Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/1986 MPPC Minutesla ..... ... MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NO. 11-Z-86 Hearing Date: March 27, 1986 12-V-86 April 24, 1986 May 1, 1986 PETITIONER, Mount Prospect State Bank, Trust 1365 SUBJECT PROPERTY: East Side of Wolf Road from Kensington' Road to Euclid Avenue PUBLICATION DATE, March 11, 1986 REQUEST: Request to re -zone from R -X to I-1 Variations from Section 14.2203.A to permit 2 acre sites instead of 4 acre, Section 14.2205.A to permit one parking space for every 300 sq.ft. of gross floor area rather one for 200 sq.ft.; Section 14.2602.B to permit 91 x 181 parking stall instead of 9,, x 201 Section 14.2205.F to permit a 20 ft. yard on Wolf instead of 401; a 301 yard on MacDonald Lane (new interior road); and 01 on the north property line instead of 1,01 ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT: Gilbert Basnik, Chairman Robert Brett rage r Ronald Cassidy John Green Marilyn O'May ZBA MEMBER ABSENT. Lois Brothers Len Petrucelli OBJECTORS: Frank Smith, 903 Quince George Parlier, 1614 Dogwood Fred Turner, 1610 Dogwood Ann vogue, 1803 Boulder Tim Borschnell, 1618 Hopi Olin Apkar,' 1608 Cedar Jim Shingary, 1620 Cedar Brian Paradise, 1621 Cedar Nancy Paradise, 1621 Cedar Art Qoy, 1624 Greenwood Dr. Thomas Rich, District 26 Barbara Dejay, 1642 Barberry Bernie MacCurton, 1618 Dogwood Don Brubaker, 907 Quince Resident, 1640 Barbaerry Michael Hennegan, 1801 Boulder Tom Hogan, 901 Quince Tim Midling, 1609 Ironwood ZBA 11-Z-86 & 12 - May 1, 1986 Page 2 of 5 6 Due4 to the late hour on April 24thr this case was continued* William Moore, attorney for the petitioner, presented this case once again. 11 The following concerns about this development were expressed by residents: Not knowing what type of 'industrial uses would be built on the remaining 26 acres after the first building on 6 acres, The fact that the homeowners bought homes in this area to raise children and not as an investment to make money. Concerns as to traffic using Burning Bush and Greenwood as 'short cute'. Reduce property values. Possible flooding problems. Prefer development as single .family. Who would pay for roadway improvements on Kensington and Wolf Roadso An additional With Kensington Center for Businessr does not feel that additional industrial properties are needed in the area. Traffic congestion. Safety for children with increased traffic* Petitioner did not ask school district what impact this development would have on children's safety and traffic* The fact that this development would receive Village water and the residents must have Citizens Utilities* In keeping with the Village image, more open space would be in order. 10 Why is the pet itione r allowed to place clay on the subject property. It ZBA 11-Z-81 May 1, 1986 Page 3 of 5 and 12 6 The following responses were expressed: The petitioner guaranteed that covenants would bep laced on the property setting forth the nature of businesses that would be permitted in this development. Also, the covenant would require Zoning Board and Village Board approval before any development would take place on any given lot, Mr. Moore stated that MacDonald Lane is shown as Ii in up with, Greenwood, which was the suggesti6n, o�f st,aff, however,,, ��the pet $ tion w L *111th Wolf Ro,a',dl would move the Mac Donald Lane as it, Intersects,'wi, approximately 100 feet to the north,, 'thereby proh,ibi,ting a, straight through traffic pattern onto Greenwood., As to the value of the neighboring single family homes, it was stated that this development would not caUse a decline in value inasmuch as flooding problems would be eliminated with development and with the catch basin. The petitioner also stated that there is always the question of what could go into an open ,area, and with development that would not be an area of concern to -potential homeowners. As to flooding, the petitioner stated that while'development would not remove this area from the flood plain or guarantee there would never be a flooding problem, all measures are being taken to reduce the risk of flooding,. The petitioner stated that with all the costs involved withproviding public improvements to this area and the loss of buildable area due to the flood plain, it would not be ''economically feasible to develop thisparcel as single family, The costs involved with the widening of Wolf Road would be bo?ne by the State of Illinois Department of Transportation,, - It was noted that a marketability study showed that this area is growing rapidly in the light industrial district. It was also stated that competition between this development and Opus could result in better quality in general, The subject of increased traffic was also addressed, with the petitioner noting that Wolf Road will be widened whether this development is permitted or not, The improved roadway will also provide for improved signalization, which should create a safer area for pedestrian traffic than presently exists, ZBA 11-Z-"86 and 12- 16 May 1, 1986 Page 4 of 5 I It was noted that this development would be required to connect to Village water. Village water mains are available at Wolf & Kensington Roads and the petitioner would, at its sole expense, connect at that point.. Us As to open space, it was noted that it was unlikely the R ver Trai Park District could afford to purchase this land for park purposes. The petitioner noted that a Village permit has been obtained to place fill on the site, This fill is not necessarily for the development of this property but is being stored by the petitioner, being moved there from another location under construction -0 Is As to the various concerns expressed relative to Lighting ,industrial waster etco the petitioner noted that all building and procedures will be conducted in conformance to local regulations. At the suggestion of John Green, Zoning Board member, the petitioner stated that they would also covenant the exclusion of most of the permitted uses in the I-1 zoning districto Staff comments were presented, stating that the petitioner has revised the original plan taking staff and resident comments into consideration, thereby eliminating most of the staffs concerns. Mr. Cassidy stated that in his opinion this property could be developed as single family, noting that a parcel was recently placed on the market by the School District and that a developer was buying it for 1/2 acre lots that would run approximately $60,000 each Mr. Cassidy also felt that this would be a case of 'spot zoninglo The petitioner was commended by the members of the Zoning Do rd of 0 Appeals in revising the original plan in accordance with the concerns expressed by both the residents and the Boardl, @ Mrs. Via' May, seconded by Mr. Brett. rage r, moved to grant the rezoning request in ZBA 11-Z-86, subject too. 0 " Berming is to be provided around the perimeter of the site wherever parking is located adjacent to same; Private access road shown on Exhibit is to be on a single lot of record and shall not be connected through to MacDonald Lane and shall be limited to right turn in and right turn out only; 0 'Z ESA 11-Z-86 and ZESA /11 V-86 May 1, 1986 Page 5 of 5 Refuse storage will be provided and will be limited to being located within the courtyard area of the building proposed on Lot One; It The 'intersection of MacDonald Lane shall be off -set a minimum of 100 feet from Greenwood and that all covenants with regards to landscaping, building materials, etc. as outlined by the petitioner and including but not limited to the disallowing the fol' uses: Outside storage yards; Lumber yards; Coal, coke and wood yards* Clean, dyeing and laundry establishments; Bottling works* and Bakeries These concerns should be finalized with the staff and presented to the Village Board for their consideration. Upon roll 'call: Ayes: green, Brettrager Nays: Cassidy, O' May, Basnik Motion failed. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board for their consideration at their meeting, Carol A. Fields Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETI14G OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NCS. 11-Z-86 Hearing Date: March 27, 1986 12-V-86 April 24,,1986 PETITIONER, Mount Prospect State Bank, Trust 1365 SUBJECT PROPERTY* East Side of Wolf Road from Kensington Road to Euclid Avenue PUBLICATION DATE. March 11,, 1986 REQUEST: Request to re -zone from R -X to 1-1 0 Variations from Section 14.2203.A to permit 2 acre sites 'instead of 4 acre, Section 14.2205.A to permit one parking space for every 300 eco. ft. of gross floor area rather one for 200 sq. ft,,, Section 14.2602.B to permit 91 x 181 parking stall instead of 91 x 201; Section 14.2205.F to permit a 20 fto yard on Wolf instead of 401; a 301 yard on MacDonald Lane (new 'interior road); and 01 on the north property line instead of 101 ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT, Gilbert Basnik, Chairman Robert Brett rage r Lois Brothers Ronald. Cassidy John Green Len Petrucelli ZBA MEMBER ABSENT. 0 Marilyn 01May OBJECTORS. Frank Smith, 903 Quince Dick Becalue, 1606 Dogwood Fred Turner, 1 61 0 Dogwood Joe Mardini, 1620 Greenwood Tim Borschnell, 1801 Hopi" Lane Cathy Barton, 1618 Greenwood Ty Chow, 927 Quince John Ratcliff, 1774 Euclid Andrew Platowski, 1608 Dr. Thomas Rich, District 26 Tom Hogan, 901 Quince' Alen Apkar, 1608 Cedar Lane Mrs. Roberts, 1626 Barberry Lane Ann 'Vogul, 1803 Boulder Resident, 1628 Barberry Mel Holeck, 927 Quince Lane Brian Paradise, 1621 Cedar Lane Jim Shingary, 1620 Cedar Resident, 1815 Boulder ZBA 11-Z-86 & 12 - April 24, 1986 Page 2 of 4 0 William Moore, attorney for the petitionery presented this case continued from the March 27th meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to revise the plan to reflect concerns expressed by members of the Board and the res idents o Mr. Moore stated that this property, commonly known as the Simonson Nursery, consists of approximately 35 acres and is zoned R -X, single family. The petitioner would like to develop the land in a similar fashion as the neighboring Kensington Center for Business. The I proposal is to develop the first office building with approximately 76,000 sq. ft. on a 6 acre parcel. it is proposed that this 35 acre parcel be developed with 80% office and 20% warehouse. An 'interior roadway (proposed as MacDonald Lane) would run in a no direction with a private drive proposed from Wolf Road to MacDonald Lane. The entire parcel would be served by, a holding, appr basin of oximately 11 acres. This retent-ion area would 'be, located 'in -the northeast corner of' the property. The original petition 'included several variations which have now been deleted from consideratione Mr. Moore stated that the only requests in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals under this revised plan are V# re -zoning from R -X to II -1 and zero parxing setback in the rear (north) property line* The petitioner noted that covenants would be placed on the property setting forth the nature of business that would be permitted in this development* Also, the covenant would require Zoning Board and Village Board approval before any development would take place on any given lot. Concerns expressed by residents include: Volume of traffic and congestion; The connection of MacDonald Lane with Greenwood, across Wolf Road, which could increase the traffic in the single family neighborhood for people trying to short-cut the traffic light 0 at Euclid and Wolf , ZBA 11-Z-86 & 12_V- r April 24, 1986 Page 3 of 4 Safety for children in the area; space;The need for open Would lire the property developed as single family; Question the need or marIketability for additional industrial property; Will there be night operation; Lighting; Possible industrial waste* Creating an area for congregating and crime; Noise level and possibility of operations that could create a bad smell; Declined values of the surrounding properties; Flooding Danger that children would fall into the retention basin,* What are the plans for the balance of the property; Mr. Moore stated that the ,State of Illinois has plans to widened Wolf Road into a 5 lane roadway in 1988 whether this development proceeds or not. With the improvement of Wolf .load, traffic movement will be unproved and controlled through -deceleration lanes, modernized traffic ,signals and turning lanes. eliminateMany of the residents expressed concern about the proposed intersection of Greenwood and MacDonald Lane. Mr. Moore stated that the proposed line-up of those 2 roadways was at"the suggestion of staff, however, the petitioner would realign the intersection of MacDonald Lane and Wolf Road 100 feet to the north, which would aof - concerns expressed, ZBA 11-Z-86 & 12 .April 24, 1986 Page 4 of 4 With respect to developing the parcel as single family, it has been determined, with the concurrence of staff, that single family would not be appropriate due to the surrounding area and the cost could not be recaptured with such development due to the large area required for water recent icin if As to the value of the neighboring single family home sr it was stated that this development would not cause a decline in value inasmuch as flooding problems would be eliminated with development and with the catch basin* The petitioner also stated that there is always the question of what could go into an open area, and with development that would not be an area of concern to potential homeowners As to the various concerns expressed relative to lighting,industrial waste, etc, the petitioner noted that all building and procedures will be conducted in conformance to local regulations* The retention basin will be designed as such that there will be an f 'lat a,rea arround 1*t and, the basln itself approxi,inate 20 to 25 oot f wi'll have a Istep type declinel so that "if someone entered the bas,,I.n it would not be an immediate drop 'in depth, The proj"Iect would be landscaped, in accordance with the requirements of staff', with berming to be provided on the outer periphery as well as around each building* Staff comments were presentedf stating that the petitioners revised plan addresses most of the concerns with the original plan. The main concern of staff was the - private drive between the lot proposed for the first 'phase of development and the lot to the north. This private drive intersects with MacDonald Lane and it was the opinion of staff that this driveway should not be used as a thoroughfare. The petitioner stated that they would create a cul de sac on this private drive so there would be no through traffic. There would be controlled access to this private roadway, right in only and right out only. Due to the late hour at the fact that the Zoning Board of Appeals had not had the opportunity to ask questions, it was the decision of the Zoning Board to continue this case one week, to May 1, 19860 Carol A. Fields Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 0 ZBA CASE NO. 11-Z-86 Hearing Date: March 27, 1986 12-V-86 PETITIONER: Mount Prospect State Bank, Trust 1365 SUBJECT PROPERTY: East Side of Wolf Road from Kensington Road to Euclid Avenue PUBLICATION DATE: March 11, 1986 REQUEST: Request to re -zone from R -X tQ I-10 Variations from Section 14.2203.A to permit 2 acre sites instead of 4 acre; Section 14.2205.A to permit one parking space for every 300 sq. ft. of gross' 10 floor area rather one for 200 sq. ft„ , Section 14.2602.B to permit 91 x 181 parking stall instead of 91 x 201; Section 14.2205.E to permit a 20 fto yardon Wolf instead of 401 a 301 yard on MacDonald Lane (new interior road); and o' on the north property line instead of 101 ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT. Gilbert Basnik, Chairman Robert Brett rage r Ronald Cassidy John Green Marilyn O'May Len Pei. rucelli ZBA MEMBER ABSENT: Lois Brothers OBJECTORS: Eva Williams, 919 Sumac Frank Smith, 903 Quince Russ De Preisso, 1638 Barberry Dave Shauk, 1630 Barberry Melvin Markson, 1615 Greenwood Resident, 1803 Boulder Mrs.-Fransour,, 1815 Boulder Mr. E. Fink, 1813 Boulder will ioam Moore, attorney for the petitionerr, presented these requests, stating that the subject property is commonly known as the Simonson Nursery, consisting of approximately.35 acres, ZBA 11-Z-86 & ZBA V-86 March 27, 1986 Page 2 of 4 This property is zoned for single family, although the only use the land has known is that of a nursery. The petitioner would like to develop the land in a similar fashion as the neighboring Kensington Center for Business. The first proposal is to develop an office building with 76,000 sq. ft., on a 6 acre parcel. It was noted that this parcel is surrounded at the property line by the Commonwealth Edison towers, the SOO Railroad, the water facility for the, or -h Water Agencyt a church, a Junior High School , Kens,ington C,enter for Bus.,iness, in le family homes, and gas/service stati.on? as well as, va,cant, land,.The petitioner stated that single famil,y dwelli',ngs woul,d not be sditable for this location. It ts proPo-Sed that this,, 35 4 acre parcel would be developed 80% office and 20%, warehouse* An, interi.or roadway (proposed as MacDonald Lane) is � A, planned and, would run in a nort I n/soluth direction. A private drive is proposed froolo the i"'nt,erior roadway. The entire parcel would be served by a holding basin approximately 11 acres* This retention area would be located in the northeast corner of the property* The proposal is to restrict the height of the buildings to 19 feet, where the Codepermits 30 feet. The first building provides for 266 parking spaces, where the proposed variation �requires 256 for an I-1 District, which is 3.5 cars per 1,000 feet of gross floor area. Several variations -requested in this case are the same as proposed in a pending text amendment* 0 4 some of the concerns expressed by residents include* Increased traffic; Safety for children attending the Junior High across Wolf Road; The need for ,,open space; Develop the property as single family; Will there be night operation* Declined values of the surrounding properties/ Z B A 11 - Z - 8 6 & Z B A 1 8 6 ",/� .... . ....... March 27 , 1986w. Page 3 of 4 What are the plans for the balance of the property; Mr. Moore stated that Wolf Road will be improved in the very near future by the State of Illinois as a four lane roadway and that the area isn't changing, it has changed, Traffic movement will be controlled with deceleration lanes on Wolf Road, It was also stated by the petitioner that with the widening of Wolf Road, the proposed development would act as a buffer between the residential properties to the east and the traffic on Wolf Roadf As to the development, it was noted that the first building proposed is located on a 6 acre parcel and that the request is for' a minimum lot size of 2 acre parcels, Future development could be on larger lots, but no matter, what the petitioner proposes, the Village * would have the final say on the size of each parcel since subdivisions must be approved by the Plan Commission and Village Board. With respect to developing the parcel as single family, it has been determined, with the concurrence of staff, that single family would not be appropriate due to the surrounding area.and the cost could notbe recaptured with suchdevelopmentO I Without knowing what all the uses would be in the development, it would be 'impossible to state whether there would be night operation, however, the petitioner stated that throughout their other projects there has not been 24 hour operations, As to the value of the neighboring single family homes, it was stated that this development would not cause a decline in value inasmuch as flooding problems would be eliminated with development and with the catch basin. The petitioner also stated *that there is always the question of what could go into an open area, and with development that would not be an area of concern to potential homeowners, The project would be landscaped, in accordance with the requirements of staff, with berming to be provided on the outer periphery as well 0 as aro.und each building, A traffic study was presented stating that following development, it is anticipated that there approximately 19.2 trips per acre would take place, I Staff comments were presented, basically supporting this parcel as a ZBA 11-Z-86 & ZBA -V-86 March 27, 1986 Page 4 of 4 light industrial however the concerns of various staff members regarding the intensity of development were expressed. A copy of that staff report in attached to these minutes. Zoning Board member John Green expressed his concerns with this proposalf stating that he did not favor the private driveway from Wolf Road due to the fact that it could be removed at any point. He also stated that it would be important for the development to have double ingress/egress. Mr. Green question why the development would have deceleration lanes on public roadways and not on the private interior roadway. While Mr. Green stated he favors the proposed use, he questioned the need to development the parcel in such a way that the variations are necessary, suggesting the petitioner reduce the size of the building to provide additional parking spaces or perhaps create a larger lot. Also, Mr. Green asked why the petitioner requested a 2 acre parcel rather than a Planned Unit Developmente Zoning Board member Mr. Petrucelli stated that he opposes the rezoning due to the fact that I-1 zoning would permit the development of building 30 feet in height. He also stated that the petitioner could decrease the size of the building which would result in an increase in the parking spaces. It was also noted by Mr. Petrucelli that a 'piece meal' project would be detrimental to the community and that he also favored more open space within the project. Mr. Cassidy, member of the Zoning Board, asked if the development would be served by Village water or Citizens Utilities water* It was stated that the development could be hooked up to Village water at Kensington & Wolf, Mr. Cassidy also stated that he favored 100% office use, rather than warehouse and office. I It was the basic feeling of the Zoning Board of Appeals that the petitioner is proposing an development with too much density. Having heard the concerns of the residents and members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the petitio'ner asked that this case be continued so that the plans could be revised to meet some of the concerns expressed* This case was continued to the April 24th meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Carol A. Fields Recording Secretary Village of Pv..junt Prospect Mount Prospect, 111'1'no1*S TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TERRANCE Lo BURGHARD, VILLAGE MANAGER STEPHEN Me PARK, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING ZBA-11-Z-869 ZBA-12-V-86, MOUNT PROSPECT STATE BANK TRUST NO, 1365 EAST SIDE OF WOLF RD. BETWEEN EUCLID & KENSINGTON MAY 28 1986 There are two requests to be considered before the Board for this property; commonly known as the Simonson Nursery. The property is located between Kensington and Euclid on the East side of Wolf Road. The proposal is for a subdivision of this property into industrial lots and rezoning to 1-1 Light Industrial, The property is currently zoned R-1 Single Family. One variation is also, requested to, eliminate the normally required rear, yard. The jointdeve1ioper is proposng a driveway between two properties 4" which, by nature of 14 st It rad.dl'ing the property line, would be located on, t'he requ�irea rear yard, There is a 20 foot wide landscape area adjacent to this proposed drive. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered this case over several meetings. The final meeting was held on April 24, 19860 At that time the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended against approval by a vote of 2 ayes, and 3 nays, The Zoning Board members voting ag,al"nst the: reque,st were partl-cu,- larly concerned about the change in use from Single 'Family to Industrial and the potential traflicl, The property 'is designated for Light Industrial/Office use in our Comprehen,sivy P"lan. Th, e st-af f had raised a number of questions regarding the type of development and guarantees on the future development that would take place. Specif is details have not been fully worked out, but the applicant has identif ied that, he would be, willing to work with staf f on coven,ants which would, run with the property limiting the use, building cons tr uct ion,, height, etc, Terrance L. Burghard - Page Tw* May 28, 1986 At an earlier Plan Commission meeting, March 19, 1986, the Plan Commission bad recommended approval of the subdivision by a vote of 9-0. During that meeting, a number of Development Code issues were also acted upon. The first was to reduce the right-of-way width from 80 feet to 66 feet. Another issue was to provide a 5 foot sidewalk only on one side of the proposed 'internal street as in the Kensington Center for Business, The third 'issue was to extend the waterma-in on Wolf Road from Kensington to the Southern boundary of the det,ention facll�i*,ty, in lieu of extending it to Euclid Avenue. The Commission 'voted, in favor of these by a vote of 9-09 The fourth Development Code issue was to provide one 10 foot wide easement in all front yards adjacent to the proposed �i,ntelrnal street right-of-way in lieu of a 20 foot easement at the rear of the lots. The Commissioners voted 8-1 in favor of this request. During the April, 2nd meeting of' the Plan Commission, the petitioner requested, that the edge to edge pavement, width be reduced from 38 feet to 3,2, feet with no on -street parking. Th i's request was approved by a vote of 7-0. Village of ount Prospect Mount Prospect 111*1nols "17 ffi#01 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: GIL BASNIKI ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CHAIRMAN FROM: STEPHEN Me PARK, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING SUBJECT: ZBA-11-Z-86, ZBA-12-V-86, MOUNT PROSPECT STATE BANK TRUST NO, 1365 LOCATION,* EAST SIDE OF WOLF RD. BETWEEN EUCLID & KENSINGTON DATE: APRIL 16, 1986 RE UEST This case has, been - continued from the Ma,rch, 27 regular meeting of I the Zoning Board to allow for the, develo,per to revise 'his plans in response to concerns and issues, raised, at the last meet,1n1g. A number of the issues raised, involve the 10 use of required ya,xds, for parki,ng, or aisle space. These variati,on �requestIs have all 'been eliminated, according to the revised plans., The only variation that remains for the Board's considera,tion, is, the rear yard for the f*rst lot to be developed as a private dri,,veway 'is shown on this North property linee The I-1 zoni'ng request st, 11 stands, dP lk W do 'W" 1W WA'S I 10 40 W Gil Basnik - Page Two April 16, 19 86 ZBA-11—Z-86p ZBA-12—V--8,i ba aWww ll dF qp 40 sp MP dF W qW W dP .P up now., dF �9bmlwi 0