Loading...
2003-08-20 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 08/20/2003 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION August 20, 2003 Twin Creeks Park, 401 Aptakisic Road,Approval of a Special Use And Preliminary Plan for a park facility in the R-1 District— Workshop #2 Niminski property, 936 Betty Drive, Rezoning one parcel to the R-4A District and approval of a Preliminary Plan for two Single-family lots —Workshop #1 Turnberry Condominiums, 105/125 Buffalo Grove Road, modification Of Preliminary Plan concerning secondary access —Discussion 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 Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Commissioners absent: Mr. Samuels Mr. Khan Also present: Mr. Michael Rylko, Superintendent of the Park District Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Nick Niminski Mr. Kurt Schmitt, Deerfield Bakery Mr. Marc Schwartz, Marc Schwartz Associates Mr. Steve Trilling, Village Trustee Mr. Jeffrey Berman, Village Trustee Ms. Ghida Neukirch, Assistant Village Manager Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES—None COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Bocek attended the Village Board meeting on August 18, 2003 and stated there was nothing to report. TWIN CREEKS PARK, 401 APTAKISIC ROAD, APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE AND PRELIINARY PLAN FOR A PARK FACILITY IN THE R-1 DISTRICT—WORKSHOP 92 Mr. John Green stated he has now adjusted the drop off area by making another turnaround opportunity where you come in and where you would drop kids off. They have made that so that the radius would work for vehicles including small vans or 16-passenger buses. It has been made 18 feet wide with an island in it so that people would be able to pass by one another and still be able to have 3-4 vehicles drop off. They also adjusted some of the parking and eliminated 2 parking spaces and went to 4 parking spaces up at the north end and 7 at the northern part of the west end. That allowed him to make a softer sweep unto the site so people will not be crossing over into other lanes in order to make their turns. Mr. Green stated the Park District has now identified all of the significant trees south of the creek and those are now represented on the plan. The actual number of trees to be eliminated is still 15 but there are 5 other trees they will take up and put back where they are at in order to create some berming opportunities. They have identified all of those trees on a tree relocation plan, all but 2 of them are less than 5 inches in diameter and there is usually no difficulty in moving a tree of that size. There is one tree at 6 inches, which should not be a problem, but at that diameter does begin to push the envelope. There is also on honey locust tree at 7 1/2 inches, which is located down at the south end near the circle. If there is a problem with tree, it will be replaced. Mr. Green stated the Park Board has asked for some berming in front of the playground so that they would have a bit more security along the playground buffer. Mr. Green stated they have also prepared a copy of the preliminary floor plan for the building. The building is intended to be primarily a maintenance or storage facility for the Park District. Part of it will be for the performing arts and most of it will be for all the Park District needs that are now scattered around the community. There will be public washrooms, which will service the park and the safety town classroom as well as some storage for safety town. Mr. Green stated the building would be about 26-27 feet high at its peak, which is commensurate with a 2-story house, but is designed as a one-story building. The area where all the maintenance and storage would be located would be 12 feet high at the exterior wall. They are showing masonry, split face block, at the lower 8 feet and then letting some windows in for some light. They have done this before at the Buffalo Grove golf course maintenance building. They use this as a ploy to bring the scale and at the same time not interfere with the ability for them to store and utilize the wall space and minimize any repercussions of any vandalism. They will go with a gable roof to run in both directions and have even added some doors on the West Side of the building as a sub-entry and give the building a nicer feel. Mr. Green stated they are not going to be asking for the appearance approval on the building at this time. They only wanted to show the concept, feel and flavor. They will be looking for plan approval of the building, site plan, and use approval. When the Park District is successful in their grant, which they will know at the end of the year, they will then move forward on the building and foundation plants. Fortunately the park already has a great deal of landscaping and their intention is to reutilize it. Mr. Green noted they would be seeking a variation on the fence height. They would like an 8-foot height on the fence for security purposes. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he liked the plan and the use of the park. He noted there is a possibility for a problem with cars stacking out onto Aptakisic Road or blocking the ability of cars in the parking lot to leave the lot if there are cars stacked along the drop off area. Mr. Green stated they are anticipating very little traffic because the average class size is 12-18. He stated he made the drop off area long enough so there can be 4 vehicles on the drop off area itself and he designed it to be 18 feet wide so they can get by each other there. Commissioner Bocek asked why there is only one window on the south end elevation. She asked if they could raise some more windows up to 8 feet there to create a more consistent elevation. Mr. Green stated that is the window in the classroom area and they have brought this down on purpose as there will be children in the classroom space. Commissioner Bocek stated it does not look balanced and should be revisited. Commissioner Stark asked if cars would be going clockwise or counterclockwise in the northernmost drop off point. Mr. Green stated cars would have to move counterclockwise which is why they shaped the island and placed it the way they did so that they can make the turn in at the south end, but the island is pointed teardrop shape at the north end. If you were coming in on the right hand lane, they would be facing land as opposed to road. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked how old the kids are that participate in safety town. Mr. Rylko stated they are 3-6 years old. Most of the parents will probably not drop the kids off, instead walk them to the door. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated she believes the drop off will not be used very much as most parents will walk them up. Mr. Rylko stated they have volunteer junior leaders who might be the ones who would be dropped off. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if the flood plain issue has been straightened out with Mr. Kuenkler. Mr. Green stated Mr. Kuenkler's memo indicates the flood plain element is identified correctly but they must go through the re-mapping process with the appropriate agency. That is taking from 6-8 months and they have started that process. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if this project would not be built if there were no grant. Mr. Green stated if there is no grant this would not be built in its entirety or it would be built in a different portion or it might be held until additional funds could be gathered. Chairman Ottenheimer asked the reasoning for not giving the aesthetic information for appearance now. He asked if the materials to be used were based on the amount of money received from the grant. Mr. Green stated for the last three weeks he has been unable to provide the Park District with the elevations to look at. All Commissioners agree this project is ready for public hearing. NIMINSKI PROPERTY, 936 BETTY DRIVE, REZONING ONE PARCEL TO THE R-4A DISTRICT AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR TWO SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS —WORKSHOP 91 Mr. Niminski stated he is the owner of the property at 936 Betty Drive, which actually consists of two lots. The north lot is zoned B-1 now and the south lot that is currently R-4A. The request for the rezoning on the south lot is to put up two homes on the lots. The reason for the rezoning is that the existing home on the B-1 lot is vacant and taxes are being paid. Therefore his request for this project is due to hardship reasons. Mr. Niminski stated he understands the property directly west of his is under contract for a commercial development. They have contacted him in regard to purchasing his property and have sent a letter of intent but the offer is too little and he has decided to build the proposed two homes. Mr. Niminski stated the homes would be approximately 2,000 square feet with 2-car garages and would fit on the survey with more than enough room side to side. They would meet the front and rear yard setback of 30 feet. There would also be more than enough room for a 3-car garage if the prospective buyers requested that. Commissioner Bocek asked if there was a basic floor concept for the two lots. Mr. Niminski stated there was one he had brought to the Board meeting. A few changes were made and it is being worked on presently. Commissioner Bocek noted that the properties surrounding these parcels are all commercial. Mr. Niminski stated that to the north is the strip mall and to the west is commercial and to the south and east is all residential. Commissioner Bocek asked if he had tried calling the purchasers of the property to the west to see if they would negotiate about this property. Mr. Niminski stated he has spoken to the prospective owners of the property to the west who sent a letter of intent for this property for the sum of$120,000. One year ago other prospective developers were paying $275,000 for the same property. Commissioner Bocek stated it would be better to have the whole property as a commercial use would be better for the comprehensive plan. She asked if the talks with the commercial developer were at a stalemate. Mr. Niminski stated they are too far apart for further negotiation. Commissioner Smith asked about the history of this property. Mr. Niminski stated he used it as an office when he first purchased it. Commissioner Smith asked if he has tried to market the property as commercial. Mr. Niminski stated no. He noted the property is on well and septic right now and it would be too expensive to redo that for commercial use. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he is still optimistic that this parcel could still be used commercially which is why he is hesitant about this plan. He further noted he attended the July 7th board meeting when this project was discussed as well as the proposed commercial project and he does not feel that either project can be viewed in a vacuum. It needs to be worked on together. He further noted the developer of the commercial property stated at the board meeting that the development of these two lots as homes would create a serious problem for the commercial development. He asked if that was true. Mr. Pfeil stated the plan that has been presented by the developer for 313 Dundee Road does not require this property. The plan for 313 Dundee would have some variations of zoning setbacks relative to the landscaping at the southeast edge of the property adjacent to 936 Betty. More parking has been added so the plan has a slight surplus based on the zoning standard for a medical office building. The plan does not require additional land area for stormwater detention since an underground vault is proposed. The Village Engineer has indicated that the stormwater management plan is feasible. Therefore, the developers of the 313 Dundee property have stated that their site can independently developed, and does need the property at 936 Betty Drive. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he is still concerned over the issue of changing the character of the zoning from a potential commercial use to a residential use. Commissioner Bocek asked that Mr. Niminski make one more attempt with the commercial developer. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he shares Commissioners Bocek and Teplinsky's feelings about seeing this piece as commercial. He stated it is appropriate for this Commission to convey the same sentiments to the commercial developer when they appear again. Mr. Niminski asked if there is a possibility of putting a house on the lot zoned R-4A now if the commercial developers want to purchase only the one lot which is zoned commercial. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he is not sure and it would appear the Commission is leaning to all commercial. He stated that whether it is one lot or two lots that are residential he is not sure that really solves the problem. Commissioner Bocek stated this lot is smaller than the other ones and she worries about the marketability of it. Mr. Niminski stated all the homes up and down the street are very nice and some are quite large. Mr. Pfeil noted that the meeting on the 313 Dundee development ended up with the decision that they could proceed to public hearing. The petitions for 313 Dundee Road and 936 Betty Drive could be scheduled for their respective public hearings on the same agenda if the necessary documentation is submitted for each petition. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that as a general consensus the Commission would prefer all of the property to be commercial. That being said, he asked if there is some way to communicate these desires to the commercial developer who did not get a clear message of these wishes. Mr. Pfeil said he would advise them of the Commission's discussion. He commented that he does not think there is any misunderstanding on the part of either property owner. Both petitioners heard the Village Board's comments, and the Plan Commission is reinforcing the Village Board discussion. These property owners are fairly entrenched in their relative positions, and it does appear that Mr. Niminski will sell his property to the other developer at this point. He noted the parties have had discussions and negotiations, and the offer to purchase was not accepted. Mr. Niminski asked if this meant that the commercial property would be a go whereas his rezoning of his property would not be possible. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that the Plan Commission is saying that its preference is that the property at 936 Betty Drive should be zoned and developed entirely for commercial use rather than the proposed residential plan. But the Plan Commission is an advisory body, and the Village Board isn't required to accept the Commission's recommendation in making the final decision concerning the zoning of the property. TURNBERRY CONDOMINIUMS, 105/125 BUFFALO GROVE ROAD, MODIFICATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAN CONCERNING SECONDARY ACCESS—DISCUSSION Ms. Neukirch noted that construction is underway for the Turnberry condominium development off of Buffalo Grove Road north of Lake Cook Road. This project was first presented to the Village Board and the Plan Commission by the petitioner Mark Avis, representing Avis Investments. Since then Concord Development has taken over that project and are proceeding with the construction of the 100 condominiums. When this project appeared before the Village Board, the easement that was discussed called for an easement from the two condominium buildings directing vehicles further north behind Deerfield Bakery giving access to the signal. Ms. Newukirch stated this easement has been provided for in the annexation agreements that the Village has with Deerfield Bakery. In working out the logistical issues regarding this whole project Mr. Schmitt, owner of Deerfield Bakery, has expressed a number of concerns regarding the traffic that will be going behind his property and the challenge that it would conflict with delivery vehicles which come on a daily basis as well as some other concerns. She noted they have been asked to look at some alternatives to still provide an easement, which would serve the emergency purpose function as well as provide an alternative access for the residents of the new condominiums. Ms. Neukirch stated they are proposing a new plan. In lieu of providing the access easement directly north going by the Deerfield Bakery, they are presenting an easement that will go through behind the Town Center property. These residents would still have access to the parking lot at the northeast corner of the subject property. This proposed plan has been presented to the owner of the Town Center and they have verbally agreed to this easement which would direct traffic to the west of their center. They have presented the plan to Mr. Schmitt and he likes this plan. It has also been reviewed by Village staff, including police and fire emergency response, which have supported this new plan. She noted there are some issues such as three trees, which would have to be moved and relocated as part of this proposed easement. Commissioner Smith asked if the new route would put traffic out on Lake Cook Road. Ms. Neukirch stated it would take traffic through the loading area of the Town Center and then they either go north toward the light between India House and Giordano's. Otherwise residents have the option to go southbound. Commissioner Smith asked where all this discussion was months or years ago. Why is this a problem all of a sudden? Mr. Schmitt stated he told the original developer this would be a significant problem for the bakery as they do not have parking and they have semi-trailers delivering and backing up which create an enormous amount of congestion. The former developer had stated they would work it out by going over the pond. He further stated he heard nothing more. The Village did call and asked about the plan and he objected once again to the Village. He always assumed this was a dead deal. Commissioner Smith asked if no information was ever received from the Village regarding the workshops and public hearings. Mr. Schmitt stated he was not aware of anything. Commissioner Bocek stated the Commission had been told there were no issues with the proposed easement route. She asked why Mr. Schmitt had never come to any of the workshops to express his concerns. Mr. Schmitt stated he was not aware of the workshops and he also had an agreement with the original developer and in discussions those concerns were voiced to the Village when they were doing the preliminary concept before anything was under contract. Commissioner Smith asked exactly what the problem would be. Mr. Schmitt noted the semi-trailers pull in on Checker Road, come in and back up and pull back to get into the dock. In order to do this it takes them about 15 minutes to negotiate the turns. Everything gets hung up at that moment in time. He further noted they always make sure deliveries are spaced out. He further noted they have their own truck traffic which are not as large as the semi's, but they also have to make the turns to get in and out of the lot and it takes the entire lot to do that. Mr. Schmitt further stated that now during shift changes they actually double park in order to handle the parking for the employees. That shift change is from about 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. There are some spaces that have been designated for elimination. When he originally spoke to the developer, he was going to go out behind this parking lot completely, which would have been fine. He also said he would be providing parking spaces. He further noted they did not realize in their initial discussions with the Village regarding this access that it was to be designed strictly for residential use. They had seen it as designed for garbage pickup and such with a parking lot for additional parking for a shopping center. Commissioner Smith asked if the bakery deliveries were twice a day. Mr. Schmitt stated yes. Commissioner Smith asked what time the deliveries are made. Mr. Schmitt stated the first one is around 9:00 a.m. and the second is between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he is looking at the public hearing minutes of March, 2002 noting that Mr. Werthmann, the traffic consultant for the project, said secondary access for the development will be through the existing eastern parking lot to the bakery up through the circulation system to Buffalo Grove Road. He would like to know why this is happening now. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked what the notification procedure is for a public hearing. Mr. Pfeil stated the records indicate Deerfield Bakery was on the mailing list for the public hearing notification and he is confident a letter of the notice of hearing was sent to Mr. Schmitt. There was a workshop discussion process before the public hearing and clearly there was an understanding that this access exists on the Bakery property. He is confident Mr. Schmitt knew about the plan since it was in the public venue quite a few months prior to the Plan Commission hearing. Commissioner Bocek noted originally the thought for a second means of egress was initially discussed at the southernmost end of the Town Center at the drive aisle between the BP Automotive and the condo. Is this still a possibility? Ms. Neukirch stated that would be a possibility. Mr. Pfeil stated Mr. Goldner had various issues with that south access. What the Town Center developer does not want is a thoroughfare at the back of his center. At one time it was thought that the area south of Deerfield Bakery would all be commercial. The residential condominium plan approved for Avis was a change in the Village's planning, so access concepts also changed. He commented that the primary access for the Turnberry condominium site is the full-access driveway on Buffalo Grove Road. The access between Turnberry and Town Center or Turnberry and Deerfield Bakery is only to provide a secondary way for emergency access and for condo residents to be able to get out to a traffic signal. Commissioner Smith asked what the bottom line is here for the Deerfield bakery and is this design possible. Mr. Pfeil stated it is technically possible although there would obviously be some perceived and actual disadvantages to the Deerfield Bakery property. The employee parking would be affected and it should be replaced in some way. Commissioner Smith asked about the flow of traffic from the residents of the building. Mr. Pfeil stated if the representations were correct regarding friction from delivery vehicles it would be less than ideal for condo residents trying to get out through the Bakery property. Trustee Trilling asked if semi's unloading at Deerfield Bakery was actually envisioned at the time of the Deerfield Bakery development. He questioned the use of semis for deliveries and wondered if that was just a case of expansion. He remembers the Commission thought it was imperative for the condominium plan that egress north to the stop light at Checker Road be provided. He said the alternative route to the south was not supported by the Commission Mr. Marc Schwartz stated he represented Deerfield Bakery when its plan was reviewed by the Village, and he knows that they represented that there would be semi-trailer deliveries because it was always the way it was envisioned that this is how the property would be used. He stated he remembers specifically talking to the Plan Commission and the Board about the fact that the Bakery's facility in Deerfield would no longer be the central operation, since the plan was to move operations to the new Buffalo Grove facility. The current situation is that the easement can be legally compelled, but it will create a serious problem for the Bakery operation. Trustee Berman asked if there is an engineering plan that is feasible to re-route the access going north/south, which would allow sufficient room for the semis. In other words, to eliminate the conflict but still allow some manor of egress through the back part of the Bakery lot. Mr. Pfeil stated the stormwater management parcel might have to be moved and would have to be replaced somewhere, which creates an engineering challenge. Trustee Berman asked if that detention can be combined with the detention planned for the Turnberry development. Mr. Pfeil stated he would have to ask the Village Engineer concerning this type of re-plan. It will be technically challenging and probably difficult to get the respective property owners to work that out. Trustee Berman stated that question should be asked. He stated there is a legal right of access that exists there and can be honored but it is not the greatest solution and something else should be found. He stated in his opinion the alternative that has been drawn is not good. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if Mr. Goldner had been apprised of what is happening tonight. Ms. Neukirch stated he was. She stated he is comfortable with the traffic going through his property. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he feels Concord should be included in the discussions. Mr. Schwartz asked if there had not already been an exploration of this issue. Mr. Pfeil stated they had not specifically explored moving the detention on the Deerfield Bakery property. Mr. Schwartz noted moving the detention is the only other alternative as there is no way to slide further east and get traffic through there. He noted he personally saw employee cars double-parked because there is not enough parking there for the employees. There were also cars parked in the truck-loading bay. Chairman Ottenheimer stated there had been numerous workshops on this project and the Plan Commission tried to develop the best possible plan that would be workable and practical and minimize inconvenience to existing businesses. The Commission's recommendation was based on the information that was presented at the workshops and public hearing. It appears that the Commission did not have all the proper information at the time. He suggested that the developer and the Village look at some alternatives and present them to the Commission. It's the Commission's intent to look at the various options and come up with a plan that will be harmonious for everyone. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next regular meeting would be September 3, 2003. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair