Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/23/2013 P&Z Minutes 03-13 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-03-13 Hearing Date: May 23, 2013 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 475 Enterprise Drive PETITIONER : SPACECO, Inc. PUBLICATION DATE: May 8, 2013 PIN NUMBER(s): 08-23-402-004-0000, 08-23-402-005-0000 08-23-402-006-0000, 08-23-402-013-0000 REQUESTS: 1) Conditional Use to amend the PUD to replace the tennis courts with parking stalls 2) Variation to the fence area requirements 3) Variation to increase the overall lot coverage 4) Variation to reduce the PUD open space MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly, Chair Tom Fitzgerald Keith Youngquist Leo Floros Jacqueline Hinaber MEMBERS ABSENT: William Beattie Sharon Otteman STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES : Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Mr. Youngquist made a motion, seconded by Mr. Floros to approve the minutes of the March 28, 2013 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes were approved 5-0. Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ-03-13, 475 Enterprise Drive at 7:34 p.m. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner is seeking approval of a Conditional Use to amend the PUD to replace the existing tennis courts with parking spaces, and Variations related to the overall lot coverage, open space and fence area requirements at 475 Enterprise Drive. Ms. Andrade stated the Subject Property is located on the west side of Elmhurst Road, north of Oakton Street and contains a multi-family residential apartment complex known as The Colony. Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-03-13 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 23, 2013 Page 1 of 6 Ms. Andrade also stated the Subject Property currently includes twenty five (25) apartment buildings, a multi-use building, and outdoor recreational areas including a swimming pool, tennis courts, sand volleyball courts, a playground, and a basketball court and two tennis courts. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner would like to replace the two tennis courts, with a new parking lot for additional parking spaces for the complex. She also stated the Village Board approved a Planned Unit Development for the Subject Property in 1973. Ms. Andrade further explained that conditional use permits are required to be amended when there is any modification or intensification of the use, which alters the essential character or operation of the use in a way not intended at the time the Conditional Use was granted. The proposed replacement of the tennis courts with a new parking lot and dog run requires the amendment. Ms. Andrade stated, per the Petitioner’s site plan, the parking lot would include forty-five (45) additional parking spaces and a fenced a dog run just North of it. The dog run would measure fifteen feet (15’) wide by one hundred and fifteen feet (115’) long. Ms. Andrade stated since the fenced in area would take up 1,725 square feet, which would be approximately two tenths of a percent (.2%) of the overall fenceable area, a Variation is needed for the fenced in dog run. Ms. Andrade explained that currently the Subject Property exceeds the maximum lot coverage allowed. Per code up to fifty percent (50%) of the lot can be paved. Ms. Andrade stated the existing conditions indicate that the property consists of seventy-three percent (73%) of the lot area being paved and that the proposed improvements would reduce the overall lot coverage by approximately 1,555 square feet. Therefore, Ms. Andrade stated a Variation is required as the property would still exceed the overall lot coverage allowed and that the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a seventy three percent (73%) (752,500 sq.ft.) overall lot coverage. Ms. Andrade also stated the Subject Property does not comply with the PUD’s open space requirements. She stated the zoning code requires a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the total lot coverage be devoted to open space; currently the Subject Property provides forty percent (40%) (303,962 sq.ft.) of the total lot coverage as open space. Ms. Andrade explained the proposed improvements would reduce the open space requirements by eliminating the tennis courts from forty percent (40%) to thirty-nine (39%); therefore, the Petitioner is also seeking a Variation to the open space requirements. Ms. Andrade stated the parking requirements are based on the amount of dwelling units and bedrooms per the current code. However, Ms. Andrade explained back when the PUD was approved the Village Board granted a variation to the parking requirements. The Variation allowed a one and one half (1.5) space per dwelling unit parking requirement for the Subject Property. Ms. Andrade summarized the parking requirements with the table below; showing that the Subject Property is currently under-parked. Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-03-13 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 23, 2013 Page 2 of 6 Parking Requirements: Number of Parking Requirement Required Parking Dwelling Units 783 1.5 spaces per unit 1,175 1,112 Current Parking Providing Current Shortage 63 Parking Proposed 1,143 Gain 31 Proposed Shortage 32 Ms. Andrade stated the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings in order to approve a Conditional Use. Ms. Andrade summarized the following in regards to Conditional Uses:  The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare;  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;  There is adequate provision for utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and Ms. Andrade explained that Staff found the request to amend the Planned Unit Development satisfied the standards for a Conditional Use. She stated the overall use of the property as a residential PUD is not significantly altered based on the proposed plans and that no changes were proposed that would increase the density, access to the site, or other conditions that would affect neighboring properties. Ms. Andrade also stated the improvements could be considered internal to the PUD and would primarily affect residents residing within. Ms. Andrade further explained while the impact to neighboring properties is limited, the amendment to the PUD will still require significant variations from the Village Code in order to approve the request. Ms. Andrade stated that based on the variations, Staff was not supportive of the proposed amendment to the PUD. Ms. Andrade also stated the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. Ms. Andrade summarized the following list of findings: • 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 welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-03-13 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 23, 2013 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner’s need for a dog run did not constitute a physical hardship unique to this property, and the Subject Property includes open green areas where dog owners can walk their dogs. Therefore, the alleged hardships presented in this case are directly related to the property owner’s own interest in the property and not by the Village Code. Ms. Andrade also stated that the Staff was not supportive in regards to the Petitioner’s variation request to increase the overall lot coverage because the lot coverage would far exceed the maximum permitted by code. Ms. Andrade stated there were no unique conditions that existed on the Subject Property that would not exist on other properties. Therefore, the need for parking does not constitute physical hardships unique to this property to support the open space Variation. Ms. Andrade summarized that the Staff’s recommendations of the proposed amendment to the PUD and associated variation requests for fence area, lot coverage, and PUD open space do not meet the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance and variation standards established in Section 14.203.C.9. Ms. Andrade stated, based on the findings that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend denialof the following motions: A. A Conditional Use to amend PUD Ordinance 2424 to replace the tennis courts with parking stalls; B. A Variation to allow a fence to enclose two tenths of a percent (.2%) of the maximum fenceable area for a dog run; C. A Variation to allow a seventy three percent (73%) (752,500 sq.ft.) overall lot coverage; and D. A Variation to reduce the open space from fifty percent (50%) (376,250 sq.ft.) to thirty nine percent (39%) (293,934 sq.ft.) of the total lot coverage. Ms. Andrade stated, if the request were to be approved the Petitioner should be subject to Compliance with all applicable Village Codes and requirements, including, but not limited to, minimum pavement sections, perimeter curb, landscaping and lighting. Ms. Andrade finally stated that the Village Board’s decision is final for the case. Chairman Donnelly asked the board if they had any questions or comments regarding the Subject Property. Commissioner Youngquist asked what form of detention was on the site, and where they were located. Ms. Andrade replied there was not one specific above grade detention pond on the property. Mr. Simmons clarified that they are dry basins located to the right of the pool on the aerial drawing. Commissioner Flores asked how the Petitioner would be gaining thirty-one (31) parking spaces, when the report stated they requested forty-five (45) spaces. Ms. Andrade stated that the proposal included the removal of an existing row of parking spaces that are right next to the tennis courts. Therefore, the new parking lot would provide a gain of thirty-one (31) Chairman Donnelly swore in William Zalewski (SpaceCo) 9575 W. Higgins Rosemont, Illinois 60018. He also swore in Diane Daubenspeck (The Colony Apartments) 475 Enterprise Drive Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056. She is the regional property manager with Home Properties. Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-03-13 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 23, 2013 Page 4 of 6 Ms. Daubenspeck explained the need for more parking at The Colony Apartments, and how much of an inconvenience it is to the current residents that there aren’t enough parking spaces to accommodate the residents. Ms. Daubenspeck stated that the dog run is an amenity that has become very popular in the Northwest Suburbs and that it is a growing need within the community at The Colony. Ms. Daubenspeck stated that she was aware that building codes change over the years and that they are trying to become closer to the code and meet the current conditions for the parking. She also stated the parking has been reduced because they have had to comply with the current handi-capped parking space requirements. Ms. Daubenspeck stated the Colony is looking to give its residents the same quality of life they would have living in a single family home including convenient parking and the amenity of a dog run. Chairman Donnelly asked the board if they had any questions. Commissioner Youngquist asked if all of the buildings were dog friendly. Ms. Daubenspeck replied that the buildings surrounding the dog run would be made “dog friendly”. She stated, currently none of the buildings allow dogs because there is nowhere for them to run. Commissioner Youngquist stated he has had bad experiences with dog parks, and asked about the specific intended use of the dog run. Ms. Daubenspeck replied that the dog run would be specifically used for playtime for the dog supervised by the owner. Ms. Daubenspeck also stated that they would have twelve (12) restricted aggressive breeds that will not be allowed on the property. Commissioner Youngquist asked if they would have a weight limit on the dogs that they allowed. Ms. Daubenspeck stated that the only limiting factor would be the breed. Commissioner Hinaber stated she wasn’t sure there was a significant need for the dog run because there seemed to be more than enough green space on the property for people to walk their dogs on a leash. Commissioner Hinaber pointed out that this method seems to work in other neighborhoods. Ms. Daubenspeck explained that research showed residents stayed longer in the apartments and the resident turnover decreased in a neighboring apartment complex which housed a dog run for their residents. Mr. Zalewski stated that dog runs were not specifically stated as an amenity in the Village’s ordinances. He also clarified that they could fence up to fifty percent (50%) of the property to comply with Village Code and hypothetically call the entire portion a dog run. Mr. Zalewski stated that they have to request the variance because it is small portion being fenced off. Commissioner Youngquist stated that the fencing restrictions help regulate so that dog runs aren’t being constructed in private backyards. Ms. Daubenspeck clarified the dog run isn’t a place for people to leave their dog unattended for hours at a time. She stated it is strictly for owners to interact with their dogs safely. Mr. Zalewski stated that current drainage would not be compromised with the removal of the tennis courts. Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-03-13 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 23, 2013 Page 5 of 6 Commissioner Floros asked if the tenants would be upset for removing the tennis courts. Ms. Daubenspeck said they aren’t used for the intended use and there are perfectly maintained public tennis courts a few blocks away. Chairman Donnelly asked if there was anyone else in the audience to address this matter. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 8:06 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Commissioner Floros made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hinaber to approve the Conditional Use Amend PUD and Variations to the Lot Coverage, Open Space, and Fence Area. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Hinaber, Youngquist, Floros, Donnelly NAYS: Fitzgerald The motion was approved 4-1. The Village Board’s decision is final for this case. After hearing one (1) additional case, Commissioner Floros made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hinaber to adjourn at 8:24 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. _____________________________ Jenna Moder, Community Development Administrative Assistant Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-03-13 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 23, 2013 Page 6 of 6