Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. MEETING NOTICES 2/21/06 MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert A. John Korn Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele Skowron Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TDD: 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 MEETING DATE & TIME: Thursday February 23, 2006 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2006 P&Z MEETING A. PZ-44-05 / OPUS Briarwood / NEC Algonquin & Linneman Road / Rezoning, Variations, and Plat. E. PZ-01-06 / Text Amendment / Modify outdoor lighting regulations. C. PZ-02-06 / Text Amendment / Modify circular driveway standards. IV. OLD BUSINESS NONE V. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-40-05/ 1800 W. Central Road / Convert existing building to condominium ownership. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. (Continued to March 23, 2006 meeting.) B. PZ-04-06/ 916 S. Elm Street / Variation / Village of Mount Prospect. NOTE: This case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS . PZ-39-05 /222 S. Edward Street: withdrawn per Petitioner's request. . PZ-44-05 / OPUS Briarwood / NEC Algonquin & Linneman Road - Village Board approved. . PZ-01-06 / Text Amendment / Modify outdoor lighting regulations - Village Board approved. . PZ-02-06/ Text Amendment / Modify circular driveway standards - Village Board approved. VII. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 50 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-44-05 Hearing Date: January 26, 2006 PROPERTY ADDRESS: NEC of Algonquin and Linneman Roads PETITIONERS: Michael P. Yungerman of OPUS North Corp. PUBLICATION DATE: January 11, 2006 PIN#: 08-23 -200-049-0000/08-23-200-050-0000/08-23 -202-048-0000/08- 23-202-049-0000 REQUESTS: 1) Rezone from RX Single Family to II Limited Industrial 2) Variations (building height, setbacks, landscaping) 3) Plat of Resubdivision (create 2-10ts of record) MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Ronald Roberts STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Judy Arcieri, Betty Hopkins, Phyllis Zumph, Bill Johnston and Mike Yungerman Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the minutes of the December 22, 2005 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0; Leo Floros abstained from the vote. At 7:35 p.m., Chairperson Juracek introduced Case No. PZ- 44-05, requests for Rezoning from RX Single Family to II Limited Industrial, Variations including building height, setbacks, landscaping and a Plat of Resubdivision modifying property lines to create 2-10ts of record from 4 lots. She said that the Village Board's decision was final for the request. Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. She stated that the Subject Property is located on the north side of Algonquin Road, between Linneman Road and Malmo Drive, and contains multiple lots of record. The Subject Property is currently under Cook County jurisdiction and the Petitioner is seeking to annex the Subject Property into Mount Prospect corporate limits. The Subject Property was acquired from United Airlines (VAL) and was used by UAL as a spill over parking lot and a recreation area. Ms. Connolly stated the Petitioner has submitted an Annexation Agreement for Village Board review and approval. The Annexation Agreement does not require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the required Public Hearing will be held at a subsequent Village Board meeting. She said in an effort to streamline the review process, Staff is presenting the Petitioner's zoning requests to the P&Z for their recommendation, which will then be forwarded to the Village Board for their review and consideration after the Annexation Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006 PZ-44-05 Page 2 Agreement has been adopted. Ms. Connolly stated there are several zoning requests and she will go into detail on each. Ms. Connolly said the first request is to rezone the property. She explained that Illinois State Statutes require the Subject Property be assigned the most stringent zoning classification upon being annexed into a municipality. She stated that in Mount Prospect, the required zoning district is RX Single Family. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking approval of a Map Amendment to rezone the Subject Property from RX Single Family to 11 Limited Industrial to construct two industrial office/warehouse buildings. Ms. Connolly stated the second request is for relief from Building Height limitations and Interior Side Yard setback regulations. The Petitioner is seeking relief from zoning regulations to allow a 39 foot building height when the Village's Zoning Ordinance limits the building height to 30 feet in the 11 District. She said the additional building height is necessary to allow the Petitioner to construct an industrial distribution center that is consistent with competing buildings in the O'Hare market. She stated in light of this request, Staff is evaluating the 11 bulk regulations to ensure the Village's Code is consistent with current development trends and to determine whether the Village's current 30 foot building height limitation remains adequate or should be increased. Ms. Connolly said the Subject Property abuts a multi-family development along a portion of its east lot line. The Zoning Ordinance requires a more stringent setback when an industrial development is located next to a residential use. Sec. 14.2104.E requires all buildings, structures, and parking lots to maintain a 40 foot setback when abutting a residential property and that a fence and additional landscaping be provided. She stated that in this case, the proposed office/warehouse building would meet the required 40 foot setback, but a portion of the parking lot and the entire drive aisle for the proposed Lot I would encroach into the required 40 foot setback and have a 10 foot side yard. She also said, due to the depth of the proposed landscape area, landscaping will not be installed as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a 10 foot setback for the parking lot when the Zoning Ordinance requires a 40 foot setback, and to install landscaping as shown on the Petitioner's landscape plan. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner proposes a 10 foot setback along a portion of the east lot line of the proposed Lot 2. Lot 2 is south of Lot I and abuts outdoor tennis courts and industrial businesses that are located in Cook County. She said that similar to Lot 1, the proposed office/warehouse building to be constructed on Lot 2 would comply with the Village's required setbacks, but a portion of the drive aisle would be located 10 feet from the east lot line. She stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires parking lots to maintain a 10 foot setback when not adjacent to residential; therefore, the proposed setback does not require relief from zoning regulations. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's site plan shows two lots of record. Each lot would contain a 225,000+/- square foot industrial office/warehouse building that meets the Village's required setbacks. A dry detention basin would be centrally located between the two lots and serve both sites. She stated that several parking fields are indicated on the plan, but the Petitioner intends to land bank certain spaces until a specific tenant is identified and it is determined that the spaces are needed to meet the Village's parking regulations. Ms. Connolly stated vehicles and trucks would access the site from Dempster Street, Linneman Road, or Algonquin Road. Trucks and vehicles could enter and exit from any of the 3 access points, depending on their point of origin and destination. She said the proposed loading docks would be located along the West elevation of Building I and along the East elevation of Building 2. The docks would be situated away from the multi-family development and there would be a cross access easement between the proposed Lots I and 2. She stated that the Petitioner's plans do not include cross access for the existing VAL parking lot west of Lot I that will remain. Ms. Connolly said road and infrastructure improvements will be made to accommodate the proposed development. Dempster Street and Algonquin Road are not under the Village's jurisdiction and require permits Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006 PZ-44-05 Page 3 from Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) and Cook County Highway Department (CCHD). Therefore, final design approval is not available at this time. She stated that the portion of Linneman Road that is adjacent to the property would be annexed into the Village. The Petitioner will improve this roadway with a 3-lane configuration and will upgrade the traffic signal at Linneman and Algonquin Roads per lOOT requirements. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner prepared a traffic study and based the directional distribution of the site traffic on the existing traffic volume along the adjacent roadways. She said the intended users are not known at this time and the Engineering Division has concerns that some of the proposed site improvements may not be adequate for a more intensive user. Staff has met with the Petitioner to discuss concerns over traffic speed on Algonquin Road, possible truck turning movements into the site that could create traffic conflicts, and internal traffic patterns. The Petitioner has agreed to follow the requirements of the appropriate jurisdiction and make the necessary improvements if a more intensive user were to occupy the site. She said it is important to note that a cartage facility, which is a transportation facility relying on larger trucks typically to make deliveries, would require a Conditional Use permit from the Village and that site and access improvements could be required as part of the Conditional Use permit at that time. She stated that subject to Staff review during the building permit process, minor modifications may be required to ensure a safe traffic circulation flow. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's site plan indicates the site could accommodate 411 parking spaces; 290 on Lot 1 and 121 on Lot 2. The Petitioner does not intend to construct all the parking spaces at this time because tenants for the buildings have not yet been finalized. She stated the Petitioner has agreed to provide parking in accordance with Village Code, as required for the use. Ms. Connolly stated that currently, there are a significant number of trees clustered along the southeast quadrant of the Subject Property. The Petitioner submitted a tree survey, which documents the condition and form of the existing trees. She said the report shows that only 3 % of the trees were of above average condition and form and received a rating of "2", with "1" being the best. No trees were rated "1" and less than 1 0% of the trees had either an above average condition or an above average form. She stated that the area is marked by poor forestry practices and a significant number of the trees are less than desirable species and in poor condition. She said although the Petitioner has agreed to save as many trees as possible, the configuration of the site development dictates removing many ofthe trees. Therefore, the Petitioner prepared a landscape plan that indicates a variety of plant species and mature trees to be planted throughout the site. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner proposes to install a 6' board-on-board fence along the northern portion of the east lot line to provide screening for the adjacent multi-family development. Multiple clusters of 6 foot tall evergreen trees will be planted in this area as well as ornamental trees. She stated that the Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that the fence will be located 5 feet from the lot line and that the landscaping will be installed on both sides of the fence. However, Sec. 14.2104.E requires the fence to be located no less than 8 feet from the property line and that a continuous 3 foot hedge be planted on the outside of the fence, facing the abutting residential, to be maintained by the owner of the industrial property. She said the landscape plan submitted does not indicate that this requirement will be met. She further stated that the depth of the proposed landscape area limits the amount and location of the landscaping. Therefore, a Variation is needed. for this aspect of the project and this is the third zoning request from the Petitioner. Ms. Connolly stated that the plan indicates that landscaping will be provided along the southern portion of Lot l's east lot line, which abuts industrial business. In addition, a berm would be included along the west lot line to screen the parking lot in Lot 2. She also said the berm will include landscape materials, as allowable by the design, to provide an aesthetically pleasing view of the development from Algonquin Road. Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26,2006 PZ-44-05 Page 4 Ms. Connolly showed the Petitioner's color elevations to indicate the general look of the proposed buildings. She said the buildings may be modified to accommodate a specific user, which could include relocating windows and/or adding windows. She stated that the buildings would be constructed from smooth painted precast concrete panels with painted reveals and includes grey tinted glass windows. Aluminum coping and a canopy would be incorporated into the building design to break-up the expansive fayade. She said the building materials and the building construction would comply with Village regulations. Ms. Connolly showed a table that summarized the required setbacks for the 11 District and lists the Petitioner's proposed setbacks. She said the Petitioner attempted to create a development that was compatible with the existing uses and complied with Mount Prospect's Village Code regulations. However, the shape of the Subject Property has minor irregularities and portions of the property 'jog' at various points. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner submitted a zoning request for a Final Plat of Resubdivision that creates 2-10ts of record. She stated that the Village has Home Rule authority and can to waive the requirement for a Preliminary Plat and require only a Final Plat. She clarified that the difference between the two types of plats is that the preliminary plat shows how the land functions, meaning topography and utility information is provided. In comparison, the Final Plat illustrates just the lot lines or how the property will be divided. She stated that the Petitioner has submitted information documenting the existing conditions, like the topography, utilities and will meet all Village Code requirements. However, at the direction of Staff, the Petitioner prepared a Final Plat of Resubdivision that creates 2-10ts of record. She reminded the Commission that as a Home Rule authority the Village can waive this procedural requirement, and that the Petitioner will meet all Village Codes except for the relief requested this evening. Ms. Connolly said as part of the plat review process, the Engineering Division reviewed the proposed easements. She stated that the Petitioner and the Village agreed that the Village will provide water to the Subject Property. However, this issue was decided after the plat was submitted. Therefore, the plat must be modified to reflect a 10 foot separate water main easement granted exclusively to the Village of Mount Prospect. She said this easement is in addition to the 10 foot wide public drainage and utility easement required along the east side of the property, along the north 737.42 feet of the west side of Lot 1, and on each side of the property line between Lots 1 and 2. The exclusive easement should only cover the public portion of the main; the small easement extensions for the services should be deleted from the plat. Ms. Connolly stated that the legal description for the exception in Parcel 4 requires minor changes as does the legal description for the portions of Lots 6 and 7 in Parcel 6. Ms. Connolly said that currently, jurisdiction of Linneman Road belongs to Elk Grove Township. However, as part of the annexation process, that portion of the Linneman Road right-of-way that fronts onto the Subject Property will become part of the Village and under the Village's jurisdiction. She stated that through a series of agreements, Linneman Road will be reconstructed and its centerline will be reconfigured. The final design and configuration must be verified, which may require the Petitioner to dedicate an additional 14 feet along their west property line, along the Linneman Road frontage, to create an 80 foot right-of-way at a later date. Ms. Connolly stated that subject to making the revisions as presented, the plat was prepared in accordance with the Development Code requirements. The plat requires signatures from the utility companies and the Petitioner is in the process of obtaining them. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a map amendment as listed the Village Zoning Ordinance. She said the Subject Property is adjacent to an existing multi-family residential development, outdoor tennis courts and industrial office/warehouse buildings, and is across the street from the United Airlines headquarters building. The proposed office/warehouse buildings would be in keeping with the existing industrial land uses and the Village's Land Use Map. She stated that the proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006 PZ-44-05 Page 5 with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property and the buildings have been designed and landscaped to have minimal impact on the adjacent developments. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Variation as listed in the Village Zoning Ordinance. She said the project requires relief from Sections 14.2104.C to allow a 39 foot building height when the maximum height permitted by Village Code is 30 feet. The Subject Property is across the street from the 8-story VAL office headquarters and is adjacent to a 3-story multi-family development. Ms. Connolly stated that the style of the proposed building is based on current design standards. Also, the 39 foot building height is needed to screen roof equipment. The building height would not be out of character for the neighborhood and the Petitioner has taken steps to design the building fayades so they do not adversely impact the adjacent multi-family development. Ms. Connolly said the project also requires relief from Sections 14.2104.E to allow the drive aisle to encroach into the 40 foot setback. An aerial photo indicates the multi-family buildings are located approximately 65 feet from their west lot line and that the parking lot and drive aisle for the multi-family development would abut the Petitioner's proposed drive aisle. Ms. Connolly stated that the shape of the Subject Property is somewhat irregular, and its size is uncharacteristic of developments occurring in Mount Prospect within the last decade. She said the site plan mirrors the layout of the multi-family development: drive aisle, parking, and then building. Therefore, the proposal would not be out of character for the neighborhood and it would not adversely impact other properties. She stated that the requested Variations are generally not applicable to other properties and the development is unique due to its size and the diverse land uses adjacent to the Subject Property. Ms. Connolly stated that based on the above analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village Board approve the following motion: "To approve: I) a Map Amendment to rezone the Subject Property from RX Single Family to II Limited Industrial, 2) the Final Plat of Subdivision of Briarwood Business Center subject to the following: a. revise the plat so the legal description for the exception in Parcel 4 reads 363.04 feet; b. revise the plat so the legal description for the portions of Lots 6 and 7 in Parcel 6 read 141.11 feet; c. revise the plat to reflect a 10 foot wide public drainage and utility easement along the east side of the property, along the north 737.42 feet of the west side of Lot I, and on each side of the property line between Lots I and 2; and d. revise the plat to reflect a separate, 10 foot wide water main easement granted exclusively to the Village of Mount Prospect along the east side of the Subject Property. 3) Variations to allow: a. 39 foot building heights; b. 10 foot side yard setback, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan dated January 5, 2006; and c. relief from Sec. 14.2104.E to allow the landscaping as proposed for the area adjacent to residential. for the property located at the northeast comer of Algonquin and Linneman Roads, Case No. PZ-44-05, subject to the following: I. Village Board adopting the Annexation Agreement. Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006 PZ-44-05 Page 6 2. The site shall be developed in general accordance with the Petitioner's site plan dated January 5, 2006. 3. The site shall be developed in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Gary R. Weber Associates, revision date January 9, 2006. 4. The site shall be developed in accordance with all applicable Village Codes and requirements, including, but not limited to: Fire Prevention Code regulations, lighting regulations, Sign Code regulations, Building Code regulations, and Development Code regulations. This may require minor modifications to the site to comply with all development requirements and traffic concerns detailed in the Village Code and in the Engineering Division's review comments dated November 17,2005. 5. The Petitioner understands that a change in use may require further review by the Village of Mount Prospect, and that modifications such as, but not limited to, adding a deceleration lane may be required, subject to obtaining the appropriate permit from the governing jurisdiction. Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chairperson Juracek thanked Staff for the comprehensive report and called for questions of Staff. Richard Rogers asked if any portion of the Subject Property is adjacent to any land that is part of Mount Prospect. Ms. Connolly confirmed that the multi-family properties to the East are part of Mount Prospect. Mr. Rogers then asked about the possible right-of-way dedication requirement along Linneman Road. There was discussion whether this requirement should be specifically listed as an additional condition to the request. Ms. Connolly stated that this requirement is listed as part of the Engineering Report dated November 17, 2005, but Staff could revise the list of conditions to include this requirement if that is what the Commission decides. Chairperson Juracek stated that the Engineering comments sufficiently list the conditions and that should be adequate for P&Z approval. At the direction of Chairperson Juracek, Mike Yungerman, Real Estate Director for OPUS North at 9700 W. Higgins Road, Rosemont, IL was sworn in. Mr. Yungerman gave a detailed presentation of the prospective buildings and site layout. The presentation showed detailed building, parking, traffic, landscaping and green space plans. He mentioned that great care was taken in planning the buildings and directing truck traffic as to not impact the residential areas in the neighborhood. Chairperson Juracek asked Mr. Yungerman about the great width of the proposed Building B; Mr. Yungerman indicated that the proposed 225 foot depth of the building is actually on the shallow-end of the standards in the O'Hare market area. He explained that the depth of the building was adjusted to accommodate car traffic on the site. Richard Rogers asked Mr. Yungerman about the requested variation to allow the 39 foot height of the buildings. Mr. Yungerman replied that O'Hare market area demands the additional building height for current storage conditions. He presented detailed information on required clearance, storage layouts, and other conditions typical of new construction warehouse buildings. Mr. Rogers then asked if OPUS North intends to maintain ownership of the building. Mr. Yungerman stated that Opus North would construct, own and manage the property, which includes maintenance of site and buildings. Chairperson Juracek stated that these are very large buildings and the Commission has concerns that these may sit empty. She asked Mr. Yungerman for a brief history on the success of OPUS North. Mr. Yungerman stated that Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006 PZ-44-05 Page 7 OPUS North has been involved in commercial development for over 25 years in the Chicago area. Notable projects in the area include Kensington Business Park and three additional business parks in the area encompassing 1.5 million square feet of space. Joseph Donnelly asked for clarification on the heights of the building. He stated that the elevation drawings show a roof height of34 feet, with only entry points having roof heights of39 feet. Mr. Yungerman confirmed that this is correct, that most of the building would be 34' from grade and that only portions of the building would need the 39' height. Richard Rogers stated that OPUS North has an excellent reputation in this area and it is a pleasure to have them back in the Mount Prospect area. Keith Youngquist asked about parking for the site. He stated that the buildings are relatively similar in size; however, there is a discrepancy in the number of parking spaces at each building. He asked how the parking requirement would be met if one of the buildings were to sell, and the site did not have the required number of parking spaces as required by Village Code. Mr. Yungerman stated the parking allotment for Building A allows for a tenant that may require additional parking due to higher office space density. He said Building B has a smaller office space area and would require less parking. Joseph Donnelly asked if the buildings are one-story buildings. Mr. Yungerman said that the buildings are intended to be single-story buildings, but there could be the possibility of second floor office space, but this market place rarely demands the additional office space. Leo Floros asked if OPUS North is intending for each building to have two tenants. Mr. Yungerman stated that ideally, they would like to see one tenant in each building. He said it would be most likely that each building will have two or three tenants. Mr. Floros stated that he reflects Mr. Rogers sentiments and welcomes OPUS North back to the area. At the direction of Chairperson Juracek, Resident Betty Hopkins of 535 Dempster, Mount Prospect, IL was sworn in. Ms. Hopkins stated that she is concerned that if the windows of the proposed buildings are too high, the tenants will be able to see into their apartments. Mr. Yungerman said the window height is 8.5 feet; however the person in the office would not be able to see over the proposed fence. He also stated that the windows in the upper areas of the buildings are for natural light into the warehouse space only and there would be no office space at that height. He also stated that the glass areas above the entry are not vision glass and would be for aesthetic purposes only. Ms. Hopkins asked Staff about the 65 foot measurement from her building to the lot line. Ms. Connolly stated that the 65 foot measurement was taken from the lot line of her property to her building. Ms. Hopkins asked for clarification on how far her building would be from the proposed buildings on the Subject Property. The Commission stated that as proposed, there would be over 100 feet between her building and the proposed OPUS North buildings. At the direction of Chairperson Juracek, Bill Johnston representing River Trails Tennis Club at 2831 Malmo, Arlington Heights, IL was sworn in. Mr. Johnston thanked Staff for their cooperation in keeping the Tennis Club apprised ofthe project. He stated that he has questions for the Petitioner. Mr. Johnston asked about increased truck traffic on Elmhurst and Linneman. Mr. Yungerman stated that OPUS North conducted a traffic study and they do not foresee any significant problems with traffic on Linneman. Mr. Yungerman also stated that OPUS North would work with IDOT to address any problems that may arise. Chairperson Juracek stated that Mr. Johnston could review the traffic study ifhe so desires. Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006 PZ-44-05 Page 8 Mr. Johnston also asked about potential run off from the Subject Property. He stated that the Tennis Club topographically sits approximately 6 feet below the Subject Property and they are concerned about drainage and run off. Mr. Yungerman stated that OPUS North is adding curb and gutter to the Subject Property and that he expects any drainage issues will actually be improved indirectly from current conditions. Mr. Johnston asked about run off during construction. Mr. Yungerman stated that OPUS North will be diligent in working with the Village and the neighbors to minimize the impact on the area during construction. Mr. Rogers stated that a silt fence would be in place during construction, holding any water on the Subject Property to the site. He also stated that the proposed detention ponds should greatly improve the current run off conditions. Chairperson Juracek asked if there were any further questions or if anyone wished to address the Commission. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:21 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve: 1) Rezoning from RX Single Family to II Limited Industrial; 2) Variations to allow 39' building height as shown on the Petitioner's elevations, a 10' setbacks along the east lot line as shown on the Petitioner's site plan dated January 5, 2006, and to allow landscaping as shown on the Petitioner's landscape plan prepared by Gary R. Weber dated January 9, 2006; 3) the Final Plat of Subdivision revised to address Staffs conditions as listed in the Staff Report, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report for the property at the Northeast Corner of Algonquin and Linneman Roads, Case No. PZ-44-05, Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Floras, Haaland, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. After hearing two additional cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9:04 pm, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and t e meeting was adjourned. H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2006\Minutes\PZ-44-0S Opus VAL. doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-OI-06 Hearing Date: January 26, 2006 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: January 11, 2006 REQUEST: Text Amendment to the Outdoor Lighting Code MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Ronald Roberts STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the minutes of the December 22, 2005 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0; Leo Floros abstained from the vote. After hearing one previous case, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-OI-06, text amendments to the Village's Outdoor Lighting Code at 8:23 p.m. She said that the Village Board's decision was final for the request. Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. She said that the Village Board discussed modifications to the Village's outdoor lighting regulations at the September 27,2005 Committee of the Whole meeting. At that time, Staff recommended modifying the Zoning Ordinance to require only flat lens fixtures be used. In addition, she stated the Zoning Ordinance could further be modified to specifically state that wall pack lights must be fully shielded. She said the purpose of these changes is to minimize glare as much as possible. Ms. Connolly stated that Staff also suggested allowing 'task focused lights' when requested for gas stations, banks, or similar uses. She said the fixture will extend past the plane of the canopy; however it will be directed in a manner that would not create light spillage or glare. She stated this allows for providing additional lighting without creating adverse impacts on the environment, such as light pollution, or to adjacent properties such as glare. Ms. Connolly provided exhibits including a draft of the ordinance Staff presented to the Village Board. She stated that review and recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission is required before the Village Board may approve the text amendment. Ms. Connolly said the proposal to amend the Village's existing outdoor lighting regulations would be applicable on a community-wide basis. As property owners update their outdoor lights, they would be required to use a flat lens, or install a fully shielded wall pack fixture, or use task lighting as the regulations apply to their project. She further stated the proposed changes are consistent with the Village's current outdoor lighting regulations, but reflect changes in technology that improve overall site lighting. Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006 PZ-OI-06 Page 2 Ms. Connolly summarized by stating the proposed text amendment meets the standards contained in Section 14.203.D.8.b of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve the following motion: "To approve Case No. PZ-OI-06, a Text Amendment to modify Sec. 14.314.B to read: B. Fixture Design: Outdoor lighting fixtures in nonresidential locations must comply with the following limitations: 1. Full Cutoff Luminaries: Full cutoff luminaries with a total cutoff angle of not more than ninety degrees (900) shall be used. The Director of Community Development may approve cutoff angles greater than ninety degrees (900) or the use of fixtures without full cutoff luminaries upon submission of information conclusively demonstrating that the proposed lighting will not cause glare on adjacent properties. 2. Canopy Lighting: All lighting mounted under a canopy, including, but not limited to, luminaries mounted on or recessed into the lower surface of a canopy, shall be full cutoff. 3. Flat lens are required for alllie:htine: fixtures. 4. Wall pack lie:hts. where used. shall be full cut-off and fully shielded. 5. Task focused lie:htine: is permitted at e:as stations. ATM drive-thrus. and similar uses as approved by the Director of Community Development. and must include an internal louver so the lie:ht focuses directly on the task area and does not spill onto the pavement." Chairperson Juracek thanked Staff for their report and stated that the proposed changes seem to be in line with the other changes to lighting regulations. Leo Floros asked Staff how this would affect shopping centers such as Randhurst by darkening parking lots. Ms. Connolly stated that uniformly lighting areas actually eliminates any dark spots. Mr. Floros asked about the reduced amount of light in parking areas. Ms. Connolly replied that the proposal does not reduce the lighting levels, but the type of fixture required. The proposed lighting fixtures direct the light in a more useful way, eliminating glare. She also stated that the Police Department reviewed and supports the proposed changes. Richard Rogers asked how the changes would affect existing lighting fixtures for places like Randhurst Shopping Center. Ms. Connolly stated that the changes Staff is proposing would be as existing fixtures are changed out. Another section of the code takes effect January 1, 2006 and the Village Attorney is reviewing the code to determine whether situations that would be addressed on a nuisance/complaint basis. Chairperson Juracek asked if the fully shielded wall pack lighting offers sufficient lighting for a task area or path. Ms. Connolly stated that the wall pack lighting does provide adequate lighting for task/path areas. She stated that the proposed changes fall in line with the lighting requirements of surrounding communities, and is up-to-date with current technology. Chairperson Juracek asked if there were any further questions or if anyone wished to address the Commission. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve the proposed text amendments as presented, Case No. PZ-OI-06; Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26,2006 PZ-O 1-06 Page 3 Motion was approved 6-0. The case will go to Village Board for their consideration After hearing one additional case, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9:04 p.m., seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and th meeting was adjourned. lit H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2006\M"inutes\PZ-O 1-06 Outdoor Lighting Text Amendment.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-02-06 Hearing Date: January 26, 2006 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: January 11,2006 REQUEST: Text Amendment regarding Circular Drives MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Ronald Roberts STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the minutes of the December, 2005 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 and Leo Floros abstained from the vote. After hearing two previous cases, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-02-06, text amendments to the Village Code regarding circular driveways. She said that the Village Board's decision was final for the request. Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner, summarized the case. He stated that the Village has received an increased number of requests for circular driveways in the past several years. The majority of these requests have been in conjunction with residential tear down and top-off projects that are occurring throughout town. The Village's current regulations require that property owners obtain a conditional use permit prior to constructing a circular driveway. He said historically, the requests that were approved by the Village have been primarily for properties where there was a safety issue the circular driveway resolved. Mr. Zawila said the Planning & Zoning Commission discussed circular driveways at their August meeting. He stated the Commission found that: circular drives should continue to be a Conditional Use, lot width should be considered when approving the request, landscaping in the front yard should be required; and circular driveways should be constructed of decorative materials. He further stated that the Commission also raised the issue of whether to restrict overnight parking or the number of vehicles parked on the circular drives, but there were concerns on how these regulations could be practically enforced. Mr. Zawila stated this issue was then discussed at the Committee of the Whole (COW) Meeting on September 27th. He said Staff prepared exhibits that depicted circular driveways on various lot widths. The exhibits were intended to illustrate the impact of circular driveways and to help identify situations where a circular driveway would and would not be appropriate. He said the objective was to ascertain whether new standards for approving circular driveways should be used when reviewing requests. Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006 PZ-02-06 Page 2 Mr. Zawila further stated that the Village Board asked Staff to revise the scenarios that were presented to include: 1) circular drives with a 12 foot width, instead of 9 feet; 2) turning radii that met industry standards; and 3) visualizations with vehicle placement. The consensus from the September COW Meeting was that circular driveways requests: 1) should not be required to provide landscaping, or 2) should not be constructed of decorative materials, 3) but should continue to be a Conditional Use that would require Village Board approval. Mr. Zawila said at the December 9th COW meeting, Staff presented the Village Board with new scenarios that illustrated when circular driveways could be feasible and practical in residential zoning districts. He stated these illustrations demonstrated that if the front and side yard lot coverage ratio were increased to 50%, circular driveways could be constructed on lots that are 75 feet wide or greater. These driveways could be 12 feet wide and would meet the industry minimum standards for typical vehicle turning radii. He said although circular driveways with reduced widths could fit on smaller lots, they would create the potential for numerous curb cuts along local roadways and would leave little room for additional improvements on these properties. Mr. Zawila stated that the scenarios did not take into consideration service walks, front steps, or entryways that can add to the lot coverage in the front and exterior yards. He said Staff originally suggested that a 50% front and exterior side yard coverage ratio would provide sufficient flexibility for property owners to appropriately locate these improvements. Staff conducted further analysis to identifY the minimum lot width for a circular/dual frontage driveway to comply with both the minimum bulk regulations for interior lots in RX, R1, RA, and R2 zoning districts and the minimum industry standards for vehicle turning radii. He stated that the findings of this analysis determined that the existing front and exterior side yard maximum coverage ratios currently in the zoning code appear adequate for circular/dual frontage driveways and do not create conditions that completely limit the construction of circular/dual frontage driveways. The front and exterior side yard maximum coverage ratios do not have to be increased to 50% as recommended by Staff at earlier Planning and Zoning and Committee of the Whole meetings. Mr. Zawila stated that the consensus from December 9th COW Meeting was that Staff should further research the impact of the proposed limitation on corner lots, provide real-world examples of pictures to the Village Board for illustrative purposes, and Staff should make available illustrations for homeowners to consider when they undertake such a project. Mr. Zawila provided the Commission with photographs of circular and dual frontage drives currently in the Village Mr. Zawila stated that the proposed text amendment would affect several sections of the Village Code: . Section 14.803 - Conditional Uses (R-X Single Family Residence District) . Section 14.903 - Conditional Uses (R-1 Single Family Residence District) . Section 14.1 003 - Conditional Uses (R-A Single Family Residence District) . Section 14.1103 - Conditional Uses (R-2 Attached-Single Family Residence District) . Section 14.2215 - Driveways (Off Street Parking and Loading) He said the Village Code already has provisions that would permit the construction of circular or dual frontage driveways by Conditional Use in section 14.2215: DRNEW A YS. He said Staff is recommending additional standards for applicants to follow when applying for circular/dual frontage driveways in the Village. He stated that the standards would require a minimum turning radius and width for the circular portion of the driveway. The minimum turning radius of 15 feet and a width of 12 feet for the circular portion of the driveway are based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials minimum turning path for passenger cars. Mr. Zawila stated that the standards would also require a minimum lot width for a circular/dual frontage drive. The minimum lot width of 75 feet was determined by Staff as a width that would be adequate for the placement of Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006 PZ-02-06 Page 3 a circular/dual frontage drive and minimize the frequency of curb cuts that could occur in residential districts throughout the Village. Mr. Zawila said as requested by the Village Board, the text amendment will provide illustrations depicting minimum industry and Village standards for homeowners to consider when they undertake such a project on interior and corner lots. Mr. Zawila further stated that in order to establish standards for approving circular and dual frontage driveways, Staff recommends Section 14.803 - Conditional Uses (R-X Single Family Residence District), Section 14.903 - Conditional Uses (R-l Single Family Residence District), Section 14.1003 - Conditional Uses (R-A Single Family Residence District), and Section 14.1103 - Conditional Uses (R-2 Single Family Residence District) be amended to include: "Circular or dual frontage driveways that meet the minimum requirement set forth in subsection 14.2215.A.l of this chapter." Mr. Zawila also stated that Section 14.2215 - Driveways would be changed to the following: 14.2215: DRIVEWAYS A. Residential: Residential driveways in the R-X, R-A, R-l, R-2 districts shall conform to the following requirements: I. Number: Only one driveway may be permitted per lot, with a maximum of one curb cut to the street pavement. Except that CircularlDual Frontage Driveways or CircularlDual Frontage (Corner Lot) Driveways with two curb cuts to the street pavement, as depicted on Figures 2 and 3 respectively, as well as other alternative designs for similar types of driveways may be permitted, but only by conditional use and in compliance with the following minimum requirements: a. Minimum Turning Radius: The circular portion of the driveway shall have a minimum turning radius of 15 feet (15 '); b. Width: The circular portion of the driveway shall have a minimum width of 12 feet (12 '); c. Lot Width: CircularlDual Frontage Driveways or CircularlDual Frontage (Corner Lot) Driveways with two curb cuts to the street pavement, as well as other alternative designs for similar types of driveways shall be allowed only on lots 75 feet (75') or greater in width. Mr. ZawiIa summarized, stating that the proposal to amend the Village's residential driveway regulations would be applicable to the RX, RI, RA and R2 residential zoning districts in the community on lots 75 feet or greater, which is approximately 25% of the lots in these districts. He said that previously it has been Staff policy to support requests for circular driveways when the subject property fronts on an arterial street and/or the traffic volume is such that a circular driveway is necessary to resolve a safety conflict. He stated that the proposed changes would allow a circular or dual frontage driveways providing it meets the existing bulk regulations of the zoning code, the minimum requirements established by this text amendment, and the standards for conditional use listed in Section 14.203.F.8. Mr. Zawila said the proposed text amendments meet the standards contained in Section 14.203.D.8.b of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006 PZ-02-06 Page 4 recommendation to the Village Board to approve the text amendments as presented for case PZ-02-06. He stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Keith Youngquist asked for clarification that the Village Board is not requiring landscaping or the use of decorative materials with the amended text. Mr. Zawila stated this is correct. Joseph Donnelly asked for clarification on how the measurement for lot width is taken for a comer lot. Mr. Zawila stated the measurements were taken at the front of the house and that the text amendment does not change the bulk regulations regarding lot coverage. Mr. Donnelly also asked if this text amendment addressed the possibility of a property having both a circular drive and a separate drive to the garage. Mr. Zawila stated that this text amendment, as written, would only allow one type of driveway or the other. Chairperson Juracek asked if other sections of the Zoning Ordinance still specify the 50% lot coverage limitation. Mr. ZawiIa stated the lot coverage requirements will remain unchanged in the Code, and that lot coverage is specified for each district as noted in the Zoning Ordinance. Joseph Donnelly asked if all of the examples presented to them would meet the Village Code with the new text amendment. Mr. ZawiIa stated that all of the examples would comply with the amended text. Chairperson Juracek said the exhibits provided to the Commission do provide dimensions and appear to meet the regulations as stated in the amended text. Richard Rogers asked if Conditional Use approval would still be required for Circular Driveway; Staff replied yes. Chairperson Juracek noted that the proposed text amendment would reduce the number of cases heard for circular drives by establishing minimum lot width requirements. Joseph Donnelly said that this text amendment will not eliminate the smaller lots with a safety concern from requesting a Conditional Use. Chairperson Juracek stated the text amendment will provide guidelines for the Commission when evaluating these cases. Marlys Haaland thanked Staff for a comprehensive presentation. Chairperson Juracek asked if there were any further questions or if anyone wished to address the Commission. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the proposed text amendments as presented, Case No. PZ-02-06; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. The case will go to Village Board for their consideration Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9:04 p.m., sec nded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. lit H:\PLAN'lPJanning & Zoning COMM\P&z 2006\Minules\PZ..o2-(16 Circular Drive Tex.t Amendment.doc MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert A. John Korn Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele W. Skowron Michael A. Zadel VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Mount Prospect Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION THE FINANCE COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23,2006 HAS BEEN CANCELLED AND A TRAVELING WORKSHOP IS RESCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2006, 6:00 PM AT NORTHWEST CENTRAL DISPATCH 1975 EAST DAVIS STREET, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL 60005 Phone: (847) 392-6000 Fax: (847) 818-5336 TDD: (847) 392-6064