Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/27/2015 P&Z Minutes 17-15 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-17-15 Hearing Date: August 27, 2015 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1958-2036 W. Algonquin Rd. PETITIONER :BWIP MPG Owner LLC PUBLICATION DATE: July 8, 2015 PIN NUMBER: 08-15-400-069-1001, 08-15-400-069-1002, 08-15-400-069- 1003, 08-15-400-069-1004, 08-15-400-069-1005, 08-15- 400-069-1006, 08-15-400-069-1007, 08-15-400-069-1008, 08-15-400-069-1009, 08-15-400-069-1010, 08-15-400-069- 1011, 08-15-400-069-1012, 08-15-400-069-1013, 08-15- 400-069-1014 REQUEST: -ZMA from RX-R4 -CU for PUD - Variations to lot coverage, density, parking, landscaping, setbacks and lighting MEMBERSPRESENT: Thomas Fitzgerald William Beattie Keith Youngquist Jeanne Kueter Norbert Mizwicki Joseph Donnelly, Chair Agostino Filippone-Associate MEMBERS ABSENT: Sharon Otteman STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTY :BWIP MPG Owner LLC Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Beattie made a motion to rd approve the minutes of the July 23, 2015 meeting; Commissioner Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 7-0.After hearing two (2) additional cases,Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ-17-151958-2036 W.Algonquin. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner for PZ-17-15 is seeking a zoning change from R-X to R-4, conditional use for a planned unit development, and variations to the density, lot coverage, parking, landscaping, and lighting requirements for the property located at 1958-2036 W. Algonquin Road known as Mount Prospect Greens. Ms. Andrade stated the Subject Property is located on the north side of Algonquin Road and is zoned R-X Single-Family Residence District. The Subject Property borders the R-X Single-Family Residence Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-17-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 2 District to the north and west, the R-4 Multi-Family Residential District to the east, and B-3 Community Shopping District to the south. Ms. Andrade stated that the Subject Property measures nineteen and one half (19.5) acres in area and containsfourteen (14) multi-family apartment buildings, a leasing building and related improvements. She further explained the Subject Property was developed under Cook County regulations in the 1960’s and was annexed into the Village of Mount Prospect in 1974. Upon annexation, the Subject Property was automatically classified R-X Single-Family Residence District. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner is proposing a substantial rehabilitation of the complex by replacing the tennis courts with parking and constructing a new clubhouse, in-ground pool, maintenance garage and shed. Besides the new construction, the Petitioner also intends to renovate the existing leasing building into a fitness and laundry facility and remodel thirteen (13) of the existing apartment buildings. Ms. Andrade explained the proposed improvements trigger zoning compliance and requires rezoning, conditional use, and variation approval. The Subject Property’s land use is nonconforming as multi- family residential is not a permitted land use in the R-X District. She further explainedThe Petitioner is seeking to rezone the Subject Property from R-X to R-4 to bring the land use to code compliance and allow for the proposed improvements. Ms. Andrade explained the Subject Property consists of 344 dwelling units and provides 2,474 squarefeet of lot area per dwelling unit (17.6 units per acre), which is nonconforming. She further commented that the Village Code requires a minimum of 2,700 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit (16 units per acre) in the R-4 Districts. The Petitioner does not seek to increase the number of dwelling units and is seeking a variation to density to allow the existing number of apartment units remain. Ms. Andrade stated the proposed new structures will increase the overall number of structures from fifteen (15) to eighteen (18); sixteen (16) primary buildings and two (2) accessory structures. She further explained that a Conditional use approval for a planned unit development (PUD) to allow more than one principal building is required to allow the clubhouse, garage, and shed. Ms. Andrade explained the existing overall lot coverage is approximately 52.7% and is nonconforming. The current RX zoning designation allows up to thirty five (35%) lot coverage. She further stated The R4 District allows a maximum of fifty percent (50%) overall lot coverage. The proposed improvements will increase the overall lot coverage to 54.8 % and the Petitioner seeks a variation to allow a 54.8% overall lot coverage. Ms. Andrade stated that the existing and proposed parking is nonconforming. She explained the Plat of Survey indicates there are currently 556 parking spaces. The proposed improvements include the replacement of the existing tennis courts with parking, which would increase the overall parking spaces to 586, leaving the property 174 parking spaces short of meeting code requirements. The Petitioner seeks a variation to the parkingrequirement. Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-17-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 3 Ms. Andrade stated in addition, the Petitioner submitted parking counts that indicate no more than seventy one percent (71%) of the overall parking was utilized during the times studied. Ms. Andrade stated the site planindicates the building setbacks would comply with the minimum yards required in the R-4 District. However, the parking lot setbacks would not.She further explained the existing parking lot setbacks are approximately four feet (4’) along the west lot line, two feet (2’) along the north lot line, two and a half feet (2.5’) along the east lot line, and no setback along the south lot line. She further commented thatthe proposed improvements would not change the existing setbacks. The Petitioner seeks a variation to allow the existing parking lot setbacks to remain. Ms. Andrade commented regarding the proposed lighting and landscaping improvements. She stated the proposed plans indicate lighting and landscaping will be provided only for the new improvements. The remainder of the Subject Property will remain as is, which does not comply with the landscape or parking lot lighting requirements. She stated the Petitioner seeks Variation approval to allow the remainder of the Subject Property to remain as is. Ms. Andrade summarized the standards for a map amendment as the following: The compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general area of the property in question; The compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed zoning classifications; and Consistency with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question, and the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff has reviewed the Petitioner’s request to rezone the Subject Property and finds that the standards for a map amendment have been met, as set forth in the Petitioner’s response to the standards. She further stated that rezoning to the R4 Multi-Family Residence District would be in keeping with the existing and proposed use of the property. The R4 zoning designation will be consistent with the Village Comprehensive Plan’s designation. In addition, the rezoning will be compatible with the surrounding properties. Ms. Andrade summarized the standards for a planned unit development as the following: The proposed development complies with the regulations of the district or districts in which it is to be located; The principal use in the proposed planned unit development is consistent with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan of the village for the area containing the subject site; Theproposed planned unit development is in the public interest and is consistent with the purposes of this zoning ordinance. That the streets have been designed to avoid inconvenient or unsafe access to the planned unit development and for the surrounding neighborhood; and that the development does not create an Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-17-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 4 excessive burden on public parks, recreation areas, schools, and other public facilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned unit development. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff reviewed the Petitioner’s request to allow a planned unit development (PUD) and finds that the standards for a PUD have been met, as set forth in the Petitioner’s response to the standards. Ms. Andrade summarized the standards for a variation as the following: A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff reviewed the Petitioner’s request for variations and finds that the standards for a variation have been met, as set forth in the Petitioner’s responses to the standards. She further commented the Subject Property is unique and a hardship exists due to the physical characteristics. The property measures over nineteen (19) acres in area and is irregular in shape. The property was developed under Cook County regulations. She stated the existing improvements limit the buildable area to the interior courtyard, which provides the majority of the green space. The proposed improvement would maintain the existing density, bring the parking closer to code compliance, and provide amenities to the residents. Ms. Andrade stated Stafffinds the rezoning, conditional use, and variation standards as listed in the Zoning Ordinance have been met and that granting such requests would be in the best interest of the Village. She further stated that Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission make a motion to approval adopt staff’s findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend of the following motions: A.Zoning Map Amendment from R-X Single-Family Residence to R-4 Multi-Family Residence. B.Conditional Use fora Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of sixteen (16) primary structures and two (2) accessory structures. C.Variation to allow 2,474.25 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit (17.6 units per acre). D.Variation to allow an overall lot coverage of 54.8 %. E.Variation to allow 586 overall parking spaces. F.Variation to allow existing parking lot landscaping, setbacks and lighting to remain as is, subject to the following conditions: 1.Submittal of a Plat of Subdivision creating a single lot of record incompliance with Chapter 15 of the Village Code for review and approval. 2.Development of the site in general conformance with the plans prepared by Vocon, dated July 30, 2015; 3.Obtaining permits from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for any work within Algonquin Road; Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-17-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 5 4.Submittal of final civil engineering drawings, including site work, utilities, storm water detention, for review and approval by the Village. 5.Development of the site in accordance with all applicable Village Codes and requirements, including, but not limited to, storm water detention, fire prevention, lighting, sign; and building regulations; and 6.A building permit, in accordance with the current regulations and requirements of the Village of Mount Prospect, must be issued within one (1) year from the date of adoption of the enabling ordinance by the Village Board which authorized the development proposal. The development approvals granted herein, without need for further action by any Village board, commission or official,shall become null and void if no building permit isissued within the one (1) year requirement and improvements completed within a period of eighteen (18) months. Ms. Andrade stated that other village departments reviewed the proposal and did not object to the request and further explained the Village Comprehensive Plan designates the property as multi-family residential. Ms. Andrade stated the Village Board’s decision is final for this case. Commissioner Beattie asked if additional fire lanes from the eastern accessdrivewill be added to the conditions. Ms. Andrade responded that Staff was recommendinga condition of approval to complywill all applicable requirements, including a fire lane;otherwise the Petitioner will have to request a variation if they want to deviate from the requirements. Chairman Donnelly swore in Jeff Gibbon, architect for the project, 3142 Prospect Avenue Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. Gibbon stated the new owner, Paul Keibler, purchased the Subject Property in December 2014. He further stated that all of the units are getting renovated and the site improvements are to correct functional deficiencies. Mr. Gibbons gave some brief descriptionsof the challenges the site offers. He explained there isn’t a clear path navigating through the complex. He also stated that they are looking to include amenities that the site is lacking. He further explained that Staff did a great job explaining theproject in detail and that he can answer any follow up questions the board has. Chairman Donnelly asked why only 13 of the 14 buildings are getting renovated. Mr. Gibbons stated that one of the buildings had been recently renovated in 2011 due to a fire. Chairman Donnelly asked what the reasoning for the rezoning is. Mr. Gibbons stated that the site has been multi-family since the 1960’s and would need to rezone the property in order make significant changes. Ms. Andrade stated the property is currently nonconforming and is subject to the Village’s nonconforming provisions. She further explained, in the event the property is damaged more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement value they would be subjectto bring it up to the RX zoning standards Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-17-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 6 which doesn’t allow multi-family residential. She explained rezoning to the R4 would allow the Petitioner to remodel and reconstruct asmulti-family. Chairman Donnelly asked if the Petitioner could replace all the units after the renovations with the new zoning. Ms. Andrade responded the units could be replaced but any changes or amendmentsto the PUD would need to be brought before the board for review and approval. She further explained the variation will allow the current density to remain. Chairman Donnelly clarified that if the variations get approved the petitioner can’t decide to tear down the buildings and rebuild with the same amount of units. He also asked the Petitioner if they agreed to the conditions set forth by Staff. The Petitioner said they understand and agree with the conditions. Commissioner Mizwicki asked if the entire complex is occupied. Chairman Donnelly swore in Paul Kiebler 30195 Chagrin Boulevard. Mr. Kiebler stated the complex is 96.8% leased. Commissioner Mizwicki asked how the buildings will get renovated. Mr. Kiebler stated that some of the renovations are done with the units being occupied. He also explained that if a significant amount of work is being done they don’t renew leases until the work is completed and relocate the tenant to another unit in the meantime. Commissioner Mizwicki asked what typesof renovations will take place. Mr. Kiebler stated that it will be a full remodel including new floors, paint, kitchens, and appliances. Commissioner Beattie asked what the time frame for the project is. Mr. Kiebler stated that it depends on the leases. He stated about twenty five (25) units become vacant every month. He stated they are hoping to get the project done with in twelve (12) months. He further explainedthey plan on renovating 20-30 units a month. Commissioner Kueter asked if they are planning on keeping majority of the current tenants in their same units. Mr. Kiebler stated some residents want to stay in their unit and will be relocated for the three days while the renovation takes place; he also said majority of the tenants just pack their stuff and move to a new unit that has already been renovated. He stated they have done over 22,000 units and the process is seamless. Commissioner Kueter asked if they own any other properties in town. Mr. Kiebler stated they took ownership of the Timberlake, Alpine, and Redwood complexes in town. Commissioner Mizwicki asked if the rent is raised after the renovation. Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-17-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 7 Mr. Kiebler stated the rents are usually raised $100 up to $600 if the renovation was substantial. He stated they have about at sixty percent (60%) renewal rate when the renovations are done. Commissioner Kueter asked what the average cost of rent is. Mr. Kiebler said before the renovations average rent is about $914 and that he expects rent to be about $1300 after the renovations. He gave a brief description of the new amenities the project will bring to the complex. There was general discussion between the board and the Petitioner regarding the value this will bring to the community. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any citizens that wanted to comment on the case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the hearing and brought the discussion back to the board. Hearing no further discussion, Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Kueter to approve the following motion: A.Zoning Map Amendment from R-X Single-Family Residence to R-4 Multi-Family Residence. B.ConditionalUse for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of sixteen (16) primary structures and two (2) accessory structures. C.Variation to allow 2,474.25 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit (17.6 units per acre). D.Variation to allow an overall lot coverage of 54.8 %. E.Variation to allow 586 overall parking spaces. F.Variation to allow existing parking lot landscaping, setbacks and lighting to remain as is, subject to the following conditions: 1.Submittal of a Plat of Subdivision creating a single lot of record in compliance with Chapter 15 of the Village Code for review and approval. 2.Development of the site in general conformance with the plans prepared by Vocon, dated July 30, 2015; 3.Obtaining permits from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for any work within Algonquin Road; 4.Submittal of final civil engineering drawings, including site work, utilities, storm water detention, for review and approval by the Village. 5.Development of the site in accordance with all applicable Village Codes and requirements, including, but not limited to, storm water detention, fire prevention, lighting, sign; and building regulations; and 6.A building permit, in accordance with the current regulations and requirements of the Village of Mount Prospect, must be issued within one (1) year from the date of adoption of the enabling ordinance by the Village Board which authorized the development proposal. The development approvals granted herein, without need for further action by any Village board, commission or official, shall become null and void if no building permit isissued within the one (1) year requirement and improvements completed within a period of eighteen (18) months. Upon Roll Call:AYES: Filippone,Fitzgerald, Beattie, Youngquist, Kueter, Mizwicki, Donnelly NAYS: None Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-17-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 8 The vote was approved 7-0 with a positive recommendation to Village Board. Commissioner Younguist made a motion seconded by Commissioner Filippone and the meeting was adjourned at 9:14 pm. ________________________________ Jenna Moder, Administrative Assistant Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-17-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman