Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/27/2004 P&Z minutes 12-04 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-12-04 Hearing Date: May 27,2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: Lake Park Village 1500 S. Busse Road PETITIONER: Michael A. Tobin PUBLICATION DATE: April 7, 2004 & May 12, 2004 Journal/Topics PIN#: 08-15 -400-024 REQUEST: Conditional Use (Preliminary POO) & Relief from Village Code Regulations MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair; Joseph Donnelly; Leo Floros; Richard Rogers; Matthew Sledz; Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, ArCp, Deputy Director of Community Development; Judy Connolly, AlCP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Michael A. Tobin Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 22, 2004 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0, with one abstention by Joe Donnelly. At 9:30 p.m., Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-12-04, a request for Conditional Use approval for Preliminary PUD approval and relief from Village Code Regulations. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She noted that, as part of an eventual Condominium Conversion, the Petitioner has requested Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development and relief from Village Code regulations for: 1) parking and parking lot design, 2) required setbacks, 3) private property landscaping requirements, 4) lot coverage, and 5) stormwater detention. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the May 12, 2004 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property O\vners within 250-feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. The Subject Property is located on the west side of Busse Road, between Pheasant Trail and Dempster Street, and contains an existing apartment complex. The complex consists of two building clusters containing a total of 16 individual buildings, an outdoor swimming pool and club house, parking garages, and a surface parking lot. The Subject Property is zoned R4 Multi-Family and is bordered to the north and west by the RX Single Fami1y District, Timberlake Apartments and Colonial Green Apartments, to the east by the RA Single-Family Districts, and to the south by the Rl Single Family District, CornEd Easement. The Subject Property was originally developed under Cook County regulations. In 1964, following a petition by the property owner, the Subject Property was annexed into the Village of Mount Prospect and rezoned to R4 Multi-Family. As part of the Annexation Agreement, the Village limited the development to a maximum of 168 units, which was the number of existing units £1t the time of annexation. The Annexation Agreement is still applicable, therefor!:: the Petitioner is allowed to maintain 168 units on the property. The Petitioner, who is also the cun'ent property owner, proposes to convert the existing apartment units into condominiums. The Village Code requires condo conversions to meet all Village development regulations, which can be chaJlenging for existing developments. After meeting with Staff, the Petitioner prepared a Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-12-04 Page 2 schedule of site improvements, interior and exterior building improvements, and applied for PlaTh"1ed Unit Development approval, which is required for developments that include two or more multi-family buildings on the same zoning lot. The Petitioner is seeking relief from Village regulations for requirements that could not be met due to physical site constraints or financial impracticalities. The Petitioner has prepared a booklet that details the proposed improvements for each unit The interior improvements are generally cosmetic, but also address specific life safety issues including the installation of fire sprinklers in each unit. The Petitioner is not proposing any significant modifications to the floor plans of the units. Ms. Connolly summarized the proposed interior improvements. She noted that the Petitioner proposes to make several site improvements, which include, but are not limited to, remodeling the clubhouse, installing gazebos by the play lots, installing more landscaping where possible, constructing a fence along the CornEd easement as requested by the Polic.e Department, and making general repairs to the property as needed. In addition, the Petitioner proposes to increase the site's stonnwater detention capabilities. Although the Subject Property does not currently experience flooding issues, the Petitioner is required to provide stormwater detention as part of the condo conversion. The Petitioner's application states that the development currently does not have stonnwater detention or retention facilities. The Petitioner proposes to provide stonnwater detention, but less than the amount that is required by current Village Code standards. The Petitioner's Engineer has submitted a preliminary design and calculations. The Village's Engineering Division found the proposed design and amount of detention to be reasonable given the site constraints and current conditions. However, an exception to the Development Code is still required since the amount of the proposed detention is less than that required by the Village Code. It is important to note that the site will now provide some detention, which is an improvement over the current situation. The existing development consists of 168 one and two-bedroom units and contains a total of243 parking spaces. The Village Code requires 2 parking spaces per unit, which results in a total of 336 required parking spaces. The Petitioner could provide 38 additional parking spaces by removing some existing landscape islands. This approach would reduce the parking deficiency, but increase the amount of lot coverage. The site has an existing lot coverage of 62%, while the Village's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum lot coverage of 50% within the R-4 District. The addition of 38 new parking spaces would result in an increase of lot coverage by 2% since some existing landscape islands would be removed. Although the current amount of parking and lot coverage is an existing condition, the Village Code requires the site to meet current regulations or obtain variation approval. In this case, the Petitioner could reduce the amount of the parking deficiency, but that would require increasing the amount of the non-conforming lot coverage. In addition to exceeding lot coverage and having an insufficient number of parking spaces, the design of the parking lot does not meet current Village Code requirements. Village Code requires 90-dcgree parking spaces to have stall sizes of either 9'xI8' or 9'x16' with a two. foot overhang and a 24-foot wide drive aisle for 2-way traffic. The Petitioner's site plan indicates that many of the existing parking stalls and drive aisles do not meet the Village's current requirements. Due to . the layout of the existing complex and lack of existing setbacks, there are practical difficulties in trying to modify the existing parking spaces and drive aisles to meet the Vil1age's current requirements. The Petitioner's attorney has provided a letter dated May 4, 2004 indicating that the existing design of the parking lot and its substandard stall sizes and aisle widths have proven more than adequate to serve the development. The Zoning Ordinance currently requires a 1O-foot parking setback. The existing parking lot and garage spaces encroach into the required setback and provide no setback. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation for the existing conditions because the development of the site limits his ability to relocate the parking spaces. The Petitioner is required to install parking lot lights as detailed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner's application does not indicate the installation of parking lot lighting. However, since no relief from the Village's Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-12-04 Page 3 lighting requirements has been requested, the Petitioner win be required to meet all of the Village Code's lighting requirements. Other departments have reviewed this case and did not object to the Petitioner's requests. However, the Police Department stated that installing a 6' wrought iron fence in a 2' brick base along the CornEd right-of-way would help minimize inappropriate activity in this area. In addition, the Police Department noted that the overall site lighting must be upgraded. The Petitioner has agreed to install a fence, but did not provide fence or lighting details. In addition, the Engineering Division noted the parking lot design deficiencies such as stall size and drive aisle and that the Village Code requires the installation of perimeter curb and gutter. The Fire Department noted that the site must meet all applicable codes regarding the instaUation of sprinklers and fire alarms. Also, the Village Manager's Office recommended that relief from Village Code requirements be contingent upon approval of the condo conversion; if the site does not convert to condominiums, the zoning relief approvals would be revoked. Before starting the condo conversion process, the Petitioner is seeking relief from Village Code regulations by applying for zoning approval. The request requires Variations, Exceptions from Development Code requirements, and Planned Unit Development approval because the Subject Property has multiple buildings on one lot of record. The PUD and relief from Village Codes requires a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission followed by final review and action by the Village Board. Staff is recommending the Petitioner's concept be reviewed as a preliminary POO, with final PUD approval contingent on satisfying a number of conditions. The standards for conditional uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The section contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a conditional use. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards. She said that the proposed PUD involves an existing multi-family development. Although the Petitioner proposes to improve the Subject Property, some of the proposed improvements and existing conditions do not meet current standards. Due to these circumstances, the Petitioner's requests must meet the standards for Planned Unit Developments With Other Exceptions. PUDs which do not comply with the requirements of the underlying district regulations or which require modification of the subdivision design standards may be approved when such approval is necessary to achieve the objectives of the proposed planned unit development, but only when the exceptions are consistent with the following standards: any reduction in the requirements is in the public interest; that the proposed exceptions would not adversely impact the value or use of any other property; that such exceptions are solely for the purpose of promoting better development, which will be beneficial to the residents or occupants of the planned unit development as well as those of the surrounding properties; and that in residential planned unit developments the maximum number of dwelling units allowed shall not exceed by more than ten percent (10%) the number of dwelling units permitted in that zoning district except that planned unit developments in the B-5 core district may have densities not to exceed eighty (80) units per acre. The Petitioner is seeking rehef from Village Code requirements for: 1) the amount and design of the off-street parking, an existing condition; 2) 62% lot coverage, an existing condition; 3) Parking lot and garage setbacks, existing conditions; 4) private property landscaping; 5) stormwater detention. The Petitioner is requesting that the existing parking situation remain as it is cuITently designed because it has proven adequate to serve the development. A site inspection confirmed that removing the landscape islands to create additional parking spaces would require removing mature trees. Also, the new parking spaces would require more pavement and the site already exceeds the maximum lot coverage limitation. Staff recommends that prior to final PlJD approval, the Petitioner prepare a Tree Survey that identifies which trees, their size, and their condition that would have to be removed to accommodat~ additional parking spaces. Based on this information, additional parking spaces may be added throughout the site, depending on the condition of the trees. At this time however, Staff recommends approval of the existing parking lot design, stall size, drive aisle, and location of parking spaces only, subject to: 1) the site converting to condos; and 2) the contract with the new buyers include information on the number of parking spaces made available to the new condo O\vncr. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-12-04 Page 4 The Petitioner proposes to install new landscaping throughout the site. However, the existing buildings .and structures limit the Petitioner's ability to install landscaping as required by current code requirements. The Petitioner's narrative and related materials indicate that the new landscaping wiU meet the intent of the Landscape Ordinance and that. the new landscaping will improve the aesthetics of the Subject Property and surrounding properties. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Petitioner prepare a Landscape Plan as required by the Zoning Ordinance that clearly illustrates the location and quantity of the new landscaping prior to [mal PUD approval. The Petitioner's request for a Variation from lot coverage and setbacks are for existing conditions. In this case, the Subject Property was developed under Cook County regulations and 'retro~fitting' the Subject Property to the Village's current code requirements would require significant modifications to the site. Also, the Petitioner proposes to provide stormwater detention when the site currently does not have any detention. Although the proposed amount of detention does not meet current code requirements, the detention will minimize the impact of excess lot coverage and some detention will be provided. As such, the Petitioner's requests for a Variation and Development Code exception meet the standards for relief because it is in the public interest; the design will benefit occupants of the PUD as well as those in the surrounding area. The amount of lot coverage will be finalized as part of Final PùTI approval, subject to the findings ofthe Tree Survey, The Petitioner's request for relief from density regulations is not needed because the Annexation Agreement allowed the existing number of units to remain. Therefore, the relief from density regulations does not require action. The Conditional Use request for a Planned Unit Development meets the standards for a Conditional Use subject to completing the proposed improvements because the development would not have a detrimental effect on the adjacent properties, or adversely impact the enjoyment or value of properties in the vicinity, Also, the Petitioner proposes to provide stormwater detention and install fire sprinklers. The proposed use complies with the Village's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and improvements would be made according to Village regulations, Based on Staffs analysis, the proposed Preliminary PUD and relief from Village Code as noted in the Petitioner's application meets the standards for a Conditional Use and relief from Village Codes. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary PUD and related relief, subject to the following conditions being addressed prior to Final PtJD approval: 1) Development of the site as noted in the booklet prepared by BW Phillips, titled 'Lake Park Village Apartments Budgetary Information For Condominium Conversion' date stamped May 11,2004, but revised to include: a) Parking lot and site lighting as required by the Police Department and detailed in Sec, 14.2219 of the Zoning Ordinance; b) Installation of perimeter curb and gutter as required by the Development Code; c) Installation of a 6' wrought iron fence in a 2' brick base, or a similar base to ensure the integrity the fence, along the CornEd right-of-way; Installation of a Fire Sprinkler system and fire alarm system as approved by the Village's Fire Chief; Submitting a detailed landscape plan as required by the LandscapeOrdinance; Submitting a Tree Survey that identifies which trees and their condition that would have to be removed to accommodate additional parking; g) Converting all the buildings to condominiums in no more than 2-years; and h) Completing the Condominium Conversion Plat Procedures as outlined in the Village's Subdivision Code, Section 15.307:B. d) e) f) Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-12-04 Page 5 Joe Donnelly asked Ms. Connolly about handicapped parking for residents. Ms. Connolly said disabled residents would need to talk to the owner and he would need to provide a space near their unit. Mr. Donnelly also asked about the fence blocking access to the bike path. Ms. Connolly said the Police Department would work with the Petitioner to design access in a safe manner. Michael Tobin, Mike Zimmerman, Mike Lucich, Tom Schaffer and Tim Largo, were sworn in. Michael Tobin, 457 Asþh;nd Place, Highland Park, the petitioner and part owner of the property stepped up to the podium and introduced Mike Luckach, Civil Engineer from GeWalt Hamilton, Mike Zimmerman, Attorney with Raysa & Zimmerman, Tom Schafer, Architect, and Tim Largo from B. W. Phillips, managers of the property. Mr. Tobin said he had planned several remarks for the hearing but since Judy had done an outstanding job presenting the case he doesn't have much to add. He said they have some exhibits of the landscaping to show and he does want to say that their goal in converting to condos is to improve the property. They have owned the property for about six years and as a rental property it no longer generates enough income to support the improvements they wish to make. Ms. Juracek asked who their target market is, whether it includes the cuaent renters. Mr. Tobin said they expect many of the present renters to purchase their units. They anticipate marketing the units for under $100,000 for a one-bedroom and slightly over $100,000 for a two-bedroom. Richard Rogers asked if they had spoken to CornEd regarding leasing their easement for parking. Mr. Tobin said they had considered that, but had not done so because it is considered a park and the Village might not approve the request, and also CornEd is slow~moving, which would hold up the progress on the project. Mr. Donnelly asked about parking and garages used for storage. Mr. Tobin said they planned to sell the garage spaces and assign parking spaces. He said they would not have a legal right to tell people how to use the garage space that they own, but they would not be allowed to use their garage for storage and then keep their car in a parking space. When asked about the lake, Mr. Tobin said it was one of the reasons they had purchased the property. They would not want to convert that to a dry detention area. They have been searching for years for a proper pump to operate the waterfall to their liking. He called on their engineer to explain their efforts. Mike Lucich, Civil Engineer from GeWalt Hamilton, said the pond is currently a retention pond, which means it has standing water. Leo Floras asked Mr. Tobin if there is a parking problem at the complex. Mr. Tobin said no, but acknowledged that it is tight when all the units are occupied. He said that would not happen when the units are owned as opposed to rented because there are fewer residents in owned units than in rented units. Keith Youngquist asked if there is a potential for combined units should someone want a larger unit. Mr. Tobin said it would be possible physically, but he doesn't think the market is there. The units are large - the 2- bedroom is 1,100 sq.ft. and the I-bedroom is 765 sq.ft.; I-bedroom units being built today are typically 650-675 sq.ft and 2-bedrooms are under 1,000 sq.ft. Mr. Tobin asked for a definition of converting to condominiums by two years because they cannot guarantee sales of all condos in two years. Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing at 10:08. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-12-04 Page 6 Leo Flows made a motion to recommend that the Village Board. approve the request for Conditional Use approval for Preliminary PUD approval and relief from Village Code Regulations for the property located at 1500 S. Busse Road, Lake Park ViUage, Case No. PZ-12-04, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff report. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A \'"ES: Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. At 11 :05 p.m., Richard Rogers made motion to adjourn, seconded by Matt Sledz. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. RIPLANWlanning & Zoning COMMII'&Z 2004IMinutosIPZ.12.04 ¡ 500 S Busse Lake Par;' Villag<.doc