Village of Bartlett Plan Commission met May 14.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
J. Lemberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Roll Call
Present: J. Lemberg, Chair, J. Allen, A. Hopkins, M. Hopkins, D. Gunsteen, D. Negele and T. Ridenour
Absent: J. Miaso, J. Kallas
Also Present: Roberta Grill, Planning & Development Services Director, Kristy Stone, Village Planner
Approval of Minutes
A motion was made to approve the March 12, 2020 meeting minutes.
Motioned by: A. Hopkins
Seconded by: T. Ridenour
Roll Call
Ayes: J. Lemberg, J. Allen, A. Hopkins, M. Hopkins, D. Gunsteen, D. Negele
Abstain: T. Ridenour
The motion carried.
(#19-19) 7-Eleven (555 W. Lake Street)
The following exhibits were presented:
Exhibit A – Picture of Sign
Exhibit B – Mail Affidavit
Exhibit C – Notification of Publication
J. Lemberg the petitioners, Dan Akroyd, Matt Anderson, Mitch Goltz, Jon Silverberg, and Jason Wiesbrock were sworn in.
K. Stone stated that this property has been part of Bartlett since its incorporation in 1891 and was shown on the Village’s first Zoning Map as part of the Farming District. The property was rezoned commercial and automobile service stations were permitted in the zoning district. In 1963 the Zoning Ordinance changed and service stations were changed to special uses. The existing service station was considered a legal nonconforming use that was exempt from obtaining a special use permit as long as they stayed operational. The property was rezoned in 1978 to the B-3 ZoningDistrict. The gas station that was previously there ceased operations and the Petitioners are having to request a special use permit.
The Petitioners are requesting Site Plan Review for a proposed 3,500 sq. ft. 7-Eleven convenience store and gas station at the northeast corner of N. Bartlett Rd. and Lake St. in the B-3 Zoning District.
The existing building would be demolished for the new service station. It would have a maximum height of 18 ft. 10 in. and be constructed with fiber cement panels that have the appearance of brick and ribbed metal. A decorative metal canopy is located over the entrance of the convenience store. The fuel canopy is 17.5 feet tall.
In addition to the Special Use Permit for an automobile service station, the petitioners are also requesting a Special Use Permit to sell package liquor and for outdoor sales. The proposed hours of operation for the 7-Eleven gas station and convenience store are 24 hours, seven (7) days a week.
The previous site plan had four (4) curb cuts. The petitioners are proposing to close the two (2) closest to the intersection and have a right-in/right-out on Lake Street and full access on North Bartlett Road. Cook County Highway has jurisdiction over North Bartlett Road. They have seen these plans. They have approved the location of the curb cuts and IDOT has approved the Lake Street curb cut.
The petitioners requested several variations, which went before the Zoning Board of appeals last Thursday. The Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to recommend approval of the requests.
The petitioners are providing 29 parking spaces, which exceeds the Zoning Ordinance requirement. To meet the stormwater requirements for the site, the Petitioner will be paying a fee in lieu of the required Post-Construction Best Management Practices (PCBMP) with DuPage County. The Village Engineer supports this request.
The Petitioner is proposing a fence along the north and east property lines as required by the landscape ordinance. It will be a six (6) foot tall solid fence. The landscape plan is currently under review by staff. The photometric plan has been approved. The plan indicates the light fixtures under the canopy will be recessed and have full cut off. The Traffic Impact Analysis has been submitted by the Petitioner. It has been reviewed by the Village’s Traffic Consultant who has no further comments. The Village’s Environmental Consultant has reviewed the plans as well and has made recommendations to protect the public health and environment during the redevelopment of the site. His letter is attached for your reference.
The Petitioner made a couple of adjustments to the plans based on the Village Board Committee comments, including moving the fuel vents away from Lake Street as well as verifying that there is a safety shut-off system for filing tanks. Staff recommends approval of the petitioner’s requests subject to the conditions and findings of the fact in your staff report.
J. Lemberg asked if the property is located in Cook County. K. Stone correct. J. Lemberg what does the property owner and previous owners do for the stormwater right now today? K. Stone it was existing. Back then, there were no standards for that. The previous gas station had been there since the 1960s. The storm water was over land. J. Lemberg it just flowed over the property? K. Stone correct. There was never a stormwater facility on the site. J. Lemberg if this property is located in Cook County, why is the petitioner paying a fee to DuPage County? K. Stone we follow the DuPage County Storm Water ordinance for the entire Village. J. Lemberg where is the water going to go? DuPage County or stay in Cook County. K. Stone the stormwater will go in Cook County, but they are paying the fee to DuPage County because we follow their ordinance. J. Lemberg what does the fee cover? Why is there a fee if DuPage County is not receiving the water? K. Stone the stormwater systems are connected. J. Lemberg how much is the fee to DuPage County? J. Wiesbrock answered, the fees are $13,900. J. Silverberg agreed that is the correct amount. J. Lemberg asked if any of the members of the Commission had any questions for Staff at this time. M. Hopkins asked if all rooftop equipment was completely screened in pure elevation. K. Stone stated yes, they are behind the parapet walls. M. Hopkins asked if the petitioner was planning to broadcast music from under the canopy or use a loudspeaker under the canopy that would be audible at the property line? D. Akroyd stated that they do not broadcast music at the pumps. T. Ridenour asked if the white line on the first site plan was the property line. K. Stone correct. T. Ridenour stated that it looked like part of the parkway was on their site and part of it was on somebody else’s property. K. Stone indicated on the map where the right- of-way limit is located and where IDOT’s property is located along Lake Street. T. Ridenour asked if the variance that they are asking for is just for the width of their property or the total. K. Stone it is just for their property. T. Ridenour it actually is going to be a little bigger than the 7 feet. K. Stone correct, the parkway is bigger, but we only count what is going to be on their property. T. Ridenour where do the fuel trucks coming in west bound from Lake Street exit? J. Silverberg they will make a right onto Bartlett Road. T. Ridenour asked if six (6) feet is our usual fence height. K. Stone yes. T. Ridenour do we do eight (8) feet when we are that close to an apartment building? K. Stone they can do eight (8) feet, but six (6) feet is the minimum. T. Ridenour it seems like we are close on the east side. Should we consider making that eight (8) feet in the area of the building? Is all of the landscaping on the petitioner’s side of the fence? K. Stone yes. T. Ridenour suggested that the fence be eight (8) feet on the east side, at least for part of it next to the building. Asked what is the double line on the east side on the map. J. Wiesbrock stated that has been revised. It was originally a decorative retaining wall, but it is no longer needed after we went through the BMP process with DuPage County and the Village. The double line on the site plan currently is not a retaining wall. D. Negele asked if the fence would be installed at the same time as the construction or are we waiting a year for the landscaping? When is the fence going up? J. Silverberg it will be one of the later parts of our construction, but we are not waiting a year to put in our landscaping. As long as we can get our building permit in a timely manner, we can get our site completed before the weather turns. We will get it in as soon as we can. A. Hopkins the exit along Bartlett Road, it is kind of hard to tell from these sketches here, but the width of that opening, if you have a car that wants to turn left out of there and a car waiting to turn right out of there. Would they both fit side-by-side? Just wondering about stacking issues. Obviously, if it is near rush hour where we are going to have three (3) cars trying to turn left or even just getting backed up there with people trying to move around in that section if that is going to be an issue. J. Silverberg yes, there is 36’ lane there. People trying to go left on Bartlett Road will also be able to use the right out on Lake Street unless they want to go left, they have to go back to Oak Avenue. M. Goltz added that 36’ feet is wide enough for three (3) lanes if two (2) exit and one enters. A. Hopkins asked what type of contamination is there and how will the cleanup of that go and how long would that take? J. Silverberg stated that they are doing all the necessary testing in order to obtain an NFR (No Further Remediation). Any contaminated dirt that is dug up and taken off site will be taken to a Subtitle D landfill site, which is an approved waste dump. Any contaminated dirt that goes off site will be disposed of properly and any contaminated dirt that is left on site will be encapsulated by both a vapor barrier and standard engineered barriers, which would include concrete and asphalt. We are required by the IEPA to adhere to their standards in order to obtain an NFR. A. Hopkins agrees with T. Ridenour that there definitely should be an eight (8) foot fence. I'm all for the package liquor alcohol sales. I think that would be a good location on the north end of town there for that. If that is approved by Village Board and down the road, if they wanted to create gaming there, would they be able to because they have alcohol sales? R. Grill no, they would not. They do not meet the parameters. In order to have gaming devices, you need to have liquor, but you also need to be considered a truck stop and this does not meet the parameters or the definition of a truck stop in accordance with the State of Illinois. T. Ridenour asked, do you think that the Bartlett Road curb cut should be striped so that we have a definite right out, left out, and entrance? K. Stone with arrows? T. Ridenour correct. R. Grill we can have the Petitioner revise their site plan to take off the retaining wall and they can add arrows. T. Ridenour it seems like with people exiting, if we give them a little more guidance, it is always helpful with a right turn lane, a left turn lane, and leaving the bottom part for the entrance. R. Grill asked, does the petitioner agree to that? J. Silverberg yes, we can do that. D. Gunsteen asked if the fence is PVC material. K. Stone it is a wood fence. D. Gunsteen does it meet the Village of Bartlett standards? K. Stone yes. It has metal posts, which is a required condition. D. Gunsteen what material is being used for the trash enclosure? I am assuming it matches the building. K. Stone the trash enclosure does architecturally match the building. D. Gunsteen does it have the brick veneer? What kind of doors are on the front? J. Silverberg they look like barn doors although they do not operate with a single slider on the top. They have a hinge. D. Gunsteen are they trimmed out with metal or is it wood? J. Silverberg I believe they are PVC with metal hinges. D. Gunsteen the reason I am asking is because the trash services typically break those off when they are cedar and it takes a long time for companies to get those fixed and being that this faces the intersection, that was one of my concerns. Has there been any discussion about having a sidewalk put in? I heard this 7-Eleven is a relocate from across the street and that 7-Eleven gets a lot of foot traffic, all day long every day, as well as kids leaving the middle school and walking to the 7-Eleven. Is a sidewalk required. J. Silverberg per the vehicular road jurisdictions, both Cook County and IDOT have requested and we have agreed to putting sidewalks along the south and west sides of the property lines. Those would all be on the civil drawings, which are not in the slide show. D. Gunsteen when I look at the canopy columns, it does not look like they are wrapped with material. It looks like they are just a standard steel beam painted. Does the city require all of our gas stations with canopy structures to have the steel uprights wrapped with materials that matches the building? R. Grill we have had that in the past with some other gas stations. We do not require it, but it is something that you could make a recommendation on. D. Gunsteen I do think the exits going out onto Bartlett Road do need to have a white-painted stop bar as well as the turn arrows on the pavement. How do the other commissions feel about the canopy columns? R. Grill if you'll recall, Bucky’s columns have the same materials that were used on the front facade of the building. We actually have another gas station coming soon before you that I believe, that will also be using stone on their columns. K. Stone that project needs to submit the elevations for the canopies. D. Gunsteen it is my opinion that as this project is on a main thoroughfare that as you turn, you come into Bartlett, and secondly, I know that painted steel has a life expectancy of maybe two (2) years before it needs to be consistently grinded, sanded and painted. The Mobile gas station on Route 59 is rotted and rusted. I think we should add that as a condition. D. Negele asked, do you want it to go all the way to the top or half-way up the post? D. Gunsteen I think it could be 36” to 58” up the canopy column with a cap, which is the same type of cap used to go around the building. J. Wiesbrock in the past, with other gas stations we have done, when they covered, you do not know what is behind it. Seeing the painted columns and seeing potential corrosion, you can fix it. If you cover it up, sometimes you do not know that and it becomes more of an issue long term. M. Hopkins it is false brick. It is not as impervious as real brick. It is fiber cement, so it is not like we are protecting the columns with real brick if we were to steer the developer towards this. It would be esthetic and not utilitarian. R. Grill I think the 7-Eleven at Schick Road and Route 59 has brick columns. M. Hopkins what about the Circle K? The BP on Route 59 is just steel. T. Ridenour we have a chance right now to make future projects like this better or lesser. I think go for better. D. Negele function versus fashion. If we cannot see damage underneath the poles with that, like the petitioner said, that compromises the integrity. J. Allan I think the supports should be fine the way they are. At least you can tell what is going on this way other than wrapping it and not knowing what is going on behind it. M. Hopkins stated that on Google street view, looking at the 7-Eleven on Route 59 and Schick Road, it does not have any wraps. A. Hopkins looking on street view, the Circle K does have brick pillars, at least it looks like brick, but I do not know if it is fake or not. D. Gunsteen the aesthetics are a big part of what we approve in the Village of Bartlett. I think we should keep that as our minimum standard to keep our trash enclosures, our buildings, and our canopy columns, whether it be a drive through canopy or gas canopy so that we do not have just raw steel or painted steel. When we are approving something, we have to think about it for the long term, not the short term. A. Hopkins I agree with that statement. D. Negele we need to make it long lasting. D. Gunsteen I believe if it is installed correctly it can be done in a fashion that will not cause future damage or decay behind it. I think adding it to a 48” maximum, not less than 3’ is a good compromise. M. Hopkins it should be to the top of the pumps. D. Gunsteen I agree, it should go all the way up. M. Goltz the posts on the rendering go through a concrete base and when you widen that, it may not fit within the base. In addition, part of the reason it is left exposed and does not have brick is that unfortunately, some people do not like to walk to the garbage cans and will put garbage on the ledge. If there is a ledge there within arms-distance, often times there are drinks and food left on that ledge. Aesthetically, it may not be exactly what some may want, but looking at the pillars at the Circle K, those pillars go all the way down to the ground and these are on a base. M. Hopkins looking at the Circle K on Google Street View, the island is not any wider if it is boxed out for the brick-finished material than it would be otherwise. D. Gunsteen I agree in that the weight of the product that they would have to utilize, I do not think they would have to upgrade or thicken the slab. M. Hopkins that is right, but the Building Department will require a foundation to the frost line. That is standard. Looking at the Circle K, the island was not widened. It is 3-brick wide, so it is 24” inches wide. That could just be wrapped very tightly to the column. The island does not have to get any bigger. M. Goltz what if we wrap it with the Nichiha that is on the building? How high do you want it? T. Ridenour all the way up. M. Goltz Okay. D. Gunsteen I would like to add that as a condition of approval. I would also like to tell the petitioners that I think this is the highest and best use for this property. It is great to see something built here. M. Hopkins I agree. D. Negele we will add the eight (8) foot fence to that one side as well. K. Stone it can go to the end of the parking. It stops at the setback line. D. Gunsteen is the fence back further than the trash enclosure or would the petitioner want to incorporate the fence and the trash enclosure as one so people are not hiding between those two units? J. Silverberg the trash enclosure is a masonry unit and the fence is a wooden unit. I am not worried about people hiding back there unless it is a concern of the Board’s. R. Grill the fence cannot go beyond the setback line, but it can stop before it hits the line of the trash enclosure. D. Gunsteen I agree. R. Grill asked the Petitioner, are you okay with having a six (6) foot fence on the north property line going to an eight (8) foot fence on the east property line? J. Silverberg that is agreeable. J. Lemberg on the site plan the driveway entrance going into the property says it is 35’ wide, but it has an island in the middle. How wide is that island that it is taking up 35 feet? J. Silverberg that is a porkchop that ensures that only right ins and right outs are happening. It is also part of the truck route. It is a mountable median for a large vehicle such as a fuel tanker. The exact dimensions are on the civil plans. J. Lemberg how wide is the driveway going to be for a vehicle to come in? J. Wiesbrock it is a right in, right out an we have had it through IDOT. It is 12’ feet and 12’ feet out at a minimum and we have actually revised the out to 15 feet per IDOTs request. There is plenty of room. The mountable curb is a three (3) inch high curb so that a truck can go over it to get it. Curb to curb is it 15’ in and out, which gives it a 12’ driving lane outside of the curb line in the gutter line. J. Lemberg along Lake Street there you have what looks like a drawing of a fuel truck. Is that where the fuel trucks are going to load? J. Wiesbrock yes, correct. J. Lemberg when the fuel truck is coming in off of Lake Street, how far does it have to drive into the property before it makes a left hand turn to park where it is at in this diagram? J. Wiesbrock we did run all of this through and Auto- Turn Program to verify that it does work. It does make the turn in left and then straighten out with plenty of room for a standard tanker that we use at 7-Eleven and the truck movements work fine here. We can get that to you if you would like. J. Lemberg it is not going to cut it short and drive over the porkchop island? J. Wiesbrock it will. That is the idea of the M 3.12 curb that is mountable. The truck can drive over it. J. Lemberg how long will that curb last? J. Wiesbrock the curb is per IDOT specifications. It is 35 PSI and rated for that reason. We do this all the time with IDOT. It is their right in- right out design in detail that we are proposing and know that it is going to be driven over with a loaded semi. J. Lemberg the diagram for the building itself has a sidewalk in front of it that looks like it is seven (7) feet wide. K. Stone yes. J. Lemberg you are putting planters there that are 18” inches wide. Now the sidewalk is cut down about five (5) feet. There are some big trucks that would cover the sidewalk. Are there going to be wheel stops there so that cars cannot go that far and their bumpers cannot hang over the sidewalk? If there is a bumper hanging over the sidewalk that is two (2) feet and planters that are almost two (2) feet people are going to struggle to get through. J. Wiesbrock typically, an 18-inch overhang and an 18-inch planter, which is three (3) feet, there is a four (4) foot walkway. That was the intent. M. Goltz the seven (7) foot sidewalk is there. We also have 20-foot parking spaces, which are in many cases, two (2) feet longer than most municipalities. We actually have between a two (2) and four (4) foot buffer. M. Hopkins I agree with J. Lemberg. If we are going to let the sidewalk work and you are going to put planters up against the building, why would we have a 20-foot parking space and then let people snug up to the curb and then take 18 inches out of the sidewalk and the planter out of the sidewalk too. In other municipalities, there is a standard dimension of 18 feet and then even go to 16-1/2 feet if you are going to allow an overhang for the bumper. People will snug up until they feel their tire hit the curb and then all of the sudden, they are pinching the sidewalk. Maybe that curb should be moved south 18 inches or put up wheel stops. M. Goltz part of the reason we like to stay away from wheel stops is that sometimes they can become problematic in the winter when they are plowing snow. If we are able to do it within code and widen the sidewalk between (eight and a half) 8-1/2 and 9 inches. I am not opposed to that if that was deemed appropriate. M. Hopkins right, so why not, it is the same dimension and you would not have to move the gas islands. J. Silverberg if you widen the sidewalk something has to shift and you have a 30-foot set back in the rear. D. Gunsteen where are the planters located? K. Stone they are proposing three (3) landscape planters by the doors. D. Gunsteen is that required by code or is that the petitioner. K. Stone we require a four (4) foot wide strip of landscaping. They are doing the planters, which is pretty common to meet the intent of the landscape ordinance. R. Grill we will have the petitioner work with staff to widen the width of the sidewalk in the front or the length of the parking stalls. We can work with the petitioner to get that changed. M. Hopkins that is a good plan. J. Lemberg for your outdoor sales, are you going to have anything sitting on the sidewalk like wood for a fireplace or bags of salt or something like that, or is it going to stay open all the time? D. Aykroyd at this point, we are working with the franchisee and intend to sell only propane. We also do a small section of wash fluid. Those would be the only items.
J. Lemberg opened the Public Hearing portion of the meeting. No one came forward. The public hearing was closed.
T. Ridenour made a motion to pass along a positive recommendation to the Village Board to approve Case (#19-19) 7-Eleven (555 W. Lake Street) subject to the Findings of Fact and conditions outlines in the Staff Report and with following additional conditions: (1) the posts for the canopy shall be wrapped with the same materials as the building, (2) the fence along the east property line shall be eight (8) feet in height, (3) a painted stop bar and directional arrows be added to the N. Bartlett Road curb cut, and (4) the Petitioner shall increase the width of the sidewalk in front of the building by two (2) feet.
Motioned by: T. Ridenour
Seconded by: A. Hopkins
J. Lemberg closed the Public Hearing portion of the meeting.
Roll Call
Ayes: J. Lemberg, J. Allen, D. Gunsteen, A. Hopkins, J. Kallas, J. Miaso, D. Negele,
Nays: None
The motion carried.
https://www.village.bartlett.il.us/Home/ShowDocument?id=11169
Alerts Sign-up