Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/2000 PC minutes MOUNI PROSPECT PLAN ~OMMISSION ~[ ~\ arch 2000 luu REVISED ~ . \/~ CALL TO O~ER: ~ The regular meeting of the Mount Prospect Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Michael Zadel at 7:30 p.m. at the Village Hall, 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. ROLL CALL: Present upon Roll Call: Michae} Zadel, Chairman Gary Grouwinkel Edwin Janus William Reddy Carol Tortorello Absent: Antoinette Astreides Frank Boege Louis Ve]asco Village Staff Present: Judy Connolly, AICP, Planner Chuck Lindelof, P.E., Project Engineer Others in Attendance: Edward Dowling Jim Tinaglia Ben Trapani Mark Lattner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Zadel opened the meeting and asked for comments on minutes fi.om March 1, 2000. As there were none, Bill Reddy moved to approve the minutes and Carol Tortorello'seconded the motion. The motioned carried 5-0. SUBDMSIONS: NONE OLD BUSINESS: Development Code Exceptions- St. Raymond's Parish/301 S. I-Oka Chairman Zadel asked Judy ConnolIy to recap the events for the previous meeting and summarize the petitioner's request. Ms.. Connolly said that St. Raymond's Parish is in the process of expanding its facility and has to meet current code requirements. She said the petitioner appeared before the Plan Commission at the March 1 meeting, seeking relief from Development Code requirements for storm water detention and streetlight installation and the case was continued to this meeting. Ms. Connolly said that St. Raymond's is required to provide detention for the whole site because the proposed addition is a new development, per Development Code requiremems. The petitioner MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION Minutes of March 15. 2000 Meeting Page 2 proposes to provide storm water detention for the new structures only and would like to modify the parking lot along Elml~urst Road/Route 83 so the parking lot will store water on-site. She said that Engineering rewewed the request and found that the design would, not increase the amount of discharge into the combined sewers. Ms. Connolly saic~ that the case was continued until the petitioner's engineer could document that the I-Oka Ave. sewer was able to handle additional run- off generated from the new impervious surface. She said that JKL, the petitioner's engineering firm, submitted calculations to staff last week and that the Engineering Division reviewed the petitioner's request, including the information from JKL, and~ continues to find that the development will not create flooding problems for the neighboring properties. Ms. Connolly presented the petitioner's second request from the Development Code, to not instal~ the required streetlights. She said that the existing stteetlights are on ComEd poles and on the petitioner's property. Ms. Connolly said that according to the Development Code, the existing CornEd lights would be replaced with aluminum standard poles and would be placed at the intersections and mid-block where necessary. Ms. Connolly said that the current lighting sources were on private property or owned by ComEd and that the Village could not guarantee that the light source would always be available. Although the existing lighting is consistent with the amount of lighting in the neighborhood, the source does not meet Development Code standards. She said that the petitioner feels that there is sufficient lighting at the site now and does not want to install new lights. She said that the petitioner's request does not mee~ the standards for a hardship and that granting the exception would be inconsistent with previous Village policy when other petitioners sought relief from this requirement. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the petitioner's request for an exception to Development Code requirements for streetlights. At a minimum, the petitioner could record a covenant agreeing to pay for the installation and fixtures if the Village determines that streetlights are necessary. Ms. Connolly said that the project also presents the Village with an opportunity to incorporate corridor improvements along Elmhurst Road/Rt. 83. The improvements could be a combination of landscaping and new fencing m screen the parking lot and enhance the Rt. 83 corridor. She said a landscape easement along the east side of the parking lot was not required for approval of the storm water detention exception request but that the request would be in keeping with the proposed Corridor Guidelines. She said that providing detention only for the new impervious surface would be consistent with previous projects that included expansion of an existing facilig¢. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the petitioner's request for an exception to the Development Code's storm water detention requirements and recommends that the petitioner work with the Village to arrive at a parking lot design/screening that enhances Elmhurst Road/Rt. 83 in a manner that is consistent with the proposed Corridor Design Guidelines. Ms. Eonnolly said that representatives from St. Raymond% were in the audience to answer Plan Commission's questions and that Chuck Lindelof of the Village Engineering Division was also in attendance if the Plan Ce.remission had questions about the storm water detention design. Chairman Zadel asked if the Plan Commission members had any questions. There was discussion that the additional information about the sewer capacity was very thorough and useful. The consensus was that the calculations documented the minimal impacts of the project and provided the Village with more than adequate "leeway" to approve the Development Code exception for drainage. There was discussion about the amount of space available re screen the parking lot and the location of the landscaping on private property. Ben Trapam said that the petitioner supports OUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMiSSiON Minutes of Marcti 15.2000 Meeting Page 3 screening the parking lot and is agreeable to working with tl~e Village to create a corridor enhancement for the area along EImhurst Road/Rt. 83. Bill Reddy moved~ to approve the exception to the Development Code and have the petitioner provide storm water detention for the new impervious surfaces only. Carol Tortotello seconded the motion and tile motion carried 5-0. Bill Redd;y moved to deny the Development Code exception to not instal[ the required streetlights and ilave the petitioner record a covenant to pay for the installation of new street lights if the Village determines the lighting is necessary. Carol Tortorelto seconded the motion and tile motion carried 5-0, Bill Reddy moved to approve that the petitioner work witil the Village to arrive at a parking lot design using landscape screening that enilanees EImhurst Road/Rt. 83 in a manner that is consistent with the proposed Corridor Design Guidelines. Ed Janus seconded tile motion and the motion carried 5-0: NEW BUSINESS,: NONE COMlVIENTS AND OTHER BUSINESS: Village Hall Ad hoc Committee Chairman Zadel said that the Mayor requested a representative from the Plan Commission to participate in the new Village Hall study. There was discussion about a comprehensive municipal facility and how the building would benefit various community groups. Plan Commission presented their expectations of a new facility in comparison to the existing Village Hall and Bank One building. Chairman Zadel explained that he was very familiar with and knowledgeable about the structure of the existing Village Hall because of his former position at Public Works. Chairman Zadel sai&that he worked on the Village Hall plumbing in addition to maintaining other facets of the bdilding. He said that it was apparent even when the Village first occupied the structure that the building required significant ~mprovement. Carol Tortorello moved tha~ Chairman Zadel represent tile Plan Commission on tile Village Hall Ad Hoe Committee~ Bill Reddy seconded the motion and the motion carried 5-0. Mr. Reddy requested that Ms. Tortorello be the alternate representative if Chairman Zadel was unable to attend a meeting. Ed Janus requested that the Plan Commission receive notification of the ad hoc meetings because the other members may want to attend the meetings. The Plan Commission agreed with both suggestions and discussed the progress of the downtown redevelopment. Bill Reddy moved to adjourn the meeting and Ed Janus seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m, ~dith M."Co~nolly, AICP, Planner 'x~