Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 10/04/2021 - PC Docket 21-6, Text Amendment Special USe I-1 and I-2Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Minutes October 4, 2021 Present: J. Glass S. Carlson F. Geinosky K. Weiner P. Rettberg G. Schumm L. Bacigalupo Absent: R. DeFrenza J. Morrill Staff: J. Polony, Deputy Director of Community Development N. Radcliffe, Senior Management Analyst Petitioner(s): Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Item 1: July 19, 2021 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Geinosky moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 19, 2021. Commissioner Rettberg seconded the motion. Upon voting (Glass, Carlson, Geinosky, Weiner, Rettberg, Schumm AYES, Bacigalupo ABSTAIN), the motion carried 6-0-1. Item 2: PC Docket # 21-6: Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Section 7E-3: Special Uses in the I-1 and I-2 Industrial Districts by adding indoor dog parks and training facilities with ancillary services including boarding and retail sales of merchandise. Chairman Glass read the legal notice into the record and asked the Petitioner to explain their purpose before the Plan Commission. N. Radcliffe stated he is speaking on behalf of the Village of Elk Grove and is presenting a Village initiative that focuses on indoor dog parks and training facilities. N. Radcliffe stated that over the years the Village has been approached multiple times by prospective businesses interested in operating indoor dog parks and/or training facilities within the community. N. Radcliffe stated that this use was discussed as part of Village Staff s work to modernize the Zoning Code. The Village would like to provide a mechanism in the Zoning code to allow this type of use within the Village. 1 N. Radcliffe stated that the proposed use is more conducive to an industrial district. Naperville has an indoor dog park facility located in their industrial district in a single tenant building. Another example is in Lake in the Hills, which has this type of facility in an industrial district in a multi - tenant building. N. Radcliffe stated that the Village proposes to only allow this type of use in single tenant buildings. N. Radcliffe stated that one other example is in Chicago, again located in an industrial district. While it is multi -tenant building, it is located away from residential areas. Commissioner Bacigalupo asked what the Village's position is in regards to allowing this type of use in the retail zoning districts, like y strip malls. N. Radcliffe stated that the Village proposes to limit this use to 1-1 and I-2 Zoning Districts. J. Polony, Deputy Director of Community Development, stated that the proposal would not allow these facilities in any of the retail districts or any other Zoning District. N. Radcliffe stated the retail strip centers in Elk Grove Village are not large enough space to properly run this type of use. Commissioner Bacigalupo asked if the industrial districts are the only option for this use. N. Radcliffe stated that the Village believes this is the best option for the use considering the noise level. He noted that this also it follows what many other communities are doing with this kind of use. Commissioner Bacigalupo stated that there needs to be a bit more flexibility for this use. The stand- alone building might be too strict in this case. Commissioner Bacigalupo asked the reason for the 100 sq. ft. size requirement for the kennels and if there is flexibility with the stand-alone requirement. N. Radcliffe stated that the size requirement was proposed by Village staff. N. Radcliffe stated that in regards to the 100 sq. ft. kennels, the Village felt it would be better to start off large and then make it smaller if requested. In either case, if someone wants to set up an indoor dog park or training facility, they would need to come before the Plan Commission for a Special Use Permit and detail what they need in order to operate. Commissioner Schumm asked how many residents will use this kind of facility and if non- residents would be able to use it. N. Radcliffe stated that the Village does not have any estimates for how many people would use the facility. N. Radcliffe stated that non-residents would be able to bring their dogs there. Commissioner Schumm asked if there would be a fee structure for residents versus non-residents. N. Radcliffe stated that it would be up to the business operating a facility. Commissioner Rettberg asked if there are any particular businesses asking for this type of use. N. Radcliffe stated that there are not any currently, but the Village has been approached multiple times in the past. 2 Commissioner Rettberg asked if there are any buildings currently available to purchase or rent for this kind of use. N. Radcliffe stated that currently the vacancy rate for industrial buildings in the Village is 3.4%, but there are buildings available that could fit this type of use. Commissioner Rettberg asked how the Village determined the capacity for employees and customers and parking stalls. J. Polony stated that traditionally the International Building Code regulates the number of persons for the use that is how the number was calculated. The user can get an agreement for shared parking with an adjacent building if necessary. Commissioner Carlson asked if the Village was looking to allow indoor dog parks and training facilities on the north side of Higgins Road. N. Radcliffe stated that most industrial buildings located in the industrial park would fit this use. Commissioner Carlson asked to clarify that if anyone would want to open one of these facilities, they would need to come through the Plan Commission. N. Radcliffe stated yes because it would require a Special Use Permit. Commissioner Weiner asked in reference to I setback requirement, if the potential facilities are close to residential areas, would these setbacks be less than the proposed dog park that the Plan Commission looked at in 2020. N. Radcliffe stated that with these guidelines in place, any indoor dog park and training facility would not be near residential areas. Most buildings located within the industrial park are not near residential areas. Commissioner Weiner asked in reference to fencing requirements, if a solid fence or wrought iron fence is required. J. Polony stated that it would have to be a solid fence. This is for the sake of noise level. The petitioner could ask for a variance in regards to the type of fence. Commissioner Weiner asked in reference to the overnight inside hour's requirement, if it could be a variance. N. Radcliffe stated that the Village put this in the requirements to ensure there would not be large quantities of dogs being walked outside at night. Commissioner Weiner asked in reference to the boarding requirements, when the text amendment states that multiple dogs from the same household can be kept in the same kennel, is there a restriction on the number of dogs preferred. N. Radcliffe stated that this detail could be figured out during the Special Use Permit review process. Commissioner Geinosky asked if this proposal was made from a template or an example from another community. N. Radcliffe stated that Village staff looked at other communities and their zoning codes. Village staff also spoke with a zoning code consultant about this proposed use. J. Polony stated that research was done on the surrounding communities as well as west coast and east coast communities. J. Polony stated that the Village was able to pick and choose what items fit the Village best. 3 Commissioner Geinosky noted that in reference to the description under location, it only lists buildings located in in I-1, not I-2. J. Polony stated that I-1 is more likely to be located near the residential zoning districts. I-2 properties are typically well over a thousand feet away from residential areas. Commissioner Geinosky asked if there is a need to mention I-2 in the description. J. Polony stated that there is no need to mention it in the description, but the Village can add it to be consistent with the rest of the document. Commissioner Geinosky recommended that I-2 be mentioned in the description to be consistent. Commissioner Geinosky asked in reference to the section regarding Outdoor Dog Areas, will the dogs be running free or on a leash and if so, will they be monitored. N. Radcliffe stated that the dogs will be monitored and it would depend on the petitioner whether the dogs are on or off leash in the outside dog area. Commissioner Geinosky asked in reference to the section regarding screening requirements if fences may be accented by additional landscaping, or is the minimum landscaping in accordance to the normal I-1 and I-2 requirements. J. Polony stated that in I-1 and I-2 there is not a set criteria for landscaping, so it would depend on the petitioner. It would also depend on the orientation of the potential building. Commissioner Geinosky asked in reference to the section regarding Ancillary Services, what other ancillary services could be at this type of facility. N. Radcliffe stated that boarding, retail, and I- on-] dog training rooms would be ancillary to the facility. J. Polony stated that dog washing facilities and a lounge area could also be ancillary to the facility. Commissioner Geinosky asked if this proposed use includes grooming and veterinary services. N. Radcliffe stated that it does. Commissioner Geinosky asked if the facility would have to do anything with signage other than the normal I-1 and I-2 requirements. J. Polony stated no. Debbie Fucheck, a resident at 1446 James Court, Elk Grove Village, stated that this kind of business would be good for the community. D. Fucheck stated that she does a lot of training for her dogs, but has to go to other communities for that service and would like to have one in the Village. Valerie Keeler, an Elk Grove Village resident, stated that she knew that in the past the Village tried to have an outdoor dog park, so something like this would be nice. Irene Morielli, a resident on Hodlmeier Lane, stated that she would love to see something like this in the Village. I. Morielli stated that she does not want to have to take their dog far away for boarding or training 4 Diane Kulack, a resident that resides on Tennessee Ave, stated that she is always looking for a place to bring her dog. Mike Bricuss, a Bloomingdale resident and previous Elk Grove Village resident, stated that he works for Bloomingdale and is following other communities that are currently looking to add these kinds of facilities. M. Bricuss stated that in this time of COVID-19 more people have dogs, so having a facility like this would be good. Commissioner Weiner asked in reference to the daily removal of waste, if there are requirements that the kennels and training areas are hosed down. N. Radcliffe stated that when the petition comes to the Plan Commission, it could be discussed as part of the Special Use Permit. Commissioner Weiner stated that she would rather the language not say daily. Chairman Glass asked why this use would not work in business districts. N. Radcliffe stated that the strip centers may not be large enough. J. Polony stated initial concerns includes the proximity to residential, staying in theme with other uses, there are more potential adverse effects on residential properties than in industrial zones. J. Polony agrees that the retail properties may not be big enough for these facilities. Chairman Glass stated that the 8:00 pm to 7:00 am inside hours are too restrictive. Chairman Glass recommends that the hours should be changed to 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. Chairman Glass asked if someone needs to be on the premises 24/7 when they are not boarding. N. Radcliffe stated that it was not specified in the proposed resolutions. Chairman Glass recommended the language be changed to "an employee will be on the premises whenever dogs are present". Chairman Glass asked how the Village feels about the 40% of area being used are ancillary services and asked what are the other 60% of the property be used for are. J. Polony stated that 60% of the area could be the indoor training facility, taking what is normally an outdoor training area or competition area and bringing it indoors. The other 40% of the property could be used for a lounge area, retail, grooming, and/or boarding. J. Polony stated that the Village is trying to provide the potential user with some flexibility. Commissioner Geinosky stated that there are businesses in the Village where residents can receive those ancillary services like boarding or grooming. Commissioner Geinosky agrees with the Village's proposal and stated that having the ancillary services be more than 40% would completely change the purpose of the business. RECOMMENDATION: Commissioner Schumm moved to recommend approval of the proposed Text Amendment to amend section 7E-3 Special Uses in the I-1 and 1-2 Industrial Districts by adding "indoor dog parks 5 and training facilities with ancillary services including boarding and retail sales of merchandise," with the following changes: • Amend condition regarding the presence of an employee onsite with the following: o An employee must be present at all times when dogs are at the facility • Amend condition regarding overnight boarding hours by replacing it with the following: o Overnight boarding of dogs is limited to 40 dogs. All boarding must take place indoors and animals shall be kept inside between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. • Amend condition regarding location to reference both I-1 and I-2 Zoning districts by replacing section 1 b with the following: o Buildings located in the I-1 and 1-2 Industrial District must be located at least one thousand feet (1000') from any Residential Zoned District. Commissioner Weiner seconds the motion. Upon voting (Glass, Geinosky, Schumm, Rettberg, Carlson, Weiner, Bacigalupo AYES), the motion passed unanimously. Item 3: Adjournment Commissioner Rettberg moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Schumm seconded the motion. Upon voting (Glass, Geinosky, Schumm, Rettberg, Carlson, Weiner, Bacigalupo AYES), the motion passed unanimously. C: Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk Respectfully submitted, Nick Radcliffe, Senior Management Analyst C-1