Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/01/1985 P&Z Minutesi M I N U T l F THE REGULAR M E E .i.. I )F T 1` i E m, MOUNT yo L ,%,MCSSPBC T ZONING BOA D G- APPEALS ZBA CASE No. 60 -SU --85 fearing Date: October 17, 1985 November 7, 1985 December 5, 1985 February 27, 1986 March 27, 1986 May 22, 1986 May 29, 1986 PETITIONER: Marshall Turner SUBJECT PROPERTY, Sporty 9 Hole Golf Course, old orchard Colony Country North of Rand, West of Schoenbeck and South of Camp Mc Donald Road PUBLICATION DATE. October 1, 1985 REQUEST: Application for approval of proposed modifications to Planned Unit Development/Consent Decree entered in 1972 to permit 3 buildings with a maximum of 110 feet in height and 952 dwelling units. Additionally, revisions are requested to the public improvements as required by the Consent Decree relative to sidewalks on Schoenbeck Road and roadway improvements, ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT: Gilbert. Basnik f Chairman Robert Brett rage r Lois Brothers Ronald Cassidy John Green Marilyn o ' May ZBA MEMBER. ABSENT' :Len Pet r uce l l i OBJECTORS: Donald Kreger, Repree'en .ing Prospect. Heights Names Oe Voss, Representing Prospect Park District Emmett. Stains, Representing Colony Country Homeowners Association Mr. Collins, 414 Camp Mc Donald Rd, P.H. Prank Gilbert, 416 Camp McDonald, P.H. TBA 60 -SU -85 May 29, 1986 Page 2 of 8 Messrs. Howard horde, Norman Samuelson, Robert Babb in and Marshall Turner presented this case, which was continued from May 22, 1986. Mr . Borde gave a brief summary of the proposal as presented at the last meeting and of the Consent Decree entered in 1972, being case 65 CH 35000 The proposed development of this 38 acre parcel would include 3 11W11 shaped buildings built in a step type design starting with 2 stories up to a height 8 stories, as opposed to the 10 story height originally proposed in this case. Clusters of 110 townhouses are included in the the total units, which has been reduced from 797 at the last meeting to 788. Mr. Borde stated that several questions were asked at the last meeting and he would like to answer some of those questions at this point . Mr. Borde explained that the proposed development would have security access, with the residents being able to enter using cards at one gate with the second entrance being a security entrance with a guard on 24 hour duty at the other gateW 01, is In response to some questio . ns asked at the last meeting, Mr. Borde stated that their traffic engineer has calculated that approximately 320 traffic movements would take place in per hour in the peak periods, from 7:15-A.M. to 8:15 A.M. 11 The petitioner stated that this development would be compatible with the surrounding area and would act as a* transition area between the existing single family and the commercial property to the west. it was also stated that in their opinion this development would have not adverse effect on the surrounding property values. It is proposed that the area would be very well landscaped, using much of the existing vegetation surrounding this parcel. As to the marketability of this type of rental development, Mro Bode stated that according to their' market study there is a strong demand for luxury rental units in the area with low supply. u LBA 60 -SU -85 May 29, 1986 Page 3 of 8 The retention ponds are proposed in the locations in the northeast, and southeast corners of the subject property due to the requirements of Village. As to the concern relative to drainage, it was ,stated that with development of this property there would be less drainage run --off than in it present undeveloped. state, Rents :dor these units are based upon an average of 85 to 95 cents per square Foot, plus ,air conditioning, heat and garage, which would result in one of the propbsed 20 studio apartments renting for approximately $500 to $600 a unit. The one bedroom units would rent From between $675 $800; one bedroom with den :from $850 $1,000; two bedroom units would rent. for $$950 -- 1 , 150; and, three bedroom and penthouse units From $1,100 to $1,400. The townhouses would rent within the same range. Access to the subject property off Schoenbeck was proposed due to ,,convenience and the ;fact. that Rand Road is too busy. Recreational facilities will include a. playground area. :dor children, as well as the other amenities previously stated. Additional open space is available should the need arise. As to sidewalks, Mr . Bo rde stated that sidewalks would be provided along the south aide of camp McDonald tothe weet boundary of the property, rather than as originally proposed, which was to the east boundary of the out -lot. consideration would also be given for a donation specifically for sidewalks at the northeast corner of .Schoenbeck Road extending to Eisenhower School parking and a future allocation of paving of 6 feet in width of the gravel from the school to the Gary Morava mark District Building, In response to a question of a. member of the Zoning Board of Appeals as to having sidewalks around the entire complex, the petitioner stated that it was their feeling that sidewalks should not be installed along Rand Road since it, would be a danger to pedestrians, considering, the volume of traf'f'ic. ZBA 60 -SU -85 p. May 29, 1986 Page 4 of 8 L The fencing proposed is for security purposes only, and in accordance with their research, this is desired by future residents of the complex. I As to the density proposed, the townhouse area results in 11 units to the to acre, with the remaining units being approximately 24-1/2 to acre. Combining both areas the total units per acre the density would equal 20.76 to the acre. These calculations include all the open space for the 38 acres. The height to the top of the roof of the penthouse would be approximately 90 feet from approved grade. The height depends on the type of mechanical equipment and size of the lobby, As to the question of rental units versus condominium units, the petitioner acknowledged the concerns expressed, but stated that the developer will not be going for bonds and depending on the market, conversion could happen at some time in the future. Parking ' for this development would be at a ratio of 1.65 spaces per unit for the apartments and 2.25 spaces per unit for the townhouses. The petitioner stated that parking is of great concern to the developer and that while the proposal is as stated, there would be some "land -banking" so that additional parking spaces could be provided if needed, ., It is proposed that the parking spaces located outside would be 8-1/21 x 18' and 91 x 181 for indoor parking. These standards are recommended by Barton/Ashman for all future multi -family dwelling structures. ae As to concerns expressed relative to the effect of ' the development on the school population, the petitioner stated that based on the projected population of at 1,368 in is anticipated that 78 grade school and 26 high school children. These calculations are based on statistics of condominiums since there is not information available on this type of rental units. `ZBA 60 -SU -85 May 29, 1986 Page 5 of 8 As to the fencing proposed and the fact that staff stated that consistent fencing materials be used, it was stated by the landscape architect that the area has 3 distinct borders. Along Rand Road there is heavy mature vegetation that the developer would like to save. The proposed fencing for this area would be maintenance free chain link, so as to retain the natural barrier. It is proposed that the other outer edges have brick posts approximately 6 feet in height with wrought -iron poles approximately 41 8" high in-between. ..f There is considerable landscaping within the property and it is the intention of the petitioner to retain it and/or move many trees within the complex. Mr. Kreger, Attorney for the City of Prospect Heights, expressed the objection of Prospect Heights, stating that the Consent Decree is being questioned in Court and that the Village Board and the Court is the appropriate forum to consider this request. The Zoning Board of Appeals should only consider the standards of the Zoning Ordinancd. It was stated that this proposal is not compatible with the e, surrounding area, A written objection was submitted on behalf of the City of Prospect Heights, Mr. Emmett Stains, representing homeowners within the Old Orqhard Colony Country development, stated that it is their consensus that the design of this development as ,presented would be the finest in the area. He stated that the petitioner has done an outstanding job on retaining green space and especially likes the idea of "land banking" for possible future parking, Mr. Stains did stated that there is a concern relative to the proposed chain link fencing and would ask that that not be permitted, It was also noted that in the opinion of the hoteowners in the Colony Country, Schoenbeck Road should be 51 feet wide at the entrance way and deceleration and turning lanes should be provided at Camp McDonald and Schoenbeck Roads, Sidewalks should also be provided around this development.. i Mr. Stains stated that in accordance with the Fire Department's request, the petitioner has agreed to install sprinkl-ers within every unit, due to the fact that it might take up to 7 minutes for the Fire Department to arrive dri the scene. It was noted that when Colony ZBA 60 -SU -85 May 29, 1986 Page 6 of 8 Country was developed land was dedicated for a fire station at Euclii and Elmhurst Road and the fact that no fire station was built and sprinklers were not installed in that development would appear unfair to the existing homeowners. Mr. Stains also stated that that water from sprinklers can cause more damage than fire itself. The Prospect Heights Park District has requested $100 per unit donation and Mr. Stains stated that this amount should be justified by t,h,e Park District and that the petitione,"r, should ndt be pe,nal-*zed without, presenting a formulla f'or that ca,lcuilationoi, It wias also stated, that rental units would not bring people that are involved in the community such as owners. As to the drainage and sewers, Mr. Stains stated that the existing sewers may not be adequate, noting that although the Colony Country went through the expense of bringing their sewer system to comply with the Village, *the Village has still not accepted the sewers as a part of the Village's system, It was also noted that he would hope the water supply was adequate so that the existing homeowners would not be affected with lack of pressure. Mr. De Voss, Director of Prospect Heights Park District, asked at what point the recreation facilities would be built. The peoner stated that it would all be done in phases, with the first recreational facilities to be built 22 months after construction begions. Mr. De Voss repeated that he feels this development would place a hardship on the'Park District. In response to Mr. De Voss' question as to facilities to be provided, the petitioners stated as follows,* Three tennis courts Olympic size pool Lockers and showers Meeting rooms Ping Pong Billiards Board games Jogging paths with Suana Jacuzzi (possible lighted) Fitness exercise areas ZBA 60 -SU -85 May 29, 1986 Page 7 of 8 As to the retention ponds, it was stated that there will be fish in the ponds and that the banks will be sloped for safety. The Zoning Board of Appeals members expressed their concerns as follows: John Green asked that the cul de sac's be 100 feet in diameter, in accordance with the recommendation of the Fire Department as well as all other recommendations of the Fire Department be met. Mr. Green also stated that he did not approve of the sidewalks being placed at the curb, both for safety and snow plowing reasons, stating that there should be some type of parkway area between the roadway and sidewalks within the complex, Mr. Basnik stated that the Village standards for parking are 91 x 201 and questioned the advisability of B-1/21 wide spaces, stating that in is opinion that would be too narrow. Staff stated that based on their recent research, the 8-1/21 width might be substantiated and that they had no problem with the 181 length, Mr. Basnik also asked what density would be permitted under existing regulations. Staff stated that based on the size of this parcel, there could be 16 units per acre under existing Code regulations, however, under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) 668 units would be permitted, Staff also added that this property lends itself to a PUD. The proposal exceeds would a PUD would permit by approximately 18% In response to a concern relative to open space, the petitioner stated that he would agree to covenant the open space as presented, but stated he might need some of it in accordance with his plan for a "land bank" should additional parking be needed in the future. p As to the question of public improvements, staff stated that in accordance with the Village Code, the petitioner woul-d be required to install sidewalks, curbs, gutters, street lights, and parkway trees on all roadways. The following opinions were voiced by the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to a vote on this request: ZBA 60 -SU -86 May 29, 1986 Page 8 of 8 Mrs. Brothers stated that while she likes the project, she would like have the total number of units reduced, Mr. Cassidy stated that the 8 story height proposed is too high and that in his opinion people moved :from the city to the suburbs to get away from high buildings. Mr. Green expressed his feeling that the quality of the proposal 'is very good if it was able to meet Village standards, noting that many improvements have been made to development standards over the past 14 years and he can not ignore those improved standards in this project. Mr. Basnik stated that while he felt this 'is a good development, he felt that 18% increase over the permitted density is too great and stated that this case is a perfect candidate for compromise. Mr. Brettrager also stated that he likes the project but the parking and public improvements are a concern to him. Mr. Cassidy, seconded by Mr. Brettrager, moved to grant the request. in Case ZBA 60 -SU -85 in accordance with the testimony presented. Upon roll call: Ayes* Brettrager Nays. Brothers, Cassidy, Green ,,O'May , Basnik Motion failed. Mr. Borde asked 'if he was correct in interpreting the Zoning Board of Appeals vote as being taken was done so' as considering it a Special Use from the existing Village Code, rather than considering it an amendment from the Consent Decree, stating that in accordance with the Consent Decree the Village Manager would present a requested modification to the Village Board and that Board would have 30 days to issue their recommendation. Mr. Basnik stated that the Zoning Beard oard of Appeals did consider this case as a request for a Special Use for existing regulations since the legalities involved with the Consent Decree are not within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals., NY Carol A. Fields Recording Secretary ar MINUI.L of THE REGULAR MEET., bF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NO. 60-SU-85 Hearing Date!, October 17, 1985 November 7, 1985 December 5, 1985 February 27, 1986 March 27, 1986 May 22, 1986 PETITIONER. Marshall Turner 40 SUBJECT PROPERTY, Sporty 9 Hole Golf Course, Old Orchard Colony Country North of Rand, West of Schoenbeck and South of Camp Mc Donald Road PUBLICATION DATE: October 1. 1985 REQUEST: Application for approval of proposed modifications to Planned Unit Development/Consent Decree entered in 1972 to permit 3 buildings with a maximum of 110 feet in height and 952 dwelling units. Additionally, revisions are requested to the public improvements as required by the Consent Decree relative to sidewalks on Schoenbeck Road and roadway improvements, ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT: Gilbert Basniki Chairman Lois Brothers Ronald Cassidy John Green Marilyn o' May LEA MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Brett rage r Len Pet rucelli" OBJECTORS, Donald Kreuger, Representing Prospect Heights Eugene Schlickman, President Colony Country Community Association James De Voss, Presenting Prospect Park District Emmett Stains, Representing Colony Country Homeowners Association Mr. Collins, 414 Camp Mc Donald Rd, P.H. Marian Wilaco, 305 Willow, P.H. Nancy Walker, 1400 Yarmouth Place Dorothy Rolew, Yarmouth Place Vivian Rodus, Colony Country ZBA 60 -SU -85 may 22, 1 986 Page 2 of 5 Messrs. Howard Borde, Norman Samuelsont Robert Babbin and Marshall Turner presented this case, which has been continued for several months. It was noted that numerous meetings with staff 'I-iave taken place and the proposal is a result of those meetings. Mr. Bordie gave a brief summary of the Consent Decree entered in 1972, being case 65 CH 3500, in which there is verbage that the Village President and Board of Trustees shall consider any modifications, however it was at the direction of the Village Board that this matter is brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals, It was noted that the original Consent Decree permitted 1,168 units with 3 buildings not to exceed 12 stories in height along with and townhouses; that buildings permit fees would be those in effect at the time the Consent Decree was entered; and, that amendments to the Zoning Ordinance made after the, date of the Decree would not affect this development and that no donations would be required of the developer,. It is proposed that this 38 acre parcel be developed with 3 "W" shaped buildings built in a step type design starting with 4 stories to 8 stories, The iplan presented in October, 1985 proposed buildings 10 stories n height. There would also be clusters of townhouses. Mr. Babbin explained that the townhouse clusters weredesigned in a way as "0 to accompilsh a feeling of community within that type of housing. There would i be approxmately 430 underground parking spaces in the elevator buildings. This proposal calls for 788 dwelling units, as compared to the original proposed in this case last year of 952 units, which is a reduction of 16%. Included in this number is 119 townhouse units, which number was reduced from 128 on the plans submitted Mr. Babbin stated that this development would have security access, with the residents being able to use their entry cards at one gate and a security guard on 24 hour duty at the other gate. The security guard would also have visual contact with the un manned gate via a televised security system. The gate houses would be 2 -stories, with the second floor to house staff and the first floor housing garden equipment and the actual guard station. + Parking for the high rise development would be at a ratio of 1.65 spaces per unit. Construction would be of a decorative brick with lime -stone, The townho'uses would have bay windows, wood siding, pitch roofs, and garage doors set back to minimize the appearance of the garage door. Guest parking would be provided,, Z B A 60 -SU -85 May 22, 198E Page 3 of 5 The center of the elevator buildings area will have an open area of approximately 400 s. ft. :In accordance with the request of the Fire Department, the developer has agreed to provide fiberglass matting in the cul de sac areas at the elevator buildings for adequate footings for the various pieces of fire equipment. Thpetitioner ..l ,s o stated that all dwelling g un * is will. be 100% sprinklered. The proposed sizes of units are as follows Studio apartments One bedroom units Two bedroom units Two bedrooms 2-1/2 /'2 bath s Two bedrooms Plus Three bedrooms minimum of 550 sq. ft. 750 sq. ft. 975 sq. ft, 1,100 sq. ft, 1,200 sq. ft. 1,359 sq. ft. Some of the amenities proposed are 3 tennis courts, swimming pool, recreation building, retention ponds and mature landscaping ,a in � gg g paths with fitness work-out areas in various areas of thep ath . The entire development would be enclosed, for secUrity, within 6 foot high fences. The type of fencing materials would depend on the e particular area, singe there are areas with heavy vegetation which the petitioner would like to have remain. The three roadways surrounding the subject. property are Rand board Schoenbeckand Carp McDonald, Rand Road is a state roadway d the other two are County r y an • y oadway,s . The proposal, includes udes the realignment of Schoenbeck Road approximately 300 feet west, which is a req ui rement of the Consent Decree and would make the distance between the traffic signal. at. Euclid and Road and thero► osed traffic i ` p p c s�.gnal at Rand and Schoenbeck Roads safer for -motorists, The following concerns were expressed b► residents of Mount Prospect and Prospect. Heights.0 Prospect Heights would like to review the plans. What is the closest location of buildings of this height in the area? What type of traffic will be generated? ZBA 60 -SU -85 May 2 2, 19 8 1, Page 4 of 5 1 Is the proposal compatible with the surrounding area.? Wnat price range would the rents be.? Why is Schoenbeck Road shown as 41 feet wide and why is it proposed at the indicated location? What type of recreation will be offered the residents and what impact would the increased population have on the Prospect Heights Park District? Will the developer make donations to Library and Park District? Will there be sidewalks to the Park District building?. Is there a need for rental property in this area? Will there be any subsidized housing.? What is the construction schedule.? What will happen to the 181hole golf course.? &Will there be sidewalks around the development ? The following responses were given to the questions and concerns expressed: As to compatibility, it was the opinion of staff that multi -family is a good use for this area. The rents would range from $500 - $600 for a studio apartment, 2 bedrooms would rent for between $950 - $1,150, and between $1,100 to $1,400 for a 3 bedroom. The width of Schoenbeck Road is proposed to be 2 lanes from Camp McDonald to the entrance and 3 lances from the entrance to Rand Road. The 'relocation is part of the Consent Decree and would make the traffic signal more useful at the proposed location. k The recreational facilities would include 3 tennis courts, olympic size swimming pool, jogging paths with exercise areas along the pathway. vrc ZBA 60-SU-85 May 22, 1986 Page 5 of 5 The Village does not have a park donation ordinance and the Consent Decree states that the developer need not make such donations, The developer will install some sidewalks in various areas. Market studies indicate that there is a market for quality rental housing. There will be no subsidized housing in this development, The construction schedule would call for phases and those details yet to be finalized. The 18 hole golf course has 35 years left on the Consent Decree as 'it presently exists. As stated above, it is proposed that sidewalks will be installed in various areas around the development. It was stated by residents of the area that Eisenhower School is very close to this development and the children have to walk to school a -ft therefore siaewalks and lights should be provided for their safety. The petitioner stated that Cook County has plans to improve the roadways in the area that the petitioner would coordinate any roadway improvements with those plans. Due to the late hour and the fact that the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals hadnot had a chance to pose questions to the petitioner, it was the decision of the Board to continue this case to the following Thursday, May 29, 198600 Mr. Green, seconded by Mrs. Brothers, moved to continue this case to May 29, 1986 and adjourn this meeting, Upon roll call, Motion carried, Ayes: Unanimous The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P&M41 Carol A. Fields Redording Secretary Village Of Mount Prospect� � aW Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Ta 41, 1! 0 : TERRANCE L* BURGHARD, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: STEPHEN M* PARK9 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING SUBJECT: ZBA- 60- SU- 8 5MARSHALL TURNER, ETAL VISTAS AT OLD ORCHARD LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER SCHOENBECK AND RAND ROADS SPORTY NINE GOLF COURSE AT OLD ORCHARD DATE: JUNE 109 1986 The Vistas/Tremont was procesised through the Zoning Board of Appeals with several hearin,gs., At the.May 29, 198611 meeting, the Zoning Board voted against recommending approval of this, appli,,,", cation by a votie of 1-5. in, general, the member's felt, the, approach to the site desisn was goo'd but th,'ree main issues surfaced. 1. The number of units on the site and height of buildings was excessive, 2. The parkingprovided was inadequate," 1 .1 3. Necessary public improvements were not proposed, Street width Sidewalks Parkway trees Street lights Curb and gutter Cam MacDonald Road Sidewalks Parkway trees Street lights Curb and gutter 17- I � MelFOXOM, I I Sidewalks Parkway trees Street lights 4 Lane (South 411 (North 5' required 40' spacing 300' spacing (max.) Both sides required 5' required 40'spacing 910' spacing (max.) South side required 5' required 40' spacing 300' spacing (max..) (IDOT may require 6/10/86 Planning & Zoning Dept ....... .. . 3 Lane (South) 2 Lane (North) None None Proposed None Proposed None 1 at entrance None