Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/2005 P&Z minutes 10-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-IO-05 Hearing Date: April 28, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 100 S. School Street PETITIONER/OWNER: St. Paul Lutheran Church 100 S. School Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 PUBLICATION DATE: April 13, 2005 PIN #s: 08-12-111-012 & 08-12-111-016 REQUEST: Petitioner is proposing to construct an addition to the existing church and expand/modify the existing parking lot. The Petitioner is seeking relief from Village regulations for the following: 1) required setbacks (Variation); 2) number of parking spaces provided on-site (Variation); 3) storm water detention (Development Code Exception); and 4) other relief from the Village Code as may be required for this project. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Matt Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Harold Bune; Bob Dooley; Barbara Dorolnig; Janet Doyle; Roy & Darby Halsaien; Dennis & Cynthia Higdon; Ronald Kloss; Brenda O'Brien; Peter Loeschke; Sue Miceli; Scott Moon; Roger & Melodie Van Dyke; Rev. Marc Schwichtenberg; Paul Seils; Rev. Kris Whitby; Charles T. Walsh; Jennifer Weisler; Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2005 meeting and Leo Floros seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 with abstentions by Chair Arlene Juracek, Richard Rogers and Keith Youngquist. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-10-05, a request to construct an addition to the existing church and expand/modify the existing parking lot. She said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. The Petitioner is seeking relief from Village regulations for the following: (a) required setbacks, (b) the number of parking spaces provided on-site, and (c) storm water detention requirements. The Subject Property, consisting of two parcels, is located at the southwest comer of Busse Avenue and School Street. The property located at 100 S. School Street contains the main church building, a one-story accessory structure and parsonage; at 108 S. School Street, a parking lot and related site improvements. The property at 112 S. School Street contains an existing single-family residence with related Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-10-05 Page 2 improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. The Petitioner is proposing a number of improvements to the site, including a 2-story addition to the existing church, which creates an open, interior courtyard, and an expansion of the existing parking lot. The proposed improvement would result in the demolition of the accessory structure at 100 S. School Street and the existing home at 112 S. School Street. The proposed 2-story building addition will match the Church's existing setback of 19.32' along School Street, which is less than the required setback of 20 feet. Therefore, they are seeking a Variation for the proposed exterior side yard setback. The Petitioner is also proposing an expansion of the existing parking lot. Although the site will include 21 additional parking spaces, creating a total of 52 on-site parking spaces, the Petitioner is seeking relief from the Village's zoning regulations for the amount of required on-site parking. In addition, the proposed parking lot requires variations from the RA District's minimum rear and exterior side yard setback requirements. The Petitioner proposes to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface. However, due to the scope of the project, the Development Code requires that storm water detention be provided for the entire site. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking an Exception to the Development Code regulations to allow storm water detention for the new impervious surface only. The Petitioner has included a detailed Facility Usage chart that outlines the various activities that occur at the Church and the estimated number of participants. Based on the "Net Change in Use" information submitted, the facility may experience some parking deficiencies. It is important to note that the facility currently does not meet the Village's parking requirements and occasionally experiences parking shortages. During those occasions when on-site parking is not available the Church's parishioners can either park on the school property or park on the street. The proposed addition will meet the interior side yard setback requirement; however, it will encroach slightly into the exterior side yard. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow the addition to encroach 8" into the required yard in order to maintain the Church's existing setback. The existing setback cannot be considered a legal nonconformity for the addition because the intensity of the addition exceeds the limitations listed in the Zoning Ordinance and new construction is required to comply with zoning regulations. Currently, there is a vacated alley along the west lot line that is used as a secondary means of access to the existing parking lot. The existing parking lot extends up to the lot lines on both the east and west sides of the Subject Property. The Petitioner's plans indicate that the vacated alley access point will be abandoned and that landscaping will be installed along the entire west lot line. The new parking lot will have a 15.8' setback along the west lot line. The Petitioner's plans show two parking lot driveways: one entrance and one exit, and striped accordingly. The parking lot currently extends to the east lot line; however, the Petitioner proposes to create a 10' setback and landscape islands to separate the driveways. Although the parking lot currently does not comply with zoning regulations, a Variation is required for the proposed setbacks because the parking lot intensity changes and it can no longer be considered a legal non-conformity and allowed to remain with a zero setback. In reviewing this request it is important to note that the Village's height restrictions within residential zoning 'districts are measured to the mid-point of the roof (except for buildings with flat roofs). The existing building height measures 41' at the top of the ridge. Although the proposed addition has a height of approximately 36' to the peak of the roof, the height to the mid-point of the roof is 27'. It should be noted that although the height restrictions within the RA District apply only to residential buildings, Staff has applied the same height restrictions to the proposed Church addition. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-IO-05 Page 3 The Petitioner submitted a lighting plan that shows the proposed light levels and type of fixture. The information submitted does not comply with Village regulations. However, the Petitioner has not requested a Variation from the Village's lighting regulations and has not provided justification for a Variation. Therefore, the lighting plan must be revised to comply with Village Code requirements. The Police Department recommended that the Petitioner install a. perimeter fence along the west and south lot lines of the Subject Property. The fence would minimize entrance/exit points and help eliminate thefts to vehicles. The Petitioner confirmed that there are existing fences along the west lot line, which create a continuous fence line. The Petitioner has agreed to pursue an arrangement with the property owner south of the Subject Property to install a fence that meets the Police Department's requirements and is acceptable to the Property Owner. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Village Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. They relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner is proposing to add a 2-story addition to increase the efficiency and general comfort of the Church's daily operations. As part of the project, the Petitioner would demolish two structures to accommodate the construction of the addition and parking lot expansion. The Petitioner designed a parking lot that would provide the maximum number of parking spaces possible. The existing parking lot is currently built to the lot line, but the proposed parking lot will include landscape setbacks. These landscape areas will minimize the impacts of the parking lot on the adjacent properties. In addition, the 8" Variation needed for the exterior side yard would be in keeping with the existing setback and maintain the character of the building. Based upon the scope of the improvements, the Development Code requires that the entire site be brought into compliance. However, the Petitioner proposes to provide storm water detention only for the new impervious surface. The Village's Engineering Division reviewed the Petitioner's proposal and found that the site slopes predominantly west to east. Consequently, stormwater runoff from the site, as well as runoff entering the site from the properties along Elm Street, is conveyed east across the site. This flow enters the storm sewer system in School Street unrestricted; no stormwater detention currently exists on site. Engineering concurred with the Petitioner's engineering report that states providing the storage as described would create adequate storage volume for the area to be improved for the runoff generated by a lOO-year storm. This volume would equate to providing storage volume for the entire site for the runoff generated by the 25-year storm. Engineering also concurred that the cost involved and the disturbance to the areas intended to remain outside the scope of the project could be significant if storm water detention must be provided for the entire site. However, the design submitted indicates the proposed stone fill, back filling around the detention chamber, would be included with the detention calculations. Village policy prohibits the inclusion of the stone fill as part of the storage volume calculation. Therefore, in order for Staff to support the Petitioner's request to provide detention for the new impervious surface only, the storm water detention design would need to be reconfigured so the calculations do not include the stone fill as part of the storage volume. This may include, but is not limited to a larger detention chamber, increasing the depth of the detention chamber, or a new design. The Village Code permits the Planning & Zoning Commission to recommend approval of exceptions to Development Code regulations in cases of hardship, "caused by conditions uniquely attributable to the land under consideration, would be imposed upon an applicant by compliance with these regulations and upon a finding that there are alternate feasible means of fulfilling the purpose and spirit of the regulations to protect the public health, safety and welfare...". Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-IO-05 Page 4 The request must meet the standards for an exception. The standards relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The site currently does not provide storm water detention and the Petitioner would provide detention for the new impervious surface. Staff reviewed the request and found that a reasonable effort has been made to comply with Village Code requirements, but that site constraints limited the Petitioner's ability to provide above grade detention. In addition, the site will be well below the maximum amount of permitted lot coverage. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village Board approve Variations for 1) the amount of parking, 2) the proposed setbacks, and 3) a Development Code exception to allow the Petitioner to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface only for the Subject Property, subject to the following: 1. Consolidating the Subject Property into a single lot of record; 2. Revising the lighting plan to comply with the Village's lighting regulations; 3. Revising the landscape plan to reflect existing fences and the proposed fence along the south lot line; 4. Meeting the Building Code & Fire Code requirements for Fire Protection that include the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm; 5. Complying with all other Development Requirements, as defined in Section 15.402 of the Village Code, which include: a) The installation of streetlights within the public right of way adjacent to the site; and b) Paying a fee for the planting of parkway trees in the public right of way along the site (this fee is $400 per tree, and shall be based upon the number of planting sites determined by the Village's Forestry Division). Three gentlemen were sworn in: Rev. Marc Schwichtenberg, Senior Pastor at St. Paul, 21 S. Owen St., Greg O'Brien, St. Paul's Building Committee, and Greg Goss, Architect. Rev. Marc Schwichtenberg said the case is about people; not a building and he introduced Greg O'Brien, Chairman ofthe Building Committee. Mr. O'Brien showed a power point slide presentation and highlighted changes made since the August 2004 zoning meeting. He noted the concerns and issues discussed at that meeting and noted how the Building Committee addressed the issues. He compared the previous addition elevations to the new proposed elevations and noted how solutions to the objectionable height and other issues were incorporated into the new design. He reviewed the landscape design and showed where new plants would be planted and how shrubbery would be used to screen and shield neighboring properties for privacy and from light. He reviewed changes to the parking lot traffic pattern improvements. Mr. Roberts asked if Mr. O'Brien had aerial graphics of the school location. He said that he did not, but explained the school location in relation to the church. Ms.Juracek presented a petition from Mr. Robert Black and questions from Ms. Janet Doyle, both posing the question why additional parking is needed when, as late as last Sunday, many empty spaces were noted in both the church and school parking lots. Mr. O'Brien responded that he realized that nobody wanted to see buildings tom down to make room for parking, especially in a residential area, and if they were building a new church in a new area it wouldn't be necessary; the church would be built with the necessary size parking lot next to it. But this church is 90-years old and they have one parking lot next to the church and one parking lot a block away. And the parish being 90 years old, so are many of its parishioners, who cannot walk that extra block, especially in the weather extremes that we experience in this area, so oftentimes they choose to stay home rather than attend church. Ms. Juracek brought up the question posed by petitioners that, rather than razing single-family homes, those should be used to house staff meetings. Mr. O'Brien said they have scattered staff all over in various storage, broom closets and classrooms, basements and sub-basements and have found that to be counter-productive and, given the ADA requirements, it would be very expensive to make those homes handicapped accessible. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-10-05 Page 5 Greg Goss, Architect with Goss/Pasma Architects, came to the dais to answer Richard Rogers' questions regarding storm retention and assured the Commission they would meet Engineering's requirements. Ms. Juracek thanked Mr. O'Brien on his presentation and asked for questions from the audience. Robert Black, 119 S. School Street, was sworn in. Mr. Black said he didn't know where Mr. O'Brien came from, but where he came from he didn't call walking across a parking lot a hardship and he didn't approve of razing two perfectly viable residential homes for parking spaces and also, the size of the structure is too large. Neighbors would not object to parishioners parking on the streets. Perhaps the Church could compromise and tear down just one home. He is not at member of the congregation, but has been inside the facility and they seem to have enough space for meetings. Melodie Van Dyke, 123 S. School St., was sworn in. She said she has lived there for 25 years and has been a parishioner for 10 years. She said she is so concerned about demolishing two homes to accommodate the Church expansion that she may leave the St. Paul Lutheran parish. She stated that it's not a Lutheran campus and that there are other ways to accommodate the Church's needs without tearing down homes. Bill Reddy, 105 S. Elm St., was sworn in. He said this was not about anger, confrontation, or the Church, it was about community. They are a tight knit community and the Church has not done the proper outreach to the community. He described the meetings held by the church for the neighborhood as inadequate. He said the two homes needed to be town down to provide water detention area for the 8,175 sq. ft. addition proposed by the church. He said that for his property it was necessary to spend over $4,000 in landscaping trying to block the light from the Church's parking lot. He concluded by passing out pictures of his backyard to the Commission. Ann Doyle, author of the earlier referenced e-mail, came up and passed out pictures of many empty parking spaces in the existing lots. She said she aid not think 7 parking spaces were worth tearing down 2 houses. Jennifer Weisler, 111 S. Elm St., was sworn in and testified that she lives behind the Church parking lot and will be deprived of sunlight because of the building height and stated that the addition would decrease her property value. Robert Kleinke, 102 S. Elm, member of St. Paul for 35 years, was sworn in and said the Church has always supported community events. The Prayer Garden is open to everybody to use. The changes in the Church are for (physically challenged) people like him, who cannot walk to Church anymore. Peter Loeschke, 101 S. Elm, was sworn in and showed a picture of the proposed Church and said he thought it was a beautiful Church and appreciated that they had lowered the height of the Church and increased the landscaping and hopes the Church can find a way to bring the neighborhood together. Greg O'Brien came forward again to address the lighting issues. He said the parking lot lighting is at a bare minimum. They have worked with staff on a photometric plan to reduce the amount of glare. With regard to the windows facing Elm St., the windows will be shaded and the offices are not occupied evenings and weekends when people are home and most in need of privacy. There is only a fire exit planned for a former driveway in back of the Church. Mr. Floras asked him if there would actually only be 7 more parking spaces as he has been hearing. Mr. O'Brien said, no, they are going from 21 spaces to 52. He further emphasized that they needed the improvements they were requesting. Richard Rogers said there are shields that can be put on the lights on the parking lot. Mr. O'Brien said he would work with the lighting contractor on that item. Roger Van Dyke, 523 N. Main St., was sworn in. He said that the lighting issue is very minor, and that his sister, Melodie's, concern about tearing down houses, is a major issue. They shouldn't be allowed to build higher than surrounding homes and block the sunlight from the yards. He also said they don't need meeting rooms, they have a huge gymnasium in which to hold meetings. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-IO-05 Page 6 Matt Sledz said the Church had done an honorable job in responding to the earlier objections to this expansion; however, he does not feel they have effectively proven a hardship to be granted relief from Village Code. , Leo Floros said the Church is a good neighbor. He noted that much has been said about demolishing two homes and observed that St. Mark demolished at least four homes for its Church expansions. He thinks St. Raymond's and St. Emily's may have also tom down homes to build their additions. He said he has no problem at all in supporting this request, which he feels will be good for the community. Richard Rogers said St Paul's owns the property and has the right to improve the property as they see fit and they need the parking near to the Church. He said putting in storm water detention will benefit the neighborhood and he also supports St. Paul in this expansion project. Keith Youngquist said this proposal was a definite improvement over the previous proposal, but he thinks the west elevation of the new addition would be improved if it were a stepped elevation on the southwest side and he had concerns with regards to that area in the rear that abuts to the yards of the homes on Elm and School Streets. He thinks most people prefer more open space near their back yards and it would alleviate negative feelings if the Church could open it up. He said this was not a demand but if the Church could look into it that would be good. He said the Church did a great job with the presentation tonight. Joe Donnelly said he was pleased to see the building height reduced and the mechanicals relocated from the previous request. He said the two houses could be tom down just as easily to build new, larger homes. Ronald Roberts said he agrees with all the comments made by the other Commission members and hopes the Church will strive to promote future harmony in neighborhood by looking at all parcels and all their needs to minimize the impact on the neighbors. Ms. Juracek said she was glad to see the height of the building reduced and said the open south end provides balance on the north end. She said the additional green space adds to the neighborhood balance. Ms. Juracek also noted that churches needed to function differently today than before; that there was definitely a need for adult gathering spaces and meeting rooms. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval for: 1) a Variation to allow a 25.2' rear yard setback for the parking lot; 2) a Variation to allow a 19.32' exterior side yard for the building addtiion and a 10' exterior side yard for the parking lot; 3) a Development Code exception to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface only; and 4) Variation for the amount of on-site parking to allow the expansion and modification of the church and parking lot for the property at 100 S. School St., St. Paul Lutheran Church, Case No.PZ-1O-05, with all the conditions imposed by staff and the further condition that shields be placed on the parking lot lights. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at midnight, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner