Plat and Subdivision Committee

Village of Arlington Heights Plat and Subdivision Committee Community Room, 3rd Floor Arlington Heights Village Hall 33 S. Arlington Heights Road Arlington Heights, IL 60005 June 14, 2017 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MLHFitness & Wellness - 4/12/17 B. Urban Air - 4/12/17 C. Chestnut Ave. Subdivision - 4/12/17 D. Napleton/Arlington Lanes Parking Lot - 5/10/17 E. Toy Shop & Motolounge - 5/10/17 IV. REPORTS V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Hickory Apartments - 6 N. Hickory Ave. - T1600 Planned Unit Development, Plat of Subdivision, Variations VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII.ADJOURNMENT Persons with disabilities requiring auxiliary aids or services, such as an American Sign Language interpreter or written materials in accessible formats, should contact David Robb, Disability Services Coordinator, at 33 S. Arlington Heights Road, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005, (847)368-5793 (Voice), (847)368-5980 (Fax) or drobb@vah.com. Item: MLH Fitness & Wellness - 4/12/17 Department: Planning & Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Description Type MLH Fitness & Wellness - 4/12/17 Minutes  MLH FITNESS - TEMP FILE 1569 REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE OF THE VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS PLAN COMMISSION HELD AT VILLAGE HALL ON: April 12, 2017 Project Title: MLH Fitness SUP Address: 26 E. Northwest Highway Petitioner: Marcos Lushpynskyj 708 Church St Evanston, IL 60201 Requested Action:  A Special Use Permit to allow a Physical Rehabilitation Center Variations Required:  None. Attendees: Marcos Lushpynskyj – Petitioner Bruce Green, Plan Commissioner Lynn Jensen, Plan Commissioner John Sigalos, Plan Commissioner Sam Hubbard, Development Planner Project Summary: The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Evergreen Avenue and Northwest Highway in Downtown Arlington Heights, and is occupied by a multi-tenant two-story building. The first floor of the building contains three units, one occupied by Around Café, the other by Queen Nails, and the third unit is currently vacant (the subject unit). The second floor of the subject property is occupied by professional offices. The property is approximately 2,150 square feet in area and contains no on-site parking, although street parking is available along Northwest Highway and Evergreen Avenue and there is public parking within the Hancock Square surface parking lot and the North Garage within one block of the site. The subject property is located within the B-5, Downtown Zoning District. The applicant is proposing to lease the approximately 500 square foot vacant unit within the subject property in order to establish MLH Fitness & Wellness within Arlington Heights. The applicant is the sole owner of MLH Fitness & Wellness, which offers personal training, physical rehabilitation, wellness and nutrition counselling, massage therapy, and Reiki healing. There would be a maximum of one employee at the location during peak shift, and clientele would be scheduled primarily by appointment only. Appointments would be available from 6:30am to 9:00pm Monday through Friday, and 8:00am through 4:00pm on Saturdays. Except in the instance of a special appointment, the business would be closed on Sundays. Meeting Discussion: Mr. Lushpynskyj explained that he was a holistic health practitioner that specialized in rehab, training, clinical orthopedic body work, reiki, and nutrition and wanted to open a small space in Arlington Heights where he would bring his clients for training and therapy work. Currently, he travels across the Chicagoland area to work with his clients and he was excited to have a space where they could come for his services instead of having to travel to them. Mr. Hubbard explained that the property is located at the northwest corner of Evergreen Avenue and Northwest Highway and is within the B-5 “Downtown” zoning district. Based on the way that the applicant had described the use J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1589 - MLH Fitness and Wellness SUP\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx  MLH FITNESS - TEMP FILE 1569 to staff, it was determined that the proposed use fit within the “physical rehabilitation center”, which was a Special Use within the B-5 District. Similar to all Special Use Permit applications, the petitioner would be required to provide staff with a written response to the standards for Special Use Permit approval. One the standards of approval is that the use is necessary for the public convenience, and the way that most people demonstrate this is through a market study. He did not think a formal market study was needed in this instance, so he recommended that the application instead provide an abbreviated statement outlining the clients that he currently works with in the community, which would show that there is demand for this type of facility in this location. Mr. Hubbard stated that there was no space for landscaping on the subject property and therefore staff did not have any concerns in this regard. The applicant was not proposing any interior alterations to the unit and would essentially use the space “as is”. The Staff Development Committee had reviewed the proposal and mentioned that the Illinois Plumbing Code may require a hand sink within the unit, so that was something that he wanted the applicant to be aware of. A legal description for the property would be required, which is usually shown on a Plat of Survey, however, neither the landlord, the applicant, or the Village had a copy of the Plat of Survey. Mr. Lushpynskyj explained that, according to the landlord, there have been other tenants that have gone through an approval process with the Village and that the Village should have a copy of the Plat of Survey. Mr. Hubbard said that he had checked the Village records and found a copy of a Plat of Survey, however, the copy was on Microfiche and was mostly illegible and the legal description could not be read from the document. A legal description was needed for the public hearing notice as well as the approval Ordinance that would grant any Special Use Permit for the property. He said that a brand new survey was not necessary, but that a legal description for the property would be needed. Potentially, a legal description could be obtained from the deed for the property, but that would be something that the landlord would need to investigate. He noted that the applicant would be providing some massage therapy, but that this massage therapy was only allowed in conjunction with physical therapy use as being the primary use on the site, and that it was not allowed as the sole use on the property. Mr. Hubbard explained that per code requirements, one parking space was required for the proposed use, and that staff did not have concerns relative to parking or traffic. Because the site did not provide any on-site parking, in order to fulfil the parking obligations, the petitioner would be required to purchase parking for passes from the Village to park in one of the Village owned garages, which permits would be at a discounted rate. He concluded that staff was supportive of the application. Commissioner Jensen asked if customers would be private pay or if payment would be made through an insurance company. Mr. Lushpynskyj replied that right now all of his clients were private pay. Commissioner Jensen asked how he would approach the market study. Mr. Lushpynskyj responded that most of the referrals that he received were from a doctor within Arlington Heights, and that most of these clients had been involved in a car accident or had a neck, head, shoulder, or lower back pain. Commissioner Jensen asked if this doctor was an “MD” and if she was the only one that gave him referrals. Mr. Lushpynskyj responded that she was a “MD” and that he gets referrals from other clients, word of mouth, and a chiropractor located in Evanston. Commissioner Jensen asked what the Village was requiring for a market study. Mr. Hubbard responded that if the petitioner had clients already within the area, then if he could provide a summary of how many clients he already had in the area that he anticipated would use the facility, as well as future plans for J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1589 - MLH Fitness and Wellness SUP\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx  MLH FITNESS - TEMP FILE 1569 growth, then a brief statement outlining these things would satisfy any concerns that he would have. Commissioner Jensen said that if the landlord had come in before for a Special Use, then shouldn’t she have provided a Plat of Survey before, and shouldn’t the Village just approach her and ask for a copy of the Plat of Survey? Mr. Hubbard responded that he had checked the Planning Department records and had not found any previous special use permit for this address, or any address in the building. There is a café next door that went through the Special Use Permit waiver process, which was the reason that they had the Plat of Survey with the illegible legal description. He said that if the petitioner wanted to put him in contact with the landlord, he was happy to try and find a way to obtain a legal description. Commissioner Jensen asked how long the property had been vacant. Mr. Lushpynskyj responded that he thought it had only been vacant for a couple of months. Mr. Lushpynskyj described some of the general theory behind his approach towards training and therapy, and explained why so many people could benefit from it due to the stationary lifestyle of working from a desk or chair. Commissioner Sigalos said he thought that a hand sink would be required due to the massage and physical therapy nature of the use. Mr. Lushpynskyj said that there was a bathroom in the unit that had a sink, and he hoped that this could satisfy the hand sink requirement. Commissioner Sigalos recommended a call to the building department to see if the sink had a actually be right in the area of the physical therapy, or whether a hand sink in the bathroom would suffice. He asked if there would be any employees. Mr. Lushpynskyj replied that he would be the only employee but that if the business grew, he may need to hire some employees. Commissioner Sigalos said that he thought it was a good fit, especially being right next to the fitness center next door. Commissioner Green said that he thought it was a great use and encouraged the petitioner to move forward. the feedback was positive and encouraged the petitioner to move foward. RECOMMENDATION The Plat & Subdivision Committee was supportive of the proposal and advised that the petitioner should move forward. Bruce Green, Chair PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Sam Hubbard, Recorder J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1589 - MLH Fitness and Wellness SUP\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx Item: Urban Air - 4/12/17 Department: Planning & Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Urban Air - 4/12/17 Minutes REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE OF THE VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS PLAN COMMISSION HELD AT VILLAGE HALL ON: April 12, 2017 Project Title: Urban Air SUP Address: 750 N. Rand Rd. Petitioner: Peter Bazos 1250 Larkin Ave – Suite 100 Elgin, IL 60123 Requested Action:  A Special Use Permit to allow a “Large Amusement Arcade” Variations Required:  None identified at this time. Attendees: Peter Bazos – Petitioner Michael Browning, Urban Air Bruce Green, Plan Commissioner Lynn Jensen, Plan Commissioner John Sigalos, Plan Commissioner Sam Hubbard, Development Planner Project Summary: The subject property is part of the Southpoint Shopping center, an approximately 27 acre shopping center development located at the southeast intersection of Rand Road and Palatine Road. The 100,250 square foot subject unit is currently on the market and occupied by Bif Furniture, which would close once a buyer has been identified for the site. Primary access to the property comes from a full access drive aisle (non-lighted) at Palatine Road to the north, a full access stop light controlled drive aisle at Rand Road to the west, and a full access non-lighted drive aisle at Jane Avenue to the south, which eventually leads to another stop light controlled full access intersection with Rand Road. The petitioner is David P. Frayer and Kendal L. Frayer Revocable Trust, who has expressed an interest in purchasing the property and leasing it to Urban Air, a family entertainment company based out of Texas. Urban Air has multiple locations across the nation and provides a wide mix of activities at their facilities, which include the following:  Trampoline Park  Ninja Course  Dodgeball Court  Indoor Sky Diving  Zip Line  Go Karts  Black-light Laser Tag  Foam Ball Pit  Children’s Jungle Gym  Black-light Bowling  Ropes Course  Climbing Wall  Black-light Miniature Golf  Basketball Court The proposed facility would include a mix of the above activities, as well as a cafeteria area that would serve food and non- alcoholic beverages, as well a small concession stand for merchandise related to their brand. Hours of operation would be between 10am and 11pm and Urban Air estimates that there would be around 70 part time employees working out of this location. Urban Air has recently received zoning approval to open an approximately 95,000 square foot location in Elgin and an approximately 35,000 square foot location in Crystal Lake. Both facilities are estimate to be open by fall of this year. Meeting Discussion: Mr. Bazos introduced himself as the attorney for the project and said his client was the Frayer Family, who had the subject property under contract, and he described the property as an approximately 100,000 square foot building within the Southpoint Shopping Center. His client was interested in leasing the property to Urban Air, which was a trampoline park operator. He stated that Elgin approved a similar facility back in December of 2016 in an approximately 95,000 square foot  URBAN AIR SUP - TEMP FILE 1591 space, and he said that the project was well received in Elgin due to the family oriented nature of the facility. He stated that there would not be any major changes to the site or exterior of the building; most of the changes would be to the interior of the space in order to build it out to accommodate Urban Air. He stated that although the narrative stated that the proposed facility would serve food and no alcohol, they were reconsidering on the alcohol aspect as they may be interested in selling beer and wine, similar to some of the other Urban Air locations around the United States. Mr. Browning said that he started the company six years ago in Dallas and has helped to grow the company to where they now have Urban Air facilities in 46 locations across the United States. Originally it started as just a trampoline park, but as they grew they realized that they wanted to provide entertainment/recreational options to all members of a family, not just the ones that wanted to use a trampoline. He said their customers where the Mom’s an Dad’s, and their users were the children. Mom didn’t want to take the family there if the facility wasn’t safe and clean, and Dad didn’t want to take the family there if he couldn’t relax and have a beer and grab something to eat and watch the Bears or Cubs game. So their business model expanded to include a host of activities that catered to all members within the family. As they only offered trampolines in the beginning, and now offer things like indoor go-carts and indoor skydiving, the business became an indoor entertainment/recreation destination for the entire family. The proposed facility in Arlington Heights would have laser tag, mini-golf, zip line, and rock climbing. He said that 77% of their customers were twelve and under in age. Mr. Browning described the demographics within a twelve minute drive of the proposed facility and concluded that the data showed that the community would be able to support the proposed use in this location. Furthermore, the community had a good amount of young families will young children, which was growing at around 10%, illustrating that not only could the facility be supported today, but that the supply of users would continue to exist into the future. Mr. Bazos said that he understood that the Village Code required a traffic study, and so they would provide one within their application. He asked about what the Plan Commissioners wanted to see in a market study, and inquired as to whether the data provided this evening was the type of thing that the Plan Commissioners were looking for. He said that Mr. Browning has already done a detailed market analysis on the area to determine that this would be a good location for Urban Air, and the was hoping not to have to commission an independent market study for the application. Mr. Hubbard said that the property was zoned “B-3”, and based on the description of the use, the facility was classified by the Zoning Code as a “Large Amusement Arcade”, which was a Special use within the B-3 District. Therefore, the petitioner would be required to provide a written response to the three criteria for Special Use Permit approval. One of these criteria was that the use was necessary for the public convenience at the proposed location, and in order to demonstrate this, most applicants provided a market study illustrating that there was demand for the particular use at the particular location where it was proposed. Therefore, there was no specific requirement for an independent market study, and he thought that the commissioners this evening would give feedback as to whether the data and analysis provided by Mr. Browning this evening was what they would be looking for in the application, or if a separate market study would be recommended. Mr. Hubbard stated that the use was compliant with the Comprehensive Plan, which designated the subject property as suitable for commercial uses. The subject property was also within a TIF District, and the proposed use would help bring traffic into the TIF District, which would further incentivize the redevelopment of some of the underutilized property within the TIF. He encouraged the petitioner to reach out to the Building Department to determine what building upgrades may be needed as the current use was classified as “mercantile” and the proposed facility would be classified as an “assembly” use, which would require the property to be brought up to current code requirements. He said that a site plan had recently been received for the property, so that obligation had been met. As part of the Plan Commission process, upgrades to site landscaping and the parking lot may be required. Additionally, a fully dimensioned floor plan would be required during the Plan Commission process, and the areas where different uses where taking place should be clearly labeled with the size of those spaces included on the floor plan, especially for the food and associated seating area, as parking requirements were based on the size of the seating area. Parking requirements would be based on the total of all users within the shopping center and the new Urban Air use would be factored into this calculation, so it was unknown if the shopping center had enough parking to accommodate the proposed use at this time, although it was likely that it did since a large surplus of parking existed within the Southpoint Shopping Center as per an analysis that staff completed about one year ago. J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1591 - 750 N Rand Rd - Urban Air SUP\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx  URBAN AIR SUP - TEMP FILE 1591 Mr. Hubbard mentioned that traffic and parking study would be required, which study should include parking counts at some of the other Urban Air facilities around the county, which would allow staff to determine the typical demand that could be expected from the proposed use. He said that he thought it was a great use for this location and that it would bring some needed vibrancy into the shopping center, and that staff was generally supportive of the application. He stated that since the petitioner has referenced some exterior improvements that may be made to the building, that it may be helpful to make them aware that the shopping center was governed by a REA and mutual covenants, some of which he believed related to the architecture of the building, so the petitioner may want to familiarize themselves with that document. Commissioner Green asked if the REA had been updated recently. Mr. Hubbard responded that a recent project within the Southpoint Shopping Center had referenced the document and stated that some of the owners wanted to update it, but to his knowledge, the document had not yet been updated. Mr. Bazos asked if staff was referring to the private CCR’s for the subdivision. Mr. Hubbard responded “yes”. Mr. Bazos stated that the attorney for the Frayer family had looked over that document and did not see a problem with them. Commissioner Jensen asked if Mr. Bazos was representing Urban Air or the buyer of the property. Mr. Bazos stated he represented the Frayer Family who would actually be the entity seeking the zoning approval so that they could lease the space to Urban Air, but since the zoning was for Urban Air, he considered them as a client as well. Commissioner Jensen said that the information presented this evening relative to the market demand for this project was better than most of the other “market studies” that the Plan Commission sees, so it was his opinion that an independent market study would not be necessary. He asked about the parking requirements and how they would be determined since there were a lot of vacancies within the shopping center Mr. Hubbard explained that vacant properties were calculated at one parking space per three hundred square feet, which was the parking requirement for a standard retail operation, so that vacancies would be captured within the overall parking requirement for the shopping center. Commissioner Jensen asked what the TIF meant for Urban Air. Mr. Hubbard responded that currently no TIF requests had been made relative to this project. He was unsure if this project would be eligible for TIF assistance. Mr. Bazos said he would follow up with staff on this at a later date, and that rehabilitation of spaces could be considered as TIF eligible. Commissioner Jensen stated that since Urban Air had recently been approved in Elgin, that some of the data that the City of Elgin likely required relative to parking may suffice for what the Village of Arlington Heights was looking for. Mr. Bazos replied that the City of Elgin has not required parking data as they believed the subject property in that location has a surplus of vacant parking spaces. He said that the City of Elgin had required a floor plan and had done parking calculations based on the floor plan. Mr. Browning said that they had recently completed a parking study for the City of Boston, which found that since most of the users of the space were under the age of 12, they were likely arriving in a group with a friend or with a sibling and mother/father, which meant that although there could be several people within the facility, they did not all arrive in J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1591 - 750 N Rand Rd - Urban Air SUP\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx  URBAN AIR SUP - TEMP FILE 1591 independent vehicles. Commissioner Green said this would make sense, especially on something like a birthday party. Commissioner Jensen said he was very enthusiastic for this project and thought it made a lot of sense for the area. Commissioner Sigalos said that he thought it was an interesting project and asked if the one in Elgin was under construction now, or if it had already been opened for business? Mr. Browning replied that it was still under construction. Commissioner Sigalos asked if there were other proposed locations within the Chicagoland area. Mr. Browning replied that there were, and he had just appeared before the Planning & Zoning Council in the City of Bloomingdale a few weeks ago and had received a unanimous recommendation of approval. Commissioner Sigalos asked if any of the Chicagoland locations were up and running? Mr. Browning replied that none were up and running yet. Commissioner Sigalos asked about the indoor go-karts. Mr. Browning responded that they were electric and there were no fumes. The track would take up around 20,000 to 30,000 square feet of the facility. Commissioner Sigalos asked how pricing and admission worked. Mr. Browning said that admission was done in a variety of ways, either as a daily fee or as a bundle for different areas of the facility. He said general admission would be around $15, and skydiving would cost extra. Commissioner Green said that food would be required if a liquor license was sought, and that the petitioner would have to go through the Board of Trustees for a liquor license. Mr. Bazos clarified that the Plan Commission would be satisfied if Mr. Browning wrote up a formal market analysis based on the demographic research that he had provided. He asked if a formal traffic study would be required and stated that since the property was along a two major thoroughfares, it seemed like traffic would not be an issue. Commissioner Green asked if a traffic analysis could be done based on just the parking counts. Mr. Hubbard said that the code required a traffic and parking study, and that the traffic study would analyze interior circulation, queuing at entrances into and out of the shopping center, and other areas beyond just whether the streets adjacent to the development were large enough to handle the cars expected to be generated by the proposed use. Commissioner Green said it would behoove the petitioner to provide a traffic study as he could not speak for all members of the Plan Commission and there may be members on the Commission that would want to see that study. He said he was excited for this project and thought that the shopping center really needed something like this. RECOMMENDATION The Plat & Subdivision Committee was supportive of the proposal and advised that the petitioner should move forward. Bruce Green, Chair J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1591 - 750 N Rand Rd - Urban Air SUP\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx  URBAN AIR SUP - TEMP FILE 1591 PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Sam Hubbard, Recorder J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1591 - 750 N Rand Rd - Urban Air SUP\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx Item: Chestnut Ave. Subdivision - 4/12/17 Department: Planning & Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Chestnut Ave. Subdivision - 4/12/17 Minutes  CHESTNUT AVENUE SUBDIVISION - TEMP FILE 1590 REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE OF THE VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS PLAN COMMISSION HELD AT VILLAGE HALL ON: April 12, 2017 Project Title: Chestnut Avenue Subdivision Address: 2104 N. Chestnut Avenue Petitioner: Janna Mydlowski 2104 N. Chestnut Avenue Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Requested Action:  Plat of Subdivision Variations Required:  Section 5.1-2.6, to reduce the required lot width for Lot 2 from 150 feet to 100 feet. Attendees: Janna Mydlowski – Petitioner Bruce Green, Plan Commissioner Lynn Jensen, Plan Commissioner John Sigalos, Plan Commissioner Sam Hubbard, Development Planner Project Summary: The subject property is 100 feet wide by 718 feet deep, which equates to 71,800 square feet in area (1.65 acres). The lot is occupied by a two-story single family home located on the east side of the lot, with access off of Chestnut Avenue. Also on the property is a detached garage that is no longer serviced by a driveway, and an attached garage addition to the house provides the necessary garage space for automobile parking. To the north of the subject property is a detention basin and a single-family home, and to the south is a similar sized lot with an existing single-family home. To the east and west of the subject property are single-family homes. The subject property is located within the R-2, One-Family Dwelling District. The proposed action, if approved, would allow the petitioner to subdivide the parcel into two single family lots. The east lot (Lot 1) is proposed at 100 feet wide and 163 feet deep, for a total of 16,300 square feet in area. The west lot (Lot 2) is proposed at 100 feet wide and 489 feet deep, for a total of 48,900 square feet in area. A new single family home would be proposed for Lot 2. Meeting Discussion: Ms. Mydlowski explained that she was the current owner of the subject property which was over 700 feet deep and had an existing house that fronted on Chestnut Avenue. She wanted to subdivide the property into two lots, with the portion that contained the existing house being one lot approximately ¼ of the overall property size and the second lot occupying the remaining ¾ of the current property. It was her intention to sell the home that faced Chestnut, and depending on her financial situation in the future, construct a home for herself on the second lot that occupied ¾ of the site, which is currently vacant today. Mr. Hubbard stated that the property is currently 100 feet wide and 718 feet deep, which is a little over one and a half acres in size. The property is within the R-2 Zoning District and was classified by the Comprehensive Plan as “Single- Family Detached Estate 2”. The existing zoning and proposed subdivision conformed to the Comprehensive Plan J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1590 - Chestnut Ave Subdivision\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx  CHESTNUT AVENUE SUBDIVISION - TEMP FILE 1590 classification. The proposed subdivision would yield an approximately 16,000 square foot lot and an approximately 49,000 square foot lot. The existing house along Chestnut Avenue would be on the 16,000 square foot lot, and the larger second lot would be on the western side of the site, which was currently vacant, and would have frontage along Ridge Avenue. This lot would require a Variation in lot width as the code required any lot larger than one acre to have a lot width of 150 feet. The width of the subject property was 100 feet, and so it would be impossible for the subject property to conform with the required 150 foot lot size regulation, thus necessitating a Variation. Staff supported this Variation as there was no way to comply with the lot width standard and also the subject property could be subdivided further in the future, which would reduce the lot size and bring the lot into conformance. Mr. Hubbard said that the required front yard setback was based on the setback of the existing homes on the frontage, and so as part of the subdivision application, the petitioner would need to provide figures on the setbacks of the existing homes on each frontage to determine what the required front yard setbacks would be. Ms. Mydlowski mentioned that she had already provided this analysis when she received a building permit for the home that fronted on Chestnut. Mr. Hubbard responded that this should be acceptable, but that a similar analysis would be required for the Ridge Avenue frontage. He said that the petitioner would need to provide written justification for the proposed lot width Variation as part of the Plan Commission application. He explained that the property was part of a group of four properties all of a similar size that could be combined to create a small subdivision of eight to twelve lots. He asked that the petitioner provide a conceptual design for a cul-de-sac on her property, which would enable both her property and the three lots to the south. Staff wanted to make sure that the design of the proposed subdivision today would preserve the possibility for the property owner to accommodate for two additional lots in the future. Additionally, staff would ask for a larger than normal rear yard setback on the larger lot in order to keep homes outside of the rear area of that property to preserve the ability for further subdivision and lots in this area. He said that the location of the proposed lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 would need to be evaluated to ensure that its placement did not hamper any future subdivision of Lot 2 in the future, and the conceptual design of the cul-de-sac would help the Village analyze this. Mr. Hubbard stated that there were quite a bit of public improvement obligations that would be required as part of the subdivision, including roadway dedication and roadway improvements such as widening and construction of the road, street trees, curbs and gutter, and potentially street lights. Extension of a water main and payment of recapture fees would also be required. For certain of these public improvements, an Estoppel Agreement may be acceptable in lieu of completing the public improvements. As with any public improvements, deposits/bonds would be required, and he wanted the petitioner to be aware of these things upfront so there were no surprises later on. Commissioner Sigalos asked if the petitioner was interested in having four lots on the property in the future as opposed to the two proposed in the subdivision. Ms. Mydlowski replied that she may be interested in four lots on the property, but that she was only proposing two lots at this time as the ability to accommodate four lots was dependent on her neighbors. With regards to a future cul-de- sac, she said she wanted to coordinate with her neighbors because to have the entire cul-de-sac on her property put the entire burden of this on her, and it should be shared with the neighbor to the south as it would benefit the entire area. Mr. Hubbard replied that it made the most sense to have the cul-de-sac shared between her lot and the lot abutting to the south, and that the conceptual design prepared by staff that showed it falling mostly on her property was only for illustrative purposes and represented a worst case scenario. If the future subdivision could accommodate for this conceptual cul-de-sac entirely on the subject property, then it would certainly be viable if it was shared between this property and the property to the south. Commissioner Jensen asked if there was a detention basin north of the subject property. J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1590 - Chestnut Ave Subdivision\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx  CHESTNUT AVENUE SUBDIVISION - TEMP FILE 1590 Mr. Hubbard replied that it was. Commissioner Jensen asked who owned the three properties south of the subject property. Mr. Hubbard said that they were all under separate ownership. Commissioner Jensen said that the chances that this would move forward as a unified subdivision were probably pretty low. Mr. Hubbard said that at this time there was no unified effort to subdivide the entire area, and so unless all of the property owners wanted to sell, then development would have to proceed piecemeal. He said that in 2008 the Village had been talking with a developer that was looking to assemble all of the properties, but when the Great Recession hit, the developer backed off of the project. Commissioner Jensen asked about the Chestnut Avenue. Mr. Hubbard replied that Chestnut Avenue did not meet minimum width standards and did not have curb and gutter. He said that as part of the subdivision process, the petitioner is required to bring all public infrastructure adjacent to the subdivision up to current Village standards. However, since improvement of just a small portion of Chestnut Avenue to current standards was not practical, the Village would likely ask for an Estoppel Agreement in lieu of making these improvements today. Commissioner Jensen said that there were a lot of expenses that would be required of a subdivision in this location and advised the petitioner to work with staff prior to appearing before the Plan Commission to sort out what the best arrangement would be to fulfill the infrastructure obligations of the code. Commissioner Green asked if it was the petitioner’s responsibility to design a cul-de-sac as part of this subdivision process that would actually involve the construction of that cul-de-sac. Mr. Hubbard responded that it was not a code requirement that this cul-de-sac be fully engineered at this time, however, as the petitioner has indicated that she may be interested in having four lots on the subject property at some point in the future, it would be to her benefit to provide at least some type of conceptual design for the cul-de-sac to ensure that the proposed two lot subdivision was not designed in a way that would prevent the eventual four lot subdivision. The location of the lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2, depending on the design of the cul-de-sac, could mean that a future subdivision of Lot 2 would require a variation relative to minimum allowable lot size, which variation could be prevented with consideration during the current proposed subdivision. Commissioner Jensen asked if Lot 2 was further subdivided in the future, would this negate the lot width non- conformity on that lot? Mr. Hubbard responded that it would negate the non-conformity. Commissioner Green pointed out that the 100 foot lot width for these lots was already established and so there was nothing that the petitioner could do to design a lot with a width of greater than 100 feet. Commissioner Jensen said that if the Village wanted to see the area developed in unified approach as a subdivision, then the Village should be working with each property owner to make this happen. Commissioner Green said that he did not see a problem with the variation to reduce the lot width from 150 feet to 100 feet as it was an existing condition. He said it made sense to push the cul-de-sac down to share it more with the neighbor to the south. J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1590 - Chestnut Ave Subdivision\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx  CHESTNUT AVENUE SUBDIVISION - TEMP FILE 1590 Ms. Mydlowski asked at what point would all of the public improvements need to be paid for. Mr. Hubbard responded that the bonds and deposits for the public improvements would be required prior to Final Subdivision approval. Ms. Mydlowski asked if there was a ballpark estimate for how much these public improvements would cost. Mr. Hubbard responded that she needed to hire an engineer to prepare an Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost. If she reached out to the Village Engineering Department, they may be able to provide her with a very rough estimate of what this would cost. Commissioner Green encouraged the petitioner to understand the potential costs that would be required to move forward with the subdivision, but thought that the concept was great and he thought that she should move forward. RECOMMENDATION The Plat & Subdivision Committee was supportive of the proposal and advised that the petitioner should move forward. Bruce Green, Chair PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Sam Hubbard, Recorder J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1590 - Chestnut Ave Subdivision\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx  Item: Napleton/Arlington Lanes Parking Lot - 5/10/17 Department: Planning & Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Napleton/Arlington Lanes Parking Lot - Minutes 5/10/17  NAPLETON & ARLINGTON LANES PARKING LOT - TEMP FILE 1595 REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE OF THE VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS PLAN COMMISSION HELD AT VILLAGE HALL ON: May 10, 2017 Project Title: Napleton & Arlington Lanes Parking Lot Address: 3435 N. Kennicott Ave. Petitioner: Richard P. Brandstatter One Oakbrook Terrace Suite 600 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 Requested Action:  A Land Use Variation to allow a motor vehicle sales parking lot not contiguous to an automobile sales room, within the M-1 Zoning District. Variations Required:  Chapter 28, Section 11.4-2, Bowling Alleys, to allow 150 off-street parking spaces where code requires 166 off-street parking spaces. Attendees: Richard P. Brandstatter – Petitioner Bruce Green, Plan Commissioner Lynn Jensen, Plan Commissioner John Sigalos, Plan Commissioner Sam Hubbard, Development Planner Project Summary: The subject property is located on the northern end of Arlington Heights and currently occupied by the Arlington Lanes bowling facility, which contains 40 bowling lanes, a bar, food service, and a game room (pool tables, darts, etc.) that can be converted into a banquet space for events when needed. Arlington Lanes is open 9:00am to midnight on Sunday thru Thursday and 9:00am to 1:00am on Friday and Saturday during the Fall. During the Summer, their hours are 10:00am to 11:00pm Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday, and 10:00am to midnight on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. The subject property is located within the M-1, Research, Development and Light Manufacturing Zoning District. Approximately 400 feet to the west of the subject property is the Napleton Group auto dealership, which experienced a 60% increase in sales during 2016. As such, employment, services, and car inventory have also increased to a point where there is a parking shortage on the property. The Napleton Group has executed an agreement with Arlington Lanes to utilize 76 of the 230 parking spaces on the Arlington Lanes property for storage of excess automobile inventory that cannot be accommodated on the Napleton property. Although formal approval from the Village has not yet been received, the capacity constraints on the existing Napleton site have caused the dealership to begin utilizing the bowling alley parking lot. Meeting Discussion: Mr. Brandstatter explained that two years ago the Village approved the Napleton Group auto dealership located at Dundee Road and Kennicott Avenue. Business was doing well, and the dealership experienced a 60% increase in automobile sales during 2016, which meant that they needed more car inventory and they had ran out of space for this inventory on their site. The dealership has entered into an agreement with the bowling alley located on the east side of J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1595 - Napleton & Arlington Lanes Parking Lot\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx  NAPLETON & ARLINGTON LANES PARKING LOT - TEMP FILE 1595 Kennicott, which allows Napleton to lease parking spaces to park their auto inventory on the bowling alley property. Automobile parking on the bowling alley site would be for excess inventory only and there would not be any customers going in and out of the site, and employees would not be parking their personal cars there. Commissioner Jensen asked how long was the term of the lease. Mr. Brandstatter responded that the bowling alley was willing to lease the property for multiple years, and that the lease was cancellable by either party with 30 days’ notice. He said that Napleton was looking for a permanent parking area for their cars; the bowling alley was not set up for vehicle storage and it was not a secure location. As such, Napleton does not park their more expensive inventory there. They have approached the bowling alley regarding the sale of the property, and they have contacted other adjacent property owners to see if there were any additional opportunities for lease or purchase of property for automobile storage, but there is no other options at this time although Napleton is actively searching. A final option would be for Napleton to put a parking garage on their property, and Napleton was examining the feasibility of this. In sum, they are requesting a Variation to park cars on the bowling alley property. Mr. Hubbard stated that the property was zoned M-1 and motor vehicles sales lots were not allowed within the M-1 District unless there was a showroom on the property as well. Since the subject property would be for motor vehicle parking only with no showroom, a land use variation would be required. He said that staff was generally supportive of the project and would like to see additional landscape screening along Kennicott Avenue, which would provide a buffer for the cars as well as discourage porters from parking and driving over the grass/parkway in-between the parking lot and subject property, which had been happening already. A parking variation would also be required as the parking dedicated for Napleton would put the parking for the bowling alley below the code requirements for a bowling alley. As part of the Variation request, staff is asking for some parking counts on the bowling alley property to ensure that the lease of spaces on the bowling alley site will not have a detrimental impact on parking for the bowling alley. During the Plan Commission process, a limit on the maximum number of vehicles to be stored on the bowling alley site would need to be determined, and the areas where Napleton can store the excess vehicle inventory would need to be defined as well. No repairs of any vehicles would be allowed on the bowling alley site. Commissioner Sigalos asked if the cars that would be stored on the bowling alley site would be new cars. Mr. Brandstatter replied that generally they would be new cars but that occasionally they would take a used car in from a trade and that car could potentially be stored on the bowling alley site as well. He said that used cars usually weren’t around for very long. Commissioner Sigalos asked if cars that were awaiting repairs would be stored there. Mr. Brandstatter said that cars that were awaiting repairs would not be stored on the bowling alley site because the site was not secure, and that since cars awaiting repairs were customer cars, those cars would need to be parking in a secure location. Commissioner Sigalos asked how many cars could be stored on the bowling alley site. Around 76 cars? Mr. Brandstatter responded that their lease allowed for the storage of up to 100 cars, and that depending on how tight they packed them in, they could probably get at least 100 cars on the site. Commissioner Sigalos asked to what extent was security a concern? Mr. Brandstatter replied that security was always a concern, but that they did not have the right to secure the lot, which was why they were looking to actually buy a lot where they could park this inventory. J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1595 - Napleton & Arlington Lanes Parking Lot\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx  NAPLETON & ARLINGTON LANES PARKING LOT - TEMP FILE 1595 Commissioner Sigalos asked if cameras would help? Mr. Brandstatter replied that in their experience, cameras were not a great deterrent and they only identified how and when someone took a car. Usually people don’t steal the actual car, but they will steal the catalytic converter or the navigation system. Commissioner Sigalos questioned whether Napleton would be looking to install additional lighting on the property. Mr. Brandstatter said that they were not proposing to make any changes to the lighting on the property. Commissioner Jensen asked if the existing trend in increased sales continued, would the current facility be able to support the business over the long term? Mr. Brandstatter replied that this was why they were continuing to look for other options for inventory. He said that the existing facility works as far as showroom size, service area, and floor space. Commissioner Jensen clarified that Napleton was not looking to move. Mr. Brandstatter said that this was correct. Commissioner Jensen stated that the bowling alley parking lot was not in good condition. Was the Village going to require any improvements to the parking lot? Mr. Hubbard responded that repair of the parking lot could be a condition of approval, should the Plan Commission feel it necessary. Commissioner Jensen said that he wasn’t sure if the petitioner would need to repair it, or whether it was the business of the Plan Commission to require it, but he was just pointing out that it was in bad condition. He said he did not have any major problems with the proposal. Commissioner Green said he did not have any problems with the proposed use, but that he did have some issues with some of the things that Napleton did. First, he did not like how Napleton parked their cars within the Right-of-ways and he thought that it contributed to a poor appearance. Second, he did not like how Napleton had signage on the cars that were parked in the bowling alley parking lot, such as “2014” or “Sale”. He said that advertising like that was appropriate for the Napleton site, but not the bowling alley site. He said other than that, he was supportive of this project. Mr. Brandstatter acknowledged that they needed to clean up a few things. RECOMMENDATION The Plat & Subdivision Committee was supportive of the proposal and advised that the petitioner should move forward. Bruce Green, Chair PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Sam Hubbard, Recorder J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1595 - Napleton & Arlington Lanes Parking Lot\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx Item: Toy Shop & Motolounge - 5/10/17 Department: Planning & Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Toy Shop & Motolounge - 5/10/17 Minutes  TOY SHOP & MOTOLOUNGE - TEMP FILE 1584 REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE OF THE VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS PLAN COMMISSION HELD AT VILLAGE HALL ON: May 10, 2017 Project Title: Toy Shop & Motolounge Address: 1728 W. Algonquin Rd. Petitioner: Mike Taylor 1728 W. Algonquin Rd. Arlington Height, IL 60005 Requested Action:  A Special Use Permit to allow Motor Vehicle Sales. Variations Required:  Chapter 28, Section 11.4-2, to reduce the required off-street parking from 68 spaces to 49 spaces.  Chapter 28, Section 6.12-1(2)a, to waive the requirement for a Traffic and Parking Study. Attendees: Mike Taylor – Petitioner Laura Niko Bruce Green, Plan Commissioner Lynn Jensen, Plan Commissioner John Sigalos, Plan Commissioner Sam Hubbard, Development Planner Project Summary: The subject property is located along West Algonquin Road approximately 300 feet west of the intersection of Algonquin Road and New Wilke Road, and is currently occupied by a multi-tenant office building of approximately 19,000 square feet. Current tenants include two medical offices, the Toy Shop & Motolounge (which opened in April of this year), and a 7,800 square foot vacant unit. The Toy Shop & Motolounge is a retail business specializing in motorcycles and motorcycle accessories. Currently, the business only sells motorcycle accessories, gear, and parts, however, the applicant would like to expand the scope of the business to include motorcycle sales and repair. Hours of operation for the business are 11:00am to 8:00pm Tuesday thru Friday, 11:00am to 6:00pm on Saturday, and noon to 5:00pm on Sunday. The business is closed on Mondays. The subject property is zoned B-2, General Business District. Meeting Discussion: Mr. Taylor provided some background information on the Toy Shop & Motolounge, explaining that they recently relocated from Schaumberg, where they had a space around the intersection of Roselle Road and Golf Road. They sell mid to high level motorcycle gear, parts, and accessories, and they’ve been in business for roughly a year and a half. They’ve grown quickly in that time and currently have around 5,000 followers on social media. Their customers are a diverse range of individuals in terms of age and gender. The business was currently looking to obtain a Special Use Permit to allow motor cycle sales and repairs. The building that they have recently leased within Arlington Heights had been vacant for several years, and he believed that at one point it had previously been used for boat sales and repairs. Ms. ______ said that more recently the space had been used by a medical office tenant. Mr. Taylor stated that they had fully remodeled the interior of the building, and it now had a nice showroom floor in the J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1584 - Toy Shop & Motolounge\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx  TOY SHOP & MOTOLOUNGE - TEMP FILE 1584 front, and the rear of the building had a warehouse space of around 2,000 square feet. Commissioner Jensen asked if there were other tenants within the building. Mr. Taylor stated that there were other tenants, but most of the building was vacant and in the future they planned on expanding into the vacant space. They hoped to eventually occupy the entire building. Commissioner Jensen asked if they were leasing the space. Ms. ______ responded that they had a three-year lease for their unit. Mr. Taylor stated that their unit was around 5,200 square feet in size. Ms. ______ explained that the building was fully sprinklered and that it worked well for their needs because it had the open showroom floor in the front. At their last space in Schaumberg they had a lounge on the second floor, but in the present space they had a mezzanine that they had considered to use as a lounge, but they no longer were thinking of doing that. The mezzanine would be used for a waiting area for customers that needed repairs on their vehicles. It also could be used for office space for financing, should they be approved to sell motorcycles at this location. Mr. Hubbard stated that motor vehicle sales was classified as a Special Use within the B-2 Zoning District, and so a Special Use Permit was required. Per the definition of “motor vehicles sales”, auxiliary repair of motor vehicles was allowed in conjunction with the sales use. The petitioner would be required to submit a response to the Special Use Permit approval criteria, as well as the criteria for each Variation required. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property was “commercial”, and so the use conformed to the Comprehensive Plan. He said that a Plat of Survey for the property would be required with any Plan Commission application, and he suggested contacting his landlord for a copy of the Plat. A floor plan would also be required as part of the Plan Commission application. Mr. Hubbard said that there was an existing slatted chain link fence at the rear of the property, which served as a buffer between the property and the residential condominiums to the rear, and some of the slats on the fence were missing and damaged. As part of the Special Use Permit process, staff recommended the repair of this fence, or perhaps the replacement with a more attractive wooden fence. Additionally, staff was recommending a condition of Special Use Permit approval that would require the property to install an enclosure around the existing dumpster at the rear of the property, which was currently not in compliance with code as there was no enclosure. When staff had performed a site visit they had observed that the landscaping on the site was fairly well maintained, but he mentioned that staff would be doing a more detailed analysis of the landscaping if a Plan Commission application was received, and any dead or missing landscaping would be required to be installed. Mr. Hubbard explained that staff had a little bit of concern about the repair operations that could take place on the subject property. He stated that repair facilities were not always compatible to residential uses, and the subject property directly abutted a residential use to the rear. He noted that the overhead door did not directly face out to the residential areas to the rear, which was a positive as it may help to reduce the noise associated with motorcycles and motorcycle repairs. But the compatibility issue was something that the applicant should address within their application. Mr. Hubbard mentioned that a traffic study was required by code due to the fact that the unit was over 5,000 square feet, but staff did not feel that this use would generate a significant amount of traffic and that Algonquin Road had the capacity to handle any increase in traffic associated with this use. He said that staff was supportive of a Variation to waive the traffic study requirement. However, the site was under-parked relative to code requirements, and so a parking survey would be required that outlined the number of cars on site at certain times, which would allow staff to understand the parking demand for the space. A Variation to reduce the parking requirements would be required. He said that any increase in the number of repair bays on the site would also increase the parking requirements, and so that could require an amendment to the Variation in the future if the applicant wanted to add additional repair bays. J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1584 - Toy Shop & Motolounge\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx  TOY SHOP & MOTOLOUNGE - TEMP FILE 1584 Commissioner Sigalos asked if they owned the unit or were leasing the unit. Mr. Taylor clarified that they were leasing the unit. Commissioner Sigalos asked if more people drove cars or motocycles to the space. Mr. Taylor replied that it depended on the weather, but that most people drove motorcycles. Mr. ______ stated that it was 25% cars, 75% motorcycles. Ms. ______ said that in the wintertime, business slowed down and most people drove cars. Commissioner Jensen asked if any vehicles that were awaiting or undergoing repairs would be parked outside of the building. Ms. ______ responded “no”. Commissioner Jensen pointed out that this would potentially prevent complaints from nearby residents. He said he thought that this project would be a good idea and he didn’t have any problems with the project. Commissioner Green said he thought that this was a good use and was excited that the business was growing. He explained that when motor vehicle service uses were introduced into the building, that there was a hazardous component that would come with that, and relative to building code requirements, they may be required to make certain upgrades to the unit, such as separation and fire wall requirements. He wanted the petitioners to be aware of this as sometimes these upgrades could become costly. Discussion ensued regarding the location of their previous facility in Schaumberg. Commissioner Sigalos asked if they sold motorcycles in their previous facility in Schaumberg. Mr. ______ responded that they did not. They petitioned the Village for permission to do that, but that they did not receive a Special Use Permit. Mr. Taylor explained that they were new business owners and their previous landlord had not provided good guidance to them on what was allowed within their previous space. Mr. ______ explained that they had had a lot of difficulty trying to establish auto sales in Schaumberg. Commissioner Jensen asked whose responsibility would it be, the tenant or the landlord, to improve the fence and construct a dumpster enclosure. Mr. Hubbard stated that the Village could make it a condition of approval that it needed to be done, and the negotiation of who would pay for it was between the tenant and the property owner. If the owner felt that they strongly wanted the Toy Shop & Motolounge as their tenant, they may agree to pay for the improvements, but they could also say that it was the Toy Shop & Motolounge request for a Special Use Permit that precipitated the requirement to fix the fence and provide the dumpster enclosure, and therefore it was their responsibility to make those improvements. Legally, the Village could only require the petitioner to cause these improvements to take place. The Village could not require a party other than the petitioner to make improvements to a property. Mr. Taylor said that staff had been helpful in guiding them as far as what process and approvals would be needed, and that their experience in Schaumberg had not been as smooth. J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1584 - Toy Shop & Motolounge\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx  TOY SHOP & MOTOLOUNGE - TEMP FILE 1584 Mr. Hubbard asked why they had not been approved for vehicles sales in Schaumberg. Ms. ______ explained that Schaumberg’s position was that automobile sales uses were more appropriate when directly on Golf Road, and their location close to but not on Golf Road had been an impediment to their approval. Mr. Hubbard explained that as part of the Plan Commission process, the petitioner would be required to send a letter to all property owners within 250 feet of the property, which letter would inform these property owners that a Special Use Permit for motor vehicle sales had been requested. If a large amount of neighboring residents appeared at the public hearing and spoke in opposition of the proposal, it could have an impact on their ability to receive a positive recommendation. Commissioner Green asked if body work or painting would occur at this site. Mr. Taylor responded “no”. Commissioner Green said that smells associated with auto repair was a potential nuisance to neighboring property owners and so it was a positive that they would not do any painting or body work. He encouraged the petitioner to continue forward with their application. RECOMMENDATION The Plat & Subdivision Committee was supportive of the proposal and advised that the petitioner should move forward. Bruce Green, Chair PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE J:\PLAT & SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE\2017\T1584 - Toy Shop & Motolounge\Plat and Sub Minutes.docx Item: Hickory Apartments - 6 N. Hickory Ave. - T1600 Department: Planning & Community Development Department Requested Action 1. Planned Unit Development to allow a 79 unit rental apartment building. 2. Plat of Subdivision to subdivide the property into two lots. Variations Required 1. Section 5.1-23.1(e), Minimum Lot Size – Multiple Family, to permit 79 dwelling units on 41,156 square feet of land where 52,500 square feet is required. 2. Section 5.1-23.1(g) to reduce the parking requirements from 131 spaces to 112 spaces. 3. Additional Variations may be identified when formal plans have been submitted. Recommendation The Staff Development Committee has reviewed the proposed PUD and Plat of Subdivision and is supportive of the project, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide a written justification to support the proposed Variations as per the hardship criteria outlined in the Zoning Ordinance: • The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in that zone. • The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. • The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. Engineering plans, details and storm water detention calculations shall be required as part of the formal review process. 3. A market assessment shall be required to demonstrate a need for this type and size development at this location. 4. The developer shall pay a fee of $25,000 per required affordable unit (total $300,000) per the Village’s Affordable Multi-Family Housing Policy. 5. Appearance before the Housing Commission will be required prior to the Plan Commission hearing. 6. Design Commission review shall be required prior to the Plan Commission hearing. 7. The petitioner shall construct and dedicate the extension of Campbell Street from Hickory Avenue to the rail road spur. 8. A detailed traffic and parking study from a Certified Traffic engineer that assesses access (location, design, and Level of Service), on-site circulation, trip generation and distribution, parking, and impacts to public streets shall be required. 9. School, Park, and Library contributions shall be required per Code prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. These are preliminary comments only and should not be relied upon as identification of the only major issues. The Staff Development Committee reserves the right to change its position on issues upon submittal of a formal application and detailed review. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Board or Commission Report Aerial Exhibits Plans Exhibits  VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Temp File Number: T1600 Project Title: Hickory Apartments Address: 6 N. Hickory Ave. PIN: 03-29-405-003, 03-29-408-003 To: Plat and Subdivision Committee Prepared By: Sam Hubbard, Development Planner Meeting Date: June 14, 2017 Date prepared: June 9, 2017 Petitioner: Guido Neri Address: 444 N. Northwest Hwy Suite 355 Park Ridge, IL 60068 Existing Zoning: B-2: General Business District, R-7: Multi-Family Dwelling District SURROUNDING LAND USES Direction Existing Zoning Existing Use Comprehensive Plan North R-7 Heller Lumber Company High Density Multi-Family South B-3 Automobile sales/repair business Commercial East R-7 and B-3 General contractor office, multi-tenant Mixed Use, High Density Multi- commercial building, auto repair business Family West R-7 and B-3 Auxiliary parking lot for Mariano’s Grocery Mixed Use, High Density Multi- Family Requested Action: 1. Planned Unit Development to allow a 79 unit rental apartment building. 2. Plat of Subdivision to subdivide the property into two lots. Variations Required: 1. Section 5.1-23.1(e), Minimum Lot Size – Multiple Family, to permit 79 dwelling units on 41,156 square feet of land where 52,500 square feet is required. 2. Section 5.1-23.1(g) to reduce the parking requirements from 131 spaces to 112 spaces. 3. Additional Variations may be identified when formal plans have been submitted. Page 1 of 5 Project Background: The subject property is approximately 485’ x 150’ (1.66 acres) and is bounded by Kensington Road to the south and Hickory Avenue to the east. The western edge of the site contains a Union Pacific railroad spur line, which provides freight access to the Heller Lumber Company located north of the subject property. The northern 28,382 square feet of the property is within the R-7 Zoning District and the southern 41,149 square feet of the property is within the B-2 Zoning District. Additionally, the entire property is within the Hickory / Kensington Overlay District and is part of the Hickory / Kensington Area Plan, both of which were established in 2013. The property is also located within the Hickory/Kensington TIF District, which was adopted by the Village Board in 2014. There are no buildings or improvements on the subject property and it currently exists as vacant land awaiting redevelopment. The applicant is proposing to develop the southern B-2 zoned portion of the subject property. Additionally, the developer will dedicate land to the Village to allow for Campbell Street to be extended between Hickory Avenue and Douglas Avenue, which dedication would occur roughly around the division between the R-7 and B-2 zoning districts. The remaining R-7 portion of the property will continue as vacant land to be developed in a later phase. The Village is contemplating the purchase of this portion of the site with the intention to land bank it for future redevelopment, which in the interim could be used for relocation of the Marianos parking lot on the site to the west of the rail spur. That could then free up that parcel to be developed in the future. The proposed development consists of a 54-foot tall 5-story mixed use building, including 79 residential units and approximately 4,000 square feet of commercial space. The commercial space would be located on the first floor near the northeast corner of the building fronting on Kensington Road and wraps around the corner for visibility along Hickory Avenue. The dwelling units would be located on floors two through five and would consist of 14 studio units (18%), 48 one-bedroom units (61%), and 17 two-bedroom units (21%). All dwelling units would be rental. Parking would be provided on the basement and first floor or the building, as well as a surface parking lot in-between the building and the railroad tracks to the west. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan The portion of the subject property proposed for development is located within the B-2, General Business District, and the entire property is within the Hickory / Kensington Overlay Zoning District. The proposed development must comply with the regulations within each of these zoning classifications, however, the overlay regulations supersede the B-2 zoning regulations where the requirements of the overlay differ from those in the B-2 District. Based on a preliminary analysis of the conceptual development plans, staff has identified two Variations needed; 1) to increase the allowable density, and 2) to reduce the parking requirements. As part of any Plan Commission application, the petitioner will be required to provide written responses to the approval criteria for each requested Variation, which criteria is summarized below:  The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in that zone.  The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.  The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Given the current lot size, proposed unit mix, and the Villages’ density requirements, the subject property could accommodate 63 dwelling units. The developer has proposed 79 units, which translates to a density increase of 16 units above code requirements. Staff notes that if the developer was not required to dedicate land for the Campbell Street extension, the subject property could yield 71 units per the density requirements and proposed unit mix. Staff is supportive of the density Variation as the developer will be dedicating land to the Village and due to the fact that the proposed development meets all bulk standards such as height and setbacks, and meets the goals of the Hickory / Kensington Area Plan as will be outlined later within this report. The Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject property as “Mixed Use” and the proposed building is therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. In addition the plan is in conformance with the Hickory Page 2 of 5 Kensington Area Plan, which specifically indicates that this site should be 4 to 5 floors with commercial on the first floor as proposed. All multi-family developments that include 26 or more units are required to provide 15% of their units as affordable per the Village’s Affordable Housing Policy, or pay a fee in lieu of. Per the policy, 12 units must be designated as affordable in perpetuity, or a payment of $75,000 per affordable unit can be made in lieu of providing the affordable units. The petitioner has responded that they are willing to contribute $300,000 ($25,000 per unit) to the Village’s Affordable Housing Trust, which is consistent with other recent developers. An appearance before the Housing Commission will be required prior to appearing before the Plan Commission. Hickory / Kensington Area Plan As identified above, the subject property is part of the Hickory / Kensington Area Plan, which provides development guidelines for future redevelopment within the neighborhood in order to create a new, vibrant mixed use area. The proposed development is consistent with the goals of the Hickory / Kensington Plan in several ways:  Use: The proposed mixed use concept with ground floor retail and apartments above is consistent with the Hickory / Kensington Plan.  Height: The subject property is classified as appropriate for a 4-5 story building per the Plan. The proposed 5- story building is consistent with this designation.  Setback: The Plan calls for mixed use buildings to be setback no more than 5’ from the sidewalk along Hickory. The proposed building is abutting the sidewalk with no setback along the commercial portion on Hickory and setback 10 feet along Kensington in order to provide a parkway. Where the building transitions to the north, the setback increases to 5’ on Hickory.  Street Grid: The proposed development will facilitate the continuation of the street grid by enabling the extension of Campbell Street from Hickory Avenue to Douglas Avenue. This is consistent with one of the goals of the Hickory / Kensington Plan. Staff supports the concept given that the plan complies with the Hickory / Kensington Area Plan and will help to realize the Plans’ vision for redevelopment of this area. Site Design The developer will be required to subdivide the property to create two lots. The two lots will be separated by 66’ of land, which will be dedicated for the extension of Campbell Street from Hickory Avenue to the western edge of the subject property. This will enable the eventual connection of Campbell from Hickory Avenue all the way through to Douglas Avenue. As part of this development, Campbell Street will be constructed from Hickory Avenue to the spur line, but will be stubbed at the spur line until such time as the property to the west is developed and the remaining land needed to finish the Campbell Street extension is dedicated to the Village. As Campbell Street will eventually cross the Union Pacific spur line, Union Pacific will need to review and approve of this crossing. When the remaining land is dedicated to the Village and this crossing is constructed, certain crossing improvements may be needed (warning lights, crossing gates, etc.). Staff notes that the overlay zoning district requirements stipulate no more than 33% of any property be developed with a surface parking lot. Alternatively, a Variation to adjust this requirement can be requested. The developer will need to calculate the proposed surface lot coverage to ensure that this requirement is met. Additionally, the petitioner shall explore the possibility of a 3-foot tall wrought iron style decorative fence shall be constructed at the western edge of the proposed parking lot, separating the parking area from the spur line. The development must conform to all MWRD requirements and on-site detention will be required, and the petitioner has proposed an underground detention vault beneath the parking lot. Page 3 of 5 Building Design The proposed development will appear before the Design Commission for a preliminary review on June 13, 2017, and staff will update the Plat & Subdivision Committee on the outcome of that review during the meeting on June 14th. The petitioner should comply with the design guidelines as contained within the Hickory / Kensington Plan, and shall enhance the front entry to the residential portion of the building along Hickory Avenue, which will serve as the focal point of the building along this elevation. Additionally, the first floor should incorporate design elements to break up the appearance of the blank garage wall. Finally, the developer is encouraged to incorporate sustainable features as per Goal #9 of the Hickory / Kensington Area Plan, which recommends the inclusion of “bioswales for storm water management, green buildings and energy efficient street lighting.” Landscaping/Streetscape Improvements A code compliant Landscape Plan will be required within any formal Plan Commission application, including building foundation plantings, landscape islands within the parking lot at the ends of each parking row, and shade trees in all parking lot islands. As the site does not currently have any trees, no Tree Preservation plan will be required. An additional landscape island should be added to the southwest corner of the parking lot at the end of the parking row in order to comply with code. Staff is still working with the petitioner to the provide streetscape improvements as outlined in the Hickory / Kensington Area Plan. Preliminary design includes an urban styled streetscape along Hickory Avenue, consisting of a wide sidewalk from the building to the curb, decorative paving, and landscape planters. Along both Kensington Road and Campbell Street, a sidewalk will be required in-between the curb and parkway, and parkway landscaping should be provided. These design elements are still being determined and shall be finalized prior to Plan Commission application. The burial of the existing powerlines along Kensington will be required as feasible, which will enhance the streetscape appearance along Kensington Road. Goal #8 of the Hickory / Kensington Plan states that the “relocation or burial of overhead utilities” is a primary objective of the Plan. Traffic and Parking Per zoning requirements, the subject property is required to provide 131 parking spaces based on the mix of residential units and commercial space (see Table I below). The petitioner has proposed 112 parking spaces, 80 of which would be provided inside the building (basement and first floor), and the remaining 32 would be located in the surface parking lot west of the building. This equates to 1.42 per unit. Commercial parking can be accommodated on the street along Hickory, although the developer should provide parking for employees of the commercial uses. As outlined above, a parking Variation is required. Chapter 28, Section 6.12, Traffic Engineering Approval, requires that planned unit developments provide a traffic and parking study from a certified traffic engineer. The study needs to assess access (location, design, and Level of Service), on-site circulation, trip generation and distribution, parking, and impacts to public streets. Table I – Parking Calculations GROSS SQUARE NUMBER OF PARKING PARKING PROPOSED USE CODE USE FOOTAGE DWELLING UNITS REQUIREMENT REQUIRED Residential Use Multi-family N/A 79 1.5 spaces per unit 118 Commercial Use Retail 3,816 N/A 1 space per 300 sq. ft. 18 Total Required 131 Total Provided 112 Surplus / (Deficit) (19) Page 4 of 5 RECOMMENDATION The Staff Development Committee has reviewed the proposed PUD and Plat of Subdivision and is supportive of the project, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide a written justification to support the proposed Variations as per the hardship criteria outlined in the Zoning Ordinance:  The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in that zone.  The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.  The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. Engineering plans, details and storm water detention calculations shall be required as part of the formal review process. 3. A market assessment shall be required to demonstrate a need for this type and size development at this location. 4. The developer shall pay a fee of $25,000 per required affordable unit (total $300,000) per the Village’s Affordable Multi-Family Housing Policy. 5. Appearance before the Housing Commission will be required prior to the Plan Commission hearing. 6. Design Commission review shall be required prior to the Plan Commission hearing. 7. The petitioner shall construct and dedicate the extension of Campbell Street from Hickory Avenue to the rail road spur. 8. A detailed traffic and parking study from a Certified Traffic engineer that assesses access (location, design, and Level of Service), on-site circulation, trip generation and distribution, parking, and impacts to public streets shall be required. 9. School, Park, and Library contributions shall be required per Code prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. These are preliminary comments only and should not be relied upon as identification of the only major issues. The Staff Development Committee reserves the right to change its position on issues upon submittal of a formal application and detailed review. ________________________________________ June 8, 2017 Bill Enright, Deputy Director of Planning and Community Development Cc: Randy Recklaus, Village Manager All Department Heads Temp File 1600 Page 5 of 5  Aerial - Hickory/Kensington Apartments June 8, 2017 1:2,257 0 0.0175 0.035 0.07 mi 0 0.03 0.06 0.12 km Village of Arlington Heights GIS Copyright 2013  " 8' 33 °1 90 PROJECT DATA North of Campbell St. ADDRESS: HICKORY AVE, NORTH LOT (hatched) ARLINGTON HTS, IL INCLUDING SOUTH R.O.W. LOT AREA: 28,375.1 S.F. (33'0") OF CAMPBELL ZONING DISTRICT: R-7 28,375.1 S.F. 33'-0" CAMPBELL ST. 28'-0" 33'-0" 19'-5" 10 3 PROJECT DATA HICKORY AVE . South of Campbell St. ADDRESS: KENSINGTON and HICKORY, ARLINGTON HTS, IL 7'-83" 5'-11" 8 LOT AREA: 41,156.3 S.F. 62'-0" ZONING DISTRICT: B-2 MIN LOT AREA CALCULATIONS MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING 10 NUMBER OF UNITS studio units 14 D.U. (1) bedroom units 48 D.U. (2) bedroom units 17 D.U. TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS 79 D.U. 1 STORY ELEMENT 267'-0" 32 EXT. LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS PARKING SPACES MIXED-USE BUILDING FOOTPRINT OF STRUCTURE 19,867.6 S.F. 5'-0" LOT COVERAGE .48 RR 6'-0" TRACKS ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE (na) 0.0 S.F. 5 STORY 1 STORY BRICK, BLOCK and FRAME 9 ELEMENT MIXED-USE BUILDING W/ 79 UNITS OVER BASEMENT AND GROUND FLR PARKING OFF STREET PARKING CALCULATIONS REQUIRED # OF PARKING: RES: 1.5 SP/D.U. 120 SP COMM: 0.0 SP TOTAL REQUIRED 120 SP PROPOSED PARKING SPACES indoor 80 sp 7" exterior 32 sp 41 '2 89 ° TOTAL OFF STREET PARKING 112 SP 10'0" FRONT PARKING LOT AREA YARD SETBACK TOTAL AREA 12,830.9 S.F. 10'-0" ALLOWED AREA (33%) 13,581.5 S.F. 11'-77 8" 18'-0" 24'-0" 6'-61" 8 89'-0" KENSINGTON RD. CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 03 SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" PROJECT: 1702 DATE: 05.17.17 FILE:  A B C D E F 1 2 STAIR #1 149 SF 3 4 5 ELEV DN LOBBY 832 SF 6 7 GARAGE RAMP 44 SPACES 17482 SF UP 8 9 MECH UNIT ROOM STORAGE 1022 SF 310 SF 10 1 BASEMENT Areas 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"  A B C D E F 1 2 STAIR #1 291 SF 3 4 5 UP RESIDENTIAL LOBBY 788 SF 6 GARAGE RAMP 36 SPACES DOWN 14039 SF 7 TRASH ROOM 8 ELECT ROOM 9 COMMERCIAL SPACE 3816 SF 10 1 FIRST FLOOR Areas 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"  A B C D E F 1 13 12 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 725 SF 972 SF 2 14 STUDIO 11 535 SF 1 BEDROOM 704 SF 3 10 15 1 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 704 SF 695 SF 4 16 09 1 BEDROOM 879 SF 1 BEDROOM 704 SF 5 COMMON AREA 2613 SF DN 6 01 2 BEDROOM 1021 SF MEDIA/ ROOF EXERCISE RM DECK 2705 SF 7 02 1 BEDROOM 703 SF 8 03 1 BEDROOM 08 723 SF 2 BEDROOM 1001 SF 04 STUDIO 656 SF 9 05 07 2 BEDROOM 1093 SF 2 BEDROOM 983 SF 10 06 1 BEDROOM 746 SF 1 SECOND FLOOR Areas 3 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"  A B C D E F 1 18 17 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 718 SF 972 SF 2 16 1 BEDROOM 19 704 SF STUDIO + DEN 625 SF 3 20 15 1 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 704 SF 714 SF 4 21 14 1 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 878 SF 704 SF COMMON AREA 2235 SF 5 01 13 STUDIO STUDIO 603 SF 595 SF 6 12 1 BEDROOM 02 704 SF 1 BEDROOM 695 SF 11 1 BEDROOM 704 SF 7 10 03 1 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 708 SF 695 SF 04 1 BEDROOM 723 SF 8 09 05 2 BEDROOM STUDIO 1001 SF 656 SF 9 06 2 BEDROOM 1093 SF 08 2 BEDROOM 983 SF 10 07 1 BEDROOM 746 SF 1 TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN (3-5) Areas 4 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"  ROOF 54' - 0" FIFTH FLOOR CEILING 52' - 6" FIFTH FLOOR 43' - 6" FOURTH FLOOR 33' - 6" THIRD FLOOR 23' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 13' - 6" FIRST GRADE FLOOR 0' - 6" 0" 2 East AC-7 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" FIFTH FLOOR ROOF CEILING 54' 52' -- 0" 6" FIFTH FLOOR 43' - 6" FOURTH FLOOR 33' - 6" THIRD FLOOR 23' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 13' - 6" FIRST GRADE FLOOR 0' - 6" 0" 1 North AC-7 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"  FIFTH FLOOR ROOF CEILING 54' 52' -- 0" 6" FIFTH FLOOR 43' - 6" FOURTH FLOOR 33' - 6" THIRD FLOOR 23' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 13' - 6" GRADE FIRST FLOOR 0' - 0" 0' - 6" A WEST ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" FIFTH FLOOR ROOF CEILING 54' 52' -- 0" 6" FIFTH FLOOR 43' - 6" FOURTH FLOOR 33' - 6" THIRD FLOOR 23' - 6" SECOND FLOOR 13' - 6" FIRST GRADE FLOOR 0' - 6" 0" A SOUTH ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" A PERSPECTIVE VIEW (LOOKING SE) 1 SCALE: NTS A PERSPECTIVE VIEW (LOOKING SW) 1 SCALE: NTS  A PERSPECTIVE VIEW (LOOKING NW) 1 SCALE: NTS A PERSPECTIVE VIEW (LOOKING NE) 1 SCALE: NTS  1 VIEW LOOOKING SOUTHEAST AC-15 SCALE: 12" = 1'-0" 2 VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST AC-15 SCALE: 12" = 1'-0" 1702 05.18.17 AC-15  1 VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST AC-14 SCALE: 12" = 1'-0" 2 VIEW LOOOKING SOUTHWEST AC-14 SCALE: 12" = 1'-0" 1702 05.18.17 AC-14