Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/26/2012 P&Z Minutes 19-12MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -19 -12 Hearing Date: July 26, 2012 PROPERTY ADDRESSES: 1921, 2069, 2101, 2105 and 3125 S. Busse Road PETITIONER: ARC Disposal Company, Inc. and E &P Investment Corporation PUBLICATION DATE: JuIv 11, 2012 PIN NUMBERS: 08 -23- 101 - 055 -0000, 08 -23- 101 - 020 -0000, 08 -23- 100 - 006 -0000, 08 -23 -300- 007 -0000, and 08 -23- 101 - 062 -0000 REQUEST: 1) Text Amendment — Create an I -3 Solid Waste Handling District 2) Map Amendment — Rezone from RX Single Family to I -3 Solid Waste Handling MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Tom Fitzgerald Leo Floros Jacqueline Hinaber MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Nana* Comida, PhvIlis Rose Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Floros made a motion, seconded by Ms. Hinaber to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes Nvere approved 5- 0. After hearing one (1) previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 19 -12, 192 1-3 125 S. Busse Road at 7:43 p.m. The Subject Case is Village Board Final. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner for PZ -19 -12 Nvas seeking zoning text and map amendments for the property located at 1921 -3125 S. Busse Road. Ms. Andrade stated the Subject Property is made up of five (5) parcels located on the east side of Busse Road in unincorporated Cook County and currently consists of a Nvaste hauling transfer facility Nvith related improvements. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner and the Village recently entered into an Annexation Agreement regarding the Subject Property on June 19, 2012. Per the agreement, the parties agreed to hold the necessary public hearings in order to create a new I -3 Solid Waste Hauling District Nvithin the Mount Prospect Zoning Code Nvhich Nvould allow as a permitted use the Petitioner's current use of the Subject Property. The proposed text and map amendments are intended to create the I -3 District and apply the new regulations to the Subject Property upon its annexation into the Village. No improvements are proposed to the Subject Property at this time. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner proposed to create a new zoning district Nvith provisions for Nvaste handling uses under Section 14.21A of the Zoning Ordinance. The new section Nvould include bulls regulations such as a Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -19 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2012 Page 1 of 6 minimum parcel size of twelve (12) contiguous acres, a maximum building height of fifr (50) feet, a maximum lot coverage of 100 percent, and zero (0) building setbacks. In addition to the proposed bulls regulations, the new district Nvould include provisions similar to those found in the I -1 Limited Industrial Zoning District, such as performance standards. Ms. Andrade said in addition to the new zoning district, Section 14.313E of the Village Zoning Code Nvould be amended to include the proposed I -3 District in the Nvireless service facilities table. Section 14.60113 Nvould be amended to include the "I - -3 Waste Handling" to the list of zoning districts. Section 14.604 would be amended by adding the Nvords "and I -3 " before "zoning districts" at the end of the paragraph. Ms. Andrade stated the Land Use Table 4 2 in Section 14.604 Nvould also be amended to include the new zoning district and list Nvaste handling and recycling centers as a permitted use in the new zoning district. Section 14.2224, which are the Off Street Parking Requirements Nvould be amended to include Waste Handling and Recycling land use under the industrial use category and a parking requirement of one (1) space per 1,500 square feet of gross floor area. Ms. Andrade said the Map Amendment Nvould be to rezone the five (5) parcels to the new I -3 Zoning district upon annexation. Ms. Andrade stated the standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.13 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The standards include: • The general applicability of the amendment to the community, rather than an individual parcel; • Consistency of the amendment Nvith objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan; • Consistency of the amendment Nvith Village policy as established by previous rulings Ms. Andrade said as proposed, the Text Amendments Nvould create a new zoning district intended to regulate Nvaste handling and recycling land uses. Currently, the I -1 Industrial District allows recycling collection centers as Conditional Uses, but othenvise the code is silent toNvards these land use types. Creating the I -3 district Nvould provide regulations Nvhere the proposed uses Nvould be permissible. The proposed amendment Nvould only be applicable to the Subject Property and not toNvards the rest of the Village at large. Ms. Andrade stated the amendments Nvould not create nonconformities on the property as the existing site conditions Nvould adhere to the proposed regulations. Additionally, the proposed Text Amendments are consistent Nvith the objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The Subject Property is surrounded by other industrial type land uses making it a compatible land use under the proposed zoning district. Therefore, the proposed amendment met the Zoning Code Standards for Text Amendments. Ms. Andrade said the Village Comprehensive Plan designates the property as general industrial. This land use designation is appropriate for uses Nvith a strong dependence on transportation facilities and may include uses such as heavy manufacturing, truck terminals, construction equipment and material storage. The proposed Nvaste handling facility Nvould be consistent Nvith the Comprehensive Plan's designation and the proposed I -3 zoning designation. Ms. Andrade stated the standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.A of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case Nvith respect to, but not limited to, the following matters: The compatibility Nvith existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general area of the property in question; The compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -19 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2012 Page 2 of 6 • The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed zoning classifications; and Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property is adjacent to existing industrial land uses on its north, east and south and multi - family residential uses across Busse Road to the Nvest. The existing waste handling facility Nvould be in keeping Nvith the existing industrial land uses and the Village's Comprehensive Plan. The proposal met the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible Nvith existing properties Nvithin the general area of the Subject Property. Ms. Andrade stated the proposed Text and Map amendments met the appropriate standards as contained in Section 14.203.D.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the motion listed in the Staff Report. Mr. Beattie asked if the regulations for the new district Nvere created to suit the existing operation. Ms. Andrade stated the provisions are part of the annexation agreement as approved by the Village Board. The provisions are based on the existing uses of the property as is. The new zoning designation Nvould allow the continuation of the existing uses. Chairman Rogers asked if the regulations for the new I -3 District are the same or different than the regulations for the county. Ms. Andrade stated that she Nvas not familiar Nvith the county , s regulations for the Subject Property. The Village compared the I -3 Zoning District to the Village's I -1 Zoning District. Mr. Simmons said compared to the I -1 District, the I -3 District lot coverage Nvould be higher than Nvhat the Code currently permits. The maximum lot coverage for the I -1 District is seventy -five (75) percent and the proposed I -3 District Nvould be 100 percent. In regards to the set - backs, the regulations for the I -1 District is thirty (30) feet for the front yard and zero (0) feet for the proposed I -3 District. Ms. Hinaber asked if the proposal Nvould have any negative impacts to the residential area to the West. Mr. Simmons stated based on the proposal, the request Nvas to create a new zoning district that would govern the existing conditions of the Subject Property. He said the business has been in operation on the Subject Property for over twenty -five (25) Nears and has not proposed any modifications to the site. Any additional properties that Nvould Nvant to have the new zoning designation Nvould have to go through the zoning process Nvhich Nvould include a public hearing. Any building modifications Nvould have to adhere to the zoning district's regulations. Chairman Rogers confirmed Nvith Staff that there Nvas no change in the proposed operation of the Petitioner. There Nvas discussion on how much of the area land Nvas still unincorporated. Mr. Simmons said there Nvas still approximately forty (40) acres of land in the immediate area of the Subject Property on Busse Road that Nvas still unincorporated. Mr. Beattie confirmed Nvith Staff that the regulations Nvere drafted to meet the existing conditions of the Subject Property. If the Subject Property Nvas not annexed into the Village, the Petitioner Nvould continue to operate the business as normal. ARC Nvould not be changing their operations based on the annexation process. Chairman Rogers swore in Kenneth Kubiesa, 340 Butterfield Road, Elmhurst, Illinois. Mr. Kubiesa stated that he is an Attorney representing the Petitioners: ARC Disposal, E &P Investment, and their parent company Republic Services. Mr. Kubiesa stated that the Village approached ARC regarding annexation. He said nothing Nvould change from its current day -to -day operation, it Nvill remain the same. The only thing that Nvill change is that some of the right -of -N ays Nvould be vacated per the annexation agreement and become private roads maintained bv ARC. Chairman Rogers swore in Nancy Comida, 8012 W. Churchill Avenue, Niles, Illinois. Ms. Comida stated that she oN -,ns a six (6) flat building, 1852 Anna Marie Dr Nvhich is located across the street from the Subject Property. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -19 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2012 Page 3 of 6 She requested that the Planning & Zoning Commission postpone the Subject Case so she could notIA- all ovmers that Nvould be affected by the proposal. She stated that there are hundreds of families that live across Busse Road that Nvould be affected by the Subject Case. Ms. Comida stated that traffic has increased Nvith trucks in and out of the Subject Property frequently. She believed the annexation Nvould allow the Petitioner to increase its present operation and create health hazards for the residents to the Nvest. Chairman Rogers asked how long Ms. Comida has oN -,ned her building. She stated for over thirty -two (32) Nears and there Nvere other ovmers in attendance who have oN -,ned their buildings since they Nvere built in 1977. Chairman Rogers said that the residences have been across the street from the same garbage handling facility for twenty -five (25) Nears. Ms. Comida stated that additional traffic and noise has been an ongoing problem lately. There Nvas discussion regarding the legal notification process of property ovmers near the Subject Property. Chairman Rogers confirmed Nvith Staff that even-one Nvithin the proper radius Nvas notified. There Nvas additional discussion regarding the annexation and the apartments along Busse Road. Mr. Beattie stated the complaints regarding traffic and noise Nvould not change if the Subject Property Nvas not annexed into the Village. He asked Ms. Comida Nvhat benefit it Nvould be to postpone the public hearing or vote against it because ARC Nvould continue its current operations Nvhether or not it is a part of the Village. Mr. Floros said that if the Subject Property Nvas annexed into the Village, then the Village Nvould have greater control than it does now. He stated that annexation actually Nvorks to the benefit of the property ov'ners in the neighboring multi - family complexes. Chairman Rogers swore in Phyllis Rose, 812 Creek Bend Drive, Vernon Hills, Illinois. Ms. Rose stated that the Village has already accepted ARC into the Village because it created a special zoning district for them. Chairman Rogers said that the I -3 Zoning District Nvas created because the Village does not currently have a garbage transfer facility anv,vvhere else Nvithin the Village. Ms. Rose Nvanted to know if the Petitioner had any plans on building a garbage sorting facility on the Subject Property. She asked Staff if the Petitioner Nvanted to build a large Nvaste hauling facility on their property, could they do so. Ms. Andrade stated that any future development plans Nvould have to comply Nvith the zoning district's regulations. She said that the Petitioner and Staff have stated that there are no development plans Nvith the Subject Case's zoning request. Mr. Simmons said any new building construction on the Subject Property Nvould be required to conform to the Village's parking requirements. The parking requirements restrict how much land the Petitioner could re- develop in the future. There Nvas additional discussion regarding the parking requirements of one (1) space per 1,500 square feet of a building. Mr. Simmons stated this parking ratio is similar to other districts for industrial type uses. Ms. Rose provided additional concerns regarding expansion on the Subject Property. Chairman Rogers said that the Petitioner could expand even before being annexed under the county s jurisdiction. Ms. Rose stated that thousands of people reside across the street from the Subject Property and Nvould be affected by the proposal. Mr. Floros asked the Petitioner about Nvhat they Nvere planning on doing Nvith the additional properties. Mr. Kubiesa stated that there Nvere no additional properties. All properties proposed in the annexation have been a part of ARC for over N, -enty -five (25) Nears. There Nvas additional discussion regarding the addresses of all five (5) parcels that Nvould be part of the annexation. Ms. Andrade stated that the addresses used in the public notices are reflective of current addresses of each individual parcel. The addresses Nvere taken from the Cook County Assessor's Nvebsite. Ms. Andrade Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -19 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2012 Page 4 of 6 identified each parcel and address for the Subject Case. Mr. Floros confirmed that the Petitioner Nvas not occupying any additional properties. There Nvas additional discussion regarding what properties Nvere being annexed according to the legal notice. Mr. Simmons stated Nvith the notice that Nvas provided, the line that states "commoniv knoN -,n as" had five (5) addresses listed. Those are the five (5) addresses listed for the Subject Case. Mr. Simmons said the PIN numbers for all parcels Nvere referenced as Nvell. These parcels Nvere the ones identified that Nvould become part of the new zoning district. He stated the oN -,ner line on the notice Nvas the mailing addresses for the ovmers of the Subject Properties; they operate and oN -,n all five (5) parcels. There Nvas additional discussion on if there Nvere anv other twelve (12) acre parcels in the Village that Nvould allow for the proposed I -3 zoning district. Ms. Comida asked the Commission whN- the Presidents of all the surrounding associations Nvere not notified. Chairman Rogers and Mr. Simmons stated that the notice requirement is 250 feet surrounding the Subject Properties. Ms. Hinaber asked Staff to explain the 100 percent lot coverage for the proposed I -3 Zoning District. Mr. Simmons said that the lot coverage is any impervious surface area that is on a property This would include anv parking surface area, outdoor storage area, or building footprint. The 100 percent requirement Nvould allow the Petitioner to have the entire lot paved for vehicles, equipment, or have buildings constructed on the Subject Property. The Petitioner Nvould be alloNved to maximize the use of its properties. There Nvas additional discussion regarding building size and lot coverage in relation to lot coverage. Mr. Beattie clarified Nvith Staff that the five (5) Subject Properties are presently ovmed and occupied by the Petitioners. There Nvas no extra space being proposed to the annexation agreement for ARC to expand. Mr. Beattie stated every address identified in the legal notice is ovned and being used by the Petitioners as it is presently. He said if the properties Nvould not be annexed into the Village, he asked if there Nvould be anv restrictions on building heights or anything else. Mr. Simmons stated the Subject Property currently has to adhere to Cook County s Zoning regulations and requirements for their zoning district. Mr. Beattie also clarified that the zoning regulations drafted for the proposed I -3 Zoning District Nvould fit the Subject Property as it currently operates and exists today. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if he knew of any plans of expansion or adding additional buildings to the Subject Property. Mr. Kubiesa stated that there Nvere no plans and the facility Nvould continue to operate as is. Ms. Rose stated that she revieNved all of the properties on the Cook County Assessor's Nvebsite. She said N,-o (2) of the properties are right next to each other are parking lots and Nvas concerned that ARC Nvould expand its operation to this area. There Nvas discussion regarding access to the adjacent industrial properties to the east of the Subject Property. Kenneth Drive Nvould be annexed into the Village and as part of the proposed annexation agreement Nvould become a private road maintained by the Petitioners. There Nvas additional discussion regarding the southern parcels of the Subject Case (2105 & 3125 S. Busse Road). Ms. Andrade stated based on the aerials there Nvas existing parking and storage on the two (2) properties. Ms. Rose asked Nvhat the overall size Nvas of 2105 & 3125. Ms. Andrade said approximately seven (7) acres. Ms. Rose Nvas concerned that the Petitioner Nvould expand in the future on these two (2) properties. Ms. Rose asked Staff if the Petitioners Nvere alloNved to construct a garbage sorting facility under the proposed zoning district. Mr. Simmons stated that additional buildings could be constructed on the Subject Property provided that they meet the zoning regulations for the district. Any waste transfer or storage of Nvaste Nvould have to be indoors. Ms. Rose Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -19 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2012 Page 5 of 6 asked if the Petitioners could construct a garbage sorting building. Mr. Simmons said another building could be constructed on the Subject Property. Chairman Rogers asked if there was anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 8:34 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Ms. Hinaber made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to recommend approval of: a Text Amendment to create the I -3 Waste Handling District and related regulations as outlined in the Staff Report for case PZ- 19 -12; and a Map Amendment to rezone the Subject Property from R -X Single Family to I -3 Waste Handling. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Fitzgerald, Floros, Hinaber, Rogers NAYS: None The motion was approved 5 -0. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. After hearing one (1) additional case, Mr. Floros made a motion, seconded by Ms. Hinaber to adjourn at 9:08 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -19 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 26, 2012 Page 6 of 6