Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/2011 P&Z Minutes 02-11 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-02-11 Hearing Date: February 24, 2011 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1703 E. Kensington Road PETITIONER : The Alden Foundation PUBLICATION DATE: February 9, 2011 PIN NUMBER: 03-36-100-028-0000 1) Conditional Use for a Preliminary Planned Unit REQUESTS: Development consisting of senior housing; 2) Variation to increase the maximum permitted building height from 35 to 36.5 feet; 3) Variation to decrease the required parking lot setback from 10 to 6 feet along the west property line; and 4) Variation to decrease the required parking lot setback from 10 to 0 feet along the south property line. MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros MEMBERS ABSENT: Theo Foggy Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTIES : Beth Demes, Robert Kim Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Chairman Rogers stated that the last case on the agenda, PZ-19-10, 1601 S. Busse Road would be continued to the March 24, 2011 Planning and Zoning Meeting. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 27, 2011 meeting; Mr. Beattie seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0. After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-02-11, 1703 E. Kensington Road, The Alden Foundation at 8:19 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for case number PZ-02-11 was seeking approval of a Conditional Use and Variations for the property located at 1703 E. Kensington Road. Ms. Andrade said the Conditional Use request was for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development consisting of senior housing. The Variation requests are to increase the maximum permitted building height from 35 to 36.5 feet and to reduce the required parking lot setback from 10 to 6 feet along the west property line and from 10 to 0 feet along the south property line. Ms. Andrade stated the development would include one 3-story building that would provide 92 independent living housing units to seniors. The building would comprise of 70 one-bedroom units and 22 two-bedroom units. The building would include ancillary uses on the 1st floor of the building, such as a community room, library, and computer room to support the senior housing units. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-02-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 24, 2011 Page 1 of 6 Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property is located on the south side of Kensington Road, just east of the Wolf and Kensington Road intersection. The Subject Property is currently vacant land and zoned R-4 Multi-Family Residential. It is bordered by the B-3 Community Shopping District and R-1 Single Family Residence District to the north, B-3 Community Shopping District to the west, Des Plaines to the south, and unincorporated Cook County to the east. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner’s site plan indicated the development would be served by two full access drives from Kensington Road. The first access drive currently exists and is located on the Walgreens’ lot. The second access drive would be constructed at the east end of the Subject Property and would be aligned with Heritage Drive to the north. The building footprint would measure approximately 36,000 square feet and would consist of a one story wing in the center and 3 story wings on each end. Ms. Andrade said the 3 story building would be primarily constructed out of brick, cement board siding, and stone accents. The design consisted of expansive windows on each floor of the building and on each elevation. The west and east wings would include a pitched asphalt shingle roof system. Ms. Andrade compared the Petitioner’s proposal with the Village Code requirements. The proposed development would meet the minimum bulk requirements in the R4 Multi-Family Residence District, with the exception of the building height and parking lot setback along the west and south property lines. The building would meet the required building setbacks. The overall lot coverage is proposed at 36% which is under the maximum 50% permitted lot coverage. The building height would measure 36.5 feet and require Variation approval along with the six (6’) foot parking lot setback along the west property line and zero (0) setback along the south property line. Ms. Andrade stated Section 14.2224 of the Zoning Code listed the minimum number of parking spaces required based on land use. The Petitioner’s proposal would require a total of 75 parking spaces. The Petitioner proposed to provide 98 parking spaces, which would exceed the minimum number of parking spaces required by 23. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner also proposed landscape and lighting improvements as part of the proposal. She stated that the landscape and photometric plans are preliminary in nature illustrating the number, general type, and location of plantings and lighting for the proposed development. The drawings submitted did not comply with Code and would be required to be revised. Ms. Andrade said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The summary of these findings include: • 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 the Petitioner was seeking a Variation to the building height. The Variation request to increase the building height from 35 feet to 36.5 feet was requested for the three-story building that included a pitched roof. Staff was supportive of the Variation request to increase the building height as the building would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. In addition, the proposed building has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding properties. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner also requested a Variation to reduce the required parking lot setback from 10 feet to 6 feet along the west property line and to 0 feet along the south property line in order to provide the required Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-02-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 24, 2011 Page 2 of 6 fire lane. The fire lane as shown on the site plan would come in along the west property line and wrap around to the rear elevation of the building. Staff was supportive of this Variation as it would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property. The fire lane would have minimal use only during times of emergency and would not be regularly utilized by vehicles thereby lessening the effects of this Variation request on adjacent properties. Ms. Andrade stated the standards for approving a Planned Unit Development are listed in Section 14.504 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Planned Unit Development. These standards relate to: 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; The proposed 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 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 said the proposal was consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Land Use Map and is compatible with the underlying zoning for the property. The senior housing development would be compatible with the surrounding area and would provide housing for seniors, which the community has expressed a need for. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the motions listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers asked about the property directly east of the proposal that runs along the railroad tracks. Ms. Andrade said the area along the railroad tracks is part of the subject property; however, no improvements were proposed in that area. That area of the property would remain as is. There was general discussion regarding the easements along the railroad tracks. Mr. Donnelly asked Staff about the access road that led to the tree service company in Des Plaines and about the sign on the property that did not meet Village Code. Ms. Andrade said that the Petitioner could answer questions related to the access road and sign. Mr. Beattie discussed the two site plans (B & C) that were submitted and said that one of the plans was contingent based on cooperation with the Walgreens’ property to the west. Mr. Beattie wanted to know if there were concerns that one of the site plans had its fire lane include the Walgreens’ parking lot. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner did submit two site plans and preferred site plan B. Site Plan B would require permission from Walgreens since the fire lane would connect with the Walgreens property directly west. Also, a Variation would not be needed for the parking lot setback along the western property line if Walgreens granted permission. Ms. Andrade said Site Plan C placed the entire fire lane on the Subject Property and would require the parking lot Variation along the western property line. Chairman Rogers swore in Beth Demes, Executive Director for The Alden Foundation, 4200 W. Peterson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. Chairman Rogers swore in all individuals who wished to speak on the subject case and asked when they first speak to announce their name and address for the record. Ms. Demes stated that The Alden Foundation has been looking at the subject property for over 10 years. She said there is an easement agreement in regards to the access road that runs to the tree service company in Des Plaines. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-02-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 24, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Demes had no knowledge of the sign in question on the Subject Property. She stated that she had discussions with the current property owner regarding the sign and the property owner did not know if the sign was required. Chairman Rogers asked if The Alden Foundation owns the subject property. Ms. Demes said that they do not; however, there is a contract to purchase the property. Chairman Rogers asked that once the Petitioner assumes ownership of the property that the sign on the property would be brought into compliance. Ms. Demes stated that the sign would be taken care of and brought up to Code. Ms. Demes said there have been discussions with Walgreens regarding Site Plan B. She asked that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Site Plan C that has the fire lane entirely on the subject property. Ms. Demes stated the most recent conversation with Walgreens revealed that Walgreens had concerns regarding the easement and traffic. She said that they would continue to try and work with Walgreens, but requested that Site Plan C be approved. Chairman Rogers confirmed with the Petitioner that the Commission would be voting on was Site Plan C as requested. Ms. Demes provided background information on The Alden Foundation. The Alden Foundation has developed 8 independent living facilities in the surrounding communities, which are similar to the subject case, and 1 assisting living facility. Ms. Demes stated that 92 units were being proposed at the Subject Property. One unit would be reserved for an on-site maintenance manager. There would be no meals or assisted living; all residents need to be able to take care of themselves on their own. Activities and events would be on-site for the residents and provided by the property manager. Ms. Demes described the activities rooms that would be located on the premises of the Subject Property. The typical resident is a 70 year-old female who has lived in the community and sold her house, or someone who has family within the community. Ms. Demes said that some residents drive, but not all of them. Ms. Demes stated that the proposed project would be an affordable mixed income community. Rent would be staggered so it could be affordable to seniors with different means. Ms. Demes said rent would range from $325 to $950 per month. This would allow seniors with a variety of incomes to live at the subject property. Ms. Demes stated that the lower rents could be offered due to the financing of the proposed development. The financing comes from the State of Illinois Housing Development Authority tax credits, grants, low interest loans, and other affordable housing programs. Chairman Rogers confirmed that since the proposed facility was not assisted living, the Petitioner would not have to follow the state requirements. Ms. Demes said seniors would sign a minimum one year lease to live at the subject property. There was discussion on Alden’s facilities in Des Plaines. Mr. Floros asked if there was any food service involved with the proposed development. Ms. Demes said there would be no food service. The apartments would have fully equipped kitchens. The residents for the proposed development are independent, active, and can cook on their own. There was discussion regarding independent living versus assisted living. Mr. Floros asked if The Alden Group received any Federal money for the project. Ms. Demes said that they do, the Federal money was part of their financing. Mr. Floros confirmed with the Petitioner that some of the housing financing is subsidized. Ms. Demes stated that Alden accepts seniors with housing choice vouchers (Section 8). Mr. Floros confirmed that the proposed facility would not be limited to Mount Prospect residents. Ms. Demes said most residents come from the immediate area or have family located nearby; she said this is true for the majority of their projects. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-02-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 24, 2011 Page 4 of 6 Chairman Rogers had some questions for the subject project’s architect, Robert Kim, Alden Design Group, 4200 W. Peterson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. Chairman Rogers asked Mr. Kim to discuss the height limitation and the wood trusses for the floor that were proposed; he asked if there was another component that could be used to bring the height to Code. Mr. Kim said the floor trusses are typically 24 inches high and anything beyond a wood trestle would require steel framing or pre-cast that are much shallower. He stated going with the non-combustible (steel or pre-cast) would significantly raise construction costs. Chairman Rogers asked Mr. Kim if he understood that the proposed building would have to be fire protected. Mr. Kim stated based on the area and height of the building and because of the wood construction, the building would have fire separation and would be fully sprinklered. Mr. Kim said the proposed building would meet all NFPA Codes. Chairman Rogers confirmed that the 36.5 feet height would be measured from the top of the foundation to the midpoint of the sloped roof. The elevator shaft would be included within the roof’s truss. Mr. Donnelly asked what the maximum height of the roof is. Mr. Kim stated the maximum height of the roof to the ridge would be approximately 7 feet higher. It was discussed that Village Code measures the building height to the roof’s midpoint. Chairman Rogers confirmed that stucco/EIFS would not be utilized with the proposed project. Mr. Floros asked the Petitioner if a feasibility study has been completed regarding senior housing. Ms. Demes said The Alden Group hired a market study consultant that has looked at the community, competition, and population of senior residents and felt that the subject property was a good location. Mr. Beattie asked how long some of the Petitioner’s other buildings have lasted in other communities. Ms. Demes stated that Barrington was built in 2005 and Bloomingdale/Horizon was built in 2006. She said their first project that was built in 1996 is still in operation in Cicero. Mr. Beattie questioned if the Petitioner would be able to meet the conditions placed by Staff for the subject project. Ms. Demes said compliance would not be an issue. Mr. Donnelly confirmed that the Subject Property would be maintained and owned by The Alden Foundation. Ms. Demes stated that the first nursing home that Alden built in 1971 is still owned and in operation. Ms. Demes said the Alden Foundation does not develop and sell. Mr. Donnelly asked if there would be any retail on the first floor. Ms. Demes said there would not be any retail or outside services inside, only community space. Chairman Rogers asked if the units at Alden’s other independent facilities were all occupied. Ms. Demes stated that the independent living units at other projects are all full and there is usually a waiting list. Chairman Rogers asked if there was anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 8:51 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to approve: A.A Conditional Use for the Preliminary Plan approval of a Planned Unit Development consisting of senior housing; B.A Variation to increase the maximum permitted building height from 35 feet to 36.5 feet; C.A Variation to reduce the required parking lot setback from 10 feet to 6 feet along the west property line; and Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-02-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 24, 2011 Page 5 of 6 D.A Variation to reduce the required parking lot setback from 10 feet to 0 feet along the south property line, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report Mr. Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0. The Village Board’s decision is final for this case. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to adjourn at 8:53 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ________________________________________ Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-02-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 24, 2011 Page 6 of 6