Loading...
2005-12-21 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 12/21/2005 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION December 21, 2005 The Villas at Hidden Lake Canyon Development Group Rezoning to R-4 P.U.D. for eleven single-family detached homes Northeast corner of Buffalo Grove Road/Deerfield Parkway Vice Chairman Teplinsky 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. Vice Chairman Teplinsky 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: Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Podber Commissioners absent: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Smith Mr. Khan 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. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Steven Trilling, Village Trustee 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 and Grading Plan dated December 21, 2005 Exhibit C, D: Typical Unit A Exteriors and Typical Unit B Exteriors at Hidden Lake, dated November 29, 2005 Exhibit E, F: Elevations dated December 21, 2005 Moved by Commissioner Bocek, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to nominate Commissioner Teplinsky as Chairman pro tem. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed 5 to 0. Moved by Commissioner Podber, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to continue the public hearing to January 18, 2006. Mr. Freedman inquired as to the reason for the continuance. Commissioner Podber stated he does not care to comment. Mr. Raysa stated that some rationale as to the reason for the motion would be a courtesy. Commissioner Podber stated there is a lot to be discussed here. He stated the four people missing from the Commission are the more senior members on the Commission and a couple of them have expressed very strong opinions on the issues. He stated he would to have the opportunity for them to participate. Mr. Freedman stated staff was kind enough to share Chairman Ottenheimer's concerns with them and what he was going to say as part of their presentation was that they believe that a vote tonight would not be appropriate and they would not ask for such a vote. He stated they felt it would be productive for the members here tonight if they could introduce their case and show how they intend to address the issues which are of concern, get input this evening and then by agreement take a continuance so they can modify the plan and come back. He stated he would rather not come back on January 18th and for the first time present modifications to the plan which may then be continued again. Vice Chairman Teplinsky stated one of the reasons he called for Commissioner Podber's motion at this time was because if, in fact, the votes were to continue the meeting, it was his opinion that the four people missing from the meeting would have the benefit of live testimony versus having to make a reasoned decision on the written record. Mr. Freedman stated that if the Commission chooses to continue without hearing anything, he would like to state for the record that with respect for the inclusion of the windows and the concern about the trees, they are fully capable and can demonstrate and address those issues tonight. If the Commission wants to see some preliminary demonstration of that which might be mutually helpful that would be fine. Mr. Raysa stated it is the Chairman's call and what he is hearing from counsel is that they acknowledge that some testimony may have to be given twice. Mr. Freedman stated that was correct. Mr. Raysa noted the purpose tonight for asking to continue at least some of the testimony is to get some issues on the floor. Mr. Freedman stated that was correct. He noted they had every intention of requesting that the matter be continued without a vote, notwithstanding the presentation tonight. Vice Chairman Teplinsky asked Commissioner Podber if it would be his desire to withdraw his motion at this time and renew his motion at a later portion of the meeting. Commissioner Podber withdrew his motion. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka noted she had great reservations on going forward with the hearing if the four missing Commission members would have to try to hear the testimony based on minutes. Mr. Freedman stated they will limit their presentation tonight to addressing the two issues that were of concern to Chairman Ottenheimer. The issues can that way at least be put on the table for continued thought. They will not even attempt to put on the rest of their presentation. They will address the window issue and the tree issue only. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka then agreed to withdraw her second of the motion. Mr. John Green stated he will be introducing exhibits at this meeting, although they will be re-introducing exhibits after the continued meeting. He will only be introducing exhibits that are limited to the two questions that will be presented and discussed tonight. Mr. Green noted the preliminary plan has been prepared by Groundwork Architects and it is the plan that is the result of three workshop meetings and two ART meetings. There are some elements that have been continued to be looked at and they have been made aware of the most recent concerns and items and they also understand it was difficult for those items to come to light because of a conflict of interest that had existed with the Chairman which is now gone. Because of that we are all getting the benefit of his input into this process. His input related primarily to two items. One was concerning how to maximize the number of trees that could be saved. There were two different programs that had come during the process. One of them was the concerns of the Village Forester about the species, specimens and quality of some of the trees whereas the Plan Commission had its concerns and desires to save some of the trees. He noted they tried to work in a program along a middle ground based on the input they were getting. One of the things that have changed recently in this process is that with the surveying of the sewer and the extension of the sanitary sewer they have been able to re-look at the site plan and to recreate the product that is proposed into lookout basement product. That was the key to what they are presenting this evening. Mr. Green stated the key allows them to take the grading that needs to be raised in front of the units in order to service the sanitary sewer and allows them to bring the grades down behind the units to the existing grade level. That is where the tree question comes into play. On the plan one can see that there were three areas of existing trees that they had targeted as trees that could be saved. He noted he is not going to suggest that every tree within that area should be saved. There are some dead trees there, some diseased trees in that area and the only trees that are surveyed are six inches or larger. There are a number of trees in that area that may be five inches or four inches that may be much better quality trees that should be kept. This is all something they would expect to be coordinated between the Village Forester and the landscape contractor. He stated they have tried to identify large areas where that work could be done. Mr. Green stated they have gone back and taken into consideration what they can do with the grading because of the lookout opportunity. He pointed out the three areas they had identified on the original plan and then the new areas created on the new plan which have now been more than quadrupled for trees that can be saved. Essentially they can protect a significant line of trees all the way along both the east and north side of the site. He noted he believes that may address many of the concerns that have been raised. He noted they understand this does not really allow anybody the opportunity to sit down and examine it which is why they would have requested a continuation in the process. He stated they still have some grading things to adjust even in the new plan but they have been able to work out a plan that will allow them to do all this. It was a matter for them of going back and making the grade change from front to back be about 4 '/z feet instead of 4 feet. As they did some slight shifting of the building envelopes, one of the variations listed which is a rear yard variation to 35 feet for buildings number 2, 4 and 9. With this plan the variation will only have to be for building number 2. What they have done is pulled 4 and 9 through re-staggering five feet further away in order to make sure they can still get the drainage that will be necessary behind the buildings. That variation would go away with this plan. Mr. Green stated the second element was related to the building exteriors. The ART meetings have been productive. At the last meeting Mr. Wymar had indicated there were a number of window options he would include on the plans. Recent dialogue is to include the additional windows rather than have them as optional. These are intended to be customizable homes so that while they can add windows there is still going to be flexibility with the customer. Mr. Green stated the elevations presented at the ART meeting two weeks ago had noted in a memo to Mr. Pfeil that because the ART meeting was only two weeks before the public hearing was scheduled, if there were any modifications as a result of that they would indeed bring those modifications which is what they are doing this evening. The windows listed in the report are very specific as to what they would be and are now on the new plans. The new elevations are dated December 21, 2005. They have highlighted the additional windows that are now included on each of the elevations which correspond specifically to the same windows that had been included in the memo. Vice Chairman asked for some discussion about Canyon Development. Mr. Steve Greenburg stated they have been in business for 14 years, originally as a spec home builder which has now materialized into a high end custom home builder. He stated they do 10-15 upper end homes in the million to two million dollar range and work all over the North Shore as well as in McHenry County. Currently they projects of 300 homes and a golf course in Lake Geneva. In the past they have down several small to medium size developments such as this one. He stated they employ 15 people and have on staff architects and interior decorators. He noted their forte is building very good looking, up scale high end homes which they plan to bring into this project. Mr. Freedman stated they have some time constraints and would like the commission to consider January 4th for a future meeting with the understanding that if there is not a quorum it will be put over to January 18th. Commissioner Bocek recommended the developer come prepared to discuss at the public hearing continuation the R-3 versus R-4 zoning. She stated other commissioners who are not present had some concerns and why an R-4 zoning is necessary should be addressed. Mr. Pfeil stated the R-3 issue may not be productive to pursue because the separations between the buildings and the lot widths for the building boxes clearly do not meet the R-3 standards. An R-3 designation would create an underlying zoning that really has little reality to the actual location of the buildings, and R-4 is a better fit for this PUD for the number units that are proposed. Mr. Freedman further noted he was involved when this property was approved for the Chabad facility. He commented that this site was never intended to be built with residences under R-3 zoning. It was intended to be an institutional use. Both the petitioner at that time and the Village agreed to leave the R-3 in place for the Chabad plan, which also required a special use. Mr. Pfeil asked what documents would be re-submitted for distribution to the Plan Commission. Mr. Green stated he will resubmit the exhibits presented tonight. There are a couple of grading elements that Mr. Kuenkler and their own engineer need to look at for the next few days in order to make sure they are presenting good information. He noted he will be resubmitting Exhibit B, C, D, E and F. They will also resubmit Exhibit A which will show the increased area of the trees to be saved to correspond to Exhibit B. Mr. Pfeil commented that the Village Forester should review the revised landscape plan, and it may not be practical to complete the review in time for the January 4th meeting. Moved by Commissioner Podber, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to continue the public hearing until January 18, 2006. Mr. Raysa noted that there was previous testimony from Mr. Freedman that the petitioner agrees to the continuance. Mr. Freedman stated that is correct, although the petitioner would prefer the January 4th date. Vice Chairman Teplinsky called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Teplinsky, Podber NAYS:Stark ABSENT: Smith, Khan, Cohn, Ottenheimer ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 4 tol. The public hearing was continued to January 18, 2006. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Vice Chairman Teplinsky suspended the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully, submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: HOWARD TEPLINSKY, Vice-Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 12/21/2005 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION December 21, 2005 The Villas at Hidden Lake Canyon Development Group Rezoning to R-4 P.U.D. for eleven single-family detached homes Northeast corner of Buffalo Grove Road/Deerfield Parkway Vice Chairman Teplinsky called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Podber Commissioners absent: Mr. Smith Mr. Khan Mr. Cohn Chairman Ottenheimer 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. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Steven Trilling, Village Trustee Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Kenski-Sroka noted that four out of the five Commissioners who were present at the October 19th meetings are absent and perhaps these minutes should not be approved at this time. Mr. Raysa stated that the minutes could probably be approved under Robert's Rules of Order but it has been this Commission's procedure to continue approval of the minutes for consideration by the members who were present for the particular meeting. Vice Chairman Teplinsky called for a motion to continue approval of the minutes to the next regular meeting. Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Stark to continue approval of the October 19th public hearing minutes and regular meeting minutes until the next regularly scheduled meeting. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed 5 to 0. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Bocek said that she attended the board meeting on December 19, 2005 and there were no issues or projects discussed pertaining to Plan Commission. Commissioner Stark said he attended the board meeting on December 5, 2005 and there were no items pertaining to the Plan Commission. Commissioner Podber attended the Village Board meeting on November 7, 2005 and there was a Pre-Application Conference concerning a proposed special use for a Wall2Wall Sportzone facility at 1367 Barclay Blvd in the Industrial District. The Village Board referred the petition to the Plan Commission. Mr. Pfeil noted that the petitioner had recently informed the Village that they will probably not proceed with the Buffalo Grove location. VILLAS AT HIDDEN LAKE, CANYON DEVELOPMENT GROUP Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Bocek to defer the Canyon Development Group's proposed Villas at Hidden Lake to the next regular meeting. Vice Chairman Teplinsky called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Teplinsky, Stark, Podber NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith, Khan, Cohn, Ottenheimer ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 5 to 0. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil indicated that the next meeting will be scheduled for January 18, 2006. STAFF REPORT Mr. Pfeil noted that two meetings are scheduled in January with property owners in the two respective RTA planning areas adjacent to the Metra stations. The Prairie View meeting is scheduled for January 12th and the Buffalo Grove/Commerce Court meeting is scheduled for January 20th. The meetings are set up to explain the Village's planning process and the consultant's role in the process and to get input from property owners who want to share their concerns and ideas about re-development of the areas. Trustee Trilling noted that all the current Plan Commission members were re-appointed for another term by the Village President and Village Board at the December 19th meeting. NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Bocek, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka and carried unanimously to adjourn. Vice Chairman Teplinsky adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: HOWARD TEPLINSKY, Vice Chair