Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/24/2011 P&Z Minutes 04-11 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-04-11 Hearing Date: March 24, 2011 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 212 E. Rand Road PETITIONER : Dr. Rajinder Kumar (Contract Purchaser) PUBLICATION DATE: March 9, 2011 PIN NUMBER: 03-34-200-013-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use approval for an animal hospital MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Leo Floros Theo Foggy Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBER ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTY : Joe McCarthy Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Mr. Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 24, 2011 meeting; Mr. Foggy seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 3-0 with Mr. Roberts, Mr. Foggy, and Mr. Youngquist abstaining. After hearing 4 previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-04-11, 212 E. Rand Road, Conditional Use for an animal hospital at 10:26 p.m. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner for PZ-04-11 was requesting a Conditional Use to operate an animal hospital at the property located at 212 E. Rand Road. Ms. Andrade stated the subject property is located on the north side of Rand Road and presently includes a retail building with related improvements. The property is zoned B-3 Community Shopping District and is adjacent to the B-3 district on all four sides. Ms. Andrade said per the Plat of Survey, the subject property does not comply with current Village requirements in regards to the parking lot setbacks, landscaping, and lot coverage. There are some gravel areas along the side and rear of the building. In addition, the front parking lot does not comply with the required 10 foot setback from the property line. There was very little to no landscaping in the parking lot area. The issues are non-conforming. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner proposed to remodel the building for an animal hospital. The subject property is currently a light fixture retail store. The Petitioner specializes in the treatment of dogs and cats and would perform standard procedures that include vaccinations, sprays, neuters, and declaws. The hours of operation would be Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. and Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Per the zoning code, a Conditional Use is required for an animal hospital within the B-3 zoning district. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner’s site plan referenced the minor improvements to the site. The Petitioner proposed to remove the existing gravel located on the side and rear of the building and seed the areas for green space. In addition, the Petitioner would restripe the parking lot located in the front of the subject property. Staff Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-04-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 1 of 3 has reviewed the proposed site plan and recommended that the property be brought up to compliance as close as possible in regards to the landscaping in the parking lot area and also redesigning the parking stalls to improve circulation within the parking lot. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner would be required to revise the site plan to address some of Staff’s review comments. Ms. Andrade stated the proposed site plan indicated a waiting area, 3 exam rooms, office spaces, a surgery room, an x-ray room, a grooming room, and a cat and dog room. Animals would rest and recover after surgery in the cat and dog room. The proposed animal hospital would not board any animals or have any outdoor kennels. The basement as proposed would only be utilized as storage. Ms. Andrade said other departments have reviewed the Petitioner’s proposal and have commented that proposal must comply with all fire and building codes. The property would have to be replatted to create a single-lot of record. As previously mentioned, the front parking lot would need to be redesigned to improve circulation and the Petitioner would have to incorporate landscaping. Ms. Andrade said the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. The findings include: 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. Andrade stated Staff reviewed the Petitioner’s application and it would have minimal impact on the neighborhood as Rand Road is presently a commercial corridor. Based on the analysis, Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the motion with conditions presented in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers confirmed that there were 3 exam rooms that required 3 parking spaces per exam room. There would be a minimum of 9 spaces required. He stated that some of the other areas inside the building could be easily turned into exam rooms in the future. Chairman Rogers wanted to know how the Village would ensure that the Petitioner would only be utilizing only 3 exam rooms. Ms. Andrade stated Staff’s understanding was that the dog and cat rooms would not be used as exam rooms. She said a condition could be placed to limit the amount of exam rooms to 3 unless the Petitioner could accommodate for additional parking. Mr. Simmons said if any additional exam rooms were added, it would be considered an intensification of their Conditional Use that would require an amendment to the approval. Mr. Simmons stated the number of exam rooms could be enforced through routine annual inspections performed by the Village. Chairman Rogers asked if Staff went over the landscape requirements with the Petitioner. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner has been made aware that there would be some requirements in regards to landscaping. Staff recommended that the landscape requirements be listed as conditions of approval. Mr. Beattie asked if the 84% lot coverage was because of the gravel. Ms. Andrade said that was correct. Chairman Rogers swore in Joe McCarthy, 1220 Bristol, Westchester, Illinois. Mr. McCarthy stated that he was working and helping Dr. Kumar through the development process. He said that he was in agreement with the front landscaping requirements and agreed to revise the landscaping plan between the public hearing and Village Board meeting. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-04-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Mr. McCarthy wanted to address some comments listed in the Staff report in regards to storm water drainage, storm water structure, fire protection sprinklers, and fire alarms. He said the building is an existing use and the Petitioner would not be changing the footprint or outside of the building. Mr. McCarthy stated that he previously met with Staff to discuss some of these issues. He has also spoken with Engineering, the Building Department, and Fire Prevention Bureau to clarify their comments. Mr. McCarthy wanted the record to reflect that the outstanding issues with the subject departments are still being worked on at the time of the hearing. He wanted to ensure the recommendations placed by the various departments govern over the recommendation listed in Staff’s report. Chairman Rogers stated that since the Petitioner was not changing anything outside the building, the main concern was the parking lot, the gravel area, and the landscaping. He said the Petitioner would have to work with the Village’s Building Code for inside the building for the interior requirements based on the amount of remodeling. Mr. McCarthy stated he had no problem with this; he just wanted to make sure the Staff report reflect certain conclusions that have already been reached. There was additional discussion regarding the outside requirements. Chairman Rogers confirmed that the subject property was an existing non-conforming use. He also confirmed that there would not be an outside kennel. Mr. McCarthy stated animals would only be retained incidentally for treatment. 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 10:35 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Roberts made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to approve a Conditional Use permit to operate an animal hospital at 212 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ-04-11 subject to the conditions placed in the Staff Report. Mr. Youngquist stated the 7 conditions placed in the Staff report did not address fire alarm, sprinklers, or the other issues raised by Mr. McCarthy. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Floros, Foggy, Roberts, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. The Village Board’s decision is final for this case. Mr. Floros made a motion, seconded by Mr. Foggy to adjourn at 10:37 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ________________________________________ Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-04-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Page 3 of 3