HomeMy WebLinkAboutS14-01 Ordinance No. S14-01
AN ORDINANCE
ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ELGIN
(1389 Summit Street - Woodland Meadows North)
WHEREAS, a petition signed by all the owners of record of
certain territory has been filed with the City Clerk requesting
annexation of said territory to the City of Elgin, Illinois; and
WHEREAS, said petition includes therein a statement under oath
by all the owners of record that no electors reside on the subject
territory; and
WHEREAS, said territory is contiguous to the City of Elgin and
is not within the corporate limits of any municipality; and
WHEREAS, legal notice of the intent of the City of Elgin to
annex said territory have been forwarded to all public bodies
required to receive said notice in the manner provided by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS :
Section 1 . That the territory and lands described as follows
be and are annexed to and made a part of the City of Elgin and the
boundaries of the City of Elgin be and are hereby enlarged and
extended to include in the corporate boundaries of the City of
Elgin said territory:
LOT 6 AND LOT 5 IN BENHART' S SUBDIVISION, BEING A
SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 9 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN THE
RECORDER' S OFFICE OF COOK COUNTY ON JUNE 25, 1964 AS
DOCUMENT NO. 19155554, EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID LOT 5
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID LOT 5; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
LOT 5, A DISTANCE OF 63 .25 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY PARALLEL
WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, A DISTANCE OF 24 . 34
FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID
LOT 5, A DISTANCE OF 63 .25 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
LOT 5 ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF
24 . 74 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING SITUATED IN
HANOVER TOWNSHIP, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS (PROPERTY COMMONLY
KNOWN AS 1389 SUMMIT STREET) .
Section 2 . That a certified copy of this ordinance together
with an accurate map of said territories shall be filed with the
Recorder of Deeds, Cook County, Illinois .
Section 3 . That this ordinance shall be in full force and
effect immediately after its passage in the manner provided by law.
Ed Schoc Ma
yor
Presented: September 26, 2001
Passed: September 26, 2001
Omnibus Vote: Yeas: 7 Nays : 0
Recorded: September 27, 2001
Published:
Attest :
L-16-4A„V
Dolonna Mecum, C ty Clerk
1
August 20,2001
C
FINDINGS OF FACT
Community Development Group City of Elgin, Illinois
SUBJECT
Consideration of Petition 47-01 Requesting Annexation, Preliminary Plat Approval and PMFR
Planned Multiple Family Residence District Zoning for a Residential Development to be Known as
Woodland Meadows North; Property Located at 1389 Summit Street by Charles P. Miller, as
Applicant, and Ed and Dorothy Wallace, as Owners.
BACKGROUND
Requested Action: Annexation and Zoning Approval
Proposed Zoning: PMFR Planned Multiple Family Residence District
Intended Use: Attached Single Family Dwellings
Property Location: 1389 Summit Street
p Y
Applicant : Charles P. Miller
Owner: Ed and Dorothy Wallace
Staff Coordinator: Lauren Kieck, Associate Planner
LIST OF EXHIBITS
A. Location Map (see attached)
B. Zoning Map (see attached)
C. Parcel Map (see attached)
D. Aerial Photo (see attached)
E. Photographs of Site (see attached)
F. Statement of Purpose and Conformance (see attached)
Exhibit A
Findings of Fact Planning and Development Commission
Petition 47-01 August 20, 2001
G. Draft Map Amendment Ordinance (see attached)
H. Related Correspondence (see attached)
BACKGROUND
An application has been filed by Charles P.Miller, requesting annexation,preliminary plat approval,
and PMFR Planned Multiple Family Residence District zoning. The subject property is located at
1389 Summit Street (reference exhibits A,B, C, D,and E).
The applicant proposes to annex the subject property to the City of Elgin and develop the site with
22 residential townhouse units contained within six buildings. Each of the dwelling units will have
two bedrooms and a two car garage. The developer proposes to construct the buildings with a
combination of brick and aluminum siding,and intends to preserve many of the existing mature trees
currently located on the site (reference exhibits F, G, and H).
FINDINGS
After due notice, as required by law, the Planning and Development Commission held a public
hearing in consideration of Petition 47-01 on August 6, 2001. The applicant testified at the public
hearing and presented documentary evidence in support of the application. Objectors spoke at the
public hearing. The Community Development Group submitted an Annexation and Zoning Review,
dated July 26,2001.
The Planning and Development Commission has made the following findings concerning the
standards for map amendments:
A. Site Characteristics Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the intended
zoning district with respect to its size, shape, significant natural features (including
topography, watercourse and vegetation), and existing improvements.
Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended zoning district with respect to the
site characteristics standard.
The subject property is a regularly shaped parcel containing approximately 3.7 acres of land,
and is currently developed with a single family residence and three accessory structures.
There are stands of mature trees generally located within the westerly half of the subject
property. A hedgerow of trees and shrubs is located along the north property line.
According to the North Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District report, the
National Wetland Inventory map does not identify wetland areas on the subject property.
Topography on the site ranges from a high point of 805 feet located at the southeastern
corner of the site, to a low point 797 feet located at the northeastern corner of the site.
-2-
Findings of Fact Planning and Development Commission
(4., Petition 47-01 August 20, 2001
B. Sewer and Water Standard. The suitability ofthe subject property for the intended zoning
district with respect to the availability of adequate municipal water,wastewater treatment,
and storm water control facilities.
Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended zoning district with respect to the
sewer and water standard.
The subject property will be served by municipal water and sanitary sewer services. The
developer proposes to utilize a combination of private and municipal stormwater control
services. In order to preserve the trees located on the western half of the site,the developer
proposes to minimize the size of the on site detention area (as shown currently), while
providing the remaining stormwater control within a city-owned stormwater control facility
located at the southeast corner of Hunter•Drive and Summit Street. Specific plans for this
proposal have yet to be approved by the Engineering Department.
C. Traffic and Parking Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the intended
zoning district with respect to the provision of safe and efficient on-site and off-site vehicular
circulation designed to minimize traffic congestion.
Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended zoning district with respect to the
�r traffic and parking standard.
The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Summit Street
and Shales Parkway. Summit Street is a regional arterial street providing continuity
throughout the western suburbs. Shales Parkway is an arterial street serving the east side of
Elgin.
The applicant is proposing to provide a two car garage for each townhouse unit,or a total of
four parking stalls per dwelling unit. This conforms with the requirements of the zoning
ordinance and is in accordance with other townhouse developments previously approved
throughout the city.
The developer proposes to provide access to the site through one private road located
approximately 120 feet north of the site's southerly property line. The Engineering
Department has requested that the developer move the access point to the south property line;
however, this would render the site undevelopable as currently proposed.
D. Zoning History Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the intended zoning
district with respect to the length of time the property has remained undeveloped or unused
in its current zoning district.
C
-3-
Findings of Fact Planning and Development Commission
Petition 47-01 August 20, 2001
Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended zoning district with respect to the
length of time the property has remained undeveloped or unused in its current zoning district.
The subject property is currently developed with a detached single family residence located
within unincorporated Cook County.
E. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Standard. The suitability of the subject property for
the intended zoning district with respect to consistency and compatibility with surrounding
land use and zoning.
Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended zoning district with respect to
consistency and compatibility with surrounding land use and zoning.
The area located to the north of the subject property is located within unincorporated Cook
County and is undeveloped. Aerial photographs indicate that this area is currently in
agricultural use.
The area directly to the east of the subject property is located within the Elgin corporate
limits and zoned CF Community Facility District.The property is owned by Commonwealth
Edison and is developed with electric distribution towers. Further east is Little Angels,also
zoned CF District.
The area located south of the subject property is zoned RC 1 Residence Conservation District
and is developed with single family homes.
The area located to the west of the subject property is located within unincorporated Cook
County and is developed with a single family residence.
F. Trend of Development Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the intended
zoning district with respect to consistency with an existing pattern of development or an
identifiable trend of development in the area.
Findings.The subject is suitable for the intended zoning district with respect to consistency
with an existing pattern of development or an identifiable trend within the area.
The subject property is located within the Summit Street corridor. This area is developing
with a mixture of commercial and residential land uses.
G. Zoning District Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the intended zoning
district with respect to conformance to the provisions for the purpose and intent, and the
location and size of a zoning district.
-4-
Findings of Fact Planning and Development Commission
Petition 47-01 August 20, 2001
The purpose and intent of the planned multiple family residence district is to provide a
planned urban residential environment for multiple family dwellings, subject to the
provisions of Chapter 19.60, Planned Developments. A PMFR zoning district is most
similar to, but departs from, the standard requirements of the MFR zoning district.
Planned residence districts should be located in substantial conformance to the official
comprehensive plan. The amount of land necessary to constitute a separate planned
residence district exclusive of rights-of-way shall not be less than two acres. No departure
from the required minimum size of a planned residence district shall be granted by the City
Council.
Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended zoning district with respect to
conformance to the provision for the purpose and intent,and the location and size of a PMFR
Planned Multiple Family Residence District.
The proposed residential development is in substantial conformance to the requirements of
Chapter 19.60,Planned Developments. With the exception of the requested departures,the
proposed development also meets the site design requirements of the MFR Multiple Family
Residence District.
The density of the proposed development is approximately one dwelling unit per 6,100
square feet of net residential land area,or seven dwelling units per net acre. Comparatively,
other townhouse developments within the area are developed at approximately one dwelling
unit per 5,700 square feet and one dwelling unit per 6,000 square feet of residential land area
(Woodland Meadows I and II used for comparison). The minimum required residential land
area within the MFR District is 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit.
H. Comprehensive Plan Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the intended
zoning district with respect to conformance to the goals, objectives, and policies of the
official comprehensive plan.
Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended zoning district with respect to the
Comprehensive Plan Standard.
The Official Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as"urban residential." The
proposed development of attached single family dwellings conforms with this designation.
Natural Preservation Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the intended
planned development with respect to the preservation of all significant natural features
including topography, watercourses, wetlands, and vegetation.
-5-
Findings of Fact Planning and Development Commission
Petition 47-01 August 20, 2001
Findings. The subject property may be suitable for the intended zoning district with respect
to the Natural Preservation Standard.
There are stands of mature trees generally located within the westerly half of the subject
property. It is unknown whether or not these trees are of a type that should be preserved as
part of the development of the subject property. The developer does intend to preserve as
many trees as possible;however,changes to the proposed on site detention area could result
in a reduction in the number of trees preserved. In addition to this provision, the applicant
also proposes to provide a substantial landscape buffer between the subject property and the
adjacent properties to the south and west.
J. Internal Land Use Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the residential
zoning classification with respect to the land uses permitted within the development being
located, designed, and operated so as to exercise no undue detrimental influence on each
other or on surrounding property.
Findings. The subject property is suitable for the proposed zoning district with respect to
the internal land use standard.
No evidence has been submitted or found that the proposed development will be located,
designed,or operated in a manner that will exercise undue detrimental influence on itself or
surrounding property.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DEPARTURES AND EXCEPTIONS
This planned development contemplates certain departures from the normal standards,regulations,
and requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinances. For the purposes of this section, the
most similar zoning district is the MFR Multiple Family Residence District. The requested
departures are summarized as follows:
1. 19.12.300(E)-Principal Buildings per Zoning Lot. In the MFR Multiple Family
Residence District, one principal building per zoning lot is allowed. The proposed
planned development contemplates six (6) townhouse principal buildings.
2. 19.25.735(E., 1.,e.)-Transition Setback. In the MFR Multiple Family Residence
District,the required rear yard setback is 50 feet. The proposed planned development
contemplates a minimum transition building setback of 30 feet from the southerly lot
line and 16 feet from the westerly lot line.
-6-
Findings of Fact Planning and Development Commission
Petition 47-01 August 20, 2001
3. 19.25.735 (E., 1., a.) -Street Setback. In the MFR Multiple Family Residence
District, the required street yard setback is 35 feet. The proposed planned
development contemplates a minimum setback of 30 feet from Shales Parkway.
4. 18.24.020A&G-Street specifications/design standards: The proposed cul-de-sac
street (which will provide access to the new dwelling units) is proposed to be a
private street. The private street is not proposed to be located within a right-of-way.
A 50 foot right-of-way is standard for the neck of a cul-de-sac and 200 foot center
line diameter right-of-way is standard at the bulb of a cul-de-sac.
The proposed private street is 24 feet wide measured back-to-back of the roll over
curb and gutter(26 feet is standard with barrier type curb and gutter). The proposed
private street at the bulb is 90 feet wide measured back-to-back of the roll over curb
and gutter(a 110 foot wide diameter is standard).
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, UNRESOLVED ISSUES,AND ALTERNATIVES
The Planning and Development Commission has developed or identified the following findings,
unresolved issues, and alternatives:
A. Summary of Findings.
1. General. The applicant is requesting several departures of the site design
requirements of the MFR Multiple Family Residence District. The requested
departures are partially due to the need to keep the entrance drive located as far south
on the site as possible. The location of the access drive to the site as currently
proposed is the minimum distance necessary for the proper function of a left turn lane
from Shales Parkway to Summit Street. If the proposed entrance drive were to be
moved further north,it would interfere with the existing left turn lane.The applicant
also is requesting the proposed departures in order to preserve as many trees on the
site as possible. The Community Development Group has determined that the
proposed preservation of mature trees warrants the support of the requested
departures.
2. Trend of Development. The subject property is located within the Summit Street
corridor. This area is developing with a mixture of commercial and residential land
uses.
3. Zoning District. The density of the proposed development is approximately one
dwelling unit per 6,100 square feet of net residential land area, or seven dwelling
-7-
Findings of Fact Planning and Development Commission
Petition 47-01 August 20, 2001
units per net acre. Comparatively,other townhouse developments within the area are
developed at approximately one dwelling unit per 5,700 square feet and one dwelling
unit per 6,000 square feet of residential land area (Woodland Meadows I and II
usedfor comparison). The minimum required residential land area within the MFR
District is 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit.
4. Comprehensive Plan. The Official Comprehensive Plan designates the subject
property as"urban residential." The proposed development of attached single family
dwellings conforms with this designation.
5. Natural Preservation. There are stands of mature trees generally located within the
westerly half of the subject property. It is unknown whether or not these trees are of
a type that should be preserved as part of the development of the subject property.
The developer does intend to preserve as many trees as possible;however,changes
to the proposed on site detention area could result in a reduction in the number of
trees preserved. In addition to this provision,the applicant also proposes to provide
a substantial landscape buffer between the subject property and the adjacent
properties to the south and west.
B. Summary of Unresolved Issues.
Item Reviewed by the Planning and Development Commission:
The Planning and Development Commission recommends that the exterior building
elevations shall be comprised of a minimum 100%natural building materials(brick, stone,
wood, or stucco) on all street facing wall surfaces, and 50% natural materials on all other
wall surfaces. The Planning and Development Commission also suggests that substitution
of"hardie-board" (or similar product) for natural materials is acceptable. The developer,
however,would like to use a combination of brick and aluminum siding on the front building
facades, with the other three building facades being constructed primarily of aluminum
siding.
Items for Review by the City Council:
Although reviewed by the City Council, the Planning and Development Commission noted
that the Community Development Group recommends that the annexation of the subject
property be subject to submittal of an annexation agreement within which the developer
agrees to pay all required impact fees. At this point,the developer does not wish to submit
an annexation agreement for Council review,but does agree to pay the required impact fees.
The final unresolved issue is regarding the placement of a sidewalk along Summit Street.
The Engineering Department has requested that the developer place a sidewalk within a 10
-8-
Findings of Fact Planning and Development Commission
Petition 47-01 August 20, 2001
foot easement either within the Summit Street right of way or on the subject property. The
developer contends that this requirement is unreasonable because there are no sidewalks
located along Summit Street within the general vicinity of the site,and the placement of the
sidewalk would require the removal of a hedgerow that is proposed to be preserved. Staff
contends that the sidewalk could be placed within the Summit Street right of way without
requiring the removal of the hedgerow, or could be placed on the property in an area where
the hedgerow is not located.
C. Summary of Alternatives.
Other than an approval,a denial,or an approval with some combination of conditions,there
are no substantive alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Development Commission recommends the approval of Petition 47-01. On a
motion to recommend approval,subject to the following conditions,the vote was three(3)yes,two
(2)no, and one(1) abstention:
1. Submission of a signed annexation agreement within which the owner accepts
responsibility for paying all required impact fees, and which is mutually agreeable
to both the developer and the City.
2. The exterior building elevations shall be comprised of a minimum 100% natural
building materials on all street facing wall surfaces,and 50%natural materials on all
other wall surfaces. Natural building materials shall be defined as brick, stone,
wood, or stucco. Substitution of"hardi-board" (or similar product) for natural
materials is also acceptable.
3. Substantial conformance to the letter from James C. Ueker, P.E., to Omar Santos,
dated July 30, 2001, regarding Woodland Meadows North, with the exception to
paragraph number 13. The developer shall provide a sidewalk within a 10 foot
easement along the northerly property line, either on the site, or within the Summit
Street right of way.
4. The number of trees to be preserved on site shall be in substantial conformance with
the trees shown on the Preliminary Design Plan (page 4 of the Preliminary Plan of
Proposed Improvements). Any alteration in the number of trees to be preserved that
is not deemed to be substantial conformance shall require reconsideration of the
proposed planned development by the Planning and Development Commission.
-9-
Findings of Fact Planning and Development Commission
Petition 47-01 August 20, 2001
5. Substantial conformance to the Statement of Purpose and Conformance submitted
by Charles P. Miller, no date.
6. Substantial conformance to the proposed Preliminary Plan of Proposed
Improvements,prepared by JAS Associates, Inc., and dated June 20, 2001.
7. Substantial conformance to the proposed Woodland Meadows North Landscape Plan,
prepared by Trees Unlimited, and dated July 2, 2001. Additionally, the landscape
plan shall be supplemented with 108 shrubs to be located along the westerly property
line and other landscaping as required by the Community Development Group. The
three Austrian Pines proposed at the northwest corner of the detention basin shall be
relocated to the southerly or westerly property line.
8. Substantial conformance to the proposed building elevations and floor plans for
Woodland Meadows, labeled Exhibit F.
9. Compliance with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
C
6 al.1 4
George W ff, Chai tr
Planning and Development Commission
J itilhereerger, ere _S c UC.
anning and Developmen Commission
C
-10-
;,.4..,,:i -
r0 :'ll 11 '-�J:===1�]==I 1 CF-I•=IIIIIII111V_I mmUM=,
-:V*.72:Nita -
! 11 1�ql 11� �11J`'=111�III111111• Illlll�.t♦.r�■- %� i'-/,►i�illu
m2A11i1n11i1u1m:1
ii
tiO
IIIiimiIIIII •.:
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII: ►tii.�-
111111111111111 .
� ®® I111111111��= ri;
`
1 IIIII/a
ft1::Itl mini IIIIIIIIIII°IIIIIIIP 1I� num. .1'7,5.p ►►:IN..Q►�..: p
J�®® II O ® , �®MWMFrA lull:mum!mull! 1,45,C*.a.V •ei• ita 1•
III' � �� u�l\� .►�♦
■ur um umuu . ► ••• �•i,Ci�i►• O �� SUBJECT PROPERTY
i1R 1:1 a�ui sInu:r uun •i .r��-`-::4%�aro t -•.,
15:M MMMWIMMHMruulllr�:IIIIIIIII,�:-_111041'i►� PETITION 47-01
IIIII 111:ward•'lllllll� /‘ C- ♦ ♦ ►
fl��II_�� -_ram �1= 2® 111 1111�.:�11:IIIIIIIIIII Illlllll,�i►�►r♦� � �5� ,� `v r�,
-®® =-=M M�� All I:'.' ME IIIIIIIIIII i111111111L''•,��♦♦,♦♦�. _= _ �.:',1%,Ill I
111/ lull It. II111 illl IIIII:Illy 1111g IIIIn1111=111111111 i4►♦♦♦♦.. -m .�:- , I r__l.l►t.
Eli'nu iiu::Iu p uuv.:• _ 11=id::!MIR Illlllho 'r u'I;• •
=� :1111111:1111,:� 111111 Illllyprlllp_..I/IA- _� �•� > _
' mg
_'_ r'maul-u, Flinn aun rd001r.,suuuu'' — :t-:�
to =1n Eli 11:mum:lc:�Illllltr�®�= 1�11 unnnnu�u�►
®:I_ -1: IIII ua In1IlIl1 '�III:-1:11111111 ylllllllr !�,�
oil MM-I-ED-1 -_ iupuuulllll um:11:mum■.11 r
ill F� FfB ;II!:emu•--'�II'i % =luau_n'Llc t „„
:u:RRMMM III::�ui=lnulu/'fy �NN=®= ■ 1 ■■ 1�'1„'I"
11
=n: :n1 EP iu1:uu- L_I rA � '1 III 1 .,
ill
'I
•IP:1■P�-III Stl 111•/l�•- , II lu/mir//111=®®®= 'WWI®.. _. .,.. N�
IIIII im rF CIZi:III-4-- "r1I11111111111111.-1__.-f-Min"1111111111� pf►Iltllllluur_ .► I �i i
vim-us:nl: unn�`=�111::rnuuunnno:_I_:t-: III •i■i _ I�olftulurr i_�.:r► :�° Ilr ///
as:II,.:1il:®.IIIIIIIt'/ :num.IIIII111111iimniiiui CIIIIIIF-p , r.......T.
_►lll1•ii►I•,rr i."is a..„ ♦♦♦toys,l`",'n it•�r ��♦s,/z•�i
WU•:III -II`11:=IIIlf1,�_rr__` 111111111111111111E 1-
- EN P:'l..I►�1►Ira:.:i al:_111111111111111111 :Illlllt:C■ ,��„•41�. ►•, '•••,•,•�•Ir11p,n1q►O•ii.■.=►,►�i. ���N,i,��
+,-_®;Al_'IIIII I11=��tlII�11�11111111111111� =1t=�IIiI I1 III 4.4.,....„±„?.,.....„.....,, �IOI►uuV•�♦O•j ..."" �i,„ .♦��111►r1,.•11\.�H I �5111��.'_ 1111IIIIIIIII1liii ®-IIII:IIIII1111� t -- ii'�i :��641f1 IU,,i,•e•J �&'��71►U'%1� .4♦U/,,♦• #4,,
Irll _ - - �:::■ ♦ %I I I, S- -►�IIII► i•
.._ .,..7 nii:alll..,. III11111 c:®:. i. iuTl_ ■.__:: O •rngl lilllll .i r.nn1O• _t.1.4.4+
p►I 1 h uuli®®.r■r-2-.r--:=uu m�_ minis :_:-:e-, warp,,41111►. ••da ►
mo.\\, •III v nuulo nail... un- ®� imolai :., ,I� 1011,�11111111111111tt ••� �•�•,•�
`-. ®ll,; Ipn�-_W_ lime r = Nvi ttj'IIm4" St.
MT.:,-4.-,Nu1I 511111Juulins to :-►• .-
♦�- ��I� 1 `` ___ lul maim 111111. -.. .._ . - f► • .4
■�1111 JI■2 11�Illllii ■11�1: .1111111 -II-`'IIIII 111111111 Mult111111 ii :;:n®ct: , 1..��,Il,11ulu'illlltlllli --o ►���//1s Ilf♦s t,
,�- ®� '.111:CIIII 111111111 .■■■ III
! t__- -► . ► � �
�' op IIIII''=;.,,111 1=='= =IIIIIIII 'I?'" • . "• -► : is,,...
1uu11 -■
:r.�Iiuuum=
-MN Si':= -- 1 v. r _IIIIIIII 1.1 nom�.�:.,:: ...:- _��-�p lulu
•`.��-u�nn■■En_l���il sow in:Iluyi■au Iuu-tulle.,"_I.I,, A■■■■I/ :e;tam,u . ♦♦-• ♦,,,
II-Il i11 lE D_'�7I111!�1lll rl■ r, �1 \ / ♦�11 nt %r
� 1_Ilt!!min Illy Ilh 1 , 1 1 „'I.aTl�����♦ •== �
4 Ill a\s I 1 El..�yu:numl:==-==1`= mums lath°`'1/I,� If l�' ► �i�i � ►
■HIE gam!
...■Ili III 1►�' .���. �_"mom vi ► •`
®ram;:, o®. . ,hUA.-U
.:1: SIIIIrI: 1 . • . . •, .•
�, FIN-- �� ='� '� /III/ ,fllllllllllllt i
♦ I ail►�\. 111E!aim:
ylllll!-� _� lfff itili
� p-
�� lVII\ �11=:IIIIIIII::IIIIIIII�I /' rI ',i - •- .IUI111111 IIIIIL: "I-('11��II'I' ' � ,���/i` t \tilt�;�,1. ` 9i14:1 - • .ul-tell='ll IIII Illyy■II1 ' ,�1rJ. ' �,`,,4 :'\t' 'c( llliII GIs ■fn■� � •U=1����:,r47
=�`t .�••' • /ltlri,1n mu:-url _e ■■��yyy� l 1 ��rtlgl=
:.. ii, it-.=ni - _�.�� NIL' ru. �
♦ 4,/Ji 1 :a-nul-I-illltm 'r ' II SZ ,I �i unll\�
lesiirreivigi;timpani in itrimia
iu �a�, 0�,1'11
:1-1114110:111e,„,im mil
1!IIII ....,•,, ;,,,- i:11u1111111�=GQIIII®i1'I� .1:111 •� �t
d uur ru.. _, rrr .. .t 11I �1/-j��/V/��}`' 'pr.;
` ��
•
IMMM Ilifill‘ii Ili .1n .
EIIIIII_ :rr,_► ., .'% .0'M=Inc Ilan= ® ®I _____ .,,�
I �%.111. ETA;:mua .�
l EIIIIII:®®m :� 1 ^-1: ollllln n_41= ETV,'-I/�1 , _ ♦�
gull LIWIIi= -Ills �C _A ,' i ♦♦ i vo,„llllllll _ '
111111E -nu mum: �1 � �� =lug ♦ �♦♦Io �•�' , a ��
?.111111=®®•• 1` �� ,�: �III1=uric uIG :T,�_♦Q ♦ ♦� � -.---- 5,1 0\11 n'"41
tuunnru►- - - ♦ ♦�O��� �� � '- -- alum yip
ai 111111 i1111 WW2
ill , ••c _ ®®� �....- •�,-®�.__ �._•`01t q 111111
N
milmolii IIIII!"ill
® CI
� _� _ �► `��" I� O� � _ �i,F.
����♦td1►��I/r
�®Nak, - -"II=EIl Tiff,Fill illllllTyr®_::IIII\°em1!Er //1♦. gli i%:r GGs t%=
j =01�:Ipu nn_�uuuuu.amain.,.IIII ``� : 1..,cif�i -^ • S��_
=:=u1::n11EMM r?lit Tim"'uuutt'r III■\0�:7 1 �4,� ti ni'�f via���a'�4��-
mi.r 1�®M® .1111111`14, 1./1�/iiItItt111111I1I11U4701:7'�,11
uus��® == !ml�mul r � lifig
I Alll_--e�-uc__ r t •=•v1`� um.. w,.•. ill1m-m m�1 ulll Il,n1111111 ■�L.INEW W.•imI11111I1imuwl1.11mnI1®MMMO1 i i
IMMMMMM �
MMM _ ill
/ _
L
DEPARTMENT OF CODE ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
JULY 27,2001
9Q0 0 900 Feet LOCATION MAP
scale is approximate
A
N
EXHIBIT A