Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8. MEETING NOTICES 04/21/2009 MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Paul Wm. Hoefert Arlene A. Juracek A. John Korn John 1. Matuszak Steven S. Polit Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TDD: 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 MEETING DATE & TIME: Thursday April 23, 2009 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 2009 P&Z MEETING A. PZ-29-08 / 501 Midway Drive / Serkan Aykan - Niagara Educational Services / Conditional Use (Community Center and school). B. PZ-26-08 /2410 E. Rand Road / The Twins Group Properties, LLC / Plat of Consolidation. C. PZ-07-09 / 916 S. Owen Street / Yogi Patel/Variation (Side Yard Setback). D. PZ-06-09 / 606 W. Northwest Highway / John Graham / Sign Variations. E. PZ-05-09 / 800 N. River Road / Kenneth Brandeis - Jakl Brandeis Architects / Conditional Use (Drive Through) and Variation (Parking). IV. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-03-09 / 930 E. Rand Road / Manhard Consulting, Ltd. - Wal-Mart / Plat of Water Main Easements. This case is Village Board Final. B. PZ-08-09 / 915 Hi Lusi Avenue / Alexandros Agalianos / Conditional Use (Circular Drive). This case is Village Board Final. V. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS VI. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 50 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 23, 2009 Page I of 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-29-08 Hearing Date: February 26, 2009 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 501 Midway Drive PETITIONER: Serkan Aykan PUBLICATION DATE: January 7, 2009 PIN NUMBER: 08-23-402-010 REQUEST: Conditional Use (Community Center and school) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBER ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Serkan Aykan, Brian Schramm, Stephen Miller Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 22, 2009 meeting; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4- 0; with Marlys Haaland and Ronald Roberts abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-29-08, a request for a Conditional Use (Community Center and school) at 501 Midway Drive, at 7:32 p.m. Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner, stated the Petitioner was seeking a Conditional Use to operate a community center and school. The subject property is located on Midway Drive, a cul-de-sac street west of Elmhurst Road, between Algonquin Road and Oakton Street. The subject property is zoned B-3, Community Shopping. It contains an office/warehouse building with related improvements. The property is bordered to the north and east by the B-3 district and to the south and west by the R-4 Multi-Family District. Ms. Andrade said the existing structure presently does not conform to the existing setback requirements or the lot coverage requirements. The Petitioner does not plan to modify the exterior of the building or the existing site, therefore, the legal non-conforming status would remain. Ms. Andrade stated the subject property has a zoning history of Conditional Use permits. Conditional Use permits were approved in 2004 and 2007. Each Conditional Use permit expired eighteen (18) months from the approval date. A building permit will not be issued until a new Conditional Use permit is issued. Ms. Andrade said the community center and school would offer the same services and events as the previous 2007 Conditional Use request. There would be minor modifications to the site plan and interior layout based on building review comments. Ms. Andrade stated the community center would occupy 60 percent of the building that would include: a gym, auditorium, offices, and guest rooms. The school would occupy 40 percent of the building and would include: Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-29-08 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 Page 1 of 4 classrooms, labs, and administrative offices. Ms. Andrade said the school's area has been increased by approximately 11,115 square feet from the 2007 Conditional Use request. The Petitioner proposes to add landscaping to the site to comply with the Village landscape requirements. Ms. Andrade showed illustrations of the interior layout of each floor. She said the zoning ordinance requires parking based on the use of each space. The required parking for the community center is based on the square footage of each space; 167 spaces would be required. The school's parking is based on the number of students and staff; 46 spaces required for the school portion. Ms. Andrade said a total of 213 parking spaces are required by code. The Petitioner's site plan shows 218 parking spaces would be provided; therefore, this parking would comply with Village code requirements for a building permit. Ms. Andrade stated compliance with all fire and building codes for assembly and educational occupancy would be required. The Fire Department required that the cul-de-sac of Midway Drive be striped per Village code as a no parking fire lane. Public Works has requested site improvements such as sanitary service and paving. Ms. Andrade said a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) permit would also be required. Ms. Andrade said Staff did receive an e-mail from an adjacent property owner, the Society of Critical Care Medicine; with some concerns for the proposal. Ms. Adrade stated that a representative from this organization was in attendance to address their concerns. Ms. Andrade summarized the Conditional Use standards; Staff believed the request to operate a community center and school satisfied the Conditional Use standards. Ms. Andrade said that Staff recommended approval of the motion listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers stated that they have been talking about this building for over two years; or even longer. He wanted to know if the building was occupied. Ms. Andrade said a temporary occupancy was issued for office space. William Beattie confirmed that the additional 11,000 square feet for the school would be added with no external modifications to the building. Ms. Andrade stated that this was correct. Chairman Rogers swore in Serkan Aykan, 1560 W. Dempster Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Aykan said at the time his organization was obtaining the Conditional Use permit in 2007, they were looking at other properties that would not require any change to zoning. He stated they could not pursue the other project, so they decided to continue with the Conditional Use permit that was approved at their current building. Chairman Rogers asked if it was the Petitioner's intention to proceed with the project if the Conditional Use permit was approved. Mr. Aykan confirmed they would move forward with the project if approved. Mr. Roberts asked what previous property the Petitioner was looking at. Mr. Aykan said St. John's Lutheran Church and School. Mr. Youngquist asked if there was still separation between the two buildings. Mr. Aykan stated that everything is the same from his previous submittal; they just wanted to add the upstairs to the school portion because it was available for them to do so. Chairman Rogers asked about the sleeping rooms. Mr. Aykan said the sleeping rooms would be located in the cultural center part for visiting guests. He stated this space was needed to show hospitality to guests. The rooms are not for students of the school. It can be compared to a hotel accommodation. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-29-08 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Youngquist stated he knew the Village Board went to great length discussing this case in 2007. He said the only change would be the classroom space on the second floor. Chairman Rogers swore in Brian Schramm, 500 Midway Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Schramm works for the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) that is adjacent to the subject property. He wanted to know of the Planning and Zoning Commission received the written letter sent regarding the SCCM's safety concerns. Mr. Schramm summarized the five points that they thought were problematic with the proposal. He said if these were corrected, SCCM would have no issues. Mr. Schramm stated the parking lot is in disrepair and there are areas where it floods. He said perimeter fencing might be necessary with young children around. Mr. Schramm stated sleeping rooms in conjunction with a school could have a negative impact on the children. He was concerned with the increase in traffic flow and the flooding of Midway Drive. Chairman Rogers asked if a fence was required between the subject property and the surrounding properties. Ms. Andrade stated that the Village does not require a fence. Mr. Beattie asked if any portion of the parking lot would used for a school yard. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner did not propose to use any of the paved area as a playground. Mr. Aykan stated children would not play outside. If there was a need for a fence, he would build one. Mr. Aykan said the sleeping rooms are located at the southeast portion of the property. The school is located on the north side of the building. Mr. Aykan stated the school and community center are under one roof, but there are two different buildings and entrances. The school and community center would not be connected inside. Chairman Rogers said MWRD would require the Petitioner address any potential flooding issues. Mr. Floros asked where the students would be coming from and if there would be buses. Mr. Aykan said the students would be coming from the surrounding communities: Mount Prospect, Arlington Heights, and Des Plaines. He stated parents would be dropping off the students. The Petitioner has a small bus for apartment areas. Mr. Youngquist stated there is not a maneuvering area unless the school has small buses. He said this is not a typical school parking lot. Chairman Rogers swore in the architect for the project, Stephen Miller of Oak Park, Illinois. Mr. Miller stated the population in the facility has been limited by the parking lot. The school population by law is not allowed to grow. He said there would primarily be car traffic, but does not foresee a traffic problem beyond what is allowed by the parking lot. Mr. Floros asked if the students required recess. Mr. Miller said all the activities are primarily in the gymnasium. He stated the school is more of a math/science oriented with recreation contained inside the building. Chairman Rogers asked about photometrics, landscaping, and the parking lot. Mr. Miller stated the flooding was an issue because of a filled catch basin. The whole parking lot would be redone. He did not notice a flooding problem until he observed the north side ofthe property after the recent September rain event. Mr. Miller said the catch basin may have collapsed or it was possibly filled with debris. He stated there was a lot of disrepair out there for a long time and it would be corrected. Mr. Miller said that he talked to his landscaper regarding the landscape plan. He stated the plan would be fairly simple to develop. Mr. Youngquist confirmed that the multi-purpose room was also to be used as a gymnasium for the school. Mr. Aykan stated the gymnasium indicated on the site plan is for the community center and is separate from the school. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-29-08 Page 3 of 4 Chairman Rogers asked ifthere was anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 8:04 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Beattie made a motion; seconded by Mr. Rogers to approve a Conditional Use permit that would allow a Community Center and a School to operate as noted in the Petitioner's application for the property at 501 Midway Drive, Case No. PZ-29-08, subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Development of the site and the school portion in general conformance with the plans prepared by Gensler date stamped January 31, 2008; 2. Development of the community center portion in general conformance with the plans prepared by Sigma Engineering, Inc., stamped November 7, 2008. 3. Striping and designation of one side of Midway Drive and the bulb of the cul-de-sac as "No Parking Fire Lane" as noted on the attached Exhibit "B" prepared by the Fire Department; 4. Submittal of a landscape plan in compliance with Village's Zoning Ordinance, including the installation of 5-foot tall (minimum) evergreen type landscaping lining the perimeter of the northwest and southwest portions of the parking lot; 5. Submittal of a photometric plan in compliance with the Village's Zoning Ordinance. 6. Based on the number of parking spaces provided on the property, occupancy of the school shall be restricted to 195 persons. Enrollment records shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development on an annual basis at the beginning of each school year, or upon the request of the Director of Community Development. 7. As stated in the Village's Building Code, where a building contains two or more occupancies and where they share portions of the same means of egress system, those egress components shall meet the more stringent requirements of all occupancies that are shared. Proposed construction drawings for the project shall comply with the Village's egress, Building, and Fire Code requirements. 8. A building permit, in accordance with the current regulations and requirements of the Village of Mount Prospect, must be issued within one (1) year from the date of adoption of the enabling ordinance by the Village Board which authorized the development proposal. The development approvals granted herein, without need for further action by any Village board, commission or official, shall become null and void if no building permit is issued within the one (1) year requirement and improvements completed within a period of eighteen (18) months. 9. Develop the site in conformance with all Village Codes." The Village Board's decision is final for this case. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: NONE Motion was approved 6-0. After hearing four additional cases, Mr. Beattie made a motion to adjourn at 9:57 p.m., seconded by Mr. Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-29-08 Page 4 of 4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-26-08 Hearing Date: February 26, 2009 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2410 E. Rand Road PETITIONER: The Twins Group Properties, LLC PUBLICATION DATE: Not required; sign posted on-site January 7, 2009 PIN NUMBERS: 03-28-201-014-0000 & 03-28-201-020-0000 REQUEST: Plat of Consolidation MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBER ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTY: None Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 22, 2009 meeting; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4- 0; with Marlys Haaland and Ronald Roberts abstaining. After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-26-08, a request for a Plat of Consolidation at 2410 E. Rand Road, at 8:05 p.m. Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner, stated the Petitioner was requesting approval for a Plat of Consolidation. The subject property is composed of two parcels equaling 0.528 acres and contains a Taco Bell restaurant with related improvements. Ms. Andrade said the restaurant was built in 2006 and is presently non- conforming as the structure crosses property lines. A condition of the building permit was to combine the two parcels. The Petitioner was seeking approval for the Plat of Consolidation for a one lot subdivision to comply with the condition of approval. Ms. Andrade showed the Plat of Consolidation. The Plat of Consolidation under review would change the site from two parcels into one lot of record. The Plat would also vacate an existing easement and grant new utility and drainage easements. Ms. Andrade said that Staff recommended approval of the motion listed in the Staff Report. There was general discussion regarding easements. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner or anyone in the audience was in attendance to address the case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion at 8:08 pm and brought the discussion back to the board. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-26-08 Page 1 of2 William Beattie made a motion to approve a Plat of Consolidation, titled Taco Bell Consolidation, benefiting the property located at 2410 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ-26-08. Mr. Youngquist seconded the motion. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Beattie, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: NONE Motion was approved 6-0. After hearing three additional cases, Mr. Beattie made a motion to adjourn at 9:57 p.m., seconded by Mr. Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast Community Development Administmtive Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-26-08 Page 2 of2 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-07-09 Hearing Date: February 26, 2009 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 916 S. Owen Street PETITIONER: Yogi Patel PUBLICATION DATE: February 11,2009 PIN NUMBER: 08-13-208-020-0000 REQUEST: Variation (Side Yard Setback) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBER ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTY: Yogi Patel Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 22,2009 meeting; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4- 0; with Marlys Haaland and Ronald Roberts abstaining. After hearing two previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-07-09, a request for a Variation (Side Yard Setback) at 916 S. Owen Street, at 8:09 p.m. Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner, said the Petitioner was applying for a side yard setback Variation. The subject property is located on the west side of Owen Street and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The subject property is zoned R-l single-family residential and is bordered by the R- 1 District on all four sides. The property is conforming to existing setbacks and lot coverage. Ms. Andrade showed the site plan; the proposal called for a building addition along the north property line. She said the Petitioner proposed to enlarge the existing one car garage into a two car garage and add a laundry room. The Petitioner was requesting a three foot side yard setback along the north property line. MAd d h d h b Ik s. n ra e s owe t e u reqUIrements or t e - zonmg Istnct: Rl Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' 30.55' 30.54' Side (North) 6.6' 11 ' 3' Side (South) 6.6' 12.70' No change Rear 20' 49' No change' LOT COVERAGE 45% Maximum 30% 39.52% fI h R 1 d' Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-07 -09 Page 1 of3 Ms. Andrade summarized the Variation standards. The Petitioner stated in his application that the side yard encroachment was necessary to enlarge the existing one car garage into a two car garage for additional space. The additional space would allow the Petitioner to put a child's car seat and leave ample space for his elderly parents to enter/exit the vehicle without having to go outside. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff understood the added benefits and flexibility that the enlarged garage would provide to the Petitioner; however, these benefits do not justify the approval of the requested Variation. She said the existing conditions on the site are not unique. There are multiple properties in the neighborhood with one car garages. Ms. Andrade stated there are no hardships as defined by the zoning ordinance. Ms. Andrade said that Staff recommended denial of the motion listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioner, Yogi Patel, 916 S. Owen St., Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Patel said there is currently a one car garage; he wanted to extend it to a two car garage because his family is growing. He stated his parents are moving in and they need the extra space. The current space only gives seventeen (17) feet of space internally in the garage. He said if he stayed within the requirements, it would not be considered a two car garage because two cars would barely fit. He stated he needed a couple more feet so he could get in and out of the car, especially for his parents. Chairman Rogers stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission normally does not grant a Variation for side yards because it restricts the frontage. William Beattie asked if the Petitioner would be able to make this a wider one car garage. Mr. Patel said he has considered this option. He said he would have trouble moving the cars around. Mr. Youngquist stated that Petitioner could park two cars side by side on the existing driveway. Mr. Patel stated that Mr. Youngquist was correct, but he has issues parking two cars if it snows. Mr. Youngquist said part of the problem in this case is where the builder built the house. The builder built it exactly in the center of the property. Mr. Patel said if the Planning and Zoning Commission could not grant the three feet, he said he could use at least a foot and a half or two feet to help open the door. Mr. Youngquist said the design of the 22.6 foot garage is about as narrow as the Petitioner would like to go for a two car garage. He stated what the Petitioner was asking for was appropriate, but he has an issue with it going into the side yard. Mr. Beattie said with what the Petitioner currently has, he could go from the existing 11 foot setback to 6.5 feet for a larger single car garage. The 6.5 foot setback would meet code. Mr. Floros asked if Staff or the Commission has heard from the neighbor directly to the north. Mr. Patel stated that he has talked with some of his neighbors. He said there are houses in the neighborhood that have two car garages. There was general discussion regarding other garages in the neighborhood. Mr. Floros stated he has a hard time approving a Variance practically up to the lot line. He does not want to create a precedent. Mr. Patel said he understood the possibility of not obtaining a three foot Variance, he requested a Variance to encroach one and a half or two foot into the required side yard. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-07-09 Page 2 of3 Chairman Rogers stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to keep the side yard setback the way it is. He said the Petitioner still could build a 1.5 car garage. Chairman Rogers asked if there was anyone in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 8:26 p.m. and brought it back to the board. Mr. Roberts asked Staff if the other neighbors in the area with two car garages were compliant. There was general discussion regarding neighbors' garages. Chairman Rogers asked a question regarding driveways. Ms. Andrade stated that driveways could go to the property line. Mr. Simmons confirmed that the neighbors could have a combined driveway. Chairman Rogers advised the Petitioner that a two car detached garage could be built. Mr. Patel said he wanted the garage attached to the home. Mr. Floros made a motion; seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve a Variation to allow a three (3) foot side yard setback along the north lot line, as shown in the exhibit prepared by Thomas Buckley Architect & Associates, dated January 28,2009 for the residence at 916 S. Owen Street, Case No. PZ-07-09. This case is Village Board final since the Variation exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Roberts NAYS: Beattie, Floros, Haaland, Youngquist, Rogers Motion was defeated 5-1. After hearing two additional cases, Mr. Beattie made a motion to adjourn at 9:57 p.m., seconded by Mr. Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-07-09 Page 3 of3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-06-09 Hearing Date: February 26, 2009 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 606 W. Northwest Highway PETITIONER: John Graham PUBLICATION DATE: February 11,2009 PIN NUMBER: 03-34-324-008-0000 REQUEST: Sign Variations: . Number and Size of Wall Signs (Northwest Hwy) . Height and Setback of Freestanding Sign (Northwest Hwy) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBER ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: John Graham, Don Hansen, John Streetz, Nancy Fritz Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 22, 2009 meeting; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4- 0; with Marlys Haaland and Ronald Roberts abstaining. After hearing three previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-06-09, a request for sign Variations at 606 W. Northwest Highway, at 8:28 p.m. Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner, stated the Petitioner was requesting five Variations for signage. The subject property is located on the north side of Northwest Highway between Forest Avenue and Fairview A venue. The subject property is zoned B-5 Central Commercial and contains a gas station, convenience store, and related improvements. The Petitioner submitted information that the existing Citgo gas station with convenience store would be converted into a Shell gas station and a 7-11 convenience store. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner proposed to remove existing signage that fronts Northwest Highway and was seeking relief from the Village's sign code regulations for the new proposed signage. Ms. Andrade showed a table of sign code regulations and pictures of the existing and proposed wall signs. There are currently three wall signs on the building. The wall signs that front Northwest Highway are presently non-conforming and are allowed to stay on the property. Ms. Andrade stated replacement of such signs would have to comply with Village sign code regulations. The code allows one wall sign per street frontage that covers up to 40 percent of the signable area. The Petitioner was seeking a Variation to install two wall signs that exceed the 40 percent signable area along Northwest Highway. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-06-09 Page 1 of 5 Ms. Andrade said the subject property has one freestanding sign on the southeast corner of the site. A Variation for the existing freestanding sign was approved in 1992 that allowed the fifteen (15) foot height and 3.75 foot setback. By removing the sign and replacing it, the new sign would have to comply with the Village's sign code regulations. The Petitioner was proposing to install a free standing sign that measured 17 feet 6.5 inches high, 72.5 square feet, and setback 3.5 feet from the front property line. Ms. Andrade stated as currently designed, the freestanding sign would not comply with the design standards in the sign code. The freestanding sign would have to provide a pole skirt to screen the poles at the base of the sign. As stated earlier, the Petitioner proposed to install the freestanding sign at the southeast comer of the site where the existing freestanding sign is located with a 3.5 foot setback from the property line. Ms. Andrade said Staff had discussions with the Petitioner regarding selecting a new location for the freestanding sign and redesigning it to comply with code. Ms. Andrade stated that installing a freestanding sign with a horizontal design on the southwest corner of the site would not require a Variation for the height or setback requirement and would conform to the Village's sign code regulations. Ms. Andrade showed a picture of the landscaped area on the western side of the property for this alternative option. She also showed an illustration of a freestanding 7-11 / Citgo sign that is currently located at 1740 W. Dempster. The sign at this location did not require a Variation and conforms to the sign regulations. Ms. Andrade summarized the sign Variation standards. She said Staff is supportive of the Variation request for the two wall signs along Northwest Highway as the building's front fa9ade is unique because it angles at the center and has two wall sections. Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve this Variation. Ms. Andrade stated Staff is not supportive of the Variation requests to increase the size of the wall signs, increase the height of the freestanding sign, and reduce the setback of the freestanding sign. She said there are no hardships in the Variation requests as they are a convenience to the Petitioner. Ms. Andrade stated the subject property is not unique compared to other commercial properties. The Petitioner could comply with the sign code regulations by redesigning the freestanding sign and moving it to the southwest corner of the site. Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny these motions. Chairman Rogers said he appreciated Staff for sticking with the code. He stated it took ten years for the signs in Mount Prospect to conform to code. Chairman Rogers swore in all the speakers representing the Petitioner. John Graham, 446 Morris Street, Mundelein, IL, stated maintaining the freestanding sign where it currently exists is very important. He believed the alternate option developed by Staff would alter the traffic flow for his business. Mr. Graham said the gas station primarily deals with west bound traffic as the pumps are oriented for cars going in this direction. He stated that the price point for gasoline is sensitive. Mr. Graham felt that the sign that was granted a Variation in the past is in the proper spot. He said moving this sign would put the station at a competitive disadvantage. Mr. Graham stated the need for increased height was based on standards set forth by Shell and 7-11. He said based on their confined location, it is almost impossible to market the two brands and price point for gas. He stated that customers make impulse decisions when buying gas. It would affect their business significantly if the sign was located past the station for west bound traffic. Mr. Graham said cars exiting the station would block the alternate sign that was proposed by Staff. He stated that he was looking to increase the free standing sign 2.5 feet larger than the 15 foot current sign. Chairman Rogers stated that very few signs in the Village that are at the height of the existing Citgo sign. The larger signs are at shopping centers, not gas stations. Chairman Rogers said he knew the Petitioner's existing sign is at 15 feet, but would like it reduced to 12 feet to conform to code since it's proposed to change. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-06-09 Page 2 of 5 There was general discussion regarding the location of the freestanding sign. Don Hansen, 1715 Squirrel, Cary, IL, represented 7-11. He said by moving the sign further in the setback would place it in the drive aisle. Mr. Hansen stated moving the sign to the west would be a hazard because of impulse buyers turning into the site at the last second. He said signs are normally placed before gas stations to allow customers to see a price and to make a decision. Chairman Rogers said the freestanding sign is in an ideal situation where it currently is, he didn't realize with the setback requirement that they would be in the driveway. William Beattie stated there was not another competing gas station in the area to draw the customer away. He said the price point on the proposed freestanding sign was only six to seven feet off the ground. Mr. Beattie stated that the only reason the freestanding sign was extended was because of the Shell and 7-11 logos. He said with canopies and everything else, the whole building is a sign identified by the brand. Mr. Beattie stated that people know the gas station is there without a large freestanding sign. He does not see a problem with a sign being placed on the western side of the property. Mr. Hansen said one car would block the proposed alternate sign by Staff. Mr. Simmons confirmed that the maximum height for a monument sign is twelve feet. Mr. Graham stated 7-II's presence needed to be the same as Shell's based on standards. Mr. Roberts reemphasized Mr. Beattie's point by stating that 7-11 and Shell are well known brands; the colors brand the building. He said if price point is a concern, then the Petitioner has up to twelve feet to let the customer know about the price. Mr. Hansen stated the concern is the amount of time that the customer has a decision to make. He said potential customers make a decision after they see a price. Mr. Hansen stated there is a building to the east across Fairview Avenue that is out to the street. He said visibility to the building is restricted. He stated the 7-11 signage on the building is inadequate because the convenience store is located behind a canopy, hidden behind pumps, and traffic. Mr. Hansen said there is only one small sight line where one of the driveways is located. He stated signage is very critical. Chairman Rogers asked if all three elements (Shell, 7-11, and price point) could be included on a twelve foot sign. Mr. Graham stated that they could accept a fifteen foot sign to accommodate landscaping and snow banks. There was general discussion about branding and placement of the freestanding sign. Mr. Youngquist asked why the canopies could not be co-branded. There was general discussion regarding the brand operations of Shell and 7-11. Mr. Graham discussed the need for teaming up with Shell and 7-11. He said he could do a twelve foot sign with three feet allocated for landscaping. Mr. Graham stated that if he can show that a seventeen foot sign is unacceptable by the Village, Shell would grant an exemption to their standard. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if he looked at all the items up for approval and denial. Mr. Hansen stated there were some errors and calculations in regards to the wall signs. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-06-09 Page 3 of 5 John Streetz, 232 W. Interstate, Addison, IL represented Doyle Signs. He stated that they are requesting an additional sign Variation in which it would allow an additional sign on the south elevation. He said they would need a Variation of approximately 4 square feet on the southwest elevation. Mr. Streetz said both elevations faced Northwest Highway. He wanted to correct the Staff report; based on the survey, it indicated the sign band area is bigger than how it was calculated. The Staff report showed the sign band at 3 feet tall; it was actually 3 feet 11 inches tall. Mr. Streetz stated on these dimensions, the southwest elevation would allow a 53 square feet wall sign; the south elevation would allow approximately 69.4 square feet. He said one sign on one side would be okay based on the signable wall area and the other side would be over by four square feet. Mr. Streetz stated code would normally allow one wall sign per street frontage. He said this would translate into potential signs on Fairview and Henry in additional to the proposed signs on Northwest Highway. Mr. Streetz stated that they are not requesting any additional signs on Fairview or Henry; he asked the fact the they are not proposing additional signage be included in the Variation request. Mr. Streetz said the wall signs are not overbearing or cumbersome on the store front. He stated by having an equal size on both sides would create balance. Mr. Streetz stated the building has a unique layout, so only one sign is seen from a distance going in either direction on Northwest Highway. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner would be able to live with the one wall sign smaller by four square feet to meet the 40% requirement. Chairman Rogers wanted to make sure they are in compliance with both wall signs. Mr. Streetz said he could do this. Chairman Rogers stated the Petitioner currently has a fifteen foot pylon sign. He said this property is one of the few properties that have a fifteen foot pylon sign. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner could live with a fifteen foot Pylon sign that would allow: four feet for Shell, four feet for 7-11, and give 3 feet at the bottom to raise the sign above the ground. Mr. Graham said he could do it and he is willing to compromise. Chairman Rogers said everything else in the Staff Report would remain the same as far as approvals, with the exception of the actual dimensions of the wall signs. He stated as long as the Petitioner stayed within the 40 percent of the actual dimensions of the wall signs. Don Hansen asked Chairman Rogers if they were talking about keeping the pylon sign in its present location. Chairman Rogers stated that he didn't see how the sign could be moved into the driveway and said the sign would have to be kept where it's at and go to the 15 feet max, which they have know. Chairman Rogers swore in Nancy Fritz, 103 N. MacArthur Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Fritz attended the meeting to address the signage issues. She said seventeen feet for the freestanding sign was a major concern. She wanted to compliment the owner of the gas station. Ms. Fritz said the gas station has been a presence for the neighborhood. She preferred the wall signs to be similar to the existing wall signs. Chairman Rogers asked if there was anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 9: 12 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Simmons clarified the motion with the Commission; to approve the two wall signs facing Northwest Highway contingent they meet the 40 % signable wall area and approve the ground sign maintaining the existing 15 foot height, which was approved in the 1992 Variation, and also the existing setback in its current location. Chairman Rogers stated that was correct because it was the only place it can be. He stated that everything remains the same as staff, with the exception of the maintaining the 15 foot height and leaving the location where it's at. Mr. Floros made a motion; seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve the following motions: 1) A Variation to install two wall signs along Northwest Highway Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-06-09 Page 4 of 5 2) A Variation request to increase the maximum height for a freestanding sign from twelve (12) feet to fifteen (15) feet, and 3) A Variation request to reduce the required sign setback for a freestanding sign from five (5) feet to three and three quarter (3.75) feet, subject to the Petitioner obtaining a permit from the Community Development Department and the following conditions: a. The existing changeable copy wall sign on the south fac;:ade shall be removed. b. No additional wall signs shall be permitted to be installed on the building. c. Wall signs shall not exceed forty percent ofthe signable area in size. d. The freestanding sign shall include a pole skirt as a base for the sign. The Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: NONE Motion was approved 6-0. After hearing one additional case, Mr. Beattie made a motion to adjourn at 9:57 p.m., seconded by Mr. Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-06-09 Page 5 of 5 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-05-09 Hearing Date: February 26, 2009 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 800 River Road PETITIONER: Kenneth Brandeis - Jakl Brandeis Architects PUBLICATION DATE: February 11, 2009 PIN NUMBER: 03-25-400-018-0000 REQUEST: 1) Conditional Use for a Drive Through 2) Variation for a Parking Space MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBER ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Ken Brandeiss, Jesse Fojo, Jennifer Delisle, John Truncale, Bridget Mukite Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 22, 2009 meeting; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4- 0; with Marlys Haaland and Ronald Roberts abstaining. After hearing four previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-05-09, a request for a Conditional Use for a Drive Through and Variation for a parking space at 800 River Road, at 9: 15 p.m. Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner, stated the property owner would like to redevelop the site from a car wash to a commercial multi-tenant building with a drive through restaurant. The Petitioner was requesting a Conditional Use with a drive through and a Variation to the required number of parking spaces. The subject property is located at the Northwest corner of the intersection of River Road and Kensington Road; it is zoned B-4 Corridor Commercial. The property is adjacent to the R-4 Multi-Family District to the west and north, and unincorporated Wheeling Township to the south and east. Ms. Andrade said under the proposed redevelopment plan, the vacuuming structure currently located on the west side of the property would be demolished. The car wash structure would be enclosed and reduced in size. The building would be reduced from 3,741 square feet to 2,386 square feet; and include four commercial tenants with a drive through at the east corner. The Petitioner proposes to add parking and landscaping to the site and enhance the building's fa9ade. The Petitioner seeks approval of Conditional Use permit and a Variation to the required parking to allow redevelopment of the site. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-05-09 Page 1 of 5 Ms. Andrade showed the site plan. The Petitioner's site plan indicated 1,242 square feet of retail and 1,144 square feet for a drive through restaurant. The Petitioner is required to provide five (5) parking spaces for the retail portion and fourteen (14) parking spaces for the restaurant; for a total of nineteen (19) parking spaces required. The Petitioner is requesting a Variation to reduce the amount of parking spaces from nineteen (19) to eighteen (18) parking spaces. The Petitioner worked on a number of concept plans before finalizing the site plan and tried to comply with landscaping requirements by adding interior landscaping and foundation landscaping at the Southeast corner of the site. The proposed site would comply with the required eight (8) spots for stacking in a drive through. Access into the property from adjacent roadways would not change from present conditions. The existing access drive from Kensington Road would be maintained and the Petitioner did not propose an access drive from River Road. Ms. Andrade showed and discussed the landscape plan. The redevelopment of the site would not affect the perimeter landscaping; the Petitioner would add interior and foundation landscaping. Ms. Andrade showed the building elevations. The north and south building facades would be enhanced with the addition of new building materials. The front elevation would include brick, glass, cut stone, decorate dryvit, and metal canopies. The rear elevation of the building would include a mixture of brick, decorative dryvit, and concrete. Since the rear elevation fronts residential property, the proposed rear elevation shall be revised to be compatible with the adjacent residential by replacing the proposed concrete masonry units with brick materials. Ms. Andrade said the adjacent neighbors submitted a petition in opposition of the proposed redevelopment of the site. They were concerned with the close proximity of the drive-through to the residential use, the potential smell of food, the lack of parking, property maintenance, and hours of operation. Ms. Andrade stated that drive-through restaurants next to residential areas is not uncommon in the Village. The Petitioner was proposing to change a drive-through car wash to a drive-through restaurant. The building permit review would ensure that the hood is installed properly and the easterly winds in the area would alleviate the smell of the drive-through restaurant. The Petitioner intended to keep the dumpsters in the same area on the northwest corner of the property; the dumpsters are presently enclosed by a wood privacy fence. Routine property maintenance, food, and sanitary inspections would insure that the property is being maintained. A tenant for the drive-through restaurant has not been disclosed to the Village. Ms. Andrade said as stated earlier, the subject property is surrounded by perimeter landscaping. The landscape areas along the north and west property lines act as buffers between the subject property and the residential uses. This area measures more than thirteen (13) feet wide and consists of a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence and eight (8) foot high hedge bushes. Ms. Andrade showed pictures of the screening. Ms. Andrade summarized the code standards for a Conditional Use and Variation. Retail and restaurants are permitted uses in the commercial district that the property is currently zoned. Additionally, the proposal would be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan designating the property for commercial land uses. The proposed drive-through is a less intense use than the existing multi-bay car wash. Ms. Andrade said that Staff recommended approval of the motion listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers swore in Ken Brandeiss, 842 Kingston Lane, Bartlett, Illinois and Jesse Fojo, 670 Plum Tree Road, Barrington, Illinois. Mr. Brandeis stated that Mr. Fojo was losing money with the current use as a car wash. He said Mr. Fojo came to him to discuss different types of uses. They decided a fast food restaurant and retail space was the way to go. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioners if they were aware of the petition submitted by approximately 50 neighbors. Mr. Fojo stated that they have not identified what type of fast food store would go into the proposed development. He said the ideal food place would be similar to a Jimmy John's; a place that does not cook anything, but only bakes bread. Mr. Fojo stated there would be no fryers. He also suggested that a coffee shop like a Starbucks would be a good use. He said odors from the restaurant are positive compared to gas fumes that are coming from its current use as a car wash. Mr. Fojo said they do not know what tenants would lease out the Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-05-09 Page 2 of 5 space as they had just begun the process. He said the reason for redeveloping the site was based on economics; sales are down and costs are up. There was general discussion regarding the usage of dryvit in the Village and on the building. Chairman Rogers said the type of restaurant is a major concern to the residents. He said the Petitioners may have an issue leasing space due to the economy. Mr. Fojo stated that he was trying to come up with the best solution for the property. There was general discussion on whether tenants have been signed or looked at the proposed development. Mr. Youngquist said the retail spaces were small and he knows the Petitioners were working with the existing building. He does understand the Petitioners are requesting the approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Village Board, but he said that the Petitioners have locked themselves into parameters because of the parking requirements. If they want to expand the restaurant space, the parking ratios would change. He said the Petitioners do not have a lot of flexibility. He complimented the Petitioners for attempting to change the use. Mr. Fojo said the project does depend on tenants. He said they are restricted by the landscaping. There was further discussion regarding potential uses. Chairman Rogers swore in Jennifer Delisle, 814 River Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Delisle stated that 55 residents signed a petition against the proposal. She showed the board a picture of where the condos are located compared to where the proposed drive-through would go. She said the units that face the proposed drive-through location; that is their only outside area. All of their windows and exterior patio doors only face that side; no other choice to open windows on any other side. The air conditioning units only face this side of the building. Ms. Delisle said any smell from a proposed restaurant would go into the condos. Chairman Rogers asked Ms. Delisle how they are affected with the car wash. Ms. Delisle stated there have been no issues with the current use; noise and exhaust is not a problem. She said the proposed parking would be an issue with what the Petitioner is proposing. She was concerned with overflow cars utilizing the condo's parking lot. Ms. Andrade clarified that a restaurant is a permitted use within the zoning district and the petitioners request for a drive-through and parking variation require additional zoning approval. Chairman Rogers said the Petitioner was basically meeting the parking requirements, short by one car. He said the retail spaces are so small that parking should not be an issue. Chairman Rogers did understand the issue regarding the smell of a potential fast food restaurant. Chairman Rogers swore in John Truncale, 270 Woodland Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Truncale is concerned with the drainage if the proposed development was approved. He said there currently there are drainage issues with its current use. Mr. Truncale stated he does not have an issue with a restaurant going into the site. Chairman Rogers said from what he sees in the plans, the Petitioner was not planning on changing the grading. The building would be slightly smaller as two east drive bays are being removed. The roof area would be smaller. Chairman Rogers does not believe the drainage will change. Chairman Rogers swore in Bridget Mukite, 804 River Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Mukite said there was already a lot of traffic in their lot because of the two bars south of the proposed development in unincorporated Cook County. Ms. Mukite stated she is concerned that there might be additional problems for the condos to the Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-05-09 Page 3 of 5 north if the proposed development sits vacant with no tenants. Chairman Rogers stated there is a fence between the properties. Chairman Rogers asked if there was anyone in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 9:55 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Floros made a motion; seconded by Ms. Haaland to approve the following motions: "To approve: 1) A Conditional Use permit for a Drive Through; and 2) A Variation to reduce the number of required parking spaces from nineteen (19) to eighteen (18), for the property commonly known as the 800 N. River Road, Case No. PZ-05-09, subject to compliance with the following conditions: A. Prior to the issuance of a development permit, the petitioner shall provide civil engineering drawings for review and approval by the Village. The engineering drawings shall illustrate the existing conditions, demolition of the sitelbuilding to be removed, and proposed improvements. The proposed plans must include details of the pavement marking, signage, grading, and utility improvements. B. Development of the site in general conformance with the site plan prepared by Jakl Brandeis dated November 11, 2008 and received by the Community Development Department on January 30,2009. The site plans shall be modified to reflect the following changes: a. The plan needs to show the existing topography in the right of way adjacent to the site. b. The one-way, westbound exit from the drive-through should taper down to twelve feet (12') to discourage traffic from entering the wrong way. C. A detailed landscape plan in accordance to the landscape requirements of Article 23 of the Zoning Code shall be submitted for staff review and approval. The landscape plan shall detail both new proposed plantings and existing landscaping on the property. D. Any work in either Kensington Road or River Road rights of way will require a permit from the Illinois Department of Transportation (lOOT). E. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the building elevations prepared Jakl Brandeis dated November 11, 2008 and received by the Community Development Department on January 30, 2009. The rear elevation shall be modified to reflect the following change: a. The concrete block shall be replaced with brick along the building's north facade. F. If new outdoor lighting will be provided, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the petitioner shall submit photometric plans and drawings (cut sheets) that satisfy the Village's code requirements for illumination. G. The Petitioner shall construct the building in accordance to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: the installation of automatic fire sprinklers and fire alarm systems. Additional fire hydrants may be necessary. H. A building permit, in accordance with the current regulations and requirements of the Village of Mount Prospect, must be issued within one (1) year from the date of adoption of the enabling ordinance by the Village Board which authorized the development proposal. The development approvals granted herein, without need for further action by any Village board, commission or official, shall become null and void if no building permit is issued within the one (1) year requirement and improvements completed within a period of eighteen (18) months." Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-05-09 Page 4 of5 The Village Board's decision is final for this case. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Youngquist NAYS: Beattie, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers Motion was defeated 4-2. Mr. Beattie made a motion to adjourn at 9:57 p.m., seconded by Mr. Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast Community Development Administmtive Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-05-09 Page 5 of 5 MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks Mount Prospect TRUSTEES Paul Wm. Hoefert Arlene A. Juracek A. John Korn John J. Matuszak Steven S. Polit Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION CANCELLATION NOTICE THE FINANCE COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY APRIL 23, 2009 HAVE BEEN CANCELLED VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/392-6000 Fax: 847/392-6022 www.mounlJ1rospect.org