Agenda Village of Homer Glen PLAN COMMISSION Thursday, April 5, :00 p.m. Village Board Room, W. 151 st Street, Homer Glen

Transcription

1 Agenda Village of Homer Glen PLAN COMMISSION Thursday, April 5, :00 p.m. Village Board Room, W. 151 st Street, Homer Glen 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. Roll Call. 4. Public Comment. 5. Minutes. March 15, Old Business. a) HG-1727-S, PI Tower Development, LLC (Public Hearing): Consideration of a Special Use Permit for a Wireless Communication Facility, 150 in height, in the A-1 Agricultural District [Article 8 (General Provisions) of Chapter 220 of the Code of the Village of Homer Glen], for S. Parker Road, Homer Glen, Illinois. The applicant is requesting any relief necessary to construct the Wireless Communication Facility on the subject property. b) HG-1809-PVA, O Malley Builders, Inc. (Public Meeting): Consider a request for: (1) a Plat of Subdivision; (2) a Map Amendment (rezoning) from A-2 Rural Residential to R3-A Single- family Residential District; and (3) Site Plan with certain Variances for the proposed O Malley Court/Duke Subdivision located at W. Hadley Road, Homer Glen, Illinois. 7. Reports of Plan Commissioners and Staff (includes Old Business). 8. Adjourn. DISABLED: Any individual requiring special accommodations as specified by the Americans with Disabilities Act is requested to notify the Village Clerk of Homer Glen at at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting date. Page 1 of 1

2 Plan Commission Minutes of the Meeting on March 15, 2018 DRAFT Village of Homer Glen W 151 st Street, Homer Glen, IL Community Room

3 Plan Commission Minutes March 15, Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Mitchell. 2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. Roll Call. Members present at 7:00 p.m. were Chairman Don Mitchell, Member Eileen Crement, Member Beth Verdun, Member Kevin O Donnell, and Member Bryan Kozor. Members Absent: Member Braque Backal and Member Lynn McGary. Also Present: Also present were Planning and Zoning Director Vijay Gadde and Assistant Planner Kyle McGinnis. 4. Public Comment. None. 5. Minutes. a) March 1, 2018 Chairman Mitchell stated that the minutes from the March 1, 2018 Plan Commission meeting were being presented for approval. He requested that the last paragraph of item 6(a) state that Case No. HG-1727-S would proceed on Thursday, April 5, 2018 so long as a quorum is present at that meeting. Member Verdun made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 1, 2018 meeting as amended; seconded by Member Crement. The motion passed unanimously. Director of Planning and Zoning Gadde swore in persons in attendance who intended to speak during the meeting s public hearings. 6. New Business. a) HG-1808-S, Founders Crossing Planned Unit Development (Public Hearing): Consideration of a request for: (1) a Special Use Permit for major changes to a Planned Unit Development [ C(1) (Compliance and amendments) of Chapter 220 (Zoning) of the Code of the Village of Homer Glen]; and (2) a Special Use Permit for outdoor seating associated with a permitted restaurant [Attachment 2, Table 2A (Permitted and Special Uses for Nonresidential Districts) of Chapter 220 (Zoning) of the Code of the Village of Homer Glen] for the Founders Crossing Planned Unit Development located at S. Founders Crossing, Homer Glen, Illinois. 2 Page

4 Plan Commission Minutes March 15, 2018 Assistant Planner McGinnis explained that the applicant, JD Founders Crossing, LLC, has proposed major changes to the Founders Crossing PUD, exclusively contained within Lots 1A, 1B and 2. Staff Report: The proposed major changes to the Founders Crossing PUD include an increase in the number of parking spaces from one hundred ninety-seven (197) to two hundred eleven (211) parking spaces, an increase of fourteen (14) parking spaces. Eleven (11) of these new parking spaces will be along the north face of Lot 2 s principal structure, while the remaining three (3) parking spaces will be added to the north of the existing parking row along the PUD s east boundary. In conjunction with the above proposals, the applicant also requested a Special Use Permit in order to expand upon the existing outdoor seating patio associated with Pelican Harry s Sports Bar located at S. Founders Crossing. As discussed previously, the existing outdoor seating area was approved per Ordinance No The applicant has requested that this patio be expanded around the building s northeast corner and westward. This proposed expansion will not eliminate any existing parking, nor will it obstruct the flow of traffic due to the proposed expansion of the existing access drive along Lot 1B s south boundary. Mr. Bill Perry of Watermark Engineering was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Perry stated that Mr. McGinnis did a great job with the explanation of the project. His client just wants to clean-up the area and add more parking. Chairman Mitchell called for a motion to open the public hearing for this zoning case. Member Crement made a motion to open the public hearing; seconded by Member O Donnell. The motion was passed. Chairman Mitchell called for questions or comments from the public. No public comment was made; however, two members of the audience asked to see the area of the PUD impacted by these proposals. Once they saw the area that was affected, they had no comments or questions. Chairman Mitchell called for a motion to close the public hearing for this zoning case. Member Crement made a motion to close the public hearing; seconded by Member Verdun. The motion was passed. Member Verdun asked if the anticipated expansion on the east will connect with the Bank and the drive on the south. Mr. Perry clarified that yes, there will be a connection. Chairman Mitchell asked if Pelican Harry s will be the only business directly affected by the upgrades and where they will be adding any additional doors to the restaurant. Mr. Perry stated that Pelican Harry s is the only business directly affected and that there are no upgrades to the interior planned at this point. The current proposals are just an expansion of the outdoor seating area. Member Crement asked who owns the property that will be used for the additional seating and parking. Mr. Perry stated that it belongs to Founders Crossing but that Pelican Harry s will be purchasing the northern vacant property based on the approval of these expansions. Member Crement asked if the remaining land would be undevelopable following Pelican Harry s purchase of the property. Mr. Perry stated that 3 Page

5 Plan Commission Minutes March 15, 2018 the vacant Lot 1B is only one hundred seventeen (117) feet wide currently and will be ninety-seven (97) feet wide following the proposed improvements. He stated that a ninety-seven (97) foot wide parcel would be unbuildable; however, nothing can be built on a one hundred seventeen (117) foot wide parcel either. Director Gadde stated that the property cannot handle a regular site building in its current state, but that a smaller kiosk-type development may be feasible. Chairman Mitchell stated that he sees only improvements with this proposal and nothing suggested would diminish the safety of the visitors to the area, making the area better overall. Member Verdun made a motion for Case No. HG-1808-S, Founders Crossing, to Consider for Approval a request for: (1) a Special Use Permit for major changes to a Planned Unit Development [ C(1) (Compliance and amendments) of Chapter 220 (Zoning) of the Code of the Village of Homer Glen]; and (2) a Special Use Permit for outdoor seating associated with a permitted restaurant [Attachment 2, Table 2A (Permitted and Special Uses for Nonresidential Districts) of Chapter 220 (Zoning) of the Code of the Village of Homer Glen] for the Founders Crossing Planned Unit Development located at S. Founders Crossing, Homer Glen, Illinois.[JD Founders Crossing, LLC, Case No. HG-1808-S]; seconded by Member O Donnell. Roll call was taken. In favor (5) Member Crement, Verdun, Kozor, O Donnell and Chairman Mitchell. Opposed (0) none. Absent (2) Member McGary and Member Backal. Abstain (0) none. The motion was passed. Chairman Mitchell confirmed that Case No. HG-1808-S would be on the March 28, 2018 Village Board agenda. b) HG-1809-PVA, O Malley Builders, Inc. (Public Hearing): Consider a request for: (1) a Plat of Subdivision; (2) certain Variances; and (3) a Map Amendment (rezoning) from A-2 Rural Residential to R3-A Single- family Residential District for the proposed O Malley Court Subdivision located at W. Hadley Road, Homer Glen, Illinois. Planning and Zoning Director Gadde explained that the applicant, O Malley Builders, Inc., has proposed an 11-lot subdivision as an extension of the Windsor Court Subdivision. The applicant presented a concept plan at the February 1, 2018 Plan Commission meeting. Staff Report: O Malley Court Subdivision plans included a tree survey and a landscape plan, dated February 23, The applicant has requested the approval of a Plat of Subdivision, a rezoning from A-2 Rural Residential to R-3A Single-Family Residential District and modifications and Variances, listed below: a. Reduce the required right of way (ROW) for a local road from 66 to 55 (a modification to the Land Use and Site Development regulations); b. Reduce the required front/corner setbacks from 40 to 30 ; c. Reduce the minimum required lot width from 100 to 76.5 ; and 4 Page

6 Plan Commission Minutes March 15, 2018 d. Reduce the minimum required lot frontage from 90 to Director Gadde stated that staff recommends two conditions be placed on the applicant should approval be granted. They are as follows: a. The applicant is required to submit photometric plans meeting the requirements of the Village s Outdoor Lighting regulations prior to consideration by the Village Board. b. The final plat and engineering plans will be subject to Village Engineer s review and approval. The applicant, Sean O Malley, and his Engineer, Kevin Chaffin, were present to answer any questions or address any comments. Chairman Mitchell asked the applicant to explain why they have requested smaller lots than those found to the east in Windsor Court. Mr. Chaffin explained that because they wanted to save as many trees as possible and the need to provide ample drainage along the west side of the property, they needed to design the site in its current configuration. Mr. O Malley added that the homes on lots 4 through 11 will be designed with walkout basements that look out onto the forested area to the west. All of the homes will be worth at least $600,000, custom built to suit the buyer. Chairman Mitchell stated lots 4 through 11 are all about the same depth as in Windsor Court, so why have they been proposed so narrow? Mr. O Malley explained that the economics of the site would not allow for him to lose two (2) or three (3) lots and still be able to develop the site profitably. They will need to put in a pump station in order to bring the water from the southwest up to where it needs to be and the costs of saving the trees and providing sewer, water and detention to the site has the development in need of these 11 lots in order to move forward and make money. Chairman Mitchell called for a motion to open the public hearing for this zoning case. Member Crement made a motion to open the public hearing; seconded by Member O Donnell. The motion was passed. Chairman Mitchell asked if there were any persons present wishing to speak in regards to this case. Due to the number of people signed up to speak about this case, Chairman Mitchell stated that they should try not to repeat previously stated objections and hold their comments to five (5) minutes or less. Mr. Skiba of S. Windsor Court stated that his home is Lot 19 of the Windsor Court Subdivision. The plan is proposing to turn what is his backyard into a front yard due to the proposed placement of a new road. Moreover, making the proposed walking path public land adds the further complication that anyone can stand at his fence and look into his backyard. He has small children that play in their backyard often and they feel this will be an invasion of privacy. He stated that does not want a road in his backyard. Nicole Donegan of S. Windsor Court owns Lots 14 and 15 of the Windsor Court Subdivision. They (Nicole and her husband) bought the extra lot and consolidated the 5 Page

7 Plan Commission Minutes March 15, 2018 properties into a single parcel. Her fist concern was that they have a one (1) acre lot on a quiet cul-de-sac, but the proposals would bring three (3) smaller lots just to the west of her. The new construction traffic utilizing S. Windsor Court could pose a threat to her children s safety, who play with other children of the subdivision in the street because there are no sidewalks. Mrs. Donegan also stated that there are already lots in Windsor Court that have no homes on them and questioned how long it would take to build out this new subdivision. She believes it could take years for the proposed subdivision to be fully built and sold, and questioned what the quality of the new homes will be in comparison to those found in Windsor Court. Director Gadde explained that there is an example of the types of homes available for review and that the price point for these proposed homes will begin at $600,000. Adam Stefinicik of S. Windsor Court stated that he is also very unhappy with the proposed roadway in his backyard. He owns the home on what is Lot 17 in Windsor Court. He stated that there are too many homes planned for the site and that the lots are too small. He voiced concern for the safety of the children in Windsor Court. He stated that the design of the subdivision makes no sense to him and that it will negatively impact the value of the existing homes in Windsor Court. Mr. Stefinicik felt that the proposed subdivision appears cluttered and is not consistent with the image of Homer Glen. He also voiced concerns as to how long it would take to complete the subdivision provided the number of lots that remain vacant in Windsor Court. Mike Kanoski of S. Windsor Court owns Lot 12 of the Windsor Court subdivision. He wanted to know if there will be a pumping house and, if so, where it will be placed and what will it look like? He also voiced concerns regarding the location of the proposed entrance to the O Malley Court subdivision. The visibility around the entrance to Windsor Court is already quite low, and he worries that another entrance so close by will result in a greater number of traffic accidents in this area. Mike Abuzn of S. Windsor Court stated that if Lots 1, 2 and 3 are only seventysix (76) feet wide and a ten (10) foot easement is needed on each side the property, then the houses will only be able to be fifty-six (56) feet wide at the most. He feels this would be a very small house. Mr. Abuzn sought further information regarding the pumping station and Mr. Chapman stated that the pumping station will be under ground, similar to a sump pump, and will not require any special housing. Mr. Abuzn stated that the issue of safety still remains and that there will be an increase in traffic as well as the depreciation of their home values. Christopher Zalinski of S. Windsor Court stated that everyone else pretty much summed up his concerns. He stated that construction is a lengthy and dirty project. He voiced concerns that although the developer had considered his own financial standing when creating the proposed design for this subdivision, he does not feel the financial impact to the existing homeowners has been considered. He reiterated that Windsor Court already has several vacant lots within the subdivision and that the development of a subdivision to the west would harm their property values. Robert Dunn owns the land to the west of this proposed subdivision, W. Hadley Road. He stated that he believes the proposed density for this subdivision is not consistent with the area. In regards to the drainage on the property, the water already flows quite heavily onto his property and he worries that the addition of impermeable 6 Page

8 Plan Commission Minutes March 15, 2018 surfaces to the area will only amplify this. Chairman Mitchell asked what Mr. Dunn would think of the proposal if the road were to be on the west side rather that the east side. Mr. Dunn stated that he never gave that any real thought. Chairman Mitchell asked if there were any further comments or questions from the public. Hearing none, Chairman Mitchell called for a motion to close the public hearing. Member Crement made a motion to close the public hearing; seconded by Member O Donnell. The motion was passed. Chairman Mitchell asked the applicant to clarify the flow of water at the site and how drainage will be handled. Kevin Chaffin explained that water flows from east to west on this property. Therefore, they have proposed detention on the west side of the property to collect all the water from the asphalt and roof tops, which will then be released at a much slower rate through the detention pond. Member Kozor asked why they do not put the road on the west side of the property. Mr. Chaffin explained that they are making every effort to save as many trees as they can. The site is heavily forested, which they feel is a strong selling point for these property so they would like to maintain that aesthetic. The fees associated with the removal of the trees would be very prohibitive to the development of the site. In addition, the property drops off significantly in the property s southwest corner, at least a ten (10) foot change in grade. This would require that they build the road at least ten (10) feet in the air. They feel it would look unsightly and the detention area would be significantly affected. Member O Donnell suggested that they put the sidewalk on the west side of the proposed street and bulk up the screening along the backyards of the existing homes in Windsor Court. Mr. Chaffin said they originally had the narrow property to the east of the road as a private parcel so that it would be the responsibility of the HOA to maintain it, but staff had asked them to make it part of the public right-of-way. They certainly could move the sidewalk and the only traffic that would be increased in the Windsor Court subdivision would possibly be from Lots 1, 2 and 3. Member Crement asked if they could close off S. Windsor Court at Lot 15 to any and all construction traffic during the development process. Mr. Chaffin stated that they can forbid construction traffic from using S. Windsor Court entirely. Mr. O Malley stated that he expects about a two (2) year build-out time frame and that he would agree to prevent any of his construction traffic from using S. Windsor Court. Member Kozor asked about the landscape buffer. Mr. Chaffin stated that they plan on a fifteen (15) foot buffer of landscaping along the proposed road s east side. Member Crement asked if the Fire Department had reviewed this plan and whether they would be able to get a fire truck down to Lots 1 and 15. Member O Donnell stated that all the Fire Department would need is the standard width of a street and these streets are proposed to be standard width. He added that he would like to see the sidewalk put on the west of the street with a twenty (20) foot berm in between the road and the backyards of the existing homes. Mr. Chapman stated that they will move the sidewalk and provide the requested landscape buffer; however, he understands that berms are now frowned upon. 7 Page

9 Plan Commission Minutes March 15, 2018 Member O Donnell also stated that the two street egresses are too close together and will be a traffic hazard. Member Verdun asked if it is possible to send this back to the engineers for further review considering the proposed changes. She would like to see the site plan with landscape screening, making the area along the existing homes private property and moving the sidewalk to the other side of the street. Chairman Mitchell stated he would like to make those recommendations but not delay this item. He stated he would like to send it on to the Village Board. Member Crement would like to see the changes before voting. Member O Donnell would also like to see the changes. Member O Donnell made a motion for Case No. HG-1809-PVA, O Malley Subdivision, to be tabled until April 5, 2018 in order for the changes to be made and to allow for the Plan Commissioners to review the landscape plans; seconded by Member Crement. Roll call was taken. In favor (5) Members Crement, Verdun, Kozor, O Donnell and Chairman Mitchell. Opposed (0) none. Absent (2) Member McGary and Member Backal. Abstain (0) none. The motion was passed. Mr. O Malley will return on April 5, 2018 with changes to his subdivision plan for the Commission to review. c) HG-1810-A, Zoning Code Text Amendments (Public Hearing): Consider a request for Text Amendments to the Use and Bulk Tables for Nonresidential Districts [Table 2 of Chapter 220 (Zoning) of the Code of the Village of Homer Glen]. Director Gadde explained that the purpose of this agenda item is to review the regulations for uses in nonresidential zoning districts included in Table 2A Permitted and Special Uses and to make recommendations regarding updates to these requirements. This was reviewed by the Community and Economic Development Committee at the January 9, 2018 and February 13, 2018 meetings and is now ready for the public hearing process. Staff Report: Director Gadde explained that the land uses in Table 2A have been previously organized alphabetically. This is useful for singular reference, but is not the best practice for analyzing zoning cases involving several similar land uses. Staff reorganized the list by grouping similar land uses categorically, as listed in Attachment 1. Staff used the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as one of the references for creating these broad categories. During this process, staff noticed that some of the uses listed in the current Code are randomly specific. Staff added additional uses to make the list more inclusive and consistent. Off track betting is one of the new uses recommended for addition to the use table. Based on the direction given by the CED Committee, staff drafted the following standards to be added as a new section ( ) in the Zoning Regulations: 8 Page

10 Plan Commission Minutes March 15, 2018 Except as otherwise regulated pursuant to the terms and conditions of a special use permit, the following regulations shall apply to all off track betting establishments associated with a permitted restaurant: A. The special use permit shall only be available for premises meeting the definition of restaurant as defined in of the existing video gaming regulations. RESTAURANT Any place kept, used, maintained, advertised, and held out to the public as a place where meals are cooked and prepared in an adequate and sanitary kitchen located on the licensed premises using stoves, ovens, fryers, and related equipment located on the licensed premises and which are protected by a fire protection system that conforms with the Village Code. The sale of packaged food such as potato chips, pretzels, popcorn, peanuts, or other similar snacks or frozen or premade foods such as pizzas, hamburgers, or sandwiches which can be prepared by heating or warming in an oven shall not be considered food prepared and served on premises, as required herein. B. The restaurant shall contain a minimum area of 1,500 square feet. The off track betting establishment shall contain additional floor area beyond the space used for restaurant purposes. A follow-up initiative of this update is to allow Annico Business Park a more diversified set of uses to and fully designate it as an I-1 Light Industrial Park. Annico Business Park has been home to a variety of commercial and light industrialtype businesses. In some cases, new businesses must seek a special use permit, requiring additional time and expense to go through the zoning process. Recognizing the uniqueness of this park, and the fact that the 2005 Comprehensive Plan designated this area as a Business Park, staff will be recommending, as a follow-up to these amendments, to rezone the entire park to I-1 Industrial. As a part of the current recommended changes, staff included relevant commercial uses in the I-1 district to make this park a hub for thriving commercial and light industrial businesses. Chairman Mitchell called for a motion to open the public hearing for this zoning case. Member O Donnell made a motion to open the public hearing; seconded by Member Verdun. The motion was passed. There was no one present to make public comment so Chairman Mitchell called for a motion to close the public hearing for this zoning case. Member O Donnell made a motion to close the public hearing; seconded by Member Verdun. The motion was passed. Chairman Mitchell commented that the changes suggested are very clean and well organized. He had no trouble following what was being changed or why. He thought staff did a great job. A motion adopt staff s findings as the findings of the Plan Commission and to recommend approval of text amendments to the Use and Bulk Tables for Nonresidential Districts [Table 2 of Chapter 220 (Zoning) of the Code of the Village of Homer Glen]. [Village of Homer Glen, Case No. HG-1810-A] was made by Member O Donnell, 9 Page

11 Plan Commission Minutes March 15, 2018 seconded by Member Kozor. Roll call was taken. In favor (5) Members Crement, Verdun, Kozor, O Donnell and Chairman Mitchell. Opposed (0) none. Absent (2) Member McGary and Member Backal. Abstain (0) none. The motion was passed. 7. Reports of Plan Commissioners and Staff (includes Old Business). Chairman Mitchell explained that the Mayor wanted him to inform the Commissioners that tabling an item until such time that a larger number of Commissioners are present is not allowed. If there is a quorum present, the case needs to be dealt with at that time. Chairman Mitchell called for reports on behalf of the Commissioners present. No Commissioners present had reports to give. Planning and Zoning Director Gadde reported that two items are on the next agenda. The first is the cell tower case, which was last brought before the Plan Commission on March 1, The second is a Variance request for the property at S. Jessica Lane, a matter regarding a legal non-conforming lot. In addition, a Plan Commission training session will be held on Saturday, April 7, 2018 in Joliet. 8. Adjournment. Motion by Member Verdun, seconded by Member O Donnell to adjourn. The motion was passed. The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Candace Rose Chairman Mitchell: Approved (Date): 10 Page

12 HOMER GLEN PLAN COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To: From: Chairman and Members of the Homer Glen Plan Commission Vijay Gadde, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning Meeting Date: April 5, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 6.a Subject: PI Tower Development LLC, Case No. HG-1727-S Item Title: Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit for a Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), 150 in height, in the A-1 Agricultural District [Article 8 (General Provisions) of Chapter 220 of the Code of the Village of Homer Glen], for S. Parker Road, Homer Glen, Illinois [PI Tower Development LLC, Case No. HG S]. Property Information Location: S. Parker Road (see Attachment 1) Property Size: Existing Zoning/Use: 10 acres A-1 Agricultural / Agricultural Adjacent Zoning/Use: N: A-1 Agricultural / Agricultural E: ComEd ROW S: A-1 / R-1 / R-2 (Agricultural & Single Family) W: R-1 / Single-family Residential Background Following the public hearing held on December 7, 2017, the Plan Commission voted 5-1 to deny staff s recommended findings as the findings of the Plan Commission, and to recommend to the Village Board denial of a Special Use Permit for a Wireless Communication Facility, 150 in height, in the A-1 Agricultural District for S. Parker Road. Four members of the public spoke against the request, citing the following concerns: The impact on property taxes; Its visual impact; Implications for the future; Potential Radio Frequency (RF) emission health concerns; That the FCC ruling on RF emissions is arbitrary; That the subject property may not meet the minimum lot area; That Verizon s existing service is already adequate; and That the tower is too close to surrounding properties. Page 1 of 10

13 Since the December 7, 2017 Plan Commission meeting, the applicant has been working to provide evidence that the alternate sites would not provide consistent and seamless coverage to fully justify the need for the tower at the proposed location. In addition, the Village s public safety entities weren t aware of this zoning application until after the December 7, 2017 Plan Commission meeting. These agencies covering the Village area have potential gaps in coverage near the subject property. Please see the attached letters (Attachment 4) from the Homer Glen area Fire Protection Districts and Will County Sheriff s Office. The Village s EMA Coordinator also indicated the need for additional wireless coverage in the area to help first responders in emergencies. The Village Board, on January 24, 2018, referred this case back to the Plan Commission to ensure the Plan Commission s recommendation is based on substantial and complete evidence. The Village s Environment Committee, at its February 6, 2018 meeting, recommended the proposed Wireless Communication Facility be relocated to an area that is less damaging to the local environment and that any alternate location be reviewed by the Environment Committee prior to Village Board consideration. The applicant was advised to address the questions and concerns that came up at the January 24, 2018 Village Board meeting including the following: Exhaustive search for alternate sites; Exact radius covered by the proposed tower; Unsightly/visual impairment; and Ultimate buildout on the subject property. The applicant was asked to document the search for alternate sites was exhaustive. Staff inquired about the following Fire District property located off of W. Chicago-Bloomington Trail. The applicant noted he reviewed the parcel along with many other private owner parcels in the far southwest region of the ring in unincorporated Will County. The Fire District parcel did not Page 2 of 10

14 make the initial short list due to being located in a recognized area of potential environmental risk related to the nearby creek, potential wetland vegetation and flood zone. The applicant stated he will speak of the coverage for proposed tower at the Plan Commission meeting, but no exact radius is available due to geographic conditions. The applicant agreed to provide information on alternative site searches. As for unsightly/visual impairment, the applicant stated the tower will be well hidden due to the surrounding tree coverage. Staff recommends the applicant should use neutral colors such as light grey, green or tan to make the monopole less prominent. The applicant further noted there is a tall ComEd tower located about 300 east of proposed location. Please see that attached PowerPoint Presentation (Attachment 3) to be presented by the applicant at the hearing. Since the March 1, 2018 plan commission meeting, the Village has retained Stu Chapman of Municipal Services Associates, Inc. to review the zoning application and the propagation maps. As part of this analysis, the Village has requested the applicant to provide the following information. Verify the effective radiated power that Verizon anticipates from the subject property would be substantially beneath the level that triggers FCC regulations. Substantiate the accuracy of the propagation maps by providing the decibel levels that determines whether the cell tower would provide reliable or unreliable in-residence, invehicle, and on-street coverage. Conformance with Zoning Regulations Previously Presented (For Your Reference) Plans Reviewed: Messenger Woods Site Plans prepared by Terra Consulting Group, LTD, dated 9/13/17. In addition to complying with the following general performance standards of (E), the special use application needs to comply with the standards for special use permits, listed in Attachment 2. Height: The subject parcel is used as a farm for various animals, with a residence situated near the center of parcel. The location of the proposed facility is near the back of the property within the trees, which will screen the facility from surrounding properties. The proposed facility will consist of a 148 tall monopole tower located within a 100 x 100 leased area to enclose the ground equipment. The top of the lightning rod will be 150 above ground. The facility is designed to lease space to three (3) additional carriers. Access to the proposed facility will be via the existing gravel access drive off of S. Parker Road and will not have any material impact on traffic, parking or storm water control. Setbacks: The proposed facility will meet all applicable setbacks and use standards outlined in the Zoning Code. The tower is located 240 from the north property line and 168 from the south property line, which is greater than the height of the tower (150 ). Other residential district boundaries are located 761 west and 322 east of the proposed tower location. Signage: Except as otherwise required or permitted by the FCC, the proposed WCF will only have the name of the owner or operator of the WCF, its address and emergency contact information, not exceeding four square feet. Ingress and Egress: The proposed facility will be unstaffed and, upon completion, will require infrequent maintenance visits (approximately once a month) by a service technician. Page 3 of 10

15 Conformance with other Code Standards Exterior Construction Standards (Chapter 75, Article II): The Exterior Construction Standards do not apply as there are no accessory structures exceeding 222 square feet in the leased area. Lighting (Chapter 75, Article II): The Lighting regulations do not apply to this project as the applicant is not proposing any new outdoor lighting. Per the FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation document, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. Conservation Design (Chapter 107, Article IV): The Conservation Design regulations do not apply to this project because there is no residential subdivision proposed. Tree Preservation (Chapter 107, Article III): A tree survey and preservation plan would be required with the building permit if the applicant proposes to disturb any significant or protected trees. The leased area shall be fully screened with landscape materials. The applicant noted the wooded property will provide adequate screening for the facility and tower. Subdivision & Stormwater (Chapter 138, Article I): The Subdivision regulations do apply to this request and the Village s engineering staff will review the grading plan for the leased area. The Water Resource Management regulations do apply to this request and the Village s engineering staff will review the grading plan. Park Donation (Chapter 138, Article II): The Park Donation regulations do not apply to this request because there is no residential subdivision proposed. Conformance with Adopted Plans Comprehensive Land Use Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Single-Family Estate Residential. Transportation Plan: The applicant is not proposing any changes to the ingress and egress from S. Parker Road. Findings of Fact Section D of the Code of the Village of Homer Glen states the required standards for making findings of fact for a variance. The Code requires that the Plan Commissioners consider these standards in making its finding and determining a recommendation to send to the Village Board. Motion for Consideration Is there a motion to adopt staff s findings as the findings of the Plan Commission and to recommend (approval with the following conditions / denial) of a Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), 150 in height, in the A-1 Agricultural District [Article 8 (General Provisions) of Chapter 220 of the Code of the Village of Homer Glen], for S. Parker Road, Homer Glen, Illinois. Page 4 of 10

16 Conditions, if approval is recommended: The applicant should verify the effective radiated power that Verizon anticipates from the subject property would be substantially beneath the level that triggers FCC regulations. The applicant should substantiate the accuracy of the propagation maps by providing the decibel levels that determines whether the cell tower would provide reliable or unreliable in-residence, in-vehicle, and on-street coverage. Except as otherwise required or permitted by the FCC, the proposed WCF will only have the name of the owner or operator of the WCF, its address and emergency contact information, not exceeding four square feet. A tree survey and preservation plan would be required prior to Village Board consideration, if the applicant proposes to disturb any significant or protected trees. The leased area shall be fully screened. The applicant should use neutral colors such as light grey, green or tan to make the monopole less prominent. Please note if all of the zoning requirements are met, denial is only appropriate if the Village can cite to substantial evidence on the record in support of denial. Attachments 1. Proposed Location 2. Staff-Suggested Findings of Fact 3. Proposed Wireless Telecommunication Facility Presentation by the applicant 4. Letters from the Homer Area Fire Protection Districts and Will County Sheriff s Office. Page 5 of 10

17 Attachment S. Parker Road Proposed Location Site Development Area Page 6 of 10

18 Photo Simulation from S. Parker Road Prepared by the applicant Page 7 of 10

19 Attachment 2: Staff-Suggested Findings of Fact Standards for Special Use Permit Section D of the Code of the Village of Homer Glen states the required standards for making findings of fact for a special use (and any amendments thereto). The following are the categories with staff s suggested findings (in italics): 1. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to, or endanger, the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. Wireless technology provides convenient, reliable, every day communications to its users in your community and does not interfere with any other form of communication, whether public or private. Importantly, wireless technology affords vital communications in emergency situations and will commonly be used by local residents and emergency personnel to protect the general public s health, safety and welfare. Additional commercial wireless service and improved communications will benefit the health, safety and welfare of the public. 2. The proposed use at the proposed location will not have an undue or substantial adverse effect, above and beyond that inherently associated with such use, irrespective of the location in the particular zoning district, upon adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, or other matters affecting the public health, safety and welfare of the community. Wireless technology affords vital communications in emergency situations and will commonly be used by local residents and emergency personnel to protect the general public s health, safety and welfare of the community. Therefore, the proposed WCF at the proposed location will not have an undue or substantial adverse effect on adjacent property, character of the neighborhood, or other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the community, above and beyond that inherently associated with such use. 3. That the special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The applicant was asked to provide evidence that the special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties, nor substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed use at the particular location is desirable to provide a service or facility in the interest of public convenience and the gain to the public and all or a part of the community exceeds the hardship imposed upon the property owner. Page 8 of 10

20 The proposed facility will provide the necessary additional coverage needs for Verizon Wireless customers within this area of the Village of Homer Glen, which provides a service and facility in the interest of public convenience. 5. The proposed use is generally suitable for the particular zoning district and will not adversely affect development of adjacent properties in accord with the applicable district regulations. The proposed WCF is located on non-residentially zoned property (Agricultural), and the fact that there are no suitable existing towers, structures, building structures, or property owned by a unit of government within Verizon s search area, the WCF is proposed on the next best location as outlined in Section E(5), Chapter of the Village Code regarding Zoning General Provisions for Wireless Communications Facilities. 6. That the establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The proposed facility is in the southeastern portion of the property. Due to the fact that most of the property is wooded, the proposed facility will be located in a wooded section with numerous trees surrounding it. The proposed facility will be located approximately 50 foot south of an existing horse stable barn. The nearest single family residential structure (other than subject parcel) to the south is 315 feet, 900 feet to the west, 509 feet to the north, and 1,056 feet to the southeast. The property has a 250 foot wide Commonwealth Edison right of way to the east, running north and south, that's utilized for electric transmission where high voltage utility lines are routed above ground on steel lattice towers that are approximately 130 feet tall. The wooded property will provide adequate screening for the facility and tower. The attached RF maps show the need for the site to ensure seamless wireless coverage, and knowing there are no existing structures to collocate on, the subject property was chosen by the applicant. The proposed towner will also offer collocation opportunities to additional carriers if needed. 7. That the exterior architectural appeal and functional plan of any proposed structure will not be so at variance with either the exterior architectural appeal and functional plan of the structures already constructed, or in the course of construction in the immediate neighborhood or the character of the applicable district, as to cause a substantial depreciation in the property values within the neighborhood. As the proposed WCF is located within a wooded portion on the subject parcel, and virtually unnoticeable from neighbors and visitors to this area of the community, the exterior architectural appeal and functional plan of the proposed structure will not be at variance with the exterior architectural appeal and functional plan of the structures already constructed, as there aren t any except existing Commonwealth Edison electric transmission towers located east of subject parcel. The applicant noted they have been sensitive in selecting a site that will minimize the impact on the surrounding property. The proposed WCF will be compatible with the existing environment for the purposes already permitted and not alter the essential character of the agricultural parcel Page 9 of 10

21 itself. The proposed WCF installation will not have an adverse impact or cause a substantial depreciation in the property values within the neighborhood. 8. That the adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Utilities and access road are being provided. No drainage, sanitation, refuse removal, parks, library or school services will be necessary for this facility. This site is entirely self-monitored and connects directly to a central office where computers alert personnel to any equipment malfunction or breach of security. Existing police and fire protection are more than adequate to provide security for this facility. Wireless communications technology provides vital communications in 911 and other emergency situations and is used to promote efficient and effective personal, business and governmental communications. These services have become established and accepted as an integral part of the nation s communications infrastructure and promote the public health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare. 9. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The site will be unstaffed and upon completion of construction, maintenance personnel will visit the site approximately once a month. Accordingly, there will be no impact to the existing traffic patterns nor will there be any traffic hazards or nuisances generated. 10. The proposed use has been considered in relation to the location, goals and objectives of the Village s Comprehensive Plan and is in general accord with the guidelines of the plan. The proposed use has been considered in relation to the location, goals and objectives of the Village's Comprehensive Plan. This type of proposed installation is in line with the zoning code in meeting the demands for wireless communications while also maintaining the aesthetics and integrity of the community. Page 10 of 10

22 HOMER GLEN PLAN COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To: From: Chairman and Members of the Homer Glen Plan Commission Vijay Gadde, Director of Planning & Zoning Meeting Date: April 5, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 6.b Subject: Duke (O Malley Court) Subdivision, HG-1809-PVA Item Title: Consider a request for: (1) a Plat of Subdivision; (2) a Map Amendment (rezoning) from A-2 Rural Residential to R3-A Single- family Residential District; and (3) Site Plan with certain Variances for the proposed Duke Subdivision located at W. Hadley Road, Homer Glen, Illinois. Property Information Location: Hadley Road (Attachment 1) Property Size: Existing Zoning/Use: 6.99 acres A-2 Rural Residential / Single-family Home Adjacent Zoning/Use: N: R-2 Single-family Residential / Single-family Homes E: R-3 Single-family Residential / Single-family Homes S: A-1 Agricultural / Single-family Home W: A-2 Rural Residential / Vacant Background The applicant, O Malley Builders, Inc., is proposing an 11-lot subdivision as an extension of the Windsor Court Subdivision as depicted on the attached plat of subdivision (Attachment 2). The applicant presented a concept plan at the February 1 st Plan Commission meeting, followed by a public hearing on March 15, Following the public hearing, the Plan Commission directed the applicant revise the streetscape plan indicating a landscaping strip behind the existing homes in the Windsor Court Subdivision and relocate the sidewalk to the west side of the proposed street. Conformance with Zoning Regulations Plans Reviewed: Revised Duke Subdivision plans including a preliminary and final plat of subdivision, and revised streetscape plan dated March 22, The applicant is requesting approval of (1) a Plat of Subdivision; (2) a Map Amendment (rezoning) from A-2 Rural Residential to R3-A Single- family Residential District; and (3) Site Plan with certain Variances listed below for the proposed Duke Subdivision Page 1 of 7

23 Plat of Subdivision; (2) Rezoning from A-2 Rural Residential to R3-A Single-Family Residential District; and (3) Modifications and Variances, listed below see Attachment 2 for site information): a. Reduce the required right of way (ROW) for a local road from 66 to 50 (a modification to the Land Use and Site Development regulations); b. Reduce the required front/corner setbacks from 40 to 30 ; c. Reduce the minimum required lot width from 100 to 76.5 ; and d. Reduce the minimum required lot frontage from 90 to Conformance with other Code Standards Exterior Construction Standards (Chapter 75, Article II): The Exterior Construction Standards apply to this request as the applicant is proposing a new single family subdivision. Pictures depicting the homes built by O Malley Builders in the Glenview Walk Subdivision were presented at the February 1 st Plan Commission meeting. Lighting (Chapter 75, Article II): The Lighting regulations apply to this request as the applicant is proposing decorative lights as a part of the streets aping. The applicant agreed to comply with the Village s Outdoor Lighting regulations. Conservation Design (Chapter 107, Article IV): The Conservation Design regulations do not apply to this request as the residential subdivision is under 10 acres. Tree Preservation (Chapter 107, Article III): The Tree Preservation regulations apply to this request as the applicant is requesting the approval of a plat of subdivision. The Village Arborist reviewed the tree survey and concluded the applicant is not required to provide any reforestation as he is not removing more than 50% of significant trees. Subdivision & Stormwater (Chapter 138, Article I): The Land Use and Site Development regulations apply to this request as the applicant is requesting the approval of a plat of subdivision. The final plat will be subject to Village Engineer s review and approval prior to recording. Park Donation (Chapter 138, Article II): The Park Donation regulations apply to this request as the subject property is planned for a residential subdivision. Conformance with Adopted Plans Comprehensive Land Use Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject properties as Single-family Rural. Transportation Plan: The applicant is proposing a new entrance from W. Hadley Road, in addition to connecting to Windsor Court. Findings of Fact Section D of the Code of the Village of Homer Glen states the required standards for making findings of fact for a Special Use Permit. The Code requires that the Plan Commissioners Page 2 of 7

24 consider these standards in making its finding and determining a recommendation to send to the Village Board. Motion for Consideration Is there a motion to recommend (approval / approval with conditions / denial) of (1) a Plat of Subdivision; (2) a Map Amendment (rezoning) from A-2 Rural Residential to R3-A Single- family Residential District; and (3) Site Plan with certain Variances listed below for the proposed Duke Subdivision. Modifications and Variances: a. Reduce the required right of way (ROW) for a local road from 66 to 50 (a modification to the Land Use and Site Development regulations); b. Reduce the required front/corner setbacks from 40 to 30 ; c. Reduce the minimum required lot width from 100 to 76.5 ; and d. Reduce the minimum required lot frontage from 90 to Conditions: 1. The applicant is required to submit photometric plans meeting the requirements of the Village s Outdoor Lighting regulations prior to consideration by the Village Board. 2. The final plat and engineering plans will be subject to Village Engineer s review and approval. Attachments 1. Aerial Map of Hadley Road 2. Preliminary and Final Plat of Subdivision 3. Staff-Suggested Findings of Fact Page 3 of 7

25 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 7

26 Attachment 2 Proposed Subdivision Plat Page 5 of 7

27 Attachment 3 Staff-Suggested Findings of Fact Standards for Map Amendments Chapter D of the Code of the Village of Homer Glen lists the standards by which the Plan Commission shall make the findings of fact. The following are categories with staff s recommended findings in italics: 1. Existing uses of property within the general area of the property in question. The existing uses within the general area of the property in question are rural residential on the subject property and single-family residences to the north, south and west. 2. The zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question. The subject property is zoned A-2 Rural Residential with a single-family home. The adjacent zoning and uses are summarized below: N: R-2 Single-family Residential / Single-family Homes E: R-3 Single-family Residential / Single-family Homes S: A-1 Agricultural / Single-family Home W: A-2 Rural Residential / Vacant 3. The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing zoning classification. The property will continue to be used for residential purposes. 4. The trend of development, if any, in the general area of the property in question, including changes, if any, which have taken place in its present zoning classification. There has been limited new development in the general area of the subject property. 5. The change in zoning is in conformance with the comprehensive plan of the Village and its official map. The subject property is designated as Single-Family Rural in the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The length of time the property has been vacant as zoned, considered in context of the land development in the area surrounding the subject property. The subject property is not vacant. 7. The extent to which property values are diminished by particular zoning restrictions. It is not expected that property values will be diminished as the property will be developed into a new subdivision. Page 6 of 7

28

29