PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2017 at 7:00 PM CENTRAL SQUARE E. NINTH STREET 3 RD FLOOR BOARD ROOM, LOCKPORT, ILLINOIS 60441

Transcription

1 City of Lockport Planning & Zoning Department 921 S. State Street Lockport, Illinois phone fax PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2017 at 7:00 PM CENTRAL SQUARE E. NINTH STREET 3 RD FLOOR BOARD ROOM, LOCKPORT, ILLINOIS CALL TO ORDER: Bill Molony, Chair ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 11, 2017 Meeting Minutes CASES: Case Number Applicant Location Request Public Hearing Ganesha Gayathri (GG) Temple Gallas Construction (Joe Gallas) CITIZENS TO BE HEARD: CHAIRMAN S REPORT: COMMISSIONER S REPORT: STAFF REPORT: ADJOURNMENT: & W. 151 st Street Annexation, Rezoning, Amendment to Special Use Permit for a religious house of worship & Final Development Plan 103 Frances Street Special Use Permit for a Unique Use for Contractor s Shop with Outdoor Storage Public Hearing closed - Final Development Plan only to be tabled to June 13 th meeting Yes Page 1 of 1

2 PZC April 11, 2017 The Plan and Zoning Commission Meeting was held on Tuesday, April 11, 2017 in the Board Room, 3 rd Floor, of the Central Square Building. Chairman Bill Molony called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: J. BILOTTA, S. WOLD, B. MOLONY, B. PORFILIO, S. LIKINS, D. OXLEY, K. SHEPARD P. HIRTH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT K. PHILLIPS, CITY PLANNER S. GIDLEY, DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER D. TADEY, RECORDING SECRETARY APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY PORFILIO, SECOND BY OXLEY TO APPROVE THE MARCH 14, 2017 PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. ALL VOTED AYE MOTION CARRIED CASE NO /GANESHA GAYATHRI TEMPLE, & W. 151 ST STREET Community and Development Director, Pam Hirth said If you recall when this was presented at the March 14, 2017 Meeting, you did vote favorably on the Annexation, Rezoning, and Special Use Permit. There was extensive discussion in particular on the siting of the Temple building itself on the lot in its encroachment into that transitional yard setback. In response to these concerns and comments the Applicant is actually relocating and shifting the building out of that 50 foot transitional yard. Because of that it changed pretty much everything on the site. They did try to complete the Plan revisions but it was just not going to be possible due to some of the engineering related issues. That is why they are asking for this to be continued until next month so that they can bring forward a Plan in which addresses some pretty significant items that were discussed in March. 1

3 PZC April 11, 2017 MOTION BY OXLEY, SECOND BY PORFILIO TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE MAY, 2017 MEETING. ALL VOTED AYE MOTION CARRIED CASE NO /LOCKPORT GATEWAY, LLC (ADAM FIRSEL), SOUTH SIDE OF 159 TH STREET, EAST OF ADELMANN ROAD, LOCKPORT SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER (LOT 5) The Owner, Lockport Gateway, LLC has submitted Final Development Plans for a 7,940 square foot Multi-Tenant Retail building with a drive thru and outdoor seating area on Lot 5 in Lockport Square for future tenant, Panera Bread. They are seeking approval of Preliminary & Final Development Plan in one step. The subject property, Lot 5 is generally located at southeast corner 159th Street and Adelmann Rd. It is important to note that the site conditions throughout the development are moderately sloped with elevations descending from east to west as well as south to north. The development is at a substantially higher grade than 159th Street with the overall Shopping Center Detention separating the subject parcel from 159 th Street. This design separation is consistent throughout the Shopping Center. The outlots that were created north of the ring road (Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) were designed to level within the building envelope of each lot and step down with a visible change in grade from one lot to the next. The physical conditions of Lot 5 are sloped along the north and west boundaries creating a hillside on the west corner. Lot 5 is at a lower grade than Lot 6. The Final Site Plan illustrates a new approximate 7,940 SF Multi-Tenant building to include a drive-thru and outdoor seating area. The Multi-Tenant building is designed to accommodate two (2) tenants. Panera Bread desires to be located to the more visable unit of the Multi-Tenant building (the first unit on the corner along W. 159th Street and Adelmann Road) and will occupy 4,229 SF. The future Tenant of the second unit is not known at this time. The Site Plan illustrates a drive thru aisle that begins west of the store entrance. Vehicles will move from north to south and exit at the rear of the building (southeast corner). Menu boards are located along the west side of the building. Per the approved Development Agreement, up to two (2) menu signs are allowed for drive thru lanes. 2

4 PZC April 11, 2017 The signs shall not exceed 24 square feet or 7 feet in height. The pick-up window is shown at the rear of the building. Wall signage, menu boards, and drive-thru directional signs are not part of this review and will be subject to the provisions of the City s Sign Ordinance. The drive-thru lane can accommodate up to eight (8) vehicles in queue. According to the Applicant, an average of six (6) vehicles are anticipated during peak hours. Peak hours are expected to be spread throughout the day without a rush hour. The expected drive thru wait time is approximately three minutes. Overflow would occur in the drive aisle, however, it is not expected. The drive-thru lane is thirteen (13) feet in width. The lane is defined by a five (5) foot landscaped strip between the drive thru lane and parking area. (To be planted with low growing plant types). An outdoor seating area is shown on the Site Plan and is located north of the restaurant entrance. Staff has requested details of the fence and protective posts for the seating area as well as details for the type of patio furniture. It appears that the Applicant is installing fencing with some type of planter box in-between. The Applicant has not provided any details at this time. Though City Code only requires a decorative-style fencing to protect the patio area, discussion on another recent project having a patio adjacent to a drive aisle has raised concerns on the protective nature of a decorativestyle fence to protect patrons using the outdoor patio. In that case, the applicant was required to install fence posts that provided the same level of protection as a bollard. The details of the method for protecting the patio need to be provided. This will become a condition of approval. A Loading/Delivery zone is shown on the Site Plan located south of the drive-thru pick up window. According to the Applicant, this area is intended for trash removal only. Deliveries would occur at the restaurant entrance. Panera has daily deliveries during the day at non-peak times. They are typically small deliveries and take under twenty minutes. Once a week there is a large food delivery that occurs overnight. Staff has expressed concern with deliveries taking place from the ring road and is recommending that no deliveries shall be made from the ring road. This will become a condition of approval. 3

5 PZC April 11, 2017 The Site Plan illustrates retaining walls that are needed due to the previously mentioned topographic conditions of this site. Due to challenges of the proposed development, the retaining wall along the north will be located on the adjacent parcel which is currently owned by the Developer of the overall center and used for detention purposes. The Applicant for the subject property must provide the City written permission from the Owner/Developer to build this retaining wall in accordance with the proposed plan. Staff further recommends that the Applicant enter into an Easement Agreement that is recorded to guarantee the long term encroachment regardless of ownership of either property. This will become a condition of approval. The retaining walls are to be constructed of segmental block to match the existing retaining walls found throughout the center development. A fence is required and provided along the retaining wall areas as a further protective measure. This has been done on Lot 7 as well as at Lockport Center (Jewel Center). Curb stops will also be installed to assist with vehicle encroachment into the landscaped area. The plan set shows wheel stops only along the north retaining wall. Wheel stops are also needed along the west retaining wall. The Plan Set needs to be revised to reflect this prior to the Committee of the Whole meeting. Staff recommends that these curb stops be permanently affixed. This will become a condition of approval. Primary access into the overall shopping center comes from 159 th Street and Adelmann Road. Access to this lot is via main internal east-west ring road located to the south of the lot- two separate drives have been proposed. Cross access is encouraged and essential in Shopping Center developments for the following reasons: Shared access increases safety by minimizing driveway conflict and unnecessary traffic movement onto the ring road; Provides overflow parking opportunities for customers; Supports business as customers are encouraged to stay on-site; Retail centers that provide cross access maintain increased property values Staff has requested cross access be provided with the property to the east. Cross access was provided on Lot 7 for future connection to the adjacent lot. The applicant does not want to provide cross access siting the following reasons: The interconnected ring road is designed to handle traffic amongst the (out) lots and future shopping center; Providing another internal road within the (out) lots will create a major safety concern with pedestrian traffic, vehicles parking, and thru traffic; 4

6 PZC April 11, 2017 There is a change in grade to the adjoining lot and the access would eliminate 4 parking spaces; An easement agreement exists along the internal access road; Lot 6 is currently vacant and the future tenant is not known; Vehicle use through the main drive is the typical standard setup. It is Staff s opinion that properly designed cross access can and should be provided between Lot 5 and 6. Staff is seeking discussion/direction from the Commission regarding this matter. Textured and colored materials are provided where pedestrian walkways cross vehicle circulation as required by the approved development agreement. The proposed internal sidewalk at the southwest corner that provides connection to the public sidewalk on Adelmann Rd. has been reviewed by City Engineering Consultant. He has determined it to be an undesirable design and more desirable design has been provided to the applicant incorporating a retaining wall. According to the Applicant the sidewalk proposed by City Engineering would require retaining walls, fencing, and a switchback. This would be extremely costly, and unattractive. The Applicant feels strongly that what they have designed with the handrails and sidewalk from Adelmann Rd. is the best solution for this site. Staff is seeking discussion/direction from the Commission regarding this matter. Recent engineering revisions have increased the slope. Internal sidewalks are required to be 5 feet in width to match the external sidewalks. However, the sidewalk width is only shown at 4.3 feet. The width needs to be revised to 5 feet. This will become a condition of approval. The Development Agreement does require that all gas and electric meters are to be screened. They are located at the rear of the building. Given the design of the drive-thru, screening immediately adjacent to the meters would be difficult. Landscaping is being proposed within the planting area along the south property line and includes combination of perennial grasses & flowers. Trees are provided in the planting area immediately adjacent to the ring road. Bollards are illustrated on the south elevation. However they are shown as black on the Elevation Plan, according to the Applicant, these bollards will be painted yellow for visual recognition and safety. The Plan will need to be revised to reflect the correct color to be used. This should be addressed prior to the Committee of the Whole Meeting. 5

7 PZC April 11, 2017 A Landscape Plan was submitted and reviewed. The Plan is not in conformance with the approved Architectural Design Standards of the Development Agreement. The approved Agreement states that landscaping shall be in conformity with the City s Landscape Code, and shall in addition include a 36-inch high evergreen shrubbery screening on all four sides of the outlot, excluding drives and vision triangles. The 36-inch evergreens are required around the perimeter for Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. This will not be provided. However, Staff recognizes that this requirement is not practical with the physical site conditions on the site. This deviation is considered a minor change that does not require amendment to the approved Agreement. Per the City s Landscape Code frontage landscaping, foundation landscaping, perimeter parking lot landscaping, and interior parking lot landscaping which are comprised of trees and shrubs (to include evergreens) are required. Shrubs must be 24 inches in height to fulfill the shrub requirement. The proposed landscaping located along the north and west property boundaries is considered both the perimeter parking lot landscaping and frontage landscaping. It is important to note, that the proposed landscaping will be located between the retaining wall/fence and curb (Final Landscape Plan should be revised to include the proposed retaining walls). This leaves approximately feet in width after allowing for a fence foundation that is not shown in the section that was provided. This is less than the required five (5) feet of Frontage Landscaping. Foundation landscaping is also required per City Code and Development Agreement. The Development Agreement requires foundation landscaping to consist of raised concrete curbing integral with sidewalks that extend across a minimum 50% of the length of exterior walls facing public right-of-way and parking lot areas. This requirement was installed on Lot 7 and caused drainage/flooding issues for the Tenants. The Applicant initially provided planting areas without curbing. Staff was concerned with the plant material getting trampled and damaged, thus creating an on-going maintenance situation. In addition, Staff recognizes that with the compact site design, planted containers will provide a more practical substitute to meet this requirement. Containers have been illustrated on the plan. Staff has requested details, however the Applicant has not provided them to-date. The containers must be decorative and complement the architecture of the building. They shall be maintained at all times and provide seasonal color interest year-round. This will be a condition of approval. 6

8 PZC April 11, 2017 Interior parking lot landscaping is required and provided. However, Staff has noted that the light poles have been placed in-between or in close proximity to the required parking lot trees provided in the end landscaped islands. Though the proposed tree species (Honeylocust) do not have a dense canopy, the Applicant should consider relocating the light poles to prevent impaired lighting levels in the parking lot. During the construction phase, the existing street trees along the ring road will be removed and replaced upon completion. Sloped turf areas will be sodded and landscaped areas will be irrigated. An irrigation plan has been provided. For light levels, the City typically requires zero (0) footcandles at property lines, however, since this is a Commercial (out) lot within a larger Commercial Development the approved design standards allow higher levels. The light poles will be 30 feet tall on a 3 foot base. The Applicant is proposing to use an LED fixture. This does not conform to the fixture style included in the Development Agreement, however, the Developer of the center prefers these fixtures and will be replacing existing fixtures with the same LED style. The LED fixture proposed is full cut-off and meets the City s requirements. As part of the Planned Development approval for the Shopping Center, the design and size of the monument signs were approved. The proposed monument sign complies with what was approved at that time. A wall sign is illustrated on the Elevation Plan however a submittal was not received and is not part of this review. The Elevation Plan illustrates a place holder for the future Tenant signage. When a Tenant is secured for the Tenant space, they will be required to submit a separate Sign Permit Application for City review and approval. The sign will be subject to the provisions of the City s Sign Ordinance. Should the Commission find the Preliminary & Final Development Plans for the proposed building with a drive-thru acceptable, the following motion is suggested: A Motion to approve the Preliminary & Final Development Plan for a proposed 7,940 Multi-Tenant Commercial building with a drive-thru (to include a Panera Restaurant) subject to the following conditions: Prior to City Council consideration, the following must be addressed: Site Plan shall be revised as follows: Provide details of outdoor seating/patio fencing and measures to protect from vehicles with protective posts; Provide detail of planted containers; Provide detail of the proposed bollards at the south side of the building to include color; The gas and/or electric meters screening to be identified; Wheel stops along the west retaining wall to be identified; Landscape Plan shall be revised as follows: Retaining walls to be identified; 7

9 PZC April 11, 2017 Provide detail of the containers used for foundation landscape requirement substitute; All signage shall be in conformance with the approved Design Standards of the Development Agreement and City s Code. The Applicant for the subject property must provide the City written permission from the Owner/Developer to build this retaining wall in accordance with the proposed plan. The Applicant shall enter into an Easement Agreement that is recorded to guarantee the long term encroachment regardless of ownership of either property. Wheel stops shall be permanently affixed. All trash pick-up and deliveries shall be made opposite of peak business hours to avoid conflicts; Deliveries shall take place on site and not from the internal ring road or Adelmann Road; Parking shall take place on site and not from the internal ring road or Adelmann Road; The width of the internal sidewalk needs to be revised to 5 feet; Planting containers shall be maintained with seasonal interest year round. Adam Firsel, partner with Lockport Gateway which is the Contract Purchaser for this Outlot 5, Andy Robbins, The Architecture Team with PFDA, Civil Engineer, Representative from Panera who is head of construction, Seller and Owner of the rest of the lots Representative, are present and in attendance tonight to answer any questions and concerns. Mr. Firsel gave some background on himself and the team. Mr. Firsel stated they have very good experience on building this type of development. He said the challenges that they have rely mostly on the grading with this site. Mr. Firsel spoke about the site challenges, and the engineering. He presented a Power Point presentation and explained the full development and walked the Commissioner through and explained why things are done the way they ve been done. Commissioner Shepard liked the landscaping plan and asked that they continue to maintain it. He spoke about keeping the containers/planters maintained year around. Commissioner Likins said there was a note about cross access and he wanted to ask if there is a development requirement for cross access within the ring road from lot to lot? City Planner Kimberly Phillips answered that there s not by City Code nor by the Development Agreement that requires the cross access. It is preferred because it is a good planning process but she said they do recognize that there are challenges. 8

10 PZC April 11, 2017 Commissioner Likins asked about the sidewalk design as it connects to the public sidewalk on the southwest corner, is there a requirement that we connect right at that corner as oppose to 30,40, 50 feet there to the north? Development Engineer, Steve Gidley answered that he feels it is a better design if they can connect at the corner because that gives the people the option of going north or south on Adelmann. Commissioner Likins asked Does the current design meet ADA Code relative to slope, handrails? Mr. Firsel answered that that is the debate they are having. That area of the site is where the grade is, it is a hillside right now. He said We do want to connect the sidewalk from Adelmann to our lot. We intend to do that. We are showing that at a one foot up for every twelve feet of length. That is an 8.33 percent slope. To be ADA compliant you have to provide handrails. That is what we ve done. We ve got an 8.33 percent slope sidewalk with handrails. We ve also have a landing area half way up it that is flat that is a landing area and then it goes up again 8.33 percent with handrails. I believe the City Engineer recommends a 5% which does not require handrails. But in order to make the 5% work we now have to provide a switch back and retaining walls and, so that someone doesn t fall off the retaining wall, we ve got to put guard rails up. For a sidewalk that we thought would be rarely use to make that connection work which we want to do we designed it with handrails with the 8.33 percent slope. Commissioner Oxley asked What is your height in the retaining wall going to be if you are going to do that? Mr. Firsel answered Two or three feet. Commissioner Oxley said You don t need a railing unless it is thirty eight inches or more. Commissioner Porfilio asked if there was a reason why we are designating that an ADA route out in the middle of nowhere like that? He said Let s take ADA out of the equation. If it is not an ADA Route, you run the walk straight down to the corner. It is about seven and a half percent. That will work instead of doing switchbacks and retaining walls and going diagonally along the corner of the site and everything else. If the sidewalks on Adelmann Road aren t ADA compliant then this doesn t have to be ADA compliant in the corner. 9

11 PZC April 11, 2017 You ve got going from point A to point B. You only have to meet that on site from the handicap parking right? Development Engineer, Steve Gidley answered If you consider it a public sidewalk it has to meet the current ADA. Commissioner Porfilio answered Then you can run it at seven and a half percent straight down. That is less than 8.3 percent and you just put in a landing or handrails. Development Engineer, Steve Gidley said 5% is the limit. Commissioner Porfilio said But to not have that switchback look instead of just a straight walk is what I am getting at. Development Engineer, Steve Gidley stated It won t meet ADA. We consider it a public walk and it should be ADA. Commissioner Likins said I would agree with that. I think currently with development in the area just from my own personal perspective driving up and down 159 th and then down Adelmann Drive, currently the majority of the public that are walking in that area would probably come from 159 th. However as this site is developed and as folks maybe at the McDonalds across the street and the Jewel development there to the west, eventually there may be more people walking over directly from the west that would make the current design a little inconvenient. That s why I asked the question is there a requirement that the sidewalk meet there at the corner and it s just convenience getting patrons to Panera. My next comment relative to the trash enclosure in the blind, if garbage is picked up at off hours when the parking lot is not full and they are backing up with the loud beeping maybe that s not as big of a deal but if there is trash being picked up between 11 and 2 that may be an issue. Most trash pickup is early. Jason from Panera said Of the 38 restaurants we have in Chicago we have with the same hauler and we plan to use the same here as well and not one has picked up after 6:00 a.m. If this hauler wants to pick up trash between 11 and 2 then we will not be using them because it is a bigger problem for me to have a trash dumpster coming in against the drive thru traffic. Same with deliveries. That is more of a concern for me. That is a big concern! Commission Likins said The sidewalk if it was 4.3 feet wide, if it needs to go to 5 feet for ADA, make it 5 feet, not a big deal. 10

12 PZC April 11, 2017 Mr. Firsel asked Is that the sidewalk you are referring to the one that connects to Adelmann? Commission Likins answered Well, I may not have read that correctly. I thought I saw in the report one of the sidewalks said it was 4.3? Community and Economic Development Director, Pam Hirth said It is on the east side of the building. Commissioner Likins said Oh the east side of the building, I m sorry. Mr. Firsel said That is the only sidewalk that isn t 5 feet. It is 4.3 which is ADA Compliant. We just couldn t fit it. We missed it by.7. Commissioner Porfilio said The first time you looked at the sidewalk running down to the corner why was that not finalized? Why did you decide to go northwest when you could have put in the landing or the railings and just ran it all the way to the corner to have a straight shot for people coming across Adelmann Road? Was the original design like that? Or, was it because there was a light pole in the way did you not do it that way? Or, what was it? A Representative answered We were just trying to avoid the switchbacks. Otherwise you are walking one way. Commissioner Porfilio said If you run straight to the corner, what do you have to do to make it work? The Representative answered It is not ADA compliant. To make it work we had to do a handicap ramp slopes with railings beyond the six feet that is why we needed the railings. Commissioner Porfilio asked Was that ever presented? The straight run down to the corner or did you never even show that? The Representative answered We never showed that because it wasn t ADA Compliant. Commission Porfilio said But, you can make it ADA Compliant, is what I m saying. 11

13 PZC April 11, 2017 The Representative asked How? Commissioner Porfilio answered With seven and a half percent you can convert it to be ADA Compliant with railings and a landing is what I am getting at. The Representative said Yes, but once you put the landing then you exceed the 8.3 percent. Commissioner Porfilio asked Did you pursue that? The Representative answered Oh, yes. Absolutely. Commissioner Porfilio asked The deliveries. I know you had said the deliveries are going to be before business hours in the morning right around the time of trash pick up, what size is the vehicle you are going to be using? Is that a semi trailer, or a small truck, or, is he going to, where is the unloading area? Is it on the south side of the building? Is he going to have to back in there or something? Jason answered We have two deliveries that we get with the exception of regular UPS, those sort of deliveries. We have two deliveries, we have our main distributor that will deliver us twice a week and that is overnight. We do have people in the restaurant overnight as we bake the bread fresh overnight, but that will come from the south side right next to the landlord room. That is our service door. If you look just to the east, right at that bump out that first door, that is our kitchen service door. That is where deliveries will go and that is where trash will be removed. That is from a standard semi-truck, fifty three feet, something like that... Commissioner Porfilio said He is able to pull up in the east aisle and back in there without a problem, right? Jason answered Yes. Commissioner Porfilio said We talked about the retaining walls. There was a comment about twenty four inch versus thirty six inch hedge around the perimeter of the lot. I know the original Code was twenty four inch but there was something in maybe the PUD that said it has to be thirty six? Why can t we put in a hedge that is a foot higher? I don t understand why that can t be done? What is the challenge that would prevent that from happening? Do you have to make the parkway where it is planted wider because the root system is larger? Or, why can t we make that work? 12

14 PZC April 11, 2017 Mr. Firsel asked Which hedge? I m sorry. Commissioner Porfilio answered The 36-inch evergreens are required around the perimeter for Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. The plan identifies installed height of 24 inches in height. Why can t we have a 36 inch evergreen? Why is it 24 only? What s the difference? I m considering it a variance is why I am bringing it up. Pam answered The City Code is 24 inches. The Development Agreement is 36. If the Applicant chooses not to provide 36, the Owner of the shopping center would have to ok that that is acceptable if that was Commissioner Porfilio asked So, what is the big deal? What would be the reason why he can t do it? Chairman Molony said 24 inch meets the City s Code. To go more than that it is between the Developer and the Petitioner. Commissioner Oxley asked Is it in the Development Agreement? Then that is the Agreement between the Developer and the City. Not the Developer and Panera. That is the Code we have to follow. That supercedes what our Code is. City Planner, Kimberly Phillips said The Development Agreement does identify that the perimeter is to be 36 inch evergreen hedge. With the site restrictions, two things, initially the retaining wall was not located on the abutting property so there was 0 planting space. Once they proposed to move that retaining wall we are still only getting about two to two and a half feet width, a 36 inch tall evergreen that is going to be a challenge to have something grow within that limited curb area, so.. Commissioner Porfilio asked On the north side of the site? City Planner, Kimberly Phillips The north and the west. Commissioner Porfilio asked What about on the east, west, and south? Commissioner Oxley said That s the Developer s choice though. We are expected to follow this Code, that Code, that Code, so we are trying to make this adhere to this Code, the Development Code, and if they have to move the retaining wall out two feet for growth of these plants, that should be the way that it is. Chairman Molony said We just want to see consistency in the whole square. 13

15 PZC April 11, 2017 Commissioner Oxley said I know there was a lot of time spent on this project, but there was a lot of time spent on the old Development Code, multiple, multiple hours when it was first done City Planner, Kimberly Phillips said One other comment I d like to also make is that it was not provided on Lot 7 as well. To be consistent with Lot 7 Staff didn t push for the 36 inches. Commissioner Oxley said Shame on us. So where do we go? Commissioner Porfilio said We don t want to inherit the sins of the Father here, 5,6,8,9,10,11,12, 6,8,9,10,11,12 haven t been built yet. So, are we going to keep doing it like a snowball effect? Everybody is going to just be able to get away with it because they said the guy next door didn t do it? So, my third comment relates to lighting. I know that Steve had in his comments that the average foot candles was 1.3 and it is supposed to be 2. That is a big difference. I was wondering, and then also there was an issue with some of the trees shading some of the foot candles from the lot. Why is there such a discrepancy in the foot candle requirement? Does that have something to do with something I m not seeing? 1.3 versus 2 is a big gap. Was that something that you handled with, Steve, did they respond to that comment? Development Engineer, Steve Gidley answered No. They have not responded to that. We just received those photometric s recently. Commissioner Porfilio asked Mr. Firsel if they could explain. Mr. Firsel said he is not an Engineer. He did not design the photometric plan. He said they will make it work. If the Commissioners want more foot candles, they will put more foot candles there. Commissioner Porfilio would like to see uniformity. He would like it to be 2 foot candles. Commissioner Porfilio questioned the screening in the back of the building for the meters. He spoke about the 14 items listed on the Staff Report that need to be finished before it goes to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Firsel said the Commissioners spoke about the interconnection between the two lots, they can t conform to that. The sidewalk, they prefer the design on the sidewalk from Adelmann that they ve designed, and the Commissioner s prefer to have a retaining wall with the switchback. Commissioner Wold wished them the best of luck when they do come to Lockport. 14

16 PZC April 11, 2017 Commissioner Oxley asked about the drive thru turning radius. He feels it is a very tight radius. He asked why the radius can t be made bigger? Mr. Firsel answered It is a nine and a half foot turn radius. Scott spoke about the drive thru radius. He said this is standard for drive thru s that they have provided at other sites. They will provide an auto turn, turning exhibit for submittal for not only the drive thru but for the garbage truck in a matter of days. Commissioner Oxley said the radius seems tight and he doesn t know if it is a standard in the industry, he doesn t know if that is the standard radius, but he thinks we need to start widening them up. It is like a 9 foot parking space. It is too tight. Cars are too big there is no room and the doors are banged and it is a thousand dollar hit everytime it happens. He asked if they looked at widening the east entrance it is a 24 foot because they will be having trucks coming in and out of there for delivery, garbage trucks and everything and that is going to be a tight radius there. Mr. Firsel asked The width or the radius? Commissioner Oxley answered The width. Mr. Firsel said Again, 24 feet is a standard drive aisle. Scott said trucks will be coming in at non-business hours mostly. Commissioner Oxley asked about the details on the fence and the outdoor seating area, what it is going to look like? Jason answered We don t have anything at this time. The plan would be whatever the Code requirements are for the spacing of the concrete bollards, the decorative color black. Then the typical style wrought iron fence. Chairman Molony said he appreciates the efforts that have been put into this and all concerned, but he isn t comfortable with sending stuff over to the Committee of the Whole with so many unresolved issues. He feels the Plan Commission should get all the questions, answers, and all the issues resolved before it goes to the Committee of the Whole. 15

17 PZC April 11, 2017 Commissioner Bilotta said one of the things we need to look at is cross access. He thinks this is important for the whole development. He feels with the large developments, the big boxes are going to come in and follow this in the future, he thinks that is when it will be very critical because then that ring road is going to be extremely busy his other question was What is the rush? We do have a lot of issues here. There is Committee of the Whole Meetings once a month at least, right? Mr. Firsel said The rush is that we lose this Development. These Tenants go away. They have delivery dates that we have to hit. That is how retail works. They decide on a site and then they have to hit certain opening criteria. If we delay this and we can t make these delivery dates, these Tenants go away. Honestly, can we go through these issues? You guys are focused on the quantity of the issues instead of what these issues are. We ve worked tirelessly to try to address all of these comments. We ve had Meetings, we ve revised our plans, we ve printed out plans, we ve rushed them into the City, we ve spent a considerable amount of time, effort, and money to try to meet all of these requirements. We put on our Site Plan, steel concrete filled bollards - well you want another comment on there saying that it is mat-black. Fine, I will make that comment. That is one of the conditions to this approval that you are saying we aren t ready for. I want to go through these issues, one by one and figure out what we can address. Commissioner Oxley said Back up, two weeks ago you could have addressed it. Mr. Firsel said We thought we did. We thought that by putting on the Plan concrete filled decorative bollards that that was sufficient. Not until today did I find out that you want more detail than that. I thought I provided enough detail. I don t have that level of design right now. I haven t picked out the colors of my bollards right now. It s to come. Commissioner Bilotta said You have to understand. You are coming for a Preliminary and Final at one stage here. Mr. Firsel answered Yes, this is a Site Plan approval. Commissioner Bilotta said Typically you will come in for a preliminary, work on all these issues, and come with a final then there is a recommendation coming out of this Board to move on. These issues need to be resolved and answered. 16

18 PZC April 11, 2017 Mr. Firsel said Let s work together to resolve these issues. You guys are going to lose this project because there is urgency here. I have to get this approved. I have to move on to the next step. We still have permitting to do, we still have Final Engineering calculations to do. There is still a lot of work to do and you guys are going to have a lot more eyes on this before we can get a Building Permit. We are trying to get Site Plan approval at this time to build an 8,000 square foot two tenant drive through building on a site that complies with the PUD and complies with Code. Commissioner Bilotta said We are trying to work with you. We want you to come here, but you can t just throw this on here and expect us to go ahead with all of this stuff when there is unanswered issues. I know you said you want to go through them all. Sounds like the conditions that Staff has on there you are pretty much ok with. Mr. Firsel said I am. I am absolutely ok with most of these issues that is why instead of saying figure it out later, I would like to discuss this and figure it out now. I ve had this Meeting with Staff and there were unresolved issues and they said let s take it to Plan Commission. So, that is what we are doing and now I am being. Commissioner Bilotta said You just said you agree to all of these so there is no sense to go through them all. Did you just say you are ok with all of them, you will take care of it all before the Committee of the Whole? Mr. Firsel answered Every one of these items prior to City Council consideration the following must be addressed: A, B, C, no problem. Signage is going to comply to Code. I don t have signage details right now. That is going to comply. No problem. 3 - I need to get written permission for the wall no problem. Wheel stops must be permanently affixed. That is noted in the plans but if you want to make it a condition, again, no problem. Trash pick-up deliveries shall be made opposite of peak hours no problem. 6 is fine. 7 is fine. 8 is fine and 9 is fine. These conditions are all, a lot of them are redundant we already have in our plans so I am agreeing to them. Community and Economic Development Director, Pam Hirth said Some of these conditions like the last few they are really so that we can place them in the Final Development Plan Ordinance so that we have leverage that these things are carried out. So, that if there is an issue with deliveries taking place on the ring road we can refer back to that Ordinance or Resolution and say Hey! You re not supposed to do that. 17

19 PZC April 11, 2017 The big issues that we needed direction from the Commission on was the cross access connection. I don t know that, we ve kind of talked about it both ways but there really hasn t been any Hey Developer, yes you have to provide this, Hey Developer, no you don t. We agree it s an issue. The other thing is the sidewalk design. That is another huge issue. We ve talked about different sidewalk connections but we need some direction. Applicant and Staff need some direction from the Commission so that we know what the next step is with related to those two items. Some of these things like I said have been listed just because we want to make sure they get put into the Ordinance and that they become conditions that we can support. Some of the issues, the little minor details those are things that if they are saying that yes they agree to them, we can work with them to make sure they are incorporated into the plans. I just want to clarify. I definitely appreciate the Commissions support in terms of what the outstanding issues are but we really just need some direction to on this cross connection and the sidewalk because those are the two big ones that we could not come to terms with on the Applicant on how to proceed. Commissioner Oxley said As far as the sidewalk to me, I m not an Engineer whatever the Engineers work out from their side to our side is fine with me. Your traffic is going to be kids from the High School because they come from all of the games, from Culvers, from McDonalds, from Star Bucks, and they are going to come up in there. Quite honestly, myself, I say right next to the curb line and be done with it. But, ADA compliant. Does it have to comply or not? It didn t comply across the street on 159 th street, but now we are going to have to. So, I don t know where that is at legally, technically, but that is just a matter of fact. Doesn t matter to me where the sidewalk is. Make it happen. Cross access road I think you can make that happen. Look at Culvers it is 13 foot elevation change from Farrell Road to their parking lot. Commissioner Bilotta said I think we are in the right direction and it sounds like you are ok with all these conditions so I think the big things probably are exactly what Pam said, the cross connection if all this other little stuff is already taken care of or addressed or you guys are willing to address it sounds like it is not an issue. I am a fan of cross access I think we need it. Jim Purinton talked about purchasing the Target and Home Depot site. He talked about the easement not being an issue. He spoke about the retaining wall. There won t be a written easement until they close. He spoke about the issue with the Lot 6 connection. 18

20 PZC April 11, 2017 For complete details on the discussion, the video is available on the City s website Chairman Molony said I commend you for laying this out on such a very challenging location. Regarding the cross access as I see it cross access is a desirable when the primary access is from an arterial street such as Aldi s and Culver s off of Farrell. I don t see where cross access should be required when the primary access is from an arterial ring road. Given the difference in elevation right here four or five feet plus the loss of parking you ve got two two way drives in and out on the one side here, initially it was anticipated to be only one, given the site here and the traffic configurations that you are going to anticipate I don t see where the cross access really accomplishes much. The likelihood of it being used is questionable, the loss of parking is avoidable. If this was on an arterial street absolutely, but it isn t. It is on a ring road which has a 25 mile an hour speed limit and no parking. I just don t see where people pulling in and out off of a cross road is really a big concern. I don t see where the cross access would minimize it any. Regarding the sidewalk on the southwest corner what you are showing right here puts the sidewalk about 50 feet north of the ring road. Realistically if somebody approaching on foot coming up Adelmann Drive from the south walking north, are they going to walk 50 feet out of the way to get to that sidewalk? They are probably going to walk straight across the ring road and up the driveway and in. Human nature knowing what it is the likelihood of people coming from the tire store, whatever, they aren t going to walk down there, beyond that, I have no preference. I m agreeable with whatever works from an Engineering and cost stand point on the sidewalk. A discussion on the cross access road continued. Commissioner Bilotta asked if this is something that can be put a provision or a condition on Lot 6. MOTION BY OXLEY, SECOND BY PORFIIO TO APPROVE THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS BEING MET LISTED ON THE STAFF REPORT. 19

21 PZC April 11, 2017 ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION: SHEPARD, LIKINS, PORFILIO, MOLONY, WOLD, OXLEY, BILOTTA AYES 0 NAY 0 ABSENT 7 AYES 0 NAY 0 ABSENT MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Oxley said Somewhere in this whole mix we need to upgrade our Codes so that we are all on the same page. We ve been talking about this for 10 or15 years and nothing is getting done. We ve got a Development Code that says one thing, a Developer s Agreement says another thing, and this one says another thing, and that one was outdated because of that disc. We need to do something here, so Mr. Chairman I would like to point that out to you. Interim City Attorney, Tom Thanas said It is not that infrequent where Development Agreements and Annexation Agreements will authorize variances from the Code. It happens very frequently a lot of it is driven by engineering reasons, sometimes it is business reasons. I don t know the history on the hedge issue here as to why there was a differential there. There is no doubt, if you think there are Development Code issues that need to be addressed point them out to us, let me know, let Pam know, or Kimberly and we will start a list. I think we already have a list of changes but I think that will be very helpful for the Staff. Community and Economic Development Director, Pam Hirth said We are actually in the process of updating our Development Code with JJ Benes Office. The Zoning Ordinance is on the list. Our Zoning Ordinance like several of our other Codes it is not something that Staff alone can tackle. It is something where we are going to have to go out for a Consultant and we are going to have a Consultant that is going to take the lead on this. It is just that we have minimal Staff, we are getting busy, and it is just not possible to focus all of our time on a Zoning Ordinance amendment. Which yes, I agree. It is needed. Our Sign Code needs to be rewritten. There is many Codes and again we will have to hire Consultants to do this because our Staffing levels don t permit us to be able to take it on. 20

22 PZC April 11, 2017 Quite frankly doing it piece meal, when there is urgent things that need to be done, I think piece meal approach works, but when you, if you really want to be effective you really have to take a look at the whole Code and see how all the pieces are going to fit together and what the practices have been over the years to ensure that we are respective of those practices. Chairman Molony said Staff s comments are well taken. I think our concern short term is we are at a disadvantage when we have to consider a Case and we don t know what Codes apply. If we are presented with a Case we need to be advised accordingly as to what applies and what doesn t. That was the problem we had here tonight because we didn t know what applied. Commissioner Oxley said Well, Bill what happened here is one of our former Mayor s took the Annexation Agreements away from this Planning Commission and Staff was not allowed to discuss them with us and now we are in the dark. Until that changes, we are going to have this situation. That s what happened. Interim City Attorney Thanas said I agree with Mr. Oxley. It is unusual for a Plan Commission not to see Annexation Agreements. While the Code doesn t necessarily give you review authority over the Annexation Agreement, but the Annexation Agreements frequently fill in blanks and I think we saw that at your last Meeting last month with the Temple. The Annexation Agreement addressed some issues regarding public improvements, sidewalks and the road and what we ve done since your Meeting is clarify that. It is in the Annexation Agreement. When you do see the Agenda packet next time you will see the Annexation Agreement in your packet so you can see the changes that you specifically addressed at the last Meeting and the changes have been made. You won t be voting to approve or recommend the Annexation Agreement, that is the function of the City Council but it will fill in a blank that was not addressed in the Special Use Ordinance because that s not necessarily where that type of an obligation would go. You will see in that Agreement and we all know that the Temple project has a lot of challenges to it. You ve highlighted almost all of them that we had raised during our many months of Meetings with the group proposing it. But, we do think going forward it is a better idea that you get the full picture so you will have those Agreements in your packet. We don t want you necessarily to start voting to recommend it or vote it down but we just want to make sure you ve got the full picture. 21

23 PZC April 11, 2017 ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY OXLEY, SECOND BY LIKINS TO ADJOURN THE PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:45 P.M. ALL VOTED AYE MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted by, Donna Tadey, Administrator/Deputy Clerk 22

24 23

25 City of Lockport Planning & Zoning Department 921 S. State Street Lockport, Illinois phone fax Planning and Zoning Memorandum Case # TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Plan and Zoning Commission Pam Hirth, Director Community & Economic Development Annexation, Rezoning, Amendment to Special Use Permit for a religious house of worship, & Final Development Plans Ganesha Gayathri Temple/16059 & W. 151 st Street DATE: May 2, 2017 At the March 14 th meeting, the Commission discussed the requested actions, closed the public hearing (no one from the public attended to testify) and voted favorably on the Annexation, Rezoning and Special Use Permit. However, based on concerns and comments raised on the location of the temple building. In response to these concerns and comments, the applicant has relocated/shifted the proposed temple building to meet the transitional yard setback along the west property line. This modification is a significant change and requires that ALL plans be revised accordingly and then resubmitted/re-reviewed by City Staff. To ensure that the applicant s project team has adequate time to complete these revisions, and that Staff has adequate time to review the plans in advance of the PZC meeting, Staff is recommending that that the final development plans be tabled to June 13 th. 1

26 City of Lockport Planning & Zoning Department 921 S. State Street, Lockport, IL Phone Fax Planning and Zoning Memorandum Case # TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Plan and Zoning Commission Kimberly Phillips, City Planner Special Use Permit/Unique Use for a Contractor s Shop with Outdoor Storage 103 Frances Street DATE: May 1, 2017 I. SUMMARY The applicant, Joe Gallas, on behalf of Gallas Investments, LLC is seeking approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a unique use/contractor s shop with outdoor storage of equipment within the R-1 zoning district. The property is generally located at the southwest corner of Daviess Avenue and Frances Street in the Fairfield s addition to Lockport Subdivision. II. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Petitioner: Gallas Investments, LLC B. Location: 103 Frances Street C. PINs: , , , , D. Parcel Size: 1.50 Acres E. Map: See Below Subject Property Page 1 of 8

27 III. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Zoning and Land Use: R-1 Single Family Residential; Prior Special Use Permit void B. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use Direction Zoning Jurisdiction Use North R-1 City of Lockport Residential West R-1 City of Lockport Residential South R-1 City of Lockport Primarily Residential with one (1) Pole Building / Storage Business East R-1 City of Lockport Vacant C. History The subject property consists of five (5) separate parcels that are to be used in conjunction for a single use. The property is generally located within the Fairfield s addition to Lockport Subdivision. The parcels are zoned R-1 and located within a residential neighborhood. There are three (3) existing industrial buildings on the property, a metal pole building, a concrete/frame building, and a block building. According to the applicant, the required restrooms are located in the block building that was originally located on a neighboring property (Lot 9, north of the property). This was addressed with a recorded agreement and the property boundary was moved to include this portion, as indicated on the Plat of Survey. (Please refer to the attached agreement). The Industrial buildings were established on the lots by a resident who owned multiple vacant lots in addition to his residence years ago. The buildings are found on historic aerial maps dating as far back as No building permits were found on file for these structures. Through the years these lots transferred ownership separate from the residence. In 2003, a Unique Use Permit for a Landscape Maintenance and Snow Plowing Business was approved with conditions by the City. (Please refer to attached ordinance). The Special Use Permit is void as the use ceased for a period of more than one (1) year. By today s standards neither the industrial buildings nor the use would not be permitted within a residential neighborhood. Per City s Code a contractor s shop is expressly prohibited within the R-1 zoning district. D. Special Use Permit for a Contractor s Shop with Outdoor Storage of Equipment / Unique Use The applicant Joe Gallas of Gallas Investments, LLC desires to operate a contractor s shop with outdoor storage of equipment. Gallas Construction Inc. has ten (10) employees during off season and up to thirty (30) employees during peak season. According to the applicant, not all employees will be reporting or parking at the building. The average hours of operation are Monday thru Saturday from 6am to 6pm. During snowfall season, snowplow operation may be in effect 24 hours daily. No new development is proposed. However, the applicant will be required to adhere to any new and/or previous conditions that were established through the prior special use permit such as any pending matters that have not been addressed to include any needed repairs and paving of the outdoor storage lot. Page 2 of 8

28 E. Findings of Fact Section of the Lockport Zoning Ordinance provides the Standards for Special Use Permits. A special use permit shall be granted only if evidence is presented to establish that: 1. The proposed building or use at the particular location requested is necessary or desirable to provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of the public and will contribute to the general welfare of the neighborhood or community. Although the area is a transitional area that is located within close proximity to the City s Sewer Treatment Plant, it is a residential neighborhood. Staff recognizes that the property is zoned R-1 and that no residences exist on these lots, rather industrial buildings. However, as long as families continue inhabiting the neighboring homes, the proposed contractor s shop with outdoor storage of equipment is neither desirable nor in the interest of the public. A contractor s shop is a more intense use that is considered to be conflicting to residential use. Should the request be granted, the special use permit should be conditioned to minimize future conflicts. 2. The proposed building or use will not have a substantial adverse effect upon the adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, utility facilities, and other matters affecting public health, safety and general welfare. A contractor s shop with outdoor storage of equipment could adversely impact the character of the neighborhood and traffic conditions. Access is provided via non-designated truck route. Local roads were not intended to sustain industrial use with vehicles weighing more than 16,000 pounds. 3. The proposed building or use will be designed, arranged and operated so as to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable district regulations. The contractor s shop should be operated in a manner that will not negatively impact the enjoyment or use of neighboring properties. Activities that create noise, odors, dust, and vibrations should occur within the enclosed building and between the hours of 8am and 6pm. This will be a condition of approval. The contractor s shop should not negatively impact the development of neighboring properties. There is no trend of residential development currently, future residential development is unlikely. However, as long as existing residences remain, additional industrial/commercial development is also unlikely. Section (H) Additional Standards & Criteria for a Unique Use. The petitioner shall have the burden of presenting clear and convincing proof that the unique use is justified and proper and meets the following criteria: 1. Proof of special and extraordinary need for the unique use, which shall include proof of unique characteristics of the subject property, proposed use, and/or the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. Page 3 of 8

29 2. Proof that the unique use will be of some affirmative benefit, from a land use and economic standpoint, to the surrounding properties and neighborhood. Staff will defer to the applicant to provide explanation at the time of public hearing. Street Access The property has two (2) access drives off of Daviess Avenue with a parking lot and two (2) access drives off of Frances Street. The parking lot will be resurfaced and striped and access drives will be resurfaced. This will be a condition of approval. Access to the subject property is from non-designated local roads (not a truck route). In 2010, Ordinance No was passed by the City. (Please refer to the attached ordinance). The ordinance includes language stating that all non-designated routes located west of Farrell Road to the City limits are subject to a gross vehicle weight limit of 8 tons (16,000 pounds). Per the City s Municipal Code, it shall be unlawful to operate a vehicle on any non-designated route exceeding maximum weight limits without having first obtaining an overweight permit from the Chief of Police. Daviess Avenue and Frances Street are non-designated routes that are subject to a maximum vehicle weight limit of 8 tons (16,000 pounds). Based on a list of equipment that was provided by the applicant, vehicles/equipment that are associated with the applicants proposed business have the capacity to exceed the gross vehicle weight limit of the local roads. According to the list that was submitted, the following equipment is associated with the contractor s business: a truck with H rated plates (16,001-26,000 pounds), trucks with D rated plates (8,001-12,000 pounds), trailers (10,000-14,000 pounds), and other vehicles / equipment (6,000+ pounds). It is important to note that trucks when accompanied by dump trailers or equipment such as booms or skid steers can and often do exceed a gross vehicle weight of 8 tons (16,000 pounds). The City s Engineer provided comment regarding regular use of heavy vehicles on the City s local roads. (Please refer to the attached comment). Parking A total of 39 parking spaces are provided which exceeds the required 30 spaces (1 per employee). Parking spaces are required to be paved and striped. Upon performing the required site visit for this request, the turf areas along Frances Street were muddy with tire tracks from re-occurring parking. Parking should occur on site and not along Frances Street or Daviess Avenue. This will be a condition of approval. Outdoor Storage/Screening The gravel outdoor storage area approximately 11,000 square feet will be required to be paved. This was a condition of approval of the prior special use permit that was not completed. This will be a condition of approval. The storage area is required to be screened with a solid 8 foot high solid wood fence per the prior special use permit. There is an existing 8 foot solid wood fence along the north and south sides that is in poor condition. A portion was replaced with a 6 foot high solid wood fence along the west side. According to the applicant this fence will be removed and replaced with a new 8 foot solid wood fence. (Note: the maximum fence height within a residential zoning district is limited to a 6 foot high). The entrance to the storage area is screened by an 8 foot high chain link gate with slats. The existing slats are in poor repair. The applicant has agreed to replace the slats. This will be a condition of approval. Page 4 of 8

30 Landscaping Foundation landscaping beds exist along the east and south sides of the buildings. All landscape material shall be in good condition with new mulch in existing planting beds. Any shrubs that are located within the landscape beds that were lost, are in poor condition, or are less than the required 24 inches in height shall be removed and replaced with new minimum 24 inch high shrubs and maintained in good condition. This will be a condition of approval. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer exists between the residence to the west and the solid wood fence. This buffer is planted with Arborvitae. Some of these evergreens have died or are in poor condition, these shall be replaced with healthy arborvitae and maintained in good condition. This will be a condition of approval. Signage Signage has not been proposed at this time. A sign permit is required for all signage, which is subject the City s Review and shall be in compliance with the City s Sign Code. It is also recommended that signage installed whether on the building or freestanding not be illuminated. Lighting Any new outdoor lighting (including building mounted lighting) will require a Photometric Plan and will be subject to the review and approval by the City. Trash Trash containers shall be located within the enclosed outdoor storage area or within a separate trash enclosure. Engineering Review The City s Engineering Department has provided comment to the issue related to weight limit of a local road. Fire and Building Review Both the Lockport Fire Protection District and the Building Department have reviewed the plans. The Building Department has no comments at this time, however final inspections will need to be completed and an occupancy certificate issued. The Lockport Fire Protection District has provided comments, please see attached Review dated March 22, IV. RECOMMENDED MOTION Should the Commission find the Special Use Permit for a Unique Use/Contractor s Shop with Outdoor Storage of Equipment acceptable, the following motion is recommended: A. A motion to approve a Special Use Permit for a Unique Use/Contractor s Shop with Outdoor Storage of Equipment with the following conditions: 1. The following improvements shall be completed within six (6) months from the date of passage of this Special Use Permit/Unique Use: a. The existing drives are to be resurfaced. b. The existing parking lot shall be resurfaced and striped as shown on the Plat of Survey/Site Plan. c. The existing slats of the chain link fence on Frances Street shall be removed and replaced. d. All landscaping materials located within the existing foundation landscaping beds that are in poor condition, dead, or do not meet the minimum 24-inch height Page 5 of 8

31 requirement shall be replaced with minimum 24 inch high plants and shall be maintained in good condition to include appropriate mulch (natural brown color not dyed). e. The Arborvitae evergreens that are in poor condition or dead within the existing landscape buffer (between the residence to west and the solid wood fence) shall be replaced with similar trees (Arborvitae) and shall be maintained in good condition to include appropriate mulch (natural brown color not dyed). f. The prior special use permit required any damaged areas on the buildings and windows to be repaired. The buildings shall be in good repair and maintained in good condition. 2. The following improvements shall be completed within one (1) year from the date of passage of this Special Use Permit for a Unique Use: a. The gravel outdoor storage lot shall be paved with asphalt or concrete. This was a condition of the prior special use permit. b. The existing fence located around the outdoor storage area is inconsistent in fence height with some sections being in poor repair. An eight (8) foot high fence is a condition of the prior special use permit. The fence located around the outdoor storage area shall be replaced with a solid wood fence (8) feet in height and maintained in good condition. 3. All parking in conjunction with the business shall occur on site and not on Frances Street or Daviess Avenue 4. Activities that create noise, odors, dust, or vibrations shall take place within the enclosed buildings and should occur only between the hours of 8am and 6pm. 5. A sign permit is required for all signage, which is subject the City s Review and shall be in compliance with the City s Sign Code. Signage shall not be illuminated. 6. Any new outdoor lighting or building mounted lighting will require a Photometric Plan and is subject to review and approval by the City. V. ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Site Photographs 2. Plat of Survey/Site Plan 3. Ordinance No# Amending Chapter 70 by adding size weight and load, of the Municipal Code of the City of Lockport, IL 4. Ordinance No# Prior Unique Use Permit for a Landscape Maintenance and Snowplowing Business 5. Recorded Easement 6. Fire District Comments 7. Proposed Fencing Page 6 of 8

32 1 2. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Photos 1 & 2 The subject property facing northwest from Frances Street 3 4 Photo 3 The subject property facing North along Davies Ave. Photo 4 Foundation plantings facing north from Frances Street 5 6 Photo 5 Facing west along Frances Street Photo 6 Facing northeast into outdoor storage area 7 8 Photo 7 Facing north into storage yard Photo 8 Landscape buffer along residential property Page 7 of 8

33 9 10 Photo 9 Residence across from the subject property facing south Photo 10 Facing southeast along Frances Street Photo 11 Residences located across from subject property facing south west Photo 12 Sanitary Treatment Facilty facing west along Frances Street Photo 13 Residences along May Street facing east Photo 14 Residences facing south along Daviess Avenue Photo 15 Residences facing north along Daviess (provides access to Frances) Photo 16 Residences located at the rear of the subject property Page 8 of 8

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47 COPY

48 COPY

49 COPY

50 COPY

51 COPY

52 COPY

53

54

55

56

57

58

59 LOCKPORT TOWNSHIP FIRE DISTRICT Renwick Road Lockport, Illinois Phone: (815) Fax: (815) Date: March 22, 2017 To: Kimberly Phillips, City Planner, Steve Gidley, PE, Consulting Engineer, James J. Benes & Associates, Inc., Keith Rooney, MCP, Building Official, Paul Hertzmann, Deputy Chief-Lockport Township Fire District, Dave Bricker, Division Chief- Homer Fire Protection District. From: George Drobney, Jr., Fire Inspector- Lockport Township Fire District cc: Re: File 103 Frances/Special Use Permit Request to allow a Contractor s Shop with Outdoor Storage of Equipment. After reviewing the data provided by Joe Gallas and the City of Lockport, City Planner, I have the following to offer: The Lockport Township Fire Prevention Bureau has concluded that the aforementioned property will be required to install an NFPA-72 fire alarm system throughout the building (City of Lockport Ordinance: ). The fire alarm system shall provide 100% detection and be monitored by WESCOM; the emergency dispatch center for the Lockport Township Fire District. The building will be required to update to electrically powered exit signs and emergency lighting with battery back-up power of not less than 90 minutes. (NFPA 101: ) If the building is to undergo construction alterations, and the building is greater than 5000 sq/ft, a fire suppression system will be required. (City of Lockport Fire Ordinance: ) Fire extinguishers will be required within 5-feet of exits and where travel distances exceeds 50 feet within the building. (City of Lockport Fire Ordinance) The building will be required to have a Knox Box mounted on the building to house building keys for Fire District access. (City of Lockport Ordinance: 91-1)

60 Travel distance to exits shall not be greater than 200 feet in building without an approved fire suppression system. (NFPA 101: ) Assure that there is a legible, contrasting address provided on the building. (City of Lockport Fire Ordinance). Successfully pass a Lockport Township Fire District, Occupancy Inspection. Proudly Serving City of Crest Hill, City of Lockport, Village of Romeoville and Surrounding Areas 2

61