Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/22/2011 P&Z Minutes 22-11 (Part 2 or 2)MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -22 -11 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBERS: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT INTERESTED PARTY: Hearing Date: September 22, 2011 999 N. Elmhurst Road CLP /SPF Randhurst LLC, c/o Casto Lifestyle Properties August 10, 2011 Multiple Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow Drive - Through Restaurant & Sign Variations Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Jacqueline Hinaber, Alternate Leo Floros Theo Foggy Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development Rich Yaras Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Ms. Hinaber to approve the minutes of the August 25, 2011 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes Nvere approved 3 -0 Nvith Mr. Beattie abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 22 -11, 999 N. Elmhurst Road at 7:32 p.m. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner for PZ -22 -11 Nvas seeking approval to amend the Planned Unit Development to allow a drive - through restaurant at 999 N. Elmhurst Road. This case appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 25, 2011, Nvhere it Nvas continued to the September meeting for revisions to the site plan. Additionally, the Petitioner requested Variations to increase the number of permitted menu boards and increase the permitted area of a menu board. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner proposed to construct a new outlot building that Nvould include a restaurant Nvith drive - through lanes and Nvas seeking to modIA- the approved PUD to allow the new drive - through restaurant. The Petitioner possesses a signed Letter of Intent Nvith Panera Bread that is conditional upon providing a drive - through for the restaurant. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner submitted two (2) site plans for consideration: Site Plan A included a full bypass lane for the entire length of the drive - through. Combined, the bypass lane and drive - through lane measure twenty (20) feet in Nvidth along Elmhurst Road. The landscape area measures ten and a half (10.5) feet along Elmhurst Road. Ms. Andrade stated Site Plan B included a fourteen (14) foot drive - through lane and sixteen and a half (16.5) feet landscape area along Elmhurst Road. The bypass lane Nvould be adjacent to the pick -up Nvindow on the south Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -22 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2011 Page 1 of 5 building elevation. Both site plans met the Village's requirements for parking lot setback along the Nvest property line. Ms. Andrade said the landscape plan for site plan A indicated a mixture of plantings that included shade trees, ornamental trees, evergreen trees, shrubs, grasses, and ground cover Nvould be provided. The landscaping along Elmhurst Road included deciduous shrubs, shade trees, and four (4) groupings of six (6) foot tall evergreen trees. Ms. Andrade stated the landscape plan for site plan B Nvould essentially provide the same type of plantings as in A, but more of them. Overall, twenty -six (26) more plantings Nvould be provided than in landscape plan A. Along Elmhurst Road, the plan provided three (3) more extra evergreen shrubs and four (4) more extra deciduous shrubs than in landscape A. Ms. Andrade said per the Petitioner's elevation draNvings, the building Nvould be constructed out of brick veneer and Nvould include avmings and metal canopies. She shoNved a slide that illustrated the proposed east building elevation which Nvould be the front of the building. There Nvas another image that represented the Nvest building elevation which Nvould front Elmhurst Avenue. The Petitioner shall continue to Nvork Nvith Staff to refine the architecture of the building. Ms. Andrade stated the north and south building elevations Nvould match the style and building material as in the front facade. The building Nvould measure twenty -eight (28) feet in height. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner proposed to install N,-o (2) menu boards for the drive - through lane when the Sign Code permits only one (1) menu board for a drive - through restaurant. The sign package illustrated a principal menu board that Nvould display Pancra's complete menu and a preview board that Nvould display specific breakfast, lunch, and drink items. Ms. Andrade referenced the folloNving table: The table compared the Village sign regulations Nvith the proposed signs. As proposed, the principal menu board measured approximately thirty -five (35) square feet when the Sign Code limits the area to thirty -N,-o (32) square feet. Combined the two (2) signs Nvould provide approximately fifth -five (55) square feet of sign area. The Petitioner Nvas seeking Variations to allow two (2) menu boards and increase the sign area for the principal menu board. Ms. Andrade stated the required findings for sign variations are contained in Section 7.725 of the Village of Mount Prospect Sign Code. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation which include: a hardship created by unique circumstances and not serving as a convenience to the petitioner, The variation not being materially detrimental to the public Nvelfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood; and The variation not impairing visibility to the adjacent property, increasing the danger of traffic problems or endangering the public safety Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -22 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Village Sign Cade l e ulations for Menu Principal Menu Board Preview: Menu Board Number Max. 1 1 I Area Max. 32 sq.ft. 31.96 sgft. 21.99 sq.ft. Height Max. 8 ft. 5.91 ft. 5.66 ft. The table compared the Village sign regulations Nvith the proposed signs. As proposed, the principal menu board measured approximately thirty -five (35) square feet when the Sign Code limits the area to thirty -N,-o (32) square feet. Combined the two (2) signs Nvould provide approximately fifth -five (55) square feet of sign area. The Petitioner Nvas seeking Variations to allow two (2) menu boards and increase the sign area for the principal menu board. Ms. Andrade stated the required findings for sign variations are contained in Section 7.725 of the Village of Mount Prospect Sign Code. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation which include: a hardship created by unique circumstances and not serving as a convenience to the petitioner, The variation not being materially detrimental to the public Nvelfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood; and The variation not impairing visibility to the adjacent property, increasing the danger of traffic problems or endangering the public safety Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -22 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Ms. Andrade said per the Petitioner, the second menu board Nvas needed to better facilitate the drive - through queuing. The Panera drive - through concept is new to the area, and the preview menu board Nvould help speed the drive - through service. The Petitioner also noted that the increase in the alloNvable square footage for the principal menu board Nvas needed to allow the installation of the typical thirty -five (35) square foot menu board, Nvhich includes the complete menu. Pancra's complete menu is available all day, and Panera does not rotate the menu sign panels throughout the day. Ms. Andrade stated Staff can appreciate the Petitioner's desire to install a preview board to facilitate drive - through queuing; it does not constitute a hardship and Nvould serve as a convenience to the Petitioner. The development's characteristic of one (1) drive - through lane is not unique and does not Nvarrant an additional menu board. Other fast -food restaurants Nvith one (1) drive - through lane in the Village currently operate Nvith one menu board. The Petitioner's request to increase the area of the principal menu board Nvould also serve as a convenience as the proposed sign is Pancra's typical menu board currently used in other locations. The alloNvable signage, including Nvall signs, a menu board, and directional signs, for Panera Nvould reasonably identiA- the business. Ms. Andrade said based on Staff's review of the Petitioner's request to amend the Planned Unit Development to allow a drive - through restaurant, Staff recommended approval of an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development granted in Ordinance No. 5705 for Randhurst Village to allow a drive - through restaurant along Elmhurst Road, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. The Village Board's decision for this request is final. Ms. Andrade stated based on Staff's review of the proposed signs, Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Variation requests to increase the number of menu boards and to increase the area of the principal menu board. The Planning and Zoning Commission's decision for the sign requests are final. Chairman Rogers confirmed Nvith Staff that Plan A and Plan B of the proposed drive - through Nvere up for discussion. Ms. Andrade stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission could make a recommendation on either plan Nvith modifications. Mr. Simmons said Staff Nvould recommend Plan B to the Commission. Mr. Beattie asked if there Nvere anv other drive - throughs in the Village that had more than one (1) menu board. Ms. Andrade responded she Nvas not aNvare of anv other drive - through in the Village Nvith multiple menu boards, and if they do exist they are considered non - conforming. Chairman Rogers added that they had not approved more than one (1) menu board. There Nvas discussion about the possibility of other drive - throughs having non- conforming preview boards. Chairman Rogers swore in Rich Yaras of Casto, 55 E. Euclid Avenue, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Yaras discussed both plans that Nvere presented to the Commission. He preferred the option (Plan A) Nvith the bypass lane to address the Commission's concerns regarding Nvait times He mentioned that he Nvould continue to Nvork Nvith Staff regarding landscaping if need be. There Nvas additional discussion regarding the need and purpose of the bypass lane Mr. DonnelIv asked if there Nvas consideration to place the menu board along the north side of the proposed building. Mr. Yaras said by placing the menu board on the north side Nvould affect the drive - through queuing and the parking lot traffic. There Nvas additional discussion regarding the parking lot layout. Mr. Donnelly preferred that the menu board not face the street and the neighbors across the Nvay. Mr. Yaras stated that the signs Nvould be on a thirty (30) degree angle and the neighbors' properties across the Nvav are heavilN Nvooded. Mr. Donnelly compared the Subject Case to the drive - through at Wolf and Euclid Roads. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -22 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2011 Page 3 of 5 There Nvas discussion regarding the four (4) handicap spaces on the north side of the proposed building. Mr. Donnelly Nvanted to see the north side of the property dedicated to the drive - through only. Ms. Hinaber thought the handicap spaces Nvould create issues Nvith the drive - through traffic. Mr. Yaras said that he could look at placing the handicap spaces on the east side of the proposed building, but it Nvas not preferred. There Nvas discussion regarding the traffic flow on site and the preview board. Mr. Donnelly stated that he did not see changes made from the last meeting. Mr. Yaras said the biggest concerns Nvere Nvith Nvait times and the lack of a double bypass lane. He stated Plan A alloNvs for the bypass lane throughout the drive - through and it maximizes the landscaping. Mr. Yaras stated the drive - through lane has been shifted as close to the building as possible. Mr. Yaras discussed the proposed timeline schedule for the project. Mr. Donnelly asked whN- there Nvere different sizes listed for the preview board. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner may have calculated the area incorrectIv. She said Staff calculates the square footage of the sign by boxing in the area that includes either the logo, business name, or items. Mr. Yaras confirmed that Pancra's logo Nvas not included Nvith his calculations of the area. Mr. Donnelly asked the Petitioner what hardships necessitate the preview board. Mr. Yaras said the preview sign Nvould reduce Nvait times as Panera is not a typical fast food restaurant. He discussed the variety of items that the restaurant serves. There Nvas general discussion Nvhether or not the preview sign Nvould decrease Nvait times at the drive - through. Chairman Rogers did not see a need for t�vo (2) menu boards. He stated that the compromise could be one (1) menu board at thirty -five (35) square feet. This Nvould be three (3) feet above Nvhat the Code allows. Chairman Rogers asked if the six (6) foot tall evergreens could be eight (8) feet tall; to ensure that the menu board is covered. Mr. Yaras had no objections to installing eight (8) foot tall evergreens to cover the menu board. Chairman Rogers discussed the N,-o (2) drive - through options. He preferred the building and drive - through traffic to be located further avmy from Elmhurst Road. He asked the Petitioner if there Nvas going to be a berm along Elmhurst Road. Mr. Yaras said there Nvould be a berm only a couple of feet high. Mr. Yaras believed that if there Nvas not going to be a bypass lane, then the preview board Nvas Nvarranted. Mr. Beattie stated that he did not understand how a preview board one (1) car length avmy from the menu board Nvould reduce Nvait times. There Nvas discussion regarding other Panera restaurants Nvith drive - throughs and their Nvait times. Mr. Donnellv stated that if the Panera logo Nvas removed from the menu board and replaced Nvith menu items; this could allow the menu board to meet the Village Code. Mr. Yaras stated that the menu board is Pancra's prototype and he did not know if the logo Nvas removed how it Nvould affect them. There Nvas discussion regarding lighting along the drive - through and Nvest side of the Subject Property. Mr. Yaras shoNved pictures of another Panera drive - through to illustrate how the preview and menu boards Nvould look. There Nvas additional discussion regarding the drive - through, outdoor seating, preview board, and lighting. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -22 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2011 Page 4 of 5 Mr. DonnelIv asked Staff if the drive - through queuing requirements Nyere based on how fast a restaurant is able to make food. Mr. Simmons said there are minimum requirements based on the number of stacking spaces alloNyed for a drive - through. The number is based on numerous traffic studies of fast food restaurants nationNyide. Mr. Simmons stated there are no requirements based on hoNy fast a restaurant turns around food. Chairman Rogers confirmed Nyith Staff that the Village requires eight (8) stacking spaces for a drive - through restaurant. Chairman Rogers asked if there Nyas anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 8:17 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. DonnelIv made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to approve a Variation request to increase the number of menu boards from one (1) to tNyo (2). UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Beattie, Donnelly, Hinaber, Rogers Motion Nyas denied 4 -0. The Planning and Zoning Commission's decision Nyas final for this motion. Mr. Beattie made a motion, seconded by Mr. Donnelly to approve a Variation request to increase the area of the principal menu board from thirty- -tvyo (32) square feet to thirty -five (35) square feet. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Hinaber, Rogers NAYS: Donnelly Motion Nyas approved 3 -1. The Planning and Zoning Commission's decision Nyas final for this motion. There Nyas discussion regarding the drive - through lane. Mr. Donnelly asked if the drive - through lane could be less than fourteen (14) feet. Chairman Rogers stated that the lane could be reduced to twelve (12) feet. Mr. Simmons said that the Village's Engineering Division revieNyed the proposed drive - through and recommended the lane being at least fourteen (14) feet. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if he could live Nyith tvyelve (12) feet instead of fourteen (14) feet. Mr. Yaras stated that he Nyould defer to Engineering's comments and keep it at fourteen (14) feet. Mr. Beattie made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to approve an amendment to the Planned Unit Development granted in Ordinance No. 5705 for Randhurst Village to alloy a drive - through restaurant along Elmhurst Road, as illustrated on Site Plan B as prepared by Woolpert, dated August 2011, subject to the conditions of approval as listed in the staff report. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Hinaber, Rogers NAYS: None Motion Nyas approved 4 -0. The Village Board's decision is final for this motion. After hearing one (1) additional case, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Roberts to adjourn at 8:28 p.m. The motion Nyas approved by a voice vote and the meeting Nyas adjourned. Rvan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -22 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2011 Page 5 of 5