HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/2002 P & Z minutes 36-01MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. ZBA-36-01
PETITIONER:
PUBLICATION DATE:
REQUEST:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Hearing Date: January 24, 2002
Christian Life Church
400 E. Gregory
January 9, 2002 Daily Herald
Conditional Use to amend an existing Planned Unit Development
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Richard Rogers
Matthew Sledz
Keith Youngquist
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy ConnollY, AICP, Senior Planner
Suzanne Mas6, Long Range Planner
Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Harry Schmidt
Greg Cashman
Lawrence Dell
oAI Engberg
Dennis & Geri Granahan
Ken Kitzing
Daryl Merrill
Larry & Pat Pezen
Chairpemon Arlene Jum~k called the meeting to order at 7:30p.m. Ms. Juracek welcomed everyone to the first
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission that is comprised of the former Zoning Board of Appeals and the
Plan Commission. She introduced new members Joseph Donnelly and former Plan Commission member, Matthew
Sledz: At 8:34, after hearing Case No. ZBA-32-01, Cas~ No. PC-14-01, and Case No. ZBA-34-01, Ms. Juracek
introduced Case No. ZBA-36-01, a request for a Conditional Use to amend a PUD. She said that this case is Village
Board final.
Judy ConnOltY, SeniOr planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. Ms. Connolly stated that the subject
property was originally the Northside School and later sold to the Christian Life Church. In 1992, when the church
wanted to expand and include a college, they applied for a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development. She said
that the Planned Unit Development (PUD) provided for a larger church, a college, and a library that would be built at a
later date.
Ms. Connolly said that the PUD was amended at the petitioner's request in 1993 to allow for a new 750-seat sanctuary
and conversion of the 532-seat Chapel into a multi-purpose room when the sanctuary was complete. As part of that
PUD approval, the petitioner was allowed to do the improvements in phases. The chapel addition was completed in
1994.
Ms. Connolly explained that the current request to amend the PUD is a five-year plan that includes constructing
student housing, a library, an administrative student center, a 950-seat sanctuary, and converting the existing chapel to
a multi-purpose room upon completion of the sanctuary. She said that the petitioner plans to build an archive area in
the basement of the library and administrative student center if funding is available at a future date.
Planning and Zoning Commission ZBA-36-01
Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson Page 2
Ms. Connolly described the phases of the project, how each structure would be used, the proposed building materials,
and setbacks. She said that in order to approve changes to the planned unit development, the project must meet the
standards for a conditional use and standards for planned unit development with other exceptions. She cited the
conditional use standards: that the request may not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety, morals,
comfort or general welfare; that the conditional use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other
properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; that adequate provision of utilities and
drainage and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and compliance of the conditional
use with the provisions of the comprehensive plan, zoning code, and other Village ordinances.
Ms. Connolly explained that the required findings for planned unit developments that do not comply with the
requirements of the underlying district regulations am allowed when the exceptions are consistent with the standards
for planned unit development with other exceptions listed in the zoning ordinance. She said that these standards relate
to: any reduction in the requirements of this chapter is in the public interest; the proposed exceptions would not
adversely impact the value or use of any other property; that such exceptions are solely for the purpose of promoting
better develoPment which will be beneficial to the residents or occupants of the planned unit development as well as
those of the surrounding properties; that all buildings are located within the planned unit development in such a way as
to dissipate any adverse impact on adjoining buildings and shall not invade the privacy of the occupants of such
buildings; all structures located on the perimeter of the planned unit development must be set back by a distance
sufficient to protect the privacy and amenity of adjacent existing uses; all structures located along the entire perimeter
of the planned unit development must be permanently screened with sight proof screening in a manner that is sufficient
to protect the privacy and amenity of adjacent existing uses.
Ms. Connolly described the existing conditions of the subject property as 7.12 acres with a chapel, classrooms, and a
parking lot She said that there is significant green space along the Rand Road frontage and the west property lin
The stte as accessed from one of three em'b-cuts offof Gregory Street. The subject property ts adjacent to single family
residential, a park, and across the street from single family. She said that the petitioner is seeking to amend an existing
Planned Unit Development in addition to relief from setback regulations for the parking areas.
Ms. Connolly discussed the Comprehensive Plan designation and stated'that the Village's General Land Use Map
designates the property as 'Industrial/Office'. She said that although the proposed expansion contains elements of the
Land Use Map designation, the proposed project is an institutional use and is not entirely consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. At one time, it may have been thought that the Kensin~on Business Center or a similar type
development would expand across Rand Road on the subject property. Ms. Connolly said that staff is in the process Of
updating the General Land Use Map and that the Planning and Zoning Commission will be asked to revisit this
property regarding whether the Industrial/Office designation is still appropriate for this site.
With regards to the proposed setbacks, Ms. Connolly said that the buildings comply with setback regulations, but
sections of the parking area do not. She said that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 10-foot setback for parking lots and
that the petitioner is seeking relief for the parking setback along the north and east lot lines since a 9-foot setback is
proposed along the north lot line and a 7.5-foot setback is proposed for sections along the east lot line (Rand Road).
Ms. Connolly said the petitioner's plan shows that the parking spaces will be installed in a manner that is consistent
with implementation of each phase of development. At the completion of the project, 353 parking spaces will be
installed, including two handicap spaces. Ms. Connolly explained that the petitioner is required to provide at least 439
parking spaces for each individual use, but most of the uses do not require their own parking on a constant basis. For
example, the school is not open on the weekends thereby freeing-up spaces for worshippers. She said that the
sanctuary would be used on the weekends and would require a maximum 317 parking spaces. Since the students who
live in the Student Housing buildings need parking all the time, the 40 spaces for the units cannot be shared, but ther
same students attend the university and the services. She said that due to the fact that the school and the church at,
interrelated, the maximum number of spaces required during a peak time would be 357 (40 for Student Housing and
317 for the maximum number of worshipers). However, it is likely that 40 spaces would be freed from the worshiper
Planning and Zoning Commission
Arlene Jumcek, Chairperson
ZBA-36-01
Page 3
requirement since the students who live on-campus would also attend the service and be counted as a worshiper.
Therefore, the petitioner meets the intent of the parking requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner's plans show that 70% of the site will be paved at the end of the project and that
amount of lot coverage complies with zoning regulations.
Ms. Connolly said the petitioner did not submit a detailed landscape plan, but their site plan shows where new trees
and bushes will be planted. She said that the subject property is located along one of the Village Commercial
Corridors and that requiring the petitioner to install a continuous three-foot hedge around the east, south, and sections
oftbe west property lines is consistent with previous approval for developments and redevelopments along commercial
corridors. In addition, the increased landscaping will help mitigate the impact of the new buildings, parking setbacks
less than ten-feet, and improve the appearance oftbe site. She said that installing additional landscaping such as pine
trees along the east parking area during Phase V and foundation plantings by the Library and Student Center would
screen the view from the adjacent properties.
Ms. Connolly reported that the Engineering Division performed a preliminary review of the proposal. She said that
Development Code requirements that had to be met for the site are detailed in the staff memo, but basically, Phase One
triggers all Development Code requirements. Also, the petitioner has to obtain permits from the appropriate
jurisdictions where necessary, loop the water service, and submit alt phases oftbe project for review when they apply
for a building permit.
Ms. Connolly said that the Fire Prevention Bureau performed a preliminary review of the proposal and required that all
construction meet the Village's Building and Fire Codes. She said that this includes, but is not limited to, paving the
access road along the noah lot line and that the access road is not 'gated-in'; that the project includes hydrants as
determined neeassary by the Village's~Fire Code and Fire Prevention Bureau; and that the buildings have automatic
sprinkler and fire alarm systems. ~
Ms. Connolly said that although the petitioner's plans do not show modifying access to the site, staff has discussed a
curb-cut off of Rand Road with the petitioner. She said that a 950-seat sanctuary will generate more trips to the
property for services and that the petitioner has agreed to contact IDOT to determine if a curb-cut is possible. Ms.
Connolly said that should IDOT agree to the new Rand Road curb-cut, the petitioner agreed to close the Owen Street
curb-cut, offer Gregory Street. She said that modifying access to the site will reduce the impact oftbe development
on the adjacent residences.
Ms. Connolly said the impact oftbe development would be mitigated by the additional landscaping and possible curb-
cut offofRand Road and closing curb-cuts along Gregory Street. Therefore, the development will have limited impact
on the adjacent neighborhoods, utility provision or public streets. She said that the proposed development will provide
30% green space, which is more than the amount required by the Zoning Ordinance, and that the buildings comply
with zoning setbacks. She explained that the petitioner is seeking relief from parking setback requirements for the
parking areas located along Rand Road and Park District property (Gregory Park). Increasing the screening will
minimize the impact of a lesser setback and improve the appearance of the subject property, which is in the public
interest and would not adversely impact the value or use of any other property. In addition, reducing the parking
setbacks allows the development to provide the maximum amount of parking and create a high qualitY development.
Ms. Connolly said that based on the above analysis, the Planning & Zoning Commission can make positive findings
with respect to the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposed
changes to the existing PUD with the following conditions:
1. Development of the site in conformance with the site plans prepared by Roberts Construction, dated
December 17, 2001 as revised by staffand labeled Staff Exhibit 'A' (which shows the increased landscaping
and the access offof Rand Road);
2. Submission of a final landscape plan meeting all requirements of Article XXIII, Landscape Code of the
Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Code, and also includes the following:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson
ZBA-36-01
Page 4
· a continuous three-foot hedge of varying species along the perimeter of the east, south, and portions
of the west property lines, without creating sight triangle obstructions and allowing for flexibility
along the north lot line;
· foundation landscaping on the west and south elevations of the new buildings;
· pine trees along the east area of the Phase V parking area that screen the entire parking area;
3. Submission of a Lighting plan as required by Sec. 14.2219 of the Zoning Ordinance;
4. Submittal and approval of final Engineering Plans meeting all Development Code requirements which
include but are not limited to:
· All Development Code requirements be met in Phase I;
· Loop the water supply if Engineering determines that a looped design is necessary to eliminate 'dead
end' water mains that service the new student housing units and the required fire hydrants;
· All phases of the development shall be designed and submitted for review and approval with the Phase
I improvements to easum compatibility between the phases.
5. Submittal of final building plans meeting all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements which
include but are not limited to:
· The access road is to be constructed in accordance with Development Code requirements (paved) and
without gates;
· Provide hydrants on-site as determined necessary by the Village's Fire Code, Fire Prevention Bureau, and
Public Works;
· Buildings are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler and fire alarm systems;
· All construction must meet the Village's Building and Fire Codes. '
6. The petitioner shall make an application to IDOT for access off of Rand Road, work with staff to establish
the best access point from Rand Road, and close the' curb-cut off of Owen Street;
7. Approval of appropriate pemfits by I.D.O.T. and M.W.R.D;
8. The basement storages remain ~ ~torage space and is not used for office space, a meeting room, or any
other use that would require parking as required by the Village Zoning Ordinance.
Arlene Juracek asked for confirmation that the setback Variation was being sought just for parking, not a structure.
Ms. Connolly said yes.
Richard Rogers asked about the pementage of landscape area for the parking lot. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner
would submit a detailed plan at a later date that showed it met the 5% requirement.
Daryl Merrill, pastor of Christian Life Church and chairman of the board of the college~ was sworn in. He presented a
history of the church and college, their academic accreditation, student profile, and their building plans. He introduced
Hany Schmidt, president of the Christian Life College. Mr. Schmidt was sworn in. He addressed the Planning and
Zoning Commission and said that the Christian Life College had an Open House for area residents on January 17. Mr.
Schmidt said that they sent invitations to 72 addresses and that 14 residents attended the meeting. He summarized the
meeting and the neighbors feedback on the project.
Greg Cashman, architect with Roberts construction, 849 E. Washington in Madison, Wisconsin was sworn in and said
that he has been working with the college for two years to develop a master plan. He said that today's presentation
was the culmination-of two years planning that included 12-14 months working with the planning staff. He reviewed
the various site plans and elevations, and explained the phases of development in detail.
Planning and Zoning Commissioners had questions pertaining to the proposed timetable for completion of the five
phases, construction materials, the location of the dumpsters and garbage removal service. In addition, they inquired
about the existing parking lot, proposed landscaping, and basements in the proposed buildings.
Mr. Schmidt said that Village staffapproved their current landscape plan in 1992. He said that they share the Village's
desire to softan the impact of the paved parking area and create less ora "shopping center" look along Rand Road. He
said that they created the large water retention area during an earlier phase of improvement and installed the berming
around it. He said that they receive many favorable comments from the neighbors about the area.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
ZBA-36-01
Page 5
Leo Flores asked if the college was ready to proceed with construction, should the Village Board approve the changes
to the PUD, or did the college need to raise funds to pay for the project. Mr. Schmidt said they have funding available
now for most of the project and that they were comfortable with a five-year implementation timetable. He said they
would like to do Phase I & II concurrently and that they have met with American Charter Bank officials and see no
problem in obtaining financing for this endeavor.
Ken KilT. lng, 415 N. Elm St., was sworn in. He said that in 1953 the entire area was farmland, with no flooding problems.
Since the school was built, his property, and his neighbors' back yards flood three or four times a year. He said he felt the
proposed plans did not include proper water retention. He also objected to the height of the 2-story building. He -felt that the
hip roofaeamlly made the building 3-stories and was too high to be just 30' from his lot line, as he would have no privacy in
his yard. Mr. Kitzing was also concerned with the proposed increase in the number of students in the area and the noise they
would generate. Mr. Flores asked him if he got water in the house. Mr. Kitzing said no because his house is built on a 15'
rise, but that it takes 2-3 days for the water to recede in his yard and he is unable to use portions of the yard during that time.
Ms. Juracok suggested that the architect could address the water problem by changing the location el~ the buildings. Mr.
Cashman said the water problem originates in Gregory Park and that it runs across the Christian Life property. Ms. Juraeek
asked that he work with staff on calculations on water retention to assure neighbors there will be no flooding problems.
Dennis Granahan, 319 N. School St., was sworn in and testified he was concemed with the increased traffic that would occur
through the residential area and that he thought access should be Provided from Rand Rd. Ms. Juracek said that the Rand
Road access is a state issue and would need to be approved by 1DOT. At'er reviewing the staff exhibit that showed creating
an access from Rand Road and closing access from Owen Street, Mr. Granahan said that this would help reduce the amount
of traffic that would spillover into the residential eeighborhoed~
Further discussion ensued regarding storm water detention, the order of completion of the building phases, and the
possibility of reconfiguring the arrangement and location of the various buildings. Mr. Schmidt reminded the group
that the water was from Park Dish'ict property north of the college and said that the college would work with staff for
an appropriate solution. He said that they would consider a "flip-flop" of the buildings and parking by the Student
Housing as suggested by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 9:58 p.m.
Richard Rogers moved to approve the request as submitted by Case No. ZBA-32-01, a-Conditional Use to amend an
existing Planned Unit Development, with the conditions listed in the staffmemo and several additional conditions: (1)
add additional landscaping to the existing parking lot at the time Phase I is initiated; (2) Complete all Phases of
construction within five years; (3)identify the garbage/dumpster location, following screening requirementS listed in
the Code; (4) follow Engineering Department requirements for water detention to retain the water runoff originating
from the Park District property so the water does not pass to the neighbors; (5) Locate the residences and parking
further from the Elm Sweet properties. Matthew Sledz seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: FlOros, Cotten, Donnelly, Youngquist, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek
NAYS:
Motion was approved 7-0.
At 10:02 p.m., the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed meeting procedures. Merrill Cotten made a motion to
commence P&Z Commission meetings at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers seconded the motion.
UPONROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Flores, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek
NAYS: None
lanning and Zoning Commission ~ ZBA-36-01
Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson Page 6
Motion was approved 7-0.
Chairperson Juraeek announced it would be necessary to elect a Vice-Chair to the Commission. Keith Youngquist
nominated Richard Rogers, Merrill Cotten seconded the nomination. There were no further nominations.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juraeek
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Rogers
Motion was approved 6-0, with one abstention.
As there were no other "housekeeping" items to be discussed, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 10:05 p.m.,
seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
arbara Swiatek, 151~nning Secretary
<]y Connoi~y,~S&ior ~l~t~.ner "~