Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/2002 P&Z minutes 13-02MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-13-02 Hearing Date: June 27, 2002 PETITIONER: Insignia Homes, LLC 35 W. Slade Street Palatine, IL 60067 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 79t E. Rand Road PARCEL NUMBER: 03-35-300-007 03-35-300-004 PUBLICATION DATE: May8,2002 REQUEST: Map Amendment, Conditional Use (Preliminary Planned Unit Development plan approval) and Variations to allow construction of 23 townhomes. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Men'ill Cotten STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Mark Janeck Rich Valentino Bill Rotolo Tom & Florence Boyle Bridget Chavez Zenon & Sue Golba Iver H. Iverson Ray & Hedy Lundin Adam Paulus Frank & Stephanie Schoenberg Clifford Wesa Donna Weseloh George Ziegler Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Minutes of the May 23 meeting were approved. At 7:34, under Old Business, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-13-02, a request to rezone property located at 791 E. Rand Road from R1 to R2, preliminary approval of a Planned Unit Development, and Variations to allow the construction of a 23-unit townhome development. She explained that this case would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, reported that this case was reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission at their May 23Td meeting. At that meeting, the P&Z voted to continue the case so the petitioner could revise their plans to address the Planning & Zoning Commission's concerns regarding exceeding lot coverage, maximum building height, and permitted density; providing emergency vehicle access to the site that meets Village Code requirements, identifying elements of the project that would qualify it as a Planned Unit Development. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ- 13-02 Page 2 Ms. Connolly reported the applicant revised the development, but requires relief from Zoning requirements for the north setback and for the size of the front stoops as code permits 5'x5' stoops in the front setback and 4'x 8' stoops are proposed. Ms. Connolly said the site's current zoning is R1 Single Family Residential. In order to build the proposed townhomes, the site must be rezoned and the applicant has requested R2 Attached Single Family. The petitioner is seeking PUD designation for the development, which is a Conditional Use. Before the Conditional Use may be approved, the development must qualify as a PUD. The proposed development will require Map Amendment, PUD designation, and Conditional Use approval by the Village Board, following a public heating and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Connolly pointed out that the petitioner reduced the number of units to 23 and has revised the layout of the development. The cul-de-sac and multiple curb cuts offof Louis and Thayer Streets have been eliminated and a 'looped' 20-foot wide, private street will provide access to/from Louis Street and Thayer Street. Thayer and Louis Street will be fully dedicated and have 66' rights-of-way. She said that the plans show that Thayer Street wilt be used as an access point for the development, but the street would not be improved past the entrance/exit to the townhome development. Ms. Connolly said the petitioner's revised landscape plan shows additional landscaping along the perimeter of the development. The proposed plantings and respective sizes meet the minimal landscaping code requirements, but are not in keeping with Corridor Design Guidelines, which call for a continuous three-foot evergreen hedge supplemented with perennials and annual plants. The intent of the landscaping is to minimize the impact of the Rand Road traffic, screen the commercial corridor, and create more 'green' along the Village's prominent commercial con'idors. In addition, the size of the proposed planting area between the driveways, located in the interior of the development, is minimal and most likely will inhibit the growth of the plants. Ms. Connolly explained that the development includes two-car attached garages for each unit and 10 guest parking spaces, essentially providing 56 parking spaces allowing for parking in the driveway. The Zoning Ordinance requires 2 parking spaces for two bedroom dwelling units and 2.5 parking spaces for three bedroom dwelling units. Also, parking is permitted on the east side only of Louis Street. She said the 'looped' private street design addresses the Fire Prevention Bureau's concerns about access to the individual units. They added that 'No Parking' signs must be posted along the private street and that it is designated as a Fire Lane. She said that the Police Department remains concerned that the development does not provide adequate on-site guest parking. Ms. Connolly said the standards for Map Amendments listed in the Zoning Ordinance relate to the project's 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; 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 pointed out that the subject parcel for the proposed Map Amendment is a vacant lot located along an established commercial corridor. It is adjacent to residential and commercial uses. She said that the proposed townhomes are of a similar use to the adjacent residential, but have a significantly higher density and will create additional traffic on Louis and Thayer Streets. The proposal is not consistent with the immediate surrounding commercial area. The townhomes would be located on a commercial corridor and the property is adjacent to commercial uses fronting onto Rand Road. She said that the proposal does not meet the standards for a Map Amendment since it is not compatible with existing uses of property within the general area of the property in question. Also, the request is not consistent with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question. The second part of the case, the petitioner's request for Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval, was reviewed. Ms. Connolly said that the Zoning Ordinance defines the purpose of a PUD as "...a tool to accommodate development which is in the public interest, and can provide a public benefit, and which would not otherwise be permitted by the zoning ordinance." She said that the revised plans show that the development complies with density regulations, Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-13-02 Page 3 lot coverage, and the petitioner has agreed to modify the units so the structures do not exceed maximum height regulations. The revised site plan shows that access to/from the site will be done in a manner that meets Village Code regulations. In addition, the petitioner has agreed to sprinkle the townhomes. However, the development fails to meet the criteria of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as defined by Sec. 14.501.A of the Village's Zoning Ordinance. This section lists standards for a PUD, which a development must meet in order to qualify as a Planned Unit Development even before it can be considered for approval. Ms. Connolly then reiterated those standards for the Commission. Ms. Connolly referred to the petitioner's letter dated June 6th that lists reasons why the development qualifies as a PUD. However, the reasons cited in the letter: zoning compliance, use compliance, and street design compliance are requirements regardless of the PUD classification. She said that a PUD must meet minimum code regulations and create a public benefit as defined by the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Although the site has been reconfigured to meet lot coverage requirements, the design does not include usable open space. Ms. Connolly said that the 'green' areas are located in close proximity to Rand Road and will be used pfimafily for detention. She said that an alternative that would meet PUD standards would be eliminating units at the southwest corner of the development and creating a play/tot-lot or a garden area. She said this would preserve open space, create a common area and provide an amenity for the neighborhood or a backyard area for people living in the townhomes. Ms. Connolly said the petitioner is seeking to install a private street to provide access to the townhome units. The petitioner's June 6th letter states that, "The street access has been designed to handle a Fire Department ladder vehicle, at a width approved by the Fire Department. Lack of curb cut on Rand Road (an SRA route) avoids traffic congestion, and an expected total of 32 vehicles combined using the site during AM and PM peak hours is not expected to cause congestion on Louis Street." However, it is important to note that street access is required to handle Emergency Vehicle access; IDOT determines whether a curb cut permit to/from Rand Road will be issued; and that the petitioner's traffic data indicates that the development will generate seven vehicle trips a day per unit, which would generate 161 new daily trips on Louis Street. Ms. Connolly reported that the petitioner proposes to design access to the site in a manner that meets Village codes, which is a requirement, but is seeking relief from Village codes that require a 66' fight-of-way without providing a benefit for the community, and would generate more traffic on Louis Street. In addition, the petitioner's letter states that staff prefers a commercial use on the site. However, the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Rand Road Corridor Plan call for a commercial use for this site. The Rand Road Plan lists 15-18 townhomes as an alternative to a commercial user. She said that the impact of developing this site as a townhome development would influence the redevelopment of other properties along Rand Road, which is a commercial corridor. Furthermore, the development does not qualify as a pLrD because it does not provide a benefit as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said the townhomes comply with the setback requirements for the R2 Zoning District. However, the design does not preserve green space or provide practical common open space. The development does not include amenities, or incorporate design elements that distinguish this development as a PUD. The proposal does not provide an adequate buffer from Rand Road traffic such as intense landscaping and berming to minimize traffic noise and be consistent with Village's Corridor Design Guidelines. Therefore, the plan does not meet the standards that designate a development as a Planned Unit Development. Ms. Connolly said that the Planning and Zoning Commission could not make positive findings with respect to the standards for Map Amendments and Planned Unit Developments in the Zoning Ordinance based on Staff's analysis. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board deny the proposed Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan, and variations for the property at 791 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ-13~02. Richard Rogers asked if the development would qualify for PUD approval if it included a play lot and berming along Rand Road. Ms. Connolly said staff provided several suggestions to the applicant after the last P&Z meeting, including a play lot or garden, that would be usable green space. She said that the applicant identified the detention area close to Rand Road as green space although this may not be practical for the residents of the proposed project because of the Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-13-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4 'green spaces' proximity to Rand Road. Mr. Rogers agreed and said he would not want to see a fence next to Rand Road, unless it were a landscape fence or berming. Arlene Juracek asked if the two illustrated detention basins were in the only possible location. Ms. Connolly said staffdid not require detention to be in these specific areas. Ms. Juracek said it was probably chosen as a buffer between Rand Road. Ms. Juracek confirmed with Ms. Connolly that staffs major concerns with ti'ds development were (1) lack of public benefit; and (2) that it is residential rather than commercial. Ms. Juracek added that staff's minor concerns were (a) screening from Rand Road, whether by berming or landscaping; and (b) traffic on Louis Street and guest parking. Ms. Connolly said guest parking tends to be tight in these types of development and that ten guest spots on-site may not be sufficient. Richard Valentino came forward to testify. Ms. Juracek reminded Mr. Valentino, Mr. Rotolo and Mr. Janeck that they were still sworn in from the first public hearing. Mr. Valentino said Insignia had high enthusiasm for their new townhome plan. He said that although the last plan had been good and very workable, the new plan addressed all the important Village concerns. He said the redesigned plan was good for the site and for the Village. He pointed out the new road in the project would not be Village maintained. He said the Village would receive higher taxes on the property with this use. He presented an aerial view of the area and pointed out that there is much residential surrounding this site. He said it was logical and consistent to have a townhome buffer between commercial and residential uses. He said such an infill property requires the expertise Insignia could provide. Mr. Valentino said the neighbors are resoundingly in favor of residential at this site. He said Insignia would be providing a public benefit by installing fire sprinklers in each unit, which would set a precedent for future townhome developments and be safer for residents. He said congestion would be problematic with a commercial use and there would be a greater amount of traffic on Louis Street. He said this project would solve many problems and be beneficial to the area. Mr. Valentino also pointed out the necessary green space had been addressed in an acceptable manner. Mark Janeck, of Insignia Homes at 35 West Slade Street in Palatine came forward to testify. Mr. Janeck reminded the Commission that Insignia's original plan had contained 24 units. He said they eliminated one unit and the proposed cul- de-sac, and replaced that with a looped street. He presented new elevations that showed more brick on the exterior of the front of the townhomes and on the sides of the garages. He said they did not add more onsite parking since the plan meets code. They would be willing to add more parking throughout the site, but noted that doing so would reduce green space and add to the amount of impervious surface. The fence shown in the plan would be metal, having the appearance of wrought iron and would not block any view. He said there would be very few children living in the proposed development and there was a park with a tot lot 150' from the townhome site. Insignia would not want to put a tot lot near Rand Road but would be willing to upgrade the existing park district lot. Mr. Janeck said 50% of the property is surrounded by R-1 and the development is compatible to the area, which already has too much commercial use having a problem with survival. He said they proposed the use of 4' x 8' stoops, which was more commodious than 5' x 5', but would provide 5' x 5' stoops if preferred. Mr. Janeck said it was Insignia's opinion that they did meet standards for a PUD, would be providing a public benefit, and had answered all of the Commission's concerns. Arlene Juracek asked Mr. Janeck if the 4' x 8' stoop accommodated furniture moving and walking aids. Mr. Janeck said, yes, better than 5' x 5' did. Ms. Juracek asked if Insignia would consider berming along Rand Road. Mr. Janeck said there was not enough room to berm as IDOT requires 10' from the base line to start berming. He said that berming would use up the green space and render it unusable. Mr. Janeck said berming would look good to passing automobiles, but that flat landscaping was more people friendly. Leo Floros asked how large the units would be and what the prices would be. Mr. Janeck said they would be two and three bedrooms, up to 1,600 s.f., and range in price from $245,000 to $270,000, possibly $300,000 with options added. Richard Rogers said he was disappointed with the layout of the new proposed site plan. He said that he was not in favor of the cul-de-sac in the original proposal, but he thought the original site plan had more excitement and a less regimented look by having several buildings at an angle. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ- 13-02 Page 5 William Rotolo came forward to say that the "regimentation" adds formality to this site and the rear loaded garage buildings have beauty and character. Mr. Rogers asked why the balconies are located over the garages. Mr. Rotolo said balcony orientation was not important to buyers of these townhomes and that these buyers are people who do not cook or eat on the balcony, but patronize restaurants for most meals. Ms. Juracek opened the discussion to the audience at 8:25. Clifford Wesa of 109 Louis, who also had been sworn in at the previous meeting, came forward to ask if anything had been resolved with regard to Thayer Street. He said he had asked if the residents could get it in perpetuity that the street not be accessed from Rand Road so the issue would not be raised every year. Referring to Insignia's recent site plan, he said the use of a portion of Thayer Street looks like an invitation to nm the street through. He also asked whether Fire Department tracks would be able to turn on the proposed looped street. Ms. Juracek said yes, the Fire Department would be able to maneuver their tracks on the looped street. She also informed Mr. Wesa that the P&Z Commission could not permanently foreclose the use of Thayer Street because it is part of a larger Village solution on a ring road concept. She clarified that the townhome project is not proposing a through street and would need to come before the Commission again to request making Thayer Street a through street. Commission members discussed at length: landscaping features; berms; fences; detention areas; parking spaces and escrow for parking spaces; decorative treatment of driveways; covenants requiring garages to be used to park cars as opposed to becoming additional storage space and the having to park cars on the driveway. Mr. Floros suggested all these items could be made conditions of approval for Insignia to work out with staff. Keith Youngquist said this was a true infill project and that he agreed with Mr. Rotolo regarding lining up the buildings and having the outward look. He said this proposal was laid out in the only possible way on an awkward triangular piece of land. Matt Sledz said he could support the idea of a residential development at this site but he had concerns with the density of the project and that he felt this design was too urban of a concept. He said the solution would be a less dense development. Frank Shoenberg, 105 N. Louis St. was sworn in and said the wrought iron fence around O'Hare was very attractive. He said the Village could control parking on Thayer Street in the future by use of''no parking here to corner" signs. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Leo Floros moved to recommend approval to the Village Board to rezone 791 E. Rand Road from R1 Single Family to R2 Single Family Attached. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: Sledz Motion was approved 5-I. Richard Rogers moved to recommend approval to the Village Board to allow a PUD, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the site in general conformance with the submitted site plan prepared by Haeger Engineering, revision date June 10, 2002, revised to show: · 5 land banked parking spaces; · driveways constructed of decorative pavement. 2. Landscape plan prepared by Haeger Engineering, revision date June 10, 2002, but revised to reflect: · berms scattered along the Rand Road frontage; · shallower detention basin; lanning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-13-02 Page 6 · increased landscaping along the Rand Road frontage: clustering plantings is acceptable, but the quantity and species of plants must provide continuous screening from Rand Road; · shade trees with a caliper no less than 3"; · foundation landscaping. 3. Elevations presented at the June 27th Planning & Zoning meeting that show additional brick and vinyl siding (no Dryvt) prepared by Bloodgood Sharp Bustert and measure no more than 28-feet from the mid-point. 4. Consolidate the site to a one-lot subdivision. 5. Dedicate right-of-way along Louis Street, Thayer Street, and Rand Road as required by Village Code. 6. Improve Louis Street as required by the Development Code. 7. Improve Thayer Street with the termination of paving done in a manner that does not impede access to the property south of the townhome development with a design approved by the Engineering Division. 8. Approval of appropriate permits by I.D.O.T. and M.W.R.D. 9. Submittal of final building plans that meet all applicable Building Code, Fire Code, and Development Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · provide hydrants on-site as determined necessary by the Village's Fire Code, Fire Prevention Bureau, and Public Works; · buildings are to constructed according to BOCA 1996 regulations; · all construction must meet the Village's Building and Fire Codes. 10. Install fire sprinklers in each townhome unit. 11. Applicant shall create an escrow account in the amount of $25,000 to pay for 5 land banked parking spaces. 12. Association documents shall restrict storage in garages to ensure that two vehicles may be parked in the garage at all times. for the property at 791 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ-13-02. Joe Donnelley seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Dounelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: Sledz Motion was approved 5-1. Richard Rogers moved to recommend approval to the Village Board to approve Variations from R2 Bulk Regulations (north lot line 7.5' parking setback and 4'x8' front stoops) for the property at 791 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ-13-02. Joe Donnelley seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: Sledz Motion was approved 5-1. At 9:50 p.m., after hearing three cases under New Business, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner