Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/24/2003 P&Z minutes 25-03MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-25-03 PETITIONER: Hearing Date: July 24, 2003 Village of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson St. PUBLICATION DATE: PROPERTY ADDRESS: July 9, 2003 115 S. Pine St. PIN #: 08-12-113-013 REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Conditional Use for a parking lot and Variations for setbacks Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTIES: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Anne Walters, Community Development Intern Ken Briscoe Betty Burks Steve & Mary Ann Wilkinson Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 26 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotton. The June meeting minutes were approved 4-0, with three abstentions (Arlene Juracek, Joseph Donnelly and Keith Youngquist). At 7:35, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ- 25-03, a request for a Conditional Use to construct a parking lot and Variations for encroachments in required setbacks at 115 S. Pine Street. The Village Board's decision will be final for this case. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the request. She said that the Subject Property is located on the east side of PineS treet, between Prospect and Evergreen A venues, a nd is a n unimproved vacant 1 ot. The Subject Property i s zoned B5 Central Commercial and is bordered to the north and east by the B5 District and to the west and south by the RA District. She said that an existing Village owned parking lot is located to the east of the property. The Subject Property has an irregular, triangular shape and abuts an existing alley located directly to the north. The Subject Property currently contains a gravel area that is used for parldng. Ms. Connolly reported that the Village purchased the Subject Property approximately five years ago with the intention of improving the site to create employee parking for area merchants. She said that the goal was to provide more on- street parking along Prospect Avenue for shoppers by having employees park elsewhere. The Village held public meetings and presented a concept design to neighboring residents. At that time, the Village's plans for the Subject Property included paving a significant portion of the site to create the maximum number of employee parking spaces possible. She said that the Village has since scaled back the project and now proposes to provide 12 employee parking spaces. The 12-space parking lot would be screened from the single-family residences with a continuous hedge. Curb and gutter would be installed along the alley, which will help to reduce some flooding issues the neighbors currently experience. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-25-03 Page 2 Ms. Connolly noted that the property is located in the B5 District, which is a zoning district that does not typically require setbacks. However, the Zoning Ordinance does contain provisions for a front setback when 40% of the block has an established setback. She said that in this case, the proposed parking lot would be located on the same block as single~family residences that have a 30-foot front setback. Since the Village proposes a one-foot setback, the parking lot's front setback requires relief from the zoning regulations. Therefore, the Village is seeking a Variation for the front yard setback in order to provide the maximum amount of employee parking in a location that would have a minimal impact on the adjacent single-family residences. Ms. ConnolIy reviewed the standards for Conditional Uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance and the specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. She reported that the proposed parking lot was designed in a manner that would create minimal impact on the adjacent residential properties. The proposed landscaping will screen the parking lot from the residential neighborhood and the parking lot would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision or public streets. Also, the improvements will help eliminate a flooding situation one of the adjacent properties currently experiences. The proposed Conditional Use will be ~n compli.ange with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly reviewed the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance and the specific findings thattirfust be made in order to approve a Variation. She said that the Petitioner proposes to locate the parking lot one-foot '~'0m the west lot line in order to provide the maximum number of parking spaces while also trying to minimize the potential impacts on the adjacent properties. She said that the 30-foot setback requirement applies to the proposed parking :lot because it would be the primary structure on the lot and the properties to the south of the Subject Property havie':an established 30-foot setback. She noted that the irregular shape of the lot and its location, accessed from an alley, are unique conditions. The proposed parking configuration/location is consistent with the existing gravel ~parking ar~. the property; She said that the design of the parking lot is intended to preserve the neighborhood character, improve the property s existing condition by providing screening and curb and gutter, and free up additional on-street pa¢l~i'~g spaces within the area. Therefore, the request meets the standards for a Variation. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation t6-the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use and setback Variation for a parking lot for the property located at 1 t5 S. Pine Street, Case No. PZ-25-03. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek asked ~vhether the Commissioners had any questions for Staff. There was discussion regarding the setbacks listed in the Staff report because it appeared that the rear and interior yards information was rever~ed. Commissioners discussed increasing the amount of landscaping proposed for the project and parking lot lighting. Chairperson Juracek opened the discussion to the audience for public comment. Kathleen Jenson, 118 S. Pine Street, was sworn in. She asked for assurance that the lot would not be used for commuter parking or overnight parking and that delivery trucks could not be parked in the parking stalls. Ms. lenson presented her concerns about enforcing the parking restrictions and related parking issues occurring in her neighborhood. Mary Ann Wilkinson, t 12 S. Pine Street, was sworn in. She said that she lives directly south of the proposed parking lot and that she has concerns about flooding occurring as a result of the 'new' pavement She said that she is worried that the 'new' pavement will cause more water to flood her parkway. There was discussion regarding the installation of catch basins and grading the site in a manner that would prevent increased run-off. Ken Briscoe, 114 S. Pine Street, was sworn in. He asked how snow removal from the parking lot would be handled because it has been his experience that there are sections of the property that ice over during the w~nter, which creates a dangerous situation for pedestrians. Chairperson Juracel~ closed the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. The Commission discussed the project and determined that the additional conditions of approval should be included as part of their recommendation to the Village Board. Richard Rogers made a motion to include the following conditions of approval: lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-25-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 1) Add trees to the landscape plan; 2) That the Village's Engineering Division explore designs to alleviate the water/flooding problems residents currently encounter; 3) Prohibit overnight parking; 4) That the lease reflect oversize track restrictions; 5) Modify the site plan so the parking spaces are shifted 10-feet east. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. After hearing Ms. Connolly's presentation and residents concerns, the Commission concluded that additional information was requ/red before the P&Z should make a recommendation on the case. The P&Z asked for a detailed landscape plan, revised site plan, and answers regarding snow removal, grade changes, and the scope of infi-astructure/sewer improvements. Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Rogers withdrew their motion and second. At 8:05, Merrill Cotton made a motion to continue the case to the August 28, 2003 meeting. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek Motion was approved 7-0. NAYS: None At 10:59 p.m, Joseph Donnelley made motion to adjourn, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner H:\PLAN',Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2003\Minutes\PZ-25-03 115 S Pine St doc