Report of Public Hearing Case# N. Rand rd.

Transcription

1 Plan Commission Tuesday, June 16, 2015 Present: Dennis Dwyer, Rodney Bettenhausen, Jane Robins, Conrad Hansen, Teri Williams, Dennis Bond, Patrick Noonan, Bob Kolososki, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning Kevin Anderson. Absent. Russ Smith. Minutes of the May 19 meeting were approved as distributed. Report of Public Hearing Case# N. Rand rd. Chairman Dwyer read the notice of public hearing. The petitioner in Case #15-35, United Growth Management Capitol, LLC, seeks approval of a preliminary and final Planned Development to permit a three-building commercial development; approval for rezoning from B2 to P Planned Development, and a special use to permit a restaurant with a drive-through for 1.52 acres at 1601 N. Rand rd. The following petitioner s exhibits were introduced: 1. Petition for Preliminary and Final Planned Development 2. Palatine Real Estate Interest Disclosure Form 3. Third Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement 4. Plat of Survey 5. Engineering Plans revised 6/10/15 6. Architectural Plans revised 5/12/15 7. Plat of Easement Dedication 8. Freestanding Sign Plans 9. Sign Criteria 10. Traffic Analysis 11. Special Use Petition Panera Bread 12. Real Estate Disclosure Panera Bread 13. Floor Plan Panera Bread 14. Menu Panera Bread The following persons were sworn in to present the request: Zeden Jones, United Growth Management Capitol, LLC Jason Berg, Director of Construction Michael S. Mondus, Spaceco, Inc., Engineers Jones said the developer plans to build three commercial buildings on the property that formerly housed a restaurant, now razed. One store, Panera Bread, has signed as a future tenant. It would be the westernmost building on the property. He foresees a mattress store as a second tenant, though no contracts have been reached for the remaining two spaces. He said the developer would use split face (bottom) and brick (top) to construct the building.

2 page 2 Jones said there is plenty of parking for Panera. A by-pass lane is proposed for service vehicles around the Panera drive-through. Jason Berg said the drive-through concept is fairly new to Panera. The ones that exist are very popular, he said. To contrast, he said that 15 percent of Panera s traffic is drive-through, while 65 percent of Wendy s is drive-through. Kevin Anderson was sworn in. He described surrounding uses and zones. He said the lanes are 12.5 feet wide North Clock Tower Plaza ` B2 Single Family Residential R2 South General Business Denny s Restaurant B2 East vacant B2 West Jiffy Lube B2 He said access to the site would be provided by one curb cut off Dundee rd. The existing access to Rand rd. from the subject property would be abandoned. Future access to Rand rd. would be proved by an existing curb cut to the Clock Tower Plaza center. An access easement would need to be recorded to ensure access to this curb cut into perpetuity. Utilizing the Clock Tower Plaza curb cut will allow the developer to push the Rand rd. access further north to maximize the distance from the intersection of Rand and Dundee rds. Anderson said the drive lanes are 12.5 feet wide. The lanes conform to all dimension and stacking requirements of the zoning ordinance, he added Other amenities of the development are a 15-foot landscape buffer on the north side of the property adjacent to residences to the north. An existing 8-foot high board-onboard fence will be maintained there, as well. The petitioner proposes to install a gate in the fence to facilitate access to the easement for maintenance and clean-up. Anderson said all proposed signage would conform to the requirement of the zoning ordinance. A second multi-tenant freestanding sign would require a variation, since shopping centers with fewer than two acres are permitted to have one freestanding sign only.

3 page 3 Mondus said the developer proposes no signage indicating an entrance on Dundee rd. This is typical of buildings along Rand rd., he said. A condition of approval is that the existing billboard would be removed from the property at this time. Mondus said the amount of impervious pavement would be reduced by this development. Storm water detention is not required for this parcel and is not proposed. He proposes to collect storm water throughout the site and direct it into an existing storm sewer to the northeast of the parcel. A new water main would be extended across the frontage of the property to connect to existing water stubs and loop the system. Sanitary service would be provided by connecting to an existing sanitary system. All residents who wished to speak to the request were sworn in. Gloria Aceveto, 921 E. Lilac dr. said she is representing homeowners to the north who are concerned about parking lot lights directing lights into their back yards. She said she would recommend having the gate proposed for the fence abutting her back yard to be eliminated. Anderson said the developer has a lighting plan. Restrictions protect adjacent homeowners. He said the gate would permit the village to have access to maintain the property, i.e. getting rid of weeds, picking up litter. He said the gate could be locked to keep residents from using it. She asked where the drive-through speakers would be. Berg said they would be on the corner of the building. The home that would be most affected, he estimates, is that at 907 E. Lilac. He added that volume can be adjusted. In addition, they have reduced the number of cars in the stacking lane to four cars when five to seven is usual. Mrs. Aceveto asked if garbage time could be regulated. Trucks are coming to the commercial adjacent to her at 4 a.m. Mike Tessman, 818 Capri dr. said he is part owner of the building. He noted the hazard of cars making left turns from the north into the shopping center having to cross four lanes of traffic. Anderson agreed it is a difficult maneuver to make, but there is no alternative.

4 page 4 Tessman said it is difficult to get out of Capri now. Anderson noted that the proposal to close one access onto Rand from this shopping center will probably increase traffic on Capri. Staff Recommendation The proposal conforms to the recommendations of the comprehensive plan and generally complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Code. The only relief being sought is for a second freestanding sign. Given the dual frontage of the property, Staff has no concerns with this request. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to the following conditions. 1. The development shall substantially conform to the Engineering and Landscape plans prepared by Spaceco Inc. dated 4/10/15 last revised 6/10/15, and to the architectural plans prepared by Zephyr Arch dated 4/9/15 last revised 5/12/15 except as such plans may be revised to conform to Village Codes and Ordinances. 2. A Plat of Easement Dedication for the subject property shall be submitted on Mylar. 3. The Plat of Easement Dedication shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Director of Planning and Zoning 4. A Plat of Easement Dedication shall be submitted for the property commonly known as Clock Tower Plaza located at N. Rand Road. This shall be in a manner acceptable to the Village. 5. A letter of credit in the amount of $688, shall be submitted to ensure the completion of the project improvements. 6. Review fees in the amount of $21, A letter of credit in the amount of $100, shall be submitted to ensure the completion of the Planned Development. 8. The sign plans shall be amended in a manner acceptable to the Director of Planning and Zoning. 9. The fence along the north lot line shall be replaced every 12 years or as directed by the Village of Palatine. 10. The existing billboard must be removed as part of this development proposal and as indicated on the engineering plans demolition sheet 3.

5 page 5 Jones said he is able to comply with staff conditions. The public hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m. RECOMMENDATION Noonan moved, Kolososki seconded that the plan commission recommend to the village council that it approve the request of the petitioner in Case #15-35, United Growth Management Capitol, LLC, who seeks approval of a preliminary and final Planned Development to permit a three-building commercial development; approval for rezoning from B2 to P Planned Development, and a special use to permit a restaurant with a drive-through for 1.52 acres at 1601 N. Rand rd. Said approval shall be contingent upon petitioner s compliance with 10 staff conditions above and a plan commission condition that a gate with a lock that is acceptable to the fire marshal be provided in the fence on the landscaped buffer on the north of the parcel. Unanimously carried (8-0) Report of Public Hearing Case# and 223 N. Brockway st. Chairman Dwyer read the notice of public hearing. The petitioner in Case #15-40, Brockway North, LLC, seeks approval of a preliminary and final Planned Development and preliminary approval of a preliminary and final plat of subdivision to permit a 6-lot single family residential development for 0.35 acres at 217 and 223 N. Brockway st. The following petitioner s exhibits were introduced: 1. Petition for Preliminary and Final Planned Development 2. Palatine Real Estate Interest Disclosure Form 3. Proof of Ownership 4. Plat of Survey Lot #1 5. Plat of Survey Lot #2 6. Site Plan 7. Landscape Plat 8. Architectural Plans 9. Color Rendering 10. Engineering Plans revised 5/11/15

6 page 6 The following persons were sworn in to present the request: Gary Wronkiewicz, Developer Robert Kirk, Architect Wronkiewicz said the village had previously approved two plans he submitted for the parcel: one for seven townhomes, one for a 10-unit 3-story condominium building. When the economy tanked, he was unable to get the necessary bank funding to continue with the projects, so both PUD s for the parcel have lapsed. He said the buildings then proposed were much more massive than the six single family dwellings for plan commission consideration this evening. He has been tracking the demand for single family housing for those in the 50+ age group, and he said they want to downsize but don t want to live in a townhome with common walls. Therefore, he proposes this transitional product which he has dubbed Transitional Townhouses. He typified them as not quite a townhome, not quite single family, because the lot sizes are small and space between houses less than village code requires. Rear yards have virtually disappeared, he said, because those who are interested in these homes no longer wish home and yard maintenance. The Homeowners Association will maintain the lawns, he added. He described surrounding uses and zones: North Multi-family residential, professional office R3 South Multi-family Residential; 2-unit multi-family R3 East 1 Single family residence; one 2-unit multifamily R3 West 1 Single family residence; one 2-unit multifamily R3 He characterized the area as transitional, claiming this development would enhance the neighborhood. Kirk typified the home as smaller with open floor plans, special trim and detailing. He has provided the look of a front entrance to those homes abutting Colfax, even though that would be the rear façade of those three houses. This would better relate to homes existing across the street, he said. One could enter from the attached garage to a large kitchen area giving onto a great room. Covered porches are provided both front and rear. No windows are permitted according to Palatine fire code on walls that are less than 9 feet apart.

7 page 7 He said the second floor would contain two bedrooms and a loft or study area. Studies show that owners in this age group do not want bathtubs, so they have used that space for additional storage in the master bath. Laundries would be on the second floor. Wronkiewicz said he has studied what a four home development would look like, and he feels it looks like a higher density. Homes would be long and narrow, larger than the ones proposed in the 6-unit development. There would be more open space. Square footage of the proposed homes is 2,000 square feet. If he developed with four homes, they would have 2,500 square feet. Each home would have two parking spaces in garages that would be accessible from a private drive exiting onto Brockway st. The private drive would be 22 feet wide, two feet less than required. The developer proposes six guest parking spaces. Parking ratio is 2.5 spaces per unit. The R3 zone requires 2.25 spaces per unit; single family districts require a minimum of 3 spaces per unit. Four of the guest parking spaces would be 6.5 feet wide. Minimum size required by the zoning ordinance would be nine feet. No vehicular access to Colfax is proposed. A picket fence is proposed on the Brockway and Colfax elevations with gates and paths leading to breakfast areas. Homes in the neighborhood already have picket fences on the sidewalk line, he said. Anderson said the village would ask for a 5-foot setback for the fence from the property line. Anderson said it is difficult to compare setbacks proposed here with those in the neighborhood or even elsewhere in Palatine, since this is a concept that is unique to this parcel at this time. He did point out that maximum building coverage in the R2 zone is 35 percent. The building coverage proposed here is 46.6 percent. Gross density would be units per acre which compares to a 2-bedroom multifamily unit of 2,400 square feet that comes to units per acre or a 3-bedroom multifamily unit of 5,000 square feet at 8.72 units per acre. The engineer proposes to carry storm water via swale around residences into a new storm sewer system. Water landing on the driveway area would be collected by several inlets within the drive, then sent to an oversized pipe buried under the driveway where it would be released at a restricted rate by restrictor. Gutters would have a hard connection to the storm sewer. Snow removal would be the same as for a townhome development at S. Brockway (Brockway Place I and II), i.e. pushed aside until there was no more room, then trucked away.

8 page 8 Kolososki said he feels this is a good concept, but it is too crowded. There is too much for this site, he said. Wronkiewicz said there is a need for smaller homes. Kirk added that it is time to get over the concept of large backyards. Residents are not looking for yard work. They have no children to play in yards. They want to be close to the train and dining. Anderson said the fire marshal had approved the plan, but no doors or windows would be permitted on east or west elevations. Concerning his building schedule, Wronkiewicz said he would start building as soon as he had his approvals with completion by mid-summer a year from now, providing all the homes are sold. He will not build until he has sold the home, he said. Exteriors of homes would be hardiboard siding with cedar texture trim. Some brick and stone features would be included and good window trim used. Driveways would be brick and paver so a sunken brick or paver could be replaced inexpensively. Gutters would be on the north and south elevations so putting a ladder between homes would not be necessary. Starting price would be $459,000. All those who wished to speak about the petition were sworn in. Margaret Liczkowski, 222 N. Brockway, said the rear of her lot is low. She wanted to know how much fill would be added to these lots to make the project buildable. If the elevation is raised, this would pose problems for her. She is also concerned about mowing and snow removal. How will they get into the property if there is so little space between homes? she asked. She appreciates attracting those older than 50. She likes that the development is single family. She is concerned about the development s effect on her home s value. Ben Arden, 214 S. Bothwell, noted that Wronkiewiccz said he would not build unless a home is sold ahead of time. The plan development may lapse on this, too, as those did in the previous plans. He is concerned about storage being so close to his rear lot line. Wronkiewicz said there would be no storage on site. Ann Ryba, 210 N. Bothwell, said she doesn t trust Wronkiewicz s testimony. This is blighted property that is not maintained, she said. Residents are caught between a rock and a hard place, because they can live with blight or six houses on two lots. She is concerned that this will be approved, then never happen like the previous plans.

9 page 9 Wronkiewicz assured her that the banks that were hesitant to approve lending when the economy tanked have already agreed to financing for this project. Mrs. Ryba said she is seeing young people moving into the neighborhood. This differs from Wronkiewicz s take on what age group would want these homes. She said she is concerned with the process. Larry Pyzik, 52 W. Colfax, said he would like the project approved. Staff Recommendation While Staff does not object to the use of this property for single-family residential, the development proposal as designed is inconsistent with surrounding uses and with other single-family residential properties in the downtown area. In Staff s opinion, the development is too dense, provides minimal setbacks, and has excessive lot coverage. Staff would suggest smaller units with a maximum of four total units on site. A reorientation of the development would also seem appropriate so that the buildings face the existing street system. Therefore, Staff recommends not to approve the development. If the Plan Commission recommends approving the proposal, Staff would recommend the following conditions be included: 1. The development shall substantially conform to the Engineering Plans prepared by IG Consulting, Inc. dated 3/11/15 last revised 5/11/15 and to the Architectural Plans prepared by Group A Architecture dated 1/6/15 last revised 4/16/15 2. Declarations shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Attorney. 3. The final landscape plan shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Director of Planning and Zoning. 4. No patio expansions shall be permitted for the residences. 5. A letter of credit in the amount of 110% of the cost estimate shall be submitted. 6. Review fees in the amount of 3.5% of the cost estimate shall be submitted. 7. A letter of credit in the amount of $100, shall be submitted. 8. Recording fees in the amount of $ shall be submitted.

10 page The final plat of subdivision shall be submitted on Mylar with all required signatures. 10 A Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall be submitted. 11. An MWRD permit shall be submitted. Anderson said staff could see four homes on this parcel with a common courtyard for gardens, barbeques, etc. Wronkiewicz said that Councilman Helms told him he wants no driveways onto Colfax. Anderson said staff doesn t object to higher density; it objects to the design. Wronkiewicz said he is able to comply with staff conditions, except he would like the amount of money mentioned in #7 left open to negotiation. Kolososki repeated he felt the development was too big for the site. He feels the parking is unrealistic, 18 feet is too narrow for a garage parking space; the building coverage would make it too shady for snow to melt. Ms. Robins said she feels it is too dense. Too many variations are required. Dwyer said he thought about the row houses on Smith st. They have fences on the sidewalk. He realizes that if these were proposed as townhomes, the plan commission and staff would probably have no problem. Seven townhomes had previously been approved here. He thinks it s worthwhile to consider something new. RECOMMENDATION Mrs. Williams moved, Bond seconded that the plan commission recommend to the village council that it approve the request of the petitioner in Case #15-40, Brockway North, LLC, who seeks approval of a preliminary and final Planned Development and preliminary approval of a preliminary and final plat of subdivision to permit a 6-lot single family residential development for 0.35 acres at 217 and 223 N. Brockway st. Said approval shall be contingent upon petitioner s compliance with 11 staff conditions above with the exception of Condition #7, in which the monetary amount shall remain negotiable.

11 page 11 Those voting aye: Bond, Hansen, Mrs. Williams, Dwyer. Those voting nay: Ms. Robins, Noonan, Bettenhausen, Kolososki. Since the vote was 4 to 4, there is no majority, and the matter shall be sent to the village council with no recommendation. After communications the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Natalie Meyer McKenzie secretary