Loading...
2006-01-18 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 01/18/2006 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING (continued from December 21, 2005) BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION January 18, 2006 Canyon Development Group, proposed Villas at Hidden Lake, Rezoning to R-4 P.U.D. for eleven single-family detached homes Northeast corner of Buffalo Grove Road/Deerfield Parkway 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 Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Podber Commissioners absent: Mr. Cohn Also present: Mr. Lawrence Freedman, Ash, Anos, Freedman& Logan Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. David Wytmar, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Steve Greenburg, Canyon Development Group Mr. Steve Trilling, Village Trustee Mr. Rubin, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit A: Preliminary Plan, revised November 8, 2005 Exhibit B: Preliminary Engineering Plan, revised, dated December 27, 2005 Exhibit C: Preliminary Engineering Plan, dated December 21, 2005 Exhibit D: Typical Unit A Exteriors and Unit B Exteriors, dated November 29, 2005 Exhibit E, Window elevations, dated December 21, 2005 F, G: Exhibit H: Aerial Photograph Exhibit I: Preliminary Site Plan, dated April 12, 2005 Exhibit J: Preliminary Site Plan, revised, dated May 27, 2005 Exhibit K: Preliminary Site Plan, revised, dated September 19, 2005 Exhibit L: Preliminary Site Plan, revised, dated December 27, 2005 Exhibit M: Preliminary Engineering and Grading Plan, dated December 27, 2005 Exhibit N: Preliminary Landscaping Plan, dated November 28, 2005, sheet L1.0 Exhibit O: Preliminary Landscaping Plan, revised, dated December 27, 2005 Exhibit P: Preliminary Landscaping Plan, dated December 8, 2005, sheet L3.0 Exhibit Q: Preliminary Landscaping Plan, dated December 8, 2005, Sheet L2.0 Exhibit R: Memorandum from Robert Pfeil to Plan Commission, dated January 13, 2006 Mr. Lawrence Freedman stated Canyon Development is the contract purchaser of this property. He noted they had given an abbreviated presentation on December 21, 2005 on a couple of issues to give themselves an opportunity to have a dialogue with those members of the plan commission who were here when this hearing first opened. They indicated that evening they would be re-presenting the full case for the benefit of those commissioners who were not here. Mr. Green stated the subject site is a 3.8-acre site located at the northeast corner of Buffalo Grove Road and Deerfield Parkway. The other sites surrounding this parcel and in the general area have already been developed or are under development. This is the remaining outlot in the area and it has been through several different hearing processes before the Village for various uses. Tonight we are requesting residual use. Mr. Green stated the site is surrounded by a variety of other zonings. There is R-4, R-3, R-5 and R-9 which all abut this site. The process here had begun with a plan based upon villas or condominium single family homes. In this case they create an envelope for a building. He stated they are here for a Planned Unit Development request because of this. The density that is being proposed is 2.89 acres on the gross and 3.0 acres on the net and this is consistent with other developments around the area. Mr. Green stated the proposal began as 12 units on the site. Through the process the plan evolved especially with regard to the sanitary sewer service. All of the other proposals have been for a single use and user on a single lot. One of the reasons the Village was looking for commercial and office and religious was because it is very difficult to have a sanitary lift station working for a residential development. It only leads to long term issues. This site is not only isolated by roads and lake, but is also isolated from the standpoint that the sanitary sewer system that exists is either about 150 feet west of Buffalo Grove Road or about 350-400 feet north of the north end of the site at Larraway. It was important to identify how that system could function and if it could function to service this site. The answer is that it can function. Mr. Green stated they found that bringing service from the north was tenable. It also meant looking at how the grading of the site. When they were able to bring this sanitary sewer down from the north, they also changed the program. Instead of having the traditional 2-story house with everything flat in front and back, they went to a program of buildings that have a lookout basement on every one of the units. That allows them to lift the site 3-4 feet it needs in order to have the sanitary sewer function appropriately for the site, yet maintain the outer perimeter at the existing grade level which permitted them to maintain those amenities and features that are on the site. They do not have to get into changing the lake grading or taking down the trees that abut the edges of the lake. Mr. Green reviewed the preliminary site plan dated September 19, 2005 which now had 11 envelopes instead of 12. There were separate driveways and they were able to stagger the buildings and turn them. They were able to turn building 11 back from the corner which was important for the development of the corner of the site. They were able to open up vista along Buffalo Grove and they were now able to save some of the sections of existing trees. There had been information from the Village Forester that the trees on the site are of questionable value. He stated they identified areas within which another tree survey was done which showed the specific trees that are over 6 inches. That is not necessarily all the trees that would be saved nor are they the ones that should be saved. There may be 4-5 inch trees that are better to be saved than a decayed tree that is over the 6 inch size. This is why they identified areas with the understanding that they could then work within those areas to create a preservation. In addition there is currently a wetland on the site which started out very small 15 years ago. It has grown over time and they had to compensate for that and they will be doing offsite wetland mitigation which made all of the freedom on the site possible. He noted that as part of this program they will be buying into a wetland farm elsewhere. They were able then to size the detention and retention so that they have retained and maintained the shape and feel of the existing lake. In reviewing Exhibit A Mr. Green noted they have added a walkway amenity around the site. A five foot walkway now meanders through the eastern portion of the site and ties into the existing bikepath system north of the site. They elected to meander the walkway because it is now possible to do so. It may meander somewhat differently than what is shown because the Village Forester, the Village Engineer and their own arborist should get out and identify what trees definitely should be saved. The other feature shown on the site is the development of an element at the corner. It is a corner that is directly opposite Busch Grove Park and where the PACE bus goes up two streets. Hopefully there will be more and more use of public transportation system and they decided to create the corner as a feature. Plantings, benches, a walk curving, a backdrop wall will all be included with a sign built into the wall. The wall will be a feature to finding that corner and the whole corner really becomes a public amenity. Mr. Green reviewed the preliminary site plan, revised, dated December 27, 2005 which now incorporates the significant increase in trees that can be saved, maintained the meandering of the walk, and fine tuned the detention calculations so that the lake continues to have a natural shape and feel where they are expanding the lake for the detention. There were variations being requested as part of this Planned Unit Development because the role of a Planned Unit Development is to create a better plan which sometimes involves some variations in order to do that. Those variations are now primarily development ordinance variations that are not inconsistent with those that often happen and one which is just logical. He stated the only zoning ordinance variation being requested is to permit a 35 foot rear yard in lieu of a 40 foot rear yard at unit #2. Previously that had been for three units. With this new configuration they have been able to take unit#4 and #9 and create a 40 foot setback for them. Unit#2 is requested to have a 35 foot rear yard setback because they wanted to pull the site north in order to try to preserve as much of the natural features on the east as well as to protect as much of the corner as possible. To the north of unit #1 and 2 is open space which is Village owned. It made a better plan to do that by being able to lift the whole site up. Mr. Green stated the other variations are from the development ordinance. Section 16.50.050.D.7 to permit the coverage of a sanitary sewer of not less than 4.5 feet in lieu of 6 feet is because they have to bring one of those two sewers over. He noted they want to do this in order to make sure they are not getting into lift stations and gravity flow is working correctly. Section 16.30.030.17 is a logical variation requesting allowance of a sidewalk on one side of the street/cul-de-sac instead of both sides. He stated they are creating the cul-de-sac on the site and putting the walk on the east side. There is already a bikepath on the west side of the site. Section 16.50.040.C.4 to permit side slopes and ledges is generally depicted on the preliminary engineering. They are working on the existing lake and expanding it but there are some side slopes and ledge variations that are part of that just as was done on the parcel to the east. Section 16.50.120.I.1.e. to permit parkway trees to be located in common area adjacent to the proposed perpendicular parking with the right-or-way is requested so that we can put them behind the right-or-way line instead of within the right-of-way line. Mr. Green reviewed the engineering plan noting that they are showing gaps where the storm sewer comes out. They may only need to be 5-7 feet and small trees may be able to be kept there. But it is an engineering decision that needs to be made and they did not want to mislead by not showing those gaps. Mr. Green noted the ART meeting on December 7, 2005 brought a list of seven recommendations. The meeting was two weeks before the public hearing. The submittal for the public hearing is three weeks before the public hearing. They had noted then that if there were changes they would bring them to the meeting. At the meeting on December 21, 2005 they introduced those changes to the elevations noting all seven recommendations are now done. Mr. Green noted they started with a landscape program that tried to work with some existing trees and then supplement them. Within and around the envelopes they also have other supplemental landscaping. He stated the comment from the ART meeting was that if you are going to keep more trees, do not get rid of the ones you were already planning to put in, just move them so they complement. That has now been done but he would like the record to reflect that there should be some flexibility in the placement based upon how the Village Forest and Village Engineer feel when they identify what is out there to work with. Mr. Green stated when they started the process there was concern about the access to and from the site. Lake County Department of Transportation originally said right in and right out only. Through help from the Village, Lake County Department of Transportation agreed to a full access. However they noted that the work being done on Deerfield Parkway must be closed before there is a full access. Lake County has requested a temporary pork chop until the work is done at which time the developer can come back with an application for full access. The way the timing is working out it is possible that this will be a very short overlap. He further noted traffic impact will be minimal but on the site they have created a line of perpendicular parking spaces so that they can maximize the amount of parking that is available on the site. In addition they have made all the driveways handle two cars on the driveway. Mr. Green stated the area that is being used at the northeast corner of the site that would become part of the detention would be conferred to the Village. He also noted there is a limited common space behind ever unit which is about 41 feet wide and 20 feet wide from the back of the envelope. He suggests that a limit of 25 percent be put in there because someone could have 900 square feet and another person could have 800 square feet. That puts them between 200-250 square feet of impervious surface maximum. He also suggests that it be clearly stated that decks are considered impervious surfaces. Mr. Freedman addressed the special use criteria stating: 1. With the ultimate full access that will be at the site and in light of the isolated location of this property and that the property is surrounded entirely by residential uses they meet the standard of not being detrimental or dangerous to the public health, safety, or morals and general welfare. 2. The location and size of the special use, nature and intensity of the operation and the size will be in harmony with the appropriate orderly development of the district in which it is located. 3. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. This is a single family development and the comprehensive plan designates it for single family and the surrounding uses are almost entirely residential. 4. The nature, location and size of the buildings will not impede or substantially hinder or discourage the development and use of the adjacent land in accordance with the zoning district in which they lie. 5. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or other necessary facilities have been or will be provided. 6. Parking areas will be of adequate size for the particular special use which area shall be property located and suitably screened from adjoining residential uses. In this case they are well in excess of the parking requirement of the zoning district and also have additional street parking. Commissioner Teplinsky noted the plantings on the eastern edge of the development are very important to the members of this commission. He asked for clarification of the Village Forester's decision and what in particular is the developer's plan with respect to those trees if the Village Forester ultimately decides that a lot of those trees are not worth saving. Mr. Green stated most of that must come as a direction from the Plan Commission to the staff. He stated they have worked hard to find very large areas that can be maintained and saved. Even though the 1998 tree inventory which shows 281 trees are only the 6 inch trees. That report indicates a lot of them are diseased and in bad condition. However, those are again only the 6 inch trees. There is a huge amount of material from which to select. He stated he would hope the Plan Commission would provide the appropriate direction to make sure it stays there. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he is looking for a commitment that if, in fact, in the opinion of the Village Forester, a lot of trees are not worth saving, and that something can be done. Mr. Green stated the Village should make this decision. If it becomes important that we come back or back to the ART to insure that we are maintaining the intent of that area, we can make the commitment that we would do that. Chairman Ottenheimer asked why the Village Forester has not gone out and tagged the trees that should be destroyed or saved prior to this hearing. Mr. Green stated that is somewhat hard to do in winter. Mr. Freedman noted certain trees may not need to be replaced. The effect of what is intended might be achieved with what is there. He stated they have no problem with the Plan Commission seeing this again as they will be back before the final plat. By that time they will have worked with the forester and the engineer and identified specifically what is going to be taken out and the Plan Commission can still approve or not. He stated he feels that can demonstrate they can meet the spirit of what the commission wants and that may be replacement or it may not be. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that as part of the consideration he would require that the Plan Commission be kept informed when the Village Forester does his survey and a final landscape plan be shown to the Plan Commission prior to any trees being destroyed or anything happening. Commissioner Bocek asked what the price point of the homes would be. Mr. Steve Greenburg stated the homes would be in the $750,000 range. Commissioner Bocek asked for clarification between the differences of the amenities that are provided because this is a P.U.D. versus the individual lots. Mr. Green stated if they were doing the individual lots you would not have the additional parking, no walkway going through and no corner feature. Also there would probably be some serious discussion about the trees because a 40 foot rear lot it is very hard to explain to someone that they only get to use 20 feet of it. There are a lot of things that have been able to happen because of the fact that it is a P.U.D. Commissioner Stark asked when Deerfield Parkway will be done. Mr. Kuenkler stated it will be done towards the end of this year. Commissioner Stark asked how building #1 will be affected by the eventual widening of Buffalo Grove Road. Mr. Green stated it should not have any effect. He noted they have been asked to create the right-of-way as part of this plan and they are dedicating the appropriate right-of-ways both along Buffalo Grove Road and Deerfield Parkway. Commissioner Stark noted the site will tilt slightly to the east. Mr. Green stated they are going to step the site at the sides of the buildings. Commissioner Stark asked about plant and tree protection during construction. Mr. Green stated the Village has very specific requirements about what you have to do and the areas to be surrounded and how they are to be protected with fencing. Commissioner Stark how much of the area is wetlands. Mr. Green stated it is slightly over a half of an acre and they have to do about 7/10ths of an acre in offsite wetland mitigation. Commissioner Stark asked about the waiver of the 12 foot flat area 18 inches above the high water level around the perimeter of the stormwater detention facility. Mr. Green stated the side slopes will be terraced straight down instead of going down and flattened down again. Commissioner Khan asked why all the tree plantings would be in the common area and not in the right-of-way. Mr. Green stated there is also additional tree planting in the common areas. There are also plantings shown in the envelope areas for the buildings. Commissioner Khan asked why there is a need for 12 parking stalls in the right-of-way. Mr. Green stated it is not so much a need as a desire. He stated they were encouraged by the Village Board when referred to maximize the amount of available parking on the site because it is an isolated site. Rather than being able to put four cars on the street they can now put eleven. Commissioner Khan noted that building #10 has a very short distance in which the grading goes up about 6 feet and that is also happening up at the north end and he wonders if there is a better way of doing some earth balancing on the site. Mr. Green stated what they did is that they are down to 682.5 on the back and they are at 680 at the sidewalk. They are making the transition at the side of the building now instead of behind the building. Commissioner Khan stated he was looking more at the top of the foundation which is at 687 on lot#10. Mr. Green stated that is at the front of the building. At the top of foundation it is 682.5. He noted at the side yards they are transitioning down and are actually 4 '/z feet further down all the way along the backs of the building so they only have 1-2 '/2 feet of grade differential from existing grade at the perimeter of the site on the south, north and east side instead of the 4 '/2-6 feet. Commissioner Khan asked who has jurisdiction of the wetland area. Mr. Green stated it is Lake County. Commissioner Khan noted that most of the detention is provided on the land owned by the Village except for a small corner behind lot#3. Mr. Green stated they are expanding the existing detention pond itself. Commissioner Khan asked what happens to the corner that is behind lot#3. Mr. Green stated it will be deeded to the Village so that the whole lake is being maintained as it currently is and consistently. Commissioner Podber asked how the change in the shape of the pond affects any of the other features in the site like the walkway or the tree line. Mr. Green stated the only effect it had was they wanted to maximize the amount of existing tree area they could save at the northeast corner and by changing the shape they could work around a clump of existing trees and they are creating a peninsula field there which allows them to pull the high water line a little further north thereby saving more of the existing trees at that northeast corner. Commissioner Smith asked for clarification on the deck and patio areas. Mr. Green stated the staff report indicates there should be some limitation on impervious surface that can happen in the limited common space that is created in the back. He noted they felt it would be appropriate to have about 25%. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 8:45 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: 01/18/2006 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION January 18, 2006 Canyon Development Group, proposed Villas at Hidden Lake Rezoning to R-4 P.U.D. for eleven single-family detached homes, Northeast corner of Buffalo Grove Road/Deerfield Parkway BAY Shul, 314 McHenry Road, special use for a place of worship In the Commercial sub-district of the B-5 Town Center District Workshop #1 Morris Park Subdivision (7 Belaire Court and a portion of 8 Greenwood Court South)—Plat of resubdivision Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 8:46 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 Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Podber Commissioners absent: Mr. Cohn Also present: Mr. Lawrence Freedman, Ash, Anos, Freedman& Logan Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. David Wytmar, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Steve Greenburg, Canyon Development Group Mr. Melvin Merzon, President of BAY Shul Mr. Brian Morris Mr. Steve Trilling, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Bocek to approve the minutes of the public hearing of October 19, 2005. All commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Teplinsky and Podber abstaining. Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Bocek to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 19, 2005. All commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Teplinsky and Podber abstaining. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Khan to approve the minutes of the public hearing of December 21, 2005. Mr. Raysa noted page 5, paragraph 10 should change the word "but" to "that". All Commissioners were in favor of the amended motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Ottenheimer, Smith, Khan and Cohn abstaining. Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Bocek to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 21, 2005. Commissioner Teplinsky noted page 1, paragraph 2 and 3 under approval of minutes should read "continue" instead of "discontinue." All commissioners were in favor of the amended motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Ottenheimer, Smith, and Khan abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS—None CANYON DEVELOPMENT GROUP, PROPOSED VILLAS AT HIDDEN LAKE, REZONING TO R-4 P.U.D. FOR ELEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES, NORTHEAST CORNER OF BUFFALO GROVE ROAD/DEERFIELD PARKWAY Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, for a favorable recommendation to the Village Board of Canyon Development Group's petition for re-zoning to the R-4 One-Family Dwelling District with a Residential Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and approval of a Preliminary Plan with the following variations pursuant to the proposed Preliminary Plan: ZONING ORDINANCE-Section 17.40.020.B —to allow a rear yard of 35 feet instead of 40 feet for Buildings #2, #4 and #9); DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE-Section 16.30030.F. — To allow a sidewalk on one side of the street/cul-de-sac instead of both sides; Section 16.50.040.C.4. — To waive the requirement for a 12-foot flat area 18 inches above the high-water line around the perimeter of the stormwater facility as depicted on the Preliminary Engineering Plan; Section 16.50.050.D.7. = To allow a reduction in the minimum depth of the sanitary sewer line from the required 6-foot depth to 4.5 feet; Section 16.50.120.I.I.e. —To allow parkway trees to be located in common area adjacent to the proposed perpendicular parking stalls instead of within the right-of-way for the purpose of constructing eleven single-family detached homes in accordance with the plans, specifications and exhibits introduced at the public hearing and further subject to: 1. The presentation of an acceptable final landscaping plan prior to the presentation of the final plat of subdivision. Mr. Raysa noted that the petitioner withdrew buildings 4 and 9 from the zoning variation. 2. To include limitations of impervious surface. Commissioner Stark stated that as a resident he would be pleased with open land here but the owner of this land has a right to development here. We take direction from the Village Trustees regarding development and the Comprehensive Plan and he will therefore vote for the plan which is a sound plan. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he will be voting in favor of the development. The criteria for the variations have been met and that they are reasonable and appropriate for this development. But for the access issue being resolved by the County, he would not have been in favor of this development because of the special access challenges. Commissioner Bocek stated the residential use here is right and will be voting in favor of this development. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Podber, Ottenheimer NAYS:None ABSENT: Cohn ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 8 to 0. Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Smith to direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact for review and signature by the Plan Commissioner Chairman. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed 8 to 0. Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to recommend approval of the ART package. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed 8 to 0. BAY SHUL, 314 MC HENRY ROAD, SPECIAL USE FOR A PLACE OF WORSHIP IN THE COMMERCIAL SUB-DISTRICT OF THE B-5 TOWN CENTER DISTRICT—WORKSHOP#1 Mr. Melvin Merzon stated they are here to commence the approval process for the special use of those premises known as suite C, in the Buffalo Grove Town Center. This is the space above Baird and Warner at the north end of the shopping center on the second floor which they presently share with a law firm to the north and a detective agency to the south. Mr. Merzon stated they did a considerable amount of reconditioning so that it would no longer look as an office space but as a place of worship. Mr. Merzon stated the area is suited for their needs and stated there is no intent to either expand or in any way change the area. The installation and operation of special fire protection devices has been discussed with representatives of the Fire Department and they have noted the exact devices needed and where they must be installed, the manner of their installation and everything that must be completed in order to make the accommodation compatible with the safety needs of the area and the congregation's members. He stated they have obtained several estimates on the cost of making these changes and they will soon begin to make these changes. Mr. Merzon noted that because they are an Orthodox synagogue most of their services will encounter only walkers. They do not drive on the Sabbath or religious holidays and therefore there will be no additional motor vehicles on the premises. They hold daily services in the morning at 6:15 a.m. on the weekdays and they are the only vehicles in the parking lot at that time. Evening services are held when parking is shared with The E-Scape establishment and there are always enough spaces for all. Mr. Merzon discussed the criteria for special use: 1. The special use will serve a public convenience for the sake of those who wish to worship there and it will not in any way be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. 2. This is a very small congregation and the premises are more than adequate for the needs of their congregation. He noted they use tables and chairs and if more spaces are needed they remove and fold those tables and chairs so that at no time do they have any problem with space nor do they have any problem with the essential space required by the Fire Department to permit an easy exit if that be necessary in case of emergency. 3. They have no problems with their neighbors nor have they ever expressed any concerns over the use of this property 4. The size of the space is sufficient for their needs and will not hinder or discourage the development and use of adjacent land and buildings. 5. The utilities, access roads, and drainage are all satisfactory in their present condition and they see no need to add anything to the premises which would in any way require any changes. 6. Parking is sufficient at all times. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked what the size of the suite is. Mr. Near stated it is about 1,800 square feet. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked the size of the congregation. Mr. Merzon stated they have about 30 families with about 100 people. He noted it is rare that all 100 turn out. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked what the average attendance is. Mr. Merzon stated the mornings have between 10-15 people. Evening services have around 10 men. Saturday morning services average about 40-45 men and women. The High Holy Day services they average about 50-60 people. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if there is any school. Mr. Merzon stated no. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if there are any other activities held within the space. Mr. Merzon stated they will occasionally hold a celebration of a communal event such as a pre-marital reception for a couple or a special gathering for a birth. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if in those instances with special celebrations, the number of cars and visitors is not excessive. Mr. Merzon stated no. Commissioner Khan asked if new premises will be sought as membership grows. Mr. Merzon stated that was doubtful in the near future. Commissioner Khan asked if the language put in for this use will be taken out once this synagogue moves out. Mr. Pfeil stated he is not sure if the Village determined it was in the best interests of the Village to remove it after this particular use leaves. It would have to be tracked and determined if it should be taken out. The specific special use for this petitioner would probably be structured to basically end when they vacated the space. An affirmative decision would have to be made to re-amend the ordinance to take out this provision. The history is more that things stay on the books unless there is some reason to take them out. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that by its very nature it is a special use and every entity that would want to do that has unique circumstances and characteristics. One of the appealing things about BAY Shul is that they have virtually no impact on traffic. Commissioner Stark asked how many additional families might be coming. Mr. Merzon stated he does not know. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the matter was ready for public hearing. MORRIS PARK SUBDIVISION (7 BELAIRE COURT AND A PORTION OF 8 GREENWOOD COURT SOUTH) —PLAT OF RESUBDIVISION Mr. Brian Morris stated it is his desire to acquire additional land for his backyard. His backyard is very small and he would like a larger yard for his children. Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Khan to approve the plat of resubdivision of 7 Belaire Court and a portion of 8 Greenwood Court South. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed 8 to 0. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated February 1, 2006 would have a Comprehensive Plan workshop. February 15, 2006 would be the next meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT Mr. Pfeil stated there was a first meeting in Prairie View relative to our transit oriented planning and was a positive meeting. NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bocek and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN "VILLAS AT gg HIDDEN p®g LAKE" BUFFALO GROVE, ILL. EXISTING @INEPAIM SYSTEM fi Y I I I a �� ✓ r { Sa' 6 E�15,IN� s "ow b 9i ARE. TO BE f)[JACAIEIr r+ 2r 1 I r 15 MIN J,I ( ' rn / NE "I �I - _. Q a,i 4 sOt r. i a MIM1f I T, 1s ItI ik u � IbGN,�dAY�N w� "Cxlsr NU Wnu� oERM j �,_ CkE UC IRAN9ilON M1Nb 1 UMG5CAPC 31I GO y-� RCtT STOP AR -',AN UY OtMERS FOR FF.NS]NG rt DEERFIELD PARKWAY r 'WLLAS AT MORN nG GSCWxMx _...- m ` ML,G "uernl.oc"nv I uN " a 8 ���� 9 !i EkS tt0 �Exxa4xfi� r CANYON OFVEIOPMENr GROUP E P�^ JAW �g �65T p xF5 x�9�a ��t � c+ [ PBELIAiINARY 820 L. TERRA COlTA AVLN4IL,UNIT�{150 mnnNER'& °x �� '�Np�"x¢G @ g g a SITE PLAN CRYSTAL TAKE,ILLINOIS 60012 c1 ........._— ° o�6x �`�� 0�stl x Pox w ouue„rs