PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION. Administrative Session Tuesday, July 12, 2011 City Hall, City Council Chambers 505 Butler Place Park Ridge, Illinois

Transcription

1 CITY OF PARK RIDGE 505 BUTLER PLACE PARK RIDGE, IL TEL: 847/ FAX: 847/ TDD:847/ URL: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Administrative Session Tuesday, July 12, 2011 City Hall, City Council Chambers 505 Butler Place Park Ridge, Illinois DRAFT COPY NOT FOR PUBLICATION M I N U T E S Chairman Marr called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. A. Roll Call Present Alfredo Marr (Chairman) Aurora Abella-Austriaco Joe Baldi John Bennett Mary Catherine Wells Absent Louis Arrigoni Anita Rifkind Staff Jon Branham Kathie Henn, City Attorney Laura Kleiner Sarah Mitchell, City Engineer City Council Alderman Tom Bernick, Council Liaison Alderman Joe Sweeney Alderman Sal Raspanti Others Approximately 40 citizens B. Approval of Minutes June 14, 2011 It was moved by Commissioner Abella-Austriaco and seconded by Commissioner Baldi that the minutes of the meeting held on June 14, 2011, be approved as submitted. The Commissioners, by voice vote, unanimously approved the submitted minutes. Commissioner Rifkind was not present at the meeting, nor at the previous meeting, due to a conflict of interest with the development cases. OUR MISSION: THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDING EXCELLENCE IN CITY SERVICES IN ORDER TO UPHOLD A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE, SO OUR COMMUNITY REMAINS A WONDERFUL PLACE TO LIVE AND WORK.

2 C. Development Cases Case Numbers SP-11-02, SP-11-03, SP-11-04: Site Plan Review for Community Residences at 804, 808, and 812 North Washington Avenue Jon Branham summarized the staff report dated July 12, He stated that Mark Elliott, applicant, requests site plan reviews to construct three new community residences at 804, 808, and 812 North Washington Avenue. This case was continued from the June 14, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. At the June 14, 2011 meeting, the Commission discussed whether the proposal consisted of one community residence with three separate buildings or whether three separate community residences were being proposed. The idea that this could potentially be one campus operated by the same operator was also discussed. It was stated that the fact that there are three separate buildings on three separate zoning lots means that the proposal, as presented, is for three separate community residences. Although they are being proposed together, they are treated as three separate community residences. Because the three separate community residences would be within 1,000 feet of each other, the Planning and Zoning Commission must make the findings required by Section 10.3.B in order to approve the site plans. Mr. Branham noted that any decision by the Commission would be reviewed by the City Council. Commissioner Bennett questioned Mr. Branham if there were any houses this large in Park Ridge and the parking requirements. Mr. Branham responded that he could not confirm any eight bedroom/eight bathroom houses which exist in Park Ridge. He also explained that the parking requirements consist of.25 spaces per bedroom, plus one space per every two employees. City Attorney, Kathie Henn, stated that they had no confirmation from the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) as to how these residences would be classified. The applicant reported to City Attorney Everett Hill that he had met with the State of Illinois and proposed classifying the uses as a shared housing facilities, which is closest to the City s community residence classification. If this case is approved, two additional conditions need to be added: 1. The State must determine the proposed use to be shared housing, and the residences must be licensed as such. 2. The State regulations are vague as to the staffing requirements for shared housing and the parking requirements must be adjusted once the staffing requirements are determined. Ms. Henn stated that this case is progressing based on one staff being on the premises, but if the State determines that two staff members are required, parking requirements will have to be adjusted. Bernard Citron, attorney representing the applicant, explained that the shared housing establishment differs from assisted living in that it functions as a home and does not provide medical care. The residents have functional disabilities and licensure by the State is required. The licensure requires residents to be over 55 years of age, and provide no medical care, so other types of facilities would not be allowed at this location. He stated that the applicant was agreeable to adding a parking space to the larger residence as required. He suggested that there would be less parking impact than in a home with teenagers. He stated that there would be no external impact. Commissioner Baldi stated that the proposal was for three residences, which did not meet the 1,000- foot rule. He stated that this would change the residential character of the neighborhood. 2

3 Commissioner Bennett stated that this was a for profit, commercial enterprise. Mr. Citron stated that this would not be evident to anyone in the operations of this residence. Chairman Marr noted that at the last meeting the applicant was asked to meet with the neighbors to better explain the proposal and asked if this had been done. Mr. Elliott replied that the information was given at the meeting in June and meeting with the neighbors would add nothing new. Mr. Marr added that the applicant had missed an opportunity to create good will through this gesture. Mr. Citron stated that the difference between shared housing designation and assisted living is that no medical help would be provided and each bedroom would not have kitchen facilities, but would share a kitchen area. He noted that the State statute allows restriction to 55 years of age and older in shared housing residences. Commissioner Bennett asked if the applicant would accept approval of only one residence. Mr. Elliott responded that he would prefer approval of all three residences. Alderman Sweeney stated that the three individual residences violate the 1,000-foot rule in the Zoning Ordinance. He requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the site plan. Pat Livingsparger, 413 Courtland Avenue, stated that allowing the three residences in the same proximity would be a disservice to the City. She also questioned if the residents of these properties would be allowed to use Medicare to pay. Mr. Elliott responded that public aid would not be accepted. Missy Langan, 1924 Canfield Road, questioned the entryway protrusion in the elevation drawings and if the garage met the five-foot setback as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Langan added that the proposed residences would have a negative impact on the community. Judy Barclay, 524 Courtland Avenue, stated that the parking requirements should round up to one parking space for employees. She questioned how the required spaces were calculated. Jim Schaeffer, 750 North Washington Avenue, stated that the property was originally acquired at top of the market prices and now the market has dropped. The City should not be sympathetic to the owner for this reason. Ellen Paloian, 809 Elmore Street, stated that this was a good idea, but in the wrong location. She was concerned that there would be subsidized housing in this location. Kathleen Walsh, 873 North Merrill Street, stated that the proposed use violates the Zoning Ordinance. She also questioned how the issue of infection would be handled in these residences. She stated that testing for the Mersa virus should be added to any conditions. Jack Owens stated that he disagreed with the community residence classification for this property. He noted that according to an American Planning Association publication, community residences should be scattered throughout a city and not concentrated or clustered in one location, which was the reason for the 1,000-foot rule. He noted that the Avenues to Independence facility was denied 15 years ago because the original proposal had residences that were too close to each other. John Moran, 704 Overhill Avenue, stated that his family had instituted a rotation of family members who stayed with his grandmother, who resided in an assisted living facility. He suggested that the 3

4 additional visitors to the residents would give the appearance of a commercial business in this residential neighborhood. Steve Bosy, 362 W. Edgemont Lane, stated that the group-type home would change the neighborhood. Carol Kazuk-Paddock, 355 Edgemont Lane, expressed her concern with additional traffic in this area. Lori Diversey, 758 Elmore Street, challenged Mr. Elliot s intent and questioned why he did not meet with the neighbors. She requested that if this case were to be continued, to do so in October. Alderman Bernick stated that he was inclined to deny this proposal because it did not comply with the 1,000 foot rule. Mark Elliott stated that the plan he has proposed has changed and that some of the testimony has taken some of his statements out of context. The reason that 55 years of age has been set as the determining factor is because that is the age the State uses to determine who would qualify to live in this type of residence. Mr. Elliott noted that the proposed operator of the residences has experience in operating facilities of this type. Chairman Marr asked if the Youth Campus was considered a community residence. Kathie Henn responded that it was not considered a community residence. It is considered an educational facility and has its own zoning district. It would have no impact to the 1,000-foot rule. The Commissioners discussed the proposal and most believed that the most significant issue was that these residences would not comply with the 1,000-foot rule and they would be an undue burden on the neighborhood. The use of community residences for this type of operation was a good idea to help people in the community, however this was not a good location for three such residences and they would have a cumulative negative impact on the area. Kathie Henn requested that when voting on these cases, the Commission should add the condition that they would be licensed by the State as a shared housing facility. The Commissioners determined that the cases should be voted on individually. Mr. Elliott requested that if only one residence were going to be approved, to start with 812 North Washington. On a motion by Commissioner Baldi, seconded by Commissioner Wells, the Commission AGREED to recommend approval by City Council for the Site Plan Review for a Community Residences at 812 North Washington Avenue, Zoning Case SP subject to: 1. Confirmation by the City Attorney that the proposed uses are community residences prior to any permit issuance. 2. Confirming that all Zoning Ordinance requirements are met, specifically with regard to Section 10.3.B. outlining all community residence requirements, including meeting all state, federal and licensing requirements; all bulk requirements are met with regard to Section 7; all parking requirements are met with regard to Section 12; all landscaping and screening requirements are met, with regard to Section 13; and also that any proposed signs must comply with Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4

5 3. The applicant must satisfy all City Engineer comments and requirements, as well as any comments that may be offered by the City Forester. 4. The residence must not be located within 1,000 feet of another community residence. 5. The State must determine the proposed use to be shared housing, and the residence must be licensed as such. 6. The parking requirements must be adjusted once the State determines the staffing requirements. AYES 5 Commissioners Abella-Austriaco, Baldi, Bennett, Marr, and Wells NAYES 0_None ABSENT 2_ Commissioners Arrigoni and Rifkind The motion was approved. On a motion by Commissioner Baldi, seconded by Commissioner Abella-Austriaco, the Commission AGREED to recommend approval by City Council for the Site Plan Review for a Community Residences at 808 North Washington Avenue, Zoning Case SP subject to: 1. Confirmation by the City Attorney that the proposed uses are community residences prior to any permit issuance. 2. Confirming that all Zoning Ordinance requirements are met, specifically with regard to Section 10.3.B. outlining all community residence requirements, including meeting all state, federal and licensing requirements; all bulk requirements are met with regard to Section 7; all parking requirements are met with regard to Section 12; all landscaping and screening requirements are met, with regard to Section 13; and also that any proposed signs must comply with Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The applicant must satisfy all City Engineer comments and requirements, as well as any comments that may be offered by the City Forester. 4. The residence must not be located within 1,000 feet of another community residence. 5. The addition of a two car garage to comply with the Zoning requirements. 6. The State must determine the proposed use to be shared housing, and the residence must be licensed as such. 7. The parking requirements must be adjusted once the State determines the staffing requirements. AYES 0 None NAYES 5_Commissioners Abella-Austriaco, Baldi, Bennett, Marr, and Wells ABSENT 2_ Commissioners Arrigoni and Rifkind The motion was denied. 5

6 On a motion by Commissioner Abella-Austriaco, seconded by Commissioner Baldi, the Commission AGREED to recommend approval by City Council for the Site Plan Review for a Community Residences at 804 North Washington Avenue, Zoning Case SP subject to: 1. Confirmation by the City Attorney that the proposed uses are community residences prior to any permit issuance. 2. Confirming that all Zoning Ordinance requirements are met, specifically with regard to Section 10.3.B. outlining all community residence requirements, including meeting all state, federal and licensing requirements; all bulk requirements are met with regard to Section 7; all parking requirements are met with regard to Section 12; all landscaping and screening requirements are met, with regard to Section 13; and also that any proposed signs must comply with Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The applicant must satisfy all City Engineer comments and requirements, as well as any comments that may be offered by the City Forester. 4. The residence must not be located within 1,000 feet of another community residence. 5. The State must determine the proposed use to be shared housing, and they residence must be licensed as such. 6. The parking requirements must be adjusted once the State determines the staffing requirements. AYES 0 None NAYES 5_Commissioners Abella-Austriaco, Baldi, Bennett, Marr, and Wells ABSENT 2_ Commissioners Arrigoni and Rifkind The motion was denied. D. Other Items for Discussion E. Citizens Wishing to be Heard on Non-Agenda Items F. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Alfredo Marr, Chairman _ Date approved These minutes are not a verbatim record of the meeting but a summary of the proceedings. 6

7 BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Park Ridge, Illinois In the Matter of ) ) Case No. SP North Washington ) F I N D I N G S O F F A C T This matter having come before the Commission on the request of Mark Elliott Corporation, for a site plan review for a community residence in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 812 North Washington Avenue ( 812 Facility ). The Commission having held meetings on June 14, 2011 and July 12, 2011, as required by law, and having heard evidence on the matter, based on the evidence presented, as reflected in the minutes of these proceedings, and for the reasons indicated in the minutes of this Commission in this case. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the following facts have been established: 1. The proposed site plan will provide housing for six (6) unrelated persons with functional disabilities requiring limited assistance at the 812 Facility. The 812 Facility is well designed and would provide adequate parking for its use. Therefore, the location, design and operation of the 812 Facility will not alter the residential character of the neighborhood. 2. The residents of the 812 Facility will each occupy a single bedroom with washroom facility and share common eating and living areas. At least one staff member will be on site at all times. The design of the 812 Facility has been approved by the Appearance Commission and is compatible with the surrounding residences. Therefore, the 812 Facility has a residential character which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The 812 Facility will be staffed by at least one staff member at all times. The parking on-site and off-site is sufficient for one community residence in this area. Therefore, the operation of the 812 Facility will not adversely impact surrounding properties. 4. This residence is the only community residence recommended for approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for this location and, as such, no other community residence is located within 1,000 feet of this location. Therefore, no other community residence will be located within one-thousand (1,000) feet of this community residence. 7

8 Therefore, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the site plan review for 812 North Washington Avenue on the terms and conditions set forth in the meeting minutes of July 12, Date Approved Alfredo Marr, Chairman 8

9 BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Park Ridge, Illinois In the Matter of ) ) Case No. SP North Washington ) F I N D I N G S O F F A C T This matter having come before the Commission on the request of Mark Elliott Corporation, for a site plan review for a community residence in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 808 North Washington Avenue ( 808 Facility ). The Commission having held meetings on June 14, 2011 and July 12, 2011, as required by law, and having heard evidence on the matter, based on the evidence presented, as reflected in the minutes of these proceedings, and for the reasons indicated in the minutes of this Commission in this case. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the following facts have been established: 1. The proposed site plan would provide housing for eight (8) unrelated persons with functional disabilities requiring limited assistance at the 808 Facility. The residence is well designed. However, the parking and traffic generated by having two community residences located next door to each other will alter the residential character of the neighborhood. A community residence at 812 N. Washington Avenue has been recommended for approval and it is within 1,000 feet of this property ( 812 Facility ). In addition, the applicant has sought approval for a third community residence at 804 N. Washington Avenue. Together, the three community residences would house up to 20 unrelated persons on three lots, located within 200 feet of each other. Therefore, the location, design and operation of the 808 Facility will alter the residential character of the neighborhood. 2. The residents will each occupy a single bedroom with washroom facility and share common eating and living areas. At least one staff member will be on site at all times. However, another community residence at the adjacent property at 812 N. Washington Avenue has been recommended for approval. Therefore, the 808 Facility will not be of a residential character which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. This is due to the cumulative effect of two community residences, housing up to 14 people being next door to each other. 3. The proximity to another community residence, located at 812 N. Washington Avenue, will increase traffic and parking needs through its cumulative effect. Therefore, the operation of the 808 Facility would adversely impact surrounding properties. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval for a community residence at 812 N. Washington Avenue, which is next door to this location. 9

10 Therefore, based on the foregoing findings, no community residence will be permitted to be located within one-thousand (1,000) feet of the 812 Facility. Therefore, the Commission recommends that the City Council deny the implementation of the site plan with regard to 808 North Washington Avenue. Date Approved Alfredo Marr, Chairman 10

11 BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Park Ridge, Illinois In the Matter of ) ) Case No. SP North Washington ) F I N D I N G S O F F A C T This matter having come before the Commission on the request of Mark Elliott Corporation, for a site plan review for a community residence in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 804 North Washington Avenue ( 804 Facility ). The Commission having held meetings on June 14, 2011 and July 12, 2011, as required by law, and having heard evidence on the matter, based on the evidence presented, as reflected in the minutes of these proceedings, and for the reasons indicated in the minutes of this Commission in this case. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the following facts have been established: 1. The proposed site plan would provide housing for six (6) unrelated persons with functional disabilities requiring limited assistance at the 804 Facility. The residence is well designed. However, the parking and traffic generated by having another community residence located within seventy-five feet (75 ) will alter the residential character of the neighborhood. A community residence at 812 N. Washington Avenue has been recommended for approval and it is within 1,000 feet of this property ( 812 Facility ). In addition, the applicant has sought approval for a third community residence at 808 N. Washington Avenue. All three community residences would house up to 20 unrelated persons on three lots, located within 200 feet of each other. Therefore, the location, design and operation of the 804 facility will alter the residential character of the neighborhood. 2. The residents will each occupy a single bedroom with washroom facility and share common eating and living areas. At least one staff member will be on site at all times. However, another community residence in the same area at 812 N. Washington Avenue has been recommended for approval. Therefore, the 804 Facility will not be of a residential character which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. This is due to the cumulative effect of two community residences, housing up to 12 people, located within seventy-five feet (75 ) of each other. 3. The proximity to another community residence, located at 812 N. Washington Avenue, will increase traffic and parking needs through its cumulative effect. Therefore, the operation of the facility would adversely impact surrounding properties. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval for a community residence at 812 N. Washington Avenue, which is within seventy-five feet (75 ) of this location. 11

12 Therefore, no community residence shall be located within one-thousand (1,000) feet of this community residence. Therefore, the Commission recommends that the City Council deny the implementation of the site plan with regard to 804 North Washington Avenue. Date Approved Alfredo Marr, Chairman 12