Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/24/2023 P&Z MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -11-23 Hearing Date: August 24, 2023 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 555 Business Center Drive PETITIONERS: Aaron Bruder of CAGE Civil Engineering Daniel Novak (Property Owner) PUBLICATION DATE: August 09, 2023 REQUEST: Variation to the Parking Lot Setback Requirement MEMBERS PRESENT: William Beattie Thomas Fitzgerald Walter Szymczak Donald Olsen Ewa Weir Greg Miller MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly Norbert Mizwicki STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Choi — Development Planner Mo Khan — Development Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Aaron Bruder of CAGE Civil Engineering Daniel Novak (Property Owner) Vice Chairman Beattie called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Weir to approve the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on July 27, 2023. The minutes were approved 5-0 (Commissioner Fitzgerald abstained). Vice Chairman Beattie introduced the first item of business: Case PZ -11-23, 555 Business Center Drive, a request for a variation to the parking lot setback at the subject property. Ms. Choi exhibited aerial photos of the property from several exterior perspectives. Ms. Choi explained that the Petitioner's request was to reduce the parking lot setback from 10 feet to 2 feet for the proposed widening of an existing driveway. Ms. Choi stated that the subject property is located in the Kensington Business Center at the terminus of Wheeling Road and Business Center Drive. Ms. Choi added that the subject property was annexed into the Village in 1963 and includes improvements of a one-story warehouse that is accessed by two driveways. Ms. Choi noted that there have been several building permits issued to the property since 1979 for signs, interior remodels, plumbing, roof, electrical, and fire sprinklers. Ms. Choi stated that the property is owned by 555 Business Center Drive LLC and serves as a distribution center for Novak & Partners Home Appliances. Ms. Choi explained that Novak & Partners Home Appliances have a Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting—August 24, 2023 PZ -11-23 storefront on Northwest Highway, have been in Mount Prospect since 1963, and have been a family- owned business for over 100 years. Ms. Choi elaborated that the Petitioner is also requesting minor modifications to the parking and loading. Ms. Choi exhibited a photo of the demolition plan, illustrating the removal of existing retaining walls and curbs, areas of asphalt pavement removal, milling and overlay for the entire parking lot, and restriping the parking spaces to improve the site's internal circulation. Ms. Choi explained that the existing driveway to the south has a sub -standard driveway width of less than 24 ft, and that the existing parking lot setbacks along the south lot line range from 11 feet to 14.7 feet. Ms. Choi stated that the Petitioner proposed to widen the driveway to 46 feet, and to reduce the parking lot setback to 2 feet along the south lot line. Ms. Choi added that drive aisles which extend more than 24 feet in width must be approved by the Director of Community Development, and that the Director has reviewed and approved the widening of the driveway to 46 feet. Ms. Choi displayed a photo of the subject property along the south lot line, and explained that the driveway would be widened toward the right. Ms. Choi explained that, per the Petitioner, the existing hardship has been in place since the initial property development in 1981, and that the present hardship has been perceived by previous property owners. Ms. Choi explained that the current configuration of the driveway makes it difficult for delivery vehicles to navigate the site. Ms. Choi stated that the granting of the variation would not detrimentally affect the public welfare or other properties in the surrounding area, as the use of the subject property would not be materially changed, and would improve the maneuverability for delivery vehicles for improved safety and enhanced access to the property. Ms. Choi added that, per the Petitioner, the variation would also improve potential congestion on Business Center Drive, by increasing the ease of access by large delivery vehicles. Ms. Choi added that the variation is not anticipated to affect the light, air, natural drainage, or property values of the area. Ms. Choi stated that a similar variation — to permit a reduction in the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 4 feet — was approved in 1999 via Ordinance No. 5068, but that construction was never initiated and that the ordinance has since expired. Ms. Choi explained that staff does not believe that the reduced parking lot setback would have an adverse effect on the public or adjacent properties. Ms. Choi added that the neighboring properties are similar in intensity as the subject property. Ms. Choi noted that other departments reviewed the Petitioner's proposal and did not object to the variation. Ms. Choi stated that the proposed site improvements will be reviewed as part of the building permit and will be subject to all Village codes. Ms. Choi noted that the reduced parking lot setback will not be a detriment or endanger the welfare of the general public and will improve the existing site circulation. Ms. Choi stated that staff finds that the standards for variation have been met. Based on these findings, staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff's findings as the findings of the Planning & Zoning Commission and recommend approval of the following motion: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting—August 24, 2023 PZ -11-23 "A variation from Section 14.2206(E)(1)(a) to permit a parking lot setback reduction from ten feet (10') to two feet (2') along the south lot line, as shown on the plans prepared by CAGE Civil Engineering, dated 07/27/2023, and subject to the following condition: a) Compliance with all applicable Village Code requirements, including, but not limited to, fire code and building regulations." Ms. Choi stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Vice Chairman Beattie asked if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Weir asked how the increase in impervious area would impact the lot coverage. Ms. Choi answered that properties in 1-1 zoning district are permitted to have 75% lot coverage, and that including this variation, the subject property would still be well below maximum lot coverage. Commissioner Weir asked if there were any improvements that the property owner would need to make for landscaping or other current codes. Ms. Choi answered that there are no other improvements needed on the subject property at this time. Vice Chairman Beattie asked whether or not the property to the south of the subject property is also industrial. Ms. Choi confirmed that the property to the south of the subject property is also industrial. Vice Chairman Beattie asked if there would be any issues with drainage due to increased lot coverage on the subject property. Ms. Choi confirmed that the subject property is well under lot coverage, so drainage will not be an issue, and that the Public Works Department has reviewed the plan and that there were no issues related to drainage that arose from their department's review. Commissioner Weir asked how close the parking lot would be from the property owner to the south of the subject property and if there was any concern about the overhang of the cars from the subject property's proposed parking lot. Ms. Choi answered that the standard parking space is 9' by 18' and that there is usually allowance for a 2 feet overhang, so the cars would be 2 feet from the property line, and therefore there would be no issues with cars' overhang. Vice Chairman Beattie asked if there were any other comments or questions and there were none. Vice Chairman Beattie swore in the Petitioners, Aaron Bruder, Director of Engineering with CAGE Civil Engineering, 2200 Cabot Drive, Lisle, IL, and Daniel Novak, property owner, 302 N. Russel Street, Mount Prospect, IL. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting—August 24, 2023 PZ -11-23 4 Vice Chairman Beattie asked the Petitioners to explain what they are looking to do with the subject property. Mr. Bruder stated that Ms. Choi provided a very thorough explanation of the request. He added that the main issue is that the driveway is not wide enough on the south side of the building to be able to safely move trucks in and out of the parking lot. Mr. Novak explained that under current conditions, trucks are having to back into the site off the street, so traffic is blocked on Business Center Drive. Mr. Novak added that if trucks try to make it into the site from the parking lot, they go over the berm so the berm is damaged because of that. Vice Chairman Beattie asked to clarify that if the driveway is widened, that the trucks will be able to directly enter the site instead of backing in. Mr. Novak answered that the trucks would be able to back in within the parking lot rather than in the street. Mr. Bruder expanded that part of their proposal demonstrated an adequate driveway for a typical 53 - foot truck entry and exit. He added that the variation provides the level of maneuverability needed for safety. Mr. Bruder added that a previous owner of the subject property applied for the exact same variation back in 1999, was approved, but did not go forward with the project. Mr. Novak explained that the previous owner may not have pursued the project due to cost or simply because it was not necessary, depending on their types of deliveries received (truck sizes). Vice Chairman Beattie asked if the delivery trucks enter from the south end of the subject property. Mr. Novak confirmed that the trucks pull onto the subject property from the south side of the lot off of Business Center Drive. He added that the other request was about the curbing by the building. Vice Chairman Beattie asked if the slit on the diagram was the loading dock. Mr. Bruder confirmed that it was the loading dock, and that the trucks need almost every square foot of it to make a turn into or out of the parking lot safely. Vice Chairman Beattie asked if the trucks would be entering forward and then backing into the lot, and Mr. Novak answered that he did not know exactly how the trucks would maneuver their entries and exits, but that it would no longer be maneuvered in the streets, whereas at present, all trucks are maneuvering in the street. Vice Chairman Beattie asked what the truck traffic is expected to be on any given day. Mr. Novak answered that they probably get 10-15 deliveries per week, which is about 2-4 deliveries per day. Vice Chairman Beattie asked what the hours are that the trucks would be entering and exiting the lot. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting—August 24, 2023 PZ -11-23 Mr. Novak answered that the typical hours for truck entries and exits are 8 AM - 5 PM. He added that there are also stray trucks for which it would be more convenient to use a wider driveway. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if the berm would be eliminated in the improvements to the driveway. Mr. Bruder answered that there is a preliminary grade plan showing that the berm will be cut into slightly, and that they will need a new curb of 18-24" deep. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if the curb will allow drainage through. Mr. Bruder confirmed that the curb will have drainage and that it would lead to a detention basin on the east side of the site. Mr. Bruder added that the proposed lot coverage, in its finished condition, would be about 51%. Mr. Bruder also added that they collaborated with the Mount Prospect Public Works and Engineering Department to go through and verify that the detention basin has sufficient capacity for drainage on the site after it has been completely developed. Mr. Bruder stated that he was thankful to collaborate and sort out those details well ahead of time. Hearing no further comments or questions, Vice Chairman Beattie closed the hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Fitzgerald made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak to approve the following motion: "A variation from Section 14.2206(E)(1)(a) to permit a parking lot setback reduction from ten feet (10') to two feet (2') along the south lot line, as shown on the plans prepared by CAGE Civil Engineering, dated 07/27/2023, and subject to the following condition: a) Compliance with all applicable Village Code requirements, including, but not limited to, fire code and building regulations." UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Fitzgerald, Szymczak, Weir, Olsen, Beattie, Miller NAYS: None The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0. Vice Chairman Beattie stated that it was Village Board Final and asked when the next Village Board meeting will be. Ms. Choi answered that the next Village Board meeting will be September 5tH, and the second meeting will be on September 19tH After hearing one more item of new business, Commissioner Szymczak made a motion seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald and the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 PM. Ann Choi Development Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting—August 24, 2023 PZ -11-23 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -12-23 Hearing Date: August 24, 2023 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 104 E Northwest Hwy. PETITIONERS: Busse 4, LLC PUBLICATION DATE: N/A REQUEST: VAR: Off -Site Parking Agreement MEMBERS PRESENT: William Beattie Thomas Fitzgerald Walter Szymczak Donald Olsen Ewa Weir Greg Miller MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly Norbert Mizwicki STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Choi — Development Planner Mo Khan — Development Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Vice Chairman Beattie called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Weir to approve the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on July 27, 2023. The minutes were approved 5-1. After hearing one item of business, Vice Chairman Beattie introduced the second item of business: Case PZ -12-23, an Off-site Parking Agreement at 104 E. Northwest Hwy. Mr. Khan exhibited aerial photos of the property from several exterior perspectives. He explained that the property was colloquially known as the old Busse Flowers Shop building. Mr. Khan stated that the property was annexed into the Village in 1917 and that the previous two-story mixed-use building was recently demolished by the current property owners, Busse 4 LLC. Mr. Khan stated that the petitioner was proposing to construct a two-story commercial building with a restaurant/retail on the first floor and retail/office on the second floor, for a total of 18,500 sq. ft, or 9250 sq. ft. on each floor of the building. Mr. Khan displayed photos of the subject property's existing conditions, where the previous building had been demolished. He added that the only permit that is currently open for the site is for the new building to be constructed. Mr. Khan exhibited photos of the plat of survey prior to the building's demolition, along with the proposed site plan for the new building's construction. He reiterated that the proposed building is two Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 24, 2023 PZ -12-23 stories and 18,500 sq. ft. Mr. Khan noted that there will be no parking onsite at the subject property, and that that is the reason for the Off-site Parking Agreement. He then displayed multiple renderings provided by the applicant. Mr. Khan explained that, since according to code, parking has to be within 1,000 ft. of the subject property, the Village is proposing to enter into an Off -Site Parking Agreement with the property owners to provide the following: 1. "Ten Parking Permits for Employees in Emerson St. Parking Deck. 2. Customer Parking available at all on -street and off-street parking owned by the Village that are available to the general public within 1,000 ft." Mr. Khan displayed an aerial view map of the subject property with a 1,000 ft. radius, indicating the locations of the applicable off-site parking locations. He noted that there are six off-site parking locations — the Emerson St. Parking Deck, the Maple St. Parking Deck, the Metra parking lots, and the Willow St. Parking lot. Mr. Khan then provided context of this agreement by highlighting previous Off -Site Parking Agreements that the Village has made in the past. These include: 1. Station 34 — 34 S. Main St. 2. Chase Bank— 2 W. Northwest Hwy. 3. Prospect Place —11 W. Prospect Ave. Mr. Khan added that 34 S. Main St. had ten spots given to them for the Off -Site agreement, Chase Bank had 17 spots, and Prospect Place 6 spots, respectively. Vice Chairman Beattie wanted to clarify if Chase Bank already had onsite parking but that the off-site parking would be supplemental. Mr. Khan confirmed that Chase Bank has onsite parking for customers, and offsite parking for employees, since the employees would be parked there longer than Chase customers. Vice Chairman Beattie wanted to clarify if the 104 E. Northwest Hwy. had no onsite parking, and Mr. Khan confirmed this. Mr. Khan stated that staff finds that the standards for variation have been met. Based on these findings, staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff's findings as the findings of the Planning & Zoning Commission and recommend approval of the following motion: "An Off -Site Parking Agreement per Sec. 14.2202-E between Busse 4, LLC and the Village of Mount Prospect to permit off-site parking per the attached agreement for the property located at 104 E. Northwest Highway." Mr. Khan stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Vice Chairman Beattie asked if there were any questions for staff. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 24, 2023 PZ -12-23 Commissioner Fitzgerald asked how many on -street parking spots there are in the 1,000 proximity of the subject property. Mr. Khan answered that he didn't have the exact number, but that on -street parking is provided within the 1,000 ft. proximity on Northwest Highway, Prospect Avenue, Emerson Street and Busse Avenue. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if people parking also have access to the garages within that vicinity. Mr. Khan confirmed that those parking will have access to the Emerson St. Parking Deck and the Maple Street Parking deck as well. Vice Chairman Beattie stated that he was looking through the proposed parking agreement and noticed that there was a maximum number of ten permits for the Emerson St. Parking Deck. He asked if there were any thoughts by staff or the petitioner about how many spots would be needed to accommodate all of those who need to park near the subject property since it would include a commercial and an office space. Mr. Khan answered that the ten permitted spots would be for employees only, and that the parking spots for customers will be within the 1,000 ft. radius of the subject property. He added that the purpose of using the nearby parking decks is to create more density and walkable area where people can walk within the downtown area rather than needing to drive within it. Vice Chairman Beattie asked if the permitted deck parking would be for all employees filling the space, including restaurant, retail and office employees working at the subject property. Mr. Khan answered that the proposal from the applicant is a restaurant on the first floor and retail on the second floor, but an office could also occupy the second floor. He added that the tenants have not yet been identified and that it is a prospective building, but the goal is to have a restaurant on the first floor and a retail component on the second floor. Vice Chairman Beattie asked if there were any other reserved parking spots in the Emerson St. Parking Deck aside from the ten permitted, and Mr. Khan answered that only those ten spaces were reserved as part of the agreement. Vice Chairman Beattie asked if other people needing to park in the area would park in the outlined 1,000 ft. vicinity. Mr. Khan confirmed that indeed other patrons would need to find parking elsewhere than the Emerson St. Parking Deck in the 1,000 ft. proximity of the subject property. Vice Chairman Beattie asked if there were any questions for the staff. Commissioner Weir asked what hours that parking across the street at the Metra is available to the public for free. Mr. Khan answered that he believes the Metra parking lot is available to the public for free after about 5 or 6pm. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 24, 2023 PZ -12-23 4 Hearing no further comments or questions from staff, Vice Chairman Beattie swore in the petitioner, Nick Papanicholas of 300 N. Oak Avenue. Mr. Papanicholas mentioned that the subject property was the old Busse Flowers shop, and that he and his wife purchased the property about a year and a half ago. He added that his wife had a temporary retail store on the first floor of the building while the two figured out what they were planning to do with the building. Mr. Papanicholas noted that initially, he and his wife were considering doing a masonry restoration adaptive reuse of the building, but that the building was literally crumbling and beyond repair. He added that the building, over 100 years, had had a series of additions to it so it was not one uniform structure, and therefore would have needed a "significant lift to get it all cleaned up" to act as all one floor plate. Mr. Papanicholas stated that the second floor would have been even more challenging to fix since it was a bunch of apartments. Mr. Papanicholas stated that he and his wife wanted to maintain the history of the building, so they decided to use heavy masonry, limestone, common Chicago brick, all black ornamental windows and door systems, almost exactly the same roof line as before, salvaged limestone Busse name plate that was on the original building from 1923 or 1925, as well as some old keystones. He added that they grew the floor plate by +/-1,000 sq. ft. and that there were previously 4-5 parking spots on the south side of the drive aisle, which was flanked by 2 or 3 dumpsters. Mr. Papanicholas stated that the parking that used to be at the building was in -and -out all day, 15-30 minute parking because of the nearby UPS store. He noted that, even though it was attached to their property, it was not very accessible by the Busse patrons due to the usage of the spaces for the UPS store. Mr. Papanicholas highlighted that his and his wife's intent was not to add a specific number of parking spots to the area, but to maximize the footprint and increase density. He added that the successes of nearby provinces such as Arlington Heights, Downers Grove and Elmhurst, have more walkability along the line of their retail buildings. He mentioned that by following through with this agreement, their business will hopefully pave the way in Mount Prospect to set a trend in redevelopment to increase walkability in the downtown area. Mr. Papanicholas stated that there will "almost 100%" be a restaurant on the first floor of their new building and that they are looking at a potential restaurant on the second floor as well. He stated that, for the time being, it is only a prospective building and there are currently no tenants lined up to occupy it. He noted that, once the building is finished and tenants have the chance to look at it, the building will fill up quickly with tenants and they will sign long-term leases. He added that, with other businesses and vertical buildings around the area, it's an up-and-coming place to do business. Vice Chairman Beattie mentioned that ten parking spots does not seem like an adequate number of parking to accommodate the businesses that will occupy the prospective building. He added that, with a restaurant and another tenant above the restaurant, that there would be more than ten employees present at any given time who need the parking spots. Mr. Papanicholas responded that the number of spots was agreed upon by themselves and the Village after discussions of potential solutions to parking. He added that they've only submitted a drawing for shell and core so far, but that there will be tenant improvements as time goes on for prospective tenants. He stated that once the tenants are in the building, if they demonstrate a higher need for employee parking, it will be something that they could potentially come back in for and submit another request for dedicated parking spots at that time. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 24, 2023 PZ -12-23 Vice Chairman Beattie asked if it would be a better plan to "frontload" the parking spots, i.e. adding more than the anticipated need if there is going to be so much business at the site. He asked if, since ten seems like a small number, if it's a better idea to have a larger number in mind at the beginning of the proposal rather than revisiting it later on when the need presents itself. Mr. Papanicholas responded that it may be a range — perhaps ten to twenty spots that will be reserved — that it is not yet set in stone. He used the example of Emerson's Ale House, which he stated has a tight footprint and therefore space for parking spots behind it that multiple tenants use. He stated that he believes that condition exists everywhere in the downtown and that it would probably be better to use a range of numbers rather than an exact number of spots. Vice Chairman Beattie asked staff if the proposed agreement that was in the packet was for ten spaces and that the offsite parking would be commensurate with that agreement. He asked staff if they were comfortable with that number or if more thought on the number might be needed to move forward with the agreement. For instance, he mentions, a restaurant or two open up that need to be staffed by more than ten people at a time. Mr. Khan answered that, at this point in time, staff is comfortable with the agreement of ten parking spots and that it is possible to amend that number in the future if needed. He added that they don't want to over -allocate parking spaces for one use and then not have enough for the general public. He stated that it is better to come back to the matter incrementally rather than all at once. Vice Chairman Beattie clarified that there are currently ten spots proposed for the Emerson Parking Deck and asked if there would be room to expand beyond ten spaces if needed.4 Mr. Khan answered that it would be evaluated at the time that the petitioners come back with a request for additional spots and negotiate the best solution within that 1,000 ft. radius of the subject property. Vice Chairman Beattie asked staff how long the agreement lasts, for instance the whole duration that the current owners still own the property, or if the agreement would perish with the sale of the property to different owners. Mr. Khan answered that the agreement is perpetual even if the property is sold to different owners. Vice Chairman Beattie asked staff if future owners of the property would be bound by the agreement or if it would be negotiable depending on their needs. Mr. Khan answered that, if there are any changes to the agreement, that the petitioners would need to come to the Planning & Zoning Commission and then to the Village Board. However, if there are no changes to the agreement needed, then this agreement would hold up regardless of ownership. Vice Chairman Beattie clarified that if someone needed extra spaces they would have to come before the Village Board, and Mr. Khan confirmed that they would indeed have to come before the Village Board. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked staff what the requirement would be for onsite parking if the space is filled by two restaurants or one restaurant and one retail, etc. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 24, 2023 PZ -12-23 Mr. Khan answered that the onsite parking requirement for that scenario would be 53 or 54 onsite spaces. Vice Chairman Beattie adds that ten parking spots still seems like a very small amount of allocated spaces given the nature of the property use. Mr. Khan responds that the ten parking spots would be for employees only and that the general public could find parking within the 1,000 ft. radius from the subject property that would make up for that loss in dedicated spaces. He added that, historically, the Village has not had dedicated customer parking agreements, that there have only been parking agreements for employee parking. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated that he asked the question to gain a general idea of how many cars are expected to occupy the nearby space. Vice Chairman Beattie again asked staff if they were comfortable with the number of only ten reserved employee spaces in the agreement due to the work involved in asking the Village Board for additional spaces if needed. He asked if staff was comfortable with starting with ten spaces. Mr. Khan confirmed that staff were comfortable with starting with only ten spaces for the agreement. Vice Chairman Beattie asked if there was any discussion. Commissioner Fitzgerald mentioned that he agreed with Vice Chairman Beattie's observation about a potential lack of needed parking spaces depending on the future tenants. He stated that the need will likely vary greatly depending on the future tenants. Commissioner Fitzgerald suggested that this agreement be revisited at a later time when tenancy in the building is more solidified. Vice Chairman Beattie added that they want to see density in the downtown area but they don't want to overload it so that everyone involved needs to be cognizant of the fact that there are a lot of cars that park downtown; he stated that the Board wants the Village to be vibrant but not congested. Mr. Papanicholas stated that he thinks that the Village should take into account all of the existing horizontal and vertical parking structures as a "global quantity' in order to fully assess available parking. He stated that he believes the parking spaces in the Village are not filled to capacity, and that the Maple Street Deck is rarely full. He stated that there is room to grow in the downtown but that he agrees with all the Planning & Zoning Commission's comments thus far. Vice Chairman Beattie responded that the petitioner tends to bear the risk in that matter due to the fact that they have to know about the area in which they are conducting business before deciding to do so. He added that all parties should keep this in mind, and that this matter will likely be revisited in a year or so when circumstances inevitably change due to tenancy. A Commissioner asked if there was any parking behind the subject building. The petitioner answered that there would be no parking behind the subject building, and that they have proposed enclosures for the dumpsters and transformer, so there is no room for parking there. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 24, 2023 PZ -12-23 Hearing no further comments or questions, Vice Chairman Beattie closed the hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Weir made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak to approve the following motion: "An Off -Site Parking Agreement per Sec. 14.2202-E between Busse 4, LLC and the Village of Mount Prospect to permit off-site parking per the attached agreement for the property located at 104 E. Northwest Highway." UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Fitzgerald, Szymczak, Weir, Olsen, Beattie, Miller NAYS: None The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0. Vice Chairman Beattie mentioned that it was Village Board Final. Hearing no more items of business, Commissioner Szymczak made a motion seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald and the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 PM. Mo Khan Development Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 24, 2023 PZ -12-23