Loading...
2008-10-15 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 10/15/2008 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION October 15, 2008 AMBER MUSIC & DANCE STUDIO 366 Lexington Drive Buffalo Grove Commerce Center Chairman Ottenheimer called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Chairman Ottenheimer read the Notice of Public Hearing as published in the Buffalo Grove Daily Herald, explained the procedure to be followed for the public hearing, and swore in all persons who wished to give testimony. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Ms. Myer Mr. Weinstein Commissioners absent: Mr. Khan Also present: Ms. Vaida Indriliunas Mr. Frank Schwab Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit 1: Memo from Mr. Pfeil to the Plan Commission dated October 10, 2008 Mr. Schwab stated they represent the ownership at 366 Lexington Drive and noted they have previously turned down other requests that would have required a special use because it did not fit with the building, the other tenancies or the requirements they have for further leasing and ownership of the premises. This request was not turned away because the hours not only do not impose a burden but there is no one there typically in the evening hours. They have one to two people working late occasionally and they have ample parking for the use. There are 74 total spaces and they have a driveway situation that has dual drive where access can be had from either south or north. This makes for easy drop off and move out. Evening occupation is very low and the entire industrial complex is pretty empty. The same applies to the weekends. Mr. Schwab stated they believe the use is appropriate because they clearly do not want to hurt themselves in the future with respect to the operation of the building but it clearly serves a purpose and meets their needs as well. Mr. Schwab stated he reviewed the special use requirements and believes they meet all those requirements. Chairman Ottenheimer stated the Commission would need some testimony about each of those criteria before the presentation is done. Ms. Vaida Indriliunas stated she has been a dance teacher and choreographer for more than 10 years. She stated she has been working in Wheeling and Buffalo Grove and she would now like to provide the community with an ultimate dance school. She stated she would like to build a family friendly facility to accommodate students and parents alike. Ms. Indriliunas stated she has been renting studio space elsewhere and lately the number of students has increased which is why she wants to open her own studio. She stated the location if very convenient and many students come from this area. Ms. Indriliunas stated classes will be taught from Monday through Saturday. The hours are Monday through Friday from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Most of the time the classes actually start at 6:00 p.m. and perhaps one or two classes at 5:00 p.m. This will not interfere with any other businesses in the building. She stated she anticipates approximately 15-30 students every day. Students will range in age from 4 years to adults. They are expecting to have 2-4 teachers in the studio. All classes will be taught by her or other experienced teachers. She noted they will have at most 3 classes going on at the same time. All recitals and competitions will be held in rented theaters. Ms. Indriliunas stated a dance studio only requires basically empty space, a few mirrors and the walls. There will be no food served. Commissioner Stark asked what kind of businesses comprise the tenants in the building. Mr. Schwab stated they range from Marshall's Supply which is a salon redistribution company, an educational wing of the Jewish educational committee, a mason contractor who is out during the day and has two people in the office, a tool and die sales and distribution company with two people working there, and a video and music firm office. Commissioner Stark asked for verification that roughly 60 percent of the parking is used at one time. Mr. Schwab stated that was the peak at his count. Commissioner Myer asked if any external safety factors or additional lighting might be necessary for this business which will be running at night. Mr. Schwab stated their lighting if fairly adequate and have not had any complaints from any people working late. They have the same concerns and they feel that the younger age children will be dropped off by parents and you can literally pull up to the front door. Ms. Indriliunas stated that most of the time they greet the children at the door and little children are usually escorted by parents. Commissioner Cohn asked if there would be recitals at the facility. Ms. Indriliunas stated no because the space would be too small to invite parents and friends. Most of the time they rent a theater or a high school. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if other businesses operate on weekends there. Mr. Schwab stated they have a dry cleaner that has a dry cleaning facility that does have off hours and would be operating on the weekends. The Marshall salon has days where they have Saturday morning hours. Those are the only two he knows of that have weekend hours. Chairman Ottenheimer asked the petitioner to go through each of the criteria of the special uses and explain why and how this proposal satisfies those. Mr. Schwab noted they have addressed item number one. Chairman Ottenheimer agreed that it had been addressed. He further stated item was also answered as to location and size of the special use and the nature and intensity of the operation involved which will be in harmony and appropriate with the other developments. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and noted this had also been addressed. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the nature, location and size of the buildings and structures involved with the establishment will not impede, substantially hinder or discourage development. He stated he is not sure that is applicable here. Chairman Ottenheimer stated the fifth criteria states adequate utilities, access road, drainage, etc. have been or will be provided. He also noted this is not an issue here. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the sixth criteria is that parking areas will be of adequate size for the particular special use. He noted the petitioner had testified that there is enough parking spaces. Chairman Ottenheimer asked how many cars approximately will be there on a typical evening as there appears to be a potential for 90 people. Mr. Schwab stated there will be a total of 30 people in three classes. He stated they had the same concern. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 10/15/2008 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION October 15, 2008 Amber Music & Dance, 366 Lexington Drive— Special Use In the Industrial District Waterbury Place subdivision—Amendment of Planned Unit Development concerning row home and townhome buildings Along Apple Hill Lane Berenesa Plaza Subdivision, Deerfield Parkway/Milwaukee Avenue— Final Plat Discussion of Village Comprehensive Plan Update Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Ms. Myer Mr. Weinstein Commissioners absent: Mr. Khan Also present: Ms. Vaida Indriliunas, Amber Music & Dance Mr. Frank Schwab Mr. Steve Spinell, Edward James Homes Mr. Brad Bacilek, Edward James homes Mr. Scott Freres, Lakota Group, Inc. Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Weinstein to approve the minutes of the public hearing of September 3, 2008. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Bocek, Teplinsky, and Stark abstaining. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Weinstein to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 3, 2008. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Bocek, Teplinsky and Stark abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Bocek attended the Village Board meeting on October 6, 2008. She stated there was nothing on the agenda pertinent for the Plan Commission. There was a study done regarding flooding in certain parts of the Village which is posted on the web site and might be interesting Plan Commission members to see. Commissioner Smith attended the Village Board meeting on September 22, 2008 and the two items on the agenda tonight were on that board meeting agenda. AMBER MUSIC & DANCE, 366 LEXINGTON DRIVE — SPECIAL USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval to the Village Board of the petition for approval of a Special Use for a recreation facility in the Industrial District for the purpose of operating a music and dance studio at 366 Lexington Drive. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Bocek, Teplinsky, Stark, Cohn, Myer, Weinstein, Ottenheimer NAYS:None ABSENT: Khan ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 8 to 0. WATERBURY PLACE — PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCERNING ROWHOME AND TOWNHOME BUILDINGS ON APPLE HILL DRIVE Mr. Steve Spinell stated they have come to ask for a modification to the site plan as well as permission to substitute product in the last phase up against the railroad tracks. Mr. Spinell noted they are turning product and selling inventory and they are at 13 units that are not yet closed or built. By spring they hope to move those units. He stated as of now they have a bunch of townhomes that are three story products up against the railroad tracks and the row homes are in the center area of the site plan. They would like to have the flexibility of the last four buildings toward the south end of the project to put either a row home or townhome building in. The row home building has the garage in back of them which gives that much more buffer from the railroad tracks and has 2-story living versus the 3-story townhomes which limits the market. They are looking for the flexibility to put in one or the other as they continue marketing and selling inventory. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if three might be row homes and one would be a townhome. Mr. Spinell stated it would be either one row homes or two and two. He stated he feels they will most likely be row homes. He noted they are in the midst of rebidding the row homes and potentially changing specifications on the inside of the units where there might be some cost savings. Mr. Scott Freres reviewed the four buildings on the southern portion of the property. He stated their goal is the setback from the rear is maintained but what they really need in terms of the flexibility they need to make this happen is a front yard relaxation in front yard setback. Currently they are 25 feet off of the street right of way line and they are asking for a 10 foot front yard setback. This may sound like a substantial departure but in reality if you look further north on the site along the tuck under and town home products there are instances where the building and front yard stairs encroach within that 25 foot front yard area up to about 10-15 feet off the sidewalk. He noted they are proposing to have a 10 foot setback but none of the stairs or porches, etc. would encroach into that space. This makes it a very similar configuration to what is occurring on the rest of the site to the north. They want to create even more of an urban streetscape. Mr. Freres noted the parkway, trees, landscaping all remain the same. He stated physically on the streetscape it all looks the same except they have changed the proportion of how close they come with the physical building as opposed to all the appendages that come off of it. Commissioner Stark asked if the row homes would be larger square footage inside. Mr. Freres stated no. Commissioner Cohn noted the Village minutes had a comment about "long term rental issue." He asked if this has anything to do with what is being looked at tonight and what the issue is. Mr. Pfeil stated the trustees indicated some concern, but this issue is not part of the Plan Commission's review of the PUD amendment. Mr. Spinell stated they are obligated because the Village of Buffalo Grove has approved their declarations, covenants and restrictions within the community. They have been asked by some of the people within the community to say a three year rental to be renewed every year instead of the one year rental period to be renewed every year as specified in the declarations. Someone could then rent the home for a three year period of time. He stated it is his understanding that the Village really does not have input for this other than getting notification. Mr. Raysa stated that even though it is not a planning issue, the Village requires the developer to put a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions of record on the property. In that PUD or annexation agreement it is required that the Village approve those CCR's. One of the requirements that must be within the CCR's is that certain provisions of the declaration cannot be amended without the Village's consent. In that declaration it specifically says Section 3.1 and Section 9.2 cannot be amended with the written consent of the Village of Buffalo Grove. What the petitioner is talking about is not within any of those sections that require the Village's consent but rather it is a provision as far as a rental term that the ownership of the property has to obey. We the Village did not require Village consent to amend that section. Even though it was discussed at the Village Board staff has informed the petitioner that it is not a point that should be discussed at the Plan Commission because the Village does not have authority to either approve or disapprove of the amendment to the rental provision. Commissioner Weinstein asked if there are any other areas within the development where the setback is less than 25 feet. Mr. Freres stated that while it is 25 feet there are encroachments by stairs and other appurtenances that are part of the project. Commissioner Weinstein asked why they went all the way down to 10 feet instead of any other figure. Mr. Freres stated the building footprint for the row home buildings are 15 feet deeper than the 3-story tuck under buildings. In order to have livable spaces you basically have to keep the module where it is at. They tried to develop somewhat shorter and wider units but it does not work to get the outdoor space which is so appealing. Commissioner Smith asked for a summary of the hardship necessitating the variance. Mr. Spinell stated it was simply for marketing. They have had a lot more attraction to the row homes. He noted they will be able to market and finish this community quicker than by not doing so. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if either of these products is more attractive to empty nesters versus families with children. Mr. Spinell stated the 3-story townhome really limits the salability to older people and even people with young children because every time you come in you are going up at least a flight of stairs to get into your living area and then two flights to get up to your sleeping area. With the rowhome the end units have first floor master capability and it just really opens up the marketability of the product. Commissioner Teplinsky noted that one of the things the Plan Commission analyzed in 2005 was the impact of the schools. Perhaps to some degree this would lessen the impact on the existing schools because it will market more to empty nesters. Mr. Spinell stated he has no statistics to support that but typically that is what you get. This variance and change will give them the ability to put out a product that is more desirable. He further noted their unit count will go down by a couple of units. Ms. Bocek asked why they did not come forth sooner as they must have realized one product was selling better. Mr. Freres stated the plan was implemented was one that was shaped by comments from the Plan Commission and that drove the design and they did not leave any flexibility for themselves particularly along the train tracks. He noted they are coming back with the products that are selling and doing well and do not take away from the character of the project. Chairman Ottenheimer noted this project was ready for public hearing. BERENESA PLAZA SUBDIVISION, DEERFIELD PKWY/MILWAUKEE AVENUE — FINAL PLAT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bocek to approve the Berenesa Plaza Subdivision, Final Plat. The Commissioners unanimously approved the motion which passed 8 to 0. DISCUSSION OF VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Mr. Pfeil requested that the next discussion be scheduled for the November 5 agenda. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next meeting will be held on November 5, 2008. STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Stark and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair