Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/2009 P&Z minutes 17-09 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF mE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-17-09 Hearing Date: July 23, 2009 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 927 S. Busse Rd. PETITIONER: Ronald J. Ambrose for Shell PUBLICATION DATE: July 8, 2009 PIN NUMBER: 08-14-106-014-0000 REQUEST: Variation - Front Yard Setback (canopy) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Ron Ambrose and Michelle Knapp Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Youngquist made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 25, 2009 meeting; Mr. Donnelly seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 6-0; with Mr. Roberts abstaining. After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-17-09, 927 S. Busse Road, a request for a Front Yard Setback Variation (canopy), at 7:31 p.m. Ms. Andrade, Development Review Planner, stated the Petitioner for PZ-17-09 was requesting a Variation to encroach seventeen feet (17') into the required front yard for the property located at 927 S. Busse Road. The Subject Property is located at the northeast corner of the Busse Road and Golf Road street intersection. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property is zoned B4 Corridor Commercial and contains an automobile service station with related improvements. The property is nonconforming as the existing structure and parking lot do not comply with the required setback and the site exceeds the maximum lot coverage permitted. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner proposed to install a new canopy at the Shell gas station located at the Subject Property. The proposed canopy would be replacing a canopy which previously stood on the property, but was removed due to disrepair conditions. The proposed canopy would shelter the existing gas pumps that front Golf Road and would be setback thirteen feet (13') to the front property line, which encroaches seventeen feet (17') into the required front yard. Ms. Andrade said the proposed canopy would be 19 feet high and would include new signage. Ms. Andrade showed a table that included bulk requirements for the B4 Zoning District: Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 23, 2009 PZ-17-09 Page 1 of5 B4 District Minimum Reouirements Proposed SETBACKS: Front 30' ]3' Interior 10' 57' Exterior 30' 59' Rear 20' 106' LOT COVERAGE 75% Maximum 91% Ms. Andrade stated the canopy would comply with the required exterior and interior setbacks but not comply with required 30 feet front yard setback. The existing lot coverage would not change and would remain at 91%. Ms. Andrade said since the canopy would include new lighting, the Petitioner submitted a photometric plan for staff to review. The photometric plan does not meet Code because it exceeds the Code's maximum permitted illumination levels within the property and at the south property line. A revised photometric plan would be required at the building permit stage. Ms. Andrade stated the intent of the Village Code is to bring nonconforming structures into compliance with the bulk regulations. Per Section 14.402 of the Village Code, any nonconforming structure is required to be brought into compliance when the structure is damaged or destroyed to the extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement value. The removal of the previous canopy required the new canopy to comply with the Code requirements. Ms. Andrade said the potential existed to modify the proposal to comply with the front yard setback requirements and make other improvements to the property that would bring the site closer to compliance with the Code. The number of curb cuts could be reduced from four down to two by eliminating the two cuts closest to the intersection of Golf Road and Busse Road. Also, the lawn areas and sidewalks could be extended along both frontages in the areas eliminated above to reduce the nonconforming lot coverage to approximately 89% of the lot area. Ms. Andrade stated the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: · A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; · Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and · Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Andrade said the Zoning Code defined a hardship as "a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of unusual surroundings or condition of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground conditions or other unusual circumstances". Although the site is located on a corner, the site is not restricted by a small lot width. Similar conditions exist throughout the surrounding neighborhood and are therefore not unique to this property. The Petitioner has the option of modifying the proposal so that the canopy meets the 30-foot setback, as permitted by the Zoning Code, and make other improvements to the site. While this design may not be the most convenient option, the canopy would meet the required setback, and will bring the site closer to compliance with the Code. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 23, 2009 PZ-17-09 Page 2 of 5 Staff recommended denial of the Variation request. Ms. Andrade stated this case was Village Board final since the Variation request exceeded 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Mr. Donnelly asked Staff if they were aware of any other Variations granted for canopies. Ms. Andrade said she was not aware of any recent Variation approvals for the setback of canopies. She stated it would not be unusual for existing gas stations not to comply with the required setbacks if the gas stations have been around for a while or were constructed before the zoning code requirements. Mr. Beattie asked if the Petitioner would have to rotate the canopy, would they have to move the gas pumps as well. Ms. Andrade stated that this was correct. Chairman Rogers asked if Staff looked into having the Petitioner reduce the size of the canopy by not covering the last space closest to Golf Road. Ms. Andrade said that this would be another option for the Petitioner. Chairman Rogers said it would still not meet the thirty foot (30') setback, but it would be a lot closer. Mr. Beattie asked ifthe proposed canopy was the same size as the canopy that was removed. Ms. Andrade stated yes. Chairman Rogers swore in Ron Ambrose of Warren Johnson Architects, 19 N. Greeley St, Palatine, Illinois and Michelle Knapp of Shell Oil Company, 649 Aberdeen, Cary, Illinois. Mr. Ambrose stated there was a previous canopy at the subject property that was removed in October/November 2008. It was removed because the existing canopy columns were rusting and the gas station was told by the manufacturer that the previous canopy would not make it through the winter. Mr. Ambrose said the canopy was removed for safety reasons and they just want to put a canopy back as it previously existed. Mr. Ambrose stated he has discussed and looked at Staff's recommendations. Chairman Rogers asked if Mr. Ambrose would consider eliminating two of the driveways into the station. Mr. Ambrose said they have looked at this. He stated the problem is that the southern driveway along Busse Road is where the tanker truck accesses the site. The tanker will deliver the product and then exit the eastern driveway along Golf Road. Mr. Ambrose said most of the traffic flow for the station comes from West bound Golf Road. Cars will pull in the eastern driveway, fuel, and then exit the western driveway along Golf Road. If the western driveway was closed, the drivers would have problems exiting the station. If the southern driveway along Busse Road was closed, the tanker would not be able to access the site. Mr. Ambrose stated that he did look at the possibility of rotating the canopy per Staff's suggestion. Mr. Ambrose provided a site plan of what the subject property would look like if indeed the canopy was rotated. The canopy columns would need to be a certain distance from the underground fuel tanks. The Petitioner did not want to move the fuel tanks due to the large cost of doing so. Mr. Ambrose said if the canopy was moved, then two of the service bays would be blocked by customers fueling up. Mr. Ambrose stated that if the canopy was moved; the pumps would have to be moved and the whole yard would have to be re-piped. Chairman Rogers asked ifmost of the traffic came in off of Golf Road. Mr. Ambrose and Ms. Knapp stated yes. Mr. Ambrose said since the canopy has been brought down, there has been a 20% decrease in sales for the subject property. Chairman Rogers asked about whether or not the Petitioner would be willing to cut back the canopy from Golf Road to allow the last pump to be uncovered. Ms. Knapp said that this is not a preferred solution. She stated that most customers believe that when they pull into a gas station that a canopy would cover them from the outside elements. She stated that ifthey were denied, she could discuss this option with others at Shell. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 23, 2009 PZ-17-09 Page 3 of 5 Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner could put four pumps along Busse Road. Ms. Knapp said the primary traffic flow for the station was Golf Road. The reason they are hurt for business is because of the traffic that comes from Golf Road. Mr. Youngquist stated all gas stations operate pretty much the same, they need an in and an out. The curb cuts are needed for this site. Mr. Youngquist said he did not have a problem because the canopy is up in the air and the encroachment does not bother him. He stated there are a limited number of pumps at this location that need to be covered. Mr. Youngquist said all the light at gas stations comes from the canopy; people want a lot of light to feel like they are in a safe environment. Ifthat last pump was eliminated without a canopy, he stated there would be illumination issues. There was general discussion regarding the canopy along Busse Road. Mr. Donnelly said he would like to see some landscaping improvements. He would like to see ifthe Petitioner could lose a couple of parking spaces to allow for more green space on the Subject Property. Mr. Roberts agreed with Mr. Donnelly; he would be in favor of the canopy if the Petitioner cleaned up the site with additional landscaping and removal of damaged cars/trailers that sit in the spaces. Mr. Ambrose stated that it would not be a problem to remove additional parking spaces for green space. Chairman Rogers asked if something could be done with the canopy along Busse Road. Ms. Knapp stated that it would be painted as part of the project. She was in agreement with making the site more presentable and approved the suggestion of removing additional parking spaces for green space. Mr. Simmons stated the parking for the Subject Property does exceed code requirements (by approximately 10 parking spaces), so there is the option to eliminate spaces. If the building setback Variation is approved, the Variation would run along with the land. If the property was redeveloped in the future, there would be that potential for any future development to be built up to the thirteen foot (13') setback line. Chairman Rogers asked if the height could be limited for the setback requirement. The proposed canopy's clearance is fifteen feet (15'). Chairman Rogers asked if a condition could be added that the height limit for a building within the area approved for a variation could be restricted to a height of fifteen feet (15'). Mr. Simmons stated that the Commission could place this as a condition to be approved for the Variation. There was general discussion on how many parking spaces the Commission could ask the Petitioner to remove. The consensus was to eliminate parking four parking spaces (numbers 1,6, 7, and 13 on the site plan) and add additional landscaping. Space number 12 would then be converted into a handicapped space. Mr. Ambrose and Ms. Knapp agreed that this could be done. Chairman Rogers discussed a new paint job on the canopy and station and fixing up the islands. Ms. Knapp stated new islands would be installed as part of the new canopy. Mr. Donnelly discussed the need for low rise shrubs along the property line to minimize the impact of concrete. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to approve a Variation to encroach seventeen feet (17') into the required front yard, as shown in the Petitioner's exhibit, for the property located at 927 S. Busse Road, Case No. PZ-17-09, subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The maximum height permitted for any structure constructed within the seventeen foot encroachment area is limited to nineteen (19) feet. Structures which are constructed behind the underlying zoning district's setback requirements may be constructed to the maximum height permitted within the zoning district; Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 23, 2009 PZ-17-09 Page 4 of5 2. Removal of four (4) parking spaces to be replaced with landscaping; 3. Planting shrubs along the street frontages to screen the parking lot; and 4. Repainting the existing canopy and station structures. Mr. Youngquist seconded the motion. Mr. Simmons asked if Chairman Rogers would like to have the Petitioner submit revisions before this case goes to the Village Board that would address the Planning and Zoning Commission's comments. Chairman Rogers said updated plans should be submitted to Village Board. Chairman Rogers asked if anyone in the audience wanted to discuss this case. Hearing none, the discussion was brought back to the board. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Youngquist, Rogers NA YS: NONE Motion was approved 7-0. After hearing one additional case, Mr. Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 10:01 p.m. 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 July 23, 2009 PZ-17-09 Page 5 of5