Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/26/2012 P&Z Minutes 31-11MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -31 -11 Hearing Date: January 26, 2012 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 701 E. Prospect Avenue PETITIONER: 701 E. Prospect Avenue, L.L.C. — Constantine Fourlas PUBLICATION DATE: Januan- 11, 2012 PIN NUMBER: 08 -12 -428- 004 -0000 REQUESTS: 1) Amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) from twelve (12) townhomes to twenty -four (24) condominium units 2) Variation to increase density 3) Variation to increase lot coverage MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist Leo Floros Jacqueline Hinaber, Alternate MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Constantine Fourlas, John Klimick, Marl. Siviero, Carolee Esposito, Nand* Vincent, Bradlev Lenz, Nicholas Marino, Tim Loucopoulos Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve the minutes of the December 8, 2011 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes Nvere approved 4 -0 Nvith Mr. Floros abstaining. Mr. Beattie arrived at 7:39 p.m. After hearing two (2) previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 31 -11, 701 E. Prospect Avenue at 8:02 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner for PZ -31 -11 Nvas seeking to amend the Planned Unit Development from twelve (12) toN -,nhomes to twenty -four (24) condominium units and Variations to increase densit -,T and lot coverage for the property located at 701 E. Prospect Avenue. The Subject Property is located at the intersection of Prospect Ave. and Edward Street, and current1v is vacant. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner previously received Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development consisting of a twelve (12) unit townhome development and a density of thirteen (13) dwelling units per acre. The residential development Nvas not constructed and the Petitioner Nvas seeking to amend the original PUD from twelve (12) townhomes to twenty -four (24) condominium units. An amendment to the original PUD and Variations to densit -,T and overall lot coverage are now required in order to allow the revised proposal Ms. Andrade showed a comparison of the original and revised site plans indicating that the only difference is five (5) guest parking spaces Nvere added as part of the revised PUD proposal. The number of buildings and site layout Nvould remain the same. As in the original PUD, the development Nvould consist of three (3) principal buildings: one (1) building Nvould front Prospect Avenue, another Edward Street, and the third building Nvould front the existing alley. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 1 of 6 Ms. Andrade said the proposed building elevations match the original PUD's elevations. Each building Nvould be constructed primarily out of brick and include a stone base and decorative trimming. The overall average height of the buildings Nvould be thirty -six (36) feet and four (4) inches, Nvhich received zoning relief as part of the original PUD. Ms. Andrade shoNved a draNving that illustrated the proposed development looking south from Prospect Avenue. Ms. Andrade referenced the folloNving table: Ms. Andrade said the table compared the Petitioner's revised Planned Unit Development Nvith the Village Code requirements and the original PUD. The proposed buildings would comply Nvith the setback Variations approved as part of the original PUD. With the addition of the five (5) guest parking spaces, the overall lot coverage increases to fifty -four (54) percent which requires Variation approval. Additionally, a Variation is needed to allow a density of twenty -four (24) dwelling units per acre when the Village Code allows a maximum of fourteen (14) dwelling units at the Subject Property. Ms. Andrade stated the Village's parking requirement for multi - family residential is N,-o (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit and one (1) guest parking space for every ten (10) required parking spaces. Therefore, the Petitioner's proposal for twenty -four (24) dwelling units Nvould require a total of fifty -three (53) parking spaces, including five (5) guest parking spaces. The site plan indicated the development Nvould comply Nvith the required fifty -three (53) parking spaces. HoNvever, a Variation to lot coverage is required. In addition to the proposed off - street parking spaces, there is currently on- street parking available on the north and south sides of Prospect Avenue. Ms. Andrade said the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. A summary of the standards include: The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general Nvelfare; The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; Adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and Ms. Andrade stated Staff found that the request to amend the PUD is consistent Nvith the original PUD approval and the Village Comprehensive Plan. The layout, bulls, and elevations match the original approval. The proposed access point has not changed from that of the original PUD either. The Petitioner still intended to eliminate the two (2) existing curb cuts off of EdNvard Street to provide one principal access drive into the development thus minimizing traffic congestion on EdNvard Street. The proposed land use as multi - family is a permitted use in the underlying zoning district and is consistent Nvith the Comprehensive Plan. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 2 of 6 R4 District Minimum Requirements Original PUD (Zoning Relief Granted) Amendment to PUD Setbacks: Front (Edward St.) 30' 20' No change Exterior Side Yard (Prospect Ave.) 20' 12' No change Interior Side Yard (Alley) 10' 8' No change Rear 25' 15' No change Building Height 35' 364" No change Lot Coverage 50% 51.6% 53.6% Ms. Andrade said the table compared the Petitioner's revised Planned Unit Development Nvith the Village Code requirements and the original PUD. The proposed buildings would comply Nvith the setback Variations approved as part of the original PUD. With the addition of the five (5) guest parking spaces, the overall lot coverage increases to fifty -four (54) percent which requires Variation approval. Additionally, a Variation is needed to allow a density of twenty -four (24) dwelling units per acre when the Village Code allows a maximum of fourteen (14) dwelling units at the Subject Property. Ms. Andrade stated the Village's parking requirement for multi - family residential is N,-o (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit and one (1) guest parking space for every ten (10) required parking spaces. Therefore, the Petitioner's proposal for twenty -four (24) dwelling units Nvould require a total of fifty -three (53) parking spaces, including five (5) guest parking spaces. The site plan indicated the development Nvould comply Nvith the required fifty -three (53) parking spaces. HoNvever, a Variation to lot coverage is required. In addition to the proposed off - street parking spaces, there is currently on- street parking available on the north and south sides of Prospect Avenue. Ms. Andrade said the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. A summary of the standards include: The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general Nvelfare; The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; Adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and Ms. Andrade stated Staff found that the request to amend the PUD is consistent Nvith the original PUD approval and the Village Comprehensive Plan. The layout, bulls, and elevations match the original approval. The proposed access point has not changed from that of the original PUD either. The Petitioner still intended to eliminate the two (2) existing curb cuts off of EdNvard Street to provide one principal access drive into the development thus minimizing traffic congestion on EdNvard Street. The proposed land use as multi - family is a permitted use in the underlying zoning district and is consistent Nvith the Comprehensive Plan. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 2 of 6 Ms. Andrade said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven (7) specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. A summary of the 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 Nvelfare, other property*, and neighborhood character Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner Nvas seeking a Variation to increase the density* from the alloNvable fourteen (14) to N, -entyT -four (24) dwelling units. Per the Petitioner, the twenty* -four (24) unit multi - family* development Nvould allow the project to be financed under the present economic housing market conditions. Staff Nvas supportive of this Variation request as the proposed density* Nvould be consistent Nvith the density* found in the surrounding multi-family developments along Prospect Avenue. Developments adjacent to the Nvest of the Subject Property* include densities of twenty* -eight (28), twenty-nine (29), and thirty-one (31) units per acre. Additionally*, the proposed two and one half (2.5) story* buildings Nvould blend in Nvith the neighborhood character as the surrounding apartment buildings along Prospect Avenue measure two to three stories tall. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner sought a Variation to allow fifty-four (54) percent lot coverage. The increase to lot coverage is due to the new guest parking spaces provided, which Nvere not part of the original PUD. Per the Petitioner, pavers Nvith a 0.80 runoff coefficient Nvould be used for the driveway* aprons and guest parking spaces. The Petitioner determined the runoff coefficient based on the Village of Winnetka's treatment of brick pavers. The Village of Winnetka considers only eighty* (80) percent of an area covered Nvith brick as impermeable surface. Staff Nvas not supportive of the Petitioner's Variation request to lot coverage as the Village of Mount Prospect considers brick pavers as impervious. The Village of Mount Prospect's definition of impervious surface includes pavers. Ms. Andrade stated due to the presence of available on street parking on Prospect Avenue located adjacent to the development, Staff Nvould be supportive of a Variation to reduce the required parking for the development from fifty-three (53) spaces to forty-eight (48) by eliminating the proposed five (5) guest spaces in lieu of the lot coverage variation. Guests of the development Nvould be permitted to use the on- street parking per the Village parking regulations established along Prospect Avenue. Ms. Andrade said Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning approve an amendment to the Planned Unit Development alloNving twenty* -four (24) condominium units along Nvith a Variation to increase the density* as listed in the Staff Report. Staff also recommended that the Planning &Zoning Commission deny* the Variation to increase the lot coverage also noted in the Staff Report. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers confirmed Nvith Staff that the Petitioner has updated the plan from a two - story* townhome unit to two (2) one - story* condominium units. He asked if the second story* unit Nvould be supported by only one staircase /exit. Mr. Simmons stated that the Fire Department revieNved the proposed project and Nvas comfortable Nvith the one (1) staircase. He also said that the staircase Nvould have to be sprinkled as Nvell. Chairman Rogers stated his concern Nvith increasing the density* from fourteen (14) to twenty* four (24) units. He asked Staff to clarify* the parking situation and the motions. Mr. Simmons clarified that Staff Nvould be supportive of a Variation to decrease parking by removing the five (5) additional parking spaces in lieu of the lot coverage Variation the Petitioner has requested. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January* 26, 2012 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Floros asked if the commuter parking on the north side of Prospect Avenue extended to Nyhere the Subject Property is located. Mr. Simmons stated no, it Nyas just hourly parking in the immediate area of the Subject Property. Ms. Hinaber commended Staff for providing an alternative to the lot coverage Variation. She did not believe five (5) guest spaces Nyere sufficient for tvyenty -four (24) units. She stated guests of those living in the proposed condominiums Nyould be parking on the surrounding streets. Ms. Hinaber said Prospect Avenue Nyas not very difficult to park on during the Nyeekends. There Nyas additional discussion regarding the density and parking Chairman Rogers sNyore in the Petitioner /Co- ON -ner of the Subject Property*, Constantine Fourlas, 2300 W. Diversev Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Fourlas stated that the additional five (5) parking spaces Nyere added based on feedback from the neighbors N-, had parking concerns N-, the PUD Nyas originally* approved in 2007. He said that they* tried to address the lot coverage issue Nyith the proposed permeable pavers. Mr. Fourlas discussed that each condominium unit Nyould have its own garage and storage unit. He explained hoNy many* of the existing condominium ovmers in the area utilize their garages as storage; not as a place to park. Mr. Simmons confirmed that the proposed development met the Village's parking requirements from a minimum parking standpoint. The proposed development requires two (2) parking spaces per unit (parking space in the garage and a space on the parking pad). Mr. Simmons stated the proposal Nyith the five (5) guest spaces met the Code's requirements. Chairman Rogers questioned Nyhether or not the five (5) additional spaces Nyere required. Mr. Simmons said the Code requires one (1) guest space per every* ten (10) spaces that is required. He stated that in order for the Petitioner to conform to the required number of parking spaces, additional lot coverage Nyas needed. Staff Nyas in favor of a parking Variation to eliminate the five (5) additional parking spaces to utilize the on- street parking. Thus, the lot coverage Variation Nyould not be needed. Mr. Fourlas discussed hoNy the real estate market has changed since the original PUD Nyas approved. He stated there is more of a need for smaller tNyo (2) bedroom units as compared to large tovmhomes. Mr. Fourlas said that even-thing is the same as the original PUD, Nyith the exception of the toN -,nhomes that are noNy condominiums and there are five (5) proposed guest parking spaces. There Nyas general discussion on the marketability* of the condominium units. Mr. Floros asked Nyhat the price point Nyould be for the proposed condominium units. The units Nyill have (2) bedrooms, one (1) bath, approximately* 1,000 square feet and Nyould be sold betvyeen $175,000 and $200,000. Ms. Hinaber asked about the proposed bonus room on the ground floor. Mr. Fourlas stated that the bonus room could be sub - divided as additional storage for the tNyo (2) property* ovmers. There is no plumbing and electrical in the bonus room. Chairman Rogers sNyore in John Klimick, 706 E. Shabonee Trail, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Klimick stated that his toN -,nhome is part of the Shabonee Tovmhome Association that is directly* south of the Subject Property*. Mr. Klimick had concerns regarding the density* and additional traffic Nyithin the allevvmyT. He said the parking is already an issue in the area. Mr. Klimick also mentioned concerns and beliefs that condominiums Nyould attract more renters than ovmers. Chairman Rogers sNyore in Marl-, Siviero, 716 E. Shabonee Trail, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Siviero discussed the placement of five (5) parking spaces on the street for the Subject Property*. He felt that his toN -,nhome association deserved additional parking since they only have one (1) parking space in the garage. He believed that if the proposal remained as toN -,nhomes it Nyould raise the values of the surrounding properties. Chairman Rogers explained to Mr. Siviero that if the five (5) guest spaces for the proposed development Nyere moved to the street, they* Nyould have to abide by the Village's overnight parking ban. Ms. Hinaber clarified by moving the guest Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January* 26, 2012 Page 4 of 6 spaces off of the Subject Property to the public street Nvould not be striped only for the new condominiums. All residents and guests can park on Village streets during the day up until the overnight parking ban. There Nvas additional discussion regarding the street parking and guest spaces for the proposed development. Chairman Rogers swore in Carolee Esposito, 712 E. Shabonee Trail, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Esposito had concerns Nvith the lot coverage. She Nvanted to know Nvhere the Nvater Nvould go if the lot coverage Variation Nvas granted. Chairman Rogers stated this Nvas whN- Staff presented the option of removing the guest spaces from the proposal to keep the lot coverage from increasing. Mr. Floros asked if there Nvas a flooding problem in the area. Ms. Esposito stated that there has not been a problem so far. There Nvas additional discussion regarding parking on Prospect Avenue. Mr. Simmons confirmed that there Nvas two (2) hour parking restrictions along Prospect Avenue Nvhere the Subject Property lies. He said cars do park along Prospect Avenue, but Staff never saw the street fully occupied Nvith parked cars during its review. Mr. Simmons said after 6 p.m., there are no hourly parking restrictions until the overnight ban goes in effect. Chairman Rogers swore in Nancy Vincent, 507 S. EdNvard Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Vincent stated that her property is located approximately five (5) houses south of the Subject Property. She said the design of the proposal Nvould fit Nvell Nvithin the neighborhood, but she did have concerns Nvith density. Ms. Vincent also asked for clarification on Nvhere guests Nvould be asked to park. Chairman Rogers stated Nvherever the closest street space is to the Subject Property /unit. Ms. Vincent Nvanted to know if there Nvas a perceived parking issue, Nvould the units be tougher to sell. She also questioned the traffic flow for the Subject Property and Nvanted to know if there Nvas an entrance off of Prospect Avenue. Chairman Rogers said that the residents for the proposed development Nvould enter off of the alley to the south of the property. There Nvas additional discussion regarding the bonus room for the ground units of the proposed development. Chairman Rogers swore in Bradley Lenz, 718 E. Shabonee Trail, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Lenz had concerns Nvith the additional density, traffic, and the size of the allevvmv. He stated that parking can be tight at times. He Nvanted to know if there Nvas a study completed how the proposed condominiums Nvould have on the values of the surrounding adjacent properties. Chairman Rogers stated according to the plans submitted, the alle«v v is twenty (20) feet. He understood that it may be tight, but it does allow for N,-o (2) Nvay traffic. Chairman Rogers swore in Nicholas Marino, 5800 Dempster Street, Morton Grove, Illinois. Mr. Marino stated that he oN -,ns four (4) tovmhomes that are rentals on Shabonee Trail. He believed the design and elements of the proposed development fit in Nvith the surrounding properties. Mr. Marino discussed his real estate background and believed that if the tovmhomes Nvere built as proposed in 2007, they Nvould still be sitting vacant. He said the toN -,nhomes he rents has one (1) garage space and he has not heard any complaints regarding parking on the street. Mr. Marino believed the alley -vmv is adequate for the proposed development. Chairman Rogers swore in Tim Loucopoulos, 2300 W. Diversev, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Loucopoulos is a Co- ON -ner of the Subject Property and said the commercial building that once stood at 701 E. Prospect Avenue Nvas approximately in the sixty -five (65) to sixty -six (66) percent range for lot coverage. Chairman Rogers asked if there Nvas a preference for the location of the additional guest parking spaces. Mr. Loucopoulos said there Nvere no issues Nvith on- street parking on the Prospect Avenue or EdNvard Street side of the Subject Property. He stated the parking spaces Nvere placed on the property Nvith the pavers so there Nvould be feNver objections. There Nvas additional discussion regarding the brick permeable pavers. Mr. Floros asked if there Nvas financing in place for the proposed project. Mr. Loucopoulos stated that there is preliminary financing in place. There Nvas discussion on there being a current market for the type of housing that is being proposed. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 5 of 6 Chairman Rogers asked if there Nvas consideration to put pavers in the drivewa -,Ts and parking spaces. Mr. Loucopoulos said the architect calculated only eighty (80) percent of the areas covered Nvith pavers as impermeable to bring the lot coverage to the 51.6% as originally proposed. HoNvever, the Village Code does not define brick pavers as a permeable surface. Chairman Rogers believed the Petitioner Nvould be under the fifty (50) percent lot coverage if permeable pavers Nvere used throughout the proposed development even though the Code does not give the Petitioner credit for the lot coverage. Mr. Loucopoulos said the Village's Engineering Division did not have enough time to review. There Nvas additional discussion regarding the marketability of the overnight parking. Mr. Loucopoulos did not believe a potential buyer Nvould pay more for a unit knoNving there Nvere five (5) overnight guest spaces. There Nvas discussion regarding alternative pervious surfaces. Ms. Vincent felt better about the parking situation in the neighborhood knoNving that many of the townhomes in the area only have one (1) parking spot. She discussed the limited visibility on Prospect Avenue due to the plantings that Nvere recently placed in the median. Chairman Rogers said that median Nvas not under their jurisdiction, but Staff Nvould report to the proper department. Mr. Klimick stated that he Nvas still concerned Nvith the amount of traffic in the alley. He said he Nvould feel better if there Nvas another entrance for the proposed development off of either Prospect Avenue or Edward Street. Chairman Rogers closed the public portion of the case at 9:16 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. There Nvas general discussion regarding the motions and conditions. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to approve a Variation to allow a fifty -four percent (54 %) lot coverage, subject to the installation of permeable pavers as per the pavement exhibit prepared by HKM Architects + Planners, Inc, dated December 13, 2011, and the conditions of approval listed in the Staff Report for the property located at 701 E. Prospect Avenue. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Hinaber, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None The motion Nvas approved 6 -0. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Donnelly to approve an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development being the subject of Ordinance No. 5642 to allow the construction of twenty -four (24) condominium units and a Variation to increase the density from the permitted fourteen (14) to twenty -four (24) dwelling units. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Hinaber, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None The motions Nvere approved 6 -0. The Village Board's Decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers asked if there Nvere any citizens in the audience Nvaiting to be heard. Hearing none, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Ms. Hinaber to adjourn at 9:21 p.m. The motion Nvas approved by a voice vote and the meeting Nvas adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -31 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 6 of 6