don't see anybody.
13 Let's cross over to the
14 right side and see if there's anybody
15 on the right side who wants to give
16 some opinions. I'm not seeing any.
17 I think I'm going to
18 turn it back over to Mr. Day.
19 MR. DAY: The R2
20 District has a set of performance
21 standards. It defines the height
22 that's appropriate. It defines the
23 setbacks that are appropriate. It
24 defines the lot coverage that's
96
1 appropriate. Your building code

2 defines appropriate building terms.
3 And in this particular case, the
4 proposal in every regard meets all of
5 the bulk regulations for the R2
6 Zoning District. So, the box that we
7 are talking about for this parcel of
8 property, by definition of your code,
9 they can build a box. And your code
10 says that this is an appropriate size
11 for the R2 District.
12 Now, if you just focus
13 on Fremont frontage, your code says
14 that they can build thirty percent on
15 the Fremont frontage because it's R2,
16 thirty percent lot coverage. Yet for
17 this they're twenty-seven percent, so
18 in terms of the coverage on the
19 Fremont lot frontage they're actually
20 smaller that they can build of right
21 in a residential zoning district.
22 Now, the materials are
23 residential in nature, and the bulk
24 of the facility from our intentional
97
1 standpoint is residential in nature.

2 So, if you meet all of the site's
3 criteria and all of the building
4 material's criteria, we in every way
5 comply with the standards that are
6 appropriate for the R2 District. The
7 only difference on this facility is
8 who lives there. The only difference
9 in this facility in the R2 District
10 is who lives there, and who lives
11 there in this case is the disabled.
12 That's who lives there. That's what
13 you're dealing with.
14 Now, the neighborhood
15 has had several residents talk about
16 inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
17 I will tell you that we on behalf of
18 this claim that afforded us the
19 opportunity to be very linear and
20 very detailed -- everything that we
21 have submitted in support of the
22 application. The paperwork is
23 voluminous, the application is
24 voluminous. The standards and with
98
1 it has been met the testimony.

2 There are changes that
3 have occurred through the process.
4 It's supposed to be this way. The
5 process for a public hearing is
6 supposed to afford the neighborhood
7 issues that they can bring in and
8 requests for changes and modifications
9 to a plan, and the applicant can put
10 a situation, has ability to make some
11 of those modifications. That's what
12 this applicant has done in this case.
13 But the detail and the specificity is
14 voluminous as it relates to this
15 application.
16 This is not an
17 expansion of the facility that has
18 been there since 1961. It is
19 licensed for 108 beds. The State of
20 Illinois tells you how many licensed
21 beds you're going to have. It is
22 not licensed for 108 with the idea
23 that we're going to expand to 150.
24 You have heard that suggestion, that,
99
1 you know, once you approve the

2 conditional use we can do anything we
3 want to the site. That's not true.
4 Because it's a conditional use, you
5 can attach appropriate conditions such
6 as the fact that you've applied for
7 108 beds, that's what you're going to
8 get. Those who suggest that you're
9 going to change the appearance of the
10 building after you get the approval
11 for the conditional use, that can be
12 a condition that you can attach to
13 this particular plan. Those people
14 that have suggested that the
15 eleven-car parking lot that's off of
16 Fremont Street, after we're in the
17 facility we can actually do the
18 switch and then suddenly start parking
19 wherever we want to in the eleven-car
20 parking lot, that can be a subject of
21 a condition. Because this is a
22 conditional use application, you have
23 the ability to hold us to what we
24 are saying we are going to use the
100
1 site for. For that resident who said

2 they're licensed for 108 beds but
3 they can just jump up to 150, the
4 State doesn't allow us to do that,
5 and the conditional use to do
6 approval doesn't allow us to that
7 either. So, you have the control of
8 appropriate conditions to make sure
9 that we comply with that which is
10 proposed to the City in this
11 particular application.
12 Traffic, I will say
13 nothing more than what was in our
14 letter of the 22nd. Their own
15 traffic engineer said that this is
16 not a traffic generating issue. And
17 understanding the zoning code for a
18 108-bed licensed facility which has
19 one hundred percent of its visitor
20 and patient and doctor ingress, egress
21 off of Lake Street to an 108-bed
22 facility that has one percent of its
23 patient and doctor access off of Lake
24 Street, there's no change. There's
101
1 no change in the intensity of use in

2 this particular site. What you're
3 doing is you're bringing the rooms
4 off of the contemporary site
5 associated with the American
6 Disabilities Act and the standard of
7 the industry for private rooms.
8 That's all that's happening at this
9 location. So, any suggestion that
10 suddenly you're going to have massive
11 cars in the neighborhood -- this
12 traffic has been there since 1961.
13 We're not changing the level of
14 traffic.
15 In the three
16 facilities, you've already heard from
17 the traffic report from KLOA, if it
18 had three homes on it, at certain
19 times peak travel would actually be
20 heavier from three homes than it will
21 be from the eleven-unit parking lot
22 that will be used just by the
23 officers of this -- I'm sorry --
24 officers and staff of this facility.
102
1 In closing, this is a
2 conditional use. It's in the R2
3 District, or the R4 District, or the
4 C2 District. It happens to be on a
5 street that has an apartment building
6 on it, that has no less than four
7 two-flats on the street already, has
8 a senior housing facility at the
9 other end of the street, and all of
10 the homes on the north side of the
11 street border against nonresidential
12 land uses that are apartment
13 buildings, office buildings, et
14 cetera. That's the neighborhood that
15 you are dealing with at this
16 particular location.
17 Now, the City has
18 designated the R2 District as -- it's
19 called a single-family residential
20 district, but it's not the only use
21 that you have designated that's
22 appropriate in the R2 District. And
23 by designating this portion of the
24 street in R2 and then placing
103
1 conditional uses for nursing homes and

2 housing for the disable in the R2
3 District, you are saying that it's an
4 appropriate use in the R2 District.
5 So, to the extent that your
6 comprehensive plan shows the northerly
7 half of our site as part of Subarea
8 6 in your comprehensive plan we
9 apply, and to the extent the
10 southerly half of this property is
11 built with all of the bulk
12 regulations and the land use in the
13 R2 District, they actually comply with
14 that. There is no traffic issue,
15 there's no drainage issue, there's no
16 lighting issue. We are asking to
17 comply with virtually every standard
18 that the City has. And when an
19 applicant comes before the Planning
20 Commission and meets those standards,
21 they're supposed to be approved for a
22 conditional use.
23 I'll answer any
24 questions that you may have, but at
104
1 this time that's the end of my

2 report.
4 you, Mr. Day.
5 Is there any question
6 from any of the Board members; yes?
8 I have a question. Could you perhaps
9 clarify and maybe answer the person's
10 question that the square footage --
11 the total square footage of the
12 building that's going to be on these
13 lots, so not -- and maybe you can
14 answer -- a few other people had
15 questions on the overall square
16 footage, and now I'm just curious on
17 how that portion that's going to be
18 built on these lots compares to a
19 single-family home?
20 MR. DAY: Okay. On
21 Parcels 2 and 3, that's the Fremont
22 frontage --
23 MS. MORRISON: I think
24 that's the size of the lot.
105
1 MR. DAY: Okay.

2 MS. MORRISON: The
3 building -- where it says 15,481.
4 MR. DAY: Okay. The
5 new two-story structure that will be
6 on Fremont Street that's located on a
7 lot with -- what was the square
8 footage again, Christina -- 29,874
9 square feet. And the square footage
10 of the building for the two floors on
11 the Fremont lot is 15,481 square feet
12 -- I'm sorry -- 15,481 gross floor
13 area per floor.
14 MR. KANE: That's
15 combined. Both floors.
17 So, that's 15,000 gross including both
18 floors, or --
19 MR. KANE: That's for
20 both floors.
21 MR. DAY: Pardon me?
22 MR. KANE: Including
23 both floors.
24 MR. DAY: That includes
106
1 both floors. 15,000 square feet,

2 roughly -- 29,000 square foot lot.
3 There's the square footage of the
4 lot, and the square footage of the
5 building is 15,481. So, the actual
6 lot coverage here is twenty-seven
7 percent, and what your code provides
8 is thirty percent.
9 Now, calculate the
10 entire study on commission, the entire
11 building -- what's that combined for
12 the square footage -- we had that --
13 the other for the parking, Christina,
14 that extra -- right at the end right
15 there --
16 MR. KANE: Some of
17 these figures --
18 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW:
19 Excuse me. Mr. Day, could you have
20 this gentleman at least give his name
21 --
22 MR. KANE: It's Randy
23 Kane.
24 MR. DAY: 59,850 is the
107
1 gross square footage of the combined

2 building, and the total lot coverage
3 of the entire lot of the square
4 footage of the footprint is now
5 thirty percent, which is what's
6 permitted in your R2. There is no
7 limitation in C2 that we have
8 available. And the R4 I think is
9 forty percent.
11 So, that's thirty percent of the
12 entire combined?
13 MR. DAY: Correct. And
14 that's the limit in the R2 District.
16 The current vacant land versus what's
17 going to be built there, so that's --
18 MR. DAY: Current
19 vacantly land, what is currently zoned
20 residential, the lot coverage on that
21 portion is twenty-seven percent. So,
22 it's below --
24 Three combined lots --
108
1 MR. DAY: Pardon me?

3 Of the three combined lots?
4 MR. DAY: It's actually
5 two lots. Two of them were settled
6 earlier. In fact, go back fifty
7 years, they might have been three
8 lots.
9 SPEAKER: You could
10 build three homes on it, though.
11 MR. DAY: Under your
12 code in R2, you could build three
13 homes there.
15 I want to go back to the comment and
16 the picture that was made on the west
17 elevation.
18 Is that -- was that an
19 accurate assumption of the view that
20 -- on that side?
21 MR. KANE: You know, I
22 -- it's hard to comment on that. I
23 do know that from -- or shall I come
24 up there?
109
2 Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, the
3 audience really needs to stay quiet
4 while the applicant's giving their
5 presentation and their rebuttal,
6 please.
7 MR. KANE: One of the
8 things that we hadn't offered before
9 is the building is now -- the
10 proposed building was set up to be 34
11 foot 8 inches tall, which was below
12 the thirty-five foot requirement. And
13 we've been doing some recent
14 calculations, again, trying to lower
15 the building down. We feel that we
16 can bring it much closer to the
17 30-foot range. That would make that
18 perspective of that view that they
19 showed you a little bit of a
20 realistic. It depends on where you
21 are on the lot and what you would
22 see.
23 Does that answer your
24 question?
110
2 Yeah, it does.
4 Can -- and maybe I can follow up on
5 your question, Dave.
6 Susan had asked about
7 -- well, she's -- and I want to make
8 sure I'm talking about the west side
9 of the building; correct?
10 MR. KANE: Right. The
11 west side of the building we did not
12 have an elevation of. That was not
13 intentional. That was simply these
14 were the primary elevations that you
15 would see, so that's why we had the
16 views.
18 So, when Susan asked her question
19 about some additional bushes that she
20 thought were not in the new
21 renderings, you said that you would
22 -- it wasn't your intention to
23 eliminate those and that you would
24 reestablish those? So, you could put
111
1 some additional bushes there that

2 would provide some additional
3 coverage?
4 MR. KANE: Absolutely.
5 There's -- there would be no intent
6 to take anything anyway. We could --
7 we would provide additional plantings
8 on that side of the building to,
9 again, help screen it from the
10 neighbor next door.
11 But the intent is to
12 make this blend in with the
13 community, not just stand out in the
14 community, so we would make any
15 measures necessary to do that.
16 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW:
17 Susan?
18 COMMISSIONER ROSE: I'm
19 very well aware that there's no place
20 in the community in the past twenty
21 years that we've ever allowed more
22 than thirty percent of lot coverage.
23 I'm saying that in terms of
24 residential. Conditional use is a
112
1 little different. I understand that

2 you can put a church in the middle
3 of an R2 District. Conditional use is
4 a little different.
5 But are there -- do we
6 allow massing of lots anywhere else
7 in town? So, do I -- can I buy
8 three lots anywhere else in town and
9 cover it thirty percent? Is that --
10 that is allowed? And are there places
11 anywhere else in town where that has
12 been done that you could point to,
13 Than?
14 MR. WERNER: Well, I
15 can think of only a few examples, but
16 one would be the -- I think it's
17 Maple and Third. There's a big blue
18 house that was built. There was two
19 single-family lots, fifty feet that
20 combined to a one lot and it covered
21 thirty percent of that.
23 Okay. So, is there any that's --
24 MR. WERNER: Well,
113
1 that's the only one. And so, they

2 had -- you know, it's thirty percent
3 of the aggregate. So, if you own a
4 fifty-foot lot, it's going to be in
5 the same number whether it's three
6 lots thirty percent or one lot --
8 know that's a big issue in Hinsdale,
9 and they eventually disallowed that,
10 had they not?
11 I'm curious, Mr. Day,
12 some of the stuff that you indicated
13 saying no change in the site, and
14 maybe I didn't really understand you.
15 No change in the site except who's
16 living there, is that what you -- can
17 you please clarify that statement for
18 me?
19 MR. DAY: Yes, I can.
20 When you set standards
21 in a district, single-family R2
22 District, by establishing bulk
23 regulations the community says this is
24 how much building we want you to put
114
1 on the site and no more. And you've

2 set a standard that says I don't want
3 you any closer to the neighboring
4 property than this many square feet
5 or this many linear feet. I don't
6 want you any closer to the street in
7 this many -- and I don't want you to
8 cover more of the lot in this many
9 square feet.
10 You set all of these
11 bulk regulation standards, and by
12 accomplishing that what you do is you
13 design a box. You have set the
14 limits of this lot, what is
15 appropriate in terms of bulk is a box
16 this size. And then within a
17 single-family residential district,
18 you're basically saying who can live
19 there. And you've said you can have
20 single-family homes, you can group
21 homes. There's a number of different
22 conditional uses. There could be
23 group homes on the street and you
24 don't even know it.
115
1 But one of the uses

2 that you have said is appropriate on
3 this street in an R2 District is a
4 nursing home. So, if you have a
5 nursing home that is meeting the size
6 of box and all the bulk regulations
7 that the City has said in terms of
8 establishing what is appropriate
9 design, what is appropriate size,
10 what's appropriate height, scale, and
11 mass, the only difference between us
12 and a single-family homes is who's
13 living inside. That's it. You
14 design the box with your bulk
15 regulations. You have said what is
16 appropriate in terms of scale and
17 mass, and the City has made the
18 determination this is an appropriate
19 place for the disabled to live.
20 They're supposed to live in a
21 residential neighborhood. The
22 disabled are supposed to live in a
23 residential neighborhood.
24 And the reason you have
116
1 federal law is that for years people

2 would come in for a residential land
3 use in a residential neighborhood for
4 the disabled. The people would say
5 commercial business, keep them out.
6 That's why the law exists, and that's
7 why communities over the course of
8 the decade since the Fair Housing Act
9 have changed all of their codes to
10 make skilled care nursing facilities
11 and assisted living facilities
12 permitted as conditional uses in
13 residential neighborhoods, because if
14 they don't do it the federal courts
15 and the justice department end up
16 slapping them discrimination suits by
17 trying to exclude the disabled from
18 residential neighborhoods.
19 So, what we have here
20 in this case -- and I know it's hard
21 for a layman to understand that the
22 federal law has said this is a
23 residential use, I know that's hard
24 to understand, but this is a
117
1 residential use. And the City in

2 compliance with the Fair Housing Act
3 has said this use belongs in an R2
4 District if they meet the standards.
6 Yeah, I understand that. However, I
7 just feel like I -- all the sudden I
8 was just in a shell game here, wait
9 a minute, that -- I'm a little
10 concerned by some of that. I'm
11 concerned by -- we're really talking
12 about a conditional use. This is not
13 -- and this is not just -- is it
14 only the disabled who live here?
15 MR. DAY: It is all
16 skilled care. And they all meet the
17 definition of disabled under the Fair
18 Housing Act.
20 Okay. I know you talk about
21 facility. I'm just curious, your
22 difference between a facility and a
23 single-family home?
24 MR. DAY: I'm sorry,
118
1 what?
2 COMMISSIONER ROSE: A
3 facility -- what is the difference
4 here in your mind between facility
5 and single-family home for R2?
6 MR. DAY: The
7 single-family home is occupied either
8 by a group of people living together
9 --
10 COMMISSIONER ROSE: A
11 regulation does regulate who can live
12 in a single-family home.
13 MR. DAY: A
14 single-family home --
15 COMMISSIONER ROSE: You
16 have to have so many people who may
17 or may not be related in a
18 single-family home. You can't have
19 twenty unrelated people living in a
20 single-family home.
21 MR. DAY: I'm not sure
22 what the group home definition is,
23 but I think group homes --
24 single-family homes as well, even
119
1 though there may be eight people that

2 have some particular medical condition
3 living there with professional care,
4 but a single-family home I think is a
5 single-family home. This is a
6 nursing home, it is.
8 Correct.
10 Susan, just to follow up on that, I
11 think I can reiterate where you were
12 going with that.
13 With all due respect to
14 what you're saying, it still is a
15 conditional use. It is our job to
16 make sure that it meets the standards
17 of the conditional use. You cannot
18 just put a -- at least this is my
19 understanding -- a skilled care
20 facility like this anywhere you want
21 without coming before us and obtaining
22 that conditional use. So, it's our
23 job to take all the evidence and to
24 make sure that it meets the
120
1 standards, and if in our opinion it

2 meets the standards then yes, we
3 would approve it.
5 Well, and I think that good people in
6 that -- we all -- it is our job to
7 actually determine if all the
8 standards are met. I understand that
9 the applicant believes they've all
10 been met, but that's our job to
11 determine that, have they really been
12 met. That's really our job. Facts
13 and figures, bulk, that's one thing.
14 But seven standards for a conditional
15 use are not necessarily all about
16 bulk. They're detrimental to the
17 danger and public health, injurious to
18 use enjoyment of the property, not
19 impede normal orderly development,
20 adequate utilities -- that's a
21 different one -- ingress and egress
22 not contrary to the objectives of the
23 comprehensive plan, conform to the
24 applicable regulations of the
121
1 district, okay. And that's the one I

2 think that you have been honing in on
3 in terms of bulk regulations. However,
4 there are a bunch of other standards,
5 that it's our job to determine if
6 they had been met.
7 I understand the, you
8 know, if it does not fit you must
9 acquit. I understand your argument
10 here on that. If you need it, then
11 you must do that, that -- I
12 understand that that is your argument.
13 However, I think it is going to be
14 our responsibility to look at this
15 and look at all of the things that
16 have been presented on that to
17 determine that, so thank you.
18 MR. DAY: Agreed.
20 you, Susan.
21 Anything else?
22 I am going to Than.
23 Yes, sir.
24 MR. WERNER: Yes, I
122
1 would like to have something cleared

2 up.
3 There was a discrepancy
4 that we're noticing on the square
5 foot per floor is less than 15,481
6 that's on the sheet, and that just
7 couldn't be right. That has to be
8 the total.
9 MR. KANE: Total.
10 MR. WERNER: Do we
11 think that's less --
12 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: If
13 you want to make sure -- is there
14 anything that you are going to --
15 MR. WERNER: We're
16 good. We're going to have this
17 particular exhibit corrected. The
18 number's right, it's just -- instead
19 of saying per floor, it should say
20 total.
22 Good. And make sure that everybody
23 else has an opportunity to have spoke
24 at least once? And seeing that and
123
1 seeing nobody else, I am going to

2 close this public hearing right at
3 this time. And --
4 MR. WERNER: Our next
5 meeting is scheduled for March 9th at
6 7:00 o'clock p.m.
7 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW:
8 That's the next one for this
9 particular item; right?
10 MR. WERNER: That's
11 correct.
13 So, in case somebody might have
14 missed it -- and that goes to the
15 team member City Council -- oh, no,
16 I'm sorry. That goes to us for
17 deliberation before we even make a
18 decision, and then we'll move on.
19 Yes, sir?
20 MR. MCNICHOLS: I'm
21 sorry, in the past interested parties
22 have been allowed to submit written
23 testimony after the close of the
24 public testimony. Will that be the
124
1 case after tonight's proceeding?

3 not hearing any --
4 MR. WERNER: Well,
5 that's how we got into a procedural
6 -- there's no way in the world
7 anybody could respond to what anybody
8 submits at the last minute of the
9 last hour of the last day --
10 MR. MCNICHOLS: So,
11 with respect, we're not afforded an
12 opportunity to respond to Mr. Day's
13 comments that he just made? I mean,
14 he refuted some of the testimony that
15 we gave, and we're not allowed to
16 respond?
17 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: That
18 is the normal procedure. That is the
19 normal -- yes, sir, that is the
20 normal procedure. They -- that is
21 the way that --
22 MR. MCNICHOLS: I just
23 want to be on record saying that
24 we're not afforded the chance to ask
125
1 questions or refute any --

2 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: What
3 happens is it goes back -- if it
4 happened, we'd go back and forth, and
5 you would say something and they
6 would say something that -- and it
7 would never end. It would be a
8 never ending -- so, we want to do it
9 with this --
10 MR. MCNICHOLS: The due
11 process ends with them just so I'm
12 clear?
14 May I add something? Just maybe I can
15 help with that point of clarification.
16 The applicant has the
17 burden of proof here. They have to
18 prove that they meet the conditions
19 upon which they are looking, so in
20 that kind of a situation they do have
21 the last word. Somebody's got to
22 have the last word, and that's why it
23 goes to the applicant.
24 MR. WERNER: There will
126
1 be other opportunities. With the

2 Develop Planning and Zoning Committee,
3 there's that opportunity, so --
5 So, then have you given a date on
6 which we will be deliberating?
7 MR. WERNER: March 9th.
9 Than, is that the only thing on our
10 agenda?
11 MR. WERNER: No,
12 actually that's going to be a nice
13 fun night. From 5:00 to 7:00 prior
14 to our meeting we're going to have a
15 workshop on our downtown rezoning
16 effort, so you're all welcome to come
17 to that one. We've had our downtown
18 plan approved already, and now we're
19 going to implement the zoning changes
20 that the plan calls for. Then we
21 have a public hearing for a cell
22 tower request to go higher. The cell
23 tower exists at the corner of --
24 intersection of North York and 290.
127
1 You might remember that tower here on

2 290 because it's pretty much right at
3 eye level. It was held at 50 feet,
4 and they're applying for a conditional
5 use. They have a bad location I
6 believe -- yeah, they want to go up
7 to 80 feet I believe. So, that's
8 Case No. 1, then we'll deliberate
9 this case.
11 Anything else; any other --
12 MR. WERNER: No, I have
13 no other business.
15 Can I have the motion to adjourn?
16 COMMISSIONER WARNKE:
17 So moved.
19 Second.
20 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW: All
21 in favor, signify by saying aye?
23 CHAIRMAN MUSHOW:
24 Meeting has been adjourned.
EXISTING NEW
Architect
34' - 8" 300 N. State St. #3812

Chicago IL 60654
28' - 51/2"
P. 312 661 0140

ASPHALT SHINGLES
Structural Engineer
HARDI-TRIM BOARDS Civil Engineer
EXISTING BUILDING HARDI-TRIM PANELS

BRICK VENEER
M.E.P. Engineer
BRICK VENEER
Interior Designer
2 NORTH ELEVATION - LAKE ST.

A5.1 1/8" = 1'-0"
NEW EXISTING
34' - 8"
28' - 51/2"
ASPHALT SHINGLES
HARDI-TRIM BOARDS

HARDI-TRIM PANELS
BRICK VENEER EXISTING

BUILDING
BRICK VENEER
1 SOUTH ELEVATION - FREMONT AVENUE

A5.1 1/8" = 1'-0"
ASPHALT SHINGLES
HARDI-TRIM BOARDS
HARDI-TRIM PANELS
BRICK VENEER
4 WEST ELEVATION
A5.1 1/8" = 1'-0"
REVISIONS
34' - 8"
28' - 51/2"
ASPHALT SHINGLES
DATE OF PRINT
HARDI-TRIM BOARDS
HARDI-TRIM PANELS 3/2/2017 12:44:35 PM
PROJECT STATUS
BRICK VENEER DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
SHEET TITLE
NEW EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
EXISTING
3 EAST ELEVATION BUILDING SHEET NO.
A5.1 1/8" = 1'-0" BRICK VENEER
A5.1
Contingent$639,000
Sold$749,733 12/5/16
?????
Sold$719,000 6/29/16
ElmcrestAverage
$persquarefeet=
$219
Sold$1,060,000 12/1/16
Sold$910,000 6/6/16
Listed$935,000
KenilworthAverage
$persquarefeet=
$255
$36*3000=$108,000
Fromapplicantsconditionaluseapplication:
Policy7fromPage19oftheElmhurstComprehensivePlan:
7.ProtectandenhancethecommerciallandusefunctionsoftheLakeStreetandGrandAvenuecorridors
andtheindustriallandusefunctionsoftheemploymentareabetweenGrandAvenueandLakeStreet,andRoute83andYork.
ExecutiveSummaryoftheElmhurstComprehensivePlan:
LandUseandDevelopment
TheFutureLandUseFrameworkisintendedtoprovideablueprintofthefuturedevelopmentpatternoftheCityofElmhurstbyindicatingthetypeand
organizationofusesthatwouldmosteffectivelyhelptheCitymeetitscomprehensiveplanninggoals.ThelanduseplanworksinconjunctionwiththeZoning
Ordinance,aregulatorytoolthatguidesimplementationofthelanduseplan.TheFutureLandUseFrameworkisapolicyguideintendedtoprovide
generaldirectionoverthelifeoftheComprehensivePlan,whilethezoningordinancedefinesallowableusesonspecificparcelsofland.Amajorfocusofthe
landusestrategyistoupdatetheCityszoningcodetoreflectgoals,objectivesandpoliciesrecommendedinthePlan,whichinclude:
Reinforcingmixedusedevelopmentindesignatedlocations,suchasdowntownandinsubareas,
Maintainingstrongresidentialneighborhoodsbyprotectingthequalityofexistinghousingstockandensuring
compatibilityofrehabilitatedhomes
Elevationsprovidedbyapplicant:East,NorthandSouthelevationsprovided
Currentviewfacingeastfrom
185E.FremontAve.
Note:Theapplicantdidnotincludeawestelevationintheirdocuments,sowehavetoassumethat
itwill,tosomedegree,matchtheothersideofthebuilding.Thisisarendering
ofwhattheviewwouldbeinourbackyard,facingeast.
Backyardof185E.FremontfacingEastwithproposedexpansion
Renderingprovidedbyapplicant.
1) NotetheproximityofEECCexpansiontohomeat185E.FremontAve.
2) Landscapingplansincluderemovalofthesetrees
2
1
2
2 2
1130pmFebruary22,2017
PLAT OF SURVEY
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL 1:
LOT 1 IN THE ELMHURST CARE CENTER SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE
N
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 40 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JAN 6, 1999 AS
DOCUMENT R99-002942, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
PARCEL 2:
LOT 14 (EXCEPT THE NORTH 207.7 FEET OF LOT 14, AS MEASURED ON THE EASTERLY LINE
THEREOF AND AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO) IN BLOCK 1 IN ROBERTSONS FIRST ADDITION TO
ELMHURST, SAID ADDITION BEING A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 36 AND PART
OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 40 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF DUPAGE AND STATE OF ILLINOIS.
SCALE 1" = 20
PARCEL 3:
THE SOUTH 165 FEET (MEASURED ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE) OF THE WEST 60 FEET OF LOT
15 IN BLOCK 1 IN ROBERTSONS ADDITION TO ELMHURST, A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 36 AND PART OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP
40 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
0 20 40
THEREOF RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1907 AS DOCUMENT 92032, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
TRUE NORTH BASED ON GEODETIC
OBSERVATION IL EAST ZONE
FO
U
NA ND
I MA 4 CHAIN
CO L A G
RN T LINK FENCE
ER 10 MAST N,S NOTES:
5 8 MAST N,S
WI
RE THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE COMMITMENT FOR
S
ALL PARCELS. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS OR
OTHER ENCUMBRANCES EXIST OVER THE PROPERTY THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN
EP EP 5 HEREON.
1 WI
RE
3.
1S .9
E S
LAST DATE OF FIELD WORK: JANUARY 20, 2016.
OR
ACE OF IGI AT CLIENTS REQUEST MISSING MONUMENTATION, IF ANY, HAS NOT BEEN SET.
W E F N
L 29
. E
OF AL
WAL LA CEN
KE TE PROPERTY SURVEYED: 76,264 SQ. FT. OR 1.751 ACRES MORE OF LESS.
ST RLI
RE N

ET E
33
BC
E FACE OF
W
1
0.
9
US
WALL 0.
L R
5
1 2
.8 AK OUT
E
ST E 2
HE
RE
TO
FO
R 0
DE E
RE
DI
ET
CA
TE
D

27
.44
S6 0.
TWO STORY
9 76
55
8+/- WOOD
BRICK 01 (M) BC
"HANDICAP 27 2 0. SOUND WALL
0. 2"
APARTMENT UNKNOWN 1S
S6 E
PARKING" 6 7 (
BUILDING VALVE
"CLERGY 32 1
(R M) C FO
04 )

PARKING" "E 11 N UN
1 A
"DOCTORS (R) 11 16 N IL D
W 1 M
PARKING ONLY" 3-8 MAST N,S 18 41 & AL 20 AG
" O ON . 0
CONC BLOCK GUY WIRE R (
( M N
-L G 0

) )
RAILING WALL IN
E
W
75
3

9.
5
1 2
.8
2
S021 06"
R)
W(
WI
AUTO
RE
"ELMHURST
8
S00 1 02
"EM)
(
SPRINKLER
S
EXTENDED 11.39
CARE" SIGN "HANDICAP LOT ONE
PARKING" P A R C E L 1 E
5
BC 0.
BENCH
FOUND
WA PUB /2
1 "I P
TE L
RM IC 11
.6S &
AI UT
N IL 1
0.3E

PE I TY

FLAG POLE R
.71
DO EAS
CU E
ME MEN
R)
S 58
54
NT T
5
43"E(
R7 FOR 5 .
R)
M)
BENCH 5- 7
2 5 FOUND MAG
(
(
169
99
8 (
98
3 M)
94 L 2 00
0. N
S 58 NAI
N00 25
0 ONG &
222.
5 AL
222.
CONC BLOCK
WINDOW
3 . 9 "E
WALL BENCH 0 7 ( ON-LINE
WELL TRANS ON 8 (
R M
4 )
U
BENCH CONC PAD 1 ) "E
BRICK WALL (
T R
) BC
RS
HU 5 WOOD FENCE 7
0. E

M
EL 07 ELEC ENCLOSING
M)
9 GAS METER
1 TRASH AREA
TO , SWITCH
R)
51"W(
N 3 0
O 32 CLEANOUT
TI ER 20
41"W(
73.18
M)
DI B 9 ON ELEVATOR
R)
O
AD CT NT SI
(
I (AT GRADE)
(
V
90
S O E I
85

S00 25
M EA
10
N BD 99
S02 27
O ED U S
WA EM
C U
TS RD DO S 19 T E
OF ER NT
42
WINDOW
40.
ER CO S
40.
,
B ER 6 29 WELL
M
DO EL AI
FO
RO RE A
NT Y 0 CU MH N T
R
R 0
CE UA 9- ME UR O
5
CONC NT ST TH
RE AN R9 ONE & TWO BLOCK R9 PE E C
03"W
J T R
CA D
PART OF LOT 13 3 9-0 ITY
STORY BRICK WALL
N WI 02
33
3 IRON T DE ME BUILDING RE 94
RAILING RS OR CU 72.50 S 2
HU EC DO
#200
W
N02 07
M R
389.
L POSSIBLE EASEMENT
E AS PER DOCUMENT R99-6345
6 WIRES
M)
R)
1 WIRE
52"E(
93620"W(R) AMERITECH EASEMENT PER
42"W (
N8
66
5
2938
.4 (
R) CONC BLOCK DOCUMENT R99-095449
506" M)
W( WINDOW 1
S875 EDGING W
SNOW PILE IR
.57M)
( WELL
29.
293
RES
E
4" DRAIN
S01 14
CLEANOUT
S02 13
5 WI
S893620"W(R)
WINDOW GAP
91
5.37 483
.3 (
R)
E
6 WELL CONC BLOCK
5
SHE 1
D 0.
9.
CLEANOUT 506"
M)
W(
WALL S875
F /2
OUND 1 "I P
48.22(
M)
WOOD 0.08E & ON-
L NE
I
PERGOLA FOUND 1/2 P
"I
AT CORNER
METAL SHED 2 WIRES 11361
. 1
BC 0.N 6 WOOD FOUND 3/4" IP
SHE 2
D 0.8E

S875 50
6"W FNC END 6 CHAIN FENCE AT CORNER
RES
2 WI FENCE
E FACE OF GUY WIRE 2. S
6 LINK FENCE
. S &
6
NORTHEAST
"IP BC 1
E
FOUND 1/2
3
WALL ON-LINE POST CORNER OF

LAT 43
.1 25
.W
NG F
RES
GUY WIRE LYI
FNC END 0.
(BELOW FRAME LOT 4

EASTERLY LINE OF THE
ON GROUND GRADE)
/4" OUND IR SHED
I
FOUND 3 F EAST 60 OF LOT 15
3 W
IP AT LYING FLAT
5700
. R)
(
CORNER ON GROUND
56.98(
M)
6W FRAME
FNCX 0.
4 CHAIN 35
. GARAGE
LINK FENCE FRAME
GARAGE
BRICK FIRE
PIT WESTERLY LINE
OF THE EAST
60 OF LOT 15
02"E
R)
M)
(
(
PART OF LOT 15
00
25
PART OF
S00 18
P A R C E L 3 LOT 15
165.
166.
60
60
PART OF LOT 13
DRIVEWAY EASEMENT
5 LOT 2
PER DOCUMENT
03"E
M)
R96-124542
R)
22(
LOT 1
(
00
S02 07
6
ON 195
35
166.
PART OF LOT 14 I
165.
S ,
VI 23 9
166.
P A R C E L 2
BDI R 68
E
SU MB 824

VE T
R)
M)
S
EN NO EN
5
6.8
(
(
00
L
15
M
1 HE ED CU
D
150.
O
150.
K R D
C CO S
O EASTERLY LINE OF THE RE A
L WEST 60 OF LOT 15 TWO STORY
B BRICK &
FRAME ONE STORY
T
TWO STORY
RS RESIDENCE BRICK
FRAME HU RESIDENCE
M
RESIDENCE EL 07
19
TO ,
N 3 0
O 32
ITI ER 20
D O B 9 WESTERLY LINE OF THE GAS METER
AD CT NT WEST 60 OF LOT 15
S O E
M
SON ED CU
T RD DO
BER CO S
E A
RO
7
6.8 R
M)
R)
21"(
91 46(
91 49
" FOUND
FOUND 3/4
FOUND 3/4" 3/4"I P
P 0.
I 50S &
I .
P 123N &
AT CORNER
3
0. W
0 120R)
(
ON-LINE
FOUND 2
1 0.12(
M)
3/4" IP 12 (
0R)
M) WAL 7
K 0.S
R) 1
19.95(
ON-LINE 57. (
00
9
.5S87523
6"W
5700
. (M) 7
1 9 FOUND CROSS
0.09
7921
.8 . S
0 3.95S

WALK 1 B
FOUND CROSS GAP SOUTHEAST

FOUND CROSS 3.80S & CORNER OF
3.98S
ON- LINE LOT 4
FOUND IP AT
60
0.05N
FREMONT AVENUE
3
FOUND IP AT
W
IR
R CORNER
CATE D PE
E
HERETOFORE DEDI
S
DOCUMENT 92032
GUY WIRE
B RES
3 WI B U
B 3 WIRES
FOUND CROSS
FOUND CROSS . N
00
B
3
FOUND CROSS 2.94N

2.97N

F /2
OUND 1 P
"I
P
S
F /2
OUND 1 "I
E
.
160N
IR
.
147N
W
3
FOUND IP AT
0.03S
STATE OF ILLINOIS)
LEGEND )SS
COUNTY OF COOK )
STORM SEWER SANITARY MANHOLE HAND HOLE
SANITARY SEWER STORM MANHOLE STREET LIGHT WE, SPACECO, INC., AN ILLINOIS PROFESSIONAL DESIGN FIRM, NUMBER 184-
LOUN
CATCH BASIN UTILITY POLE 001157, DO HEREBY DECLARE THAT THIS MAP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY ON IAN SB
BR U
COMBINED SEWER
WHICH IT IS BASED IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF SAID
C.
INLET TRAFFIC SIGNAL

RY
W W WATER MAIN SURVEY.

FLARED END SECTION BOLLARD 2841
G G GAS MAIN SIGN
E ELECTRIC MANHOLE PROFESSIONAL
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMAL PARTS THEREOF. LAND
T T UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE U UNIDENTIFIED MANHOLE
T TELEPHONE MANHOLE
SURVEYOR
E E UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE T TELEPHONE UPRIGHT ASPHALT NO DISTANCES OR ANGLES SHOWN HEREON MAY BE ASSUMED BY SCALING. STATE OF
CATV UNDERGROUND CATV LINE E ELECTRIC UPRIGHT ILLINOIS
CONCRETE
IS
R
C CABLE TV UPRIGHT THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONFORMS TO THE CURRENT ILLINOIS MINIMUM
OVERHEAD WIRE(S) ON UTILITY POLES
O
OH OH
S
O
FIRE HYDRANT GRAVEL STANDARDS OF PRACTICE APPLICABLE TO BOUNDARY SURVEYS. EM

FIBER OPTIC LINE N
I
FO FO
VALVE AND VAULT LL
ONT,I
RAILROAD BC BACK OF CURB
W WATER VALVE GIVEN UNDER OUR HAND AND SEAL THIS 8th DAY OF August, 2016
EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT
FENCE B B BOX
FNC FENCE
IN ROSEMONT, ILLINOIS.
GUARDRAIL AUXILIARY VALVE FNCX FENCE CORNER

WELL IP IRON PIPE
EDGE OF WATER
G GAS VALVE IR IRON ROD
WETLAND LIMITS (M) MEASURED
REVISIONS: DATE: 02/01/2016
(R) RECORD
C. BRIAN LOUNSBURY, I.P.L.S. No. 035-2841
08/08/2016
LICENSE EXPIRES: 11-30-2016 JOB NO: 9147
(VALID ONLY IF EMBOSSED SEAL AFFIXED)

PREPARED FOR: FILENAME:
DAY & ROBERT, P.C. COMPARE ALL DIMENSIONS BEFORE BUILDING AND REPORT ANY 9147SUR-01
DISCREPANCIES AT ONCE. REFER TO DEED OR TITLE POLICY FOR 9575 W. Higgins Road, Suite 700,
300 E 5TH AVENUE #365
BUILDING LINES AND EASEMENTS. Rosemont, Illinois 60018
NAPERVILLE, IL 60563 SHEET
Phone: (847) 696-4060 Fax: (847) 696-4065 1 OF 1
N:\Projects\9147\SURVEY\9147SUR-01.dgn Default User=ssekulich

Zoning and Planning Commission - Elmhurst Extended Care Center

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Zoning and Planning Commission - Elmhurst Extended Care Center

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ZoningandPlanningCommission February22,2017

REVISION PER BUILDING 08/15/16 1

SITE PLAN PER NEW 01/31/17 2

EROSION CONTROL PLAN TO BE COMPLETED DURING FINAL

PROGRESS - DRAFT ONLY

TEMPORARY SEEDING, CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, INLET

BMP CROSS SECTION

6. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR TYPE AND MATERIAL FOR

12" STORM SEWER

BMP STORAGE REQUIRED = 1,110 C.F. (1.25")

BUILDING FF= 683.50

DISTURBED AREA = 30,750 S.F.

TOP OF BMP= 682.50

12" TOPSOIL RESPREAD

TOP OF BMP= 682.50

FULL DEPTH PAVEMENT

TYPICAL PERMEABLE PAVEMENT SECTION

AGGREGATE BASE (4") CA-7

81. SOUND WALL

CONC BLOCK 682.

684.181 683 TC=683.

TWO PUMPS (35 GPM)

ONE & TWO 683.58 685.

CONC BLOCK 683.

683.43 683.43 8 683.

685.98 686.32 686.

686.55 684.7 685.

30" GAS METER

SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN

SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN

N:\Projects\9147\PRELIM\9147P-ENG.dgn Default User=jbacha

ELMHURST EXTENDED CARE ADDITION

EXISTING 2 STORY SNF LOT COVERAGE:

EXISTING BUILDING LOT COVERAGE

ASPHALT SHINGLES Interior Designer

EXISTING BUILDING HARDI-TRIM PANELS

2 NORTH ELEVATION - LAKE ST.

200 E Lake St, Elmhurst, IL 60126

BRICK VENEER EXISTING

1 SOUTH ELEVATION - FREMONT AVENUE

BRICK VENEER DATE OF PRINT

EXISTING REVISED LOT

Existing SNF Building on Parcel 1 Zoning District- E. FREEMONT AVE.

C2 Min. Required Side Setback: None required (9' - 11" Existing

C2 Zoning District- 2.0 (.69 Proposed on C2 parcel)

NEW CONC. WALK

NEW CONC. WALK

PROPERTY LINE 166.17'

PROPERTY LINE 389.33'

200 E Lake St, Elmhurst, IL 60126

Existing Lot Area: 46,370 SF

(2nd Floor), 10,531 S.F. (Lower Level)

PROPERTY LINE 40.90'

PROPOSED ADDITION PROJECT INFO:

EXISTING CONC. WALK

# of Stories: 2 Story w/ Partial Lower Level

NEW SITE PLAN

1 BED 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED

PROPERTY LINE 166.17'

PROPERTY LINE 389.33'

1 BED 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED

1 BED 1 BED 1 BED SPA

200 E Lake St, Elmhurst, IL 60126

ELEV. SUB- N.S. 612 SF