Planning and Zoning Commission

PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES City of Geneva 109 James Street - City Council Chambers Meeting #1147 – August 14, 2014 Chairman Rogers called the Plan Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call followed: Present: Commissioners Case, Dziadus, Erickson, Mead, Stevenson, Stocking, Chairman Rogers Absent: Commissioners Evans and Leidig Others Present: Community Development Dir. Dick Untch; Planner Dave DeGroot; Chicago-area Realtime Court Rptr. Paul Quesch; and Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt Public Present: Patricia Winter, 227 Anderson Blvd.; Margaret Martin, 804 Hawthorne; Scott Ohlfest, 804 Hawthorne Lane; Jack Horischen, 128 N. First St.; Jason Berg, 45 Taylor, Streamwood, IL; Ramiro Guillen, 732 N. Fordham Ave.; John P. Cooney, 1423 Center Circle, Downers Grove, IL; David Patzelt, 77 N. First St.; Dan Olson; 370 Brittany Ct., Apt. 1; Ashley Olson, 370 Brittany Ct., Apt. 1; Steve Okpisz, 1318 Hoyne St., St. Charles, IL; Hamid Borteu, 1871 S. Randall Rd.; Eric Weck, 100 N. River Lane ________________________________________________________________________________ Approval of the July 10, 2014 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Stocking noted on Page 89 of the proceedings, asked that under agenda item 1871 S. Randall Road, to revise it to state, “It is your stipulation that included Aurora’s regulations were regulations not found in the state code.” Minutes of the July 10, 2014 meeting, with changes to the proceedings, were approved on motion by Commissioner Case, seconded by Commissioner Mead. Motion carried by voice vote of 7-0. Chairman Rogers entertained a change in the agenda to move up Item 6 on the agenda, which was a site plan review. Motion by Commissioner Case, seconded by Commissioner Mead, to move up Agenda Item No. 6. Roll call: Aye: Case, Dziadus, Erickson, Mead, Stevenson, Stocking, Chairman Rogers Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 7-0 6. Site Plan Review Final Planned Unit Development Amendment - Request to amend the Site Plan/Final Planned Unit Development Plan approval granted by Ordinances 1992-27A and 1996-28 related to the conversion of the former Applebee’s Restaurant into a Panera Bread drive-through restaurant. Mr. Jason Berg, on behalf of Chicago Bread, LLC discussed he has owned the 1492 Randall Road Panera restaurant for about 15 years and would like to continue the business in Geneva. He believed the proposal, with staff’s assistance, was a very good addition to Geneva. Mr. Berg walked through the site plan and the plans for the drive-thru which included a small bump-out area for the drive- through. The landscaping would remain the same. A review of the outside elevations followed. Per Mr. Berg, signs for the front and rear of the building were being proposed, along with the existing monument sign. Planner DeGroot stated that this proposal does not require a special use, because when this PUD was established it allowed for up to two drive-through restaurants as a permitted use. Staff’s main Geneva Plan Commission -2- August 14, 2014 concern was the vehicle stacking backing up to Merchants Drive, but now believed the proposal met the stacking requirements. The signage also met the city’s requirements. Commissioners had concerns about the parking radius and whether Mr. Berg looked at removing the two end-parking spaces to make more room. Mr. Berg responded that it reviewed and the spaces were for employees and parking there would not be all day long. Mr. Berg also confirmed that his civil engineer reviewed the parking so it would meet the city’s code. Mr. Berger discussed the ingress/egress for the site and then shared comments about other successful drive-through Paneras in the Chicago metropolitan area. Motion by Commissioner Mead, seconded by Commissioner Stevenson, to approve the request to amend the Site Plan/Final Planned Unit Development Plan approval granted by Ordinances 1995-27A and 1996-28 related to the conversion of the former Applebee’s Restaurant into a Panera Bread drive-through restaurant, subject to final engineering approval prior to building permit issuance. Roll call: Aye: Case, Dziadus, Erickson, Mead, Stevenson, Stocking, Chairman Rogers Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 7-0 Public Hearing (continued from June 12, 2014) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Request for an amendment to Section 11-12-6D of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the allowable frequency of message change on electronic message board signs from twice per day to once every five minutes. Applicant: Steve Okpisz, on behalf of Faith Lutheran Church. [See Transcript from Chicago-area Realtime Court Reports] Motion by Commissioner Mead, seconded by Commissioner Erickson to close the public hearing. Roll call: Aye: Case, Dziadus, Erickson, Mead, Stevenson, Stocking, Chairman Rogers Nay: None MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 7-0 Motion by Commissioner Mead, seconded by Commissioner Case to waive the bifurcated process and vote on this matter. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 7-0. Planning Dir. Untch indicated that he and Planner DeGroot have been discussing the commissioners’ concerns about the busy-ness of the signage, intensity of light, color, etc, and, after researching other communities, suggested that if the commission was interested in controlling the sign’s brightness, length of message, etc., he believed there was more work to do. Planner DeGroot shared how other communities regulated their lighting, coloring, brightness, etc. and agreed with Dir. Untch that more research would be required before returning to the Plan Commission with a recommendation. Asked if the other communities differentiated between non-residential uses in residential areas versus traditional commercial areas, Mr. DeGroot indicated it was a matter of whether they were permitted or not. Dir. Untch suggested if commissioners were interested in pursuing these additional issues a separate motion could be made and staff could bring the matter before the Committee of the Whole to see whether staff should hold a public hearing on any changes. Motion by Commissioner Mead, seconded by Commissioner Stevenson, to request an amendment to Section 11-12-6D of the Zoning Ordinance, as reflected on Page 2 of staff’s report (Subsection 5) to increase the allowable frequency of message change on electronic message board signs from twice per day to once every five minutes. Roll call: Geneva Plan Commission -3- August 14, 2014 Aye: Case, Dziadus, Stevenson, Stocking, Chairman Rogers Nay: Erickson, Mead MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 5-2 Mr. Okpisz returned to the podium and briefly shared that if the city was going to review its regulations, most of the LED signs were controlled by a sensor which regulated the brightness of the sign and they varied. He apologized for the sensor in his sign when it was originally installed which did not work correctly but was now fixed. Planned Unit Development Amendment & Special Use - Request to amend Exhibit VII (Permitted Uses for the Commercial Tract) of Ordinance No. 89-48 (A Special Use as a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development for Eagle Brook) to allow a “tattoo shop” as a Special Use and a request for a Special Use to allow a tattoo shop at 1871 S. Randall Road. Chairman Rogers reminded the public that this hearing was closed on July 14, 2014 and no additional public comment would be taken. Planner DeGroot stated he did review the petition again with consideration of the comments made at the last meeting and revised staff’s draft findings based on the comments and additional research completed. Planner DeGroot read through each of the nine (9) special use standards in detail, asking for commissioner comments on each: Standard No. 1 - Consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan.. – No comments. Consensus to move forward with Standard No. 1. Standard No. 2 - Proposed building/use will not diminish the value of adjacent and nearby properties - Staff discussed that tattoos have become more mainstream in the U.S. and the well regulated and properly tattoo/body piercing shops with well-conceived business plans will not diminish the value of adjacent/nearby properties. However, Commissioner Stevenson and Chairman Rogers believed otherwise and that it would affect adjacent properties -- both residential and commercial; Chairman Rogers pointed out that one of the reasons tattoo parlors were made special uses was to keep them out of residential areas and this establishment was within several hundred feet of a residential area. Staff asked if there were conditions or stipulations it could add to mitigate the concerns raised, other than moving it away from the area, screening was suggested With that, Mr. DeGroot shared how the current landscaped buffer between the rear of the commercial shops and the residential area was more than substantial. Consensus was to move forward with Standard No. 2. Standard No. 3 – The proposed use at location will not substantially or unduly increase traffic, traffic congestion, etc. – No comments. Consensus was to move forward with Standard No. 3. Standard No. 4 – The proposed use has been designed to provide for adequate ingress/egress to minimize potential vehicle conflicts and congestion in public streets. Consensus was to move forward with Standard No. 4 Standard No. 5 – The proposed building will not adversely affect or change the character of the area in which it is located – Planner DeGroot shared the research done by Geneva Police Chief Steve Mexin. If commissioners supported it, staff suggested that a condition be added that a No Loitering sign be posted on the property. Hours of operation and signage followed with Mr. DeGroot recalling that the city’s sign regulation dealt with sign height, size, lighting, etc. and not verbiage. If approved, staff recommended not prohibiting the word “tattoo on the signage. No disagreement followed. Based on a Tempe, Arizona case, Mr. DeGroot also pointed out that negative perception and stereotypes were not grounds for denial of a special use request. Commissioner Stocking recommended tying the special use permit to the applicant which he believed would control this finding. Commissioner Case then pointed out, that after driving past the site several times he noted that the tattoo business and the pediatric dentist were at opposite ends of the commercial strip Geneva Plan Commission -4- August 14, 2014 development and the immediate effect was not there. Majority consensus was to move forward with Standard No. 5. Standard No. 6 – The proposed use at the specified location will not adversely affect the use and development of adjacent and nearby properties … The location, size and height of the proposed building and operation will not hinder the use or development of nearby properties. (Stevenson steps away 8:02 p.m.) Since the site was fully developed, consensus was to move forward with Standard No. 6. Standard No. 7 – Adequate utility, drainage parking and other necessary facilities to service the proposed use will be provided and will same not adversely affect the use, development and value of adjacent and nearby properties. Staff directed commissioners’ attention to a table of Hours of Operation for the proposed tattoo shop as compared to the hours of operation of the Family Eye Clinic and Mr. Handy Man, where all three businesses, including the tattoo shop, would be open and sharing the parking. (Stevenson returns 8:06 p.m.) Staff believed there was adequate parking during peak and non-peak hours and hours where the tattoo business was open after the other businesses were closed or had limited hours. Consensus was to move forward with Standard No. 7. Standard No. 8 – The proposed building, other structures and use comply with any and all regulations, conditions or requirements of the city’s …- Standard No. 8 is met. Consensus was to move forward with Standard No. 8. Standard No. 9 – That the exterior architectural appeal and function of any proposed structure will not be so at variance with either the exterior architectural appeal and function of structures already constructed… to cause substantial depreciation in property values in the neighborhood. Per staff, no changes are proposed for the exterior. Consensus was to move forward with Standard No. 9. Staff recommended approval to amend Exhibit VII (Permitted uses for the Commercial tract) of Ordinance No. 89-48 (a Special Use as a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development for Eagle Brook) by adding the following: “4. Tattoo parlors and body piercing establishments may be permitted by Special Use and shall be subject to all applicable State of Illinois and municipal licensing requirements.” Staff also recommended approval of the applicant’s special use request for 1) the southern portion of 1871 Randall Road, Unit E; 2) posting a No Loitering sign on the exterior of the building; and 3) hours of operation restricted from 12:00 p.m. to 9 p.m. Saturday through Sunday. Discussion followed to have an additional condition by tying the special use to the applicant (Mr. Gillen) but also having a sunset clause to review the special use annually. Dir. Untch shared his reluctance with inserting a sunset clause since staff already had the enforcement capability over a special use permit. However, if concerns arose, staff could be directed by city council to hold a public hearing before the commission on revocation of the permit. Commissioner Erickson shared some of his own observations at the St. Charles tattoo shop but in looking at other tattoo establishments, he noted that the quality of tenancy was usually not that good because there was only one landlord. Looking at the variable tenancy in this development, he understood why the other retailers would be concerned and would surmise that if there was a single landlord, this application would not be before this commission because the landlord would be too concerned about his tenancies. Motion by Commissioner Stocking, second by Commissioner Mead to amend Exhibit VII (Permitted uses for the Commercial Tract) of Ordinance No. 89-48 (a Special Use as a Mixed- Use Planned Unit Development for Eagle Brook to allow a tattoo shop as a special use). Roll call: Geneva Plan Commission -5- August 14, 2014 Aye: Case, Dziadus, Mead, Stocking, Nay: Erickson, Stevenson, Rogers MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 4-3 Motion by Commissioner Stocking, seconded by Commission Case, to approve a request for a special use to allow a tattoo shop at 1871 S. Randall Road, Unit E, subject to the following: 1) the southern portion of 1871 Randall Road, Unit E only; 2) posting a No Loitering sign on exterior of building; 3) hours of operation are restricted from 12:00 p.m. to 9 p.m. Saturday through Sunday; and 4) the special use permit is attached to the applicant only. Roll call: Aye: Case, Dziadus, Mead, Stocking Nay: Erickson, Stevenson, Rogers MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 4-3 Planned Unit Development Amendment - Request to amend Section 2 (Residential Area Development Standards) Paragraph F (Setback Requirements/Building Envelopes) of Ordinance No. 97-24B (A Special Use as a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development for the North Riverfront Redevelopment Project) to increase the allowable floor area ratio from 0.5 to 1.0 for Lots 4 through 8 in the North Riverfront Planned Unit Development. Location: 119/121 N. 1st Street; Applicant: Dave Patzelt. (Commissioner Mead recuses himself from this discussion.) Planner DeGroot reviewed the staff analysis and concerns that the Plan Commission raised at the July 10th hearing -- height, proximity to other buildings, and management of stormwater. Per staff, maximum building height for Lots 4 thru 8, as established in the PUD, is 35 feet; the proposed height for the duplex is 28 feet. The height of the building looking from east to west, from the foundation to the tallest side of the building was 34 feet. The proposed rear yard setback of 10 feet exceeds the minimum 7 feet and is different in that the site is viewed as a transitional site so there is some relief granted on those setbacks. The applicant is working with the Public Works department to obtain a detail review of utility and stormwater drainage plans with the city’s engineer and has met with the president of the association to work through details. Per Mr. DeGroot’s research, the Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of 0.5 listed in the PUD was not carefully considered for two- and three-family lots along First Street and was not reflected. Staff recommended approval of the allowable FAR from 0.5 to 1.0 for Lots 4 through 8. Per commissioner questions, Mr. Patzelt confirmed he did meet with the president and condo board members and discussed height, architectural style, and water issues. Those individuals returned to discuss the same issues with their board members but there was no consensus on the issues. Mr. Patzelt stated he would like to continue to work with the association and get more information about the drain tile that was installed in the rear of their building. He confirmed his earlier statement that in order to meet the FAR he could convert the first floor living space to garage space and also create a third-car garage since there was no restriction, resulting in a larger building without increasing the floor area. DeGroot concurred and confirmed that garage space does not count toward the FAR. However, Mr. Patzelt, stated, as discussed with the condo board members, that he wanted to create a duplex structure that was good for the community and was attractive. He agreed the FAR issue was really an error that arose. Commissioner Stocking shared that he did not like supporting a PUD amendment from 0.5 to 1.0, but due to the error and given the applicant could build larger, he believed the request had to move forward. Motion by Erickson, seconded by Commissioner Case, to approve the request to amend Section 2 (Residential Area Development Standards), Paragraph F (Setback Requirements/Building Envelopes) of Ordinance No. 97-24B (A Special Use as a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development for the North Riverfront Redevelopment Project) to increase the Geneva Plan Commission -6- August 14, 2014 allowable floor area ratio from 0.5 to 1.0 for Lots 4 through 8 in the North Riverfront Planned Unit Development. Roll call: Aye: Case, Dziadus, Erickson, Stevenson, Stocking, Chairman Rogers Nay: None Abstain: Mead MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 6-0-1 (Commissioner Mead returns.) Public Comment - None. Other Business Mr. DeGroot proceeded to open up the discussion about removing LED signs from residential districts. While the current Faith Lutheran sign would be considered grandfathered and non- conforming, he stated the commissioners could decide they did not want the provision to allow such signs in residential districts and bring the matter to the Committee of the Whole for discussion. Currently, two other LED signs existed in the City -- McDonalds on the east side and the Country House. Standards for illumination, brightness, and impact on surrounding properties, he described, could apply to the existing sign which was enforceable. Dir. Untch discussed how grandfathering would apply to zoning, where, retroactively a village imposes a regulation and establishes an “economic life” to something where it must comply over a certain period of time. He has not seen such an example applied to an LED sign. His concern was that the original intent of the sign regulation was to provide an opportunity for an entity to install an LED sign, as opposed to the manual sign with letters, yet there was the legitimate concern about the intensity of the light, etc. He believed that if the sign technology for institutional uses in residential districts were to stay, the city had to look at ways to mitigate such concerns. DeGroot summarized that from the last meeting concerns voiced pertained to the sign’s intensity of lighting, busy-ness, and colors of the sign, etc. and the general agreement was that the sign needed to be in a commercial area. A general dialog followed on how the proposal received approval initially and comments turned to that maybe such signs should require a permit or not be allowed in residential areas, wherein Dir. Untch reminded the commissioners that churches were allowable. Staff could also envision seeing more LED signs being requested by churches and schools in the future. Dir. Untch stated he would be interested in exploring whether such signage could have a diminished level of light, similar to the changeable copy sign. Commissioners reached a consensus that staff research some options and return to the commission. Staff provided a status on the following: the approved Animal Care Clinic and the Lincoln Square development; the scaled-back Marquette concept review, which Dir. Untch shared some details; and the status of the current Cetron building/extension of 7th Street. Comments followed regarding a new townhouse development located on First Street and an upcoming project for 7th and James Street from Shodeen which would be going to the Historic Preservation Commission first, followed by the Plan Commission. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Case. Motion carried unanimously.