Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/28/2007 P&Z minutes 15-07 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-15-07 Hearing Date: June 28, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 701 E. Prospect Avenue PETITIONER: Structures Construction LLC / Tim Loucopoulos PUBLICATION DATE: May 9,2007 PIN NUMBER: 08-12-428-004-0000 REQUEST: 1) Rezone from 11 Limited Industrial to R4 Multi-Family 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: George Wiedemann, Rodger Kruse, Steve Hautzinger, Tim Loucopoulos, Mark Hopkins, Tom Manion, Helen Lenz, Myroslava Lenz, Matt Bradley Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Marlys Haaland moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. After hearing six previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-15-07, a request for Rezoning from II to R4 and a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development at 701 East Prospect Avenue, at 8:32 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located at the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Edward Street, and currently contains a vacant industrial office/warehouse building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned II Limited Industrial and is bordered by the Rl Single Family District to the east, R3 Low Density Residential to the south, and R4 Multi-family to the west. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's proposal includes the demolition of the existing building and the redevelopment of the site as a 12-unit rowhome development. The Subject Property is currently zoned II Limited Industrial, and the Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to R4 Multi-family. The R4 district allows a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre for multi-family developments. She said the Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 13 units per acre (12 units/0.92 acres), which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R4 District. Ms. Connolly stated that in addition to the requested rezoning, the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the rowhome development. This request is due to the Village Code's requirement that two or more multi-family residential buildings may be located on the Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 2 same zoning lot only as part of an approved PUD. The PUD process also allows for unified zoning control over the entire development, which would require formal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed in the future. Ms. Connolly showed a site plan illustrating the proposed layout for the 12-unit rowhome development. The development would consist of three groups of 4-unit buildings: one group would have frontage along Prospect A venue, the second group would have frontage along Edward Street, and the third group would be accessed from the existing alley, but have frontage to an interior courtyard area. Each of the rowhome units would have a separate entrance, a two-car garage, and a two-car driveway. She said the pavement width of the access aisle/driveway throughout the development is 22-feet and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development, although the Village Code requires a 24-foot width for 2-way traffic. Ms. Connolly stated that the proposed site plan indicates that the buildings will be located 12-feet from the Prospect Avenue property line, 10-feet from the Edward Street property line, and approximately 9-feet from the alley lot line. She showed a table listing the Bulk Regulations for the R4 District and showed that all of the proposed setbacks require relief from the R4 Bulk Regulations. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner's site plan indicates that the project would have approximately 49.9% lot coverage, which is below the 50% limitation. The project is subject to all development requirements as detailed in Sec. 15.402 ofthe Village Code. Ms. Connolly showed elevations indicating the architectural composition of the rowhomes. The units are 3-story rowhomes, with attached rear loading garages on the first floor, and a deck above it. She said each building will have a flat roof, but the height of the roofline will vary for each individual unit, and the end units include a turret. The overall average height of the buildings is 36-feet, 4-inches and requires relief from the Zoning Ordinance as the height limitation in the R4 District is 34-feet from the mid-point of the roof. The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of stone, and two different types of brick as well as decorative trim. Ms. Connolly stated that in response to Staff comments, the Petitioner prepared a turn radius plan showing that vehicles can access all of the garages. The Petitioner took a field measurement and confirmed a 20-foot wide alley width, which meets the Fire Department's requirement for access. Currently, there are utilities that would block access to the rear garages, and plans to relocate the utilities will be reviewed as part of the Building permit process. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's proposal indicates that there will be at least two types of floor plans for the rowhomes. Each unit would include at least 3 bedrooms plus a bonus room, which could be converted to a bedroom or an office. She stated that the Village Code requires 2 Y2 parking spaces per dwelling unit for multiple-family dwellings containing 3 bedrooms or more. The Petitioner's proposal contains a 2-car garage plus two driveway parking spaces per unit. In addition, the Petitioner's plans indicate 15 on-street parking spaces are available along the south side of Prospect Ave. and the west side of Edward Street. However, the on-street spaces are not available for overnight parking. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that a variety of new landscaping materials will be planted throughout the development. The plan was revised to reflect a 5-foot fence along the west lot line, which complies with the minimum fence height limitation. Ms. Connolly said the property is located along a collector street and it is adjacent to an apartment complex, townhomes, and single family residences. The recently updated Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the subject properties as Multi-family Residential, which allows for the R4 zoning district. She stated, as previously noted, the proposal does not comply with the R4 Bulk Regulations and requires relief from the Code. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 3 Ms. Connolly stated that the standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.a of the Village Zoning Ordinance. When a Map Amendment is proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to, but not limited to, the following matters: . The compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general area of the property in question; . The compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; . The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed zoning classifications; and . Consistency with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question, and the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. Ms. Connolly said the Subject Property is adjacent to an existing townhome development, a multi-family apartment building, and across the street from single-family residences. It would be consistent with recent developments approved in the Village and it would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property. She said the proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area ofthe Subject Property. Ms. Connolly stated that 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; . That 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. She said the proposal is consistent with the recently updated Village's Comprehensive Land Use Map. Also, the rowhomes are in keeping with previously approved redevelopment projects in the downtown area of the Village. Although the proposal does not comply with the R4 Zoning District regulations, the project location is in close proximity to the B5 District and the proposal has similar setbacks as other recently approved rowhome developments. However, it is unclear how the project creates a public benefit as noted in Sec. 14.501; she stated that previously approved PUD projects included off-site improvements when it was not possible to provide an on- site amenity. She said there are many options available to the developer. Ms. Connolly stated that the proposed Map Amendment and Conditional Use requests meet the standards for each request as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 4 "To approve: I) a Map Amendment to rezone the property from II Limited Industrial to R4 Multi-family Residence; 2) a Conditional Use permit for a 12-unit rowhome Planned Unit Development subject to the following: A. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall: I. prepare and submit a turning radius plan; [met] 2. update the Site Plan to note the actual alley width; [met] 3. identify the public benefit as noted in Sec. 14.501; B. Variation approval to allow: I. 12' Front yard 2. 8' Interior side yard 3. 10' Exterior side yard 4. 9' Rear yard 5. 22' Drive aisle width 6. 36'4":!:: Building Height C. Development of the site in general conformance with the site plan and landscape prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, revision date June 8, 2007. D. Development of the units in general conformance with the floor plans prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, revision date June 8, 2007; E. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the plans prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, revision date June 8,2007; F. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall submit a lighting plan that complies with the Village's lighting regulations for the lighting within the development; G. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval that include text stating on-street over night parking is prohibited; H. The Petitioner shall construct all units according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: the installation of automatic fire sprinklers, fire hydrants and roads must be located and constructed according to Development and Fire Code standards; and I. The alley and rear drive will be a dedicated 20-foot Fire Lane." Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case, 701 E. Prospect Avenue, Case Number PZ-15-07. Chairman Rogers asked why the project is being recommended for approval when none of the setback requirements have been meet. Ms. Connolly stated that this project is very similar to and consistent with other Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 5 rowhome products in the area and due to its proximity to the B5 District, which has no setback requirements, Staff felt this project fit into the area. Mary McCabe asked what the lot coverage requirement is in the II District. Ms. Connolly said the II District has a 75% lot coverage requirement. The Subject Property currently is close to 90% lot coverage and the proposed project will take it down to less than 50%. Leo Floros asked if the Fire Department has signed off on this project. Ms. Connolly confirmed the Fire Department approval, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Chairman Rogers swore Mark Hopkins of HKM Architects at 43 South Vail Street, Arlington Heights, Illinois. Mr. Hopkins thanked Staff for a thorough presentation. He stated he would like to focus his presentation on some of the design concepts of the project. He showed exhibits displaying the traditional style of the brownstone-style rowhomes. He explained that several of the mature trees on the property will be maintained in the proposed project. The open space indicated on the exhibits are added greenspace to decrease lot coverage. He gave a brief overview of the floor plans for the three-story units. He showed elevations and gave a summary of the proposed building materials. Chairman Rogers stated that he likes the project and it is a good mix that will fit into the development of the downtown. He asked for clarification on the materials being used to face the turrets. Mr. Hopkins stated that the material is a cementitious hardy board. Chairman Rogers asked if the roofing over the entry ways are shingle- roofs. Mr. Hopkins confirmed the entrances have shingle-roofs. Chairman Rogers asked for clarification on the existing trees in the landscape plan. Mr. Hopkins stated those trees are currently located in the parking lot in landscape plots. Leo Floros asked who the target market is for these townhomes. Mr. Hopkins said they will be geared at young professionals and empty-nesters that are willing to climb stairs. Mr. Floros asked what the price range is on the units. Mr. Hopkins stated that pricing will start in the mid-$500,000 range. Mr. Floros asked if the new median being placed on Prospect Avenue will affect the parking at the townhomes. Ms. Connolly stated that the Engineering Division indicated there is currently no intention to extend the median plantings that far down Prospect Avenue. Ronald Roberts asked if the current building is vacant and how long it has been vacant. Chairman Rogers swore in Tim Loucopoulos, owner of 701 East Prospect Avenue, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Loucopoulos stated that the building has been vacant for nearly two years. There was general discussion regarding previous tenants. Mr. Loucopoulos said they have owned the property for six months and could not confirm previous occupants or tenants. Marlys Haaland stated that the project is very appealing and will make a nice addition to the downtown. Mr. Roberts concurred. Mary McCabe said that the existing building has an industrial appearance and does not fit into the character of the neighborhood; the proposed rowhomes will fit into the area. Ms. Connolly asked the Petitioner to clarify where the HVAC units will be located. Mr. Hopkins said the condensers will be located on the roof, behind the parapets. Mr. Roberts asked if any of the condensers would be visible from the street; Mr. Hopkins stated that the condensers would be concealed by the parapets and would not be visible from the street or sidewalk. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 6 Chairman Rogers called for questions or comments from the audience. Chairman Rogers swore in George Wiedemann of 801 E. Prospect Avenue, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Wiedemann said he understands that this corner does need to be redeveloped and agrees that townhomes are most likely the best fit for the property. He does not agree with the proposed 10-foot setback along Edward Street. He stated that this development, with the proposed setbacks, does not fit in with character of the neighborhood. He also said the height of this project is out of character with the neighborhood. He offered suggestions to the Petitioner on ways to address these concerns. Mr. Wiedemann also indicated that he has concerns that the Staff memo was unable to identify the public benefit ofthis project as sited in Village Code Section 14.501 and would like more information regarding this requirement. He stated that he is also concerned with the parking for the proposed development. He is concerned that the new parking lot entrances and the on-street parking will create a blind spot and that the additional traffic volume will be more than the neighborhood streets and alley's can handle. There was general discussion regarding the parking in the area. Mr. Wiedemann concluded by stating that unless the setbacks is changed to 25-feet along Edward Street and the parking concerns are addressed, he would like to see the Commission vote "no" on this project. Chairman Rogers swore in Thomas Manion of 501 S. Edward Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Manion stated he has similar concerns regarding the parking in the neighborhood. He said he had been on a committee when the neighborhood had issues with the DMS building. He stated that he does not feel the parking issue has been fully addressed; he would like to see "No Parking" signs posted in front of some of the single family homes. Chairman Rogers clarified that the project is providing more parking per unit without including the on-street parking than the Code requires. Mr. Manion said he does not want additional parking conflicts to start in the neighborhood. Chairman Rogers swore in Rodger Kruse of 515 South Louis Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Kruse stated he is not in favor of the proposed setbacks of the project, but parking is a nightmare in the neighborhood and he is most concerned about the parking. He stated in the morning there are 15 cars parked on Sha Bonee Trail, creating a one-lane situation. Chairman Rogers asked who is parking in the street; Mr. Kruse stated that it is the residents of the Sha Bonee condos. Chairman Rogers swore in Matt Bradley of 714 East Sha Bonee Trail, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Bradley said his driveway exits into the alley directly across from the proposed townhome. He said his vehicle requires a wide turning radius and he currently uses the parking lot to assist in turning his vehicle. He stated the proposed driveways will make the turn radius into his garage a tight turn. Chairman Rogers swore in Myroslava Lenz 420 South Edward Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Lenz stated she lives directly behind the entrance ofthe proposed townhomes. She is concerned that the project will add a lot of traffic. Chairman Rogers asked if they have adequate parking for their tenants. Ms. Lenz confirmed there is enough parking, but she is worried about the traffic increase in the alley and added difficulty to snow removal. She also asked how the refuse collection would be handled for the new development. Chairman Rogers deferred to Mr. Hopkins to address resident concerns. Mr. Hopkins stated the 10-foot setback is required to maintain the aesthetics of the project and keep the relationship with stairs and the sidewalk. He said they had explored the idea of moving the units back, but that would require the garages being moved to face Edward Street. Mr. Hopkins said pushing the units back would increase lot coverage and would not fit on the lot as well. Mr. f{-tt; stated if the units on Edward Street were pushed back, there would not be adequate room to maneuver cars in and out of the garages. There was general discussion regarding setbacks and configuration of the project. Mr. Hopkins said from a planning standpoint, this layout is very similar to other suburban-center developments. He said this is a nice transition from urban center of Mount Prospect to the suburban neighborhood aspect of Mount Prospect. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 7 Mr. Hopkins stated that garbage cans will be stored inside the garages and the trash collector will pull the truck into the development's driveway to collect the refuse. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:28 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-15-07 granting rezoning and a Conditional Use at 701 East Prospect Avenue. Mary McCabe seconded the motion. Chairman Rogers stated that he sees the benefit of having this type of transitional space between the downtown area and the single family residence and understands that residents don't necessarily want this in their backyard, but it has to occur somewhere, and this project is attractive and fits into the character of the neighborhood. He said this project will not resolve the existing parking situation, but the Planning and Zoning Commission does not have control over parking regulations. He stated that the parking issue would need to be brought to the Village's attention and handled in the proper manner. Mr. Floros stated that he prefers this design to having the garages in front of the properties. He also said he would like Staff to take note of the residents concerns regarding the parking along Edward Street and pass that along to the Village Board. Ms. Connolly stated that she already directed Mr. Wiedemann to speak to Matt Lawrie, Village Traffic Engineer, regarding his parking concerns. There was general discussion regarding the overnight parking in the neighborhood. Chairman Rogers stated that the Petitioner understands there are conditions attached to this approval and the Petitioner concurred. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Floros, Haaland, McCabe, Roberts, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing three additional cases, Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at 11 :04 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Senings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ-IS-07 701 E Prospect.doc