Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2003 P&Z minutes 46-03 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-46-03 Hearing Date: December 11, 2003 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 321 E. Rand Road PETITIONER: Zack Joseph, for AM Pinnacle Holding Co. PUBLICATION DATE: November 26, 2003 PIN#: 03-34-206-002 REQUEST: Rezone property from Rl Single Family to R-2 Attached Single Family to allow the construction of a four (4) townhome unit development; and a Variation to permit a 20- foot rear yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Zack Joseph Ed Kowalski Norman Toberman Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 13 meeting, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The minutes were approved 4-0, with three abstentions by Arlene Juracek, Merrill Cotton, and Matthew Sledz. At 7:32, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-46-03, a request for a Map Amendment to Rezone property from Rl Single Family to R-2 Attached Single Family to allow the construction of a 4-unit townhouse development and a Variation to permit a 20-foot rear yard. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject Property is located at the southwest comer of the Rand Road and Highland Street. It contains a single-family residence and related improvements. The portion of the Highland Street right-of-way that runs along the northern edge of the Subject Property has not been dedicated; consequently the right-of-way and street pavement width are substandard. Highland Street currently functions as a one-way, eastbound only street along the northern edge of the Subject Property. Ms. Connolly reviewed the adjacent land uses and zoning districts. She summarized the Petitioner's proposal and noted that the Petitioner is in the process of demolishing the existing house and has applied for a building permit to construct a four (4) -unit townhome development. However, before construction 0 fthe proposed townhomes may begin, the Petitioner's request to rezone the Subject Property from R-l Single-Family Residence to R-2 Attached Single-Family Residence must be approved by the Village Board following a recommendation and Public Hearing by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Although permits cannot be Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-46-03 Page 2 issued for the proposed townhome project until the Village Board takes final action, the Petitioner is permitted to proceed with the demolition of the existing residence. Ms. Connolly reviewed the Petitioner's site plan and said that the development would consist of a single, 2-story building containing four units. Each unit would have its own separate entrance, but a single shared driveway would provide vehicle access to the development. The site plan indicates that each unit would have its own 3 'x3' stoop in the rear yard. The proposal does not incorporate guest parking for the development. The elevations indicate that the townhomes will have peaked roofs of varying heights that do not exceed 28-feet in height from grade. Each unit will have a front-loading 2-car garage, accessed from the shared driveway off of Highland Street. The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of face brick and stone trim. Also, balconies will be included on the front and rear elevations. The Petitioner's site plan includes a shared driveway for all four (4)-units, with a single curb cut to/from Highland Street. The site plan indicates that the Highland Street right-of-way will be dedicated, as required by the Village's Development Code, but does not show the required improvements, which include widening the street and installing sidewalk. The site plan indicates that the shared driveway tapers to 18'6" where it intersects with the existing Highland Street pavement and then flares to a maximum width of 97 -feet at its widest point, which is at the entrance to the garages. Ms. Connolly said that the north half of the Highland Street right-of-way has already been dedicated and improved. As part of the proposed townhome project, the south half of the street must also be dedicated and improved to Village standards. The site plan currently includes a shared driveway with a width of 18'6" where it would intersect with Highland Street, then flaring to a total width of 97 -feet along the front of the garages. In addition, widening Highland Street as required by Village Code regulations may add additional traffic and turning movements from Rand Road. Currently, Highland Street is a one-way, eastbound street from Elm to Rand Road. Consideration should be given as to whether turning restrictions should be included as part of the road improvement project before Highland Street is widened. The Safety Commission would review this matter and forward its recommendation to Village Board for final approval. Also, the Petitioner is required to dedicate a portion of Rand Road to complete the 100-foot right-of-way. Rand Road would not be physically widened since mOT previously improved the road without requiring the dedication of the additional Rand Road right-of-way. However, sidewalk and parkway trees would be installed along the Subject Property's east lot line. The Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that new landscaping will be planted in the right-of-way and on private property. However, the size of the plants is not clear. Also, additional year-round, mature materials must be planted to adequately screen the residences and provide a buffer from Rand Road. Ms. Connolly s aid that the Petitioner intends to demolish the existing home. S he compared the differences between the Rl and R2 zoning district's bulk regulations. She noted that the primary difference between the RI and R2 districts was the interior side yard requirement. She said that the Rl zoning district requires 10-feet or 10% of the lot width, whichever is less and the R2 district requires no less than 5-feet. Also, Rl permits up to 45% lot coverage while R2 permits up to 50% lot coverage. The petitioner's site plan indicates the townhomes and related improvements would cover no more than 43% of the Subject Property. The proposed townhome development meets all of the R2 District's bulk regulations except for the rear yard setback. The plan calls for a 20-foot rear yard when the minimum rear yard permitted in the R2 district is 25- feet. The 3 'x3' stoops shown in the rear yard are permitted encroachments. However, the Zoning Code allows patios and/or decks to encroach in a required yard, but the structures must maintain a 15-foot setback. Since the project is well below the minimum lot coverage requirement, the Petitioner may want to explore the possibility Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-46-03 Page 3 of increasing the size of the patios to a more usable size, while maintaining the required 15-foot rear yard setback and complying with the lot coverage limitation. Ms. Connolly summarized the Variation standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the Subject Property is located out of a floodplain and that the topography is relatively level. The proposed 20-foot rear yard does not meet the minimum setback regulations although the Petitioner has the opportunity to design a development that complies with all Village regulations. Therefore, the proposed 20-foot rear yard does not meet the standards for a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance because the Petitioner is creating the hardship and the need for a variation when the site could be redesigned so the units comply with the required rear yard setbacks. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Map Amendment. She said that the Subject Property is adjacent to existing single-family residences, abuts Gregory Park, and has frontage onto a major arterial road. The proposed four (4)-unit townhome development, with minor design modifications, would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property and would be consistent with recently approved developments to the south and east of the site. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property and provides an adequate transition from Rand Road to the Single Family Residential neighborhood. Although Rand Road is a significant commercial corridor, the Subject Property would not be conducive to commercial development due to its limited size and surrounding uses. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed rezoning meets the standards for a Map Amendment listed in the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Variation to permit a 20-foot rear yard fails to meet the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, she said that Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board deny the Variation request to permit a 20-foot rear yard and approve the request to rezone the Subject Property from Rl to R2 subject to the following: I) Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall provide a material sample board for Staff review and approval; 2) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of vacation that dedicates the Highland Street right-of-way and Rand Road right-of-way as required by the Development Code; 3) The site is developed in accordance with t he elevations and plans prepared by TAP Architects, Ltd dated October 9, 2003 but revised to reflect: a. Right-of-way improvements as required by the Development Code; b. Additional year-round landscaping installed along the perimeter of the Subject Property (minimum 5-foot tall evergreens line the entire Rand Road frontage); c. Larger patios/decks in the rear yard without exceeding lot coverage limitations for the site; d. Revised driveway access design to/from Highland Street; 4) The units are constructed according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to, the installation of sprinklers; and 5) The Petitioner obtains permits from all appropriate agencies, including, but not limited to, mOT and MWRD. The Planning & Zoning Commission asked Ms. Connolly several questions regarding landscaping and sidewalks as they related to future Park District and Christian Life College improvement plans. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-46-03 Page 4 Zack Joseph, 2817 Central, Glenview, IL, and Ted Pysiniak, TAP Architects, 6422 Glenwood Drive, Long Grove, IL were sworn in. Mr. Pysiniak said the townhomes were designed to blend with the architecture of the neighborhood. The design attempts to retain as many existing trees as possible as well as adding more trees. He clarified that the site plan had been modified since the Staff memo was received and that they are no longer seeking a Variation for a 20-foot rear yard. He said that the site meets all bulk regulations for the R2 zoning district. He said the townhomes are 3-bedroom units and will have all brick exteriors. They will have two-car garages and parking for two-cars in front of each garage. They will be marketed for approximately $350,000. Norman Toberman, 615 W. Rockwell St., Arlington Heights, IL, Engineer, reviewed the engineering plans at length. He provided details on how the site will drain, the proposed grading plan, and the storm water detention design. Ms. Juracek asked him if water runoff would be diverted from the Christian Life property and Mr. Toberman said it would. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience had questions. She asked the Petitioner if the Variation request had been withdrawn; Mr. Joseph confirmed the request was withdrawn. She then quoted an e-mail received from residents who live at 521 N. Elm Street, Ed and Lind Ruff, who presented their concerns regarding their view of the townhome development. Ms. Juracek stated that the landscaping condition recommended by staff would resolve the residents' concerns of seeing a parking lot from their backyard. Ed L. Kowalski, 513 Eastman Court, Mount Prospect, Architect, asked if there would be 3 & Yz baths, asphalt driveways, and a homeowners association. The responses to all questions were yes and Mr. Kowalski said thank you. Mr. Jacobs noted that a resident had called the Community Development Department and expressed concerns regarding safety and traffic if Highland Street were to be converted into a two-way street. Ms. Juracek said that the Highland Street improvements and possible turning restrictions would be deferred to the Safety Commission for review. Ms. Juracek closed the hearing at 8: 15 pm. Leo Floros made a motion to make a recommendation that t he V illage Board approve a request for aM ap Amendment to Rezone the property from Rl Single Family to R-2 Attached Single Family to allow construction of a 4-unit townhouse development for Case No. PZ-46-03, 321 E. Rand Road, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff memo and the additional condition to require the townhomes to have all masonry exteriors. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotton, Floros, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 8:45 p.m, Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael Jacobs, AICP Deputy Director, Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner H:\PLANlPlanning & Zoning COMMW&Z 2003\MinutesIPZ-46-03 321 E. Rand Rd-AM Pinnacle Holding Co..doc