Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/2009 P&Z minutes 16-09 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-16-09 Hearing Date: July 23, 2009 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 401 E. Kensington Road PETITIONER: Bill Fangmann - Sara E.F. Gensburg, Ltd. ArchitecturelDesign PUBLICATION DATE: July 8, 2009 PIN NUMBER: 03-34-201-008-0000 REQUEST: Map Amendment to rezone from R2 to B 1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Robert Hsu Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Youngquist made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 25, 2009 meeting; Mr. Donnelly seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 6-0; with Mr. Roberts abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-16-09, 401 E. Kensington Road, a request for a Map Amendment to rezone from R2 to Bl, at 7:31 p.m. Ms. Andrade, Development Review Planner, said the Petitioner for PZ-16-09 was requesting to rezone the Subject Property from R2 Attached Single Family to B 1 Business Office. Ms. Andrade stated the Subject Property is zoned R2 Attached Single Family and is approximately two acres in size. The property is currently unimproved and is bordered by the B3 Community Shopping District to the west and north and by the RI Single Family District to the south and east. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner proposed to rezone the subject property from R2 Attached Single Family to B 1 Business Office to construct an office building with related improvements. Ms. Andrade showed the site plan for the proposed development. The proposed development would consist of a one-story office building with parking spaces located to the front and sides of the building. There would be two driveways/access points from Kensington Road. Staff would require the Petitioner to relocate the western drive/access point to the parcel west of the Subject Property, and that the driveway is extended to the Petitioner's proposed development. Therefore, a cross access agreement and easement would be required to ensure perpetual access for the proposed development and future development on the parcel west of the Subject Property. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 23, 2009 PZ-16-09 Page I of 5 Ms. Andrade stated the proposed building would be one-story tall with a pitched roof that would measure twenty feet (20') in height to midpoint of the roof. Staff would require the Petitioner to submit detailed elevation drawings and revisions would be required per Staffs review comments at the time of building permit submittal. Ms. Andrade showed a table that included bulk requirements for the B I Zoning District: Bl Re uirements 30 feet I 0 feet 25 feet 25 feet 75% max. Ms. Andrade said the proposed improvements would comply with the required setbacks and lot coverage permitted. Ms. Andrade stated Staffs review of the zoning request to rezone the property does not constitute a full review of the proposed development. The proposed development would be required to comply with all Village Codes and required drawings; such as a detailed landscape, photometric and engineering drawings would be required to be submitted for the building permit. As stated earlier, the site plan and elevation drawings as shown would require some revisions. Additionally, a Plat of Dedication would be required to dedicate the full Kensington Right of Way. Ms. Andrade 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: · Compatibility with existing uses and zoning classification of property within the general area; · Compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; · The suitability of the property for permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification. Ms. Andrade stated the Subject Property is adjacent to existing single family residential and commercial properties, and is across the street from the Randhurst Shopping Center. The proposed office building would be an appropriate transitional 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. Staff recommended approval of the Map Amendment with the conditions listed in the Staff report. Ms. Andrade stated the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Mr. Youngquist said the parking lot on the proposed plan showed spaces that were eighteen feet (18') in depth and sixteen feet (16') in depth; even though the plan stated 90 spaces at a size of eighteen feet (18') by nine feet (9'). Ms. Andrade stated the proposal included spaces at both sizes. Village Code does allow parking spaces to be reduced to sixteen feet (16') by nine feet (9') where landscape overhangs. Mr. Youngquist asked if the proportion of the sixteen foot (16') spaces were okay. Ms. Andrade confirmed that they were okay. Chairman Rogers said Staff brought up questions about the sanitary sewer and the storm drainage; he wanted to know how these issues were being resolved. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner would be required to submit drainage engineering drawings for the Village Engineer to review for compliance to Code. The plans for the Planning and Zoning case were preliminary; when the Building Permit is reviewed, the drawings would be Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 23, 2009 PZ-16-09 Page 2 of5 reviewed for water detention. Chairman Rogers asked if Staff knew where the closest sanitary sewer was to the Subject Property. Staff did not know the exact location, but the Petitioner would have to obtain permits. Chairman Rogers said there was a possibility that the subject property could tap into the sanitary sewer across Kensington. Ms. Andrade said this was correct. Mr. Youngquist discussed how the parking lot dead ends on the East and West sides of the proposed building. Ms. Andrade stated the proposed site plan could be revised. Ms. Andrade suggested that the proposed building could be moved to the Western part of the property so the parking lot would just be to the North and East of the proposed building. Chairman Rogers swore in Robert Hsu of Skokie, Illinois. Mr. Hsu stated that he heard the Federal Government was looking for a new site for their social security building. He stated that the Federal Government liked his lot because of the location near the Randhurst Mall. Mr. Hsu said that there were additional lots in consideration to host the new social security building. Mr. Hsu stated that he has talked with neighbors surrounding his property and have not heard any complaints about his proposal. Mr. Hsu discussed previous proposals over the years that went before the Planning and Zoning Commission; these proposals included a cultural center and townhomes. Mr. Hsu stated that the Social Security building had to be located in a B 1 District and that was why he was requesting a Map Amendment to rezone from R2 to B 1. Chairman Rogers asked Mr. Hsu if there was a contract with the Social Security Administration. Mr. Hsu said that he did not have a contract. He stated that the Social Security Administration was interested in about eight sites including the Subject Property. Mr. Hsu said he had to write a proposal and did not know ifhis site would be chosen. Chairman Rogers asked if the Social Security office plan did not go through, did he have any other tenants for an office building. Mr. Hsu said no. He did state that there was interest from a group to build senior housing, but was unsure if he would get the height requirement approved by the Village. Chairman Rogers asked Mr. Hsu ifhe was aware of the issue with the sanitary sewer. Mr. Hsu did not know there was not a sanitary sewer connected to the subject property. Chairman Rogers asked Mr. Hsu ifhe was aware that Staff required the detention pond be at least 5 feet deep. Mr. Hsu said he understood. Mr. Beattie asked ifMr. Hsu had another tenant in mind ifhe was unsuccessful. Mr. Hsu stated he did not have an idea what he would do with the property if the Social Security Administration said no. Mr. Beattie asked if the Social Security's approval be contingent on the proposed zoning change. Mr. Hsu said no, he was advised that the next step would be to change the zoning. He said that there was no market to build townhomes for the current R2 zoning district. Mr. Roberts asked for Mr. Hsu to elaborate on the ownership of the property. Mr. Hsu gave a brief history ofthe foundation that owns the property. Chairman Rogers said if the Planning and Zoning Commission rezoned the property to BI, then only an office building could be built on the property. Mr. Youngquist stated he had some architectural questions regarding the project, but there was no architect present to address the Commission's questions and concerns. The plans indicated that the Social Security offices would not occupy the entire building, so there would be other tenants. Mr. Youngquist stated there are many issues with the plan that included mechanical systems in the building and the roof. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 23, 2009 PZ-16-09 Page 3 of5 Mr. Roberts asked ifthis project moved forward, would Mr. Hsu invest the money to build a quality building. Mr. Hsu stated that he would do whatever is necessary. He said there was room in the building for office space for a potential medical use if the Social Security Administration would allow it. Chairman Rogers said when Mr. Hsu purchased the property; he chopped down all the trees. Chairman Rogers asked that the landscaping be increased on this proposed development to make up for some of the trees that were removed. Chairman Rogers asked if anyone from the public was present to discuss the case; hearing none, he closed the public portion and brought the discussion back to the Commission. Mr. Youngquist was surprised none of the residents were present the way the building was configured. There was additional discussion regarding the aesthetics of the building. Mr. Donnelly asked Staff if there was a way to approve the Bl zoning, but have the Petitioner and architect back with all the details so the Planning and Zoning Commission could make sure all of their issues were resolved. Ms. Andrade said that Staff could ask for more detailed and revised drawings before the Village Board reviews as this case is Village Board Final. There was additional discussion on technical issues that an architect would have needed to address. Ms. Andrade said an architect was supposed to be present at the hearing, but Staff is unsure why he did not attend the meeting. Mr. Roberts stated that the architect for the hearing was listed as the Petitioner for this case. Mr. Floros stated there is nothing positive about this proposal. Chairman Rogers asked for a motion. Mr. Floros made a motion to approve a Map Amendment to rezone the property from R2 Attached Single Family to BI Business Office for the property located at 401 E. Kensington Road, Case No. PZ-16-09. Chairman Rogers added two conditions to the motion that any proposed development on the Subject Property should be required to 1) provide 50% more landscaping than what is required by Village Code and 2) provide trees that are 50% larger than required by Code. The condition was added in response to the property owners removal of trees on the property without a permit. Mr. Roberts seconded the motion. Mr. Beattie clarified that there could be an approval ofthe Map Amendment request to rezone, but the Petitioner may not be successful with the plan that was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Roberts stated that the market is very difficult and it dictates what the use and value is of the land. He said he knows it is not an attractive project. Mr. Roberts stated the lot in its current state is a big eyesore. He said the owner is trying to develop the land the best he can. Mr. Donnelly stated that the B I Zoning is a good use for the subject property. He believed that the current project presented to the Commission did not meet the requirements of the Village and needed a lot of work. Mr. Youngquist said in most cases where the Planning and Commission hears a request to rezone, the Commission receives plans that are complete. He said the owner did not have an exact ideal on what he wanted to do with the land. Chairman Rogers stated there was a motion and a second made. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 23,2009 PZ-16-09 Page 4 of 5 The Village Board's decision is final for this case. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Roberts NAYS: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Youngquist, Rogers Motion was defeated 6-1. After hearing two additional cases, Mr. Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 10:01 p.m. 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 July 23, 2009 PZ-16-09 Page 5 of5