Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/2006 P&Z minutes 40-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-40-05 Hearing Date: June 22, 2006 PETITIONER: Robert Bonifazi, Golub & Company PUBLICATION DATE: February 8, 2006 PIN NUMBER: 03-33-300-073-0000 REQUEST: 1. Plat of Resubdivision (create 2 lots of record) 2. Development Code Exception 3. Plat of Condominium MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary Johnson Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jennifer Walden, Planning Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Donna McDonald, John Ferguson and Alan Goldberg Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the May 25, 2006 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0; with Mary Johnson and Ronald Roberts abstaining. Marlys Haaland made a motion to continue cases PZ-05-06, PZ-14-06 and PZ-17-06 to the July 27, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Chairperson Juracek introduced Case Number PZ-40-05; a request for a Plat of Resubdivision, Exception to the Development Code and a Plat of Condominium, at 7 :34 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located at the northeast corner of Central Road and Arthur A venue and is an irregular shape. She said the site contains a 518,370+ square foot industrial building, a portion of which is currently occupied by Ski I-Bosch, and a second building that measures approximately 16,000 square feet, commonly known as the Toner Building, and related improvements, including parking lots and storm water detention. She stated that the Subject Property is zoned II Limited Industrial and is bordered by the II District to the east, and Arlington Heights to the north, south, and west. Ms. Connolly said the first request is to modify the existing lot lines to create two lots of record. She stated that as part of the proposed subdivision, the Petitioner is also seeking a Development Code Exception for Lot 2, which includes the Toner Building, to allow a new lot of record to not front onto a street. She said the Village Code requires all lots to have frontage on a public street. She stated that in this case, there is a 40-foot private road easement that runs on the adjacent properties west of the proposed Lot 2 that would continue to allow the proposed Lot 2 access to Arthur Avenue. In addition, she said the proposed Lot 1, which includes the 518,370+ square foot industrial building, would be converted to condominium ownership. Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 22, 2006 PZ-40-05 Page 2 Ms. Connolly stated that the industrial building would not be significantly modified and would remain zoned II Limited Industrial. She said the only modifications necessary would be made to ensure the building continues to comply with the Village Code. She stated that the 518,370+ square foot industrial building was recently subdivided into three tenant spaces and only one space is currently occupied. She said tenants for the two vacant spaces are not known at this time, but the Petitioner was made aware that modifications may be necessary to ensure the spaces continue to meet Village Codes, dependant upon each new use. She stated that the fire alarm and sprinkler system will need to be modified as these currently include the Toner Building. The Petitioner agreed to make the changes as required by Village Code. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner researched different approaches to this project. She stated that at Staff's recommendation, they explored making Lot 2 the fourth unit of the proposed condo conversion. However, since the Petitioner's ultimate goal is to divest themselves from the proposed Lot 2, including it as part of the condo conversion would not allow them to attain that goal. She said they found that the proposed 2-lot subdivision with the option of including Lot 2 as part of the condo development at a later date best met their requirements because 1) the Lot 2 could be sold to a separate user or 2) it could become part of the condo development if selling it separately proved to be too difficult and/or a perspective buyer expressed interested in acquiring a space in the 3- unit condo development as well as Lot 2. She stated that the proposal, as submitted, provides the Petitioner the most flexibility. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner seeks to create two lots of record by resubdividing the Subject Property. She said the proposed plat was reviewed by the Village's Engineering Division and the Petitioner has revised the plat in response to Staff comments. She stated that the Engineering Division reviewed the plat and had no objections to the resubdivision, subject to approval of the Development Code Exception. Ms. Connolly stated that as part of the request, the Petitioner is seeking relief from the development code to allow Lot 2 to be created without direct access onto a street. She said there is a 40-foot private road easement currently in place that allows access to/from Arthur Avenue for the proposed Lot 2. She stated that the easement runs in perpetuity with the land and the Petitioner included a provision on the plat that requires the Village of Mount Prospect's approval on access modifications from Lot 2 to Arthur Avenue. She said this was made to ensure continual ingress/egress for Lot 2 as the Petitioner does not propose cross access to/from Lots 1 and 2. Ms. Connolly said the Subject Property is located in an industrial area that was uniquely subdivided as evident by the adjacent properties that have irregular shapes and sizes. In addition, she stated that the shape of the Subject Property is irregular and appears to have been based on how the property may have been originally used decades ago. She said access to Arthur Avenue via the 40-foot private road easement meets the intent of the Development Code requirement that properties have frontage onto a street. Ms. Connolly stated the third part of the request is that the Petitioner proposes to convert the 518,370+ square foot building to condominium ownership. She said the proposed Plat of Condominium identifies the limited common elements and common elements. She stated that the proposed Declaration of Condominium Ownership includes details how parking will be divided and assigned, among other required information. She said the Petitioner prepared a table documenting the square footage of each unit as well as which parking spaces would be assigned to each unit. She stated that Staff compared the Petitioner's information to the Village's parking requirements and found that the two remaining vacant tenant spaces could not be converted to a sole office use with the current parking proposal. She said the tenant spaces would have to retain a significant warehouse component to ensure each space would meet the Village's parking regulations. Ms. Connolly added that the Petitioner has worked closely with the Village Attorney to prepare the Declaration of Condominium Ownership and has modified the document to address the Village Attorney's concerns and address Village and State requirements. Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 22, 2006 PZ-40-05 Page 3 Ms. Connolly summarized the case by stating that the proposed Plat of Resubdivision was prepared in accordance with Village Codes. In addition, she said the requested Development Code Exception meets the criteria for approval because the 40-foot private road easement meets the intent to the Village Code and the site has an irregular shape. She also stated that the Village Attorney reviewed the Declaration of Condominium Ownership document and found it was prepared per Village and State requirements. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve: 1) the Plat of Subdivision of 1800 West Central Road, 2) the Development Code Exception allowing Lot 2 to not front onto a street, and 3) the Plat of Condominium for 1800 W. Central Road, Case Number PZ-40- 05." Ms. Connolly said the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chair Juracek called for questions of Staff. Richard Rogers asked if the 40-foot easement is a permanent easement or if this could be sold or developed in the future. Ms. Connolly stated that the 40-foot easement is a permanent easement. Chair Juracek asked if that easement road is currently being used for site access. Ms. Connolly stated that the Toner Building accessed by that road is currently vacant, so there is not significant traffic use. There was further discussion regarding the traffic flow to and from Lot 1 and Lot 2. Ms. Connolly recommended that the Petitioner further address the access plans. Ronald Roberts asked Staff what impact, if any, this redevelopment will have on the tax revenue to the Village. Ms. Connolly stated that by her understanding, as the redevelopment is presented, the use would stay the same; however there could be a new user. Mr. Roberts clarified that redeveloping the unused building will generate additional property taxes and create new jobs in the Village. Leo Floros asked if there is precedent for this type of redevelopment with no direct access to a road. Ms. Connolly stated that a similar situation arose in aT-shaped residential development on Lincoln, but she said she was not aware of a similar commercial or industrial property. Chair Juracek asked if the access easement road is located within the Village limits. Ms. Connolly confirmed the access easement road is in Mount Prospect. Chair Juracek swore in Donna McDonald, Arnstein & Lehr LLP, 2800 W. Higgins Road, Hoffman Estates, IL, Attorney for the Petitioner, Golub and Company. Ms. McDonald thanked Staff for a comprehensive presentation and reiterated the Petitioner's three-part request. She stated that she will be addressing the Commission specifically regarding the site plan for the redevelopment. Ms. McDonald showed several schematic drawings summarizing the project and highlighting the flexibility the proposed subdivision offers. She stated that the proposed subdivision shows that Lot 2 could be a stand-alone property, with the access road providing adequate access to Arthur A venue. Ms. McDonald summarized her presentation by stating that all submitted documents indicate that the Village will have control of the easement, ensuring access as long as the Village wants it. Chair Juracek called for questions of Ms. McDonald. The Commission had questions regarding maintenance issues and Ms. McDonald deferred to her colleague. Chair Juracek swore in Mr. John Ferguson, Senior Vice President with Golub and Company, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Ferguson gave a brief history of Golub and Company obtaining this property and the potential uses. He stated that the purpose of redeveloping this property is to enhance the value of the real estate not only for Golub and Company, but for the Village of Mount Prospect. He summarized the potential uses for the proposed condominium areas and how the Subdivision will enhance the value of the property. He stated that the proposed Lot 2 value is in the land and that there are currently no users in mind. Golub and Company has been discussing the use of that lot as a bus storage and repair facility, but that is still in the preliminary stages. Mr. Ferguson stated Arlene J uracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 22, 2006 PZ-40-05 Page 4 that the proposed Lot 2 adds flexibility in to the project by providing either additional land or parking for future tenants of the building on Lot 1. Chair Juracek called for questions of Mr. Ferguson. Richard Rogers asked if there were any plans to maintain any green space between the two proposed lot lines. Mr. Ferguson stated there are plans to fence and landscape the new lot line and further accentuate the park area. Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development, asked if the landscaping would be completed now or at the time of development. Mr. Ferguson stated that the landscaping and fencing berm would be completed at the time of development. Ronald Roberts asked if there are any outstanding environmental issues with the Toner Building. Mr. Ferguson said that the State has cleared the site but the certificate hadn't been issued yet, and that Golub and Company's initial idea is to demolish the building. He further stated that they had looked at renovating the existing building, but the size of the building restricted development of that building into useable space. Keith Youngquist noted that the 40-foot easement continues east of the property and he asked if this proposal would affect properties services by that easement road. Mr. Ferguson stated that there are provisions that a third party would have to leave the easement road 'as-is' and the Village does have control over the easement road. Chair Juracek stated that it appears this is a dual-use easement with Northern Illinois Gas, so there are probably buried gas lines along that area and that the road does go all the way to the park. Chair Juracek swore in Mr. Alan Goldberg, Arnstein & Lehr, Chicago, IL. He stated that he will address any concerns regarding the Condominium documents and gave a brief summary of the flexibility of the proposed Condominium. Ms. McDonald concluded the Petitioners testimony by thanking the Commission for their time and thanked Staff for all of their assistance with the proposal. Ms. Connolly followed-up by adding that if the Cook County Bus Company was interested in occupying the proposed Lot 2, it was explained to her that the use would require a Conditional Use permit and come before the Planning & Zoning Commission for their review. Chair Juracek asked if there had been any traffic studies done on the site. Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Traffic Engineer and Public Works Staff did not have any issues with the proposal. She said that the Fire Department did not have any traffic concerns, but there are concerns with the fire and sprinkler systems, and that the Petitioner had agreed to the proposed modifications. Ronald Roberts and Leo Floros asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the 40-foot easement. Mr. Ferguson stated that the owner of Lot 2 would maintain the easement road and that at this time that would be Golub and Company. However, ifthe property was sold, it would be the responsibility ofthat new owner. Chair Juracek asked if Cook County's interest in the proposed Lot 2 is to close their facility on Busse or expand their operations to include Lot 2. Mr. Ferguson stated that his understanding is that Cook County needs more facility space. He said understood Cook County intended to leave the Busse site and move to the proposed Lot 2. Richard Rogers asked who is responsible for cleaning up or demolishing the Toner Building on Lot 2. Mr. Ferguson stated that Golub and Associates would be responsible. Mary Johnson asked what the new street address would be for the new Lot 2. Ms. Connolly stated that she would work with Fire, Police and the United States Post Office to assign the new address and ensure clear identification for Emergency Vehicles. Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 22, 2006 PZ-40-05 Page 5 Chair Juracek called for additional questions. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 8: 10 p.m. Ronald Roberts stated that he thinks this proposal will help revitalize an underused industrial site in the Village. Richard Rogers agreed and said he thinks the Condominium aspect is a creative idea. Chair Juracek concurred and said that the proposal will provide a positive change to the property. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve: 1) the Plat of Subdivision of 1800 West Central Road, 2) the Development Code Exception allowing Lot 2 to not front onto a street, and 3) the Plat of Condominium for 1800 W. Central Road, Case Number PZ-40-05. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Haaland, Johnson, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. After hearing three additional cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9:32 p.m., seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, ommunity Development Administrative Assistant lit H:\PLANlPlanning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2006\Minulcs\PZ.40.oS 1800 W Central.doc