Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/2006 P&Z minutes 12-06 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-12-06 Hearing Date: June 22, 2006 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 888 E. Northwest Highway PETITIONER: Donald A. Dreessen Trust PUBLICATION DATE: June 7, 2006 PIN NUMBER: 08-12-403-011-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use- Amend original approval to exclude the off-site parking requirement and Variation for off-street parking. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary Johnson Richard Rogers Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jennifer Walden, Planning Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the May 25, 2006 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0; with Mary Johnson and Ronald Roberts abstaining. Marlys Haaland made a motion to continue cases PZ-05-06, PZ-14-06 and PZ-17-06 to the July 27, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. After hearing two previous cases, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case Number PZ-12-06, a request to amend the original approval to exclude the off-site parking requirement, at 8: 17 p.m. Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located at the northwest corner of Northwest Highway and George Street. She said the site currently contains an animal hospital and has four parking spaces behind the building. She stated that there is a remote parking lot specific to animal hospital customers located less than 100-feet from the Subject Property. She said the Subject Property is zoned B5 Central Commercial and is bordered by the B5 District to the east and west, and by the RA Single Family District to the north; UPRR rail road tracks are located south of the site. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner is in the process of selling the animal hospital building. She said the proposed buyer, Dr. Kim Ruffolo, has been operating the current animal hospital business for the last several years. She stated that Dr. Ruffolo does not propose changing the use; the only difference would be that Dr. Ruffolo would own the building as well as the practice. She stated as part of the building sale transaction, the Petitioner proposes not selling the remote parking lot spaces required for the animal hospital customers. She said the remote off-site parking was required as part of the Special Use approval granted in 1987 via Ordinance 3797. Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 22, 2006 PZ-12-06 Page 2 She stated therefore, that in order for the Petitioner to sell the building, but not the remote parking lot, Ordinance 3797 would need to be amended to exclude the off-site parking requirement and a Variation would be required to allow the animal hospital to have four off-street parking spaces when the Zoning Ordinance requires twelve off- street parking spaces. Ms. Connolly said that Section 14.2224.1 of the Village's Zoning Ordinance requires the animal hospital to have three off-street parking spaces per examining room. She stated that Staff was provided a floor plan that documented there are four rooms; therefore the animal hospital is required to have twelve off-street parking spaces. She stated that the original zoning approval, Ordinance 3797, required the Petitioner to provide fourteen parking spaces, as required by the Village Code at that time. Ms. Connolly stated that the Zoning Ordinance has provisions for existing conditions to continue, but requires parking for new construction, significant rehabs, or a change in use. She said it is most likely that the retail and office uses, or uses similar in nature, were in place when the Village created parking regulations specific to the B5 District. She stated that when the animal hospital relocated to 888 E. Northwest Highway in 1987, it had to follow the then current Village Code regulations, which required fourteen off-street parking spaces, because it was a change in use for that location. Therefore, the Village required the Petitioner meet the Village's parking requirements by improving the remote parking lot to ensure adequate customer parking. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner explains in his application that the animal hospital customers do not use the remote parking lot because it is easier to park on the street. She stated that the on-street spaces are located closer to the animal hospital than the remote lot, which is a consideration when transporting a sick animal. She said the Village's Traffic Engineer evaluated the area and found there are 18 on-street parking spaces on Northwest Highway south of the alley, between George and Edward Streets. Ms. Connolly showed exhibits demonstrating the amount of parking spaces near the animal hospital and reviewed a table that analyzed the Village's parking requirements for the existing business in proximity to the animal hospital. She stated that Staff conducted several site visits to this area and found that the remote parking lot tended to have no more than 6 vehicles parked in it at once per day. She said it appears that the vehicles may belong to employees, as the vehicles were parked for extended amounts of time. She stated that the on-street parking located closest to the salon, tended to be consistently parked, which is to be expected since up to eleven service stations can be in use at one time. She said in discussions with the salon owner, Staff learned that employees and salon customers do in fact park in the remote lot and do so with permission from the Petitioner, who also owns the building where the salon is located. Ms. Connolly stated that the Village's Traffic Engineer commented that if the original parking requirement requiring the remote parking were to be amended, and if that parking lot were to be developed in the future, the proposed new development would need to provide enough off-street parking for the new development as the current parking demand uses most if not all of the off-street and on-street parking. Ms. Connolly said that while it may be practical that animal hospital customers park closest to the building, Staff is concerned that customer parking from other businesses may creep into the residential neighborhood north of the area, which would impact those properties. In addition, she stated that it is not clear what the hardship is that would warrant granting a parking Variation; it was noted that the request appears to be financially driven although it is not known if the remote parking lot would in fact be redeveloped. Ms. Connolly stated that in reviewing the request to modify the original Special Use approval, Staff found that the request did not meet the standards for a Conditional Use because the long-term impact could have a detrimental impact on the adjacent properties if the parking lot were redeveloped. In addition, she said customer parking could encroach into the residential area north of the B5 district. She also stated that the request would no longer be in compliance with other Village Codes as the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to provide only four off-street Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 22, 2006 PZ-12-06 Page 3 parking spaces and not the twelve required by the Village Code. She said the Variation appears to be based on convenience as opposed to a hardship, as defined by the Village Code. Ms. Connolly summarized the case, stating that based on this analysis, Staff found that the request to amend the Conditional Use to only require four off-street parking spaces failed to meet the standards for a Conditional Use and a Variation as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the following motion: "To approve amending Ordinance 3797 and granting Conditional Use approval and granting a Variation to allow an animal hospital to provide four off-street parking spaces for the property located at 888 E. Northwest Highway, Case Number PZ-12-06." Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case, and concluded Staffs report. Chair Juracek called for questions of Staff. Keith Youngquist asked how the parking calculations differ within the B5 district for the salon versus the animal hospital. Ms. Connolly stated that the code is looking at the most intense use because the business could be sold, business operations could change, which would in turn dictate the need for more parking spaces. Two of the Commissioners are clients of the animal hospital and voiced concern over conflict of interest. Chair Juracek stated that since no Commissioner would recognize financial gain from this Case, both are eligible to vote. Marlys Haaland stated that she has been a customer of the animal hospital for years and have never had a problem with parking at the clinic. Keith Youngquist also stated that as a client ofthe hospital, he has never had to use the remote parking available to the hospital. Chair Juracek asked for clarification of the proposal. Ms. Connolly stated that Staff is recommending not amending the original ordinance, which requires off-street parking in the remote lot. Chair Juracek asked for clarification on what the Petitioner is seeking. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner is looking to sell the building without the requirement of having the eight additional off-street parking spaces in the remote lot. Chair Juracek asked if the purchaser would actually need to purchase the remote lot to offer the parking or if a parking agreement would be sufficient. Staff stated this is a reasonable question and there was further discussion regarding Dr. Ruffolo's parking options. Leo Floros asked who owns the remote parking lot. Ms. Connolly stated that Dr. Dreessen owns the remote lot in addition to the hospital building and several buildings on the block. Chair Juracek swore in Marie Dreessen, 719 We Go, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Using an exhibit map, Mrs. Dreessen identified the properties on the 800 block that they own. Chair Juracek asked Staff how the purchaser, Dr. Ruffolo, could meet the parking requirements. Ellen Divita stated that Staff would need to verify with the Village Attorney if a parking agreement, recorded against those spaces, would be acceptable. Ms. Divita stated that the important fact is to prepare for the most intense use of the building and provide adequate parking according to code. Ms. Connolly confirmed that the code does provide for off-site parking agreements. Both Richard Rogers and Ronald Roberts asked what other businesses, besides the animal hospital, depend on the off-site lot to meet parking requirements. Ms. Connolly stated that none of the businesses on that block are required per Village Code to use the off-site lot for parking. Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 22, 2006 PZ-12-06 Page 4 Chair Juracek asked why the animal hospital does not receive the 1500 square foot credit in parking calculations like the other uses in the B5 district. Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Code does not qualify this use of space in the B5 district for the parking calculation credit. However, the requirement per exam room is reduced from five to four, when compared to other zoning districts. Ronald Roberts stated that he feels the off-site parking lot is very important to that block to provide adequate parking. Keith Youngquist stated that parking requirements may be restrictive and sees an inequity of parking requirements for the uses on this block. There was further discussion regarding the development of the off-site parking lot. The Commission stated that they view this request as a potential problem in that if this parking lot was ever sold and developed, it would eliminate critical parking spaces, creating parking issues for all tenants on the block and the Commission would be opposed to such a development. Ms. Connolly stated that there is a Covenant placed on the parking lot property as an encumbrance on the land. If the owner wanted to sell the parking lot property, he would have to come before the Commission to remove the restriction. Chair Juracek stated that her understanding is that the Covenant supplies adequate parking for the tenants on the block. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner wishes to dissolve the Covenant; Chair Juracek asked for clarification. Ms. Connolly stated that by amending the original Special provided the use of off-street spaces in that parking lot. Chair Juracek asked which land the Special Use and Covenant is tied to. There was general discussion that the Covenant would be tied to and recorded to both the animal hospital and parking lot properties. Richard Rogers stated that amending the Ordinance would essentially dissolve the Covenant. Chair Juracek asked if the parking provisions for the other tenants on the block would be affected by the dissolution of the Covenant. Ms. Connolly stated that the other tenants would not be affected, per Village Code, because they are not required to use the off-site lot. The only tenant required to use this parking lot, by code per the Special Use approval, is the animal hospital. Chair Juracek asked how the on-street parking is factored into the requirements. Ms. Connolly stated that on-street parking spaces are not mathematically factored. into the off-street parking requirements. Chair Juracek asked if the on-street parking was taken into consideration when creating the required parking calculation. Ms. Connolly said that the credit given to certain uses in the B5 district is in response to on- street parking. Ms. Divita stated that the ordinance from 1987 that granted the Special Use had three requirements: 1. No outside kennels; 2. Covenant executed to provide fourteen parking spaces on the remote parking lot; and 3. Improvements and maintenance to the remote parking lot. She stated that the question at hand is if this use is still permitted without the parking requirement. Chair Juracek swore in Dr. Donald Dreessen. He stated that he has been in the building in the 800 Block of Northwest Highway for 40 years. He stated that he has not changed location of the practice, except moving from building to building. Dr. Dreessen stated that the Village changed the parking requirements after the animal hospital had already been established, requiring additional off-street parking. He stated that the animal hospital rarely even fills the four spaces they have at the hospital and that there are several on-street parking spaces available on George Street. He said that the other occupants of the block generally use the remote parking lot more often than the animal hospital. He stated that perhaps the Covenant for parking can be moved to one of the other buildings containing the salon and drapery shop, located at 854 and 864 E. Northwest Highway. He stated that he does not intend on developing or selling the parking lot; that he would prefer to have the Covenant tied to the salon and drapery building versus the animal hospital. Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 22, 2006 PZ-12-06 Page 5 Richard Rogers asked if Dr. Dreessen is selling the other buildings on the 800 Block. Dr. Dreessen stated that he is selling the 888 building now, and would imagine at some point he would have to sell the other buildings. Mr. Rogers stated that his concern is once the buildings are sold, that there would be multiple owners and the parking issue would again arise. Dr. Dreessen stated that his intention would be to sell the buildings with the remote parking lot as a package. There was general discussion regarding the future development of the 800 block and specifically, the remote parking lot. The Commission agreed that the parking lot is a necessary part of that block, providing parking for several of the buildings on that block. Dr. Dreessen asked if the Covenant could be re-executed to be attached to the 854 and or the 864 E. Northwest Highway buildings. Chair Juracek stated that unfortunately that is not the request before the Commission. She said that the Commission is hearing the request for the 888 building only, as it was published and noticed. The Commission cannot take an action on property that is not part of this request. Dr. Dreessen asked if they can change the parking agreement to affect the other properties on the block. Again, the Commission stated that they cannot take action on properties other than 888 E Northwest Highway during this hearing. Ms. Connolly stated that the parking requirements could be met through parking agreements recorded between Dr. Dreessen and Dr. Ruffolo. Chair Juracek said that if Dr. Dreessen executed a parking agreement with Dr. Ruffolo, allocating eight spaces in the remote lot for animal hospital use, as part of the sale, the requirement would be met. Dr. Dreessen stated that the animal hospital does not use that many spaces. The Commission stated that Village Code requires Dr. Ruffolo have twelve spaces at her disposal. This requirement could be met by the four spaces located on-site at the hospital and by allocating eight spaces in the remote lot by parking agreement. There was further discussion on the purpose of off-street parking requirements and that the Code is intended to ensure proper parking not only for current occupants, but also future uses at the site. Mrs. Dreessen asked if the parking agreements, when recorded via Covenant are attached to the properties indefinitely. She asked how the parking lot could be sold in regards to the other two buildings on the block. Chair Juracek stated that it would be best for the Dreessen's to consult with their attorney or business consultant, when it comes time for the other properties to sell. Keith Youngquist explained that the animal hospital use has higher parking requirements than the other buildings on the block. The parking lot was constructed solely for the animal hospital use. He stated that the Petitioner is asking to assign the spaces on that remote lot to other tenants in his building, but the Village Code does not require additional parking for the other buildings. He said the issue here tonight is the parking requirements for the animal hospital. He said that his understanding is that one way to handle this situation is to sell the remote lot with the animal hospital building. Mrs. Dreessen said if the remote lot is sold with the animal hospital, it will not be available to provide any parking for the other buildings on the block. Mr. Youngquist agreed and said that the lot is not needed to fulfill the parking requirements for the other buildings. Mrs. Dreessen stated in her opinion it would be easiest to sell the parking lot with the animal hospital to Dr. Ruffolo and have the salon and drapery tenants park on-street. Mr. Youngquist stated that Dr. Ruffolo could lease out spaces to the other tenants, but those other uses do not need the additional parking. Mr. Rogers stated another alternative would be to convert the animal hospital building to a business use that has a lesser parking requirement and sell it independent of the remote parking lot; however, there would no longer be an animal hospital. Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 22, 2006 PZ-12-06 Page 6 Chair Juracek stated that her understanding is that Dr. Ruffolo would not need to own the remote parking lot, just have a recorded agreement for eight parking spaces. There was further general discussion regarding ownership and leasing of the remote parking lot, including property taxes and lease payments. Mr. Rogers summarized by stating that per Village Code, Dr. Ruffolo needs eight additional off-street parking spaces to operate the animal hospital. Chair Juracek reiterated the Commission's position by stating that the issue tonight is to adequately provide parking, as required by Village Code, for both the current animal hospital use and any other uses in the future. She stated that this has to be a sustainable, viable solution for now and into the future. Chair Juracek called for additional comments. She swore in Doreen Cunningham, 405 S. George, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Cunningham stated that she is a resident and an employee of the animal hospital. She said that the animal hospital does not need as much parking as the Code is requiring. She stated that perhaps the Village needs to review the Ordinances and re-evaluate the parking requirements for downtown businesses. Chair Juracek stated that the parking issue downtown is a hot-topic, however tonight the Commission is reviewing the case of the animal hospital only. There was further general discussion regarding the purpose ofthe parking Ordinance in the Village. Dr. Dreessen asked if it would be possible to change the Covenant to another building on the block to address the parking concern. Mr. Rogers stated that changing the Covenant would not change the parking requirement for the animal hospital use. Chair Juracek asked Staff if the Conditional Use could be granted with the condition of only one doctor practicing at the location. Ms. Connolly said granting the Conditional Use with that condition is possible, however; Staff has concerns about monitoring the sale/use of the building. Ms. Connolly stated that there could be a new operator at the location, with multiple doctors seeing clients concurrently. There was further general discussion regarding the original Conditional Use, the potential of leasing the remote parking lot spaces and changing the Village Code parking requirements. Chair Juracek stated that this evening, the Commission can only review the case before them. Mr. Roberts stated that he would not be comfortable releasing the parking requirements for the animal hospital without additional parking studies by Staff. Chair Juracek stated that the Commission cannot make decisions affecting other properties on the block, because none of the other properties have been properly noticed and are not mentioned in the application. She stated that at this time, the Commission can only hear the case before them. Chair Juracek called for additional comments, hearing none the public hearing was closed at 9:23 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve amending Ordinance 3797 and granting Conditional Use approval and granting a Variation to allow an animal hospital to provide four off-street parking spaces for the property located at 888 E. Northwest Highway, Case Number PZ-12-06. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Floros, Johnson, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek Motion was denied 6-0, with Marlys Haaland abstaining. This case is Village Board final. Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 22, 2006 PZ-12-06 Page 7 After hearing one additional case, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9:32 p.m., seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. munity Development ssistant lit H:\PLANlPlanning & Zoning COMMIP&Z 2006\Mlnutes\PZ-12-06 888 W NW Hwy- Amend Cu.doc: