PLAN COMMISSION AGENDA

Transcription

1 PLAN COMMISSION AGENDA 7:30 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER BOARD ROOM NORTHBROOK VILLAGE HALL, 1225 CEDAR LANE Tuesday, October 7, MINUTES APPROVAL - September 16, COMMUNITY PLANNING REPORT 4. HEAR FROM THE AUDIENCE 5. REVIEW OF DRAFT RESOLUTIONS A. DOCKET NO : 60 REVERE DRIVE - Consideration of a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Application Filed by 60 Revere Drive, LLC as Owner of a Property Located at 60 Revere Drive (The Subject Property ), for the Purpose Of: (A) Rezoning the Subject Property from the I- 1 Restricted Industrial District to the O-2 Limited Office District as Designated in the Comprehensive Plan; (B) Variation to Reduce the Required Front Setback from 30 to to Accommodate the Existing Building in the Proposed O-2 District; (C) Variation to Reduce the Required Front Yard from 30 to 23 to Accommodate the Existing Parking in the Proposed O-2 District; (D) Variation to Reduce the Required Interior Yard Variation from 5 to 0 to Accommodate the Existing Parking in the Proposed O-2 District; (E) Variation to Reduce the Required Number of Loading Spaces From1 to 0; (F) Variation to Reduce the Required Drive Aisle Width from 24 to 20 to Accommodate the Certain Existing Drive Aisles on the Subject Property; and (G) Approval of Such Other Zoning and Subdivision Relief as May be Necessary. 6. CONTINUED REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS A. DOCKET NO : 2705 TECHNY - AT&T WIRELESS CELL TOWER - Third Public Hearing on an Application by ACMB Group on Behalf of New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC as Potential Lessee of Part of a Property Located at 2705 Techny Road (The Subject Property ) Which is Owned by North Suburban Young Men s Christian Association (The Owner ), for the Purpose Of: (A) Zoning Code Text Amendment to Eliminate the Distance Separation Requirement Between Cellular Towers and Nearby Structures; (B) Zoning Code Text Amendment to Allow the Decks on Towers to Have a Radius Which Exceeds Six Feet from the Center of the Tower; (C) Special Permit to Allow Personal Wireless Service Antennas Located on a Tower-Style Antenna Support Structure, and Related Electronic Equipment and Equipment Structures, Within or in Excess of District Height Limitations for Personal Wireless Antennae on the Subject Property; and (D) Approval of Such Other Zoning Relief as May be Necessary by the Applicant.

2 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. ADJOURN The Village of Northbrook is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting, or who have questions regarding the accessibility of this meeting or the facilities, are requested to contact Greg Van Dahm or Debbie Ford ( or , respectively) promptly to allow the Village of Northbrook to make reasonable accommodations for those person. Hearing impaired individuals may call the TDD number, , for more information. VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Tuesday, October 7, 2014

3 5.A.a VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING SERVICES TO: FROM: PLAN COMMISSION MICHAELA KOHLSTEDT, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2014 SUBJECT: PCD REVERE DRIVE REZONING REQUEST INTRODUCTION On October 7, 2014 the Plan Commission will consider a draft resolution recommending approval of Docket No , an application submitted by 60 Revere Drive, LLC (the Applicant ) as owner of a property located at 60 Revere Drive (the Subject Property ) requesting relief to rezone the Subject Property from the I-1 Restricted Industrial District to the O-2 Limited Office District. The following zoning relief was noticed for the public hearing: A. Rezoning the Subject Property from the I-1 Restricted Industrial District to the O-2 Limited Office District as designated in the Comprehensive Plan; B. Variation to reduce the required front setback from 30 to to accommodate the existing building in the proposed O-2 District; C. Variation to reduce the required front yard from 30 to 23 to accommodate the existing parking in the proposed O-2 District; D. Variation to reduce the required interior yard variation from 5 to 0 to accommodate the existing parking in the proposed O-2 District; E. Variation to reduce the required number of loading spaces from 1 to 0; F. Variation to reduce the required drive aisle width from 24 to 20 to accommodate the certain existing drive aisles on the Subject Property; and G. Approval of such other zoning and subdivision relief as may be necessary to accommodate the development of the Subject Property as proposed by the Applicant. The Plan Commission conducted a public hearing on the application during its regular meeting on September 16. Following testimony from the Applicant, the Commission heard testimony from four of the property owners to the west. The property owners to the west had concerns regarding the potential to allow retail sales and restaurants on the Subject Property, specifically the additional traffic that such uses could bring to the area. Members of the public also expressed concerns regarding flooding and erosion occurring on their property, which they believe is the results of the development of the properties along Revere Drive. There was also a concern raised by the members of the public about the remainder of the properties on Revere Drive possibly wanting to be rezoned as well to the O-2 District. Following the public comments, the Commission closed the public hearing and discussed the proposed plan. The Commission found the request to rezone the Subject Property to be generally acceptable, but there were a few concerns raised regarding uses that are allowed in the O-2 District, which may not be appropriate on the Subject Property. Attachment: 1-60 Revere - Staff Report (2783 : PCD-14-12: 60 Revere Drive - Rezoning) 1 Packet Pg. 3

4 5.A.a The Plan Commission discussed whether or not restaurants, retail sales, and membership uses would be appropriate on the Subject Property. Ultimately, the Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval of the rezoning, and the subsequent variations, with a condition that the existing restrictive covenant on the property be amended to prohibit the following uses on the Subject Property, that would otherwise be allowed in the O-2 District: All Retail Trade Uses which includes: o SIC No Gasoline Service Stations o SIC No Eating Places Except , and o SIC No Live Entertainment Accessory To Permitted Eating Places o SIC No Outdoor Seating Accessory to Permitted Eating Places o SIC No Drinking Places Accessory to Permitted Eating Places o SIC No Drinking Places Accessory to Permitted Eating Places with Live Entertainment o SIC No Carry-out Eating Places o SIC No Liquor Stores With Accessory Food Sales o SIC No Tobacco Stores & Stands o SIC No News Dealers & Newsstands SIC No Membership Organizations SIC No Religious Organizations SIC No Religious Organizations with Associated Elementary and/or Secondary Schools With this list of prohibited uses, rezoning the property to the O-2 District would allow the following additional uses allowed in the O-2 on the property that currently are not allowed in the I-1 District: SIC No Depository Institutions Except , , & (permitted use) SIC No ATMs Located within a Building Other Than the Institution That Services It, as a Principal Use (permitted use) SIC No Automatic Teller Machines Located on the Exterior of a Building (permitted use) SIC No Credit Agencies Other Than Banks (permitted use) SIC No Tax Return Preparation Services (permitted use) SIC No Physical Fitness Facilities (conditionally permitted: The proposed use shall have a gross floor area no greater than 2,500 square feet) SIC No Membership Sports and Recreation Clubs (conditionally permitted: The proposed use shall have a gross floor area no greater than 2,500 square feet) SIC No Health Services Except 8050, 8060 (permitted use) SIC No Vocational Schools Except (conditionally permitted: The proposed use shall have a gross floor area no greater than 2,500 square feet) SIC No Schools And Educational Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (conditionally permitted: The proposed use shall have a gross floor area no greater than 2,500 square feet) SIC No Individual And Family Social Services(conditionally permitted: The proposed use shall have a gross floor area no greater than 2,500 square feet) SIC No Child Day Care Services (special permit use) SIC No Accessory Drive-Through Facilities (special permit use) Attachment: 1-60 Revere - Staff Report (2783 : PCD-14-12: 60 Revere Drive - Rezoning) Rezoning the property to the O-2 District would prohibit a long list of uses on the property that are currently allowed in the I-1 District, including such uses as: Manufacturing facilities & distribution centers Contractor Yards, but not including outdoor storage 2 Packet Pg. 4

5 5.A.a Veterinary Services Animal Boarding Kennels Motor Vehicle Dealers The draft resolution is attached to this memo for review. If approved, this would be resolution No. 14-PC-10, and staff will work with the Village Attorney on drafting an amendment to the existing restrictive covenant on the Subject Property that would allow the property to be rezoned to the O-2 District but prohibit the land uses listed above. Other than this change, the other restrictions of the existing restrictive covenant would remain on this property as well as on the other properties along Revere Drive. In summary some of the restrictions on the property include limits to the specific site improvements on the Subject Property and maintaining a 150-foot buffer strip along the western edge of the property. Staff and the Applicant will be present at the October 7, 2014 meeting to answer any questions the Commission may have. Attachment: 1-60 Revere - Staff Report (2783 : PCD-14-12: 60 Revere Drive - Rezoning) 3 Packet Pg. 5

6 5.A.b RESOLUTION NO. 14-PC- VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK PLAN COMMISSION DOCKET NO (60 REVERE DRIVE) WHEREAS, an application has been filed by 60 Revere Drive, LLC (the Applicant ) as owner of a property located at 60 Revere Drive (the Subject Property ), and WHEREAS, the Applicant has filed an application (Docket No ) with the Village of Northbrook requesting: A. Rezoning the Subject Property from the I-1 Restricted Industrial District to the O-2 Limited Office District as designated in the Comprehensive Plan; B. Variation to reduce the required front setback from 30 to to accommodate the existing building in the proposed O-2 District; C. Variation to reduce the required front yard from 30 to 23 to accommodate the existing parking in the proposed O-2 District; D. Variation to reduce the required interior yard variation from 5 to 0 to accommodate the existing parking in the proposed O-2 District; E. Variation to reduce the required number of loading spaces from 1 to 0; F. Variation to reduce the required drive aisle width from 24 to 20 to accommodate the certain existing drive aisles on the Subject Property; and G. Approval of such other zoning and subdivision relief as may be necessary to accommodate the development of the Subject Property as proposed by the Applicant. WHEREAS, 60 Revere Drive is zoned I-1 Restricted Industrial District in the Village of Northbrook and is subject to Fifth Amendment to Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Restrictive Covenant as amended, (the Restrictive Covenant ), both of which govern the development of the property; and WHEREAS, 60 Revere Drive is designated as appropriate for Industrial and Commercial Services land uses in the Village of Northbrook Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, a public notice for this docket was duly published on August 28, 2014 in the Northbrook Star and a public hearing was held at the Plan Commission s regular meetings on September 16, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted evidence that a sign was properly posted on the Subject Property, indicating the time and date of the Commission hearings, and that all property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property were notified of the Commission hearing by certified mail; and WHEREAS, the Plan Commission has considered all the evidence presented to it, including, but not limited to, the following: Attachment: 2-60 Revere - Draft PC Resolution (2783 : PCD-14-12: 60 Revere Drive - Rezoning) 1. Village of Northbrook Plan Commission Application form & attachments received June 9, 2014, and all subsequent additions and revisions to these application materials and attachments. 2. All staff reports and attachments regarding this application. Packet Pg. 6

7 5.A.b Resolution No. 14-PC- Docket No Revere Drive 3. Board of Trustees preliminary review minutes. 4. All written and oral testimony concerning the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Plan Commission of the Village of Northbrook, Cook County, Illinois, THAT: 1. Findings: A. Comprehensive Plan Compliance. The Northbrook Plan Commission does hereby find that with respect to Docket No A, the proposed application is in general compliance with the Northbrook Comprehensive Plan, and specifically in compliance with the Future Land Use Map. B. Zoning Map Amendment. With respect to Docket No A, the Plan Commission hereby finds that the Applicant s request to rezone the Subject Property from I-1 Restricted Industrial to O-2 Limited Office District is consistent with the Northbrook Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and does comply with the standards for approval of such rezoning requests as established in Subsection E(8) of the Northbrook Zoning Code. C. Yard and Setback Variations. With respect to Docket No B/C/D, a request to reduce certain required yards and setbacks, the Plan Commission finds that the following variations are consistent with the standards for variations established in Subsection F of the Zoning Code: 1. A variation to reduce the required front setback from 30 to to accommodate the existing building. 2. A variation to reduce the required front yard from 30 to 23 to accommodate the existing parking. 3. A variation to reduce the required interior yard variation from 5 to 0 to accommodate the existing parking. E. Loading Space Variation. With respect to Docket No E the Plan Commission hereby finds that the Applicant has made reasonable accommodations for maintaining an existing loading area, and thus the request to reduce the required number of loading spaces on the Subject Property from 1 to 0 is consistent with the standards for variations established in Subsection F of the Zoning Code. F. Required Drive Aisle Width Variation. With respect to Docket No F, the Plan Commission hereby finds that a variation to allow for a reduction in the required drive aisle width from 24 to 20 to accommodate certain existing drive aisles on the Subject Property, is consistent with the standards for variations established in subsection F of the Zoning Code. G. Other Relief Necessary. With respect to Docket No G, the Plan Commission finds no other zoning or subdivision relief necessary for this application. Attachment: 2-60 Revere - Draft PC Resolution (2783 : PCD-14-12: 60 Revere Drive - Rezoning) 2. Recommendations: The Northbrook Plan Commission does hereby recommend to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Northbrook approval of Docket No A/B/C/D/E/F based on the findings established herein, subject to the following conditions: 2 Packet Pg. 7

8 5.A.b Resolution No. 14-PC- Docket No Revere Drive A. Zoning Map Amendment. The Subject Property shall be rezoned to be located in the O-2 Limited Office District and shall comply with all requirements of the O-2 District, subject to the condition that the Restrictive Covenant on the Subject Property be amended to restrict certain uses from being permitted on the Subject Property. The list of uses which shall not be allowed on the Subject Property are attached as, and by reference, made a part of this resolution as Exhibit A. B. Yard and Setback Variations. The below requested variations, which are also depicted in Exhibit B, shall be granted: 1. A variation to reduce the required front setback from 30 to to accommodate the existing building. 2. A variation to reduce the required front yard from 30 to 23 to accommodate the existing parking. 3. A variation to reduce the required interior yard variation from 5 to 0 to accommodate the existing parking. D. Loading Space Variation. A variation shall be granted to reduce the required number of loading spaces from 1 to 0 so long as the Applicant continues to maintain the existing loading area on the Subject Property, as depicted in Exhibit B to this resolution. E. Required Drive Aisle Width Variation. A variation shall be granted to allow for a reduction in the required drive aisle width from 24 to 20 to accommodate the existing drive aisles on the Subject Property, as depicted in Exhibit B of this resolution. ADOPTED THIS day of October AYES: () NAYS: () ABSENT: () ABSTAIN: () ATTEST: Director of Development and Planning Services Marcia Franklin, Chairman Northbrook Plan Commission Attachment: 2-60 Revere - Draft PC Resolution (2783 : PCD-14-12: 60 Revere Drive - Rezoning) 3 Packet Pg. 8

9 5.A.b Resolution No. 14-PC- Docket No Revere Drive EXHIBIT A The following uses shall not be allowed on the Subject Property following the rezoning from the I-1 Restricted Industrial District to the O-2 Limited Office District: All Retail Trade Uses which includes: o SIC No Gasoline Service Stations o SIC No Eating Places Except , and o SIC No Live Entertainment Accessory To Permitted Eating Places o SIC No Outdoor Seating Accessory to Permitted Eating Places o SIC No Drinking Places Accessory to Permitted Eating Places o SIC No Drinking Places Accessory to Permitted Eating Places with Live Entertainment o SIC No Carry-out Eating Places o SIC No Liquor Stores With Accessory Food Sales o SIC No Tobacco Stores & Stands o SIC No News Dealers & Newsstands SIC No Membership Organizations SIC No Religious Organizations SIC No Religious Organizations with Associated Elementary and/or Secondary Schools Attachment: 2-60 Revere - Draft PC Resolution (2783 : PCD-14-12: 60 Revere Drive - Rezoning) 4 Packet Pg. 9

10 5.A.b Resolution No. 14-PC- Docket No Revere Drive EXHIBIT B Yard Variation: from 30 to 23 Drive Aisle Width Variation: from 24 to 20 Drive Aisle Width Variation: from 24 to 20 Setback Variation: from 30 to Loading Space Variation: from 1 to 0 Yard Variation: from 5 to 0 Attachment: 2-60 Revere - Draft PC Resolution (2783 : PCD-14-12: 60 Revere Drive - Rezoning) 5 Packet Pg. 10

11 MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 6.A.a TO: FROM: PLAN COMMISSION MICHAELA KOHLSTEDT, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2014 SUBJECT: PCD TECHNY ROAD - NEW CELL TOWER INTRODUCTION On October 7, 2014, the Plan Commission is scheduled to hold its third public hearing on an application submitted by ACMB Group on behalf of New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC (the Applicant ) as potential lessee of part of a property located at 2705 Techny Road (the Subject Property ) which is owned by North Suburban Young Men s Christian Association (the Property Owner ), for the purpose of constructing a new wireless cell tower. Following the first public hearing, the Applicant has revised the design of the proposed plan which has now reduced the relief being sought. The Applicant is now seeking the following zoning and subdivision relief: A. Zoning Code Text Amendment to eliminate the distance separation requirement between cellular towers and nearby structures; B. Zoning Code Text Amendment to allow the decks on towers to have a radius which exceeds six feet from the center of the tower (The Applicant is once again requesting the text amendment to allow for a deck in excess of 6 from the center of the tower, but not exceeding 7-6 ) C. Special Permit to allow personal wireless service antennas located on a tower-style antenna support structure, and related electronic equipment and equipment structures, within or in excess of district height limitations for personal wireless antennae on the Subject Property; and D. Approval of such other zoning relief as may be necessary to accommodate the development of the Subject Property as proposed by the Applicant. SEPTEMBER 16 PUBLIC HEARING The Plan Commission conducted the second public hearing on this application during its regular meeting on September 16. During the meeting there were no comments raised by members of the public; however, there were still some questions raised by the Plan Commission. Below is a summary of the comments from the Commissioners, followed by a statement indicating how the Applicant has addressed the concern. Plan Commission Comments. Most Plan Commissioners generally found the proposed cell antenna to still be appropriate for the Subject Property; however, they asked the Applicant to address the following items regarding the proposed cell tower plan: Attachment: Techny - Staff Report (2782 : PCD-14-03: 2705 Techny - Cell Tower) Wind Velocity in Icy Conditions: o Plan Commission Comments: A concern was raised that the information originally submitted by the Applicant indicated that the tower could withstand wind velocities up to 40 mph with ¾ ice on the tower. The wind velocity measurements supplied by the Applicant demonstrated numerous incidents of wind velocities in excess of 40 mph Page 1 Packet Pg. 11

12 6.A.a during winter months, which lead Commissioners to be concerned about the tower s strength in icy conditions. o Applicant Response: The Applicant has submitted the attached letter from Sabre Industries, which is signed and sealed by a licensed structural engineer by the State of Illinois, stating that the tower is being designed to withstand wind speeds of 150 mph with no ice, and up to 130 mph with ¾ of ice on the tower structure. Height of Equipment Enclosure: o Plan Commission Comments: The Plan Commission asked why the Applicant was not constructing the brick equipment enclosure at a height equal to, or greater than, the cabinets being installed within the enclosed area. o Applicant Response: The Applicant stated during the second public hearing that the equipment cabinets would be nine feet tall. In the attached submitted by the Applicant, they have agreed to construct the brick enclosure to a height of nine feet. The Applicant did not have time to submit revised drawings prior to the public hearing, but they will make sure that revised plans are submitted depicting the nine-foot tall enclosure. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT Originally the application was noticed for a text amendment requesting that the Zoning Code be amended to allow deck platforms on cell towers to exceed 6, but no more than 7-6, in radius from the center of the tower. With the original application submittal, the Applicant was seeking approval of a platform deck which would have a radius of 7-2 from the center of the tower. For the second public hearing the Applicant had revised the plans and resubmitted drawings depicting that the platform radius was reduced to 6. The Applicant has now stated in the attached that the plans will be revised once more with the deck radius returning to 7-2 for the proposed tower on the Subject Property. The Applicant is still requesting the Zoning Code text amendment to allow for the increase in deck size by special permit approval. SUMMARY We suggest the Plan Commission consider the following policy questions while reviewing the request: 1. Has the Applicant demonstrated that no lawfully pre-existing antenna support structure or lawfully pre-existing building or structure is available, on commercially reasonable terms, and sufficient for the location of an antenna necessary for the provision of personal wireless services? 2. Is the proposed location and design of the tower and related equipment on the Subject Property appropriate? If so, is it appropriate to amend the Zoning Code: a. to allow, by special permit wireless cell antennae towers to be located less than 110% of the tower height from a principal structure, and b. to allow, by special permit, the decks of cell towers to have a radius from the center of the tower to the outside of the deck that exceeds six feet but is no greater than 7 6? Attachment: Techny - Staff Report (2782 : PCD-14-03: 2705 Techny - Cell Tower) 3. Has the Applicant provided a walled off area that is adequate to accommodate additional wireless providers in the future? 4. If it is appropriate to amend the Zoning Code, is it appropriate to grant special permit Page 2 Packet Pg. 12

13 6.A.a approval to allow for the construction and operation of a 107-foot personal wireless service antennae tower on the Subject Property, which tower is located approximately 15 feet from a principal building on the Subject Property and which has a deck radius that is 7 2? If so, should any operational limitations be placed on the tower (i.e. limit the number of carriers for collocation, the height, etc.)? The Applicant and staff will attend the October 7, 2014 meeting to answer any questions. Attachment: Techny - Staff Report (2782 : PCD-14-03: 2705 Techny - Cell Tower) Page 3 Packet Pg. 13

14 6.A.b Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Techny - Applicant Submittal (2782 : PCD-14-03: 2705 Techny - Cell Tower)

15 6.A.b Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Techny - Applicant Submittal (2782 : PCD-14-03: 2705 Techny - Cell Tower)