Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/2011 P&Z Minutes 13-11 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-13-11 Hearing Date: July 28, 2011 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 950 N. Elmhurst Road PETITIONER : Chick-fil-A, Inc. PUBLICATION DATE: June 8, 2011 PIN NUMBER: 03-27-307-024-0000 REQUESTS: 1) Conditional Use for a drive-through 2) Variation to decrease the parking lot setback 3) Variation to decrease the foundation landscaping 4) Variation to increase the number of wall signs 5) Variation to increase the number of menu boards MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Theo Foggy Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBER ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES : Jason Hill, Girish Zaveri, Steve Lewis, John Anda Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:33p.m. Mr. Floros made a motion, seconded by Mr. Donnelly to approve the minutes of the May 26, 2011 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes were approved 5-0 with Mr. Roberts and Mr. Foggy abstaining. Chairman Rogers explained that the June 23, 2011 Planning & Zoning Meeting was continued to the July 28, 2011 meeting because Village Hall lost power due to a confirmed tornado that struck the Village. Chairman Rogers expressed his appreciation and gratitude towards the public servants of the community for their efforts with cleaning up the Village after the storm. After hearing one (1) previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-13-11, 950 N. Elmhurst Road, at 7:43 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ-13-11 was seeking Conditional Use approval to construct a drive- through restaurant and Variations for the property 950 N. Elmhurst. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property has street frontage along Rand Road and Elmhurst Road, and contains a multi-tenant building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned B4 Corridor Commercial and is bordered to the north by the RX Single Family Residence, to the west and east by the B3 Community Shopping, and B4 Corridor Commercial to the south. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner proposed to demolish the existing multi-tenant building and construct a drive- through restaurant with related improvements. The proposed site plan indicated that a 4,866 square foot building would be constructed on the east half of the Subject Property. The restaurant would include two (2) drive-through Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-13-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 28, 2011 Page 1 of 6 lanes that would taper down to one (1) lane at the pickup window along the south building elevation. Conditional Use approval is required for the drive-through lanes. Ms. Andrade said as currently designed, parking spaces would be provided along the north property line and on the west half of the property. The parking lot setbacks to the west and east property lines would comply with the Village Code’s minimum ten (10) foot parking lot setback requirement. The parking lot setbacks along the north and south property lines required Variation approval to allow a six (6) foot and six (6) inch setback along the north property line and a three (3) foot and eight (8) inch setback along the south property line. Ms. Andrade said the site plan indicated one of the two existing access drives located on Rand Road would be closed off and that the existing access drive located on Elmhurst Road will be maintained. She explained that Rand Road and Elmhurst Road are under the Illinois Department of Transportation’s jurisdiction, and that approval from IDOT will be required for any work within the right-of-way and items regarding lane configuration. Ms. Andrade stated the proposed elevations indicated the building would be constructed out of brick veneer, a metal roof and canopies. The building height would measure twenty-four (24) feet at its highest point. Ms. Andrade showed a picture elevations fronting both Elmhurst Road and Rand Road. Ms. Andrade said the north building elevation would include the main entrance to the restaurant. She referenced an image that illustrated the south building elevation which would include the pick-up window. Ms. Andrade stated as proposed, the number of wall signs and menu board signs exceeded the number permitted by the Village Sign Code. The elevation drawings illustrate a total of five (5) wall signs, when in this case one (1) per building elevation would be permitted for a total of four (4) wall signs. In addition to the wall signs, the Petitioner proposed to install two (2) menu boards, one (1) for each drive-through lane, when the Sign Code permits only one (1) menu board for a drive-through restaurant. The Petitioner was seeking Variations to allow a second menu board measuring twenty-two (22) square feet and a fifth wall sign measuring about thirty-seven (37) square feet that would wrap around the north corner of the building. Ms. Andrade said the fifth wall sign failed to meet the standards for a Variation because there were no hardships as defined by the Sign Code. The building characteristics are not unique which would warrant the additional wall sign. The proposed building elevations show one principal wall sign identifying the business name, which would reasonably identify the business from Rand and Elmhurst Roads. Staff was not supportive of the request to increase the number of wall signs. Ms. Andrade stated the second menu board was warranted as the proposal included two (2) drive-through lanes versus a typical drive-through restaurant with only one (1) drive-through lane. Staff recommended approval of the second menu board. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner submitted a landscape plan detailing the proposed plant materials and sizes. The landscape plan would be required to be revised to provide additional plantings to comply with the landscape requirements and required Variation approval to reduce the required foundation landscaping from ten (10) feet to six (6) feet and eleven (11) inches wide along the north building elevation, eight (8) feet wide along the east building elevation and to allow a zero (0) foot foundation landscaping along the south building elevation. Foundation landscaping was not proposed along the south building elevation due to the pickup window and escape lane Ms. Andrade stated 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 following is a summary of these findings: Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-13-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 28, 2011 Page 2 of 6  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;  And that adequate provision for utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets are provided. Ms. Andrade said the drive-through lanes have been designed to be located on the south side of the building as to not have a detrimental impact on the residential properties to the north. The Petitioner’s plans included closing one of the two existing drives located on Rand Road to ensure safe access to the site. Also, signage and striping would be added to ensure safe and efficient traffic circulation within the site. The use as a drive-through restaurant complied with the Comprehensive Plan and would be constructed according to Village Codes. Ms. Andrade stated the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven (7) specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The summary of these findings included:  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 Subject Property has an irregular shape, which created challenges in complying with all Village Code requirements. Prior to submittal, the Petitioner discussed the proposal with Staff on numerous occasions and designed the proposal to minimize the scope and number of Variations. As designed, the building and parking spaces complied with the Code requirements, but the parking lot setbacks and foundation landscaping fall short of the minimum ten (10) feet required. The proposal would accommodate the projected traffic volumes and satisfy the restaurant’s peak parking demand, which exceeded the minimum number of spaces required by fifteen (15) spaces. Also, the Petitioner intended to increase the quantity and quality of the perimeter landscaping along the north property line to mitigate the impact of the parking lot setback. Village Staff has reviewed the Variation requests and believed that it would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Ms. Andrade stated based on these findings, Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval for the Conditional Use for a drive-through, Variation to decrease the parking lot setback, and a Variation to decrease the foundation landscaping. The Village Board’s decision is final for these motions. Ms. Andrade said in regards to the sign requests, Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the Variation to increase the number of menu boards; however, Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Variation to increase the number of wall signs. The Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision is final for the sign requests. Mr. Youngquist asked if there is an existing fence along the north property line. Ms. Andrade stated there is an existing fence along the north property line. Chairman Rogers swore in Jason Hill of Woolpert, 1815 S. Meyers Road, Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois. Mr. Hill said that his company is the Civil Engineer for the proposed restaurant. He stated the site configuration is challenging as the lot is an irregular shape. Mr. Hill said that his company has done its best to fit an efficient Chick-fil-A prototype on the proposed site. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-13-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 28, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Hill discussed the interior and exterior layout of the proposed restaurant along with the drive-through lanes. He stated that landscaping plans and traffic plans have recently been resubmitted to the Village that addresses initial concerns and questions. Mr. Hill said that they tried to place the parking and drive-through as far away from the residential properties as they could. Mr. Hill discussed the Petitioner’s request for the fifth wall sign. He stated that this is the company’s tag sign and was needed for two reasons. The first reason was to show its presence with the tag line. The second reason was to make the curve of the building more appealing. Without the tag line, the building wall would look naked or blank. Mr. Beattie asked about the Petitioner’s willingness to place additional landscaping along the north property line. Mr. Hill said that additional trees would be added beyond what was originally submitted. He stated that the area is tight due to the six (6) foot tall fence that is located on the Subject Property. Mr. Hill said a shrub line would be added along the entire north property line. Mr. Beattie asked if evergreen trees were considered for screening. Mr. Hill stated that evergreens could be considered, however, that may eliminate other plantings there were proposed. There was discussion whether the fence would remain as is or be moved to the property line. Mr. Floros asked if the fence was on the Subject Property. Mr. Hill responded that the fence encroaches two (2) feet onto the Subject Property. Mr. Hill said that he would work with the neighboring property owner on a solution for the fence and additional screening. Mr. Donnelly asked why the Petitioner needed two (2) message boards instead of one (1). Mr. Hill stated that the two (2) ordering stations increase the through put in the drive-through by thirty (30) percent. He said it allows for more efficient circulation of traffic on the site. Mr. Hill stated approximately sixty-five (65) percent of Chick-fil- A’s business is via the drive-through. Mr. Beattie asked what the hours of operation are for the proposed restaurant. Mr. Hill said between 6:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday; the restaurant is closed on Sunday. Chairman Rogers questioned what was sold at the restaurant. Mr. Hill stated that the restaurant is known for its chicken breast sandwich. There are other items on the menu, but the food is primarily chicken. Chairman Rogers discussed the Village’s stance on wall signs and said he could not support the request for five (5) wall signs and asked the Petitioner if they would be willing to eliminate one (1) wall sign. Mr. Hill stated that he would be open to eliminating the wall sign on the west elevation in order to allow the wrap around tag sign. There was general agreement amongst the Commission to allow the wrap around tag sign in exchange for eliminating the sign on the west elevation. Mr. Beattie stated by moving the fence along the north property line would allow the Petitioner to install additional landscaping. Mr. Hill said that he would do whatever it would take to provide the screening that is needed for the property owner to the north. He stated that he could work with Staff to incorporate additional green space alternatives. There was discussion about possibly a taller fence; however, a Variation would be required for anything taller than a six (6) foot fence. Mr. Hill stated that the Petitioner would construct a brand new six (6) foot fence and provide whatever relief in landscaping the property to the north would need. Mr. Donnelly asked if the parking lot would still connect to the property (Firestone) to the south. Mr. Hill stated that there is a cross-access agreement currently in place and the agreement would be maintained. Mr. Youngquist said the fence would have to be moved to the property line to allow the additional landscaping to be installed. Chairman Rogers discussed the need for a second menu board. Mr. Hill explained the difference between the main menu board and the secondary menu boards. The main menu board is under the canopy; the secondary Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-13-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 28, 2011 Page 4 of 6 menu board is posted outside the canopy and is a truncated version of the main menu board. The second menu board is necessary due to the two (2) ordering stations. The main menu board cannot be seen from the second canopy station. Chairman Rogers swore in Girish Zaveri, 1002 N. Meadow Lane, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Zaveri stated that his property is directly north of the Subject Property. He was concerned with the number of Variations and the Conditional Use being requested. Mr. Zaveri said his neighbors were also concerned and signed and submitted a petition to the Commission. Chairman Rogers confirmed that a copy of the petition has been received by the Commission. Mr. Zaveri was concerned with his privacy and safety and believed the proposed use would reduce his property value. He stated the fence that was previously discussed is five (5) feet in height, not six (6) feet as discussed. Mr. Donnelly asked Mr. Zaveri if he would have any issues to a six (6) foot fence being built at the property line. He said no, but his concern was with the amount of traffic and exhaust that would be on site. Mr. Beattie confirmed with the homeowner that the drive-through was being proposed for the south side of the building. Mr. Zaveri understood and there was general discussion regarding the parking lot as it existed and as it is proposed. Chairman Rogers advised Mr. Zaveri that the Petitioner has agreed to install a six (6) foot fence in addition to placing taller landscaping that would screen above the height of the fence. Mr. Zaveri said the fence and additional screening and fence is nice, but he believed that it would not cut down on noise. There was additional discussion regarding circulation on the proposed site. Chairman Rogers swore in Steve Lewis of Chick-fil-A, 5200 Buffington Road, Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Lewis agreed and requested support from the Commission to allow the wall tag sign in lieu of the sign on the west elevation. He stated that Chick-fil-A would move and install a six (6) foot fence on the property line. Mr. Lewis said in addition to the additional landscaping on the Chick-fil-A property, Chick-fil-A would work with the property owner to the north on installing additional landscaping on the homeowner’s property. There was additional discussion regarding Chick-fil-A’s background and existing Chicago area locations. Chairman Rogers swore in John Anda, 950 N. Elmhurst Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Anda stated that his business is at the Subject Property and his interest was more with the timeframe of the proposed project if it was approved. Mr. Lewis stated that Chick-fil-A would avoid any construction during the winter; construction would not be even considered until Spring 2012 (mid-April). Mr. Lewis said it is approximately a four (4) month construction process to build a restaurant; they would be looking to open in August 2012. 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 8:21 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Chairman Rogers made a motion, seconded by Mr. Donnelly to approve: 1) A Conditional Use to operate a drive-through restaurant; 2) A Variation to reduce the parking lot setback from ten (10) feet to six (6) feet and six (6) inches along the north property line and from ten (10) feet to three (3) feet and eight (8) inches along the south property line; 3) A Variation to reduce the foundation landscaping from ten (10) feet to six (6) feet and eleven (11) inches wide along the north building elevation, eight (8) feet wide along the east building elevation, and zero (0) feet along the south building elevation, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and the following additional conditions: a. The installation of tall evergreen shrubs along the north property line; and b. The installation of a six (6) foot tall privacy fence along the north property line. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-13-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 28, 2011 Page 5 of 6 4) A Variation request to increase the number of menu boards from one to two as shown on the attached exhibit. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Foggy, Roberts, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. The Village Board’s decision is final for item numbers 1-3. Item 4 was Planning and Zoning Commission Final. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Floros to approve a Variation request to increase the number of wall signs from four (4) to five (5) in order to allow a thirty seven (37) square feet wall sign to wrap around the north corner of the building. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Roberts, Floros NAYS: Beattie, Foggy, Youngquist, Rogers Motion was denied 4-3. The Planning & Zoning Commission’s decision for this motion was final. Mr. Beattie made a motion, seconded by Mr. Donnelly to allow a thirty-seven (37) square foot wall sign to wrap around the north east corner of the building in lieu of the permitted sign on the west elevation along Rand Road. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Foggy, Roberts, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. The Planning & Zoning Commission’s decision for this motion was final. After hearing two (2) additional cases, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Foggy to adjourn at 11:15 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-13-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 28, 2011 Page 6 of 6