Loading...
02/28/2017Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 1 DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING February 28, 2017 MINUTES The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, February 28, 2017, at 7 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center. ZONING BOARD PRESENT: Green, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell Szabo ABSENT: Bader, Catalano ALSO PRESENT: Michael McMahon, Director/Community & Economic Development Johanna Bye, AICP, Senior Planner/Community & Economic Development Lauren Pruss, AICP, Coordinator/Community & Economic Development Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and read this evening’s cases. Roll call was conducted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Green, to approve the minutes of February 14, 2017, as presented. AYES: Hofherr, Green, Saletnik, Szabo NAYES: None ABSTAIN: Schell ***MOTION CARRIED 4-0*** PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments. NEW BUSINESS 1. Address: 946 & 970 North Avenue Case 17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD The petitioner is requesting an Amendment to the Official Des Plaines Zoning Map, as amended, under Section 12-3-7 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to reclassify the properties from the M-2 General Manufacturing District and the R-1 Single-Family Residential District to the R-3 Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 2 Townhouse Residential District; and A Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Blue Sky Residence residential PUD under Section 12-3-5 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, and a Tentative Plat of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-1 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code, to allow for the construction of a 75-unit, three-story apartment building with 75 surface parking spaces, 62 in-building parking spaces, and 13 parking spaces in a detached garage structure, with a requested PUD exception from the R-3 Townhouse Residential Zoning District standards under Section 12-7-2(J) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for 2,046 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, instead of not less than 2,800 square feet. PINs: 09-17-103-031-0000; 09-17-103-041-0000; 09-17-103-042-0000; 09-17-103-044- 0000; 09-17-103-045-0000 PARCEL 1: LOT 1 IN HANNS-WADE RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, EXCEPT THAT PART OF THE WEST 5 FEET OF LOT 7, ALL IN THAT PART OF LOT 8 WHICH LIES SOUTH OF THE EAST AND WEST ¼ SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 17, IN THE SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 IN BLOCK 11 IN DES PLAINES MANOR TRACT NO. 2, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE WEST ½ OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO PLAT OF SAID HANNS-WADE RESUBDIVISION REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ON NOVEMBER 25, 1975 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER T2842845, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PARCEL 2: THE WEST 1.54 ACRES OF LOT 6 (EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF LYING EAST OF A LINE 36.0 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF LOT 6 AND SOUTH OF THE EAST AND WEST ¼ LINE OF SECTION 17) ALSO THAT PART OF LOT 6 WHICH LIES EAST OF THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1.54 ACRES OF SAID LOT 6 AND WEST OF A LINE WHICH IS 30 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL TO SAID EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1.454 ACRES OF SAID LOT, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID EAST LINE OF WEST 1.54 ACRES AND NORTH OF THE EAST AND WEST ¼ LINE OF SECTION 17, ALL IN THE SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 IN BLOCK 11 IN DES PLAINES MANOR TRACT NO. 2, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE WEST ½ OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PARCEL 3: THAT PART OF LOT 6 LYING EAST OF A LINE 75 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT AS MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT, ALSO: LOT 5 (EXCEPT THE WEST 1.54 ACRES THEREOF AND EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID LOT LYING EAST OF A LINE DRAWN 75 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT AS MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT AND EXCEPT THAT PART OF LOT 6 LYING EAST OF THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1.54 ACRES OF SAID LOT AND LYING WEST OF THE LINE WHICH IS 30 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL TO SAID EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1.5 ACRES OF SAID LOT, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1.54 ACRES AND LYING NORTH OF THE EAST AND WEST ¼ LINE OF SECTION 17), ALL IN THE SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 IN BLOCK 11 IN DES PLAINES MANOR TRACT NO. 2, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 3 WEST ½ OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Petitioner: Daniel Pontarelli, 1204 E. Central Road, Arlington Heights, IL 60005 Owner: Robert & Patricia Lonze, 946 North Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Chairman Szabo asked Senior Planner Bye to introduce this petition. Senior Planner Bye presented an overview stating there are three actions: Map Amendment (change all parcels from M-2 and R-1 to R-3), Preliminary PUD, and Tentative Plat of Subdivision. She noted there is a PUD exception for a reduction in lot area per dwelling unit. Petitioner Daniel Pontarelli, Blue Sky Residence LLC, 1204 E. Central Road, Arlington Heights, IL introduced the team who was sworn in by Chairman Szabo: Attorney Daniel J. Dowd, Dowd, Dowd Mertes, Ltd., 701 Lee Street, Suite 790, Des Plaines, IL, Architect - Ronald Sorce, AIA and Kevin Lewis, Sorce Architecture, 3030 Salt Creek Lane, Arlington Heights, IL, Civil Engineer - Kevin Serafin, CemCon LTD, 2280 White Oak Circle S 100, Aurora, IL, Traffic Study - Daniel Brinkman, Gewalt Hamilton Associates, 625 Forest Edge Lane, Vernon Hills, IL, Development – Douglas G. Dienes, QRIVIT, 10901 S. 172d Street, Omaha, NE, Market Study – Gary DeClark and Anthony Mule, CB Richard Ellis, 321 N. Clark, Chicago, IL, and Community and Fiscal Impact Study: Ann Maroney, Johnson Research Group, 343 S. Dearborn, Chicago, IL. Mr. Dowd advised these are three parcels with two different zoning classifications. He noted Petitioner is seeking to reclaim the property and put it to its best use (as it currently is in a dilapidated status). This development will be a 75 unit, three-story apartment building with a detached-garage structure. Since one property is adjacent to the railroad, economics would not lend itself to single-family homes. Mr. Sorce began a PowerPoint presentation which included: • Zoning (requesting conversion from M -2 and R-1 to R-3) • Case Studies (contextual photos and senior living communities were shown) • General Manufacturing District • Site Location o Two access points from North Avenue o One current single-family residence to be razed o Proposed site plan  3-story brick building with 75 units  62 in-building parking spaces  75 surface parking spaces  13 parking spaces in detached garage  Open space with bocce ball court, game tables and trails • Landscape Plan o Pedestrian paths o Green space vs. paving o Removed trees will be replaced • Tenants o Active seniors who are downsizing o Good neighbor policy with amenities • Photometric Plan (bollards along walking paths) • Elevations/Photos (existing conditions) Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 4 o Entrances o Railroad o Loading dock o Existing building to be removed o Road in parking area o Metal sheds • Architectural site plan o Trash containers are located inside the building (chutes to a compactor) • Amenities o Bocce ball court o Putting green o Game tables o Wrought-iron benches • Parking o Storage for each unit o Elevator/stairs o Trash compactor (chutes) • First Floor o Multi-purpose room o Outdoor deck (with pergola) o Detention ponds • Second & Third Floors o Exercise Room o Sauna o Meeting space • Apartments o All one-bedrooms (700-750 sq. ft.) • Building o 39 ft. high o Parapet (projects 2-3 ft. above, totaling 42 ft.) o Fencing around site o Balconies • Materials o Masonry o Glass on windows and patio (will help to block sound from railroads) o Paving around site Renderings of the proposed building and site were shown. Chairman Szabo asked the Board if there were any questions. There were none. He explained the procedure to the audience. Mr. DeClark presented the market study. He highlighted the site: • 3.52 acres • 75 one-bedrooms (for tenants 62 years of age and older) • No income restriction • Study was conducted via a seven-mile radius: o These type of buildings are underdeveloped o Occupancies are at 95% Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 5 o Future unmet demand o Rents are from $1875-1950 o Will take 12 months to occupy apartments o Page 24 was referenced regarding Economics o Page 25 was referenced regarding Occupancies o Page 33 was referenced regarding Costs; Page 38 referenced that rents include amenities and utilities Following the development being occupied, Mr. DeClark noted there would still be an unmet demand. He stated due to the unusually-shaped parcel, economics, and traffic exposure, it is not conducive to single- family homes. Zoning rationale was discussed. Ms. Maroney spoke about fiscal, community impact, and costs/revenues. She noted all taxes are considered (i.e. building permit taxes, building taxes, etc.). The largest revenue will go to the municipality. The current industrial area generated: • EAV of $567,000 • Taxes of $64,000 Ms. Maroney noted: • Projected Tax in 2019 will be $144,000 (and $1.5 million over 10 years) Other benefits were noted – i.e. addition of jobs/employees. Ms. Maroney stated as this development accepts tenants 62 years of age and older, there is no expected impact on schools. There is community impact of increased units. No changes to infrastructure. Parking is met per code. She advised the current building is an eyesore and difficult to maintain. A vacancy is to the detriment of Des Plaines. Ms. Maroney concluded by saying this project is warranted and beneficial to the municipality and the community. Mr. Brinkman provided a traffic impact study. He advised, for similar uses, 15 cars would go in and out at peak hours. Comparisons were provided (not an age-restricted development). This is not a burden on roadways. He noted, regarding parking, the national demand is under one space per unit for this type of development. This project offers more than sufficient parking; minimal traffic impact. Mr. Dienes stated, based on his senior-development experience, this is an independent senior-living building (vs. assisted living). He advised there should be 0-2 cars per apartment. The environment is contained and other services are within just miles. By taking down the current building, adding a detention pond, and increasing the tax base, this is a positive development. Tenants will come from 4-7 miles and are already Des Plaines residents. Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has any questions. There were none. He asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Senior Planner Bye did: Issue: The petitioner is requesting an Amendment to the Official Des Plaines Zoning Map, as amended, under Section 12-3-7 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to reclassify the properties from the M-2 General Manufacturing District and the R-1 Single-Family Residential District to the R-3 Townhouse Residential District; and A Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Blue Sky Residence residential PUD under Section 12-3-5 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, and a Tentative Plat of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-1 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code, to allow for the Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 6 construction of a 75-unit, three-story apartment building with 75 surface parking spaces, 62 in-building parking spaces, and 13 parking spaces in a detached garage structure, with a requested PUD exception from the R-3 Townhouse Residential Zoning District standards under Section 12-7-2(J) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for 2,046 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, instead of not less than 2,800 square feet. Analysis: Preliminary Planned Unit Development Report Owners: Robert & Patricia Lonze, 946 North Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Petitioner: Daniel Pontarelli, 1204 E. Central Road, Arlington Heights, IL 60005 Case Number: 17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD Real Estate Index Numbers: 09-17-103-031-0000; 09-17-103-041-0000; 09-17-103-042-0000; 09- 17-103-044-0000; 09-17-103-045-0000 Ward: #3, Alderman Denise Rodd Existing Zoning M-2, General Manufacturing District; R-1, Single-Family Residential District Existing Land Use The parcels currently zoned R-1 are primarily vacant, with one existing single-family home to be torn down according to the plans submitted; the M-2 property is currently improved with an industrial building Surrounding Zoning North: Railroad; M-2, General Manufacturing District South: R-1, Single-Family Residential District East: M-2, General Manufacturing District; R-1, Single-Family Residential District West: Railroad; M-2, General Manufacturing District; R-1, Single- Family Residential District Surrounding Land Use North: Railroad; Industrial South: Single-family residential East: Industrial/Residential West: Industrial/Residential Street Classification The Comprehensive Plan designates North Avenue as a local street Comprehensive Plan Traditional Single Family is the recommended use of the property Project Description The proposed age-restricted (62 and older) residential development would incorporate 3.52 acres of land currently located in the M-2 General Manufacturing and R-1 Single-Family Residential Districts. Multiple-family residential is not permitted in either of these zoning Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 7 districts; as a result, the petitioner is seeking to rezone the site to the R- 3 Townhouse Residential District where this type of development is allowed. 75, 1-bedroom apartments are proposed for the site, all to be located in a single, 3-story masonry building. The petitioner is proposing 62 in- building parking spaces, 13 parking spaces to be located in a detached garage on the west side of the site, and 75 parking spaces at grade, for a total of 150 parking spaces (2 parking spaces per dwelling unit are required per the Zoning Ordinance). Vehicular access to the site would be provided by two curb cuts off of North Avenue. Zoning Map Amendment Findings As required, the proposed amendment is reviewed below in terms of the standards contained in Section 12- 3-7(E) of the Zoning Ordinance: A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The 2007 City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Traditional Single Family. As defined by the Plan, Traditional Single Family is a residential area that includes single-family detached dwellings at densities greater than the large-lot single-family classification. The minimum required lot size for single-family homes, based on the Zoning Ordinance, is 6,875 square feet, which would allow for 22 single-family homes on the proposed site (though this does not account for required public right-of-way and open space). The proposal calls for 75 dwelling units at 2,046 square feet of lot area per unit. This is more in line with the Low-Density Multi-Family Residential classification that calls for 22 dwelling units per acre. B. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the current conditions and the overall character of existing developments in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The parcels in question are bounded by train tracks to the north, train tracks and single-family homes to the west, single-family homes to the south, and an industrial property and single-family homes to the east. The proposed rezoning to the R-3 Townhouse Residential District would prohibit industrial and single-family residential uses and allow for either townhomes or multiple-family dwelling units, as is proposed. Though this type of residential use allows for higher densities than single-family homes, it does provide for a good transition between the single-family residences and train tracks. C. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to the subject property. The public facilities and services provided by the City of Des Plaines are expected to be adequate within this area. If the zoning amendment is approved, no additional expansion of public facilities or services is anticipated. The proposed development is approximately 1 mile from the amenities offered in downtown Des Plaines, which may be walkable for some. Additionally, the petitioner has been made aware of the potential requirement to either dedicate parkland to the Des Plaines Park District or pay a fee-in-lieu based on the Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 8 impact the development will have on local parks. It should also be noted that the petitioner’s traffic impact study, completed by Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc. of Vernon Hills, IL, concluded that the traffic generated by the proposed development represents a negligible impact on adjacent roadways and intersections. D. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction. The reuse and improvement of the site is expected to increase property values of the surrounding community, especially when considering the potential for an industrial use given the current M-2 General Manufacturing District zoning. However, the location of the surface parking areas, which are shown on the proposed site plan as surrounding existing single-family homes, is not supported. This issue is discussed further in point E of the Planned Unit Development Findings section of this report. E. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. The proposed map amendment to reclassify the properties to the R-3 Townhouse Residential District complies with the Comprehensive Plan’s call for residential in this area; however, the proposed multiple- family apartment building is not in line with the Traditional Single Family classification identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Planned Unit Development Findings As required, the proposed development is reviewed below in terms of the findings contained in Section 12- 3-5(E) of the Zoning Ordinance: A. The extent to which the Proposed Plan is or is not consistent with the stated purpose of the PUD regulations in Section 12-3-5(A): Comment: The proposed plan is consistent with the stated purpose of Section 12-3-5(A) of the Zoning Ordinance in that the multiple-family residential development would allow for a more efficient use of land resulting in more economic networks of utilities, streets and other facilities not possible under the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the proposed PUD offers a creative approach to the use of land that results in better development and design and the construction of aesthetic amenities. B. The extent to which the proposed plan meets the prerequisites and standards of the planned unit development regulations: Comment: The proposed Planned Unit Development meets all PUD requirements contained in Section 12- 3-5(B) of the Zoning Ordinance as it would be located in a zoning district that permits PUDs (R-3 Townhouse Residential District), meets the minimum size standard of two acres (combined lot is 3.52 acres), and the land is under unified control of Blue Sky Residence LLC as the contract purchaser. C. The extent to which the proposed plan departs from the applicable zoning and subdivision regulations otherwise applicable to the subject property, including, but not limited to the density, Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 9 dimension, area, bulk, and use and the reasons why such departures are or are not deemed to be in the public interest: Comment: The proposed development meets or exceeds the following applicable zoning regulations for the R-3 Townhouse Residential District: • Minimum size for PUD; Two acres are required; the total site is 3.52 acres; • Maximum building coverage (Not applicable in the R-3 Townhouse Residential District); • Parking requirements; 150 spaces (2/unit) are required; 150 are proposed; • Setbacks; A front yard setback of 25 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and a rear yard setback of 30 feet are required; a front yard setback of at least 66 feet, side yard setbacks of a minimum of 10 feet, and a rear yard setback of 30 feet 8 inches are proposed; • Height; A maximum height of 45 feet is permitted; 36 feet is proposed; • Compatibility with surrounding properties; There is no negative impact expected from the proposed multiple-family residential use; the properties to the south have residential uses, while the properties to the north, east and west currently have industrial uses. • Traffic; Adequate provisions for safe ingress and egress and minimal traffic impact will be provided according to the traffic study; and • General Design; The general design of the proposed apartment building is not expected to be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare. However, Staff would like to see a reduction of dwelling units, and a resulting reduction in surface parking spaces, so that the proposed parking areas do not encroach into the area of the existing single-family homes. A Planned Unit Development exception is requested for: • (1) Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit; A minimum of 2,800 square feet per dwelling unit is required; 2,046 square feet per dwelling unit it proposed (an approximately 25% reduction in required lot area per dwelling unit). D. The extent to which the physical design of the proposed development does or does not make adequate provision for public services, provide adequate control of vehicular traffic, provide for, protect open space, and further the amenities of light and air, recreation and visual enjoyment: Comment: After reviewing the petitioner’s preliminary building and site improvement plans, it appears that the proposed development is making adequate provision for the necessary infrastructure. Comments and conditions from the Public Works and Engineering Department further address this issue. In terms of recreational amenities proposed for the site, the petitioner has identified on the site plan a series of walking paths as well as game tables and a bocce court. Additionally, the developer has been made aware of the potential requirement for a parks dedication or impact fee for the development, which will likely take the form of a fee-in-lieu donation to the Des Plaines Park District. The petitioner may receive credit for the proposed recreational amenities, as approved by the City Council. The control of vehicular traffic is addressed in the petitioner’s professional traffic impact study, which was performed by Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc. of Vernon Hills, IL. The study concluded that the traffic generated by the proposed development represents a negligible impact on adjacent roadways and intersections. The study also concluded that at morning and evening peak travel times, the traffic created by the proposed development would be equal to or less than the traffic created by a traditional non-age restricted Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 10 development of 55 units (the number of units that would be permitted based on the requirement of 2,800 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit) or an industrial use (which would be permitted by-right under the current zoning designation). E. The extent to which the relationship and compatibility of the proposed development is beneficial or adverse to adjacent properties and neighborhood: Comment: The style, location and massing of the proposed apartment building is compatible with the surrounding uses. However, the location of the surface parking areas, which surround the existing single- family homes along the north side of North Avenue, do not appear to be compatible. Staff recommends that the petitioner increase the amount of parking underneath the building, so as to eliminate surface parking, or reduce the number of units, and as a result, the total number of parking spaces required. F. The extent to which the proposed plan is not desirable to physical development, tax base and economic well-being of the entire community: Comment: The proposed multiple-family residential use of the site would likely have a greater positive impact on property values and tax base over the existing industrial use. Once the apartment building is constructed and occupied, there will be greater demands on city services, city streets, and other public facilities; however, it is assumed that the City’s current public services and public facilities will be able to handle the increased need for services at this location without being overburdened. G. The extent to which the proposed plan is in conformity with the recommendations of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan: Comment: The 2007 City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan recommends the site as Traditional Single Family. As defined by the Plan, Traditional Single Family is a residential area that includes single-family detached dwellings at densities greater than the large-lot single-family classification. The minimum required lot size for single-family homes, based on the Zoning Ordinance, is 6,875 square feet, which would allow for 22 single-family homes on the proposed site (though this does not account for required public right-of-way and open space). The proposal calls for 75 dwelling units at 2,046 square feet of lot area per unit. This is more in line with the Low-Density Multi-Family Residential classification that calls for 22 dwelling units per acre. Tentative Plat Report Name of Subdivision: Blue Sky Residence Address: 946 North Avenue Request: Approval of a Tentative Plat of Subdivision Total Acreage of Resubdivision: 3.52 acres Lot Descriptions and Construction Plans: The petitioner’s Preliminary Plat shows the existing three parcels being combined into one lot. It shows easements for public utilities and stormwater management. No changes to the proposed boundaries of any parcels are proposed at this time. Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 11 Tentative Plat Comments: 1. If approved, the Final Plat must show the Name of the Owner(s) and notarized signatures; 2. The Final Plat must show the proper easement provisions and signature lines and have them signed by all the public service utilities; 3. On the Final Plat, the petitioner shall sign the owner certificate(s) and have them notarized; 4. The Final Plat must show Municipal Boundaries; 5. The Final Plat must show building lines and easements including dimensions; 6. The Final Plat must show a statement of land dedication for public use; 7. The Final Plat must show a complete legal description; 8. The Final Plat must include Certificates from the Finance Director, Director of Public Works and Engineering, and Director of Community and Economic Development; 9. The Final Plat must show all subdivision regulation variances. Final Comments Summary and Staff Recommendations: Staff supports the proposed rezoning from M-2 General Manufacturing and R-1 Single-Family Residential to R-3 Townhouse Residential, as well as the proposed age-restricted, multiple-family apartment building. Though the Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be single-family residential, this type of development is not likely given the proximity to multiple railroad tracks and other industrial facilities. However, a multiple-family use can serve as a good buffer between the existing single-family homes and the railroad tracks, especially given the fact that the site could be used industrially by-right under the current zoning. Staff believes that the age-restricted, multiple-family use is the best use of the site in terms of impact on the surrounding community. The traffic impact study provided by the petitioner provides further evidence of this. Staff, however, does not support the proposed site plan and location of surface parking. The parking layout appears to be inefficient and surrounds existing single-family residences. The proposed reduction in lot area per dwelling unit allows for more units, which requires additional parking spaces to meet the required two spaces per unit. Staff recommends reducing the number of units so that less parking is required. As a result, parking spaces can potentially be eliminated from the front portions of the site. At 2,800 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, the applicant can legally have 55 apartments. This would require 108 parking spaces, as opposed to 150 (a reduction of 42 parking spaces). Alternatively, the petitioner may consider adding additional parking underneath the apartment building. I recommend approval of the Zoning Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Tentative Plat of Subdivision, subject to the conditions as listed below. Conditions: 1. The petitioner revise the site plan so that the surface parking areas do not surround the existing single-family residences. Staff recommends that the petitioner do this by increasing the amount of parking underneath the building or reducing the number of units, and as a result, the total number of parking spaces required. 2. The petitioner shall address all Planning/Zoning, Building, Engineering and Fire comments as per the (attached) staff review letter dated February 13, 2017. Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 12 3. The petitioner must prepare a Final Planned Unit Development Plat that meets all the requirements of Appendix A-4 (Minimum Submittal requirements for PUDs) of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance and a Final Plat of Subdivision that meets all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and the comments in this report and submit it to the Community and Economic Development Department. 4. The petitioner comply with potential provisions for a parks dedication or impact fee, to be determined by the City Council. 5. The petitioner shall pay all applicable building permit and related fees. 6. The petitioner shall provide written proof of Final Engineering approval from the City of Des Plaines Public Works and Engineering Department. Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: The Planning and Zoning Board may vote to grant or deny approval of the Tentative Plat. If approved, the petitioner’s next step is to submit final engineering plans to the Public Works and Engineering Department and return to the Planning and Zoning Board with an updated plat for Final Plat consideration. The Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the Map Amendment and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD). Chairman Szabo asked if anyone is in favor of this proposal – 8 people raised their hands. He asked how many are opposed – 40 people raised their hands. Chairman Szabo invited audience members to the podium and swore in the following: • Muhammad Ebrahim Tabani 952 North Avenue (lived here since 2007) Mr. Tabani stated he is representing many audience members, and advised the concerns are: o This development requires 2800 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit; this proposal is for 2046 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. He noted other businesses have a difficult time receiving small variances. o Regarding zoning, three parcels are in R-1 therefore residents are impacted. He explained privacy would be gone, swimming pools for children will be in plain view. Ambulances, police, and fire staff would impact the community. He would like a study conducted on how many emergency vehicles will come through. o Would like a market study on the impact of neighboring real estate values; the market study was conducted for 55 years of age and above though this development will accommodate those aged 62 and above. He asked about guests who will visit the elderly. o He loves his current neighbors – they are like family o Trees are good for the environment o Studies should be conducted on the main lines (regarding sewage) o There are people who would buy single-family homes in this area (taxes are currently $12-14,000) o Rights and privacy will be compromised • Christine Cirone 977 N. Avenue (purchased in 1989) Ms. Cirone shared their neighborhood is private, beautiful, serene; the sense of community will now disappear. With 75 units, how can there only be 15 cars per day? Regarding traffic flow, headlights/tail lights will shine into residents’ homes. Vehicles will not be restricted to rush hours. Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 13 Children will have nowhere to play. The value of homes will decrease. This will not attract young families to the neighborhood. She noted benefits have not been stated for the neighborhood. Has the City attracted another business? She would like the City to research this. Ms. Cirone shared the current business is not an eyesore. It is mowed regularly. She asked what plan B is if this development is not built. • Bill Ehlers 972 Woodlawn Mr. Ehlers doesn’t believe economics is dictating this. He noted current residents will pay for this. He stated the City had a vision for the R-1 district based on the Comprehensive Plan. To be profitable, units need to be erected. With current zoning, businesses could have presented an opportunity. Regarding tenants 62 years of age and above, their average social security check is $1,340 per month. • Sue Hopson 815 Greenview Ms. Hopson stated this builder is the same as the Prairie Townhouses. She advised construction is not good quality. • Linda Wojcik 907 North Avenue Ms. Wojcik advised, based on this three-story apartment building, her view would be gone. She asked what percentage would be HUD housing. She stated, regarding property taxes, there are some delinquent now for the proposed developer, and asked what would become of the development if the taxes aren’t paid? Many residents above received an applause from the audience. • Danielle & Danine Pontarelli 730 S. Roosevelt The above identified they are daughters of the builder. Ms. Danielle Pontarelli advised, based on the studies, residents for this development are already living in Des Plaines. She noted this development would provide a sense of community for these folks. Ms. Danine Pontarelli replied to audience concerns. She stated, regarding comments of making profits on this, her family is entrepreneurs. The intention is to uplift the communities where these developments are located. Traffic would occur; however, with a business, unknown traffic/visitors may not respect the area. Neighbors can embrace this, and children may utilize the parks. She displayed how much of a stand-up gentleman her father is (rather than one who takes people’s money). Some audience members applauded. • Ann Feldkamp 938 North Avenue Ms. Feldkamp stated this could eventually become Assisted Living and asked if it then would have to be rezoned. Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 14 • Lucas Torres 1028 Hollywood Avenue Mr. Torres referenced the rent prices and asked if these are not rented, what will this become? • Adam Puralewski 1052 Woodlawn Mr. Puralewski stated, based on residential development, construction is happening everywhere you go. This area already has odd-shaped lots. He would like property values to go up, not down. • James Roharty 994 N. Avenue Mr. Roharty asked where the snow would go with the new parking lot; doesn’t want water to go in his basement. • Jarrett Popko 954 East Prairie Mr. Popko asked why the commissioners had not yet commented on the proposal or asked questions. He stated there is no way to get to a main road except to go through our neighborhood. He advised he grew up in Des Plaines and is back here now. He noted this is zoned for single- family homes – that is why people live here. People already use Prairie as a cut-through. A stop sign won’t be placed by the City nor will speed bumps. He stated he doesn’t want this petition to pass. He asked how many residents need to speak up about our awesome neighborhood. He concluded this development is not the right fit. Board Member Green responded by stating the Board typically speaks after all testimony takes place. Chairman Szabo advised that City Council has the final vote in this matter. • Jamie Jewitt 930 Greenview Mr. Jewitt asked with a development this size, will there be: o Security on-site o Property management on-site o Visiting hours o A commitment to length of building ownership o Tax incentives • Mr. Jewitt concluded by saying there are infrastructure, property impact concerns. Many of the above speakers received applause by the audience. Mr. Dowd came forward and stated the entire team takes the neighbors’ concerns very seriously. He explained the area, however, needs to be developed as it is dilapidated. This will not have an adverse effect and will increase values. The owner will have a covenant toward the land. There is no HUD component nor Assisted Living. He advised, regarding traffic, data was received by engineers and is factual. The parking is twice what’s typically needed for this type of development. Neighbors must realize an empty industrial lot would eventually be developed. This is not a pristine property where an intrusion is being erected. Property management would be on-site with secure entry and cameras. This construction company is not a home builder. Neighbors who rent here are respectful of the neighborhood. The traffic data was explained (per number of trips, etc.). Property values would increase. Realtors will tell you that M-2 zoning will hurt Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 15 property values more. He concluded that it takes a lot to take a project on like this. The positive impact would increase the tax base (for stop signs, etc.). Mr. Pontarelli stated three people have reviewed this property. He noted there are size and remediation issues. Costs are great to buy land near the railroad tracks. Sound issues can be mitigated. Comparable developments (in Morton Grove) were referenced. The team that spoke tonight is experts in their fields. The park area is for the neighborhood. In conclusion, Mr. Pontarelli asks that neighbors view nearby senior living communities and see how nice they are and how area property values are improved. Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has any questions. Board Member Saletnik thanked/stated: • Mr. Pontarelli for developing here. He stated various projects are aesthetically-pleasing to the neighborhood. • based on rents, amenities should be raised. The density is too high. The use/proposal is ideal as it is a buffer to the railroad and community. Mr. Pontarelli advised the Great Room (1,900 sq. ft.) is off the lobby and may be technology- driven. He noted there would be wine-cellar lockers, a craft area. The fitness room is 700 sq. ft. Heat, air conditioning, basic cable, and utilities are included. • regarding the length of ownership, would you keep or sell? Mr. Pontarelli stated the property should be redeveloped, and there is a relationship with the owners. If it is successful, there’d be no reason to sell – but it may happen. Board Member Hofherr stated/asked: • some communities offer meals and charge in excess of $5,000 per month • the current building structure will eventually be removed and remediation of the land will have to occur. What is the investment? Mr. Pontarelli advised – a demolition permit was purchased as the building has no value. The environmental costs at $100,000, and the demolition cost at $75,000 must take place before purchasing the land. Sustainable materials, lighting would be used. Everything will be state-of-the-art. • regarding the sewer system/detention pond, what is the intention? Mr. Serafin advised – the water would be routed west into the detention pond. For southeast drainage, there is an underground detention pond. • staff, if archaic sewers are being replaced. Director McMahon stated he doesn’t know of immediate future plans for this. • regarding the conditions, will a bond be placed for improvements? Mr. Pontarelli stated – yes Board Member Green asked: • regarding detention pond, if it will have standing water – and how deep? Mr. Serafin advised – yes, 1-2 ft. • how children are protected from standing water. Mr. Serafin advised – it is sloped down. City Engineers haven’t raised any questions. Board Member Schell asked Staff, regarding the Comprehensive Plan, if this is still designated for single- family homes. Senior Planner Bye advised – the Comprehensive Plan from 2007 identified the area as single-family homes and that the Comprehensive Plan is currently being updated. Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 16 Board Member Saletnik asked: • if Petitioner is aware of Condition #1 and read same. Mr. Pontarelli advised – yes – it would cost $25,000 per parking space to add more beneath the building. He stated City Council requested two spaces per unit (regardless of apartment size); the project may not be financeable with the requested changes. Seniors have less autos per household. Ratios per unit space are not addressed in Des Plaines. Mr. Dienes stated most comparable facilities have few cars. After time and due to local Transportation options, tenants’ may sell their cars. He suggested landbanking parking spaces. • if Condition #1 is approved, what will be done? Mr. Pontarelli advised – the entire plan will have to be revisited; it will be a financing issue. We are willing to have green space, then add parking later if necessary (landbanking). Chairman Szabo stated/asked: • he would like to see there be parking or green space noted definitively • if the tanks are still there. Mr. Pontarelli stated – yes, they are and will be removed • how many employees there will be. Mr. Pontarelli stated – three part-time and two full-time • if there is masonry and firewall protection. Mr. Pontarelli advised – firewall constructed, not masonry Chairman Szabo read Condition #1 for the audience. Some audience members returned to the podium: • Muhammad Ebrahim Tabani 952 North Avenue (lived here since 2007) Mr. Tabani stated: o the traffic study was conducted at off-peak hours o regarding the demolition issue, wildlife will be present; where will they go? o Why would the City give the variance to allow 2,046 sq. ft. per dwelling space vs. the code at not less than 2800 sq. ft.? o Why change zoning? o Why not restrict building to two floors o Patrons may not drive, but emergency vehicles will be present o Sewer systems and electricity will have to be reworked Mr. Tabani received an applause from the audience. Chairman Szabo swore in the following: • Jeff Kalar 1054 Greenview Avenue (lived there 31 years) Mr. Kalar shared his concerns: o Traffic  there will be tenants and visitors accessing the site  traffic will be in the middle of 3rd Avenue  parks are populated in summer (where children are traveling)  do not believe this study’s results  with increased traffic, children are subject to being hit  sewer system cannot accept this; neighborhood is not designed for this Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 17 Mr. Kalar concluded by telling the Board, if something happens, the blood of his children will be on the Board’s hands. A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to recommend approval to City Council with Conditions as written by Staff. AYES: Saletnik, Hofherr, Green, Szabo NAYES: Schell ***MOTION CARRIED 4-1*** Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be provided to City Council. 2. Address: 10 E.Golf Road Case 17-011-CU The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use under Section 12-11-8 of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning re Ordinance, as amended, to allow a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation to allow for 300 square feet of wall signage, instead of not more than 125 square feet, in the C-3 General Commercial District. PIN: 09-18-100-004-0000 Petitioner: Lisa Neal, 232 W. Interstate Road, Addison, IL 60101 Owner: Golf Road Ventures LLC, 2250 Southwind Boulevard, Bartlett, IL 60103 Chairman Szabo swore in Terrence J. Doyle, 232 W. Interstate Road, Addison, IL 60101, who advised the three wall signs proposed are typical Mariano’s signage and are proposed to be fabricated aluminum letters mounted flush on the facade. Mr. Doyle stated they are illuminated with flood lamps that project onto the signs. The building is 73,000 square feet and the signs represent less than 2% of the total façade area. The signs are reasonable considering the size of the building. He stated that they do not agree with the condition that the sign on the east façade not be illuminated, as the closest residence is 480’ away and they have not had any issues with sign lighting at any of their other locations. If there is an issue, Mariano’s will be a good neighbor and dim the lights. Board Member Green asked why the sign on the east façade needs to be illuminated. Mr. Doyle stated the sign can be seen from Golf Road. Board Member Saletnik stated that the sign on the west façade seems to be a bigger issue. Economic Development Coordinator Lauren Pruss stated that this sign is permitted to be illuminated as it faces a street, though the sign on the east façade does not and the Zoning Ordinance does not allow for this sign to be illuminated. Board Member Saletnik asked if the Planning and Zoning Board can reject staff’s proposed condition. Ms. Pruss stated yes, since it is a Conditional Use, though the City Council has final authority on the matter. Board Member Hofherr stated that he has seen the lights at night and that they shine onto the building and are not an issue. Chairman Szabo asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Senior Planner Bye did: Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use permit under Section 7.3-6.C of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to operate a Food Processing Establishment in the C-3 Zoning District. Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 18 Analysis: Address: 10 E. Golf Road Owners: Golf Road Ventures LLC, 2250 Southwind Boulevard, Bartlett, IL 60103 Petitioner: Lisa Neal, 232 W. Interstate Road, Addison, IL 60101 Case Number: 17-011-CU Real Estate Index Number: 09-18-100-004-0000 Ward: #4, Dick Sayad Existing Zoning: C-3 General Commercial District Existing Land Use: Previously an industrial use; construction of a new commercial building (grocery) nearly complete Surrounding Zoning: North: Single-Family Residential South: General Commercial; Single-Family Residential East: Single-Family Residential West: General Commercial; Single-Family Residential Surrounding Land Use: North: Residential South: Commercial; Residential East: Residential West: Commercial; Residential Street Classification: E. Golf Road is an arterial road Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site Community Commercial The applicant, Lisa Neal of Doyle Signs, has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation in order to install three wall signs totaling 300 square feet in area, when 125 square feet is permitted, at 10 E. Golf Road. Mariano’s, the owner and user of the site, is nearing completion of a new 73,770 square foot grocery store on the 9.194 acre site. The site is accessed by four curbs cuts, two off of E. Golf Road and two off of S. Mount Prospect Road. There are 401 parking spaces. The petitioner proposes to install three ground signs (one each off of E. Golf Road, S. Mount Prospect Road, and the intersection) and three wall signs (one each on the west, south, and east facades) at the site. The three ground signs meet all zoning regulations for monument signs, including size, height and setbacks. Though three wall signs are permitted, the total area of all wall signs exceeds what is permitted (125 square feet for all wall signs) by 175 square feet (three signs at 100 square feet each, for a total of 300 square feet, are proposed). The City Council has the authority to approve sign variations; however, no variation may be Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 19 granted which increases any dimension (height, length, width or area) to an amount over fifty percent (50%) of the corresponding dimensions normally permitted, which in this case would be 187.5 square feet. As a result, the petitioner is requesting a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation (a Conditional Use) to allow the three wall signs to total 300 square feet in area. Please note that one wall sign, the sign on the south façade, has received a permit and has been installed, as alone it does not exceed the 125 square feet permitted for all wall signs. A request to waive the traffic study requirement was granted after review by staff based of the proposed site plan and size of the operation. Conditional Use Findings: Conditional Use requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3- 4(E) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. In reviewing these standards, staff has the following comments: A. The proposed Conditional Use is in fact a Conditional Use established within the specific Zoning district involved: Comment: A Localized Alternative Sign Regulation is a Conditional Use, as specified in Section 12-11-8 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. B. The proposed Conditional Use is in accordance with the objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan: Comment: The 2007 Comprehensive Plan recommends a Community Commercial use for the site. C. The proposed Conditional Use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity: Comment: The proposed wall signs face E. Golf Road and S. Mount Prospect Road, two arterial roads lined with commercial buildings and uses. The signs have been designed to keep with the size and architecture of the building. D. The proposed Conditional Use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses: Comment: The proposed wall signs will be constructed in accordance with established safety standards and will be flush mounted to the building so as to not affect surrounding properties. E. The proposed Conditional Use is to be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and schools; or, agencies responsible for establishing the Conditional Use shall provide adequately any such services: Comment: The proposed wall signs will have no effect on essential public facilities and services. F. The proposed Conditional Use does not create excessive additional requirements at public expense for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic well-being of the entire community: Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 20 Comment: The proposed wall signs would not create a burden on public facilities nor would they be a detriment to the economic well-being of the community. G. The proposed Conditional Use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke fumes, glare or odors: Comment: The proposed wall signs are not anticipated to create additional traffic or noise that could be detrimental to surrounding land uses. However, Staff does recommend that the wall sign on the east façade, which is not on a street and faces a residential zoning district, not be illuminated, either internally or externally. H. The proposed Conditional Use provides vehicular access to the property designed so that it does not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares: Comment: The proposed wall signs will not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. I. The proposed Conditional Use does not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of natural, scenic, or historic features of major importance: Comment: The proposed wall signs would not cause the destruction, loss, or damage of any natural, scenic or historic features of major importance. The wall signs will be placed on a newly constructed building. J. The proposed Conditional Use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning Ordinance specific to the Conditional Use requested: Comment: Approval of the proposed Conditional Use for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation will allow the petitioner to exceed the maximum allowed area for all wall signs. The petitioner is proposing 300 square feet of wall signage, when 125 square feet is permitted. Recommendation: I recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation in order to install three wall signs totaling 300 square feet in area, when 125 square feet is permitted, based on review of the information presented by the applicant and the findings made above, as specified in Section 12-3-4(E) (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, subject to the following condition: the wall sign on the east facade not be illuminated, either internally or externally. Per the Zoning Ordinance (12-11-6(B)), if a building is located adjacent to a residential zoning district, any wall sign installed on a non-street facing facade of the building that faces the residential zoning district shall not be illuminated. Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: Under Section 12-3-4(D) (Procedure for Review and Decision for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Board has the authority to recommend that the City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned Conditional Use Permit for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation in the C-3 General Commercial District. The City Council has the final authority on the proposal. Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 21 Chairman Szabo asked if anyone is in favor of the proposal. No one responded. He asked if anyone objects. The following came forward and was sworn in: • Kenneth Lewis 120 Harvey Avenue Mr. Lewis advised that he lives on the south side of Golf Road and that the rear of his property faces the newly constructed Mariano’s. He stated that the building is an eyesore and that the building lights are on until late in the evening. He asked what the City or Mariano’s will do to improve the privacy in his yard. He inquired about Mariano’s building a wall. He stated that he was not informed for the construction of the new building, but was informed for this Conditional Use for signage. Board Member Saletnik stated that the site and building were constructed per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and that is why the public did not need to be notified. Chairman Szabo stated that he may want to consider reaching out to the manager at the Mariano’s. A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Saletnik, to recommend approval to City Council, subject to the condition that the applicant be granted a variation as part of the Conditional Use to allow for the wall sign on the east façade to be externally illuminated. AYES: Hofherr, Saletnik, Green, Schell, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be provided to City Council. 3. Addresses: 1419 S. Cora Street Case 17-012-V The petitioner is requesting a Major Variation under Section 12-3-11(D) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a non-brick facade on the ground story of a single-family residence in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District PIN: 09-20-412-003-0000 Petitioner: Jerome Pietryla, 56 S. Grove Avenue, Elgin, IL 60120 Owner: Habitat for Humanity of NFV, 56 S. Grove Avenue, Elgin, IL 60120 Chairman Szabo swore in Jerry Pietryla, ABWK & Critical Home Repair Coordinator, Habitat for Humanity, 56 S. Grove, Elgin, IL who advised they are requesting a variance of the face-brick requirement for new single-family homes. He stated the two hardships are: • the requirement violates Habitat for Humanity’s visual standards and affordability guidelines • affects the owner as the home is sold at appraised value Board Member Saletnik asked what the exterior would be. Mr. Pietryla advised – Hardie Board veneer with insulation. Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 22 Chairman Szabo stated there is a reason this is written into the code – as we want homes of high quality; it adds to the house and the community; we want neighborhoods to be uniform. Board Member Hofherr asked if surrounding homes are brick. Mr. Pietryla advised – one has siding; a photo was displayed. Chairman Szabo stated with value engineering, it could be done with brick. Board Member Green stated some homes with Hardie Board show as a good product. Chairman Szabo asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Senior Planner Bye did: Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Major Variation under Section 12-3-11(D) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a non-brick facade on the ground story of a single-family residence in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District. Analysis: Address: 1419 S. Cora Street Owners: Habitat for Humanity of NFV, 56 S. Grove Avenue, Elgin, IL 60120 Petitioner: Jerome Pietryla, 56 S. Grove Avenue, Elgin, IL 60120 Case Number: 17-012-V Real Estate Index Number: 09-20-412-003-0000 Ward: #2, John Robinson Existing Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residential District Existing Land Use: Residential Surrounding Zoning: North: Single-Family Residential South: Single-Family Residential East: Single-Family Residential West: Single-Family Residential Surrounding Land Use: North: Residential South: Residential East: Residential West: Residential Street Classification: Cora Street is a local road Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Traditional Single Family Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 23 The applicant, Jerome Pietryla of Habitat for Humanity of NFV, has requested a variation to allow a non- brick façade on the ground story of a new single-family residence at 1419 S. Cora Street. The 10,801 square foot property is currently unimproved, though it previously had a single-family residence which was town down in 2016. The petitioner proposes to build a new single-family residence of 1,083 square feet on the site. Per Section 12-3-11(D) of the Zoning Ordinance, brick is required on all facades of the first floor of new single-family homes; however, the petitioner is proposing to use James Hardie fiber cement siding instead. According to the petitioner, this is a quality product that meets the design and construction standards of the Habitat for Humanity organization. Variation Findings: Variation requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-6(H) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. In reviewing these standards, staff has the following comments: 1. Hardship: No variation shall be granted pursuant to this subsection H unless the applicant shall establish that carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this title would create a particular hardship or a practical difficulty: Comment: The petitioner has stated that requiring Habitat for Humanity to provide brick on all first floor facades would set a precedent for all future projects that violates the organization’s traditional visual standards and materials of construction requirements. 2. Unique Physical Condition: The subject lot is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including presence of an existing use, structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular or substandard shape or size; exceptional topographical features; or other extraordinary physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject lot that amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that relate to or arise out of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of the lot: Comment: The petitioner has stated that the architectural requirements to only use face brick on the first floor facades limits the ability of the organization to comply with their own visual standards as well as affordability guidelines. He has stated that the organization does not merely give houses away; the homeowners are hard-working, middle-class individuals that must have incomes that fall between a high and low determined by the appraised value of the home. 3. Not Self-Created: The aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action or inaction of the owner or its predecessors in title and existed at the time of the enactment of the provisions from which a variance is sought or was created by natural forces or was the result of governmental action, other than the adoption of this title: Comment: The petitioner has stated that the architectural requirements to only use face brick on the first floor facades limits the ability of the organization to comply with their own visual standards as well as affordability guidelines. Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 24 4. Denied Substantial Rights: The carrying out of the strict letter of the provision from which a variance is sought would deprive the owner of the subject lot of substantial rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other lots subject to the same provision: Comment: The petitioner has stated that a denial of the variation would prevent them from fulfilling the organization’s stated charter of providing affordable housing that is consistent with neighborhood norms. 5. Not Merely Special Privilege: The alleged hardship or difficulty is neither merely the inability of the owner or occupant to enjoy some special privilege or additional right not available to owners or occupants of other lots subject to the same provision, nor merely the inability of the owner to make more money from the use of the subject lot: Comment: The petitioner has stated that utilization of fiber cement siding (James Hardie) satisfies the organization’s visual standards and the City’s requirement for the durability that face brick provides. 6. Title And Plan Purposes: The variation would not result in a use or development of the subject lot that would be not in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this title and the provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan: Comment: The petitioner has stated that there are many other examples of nice homes in Des Plaines that do not have face brick facades. Recommendation: I recommend approval of the variation under Section 12-3-11(D) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a non-brick facade on the ground story of a single-family residence in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District, subject to the following condition: all materials, windows and siding be uniform in appearance and be the same make and manufacturer. Plan & Zoning Board Procedure: Under Section 12-3-6(G)2 (Procedure for Review and Decision for Variations) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning & Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval of the proposed variation. The City Council has final authority over the variation requested. Chairman Szabo asked if anyone is in favor of this proposal – no one responded. He asked if anyone objects – 6 people raised their hands. The following came forward and was sworn in by Chairman Szabo: • Carl Loewes 1413 S. Cora Mr. Loewes read some Habitat for Humanity standards and stated these violations are self- prescribed. He noted the Des Plaines Code preserves homes and maintains values. Rebuttals were provided for this company’s requirements. He believes Des Plaines’ middle-class requirements directly align with this company’s middle-class incomes. Statistics were shared (regarding materials, costs). Mr. Loewes left a printed copy of a lawsuit regarding Hardie Board. He believes the Des Plaines’ standards should be maintained. This is a bad investment for Des Plaines. Audience members offered an applause. Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 25 Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has further questions. There were none. He stated the beauty of masonry is that it’s maintenance-free. A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Green, to recommend denial to City Council. AYES: Hofherr, Green, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** 4. Addresses: Citywide Case 17-014-TA The City staff is requesting a Text Amendment to Section 12-8 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to add short-term rental properties to the list of approved accessory uses in all residential zoning districts. PIN: Citywide Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Director McMahon advised this is a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. He proceeded to give the Staff Report: Issue: City Staff is requesting a text amendment to Section 12-8 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to add short-term rental properties to the list of approved accessory uses in all residential zoning districts. Analysis: Currently, Section 12-8 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding accessory uses and Section 4-17 of the Municipal Code regarding residential rental licenses do not distinguish between long-term and short- term rental properties. There has been concern over the recent trend of property owners renting residential properties for short periods of time without obtaining a City Rental License. Staff has been working with Holland & Knight to prepare two ordinances (one pertaining to licensing and the other to zoning) that will regulate short-term rental properties. Short-term rental properties are not listed as a permitted accessory use in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff is requesting that short-term rental properties be added to Section 12-8 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the conditions established as part of a short-term rental properties ordinance to be approved by the City Council. The major change to the licensing code will create two categories of residential rental properties based on length of the rental term: long-term rental properties and short-term rental properties. The two new categories are defined as follows: LONG-TERM RENTAL PROPERTY: Any residential property, including single-family detached dwelling units, single-family attached units, or multiple dwelling units, that is held out for rent, in return for Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 26 the right to occupy or use the property of another, for a period of 30 or more consecutive days, and are not owner occupied. SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTY: Any residential property or portion thereof, that is held out for rent, for overnight lodging, for a period shorter than 30 consecutive days. Notwithstanding the foregoing definition, the regulations contained in this chapter 17 may limit the number of days during which a property may be used as short-term rental property. The term “short-term rental property” shall not include hotels, motels, or bed and breakfast establishments. The proposed ordinance will require individuals to obtain a short-term residential license and establishes specific regulations. Please keep in mind that these regulations are up for discussion with the City Council and have not been formally adopted. Staff will present these revisions to the City Council at their March 6, 2017 meeting. The Planning and Zoning Board is being asked to approve the addition of short-term rental properties to the list of approved accessory uses in all residential zoning districts, subject to those licensing conditions ultimately adopted by the City Council. The Ordinance for Planning and Zoning Board consideration amends Section 12-8 to include a Section 12- 8-15 as follows: 12-8-15: SHORT TERM RENTAL PROPERTY In addition to conforming to the general regulations for accessory uses and structures set forth in section 12-8-1, "Accessory Uses And Structures," of this chapter, short-term rental property, as defined in section 4-17-1 of this code, may be allowed in all R districts provided that: A. The owner or operator of a property used as a short-term rental property must obtain a short-term rental property license in accordance with section 4-17-1 of this code; B. No property may be rented for a single period of less than 24 hours; C. No property may be rented for multiple bookings for the same or overlapping periods. Recommendation: I recommend approval of the Text Amendment to Section 12-8 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to add short-term rental properties to the list of approved accessory uses in all residential zoning districts. Plan & Zoning Board Procedure: Under Sections 12-3-7(D) (Procedure for Review and Decision of Amendments) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning & Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval of the proposed amendment. The City Council has final authority over the amendment requested. Director McMahon advised City Council recommended a rewrite based on short and long-term housing (regarding licensing, accessory use, etc.). He referred to the current ordinance with revised language and Conditions noted. Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 27 Board Member Hofherr asked about short-term requirements not noted. He recited some Airbnb scenarios. Board Member Hofherr proposed to add restrictions on basements per building and fire code. Director McMahon referred to Section 4-17 (of the Licensing Code) which addresses inspections. Board Member Schell asked why it is being addressed now. Director McMahon advised – long-term rentals are permitted by-right, though short-term is not addressed. Since one segment is being regulated, both need to be defined. Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor of this proposal. No one responded. He asked if anyone is opposed. The following came forward and was sworn in: • Victoria Maher 872 Mason Lane (street is one-block long) Ms. Maher’s concerns are that her neighbor is renting his coach house (above garage) 3-4 nights per week. She stated this is a single-family residential community. She approves regulation but not rentals in a single-family home. Board Member Saletnik stated Ms. Maher must be in favor of this amended ordinance. Ms. Maher reiterated she is in favor of regulation but not in single-family homes. This ruins the integrity of the neighborhood. Chairman Szabo asked if rentals are in single-family homes or apartments. Director McMahon responded – single-family homes. A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Schell, to recommend approval to City Council. AYES: Hofherr, Schell, Green, Saletnik, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** OLD BUSINESS 5. Addresses: 800 S. River Road Case 17-010-PUD The City of Des Plaines has filed an application to amend Planned Unit Development Ordinance #Z-4- 91 which governs the development and use of the property commonly known as 800 South River Road to remove Lot 100, a parcel owned by the City, from the previously approved private residential Planned Unit Development. All other approvals regarding Ordinance #Z-4-91 will remain in full force and effect. PIN: 09-17-421-038-0000 Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 (Lot 100) Altus Group US, Inc., 21001 N. Tatum Blvd, #1630, Phoenix, AZ 85050 (Remainder) Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 28 On the following described property: LOTS 100 THROUGH 111 (BOTH INCLUSIVE) EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID LOTS TAKEN FOR THE OPENING OF PRAIRIE AVENUE AS RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1941 BY DOCUMENT #12785378 AND ALSO EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID LOT 111 LYING SOUTH OF PRAIRIE AVENUE AFORESAID AND ALSO EXCEPT THE SOUTHEASTERLY 8.0 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 150.0 FEET OF LOT 100 AND ALSO EXCEPT THE NORTHEASTERLY 150.0 FEET OF LOT 101, 102, 103 AND 104 AND ALSO EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 109; THENCE SOUTH 08 DEGREES, 39 MINUTES, 51 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOTS 109, 110, AND 111, A DISTANCE OF 230.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55 DEGREES, 34 MINUTES, 59 SECONDS WEST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 109, A DISTANCE OF 23.28 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 17.00 FEET, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 109 AND 110; THENCE NORTH 08 DEGREES, 39 MINUTES, 51 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID LAST DESCRIBED PARALLEL LINE, 230.0 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 109; THENCE SOUTH 55 DEGREES, 34 MINUTES, 59 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 109, A DISTANCE OF 23.28 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, ALL IN THE ORIGINAL TOWN OF RAND (NOW DES PLAINES), BEING A SUBDIVISION OF SECTIONS 16, 17, 20, AND 21, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Coordinator Pruss explained and proceeded to provide the Staff Report: Issue: The City of Des Plaines has filed an application to amend Planned Unit Development Ordinance #Z- 4-91 which governs the development and use of the property commonly known as 800 South River Road to remove Lot 100, a parcel owned by the City, from the previously approved private residential Planned Unit Development. All other approvals regarding Ordinance #Z-4-91 will remain in full force and effect. Analysis: Final Planned Unit Development Report Owners: The City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner St., Des Plaines, IL 60016 (Lot 100) Altus Group US, Inc., 21001 N. Tatum Blvd., #1630, Phoenix, AZ 85050 Petitioner: The City of Des Plaines Address: 800 South River Road Case Number: 17-010-PUD Real Estate Index Numbers 09-17-038-0000 Existing Zoning C-5 Central Business District Existing Land Use Vacant, Parking Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 29 Surrounding Zoning North: C-5, Central Business District South: R-4, Central Core Residential District East: R-1, Single Family Residential District West: C-5, Central Business District Surrounding Land Use North: Residential South: School/Park/Open Space East: Open Space West: Commercial Project Description During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the City entered in to a redevelopment agreement with the River Oaks Partners for the sale and development of City owned land at 800 S. River Road which is now developed with senior housing and known as Brookdale Senior Living. The development was granted approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) via Ordinance Z-18-89, which was later amended by Ordinance Z-4-91, which permitted the development of the site as it currently exists. Although not subject to the approved development, a parcel of land (Lot 100) was part of the overall original site, and was intended to remain under City control and ownership. Unfortunately, the property was never properly subdivided from the original tract of land, nor assigned its own property index number (PIN). Additionally, the property was inadvertently included in the approved PUD ordinance for the overall parcel. The City has more recently entered in to a Purchase and Sale Agreement for Lot 100 with Opus Development, for the construction of a new 113 unit multi-family building. Prior to the sale of Lot 100, the City must obtain a separate PIN and remove the parcel of land from the PUD for Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 30 800 S. River Road. All other approvals regarding Ordinance #Z-4-91 will remain in full force and effect. Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 31 PUD Findings As required, the proposed development is reviewed below in terms of the findings contained in Section 3.5- 5 of the Zoning Ordinance: A. The extent to which the Proposed Plan is or is not consistent with the stated purpose of the PUD regulations in Section 12-3-5.A.: Comment: The proposed plan is consistent with the stated purpose of Section 12-3-5.A. of the Zoning Ordinance insofar as the proposed amendment does not substantially alter the previously approved PUD. B. The extent to which the proposed plan meets the prerequisites and standards of the planned unit development regulations: Comment: The proposed Planned Unit Development meets all PUD requirements contained in Section 12- 3-5.B. of the Zoning Ordinance as it would be located in a zoning district (C-5) that permits PUDs, and it meets the minimum size standard of two acres. C. The extent to which the proposed plan departs from the applicable zoning and subdivision regulations otherwise applicable to the subject property, including, but not limited to the density, dimension, area, bulk, and use and the reasons why such departures are or are not deemed to be in the public interest: Comment: There are no amendments to any of the previously approved waivers to the zoning and subdivision regulations. D. The extent to which the physical design of the proposed development does or does not make adequate provision for public services, provide adequate control of vehicular traffic, provide for, protect open space, and further the amenities of light and air, recreation and visual enjoyment: Comment: The proposed amendment does not substantially alter the approved and existing provision for public services, provide adequate control of vehicular traffic, provide for, protect open space, and further the amenities of light and air, recreation and visual enjoyment. E. The extent to which the relationship and compatibility of the proposed development is beneficial or adverse to adjacent properties and neighborhood: Comment: The proposed amendment does not alter the development’s compatibility and relationship with the surrounding area. F. The extent to which the proposed plan is not desirable to physical development, tax base and economic well-being of the entire community: Comment: The currently approved PUD prohibits the further development of an underutilized site within the downtown. The redevelopment of the City parcel, along with the additional adjoining parcels for a multi- family building will further enhance the City’s tax base and bring additional demand for services within the surrounding area. Case #17-009-MAP-SUB-PUD-946 & 970 North Avenue-Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-011-CU-10 E. Golf Road-Conditional Use Permit Case #17-012-V-1419 S. Cora Street-Variation Case #17-014-TA-Citywide-Text Amendment Case #17-010-PUD-800 S. River Road-Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) February 28, 2017 Page 32 G. The extent to which the proposed plan is in conformity with the recommendations of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan: Comment: The proposed development conforms to the land use plan contained in the 2007 City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan which calls for high density mixed use. PUD Issues/Considerations: None. Staff Recommendations: The Department of Community and Economic Development recommends approval of the Amendment to Z- 18-89 and Z-4-91. Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: The Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the Final PUD. Coordinator Pruss advised this property is within the Brookdale site. She stated when the remaining portion was sold, it was not appropriately subdivided. This amendment removes Lot 100, allows a Pin Number to be obtained, and return to Opus Development. No other approvals from Brookdale would be amended. A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to recommend approval to City Council. AYES: Saletnik, Hofherr, Schell, Szabo NAYES: None ABSTAIN: Green ***MOTION CARRIED 4-1*** ADJOURNMENT On a voice vote, Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting at 10:53 p.m. Sincerely, Gale Cerabona Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners