Village of Palatine Planning and Zoning Commission met May 23
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Patrick Noonan | Plan Commissioner | Present | |
| Cindy Roth-Wurster | Commissioner | Present | |
| Eric Friedman | Vice Chairperson | Present | |
| Jan Wood | Chairperson | Absent | |
| Jerry Luszczak | Commissioner | Absent | |
| Rodney Bettenhausen | Plan Commissioner | Present | |
| Robert Kolososki | Plan Commissioner | Present | |
| Kevin Cavanaugh | Commissioner | Present | |
| Stephen Fedota | Plan Commissioner | Present |
Staff Present: Ms. Lyn Bremanis and Mr. Alex Bradshaw
II. MEETING MINUTES
1. Plan Commission - Regular Meeting - Apr 4, 2023 7:00 PM
Chairman Cavanaugh made a motion to approve the minutes of April 4, 2023; seconded by Chairman Noonan
| RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kevin Cavanaugh, Commissioner SECONDER: Patrick Noonan, Plan Commissioner AYES: Noonan, Roth-Wurster, Friedman, Bettenhausen, Kolososki, Cavanaugh, Fedota ABSENT: Wood, Luszczak |
2. Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting - Apr 25, 2023 7:00 PM
Chairman Cavanaugh made a motion to approve the minutes of April 25, 2023; seconded by Chairman Noonan
| RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kevin Cavanaugh, Commissioner SECONDER: Patrick Noonan, Plan Commissioner AYES: Noonan, Roth-Wurster, Friedman, Bettenhausen, Kolososki, Cavanaugh, Fedota ABSENT: Wood, Luszczak |
3. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - May 9, 2023 7:00 PM
Chairman Cavanaugh made a motion to approve the minutes of May 9, 2023; seconded by Chairman Noonan
| RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kevin Cavanaugh, Commissioner SECONDER: Patrick Noonan, Plan Commissioner AYES: Noonan, Roth-Wurster, Friedman, Bettenhausen, Kolososki, Cavanaugh, Fedota ABSENT: Wood, Luszczak |
1. 1170 E. Dundee Road
This item will be continued to the June 13, 2023 PZC Meeting to allow the Petitioner to complete the public notification requirements. A new notice will be completed for this Petition.
| RESULT: CONTINUED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Cindy Roth-Wurster, Commissioner SECONDER: Rodney Bettenhausen, Plan Commissioner AYES: Noonan, Roth-Wurster, Friedman, Bettenhausen, Kolososki, Cavanaugh, Fedota ABSENT: Wood, Luszczak |
2. 225 W. Kenilworth Avenue
Notice was published in the Daily Herald on May 04, 2023 and mailed to the owners of the surrounding properties.
Petitioner's Exhibits:
1. Application for Special Use
2. Proof of Ownership
3. Plat of Survey
4. Garage Expansion Plans & Elevations
5. Ordinance O-11-18
6. Public Notice
Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief outline of the request explaining the petitioner is proposing to construct an addition to the rear of the existing attached garage. He stated the proposed 388 square foot addition will maintain the existing 5.3-foot side yard setback for the legally non-conforming residence therefore, the petitioner is requesting:
• Special Use to permit an addition to be set back 5 feet from the side lot line, instead of the minimum required 10 feet.
Sworn in petitioner: Mr. David DeSalvo 225 W. Kenilworth owner Mr. DeSalvo stated in 2018 they received a special use for the other addition on the other side to a add bedroom. He stated they planned to do the garage as well to be able to fit 2 cars, but the cost of the addition pushed the garage to a later date. He stated they have been working with an architect to keep the roof line the same visually from the street. Mr. DeSalvo stated the gutters will remain for existing roof and run off will remain the same going to the rear to not impact any neighbors. He stated they have support signature form from the neighbors and all are ok with addition and are excited that it will help the property values in the neighborhood. Mr. DeSalvo restated the garage will have the same roof line as the house just extending straight back.
Mr. Bradshaw submitted Surrounding Property Owners Signed Petition as Exhibit #7
Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief overview stating in 2018 a special use was granted to permit an addition to the east side of the house with the same set back of 5 feet from the side lot line. He pointed out the home directly across at street to the south, 224 W. Kenilworth Ave, was granted a similar Special Use for a side yard setback reduction to permit a home addition in June 2022. He stated both building and lot coverage are within the maximum allowed by Code. Mr. Bradshaw stated Community Services have reviewed the petition and had no issues. He stated Engineering has reviewed and is requiring a lot grading plan during the building permit stage.
Chairman Kolososki asked about lot coverage.
Mr. Bradshaw stated it is under permitted by code.
Chairman Kolososki asked if there is a history of water issues.
Mr. Bradshaw stated staff is not aware of any stormwater issues.
Chairman Roth-Wurster asked if the garage was approved in the prior special use.
Mr. Bradshaw stated that was before his time, but the garage was part of their proposed plan in 2018. However, as the garage was not included in the issued building permit the approval has since expired.
Chairman Fedota asked why the two sliding doors are at different heights. Chairman Kolososki explained the garage floor is lower than the floor of the house.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Petitioner is proposing to construct an addition to the existing attached garage. The addition will maintain the current 5.3-foot setback from the side property line. As the addition will not cause the residence to encroach any further into the required side yard setback, the total lot coverage and building coverage are significantly under the maximum permitted by Code. The proposal should not cause substantial injury to the value of the surrounding properties in the neighborhood. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Special Use, subject to the following condition:
1. The Special Use shall substantially conform to the Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations submitted by the Petitioner, Monique DeSalvo, except as such plans may be changed to conform to the Village Codes and Ordinances.
Chairman Noonan asked the petitioner if they can and will meet staff’s conditions. Mr. DeSalvo answered, yes.
There were no further questions. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion to approve subject staff’s conditions; seconded by Ms. Roth-Wurster
DELIBERATIONS:
Chairman Cavanaugh stated they are improving the value, there are no issues with lot coverage and from the street you can’t see the addition. He stated it meets the standards.
Chairman Roth-Wurster stated it meets standards won’t have impact on neighboring properties.
Chairman Friedman summarized that this request has met the standards and was unanimously approved by a vote of 7-0. This item will tentatively go to Village Council on June 5, 2023.
| RESULT: RECOMMEND TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kevin Cavanaugh, Commissioner SECONDER: Cindy Roth-Wurster, Commissioner AYES: Noonan, Roth-Wurster, Friedman, Bettenhausen, Kolososki, Cavanaugh, Fedota ABSENT: Wood, Luszczak |
3. 849 W. Kenilworth Avenue
Notice was published in the Daily Herald on May 04, 2023 and mailed to the owners of the surrounding properties.
Petitioner's Exhibits:
1. Application for Special Use & Variation
2. Proof of Ownership
3. Project Narrative
4. Existing Conditions Photos
5. Site Plan & Elevations
6. Support of Special Use & Variance
7. Public Notice
Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief outline of the request explaining the petitioner is seeking a variation for lot coverage and a special use for a front yard setback reduction to permit the construction of a 2-story addition and a covered porch along the front of the home. He stated with the addition, the proposed front yard setback is approximately 20 feet, for the proposed covered porch, with the remaining 2-story addition having a 25-foot setback therefore, the petitioner is requesting:
• Special Use to permit an addition to be set back 20 feet from the front property line, instead of the minimum required 30 feet; and
• Variation to permit lot coverage to be 48%, instead of the maximum permitted 45%.
Sworn in petitioner: Mr. Joel Christell 489 W. Kenilworth Ave, owner Mr. Christell stated the proposed addition will add a 4th bedroom to the second story. He stated while expanding the house to the east they want to expand the family room as well. He stated they also will be extending the covered porch to add to the look of the house with gables to look more appealing. Mr. Christell stated they are one of the oldest houses on the block and because the zoning has changed their existing setback doesn’t meet the standards. He stated they are not encroaching any farther than current front setback and is limited in lot coverage. He pointed out their property is all grass and the drainage flows to the middle of his property and have had no issues with puddling in the past.
Chairman Bettenhausen asked where the water goes from the east. Mr. Christell explained it absorbs into the grass. He stated they have never had any issues with water or ice on sidewalk in front of the house.
Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief overview stating the existing residence is setback approximately 24 feet so therefore legal non-conforming to the required 30-foot front yard setback. He referred to the slides to show the elevations will match the existing ridgeline and will not exceed the current height of the residence. Mr. Bradshaw pointed out comparable relief was granted to the adjacent property commonly known as 879 W. Kenilworth Ave in 2018. He stated the proposed addition will increase the total lot coverage from the existing 45% to 48% requiring the requested variation. He stated Community Services has reviewed and had no issues and a formal Engineering review will be done as part of the building permit process. Mr. Bradshaw stated the petitioner has received sign offs from the neighbors referring to the neighbor support slide to show location of support.
Chairman Friedman clarified the 20ft setback is from the porch not the house. Mr. Bradshaw answered that is correct.
Chairman Friedman asked of the proposed will maintain the existing porch setback.
Mr. Bradshaw stated the porch was a little over 20ft with the front stair setback at approx.17ft.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Petitioner is proposing to construct a 2-story addition to the existing residence. The addition will be set back from the front property line 20 feet, which is comparable to the setback relief granted to the adjacent neighbor off Crescent Avenue in 2018. Additionally, as the bulk of the 2-story addition will be set back 25 feet from the front property line and should not alter the essential character of the locality nor cause substantial injury to the value of other properties in the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Special Use and Variation, subject to the following condition:
1. The Special Use and Variation shall substantially conform to the Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations submitted by the Petitioner, Mr. Christell Christell, except as such plans may be changed to conform to the Village Codes and Ordinances.
Mr. Noonan asked the petitioner if they can and will meet staffs’ conditions. Mr. Christell answered yes.
There were no further questions. The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Cavanaugh made a motion to approve subject staff’s conditions; seconded by Chairman Noonan.
DELIBERATIONS:
Chairman Cavanaugh stated staff’s recommendation is straight forward and he agrees.
Chairman Kolososki stated he agrees with fixing an old house rather than tear it down.
Chairman Friedman stated they’re matching what they have so it makes sense. He stated they are adding mass but seems consistent with surrounding
Chairman Roth-Wurster stated the porch is a nice addition and should not have a negative impact.
Chairman Friedman summarized that this request has met the standards and was unanimously approved by a vote of 7-0. This item will tentatively go to Village Council on June 5, 2023.
| RESULT: RECOMMEND TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kevin Cavanaugh, Commissioner SECONDER: Patrick Noonan, Plan Commissioner AYES: Noonan, Roth-Wurster, Friedman, Bettenhausen, Kolososki, Cavanaugh, Fedota ABSENT: Wood, Luszczak |
4. 1480 W. Poplar Street
Notice was published in the Daily Herald on May 04, 2023 and mailed to the owners of the surrounding properties.
Petitioner's Exhibits:
1. Application for Special Use
2. Proof of Ownership
3. Plat of Survey
4. Site Plan & Elevations
5. Ordinance O-46-02 Final PUD
6. Public Notice
Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief outline of the request stating the petitioner is proposing to install a 6-foot tall solid fence, along the front property line of the subject property. He stated the proposal includes a gate across the private access drive off West Poplar Street therefore, the Petitioner is requesting:
• Special Use to permit a fence in the front yard of the subject property.
Sworn in petitioner: Mr. Victor Baranovici 1480 W. Poplar Street, owner Mr. Baranovici stated they are requesting a gate for safety. He stated they have had to call police many times for teenagers smoking weed or people just trying to come out to see the lake. He stated he doesn’t feel safe and is trying to prevent people from entering his property. Mr. Baranovici stated it is not a public driveway. He stated he didn’t want to put a fence but the neighbors told him they were promised they would have one.
Chairman Friedman asked about the location of the gate.
Mr. Baranovici explained he wants a gate at the entrance of his drive to let people know it is private property and the neighbors want a fence for privacy.
Chairman Bettenhausen asked if the trees in the slide are on his property. Mr. Baranovici answered half.
Chairman Bettenhausen asked about location of the fence.
Mr. Baranovici stated it would go between the asphalt and trees.
Chairman Friedman asked if it the style being open or solid was ever discussed with neighbors.
Mr. Baranovici stated the style was never discussed. He stated the neighbors have no view to lake now because of his house which the neighbors are not happy about.
Chairman Kolososki asked if his property is lower than the neighbors. Mr. Baranovici answered yes.
Chairman Kolososki asked about the height of the fence.
Mr. Baranovici answered 6ft.
Chairman Kolososki stated a 6ft fence should not have much impact with the elevation of the property.
Mr. Baranovici stated the neighbors like to garden and feel uncomfortable because they are close to them. He stated the neighbors said they were promised by the Village a fence or trees.
Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief overview stating the subject property is a Planned Development developed as a single-family residential home in the Clearwater Subdivision. He referred to the plat of survey slide to show the area of the lot that is not within the lake water line. Mr. Bradshaw stated the proposed fence abuts the rear yards of the properties on North Palos Ave referring to the existing conditions slide. He stated the fence would be installed just west of property line and the gate will have electric openers and be located on the southwest corner of lot 1. Mr. Bradshaw stated the petitioner has stated the proposed fence will provide additional safety and privacy to the Subject Property.
Mr. Bradshaw stated during departmental review Community Services indicated the shared driveway maintenance and access agreement for Lots 1 & 2 shall be amended to include sharing the cost of any future maintenance for the fence, gate, and electronic openers. Mr. Bradshaw stated Engineering indicated a hold harmless shall be required and recorded with the property to allow Village of Palatine to remove the fence for maintenance or repair of public utilities and the Village shall have no responsibility to replace the fence and the homeowner shall also submit a notarized letter indicating that they are responsible for maintaining all areas outside of the fence to the property line. He stated Fire Prevention reviewed and has indicated the proposed access gate shall have an approved means of operation on the roadway side for fire department access without the requirement of special knowledge.
Chairman Roth-Wurster asked staff about the neighbors being promised a fence. Mr. Bradshaw explained trees were shown approved site plan for the planned development as a buffer, and they have not survived well. He stated replacing them with a fence would be low maintenance. He stated the planned development ordinance does not allow a fence in the rear yard but there is no mention for the front or sides.
Chairman Bettenhausen pointed out the lot is unusual and asked how the rear or front yard is defined.
Mr. Bradshaw explained the access drive would be his front yard because that is what services the property. He stated no fences are allowed on rear lake side.
Chairman Fedota asked with the inclusion of hold harmless and shared maintenance is there a need for an HOA.
Mr. Bradshaw explained it is one zoning lot and the petitioner owns both lots. He stated the other lot is covered in wetland so unsure how buildable it is. Ms. Bremanis further explained there is an HOA as the property is part of a 6-lot subdivision. She stated the maintenance agreement is requested because the driveway is only to access these 2 lots.
Chairman Fedota asked if Poplar is a street.
Ms. Bremanis explained it is a private drive.
Chairman Fedota asked if the issue is security of access wouldn’t a gate be enough. He asked why is there a need for a fence.
Mr. Baranovici stated he spoke to staff and a few neighbors and then gave up on the fence because it didn’t look like it would be approved. He pointed out there are 2 empty wooded lots bordering his property that people walk over from so a fence is needed.
Discussion on issues on trespassing and police reports.
Mr. Baranovici stated the grass is getting damaged from people driving on it to get to the lake.
Chairman Friedman asked if there is existing signage indicating it is private property.
Mr. Baranovici answered yes there are 2 large signs. He stated in order to cover with trees they would need approx. 200 trees. He stated they replanted the trees twice and has been told the larger trees are causing them to die.
Chairman Friedman asked if there are restrictions to add signage to the fence. Mr. Bradshaw stated there is no signage proposed but the Village would have no issue with a sign that says private property. He stated the existing one that Public Works installed that is not serving well.
Chairman Roth-Wurster asked if there are street lights.
Mr. Baranovici stated there is one light but it is dark.
Chairman Friedman asked about the location of the gate expressing concern on how the vehicle would exit.
Mr. Bradshaw referred to the aerial to show the location of Village right of way down poplar to the property. He stated there is already a sign before it indicating it is private property.
Discussion on ability to turn around.
Chairman Fedota asked where the Village installed signage is. Mr. Bradshaw showed location on aerial slide.
Chairman Bettenhausen asked about people walking from empty lots.
Mr. Baranovici stated they could if no fence is added.
Chairman Bettenhausen pointed out they could just go around the fence. Mr. Baranovici stated they are hoping seeing the gate will deter them .
Chairman Fedota asked if the changing of the waterline though the seasons will cause an issue with the location of the fence.
Mr. Bradshaw explained the fence would not terminate at the waterline. He referred to the site plan slide to show waterline and fence location and pointed out the Village Engineer reviewed and has no issues with highwater or flooding.
Discussion on fence preventing access having opening.
Sworn in Mr. Symon Arnold, 1048 N. Palos, submitting letter from neighbor Mr. Arnold stated he objects. He stated he was told there would be landscaping not a fence. He spoke to the Village ordinance for front yards. Mr. Arnold stated he understands Mr. Baranovici’ s concern with people wandering in as it used to be vacant land so people are used to it being a public thoroughfare. He pointed out there is no sign that indicates it is a dead end so people think they can get out. Mr. Arnold stated a gate at the entrance should make it look more like a driveway and should stop vehicle traffic. He stated the previous owner committed to landscaping.
Chairman Cavanaugh asked Mr. Arnold if he is opposed to the gate or just the fence.
Mr. Arnold thinks a preventative measure at the driveway entrance is beneficial.
Chairman Kolososki asked Mr. Arnold if people cut through his yard to get to Mr. Baranovici’ s.
Mr. Arnold stated Mr. Baranovici’ s workers did. He stated the original plans of the site need to be reviewed.
Mr. Baranovici stated Mr. Arnold wanted the fence and now he doesn’t because he isn’t selling anymore. He stated he is trying to propose a solution to make everyone happy. He stated Mr. Arnold yells at him and his friends and he is trying to give them privacy.
Chairman Cavanaugh asked Mr. Baranovici if he opposed to install new landscaping.
Mr. Baranovici stated he paid $12,000 for trees that are not doing well. He stated he was told the bigger trees are preventing them from growing. Mr. Baranovici stated he has never complained about other neighbors who don’t upkeep their properties.
Discussion on landscaping vs fencing and neighbors changing their minds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Petitioner is proposing to construct a 6-foot tall solid privacy fence to enclose the property on three sides, with the fourth being the lake to the west. The Petitioner has indicated that the fence and access gate will help deter trespasser issues and coyotes on the subject property. Although the proposed fence may help to alleviate the Petitioner’s safety concerns, the fence would change the existing vista and could impact the other properties in the neighborhood. Clearwater Subdivision is a unique 6-lot residential Planned Development, with 3 of the lots (including the Subject Property) receiving access through a private driveway. These 4 lots were developed around the existing detention basin. The Petitioner indicates instances of trespassing and vehicles incorrectly using the private drive and coming to the home have occurred. Staff notes that there is a private drive sign in the right-of-way along Poplar Drive, prior to it turning into the private drive.
Although the portion of the proposed fence across the subject property’s front lot line would be permissible, were it installed on the properties directly to the east (along the rear lot lines), the proposed 6-foot solid fence is being installed along the periphery of the Subject Property’s front lot line. Staff is concerned about the impact to the vistas and required fencing special use standards for the proposed fence. The horizontal wood plastic composite panels and proposed fence design could also impact the subject and surrounding properties. Staff also has concerns about the potential detraction to the appearance of the “community”/surrounding lots. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the proposed Special Use for a front yard fence. Although not requested by the Petitioner, Staff would be more supportive of an open wrought-iron style fencing, which would seem to accomplish deterring trespassers and minimize any impact to the vistas in the area. If the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval, Staff recommends the following conditions:
1. The Special Use shall substantially conform to the Site Plan and Fence Elevation submitted by the Petitioner, Victor Baranovici, except as such plans may be changed to conform to Village Codes and Ordinances.
2. A Hold Harmless shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer, and shall be recorded with the property. The Village shall have no responsibility to replace the fence.
3. A notarized letter indicating that the homeowner is responsible for maintaining the area from the fence to the property line on all sides of the fence shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer and Village Attorney, and shall be recorded with the property.
4. The proposed access gate shall have no locking mechanism and an approved means of operation on the roadway side so it may be accessed by the Fire Department and Public Works without the requirement of special knowledge.
Chairman Friedman clarified that the Fire Department comment is to make it non-secured.
Mr. Bradshaw explained a Knox box is used on private gates to give key to access at any time.
Chairman Friedman asked if they installed a Knox box that would be acceptable. Mr. Bradshaw answered yes.
Chairman Fedota asked Mr. Baranovici if he can and will meet staffs’ conditions. Mr. Baranovici answered yes.
Chairman Cavanaugh asked Mr. Baranovici if he would consider a wrought iron fence.
Mr. Baranovici explained he was trying to listen to the neighbors. He stated he is just trying to make everyone happy and make his property safe for his family. Mr. Baranovici stated his neighbors’ properties are a mess and he has never complained but will report now.
Mr. Friedman pointed out staff is recommending another type of fence that may be more open but tonight is to vote on what is proposed.
There were no further questions. The public hearing was closed. Discussion on making motion with change of fence material and type.
Chairman Cavanaugh made a motion to approve subject staff’s conditions and an added condition to require the fence to be an open wrought iron style fence acceptable by the Director of Planning and Zoning; seconded by Chairman Kolososki.
DELIBERATIONS:
Chairman Kolososki stated security is most important so this fence would give the security but maybe not privacy for neighbors. He stated Mr. Baranovici has kids and the situation is awkward.
Chairman Cavanaugh stated the vistas are the best they can be. He stated the neighbors can put landscaping on their side of the fence if they want additional privacy.
Chairman Friedman stated if the petitioner has concerns of the neighbors’ yards he can add planting on his side of fence to screen views.
Chairman Roth-Wurster spoke of past requests for gates to prevent property access. She stated this is a unique situation.
Chairman Fedota stated when the home came before the plan commission there was a fair amount of discussion on landscaping so the vistas would be respected.
Chairman Friedman referred to the standards of Special Use and pointed out safety supersedes the vistas.
Chairman Friedman summarized that this request has met the standards and was approved by a vote of 5-2. This item will tentatively go to Village Council on June 05, 2023
| RESULT: RECOMMEND TO APPROVE [5 TO 2]
MOVER: Kevin Cavanaugh, Commissioner SECONDER: Robert Kolososki, Plan Commissioner AYES: Noonan, Friedman, Bettenhausen, Kolososki, Cavanaugh NAYS: Roth-Wurster, Fedota ABSENT: Wood, Luszczak |
5. 2239 N. Rand Road
Notice was published in the Daily Herald on May 04, 2023 and mailed to the owners of the surrounding properties.
Petitioner's Exhibits:
1. Application for Special Use
2. Proof of Ownership
3. Narrative & Business Plan
4. Plat of Survey
5. Site Plan
6. Architectural & Landscaping Plans
7. Proposed Renderings
8. Noise Impact Study
9. Resolution R-64-12 Patrick Hyundai Subdivision
10.Photometric Plan
11.Public Notice
Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief outline of the request explaining the petitioner is proposing to demolish the existing structure on the property and redevelop the site to construct a drive-through touchless car wash (“Zoomies Express Car Wash”), which will include a covered bay of vacuums therefore, the Petitioner is requesting:
• Special Use to permit an automotive laundry at the subject property.
Sworn in petitioners: Mr. Alan Jacobs Carwash Pro Designers attorney representing the petitioner Kirsch Capital Partners LLC & Mr. Nick Spallone Carwash Pro Designers 6400 N. Northwest Hwy Chicago, IL
Mr. Jacobs stated the parcel is zoned B-5 highway. He stated they are seeking to obtain a special use permit to build an express carwash/ luxury auto spa. He stated the carwash is designed to have state of the art equipment, will run on a belt or conveyer drive and is using plant-based soaps. Mr. Jacobs stated they submitted a photometric of light on property, provided specs on all material that makes sounds and have done countless sound studies. He stated Palatine does not have a standard allowance for the subject zoning district. He explained the State of Illinois is 65 and they do not exceed that. Mr. Jacobs spoke to the standards and thinks this is deemed necessary. He stated the carwash has a unique conveyer belt touchless carwash that gives the customer the ability to choose touch to touchless which is beneficial to the newer cars with their sensors. He stated newer cars have a ceramic coating so should not go through car washes with brushes. Mr. Jacobs stated there are no car washes within 40- mile radius with these options. He stated the public health safety and welfare is protected with plant-based soaps and the photometric will show zero-foot candles escape properties. Mr. Jacobs stated the traffic will be internally controlled on site. He stated it will not destroy or alter the vistas and if fencing is required they will meet that standard. Mr. Jacobs pointed out it is ascetically pleasing referring to the rendering slide. He stated it will add value to adjacent properties on Rand Road.
Chairman Bettenhausen asked if the gates are automatic.
Mr. Jacobs answered, yes.
Chairman Bettenhausen pointed out they have limited staff and asked what if someone is confused.
Mr. Jacobs stated during nonpeak hours they have a minimum of 3 people and during peak they will have 6. He explained staffs’ job is to patrol the vacuum area to keep cleaned and at pay stations to answer questions. He stated there are sensors on the gates to know when cars are approaching will not open until it is clear.
Chairman Bettenhausen asked if there will be staff at the entrance of the gate. Mr. Jacobs answered yes both at entry and exit.
Chairman Bettenhausen asked if there is any safety device to prevent rear ending.
Mr. Jacobs explained the belt system that keeps space in between and prevents them from moving.
Mr. Spallone stated there are multiple employees on site. He explained there will be 3 people when not busy, 1 attending the pay stations to assist and educating customers, 1 inside entrance to guide cars on belt and 1 at exit. He stated in the event a car gets off the belt or if the cars get within 4ft of each other there is an emergency shut down all throughout.
Chairman Friedman asked if all vehicles on the same conveyer belt. Mr. Spallone explained there are 2 separate belts 3ft wide. He stated the belts can accommodate multiple vehicles including dually, wide tires, super low.
Chairman Fedota clarified touchless is an option but standard is still an option. Mr. Spallone explained there are 5 wash options, 4 with friction and the 5th is touchless.
Chairman Fedota asked about the hours of operation.
Mr. Spallone stated typically during the off season 8-8 Monday-Saturday, 9-6 Sundays and during warm weather 7-9 Monday-Saturday 8-6 Sunday.
Chairman Roth-Wurster asked if they recycle the water.
Mr. Spallone explained his system takes air and water that makes it appear like more water is being used but using 1/10th of the typical amount. He explained the reverse osmosis system that takes water and turns it into bottle water to allow it to dry without residue on the vehicles.
Chairman Roth-Wurster asked if the water goes to the sewer.
Mr. Spallone stated it goes through a triple basin, like a grease pit, then to the sewer.
Chairman Roth-Wurster pointed out it is near water and wetlands and asked what measures are in place to prevent runoff.
Mr. Spallone stated all chemicals used are drinkable. He further explained all runoff will be treated through the triple basin before leaving property and they will have MWRD approvals.
Chairman Fedota asked about signage.
Mr. Spallone stated they will comply with city signage requests. He stated they contacted MWRD about existing monument sign that they may just reface and they have no issue.
Chairman Friedman asked if the signage will all be building mounted Mr. Spallone answered yes and one more sign on Rand Road
Chairman Roth-Wurster asked about projected volume.
Mr. Spallone stated he would like 10,000 a day but performance says 300-500 cars over 12-14 hours.
Chairman Roth-Wurster pointed out there are a lot of carwashes on that side of town.
Mr. Spallone explained this is a different type of wash that takes the anxiety out of the wash process with the new car systems.
Chairman Friedman asked about escape lanes.
Mr. Spallone stated the gates have breakaways so in the event a customer needs to leave the attendants on site will be able to assist them to exit.
Chairman Kolososki asked about the access to the site off Rand and if it would be right in and right out.
Mr. Spallone explained they are asking for full access but have to go through IDOT.
Chairman Roth-Wurster asked if the access drive is by Starbucks. Mr. Spallone answered yes.
Chairman Bettenhausen asked if the cars are blown dry at the end. Mr. Spallone answered yes.
Chairman Bettenhausen pointed out on the side of the stacking lanes the plans say customer preparation.
Mr. Spallone explained it will allow people to throw out garbage or remove antennae to get car ready before the wash.
Chairman Bettenhausen asked if they have had issues with people not allowing those customers to enter.
Mr. Spallone explained the new technology that controls the gates within loops in the concrete.
Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief overview stating the lot is located just southeast of the Hyundai of Palatine care dealership at Rand and Lake Cook Road. He stated it is a 3-acre lot that currently consists of a two-story office building and general business occupancy and was annexed from unincorporated Cook County in 2007. Mr. Bradshaw stated when the Patrick Hyundai redevelopment received Planned Development and Subdivision approval in 2012, staff included a condition which required a cross access easement for the subject property to gain access through to Lake Cook Road. He stated subject to the applicable declarations and a maintenance agreement, the proposed car wash will have access through to Lake Cook Road through the now Hyundai of Palatine property to Lake Cook Road. Mr. Bradshaw stated this condition reflected a goal of the Comprehensive Plan (Rand Road Sub Area) to limit the number of curb cuts onto Rand Road and in recognition of IDOT’s right-of-way control on Rand Road. He stated the petitioner is requesting a special use to construct and open an automobile laundry facility (Car Wash) which includes demolishing the existing structures and redeveloping with 27 covered vacuums bays and ample car stacking space. He spoke to the narrative and business plan being completely automated. Mr. Bradshaw spoke to the signage allowance of 2 freestanding signs which will require a full permit review. He stated the petitioner has indicated that one of these signs could occupy part of the existing monument sign near the subject property’s northern side lot line (sign is also occupied with Starbucks Drive-Thru sign). He noted any reuse of this sign would be subject to a sign easement and maintenance agreement with the property owner to the north and in a manner acceptable to the Village Attorney. Mr. Bradshaw stated Community Services have reviewed noting a cross access maintenance agreement, subject to the declarations for the Patrick Hyundai Subdivision will be required addressing the cross-access drive and freestanding sign maintenance. He stated Engineering and Fire Prevention have reviewed and had no issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Petitioner is proposing to redevelop the subject property into an automotive laundry facility. The subject property is within the B-5 Highway Business District and is approximately 850 feet from the nearest residential development. Secondary access for this property was contemplated with the redevelopment of the Hyundai property and subsequent Starbucks and Bloc dispensary on Lake Cook Road to provide unified access for these properties. This redevelopment improves the site and the use is compatible with the adjacent auto sales’ uses in the area. Additionally, the site complies with the other bulk zoning requirements. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Special Use, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Special Use shall substantially conform to the Site Plans, Floor Plans, and Elevations submitted by the Petitioner, Krisch Capital Partners, LLC, except as such plans may be changed to conform to Village Codes and Ordinances.
2. Any improvements to the existing freestanding sign, located within the US Army Corps. of Engineers “No Build” Limit, shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Engineer and Director of Planning and Zoning.
3. A license agreement and maintenance agreement addressing the cross-access easement driveway and sign maintenance shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village Attorney.
Chairman Noonan asked the petitioner if they will and can meet staff’s conditions. Mr. Jacobs answered, yes.
There were no further questions. The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Cavanaugh made a motion to approve subject staff’s conditions; seconded by Chairman Roth-Wurster
DELIBERATIONS:
Chairman Friedman stated he thinks it is a great fit for the surrounding uses. He spoke to the noise produced by carwashes pointing out they supplied a sound study and the location should not disturb any residents. He stated it seems like the right use for the site.
Chairman Kolososki agreed with Chairman Friedman.
Chairman Roth-Wurster stated she was concerned about water runoff being near a body of water but is reassured knowing the Arm Corps. of Engineers and the EPA is involved. She stated it shouldn’t have a negative impact.
Chairman Fedota stated the solutions are plant based so that’s positive.
Chairman Roth-Wurster stated staff is onsite, it’s not 24 hours and they have addressed lighting.
Mr. Friedman summarized that this request has met the standards and was unanimously approved by a vote of 7-0. This item will tentatively go to Village Council on June 5, 2023.
| RESULT: RECOMMEND TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kevin Cavanaugh, Commissioner SECONDER: Cindy Roth-Wurster, Commissioner AYES: Noonan, Roth-Wurster, Friedman, Bettenhausen, Kolososki, Cavanaugh, Fedota ABSENT: Wood, Luszczak |
6. Text Amendments to the Village of Palatine Zoning Ordinance Related to Accessory Structures, Above Ground Pools and Fencing requirements
Notice was published in the Daily Herald on May 04, 2023 and mailed to the owners of the surrounding properties.
Petitioner's Exhibits:
1. Text Amendments to Article 6 Accessory Structures and Uses & Article 10 Residential Districts
2. Public Notice
Ms. Bremanis gave a brief overview explaining staff made an initial presentation to the Village Council in a workshop discussion earlier this year, to outline some of the proposed Code section amendments. She stated the changes being presented tonight came from that workshop.
Ms. Bremanis went through slide presentation of the proposed changes. She stated the first amendment to Article 6 is to add fences to the title. (Accessory Structures, fences and Accessory Uses.) and propose to add in fences as a separate category. Ms. Bremanis stated the second amendment is to Section 6.01 and clarifies that pools, hot tubs and spas are not included in calculation for the permitted ground floor area.
Chairman Roth-Wurster asked if there are other changes in regards to the safety of the pool.
Ms. Bremanis answered no but the next section of the amendments speaks to fencing and the new technology being added to pools.
Chairman Fedota clarified if this refers to above and inground pools. Ms. Bremanis stated above ground only are considered.
Ms. Bremanis continued presentation on amendments to Section 6.03 to include updates to Section 6.03 clarify the following updates:
• Include a general requirement that no fence shall interfere with the natural flow of stormwater.
• Include the automatic pool covers that lock down as acceptable alternatives to a fence pool safety option.
• Clarifying the replacement of non-conforming fences must be a similar, or lower height and style of openness.
• Allow up to 20 feet of decorative fences (3 feet in height) in side yards abutting a street similar, which is currently permitted in front yards.
• Adjust the landscaping requirements for fencing in a side yard abutting a street for fencing that is placed 10ft or less from the lot line not needing landscaping
• The removal of the section on “Lots platted before January 1, 1930” due to the repetitiveness of “lots platted after January 1, 1930”.
Chairman Roth-Wurster asked if this is referring to downtown houses that are close to each other
Ms. Bremanis answered yes, pointing out a lot are nonconforming and can replace accordingly.
Ms. Bremanis stated there is a cleanup on wording in section 10 to amend accessory building to accessory structure.
Chairman Roth-Wurster asked about engineering reviews and fencing along a body of water and if there is any consideration to having additional review such as Environmental Health for fencing along water.
Ms. Bremanis stated the Palatine Environmental Health is more geared toward food.
Discussion on recommendation on Scribner corrections
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval
There were no further questions. The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Noonan made a motion to approve subject staff’s conditions; seconded by Chairman Cavanaugh.
DELIBERATIONS:
Chairman Roth-Wurster appreciates being part of discussion
Mr. Friedman summarized that this request has met the standards and was unanimously approved by a vote of 7-0. This item will tentatively go to Village Council on June 05, 2023
| RESULT: RECOMMEND TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Patrick Noonan, Plan Commissioner SECONDER: Kevin Cavanaugh, Commissioner AYES: Noonan, Roth-Wurster, Friedman, Bettenhausen, Kolososki, Cavanaugh, Fedota ABSENT: Wood, Luszczak |
IV. COMMUNICATIONS
V. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion
Chairman Cavanaugh made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Chairman Roth-Wurster
| RESULT: MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kevin Cavanaugh, Commissioner SECONDER: Cindy Roth-Wurster, Commissioner AYES: Noonan, Roth-Wurster, Friedman, Bettenhausen, Kolososki, Cavanaugh, Fedota ABSENT: Wood, Luszczak |
http://palatinevillageil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2742&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up