Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/24/2007 P&Z minutes 07-07 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-07-07 Hearing Date: May 24, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 601 E. Kensington Road PETITIONER: NEPCO, Inc / Nicholas Papanicholas PUBLICATION DATE: March 7, 2007 PIN NUMBERS: 03-35-200-019-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use - Mixed Use Planned Unit Development MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Nick Papanicholas, Joseph Rubel, LeAnn Chuboff, Nancy Beckmann, Donna Johnson, Mike Giannini, Irma Clapperty, Stanislaw Wiktorowski, Mary Jo Bode, Diane Pidgeon, Lou and Mary Sbarbord Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the minutes of the April 26, 2007 meeting and Leo Floros seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 6-0, with Keith Youngquist abstaining. Chairman Rogers made a brief speech and thanked former Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson Arlene Juracek and former Trustee Michaele Skowron for their years of service to the Village. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to continue Cases PZ-15-07 and PZ-16-07 to the June 28, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Mr. Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion to continue was approved 7-0. After hearing one previous case, Mr. Donnelly made a motion to un-table Case PZ-07-07 and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0 and Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-07-07, a request for a Conditional Use at 601 East Kensington Road, at 7:44 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She stated the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the Petitioner's request at their April 26, 2007 meeting. The case was tabled at that meeting to allow the Petitioner time to revise the Traffic Study and address other concerns the Commissioners and residents presented at the April meeting. The Petitioner has since submitted revised plans and a new Traffic Study. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner proposes to demolish the existing building and construct five buildings on one lot of record. The earlier proposed restaurant has been eliminated from the project and the commercial-retail building has been expanded from approximately 10,000 square feet to almost 16,000 square feet. Ms. Connolly stated that the proposed site plan indicates two driveways would be added to the site, creating four access points to/from the proposed development. Access to the site has been modified to address the Village's Traffic Engineer's concerns: that the western most drive along Kensington Road has been modified to allow right- in/right-out only access while the eastern most drive will have full access, and access along Wheeling Road has Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 24, 2007 PZ-07 -07 II Page 2 been modified to allow right-in/right-out only access for the southern most drive and full access is permitted at the northern most drive. Ms. Connolly said the site plan indicates that some of the parking stalls along the north lot line measure less the minimum 16-foot depth, which is the minimum allowed depth when there is a 2-foot overhang. However, the drive aisles can be reduced to 24-feet so the stall length would comply with the Village's regulations. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner submitted a landscape plan that indicates a significant amount of landscaping would be installed at the Subject Property. However, the proposed perimeter landscaping lacks year- round materials. Staff recommends revising the landscape plan to include at least 50% year-round materials along the perimeter ofthe Subject Property. Ms. Connolly said the Village Code lists parking regulations, which are based on the proposed use. Staff understands that all the parking spaces are available to all the tenants, with the exception of the parking areas secured behind gates. The secured parking fields are intended to accommodate employee parking and company vehicle storage. She stated that in order to ensure code compliance, a cross parking agreement and easement noted on the plat would need to be adopted so parking remains available for all users in the development. She showed a table summarizing the proposed parking conditions, and that the site will provide more than the minimum amount of required parking. Since the site is over parked, Staff suggests the Petitioner eliminate some of the parking spaces in the secured areas to ensure optimal visibility when exiting/entering the secured area. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner's elevations have not changed since the last submittal. The contractors' buildings are consistent with typical industrial buildings and will be stained precast concrete panels and include accent reveals. Ms. Connolly said the elevations for the commercial-retail building indicate the building will be all brick, and include soldier course that frames the windows and defines the signable area. The west and north elevations lack architectural design and roofline interest. She said that these elevations must be modified to provide distinguishable retail space at this location. Ms. Connolly stated that the Village's Traffic Engineer reviewed the revised submittal. Access to the site was revised in response to previous comments, and the remaining items listed in the Staff report will be included with the permit review, and will be addressed at that time. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner submitted a sign package that includes a freestanding sign along Kensington Road. The proposed signs appear to be located closer than the required 5-foot setback and may need to be reduced in size in order to be located in this area and comply with the setback requirement. In addition, wall signs would be provided for the retail tenants and each contractor tenant would have an individual freestanding sign. She said the Sign Code allows freestanding identification signs in lieu of wall signs and limits the size to 10 square feet. The size of the proposed individual contractors' signs comply with the Village's Sign Code requirements. However, it is not clear where these signs would be located. Prior to submitting for sign permits, the Petitioner will have to prepare a site plan indicating the location of the proposed signs to document compliance with the Village's Sign Code regulations. Ms. Connolly stated that the existing Kensington Business Center (KBC) entry sign, located in the right-of-way at the northeast corner of Kensington and Wheeling Roads, will remain, but the sign needs repairs. The Village Code addresses Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and how the development should provide an amenity of sorts. Due to the nature and size of the proposed PUD, the Petitioner is limited in options to provide an amenity. However, repairing the KBC entry sign is an alternative that meets the intent of the Village Code. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 24, 2007 PZ-07-07 II Page 3 Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for Conditional Uses as listed in the Zoning Ordinance which include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. These relate to: . The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; . The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; . There is adequate provision for utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and . The request is in compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. Ms. Connolly said the proposed development is zoned 11 Limited Industrial. The proposed buildings will comply with the required setbacks and the site will have 73.4% lot coverage, which is less than the 75% limitation. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner has addressed previous traffic related concerns and the proposed uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The site would comply with the Zoning Ordinance regulations subject to modifications to the Landscape Plan and submitting a code compliant site lighting plan. Consequently, the proposal complies with the standards for a Conditional Use as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said the proposed mixed use industrial PUD proposal meets the Conditional Use standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the Petitioner revising the exhibits as noted in the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve a Conditional Use permit for a mixed used Planned Unit Development at 601 E. Kensington Road, Case Number PZ-07-07 subject to the following: 1. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall: a. Revise the Landscape Plan to include at least 50% year-round plant materials along the perimeter ofthe Subject Property. b. Revise the west and north elevations of the retail building to include architectural and roofline interest, and distinguishing it as retail space. c. Prepare color renderings of the buildings. 2. The Petitioner shall prepare plans in general conformance with the site plan prepared by NEPCO, dated May 8, 2007. 3. The Petitioner shall repair the existing Kensington Business Center entry sign located at the southeast corner of Kensington and Wheeling Roads. 4. The hours of operation shall conform with the information submitted on the Petitioner's letter dated May 9,2007 and normal hours shall not extend past 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 5. Prior to submitting for a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall prepare plans that provide additional hydrants as required by Village Code. 6. The Petitioner shall provide the Fire Department access to the secured outdoor storage areas through the Knox rapid key entry system, which includes electric key switches ands/or padlocks. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 24, 2007 PZ-07 -07 II Page 4 7. The Petitioner shall prepare a plat of easement establishing a cross access agreement that ensures shared parking for the unsecured parking spaces and access to all driveways. 8. The Petitioner must provide cross access and shared parking easements that benefit each building owner. These easements must be illustrated on the PUD Plat and documented in the Association documents. 9. The site shall be developed in accordance with all Village Codes and regulations." Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers pointed out that the restaurant has been removed. He asked that since this development is located in the Business Park, if the proposed retail spaces were approved, if a restaurant could be added. Ms. Connolly stated that a restaurant is a Conditional Use in the 11 district and would require the Petitioner coming back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. Mr. Floros asked if a grocery store would be allowed in the retail section. Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development, stated that the proposed building would not be large enough for a grocery store. Ms. Connolly stated that a grocery store is not specifically listed in the permitted uses in the 11 district. There was general discussion regarding the types of businesses permitted in the 11 district. Mr. Youngquist asked if the storm water detention for the site was discussed at the last meeting. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner is not seeking relief from Village Code, and therefore detention requirements would be reviewed at the time of permit. Mr. Donnelly asked if the Kensington Business Park is also zoned 11 or if it has a different zoning classification. Ms. Connolly stated that the Business Park has 11 zoning. Mr. Donnelly asked if the proposed hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. is adequate for the contractors operating out of the site. Ms. Connolly suggested the Petitioner and the tenants address the proposed hours of operation as it relates to each tenants' business. Mr. Donnelly asked if there is anyway to ensure that the secured parking areas are not taken over by storage, causing the company vehicle parking to spill into the customer parking area; Ms. Connolly said it would be monitored on a complaint-basis. Chairman Rogers said he is disappointed that the Petitioner did not submit a revised landscape plan. He also stated that the main identification sign would not be allowed with 10 sign panels for each tenant, as shown in the Petitioner's plan. Ms. Connolly clarified that the Village Sign Code allows for 6 tenant panels per sign-face. Mr. Donnelly asked if there were plans to widen Wheeling Road because the Petitioner is looking for 3 lanes plus a median. Ms. Connolly stated that there are no plans to widen Kensington Road. She said the Village Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposed PUD and addressed his concerns in the Staff report, but it did not include widening the road. Mr. Donnelly stated the plans are showing 3 lanes plus a 6-foot median and he does not feel that is adequate. Ms. Connolly said Engineering did review the plans, but did not suggest street widening. Mr. Donnelly said he feels there needs to be 4 lanes to handle the left-hand turn and through traffic. There was general discussion regarding left-hand turns into the development. Ms. Connolly stated she can point out Mr. Donnelly's concern to Engineering and that can be verified prior to the case going to Village Board. Mary McCabe asked if the painted median is used for left turn lane. There was continued discussion regarding the painted median and left-hand turns into the property. Ms. Connolly said she would direct this issue to the Village's Traffic Engineer to address. Mr. Donnelly stated that the Traffic Study does not designate Kensington as a Strategic Regional Arterial (SRA) Road; he thought Kensington was a SRA roadway. Ms. Connolly stated that the SRA designation comes from the Illinois Department of Transportation and Kensington does not have an SRA designation. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 24, 2007 PZ-07 -07 II Page 5 Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioner, Nicholas Papanicholas, Senior, representing NEPCO. Mr. Papanicholas gave a brief history of the project. He stated that they have worked closely with Staff to develop this project. He said his understanding is Kensington Road is an mOT road and Nepco has taken IDOT recommendations of what they would like to see at the intersections. He stated that NEPCO is agreeable to workout whatever design and configuration Engineering, Public Works, and the Fire Department would like to see for the Village's traffic needs. Mr. Papanicholas stated that this project is bringing four new businesses to Mount Prospect. He clarified that the outdoor storage on the site will be primarily for vehicle and equipment storage, not for materials, and apologized for the confusion. He said the intended use for the secured parking is for company vehicle and employee parking. Mr. Papanicholas said they are agreeable to changing the landscaping plan to include additional year-round plantings. He said sheet L 1 in the exhibits shows an extensive landscape plan, but it was not revised to include the additional year-round plantings as suggested by Staff. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner would be agreeable to a condition that the outdoor storage areas be used solely for vehicle storage, not for materials. Mr. Papanicholas said he would not be comfortable speaking for each of the tenants. Mary Scarborough of Senate Electric, was sworn in, and stated that materials for their jobs are traditionally delivered to the job-site and the secured area on the proposed site would be used for vehicle storage. Mike Giannini of Giannini Sewer and Water, was sworn in, and stated that he would primarily be using the secure parking area for vehicles and trailers. Mr. Giannini stated his materials are delivered to the job-site. Jim Peterson of Peterson Roofing, was sworn in, and stated that his business will not be storing any material at the development. He said they will be using the secured area for parking vehicles. Chairman Rogers recommended adding a condition that there be no outdoor storage of materials in the secure parking area. Mr. Youngquist pointed out that the 8-foot height fence requirement is for material storage, not for vehicle storage. He said the fence would not fit into the character of the Business Park which contains many berms, not fences. Mr. Papanicholas stated the 8-foot fence was proposed for code requirements, but he would be agreeable to reducing the fence height and/or making it more decorative. Ms. Connolly stated that the 8-foot fence height came from the Village Code requirement for screening a material storage area. There was additional discussion regarding an 8-foot fence on the site. Mr. Papanicholas said he would work with Staff to reduce fence height. Chairman Rogers suggested reducing the fence height to 6-feet and/or eliminating the fence wherever possible; Mr. Papanicholas agreed. Mr. Donnelly asked the Petitioner if the tenants were agreeable to the proposed hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Mr. Papanicholas stated that the majority of the tenants are using these spaces as operational offices, that these hours were adequate and there would be minimal noise generated from the businesses. Mr. Floros stated that although this is an industrial zoned property, he would like to see the Business Park maintain the feeling of a business area versus an industrial area. Mr. Papanicholas stated his intention is to help revitalize the business park by bringing in some new commercial and retail businesses that are useful to the employees of the Kensington Business Park. Mr. Donnelly stated that this is an entry point to the Business Park and he prefers this development to convey the look of a business park, not an industrial park. Mr. Papanicholas stated that the buildings will have the same look as the other buildings in the park and will not be out-of-character for the Business Park. Chairman Rogers said he is familiar with several of the proposed tenants and the good reputation of Nepco and looks forward to these businesses coming to Mount Prospect. Chairman Rogers swore in Leann Chuboff, 707 Eastman Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Chuboff said the proposed development will be about 200 feet from her property. She said she appreciates that the Petitioner has Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 24, 2007 PZ-07-07 II Page 6 addressed several of the concerns brought up at the last meeting, but she still has concerns about the future of the development. She is concerned about living so close to a contracting hub. She is concerned with the hours of operation; the noise the tenants will generate, and that this development will not fit into the character of the business park. She is concerned that 70% of the site is designated as secured parking/storage. She does not want the view from her home to be of construction storage. She stated she is also concerned with the proposed retail development; she said the restaurant may have been eliminated from the revised plan, but it does not mean a restaurant will not come in the future. She said the proposed retail could sit un-leased; there are several vacant retail buildings in town already and she is concerned that a retail space in a Business Park is not going to be filled. She stated that she feels this development does not meet the conditions for a Conditional Use according to Village Ordinance because it goes against the condition that the development "not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties." She believes this will impact her property negatively. Chairman Rogers swore in Donna Johnson of 1009 Westgate, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Johnson gave a brief history of her living in Mount Prospect. She stated that she is glad the Petitioner addressed many of the neighbor's concerns from the previous meeting, but she would like clarification on a few items: if this is primarily a contractor site, why do they need customer parking, and if these are mainly contractor offices why do they need warehouse space. Ms. Johnson showed pictures of another construction storage site in the area and stated she is concerned that the proposed screening will not be sufficient to screen the site from the neighborhood. Ms. Johnson stated that the current tenants may have good intentions of maintaining their site, but years from now, that may not be the case. She also stated that she is concerned the fence itself will not be attractive or well- maintained. Ms. Johnson stated that she looked up several of the proposed tenants on the internet and then visited a few of the sites. She showed photos what Peterson Roofing currently stores on their site. Chairman Rogers swore in Duffy Lehey, 609 East Ironwood, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Lehey asked what the repercussions for the Developer or Tenants would be, should they violate the conditions of the Conditional Use. Chairperson Rogers stated that as a neighbor, they would have the right to inform the Village, who would enforce the conditions. Ms. Connolly eXplained that the Village would issue a Notice of Violation and if not remedied, the case would proceed to Administrative Adjudication. Mr. Lehey asked what the penalty would be for starting work on the demolition prior to 6 a.m. He stated that the past two days, demolition work started before 6 a.m. Ms. Connolly stated that the neighbors should call 911 to report the incident. Ms. Divita stated that the neighbors should contact the Police because Building Department Staff is not available at 6 a.m. Mr. Lehey stated that he did call the Building Department today to file a complaint. There was general discussion regarding the Service Request process. Chairman Rogers swore in Stanislaw Wiktorowski of 711 Eastman Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Wiktorowski stated that his property backs up to the Subject Property. He said he chose his home because it is a quiet neighborhood and he is concerned with the increase in heavy traffic and noise. He said he is also concerned that the increase in traffic will cause some drivers to leave Kensington Road and go through their neighborhood to get to Rand Road. Chairman Rogers swore in Diane Pidgeon of 715 Eastman Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Pidgeon stated that she shares the same concerns as her neighbors. She said she loves living in Mount Prospect and feels that her neighbors do too. She has enjoyed living near the Business Park and feels that this development does not fit the character of the park. She is concerned that this development could reduce their property's value. She does not feel that this proposal will not benefit the neighborhood. Ms. Chub off showed pictures of current storage conditions at Mr. Papanicholas' office in the KBC and a view of the proposed site from her backyard. Chairman Rogers invited Mr. Papanicholas to address the residents concerns. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 24, 2007 PZ-07-07 II Page 7 Mr. Papanicholas stated that he is a resident of Mount Prospect and has come before the Planning and Zoning Commission several times with other projects. He is proud of the quality of work that his company produces. Mr. Papanicholas stated that Ms. Chuboff will not have a view of any of the storage yards from her backyard because the buildings will block the view of the storage/parking areas. Mr. Donnelly stated that her backyard will face the Alamo building entrance and fencing for a secured parking area. Mr. Papanicholas said that the photos shown of Peterson Roofing did not reflect Mr. Peterson's equipment. Mr. Peterson stated that the bus, debris, dirt, and rock shown in the photos do not belong to him or his company. He stated moving to this new location is a significant investment and he wants to maintain a neat, orderly and safe business. He stated that the warehouse space is necessary for training and safety issues. Chairman Rogers stated that Peterson Roofing has an excellent reputation in the Village, but he is concerned that the photos of his current site do not reflect that. Mr. Peterson again stated that much of the debris shown in the photos did not belong to him or his business. Mr. Papanicholas stated that the building lay-out was configured to buffer as much of the secured storage area from the residential area as possible. Mr. Papanicholas stated that the vehicle shown in the picture of his current business location on Feehanville Drive is an antique fire truck that is used in parades. He stated that this vehicle is not moved and he has had no complaints from neighbors regarding the storage of that vehicle. Mr. Papanicholas said that the neighbors should not be concerned about construction noise because the tenants will not generate heavy truck traffic. Nick Papanicholas Jr., stated that Alamo excavating will not be storing their heavy equipment at this location; Alamo is opening the Mount Prospect location as their primary operations office. He also stated that he will work to ensure there is no vehicle noise prior to 7 a.m. Mr. Papanicholas stated they are trying to be very cognizant of the operations of their tenants and that they intend to be good neighbors to the residents. There was general discussion regarding the previous tenants and the proposed use of this development. Mr. Papanicholas stated that this development will be an upgrade to the previous tenants and thanked the Commission for their time and consideration. Mr. Donnelly asked that the secured storage be removed to provide general parking spaces since Alamo will not be storing equipment on this site. Mr. Papanicholas stated that the warehouse will provide indoor storage for materials and large vehicles need to be able to do 3-point turns to enter and exit the site. Ms. McCabe asked if there will be an association for this Planned Unit Development. Mr. Papanicholas said yes, there will be an association and all of the common areas will be maintained uniformly. He said it is very similar to a residential association. Chairman Rogers asked if Nepco is maintaining some ownership in the property. Mr. Papanicholas stated that they will own and maintain the retail building. Chairman Rogers asked that they remain sensitive to the tenants that are secured for the retail building. Mr. Papanicholas assured the Commission that the proper procedures will be followed in securing tenants. Mr. Donnelly asked if the Petitioner has considered a building design where the secured areas were incorporated into a fully enclosed building. Mr. Papanicholas stated the site was developed to meet the needs of the potential business owners; an all-enclosed building would not be cost effective for these tenants to run a successful business. Mr. Donnelly stated that these secured areas are primary employee parking and asked why the fencing is needed. Mr. Papanicholas said if the tenants do not require security fencing, the fences can be eliminated. Mr. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 24, 2007 PZ-07-07 II Page 8 Donnelly said he is concerned that the site will not have sufficient parking. Mr. Papanicholas stated that the parking is provided per Village Code. Ronald Roberts asked if the contractors will be bringing potential customers to the site. Mr. Papanicholas stated that these offices will generate potential clients for the contractors. Mr. Roberts stated that would be an additional incentive to maintain a neat and well-kept site. Mr. Youngquist pointed out that each building has customer parking at the entrance to their building. He stated the smaller, multiple buildings on this site will allow for some creative landscaping and vistas. He said he would like to see the fence height decreased to visually diminish the mass of the buildings. Mr. Papanicholas stated that they will be happy to work with Staff to reduce or eliminate the fences. Chairman Rogers asked what the plan for stormwater detention for the site. Mr. Papanicholas stated there will be underground stormwater detention, and all the utilities will be underground. Marlys Haaland stated that it is reassuring each business has a good reputation. Also, reassuring is that Nepco has a good history and Mr. Papanicholas is a resident of Mount Prospect. Chairman Rogers swore in Nancy Beckmann of 603 East Ironwood Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Beckmann asked if the mature trees along the property lines would be maintained. Mr. Papanicholas stated that any tree that needs to be removed will be transplanted on the property if possible. If there is a tree in the footprint of the building, it will need to be moved, but any tree that can be saved, will be saved. Chairman Rogers swore in Mary Jo Bode of 413 Eastman Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Bode stated that she concurs with her neighbors. She asked if the structure is primarily office space. Chairman Rogers stated that it is listed as retail, but includes office space. Ms. Bode asked if the site is primarily office space why they need hours until 10 p.m. She said it seems there are many other areas of the Village that would be more suited to retail. She is concerned that retail traffic headlights will shine into her kitchen and bedroom windows. Ms. Chub off stated that she wants to know how the neighbors will be assured the conditions of approval will be enforced. There was additional discussion regarding the fencing and trailers that will be stored on the site. Mr. Peterson clarified that the trailer that he uses for his equipment is 20 feet long, but is low to the ground; it would not be visible behind a fence. Ms. Chuboff stated that the Petitioner has worked with Staff, but has not worked with the neighbors to address their concerns. She is concerned that the conditions of approval will not be enforced; she does not understand what provisions will be taken to ensure that her comfort level and property value will be maintained. Chairman Rogers stated the conditions of approval are added so that when complaints are made, the Village can enforce those conditions. Ms. Chuboff asked if there are going to be construction trailers stored on the sites. Mr. Giannini stated that he does not house construction trailers, the trailer is a small tag-along pulled by a pick-up truck. Ms. Chub off stated that her concern is the 8-foot fence is going to give the tenants a free-rein to store any kind of vehicle behind those fences, and the site will look like a compound. Chairman Rogers stated the Commission is asking the Petitioner to evaluate what type of secured parking/storage each building will need and either reduce or eliminate the fencing. He said some of the fencing will be required to protect the business' vehicles and equipment from theft or vandalism. Ms. Chuboff said that brings up another concern; that this development will attract vandals. Chairman Rogers stated that there will not be vandalism if the area is secure. Ms. Connolly stated that the Police Crime Prevention Unit does review this project as part of the zoning process. She said that Staff approved the fences because Village Code requires screening fence for outdoor storage. She said the Petitioner may have been under the impression that they were required to provide the 8-foot fence for the entire site, which may no longer be applicable based on the type of parking/storage each business will need. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 24, 2007 PZ-07-07 II Page 9 Ms. Connolly stated that the approval of this project would generate an Ordinance, which is a law; the residents can be assured that the conditions of approval would apply to any tenant, present or future that would be occupying the space. A new tenant would be made aware of the conditions through the Business License process. Citations would be issued should the conditions be violated. Ms. Chuboff stated that demolition was scheduled to start at 8 a.m., but has been beginning prior to 6 a.m., and this does not reflect well on the Petitioner. She is concerned that nothing will be enforced. Chairman Rogers pointed out that now Ms. Chuboff knows the proper avenue to address these issues. Mr. Donnelly asked if the Petitioner does not install any fencing now, can the Petitioner apply for a fence and put up an 8-foot fence at anytime. Ms. Connolly stated that a regulation can be added as a condition of approval if the Commission does not want the Petitioner to be able to put up an 8-foot fence, Chairman Rogers closed the public hearing. Mr. Youngquist stated that the only area that has oversized parking is the Peterson Roofing building. This tenant has oversized stalls, the remainder of the parking on the site appears to be standard and would not require an 8- foot fence. Mr. Youngquist stated that the fence height is not for the Commission to decide, that it will need to be based on the tenant's needs and use of the space. Ronald Roberts concurred. Mr. Roberts said that the Commission should use caution with how many restrictions are placed on this development. The office park is intended to be an economic engine for the Village and the Commission should not restrict the small business owner. Mr. Donnelly said he is concerned that this is a gateway into the park and does not want it to become an industrial property; Mr. Youngquist clarified that the property is zoned 11 and technically could be operating 24 hours per day. There was general discussion regarding the uses of the Kensington Business Park. Mr. Floros stated that every major project like this that comes along generates concerns and objections. The idea of Kensington Business Park was no different, and now the residents embrace the area. He said this is all part of progress; there will be inconveniences, but the Village will benefit from development. He said he is sure the Village will do everything it can to enforce the rules and ensure the best interest for the residents. Mr. Roberts agreed with Mr. Floros. He stated that he would defer to Staff's recommendation to approve this request. He said the Petitioner came to Staff early in the project to see what could be done to clean up and improve the site. The project has been well thought out and the Petitioner has worked extensively with Staff. He said Kensington Business Center is a great place, but the face of KBC may change. It does not do the Village any good to have these large buildings standing vacant and this project is utilizing a large space that had been empty for years. Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-07-07, a Conditional Use for a Mixed Use, Planned Unit Development at 601 East Kensington Road with the following conditions: 1. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall: a. Revise the Landscape Plan to include at least 50% year-round plant materials along the perimeter of the Subject Property. b. Revise the west and north elevations of the retail building to include architectural and roofline interest, and distinguishing it as retail space. c. Prepare color renderings of the buildings. d. Evaluate widening Wheeling and Kensington Roads to ensure adequate volume capacity. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 24, 2007 PZ-07 -07 II Page 10 2. The Petitioner shall prepare plans in general conformance with the site plan prepared by NEPCO, dated May 8, 2007. 3. The Petitioner shall repair the existing Kensington Business Center entry sign located at the southeast corner of Kensington and Wheeling Roads. 4. The hours of operation shall conform with the information submitted on the Petitioner's letter dated May 9,2007 and normal hours shall not extend past 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 5. Prior to submitting for a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall prepare plans that provide additional hydrants as required by Village Code. 6. The Petitioner shall provide the Fire Department access to the secured outdoor storage areas through the Knox rapid key entry system, which includes electric key switches ands/or padlocks. 7. The Petitioner shall prepare a plat of easement establishing a cross access agreement that ensures shared parking for the unsecured parking spaces and access to all driveways. 8. The Petitioner must provide cross access and shared parking easements that benefit each building owner. These easements must be illustrated on the PUD Plat and documented in the Association documents. 9. The site shall be developed in accordance with all Village Codes and regulations. 10. No material storage in yards; temporary material storage not to exceed 24 hours. II. Reduce fence height as applicable, or eliminate fences if not needed. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Haaland, McCabe, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist NAYS: Donnelly Motion was approved 6-1. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 9:48 p.m., seconded by Leo Floros. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\LocaJ Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ-07"'()7 (II) 601 E Kensington.doc Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 24, 2007 PZ-17-07 Page 3 After hearing one additional Case, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 9:48 p.m., seconded by Leo Floros. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant :. "I )<