Planning Commission

VILLAGE OF PALATINE VILLAGE HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 200 E. WOOD STREET PALATINE, IL 60067-5339 – (847) 359-9050 http://www.palatine.il.us PLAN COMMISSION AGENDA ● OCTOBER 18, 2022 Village Hall - Council Chambers Regular Meeting 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Plan Commission - Regular Meeting - Jun 21, 2022 7:00 PM III. PUBLIC HEARING 1. 101 W. Palatine Road and 2-12 S. Brockway Street - Preliminary Planned Development to allow an 18-unit apartment building and roof tenant amenity area. IV. COMMUNICATIONS V. ADJOURNMENT VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 1  2.1 VILLAGE OF PALATINE VILLAGE HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 200 E. WOOD STREET PALATINE, IL 60067-5339 – (847) 359-9050 http://www.palatine.il.us PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES ● JUNE 21, 2022 Village Hall - Council Chambers Regular Meeting 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 7:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) Dennis Dwyer Chairman Present Patrick Noonan Plan Commissioner Present Teri Williams Plan Commissioner Present Eric Friedman Plan Commissioner Present Rodney Bettenhausen Plan Commissioner Absent Robert Kolososki Plan Commissioner Present Stephen Fedota Plan Commissioner Absent II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Plan Commission - Regular Meeting - Jun 7, 2022 7:00 PM - Accepted as Amended RESULT: ACCEPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Dwyer, Noonan, Williams, Friedman, Kolososki ABSENT: Bettenhausen, Fedota VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 1 Packet Pg. 2  2.1 Minutes Plan Commission June 21, 2022 III. PUBLIC HEARING 1. 1025 and 1037 W. Kenilworth Avenue - Recommended to Approve Case 20-10 Chairman Dwyer read the notice of public hearing that was published in the Daily Herald on June 6, 2022 and mailed to the owners of the surrounding properties. The following petitioner’s exhibits were introduced: 1. Application Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 7:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) 2. Project Narrative 3. Plat of Survey 4. Plat of Subdivision 5. 1025 & 1037 Engineering Plans 6. Letter of Objection 7. Public Notice 8. Letter of Objection #2 9. Letter of Objection #3 Sworn in Petitioners: Mr. George Borawski Will Hepburn, P.E., Civil Engineer III - Bono Consulting Civil Engineers Mr. Borawski states his request is to subdivide 2 lots off of Middleton Avenue. Lots are currently 60,000 sq. ft. and he is requesting to divide into (4) 15,000 sq. ft. lots. Mr. Hepburn states that they plan to provide public improvements along Middleton Ave by extending the sanitary and watermains and adding sidewalk, new pavement and curb and gutter where required. Ms. Bremanis explains that the 2 current lots are zoned R1. The petitioner is seeking to rezone the Subject Property from R-1 to Planned Development and to subdivide the lots into four separate lots. An illustration of the existing property is presented. She explains that subdividing the property would add 2 lots to the south, both 75 feet in width and 204 linear feet long. She provides comparison information for surrounding properties with similar conditions. She states that the new proposed lots meet the R2 standards and provides lot measurements. She gives information on the existing utility and storm line locations and explains that they are proposing to extend the water line to the south down Middleton Avenue. Photos of the existing lots are presented and she provides illustrations to explain the area. She states that sidewalks would be installed along Middleton and trees planted in the parkway as part of the proposed plan. Mr. Friedman questions if we have records of areas that have been annexed into Palatine prior to subdivision or similar plan development agreements with the VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 2 Packet Pg. 3  2.1 Minutes Plan Commission June 21, 2022 county. Ms. Bremanis states there may have been lots subdivided prior to being annexed into Palatine and there would not be record on file with the Village. Mr. Dwyer states it could be confusing that the zoning is for Planned Development opposed to R1 or R2 since this is a residential area. Ms. Bremanis states it is for consistency on how we process subdivisions and maintaining the large size lots and setbacks. Mr. Vyverberg restated that this is consistent to how these subdivisions had been processed in the past. He also states that the architect code has to meet the monotony code that didn’t exist in 2002/2003. In addition the maintenance of the bioswales. Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 7:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) Mr. Dwyer asked about one of the objector letters being that the interior lots would not have access if subdivided. Mr. Dwyer stated he did not see how they could create access for these interior lots. Ms. Bremanis stated that is correct. Mr. Dwyer refers to the letters of opposition that have been received from residents. He states that they oppose the request and ask that the large lots remain as is. Resident: Mr. Jim Hall - 245 S Clyde is sworn in. Mr. Hall refers to Current Zoning Map and states that he and his wife are opposed to this subdivision request. He provides background on the purchase of his property and states that the large lots were appealing to him which led him to the purchase of his property. States that he has invested an enormous amount of money to bring water and sewer to the area that he will never recoup. He states that Mr. Borawoski’s request is an opportunity for him to make a profit and states that this opportunity is not available to the owners of the middle properties as only the corner lots can be subdivided. He is completely opposed and requests the area remain as is. Mr. Friedman comments that the subdivision does not impact the lots in the area. He asks how this will impact him specifically. Mr. Hall states that the privacy and distance from neighbors along with the large lot size was the reason he purchased his property. It will also add population to the small subdivision and feels the request will change the character of the neighborhood. Resident - Ed DiPaolo - 1051 W Kenilworth was sworn in. Mr. De Pala stated he is opposed to the subdivision request and submitted a letter of objection. His main objection is changing the lot sizes of the properties, the large property lots are the appeal of the neighborhood. His second objection is that he would not be able to subdivide his lot since it is interior. In addition, Middleton is a substandard street. VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 3 Packet Pg. 4  2.1 Minutes Plan Commission June 21, 2022 Mr. Friedman asks if the redevelopment would include improving Middleton Dr. Ms. Bremanis states that it is. Resident - Arturo Santano - 247 S Middleton - He states he is friendly with Mr. Borawski and has no personal conflict with him but has concerns with this petition. He states that subdividing the property would potentially have a house next to his which changes the appeal of his property and way of life. He also is concerned that the construction traffic using the existing narrow road into the subdivision would be a hazard. The road barely allows 2 passing cars currently and construction traffic would only create further complications. Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 7:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) Mr. Friedman asked about the existing tree line that appears to buffer the yard. Mr. Santano stated those are right on the lot line. Mr. Dwyer asks Mr. Hepburn if the timing and changes to Middleton will be improved to meet the village standards for a residential street. Mr. Hepburn states it would meet the standards but are limited to right of way with the circle drive. Mr. Dwyer asks how it would meet standards without encroaching on the circle driveway in the right of way. Ms. Bremanis provides measurements and states it will be improved but will not meet village standards. In regards to the narrow road concern during construction, she states that a Construction Management Plan is part of the conditions. Discussion ensues regarding water conditions. Ms. Bremanis states that sanitary sewer would connect to the existing services in the S. Middleton Avenue right-of-way. Water service would connect to the new water main. She explains how the storm water drains currently and states the proposed plan would not significantly alter the drain pattern. Resident - Mr. Hall states the water flow is a concern. Resident - Mr. Arturo states there is a high water table next to the wetlands. Currently, the water ponds at his driveway during heavy rains. Petitioner - Mr. Borawski states that the detention area existed when the Clyde extension was built. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: While some of the immediately adjacent properties remain R-1 zoning with larger lots, the proposal is consistent with recent developments immediately northwest, northeast and east of the Subject Property. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposal, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall substantially conform to the Plat of Subdivision prepared by Murry and Moody, LTD. and the Engineering Plans prepared by Bono VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 4 Packet Pg. 5  2.1 Minutes Plan Commission June 21, 2022 Consulting Civil Engineers., dated 11/22/2019 last revised 06/01/2022, except as such plans may be revised to conform to Village Codes and Ordinances. 2. All future residences shall follow the Village’s R-2 Standards. 3. A Public Improvement letter of credit or appropriate security deposit shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. 4. Review fees in the amount of 1.5% of the total project improvement costs (as defined in the Village Code) shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. 5. A Planned Development letter of credit shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Director of Planning and Zoning. Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 7:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) 6. The Final Plat of Subdivision shall be submitted on Mylar with the required signatures and significantly conform to the Plat of Subdivision prepared by Murry and Moody, LTD. 7. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Attorney. 8. Recording fees in the amount of $300 shall be submitted. 9. The Final Engineering Plans and Final Engineer’s Cost Estimate shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. 10. Cash-in-lieu of detention shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. 11. A construction management plan, indicated the proposed material delivery routes and contractor parking areas, shall be submitted to the Village Engineer. 12. A MWRD permit shall be submitted. Mr. Noonan made a motion to close the public hearing. DISCUSSION: Mr. Kolososki is not opposed to the petitioner’s request and states that the area invites subdivision. Mr. Noonan asks when the Sub lot at Clyde and Kenilworth was completed and the zoning map is referenced showing dates of previous sub divisions. Mr. Dwyer states that request for sub dividing of lots that have been requested in the past did not have the same level of objection and states that he is not in favor of the subdivision. Mr. Noonan has concerns regarding the street not meeting the village standards. Mr. Friedman states individual homeowners in the neighborhood that enjoy their large property would still have their large property. He states that the proposed subdivision of these properties are in line with what is in the area. Mr. Dwyer states that it would change the character of the adjoining properties. Mr. Friedman made a motion to approve subject staff’s conditions; 2nd by Mr. Kolososki Commissioner Dwyer summarized the request was accepted by a vote of 3- 2. This will tentatively go to Village council on Monday August 8th, 2022. VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 5 Packet Pg. 6  2.1 Minutes Plan Commission June 21, 2022 RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO APPROVE [3 TO 2] MOVER: Eric Friedman, Plan Commissioner SECONDER: Robert Kolososki, Plan Commissioner AYES: Williams, Friedman, Kolososki NAYS: Dwyer, Noonan ABSENT: Bettenhausen, Fedota Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 7:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 6 Packet Pg. 7  2.1 Minutes Plan Commission June 21, 2022 2. 2240-2296 N. Rand Road - Recommended to Approve Chairman Dwyer read the notice of public hearing that was published in the Daily Herald on June 6, 2022 and mailed to the owners of the surrounding properties. The following petitioner’s exhibits were introduced: 1. Missner Group - Engineer Plans 2. Missner Group - Architect Plans 3. Missner Group - Plat of Subdivision 4. Missner Group - Landscape Plan Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 7:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) 5. Site Plan 6. Arch Site Plan - Additional Parking Exhibit 7. KLOA Rand Rd Traffic Study 8. Photometric Lighting Plan 9. PF PD Application 10. Rezoning Application 11. PF Subdivision Application 12. Alta Survey 2234-2240 Rand Rd 13. 2296 N Rand Rd - Alta Survey 14. Public Notice Sworn in Petitioners: Lawrence M. Freedman - Law Offices Ash, Anos, Freedman & Logan, LLC Cody Balogh - The Missner Group Edward Adler - The Missner Group Charles Swanson - Ware Malcomb Brett Duffy, P.E. - Spaceco, Inc. Luay R. Aboona, PE, PTOE - KLOA Commissioner Friedman states for the record that he has a working relationship with members of the Petitioner team, but that relationship will not affect his ability objectively review the request. Commissioner Noonan also states for the record that he has a working relationship with members of the Petitioner team and confirmed the same. Mr. Freedman - Authorized Agent and Attorney introduces Mr. Edward Adler of The Missner Group. Petitioner, Mr. Adler, provides background information on their company and states that they are a developer of property, 3rd Generation, 75 year old company. He explains that they are a General Contractor and Real Estate Developers. They have been involved in Industrial Real Estate for approximately 45 years whether investing or developing. They are infill developers and don’t typically buy farm land. Typically building buildings in the 80 to 250,000 sq. ft. range. Their operation has expanded into NW Indiana and Merrillville, IN. The location within Palatine was attractive as an infill location because of proximity to VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 7 Packet Pg. 8  2.1 Minutes Plan Commission June 21, 2022 Highway 53 and O’Hare airport. Architect - Charles Swanson - Director of Architecture with Ware Malcomb Architects Mr. Swanson talks about current conditions and is proposing a Class A, modern office/warehouse distribution facility. He presents a proposed site plan showing a rendering of the building with parking spaces. He states parking spaces will meet the requirements for the space. He further explains that truck parking would be at the back of the lot and the proposed office building would be an attractive structure from street view. He states that it would be a significant improvement to the existing conditions. Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 7:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) Mr. Vyverberg provides insight to the proposed Planned Development and states that the petitioner plans to consolidate the existing 7 parcels into one consolidated lot and develop a new warehouse/distribution center with associated office uses. He provides information on the surrounding properties and states it is zoned B5. He provides information on the existing utilities and states that the Village Engineer’s review sited a new sidewalk would be required along Rand Rd. The Petitioner provided a Traffic Impact Study and talks about the parking demands which anticipates 10% of the building being occupied with office use and the balance for warehouse/distribution. He provides information from the developer as to the anticipated tenant that they are targeting which could be food use/distribution or light assembly use. Mr. Friedman asks if the staff review considers this a development opportunity as one of the entry faces into Palatine. He questions whether constructing a building so close to the roadway without a way to screen it is the vision of Palatine. He would like to make sure we get it right for this corridor project. Mr. Vyverberg states that the site plan complies with all the B5 standards and states the height requirement is also being met. The review considered what the underlying zoning allows and whether it is dissimilar to the surrounding properties and refers to the UPS building as a reference. Mr. Friedman states that the scale of the UPS facility is not seen at street level. He states that there are buildings that surround the facility that provide screening. The structure is not visible unless you drove in. Mr. Dwyer requests to see an elevation of what it would look like. Mr. Swanson provides elevations of the Planned Development. He states that the design is attractive which would rent out well with the type of tenant they are hoping to attract. He states that the building complies with all setbacks. Mr. Friedman states it is a beautiful facility that would look great along the I-55 corridor but has concerns whether it fits the vision of Palatine. Mr. Swanson provides elevations showing the overview of the project site, aerial VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 8 Packet Pg. 9  2.1 Minutes Plan Commission June 21, 2022 view and site elevation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Subject Property was annexed into the Village in 2007 from unincorporated Cook County. The proposed redevelopment will continue the redevelopment patterns along Rand Road and the contemplated warehouse/distribution/light industrial uses is not inconsistent with the surrounding developments. With the existing roadway systems along Rand and Lake Cook Roads, the proposed development has the necessary capacity to operate. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary and Final Planned Development, Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 7:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) Preliminary and Final Plat of Subdivision, and Rezoning to Planned Development, subject to the following conditions: Preliminary and Final Planned Development: 1. The development shall substantially conform to the engineering plans by Spaceco., INC., dated March 22, 2022, as revised, the architectural plans by Ware Malcomb, date April 3, 2022, as revised, the KLOA Traffic Study, and the landscaping plans by Kathyrn Talty, dated January 28, 2022, except as such plans may be changed to conform to Village Codes and Ordinances. 2. Uses and signage shall be governed by the Manufacturing District use lists in the Village of Palatine Zoning Ordinance (note - this includes all of the required performance standards). Sign plans shall follow the Manufacturing district sign regulations. 3. As a component of the Final Planned Development, a Planned Development letter of credit shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Director of Planning and Zoning and Village Engineer. 4. The final engineering plans shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. 5. The final landscape plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Planning and Zoning and shall include addition shrub plantings along the Rand Road frontage, adjacent to the parking lot. 6. The final photometric and lighting plan shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. Light shields shall be required for any lights proximate to residential properties, at the determination of the Village Engineer. This may include a 25-foot mounting height for exterior lights, in order to reduce the glare, at the direction of the Village Engineer. 7. The final traffic directional signage plan shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. 8. Cross access easements, declarations and a Reciprocal Easement Agreement for the entire property governing the maintenance of access VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 9 Packet Pg. 10  2.1 Minutes Plan Commission June 21, 2022 points, stormwater areas and any other common areas shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Attorney and Village Engineer. This could include a cross access easement for the property directly north of the Subject Property, if that property were to redevelop in the future, if requested by the Village of Palatine. 9. The final dumpster locations and required screening materials shall be submitted in compliance with Village Code. The screening shall be constructed of durable materials similar to those of the building and shall have solid (opaque) walls and doors. The final locations could also require the submission of a revised auto-turn, in a manner acceptable to the Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 7:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) Director of Fire Prevention. 10. As a condition of the Final Planned Development and pursuant to the project narrative, the Petitioner shall submit the proposed business and operations’ plans (identified tenants) for Staff review for compliance with the manufacturing use list and standards. 10. If, at the determination of the Village, the proposed tenant composition (% of office uses) increases or the Village of Palatine determines that there is a significant parking demand deficiency, based upon the required parking needs, the trailer parking directly east of the detention basin shall be converted to auto parking stalls, or a portion thereof, as noted on Ware Malcomb Concept Site Plan (“Scheme 9”), depicting up to 30 additional parking spaces. Preliminary and Final Plat of Subdivision: 1. The Final Engineering plans shall substantially conform to the engineering plans by Spaceco., INC., dated March 22, 2022, except as such plans shall be changed to conform with Village Codes and Ordinances and in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. 2. The Final Engineering Plans shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. 3. The Final Plat of Subdivision shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer and submitted on a Mylar, with all required signatures. 4. Recording fees in an amount of $600 shall be submitted. 5. The Final Plan Review fees in the amount of 1.5% of total project improvement costs shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. 6. A Public Improvement Letter of Credit shall be submitted to ensure the completion of all public improvements, as defined within the Village Code, for an amount of 115% of the approved EEOC, along with a cash bond of 10% for the required one-year maintenance period in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 10 Packet Pg. 11  2.1 Minutes Plan Commission June 21, 2022 6. The EEOPC shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. 7. The Petitioners shall submit a Subdivision Improvement Agreement in a manner acceptable to the Village Attorney. 8. The cross-access easement, declarations, and reciprocal easement agreement regarding the maintenance of the access points, storm water areas, or any other required common areas shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Attorney and Village Engineer. 9. All extra-agency permits (e.g. IDOT, MWRD, etc.) shall be submitted in a Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 7:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. Mr. Noonan made a motion to close the public hearing. DISCUSSION: Mr. Kolososki states the proposed plan may be tall, but fits with the Rand Road vision and the gateway to Palatine. Mr. Friedman states it is a lot of building for a busy road. He indicated that he feels that aggregating all of the properties together and putting a massive building doesn’t feel like the intent is being met for that district. Mr. Friedman inquired how staff reviewed the proposal given that these parcels represent a gateway into the Village. With this level of investment, this building will be here for some time. Mr. Vyverberg noted that as the proposal complies with both the B-5 and Manufacturing district requirements and were the proposed uses permitted, only site plan review would be required. One of the underlying balances of the staff review is what is allowed within the given zoning district and that the architectural materials have been approved on other recent projects. Mr. Friedman commented upon the scope of the UPS property and noted its setback. Mr. Noonan inquired about the height of the Hyundai building. Mr. Friedman commented on the prevalence of these type of distribution buildings. The architect commented on the large amount of glazing on the building. The speculative nature of the building requires an 18-month lead time for the pre-cast materials. The windows, color of the panels, and materials will work to distinguish the building as a Class A building. The architect commented that berming is typically provided for screening of the VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 11 Packet Pg. 12  2.1 Minutes Plan Commission June 21, 2022 loading docks, which would not apply here. The building would be 36 feet clear height. There are 156 auto parking spaces, with 140 installed initially and 16 additional parking spaces on the north side of the building. Mr. Dwyer inquired if the Missner Group is the owner or contract purchaser. They are the contract purchaser. Mr. Kolososki commented that the location is appropriate, given the proximity to Route 53. Mr. Friedman commented on the massing of the building, which may be too Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 7:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) much. Discussion about the Algonquin Road development and this proposal would be better were it smaller. Mr. Noonan made a motion to approve subject staff’s conditions; 2 nd by Mr. Kolososki Commissioner Dwyer summarized the request was accepted by a vote of 4- 1. This will tentatively go to Village council on Monday July 11th, 2022. Communication: Ben states that the Text Amendments have not gone to the Village Council and is tentative for July 11th or the first meeting in August. Mr. Dwyer states public notices refer to file # and the package refers to it as case #. Inquires if both should refer to the same reference. RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO APPROVE [4 TO 1] MOVER: Patrick Noonan, Plan Commissioner SECONDER: Robert Kolososki, Plan Commissioner AYES: Dwyer, Noonan, Williams, Kolososki NAYS: Friedman ABSENT: Bettenhausen, Fedota VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 12 Packet Pg. 13  2.1 Minutes Plan Commission June 21, 2022 IV. COMMUNICATIONS V. ADJOURNMENT Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 7:00 PM (Approval of Minutes) VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 13 Packet Pg. 14  3.1 VILLAGE OF PALATINE Plan Commission SCHEDULED 10/18/22 07:00 PM CASE STAFF STATEMENT (ID # 7928) 101 W. Palatine Road and 2-12 S. Brockway Street - Preliminary Planned Development to allow an 18-unit apartment building and roof tenant amenity area. CASE NUMBER: 22-41 PETITIONER: Vu Trieu (Northshore Development Group – (http://www.nsdgbuilders.com/) LOCATION: 101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street PROPOSAL: 3-story apartment building with 18 units and roof tenant amenity area. ZONING AND LAND USE: The Subject Property (Gunnar Hansen Resubdivision) is zoned Planned Development. It is the former location of the Kramer Photography building and an associated multi-tenant building. Page 1 Packet Pg. 15  3.1 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7928) Meeting of October 18, 2022 SURROUNDING CONDITIONS: North: Planned Development (Palatine Bank and Trust) South B-1 - shopping center district (AT & T facility and office building) East: Utility District (municipal parking lot) & B-1 (shopping center - Garfield’s, Fox Glove Cottage, Anne’s Unique Boutique, & Bendita Cocina restaurant) West: B-2 (W. Brothers roofing and Heng Wing restaurant) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:  The 2016 TOD plan identified the potential redevelopment of the Subject Property (a part of Concept #3) and those properties to the west as appropriate for a mixed use residential development of approximately 40-units: Page 2 Packet Pg. 16  3.1 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7928) Meeting of October 18, 2022 Page 3 Packet Pg. 17  3.1 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7928) Meeting of October 18, 2022  While the TOD Plan contemplated the potential redevelopment of serval properties in this area, it also reaffirmed the appropriateness for residential uses on the Subject Property. BACKGROUND:  The Subject Property (2 existing lots is 17,437 square feet/.40-acres) is zoned Planned Development and was previously occupied by an anchor use and multi- tenant building. The property was sold in 2019 and the buildings were subsequently demolished in 2021.  The Petitioner has applied for a Preliminary Planned Development to allow an 18-unit apartment building, a covered and partially enclosed 34-space parking lot, and a roof amenity area. Page 4 Packet Pg. 18  3.1 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7928) Meeting of October 18, 2022  Therefore, the Petitioner is requesting: o Preliminary Planned Development to allow an 18-unit, 3-story apartment building, with a roofed resident amenity area. ANALYSIS:  The Petitioner acquired the property in 2019 and demolished the buildings in 2021. The Petitioner proposes to construct a new 18-unit; 3-story apartment building. The resident roof amenity area is inset from the building.  The Subject Property is centrally located within Downtown Palatine and approximately .2 miles from Palatine’s Metra Train Station. Site Design, Density, and Architecture:  The proposed apartment building is 3-stories, with the first level containing 34 parking spaces, including 2 handicap parking spaces. In addition to the parking area, the first floor contains the lobby, building amenity space (1,188 square feet – northeast corner of the building) elevator lobby, trash, electrical and building rooms.  The 2nd and 3rd floors consist of nine two-bedroom apartments, ranging in size from 1,070 square feet to 1,226 square feet. Each floor also contains a separate elevator lobby, trash room, staircases, and centrally located storage lockers (591 square feet).  Each of the unit floorplan includes a balcony, distributed among the 2 nd and 3rd floors of the building. There is also a roof amenity area contemplated, which includes an inset trellised area, accessed by 2 sets of stairs and an elevator portal. The amenity area would include a gas fire pit, several grilling areas and seating below the trellises.  With 18 units proposed, the proposed gross density is 45 units/acre. This is also comparable to other multi-family developments within the Downtown: Development: Location: Area Units: Gross Density: Acres: Benchmark Greely Street, 1.43 72 total 50.3 units/acre Palatine Road, acres Page 5 Packet Pg. 19  3.1 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7928) Meeting of October 18, 2022 & Johnson Street Wellington Court Smith & Colfax .875 43 units 49.14 units/acre Streets The Heritage Smith, 1.648 55 33.37 units/acre Johnson & Greeley Street Streets The Providence Plum Grove 1.42 112 78.87 units/acre Road & Wilson Street The Stratford Palatine Road .899 32 35.60 & Johnson Street  The building will be set back 5 feet from Palatine Road. The building setback on the south side maintains an approximately 2-foot setback. The two other sides of the building maintain a comparable property line setback, with some insets. The ground floor garage façade elevations along S. Brockway Street and W. Palatine Road are enclosed, with the ground floor elevations on the south (AT & T building) and west (W. Brothers Roofing) being open to the garage parking.  The three-story building has a maximum height (parapet) of 41 feet 4 inches. Including the top of the stairs on the inset resident roof area, the height is 50 feet 2 inches. Due to this area being setback, the 3-story elevation would be maintained from street level. This is directly comparable to the height of the Palatine Bank & Trust Building, which is 40 feet to the middle of the roof tower and approximately 45 feet tall overall.  The proposed elevations include a brick façade, architectural lighting elements, and ground floor windows along Palatine Road and S. Brockway Street. The upper floors continue a similar window treatment and a brick façade. Downtown Design Guidelines: Page 6 Packet Pg. 20  3.1 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7928) Meeting of October 18, 2022  The adopted Downtown Design Guidelines indicate that new buildings should be compatible with the character of existing nearby Downtown buildings. This includes building style, massing, form, color, and materials. The recommended building requirements for durable and high quality materials are also articulated in the proposed building.  Staff also recognizes the ground level opening on two sides of the building to portions of the garage parking. This will serve to further reduce any impact to the surrounding properties and also create additional visual interest to the elevations. The proposed architectural elements are consistent with these requirements. Engineering and parking:  While the zoning ordinance requires 2 spaces/per unit, the Subject Property is also within the Zoning Ordinance defined Central Business District:  11.01 (m) Business Standards for the Properties located within the Central Business District. The following standards apply to all commercial properties within the Central Business District; defined as the area bounded by Wood Street on the north, Smith Street on the west, Johnson Street on the south, and Plum Grove Road on the east.  The parking section of the Zoning Ordinance reviews the parking requirements in the Central Business Districts, as follows: B-3, Central Business District or This requirement may be waived with approval from any property bounded by Wood Street the administrator (north), Johnson Street (south), Smith Street (west) and Plum Grove Road (east), regardless of the underlying zoning (Ord. No. 0-83-10, §1, 7/19/10)  The proposed parking ratio provides 1.88 spaces/unit. The minimum parking requirement for multi-family uses is 2 spaces/unit or 2.25 spaces/unit, with garages. Therefore, the Preliminary Planned Development petition requests parking deficiency of 4.25 (5) parking spaces.  In addition to the parking review, the proposed parking ratio is consistent with or exceeding of other approved multi-family developments in Downtown Palatine: Development Parking spaces Spaces/unit Page 7 Packet Pg. 21  3.1 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7928) Meeting of October 18, 2022 provided The Benchmark 122 1.69 Wellington Court 72 1.67 The Heritage 97 1.75 The Providence 198 1.76 The Stratford 51 1.59 101 W. Palatine 34 1.88 Road  Within the parking garage, the parking space depth is 18 feet, which is 1 foot shallower than the minimum requirements. Two of the interior drive aisles are 22 feet wide, rather than the minimum required 24 feet wide. These elements are comparable to other approved multi-family developments in Downtown. Also, with the limited number of parking spaces (34), Staff does not have any specific concerns about the garage site plan.  Utilities exist in the immediate area and the proposed final engineering plans would be further reviewed and evaluated by the Village Engineer, within the Final Planned Development application process. RECOMMENDATION: The Subject Property was contemplated for redevelopment within both the Downtown Land Use Guide and the 2016 TOD plan. It is also consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines. The proposed architectural plans not only address the Guideline requirements, but also break up the elevations to create visual interest in the building. With comparable materials and height for the surrounding developments, Staff also believes that the proposed building is compatible with the other recent Downtown development projects. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Planned Development, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall substantially conform to the architecture plans Page 8 Packet Pg. 22  3.1 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7928) Meeting of October 18, 2022 prepared by Tinaglia Architects, except as such plans may be changed to conform to Village Codes and Ordinances. 2. The Final Engineering plans Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Cost will be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. Planning Review fees, based upon the finally accepted EEOPC shall be submitted a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. 3. The Final Architectural Plans shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Community Development Director. This shall include the final rooftop amenity area plans and the architectural fencing plan around the exterior parking stalls. 4. The Plat of Consolidation shall be prepared in a manner acceptable to the Director of Planning and Zoning and the Village Engineer. This would include the vacation of the 10-foot public utilities and drainage easement on the south side of the property and referenced on the ALTA survey, dated December 13, 2019 by MM Surveying Company. 5. At the direction of the Village Engineer, all extra agency permits shall be submitted. 6. Review fees, based upon the finally accepted EEOPC shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. 7. The Final Landscaping shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Director of Planning and Zoning. 8. A Public Improvement letter of credit in an amount of 115% of the approved EEOPC, for said public improvements, shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer. 9. A Planned Development Letter of Credit in the amount of $180,000 – ($10,000/unit, per Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance) shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Director of Planning and Zoning. 10. An approved NFPA 13 automatic sprinkler system will be required for the parking garage, P.C.O. 7-40.2. 11. A construction management plan shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Director of Planning and Zoning and the Village Engineer and shall outline the proposed development schedule and identify the Page 9 Packet Pg. 23  3.1 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7928) Meeting of October 18, 2022 material delivery routes and proposed parking areas for the contractors, in conjunction with the building permit application submission. ATTACHMENTS:  Architectural Plans  Preliminary Planned Development application  Plat of Survey - Gunnar K. Hansen Resubdivision  101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development  Existing utility map  Legal Notice Page 10 Packet Pg. 24  3.1.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Architectural Plans (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned Development)  3.1.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Architectural Plans (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned Development)  3.1.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Architectural Plans (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned Development)  3.1.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Architectural Plans (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned Development)  3.1.b Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.b Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Preliminary Planned Development application (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.c Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Plat of Survey - Gunnar K. Hansen Resubdivision (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned Development)  3.1.d Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.d Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 101 W. Palatine Road - 1991 Planned Development (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned  3.1.e 101 W. Palatine Road - existing utilities Legend Attachment: Existing utility map (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned Water Utilities Hydrant Water Fitting Water Valve Open Water Service Valve Open Water Main Break Water Lateral Active Water Main Abandoned Active Sanitary Utilities Sanitary Manhole Sanitary Main Active Storm Utilities Storm Catch Basin Storm Inlet Storm Manhole Storm Fitting Storm Main Active 0 150 300 Print Date: 10/14/2022 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Packet Pg. 71  3.1.f Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Legal Notice (101 W. Palatine Road; 2-12 S. Brockway Street- Preliminary Planned Development)