Loading...
2005-08-17 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 08/17/2005 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION August 17, 2005 Waterbury Place (Route 22/former Powernail property) Final Plat of Subdivision Discussion of Village Comprehensive Plan —Workshop #6 Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 7:30 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. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Podber Commissioners absent: Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Cohn Also present: Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Marc Blumenthal, Buffalo Grove Chamber of Commerce APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commission Bocek to approve the regular meeting minutes of June 15, 2005. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Teplinsky abstaining. Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the public hearing minutes of July 6, 2005. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Khan abstaining. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bocek to approve the regular meeting minutes of July 6, 2005. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Khan abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Bocek stated she attended the Village Board meeting on August 15, 2005 where in a referral was made to the Plan Commission for a proposed commercial development on the southeast corner of Prairie Road and Route 22. They are asking for B-3 zoning which requires a minimum district area of 5 acres. Currently the site is 3.5 acres and they are talking to the owner of the property to the south but there has not been an agreement for that to be a part of the development. The Village Trustees are concerned with some of the proposed uses which would include a dry cleaners, coffee shop and health care facility. They are also concerned about giving a variance concerning site area for a development of 3.5 acres when the ordinance requires 5 acres. The shopping center would be three different buildings, approximately 30,000 square feet and the current site is 6 to 8 feet below street level so they would have to raise the site, and this means that most of the trees would need to be removed. They also do not wish to have any of their uses restricted including a bank. Commissioner Stark stated he attended the Village board meeting on August 1, 2005 where there was a pre-application conference for a proposed commercial development on the southeast corner of Prairie and Route 22. There was also a referral that was denied for a proposed active kids academy at 1370 Abbott Court. It was a unanimous decision mostly because of parking issues. WATERBURY PLACE (ROUTE 22/FORMER POWERNAIL PROPERTY) — FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION Moved by Commissioner Khan, seconded by Commissioner Bocek to recommend approval of the Final Plat of Subdivision for Waterbury Place. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the motion passed unanimously 7 to 0. DISCUSSION OF VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—WORKSHOP 96 Mr. Pfeil reviewed the results of some of the key questions on the community survey. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that Commissioner Cohn was not able to attend this meeting and read the e-mail he sent which stated as follows: "I will be unable to attend tomorrow's meeting, but wanted to get a few comments in...I appreciate the report that staff put together on the survey, and found it helpful. Can staff please also report the demographic from questions 1-4 and 7-10 that responded to the survey? Also, and I don't mean this to sound inappropriately critical (I am trying to be constructive), but I think many of the visions identified in the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives, are sort of amorphous. I think we need some very specific, concrete objectives by which we can measure success or failure in the years to come. I would like to see the plan say that we are striving to redevelop and make over the train station areas as multi-use community focal points. I would like the plan to say that we seek to join with the communities to the north and south on Milwaukee Avenue in commercial redevelopment. I know these points are somewhat obvious, and we have said them before, but I don't see why the plan should not include this level of detail. I would also like to see the vision track the results of the survey more. The three highest responses for the survey in redevelopment questions were `traditional downtown,' `mixed use around the BG Metra station,' and `mixed use around the Prairie View train.' Under the volunteered answer section, the top three concerns were `traffic congestion, `over- development/overcrowding,' and `lack of retail stores/restaurants (many vacancies).' I know that these issues have been discussed for years, and there is some frustration. But I fear that there is a complacency in the Village. Things can be much worse. We should be grateful for having what we have. Well I think we have a lot of goods things, but I think we can do a whole lot better. I think we should very specifically identify what the 3-5 major redevelopment projects are that we would like to see over the next five years and identify how it is we intend to achieve them. And I think much of this will require very close coordination and strategizing between planning and economic development. I also think it is time for the Village to consider a full time economic development position to work side by side with planning on development issues. I know how the Village does it currently through the Village manager's office, and it just does not yield sufficient results. From my perspective, talking with people in the Village, and viewing the results of the survey, it is clear to me that some significant changes in approach have to be made. People look at what is able to be accomplished in surrounding towns and say why can't we have that here. I think we can have it here. I think the community is fast approaching the level of maturity for us to have the type of development we would all like to see. I would like to see us overreach in our goals. If we don't accomplish everything, so be it. 95% of the Burnham plan has never been built, but it is still relevant and viewed as a great plan. I think we need to be bold and aggressive, not timid and afraid of failure." Commissioner Stark noted the Village must attract a developer to do a redevelopment project such as the concept being discussed adjacent to the Metra stations. It would be great to have the mixed use developments around the Buffalo Grove and Prairie View train stations but the question is how to attract that kind of development. How will the Village determined if there is demand for the types of uses that may be proposed? Mr. Pfeil stated that development proximate to the two Metra stations is an active concept because the Village has just sent out a request for proposals relating to the RTA grant. He noted grant will pay for a planning consultant to study the potential demand for redevelopment and make specific recommendations at the conclusion of the planning process. The proposals are due on September 2, and then the formal planning project will begin concerning the evaluation of land use and other planning elements in the areas adjacent to the two train stations. He noted that Buffalo Grove's Metra stations are not downtown areas, so the scale and intensity of redevelopment may be on a smaller scale compared to the mixed use redevelopments that some towns have done in true downtown areas. He said the planning consultant for the RTA grant will study the opportunities for redevelopment, and the Commission will be front and center in the planning process. Commissioner Teplinsky noted that most people responding to the survey stated their top concern for the future of Buffalo Grove is traffic congestion. He asked how can the Village attract the type of development that we all want to bring into the Village when you can't get through the Village during peak traffic times. He noted the traffic concerns have to be addressed in conjunction with any sort of ambitious development plan. People will only come if they are able to get there. He noted that we must address traffic patterns and congestion issues because even the best mixed development will fail if no one can get to it. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that to a certain extent Buffalo Grove is powerless when it comes to certain road improvements and traffic controls and things of that nature. However, in reading over some of the minutes about getting full access to one of the new developments, it was stated that it was possible because of the power of the Village who impressed upon the Lake County Department of Transportation to allow it. Perhaps the Village needs to become more involved in the regional transportation issues if possible. Commissioner Smith noted that in the past there was a Village economic development commission which disbanded. He stated it would be beneficial to have community leaders and developers come together to re-form that commission. He asked what kind of usage we get on the train stations because that would determine the kind of development around the stations. Mr. Pfeil stated Metra's ridership projections are favorable with the double tracking that is almost complete, and Buffalo Grove has a relatively high ridership on the North Central line compared with other communities. Metra is building more parking for commuters at both of the Buffalo Grove stations which clearly means that Metra expects ridership to increase. Commissioner Smith stated that is something that must be promoted in order to get development to come in. He stressed that at some point we will need to say no to developments that propose uses that are already prevalent in the Village and do not provide any new uses or services for the residents. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he agrees but developers look at it from a different perspective. Commissioner Bocek asked if senior housing is part of our plan or even considered. She also suggested that some very generic goals be drawn up to try to figure out how they can be accomplished. Commissioner Stark noted that when developers come in with smaller projects the traffic analyses for these developments usually state that there will be minimal impact on the capacity of the road system. He said that the cumulative effect of these developments should be considered and he thinks that when viewed collectively smaller developments do add to traffic congestion in the community. Mr. Mark Blumenthal, Buffalo Grove Chamber of Commerce, stated the chamber is always supportive of additional retail but could use some specifics as to how to attain some of the draft proposed goals being suggested for the updated Comprehensive Plan. The Chamber of Commerce wants to help businesses grow and thrive in the Village and bring more businesses into the Village. Chairman Ottenheimer said he was pleasantly surprised by the 1,100 responses to the Community Opinion Survey even though the Village has over 40,000 people. Commissioner Bocek asked where we go from here in the process. Mr. Pfeil stated one thing the Commission will do with the survey is look at the goals and objectives and determine if the goals need to be modified. He noted it is the Commission's mission to develop the overall goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the goals and policies will have to be tested in public meetings when the Plan is presented to various focus groups or community groups that have been asked to participate in the planning process. He stated that the planning process will have to start focusing on identifying the essential elements that the Comprehensive Plan needs to address for the betterment of the community over the next 10 to 20 years. Chairman Ottenheimer asked how specific one can really get in terms of planning. Mr. Pfeil stated that we know that in a fairly large geographic area you can have general designations such as residential or industrial. But it is difficult to foresee the future and understand all the market dynamics that come into play for particular land uses at specific locations, so we will always be in the situation where we are trying to assess the merits of a particular proposal in the context of broader community goals. However, if we decide that traffic is absolutely something that must be controlled, that would have some implications about what kind of land uses are designated for specific properties. When we consider areas such as the Metra stations, the land use designations will probably be more specific based on the findings and recommendations of the planning done as part of the RTA grant. The planning recommendations for these areas become more like sub-area plans where the land use designations for properties are fairly detailed and particular uses and site or road improvements are identified. Commissioner Podber asked if the Village has a liaison with the County Transportation Department or the RTA. He asked what the Village can actually do about the road system. Mr. Pfeil stated the Village has been very involved over a long time period in regional transportation issues on a number of levels, including staff, appointed commission members and elected officials. The Village has a history of involvement in transportation planning, but it difficult to mitigate traffic congestion locally when larger regional forces are at work. He noted that major east-west highways run through the Village and most of this traffic is regional, not local. He noted that the Prairie and Port Clinton Road intersection improvement is nearing completion, including a connection directly into Vernon Hills via the signalized intersection at Route 45. These types of improvements will hopefully mitigate congestion. Commissioner Podber asked if it makes sense to tell a developer who wants to develop 200 to 400 homes or apartments that he cannot do so. Chairman Ottenheimer stated the Commission must be very mindful because its decision must be made based upon the evidence when a project is approved or disapproved. If there is unrefuted evidence that there is not a traffic issue with this new housing development, the Commission must have a good basis to say no. It is incumbent upon the Commission to offer creative suggestions to the developer on how to make the project more appealing and to mitigate negative impacts. Sometimes if you make your wish list too aggressive, the developer may pull out and say he cannot afford to do that. If that is the case, that may be OK. Mr. Blumenthal asked if the Plan Commission can deny development based on not fitting within the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Pfeil stated yes, but if it is a rezoning the review process must document how the proposal did not meet the appropriate zoning requirements. Under Illinois law a municipal comprehensive plan is an advisory rather than legally binding document. Zoning is the legal tool that the Village uses to regulate the type and intensity of development on specific properties that are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman Ottenheimer thanked Greg Summers for his hard work and wished him luck on his new job. FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil noted the next scheduled meeting is September 7, 2005. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Smith and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair