Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8. MEETING NOTICES 08/21/2007 MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks Mount Prospect TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Arlene A. Juracek A. John Kom Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michael A. Zadel ~ Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION CANCELLATION NOTICE THE FINANCE COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY AUGUST 23, 2007 HAS BEEN CANCELLED VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/392-6000 Fax: 847/392-6022 www.mountprolWect.org MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Arlene Juracek A. John Korn Richard M. Lohrstorfer 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 August 23, 2007 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROV AL OF MINUTES OF mL Y 26, 2007 P&Z MEETING A. PZ-25-07 / 625 Slawin Ct / Search Development / Conditional Use (Vocational School). B. PZ-26-07 /Busse & Dempster / Variation (size and location of signs) / Alpine Apartments. C. PZ-27-07 / 307 Berkshire Lane / Conditional Use (Unenclosed Porch) / Cooper Residence. D. PZ-28-07 / 1030 Linneman Road / Variation (Oversized garage) / Mulcrone Residence. E. PZ-29-07/ 143 W. Prospect Ave. / Off-site Parking Agreement / Boulevard Cafe. F. PZ-31-07/ 1661 Feehanville Dr. / Variation (Height of Wall Sign) / Mizkan Americas. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. PZ-29-07/ 143 W. Prospect Ave. / Off-site Parking Agreement / Boulevard Cafe. V. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-31-06 / 1303 Wolf Road / Gendell Partners Euclid & Wolf LLC / Map Amendment and Conditional Use (new retail center with drive thru). Continued to September 27, 2007 P&Z. B. PZ-30-07 / Text Amendment (permit municipal buildings and facilities in the CR District). This case is Village Board Final. C. PZ-32-07/ 1300 W. Northwest HWY / CEDA / Sign Variation (allow 3 lines of changeable copy). This case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. D. PZ-33-07 /418 W. Northwest Highway / A Central North Animal Hospital/Conditional Use (animal hospital). This case is Village Board Final. E. PZ-34-07/ 1406 Small Lane / Wendel Residence / Variation (parking pad and lot coverage). This case is Village Board Final. VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 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-25-07 Hearing Date: July 26, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 625 Slawin Court PETITIONER: Search Developmental Center, Inc. / John Lipscomb, CEO PUBLICATION DATE: July 11, 2007 03-35-104-051-0000 PIN NUMBER: REQUEST: Conditional Use approval for a vocational school MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Mary McCabe MEMBERS ABSENT: Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Joseph Levie, Planning Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Steve Patterson, Greg Peterson, Greg Marinelli, Amy Milobowski, Donna Catalano, John Lipscomb, Morris Neal Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2007 meeting and Mary McCabe seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 3-0, with Joseph Donnelly abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-25-07, a request for a Conditional Use at 625 Slawin Court at 7:36 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located at the southeast corner of Slawin Court and Business Center Drive, and includes a vacant office/warehouse building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned II Limited Industrial and is adjacent to the II District on all sides. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner proposes to remodel the existing structure to accommodate a vocational school. The proposed vocational school would provide developmental training and supported employment services to adults with developmental disabilities. Students and several staff members would be bused to the site and, ideally, students would eventually obtain employment at companies located in the Kensington Business Center and other local businesses. However, some students may not attain that level of education, but they will benefit from the school by learning other fundamental life skills. Ms. Connolly stated that the proposed site plan indicates the existing parking lot will be modified to accommodate a new drop-off area along the west elevation of the building. The proposed change requires eliminating 13 parking spaces to allow buses to access the site from the southern drive, turn north, and drop off students and staff in the proposed drop-off area. Also, four new parking spaces will be added along the south Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-25-07 Page 2 elevation of the building. She said the Petitioner does not anticipate making any other changes to the site, but has agreed to add parking spaces if additional parking is needed in the future. Ms. Connolly showed a table documenting that the site will meet the Petitioner's parking requirements and provide parking for staff members as required per the Village's Zoning Ordinance. She said that the site cannot accommodate student parking, but in this case, student parking is not needed as students will only be bused to the school. She said the vocational school will employ 53 staff members and the Village Code requires 35 parking spaces for this number of staff members. However, of those 53 staff members, 12 will ride the bus with the students and will not park their vehicles on-site, and 4 staff members either car pool or take public transportation. Therefore, the Petitioner's actual parking need is to park 37 staff vehicles (personal vehicles) and 12 vans (school vehicles). The site will have 53 parking spaces, while the Petitioner's actual need is 49 spaces. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner proposes to add windows along the south elevation of the building and to modify the west elevation of the building to accommodate an entrance by the drop-off area. The floor plans indicate this entrance will be the primary entrance, and additional exits will be provided as required to comply with egress requirements. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner does not anticipate making changes to the existing landscaping. Staff confirmed with the Petitioner that the existing trees and shrubs along the west elevation of the building will remain or will be relocated if it is necessary to remove them to accommodate the new entrance. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation of the school's day-to-day operations. In summary, the school will operate on a staggered start and dismissal schedule, and the curriculum will be based on students' needs and capabilities. Overall, students will take classes, exercise, and participate in vocational workshops. Due to the nature of the school and the students' special needs, public assemblies are not part of the school's operations. Ms. Connolly stated that other departments reviewed the proposal and did not object to the request. However, the Fire Department noted that the existing fire alarm and sprinkler system will have to be evaluated to meet the new occupancy requirements. Also, as referenced in the Petitioner's application, an egress analysis will need to be completed by the Petitioner's design professional. Consequently, modifications to the building may be necessary in order to comply with all local and state building codes. Ms. Connolly said the Village's Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposal and found that the four new parking spaces shown on the Site Concept Plan should be striped as shown to ensure adequate parking is provided on-site. There are concerns of a parking deficiency should a different vocational school occupy the site or if the students are no longer bused to the school. Therefore, staff recommends including the following condition of approval: that if it is determined that the proposed parking proves to be insufficient, the Village can require the applicant to expand the existing parking lot to address the shortage; the site can physically accommodate additional spaces. Ms. Connolly stated that the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. She summarized these findings as: · 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; . There is adequate provision for utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-25-07 Page 3 . The request is in compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. Ms. Connolly said Staff reviewed the Petitioner's application in depth and conducted several site visits. Staff found that the proposed vocational school, if operated as noted in the Petitioner's application, would have minimal impact on the adjacent properties. She said based on information noted in the Petitioner's application, there appears to be a need for this vocational school and it would directly benefit 44 residents. However, additional modifications to the building may be necessary to attain compliance with egress requirements and other applicable life safety issues. Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Code allows transferring a Conditional Use permit to another similar user. In this case, because Search Developmental Center offers such unique vocational services, it should be noted that the Conditional Use permit would only be transferable to the exact same type of vocational school that would be operated in the exact same manner: students would have to be bused to the facility, there would be staggered start/dismissal times, and the parking lot would have to be expanded if it was determined there was a parking shortage. Ms. Connolly said the proposed vocational school meets the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the school being operated as noted in the Petitioner's application. Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve a Conditional Use permit to operate a vocational school that provides developmental training and supported employment services to adults with developmental disabilities at 625 Slawin Court, Case Number PZ-25-07 subject to the following: 1. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the site plan and floor plan prepared by Holabird & Root dated June 11,2007; 2. The school shall be operated in general conformance with the times and activities listed in the application submitted for zoning approval; 3. The Petitioner shall provide additional parking if it is determined that there is a parking shortage; 4. The Petitioner shall submit an egress analysis and a sprinkler system and fire alarm system evaluation to ensure compliance with all applicable codes and standards for this type of use; and 5. The site shall be developed in accordance with all Village and State Codes and regulations. " She said the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chairman Richard Rogers asked if the parking requirement is conditional, so if they changed the composition of the school, the Village could enforce expansion of the provided parking. Ms. Connolly confirmed that this condition is tied to this user at this space. If the use changed, the parking would need to be altered accordingly. Leo Floros stated that the Staff report indicated 44 residents will directly benefit from the proposed school. He asked if these students live in Mount Prospect. Ms. Connolly explained that she extracted this information from the Petitioner's report, and was not sure if this number reflects current students, or residents who have expressed an interest in attending such a school. Chairman Rogers swore in Steve Patterson, 191 North Whacker Drive #3700, Chicago, Illinois, the attorney representing Search Development. Mr. Patterson thanked Staff for a comprehensive presentation. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-25-07 Page 4 Chairman Rogers swore in John Lipscomb, 1925 North Clybourn, Chicago, Illinois, the Executive Director of Search Development Center. Mr. Lipscomb gave a brief history of Search Development Center. Mr. Lipscomb stated that 18 students live in Mount Prospect and 44 people with developmental disabilities have registered with the State and need assistance from a program like Search Development Center. He said Search Development currently operates three group homes in Mount Prospect. Mr. Lipscomb summarized the program's accolades and reviewed the curriculum. He gave a brief synopsis of the building renovation and how the building space will be used. Chairman Rogers asked if Search Development Center is purchasing the property. Mr. Lipscomb confirmed that they are purchasing the property. He said they are anxious to move to Mount Prospect and hope to make this their flagship location. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner is aware of the conditions of approval. Mr. Lipscomb stated that they do understand the conditions for approval. Chairman Rogers swore in Morris Neal of Holabird & Root Architects at 140 South Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Neal stated that the building is situated on 3.45 acres and none of the modifications they are proposing will change the setbacks or landscaping on the site. He said they are eliminating 13 spaces to create the drop-off/pick- up area and adding 4 new spaces. He said additional windows and a new exit door will be added to the south elevation. On the west elevation, they will be adding one additional entrance with a canopy. He stated that the majority of the work will occur on the interior of the building. They are adding washrooms, classrooms, training rooms, a performing arts area, and a mezzanine. Chairman Rogers asked Mr. Neal if he understands the conditions of approval. Mr. Neal confirmed that he does understand the conditions. Mr. Patterson stated they have worked diligently to ensure the standards for Conditional Use approval have been met with the Village. He said this project will bring value to the Village and provide a needed service to the community. He said Search will also be able to provide an additional hiring pool to local businesses. Mr. Floros asked ifthe students pay tuition to attend. Mr. Lipscomb said Search Development Center is a not-for- profit organization. The students are developmentally disabled and because of their diagnosis, they have eligibility for State of Illinois funding. Once eligibility is established, they apply for funding for the program. Mr. Lipscomb stated that the 44 residents previously mentioned have already established eligibility and can apply for tuition payment. Mr. Floros asked what the age of the attendees is. Mr. Lipscomb stated the average age is 21, but ranges into the 60s. Mr. Floros asked if the students come from all over the Chicago area. Mr. Lipscomb said the students attending here would primarily come from the northern suburbs. Mr. Floros asked why they are leaving the Northbrook location. Mr. Lipscomb stated that they want to own the property. Mr. Floros asked where the center gets their funds. Mr. Lipscomb said funding comes from the tuition payment. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments, hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 8:01 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve a request for a Conditional Use at 625 Slawin Court, as presented by Staff. Mary McCabe seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, McCabe, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0 After hearing five additional cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 9:53 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documents and Scttings\kdewis\LocaI Senings\Temporary Inlernet Files\OLK6B\PZ-2S-07 625 Slawin Court.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-26-07 Hearing Date: July 26, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1550 W. Dempster PETITIONER: Kelley Alcock, Whiteway Signs (Agent for Property Owner) PUBLICATION DATE: July 11, 2007 PIN NUMBER: 08-14-300-016-0000, 08-15-401-037-0000 REQUEST: Sign Package - (4) Variations MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Mary McCabe MEMBERS ABSENT: Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Joseph Levie, Planning Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Kelly Alcock, Peter Lubin Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2007 meeting and Mary McCabe seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 3-0, with Joseph Donnelly abstaining. After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-26-07, a request for a Sign Variation at 1550 W. Dempster Road at 8:03 p.m. Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located at the northwest corner of Dempster Street and Busse Road, and consists of a 240-unit multi-family development on two lots of record. The development includes a multiple building apartment complex zoned R4 multi-family development. The Subject Property is bordered by the Commonwealth Edison right-of-way to the north, the B3 community shopping and the B4 commercial corridor districts to the west, B3 community shopping district and unincorporated Cook County to the south, and the R4 multi-family residence district to the east. Mr. Zawila said the Petitioner is seeking approval to replace the existing apartment complex signage that was installed more than 20 years ago. There are currently six legal non-conforming freestanding signage installed on the Subject Property that would not be allowed under the current Sign Code. The Petitioner is proposing to remove all freestanding signage and replace them with a sign package: Sign A The Petitioner is seeking approval to replace the existing signage located at the corner of Dempster Street and Busse Road. The existing signage consists of two freestanding signs installed in a "V" configuration. The total sign face for both signs measures 64 square feet. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-26-07 Page 2 The Petitioner proposes to install a freestanding sign with a masonry base in approximately the same location as the existing signage. The total proposed sign face measures 70.2 square feet and will be internally illuminated. The existing landscaping around the area of sign will remain, which meets the requirements of the Sign Code. Sign B The Petitioner is seeking approval to replace the existing freestanding sign located on Dempster Street, east of the western most parking lot entrance. The existing sign face measures 32 square feet for each side of the freestanding sign and encroaches into the required 5 foot setback. The Petitioner proposes to install a new freestanding sign with a masonry base in the same location. The total proposed sign face measures 70.2 square feet for each side of the freestanding sign and will be internally illuminated. The proposed landscaping around the area around the sign meets the requirements of the Sign Code. Sign C The Petitioner was approved to install a temporary leasing sign on Dempster Street. There is currently an oversized directional sign in the location for Sign C. This sign will need to be removed, when the temporary sign is installed. A variation was not required for this temporary leasing sign, because it meets the Sign Code regulations. Sign D The Petitioner is seeking approval to replace the existing signage located at the Busse Road entrance to the Subject Property. Each existing sign face measures 16.5 square feet. The Petitioner proposes to remove the existing freestanding sign to the right side of the driveway entrance. The existing sign on the left side of the driveway entrance will remain; however, a new directional sign will be installed on the sign face of the freestanding sign. The existing posts will be repainted with blue-gray enamel. The proposed sign area also measures 16.5 square feet. Mr. Zawila stated that in order to approve the Petitioner's request, the Planning and Zoning Commission has to find that the proposed sign package meets the criteria for a Variation because three sign faces each exceed the maximum permitted area of 30 square feet, and one of the three signs is setback zero feet from the property line, when five-feet is required. He said the required findings for sign variations are contained in Section 7.725 of the Village of Mount Prospect Sign Code. He said the section contains specific findings, summarized as: . The sign allowed under code regulations will not reasonably identify the business; . The hardship is created by unique circumstances and not serve as convenience to the petitioner, and is not created by the person presently having an interest in the sign or property; . The variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood; . The variation will not impair visibility to the adjacent property, increase the danger of traffic problems or endanger the public safety, or alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and be in harmony with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. Mr. Zawila summarized the required findings for each sign. Sign A The Sign Code limits the size of the sign face for residential developments, located on a secondary arterial street, to 30 square feet. However, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to permit a 70.2 square foot sign face. The height and setback of the sign complies with the Sign Code regulations. The proposed signage would exceed the sign face area of the current signage, which measures 64 square feet, by 6.2 square feet. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-26-07 Page 3 The Sign Code does allow two freestanding signs to be located on the western lot of the Subject Property, since the lot has two frontages, Dempster Street and Busse Road. Since the Petitioner is proposing to install only one sign on the western lot of the Subject Property, when two freestanding signs would be allowed, they are eligible for a 50% bonus. Staff discussed with the Petitioner, this option to install a 45 square foot freestanding sign which would be 50% greater than the 30 square foot maximum area allowed in this location. The Petitioner chose to submit the proposed sign with 70.2 square foot sign face instead. The 45 square foot signage allowed at this location under the Sign Code regulations would reasonably identify the apartment complex. Also, it is not clear what the hardship is that would warrant the proposed larger sign face area. The Petitioner notes in the attached application that the sign conforms to their corporate image, which appears to be based on convenience as opposed to a hardship, as defined by the Village Code. Sign B The Sign Code limits the size of the sign face for residential developments located on a secondary arterial street to 30 square feet. However, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to permit a 70.2 square feet sign face for each side of the freestanding sign. The Petitioner is also seeking a Variation from the required five-foot setback for a freestanding sign to have a zero-foot setback. Staff discussed with the Petitioner that they had the option to install a 30 square foot sign, setback five feet from the property line. The perimeter landscaping area for the parking lot measures fourteen-feet in width. This would still allow a sufficient amount of space for the installation of a freestanding standing with the required landscaped area around the base of the sign. The Petitioner will not need to lose any parking spaces, as noted in the attached application, because of the installation of a freestanding sign. The Petitioner chose the option to submit the proposed sign for this location instead. It is not clear what the hardship is that would warrant the proposed sign face area or zero-foot setback. The signage allowed at this location under the Sign Code regulations would reasonably identify the apartment complex. Additionally the proposed sign will be internally illuminated and another larger freestanding sign is allowed on the western lot of the Subject Property. Sign D The sign area for the proposed directional sign measures 16.5 square feet. The Sign Code limits the size of a directional sign to 10 square feet. However, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to permit a 16.5 square foot directional sign. Staff discussed with the Petitioner that they had the option to mount a 10 square foot directional sign on the existing stone gates. Petitioner also has the option to install similar square foot directional signs at each entrance to the Subject Property, better informing the public to all entrances of the apartment complex. The Petitioner chose the option to submit the proposed signage for this location instead. It is not clear what the hardship is that would warrant the proposed sign face area. The Variation appears to be based on convenience as opposed to a hardship, as defined by the Village Code. The Petitioner is proposing to overlay the sign face on an existing freestanding sign that is not permanently affixed to the stone gate. The sign is attached to two wooden posts that could be removed if new directional signage were installed on the gate. Mr. Zawila stated that the Petitioner's requests would not adversely impact the neighborhood or the adjacent properties, and the signage will not detrimental to the public welfare or other properties in the neighborhood. However, the signage permitted by code would reasonably identify the Subject Property. Also, this request is different from a previous request approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission whereby the Mansions of Mount Shire wanted a 68 square foot sign face, with frontage on Golf Road, for only one freestanding sign on the property. Traffic on Golf Road travels at a higher rate of speed; therefore larger text and a larger sign face would Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-26-07 Page 4 read easier. The size of the proposed sign face for that request was smaller than the existing freestanding sign for that property. Mr. Zawila said in this case, the requests are based on convenience and the Petitioner has several code compliant sign options that would reasonably identify the apartment complex. The apartment complex is also located at an intersection with a four way stop light that would allow traffic to easily read the signage, unlike the Mansions of Mount Shire, where no traffic control device was located along the Golf Road frontage of the property. Mr. Zawila stated that based on this analysis, the proposed signage requests do not meet the standards for a Variation. No hardship has been presented that would warrant the proposed signage and the requests appear to be based on convenience. Staff presented several options to the Petitioner, which would meet the Sign Code regulations for their sign package for the Subject Property. The signage allowed under the Sign Code for this location would reasonably identify the apartment complex. He said Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission DENY the following motion: "To approve the Variations to allow: . a 70.2 square foot sign face for "Sign A" as shown on the Petitioner's exhibit; . a 70.2 square foot sign face for "Sign C" as shown on the Petitioner's exhibit; . a 16.5 square foot sign face for "Sign D" as shown on the Petitioner's exhibit; and . a 0' setback for "Sign C" as shown on the Petitioner's exhibit." He said the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Chairman Richard Rogers asked when the original signs were placed. Mr. Zawila said there was a sign permit from 1986 for the sign at the corner of Dempster and Busse. Staff could not confirm installation of the others, but due to the similarity in design, it has been estimated that the stalls were all installed at the same time. Chairman Rogers asked what is allowed at the location of "sign A" Mr. Zawila stated that a 30 square foot sign is allowed, and the Petitioner would be eligible for a 50% bonus if there were no other signage on this frontage. Chairman Rogers asked if all ofthe signs would be allowed at 30 square feet. Mr. Zawila confirmed. Chairman Rogers said the Petitioner is asking for oversized signs, almost double the allowable size, at each location. There was general discussion regarding the lot lines and street frontages. Joseph Donnelly asked if major arterial street frontages are allowed larger signs. Mr. Zawila said signs on major arterial streets such as Golf Road and Route 83, are allowed at 35 square feet; neither of the street frontages are on major arterial streets for this property. Mr. Donnelly asked ifthere are time limits for the sign illumination. Mr. Zawila stated the sign must be turned off at 11 :00 p.m. Chairman Rogers swore in Kelly Alcock of Whiteway Signs at 451 Kingston Court, Mount Prospect, Illinois and Peter Lubin, attorney for Alpine Apartments. Ms. Alcock stated that the owner is working to improve the image of their properties located in the Village. She said the sign at Mansions of Mount Shire have significantly improved leasing at that location and that 83 square foot sign was approved by this Commission and included an electronic message board. She said this variation is for oversized signs and a zero-foot setback. She said this request will actually decrease the total sign-face square footage on the property from 200 square feet to 163 square feet. She stated the proposed signs will have better readability and a more modern look. They also intend to update the landscaping. She said that if the signs were reduced to staff's recommendation, the readability would be reduced. Ms. Alcock stated that the new signage ties directly to the new corporate image. This image has been incorporated into stationary, advertising, and staff uniforms. The owner would like to continue this corporate image into the proposed signage. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-26-07 Page 5 There was general discussion regarding the letter height and readability of the proposed signage. Ms. Alcock gave a brief summary of the proposed signage package and each location for the Alpine Apartments. She stated that the new proposal is actually reducing the total sign-face square footage and she would like the Commission to approve their sign package. Mr. Lubin gave a brief summary of the reduction in square footage of the whole sign package. Chairman Rogers stated that the Village's Sign Code is not arbitrary; that research and surveys were conducted to provide a uniform appearance throughout the Village. He said that a program was initiated to have non-conforming signs removed or replaced and he is not sure how the existing signage was allowed to remain up. He stated that the proposed sign package is requesting quite a large variation from what is currently allowed by Code. Ms. Alcock showed the Commission exhibits comparing a code-compliant sign versus the proposed oversize signs. She said the readability would be considerably reduced and she would like to reach a compromise with the Village. The Petitioner and the Commission had general discussion on reducing the sign package and changing the sign locations. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments from the audience. There were no additional questions. He said a compromise needs to be reached on this sign package. Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development suggested reviewing the exhibits of each sign. Leo Floros made a motion to amend the previous motion to approve the following Variations: . To allow a freestanding sign with a 70.2' square foot sign face, in the location and constructed as shown on the attached Exhibit A; and . To allow an additional directional sign face with a 10.0' square foot sign face in the location as shown on the attached Exhibit B. The Planning & Zoning Commission grants these Variations subject to: . The removal of all non-conforming signs from the Subject Property as shown on the attached Exhibit C. . The withdrawal of Permit #07-1346 for a temporary/for lease sign as shown on the attached Exhibit D. Mary McCabe seconded the motion. Chairman Rogers closed the public hearing and called for the vote. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Floros, McCabe, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0 After hearing four additional cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 9:53 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documenls and Settings\kdewis\Local Senings\Temporary Inlernet Files\OLK6B\PZ.26-01 Alpine Apts.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-27-07 Hearing Date: July 26, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 307 East Berkshire Lane PETITIONER: Kevin Cooper PIN NUMBER: July II, 2007 08-11-113-027-0000 PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: Conditional Use - Unenclosed Porch in front yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Joseph Levie, Planning Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Kevin Cooper, John Prince Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2007 meeting and Mary McCabe seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 3-0, with Joseph Donnelly abstaining. After hearing two previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-27- 07, a request for a Conditional Use at 307 East Berkshire Lane at 8:50 p.m. Joseph Levie, Planning Intern, stated that the Subject Property is located on the south side of Berkshire Lane, between Emerson and School Streets, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single-Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the Rl District. Mr. Levie said the Petitioner is proposing to add a second story, construct a new attached garage, and an unenclosed front porch. The addition and garage will comply with the Village's zoning regulations; however, the proposed porch will extend slightly more than 4-feet from the house, resulting in a 29-foot, 3.5-inch front yard setback. Therefore, the proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval. Mr. Levie stated that the Subject Property complies with the Village's zoning regulations. He showed a table comparing the Petitioner's proposal to the RI Single-Family Residence District's bulk requirements. Mr. Levie said the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. He summarized these findings as: Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-27-07 Page 2 · 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; · There would be adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and · There would be compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. Mr. Levie stated that Staff found that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision, or public streets. Also, the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Levie said the proposed unenclosed porch meets the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach into the front yard resulting in a 29' 3.5" setback, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan and elevations prepared by Thomas Buckley Architect & Associates, dated March 5, 2007, for the residence at 307 E. Berkshire Lane, Case Number PZ-27-07." He said the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers thanked Staff for their work on the case. There were no additional questions for Staff. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioner Kevin Cooper of 307 East Berkshire Lane, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Cooper gave a brief history of the project. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if he understands that the porch must remain unenclosed. Mr. Cooper stated that he does understand that condition for approval. Chairman Rogers swore in John Prince of 309 East Berkshire Lane, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Prince stated that he is in support of the Petitioner's proposal. He was concerned regarding the statement "and other relief from the Zoning Ordinance as may be required for this project" that was included in the legal notice he received. Mr. Rogers stated that only the Conditional Use for an unenclosed front porch is being granted. Mr. Prince asked if any other changes were required, if the Petitioner would have to come back before the Commission. Chairman Rogers confirmed that is correct. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 8:56 p.m. Mary McCabe made a motion to approve a Conditional Use for an unenclosed front porch for the residence at 307 East Berkshire Lane, as presented by Staff. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, McCabe, Rogers NAYS: Motion was approved 4-0. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-27-07 Page 3 After hearing three additional cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 9:53 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documenls and Settings\kdewis\LocaJ Settings\Temporary Inlernet Filcs\OLK6B\PZ-27..o7 307 E Berkshire.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF mE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-28-07 Hearing Date: July 26, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1030 Linneman Road PETITIONER: David P. Mulcrone and Helena Pelletier PUBLICA TION DATE: July 11, 2007 PIN NUMBER: 08-14-202-021-0000 REQUEST: Variation (oversized garage) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Mary McCabe MEMBERS ABSENT: Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Joseph Levie, Planning Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2007 meeting and Mary McCabe seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 3-0, with Joseph Donnelly abstaining. After hearing three previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-28- 07, a request for a Variation at 1030 Linneman Road at 8:57 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the west side of Linneman Road, south of Golf Road, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single Family Residence to the north, west, and south, and by the RX Single Family District to the east. The Subject Property has a typical rectangular shape and is more than twice the minimum lot size for a property zoned Rl. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner would like to remove a concrete pad, and demolish the existing approximate 768 square foot detached garage in order to construct an 840 square foot detached garage. The Village Code limits the size of detached garages to 672 square feet. Therefore, the request requires Variation approval. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner proposes locating the 840 square foot garage 6-feet from the north lot line and 30-feet from the west lot line. The proposed garage would have 3 individual garage/roll-up doors and a peaked roof with a dormer. She said the garage height complies with the Village's 12-foot height limitation as measured from the mid-point of the roof. Ms. Connolly showed a table comparing the Petitioner's proposal to the Village's zoning regulations. She said the existing home and detached garage do not comply with the Village's zoning regulations because the house encroaches into the required front yard and garage exceeds the current 672 square foot size limitation. Also, there Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-28-07 Page 2 is a 442.5 square foot concrete pad in the required setback. The Petitioner proposes to remove the concrete pad, and replace the nonconforming garage with a slightly larger garage. The house has a legal nonconforming setback and is allowed to remain in its existing location. However, the size of the proposed garage requires relief from the Village Code. The garage would be constructed according to all applicable Village Codes. Ms. Connolly said in order to approve the oversized garage, the P&Z must find the request meets the standards for a Variation as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The standards relate to: · 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. Connolly stated that the Petitioner currently has a nonconforming garage and has outgrown this footprint. The Petitioner has a larger lot, so it is practical to have a snow blower and riding mower as noted in the attached application. Unfortunately, the equipment requires additional storage space and the Petitioner has 3 vehicles he would like to store in the garage as opposed to parking them on the driveway. She said prior to submitting the Variation application, the Petitioner met with staff and presented plans for a more than 1,000 square foot garage. After discussing the Village's code regulations, the Petitioner re-evaluated his storage needs and scaled back the project, arriving at a smaller garage size, but still exceeding the 672 square foot limit. Ms. Connolly said the Zoning Ordinance limits the size of detached garages to 672 square feet and defines it as a structure designed to house motor vehicles and to store items and equipment necessary to maintain and upkeep the primary structure and the property that it is located upon. The Petitioner proposes to use the garage as listed in the Zoning Ordinance and cites the larger size is necessary to accommodate 3 vehicles, a riding lawn mower, snow blower, and other tools. Ms. Connolly stated that the design of the garage is attractive and the garage will be located in the rear of the property so it will most likely not impact the character of the neighborhood. While the Petitioner has an oversized lot, the Village Code limitation for detached garages is not based on the lot size; the 672 square foot limitation applies to all size lots. However, the Petitioner's request for an oversized garage is based on convenience. Also, the Petitioner has the option of constructing a 200 square foot shed and/or an attached garage, which does not have a square footage limit. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's desire to increase the amount of on-site storage fails to meet the standards for a Variation because there is no hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Also, the Petitioner has code complaint options to create additional storage. Therefore, Staff recommends that the P&Z deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow an 840 sq. ft. detached garage, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan, for the residence at 1030 Linneman Road, Case Number PZ-28-07." She said the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case because the amount of the Variation does not exceed 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. The Commission had no questions for Staff. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioners David Mulcrone and Helena Pelletier of 1030 Linneman Road. Ms. Pelletier gave a brief history of the property. She stated the existing garage is in disrepair and needs to be replaced. They would like to replace the garage with a style that compliments the craftsman-style of their bungalow home. Mr. Mulcrone stated that the present garage is 768 square feet and they do not want to lose any Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-28-07 Page 3 of that storage space. They chose the plan for an oversized unattached garage versus a garage and shed for aesthetic reasons. He stated that the proposed, unattached craftsman style garage would compliment their home. Chairman Rogers stated that he understands the Petitioner's concerns with a 672 square foot limit on the house and he would like to see them stay within that size limit, if possible. Leo Floros asked the size of the Petitioner's lot. Ms. Pelletier said their lot is I07-feet wide by I72-feet deep. She said they would like to build a 3-car garage and to have the three garage doors, the garage would need to have a minimum width to accommodate those garages. Mary McCabe asked why there is a size limit on an unattached garage, but not an attached garage. Ms. Connolly said there was considerable thought given to the size limit before it was adopted into the Village Code, such as lot coverage and aesthetics. Ms. Pelletier showed exhibits demonstrating that several of the home's existing windows would have to be removed should they build an attached garage. She added that they were not interested in constructing a shed in addition to the larger garage if it was approved. Mr. Floros asked when the home was built. Ms. Pelletier stated that the home was constructed in 1930. Chairman Rogers swore in Ken Koeppen of 1040 South Linneman Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Koeppen said home was built in 1928 and the garage is starting to show dry-rot and some sagging in the roof line. He stated that he supports the project. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 9: 13 p.m. Joseph Donnelly stated that in a previous zoning case the Commission reviewed combining a garage space and a shed space. He asked if there was feedback regarding that Case. Ms. Connolly stated she could not recall the exact details of the case, but said she would research it and follow up with Mr. Donnelly at a later date. Ms. McCabe stated that she does not have an objection to the project because this oversized garage is going to be placed on an oversized lot. Mr. F1oros said when the Village placed a size limit on unattached garage, it was a good thing because people were constructing very large garages on small lots. In this case, the lot is very large and he would support this project. Mr. Mulcrone said that craftsman-style, bungalow homes typically never have an attached garage. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve an 840 square foot garage at 1030 Linneman Road, with the condition that no additional accessory structures are constructed on the oversized lot. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Floros, McCabe, Rogers NAYS: Motion was approved 4-0 After hearing one additional case, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 9:53 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documcnts and Scttings\kdewis\Local SCllings\Tcmponuy Internet Files\QLK6B\PZ-28-07 1030 Linneman Road.doc: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF mE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-29-07 Hearing Date: July 26, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 143 West Prospect Avenue PETITIONER: Krzysztof Miscierewicz / Boulevard Cafe PUBLICATION DATE: July 11, 2007 PIN NUMBER: 08-12-113 -00 1-0000 Restaurant and 08-12-113 -0 13 and -018 Village owned parking lots REQUEST: Approval of an off-site parking agreement MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Mary McCabe MEMBERS ABSENT: Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Joseph Levie, Planning Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Krzysztof Miscierewicz, Agnes Wheeler, Kathleen Jensen, Elizabeth McKee, Chris Siwik, Isabella Raczynski, Jason Bell Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2007 meeting and Mary McCabe seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 3-0, with Joseph Donnelly abstaining. After hearing four previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-29-07, a request for an off-site parking agreement at 143 West Prospect Avenue at 9: 16 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the proposed restaurant will be located at the southeast corner of Prospect A venue and Pine Street, and includes a vacant commercial space with related improvements. The property is zoned B5 Central Commercial and is adjacent to the B5 District to the east, south, and west. The railroad tracks, zoned 12, are north of the proposed restaurant. The Petitioner proposes to remodel the existing structure and open a restaurant. A restaurant is a permitted use in the B5 District, and the Village's Zoning Ordinance requires 1 parking space per 4 seats and 1 parking space per employee working during a peak shift. The proposed restaurant includes 43 seats and would employ a maximum of 6 employees during a peak shift. Therefore, 17 parking spaces are required. The site plan documents that only two parking spaces are available on-site, but there are several on-street spaces. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow the Petitioner to include the on-street spaces as part of the required parking calculation; a different parking ratio is used to reflect the B5 District location and the possibility of on-street parking. Consequently, the Petitioner is seeking approval of an off-site parking agreement where 15 parking Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-29-07 Page 2 spaces would be leased from the Village of Mount Prospect, allowing the Petitioner to meet the parking requirement. The Village's Zoning Ordinance permits off-site parking agreements under certain conditions and requires the Planning & Zoning Commission to approve the agreement. The off-site spaces would be located at the adjacent Pine Street lot and the Wille Street lot. Staff recommends that the employees park at the Wille Street lot, leaving the Pine Street lot and on-site spaces available for customer parking. Other departments reviewed the proposal and did not object to the request. The Village Attorney worked with the Petitioner's attorney to modify the document to reflect the Village's requirements. Also, the Director of the Finance Department reviewed the request and worked with his staff to locate the Petitioner's spaces as close to the restaurant as possible. Should other spaces at the Pine Street lot become available in the future, the Finance Department will assign the spaces to the Petitioner. The location of the proposed off-site parking spaces is well within the 1,000-foot limitation noted in Section 14.2206. Also, the Village Attorney reviewed the contents ofthe lease and found that it complies with Section 14.2206 and applicable requirements for leasing Village owned property. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve an off-site parking agreement that provides up to 15 off-site parking spaces as allowed per Section 14.2206 of the Village Code for the restaurant at 143 W. Prospect Avenue, Case Number PZ-29-07 subject to the Petitioner requiring restaurant employees to park in the Wille Street lot." She said the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Ms. Connolly stated that the restaurant use is a permitted use in the B5 district and the off-site parking would bring them into compliance with parking regulations; the Commission is only reviewing the off-site parking agreement. Chairman Richard Rogers asked if there are adequate spaces in the Village owned lots in addition to the 15 spaces the restaurant would be using. Ms. Connolly confirmed there are additional spaces available. Mr. Rogers asked if the lot is filled during the day. Ms. Connolly said the lots are not pay lots where users pay on a daily basis, but the spaces are leased annually, so there is not vehicle turn-over during the day. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioner Krzysztof Miscierewicz and Agnes Wheeler of 5626 North Fairview, Chicago, Illinois. Ms. Wheeler gave a brief description of the proposed cafe. Chairman Rogers swore in Kathleen Jensen of 118 South Pine, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Jensen thanked the Commission for allowing the residents to address their concerns with the request. She said she is concerned that the proposed cafe location, with no on-site parking, is not the best location for a restaurant. She said she is worried that the customers will park on the residential side streets and not in the leased parking spaces down the block. She is concerned that if vehicles are parked along Pine Street, emergency vehicles will not be able to get through to the neighborhood. She said the residents of the 100 South Pine block request that the Commission deny this request. Chairman Rogers swore in Chris Siwik of 120 South Pine, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Siwik stated that there is already a problem with the two hour parking on the block, and she is concerned the addition of the cafe will cause greater issues. Chairman Rogers swore in Elizabeth McKee of 121 South Elmhurst Avenue. Ms. McKee said the lot on Wille Street is vacant because of the design and location of the lot. She said the lot is not easy to find and will drive people to park on the street. She stated that the cafe use may not be appropriate for the neighborhood due to the additional traffic. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-29-07 Page 3 Chairman Rogers swore in Jason Bell of 108 South Pine Street. Mr. Bell lives directly across from the proposed cafe. He said there are employees of the businesses in the neighborhood already parking on the street and enforcement of the two-hour parking limit has been hit-or-miss. The neighbors are concerned that the cafe patrons will compound the problem. Chairman Rogers asked if parking on one side of the street were eliminated, would that relieve the problem. Mr. Bell said he did not believe it would help the problem. He said the issue is two- hour parking that is not enforced; that the Village is not helping with the existing problem and the proposed cafe would add cars to the neighborhood. Mr. Floros asked if the cafe patrons would park on Prospect Avenue. Ms. Jensen said she believes the patrons would pass the cafe and turn onto the first street they see to find parking. There was general discussion regarding the parking tendencies of the employees and patrons. Ms. Jensen stated that she feels the off-site parking will not be used. Chairman Rogers swore in Isabella Raczynski of 108 South Pine Street. Ms. Raczynski stated that there really is no parking available on Prospect A venue. She said allowing this parking agreement will cause more traffic in their neighborhood. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 9:39 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve an off-site parking agreement for 143 West Prospect Avenue, as presented by Staff. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. Mary McCabe asked how many parking spaces will be available at the Pine Street lot. Ms. Connolly stated that there are 2 spaces on the restaurant site, 6 spaces at the Pine Street lot, which is located directly behind the restaurant, and 9 spaces at the Wille Street lot, which is less than 250-feet away from the restaurant. She said the 6 cafe employees would be required to park at the Wille Street lot. Ms. McCabe asked the Petitioner what the hours of operation would be. Ms. Wheeler said the proposed hours are from 11 a.m. till 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and from 11 a.m. till 2 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Joseph Donnelly stated that he understands the resident's concerns, but the Planning and Zoning Commission is only hearing the off-site parking agreement tonight. Mr. Floros stated that until he heard the proposed hours of operation, he was inclined to approve the agreement, but he does not agree with the 2 a.m. closing time on Friday and Saturday and would vote to deny the agreement. Mr. Donnelly asked if there were restrictions for hours of operation in the downtown district. Ms. Connolly said the Zoning Ordinance does not regulate that aspect of the business, but if they intend to sell alcohol, the Liquor Commission may have input on their hours of operation. Ms. Weller said they do intend to pursue a liquor license and they are permitted to be open until 2 a.m. She said they are not sure that they will maintain those hours, but until they get a feel for whom their target market is, they intend to be open as many hours a day as possible. Mr. Donnelly asked if there are any other businesses open until 2 am in the area. There was general discussion regarding Mrs. P & Me, their hours of operation, and the parking on that block. Mr. Donnelly stated that the Commission is here tonight only to consider the parking agreement; that the restaurant will have sufficient parking with the off-site parking agreement. There were no additional comments. Chairman Rogers called for the vote. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, McCabe NAYS: Floros, Rogers Motion was defeated 2-2. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-29-07 Page 4 After hearing one additional case, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 9:53 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documcnts and Settings\kdcwis\Local Scttings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ-29-07 143 W Prospecl.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-31-07 Hearing Date: July 26, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 143 West Prospect Avenue PETITIONER: Mark E. Majewski - Mizkan Americans, Inc. PUBLICATION DATE: July 11, 2007 PIN NUMBER: 03-35-200-031-0000 REQUEST: Sign Variation - Wall Sign Location MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Mary McCabe MEMBERS ABSENT: Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Joseph Levie, Planning Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Mark Majewski Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2007 meeting and Mary McCabe seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 3-0, with Joseph Donnelly abstaining. After hearing five previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-31-07, a request for a Sign Variation at 1661 Feehanville Drive at 9:41 p.m. Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located in the Kensington Business Center, and contains a four-story building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned II limited industrial and is bordered by the II district to the north and west, B 1 office district to the south and residential across Wolf Road to the east. The Petitioner confirmed that the Mizkan occupies the entire third floor of the office building and has long term plans to expand its existing space. This year the Petitioner completed an interior renovation for its existing space and signed a lease agreement last year that will not expire until April 30, 2018. Mr. Zawila said the Petitioner is seeking relief from the Village's Sign Code regulations. He showed exhibits illustrating the Petitioner's request to install the proposed wall sign on the elevation of the 4-story building. He stated that the Petitioner would like to install a 75 square foot wall sign. The Sign Code allows signs to cover 50% of the signable area up to 150 square feet. The size of the proposed sign complies with the Sign Code regulations; however, the proposed location would exceed the 30-foot limitation. The Village's Sign Code limits the installation of wall signs to 2-stories or 30-feet from grade, whichever is less. Therefore, the Petitioner's request requires a Variation because the wall sign would be installed 54-feet from grade. Mr. Zawila said the required findings for sign variations are contained in Section 7.725 of the Village of Mount Prospect Sign Code. He summarized these findings as: Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-31-07 Page 2 . The sign allowed under code regulations will not reasonably identify the business; . The hardship is created by unique circumstances and not serve as convenience to the petitioner, and is not created by the person presently having an interest in the sign or property; . The variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood; . The variation will not impair visibility to the adjacent property, increase the danger of traffic problems or endanger the public safety, or alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Sign Code. Mr. Zawila stated that the Subject Property has significant frontage on Wolf Road; however, the building is setback almost 1 82-feet from the road. In the past, the Planning and Zoning Commission has granted Variations to allow oversized wall signs when a building had an expansive front elevation and the building was setback significantly from the road. In 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission also granted a Variation to allow a wall sign to be installed on the 4th story of the MetLife building approximately 58-feet from grade in Case Number PZ-33-04. He said the Met Life building is located at 1660 Feehanville directly north of the Subject Property. Similar to this previous case, the Petitioner's request is to install a wall sign that complies with the Sign Code's area limitations and will be installed higher than 30-feet from grade to provide better visibility and create a more aesthetically pleasing front elevation. Mr. Zawila said the 30-foot height limitation listed in the Sign Code would not reasonably identify the business because the building is setback almost 200 feet from Wolf Road and there are several mature trees that would need to be removed to see the signage at the 30 foot height. In addition, the location of the proposed wall sign will not adversely impact the adjacent properties. Mr. Zawila stated that based on the above analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow the Petitioner to install a 75 square foot wall sign on the 4th story of the building, approximately 53-feet from grade, at 1661 Feehanville Drive, Case Number PZ-31-07." He said the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Joseph Donnelly asked if the sign would be illuminated. Mr. Zawila said the sign would be illuminated interiorly. Mr. Donnelly asked if the MetLife sign is also illuminated. Mr. Zawila confirmed that it is. Chairman Rogers stated that the Commission has permitted other similar signs in the past. Chairman Rogers swore in Mark Majewski, representing Mizkan Americas at 1661 Feehanville, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Majewski gave a brief history of Mizkan; they have been located in the northern suburbs for several years. He stated that their previous lease expired in 2006 and they had the opportunity to relocate anywhere in the United States; they chose to stay in Mount Prospect due to the quality of the work force. They previously occupied 8,000 square feet and have recently expanded to 22,000 square feet. Their current lease runs through the year 2018 and they have found their home in Mount Prospect. Chairman Rogers asked who the parent company of Mizkan Americas is. Mr. Majewski said the parent company is the Mizkan Group of Japan and is a privately owned company. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 9:51 p.m. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2007 PZ-31-07 Page 3 Mary McCabe made a motion to approve a Sign Variation for the property located at 1661 Feehanville Drive, as presented by Staff. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, McCabe, Rogers NA YS: None Motion was approved 4-0. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 9:53 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documenls and Settings\kdewis\Local Seuings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ~3I.o7 1661 Feehanville Mizkan.doc