Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/26/2009 P&Z minutes 05-09 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-05-09 Hearing Date: February 26, 2009 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 800 River Road PETITIONER: Kenneth Brandeis - Jakl Brandeis Architects PUBLICATION DATE: February 11,2009 PIN NUMBER: 03-25-400-018-0000 REQUEST: 1) Conditional Use for a Drive Through 2) Variation for a Parking Space MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBER ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AlCP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Ken Brandeiss, Jesse Fojo, Jennifer Delisle, John Truncale, Bridget Mukite Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 22, 2009 meeting; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4- 0; with Marlys Haaland and Ronald Roberts abstaining. After hearing four previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-05-09, a request for a Conditional Use for a Drive Through and Variation for a parking space at 800 River Road, at 9: 15 p.m. Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner, stated the property owner would like to redevelop the site from a car wash to a commercial multi-tenant building with a drive through restaurant. The Petitioner was requesting a Conditional Use with a drive through and a Variation to the required number of parking spaces. The subject property is located at the Northwest comer of the intersection of River Road and Kensington Road; it is zoned B-4 Corridor Commercial. The property is adjacent to the R-4 Multi-Family District to the west and north, and unincorporated Wheeling Township to the south and east. Ms. Andrade said under the proposed redevelopment plan, the vacuuming structure currently located on the west side of the property would be demolished. The car wash structure would be enclosed and reduced in size. The building would be reduced from 3,741 square feet to 2,386 square feet; and include four commercial tenants with a drive through at the east comer. The Petitioner proposes to add parking and landscaping to the site and enhance the building's fayade. The Petitioner seeks approval of Conditional Use permit and a Variation to the required parking to allow redevelopment of the site. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-05-09 Page 1 of5 Ms. Andrade showed the site plan. The Petitioner's site plan indicated 1,242 square feet of retail and 1,144 square feet for a drive through restaurant. The Petitioner is required to provide five (5) parking spaces for the retail portion and fourteen (14) parking spaces for the restaurant; for a total of nineteen (19) parking spaces required. The Petitioner is requesting a Variation to reduce the amount of parking spaces from nineteen (19) to eighteen (18) parking spaces. The Petitioner worked on a number of concept plans before finalizing the site plan and tried to comply with landscaping requirements by adding interior landscaping and foundation landscaping at the Southeast comer of the site. The proposed site would comply with the required eight (8) spots for stacking in a drive through. Access into the property from adjacent roadways would not change from present conditions. The existing access drive from Kensington Road would be maintained and the Petitioner did not propose an access drive from River Road. Ms. Andrade showed and discussed the landscape plan. The redevelopment of the site would not affect the perimeter landscaping; the Petitioner would add interior and foundation landscaping. Ms. Andrade showed the building elevations. The north and south building facades would be enhanced with the addition of new building materials. The front elevation would include brick, glass, cut stone, decorate dryvit, and metal canopies. The rear elevation of the building would include a mixture of brick, decorative dryvit, and concrete. Since the rear elevation fronts residential property, the proposed rear elevation shall be revised to be compatible with the adjacent residential by replacing the proposed concrete masonry units with brick materials. Ms. Andrade said the adjacent neighbors submitted a petition in opposition of the proposed redevelopment of the site. They were concerned with the close proximity of the drive-through to the residential use, the potential smell of food, the lack of parking, property maintenance, and hours of operation. Ms. Andrade stated that drive-through restaurants next to residential areas is not uncommon in the Village. The Petitioner was proposing to change a drive-through car wash to a drive-through restaurant. The building permit review would ensure that the hood is installed properly and the easterly winds in the area would alleviate the smell ofthe drive-through restaurant. The Petitioner intended to keep the dumpsters in the same area on the northwest comer of the property; the dumpsters are presently enclosed by a wood privacy fence. Routine property maintenance, food, and sanitary inspections would insure that the property is being maintained. A tenant for the drive-through restaurant has not been disclosed to the Village. Ms. Andrade said as stated earlier, the subject property is surrounded by perimeter landscaping. The landscape areas along the north and west property lines act as buffers between the subject property and the residential uses. This area measures more than thirteen (13) feet wide and consists of a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence and eight (8) foot high hedge bushes. Ms. Andrade showed pictures of the screening. Ms. Andrade summarized the code standards for a Conditional Use and Variation. Retail and restaurants are permitted uses in the commercial district that the property is currently zoned. Additionally, the proposal would be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan designating the property for commercial land uses. The proposed drive-through is a less intense use than the existing multi-bay car wash. Ms. Andrade said that Staff recommended approval of the motion listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers swore in Ken Brandeiss, 842 Kingston Lane, Bartlett, Illinois and Jesse Fojo, 670 Plum Tree Road, Barrington, Illinois. Mr. Brandeis stated that Mr. Fojo was losing money with the current use as a car wash. He said Mr. Fojo came to him to discuss different types of uses. They decided a fast food restaurant and retail space was the way to go. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioners if they were aware of the petItIOn submitted by approximately 50 neighbors. Mr. Fojo stated that they have not identified what type of fast food store would go into the proposed development. He said the ideal food place would be similar to a Jimmy John's; a place that does not cook anything, but only bakes bread. Mr. Fojo stated there would be no fryers. He also suggested that a coffee shop like a Starbucks would be a good use. He said odors from the restaurant are positive compared to gas fumes that are coming from its current use as a car wash. Mr. Fojo said they do not know what tenants would lease out the Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-05-09 Page 2 of 5 space as they had just begun the process. He said the reason for redeveloping the site was based on economics; sales are down and costs are up. There was general discussion regarding the usage of dryvit in the Village and on the building. Chairman Rogers said the type of restaurant is a major concern to the residents. He said the Petitioners may have an issue leasing space due to the economy. Mr. Fojo stated that he was trying to come up with the best solution for the property. There was general discussion on whether tenants have been signed or looked at the proposed development. Mr. Youngquist said the retail spaces were small and he knows the Petitioners were working with the existing building. He does understand the Petitioners are requesting the approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Village Board, but he said that the Petitioners have locked themselves into parameters because of the parking requirements. If they want to expand the restaurant space, the parking ratios would change. He said the Petitioners do not have a lot of flexibility. He complimented the Petitioners for attempting to change the use. Mr. Fojo said the project does depend on tenants. He said they are restricted by the landscaping. There was further discussion regarding potential uses. Chairman Rogers swore in Jennifer Delisle, 814 River Road, Mount Prospect, I1Iinois. Ms. Delisle stated that 55 residents signed a petition against the proposal. She showed the board a picture of where the condos are located compared to where the proposed drive-through would go. She said the units that face the proposed drive-through location; that is their only outside area. All of their windows and exterior patio doors only face that side; no other choice to open windows on any other side. The air conditioning units only face this side of the building. Ms. Delisle said any smell from a proposed restaurant would go into the condos. Chairman Rogers asked Ms. Delisle how they are affected with the car wash. Ms. Delisle stated there have been no issues with the current use; noise and exhaust is not a problem. She said the proposed parking would be an issue with what the Petitioner is proposing. She was concerned with overflow cars utilizing the condo's parking lot. Ms. Andrade clarified that a restaurant is a permitted use within the zoning district and the petitioners request for a drive-through and parking variation require additional zoning approval. Chairman Rogers said the Petitioner was basically meeting the parking requirements, short by one car. He said the retail spaces are so small that parking should not be an issue. Chairman Rogers did understand the issue regarding the smell of a potential fast food restaurant. Chairman Rogers swore in John Truncale, 270 Woodland Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Truncale is concerned with the drainage if the proposed development was approved. He said there currently there are drainage issues with its current use. Mr. Truncale stated he does not have an issue with a restaurant going into the site. Chairman Rogers said from what he sees in the plans, the Petitioner was not planning on changing the grading. The building would be slightly smaller as two east drive bays are being removed. The roof area would be smaller. Chairman Rogers does not believe the drainage will change. Chairman Rogers swore in Bridget Mukite, 804 River Road, Mount Prospect, I1Iinois. Ms. Mukite said there was already a lot of traffic in their lot because of the two bars south of the proposed development in unincorporated Cook County. Ms. Mukite stated she is concerned that there might be additional problems for the condos to the Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-05-09 Page 3 of 5 north if the proposed development sits vacant with no tenants. Chairman Rogers stated there is a fence between the properties. Chairman Rogers asked if there was anyone in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 9:55 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Floros made a motion; seconded by Ms. Haaland to approve the following motions: "To approve: 1) A Conditional Use permit for a Drive Through; and 2) A Variation to reduce the number of required parking spaces from nineteen (19) to eighteen (18), for the property commonly known as the 800 N. River Road, Case No. PZ-05-09, subject to compliance with the following conditions: A. Prior to the issuance of a development permit, the petitioner shall provide civil engineering drawings for review and approval by the Village. The engineering drawings shall illustrate the existing conditions, demolition of the site/building to be removed, and proposed improvements. The proposed plans must include details of the pavement marking, sigl' ,~, grading, and utility improvements. B. Development of the site in general conformance with the site plan prepared by Jakl Brandeis dated November 11, 2008 and received by the Community Development Department on January 30,2009. The site plans shall be modified to reflect the following changes: a. The plan needs to show the existing topography in the right of way adjacent to the site. b. The one-way, westbound exit from the drive-through should taper down to twelve feet (12') to discourage traffic from entering the wrong way. C. A detailed landscape plan in accordance to the landscape requirements of Article 23 of the Zoning Code shall be submitted for staff review and approval. The landscape plan shall detail both new proposed plantings and existing landscaping on the property. D. Any work in either Kensington Road or River Road rights of way will require a permit from the I1Iinois Department of Transportation (lOOT). E. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the building elevations prepared Jakl Brandeis dated November 11, 2008 and received by the Community Development Department on January 30, 2009. The rear elevation shall be modified to reflect the following change: a. The concrete block shall be replaced with brick along the building's north facade. F. If new outdoor lighting will be provided, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the petitioner shall submit photometric plans and drawings (cut sheets) that satisfy the Village's code requirements for illumination. G. The Petitioner shall construct the building in accordance to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: the installation of automatic fire sprinklers and fire alarm systems. Additional fire hydrants may be necessary. H. A building permit, in accordance with the current regulations and requirements of the Village of Mount Prospect, must be issued within one (1) year from the date of adoption of the enabling ordinance by the Village Board which authorized the development proposal. The development approvals granted herein, without need for further action by any Village board, commission or official, shall become null and void if no building permit is issued within the one (1) year requirement and improvements completed within a period of eighteen (18) months." Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-05-09 Page 4 of5 The Village Board's decision is final for this case. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Youngquist NAYS: Beattie, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers Motion was defeated 4-2. Mr. Beattie made a motion to adjourn at 9:57 p.m., seconded by Mr. Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 26, 2009 PZ-05-09 Page 5 of5