Submitted By
David Mann, Plan Commission Chair through Tammie Grossman, Development Customer Services Director
Reviewed By
LKS
Agenda Item Title
Title
Concur with the Plan Commission’s Recommendation and Adopt An Ordinance Granting a Specia Use Permit for a Major Planned Development Containing a Seven Story Senior Living Facility at the Property Located at 711-725 Madison Street
End
Overview
Overview
The Applicant, American House, LLC (Redico) has requested the approval of a Planned Development for a seven (7) story senior housing community with 174 units (222 beds) comprised of 76 independent living units, 65 assisted living units, and 33 memory care units with the four allowances. This is a companion to agenda item ORD 20-011.
End
Recommendation
Recommendation
The Plan Commission recommends approval with a six (6) to two (2) vote of the Application with conditions
Body
Staff Recommendation
Staff supports the Plan Commission’s recommendation. The full application can be found on the Village’s website here: <https://www.oak-park.us/your-government/citizen-commissions/plan-commission> Click on “Applications for Public Hearing”
Fiscal Impact
N./A.
Background
Redevelopment Agreement: Pursuant to State Law, property owned by a municipality and located within the boundaries of a TIF District may only be conveyed or sold following public disclosure of all proposals received in response to a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Between 2001 and 2005, the Village purchased the properties located at 710-728 Madison. After acquisition and demolition of existing structures, the Village has operated a parking lot on the site.
In 2009, the Village entered into a lease with Fenwick High School. In anticipation of a proposed development, the Village did not renew its lease with Fenwick for the 2018-2019 school year. On September 16, 2018, the Village issued an RFP for the property at 710-728 Madison and on December 5, 2016, Jupiter Realty Company was named the preferred developer. The RDA between the Village and Jupiter, for the 710-728 Madison properties, was never finalized.
Subsequently, on November 2, 2017, the Village acquired the adjacent parcel at 700 Madison (Former CarX). With the addition of the new parcel, staff communicated to Jupiter that a new RFP for the combined parcels would be issued and that their existing preferred developer status would not automatically apply to the new RFP process. On May 18, 2018, the Village issued a new RFP for the properties on the north side of Madison between Oak Park Avenue and Euclid. On May 25, 2018, the Village issued an amended RFP extending the due date to July 6, 2018, clarifying the Village’s potential willingness to allow a cul-de-sac at Euclid Avenue as part of any redevelopment.
The Oak Park Economic Development Corporation reviewed the submissions to the revised RFP and presented a recommendation to enter into a redevelopment agreement with Jupiter to combine the Village owned parcel at Oak Park and Madison with the property located at 644-640 Madison to partner with Pete’s Fresh Market to build a grocery store and to construct a Senior Living Facility at the 725 and 711 Madison Street property.
This senior living community planned development application is proposed for the south side of Madison Street (South Parcel) as identified in the aforementioned Redevelopment Agreement.
Alternatives
Deny the Application
Modify the Application
Previous Board Action
The Village Board approved a Redevelopment Agreement for this property.
Citizen Advisory Commission Action
The Plan Commission began the public hearing on December 5, 2019. It was continued to December 19, 2010 and again to January 23, 2020. At the December 5, 2019 meeting, there were five (5) residents who cross-examined the applicant and ten (10) who provided public testimony.
At the end of the meeting, the Commissioners provided some direction to the applicants:
(1) They asked the Applicant to review their proposed garbage location and garbage pick-up and grease trap areas.
(2) They indicated the Applicant should add a cul-de-sac at Wesley Avenue and save the mature tree along Euclid Avenue at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac, abutting the alley.
(3) A green buffer should be installed between the development and residences along the south property line as well as decrease the height along the south property line too.
(4) The Applicant should look at alternative massing for the building and establish an urban standard building height of no more than 75 feet.
(5) Review the compensating benefits and consider higher efficient building beyond just LEED certification requirements. Look at a green roof, affordable units, and affirm the development will not become a non-profit organization.
(6) One commissioner indicated that the Applicant should provide an annual report on energy consumption for the next 10 years and that the Applicant should look at other options for public art.
The applicant indicated they would review the requests and come back at a special meeting on December 19, 2019.
The Applicant appeared at the December 19, 2019 hearing and requested an additional continuance until January 23, 2020. No discussion took place on December 19, 2019.
At the January 23, 2020 hearing, the Applicant returned with a revised application. The changes consisted of the following: 1). The overall height of the building was reduced. The maximum building height as measured from the roof was reduced by 9 feet, from 88 feet to 79 feet by reducing the floor to floor heights. The height of the fin was reduced from 89 feet-8 inches to 82 feet and brought down to the ground on the west side into the easement/side yard. Along Wesley Avenue and abutting the neighborhood the building height was reduced to 50 feet and a horizontal setback above 50 feet as measured from the far side of the alley was increase to 50 feet. The eliminated floor area along Wesley was shifted to a center wing of the building to compensate. 2.) They relocated the trash room access doors to the easement side (west) of the building so it does not directly open to the alley and the neighborhood. Trash collection by truck will still occur in the alley. 3.) They shifted the Euclid Avenue cul-de-sac ten (10) feet from the alley to address the fire departments concerns with accessibility of response vehicles. This resulted in the removal an additional tree. 4.) They revised Wesley Avenue at the alley by adding a diverter to stop southbound traffic from entering the neighborhood but allow for emergency access and north bound traffic. 5.) They provided a revised Traffic analysis which still indicated there would be no traffic impact by the development. 6.) They provided a revised landscape plan for the Euclid Avenue cul-de-sac.
The Plan Commission asked Fire Chief Ebsen about service calls, the repositioning of the proposed Euclid Avenue cul-de-sac (moving it closer to the east-west alley) and if a cul-de-sac was possible at the intersection of Wesley Avenue and the east-west alley. Chief Ebsen stated first; by moving the proposed Euclid Avenue cul-de-sac further north closer to the east-west alley, it allows the fire department better access to the houses at the end of that block in case of an emergency. Chief Ebsen then stated that he did not support a cul-de-sac at the intersection of Wesley Avenue and the east-west alley as it would reduce their response times to the neighborhood. He did indicate he supported a traffic diverter at Wesley Avenue and the alley as shown on the Applicant’s plan. Chief Ebsen concluded by stating he expects a similar number of ambulance service calls to this development as has been the experience with Belmont Village, which was about 200 calls last year.
Mr. Richard Van Zyel, Wight and Co. provided an overview of their report to the Plan Commission supporting the changes to the development. Their memorandums are included in the agenda item attachments.
There was one person who cross examined the Applicant regarding financial information. There were six persons who provided public testimony. There were two in support of the development, one providing a qualified support, but with some concerns, one in favor of development, but not at the proposed height and density, one who was in opposition because he felt the development could be accomplished within code with a lower rate of return. One who felt the applicant did not go far enough in their redesign.
The Plan Commission deliberated, mainly focusing on compensating benefits (some thought there should be more), the Wesley Avenue diverter (some thought there should be a cul-de-sac), public art, streetscape, tax status (the Applicant indicated that the RDA requires the development remain on the tax roles for at least 20 years), massing of the development, sustainability (some wanted more options added to the list the Applicant provided), and they debated the need for independent living units.
The vote was six (6) in favor and two (2) in opposition to recommend approval of the development. Commissioner Foster voted no because he wanted more building setback from the alley side of the development to provide a greater separation between the development and the residential to the south. Chair Mann was still concerned about the size of the development and that the height would set precedence along Madison Street.
Anticipated Future Actions/Commitments
N/A.
Intergovernmental Cooperation Opportunities
Zoning and land use matters are unique to Village government within the corporate limits of Oak Park and therefore, intergovernmental cooperation opportunities do not exist