Geneva panel rejects apartment, townhouse project for being too large

GENEVA – The Geneva Planning and Zoning Commission denied a petition for a five-story, 114-unit luxury apartment complex and 12 townhouses to be built on 2.1 acres of an entire city block in the city’s Historic District as too large and too dense.

Benchmark Developers of Rolling Meadows proposed the multi-family development where the former Geneva Bottling Works is located, bound by First Street to the west, Stevens Street to the north, Fourth Street to the South and River Lane and the Fox River to the East.

Called the 302 N. River Lane PUD – planned unit development – as proposed, it would demolish eight structures in the block, except for the house at 305 N. First St., which would be relocated on the site and repurposed as a manager’s and leasing office.

A planned unit development is a community of homes and amenities in a designed neighborhood.

“The project presents an exciting opportunity to transform this historic, but a little bit dilapidated site, into a vibrant residential community that we will integrate with the surrounding area,” applicant Anthony Pecoraro of Benchmark Developers said at the April 25 Planning and Zoning public hearing.

“We specialize in multi-family developments in premium locations such as this,” Pecoraro said. “We are designers and build our own developments as general contractors. We are owners and operators there from start to finish.”

The apartments would be a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom units, the townhouses would be three bedrooms and there would be 192 parking spaces, according to the application.

The project is intended for affluent tenants. Rent for a one-bedroom apartment would range from $1,750 to $2,100 and the townhouses would cost $4,000 to $5,000 a month, Pecoraro said.

“The project presents an exciting opportunity to transform this historic – but a little bit dilapidated site – into a vibrant residential community that we will integrate with the surrounding area.”

—  Anthony Pecoraro of Benchmark Developers

The first-floor lobby would have work stations, a dog-washing station, mail and parcel room, laundry room and dry-cleaning drop-off. The second floor would have a golf simulator, fitness center and cafe lounge, Pecoraro said.

The apartment building also would feature 6,100 feet of roof deck for socializing and cooking out, he said, as well as some private terraces.

One structure would be saved because of the Historic Preservation Commission’s commentary after its Feb. 21 hearing.

“This was in response to strong feedback from the Historic Preservation Commission that we were maybe not making enough effort to preserve some of the homes on the property,” Pecoraro said.

The area currently has a vacant warehouse in addition to the former bottling works, parking lots and a former railroad spur.

“There’s an awful lot to like about this plan. But cobbling it into a PUD that has the various variances and the mass along the west or the east elevation, make it challenging.”

—  John Mead, member of the Geneva Planning and Zoning Commission

The apartment building would be separate from two six-unit townhouses, he said.

The townhouses would attract smaller, younger families and the apartments would attract young professionals, couples and empty nesters, he said.

“We are bringing a large investment into this neighborhood,” Pecoraro said.

“The development, we feel, is a much-needed apartment building and development for Geneva. We feel this development would help spur some of the economy in downtown – not that it’s bad – but it can help,” Pecoraro said. “That’s a lot of affluent individuals that are going to be shopping in the neighborhood and contributing.”

Benchmark also seeks variances on building height to allow the apartment complex to be 53 feet instead of the maximum of 50 feet high; lot coverage to be 83%, more than the 70% maximum allowed; rear yard setback of zero instead of the 10 feet required; street yard setback of zero because of the parking stalls, with the building set back 23 feet 4 inches; and to allow three buildings on one lot instead of the maximum of one.

Several members of the public testified the project was too big for the area.

Kathryn Kurinsky, 10 Ford St., said the developer is seeking variances “because this building is simply too large for the proposed site.”

“The plan calls for removal of about 75 trees,” Kurkinsky said. “I just have to question the study showing that a number of these trees were in poor condition because they looked fine today.”

Kenneth Celic, 200 N. River Lane, agreed.

“I think it needs to continually be emphasized how monolithic this is,” Celic said. “It’s too wide. It’s too deep. It’s too tall. It’s too dense. ... Bottom line, it’s too big. It’s 40,000 square feet. It would be significantly, by far, the largest footprint in the historic district and it’s just too much.”

The commission voted 7-0 in recommending that the proposal be denied.

“There’s an awful lot to like about this plan,” Commissioner John Mead said. “But cobbling it into a PUD that has the various variances and the mass along the west or the east elevation make it challenging.”

A date has not been set for when the commission’s recommendation goes before the City Council for final action.