Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/2008 P&Z minutes 01-08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-OI-08 Hearing Date: January 24, 2008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3401 S. Busse Road PETITIONER: Arrow Road Construction Company PUBLICATION DATE: January 9, 2008 PIN NUMBER: 08-23 - 300-036-0000 REQUEST: Amend Planned Unit Development Approval (maximum structure height) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Andrew Skic, Building Inspector Ryan Kast, Administrative Assistant INTERESTED PARTIES: Kelly Cahill, John Healy Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Marlys Haaland made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 25, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 3-0 with Chairman Rogers abstaining. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to continue Case Number PZ-38-07 to the February 28, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; Mr. Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. Chairman Rogers introduced Case Number PZ-OI-08, a request to amend original Conditional Use approval and Variations at 3401 S. Busse Road, at 7:35 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property was developed under Cook County regulations and annexed into Mount Prospect in 1982. It is located on the east side of Busse Road, north of the Northwest Tollway, south of Addison Court, and consists of a construction storage yard with related improvements, including multiple silos measuring 80-feet in height. The Subject Property is zoned 11 Limited Industrial Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is bordered by the 11 District to the north and east, RX Single Family District across Busse Road to the west, and an unincorporated area to the south. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner submitted plans to install two (2) asphalt silos that would not exceed 80-feet in height. The silos allow for the storage of completed manufactured asphalt material that will be dispensed into trucks and trucked off-site. There are existing similar silos on-site that are used in the same manner, and also measure 80-feet in height. Ms. Connolly referenced a picture showing four silos. Ms. Connolly stated when the site was annexed into Mount Prospect, the Village granted specific Variations for existing site conditions that would allow the Petitioner to maintain the existing asphalt manufacturing/refining operation. The Village Attorney reviewed the 1982 annexation agreement and ordinances granting zoning relief and found that, although there are existing 80-foot asphalt silos that received zoning relief, the proposed new silos Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-OI-08 Page 2 were not included in the original zoning relief. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking to amend the original PUD approval to allow for two (2) new asphalt silos that measure no more than 80-feet from grade. Ms. Connolly said that the Subject Property does not meet the Village's current bulk regulations because there are multiple structures that exceed the maximum 30-foot height limitation for the 11 District. Also, it appears several of the material storage areas encroach into the required setbacks. However, as the site was developed under Cook County regulations, and later annexed into the Village, the existing conditions were granted zoning relief and are allowed to remain in their current state. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner's request is considered a major change to the original PUD approval due to the silos' height. As such, Staff reviewed the ordinance granting original PUD approval and the standards for a PUD as listed in Sec. 14.504 of the Village Code. In order for the Village to consider the proposed major change to the PUD, the request is required to continue complying with the PUD standards and the change has to meet specific findings. Ms. Connolly summarized the following: 1. Except as modified by and approved in the final development plan, the proposed development complies with the regulations of the district or districts in which it is to be located. 2. The principal use in the proposed Planned Unit Development is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan of the Village for the area containing the subject site. 3. That the proposed Planned Unit Development is in the public interest and is consistent with the purposes of this zoning ordinance. 4. That the streets have been designed to avoid: a. Inconvenient or unsafe access to the planned unit development; b. Traffic congestion in the streets which adjoin the planned unit development; c. An excessive burden on public parks, recreation areas, schools, and other public facilities which serve or are proposed to serve the Planned Unit Development. Ms. Connolly said Staff found that the request is consistent with the original PUD approval because the operation of the business and the physical on-site conditions will be in keeping with the original approval. The height of the silos will not change the intent of the original PUD approval or increase the intensity of business operations. Ms. Connolly stated that Staff conducted further analysis of the request because Conditional Use approval is required for a PUD. The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. She summarized these findings: . 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; . Adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and . Compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. Ms. Connolly said that the Subject Property is zoned Limited Industrial and an asphalt operation is a Conditional Use in this district. The Petitioner received Planned Unit Development approval in 1982 to continue operating the Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-OI-08 Page 3 existing asphalt operation. However, the additional silos requires the amending the original approval as the height of the proposed silos was not granted code relief as part of the original zoning approval. Ms. Connolly stated that Staff reviewed the Petitioner's application, visited the site, and contacted the Illinois Environmental Agency (IEPA) to clarify their approval process and understand the possible impacts of the proposed silos. The IEPA confirmed the most recent inspection was done in May 2007 with no 'flags' noted. In talking with the IEPA liaison, Stafflearned that the Petitioner's proposal is not considered to be a large source of air emissions: the tanks are designed to contain the product so there will be minimal impact on the adjacent properties. Also, smaller scale projects such as the Petitioner's are inspected every two to three years unless the agency receives complaints. However, there is recourse through the IEP A if anyone wishes to file a complaint. Ms. Connolly stated that based on this information and the fact that the Petitioner is replicating existing conditions; Staff found that the request would meet the Conditional Use Standards noted because the silos are allowed under an existing EP A permit. The site is inspected on a regular basis and the Petitioner's request is not considered a large source of air emissions. Therefore, the request would have minimal impact on the adjacent properties. Also, the IEP A has a recourse system in place should residents find otherwise. Ms. Connolly stated that the request to amend the original zoning approval to allow the construction of two new 80-foot tall asphalt silos meets the standards for a Conditional Use contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z approve the following motion: "To amend Ord. 3289 granting Planned Unit Development approval and allow two additional 80-foot silos, as shown in the Petitioner's exhibit prepared by SEC Group, Inc., dated November 4, 2007, for the business located at 3401 S. Busse Road, Case No. PZ-OI-08." Ms. Connolly said the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers stated that there would be two new silos creating a total bank of six (6) next to the toll road overpass on Busse Road in an industrial area. Chairman Rogers swore in Kelly Cahill, Attorney for Arrow Road Construction, 50 Virginia Street, Crystal Lake, IL and John Healy, President of Arrow Road Construction, 1726 Kay, Wheaton, IL. Chairman Rogers questioned what the Petitioners would be doing with the silos. Mr. Healy gave a brief history of the company. He stated that Arrow Road bought the 3401 S. Busse location in 1962. The property line originally extended to Oakton Street, but the south half was sold when the property line was divided during the building of the tollway. Mr. Healy described his positive relationship with the Village and contributions that Arrow Road has made to the Village. Mr. Healy continued by saying that the original annexation agreement stated that Arrow Road would enhance and promote the general welfare of the Village. He believes that the request tonight would do the same as the original annexation agreement. Mr. Healy referenced a handout provided to the commission in regards to the dimensions of the silos. These silos are a quarter-inch roll steel cylinder measuring 65 feet in height from the deck to the top of the legs. They contain a complete asphalt manufactured product (95% aggregate and 5% liquid asphalt). The silos sit over truck scales and dispense the asphalt directly into the trucks. Mr. Healy stated the purpose of adding two silos to create a total of six allows for operational flexibility and a control over the final product inventory. Mr. Healy added that the addition of silos would not increase the intensity of his operation. He also said that over the years, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has requested changes of asphalt mixtures. There are different recipes or mixture designs. Each silo would contain a different mixture. This is a seasonal business and different mixtures fill IDOT's needs and requirements. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-o 1-08 Page 4 Mr. Healy said that they are helping with the green initiative. The company is a member of the National Asphalt Pavement Association and the Illinois Asphalt Pavement Association. Through these agencies, they are a promoter of new mixes: poures asphalts, polymer modified asphalts, warm mixture asphalts, stone matrix asphalts, polymer sand mixes, and advances in recycling. Their plant is used by IDOT to test these mixes. Mr. Healy feels that the addition of silos would not create harm for the neighbors. Their current EPA permit allows for construction up to eight silos. They are only requesting two to bring the total to six. The silos are to be installed within the existing footprint of the plan. The two silos would be adjacent the two silos that are currently in the middle. As the silos contain the product, there is not risk of dust, smoke, or anything hazardous. Mr. Healy stated that the development of the silos complies with the regulations of the zoning district. The silos are consistent with the principle use when the property was annexed in 1982. He stressed once again that the silos would not increase intensity of the approved use. The silos would only help with the finished product inventory, create operational flexibility, and would decrease waiting time. Mr. Healy said that the petition seeks to replicate the silos currently on the property that measure 80 feet in height. He referred to a letter that was provided by the National Asphalt Pavement Association. The letter stated that the Association recognizes the plant as showing good practices. Mr. Healy concluded by requesting the Commission's support be consistent with the Staff's recommendation. Chairman Rogers stated that Arrow Road is a good neighbor and well represented in the community. He thanked Mr. Healy for what they have done in the community. Chairman Rogers asked if there were any questions for the Petitioner. Joseph Donnelly asked if there would be a logo or other adverting placed on the silos. Mr. Healy advised that a company logo would be placed on the silos. Mr. Donnelly clarified that no additional advertising would be placed on the silos; Mr. Healy confirmed that was correct. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. Ronald Roberts made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-OI-08, a request to amend original Conditional Use approval and Variations at 3401 S. Busse Road. Richard Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0. After hearing four additional cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 10:08 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. .,<.,<57 >:?"/ /ZY"" /.,' /..?,- /_. //./~ Ryan Kas( CommunitY Development Administrative Assistant H:IPLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\MinutesIPZ-OI-08 3401 S. Busse Rd (Arrow Rd)doc