Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVII. Meeting Notice 03/25/2008 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AUDIT COMMITTEE AGENDA Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:00 PM Village Hall Building 50 South Emerson Street Third Floor Executive Conference Room I.Call to Order II.Approval of Minutes – July 10, 2007 III.Chair Report IV.Director of Finance Report V.Old Business VI.New Business a.Review Engagement Letter for 12/31/2007 Audit b.Review New Auditing Standards for Internal Controls c.Prepare Goals & Objectives for the Upcoming Year d.Discuss Write-Up for Village Board VII.Other Business VIII.Next Meeting – To Be Determined IX.Adjournment DRAFT AUDITCOMMITTEE MINUTESOFTHEMEETINGHELD J10,2007 ULY 3RDFLOOREXECUTIVECONFERENCEROOM–VILLAGEHALL I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:03pm. Members present were Mayor Irvana Wilks, Finance Committee Chair Chuck Bennett and Director of Finance David Erb. Bennett was elected Chair Pro-Tem for the meeting as Chairman Munz was not in attendance. II. Approval of Minutes Approval of Minutes for March 6, 2007. Motion to approve was made by Mayor Wilks and Seconded by Finance Director Erb. Minutes were approved. III. Chair Report No report at this time. IV. Director of Finance Report No report at this time. V. Old Business None. VI. New Business There were several items under New Business discussed relevant to the 2006 annual audit. A brief review of the audit documents and letters of correspondence was held. Audit reports included the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Single Audit Report and Tax Increment Financing District Report. Letters of correspondence reviewed were the Management letter and SAS 61 (Fraud) Communication. Discussion among committee members followed. Also discussed was the report to the Village Board. This first report will encompass Audit Committee – Minutes July 10, 2007 all the meetings and activity since the inception of the Committee. VII. Other Business No Other Business at this time. VIII. Next Meeting No meeting date has been set at this time. IX. Adjournment Mayor Wilks motioned to adjourn the meeting and Finance Director Erb seconded. The meeting adjourned at 6:58pm Respectfully Submitted David O. Erb Director of Finance 2 MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy 1. 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 TOO: 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 March 27, 2008 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROV AL OF MINUTES OF January 24, 2008 P&Z MEETING A. PZ-OI-08 / 3401 S. Busse Road / Arrow Road Construction. B. PZ-02-08 / 2020 Camp McDonald Road / S1. Dominick Childcare. C. PZ-03-08/ 1040 W. Northwest Highway / Mount Prospect Development Group D. PZ-04-08/ 1042 S. Elmhurst Road (Dominick's Grocery Store) / Doyle Signs on behalf of US Bank E. PZ-05-08/ 1750 Azalea Place / Schrambeck Residence / Variation (second driveway) IV. OLD BUSINESS A. PZ-38-07 /309-313 W. Prospect Ave. / Paul Swanson / Conditional Use approval and Variations (3- unit row home development). This case is Village Board Final. V. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-14-07 / Lake Center Plaza (Algonquin Road & Wall Street) / The Alter Group / Plat of Resubdivision (Lake Center Plaza Resubdivision No.3). This case is Village Board Final. B. PZ-37-07 / Northwest Corner of Main Street and Northwest Highway / Heimbaugh Capital Development Corporation / Conditional Use (Planned Unit Development/Mixed Use Commercial and Residential). 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-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 ST AFF 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-O 1-08 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 II 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: I. 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 ofthe 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-O 1-08 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, Staff learned 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 EPA 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 ofthe 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 (lOOT) 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 lOOT'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: A YES: 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. . <.;/~1;7 /~;,~:.'_~/ ...{-7 _ /A;" / ...- .....:.._...~.--., /~l:-.y /,- /-7;7 , "..+ ;" Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant H:IPLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\MinulesIPZ-01-08 3401 S. Busse Rd (Arrow Rd).doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-02-08 Hearing Date: January 24, 2008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2020 Camp McDonald Road PETITIONER: Gregory Szeszko, St. Dominick Day Care PUBLICATION DATE: January 9, 2008 PIN NUMBER: 03-34-416-027 -0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use - Daycare Center MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Keith Youngquist ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Andrew Skic, Building Inspector Ryan Kast, Administrative Assistant INTERESTED PARTIES: Greg Szeszko 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. After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-02-08, a request for a Conditional Use to operate a Daycare Center at 2020 Camp McDonald Road at 7:50 p.m. Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, said the Subject Property is located on the north side of Camp McDonald Road, between River Road and Park Drive, and contains the Alexander Graham Bell Montessori School with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned B3 Community Shopping and is bordered by the B3 District to the east and west, the R4 Multifamily District to the north, and B4 Commercial Corridor and Rl Single Family Residence District to the south. Ms. Connolly stated the Petitioner is seeking Conditional Use approval to operate a day care facility. The proposed day care facility would be located in the B3 Zoning District, which requires Conditional Use Approval. Also, a parking Variation is needed because they will be deficient one parking space and exceed lot coverage limits. Ms. Connolly summarized the Petitioner's application: . St. Dominick Day Care is an independently owned and operated child care facility; . The facility would occupy the soon-to-be former Alexander Graham Bell Montessori School building (the Montessori School is relocating because they outgrew the site); . The day care facility has a maximum capacity of 72 clients, which requires 10 staff members; Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-02-08 Page 2 · The facility would be open from 6:30 am to 6 pm Monday - Friday; · The Petitioner anticipates most children would arrive between 8am to lOam and leave between 3:30pm and 5:30pm; · The Petitioner estimates the drop-off and pick-up time to be 10 minutes; and · Anticipated ages of the children range from 2-5 years old. Ms. Connolly said the Subject Property does not comply with the Village's bulk regulations as the existing structure encroaches into the required side and rear setbacks. Also, some of the existing parking spaces are located in the 10-foot setback and the site exceeds the 75% lot coverage limitation. The area was annexed into the V illage in 1971, most likely after the building had been built as Staff could not locate a building permit for the original development of the Subject Property or document that code relief had been granted for its development. She said the existing conditions are considered legal nonconforming and are allowed to remain in its existing condition. Ms. Connolly stated that the Subject Property requires relief to meet the Village's requirements. The available on-site parking would be 16 spaces once the garage is converted from storage back to a garage and one surface space is created. She said based on the proposed use, the Village's Zoning Ordinance requires I space per employee plus 1 space per 10 children. Based on a maximum enrollment of 72 children (7 spaces) and a staff of 10 employees, the daycare facility would require a total of 17 parking spaces. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner submitted information on the drop-off / pick-up process. They do not anticipate needing all 16 spaces provided on-site at one time and estimate the peak usage to fall between 8 am to lOam and 3:30 pm to 5:30 pm. Therefore, they feel the proposed 16 spaces will meet the facilities needs. Ms. Connolly stated that the Village's Zoning Ordinance does not have operational requirements for daycare uses. However, the Petitioner is required to meet specific DCFS regulations, which the Petitioner is aware of and has worked with in other day care facilities. It is important to note that the Petitioner is required to follow State regulations, which will be enforced by the appropriate State agency. The DCFS requirements include regulations pertaining to play areas, providing food service, and program content. These regulations are based on the length of the child's stay at the facility. Ms. Connolly summarized other department comments. The interior ofthe building has to be modified to comply with the National Life Safety Code and the International Building Code for daycare centers which entails installing a fire detection system and a fire sprinkler system. While this is a Building Permit issue, it is important to note in the Staff report to eliminate the potential for confusion during another review process. Also, a complete egress evaluation will be required and must be prepared by a design professional. Ms. Connolly stated that Engineering noted that they support the proposed sliding gate to secure the play area. However, the handicapped space shown on the plan would be located in the fenced in area. As this space must be accessible at all times, the space needs to be re-striped outside the fenced area. Ms. Connolly advised that the Petitioner has already addressed this comment and the handicap space has been relocated outside the fenced area. She said a revised site plan was placed by each Commissioner's seat. Ms. Connolly mentioned that in order to approve the request, it has to meet the standards for a Variation because the Petitioner will be short one parking space. Ms. Connolly said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. She summarized these findings: Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-02-08 Page 3 . 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 ofthe public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner met with Staff prior to applying for the Conditional Use permit. Based on the information obtained from this meeting, the Petitioner worked with a design professional to modify the site to comply with the Village's parking regulations. It was the Petitioner's intention to comply with the Village's parking regulations, but still maintain an adequate play area for the children. Therefore, they submitted a site plan that indicates one new parking space will be provided, which increases the existing non-conforming amount of lot coverage from 77% to 78%. Because this is an increase in the amount of the non-conformity (lot coverage), a Variation is needed for the proposed amount of pavement. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner noted in the application that the anticipated amount of parking needed for the drop-off / pick-up process would not require using more than 15 spaces, although 16 spaces would be provided on-site. They prepared a chart documenting parking usage throughout the day, noting that even during the peak drop-off / pick-up times, the site would be able to accommodate the anticipated parking demand. Ms. Connolly stated the site was developed under Cook County regulation and currently contains a significant amount of pavement. The site will be modified to accommodate one additional space, which brings the lot coverage from 77% to 78%, with the opportunity to expand the parking lot further by removing a landscape island. However, there is a mature tree located in a landscape island and paving over the island would further increase the amount of lot coverage. In this case, should the facility experience an actual parking shortage, the Petitioner is in a position to control the drop-off / pick-up process by working with parents to stagger the drop-off /pick-up times to minimize parking shortages. Ms. Connolly said 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 the 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 stated that the proposed use would not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety or general welfare. The use would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, or utility provision and it would be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the Petitioner's drop-off / pick-up analysis indicates that vehicles entering/exiting the Subject Property will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Connolly said the proposed use meets the Variation and Conditional Use standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-02-08 Page 4 "To approve: A) a Variation to allow 16 parking spaces, B) 78% lot coverage, and C) A Conditional Use permit for a daycare facility at 2020 Camp McDonald Road, subject to the following conditions: 1) The St. Dominick Day Care facility will be designed and developed in general accordance with the site plan prepared by Studio 3 Design, revision date January 22, 2008; 2) The facility shall meet all Building Code & Fire Code requirements, which include but are not limited to the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems and having a design professional prepare an egress analysis as part of the Building Permit submittal; 3) The Village reserves the right to review any traffic related matters created by the use and require any necessary measures needed to address them; and 4) Prior to the Village issuing a Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner shall obtain the necessary permits and authorizations from the appropriate agencies (DCFS, etc.). Ms. Connolly stated the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers asked Ms. Connolly if this was the same building when it was a Montessori school and the Commission previously approved a circular driveway; Ms. Connolly confirmed that it was. She clarified that the Montessori school never installed the circular driveway and eventually outgrew the site. Mr. Rogers questioned if the Conditional Use was approved tonight, what would happen to the circular driveway that was previously approved. Ms. Connolly said that the circular driveway approval would no longer be valid as the approval period already lapsed. Chairman Rogers swore in Greg Szeszko, 4148 N. Pontiac, Chicago, IL. Mr. Szeszko said he and his wife are the owners and operators of St. Dominick Day Care. They have been operating this business out of their home since 1999. They are licensed by DCFS and follow all state regulations, they are also licensed by the City of Chicago. They were incorporated as a corporation in 2003. Mr. Szeszko said that they provide day care from 15 months to 5 years. They provide typical day care services including: programs that develop language skills, cognitive development, music appreciation, small and large motor skills, social interactions. They tend to be rooted in Catholic tradition. Mr. Szeszko mentioned that the business is successful with its customers. They like the program and the day care's approach towards education. He has never advertised and strictly relies on word-of-mouth. They are fully booked with a waiting list. They have outgrown their current facility and would like to expand. Mr. Szeszko stated that they have come to an agreement with the current owners of the property at 2020 Camp McDonald Road. It is a one story masonry brick building that contains sprinklers and is connected to a fire alarm. There is an existing playground along with 15 parking spaces. Mr. Szeszko said that his proposal included daily operations from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday with a shortened Saturday schedule if needed. The maximum capacity for the day care would be 72 children and 10 employees. Mr. Szeszko presented a modified site plan per the Staffs comments. He said there would be 16 parking spaces for cars. He would convert a spot in the garage for a space and would also set aside a space for the handicapped area. The floor plan includes four classrooms with one common area for indoor activities. Parents and their children would utilize an access card to gain entry to the building. This access card would automatically register Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-02-08 Page 5 the child. An additional station would allow registration if a few clients walked in at the same time. After registering, the parent would walk their child to the assigned classroom. Mr. Szeszko explained the daily use of parking. He restated the peak times of 8:00 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 3 :30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. He advised the Commission that he has to maintain a specific child to teacher ratio. Since this ratio has to be maintained, a pick-up and drop-off schedule can be drafted. He does not believe that he will over- extend the proposed 16 spaces. Mr. Szeszko concluded by requesting that the Commission accept his proposal. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if he understood the requirements in order to obtain building permits and what is needed for the approval of the zoning. The Petitioner stated that he understood and agreed to the conditions. Mr. Szeszko advised that he and his architects have been working with Staff to make sure the plans are acceptable and that they are following the guidelines set. Chairman Rogers said the site is tight and overbuilt, but he understands the need for a child care center. He called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 8:12 p.m. Chairman Rogers asked if the Commission had any questions for the Petitioner or Staff. Mr. Donnelly asked Ms. Connolly when the Commission reviewed the circular driveway case if they had 15 spaces and did not use the garage. Ms. Connolly advised that was correct as the previous owner did not use the garage for parking. Mr. Donnelly asked if the previous owner was within zoning at that point or if the use of the property did not need parking, just a drop-off point. Ms. Connolly explained that she did not know previous enrollment at that time. She explained that the present case is based on maximum numbers. She continued by stating that it may be initially over parked depending on enrollment numbers in the beginning and code requires that information is provided for the most intense use. Marlys Haaland made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-02-08, a request for 1) Variation approval for 16 parking spaces when 17 are required; 2) Variation approval for 78% lot coverage when 75% is the limit; and 3) Conditional Use approval to operate a Day Care Center at 2020 Camp McDonald Road. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers NA YS: None Motion was approved 4-0. After hearing three 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. -,,...'::::...., )~;;V :JV Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\Minutes\PZ.02-o8 2020 Camp McDonanld (51. Dominicks).doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-03-08 Hearing Date: January 24, 2008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1040 W. Northwest Highway PETITIONER: Victor Dziekiewicz, Design Bridge, Ltd PUBLICATION DATE: January 9, 2008 PIN NUMBER: 03-33-407 -025-0000 REQUEST: 1) Rezone from B1 to R2 Attached Single Family 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development 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: Victor Dziekiewicz, Jacob Swindler, Tim Fulk, Barbara Glombowski, Paul Glombowski, Mark Kaitchuck, Jan Ramion, , Lou Sbarboro, Mary Simon, Jean Spejcher 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. After hearing two previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-03-08, a request to Rezone from B1 to R2 attached Single Family and a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development at 1040 W. Northwest Highway, at 8:12 p.m. Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the developer arranged a meeting with interested parties on Monday, January 21, 2008. Therefore, some of the information presented may be adjusted due to this meeting, however the general concepts and the number of units remain the same. She said that the Subject Property is located on the north side of Northwest Highway, between Dale and Forest Avenues. The site currently contains the vacant State Farm office building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned B1 Business Office and is bordered by the RX Single Family District to the north and east, railroad tracks to the south, and by an R2 Attached Single Family Planned Unit Development to the west, the Villas of Sevres. The Villas development has 6.4 units/acre density and received zoning approval in 2002. Ms. Connolly said the Property Owner previously employed another design firm, who appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Village Board, seeking approval of a 17-unit townhome development. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-03-08 Page 2 After making numerous modifications to the project and retaining the services of a different design firm, the Property Owner has submitted plans for a 14-unit townhome development. Ms. Connolly stated that the Subject Property is currently zoned BI Business Office. The Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to R2 Attached Single Family. The R2 district allows a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre for multi-family developments. The Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 6.7 units per acre (14 units/2.08 acres), which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R2 District. Deducting the drive aisle as it is similar to a street, the site measures 1.77 acres, which is 7.9 units per acre. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development for the townhome development. This request is due to the Village Code's requirement that two or more multi-family residential buildings may be located on the same zoning lot only as part of an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD process also allows for unified zoning control over the entire development, which would require formal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed in the future. Ms. Connolly clarified that if the Petitioner wanted to increase the amount of units or change the design, they would need to go before the Village Board for review and approval. Ms. Connolly stated that the site plan illustrates the proposed layout for the 14-unit townhome development. The development would consist of: (2) 4-unit buildings and (2) 3-unit buildings. The Development will be accessed from Northwest Highway and have one means of ingress/egress. The access aisle/driveway that loops throughout the development measures 24-feet wide and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development. The cul-de-sac designs and required fire lane have been reviewed by the Fire Department and found to comply with the Village Code requirements. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's site plan indicates that the project would have approximately 49.9% lot coverage, which is below the 50% limitation. Ms. Connolly said the elevations indicate each building will have peaked roofs and each unit will have a front- loading 2-car garage. The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of stucco, two types of brick, and Renaissance stone. Also, wood decks will be included on the rear elevation of all units. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner's proposal indicates that there will be multiple types of floor plans for the townhomes. Each unit would include at least 3 bedrooms, with some floor plans including a loft. The Village Code requires 2 Y2 parking spaces per dwelling unit (for multiple-family dwellings containing 3 bedrooms or more). The Petitioner's proposal contains a 2-car garage plus two driveway parking spaces per unit. In addition, the Petitioner proposes 14 guest parking spaces to be shared by the development; currently on-street parking is not allowed on Northwest Highway. She said Village's Engineering Division reviewed the feasibility of creating on- street parking along Northwest Highway and found it could be done, subject to IDOT approval and designing the on-street parking in a manner that provides an unobstructed view for a motorist exiting the site. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner did not include this in their proposal, but she wanted to clarify that this could be done per IDOT's approval. Ms. Connolly stated the Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that a variety of new landscaping materials will be planted throughout the development. She mentioned that changes were made due to comments and feedback by the neighbors at the meeting. The Petitioner will review the plan in greater detail during his presentation. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner has submitted preliminary storm water detention plans and is working with the Village Engineer to document that the design will comply with Village Code regulations. A final design is will be submitted as part of the Building Permit process, and the minor comments noted in the Staff report can be addressed at that time as well. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-03-08 Page 3 Ms. Connolly stressed that the proposed development will be subject to all development requirements, as detailed in Section 15.402 of the Village Code. Ms. Connolly addressed comments from a meeting with neighbors. She contacted Public Works and learned that this area is not a known problem area with respect to the sanitary sewer infrastructure. In fact, the area is rated average or better. Also, the Village has been replacing pipes in poor condition. By the end of2008, all pipes in Mount Prospect will have a rating of 3-2-or-l, with 5 being the worst. Ms. Connolly confirmed with the Project Engineer that the new development is creating less impervious surface, which will put less water in the storm system. The Petitioner can go into more detail if need be, but basically the new storm water detention will improve current conditions. Ms. Connolly stated that the property is located along a state highway, on a commercial corridor. It is adjacent to a townhome development (Villas of Sevres), and single family residences. The Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the Subject Property as Single Family Residential, and the development is consistent with a townhome development approved by the Village Board in 2002. Ms. Connolly said the standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.a of the Village Zoning Ordinance. When a Map Amendment is proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to, but not limited to, the following matters: . The compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general area of the property in question; . The compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; . The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed zoning classifications; and . Consistency with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question, and the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. Ms. Connolly stated that the Subject Property is adjacent to an existing townhome development and single-family residences. It would be consistent with recent developments approved in the Village and it would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property. Ms. Connolly said the standards for approving a Planned Unit Development are listed in Section 14.504 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Planned Unit Development. These standards relate to: . The proposed development complies with the regulations of the district or districts in which it is to be located; . 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; . That the proposed Planned Unit Development is in the public interest and is consistent with the purposes of this Zoning Ordinance. . That the streets have been designed to avoid inconvenient or unsafe access to the Planned Unit Development and for the surrounding neighborhood; and that the development does not create an excessive burden on public parks, recreation areas, schools, and other public facilities which serve or are proposed to serve the Planned Unit Development. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-03-08 Page 4 Ms. Connolly stated that the proposal is consistent with the recently updated Comprehensive Land Use Map. Also, the townhomes are in keeping with previously approved redevelopment projects in this area of the Village. The development has been designed in a manner that provides safe access to and from the development. Ms. Connolly said the proposed Map Amendment and Conditional Use requests meet the standards for each request as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve: 1) a Map Amendment to rezone the property from Bl Business Office to R2 Attached Single Family Residence; 2) a Conditional Use permit for a 14-unit townhome Planned Unit Development subject to the following: A. Development of the site in general conformance with the site plan and landscape prepared by Design Bridge, revision date to be confirmed; B. Development of the units in general conformance with the floor plans prepared by Design Bridge, revision date January 14,2008; C. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the site plan prepared by Design Bridge, revision date January 14,2008; D. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall submit a lighting plan that complies with the Village's lighting regulations for the lighting within the development; E. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval; and F. The Petitioner shall construct all units according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: the installation of fire sprinklers, fire hydrants and roads must be located and constructed according to Development and Fire Code standards." Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case, 1040 W. Northwest Highway, Case No. PZ-03-08. Chairman Rogers requested that the building elevation be displayed as it did not match the elevation in his Commission packet. He said there seemed to be some differences as the peak roof and garages look different and that there is no stucco shown on his elevation, it is all brick. Joseph Donnelly suggested that the view on sheet A-I.3 (dated January 14, 2008) is an angle view, this would explain why Chairman Rogers is not able to view the sides. Chairman Rogers said the peaked roofs are not the same. Ms. Connolly checked the materials on sheet A-I.3 and said the Petitioner could discuss why there is possibly a discrepancy in the rendering elevation. Chairman Rogers said there is brick on the projection and stucco on the back wall. Ms. Connolly stated that is correct. Chairman Rogers swore in Victor Dziekiewicz, Principal of Design Bridge, Ltd, 1415 W. Grand Avenue, Chicago, IL, and his assistant, Jacob Swindler, 1232 W. Huron, Chicago, IL. Chairman Rogers asked if there is a different elevation shown in the Staffs presentation than the copy of the elevation provided to the Commission. Mr. Dziekiewicz explained that they should be the same. He said that this development is unique unlike most developments set in rows. The proposed elevation rotated the buildings so Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-03-08 Page 5 they're offset from one another. The 3D view is a clear representation of what will be seen on site. This would be a different than looking head on. Stucco would only be used in a small area; the rest of the sides, front, and back would be two (2) different colors of brick. Chairman Rogers mentioned that this was an innovative design and was surprised in the way everything fit while providing neighbors with some green space. Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that he did review Village tapes of previous meetings and he spent time listening to the things that were said. There is more yard space between the proposed development and the neighbors on the East and West side. He took a cue from Northwest Highway and created the rotation of the site, and he was able to squeeze the development in. The facades facing the neighbors would not just be flat, but would be staggered so there would be a significant amount of expression rather than having just a plain wall. The original proposal included 17 units and he believes 14 is a good compromise for the project to be viable; anything less would not work for his client. Mr. Dziekiewicz briefly discussed the 3D view. There would be 10 "A" units, 2 "B" units, and 2 "C" units. The basic "A" units are a standard 3 bedroom layout. The living day functions on the ground level with parking. The bedrooms would be upstairs. The units contain a 2 car garage with an additional two parking spots on the driveway. The buildings are staggered to create private entryway and each unit faces its own driveway. The "B" and "C" units vary with the option of having the master bedroom on the ground floor. Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that he met with neighbors and wanted to address some of their concerns. He discussed the landscaping and stated that all units would have basements. The escape windows and air conditioning unit would be in the back of the unit, the decks measure 12' x 18'. He also mentioned the circular turn area in the development would be the area for underground detention. He stated that the water on the property would go through a restrictor and would be designed according to the Village requirements and the requirements of dealing with a 100 year storm. Mr. Dziekiewicz said that emergency vehicle access works with the Fire Department equipment. He created a template for the Fire Department to review and it provided ample maneuvering room, meeting Code requirements. Mr. Dziekiewicz reviewed the plan for the existing trees and created a new landscape plan. Concerns were raised from the townhome neighbors to the West, this allowed the Petitioner to change the type of shrubberies. He also stated that trees and bushes would shield the auxiliary parking area for the neighbors. He said that the proposed landscaping will contain more green space that is currently on the property. Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that the setback on the East side is 50 feet; the last proposal was at 40 feet. He also mentioned that there is a 30 foot set back on the West side. He added that the setbacks are greater in this new proposal and asked if any of the Commission members had a question. Chairman Rogers mentioned that there was little landscaping along Northwest Highway. He said more parkway trees were needed along with more landscaping in the 30 foot setback. Ms. Connolly mentioned that the Village would require that trees be planted, by the Village, on the parkway at the developer's expense. The trees would be planted during the spring or fall Village planting schedule. Mr. Donnelly asked what the price range is on the townhomes. Mr. Dziekiewicz said between the low $500,000s and middle $600,000s. Mr. Donnelly mentioned that part of the PUD requires that there has to be a benefit to the community, he asked Staff how this requirement was met. Ms. Connolly said that in the past, Petitioners have been allowed to make a donation to the Park District for improvements to a local park. She asked that the Petitioner have this benefit prepared prior to the Village Board meeting. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-03-08 Page 6 Mr. Donnelly noticed that the rear setback requirement for R2 is 25 feet and the proposed setback is 20 feet. He wanted to know if we needed to include this as part of the amendment; Ms. Connolly said she would look into this. Mr. Donnelly stated that this set back was indicated on a chart in the Staff report on page 4. Mr. Donnelly continued and referred to page A-1.0 of the Petitioner's packet. He asked if the 14th parking space is handicap or if the parking is 14 plus one additional handicap space. Jacob Swindler confirmed there are 14 spaces; they had to remove a handicap space due to the lot coverage limitation requirements. Mr. Donnelly asked the Petitioner to adjust the exhibits accordingly. Ms. Connolly advised that she received e-mails from the neighbors and stated that they were included in the Commission's packet. Chairman Rogers confirmed that these would be submitted into the records. Chairman Rogers swore in Mary Simon, Vice President for the Homeowner's Association, 803 W. Isabella, Mount Prospect, IL. Ms. Simon stated that she is representing the association and its concerns. She stated that she met with the Petitioner on Monday, January 21 and mentioned that the Petitioner has only covered a few items. She said that the first zoning change on the property was for State Farm and now there is a request to have the zoning changed again to multi-family units that use to be ~ acre lots. She stated that prior to State Farm, the whole neighborhood was zoned RX Single Family. Ms. Simon's biggest concern is density. She said that in the past, there were 17 units proposed and that the Village Board said that was too much. She mentioned that the Village Board said the highest amount it would allow on the site would be 14. She agreed with the previous mention of 12 units or under, 14 units are too many. Ms. Simon feels that the Village is using the townhomes (Villas) to the West as precedent for the area. She feels that multi-family developments are going to continue in the area based on previous cases. She said that when the Villas were built, only one property was affected. This proposal directly affects nine homes and the entire neighborhood. She is concerned with the storm sewers and water. Water is backed up all the time and the neighborhood was built over a creek. She said sump pumps are constantly going off and fears the addition of 14 townhomes (laundry, dishes, toilets, bath, etc.) would tax the system. Ms. Simon told the Petitioner that she is still confused on the location of the windows, and location of the air conditioning units. She also said the last time this property went to Village Board that the Police Department wanted a fence. A fence is not addressed in this proposal and she is confused by what the Village wants. Other concerns included snow removal and where would cars be placed if all the parking spaces were filled. She states that extra cars would park in the neighborhood with people cutting through yards. Ms. Simon said she learned that the storm water goes through the neighborhood as IDOT does not allow it to go to Northwest Highway. She said the plans on the garages included a 19' x 19' size. She spoke with an architectural student and questioned what size a garage should be. She found out that the minimum size should be 20' x 22' and stated that the Petitioner is making the smallest garage to say it's a 2-car garage. She has additional concerns on the real estate market, and believes that a couple units may sell and fears the remaining would become rentals. Ms. Simon calculated the lot coverage on her own by using the buildings, decks, and parking spaces. She came up with 50% coverage and wants the numbers that the Petitioner provided to be checked. Ms. Simon disagrees that this development is compatible with the neighborhood. She briefly discussed the elevations and what the neighbors would eventually see from their point-of-view. She concluded by stating that this new proposal is much better than what was submitted in the past, but still believes that 14 units is too dense and it will be a detriment to the neighborhood. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-03-08 Page 7 Chairman Rogers wanted to clarify the lot coverage. Ms. Connolly said the calculations are based on the Petitioner's information and her understanding is the road is included when figuring out lot coverage; she asked the Petitioner to verify. Mr. Dziekiewicz says that he is able to accurately measure lot coverage with today's computer technology, and that 49.9% is correct. Ms. Simon said that she is confused because she added the square footage of every building and ended up with 50%. She also wanted to clarify an error stating that page A- 1.0 in the Petitioner's packet contains an error, this page states that there are 12 "A" units as opposed to the correct number of 10. Mr. Dziekiewicz confirmed that square footage is dimensional as it would include the 2nd story, etc. Ms. Simon said she now understood the Petitioner's calculations. Chairman Rogers swore in Tim Fulk, 1003 Isabella, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Fulk stated his property backs up to the proposed location and has been following the project since previous proposals at neighborhood meetings. He said that it is difficult to develop the site. According to Mr. Fulk, other townhome developments that have been approved have never been to 7 single family homes in the RX zoning district. He discussed the possibility of having 11 or 12 units as this would increase the distance from the lot lines and create more green space. Mr. Fulk concluded by stating that he wants quality and not quantity, and he urged the developer to build fewer units. Chairman Rogers swore in Paul Glombowski, 206 MacArthur, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Glombowski wanted to reinforce some of the objections that were discussed by his neighbors. He is concerned with the proposed development being surrounded by the RX zoning. He said the current proposed property does not have a pass through access road like the adjacent townhomes (the Villas). The proposed site is landlocked. He forecasted a worst case scenario in which parking over busy holidays would obstruct emergency response equipment. He disagrees that there is adequate turning room for emergency vehicles. Mr. Glombowski stated that the Fire Department was doing drills last summer on the State Farm site. He advised them not to spray water as the lot would fill up as it does not drain fast. He mentioned that there is currently a restrictor that services the Northwest Meadows Association. He believes that this is plugged up as it fills up fast and drains slower than a 2.5 inch restrictor would normally allow. Mr. Glombowski also disagrees with the Public Works assessment stating that the sewer and sanitary lines are average or better. He stated that the additional taxing on the 50 year old system would cause expensive repairs and believes that Staff and the Commission should talk to Public Works. Ms. Connolly clarified that she spoke with the Water Superintendent, who stated that they are currently working on a spot repair program, where Public Works is lining four to five miles of sewer a year. This is a CIP project with over $3 million spent to correct worst case scenarios. They use a scale of 1-5 to classify the condition of the pipes with 3,2,1 (average to best) and 4's and 5's are the worst. Public Works projects there will be no pipes worse than a 3 by the end of 2008. Chairman Rogers asked when the Villas were built, he said the water went to through the neighborhood. Mr. Glombowski advised no. He said the sewer from State Farm goes directly through his property. Chairman Rogers asked again where does the water run from the Villas? Mr. Glombowski said down Dale Avenue (the other direction from the surrounding neighborhood). Mr. Glombowski continued by stating that with the storm last summer, there was a lot of water overflowing at the State Farm building. He said most of the storm water was absorbed by the surrounding properties with the exception of one neighbor. Chairman Rogers clarified that there would be more green space on the proposed property than the current amount. Mr. Glombowski stated that he is aware of the change, but not certain it will do its job and has his doubts. Mr. Glombowski concluded by stating that the Staff recommends that this proposal be accepted, and he disagrees vigorously. Ms. Simon mentioned Meadows Pool and the giant basin that was installed to catch the water. She stated that they had to re-design the parking lot to be a retention basis. She wanted to know if these 14 units had the same problem. What would be done to fix it? She said the site is landlocked and wanted to know what the Petitioner would do. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-03-08 Page 8 Chairman Rogers swore in Lou Sbarboro, 702 French Way, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Sbarboro said he is concerned with parking. He never heard anything about anyone seeking to put parking on Northwest Highway. He briefly discussed his safety concerns with traffic turning onto Northwest Highway and was surprised to hear that this subject came up. Chairman Rogers said this is not an option being proposed, but he does know people are looking into this is as a possibility, and he understood Mr. Sbarboro's concerns. Mr. Donnelly stated that he drove through the Villas and asked where the homeowners park extra cars when residents have parties. He noticed that there isn't substantial parking on their property. Mr. Sbarboro said that the subdivision is a unique situation; families allow others to park on each others' driveways and it all works out. Chairman Rogers swore in Jean Spejcher, 202 MacArthur, Mount Prospect, IL. She stated that her backyard has the largest impact to the proposed development. Her concern is about the water and she stated that she does understand that there will be more green space. She said with the addition of 14 units, there is going to be more need for the water to be absorbed. She concluded by stating that the proposed development will have higher needs and feels there will be an imbalance in the current system. Chairman Rogers asked if there were any other questions from the audience. Hearing none, he asked the Petitioner to address questions raised by the neighbors. He asked the Petitioner what they have done to protect the homeowners: Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that the parking lot would be its own detention pad. Currently, there is a substantial non-permeable surface. He suggested that the current restrictor on the site may not be working. He tried to maximize the side yard spaces so that they could be as far away from the homes as possible, and they also created as much green space as possible. Mr. Dziekiewicz also wanted to clarify and separate the sewer system and the water detention system, even though they will eventually connect. He said that they are considered separate from an engineering stand point. The vault and inlets are designed for a storm. Storm water will eventually end up in the system, but the vault was built to allow it to enter the system at a slower rate. Mr. Dziekiewicz said by creating a great amount of permeable space, the significant amount of rain water will go away as it was intended to if there was no development at all. When storage for natural percolation would not be sufficient, that is when the inlets would take over and water runs into the storm system vault. The water would be contained on-site and would flow at a rate it is intended to be compatible with a 100 year storm. There was brief discussion on water that would enter the sewer system. Chairman Rogers mentioned the biggest problem seems to be storm water. He asked the Petitioner how much acreage feet is in the vault. Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that his engineer was not at the hearing, but the overall size of the vault is 21,800 cubic feet. Based on the plans, the vault looks like it measures 60' x 50'. Chairman Rogers asked ifthe poured concrete vault could be increased by 25% more than what is required. There was a brief discussion about possibly increasing the size of the vault by 25%. Mr. Dziekiewicz said he would need to discuss this with his Civil Engineer, but would consider increasing the size of the vault if there was a valid need to do so. Chairman Rogers said increasing the vault size would allow water to stay on the site for a longer period of time. Chairman Rogers asked about the 19' x 19' size of the garage stating that 20' x 20' is usually the minimum size. Mr. Dziekiewicz stated that he has a 19' x 19' garage and it works out fine. Mr. Donnelly asked to confirm that there was a separate area in the garage for garbage and recycling containers. The Petitioner stated that there is an area for the containers and it is not included in the 19' x 19' dimension. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-03-08 Page 9 Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner about snow removal. Mr. Dziekiewicz replied that the homeowners' association documents could be written to require off-site snow removal. Chairman Rogers asked if this could be made a requirement; the Petitioner agreed to the condition. Mr. Donnelly asked if the Police Department required a fence, he stated that the Developer would have to install due to specifications provided by the association. Mr. Dziekiewicz asked Staff if they knew if a fence was required or not. Ms. Connolly said that the Police made a recommendation for a fence with the last proposal as a way to deter crime or a cut through. They did not make this comment this time. Ms. Connolly questioned if the Police Department did not address this matter on this submittal since neighbors strongly objected to a fence last time. Mr. Donnelly said he remembered the discussion. Mr. Dziekiewicz said if a fence would be required, it would be installed. Chairman Rogers asked for a motion to include the increase of the storm sewer detention be increased by approximately 25%. Mr. Donnelly added in the benefit for the community. Ms. Connolly repeated the additional conditions of approval: A. Install additional landscaping along Northwest Highway; B. Note a 20-foot rear setback; C. Identify the public benefit before Village Board review; D. Increase the storm vault capacity by 25%; and E. Require the association to remove snow off site. Ms. Connolly asked if anything else needed to be added. Mr. Donnelly asked about the fence requirement; Ms. Connolly stated that she would confirm with the Police Department. Chairman Rogers said the consensus with the Petitioner and neighbors is no fence, which he supports. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-03-08, the rezoning of 1040 Northwest Highway from B 1 to R2 attached single family and to approve a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development with the conditions listed in the Staff Report and the additional conditions agreed upon tonight and just noted by Staff, for the property located at 1040 W. Northwest Highway, Case No. PZ-03-08; Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Haaland, Rogers NAYS: Roberts Motion was approved 3-1. After hearing two 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. (..../'1 .J,'/ ./ :'~',' /> .<::.//':;;1 Ryan Kas(, 'Comn:unityDevelopment Administrative Assistant "-;5\.) H:\PLAN\Planning &. Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\Minutes\PZ-03-08 to40 W. Northwest Hwy,doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-04-08 Hearing Date: January 24, 2008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1042 S. Elmhurst Road PETITIONER: Doyle Signs PUBLICATION DATE: January 9, 2008 PIN NUMBER: 08-14-204-023-0000 REQUEST: Variation - additional wall sign MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Keith Youngquist ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Andrew Skic, Building Inspector Ryan Kast, Administrative Assistant INTERESTED PARTIES: John E. Streetz, US Bank 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. After hearing three previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-04-08, a request for a Variation for an additional wall sign at 1042 S. Elmhurst Road, at 9:23 p.m. Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, said the Subject Property is located on the west side of Elmhurst Road, between Golf and Huntington Commons Roads, and contains the Golf II Shopping Plaza with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned B3 Community Shopping and is bordered by the Bl Office District and Rl Single Family Zoning District to the north and west, a B3 Community Shopping Planned Unit Development and a R4 Multi-Family Planned Unit Development to the south, and a commercial/retail center located in Des Plaines to the east. Ms. Connolly stated the Petitioner proposes to install an additional wall sign for the US Bank facility located inside the Dominick's grocery store. However, Sec. 7.305.B.l of the Sign Code allows only one wall sign per establishment, unless there is a separate entrance from the exterior of the building. There are currently four wall signs on this elevation that relate to the grocery store. Dominick's previously received relief from the Village's Sign Code for the existing multiple wall signs and does not propose to eliminate any of those signs to accommodate the proposed US Bank sign. Therefore, they are seeking a Variation for the proposed US Bank wall sign. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-04-08 Page 2 Ms. Connolly said that the shopping center has an expansive elevation along Elmhurst Road and measures over 850 linear feet. Multiple tenants occupy the center with the Dominick's elevation measuring more than 250 linear feet. The sign band area that the proposed US Bank sign would be located is recessed from the Dominick's elevation and measures 25.65' x 14' (359.51 sq. ft.). The proposed US Bank wall sign measures 10.7' x 2.75' (29.5 sq. ft.) and would cover approximately 8% of the recessed area. Ms. Connolly stated that the required findings for sign variations are contained in Section 7.725 of the Village of Mount Prospect Sign Code. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation and relate to: · The sign allowed under code regulations will not reasonably identify the establishment; · 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. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner notes in their application that the wall sign is needed to identify the US Bank facility inside the Dominick's grocery store. Staff discussed installing a window sign, which is permitted by the Sign Code. However, the Petitioner determined a window sign would be too small, provide minimal exposure, and would be difficult to see because the building was setback more than 300-feet from Elmhurst Road. Ms. Connolly stated in the past, the Village has granted relief for a similar request for 1 sl Chicago when it located inside the former Dominick's located at Mt. Prospect Plaza (SRB-05-98). Also, the area for the proposed sign could be considered its own signable area because the area is recessed from the Dominick's elevation and the architectural character of the sign area could be interpreted as its own store frontage. Therefore, the request is in keeping with the intent of the Sign Code: one wall sign per street frontage. Ms. Connolly said based on the above analysis, the proposed sign meets the standards for a Variation as listed in Section 7.725 of the Village's Sign Code. Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow an additional wall sign for US Bank, as shown on the Petitioner's exhibit prepared by MC Sign Company date stamped January 17, 2008 for the property at 1042 S. Elmhurst Road." Ms. Connolly stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers confirmed with Staff that the bank is operating inside the grocery store. He asked if the sign was approved, could the Commission make it contingent on the bank operating within the store so if they do not operate in the store then the sign has to be removed. Ms. Connolly said that they could make it a condition of Variation approval. Chairman Rogers stated that this sign is only for US Bank, not for any other sign. Ms. Connolly asked what would happen if the bank merged and obtained another name; Chairman Rogers said a bank name change was permissible, but he cannot support another sign for the grocery store. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-04-08 Page 3 Joseph Donnelly asked if the sign is going to go where it is in the Petitioner's drawing and not where the temporary banner is currently located. Ms. Connelly confirmed that the drawing location is where the sign will be placed. Chairman Rogers swore in John E. Streetz, 232 Interstate, Addison, IL. Mr. Streetz said that he has requested a Variance for an additional sign at 1042 S. Elmhurst Road so US Bank could be properly identified on the exterior of the building. The sign itself is a set of individual channeled letters with neon illumination reading US Bank in their red, white, and blue colors. These are individually mounted. Mr. Streetz said he agrees with the Staff recommendation for the approval of the Variation and reiterated some of the comments made in the Staff summary . Chairman Rogers clarified for the Petitioner that the Variation would be exclusive to US Bank or any succeeding banks, and that the Variation is not applicable to signage for the grocery store. Mr. Streetz stated that this is something he could agree to. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 9:32 p.m. Ronald Roberts made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-04-08, a request for a Variation for an additional wall sign subject to the sign being used only for a bank located inside the grocery store, at 1042 S. Elmhurst Road. Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0. After hearing one additional case, 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. ;"/,/ / /..:~~~~::;t/' .. /~,l:';:~j;,':l~ ;' Ryan Kas( Community Development Administrative Assistant H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&.z 2008\Minutes\PZ-04..Q8 1042 S. Elmhurst Road (Wall Sign).doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-05-08 Hearing Date: January 24, 2008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1750 Azalea Place PETITIONERS: Larry and Joan Schrambeck PUBLICATION DATE: January 9, 2008 PIN NUMBER: 03-25-303-027 -0000 REQUEST: Variation - second driveway MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Keith Youngquist ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Andrew Skic, Building Inspector Ryan Kast, Administrative Assistant INTERESTED PARTIES: Larry Schrambeck, Joan Schrambeck, Garry Schrambeck, David Gates, Sheila Gates, Bob Guthrie, Chris Guthrie, Rosemarie Kern, Ted Kern, Phil Leong, Chris McLaughin, Marcy Mueller, Ron Mueller, Steve Vels, Frederick Brill 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. After hearing four previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-05-08, a request for a Variation for a second driveway at 1750 Azalea Place, at 9:32 p.m. Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the west side of Basswood Lane, between Euclid A venue and Azalea Place, and contains a single family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single Family and is bordered by the Rl District on all sides. The Subject Property was developed under Cook County jurisdiction and annexed into Mount Prospect in the early 1970s. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner currently parks a recreational vehicle on a gravel pad, located in the backyard along Basswood Lane. Sec. 14.2209 of the Village Code allows recreational vehicles to be parked in a residential district but only if the vehicle is parked on an approved driveway or parking pad; gravel is not an approved surface and not permitted. Staff learned of the gravel pad during a Systematic Inspection and contacted the Petitioner about removing the gravel pad. The Petitioner proposes to install a second driveway to park the vehicle on in order to comply with Village regulations. However, Sec. 14.2215 of the Village Code allows only one Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-05-08 Page 2 driveway per lot. As the Petitioner already has a driveway in the front of the house on Azalea Place, Variation approval is required for the second driveway on Basswood Lane. Ms. Connolly showed a table that compared the Petitioner's proposal to the Rl single family residence district's bulk requirements. It showed that the subject property complies with the Village's Zoning Regulations, with the exception of the gravel pad. Ms. Connolly stated that Staff reviewed old aerial photos and could not determine when the gravel was installed. In conversations with the Petitioner, Staff learned the gravel was laid around 1976. Also, the Village does not have a record of construction for a gravel pad. Since the gravel pad was installed without the benefit of a permit and it was constructed after the property was annexed into Mount Prospect, it is not considered a legal non-conformity and is not allowed to remain. Ms. Connolly said that the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. Ms. Connolly summarized these findings: · 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 proposes to install a curb cut and driveway on Basswood Lane and construct a driveway in lieu of the existing gravel pad. The recreational vehicle would be parked on an approved surface, which would comply with Village Codes. Prior to applying for the Variation, the Petitioner researched alternatives such as parking the vehicle in front of the house on the existing driveway. They found that the vehicle may extend over the sidewalk, and that the vehicle would be highly visible in this location. They researched selling the vehicle, but found that option to be financially prohibitive. They also contacted storage facilities to determine whether it was feasible to park the vehicle off-site. They found the cost to be somewhat significant, but another consideration was the inadequate level of security the facilities provide. Based on this, the Petitioner opted to apply for the Variation for the second driveway. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's application included a petition signed by several neighbors and an email from a neighbor, both supporting the Petitioner's request, and the email noting how minimal of an impact the driveway would have on the neighborhood. However, Staff found that the request for a second driveway was not based on a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, but would serve as a convenience to the Petitioner. Staff appreciates the Petitioner's desire to store the vehicle on-site, which is permitted by Village Code, but in order to do so, a second driveway is needed, requiring relief from the Village's Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner has taken considerable steps to screen the vehicle in this location and would modify the surface it is parked on, but the lot is typical of most lots in the Village, and the request would not be unique to the Subject Property. Ms. Connolly stated based on this analysis, the Variation request for a second driveway fails to meet the standards for a Variation as listed in the Village's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission denv the following motion: "To approve a Variation allowing a second driveway be installed off of Basswood Lane as shown on the Petitioner's exhibit date stamped January 17,2008, for the property at 1750 Azalea Place." Ms. Connolly said the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-05-08 Page 3 Joseph Donnelly asked if a circular driveway was considered with a drive to the backyard so the RV could be parked on the side of the house while being fenced in. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner wanted to screen the vehicle as much as possible and that is why they wanted to keep it in the current location. The Petitioner did consider selling the current vehicle and purchasing a smaller RV to park on the driveway, but there was concern that the neighbors would see it as an eyesore. Chairman Rogers said he would be concerned if the RV was parked on the side of the house as the entire vehicle as opposed to only seeing the front. Further discussion continued whether or not the entire side of the RV could be seen from Euclid. Chairman Rogers swore in Garry Schrambeck, 2205 Oak Leaf Lane, Lake Villa, IL. Mr. Schrambeck was speaking on behalf of his parents', the Petitioners. Mr. Schrambeck stated that they are asking for a Variation to install a second driveway with access from Basswood Lane into the backyard of the residence. Currently, there is a gravel pad that is neat and free of weeds. The Petitioners have parked RV vehicles since 1975 and have never received one complaint from neighbors or Village employees. The location of the residence is within a few blocks of the Village Manager and several trustees who have never filed complaints. Mr. Schrambeck said in the summer of 2007, they were informed that his parents were in violation of Code 14.2209 that took effect in 1993. They called for an inspector and met with Robert Roels. According to Mr. Schrambeck, Mr. Roels stated that the backyard was kept nice and neat and believed there would be no reason why the gravel pad would not be grandfathered in since it has been there since 1975. He said Mr. Roels would provide a follow-up after speaking with his boss. He stated Mr. Roels would ask for this RV be grandfathered for the next 10-15 years and the next homeowner would not be granted use. Mr. Schrambeck said no response ever came from the Village. He stated that the Petitioners are not refusing to put in a second driveway to conform to Village Code. They are willing to pay for this major out-of-pocket expense. Mr. Schrambeck said a second driveway would require a second depression, but only one depression is allowed per Village Code. He has spotted several homes in the neighborhood that contain a second depression (circular driveway). He said the Petitioners' RV should not be an issue due to all the depressions. He continued by stating that the RV is on the road most of the year. Over the past 36 years, the Petitioners have never been in violation of any Village Codes and they're not ready to start now. Mr. Schrambeck continued by stating the Petitioners should be grandfathered in and be granted approval installing a second driveway. Parking the RV in the front of the home would be an eyesore and it would also block the viewing of a bus stop for neighbors. He said that they have letters and a petition from 25 neighbors stating that the RV should be left where it is at. The Petitioners have explored the options of storing the RV off site, but the cost, security, and loading/unloading process would take its toll on the Petitioners. Mr. Schrambeck said that several Village inspectors have been to the house over the years regarding the fence and shed, but nothing has been said about the RV. He said the Petitioners have not kept the RV a secret from the Village as a vehicle sticker has been purchased over the past 32 years. Mr. Schrambeck concluded by stating that this would be a travesty if the Petitioners lost this RV at this point in their life. Chairman Rogers asked that if the Petitioners were willing to make a permanent parking pad that contained concrete or asphalt and would run it to the street if allowed. Mr. Schrambeck agreed. Chairman Rogers said he saw the property with the gate. He stated that the RV could be seen, but it is not intrusive. He said something needs to be unique in order for a hardship. Chairman Rogers said the property is unique being bordered by three streets: Euclid, Basswood, and Azalea. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-05-08 Page 4 Chairman Rogers swore in Ronald Mueller, 1780 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Mueller said he has resided at this address for 36 years and stated that the RV is concealed. He stated that the second driveway is not a bad idea, but it would lower the value of the home. He said the gravel pad has been maintained by the Petitioners and cannot be seen from the street. He concluded by stating the property and the motor home are both well maintained by the Petitioners. Chairman Rogers swore in Robert Guthrie, 1784 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Guthrie has resided at this address for 16.5 years. He said the RV is not an eyesore and he has never had a problem. He does not understand why a second driveway cannot be installed. Chairman Rogers swore in Frederick Brill, 1762 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Brill stated that he wrote a letter to the Commission. He stated that the Petitioners have been able to drive over the parkway all these years without damaging it. He said the Petitioners maintain the parkway. He does not see gravel and mentioned that there use to be trees along Basswood Lane that would hide the RV even more. These trees were diseased and eventually removed by the Village. He hopes that the Petitioners could be grandfathered in with a cement or asphalt pad without a driveway to the street and cutting of the curb. Mr. Brill concluded by stating that if a second driveway was installed, this would create a loss of parking on Basswood and would detract the beauty of an unbroken parkway. Chairman Rogers said that a driveway would be required. He said that they can't allow the Petitioners to continue driving over the grass and the curb. He realizes that the Petitioners have done a great job maintaining the parkway without any damage. Chairman Rogers swore in Chris McLaughin, 1756 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. She said she hopes this case could be grandfathered in. She is concerned with the safety if a second driveway is built. She stated that cars would use the driveway apron as a quick turnaround. Ms. McLaughin also mentioned that if the RV was on the front driveway, it would block her view of the bus stop for her children. Chairman Rogers asked if there were any provisions to take action on grandfathering the existing conditions. Ms. Connolly said no because of the way the case was published and the actual request. She said the request came in for a second driveway, not to grandfather in the gravel pad. Ms. Connolly stated that she has reviewed this case with the Petitioners. The Village Code gradually evolved over time from requiring a parking pad to be a dustless hard surface, no gravel and no clay, to where it arrived to today requiring concrete, pavers, or asphalt. Ms. Connolly said she discussed gravel pads with Public Works and they stated that gravel has been a problem over the years in the storm sewers. She appreciates the Petitioners being diligent in maintaining the parkway, but the Village cannot allow one person to be the exception, as ruts in the parkway are a significant property maintenance issue. Mr. Donnelly asked what year the property was annexed into the Village. Ms. Connolly confirmed the year was 1971 and she was told that the pad was installed in 1976. She said Staff could not grandfather this in because the pad did not exist when the property was annexed. Discussion continued amongst the Commission and Staff regarding the grandfathering option. Mr. Donnelly asked if there could be a Conditional Use on disabilities. Ms. Connolly replied that a condition of approval could be placed on a Variation. Mr. Donnelly said he would like to leave the property the way it is; Ronald Roberts agreed with Mr. Donnelly. Mr. Roberts stated that the Schram becks sound like wonderful people and neighbors. He continued by stating that a driveway would be there forever and a hardship would decrease the property value. He would like to find a way for the Petitioners not to install a second driveway. The way the case is written is to approve a second driveway, Mr. Rogers said he would vote to approve this. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-05-08 Page 5 Mr. Donnelly asked if they can hold off voting tonight and have the Petitioners come back with a new proposal. He wanted to know if republishing was an option. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioners could withdraw this case and submit another application. Mr. Roberts suggested that the Commission vote on the second driveway and the Petitioners could always change their plan within a certain limit of time. Ms. Connolly confirmed that the Variation is good for one year. Mr. Donnelly asked what recourse the Petitioners would have if the Commission voted on the second driveway. Ms. Connolly said that she could talk to the Village attorney about grandfathering, but as she understood the issue, there was no basis to grandfather the parking pad in as it was not there when the property was annexed. Chairman Rogers said he cannot support allowing the Petitioners to drive over the parkway, it has to be an approved surface. Mr. Roberts stated that the Commission is approving one option for the Petitioners, a second driveway. He stated that the Petitioners could seek other options. Mr. Roberts continued by mentioning that the Planning and Zoning Commission does not have the authority to say whether or not the Petitioners can drive over the parkway. He said the case being presented is for a second driveway, whether they implement this option is up to the Petitioners or the Village Board to decided. Mr. Donnelly asked if the driveway could only be where the tires are, so the driveway would not have to be the whole width. Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Code allows paving strips. There was general discussion regarding if paving strips were present, there would be less likelihood for cars to use as a turnaround. Mr. Schrambeck wanted clarification that the Petitioners could just do strips for the tires rather than do a complete apron. Further discussion involved grandfathering in the RV and the 1993 Zoning Code. Ms. Connolly stated that the 1993 Zoning Code was updated to create provisions for RVs to be parked in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Donnelly followed up this point by stating before 1993, the Village Code did not have provisions for parking RVs in residential neighborhoods. The Petitioner, Larry Schrambeck, stated that he put in a gravel pad without a permit because he thought it was not a permanent structure as it could be removed at anytime. This was the ruling in Niles, where Mr. Schrambeck worked, and he thought he did not need a permit in Mount Prospect. Gary Schrambeck said if the second driveway is approved this evening on an approved surface, it would include the strips. Ms. Connolly stated that the parallel paved strips are an approved alternative by code. However, the curb cut/depression would still be required. Further discussion involved whether or not the strips could go into the backyard. Also, it was stated that the gravel pad would still have to be removed. Ms. Connolly confirmed that they are not reviewing the materials, as those requirements are defined in Chapters 15 and 16 in the Development Code, the case presented tonight is just for the second driveway. The Petitioners could go back and revisit the paving materials after Village Board approved the second driveway. Mr. Donnelly suggested if the Petitioners create a paved surface in the backyard to market this as a patio. If strips were placed, they would have to be removed upon the sale of the home. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-05-08 Page 6 Chairman Rogers asked Ms. Connolly if the Code allows paving bricks that allows the grass to grow through as an approved material. Ms. Connolly said she would have to check with Engineering as brick pavers are allowed in the right-of-way. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 10:07 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion that the Commission approve the second driveway with the condition that the driveway apron be removed upon sale ofthe property; Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers NAYS: None 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. r . . .,/?~;~.;.'./- Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\Minules\PZ-05-08 1750 Azalea Place (Var-2nd Driveway).doc