Village of Tinley Park Plan Commission met July 19.
Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Plan Commissioners: Ken Shaw, Chairman
Eduardo Mani
Angela Gatto
Tim Stanton
Lucas Engel
Stephen Vick
MaryAnn Aitchison
Absent Plan Commissioner(s): Garrett Gray
Chuck Augustyniak
Village Officials and Staff: Dan Ritter, Senior Planner
Barbara Bennett, Commission Secretary
Guest(s): Jim Richert, Paul Brown
CALL TO ORDER
PLAN COMMISSION CHAIRMAN SHAW called to order the Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission for July 19, 2018 at 7:00 p.m.
COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN SHAW noted and welcomed the two new PLAN COMMISSIONERS, STEPHEN VICK AND MARYANN AITCHISON.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the July 5, 2018 Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission were presented for approval. A Motion was made by COMMISSIONER GATTO, seconded by COMMISSIONER STANTON, to approve the Minutes as presented. The Motion was approved by voice call. CHAIRMAN SHAW declared the Motion approved as presented.
Item #1 WORKSHOP: JAMES RICHERT- 6811 HICKORY STREET
SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH A VARIATION
Consider granting Site Plan approval to the Petitioner, James Richert of Banging Gavel, to construct a 146 sq. ft. detached accessory structure for the property located at 6811 Hickory Street (also known as the Vogt Building) in the DC (Downtown Core) Zoning District with a request to consider granting the following V ariation:
1. A Variation from Section III.H. (Table 2) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a 146 sq. ft. detached accessory structure in a front yard where it is only permitted within a rear yard.
Present were the following:
Plan Commissioners: Ken Shaw, Chairman
Eduardo Mani
Angela Gatto
Tim Stanton
Lucas Engel
Stephen Vick
MaryAnn Aitchison
Absent Plan Commissioner(s): Garrett Gray
Chuck Augustyniak
Village Officials and Staff: Dan Ritter, Senior Planner
Barbara Bennett, Commission Secretary
Guest(s): Jim Richert
Dan Ritter, Senior Planner noted this is a request for approval of a Site Plan with a Variation to construct a 146 sq. ft. detached accessory structure to provide washroom facilities to be utilized by the customers dining in the outdoor patio for the property located at 6811 Hickory St.
Mr. Ritter displayed a graphic of the site which is in the Downtown Core and is within the Legacy District. The site plan covers the location of the washroom facility and a hand washing area for the servers. The current plan shows it slightly over the property line so the first open item is to revise the plan with the accessory structure completely on private property. Staff also requested a depiction of the proposed fencing around the air handlers on the south side of the building. Prior to the Public Hearing staff would like to see the type of fencing that will be used. Due to the historic significance of this property it may not fit to use PVC fencing as is typically required by the Plan Commission and wood might be more appropriate. The proposed architecture of the accessory structure is primarily 5” lap beige Hardie Board siding with brown architectural shingles. This complies with the Legacy Code material requirements which requires a minimum of 75% brick, stone and fiber cement siding and the roof to be cedar, slate or asphalt shingles. On the submitted proposal the doors were facing Oak Park Avenue, the petitioner has indicated they would now like to move to face the principal building. The proposal will be revised prior to the Public Hearing. A color rendering has been submitted. Staff suggested the doors being beige rather than one color and the roof shingles darker to match the principal structure. There will be no additional signage or lighting fixtures on the building.
The final Open Item is a Variation to permit a 146 sq. ft. detached accessory structure in a front yard where it is only permitted within a rear yard.
CHAIRMAN SHAW asked for comments or questions from the Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER ENGEL asked if there were any other buildings with outdoor bathrooms in Tinley and if they will be handicap accessible. Mr. Ritter replied there were none in the downtown area. Mr. Richert, Petitioner replied this idea was modeled after the Patton House in Geneva, Illinois, which is also a historic building with outdoor seating. These bathrooms are ADA compliant.
COMMISSIONER GATTO asked how much seating would be lost by adding this building. Mr. Richert replied none as the structure’s location was originally going to be used as an outdoor bar, which is being eliminated.
COMMMISSIONERS MANI AND VICK noted they agreed with the color changes to the structure and roof recommended by staff and moving the door locations. Mr. Richert agreed that changing the doors and the colors makes sense.
CHARIMAN SHAW agreed on the suggestions for the color changes recommended by staff and proposed door changes. He also asked about signage and noted directional signage would be allowed and might help. He agreed for the need for screening around the air handles and the fact that PVC fencing may look out of place. Mr. Richert replied the only signage would be for “Men” and “Women”. Mr. Richert noted everything would have to be approved by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources due to the fact it is a registered historical building.
COMMISSIONER STANTON asked if there were plans for security cameras. Mr. Richert replied there would be inside and outside security cameras.
Mr. Ritter went over the open items as noted in the Staff Report. CHAIRMAN SHAW asked for comments from the public. There was none. The Public Hearing will be on August 2, 2018.
Item #2 WORKSHOP: TWO MEN & A TRUCK-7420 & 7430 DUVAN DRIVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIATIONS
Consider granting Site Plan approval to the Petitioner, Paul Brown of Two Men and a Truck, on the properties at 7420 & 7430 Duvan Drive in the ORI MU-1 Zoning District with a request to consider granting the following Variations:
1. Section VIII.A.7 - To permit parking to be located within a front yard.
2. Section V.C.10.B.6 - To reduce the required off-street parking area setback for industrial developments to encroach more than 25% into the established front yard setback to permit a setback of 12.29 feet instead of a required setback of 24 feet.
3. Section III.J.2.a.(1) - To permit a fence to be located 12.29 feet into the primary front yard.
Present were the following:
Plan Commissioners: Ken Shaw, Chairman
Eduardo Mani
Angela Gatto
Tim Stanton
Lucas Engel
Stephen Vick
MaryAnn Aitchison
Absent Plan Commissioner(s): Garrett Gray
Chuck Augustyniak
Village Officials and Staff: Dan Ritter, Senior Planner
Barbara Bennett, Commission Secretary
Guest(s): Paul Brown
Dan Ritter, Senior Planner noted this is a request for approval of a Site Plan with a Variations. Two Men and a Truck is a moving company planning to relocate their business into an existing building and develop a vacant parcel next to it in order to park their large moving trucks. There will also be additional employee parking in the new parking lot. The Petitioner has gotten some approvals through the Village and the County for tax incentives. This is an older industrial area with long and narrow challenging lots. The Petitioner desires to construct a parking lot along with landscaping and stormwater detention facilities on the vacant property next to the primary building. The existing building has been used for industrial and warehousing purposes and the vacant lot was previously a warehouse/industrial site that was demolished in the late 1980’s. There have been various property redevelopments and upgrades over the last 10-20 years on Duvan Drive and the area is in a state of transition from the older auto-oriented industrial area to be more modern in its design. The zoning is ORI (Office and Restricted Industrial, Mixed Use Duvan Drive Overlay District). It is bordered by other industrial uses with the same zoning on the east, west and south sides. To the north the property is bordered by multi-family residential condos and apartments zoned R6 PD (Medium Density Residential, Planned Unit Development).
Mr. Ritter displayed a drawing of the existing site that shows a long industrial building built almost to the property line on the west side and parking on the east and then to the west of that is the vacant site. Typically staff would like to see the lots consolidated, however in this case due to timing and the incentives being tied to the PIN numbers and the parcels it would not be possible. Staff recommend in the deed documents it should be a condition that if the parking lot must be removed and returned to grass if the property is sold and under different ownership. The Variation is based on the fact that these two properties will function together. The Petitioner has agreed to this and the Village Attorney is currently reviewing it.
Open Item #1: The Petitioner has decided not to consolidate the two (2) lots and instead place deed restrictions on them. Staff also recommends conditions requiring the removal of the parking lot and installation of grass be placed on the Site Plan and Variation approvals.
Open Item #2: A final draft of the deed restriction language must be reviewed by the Village’s planning staff and attorney prior to the public hearing. Staff recommends a condition requiring that the deed restriction be recorded prior to any building permit approvals.
The warehouse building totals 23,500 sq. ft. and there will be 16 truck spaces and 8 additional employee parking spaces. There will be overhead doors added to the west side of the building. For MWRD compliance there will be a large detention area to span both parcels. 41 standard parking spaces are required total in addition to the trucks being parked. 49 parking spaces are proposed in addition to the 16 truck spaces, which is sufficient parking.
The Petitioner is planning to utilize an existing wall sign with a name change. The existing ground sign is not in compliance with the code and will be removed. The appearance of the building is industrial. The Petitioner will install five wall mounted LED wall lights on the building to illuminate the new parking lot and will replace the existing parking lot’s lighting with similar fixtures.
The Petitioner has met the Landscaping Code on the main frontage of the site and has carried this around the corner on the west side where there is substantial landscaping. The Petitioner has proposed PVC fencing along the front of the building and screening the parking on Duvan Drive. There has been a fire and code concerns about locking this parking lot area since it would not be open for ingress and egress in the case of an emergency.
Open Item #3: Discuss the proposed landscape plan and additional landscaping that might help to meet the intent of the bufferyard and interior parking lot landscape waivers being requested. Additional tree coverage along the north and west property lines is recommended
The Petitioner has proposed to remove the requirement for interior landscaping in the parking lot due to the fact that it would be difficult for trucks to maneuver in the lot. Due to the fact that the right of way is narrow on Duvan Drive, it would be difficult to put sidewalks in at this time. A Master Plan would likely need to be considered for future development of the sidewalks in this area.
A 6-8’ privacy fence along the north side of the property is required to be placed between residential and non-residential properties. The Petitioner has chosen a wood fence along the property line, to screen the dumpster area and to screen mechanical equipment. Staff has recommended a more durable PVC fence to be used in a neutral color instead of wood.
Open Item #4: Consider changing the material of the fence running on the north property line and for screening of the dumpsters and mechanical equipment from wood to PVC.
CHAIRMAN SHAW asked for comments and questions from the COMMISSIONERS.
COMMISSIONER STANTON asked if this is a franchise. The Petitioner, Mr. Paul Brown replied that is was a franchise and he currently has 6 locations in the Chicago area. His plans are to consolidate 3 of those into a larger area like this property. Trucks are what they do and truck parking is crucial to the operations. The lot is very narrow and with the detention area required in the back it has been challenging to try and get the necessary space to operate. All the trucks are owned by the business. All are within 2 years old and are gasoline, not diesel. There are 12-15 trucks that would be parked in the lot. The trucks are 26’ straight trucks.
COMMISSIONER ENGEL noted he would like to see more trees on the west and north sides. Mr. Brown replied due to the trucks turning and being parked in the lot it is challenging to put the type of trees up that would not be too big. He plans to use evergreens where feasible.
COMMISSIONER STANTON asked about security cameras. Mr. Brown replied he would be putting in cameras on-site. There are also dash cams in each of the trucks and they take security of people’s belongings seriously.
CHAIRMAN SHAW would like to see continuous trees along the back of the property for screening from the condos instead of the large gap. Mr. Brown replied because there is a solid fence there, would it be necessary to have trees there or would it be redundant. It was agreed an alternative was for the landscape architect to show continuous trees spaced further apart then the current proposal, in order to reduce the cost.
CHAIRMAN SHAW noted agreement on the staff recommendation for PVC fencing rather than wood fencing and the chain link fencing is required to be rust resistant. He also noted his preference would be no Variation for the fence extending beyond the front of the building but that he understood the desire for it for security reasons. All COMMISSIONERS agreed. Mr. Brown replied this would make a big difference and he would lose crucial space for his trucks. It would be very difficult to change the configuration of the lot and the having the fence at the building would be a loss of 2 parking spaces. The narrowness of this lot is the big challenge. CHAIRMAN SHAW clarified he is fine with the parking lot location but not the fence in the front yard. His preference would be to not do the front yard fence Variation but he does not have as much concern about the parking lot. The standard is typically to have the fence at the building line.
COMMISSIONER VICK agreed with the continuous trees along the north property line and PVC instead of wood fencing.
CHAIRMAN SHAW asked about the hours of operation. He also noted he would like to see sidewalks in the future but understands that accommodations would have to be made for them to fit. Within the landscape plan it would be good to accommodate sidewalks for the future. He would not hinge his approval on sidewalk installation but wanted to ensure it is possible in the future and they weren’t hindering it. Mr. Ritter noted the typical commercial sidewalk is 6’ in width. Staff will review the plans to see if landscape adjustments need to be made to ensure there will be enough width to accommodate a sidewalk in the future.
Mr. Brown replied the hours of operation are 7:30 a.m. to 5 or 6:00 p.m.
CHAIRMAN SHAW asked for additional comments or questions from the COMMISSIONERS. CHAIRMAN SHAW asked for comments from the public. There was none.
Public Hearing on August 2, 2018.
GOOD OF THE ORDER
1. Downtown projects under review include, The Boulevard, Bremen Station, Harmony Square Plaza, North Street and Central Middle School Sites.
2. A wine bar and addition at the old Attic Door site.
3. TPMH – RFP’s requested from 3 developers -waiting for state – CHAIRMAN SHAW noted he would like a
quick idea at the next meeting on how the Plan Commission would be involved. Mr. Ritter stated the Plan Commission would see any site plans, PUDs, rezoning or variations. The specific timing would be dependent on if the property is purchased by the Village and how it is eventually proposed to be developed.
4. Haitham property at 159th and Oak Park Ave was approved at the Village Board.
5. Small Cell right-of-way ordinance was approved at the Village Board. Design standards for small cell antennas and changes to the larger antenna regulations would be coming back to Plan Commission soon.
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION
None at this time.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None at this time.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, a Motion was made by PLAN COMISSIONER STANTON, seconded by PLAN COMMISSIONER MANI, to adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission of July 19, 2018 at 8:52 p.m. The Motion was unanimously approved by voice call. PLAN COMMISSION CHAIRMAN SHAW declared the meeting adjourned.
http://cms6.revize.com/revize/tinleypark/document_center/Agendas%20and%20Minutes/Plan%20Commission/Minutes/2018/PC%20Minutes%2020180719%20-%20Final%20Approved.pdf
Alerts Sign-up