Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 4, 2020 PRESENT: Margy Davey, Michael Ford, John Hinz, John Kiefer, Phil Marshall, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp EXCUSED: Mamadou Coulibaly, Derek Groth, Jay Stengel STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Allen Davis, Community Development Director; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager / City Engineer; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Steven Wiley, Associate Planner; Brandon Nielsen, Assistant Planner Chairperson Propp called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of July 21, 2020 were approved as presented. (Davey/Kiefer) I. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WINDOW CLOSURE AT 1936 OREGON STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey, Mr. Hinz and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Mr. Lyons stated staff originally recommended denial of the variance. He said Mr. Nielson and the applicants were just discussing an alternate plan that would meet code and would no longer need a design standards variance. He said staff is requesting that the applicants withdraw their requests since it is no longer needed. Frank and Kim St John (applicants), 1936 Oregon Street, stated they would like to withdraw their request since they changed their plan and it meets code. Mr. St John added they are actually enlarging the windows from what they are now. Motion by Hinz to withdraw the residential design standards variance to allow a window closure at 1936 Oregon Street. Seconded by Ford. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Plan Commission Minutes August 4, 2020 Motion curried 8-0. II. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA AND PARKING AT 3135 OREGON STREET Site Inspections Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests a Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor storage area on a previously - developed lot at 3135 Oregon Street. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The petitioner is requesting approval of a CUP to expand the existing gravel staging area to the southwest of the building and use it as a secured outdoor storage area for Oshkosh Corporation products. The scope of work includes expansion of the existing gravel outdoor storage area by 6,300 sq. ft., creation of a new asphalt parking area of approximately 13,500 sq. ft. and 37 stall, removal of 3 parking stalls from the existing parking to provide access to the new parking area and installation of additional landscaping on -site to meet ordinance standards for the new outdoor storage and parking area. The owner must completely enclose all outdoor storage areas with an 8' tall solid fence per ordinance. The outdoor storage and parking areas should not greatly affect vehicle circulation for the publically-accessed areas of the site as the storage area will not obstruct access to the existing parking areas. Additional landscaping is required for the expansion of the outdoor storage area as part of this CUP request. There will be no changes to signage or building facades. The Department of Public Works will require a full storm water review during the Site Plan Review process. He said staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor storage area and parking at 3135 Oregon Street with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp commented she was a bit surprised that gravel is permitted for the storage area. Mr. Wiley replied it is still permitted for outdoor storage. He explained the idea is that it is just a storage area and not a surface parking lot that is publically used. He said that is why it does have to meet the same standards as a publically accessible lot. Mr. Lyons explained further that storage has always been permitted to be a gravel base and does not have to be paved due to the industrial uses. He said it is more conducive to use gravel than a paved surface. Ms. Davey said gravel is more pervious. Plan Commission Minutes August 4, 2020 Mr. Lyons said it is more pervious. He said for storm water calculation purposes, it still constitutes as impervious surface and has to be accounted for in storm water management plans. Mr. Mitchell asked if there was a waterway along the western edge of the site. Mr. Lyons answered he believes there is a wetland or water feature along the western edge of the site. Mr. Mitchell asked if that would be impacted. Mr. Lyons replied none of the improvements are proposed in that location. He said the applicant has not submitted finalized storm water management plans. He explained once they are submitted, the Department of Public Works will have to ensure there won't be any issues with what is currently on site. Mr. Mitchell said it appears the entire area is already enclosed by trees. He commented the tree rows look very full. He asked if there was ever a scenario in which a fence would not be required if it would largely not be feasible. Mr. Lyons replied for outdoor storage it is a straight code requirement as a Conditional Use Permit. He explained if the applicant wanted to go through a Planned Development and ask for a Base Standard Modification, they could. Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant was planning to leave the trees on the Oregon Street side. Mr. Lyons replied it appears the applicant is planning to leave those trees and would receive additional points for leaving the trees. He said the improvements will fit behind the trees. Ms. Propp opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: Plan Commission Minutes August 4, 2020 1. All outdoor storage areas must be completely enclosed by 8 foot tall solid (at least 90% opaque) fencing. Owner/Applicant shall submit code -compliant, revised fencing specifications/details to stafffor Department of Community Development review prior to building permit issuance. 2. Conditional Use Permit to allow the proposed total of 88 parking spaces in excess of 125 percent of the minimum parking count required by ordinance. 3. Petitioner shall submit a revised landscaping plan with code -compliant species and code - compliant landscaping point totals for Department of Community Development review prior to building permit issuance. 4. Petitioner shall submit a revised, code -compliant photometric plan to staff for Department of Community Development review prior to building permit issuance. Seconded by Perry. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. III. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING AND SHUNTING AREAS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE FRONT YARD AT 900 N. KOELLER STREET Mr. Lyons explained since the initial filing, staff has been continually working with the applicant on outstanding items. He said in talking with the applicant, staff felt it was best to lay the item over another meetings. He stated the applicant agreed with staff. Motion by Hinz to lay over the Specific Implementation Plan amendment for additional parking and shunting areas and accessory structures in the front yard at 900 N. Koeller Street until the August 18, 2020 Plait Commission meeting. Seconded by Ford. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL BUILDING TRADE DRESS AT 1650-1660 OSHKOSH AVENUE Plan Commission Minutes August 4, 2020 Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests an amendment to the Specific Implementation Plan approval and Conditional Use Permit to allow for trade dress on the retail building facades. The applicant is also requesting a Base Standard Modification (BSM) to allow for reduction of window/door opening area on the street facing facade. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. On January 28, 2019, the Common Council approved a Specific Implementation Plan for an office and retail development. The petitioner is proposing only minor revisions to the approved site design which include a modified drive-thru window and menu boards, reduced distance from curb to the building at the drive-thru, bollard added at the drive-thru bump out to protect the building, drive-thru menu shifted to the north, walkway on south side of the building has been angled for increased walking clearance and dumpster pad has been increased by 22 sq. ft. to meet masonry dimensions. There will be no changes to the use, lighting, landscaping and storm water management. Included with this request are the Dunkin Donuts and Baskin Robbins final plans for wall signage on the north, south and east facades of the retail building. The applicant meets all Class I material requirements for all facades but is deficient in windows and doors or other openings. He said staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan amendment and Conditional Use Permit with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Lyons commented staff is recommending approval because the plan is code compliant though it may not meet the intent of the code. He stated staff has a couple concerns. He said the first concern is about the signage because it is a little disproportionate. He said he wanted to make sure Plan Commission was aware that staff would not be in support of increasing the signage for the future tenants. He said the second concern was the building fagade because it is disproportionate as well. He explained the code states 75% Class I materials for the entire building which the plan meets but the individual units do not meet the 75% requirement. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry said the narrative states the items the applicant is requesting are simply going to go over the required building materials. He commented there is a potential in switching out the items should the business move out. Mr. Lyons explained how the orange banding was going to be installed onto the building but said he was not sure how the fiber cement was going to be installed. Mr. Perry agreed there needs to be more explanation of how the signage would be installed. He stated his concern is that while it is one building, in the future it could be sold off as business Plan Commission Minutes August 4, 2020 condos. He said then they would have one of those condos that would be noncompliant for a future use. Ms. Davey asked if Dunkin Donuts and Baskin Robbins were the same corporation. Mr. Lyons said he would defer that question to the applicant. Ms. Propp asked if Dunkin' Donuts was the drive-thru or not. Mr. Lyons replied it was the drive-thru. He pointed out on the site plan the building locations. Ms. Davey inquired about the submitted building elevations. Mr. Lyons clarified where each side of the building facade faced. Ms. Propp opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mario Valentini (applicant), 5105 Tollview Drive in Rolling Meadows, IL, said he is with MRV Architects. He said he appreciates the opportunity to come in front of the Commission. He explained the tenant space is a rectangular space and that both brands would be occupy the space. He said there is no divider between the two and it would be a cohesive space. He explained that is the reason the elevations do not show a separation. He explained the parent company to Dunkin Donuts and Baskin Robbins is a company called Dunkin Brands. He gave a brief overview of Dunkin Brands and how they franchise all their locations. He explained the building would go up with no branding of any type. He said the materials would be applied onto the building with the thought that the materials could be easily removed if Dunkin' Donuts or Baskin Robbins were to move out of that space. He said the goal is to use certain elements to identify the brand as if it were a free standing building. He said he understands the staff report and staff's concerns. He explained why the fiber cement was used. He said in speaking with the franchisee and the Brand, they would like to see the Baskin Robbins sign as shown but are willing to reduce it to just show the BR. He requested that the additional signage be only allowed for the Baskin Robbins' sign and no other tenant could use the additional square footage if Baskin Robbins were to vacate. Ms. Davey asked Mr. Lyons how many units there were. Mr. Lyons replied the way it is shown, it looks like three overall units. He said typically the code would divide up the signage to around 34 square feet of signage per unit space for the roughly 101 feet of frontage. Mr. Hinz asked if Plan Commission had the authority do to what the applicant is requesting. Mr. Lyons answered it is a Planned Development and Plan Commission does have quite a bit of flexibility. He said as staff, he would recommend against it because their primary concern is the 101 feet of frontage versus the square feet of the signage. Plan Commission Minutes August 4, 2020 Mr. Hinz said it seems like Plan Commission is doing the landlord's job. He stated it is the landlord's job to work with the tenants on how much signage each will be allowed to have. Mr. Valentini explained the unit frontage is 36 feet wide which would give 36 square feet of signage. He said the Dunkin' Donuts sign would be 35 square feet and the Baskin Robbins sign would be 9.16 square feet. He said with the reduction of the Baskin Robbins' sign, it would also reduce the background which would get the percentage for Class I materials closer to the requirement. He explained the intent is to use standardized signage which will still be easy to read from a distance. Ms. Propp questioned with the reduction the Baskin Robbins if it would still leave adequate signage for the remaining tenants. Mr. Valentin said with reducing the Baskin Robbins sign to just the BR, it would still put them over by 8-9 square feet. Ms. Propp said it would short the other tenants' signage by 8-9 square feet. Mr. Valentin explained they would like to not approach it that way. He said they would like the BR signage to stand alone and that it would not fall against the restrictions for the landlord. Mr. Lyons explained further the applicant is essentially requesting a Base Standard Modification for roughly 10 more square feet of signage than what code allows. Mr. Perry said he appreciates the dilemma that is caused by this with the co -mingling of like businesses. He stated ultimately he sees this as being Mr. Hoopman and his partners' problem to negotiate the tenant spaces and their allowable signage. Mr. Kiefer commented it has been made clear that staff is not going to recommend approval of a variance for increased signage. Mr. Ford agreed that it goes beyond Plan Commission's role and it should be a landlord's decision to make. He said the materials meet the code even if the intent was to treat it as three different buildings, Plan Commission still has to go by the letter of the law as staff did. He asked Mr. Valentini if there would be an issue getting the south fagade to 41% from 38% for Class I materials. Mr. Valentin replied he does not see an issue with it. He explained more about the tenant and landlord situation and said he understands what Plan Commission and staff's thoughts are. He said ultimately, he is asking for Plan Commission approval so the landlord will not restrict the signage space. Mr. Lyons commented Plan Commission has the authority to grant a Base Standard Modification if they choose to. Plan Commission Minutes August 4, 2020 Mr. Ford asked for clarification of the request. Mr. Valentin clarified he is only asking for increased signage for the Baskin Robbins' signage not for the entire building. Mr. Ford asked staff if there was currently any violation to the code. Mr. Lyons replied currently there is not because it is the only signage on the building. He explained the concern is with the future tenants who may want more signage because other tenants have more than they do. He went over some of the options for Plan Commission. He inquired about how the letters were affixed because that would make a difference in the calculations. Mr. Valentin said there are details included in the packet. He explained they are individual letters which are mounted to the face and each letter would have its own electric feed. Mr. Lyons explained how individually mounted letters are calculated differently. He said with the Dunkin' and BR signage being individually mounted, the signage may be closer to code than originally calculated. Mr. Valentin stated they are trying to do the work for the landlord so there won't be any issues for the future tenants. Mr. Hinz inquired about what the new calculations would be. He said with his experience installing signs, he suggested customizing the sign to fit into the space. Mr. Valentin said he understands there can be customized signs but stated this presentation is about everything as a whole not just the signage. He explained how brands make their signs. Mr. Ford stated he does not see this as a contentious issue because there are no other tenants yet. Mr. Hinz added the signage has already been reduced due to the individually mounted letters. Mr. Perry commented the third tenant's branding may be a small sign. Mr. Valentin explained his point of view on the signage again. Mr. Ford questioned why the applicant has to make a Base Standard Modification request for something that is not currently an issue and meets code. Mr. Lyons explained it is code compliant and nothing needs to be changed but wanted to ensure Plan Commission, the owner and the applicant were aware that it may be an issue down the line for the third tenant. He said Plan Commission does not have to do a Base Standard Modification. There were no other public comments on this item. Plan Commission Minutes August 4, 2020 Ms. Propp closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Valentini thanked everyone for letting them present their request. He said their client is anxious to be a part of the community. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: Windows and doors or other openings shall comprise at least 40% of the area on the street facing (south) facade of the retail building. Overall wall sign area may not exceed 1 sq. ft. per linear foot of building frontage on any facade. Seconded by Kiefer. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Ford inquired about condition #2 and how it compared to what is in the code. Mr. Lyons stated it is what is in the code. He explained it is added to reinforce the code. Mr. Slusarek added it is helpful to staff for future requests to the site. Mr. Lyons said it is also because the submitted elevation show signage that exceeds 101 square feet. Motion carried 8-0. V. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SIGNAGE AT 1650-1660 OSHKOSH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests an amendment to the Specific Implementation Plan approval to allow for temporary construction signage at 1650-1660 Oshkosh Avenue. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. On January 28, 2019, the Common Council approved a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) for an office and retail development. The applicant is only Plan Commission Minutes August 4, 2020 requesting for temporary construction signage and there will be no other changes to the original SIP. Temporary construction fencing is being proposed along both the Oshkosh Avenue and N. Westfield Street frontages. The proposed fencing will be 6' tall chain link and include a 5' 3" tall mesh banner on the exterior which will include graphics pertaining to the development. A Base Standard Modification (BSM) will be required as code does not allow signs to be attached to fences. Staff does not have concerns with the BSM as the signage will only be displayed during construction. The Department of Public Works reviewed the placement of the fencing/signage and noted that the fencing may not be located within the public right-of-way. He said staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan amendment with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: Construction fencing/signage may not be placed within the public right-of-way. Temporary fencing/signage may only be displayed while the site is under construction. Seconded by Perry. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:03 pm. (Hinz/Ford) Plan Commission Minutes 10 August 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager Plan Commission Minutes 11 August 4, 2020