Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/26/2004 P&Z minutes 26-04 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO.: PZ-26-04 HEARING DATE: August 26, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 100 S. School St. PETITIONER: St. Paul Lutheran Church PUBLICATION DATE: August 11, 2004 PIN#: 08-12-106-106-0000 & 08-12-106-018-0000 REQUEST: Setback Variations & Development Code Exception MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek, Merrí11 Cotten, Joseph Donnelly, Leo Floros, Richard Rogers, Matthew Sledz, Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner, and Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Chairperson Arlene Juracekcalled the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joe Donnelly made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 24, seconded by Rich Rogers. The minutes were approved 6-0 with Matt Sledz abstaining from voting. Joe Donnelly made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 15, 2004 meeting with minor corrections, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The minutes were approved 5-0 with Matt Sledz and Chairperson Juracek abstaining from voting. After hearing four other cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-26-04, St. Paul Lutheran School, 100 S. School Street, A request for Variations to Parking and Bulk Regulations. She noted that the request would be Ví11age Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. The Subject Property, consisting of two parcels, is located at the southwest comer of Busse Avenue and School Street. The property located at 100 S. School Street contains the main church building, a one-story accessory structure, a parking lot and related site improvements. The property at 112 S. School Street contains an existing single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. Currently the site does not comply with the Ví11age's zoning regulations and portions of the existing Church encroach into the required setbacks. The Petitioner is proposing a number of improvements to the site, including a 2-story addition to the existing church and an expansion of the existing parking lot. The proposed improvement would result in the demolition of the accessory structure at 100 S. School Street and the existing home at 112 S. School Street. The proposed 2-story building addition wí11 match the Church's existing setback of 19.32' along School Street (which is less than the required setback of 20 feet). Therefore, they are seeking a Variation for the proposed exterior side yard setback. The Petitioner is also proposing an expansion of the existing parking lot. Although the site wí11 include 21 additional parking spaces, creating a total of 52 on-site parking spaces, the Petitioner is seeking relief from the Village's zoning regulations for the amount of required on-site parking. In addition, the proposed parking lot requires variations from the RA District's minimum rear, interior and exterior side yard setback requirements. The Petitioner proposes to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface. However, due to the scope of the project, the Development Code requires that storm water detention be provided for the entire site. Therefore, Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-26-04 Page 2 the Petitioner is seeking an exception to the Development Code regulations to allow storm water detention for the new impervious surface only. The Petitioner included a detailed Facility Usage chart that outlines the various activities that occur at the Church and the estimated number of participants. Based on the "Net Change in Use" information submitted, the facility may experience some parking deficiencies, primarily during weekend services and special events. It is important to note that the facility currently does not meet the Village's parking requirements and occasionally experiences parking shortages. During those occasions where on-site parking is unavailable the Church's parishioners can either park on their school property or on the street. The proposed building addition will meet the interior side yard setback requirement; however, it will encroach slightly into the exterior side yard. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow the addition to encroach 8" into the required yard in order to maintain the Church's existing setback. The existing setback cannot be considered a legal nonconformity for the addition because the intensity of the addition exceeds the limitations listed in the Zoning Ordinance and new construction is required to comply with zoning regulations. Currently, there is a vacated alley along the west lot line that is used as a secondary means of access to the existing parking lot. The existing parking lot extends up to the lot lines on both the east and west sides of the Subject Property. The Petitioner's plans indicate that the vacated alley access point wí11 be abandoned and that landscaping will be installed along the entire west lot line. The new parking lot will have approximately a 14-foot setback along the west lot line. The Petitioner's plans show that vehicles wí11 both enter and exit the parking lot from School Street. The parking lot currently extends to the east lot line, however the Petitioner proposes to create a 10' setback and landscape islands to separate the driveways. Although the parking lot currently does not comply with zoning regulations, a Variation is required for the proposed setbacks because the parking lot intensity changes and it can no longer be considered a legal non-conformity and allowed to remain with a zero setback. Staff reviewed the design and found that the driveway and parking lot configuration shown on the plan is more conducive to two-way traffic than the desired one-way traffic. However, installing angle parking would reduce the total number of parking spaces required; therefore, Staff does not object to the 90 degree parking, but the driveways should be modified as follows: The driveways should be narrowed to a suggested 14' width single lane, the radii of the driveways at School Street should be reduced from 30' to 15', and the radii of the driveways into the parking lot should be increased from 5' to 10'; and appropriate signage and striping must be provided to direct traffic flow. In reviewing this request it is important to note that the Ví11age's height restrictions within residential zoning districts are measured to the mid-point of the roof, except for buildings with flat roofs. Although the proposed addition has a height of approximately 41 feet to the peak of the roof, the height to the mid-point of the roof is 28 feet. It should be noted that although the height restrictions within the RA District apply only to residential buildings, Staff has applied the same height restrictions to the proposed Church addition. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. These relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner is proposing to add a 2-story addition to increase the efficiency and general comfort of the Church's daily operations. As part of the project, the Petitioner would demolish two structures to accommodate the construction of the addition and parking lot expansion. The Petitioner designed a parking lot that would provide the maximum number of parking spaces possible. Staff supports the proposed design subject to incorporating the recommendations previously cited. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-26-04 Page 3 Although the existing parking lot is currently built to the lot line, the proposed landscaped setbacks would minimize the impacts of the parking lot on the adjacent properties. In addition, the 8" Variation needed for the exterior side yard would be in keeping with the existing setback and maintain the character of the building. Based upon the scope of the improvements, the Development Code requires that the entire site be brought into compliance. However, the Petitioner proposes to provide storm water detention only for the new impervious surface. The Village's Engineering Division reviewed the Petitioner's proposal and found that the stormwater runoff from the existing site surface drains to the adjacent properties and that stormwater detention currently does not exist on site. Engineering concurred with the Petitioner's engineering report that states providing the storage as described would create adequate storage volume for the area to be improved for the runoff generated by a 100-year storm. This volume would equate to providing storage volume for the entire site for the runoff generated by the 25-year storm. Engineering also concurred that the cost involved and the disturbance to the areas intended to remain outside the scope of the proj ect could be significant if storm water detention must be provided for the entire site. The site currently does not provide storm water detention and the Petitioner would provide detention for the new impervious surface. Staff reviewed the request and found that a reasonable effort has been made to comply with Village Code requirements, but that site constraints limited the Petitioner's ability to provide, above grade detention. In addition, the site will be well below the maximum amount of permitted lot coverage. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Ví11age Board approve Variations for 1) the amount of parking, 2) the proposed setbacks, and 3) a Development Code exception to allow the Petitioner to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface only for the Subject Property, subject to the following: 1) Consolidating the Subject Property into a single lot of record; 2) Modifying the parking lot to include: The driveways should be narrowed to a single lane width (14' wide); The radii of the driveways at School Street should be reduced from 30' to 15', and the radii of the driveways into the parking lot should be increased from 5' to 10'; and Appropriate signage and striping must be provided to direct traffic flow; 3) Meeting the Building Code & Fire Code requirements for Fire Protection that include the installation of fire sprinklers and fire alarm; 4) Complying with all other Development Requirements, as defined in Section 15.402 of the Village Code, which include: The installation of streetlights within the public right of way adjacent to the site; and Paying a fee for the planting of parkway trees in the public right of way along the site. The Ví11age Board's decision is final for this case. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village Board approve Case No. PZ-26-04. The Ví1lage Board's decision is final for this case. The Planning & Zoning Commission asked Ms. Connolly some general questions regarding the project and then asked the petitioner to present their case. Greg O'Brien, representing St. Paul Lutheran Church, Greg Goss, Architect, Matt Bardo, Civil Engineer, and Laurel Schmitt of Post Landscaping were sworn in. Mr. O'Brien said their submittals are only rough sketches. The building they are in was built in the 60s and is in need of a fellowship hall, administrative offices, elevators, handicap access and bathrooms. They want to focus on weeklong usage rather than just Sundays, and want to reach out to the community to increase their congregation. Mr. Rogers asked Mr. O'Brien's opinion of a one-way parking lot and he said he was in favor of that. He called on the civil engineer, Matt Bardo, to field water retention questions. Mr. Bardo said he worked with the Village Engineer to see how they could work to improve the retention without disturbing the retention in place at present. Keith Youngquist asked what buildings were being razed. Mr. O'Brien said one was the parsonage and one had been occupied by a church member who had entered a nursing home. Greg Goss came forward and described the planned addition and various elevations. Laurel Schmitt from Post's Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-26-04 Page 4 Landscaping came forward and described the planned landscaping. Mr. Rogers said there were many older trees in that area that should be saved. Ms. Schmitt agreed. Mr. O'Brien reminded the Commission that these plans were tentative and they just wanted permission for parking and bulk regulations before going forward. Ms. Juracek asked about lighting plans. Mr. O'Brien said light would not bleed beyond the parking lot and they were wí11ing to consider shorter light poles and work with neighbors on fence, light and tree issues. He said they wanted to observe all Ví11age and Building Codes and it was their intent to come back fully prepared to answer all questions and with the proper various plans and elevations. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience had questions. Bill Reddy of 105 Elm Street, stated his home is the former Busse/Beerman home that was built in 1928 - well before the church was built behind them, was sworn in. He said he was not sure where to start but said he wanted to say the meetings the Church held with the neighbors had been most uninformative and with no dimensions. When they finally obtained dimensions from the Ví11age, they found the height to be over 41'. Mr. Reddy complained of flooding because of grade level problems with the church property. He said if Variations are granted the neighborhoods flooding problems wí1l worsen. Bob Dooley of the same address came forward and presented pictures from the Historical Society that proved the flooding problem was long standing. Mr. Dooley said the church has blinding 400 watt halogen lights flooding their backyard. He also complained about large transformers and teenagers using the area between the church and their yard, and the church has done nothing about their complaints. Mr. Dooley read a petition opposing the church's requests for Variations signed by some neighborhood residents. Mr. Dooley also noted his concerns with the language included in the notice prepared by the Ví11age. Judy Connolly advised Mr. Dooley that all of the Ví11age's notices include general language to allow for some flexibility during the public hearing process. Michael Jacobs noted that although the notice contained some general language, the Planning & Zoning Commission and Village Board grant specific relief as part of an approval, and that no other relief from the Ví1lage's regulations could be granted without reappearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission and Village Board. Peter Lutsky, 101 S. Elm St., was sworn in and testified he moved to Mount Prospect a year ago. He hesitated to buy the house because of the large church behind the house and the traffic caused by the church but bought the house because of its beauty. He is a licensed architect and said the existing church is a wonderful example of 60's architecture. He had large pictures of St. Paul's, St. Mark's and St. Raymond's which he showed at the easels. He said there is clearly no precedent to make the proposed church as tall as they want it to be. He discussed how the design of the proposed addition is not in keeping with the existing Church building or other church expansions throughout the Ví11age. Arlene Juracek asked Jeff Wulbecker, the Village Engineer, to address the group regarding water detention. Mr. Wulbecker came forward and explained what was necessary to retain and store water before slowly releasing it. He explained the slope from Elm Street to School Street was about six feet. Water flows downward to School Street. Ms. Juracek explained that, while the neighbors have concerns about height and the other issues brought up tonight, they are not outside of Code and not what a Variation is being sought after. She asked exactly what is the addition, one story or two, and what is the proposed height. The architect for St. Paul's Lutheran School said the addition will be one story with a lower level and the height will be according to Village Code and as needed for aesthetics for such a dynamic space. Ms. Juracek asked ifthe vacated alley is going to be 100% vacated. Mr. O'Brien said that is their intention. Mr. Youngquist said the redevelopment of the two existing homes, especially the sprawling ranch, would only provide twenty parking spaces and he could not understand this entire 6,000 sq.ft. addition being built with only twenty parking spaces. It seems everything is being crowded to the north in order to pop this building up out of the ground Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-26-04 Page 5 and perhaps there is a better way to look at the plan. This is couched as being preliminary and if we give approval for certain Variations you can go back and massage things without us really knowing what the end product is going to be. Chairperson agreed with Keith Youngquist that to approve these requests without clear knowledge of the complete plans would not be fair to the community or to the neighbors who have objections to these particular requests. Ms. Juracek polled the Board to see if they thought they had enough information to vote. The majority of members thought they did not. Representatives of St. Paul Church thought they had a better understanding of what the Commission needed to consider approval of their requests and were willing to come back to another hearing with those requirements. Ms. Juracek swore in George Busse of 111 S. Maple who said he was raised at 107 S. School St., across from the church. He is on the church board and spoke about the need for space for various activities in the church. He assured the group there is no conspiracy here. He said they want to be a good neighbor but also must address their needs. The elder George Busse of 117 S. School St. said he saw nothing wrong with the aesthetics of the proposed building. Chain11an Juracek said she would entertain a motion to table the discussion pending more detailed drawings of the addition minimizing impact on the surrounding neighborhood, to the September 23, 2004 meeting. Merrill Cotten made such motion, adding that he thought they could provide drawings on landscaping, drainage and pinpoint the location of the building without much additional cost. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Floros, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 10:33 p.m., Joe Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Rich Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP Deputy Director of Community Development c\Docul11ents and SellingslkdewislLocal Settings\Tel11porary Intemet Files\OLK2\PZ-26-04 100 S. School St St. Paul Lutheran Schoo1.doc