Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/05/2000 PC minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION' April 5, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the Mount Prospect Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Michael Zadel ar 7:$0 p.m. at the Village Hall, 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. ROLL CALL: Present upon Roll Call: Michael Zadel, Chairman Gary Grouwinkel William Reddy Matt Sledz Carol Tortorello Absent: Antoinette Astreides Frank Boege Edwin Janus Village Staff Present: Judy Connolly, AICP, Planner Chuck Lindelof, P.E., Project Engineer Others in Attendance: Jerry Brown, SRI ( Helen Cohen, Arehideas James Kaplan, Kap-Sum Properties Jeff Miller, Archideas Walter Graft, Gewalt Hamilton APPROVAL OF'IVIINUTES: Chairman Zadel opened the meeting and asked for comments on minutes from March 15, 2000. Carol Tortorello said that the minutes should be amended to show that Jim Tinaglia, Ben Trapani, Ed Dowling, and Mark Lattner were the only "Others in Attendance" and that it was incorrect to use the numeral "1" for the name of Bank One. Chairman Zadel agreed and asked if there were additional comments. As there were none. Carol Tot~orello moved to approve the minutes as amended and Bill Reddy seconded the motion. The motioned carried 4-0 with Matt Sledz abstaining. SUBDIVISIONS: NONE OLD BUSINESS: NONE NEW BLISIIqESS: PC-08-99/Development Code Exeeption/l W. Rand Road (Rand and Kensington Roads): Chairman Zadel introduced the first item of business and asked Judy Connolly to review the ease. Ms. Connolly said that the property owner proposes to raze the existing LaSalle Bank to construct a retail development at I W. Rand Road. The petitioner is requesting relief from the MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION Minutes of' April: 5, 2000 Meeting Page 2 Development Code to locate the detention facility closer than the minimum distance required by code. Ms. Connolly said the intent of the code requirement was to avoid foundation saturation, which may lead to structural defects, and to create a safer development by keeping dramatic grade changes and standing water away from building users. She said that the Development Code was changed, in 1996~, previously requiring a 75-foot setback from the building and now all'owed a 25- foot setback. She said that this change reflected the Village's ability to be flexible to developers' needs without compromising safety concerns. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner's property fronts onto two IDOT roads and that IDOT req,uires detention facilities to be located ten feet, plus 1.5 times the depth of the detention basin, from an IDOT right-of-way. Ms. Connolly said that tc meet this standard, the petitioner proposes to locate the detention area behind the building, directly adjacent m the structure. She said that the petitioner is seeking relief from Village requirements because the property is located between two IDOT roads that have the potential to be widened. Locating the detention facility according to Village requirements, in close proximity to the IDOT right-of-way could create an unsafe situation if either of the roads is widened. She said that the property at 1 W. Rand Road is difficult to develop because the adjacent angled roads create an unusual shaped lot, the site slopes slightly downward along the southwest property line, and the receiving sewer has a shallow depth. These factors limit the location of the detention facility, its depth, and size because the new detention facility has to be consistent with the existing site conditions and compatible with the existing sewer infrastructure. Ms. Connolly said that Village staff met with the petitioner, the architect, and the engineer for the project and reviewed several different storm water detention facility designs. She said that the Village's Engineering Division reviewed the petitioner's request and found that there was an alternative way to design the site that meets IDOT and Village codes without requinng an exception to the Village's Development Code requirements. Ms. Connolly explained that the petitioner stated that the design that meets Development Code regulations is impractical to maintain and requires installing over 500 feet of throe-foot by nine- foot concrete box sections. The low height of the concrete boxes could reduce the effectiveness of the sewer system if sediment and debris enter the storage pipes. She said that the Development Code requires that the petitioner show that there are no alternate feasible means of fulfilling the Development Code regulations and that approving the except[on will not impact the health,, safety, and welfare of the community. She said that the petitioner explored alternative designs with Village staff. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed design that requires an except[on to the Development Code can be implemented in a manner that is in keeping with the intent of Development Code regulations. Ms. Connolly said that the Engineenng Division and the Building Commissioner reviewed the petitioner's design and found that it meets the intent of the Development Code requirements and does not pose a safety hazard to the neighborhood or the buildfng. She said that additional hydrostatic pressure calculations am required for a building permit and will be provided before the Village can issue a building permit. Ms. Connolly said that the Development Code exception request provides an opportunity to create an enhancement to this property. She said it is feasible, although not a condition of approval, for the Village to request that the petitioner's landscape plan be d~signed and MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION Minutes of April 5.2000 Meeting Page 3 ~mplemented in a manner that is consistent with the proposed CorridOr Design Guidelines and exceeds the minimum amount of landscaping required by Village code. She said that the petitioners request for an exception to locate a detention facility closer than the minimum distance required by Village code meets the standards for an exception because the proposed design is feasible and fulfills the purpose of the regulations, The proposed storm water detention facility will be designed in a manner that does not impact the structural integrity of the building and includes safety provisions, such as a fence and "escapo" romps. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the petitioner's request to locate the detention facility closer than 25 feet from the structure, for the property located at I W. Rand Road~ Case No. PC-08-99 and that the petitioner's landscape plan is designed in a manner that is consistent with the Village's proposed Corridor Design Guidelines. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner, his architect, engineer, and structural engineer were available to answer any questions about the project. Chairman Zadel asked the petitioner questions about the design of the existing sewers, sewer capacity, and the impact of having a three-foot tall-concrete box under the parking lot. Jeff Miller said that they examined an underground storage design but that the existing inlet that they have to hook into is extremely shallow. This requires using a wide box to accommodate the storage. The size of the box makes the underground storage design difficult to maintain and requires that a person physically enter the box to clean it out because the box cannot be "flushed out" and sediment would remain on the bottom. There was detailed discussion about the underground storage design, the size of existing pipes, sewer flow and capacity, and why the petitioner felt that underground storage was not appropriate for this site. There was discussion about the design of the proposed detention basin. Mr. Miller clarified that the building is a slab on grade and would not have a basement or a crawl space. He said that earth on the backside of the retaining wall is supporting the hydraulic pressure of the detention wall. The hydraulic pressure of the water in the pond is opposed by the soil pressure and that the detention basin walls/below grade is solid concrete. Walter Graft and Jerry Brown explained in detail the design of;the walls of the detention basin and the proposed materiaIs. Mr Graft said that the walls that are visible would be made of a landscape retaining wall material, using keystone blocks that are either 12" or 24"'deep, depending on the'gcc-grid design. The Plan Commission asked questions about storm water overflow, the traffic flow of the development, and the landscaping requirements. The Plan Commission asked for examples where the petitioner used the keystone design. Mr. Graft said that they used this design at Lutheran General Hospital in a retention system and at Barrington High School for an I 1-foot tall keystone wall, connecting two levels. He said that they put a fet~ce and guard rai} there for safety reasons. Mr. Miller said that the Container Store in Oak Brook used a two tier keystone wall. There was discussion about the track record of the keystone material and design and that it was a proven system, structurally and esthetically. There was discussion about the safety of the proposed design and that the fence should be vertical to discourage people from climbing the fence and to make it more difficult to access the site unless entered through the gate. Plan Commission agreed that the petitioner took reasonable precaution in designing the detention basin. Chairman Zadel said that it was Plan Commission's responsibility to ensure that codes are met. He said that in this ease the Plan Commission has evidence that this code requirement could be met by a different design, but that design posed a hardship. He explained that the hardship may not meet the strictest Developmem Code definition, but that the elevations of the pr6perty posed OUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION Minutes of April 5. 2000 Meeting Page 4 significant difficulty in implementing an underground storage' d~tention design. There was discussion that this property was unique because it fronted onto two IDOT regulated roads, was triangular shape6, and~ included atypical existing drainage features andl elevations. There was discussion about the impacts of setting a precedent by granting this request. The Plan Commission noted~ that the need for exceptions to redevelop, specific properties should be reviewed on a ease-by-case basis-. Gary Grouwinkel~ moved to approve the Development Code exception, because of the unique characteristics of the property (elevations, shallow inlet, IDOT regulations), that the proposed design met the intent of the Development Code regulation, and that the site would he landscaped in a manner consistent with the proposed Corridor Design Guidelines. Carol Tortorello seconded the motion, which was approved 4-I. Bill Reddy asked that the minutes reflect that he voted against the Development Code exception because he supported the underground detention design. Plan Commission Training Workshop Chairman Zadel~ presented the next item of business, an APA facilitated the worl~sl~op that he and Carol Tortorello attended April Is 2000. He said that representatives from NIPC presented information on storm water management design, He said that the discussion focused on the ~mpacts of drainage and was presented for an audience of citizen planners. Chairman Zadcl said another part of the workshop focused on law and ethics, specifically the Open Meetings Act. A hand out was distributed to the Plan Commission members to review at their convenience. There was discussion on new ethics legislation. Chairman Zadel and Ms. Tortorello summarized the workshop information materials on detention ponds, the impacts of using different plant materials in and around the ponds~ and how to discourage geese from congregating around the pond. COMMENTS AiND OTHER BUSINESS: There was general discussion on the Corridor Design Guidelines presentation at the March 28 Committee of the Whole meeting. Plan Commission discussed the materials presented to Village Board and how the ~sign was revised for the COW meeting. Thc? reviewed the items that Village Board and P(an Commission agreed on and discussed the next steps for the project. There was discussion on tear-downs and the effects of large-scale second story additions on the neighborhood. Plan Commission asked for information on the potential of creating a section of the Development Code that addresses how' new residences or additions should be designed to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. There was discussion about creating an Architectural Review Board or having Plan Commission's responsibilities include this aspect of review. Plan Commission requested that this be an agenda item for a future meeting. Gary Grouwinkel moved to adjourn the meeting and Bill Reddy seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.