CITY OF OAK FOREST Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 5, :00 p.m. Council Chambers

Transcription

1 CITY OF OAK FOREST Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 5, :00 p.m. Council Chambers S. Central Avenue Oak Forest, IL (708) CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE READING OF AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS BUSINESS AT HAND 1. ZC # Driven Auto Special Use Permit: PUBLIC HEARING The applicant requests review and recommendation of approval of a Special Use Permit request to allow a used automobile dealership at 5904 W. 159 th Street in the C2 General Service Commercial District, in accordance with Section (E). APPROVAL OF MINUTES CORRECTIONS, CHANGES June 21, 2017 Minutes CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ADJOURNMENT

2 CITY OF OAK FOREST PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Staff Report July 5, 2017 TITLE: DRIVEN AUTO SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE NUMBER: ZC # REQUESTS: LOCATION: APPLICANT INFORMATION APPLICANTS: PROPERTY OWNERS: SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL The applicant requests review and recommendation of approval of a Special Use Permit request to allow a used automobile dealership at 5904 W. 159 th Street in the C2 General Service Commercial District, in accordance with Section (E) W. 159 th Street To the north of the northeast corner of 154 th Street and Cicero Avenue. Ata Ihmoud Omar Ahmad Sam Zughayer MEETING DATE: July 5, 2017, as continued from June 21, 2017 NOTICE PUBLISHED: June 6, 2017 Daily Southtown STAFF: Travis Bandstra, Director of Economic and Community Development Katie Ashbaugh, Community Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Subject Area (Final Plat of Eagle Club Subdivision) 2. Paving Plan 3. Proposed Site Plan 4. Landscape Plan 5. Owner Letter of Information 6. Response to Standards

3 I. REQUEST ZC # Driven Auto Special Use Permit July 5, 2017 Page 2 The applicant requests review and recommendation of approval of a Special Use Permit request to allow a used automobile dealership at 5904 W. 159 th Street in the C2 General Service Commercial District, in accordance with Section (E). The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation that City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Special Use Permit. Upon receipt of this recommendation, Council shall then make a final determination. The scope of work includes: maintenance to the existing building, parking lot expandsion, new light fixtures, and additional landscaping and screening. II. SITE HISTORY Land Use On June 4, 2014, this Commission held a public hearing for and recommended approval of a text amendment to add the use All other indoor amusement and recreation industries to Appendix A, Table of Uses, to the Zoning Ordinance. This use classification was added as a special use in the C2 General Service Commercial District, which generally covers the majority of 159 th Street and a few other properties in the city. Immediately following this request for a text amendment was the request for special use permit approval of the Eagle Gun Club, now the Eagle Sports Range, located at 5900 W. 159 th Street. This Commission recommended approval of this request with various conditions. On August 26, 2014, the City Council made its final determination to approve both requests. On October 22, 2014, this Commission held a public hearing for the plat of subdivision titled Final Plat of Eagle Club Resubdivision to resubdivide the properties given that they were, and remain under at present, a single owner (Attachment 1). On November 11, 2014, the City Council made its final determination to approve the plat. Redevelopment Agreement This site is not governed by a planned unit development ordinance; however, on August 12, 2014, the City Council approved a redevelopment agreement with Eagle Gun Club, LLC, the lessor to the petitioner. It is important to note that this agreement does not prescribe a specific use for the property in question; rather, the agreement outlines steps to explore the feasibility of a recreational use for the land west and north of Eagle Sports Range. III. EXISTING CONDITIONS Zoning Current Use Proposed Use Future Land Use Site Area & Dimensions (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 1) C2 General Service Commercial District Vacant; most recent use was a used automobile dealership Used automobile dealership Commercial Frontage: approximately 189 ft. Total area of subject area: approximately 2.37 acres (103,194 sq. ft.) Total area of entire property: approximately 5.37 acres (234,104 sq. ft.) Total depth: approximately 545 ft.

4 Existing Site Features ZC # Driven Auto Special Use Permit July 5, 2017 Page 3 Property According to the plat of subdivision titled Final Plat of Eagle Club Subdivision (Attachment 1) and associated legal description, the subject property includes Lot 1 of said subdivision. Subject Area The subject area to which the Special Use Permit shall be limited is to the west of the existing Eagle Sports Range and vacant area north of the Eagle Sports Range. This vacant area is not to be included with this request, although it is the same property. The entire extent of the subject area is indicated by the red outline and corresponding label on Attachment 1. Building One existing building is proposed to remain on the property and be used by the applicant. It is an approximately 12,086 sq. ft. single story commercial building. Parking The majority of the existing pavement was installed in conjunction with that of the Eagle Sports Range pavement. The areas that are in need of repaving and striping are shown in Attachment 2. The existing gravel area to the north of the building is approximately 13,800 square feet. The existing failed asphalt is approximately 14,680 square feet. The subject area currently provides a total of forty-four (44) parking spaces to serve the existing building along the west property line and to the south of the existing building, fronting 159 th Street. Access The subject area currently provides one primary access point from 159 th Street at the southeast corner of the property. An eighteen (18) foot ingress/egress access easement extends from the east property line and continues north along the entirety of the subject area. Because the primary access point is split between the subject property and the Eagle Sports Range property, this easement also extends eighteen (18) feet onto the Eagle Sports Range property as well. This provides cross access between the two properties. Lighting Two (2) light fixtures are on the property along the southern most edge of the south parking lot. Landscaping The south parking lot is landscaped appropriately, as completed in conjunction with the Eagle Sports Range property. II. CONTEXT Surrounding Zoning & Uses North: R6 Multi-Family Residence District South (across 159 th Street): Forest Preserve District of Cook County West: C2 General Service Commercial District East: C2 General Service Commercial District

5 Exhibit 1: Aerial ZC # Driven Auto Special Use Permit July 5, 2017 Page 4 blue = property; red = subject area Exhibit 2: Future Land Use Exhibit 3: Surrounding Zoning & Uses MULTI- FAMILY MULTI- FAMILY R6 COMMERCIAL OPEN SPACE FPCC III. PROPOSAL Proposed Use Proposed Site Improvements Used automobile dealership Building No changes other than incidental maintenance and repair are proposed. The signs will be reviewed at the time of building permitting following City Council determination on the subject request. Parking As described above, the proposed area to be repaved includes a total area of 28,480 square feet (0.65 acres). This area provides an additional sixty-five (65) parking spaces. Seven (7) new parking spaces are also proposed along the east side of the building.

6 ZC # Driven Auto Special Use Permit July 5, 2017 Page 5 The required parking for retail and service uses is one (1) space per 250 square feet of net floor area. Forty-eight spaces are required for the14,680 square foot building. With the addition of the seven (7) new spaces to the southern half of the subject area, the parking provided meets the required number of spaces with a total of fifty-one (51). This results in 116 spaces for the entire subject area. Below is the breakdown of spaces provided per function of the proposed use: FUNCTION NUMBER OF SPACES Customers 15 Employees 16 Display 20 Inventory 65 Access & Circulation The proposed site plan (Attachment 3) indicates that all drive aisles meet the code required minimum width and no major points of conflict are evident. However, given the existing ingress/egress easement along the east side of the subject area, access remains to the vacant portion of the subject property as well. The applicant proposes three (3) landscape island to provide a visual boundary between the proposed use and this vacant portion. A condition of approval to the request requires that permanent cement or metal bollards with a minimum height of three (3) feet be installed along the eastern edge of the easement in between the proposed islands. This is to ensure that the proposed use remains contained within the subject area and the vacant property remains as such until future development plans are realized through the city s review processes. Landscaping The proposed landscaping meets the screening requirements for non-residential uses adjacent to residential stated in Section 9-107, buffers and Landscaping Requirements. The proposed landscape island, per one of the conditions of approval, shall be required to have sod or mulch within their interiors as it is not specified on Attachment 4. Lighting The applicant proposes two (2) light poles in the parking area to be repaved ad striped to the north of the building, each with two light fixture heads. The photometric plan will be reviewed at the time of building permitting to ensure light levels do not exceed 0.1 foot-candles at the property line and disturb the adjacent properties. IV. ANALYSIS Staff finds that overall, the proposed use, associated site improvements, and conditions of approval serve to ensure the use will meet the standards as listed below. It is in the best interest of the city, the property owner, and the public that this remaining vacant portion not be rendered undevelopable. When the remainder of this property is to be developed, the best planning and engineering practices should be used so that the entirety of the Eagle Club Resubdivision functions as one uniform development in which all current and future uses fit together.

7 ZC # Driven Auto Special Use Permit July 5, 2017 Page 6 At the direction of staff, the applicant submitted Attachment 5, which serves to respond to concerns of staff and of public officials regarding the future use and development of this remaining vacant land. Below are staff s comments regarding the content of this letter in sequence: a. The estimated size of remaining vacant land referenced by the property owner is incorrect. The actual approximate acreage of land to remain vacant on the subject property is 112,000 SF, or 2.5 acres. The owner is referencing the sports dome concept that ownership and the city has agreed to explore feasibility of together. b. Staff has not required any improvements for the remaining vacant land as it is not covered by the special use permit. The Commission may review this decision, as needed. c. Preserving future ingress and egress to the rear parcel is imperative given that the parcel will potentially have a split user in the future. The previously referenced 2014 plat of subdivision added easements to preserve this access through the site. d. The remaining acreage amount is incorrect. Refer to comment a. above e. The owner agrees to construct any and all required stormwater management design features or infrastructure. f. This does not respond to the statement in its entirety because it does not state whether or not Driven Auto s tenancy will impact the future use. A sports dome is one of the original uses slated for this parcel; this use remains an option, though the footprint would need to shrink by a minimum of 28,000 square feet of rear land being leased to the petitioner. g. This responds to the comment. Staff finds that the owner should be required to present a concept site plan prior to a formal submittal at the time a user is reasonably committed so that the aforementioned intent of developing the site in a cohesive and uniform manner is met. STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS No special permit shall be recommended or granted pursuant to the below unless the applicant establishes that they are met. Code and Plan Met. The proposed use of the subject property, a used automobile dealership, Purposes. aligns with its future land use designation as commercial. No Undue Met. Provided that compliance of all conditions is proven, and given that the Adverse Impact. previous use was the same as the proposed, no undue adverse impact is shown. No Interference with Surrounding Development. Adequate Public Facilities. No Traffic Congestion. No Destruction of Significant Features. Compliance with Standards. Met. Provided that compliance of all conditions is proven, and given that the previous use was the same as the proposed, no interference with surrounding development is shown. Met. The subject property is presently served by public utilities and any necessary upgrades to service will be addressed at the time of building permitting. Met. Provided that compliance of all conditions is proven, and given that the previous use was the same as the proposed, no additional traffic congestion is shown. Not applicable. No significant natural features exist on the property at present. Met. All standards outlined herein and all other applicable standards are met. IV. PZC MOTION Motion to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit request, ZC #17-006, to allow a used automobile dealership in the C2 General Service Commercial District at 5904 W. 159 th Street, with the following conditions:

8 ZC # Driven Auto Special Use Permit July 5, 2017 Page 7 1. Compliance with Plans. The development, maintenance, and operation of the Property will be in substantial compliance with the following documents and plans, except for minor changes and site work approved by the Community Development Director in accordance with all applicable City rules, regulations, and ordinances: a. Subject Area attached hereto as Attachment 1, and by this reference, made part of this Report; b. Paving Plan, attached hereto as Attachment 2, and by this reference, made part of this Report; c. Proposed Site Plan, attached hereto as Attachment 3, and by this reference, made part of this Report; d. Landscape Plan, attached hereto as Attachment 4, and by this reference, made part of this Report. 2. Compliance with Laws. The development, maintenance and operation of the Property must comply at all times with all applicable Federal, State, County and City statutes, ordinances, codes, rules, and regulations; 3. Limitation of Approval. The special use permit, and used automobile dealership use, is limited to the Subject Area indicated on Attachment 1; 4. Maintenance and Improvement Requirements. The development, maintenance and operation of the Property must comply with the following conditions: a. The parking lot must brought into conformance with property maintenance standards prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and must be maintained and operated according to those standards at all times thereafter; b. The parking lot be striped in close conformance with that as shown on Attachment 3, with no more than 116 parking spaces with two (2) being ADA compliant; c. Attention-getting devices are not to be installed; d. Access to the remaining vacant portion of the Property from the Subject Area shall be limited by the permanent installation of the following prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy: i. the proposed landscape islands labeled as future landscaping island on Attachment 3 ii. Permanent concrete or metal bollards with a minimum height of three (3) feet, with a minimum distance apart of four (4) feet, with final design approved by staff e. The interior of the proposed landscape islands be covered in sod or mulch.

9 Subject Area ATTACHMENT 1

10 ATTACHMENT 2

11 ATTACHMENT 3

12 ATTACHMENT 4

13 Eagle Gun Club LLC DBA Eagle Sports Range 5900 W. 159 th St. Oak Forest, IL (708) June 30, 2017 Travis, Please see the below in response to your queries regarding the vacant land behind The Eagle Sport Range site a. How the vacant site remains viable for development in conjunction with Driven Auto using a larger footprint than anticipated in the original site concept master plan. There is ample room on the vacant site to build a smaller dome (which is still only viable if the City of Oak Forest enters into a lease as tenant) or another project we deem to be suitable that provides the requisite risk adjusted returns we require as a developer. There are over 5 acres available for future development so space will not be an issue. b. Any plans/improvements for the remaining vacant land until its developed. Will this land stay in its current condition or will it be cleaned up/improved in any way? We will continue to keep the site maintained by ensuring the site is clean at all times, weed control is continued and any debris is removed immediately c. How ingress/egress to the remaining vacant land will be preserved and, when developed, act harmoniously with Eagle & Driven Auto. (make reference to attached plat which shows easements) There will be both west and east ingress/egress to 159 th st. There will be clear access immediately to the west and east of the Eagle Sports Range site located on Lot 2 d. What is the SF footprint of remaining vacant land Area = 227,515 SQ. FT. or 5.22 ACRES e. Stormwater conveyance currently sheet drains from west to east and the new pavement will do the same. Ensure that this will not prohibit the remaining parcel from being developed We will, of course, ensure stormwater drains in a manner that will not impede our ability to develop the remaining parcel. ATTACHMENT 5

14 Eagle Gun Club LLC DBA Eagle Sports Range 5900 W. 159 th St. Oak Forest, IL (708) June 30, 2017 f. Potential uses being considered for remaining vacant land and whether Driven Auto s tenancy has any impact on them. As we discussed, pursuant to discussions with the City beginning in 2014, we were asked to look at the feasibility of an air-supported sports dome. We agreed to spend the time and money on that exercise under the condition that the city would be the ultimate tenant of the dome. We prepared the feasibility and presented it to Oak Forest and the Parks Department well over a year ago. We have not received a formal response. We are in the initial stages of discussing alternative uses for the parcel in the event the city formally declines to lease the prospective dome. That may include an extension of the Eagle Sport Range or another indoor activitybased project. g. A commitment to work with the City to ensure that site functionality for any future development of the remaining parcel will be harmonious with Driven Auto & Eagle Sports Range. We reaffirm our long-standing commitment to work with the City on any matters related to this site going forward. This includes ensuring any current development of the Eagle Sports Range and Driven Auto sites will not in any way limit our ability to develop Lot 1. We have invested a substantial amount of capital in the site and it is in our interest to make sure all the pieces fit seamlessly in the end. Regards, Sam Zughayer ATTACHMENT 5

15 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A. OWNERSHIP. Proof of ownership, including, if applicable, beneficial interest, or proof of contract purchaser status. In the event that application is being made by a contract purchaser, this application shall be accompanied with an original letter signed by the current legal title owner of the property consenting to the filing and processing of this application. B. PLAT OF SURVEY. A plat of survey that shows any existing buildings on the petitioned property as well as any existing buildings on property immediately adjacent. C. SITE PICTURES. Please provide pictures of the site in paper or in electronic form. The City can assist with this submittal requirement if needed. D. ILLUSTRATION/SITE PLAN. If the petitioner is requesting a special use for a specific structure, please provide a picture, illustration, or site plan of the proposed special use. E. STANDARDS. A statement of how the special use sought would satisfy the standards set forth in Subsection E.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The staff, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council will uses these standards in making a determination whether or not the proposed special use is appropriate. Please submit your responses via in addition to a hard copy at the time of application submittal. The standards for review of variation applications are listed below: Special Use Standards. A special use permit for the uses listed herein may be granted and the applicable district regulations modified only if evidence is presented to establish that: 1) Code and Plan Purposes. The proposed use and development will be in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this Code was enacted and for which the regulations of the district in question were established and with the general purpose and intent of the Official Comprehensive Plan; Driven auto sales has put forth a plan that will be in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which the code exists, by following all protocols and procedures set forth by the village. We have sought advice and counsel during every step of the process and have been diligent in our efforts to make the village aware of all our plans. Our comprehensive plan is void of any major construction and all our remodeling will be cosmetic in nature. The parking lot and exterior will be completed by the landlord. 2) No Undue Adverse Impact. The proposed use, drainage and development will not have a substantial or undue adverse effect upon adjacent property, the character of the area or the public health, safety and general welfare; As the tenant in the property, we will not have access nor plans to affect any drainage, water works or exterior development that will have a substantial undue adverse affect on the adjacent property, the character of the public health, safety and general welfare of the public. Our plans are concise, simple, and understated. For an auto dealership we need access to a parking lot for inventory and showroom for business, we expect this business model to be sufficient enough to avoid any and all situations that could cause undue adverse impact. 3) No Interference with Surrounding Development. The proposed use and development will be constructed, arranged and operated so as not to dominate the immediate vicinity or to interfere with the use and development of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable district regulations; Our use will operate under the strict notion that the business will not affect, disturb, impede or dominate any residential or commercial properties in the neighboring Oak Forest community. The purpose of a retail Auto dealership is to provide a venue for consumers to view, test and purchase the automobile of their choosing, we do not forsee those being an interference of the growth and development of the surrounding area. 4) Adequate Public Facilities. The proposed use and development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as streets, public utilities, drainage structures, police and fire protection, refuse disposal, parks, libraries, and schools, or the applicant will provide adequately for such services; The proposed use will served the encompassing essential public facilities, due to the unwavering commitment Driven Auto Sales has to serving all its clientele with world class service, making a firm commitment to the public good by keeping the property clean and aestically pleasing, which will be in line with the rest of the public works facilities. 5) No Traffic Congestion. The proposed use and development will not cause undue traffic congestion nor draw significant amounts of traffic through residential streets; and The proposed use is and will continue to work dilligently to maintain traffic flow as a primary objective. We have submitted a traffic flow plan, that will show how our customers, employees and vendors will enter and exit the premise without disturbing the flow of traffic on 159th, east or west bound. Our lot size is large enough to maneuver in and out of when delivering cars to customers, our bays are double sided where vehicles can enter in one entrance and exit out of another as to not create a traffic jam. Our lot in the back is equipped with a round-a-about style driveway that way cars will not pile behind one another. City of Oak Forest S. Central Avenue, Oak Forest, IL Phone: ( Fax: (708) ATTACHMENT 6

16 6) No Destruction of Significant Features. The proposed use and development will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of any natural, scenic, or historic feature of significant importance. Our proposed use will not include any such requests to destroy, remove or damage any natural, scenic or historic feature of significance, we will be submitting a plan to add shrubbery along the back side of the lot to act a noise deterrent and help the back lot become more aethestically pleasing to the surrounding neighborhood. 7) Compliance With Standards. The proposed use and development complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the particular provision of this Code authorizing such use. The proposed use has forwarded, submitted or is waiting on a response for all its proposed plans. We will patiently wait for the city to respond as to how to proceed. We will not progress on any type of work without the consent of the city. All of our plans will comply with all standards imposed on us, if those subsequent plans to do not meet the requirements we will diligently work to rectify those issues and bring that work to code. F. ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL MATERIALS. Other materials maybe required at the time of submittal. City of Oak Forest S. Central Avenue, Oak Forest, IL Phone: ( Fax: (708) ATTACHMENT 6

17 CITY OF OAK FOREST PLANNING/ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday June 21, 2017 The Plan/Zone Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stuewe at 7:00 p.m. with Roll Call. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Wolf. PRESENT: Mrs. Morrissy Mr. Walsh Mr. Ziak Mr. Oostema Mr. Schroeder Mr. Wolf Chairman Stuewe ABSENT: Mr. Riha Mr. Cowgill ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Tinberg, EAC Ms. Malecky, EAC Mrs. Griffin, EAC Mr. Vacha, EAC Mr. Martello, EAC Mr. Bandstra Miss Ashbaugh INTRODUCTION Chairman Stuewe briefly explained the purpose of the joint meeting of PZC and EAC: To work together in an effort to retain existing businesses, attract new businesses, upgrade signage and buildings, and modernize the City. **************************** PRESENTATIONS

18 PLAN/ZONE COMMISSION MEETING 21 June 17 Page 2 PZC Roles and Responsibilities Miss Ashbaugh explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission meets on the first and third Wednesdays of every month, unless there are no agenda or discussion items. She briefly outlined some examples of the zoning relief issues PZC discusses which require Public Hearings, such as Zoning Text Amendments, Variations, Special Use Permits, Comprehensive Plan updates and amendments, rezoning of parcels, plats of subdivision, and Planned Unit Developments. She also outlined the Notice procedures for zoning relief. Miss Ashbaugh added that PZC also handles the three levels of Design Review in Public Meetings, which require no published Notice. EAC Roles and Responsibilities Mr. Tinberg explained that the Economic Advisory Commission meets on the first Wednesday of every month at Noon with the primary purpose of retaining businesses in the community, strengthening the business community, and bringing issues to Staff s attention for resolution. EAC also works with Staff in an attempt to identify open business properties and match them with users who can add value to the community. EAC also acts as liaison between businesses and the City in order to improve the business community and/or address concerns. Mr. Tinberg added that EAC also does some work with the Façade Improvement Program, reviewing requests and recommending approvals when appropriate. Community Development Department Roles and Responsibilities Mr. Bandstra explained that the Community Development Department acts as Staff liaison to PZC and EAC to improve ordinances, land use, planning, updates, etcetera. He added that this department interfaces with the City Administrator, the Mayor, City Council, etcetera, to draft general terms of development agreements. Development and Incentive Review Timelines Mr. Bandstra briefly explained the packet documents as reference points. He stated that the goal is the help understand the processes for entitlements, variations, design reviews, etcetera, and determine whether the process can be improved in any way. He

19 PLAN/ZONE COMMISSION MEETING 21 June 17 Page 3 pointed out that the estimated timelines for these processes are hypothetical. Miss Ashbaugh talked about the process covered in Attachment 4, Applications Requiring Public Hearings. She explained the types of cases requiring Public Hearings and briefly explained the State Notice requirements relating to Public Hearings. The timeframe of 57 days is a best case scenario that assumes no major setbacks. She estimated that the entire process typically takes 2 to 4 months; sometimes longer, depending on the case. Mr. Bandstra added that these processes apply to any type of user who wants to open a business requiring additional review, such as opening a banquet hall in an existing building, requesting an extra sign, building a garage that is larger than what is allowed, etcetera. Ms. Ashbaugh briefly compared the several months for the McDonald s project and the El Morijah Auto project, outlining the contrast between the two scopes of work. Miss Ashbaugh explained the process covered in Attachment 5, Applications Requiring Public Meetings. She noted that PZC has the final determination over Level 2 Design Review which covers ground signs replacing pole signs, existing buildings changing awning styles, building color or light fixtures, etcetera. Best case scenario is less than one month, depending on how quickly all materials are prepared. These only require that the agenda be posted on the City s website. Miss Ashbaugh stated that Community Development is compiling a list of obsolete signs and pole signs that need to be replaced. These will qualify for different levels of the Façade Improvement Grant, so Staff will coordinate with EAC for the grant approval process and PZC will review the appearance of the sign. Mr. Bandstra explained the process covered in Attachment 6, Applications for Façade Improvement Grants and Level 3 Design Review Permits. He stated that this process pertains to either ground up construction (examples Starbucks, Family Dollar) or a significant façade renovation (example B & M Auto). He noted that this process is completed before building permitting. Using colored flow charting, Mr. Bandstra briefly explained how this process interacts with the Façade Improvement Grant approvals. Once PZC has recommended the design for approval,

20 PLAN/ZONE COMMISSION MEETING 21 June 17 Page 4 this is a good time for the petitioner to seek bids from contractors so they can apply to EAC for a façade grant. The ideal scenario is that both the Design Review Permit and Façade Grant approval simultaneously go before City Council for approval. This does not always work out. Mr. Bandstra stated that this process takes 40 to 50 days in best case scenario. Mr. Bandstra pointed out the one-page handout with the three levels of Design Review. Miss Ashbaugh briefly explained that Level 1 is maintenance improvement work which requires a building permit approved through the Building Department. She noted that Building Commissioner Forbes communicates with Community Development regarding anything awry or anything being done without a permit. Miss Ashbaugh explained that Level 2 is very explicit and relates to sign type replacement, awning style changes, building color changes, etcetera. She stated that PZC makes the final decision and City Council does not review or approve scopes of work at Level 2. Miss Ashbaugh explained that Level 3 covers anything above and beyond Level 2, such as new construction, changes to existing architecture, etcetera. Level 3 requires City Council approval. Mr. Bandstra summarized that this portion should give everyone some context of what each group is doing and the current development processes; facilitating discussion about improving and raising the bar for development within the City. DISCUSSION **************************** Chairman Stuewe requested a motion to combine Discussion with Citizen Participation, thus allowing the public to provide comments and questions. Mrs. Morrissy made the motion. Mr. Oostema seconded. Everyone was in favor of this combination. ****************************

21 PLAN/ZONE COMMISSION MEETING 21 June 17 Page 5 Chairman Stuewe read the first question: Can the Design Review process can be improved to better serve the business community and also improve the quality of existing and new development? Mr. Wolf talked about the Development and Design Guidelines, which he stated was worked on by PZC but never established within the Code. He stated that the City has never put out design standards that would be beneficial to anyone seeking to develop or change a building. Mr. Wolf also stated that he would like to streamline these Guidelines to provide direction to the developers. This would eliminate Level 2 Design Review. Ideally, these guidelines would tell developers what is and is not acceptable and provide visuals. He feels that this would cut down the time developers spend at PZC and allow the Building Department to make the determinations. Chairman Stuewe agreed that Mr. Wolf s suggestion is what this discussion is about; being more specific and streamlining the development standards. Mr. Walsh suggested putting the Guidelines on the website so the developers are able to download it. Mr. Wolf and the Chairman agreed, stating that this would be more cost-effective and quicker for the applicants. Mr. Wolf talked about what is and is not acceptable in architectural design, citing the Guidelines. Miss Ashbaugh confirmed that she has the document Mr. Wolf is referencing. Chairman Stuewe added that these Guidelines were never adopted. Miss Ashbaugh stated that the document in question was in Draft format but never formally approved by PZC or City Council. Mr. Tinberg approves of anything that streamlines the process and makes it easier for people to understand. He suggested adding some of the advantages Oak Forest has in that process, compared to other communities. Mr. Walsh asked the reason for waiting 2 weeks for a meeting to approve the minutes. He suggested approving minutes through . Miss Ashbaugh stated that this would violate the Open Meetings Act. She added that City Council prefers to only review meeting minutes once they ve been approved by the recommending body.

22 PLAN/ZONE COMMISSION MEETING 21 June 17 Page 6 Mrs. Morrissy stated that PZC has met sooner than 2 weeks, when needed, to move up a process. Chairman Stuewe agreed that a special meeting can be called to approve minutes. Mrs. Griffin stated that several businesses have had a problem with the timeframe. Chairman Stuewe agreed that this happens in any city. Mts. Griffin commented that anything making the timeframe shorter will be helpful for the businesses. The Chairman agreed. Mr. Oostema asked why the Guidelines referenced by Mr. Wolf have not been adopted. Mr. Bandstra commented that he did look through previous minutes and discussions and it appears that there was serious discussion about putting Guidelines together at PZC. Due to Staff transition, the Guidelines were tabled. If the PZC, EAC and City Council feel this is worth doing, Mr. Bandstra and Miss Ashbaugh will move to put in place Guidelines to streamline approvals. The Chairman agreed that the Commission would like to review and finalize Guidelines to send to City Council. Mr. Wolf talked at length about the language in the proposed Guidelines and stated that more visuals are needed for the final document. Chairman Stuewe agreed, stating that this is an advantage of having the document online; so people can see what the City wants. Chairman Stuewe read the next question: Is PZC comfortable with lower-quality submittals and materials from smaller independent businesses being presented? Or is there a consistent standard to which all businesses should be held moving forward? The Chairman compared examples of the El Morijah Auto case in which the petitioner submitted very minimal drawings that were done on a sheet of paper versus the Eagle Gun Club that came in with full plans and prospects for a timeline. He asked whether the Commissioners will accept a hand drawn picture or want a complete proposal of the work to be done. Mr. Wolf questioned whether Façade Assistance should make a difference in this. He clarified that this is a generalization, not a specific case. Mr. Bandstra stated that El Morijah Auto has not applied for any assistance. Mr. Tinberg stated that EAC does not have access to the Code nor a working knowledge of it. EAC is only reviewing the Façade

23 PLAN/ZONE COMMISSION MEETING 21 June 17 Page 7 Assistance Program application. EAC does not look at the content of what is being approved, the quality of a sign or building materials, but relies on Staff to let them know if a sign is not in compliance with Code. Mr. Tinberg clarified that EAC determines whether the request fits within the Façade Grant Program, not the Sign Ordinance, etcetera. Miss Ashbaugh agreed with Mr. Tinberg s assessment. Miss Ashbaugh noted that Attachment 1 is the Municipal Code provision that gives power to EAC to review tax incentives, the Façade Improvement Grant and any other economic endeavors the City wishes to pursue. Attachment 2 is the provision from the Zoning Ordinance that spells out the powers of PZC. Using the case of Anytime Fitness as an example, Miss Ashbaugh stated that their proposed sign did not meet Code. She advised the applicant that she could not allow them to proceed with the Façade Improvement Grant application at that time. She explained that this was done under Staff authority, not EAC authority, knowing the function of the EAC. Mr. Wolf asked whether Anytime Fitness came back and applied after the text amendment precipitated by B & M Auto. Miss Ashbaugh confirmed that Anytime Fitness followed the process and came forward with three bids. Mr. Wolf asked whether signs fall under Façade Assistance. Mr. Tinberg explained that anything that affects the street view of the property or what EAC determines to be the façade falls under Façade Assistance Program. Mr. Ziak commented that he would prefer full-blown drawings for Level 3 Design Review; anything less would be missing too much detail. For Level 2 Design Review, he has feels that back-of-anapkin drawings are not acceptable and he would like more visual detail. Mr. Wolf agreed with Mr. Ziak. Chairman Stuewe also agreed but cited the proposed sign for El Morijah Auto, stating that it will require more detailed drawings to verify that the sign will be properly supported. Mr. Ziak asked whether to call out signs more specifically, at least a step above a little sketch. The Chairman agreed. Someone from EAC asked whether the Building Department gives a layout of signage requirements (dimensions, construction,

24 PLAN/ZONE COMMISSION MEETING 21 June 17 Page 8 etcetera) when a permit is requested. Chairman Stuewe responded that they are required to have the width, depth, height. Miss Ashbaugh explained that she reviews signs for their dimensions, size and building materials. Building Commissioner Forbes reviews the installation specifications after that. She could not speak to the construction details Commissioner Forbes prefers to see, but he would like to make sure that what is being installed is structurally sound so he can inspect it for safety. Mr. Bandstra commented that PZC or EAC could potentially approve a very conceptual sketch of a sign knowing that more detail will be required before a permit can be issued. He agreed that establishing Design Guidelines would require fewer signs coming before PZC for a Level 2 Design Review Permit. Chairman Stuewe agreed that it is not necessary for PZC to see details like footings, etcetera; however, a decent drawing is preferable. Citing the El Morijah Auto sign as an example, Mr. Oostema commented that the owner/applicant did not seem to understand what was necessary. He questioned at what point an applicant should be aware that a larger project will be required. He feels applicants should be made aware of the requirements ahead of time. Chairman Stuewe responded that these details would be covered by Community Development prior to coming before PZC. Mr. Oostema asked whether this will be laid out in the Guidelines. The Chairman agreed that this should be added. Mr. Wolf commented that an applicant would not be required to come to PZC if specific dimensions and location of signs are incorporated into the Guidelines and approved through Code. This then could be handled through Community Development and the Building Department. Mr. Bandstra responded that there are petitioners with varying levels of understanding and sophistication. In some cases, petitioners are given specific guidelines of what is required; however, the petitioner has the option of submitting what they want. In some cases, Community Development and the Building Department have to defer to PZC and City Council for decisions. Mr. Walsh agreed that specific information and example pictures should be on the website and/or in a Guidelines brochure so people have an idea of the ground rules and the process.

25 PLAN/ZONE COMMISSION MEETING 21 June 17 Page 9 Mr. Wolf agreed with Mr. Bandstra that Community Development can only provide petitioners what guidance regarding what is required but cannot make petitioners submit anything specific. For anything that falls within the Guidelines, petitioners should not be required to come to PZC for Design Review. Mrs. Morrissy asked whether there is a way to help manage expectations for the business community. For example, does PZC talk to Chamber of Commerce about timeframes and answer their questions? She also questioned whether there is a way to ensure that the small business owner does not expect the process to be next-day; possibly through the licensing procedure, for example. Chairman Stuewe suggested that Community Development could bring up these issues at the time an applicant comes in. Mr. Bandstra commented that his goal is to immediately lay out what the department anticipates the timeline and processes to be. Before marketing the Façade Improvement Program, he suggested putting together a clear estimation of what the timeline will be and what the process is. He stated that he has done this in past roles and the City has the opportunity to do this. Mr. Bandstra commented that it always takes longer than people want, which causes tension; however, there are proactive ways to combine the process with the Façade Program. Mrs. Griffin stated that a lot of businesses are unaware that the City has a Façade Program or a Sign Incentive Program. She feels that people should be told about this program when they apply for a business license. Chairman Stuewe asked what EAC has done to talk to the businesses about these programs. Ms. Griffin stated that she does go out and talk to the businesses in her area, and the businesses were not notified of these programs. She feels that businesses would get a something nicer if they knew they could get financial help. Mrs. Morrissy stated that some communities do welcome packets for new residents; some do welcome packets for new businesses and include all this information. She suggested looking into this scenario or at least providing a webpage address that includes the necessary information.

26 PLAN/ZONE COMMISSION MEETING 21 June 17 Page 10 Mr. Tinberg commented that EAC can only approve the applications they receive. Chairman Stuewe agreed but stated that the businesses cannot apply if they aren t aware of the programs. Mr. Tinberg stated that EAC attempts to reach out to blighted businesses and inform them about the Façade Improvement Grant Program and suggest they avail themselves of the opportunity. He pointed out that EAC cannot help the businesses after they ve made their improvements. Chairman Stuewe agreed. Mr. Wolf asked whether there is a standard amount of signage that EAC is willing to assist with. He talked at length about the Signage Incentive Program. Mrs. Griffin stated that there are four businesses on Cicero Avenue that still have paper or cardboard signs up after being open for a couple of years. Mr. Wolf commented that those should be taken down as part of Code Enforcement. Mrs. Griffin commented that Code Enforcement should be promoting the Sign Incentive Program, and this would help make things look nicer. She noted that there are quite a few signs on Cicero that are not up to Code. Mr. Bandstra stated that one opportunity to improve awareness of the Sign Incentive and the Façade Program would be at the point of a business license application. Another opportunity is at the point of Code Enforcement. A third opportunity would be marketing all of these grants. This would involve making sure that every grant awarded is marketed in the various publications so people become aware of the available funding. Mr. Bandstra questioned whether the City wants to pay for everyone s new sign. In previous roles, he has targeted businesses that are going to do substantial renovations and independent businesses that he believes are leaning toward something less expensive and may need incentive to upgrade the exterior. Otherwise, the City could end up paying for everyone s standard signage. Mr. Bandstra talked about one business that is doing a corporate brand refresh, requiring them to put in the signs whether they are needed or not. Although the business can afford to do this, they will apply for a grant to help cover the cost. Because the City wants to be consistent, Mr. Bandstra believes the grant probably will be allowed.

27 PLAN/ZONE COMMISSION MEETING 21 June 17 Page 11 Mr. Bandstra summarized that marketing these programs selectively will allow the City to spend the money wisely, as an incentive. Mr. Tinberg stated that the operative word in the Façade Improvement Program is Improvement. He pointed out that a brand change sign replacement is not an improvement to the façade. He noted that not every sign change is an improvement to the view from the street. Mr. Wolf asked for clarification of whether every new business will be getting a new sign paid for. Mr. Tinberg confirmed that, where there is no existing sign, a new sign could improve the façade in the opinion of the EAC. He and Mr. Wolf briefly discussed this. Moving on, Chairman Stuewe read the next question: What planning efforts and projects can PZC and EAC pursue jointly to contribute to business attraction and retention? Mr. Tinberg stated that, if PZC sees a particular use for a property, EAC would like to be made aware of it and will volunteer their services to help get a user for that space. If there is an issue with a user in a specific space, EAC would like to be advised of that as well. EAC will then reach out to the user in an attempt to resolve the issue. Mr. Martello stated that the summary packet referenced by Mr. Wolf would help EAC get a better understanding of PZC. This would be especially helpful when EAC speaks with business owners. Chairman Stuewe agreed, stating that Mr. Bandstra and Miss Ashbaugh will be working toward that. He hopes to get this onto the website so businesses can be directed to the website for more information. Chairman Stuewe read the next question: How can development information be shared between applicable reviewing bodies more efficiently and consistently? The Chairman suggested that someone from EAC could attend PZC meetings and vice versa. Mr. Oostema suggested that EAC make Miss Ashbaugh aware of what they are working on so she can share that information during Updates at the end of PZC meetings, and vice versa. He added that a condensed version/update of the meeting minutes could also detail what is being worked on. Miss Ashbaugh stated that this

28 PLAN/ZONE COMMISSION MEETING 21 June 17 Page 12 would not be a violation of any law as long as no decisions were being made. **************************** Chairman Stuewe opened the meeting to audience questions and comments. Alderman Jim Emmett feels that Mr. Bandstra will bring fresh eyes to the City. He commented favorably about what Mr. Wolf has been saying and believes that there has been miscommunication. He agreed that streamlining the process is a good idea. Alderman Emmett also commented favorably about Mrs. Morrissy s suggestion to have a welcome packet. He agreed that giving a potential business owner an informational packet when they walk into the Clerk s office for a business license is a great idea. He also likes the idea of providing pictures of what the City wants to see in town. Alderman Emmett also believes PZC is attending more meetings and doing more than they should and the Community Development Department is getting paid and should do the footwork, etcetera. He appreciates that PZC and EAC donate their time to the City. Mayor Kuspa thanked PZC and EAC for their time and all they do for the community. He added that he and the aldermen find these meetings very valuable. Mayor Kuspa agreed that information packets with pictures should be given and the information also should be available on the website. He would like Staff to implement this. The Mayor also feels that Ordinance Enforcement is a liaison between the City and the businesses and should be able to inform the business owners regarding what type of help is available from the City. He also feels that Staff has come a long way toward expediting the processes for businesses to open and stay in the City, but more work is needed. Mayor Kuspa would like the City Administrator/Staff to give him and the aldermen a weekly summary that is easy to digest, rather than a 57-page monthly summary. If the Mayor or aldermen need more information, they can then reach out for more information.