Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/2011 P&Z Minutes 09-11 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-09-11 Hearing Date: April 28, 2011 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 851, 852, 891, and 902 Feehanville Drive PETITIONER : Cummins-Allison Corporation PUBLICATION DATE: April 13, 2011 PIN NUMBERS: Multiple REQUEST: Variation – Fence in Front Yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Theo Foggy Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: William Beattie Ronald Roberts STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES : Tom Hefty, Martin Barrett Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The minutes of the March 24, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved 4-0 with Mr. Donnelly abstaining. After hearing four previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-09-11, 851, 852, 891 and 902 Feehanville Drive, at 8:35 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ-09-11 was seeking Variations to allow six (6) foot tall fences to encroach in the front yard of the properties located at 851, 852, 891, and 902 Feehanville Drive. The Village Code allows fences to be installed in the side and rear yards. A fence in the front yard requires approval of a Variation. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Properties are located in the Kensington Business Park and contain four office/manufacturing buildings with related improvements. The Subject Properties are zoned I1 Limited Industrial and are primarily bordered by I1 Limited Industrial, CR Conservation Recreation, and R1 Single Family residential properties to the south. Ms. Andrade stated the proposed fence at 851 Feehanville Drive would encroach into the front yard a maximum of twenty-five (25) feet. The fence would be setback approximately eighteen (18) feet from the front property line. Ms. Andrade said the proposed fence at 852 Feehanville Drive would not encroach more than ten (10) feet into the front yard. This fence would be setback approximately thirty-one (31) feet from the front property line. Ms. Andrade stated the plan for 852 Feehanville Drive also showed the relocation of an existing recreational path. The relocation is subject to Village Staff review and approval, and not included in the Variation requests. The Petitioner would be required to submit architectural and engineering plans demonstrating the proposed relocation and construction of the new path for Staff to review Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-09-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 1 of 4 Ms. Andrade said the proposed fence at 891 Feehanville Drive encroached a maximum of 235 feet into the front yard. This fence would be setback approximately thirty (30) feet from the front property line. Ms. Andrade stated the proposed fence at 903 Feehanville Drive would not require a Variation because the fence would not encroach into the front yard. Ms. Andrade said the fence at 902 Feehanville Drive encroached a maximum of ten (10) feet into the front yard. The fence would be setback approximately twenty (20) feet from the front property line. The Petitioner would need to place the fence behind existing berms, where feasible, to minimize visibility of the fence. Ms. Andrade stated the proposed fence would be constructed out of aluminum with a powder coat finish and would include stone/brick pillars. Per the Petitioner, the fence line would measure six (6) feet in height and the stone/brick pillars up to six and one half (6.5) feet in height. Gates would be provided with Opticom detectors to ensure twenty-four (24) hour access for emergency vehicles. Service gates would be accessible via access cards or keys, which the Petitioner plans to provide the Village and utility companies in order to allow access for maintenance or repair work within easements. Ms. Andrade said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. A summary of these findings include: 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 stated the Petitioner noted in his application that the fencing on the Subject Properties is required for consistency purposes and compliance with its policy of increasing security. Cummins-Allison is the last U.S. manufacturer involved in the development and manufacturing of currency handling equipment and sensors utilized to protect the integrity of U.S. currency. The equipment is used globally to protect against counterfeiting of U.S. currency. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner proposed to install six (6) foot tall fences in the side, rear, and front yard of the Subject Properties. The proposed location in the front yard deviates from zoning regulations, which limit the installation of the fence to the side and rear yards only. In three of the four Subject Properties, the fence extends out from the corners of the building and not placed directly in front of the building. Subject Properties are irregular in shape and consist of unique operations that deal with U.S. currency which demand a higher level of security. The proposed fences are intended to deter trespassing. The proposed locations of the fences would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood character and would be designed to complement the existing buildings and the business park. Ms. Andrade stated the Variation requests to install fences in the front yard meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on this analysis, Staff recommended that the approve P&Zthe motions listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner was installing the fence to prevent children from the Camelot School entering their property. Mr. Simmons stated that the Petitioner would address the need for the fence. He said the school is only a partial reason why the fence was being requested; there are other security needs for the proposal. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-09-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Donnelly asked if there were any easement issues regarding the 852 building and the lake. Mr. Simmons said there were conditions of approval in the Staff Report in regards to the jogging path that goes around the lake. If the path was relocated, the Petitioner would need to vacate and dedicate easements. Mr. Simmons stated that the Village would need access to the pond for maintenance. Mr. Donnelly confirmed that the changing of the easements would be done completely on the Petitioner’s property. Chairman Rogers swore in Tom Hefty, Attorney for the Petitioner, 227 West Monroe, Chicago, Illinois and Martin Barrett, Director of Facilities for Cummins Allison, 1813 W. Lakeview, Johnsburg, Illinois. Mr. Hefty discussed how the Petitioner’s business model and focus has changed over the years. He said that Cummins Allison is primarily involved now with money handling equipment and software. Mr. Hefty stated there is a need for security since the Petitioner tests its money handling technology on domestic and foreign currency. He said that the Petitioner receives new issues of currency and needs to adapt its software before the currency is issued to the general public. Mr. Hefty stated the fence is needed in the front yard so clients could see that the Petitioner’s property was secure. Mr. Hefty discussed that the Petitioner has worked with Camelot Schools regarding Camelot’s zoning case at the March meeting. He said Camelot was planning on installing a fence on their property if Cummins Allison did not build a fence on their property. Mr. Hefty clarified to the Commission that the Variances were only needed for the front of the property, they are allowed to place the proposed fence in the side yard and rear yard of their properties. Mr. Hefty said the proposed fence is of high quality and intended to complement their buildings. Mr. Barrett stated the primary reason for the fence was to protect the Petitioner’s proprietary equipment. There is research and development done on site within their campus. Mr. Barrett explained that all of their competitors are not in the U.S. It was critically important as a business to maintain what they develop and work on as secret. Mr. Barrett said the fence types that they were looking at are aluminum coated/ornamental type fences. He stated the intent is not to go overboard with the fence. The proposed fence would be installed behind existing berms and shrubs to lessen the view. Mr. Barrett discussed the split rail fence that is currently on site, but this type of fence does not deter individuals from avoiding the subject properties. He said that they are trying to control the perimeter of the twenty-four (24) acres owned by the Petitioner. Chairman Rogers understood the need for the Petitioner’s security and willingness to protect children. He stated that this was a big investment for the Petitioner and was in support of their request. Mr. Floros stated the fence would change the look of the business park. He believed the park had this open feeling and the proposed fence would change the character of the park. Mr. Floros asked if the Petitioner has been in discussion with other businesses or an association within the Kensington Business Center. Mr. Barrett said that they have discussed the split rail fence with their neighbors in the past. He stated the proposed fence would blend in aesthetically with the business park. Mr. Barrett said there were other colors that they could choose so the fence would not be as noticeable. Mr. Hefty said the Petitioner tried to incorporate as much of the face of the buildings in regards to the proposed fence. He discussed how berms and other shrubberies would cover a portion of the fence in the front yard for the 891 building. Mr. Floros asked who ran Kensington Business Center. Mr. Barrett stated there is a business association within the park. Mr. Floros questioned if the fence has been discussed with the association. Mr. Barrett said it has not been discussed with the association, but the plans have been discussed with the Petitioner’s close neighbors that would be affected by the proposal. There have been no objections raised by the neighbors. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-09-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Mr. Youngquist asked about the circles illustrated for the 851 and 852 buildings. Mr. Barrett said they did not mean anything as it is a conceptual drawing. There was general discussion regarding the location and placement of the piers. Mr. Barrett stated the piers would be minimal and only provided as needed. Mr. Hefty said when OPUS setup the Kensington Business Center; the association was created as an informal group who could not setup bylaws. 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 9:03 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Floros asked the Commissioners if the proposed fences would significantly change the character of the business park. Chairman Rogers said that anytime a fence is constructed it would change the character a little bit. He said the proposed fence is open and would add to the subject properties. Chairman Rogers said after the March Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, he was concerned for the children at the Camelot School. He stated by moving the proposed fence and relocating the jogging path helped diminish those concerns. Mr. Youngquist said there is a split rail fence in a good portion of the subject property that is being replaced. Mr. Donnelly stated the majority of the fence runs along the side yard of the subject property and would protect the Petitioner from children who utilize the neighboring park and then the fence would also protect children who are outside the Camelot School. Mr. Youngquist said if more than fifty (50) percent of the buildings located within the Kensington Business Center installed fences, then the aesthetics of the park would definitely change. He did not foresee other buildings within the business park installing fences like the Petitioner’s proposal. Mr. Floros stated his appreciation for Cummins Allison and for their value to the community. Mr. Youngquist made a motion, seconded by Mr. Donnelly to approve: A). A Variation to allow a fence in the front yard with a setback eighteen (18) feet from the front property line for the property at 851 Feehanville Drive; B). A Variation to allow a fence in the front yard with a setback approximately thirty-one (31) feet from the front property line for the property at 852 Feehanville Drive; C). A Variation to allow a fence in the front yard with a setback approximately thirty (30) feet from the front property line for the property at 891 Feehanville Drive; and D). A Variation to allow a fence in the front yard with a setback approximately twenty (20) feet from the front property line for the property at 902 Feehanville Drive, Case No. PZ-09-11, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the staff report. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Foggy, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision was final for this case. After hearing three additional cases, Mr. Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 9:14 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-09-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 4 of 4