The City of Park Ridge Planning and Zoning Commission met Tuesday, July 26.
"Planning and Zoning Commission - Consists of nine citizen members appointed to four-year terms. The Commission hears and reviews all applications for zoning amendments, planned developments, special uses, pre-annexation agreements, subdivisions, site plans and changes in B-4 Commercial Conservation Districts, and street alley vacations. It also makes recommendations on the adoption of or amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Meets second and fourth Tuesdays of the month."
Here are the meeting minutes as provided by the Park Ridge Planning and Zoning Commission:
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 505 BUTLER PLACE PARK RIDGE, IL 60068
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2016 AT 7:00 PM
Chairman Baldi called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
I. Roll Call
Present Joe Baldi, Chairman Lou Arrigoni Jim Argionis John Bennett Lou Giannetti Tim Kirby John Kocisko
Absent Linda Coyle Chris Zamaites
Staff Jon Branham, Senior Planner Josephine Faraci, Administrative Assistant
II. Approval of Minutes – July 12, 2016
On a motion by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Kocisko the Commission AGREED to approve the minutes from the July 12, 2016 meeting, as submitted.
Vote on the motion as follows:
AYES 6 Chairman Baldi, Commissioners Argionis, Arrigoni, Bennett, Giannetti and Kirby NAYS 0 None ABSTAIN 1 Commissioner Kocisko ABSENT 2 Commissioners Coyle and Zamaites
The motion passed.
III. Development Cases
CITY OF PARK RIDGE
505 BUTLER PLACE PARK RIDGE, IL 60068 TEL: 847-318-5200 FAX: 847-318-5300 TDD: 847-318-5252 www.parkridge.us
M I N U T E S
Minutes for the Planning and Zoning Commission (Cont.)
1. Case Number MA-16-03: Map Amendment from the R-2 Single Family Residential
District to the P Parking District and the B-1 Retail & Office District at 1110 South Courtland Avenue (case continued from June 14, 2016 meeting)
Mr. Branham provided an overview of the application. He explained that this case was continued from the June 14, 2016 meeting. At that meeting, the Commission suggested changing the request for 70 feet of the lot width of the subject property to the Parking District rather than the B-1 Retail and Office District. They stated this could alleviate the concern of commercial development protruding further north into residential areas. The application would then be updated to allow 15 feet of the lot width of the property be changed to the B-1 District and then be included in the proposed development site to the south, while the remainder would be changed to the Parking District.
Commissioner Bennett indicated that two zoning districts could not be assigned to a single parcel. Mr. Branham indicated that an administrative re-subdivision would be a condition of the map amendment approval.
Nick Ftikas of the Law Offices of Sam Banks, 221 N LaSalle Street in Chicago, is the attorney for the co-applicants, Skyline Home Investments, LLC and Park Ridge Community Bank. Mr. Ftikas explained that the plat for subdivision indicates that 70 feet would be allocated to the new parking district and the remaining 15 feet would be absorbed into the existing B1 district at the corner, 600 Talcott Road. He indicated that the applicant met with staff and has amended their previous application. New notices were also circulated.
Chairman Baldi explained the public hearing process and swore in all those who would be testifying.
Mary Ronczy, 1029 Courtland Avenue, stated that she was not clear where the proposal stands. She pointed to the map and asked if a portion of the property will remain residential. Commissioner Baldi explained that it would be zoned for parking, P1. He added that the applicant’s site plans will need to be approved by the Commission as well. Ms. Ronczy asked if there would be a public review for the site plan. Mr. Branham explained that the site plan review is a public meeting and that at that time engineering drawings, as well as storm water management, traffic and parking studies, lightning and environmental standards, will be addressed.
Karen Burke, 1117 Courtland Avenue, stated that the parking lot is a total encroachment into the residential area. In addition, she is concerned with lighting, maintenance of the property, flooding and the safety of children in the area. She was concerned that the additional 15 feet of property allocated to the new development would allow for additional height of the building.
Phyllis Healy, 1113 Courtland Avenue, explained that she is concerned and suspicious as to why the bank needs more parking. She explained that vehicles speed on Courtland Avenue to make the green light. She expressed concerned with the length of the light and the exit from the parking lot onto Courtland Avenue. Ms. Healy believes that there will be a higher probability of accidents.
Mary Ronczy, 1029 Courtland Avenue, commented on the number of years the lot remained vacant. She supports the development of 600 Talcott, however finds that the parking lot is unfair to the neighborhood. She asked the Commission not to approve the parking lot.
Steve Petrowski, 1029 S Prospect Avenue, expressed concerned with the loss of residential space and character of the neighborhood. He is also concerned that the parking lot would allow for additional square footage for the new development at 600 Talcott Road. Mr. Petrowski explained that the additional of the proposed parking lot could change the future of Park Ridge, which he would like to see remain residential in character.
Ladonna Buschman, 1032 Courtland Avenue, is speaking on behalf of herself and her neighbors at 1109 Courtland Avenue. She is concerned that the parking lot will create additional traffic in close proximity to the elementary school.
Pat Livensparger, 413 Courtland Avenue, asked if an administrative subdivision is allowed when the length of the subdivision faces the street. Mr. Branham indicated that it can be reviewed with the City Attorney and would be a condition of the map amendment approval.
Nancy Curtis, 1033 S. Prospect, stated that she has been a resident for 32 years. She has also served as Chair of Safety Commission at Roosevelt School. She stated that Gene Carter, Chairman of Park Ridge Community Bank previously informed neighbors that the residential lot was secured to plow snow to in the winter. Ms. Curtis questioned the new development could not make the building work on the current property. She also expressed concerned with taking away green space from the community.
Gene Carter, Chairman of the Park Ridge Community Bank, addressed why the bank needs additional parking. He indicated that the Bank is growing both in customers and employees and the existing 35 parking spaces are no longer sufficient.
Kevin Buschman, 1032 Courtland Avenue, stated that nothing factual had been presented as to why bank needs additional parking spaces. He commented on trends of banking and questioned if the Bank really needs the additional spaces.
On a motion by Commissioner Arrigoni, seconded by Commissioner Kocisko, the Commission AGREED to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Bennett responded to the public’s concerns regarding curb cut on Courtland Avenue and the parking lot being used traffic cut through. He stated that he would be in support of removing the curb cut at Courtland Avenue during the site plan review. He explained that based on the standards for a map amendment, he could not identify any standard which disqualifies the property. Commissioner Bennet explained that the P1 zoning would limit any future development on the lot. He stated that he supports the map amendment with the necessary conditions.
Commissioner Argionis stated that does not support the map amendment. He compared the request to a previous case on Delphia Avenue. He explained that the map amendment conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Argionis explained that the change would take land away from a residential area and there is no benefit to the City or residents as a whole. He did agree that the additional concerns of the residents would be addressed during the site plan review.
Commissioner Kirby stated that Park Ridge should have more street parking because it helps to controls traffic. He discussed the trend toward fewer cars on the streets.
Commissioner Kocisko agreed with Commissioner Bennett. He stated that the map amendment is an opportunity for to control what is developed on the property.
Commissioner Arrigoni stated that he is still conflicted.
Chairman Baldi stated that he is in favor of the map amendment and disagrees with Commissioner Argionis. He explained that the Comprehensive Plans discusses the transition area between businesses and a residential area. He stated that the open space of the parking lot will provide a nice buffer for the residents from the development at the corner. Chairman Baldi stated that the parking lot will improve traffic rather than exasperate it. He stated that he does understand the residents’ concerns, but the P1 zoning will control curb cuts, density and congestion.
Commissioner Bennett indicated that case on Delphia Avenue was a large scale project with a 40 foot building, whereas this property will not have any building. Chairman Argoinis is still concerned with the potential “residential creep.” He agreed that there should be a buffer between the new development and the residential area, but that it should be within the confines of the property not a boarding residential lot.
Commissioner Kocisko indicated that the property is currently zone R2 and changing the zoning to P1 for a parking lot is a compromise compared to the original request for B1 zoning. He reassured the residents that lighting restrictions and other standards would be addressed during the site plan review.
Commissioner Lou Gennetti stated that he has difficulty converting 15 feet from residential to business.
Chairman Baldi explained that the case would go before the City Council regardless of the vote from the Commission.
On a motion by Commissioner Arrigoni, seconded by Commissioner Kocisko, the Commission AGREED to recommend the approval for the Map Amendment from the R-2 Single Family Residential District to the P Parking District and the B-1 Retail & Office District at 1110 South Courtland Avenue, with the contingencies mentioned, including the administrative subdivision.
Vote on the motion as follows:
AYES 3 Chairman Baldi, Commissioners, Bennet,
Arrigoni NAYS 4 Commissioners Argionis, Kirby, Giannetti, Kocisko ABSTAIN 0 None ABSENT 2 Commissioners Coyle and Zamaites
The motion failed..
2. Case Number TA-16-02: Text Amendments to Section 7.2, Table 2 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow Professional Office as a Special Use in the R-5 District, and Section 10.3 to add standards for Professional Office uses in the R-5 District
Jon Branham provided an overview of the application; the applicant is interested in developing a site located at 16 Prairie Avenue, which currently contains a vacant single family residence. It is currently located in the R-2 Single Family District. It is adjacent to the B-1 Retail and Office District to the north, and is located within the Central Business District.
The applicant is interested in developing a multi-family residential project at the location, but would like to include a limited size professional office on the ground floor. The R-5 District does not currently allow professional offices on the ground floor. The applicant has been unable to work within the provisions of any other applicable zoning district, and is therefore requesting the text amendments. If the text amendments are approved, a map amendment to change the zoning of the property to the R-5 District and special use / site plan review application would be required to be submitted for review. The applicant submitted a statement summarizing how the project would satisfy the required findings of fact for text amendments contained in Section 4.8.E, Table The applicant proposes that Section 7.2, Table 2 be amended to allow a “Professional Office” as a special use in the R-5 District The applicant is also proposing adding language to Section 10.3 in order to include standards for professional offices located with the R-5 District. Those changes would be as follows: For professional offices located within the R-5 District, the following criteria must apply:
1. The office must be located on the ground floor and must occupy a street facing façade. 2. The office must occupy 950 square feet of the ground floor or less. 3. Parking requirements for offices in the R-5 District are exempt. 4. Bulk requirements, including minimum lot width and lot area requirements for any professional offices located within a multi-family residential building shall defer to requirements for multi-family residential buildings.
Chairman Baldi inquired about what could be built on this lot if the zoning did not change. Mr. Branham indicated that it is zoned R2 single family. Chairman Baldi stated that R5 allows for high density multifamily and asked how it would fit with a B1 application. Jon Branham indicated that the applicant was not interested because it is greater density and the ground floor requires 75% commercial use.
Commissioner Bennett asked if the applicant’s plans fit in any of the City’s B-District zoning. Mr. Branham indicated that he and the applicant looked at the possibilities and R5 was the best fit because of the allowable density and limited office use.
David Cook, the applicant, resides at 1204 Potter Road. The subject property is 16 Prairie Avenue. A single family home is currently built on the property, which is directly across the street from the Farmers Market site. Mr. Cook is proposing a mixed use building, with a small office and parking on the ground floor.
Commissioner Bennett asked units were proposed for the new development. Mr. Cook responded that the he would be proposing four residential units and 1 ground floor office.
Chairman Baldi opened discussion to the public.
Missy Langan, 1024 Canfield Road, expressed her concerned with changing the zoning from R2 to R5; she feels that it is a considerable request. She asked if the 950 square foot front office was a building standard or a request from the applicant. She is concerned with just satisfying the applicant needs rather than the City as a whole.
Pat Livensparger, 413 Courtland, questioned the first floor use. Chairman Baldi explained that the applicant’s request is for 950 square feet of office space on the ground floor, enclosed parking for the residents and four residential units. Ms. Livensparger stated that the City does not have any parcels currently zoned R5. She does not support changing the R5 zoning regulations to accommodate a single applicant.
Mr. Cook explained that the subject property is a challenging parcel. He indicated that within the Comprehensive Plan the subject property would be compatible with a mixed use development. He explained that he is open to any suggestions from the Commission. Mr. Cook stated that the ground floor of the development is not a desirable living area, which is the reason for proposing a ground floor office.
Commissioner Argionis explained that the Commission recently reworked the B1 zoning requirements to address the amount of commercial space on the ground floor and the number of dwelling units above. He stated that within a R5 zone, office space can be permitted on the ground floor it is not required to be.
Commissioner Bennett reminded the Commissioners that the application is a text amendment for the R5 zoning to allow for office space and should not be considering the proposed development.
Commissioner Argionis suggested that the B1 or B4 districts be considered to accomplish the applicant’s needs. He stated that though he likes the idea of mixed use, he is struggles with having it “shoe horned” as an R5.
Mr. Cook reiterated that he is looking for guidance and explained how he and Mr. Branham decided to propose the text amendment to the R5.
Commissioner Bennett mentioned that there are districts defined in the Zoning Ordinance that would meet the applicant’s use. He was concerned that adding office space as a special use in a residential district would send the wrong message. He is open to working with the applicant, however, does not support the proposed map amendment.
Commissioner Kirby explained that he is in support of the ground floor office with residential above and acknowledged the difficulty that the B1 zoning presented as it would require more ground floor business use. He feared that the Commission was restricting development.
Commissioner Bennet reminded Commissioner Kirby that the Commission is to review the map amendment, not the proposed development. He explained that the Zoning Ordinance has defined districts that allow for this type of mixed use developments.
Chairman Baldi explained that the R5 zoning with a ground floor office seems to fit for the subject property but not throughout the City as a whole. Commissioner Bennet stated that office or business use does not fit within a residential district.
Mr. Branham explained that R5 is only allowed in the central business district.
Commissioner Argionis described the text amendment as “spot zoning.” It would modify the standards for the R5 district to fit the needs of a single parcel. He encouraged the applicant to consider the B1 or B4 districts.
Chairman Baldi expressed that same concern. He explained that the R5 district is best fitted for larger, multi-family developments.
Commissioner Bennett read the standards for text amendments and found that the applicant does not comply.
Jon Branham clarified that the Comprehensive Plan would differ for the Uptown District which does recommend for a mix of residential and commercial development.
Commissioner Kirby stated that he does find the proposed text amendment to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Bennett read the definition of the R5 residential zoning district.
Commissioner Argionis stated that the text amendment to the R5 district could cause a problem for the City as a whole. Although, the mixed use development is a good idea, he explained that it can be accomplished within the standards of a B1 or B4.
Chairman Baldi agreed with Commissioner Argionis. It is not the correct way to go. He doesn’t want to box the applicant in with a denial.
The Commissioner discussed the next steps for the applicant. It was suggested that the applicant develop his project within the standards of the B1 or B4 districts and go before the Zoning Board of Appeals with any necessary variances.
Mr. Cook withdrew his application for the text amendment.
IV. City Council Liaison Report
V. Other Items for Discussion
VI. Citizens Wishing to be Heard on Non-Agenda Items
VII. Adjournment
On a motion by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Arrigoni, the Commission agreed to adjourn the meeting.
Vote on the motion as follows:
AYES 7 Chairman Baldi, Commissioners Argionis, Arrigoni, Bennet,
Giannetti, Kirby and Kocisko NAYS 0 None ABSTAIN 0 None ABSENT 2 Commissioners Coyle and Zamaites
The motion passed.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm
These minutes are not a verbatim record of the meeting but a summary of the proceedings.
Alerts Sign-up