Loading...
2002-09-18 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 09/18/2002 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION September 18, 2002 Riverwalk North, east of Milwaukee Avenue north of Riverwalk Drive—Amendment of a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and Preliminary Plan in the B-3 District—Workshop #5 Village Zoning Ordinance—Discussion of proposed Planned Development Mixed Use District—Workshop #2 Covington II Subdivision (Fifth Third Bank/Insignia Homes) Final Plat Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Billiter Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. Timothy Beechick, Hamilton Partners Mr. David Olson, The Jenkins Group Mr. Hugh Loftus, Cowey Engineering Mr. Richard Mallory, The Brickman Group, Ltd. Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to approve the minutes of the special meeting of July 24, 2002. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Samuels abstaining. COVINGTON 11 SUBDIVISION(FIFTH THIRD BANK/INSIGNIA HOMES)—FINAL PLAT Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Covington II Subdivision (Fifth Third Bank/Insignia Homes). Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Billiter, Ottenheimer NAPES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Samuels The motion passed 7 to 0. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Smith stated he attended the Village Board meeting of September 9, 2002 at which there was a referral of the Vernon Township equipment maintenance storage facility for a new storage building. He noted the main concern would be the aesthetics. RIVERWALK NORTH, EAST OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE NORTH OF RIVERWALK DRIVE — AMENDMENT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) AND PRELIMINARY PLAN IN THE B-3 DISTRICT—WORKSHOP 95 Mr. Beechick stated they would like to respond in further detail to some of the questions and concerns raised by the Commissioners in previous workshops. He stated the three main subjects to be addressed are the variation issues, discuss perspectives that have been developed for focal points and view corridors, and to cover some of the details of the landscape plan. Mr. Beechick noted they started out with 13 variations on this project and are now down to 8 variations based on revisions to the plan. Of those 8 variations, three of the variation requests relate to aesthetic issues, which are considered enhancements to the project, rather than in conformance with the current code. The three aesthetic issues are the upgrading of streetlight poles, which are currently in Phase I and 11 Riverwalk development. The added benefit is that as they are an upgrade they are maintained by Hamilton Partners. The second variation relates to the type of detention basin that has been proposed. Due to the unique topography, they do not have the capability of creating a wet detention pond as a feature pond. As a result the zoning ordinance requires a dry detention basin with a storm pipe at the base. In lieu they are proposing more of a wetland type of detention basin that will allow for a unique character of vegetation at the center of the basin. This can be controlled with proper planting and monitoring. The third aesthetic variation is the cluster landscape planting in the parkway area. In keeping with the theme they have used for the Riverwalk development, they have done cluster planting to relate the project in better form with the backdrop of the Des Plaines River and the forest preserve. They have tried to get away from the regimented look along Riverwalk Drive. The amount of plant species in the current development goes beyond the number that is required and in this case they would do the same thing. It will allow them to create some interest and to gather different types of trees in certain focal points that give it more of a natural look and blends in with the look of the forest preserve to some degree. Commissioner Khan asked if there is a wetland consultant who has designed the plantings or the detention area. Mr. Beechick stated they do not have a wetland consultant that has prescribed any planting detail. He noted they have worked with wetland consultants on numerous projects and know of the variation of different types of plant species they would need to bring forth. He stated they would certainly be glad to provide a list of plant species to be used. Mr. Beechick noted there is one variance that relates to timing. Because of the fact that this mixed-use project is proposed to be a phased development, the practicality of providing detailed engineering drawings and engineering plans early on does not make practical sense. Therefore, they seek the variation request to allow for detailed engineering plans with each development phase. Commissioner Teplinsky asked what kind of time line is envisioned for presenting detailed engineering plans. Mr. Beechick stated they do not have that pinpointed as yet. However, the multi-residential will more than likely lead the way because of the fact that real estate development seems to be the healthiest business at this time. There is a preliminary engineering plan that has been developed that gives the broad stroke picture of how everything is to work. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the only problem with phasing is the possibility of the Plan Commission may not be happy with Phase II but would be constrained by what has happened in Phase I. Mr. Beechick stated they understand that fully. They know that as part of a P.U.D. they would have to come back and provide final details on each particular phase. That may require modifications to the master plan. What they are trying to establish is the development density, which is the key focus of this proposal. How the buildings get sited, where the parking ends up and where the tree islands and such will go will have to be handled on a phase by phase basis. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the purpose of going forward is to approve the concept and the site plan only with the variances. However, appearance issues will come later as well as the specifics for each phase. Mr. Mallory of the Brickman Group reviewed the proposed site lines as well as the proposed preliminary landscape plan. Mr. Beechick passed out a memo from their property manager at the Riverwalk project verifying the fact that there have been no parking issues relative to accidents in the structured parking area within the development. The first parking structure was completed in 1990 and there has been no difficulty with traffic going in and out of parking stalls in the structure. The variation request is consistent with what is in place in Phase I and 11 of Riverwalk and they believe it works. If they had any problems with the size of parking stalls they would need to address that. He noted that one of the worst things for them would be to have a structured parking deck that does not work and has problems. Because of this 12 years history and because this is office building tenancy, which is different from retail tenancy, and because the aisles are one way creating a very wide turning radius, they request the variation to allow parking space dimensions in the parking structure and within buildings to be 8.5 feet in width by 18 feet in length with 24 foot wide aisles. Mr. Beechick stated the next variation request relates to the setback of buildings. Code requires a 25-foot setback to the right of way and that setback needs to be increased for every foot of building height over and above that 25-foot setback distance. He stated the plan is a mixed-use plan where each element is integrated. The overall density of this project in relation to River walk I and II provides more green space than what would be found on the current Riverwalk development. In comparison to the plan that was approved for this project, they are almost doubling the amount of green space. Mr. Beechick noted that Riverwalk North has over 50 percent of green space. On Riverwalk I and 11 the green space is 43.1 percent. Also the approved Riverwalk North plan, approved in 1990 had overall green space of 31.2 percent. Therefore they are requesting a variation in setback for buildings from the right of way and property edge. He stated he hopes a project of this magnitude does need some consideration. Mr. Beechick stated the next variation request is for concrete sidewalks to be installed. The ordinance requires sidewalks on both sides of the right of way. They are requesting the concrete sidewalk be installed only on the east side of North Riverwalk Drive which would give them more room within the right of way for planting. He further stated the bike trail on the east side of the development along the Des Plaines River that allows for connections between various phases of the development has been slightly changed. It now has been brought closer to the buildings so that they can encourage more activity. With the 8-foot wide bike trail system as well as the sidewalk on the east side of North Riverwalk Drive, they feel that will fulfill the pedestrian traffic that this project might generate. Mr. Beechick stated the last variation relates to the width of the right of way. In typical business parks the code requires a right of way width of 80 feet with a pavement width, back of curb to back of curb, of 47 feet. They are proposing North Riverwalk Drive to be a public right of way and to have a 66-foot right of way. The main justification for this is that they have taken all of the parking potential off the street. As a result of that they would like to diminish the width of the right of way and take the additional land area and put it into providing for feature landscaped areas and more areas for planting around the perimeters of the various projects. He noticed this is the standard that was used with Phase I and 11 of Riverwalk and it works. Mr. Loftus stated this site was mass graded and table topped when Riverwalk Phase 2 was constructed. The north end was excavated out to compensate for flood plain storage. That was based on a flood plain elevation that was the regulatory flood plain at the time. Since then FEMA has remapped the Des Plaines River flood plain and the flood heights based on the new mapping are about 1 '/2 feet higher than the old flood plain elevation in this area. There maps were based on old topography before they mass graded the site and therefore the FEMA map today shows flood plain and flood way crossing the site diagonally. In fact, based on the topography of the site today, that is all well above the flood plain elevation. In order to correct the FEMA maps there is a process that must be followed for their review. He noted they have submitted their information in July and it is in review with the state at this time. From there it goes to FEMA and then the maps get officially revised. Mr. Loftus noted they are, of course, using the new flood plain elevation when they set the elevations for buildings and parking lots and they are meeting the Village code requirement in all respects as well as any compensatory storage. He noted the finished floors of the buildings are a minimum of 2 feet above the FEMA elevation and the parking lots and roads are a minimum of 1 foot above the FEMA elevation. Mr. Pfeil noted that previously the developer had been asking for a variation relative to the elevation above flood plain and asked if that variation has now been eliminated. Mr. Loftus noted the request really related to the elevation of the parking lots and the streets in relation to the flood plain. Based on the topography they are now confident they can meet the Village requirement and the variation is not needed. Commissioner Bocek stated the elevations of the buildings seem to fit in with the existing development. However, she noted she is still struggling with how the multi-family residential fits with the big picture. She asked if anything more commercial had been considered such as corporate apartments or assisted care living. Mr. Beechick stated they have not considered anything other than the residential use at that location. He stated there would appear to be an over abundance of retirement living options on the market right now and he would be concerned with being able to bring the quality to this location to match the other two phases. On the other hand, high-end apartments are very desirable at this time. Chairman Ottenheimer asked for a review of the number of apartments, square footage and number of bedrooms proposed. Mr. Beechick stated there would be 1 and 2 bedroom apartments and possibly studios. He further noted about 7 percent of the competing high end rental units in this market have family members as users and the rest would be without children. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if there would be any other amenities for the apartments. Mr. Beechick stated it would have to have a fitness area, a pool amenity as well as underground parking in order to succeed. Chairman Ottenheimer asked for a price range for the rentals. Mr. Beechick stated the average in the market place is at over $1,800 per month. Commissioner Samuels asked if it is intended to have conference facilities or banquet facilities at the proposed hotel. Mr. Beechick stated there would be some meeting room space. He noted he does not know if they will be able to serve large banquet areas. He stated he would bring in representatives from the Hilton Hotel to make their presentation at the hearing. Commissioner Samuels stated he was not sure if there would sufficient parking under requirements if there were any large meetings or such. Mr. Beechick stated it relates to the time that the parking would be needed. This would be considered a business hotel for the most part. The meeting rooms that would be booked would be needed during the day for business meetings or luncheons and would rarely have evening situations. For the most part functions would be during the day when the parking lot is virtually empty and people are out conducting business. The parking count they came up with is based on when there would be peak employee demand at the hotel. They have been told the peak would be about 16-18 employees and so they addressed that need in addition to room count. Mr. Pfeil noted originally the plan had one parking space per room. The developer then increased the amount of parking to account for the number of employees on the largest shift. This amount of parking was thought to be adequate and consistent with the Zoning Ordinance standard. Commissioner Billiter stated the multi-family structure does create a kind of island effect. It is not immediately adjacent to any other residential uses and it is not immediately adjacent to any types of development of that sort. He noted it seems the whole site is very vulnerable to market conditions as this development proceeds. There is the possibility that the whole site could become more cut off than it is now. He noted that other than the swimming pool or whatever facilities are provided within the building, one must get in their car and leave the site. The question then is, given the context of this site that this is indeed the use that this needs to be. Mr. Beechick stated they would not be coming to the Plan Commission piecemeal on any one phase of this development. This development is being presented as a total package of a true mixed use. It has an element of several different types of zoning classifications and it is very unique. The only reason they would be proposing something like this is because of the uniqueness of this location. The demographics support high-end rental very strongly. The office location is a proven location. He further noted the master plan at the time of their first project is not what was ultimately developed. It changed due to feedback from staff and the Plan Commission. He noted they would not be coming in and piecemealing zoning on each piece without it all fitting together as a unit. However they feel that each phase they are requesting is supportable at this location and compliments the other phases. Commissioner Teplinsky stated the problem he sees is the residential which will be built first which limits the ability to amend later on. Mr. Beechick stated the multi-family residential is something that makes the project work from the standpoint of being able to support the price that needs to be paid for the land and to allow for the other segments of development to take place. This is a very strong piece of real estate. The owner could come in and suggest the building of simply 300 units of apartments. However, they are here in support of seeing more commercial development take place. There is terrific tax generation from this mixed-use development. The minority is residential whereas the majority is commercial. They have attempted to find a vehicle for moving this forward so they can put a zoning classification on it that is truly unique. Commissioner Smith stated the mixed use is something the Village has been looking for for years. The density looks acceptable and the apartments do fit in here. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated the apartments do seem like a viable use of the property. However, she asked if another apartment building could replace the hotel if that became a non-viable option. Mr. Beechick stated it is possible, but it certainly would not happen without Plan Commission approval. If the multi-family were successful it would be natural to suggest that that could be fit if the hotel could not be brought up. At that point the Village would have to weigh if it makes sense to reserve the site until the time is right to get the proper hotel amenity in the community or to reconsider. Commissioner Smith asked if there have been any prospective developers for the restaurant site. Mr. Beechick stated they get occasional calls from people regarding the site. The Milwaukee Avenue corridor is very viable and people are looking for a good location that is zoned and ready to go and has support functions nearby. Chairman Ottenheimer and the Commission agreed this project is ready for public hearing. VILLAGE ZONING ORDINANCE — DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT—MIXED USE DISTRICT—WORKSHOP 92 Mr. Pfeil stated there are no substantial changes from the concepts discussed last time. The intent section has been modified to tie to the PUD part of the zoning ordinance as recommended by the Village Attorney. Mr. Pfeil stated the proposed permitted uses have changed since the previous draft. Some standards concerning bulk regulations have been added. One standard is a floor area ratio of 1.0, the ratio of the amount of building floor area to the area of the site. The other standard is a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre for residential. It seems advisable to have a numerical limit for residential density, even though there are other controls in terms of bulk standards. Mr. Pfeil noted that the language concerning building setbacks from public roads or private roads needs to be clarified. The concept is that if a private road with an easement functions as a public street, a building setback from this type of road would be required. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the minimum area for a Planned Unit Development — Mixed Use District shall be 10 acres. He asked if it must absolutely be 10 acres. Mr. Pfeil stated that was meant to be a minimum— a site could be larger than 10 acres. Commissioner Samuels noted a better definition of an arterial road would be advisable. He would like to find something less general than just a plain arterial street. He also asked if it might be advisable to have a minimum frontage on the arterial street. He stated the minimum frontage on an arterial might help in providing continued barriers to potential locations that would then need variances if this is to be a more or less exclusive development for this area. Mr. Pfeil stated the parameter in the current draft seems to be a fairly high hurdle to get over if in terms of limiting locations for more multi-family developments. It would be difficult to meet the standards for a mixed-use zoning designation unless there were two other uses in addition to the multiple family. That would be a practical constraint to other locations. He commented in reference to the proposed Riverwalk North plan that the restaurant should possibly not be included as part of the mixed-use zoning designation, since the site area is less than three acres. The restaurant could be zoned B-3, which is consistent with other zoning in this segment of Milwaukee Avenue. Commissioner Samuels noted the proposed FAR limitation of 1.0 is less than what is being proposed for this development. He asked if the Riverwalk project would require a variance from the FAR if the ordinance is adopted. Mr. Pfeil stated yes, if the office building stays at the level that is proposed now. Commissioner Samuels noted the developer should be aware of that. If a development ordinance is being drafted for this type of land use, then the first development to come in should not have to ask for a variance. Mr. Pfeil stated he agrees that on this particular point it would be highly advisable that the first development in this classification should meet the standards. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman Ottenheimer thanked all on the appearance sub-committee for their hard work and long hours. FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next scheduled meeting is October 2, 2002. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Smith and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 9:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair