Loading...
2003-01-15 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 01/15/2003 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING (continued from January 8, 2003) BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION January 15, 2003 Prestige Leasing, 313 Dundee Road and 936 Betty Drive, Rezoning To the B-4 District and approval of a Preliminary Plan Chairman Ottenheimer reconvened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Chairman Ottenheimer explained the procedure to be followed for the public hearing and reminded all those that would be testifying that they were still under oath. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Billiter Mr. Stark Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. Russell Shavitz, 3407 Betty Drive Mr. Bernard Citron, Schain, Burney, Ross & Citron, Ltd. Mr. Jamil Bou-Saab, Terra Engineering Ltd. Ms. Josephine Bellalta, Altamanu Mr. John C. Schiess, Architect Mr. Arthur Friedman, Prestige Leasing Mr. Igor Blumin, Elrod Realty Mr. Daniel J. Dowd, Dowd, Dowd& Mertes, Ltd. Mr. Jon Wildenberg, Rolf Campbell & Assoc. Mr. Mark Krause, MaRous & Company Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Ms. DeAnn Glover, Village Trustee Mr. Charles Johnson, Village Trustee Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner Mr. Bernard Citron recalled Mr. John Schiess noting there were two building sizes of office buildings and how much traffic would be generated. A question was asked as to whether or not the residentially zoned portion was included in the traffic analysis. Our discussions were that the 27,000 square foot office building was only what would be permitted under the property currently zoned B-1 and the 39,000 square foot office building would assume the R-4 lot was rezoned to B-1 since it cannot be developed as R-4 and that would be the size of the building that could fit on the lot. Therefore, the traffic numbers provided and the conclusions drawn by Mr. Bou-Saab are based on those assumptions. Mr. Schiess stated that was correct. Mr. Citron recalled Mr. Friedman and asked if there is a residential subdivision in back of his Glenview operation. Mr. Friedman stated yes. Mr. Citron asked if there is anywhere near the type of screening and landscaping in Glenview that would be present on this proposed facility. Mr. Friedman stated no. Mr. Citron asked if there have been any complaints from the neighbors in the five years he had been operating in Glenview. Mr. Friedman stated no. Mr. Citron asked if the Village of Glenview has ever complained about anything. Mr. Friedman stated no. Mr. Dowd asked if Mr. Friedman was leaving the existing operation in Glenview because of insufficient size necessary for the business. Mr. Friedman stated yes. Mr. Dowd asked if Mr. Friedman had applied for a rezoning application in Glenview, which has been denied. Mr. Friedman stated yes. Mr. Citron asked Mr. Friedman if another reason for leaving the Glenview site was due to the fact that many of his customers are in the Buffalo Grove area. Mr. Friedman stated many of them are. Mr. Citron asked if the denial by Glenview had anything to do with the overall operation or complaints. Mr. Friedman stated that was correct and stated they only wanted to add an additional 7,000 square feet. Chairman Ottenheimer swore in additional persons who wished to give testimony. Mr. Dowd noted 3407 Betty Drive is immediately across the street to the east of the property currently zoned R-4 and asked how long Mr. Russell Shavitz had lived here. Mr. Shavitz stated he has lived here since 1997. Mr. Dowd asked if there was anything in particular that had attracted Mr. Shavitz to this location. Mr. Shavitz stated they were looking for the rural setting, without curbs and gutters and bigger lots. Mr. Dowd asked Mr. Shavitz if he had been aware of the zoning of the property immediately across the street, which is proposed to be rezoned to B-4 at the time he bought his property. Mr. Shavitz stated he did not look the zoning up but there is a house there and he assumed it was a residential type setting. Mr. Dowd asked about the vacant property across the street. Mr. Shavitz stated he would not be opposed to a commercial setting north of the alley. However, he is opposed to commercial development once it starts moving down the street. Mr. Dowd noted the proposed development would come 400 feet down Betty Drive from Dundee Road. He asked Mr. Shavitz if he felt the development of the proposal as presented would have an adverse effect on his property. Mr. Shavitz stated it would have a real adverse effect on his property. Mr. Dowd asked what kind of negative things would impact Mr. Shavitz's property if this proposal were passed. Mr. Shavitz stated no one wants a used car lot with high intensity lights across the street from their house. Mr. Dowd asked if this would involve more noise than is currently generated from the site and would normally expect from a residential use. Mr. Shavitz stated yes, more light, more noise, cars starting up, snowplowing out of the parking lot, repairs on vehicles. Mr. Dowd asked if it would have effect Mr. Shavitz's decision to buy the property if it had been developed as proposed. Mr. Shavitz stated if he looked across the street before he bought his house and noticed a used car lot there is absolutely no way he would have bought his house. Mr. Dowd asked if there are other would be buyers who feel the same way and it would make it more difficult to sell his house if this proposal is allowed. Mr. Shavitz stated yes. Mr. Citron noted 3407 Betty Drive is one house removed to the south from commercial development and the area is therefore not very rural. Across the street from 3407 Betty Drive is a vacant lot, which is the R-4 piece. He asked if Mr. Shavitz was ever aware that the piece just north of there, even though there is a house there, was zoned B-1. Mr. Shavitz stated he realized that about a year ago. Mr. Citron noted that parcel could become a tavern or restaurant open 24 hours or any of those uses. Mr. Shavitz stated he did not know if that would be an appropriate use for coming down a residential street. Mr. Citron noted that what Mr. Shavitz would see from his house is landscaping and a fence. Unless you are in the second story, no cars would be seen. Mr. Shavitz stated he does not believe that he will not see cars. Mr. Citron asked why if no cars are seen and the facility is closed on Sundays, this property would be effected. Mr. Shavitz stated his real estate agent noted he would lose a lot more money than the appraisers who have testified. He does not want to move and he does not want to look across at used car lot. Chairman Ottenheimer swore in Ms. Cheryl Bernardi, 3340 Betty Drive. Mr. Dowd asked if Ms. Bernardi was aware of the current zoning classification for the property immediately north of her property when she bought her property. Ms. Bernardi stated no and that she had only found out recently. Mr. Dowd asked about the vacant lot. Ms. Bernardi stated she had not realized there were two separate properties and had assumed the house that is still at the end of the block owned the vacant lot. Mr. Dowd asked if she had assumed it was residential in nature. Ms. Bernardi said yes because the house is residential. Mr. Dowd asked if she believes the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the quality of her living as well as the value of her property. Ms. Bernardi noted she came from the city where they had lived right behind a dealership and she knows firsthand how intrusive this kind of development is and the promotions that go on and how dirty it gets and the lighting. She stated they moved here to give her kids a good backyard and for the space. Mr. Dowd asked if she finds the proposed six-foot fence obtrusive. Ms. Bernardi stated yes and the fact that they are proposing to clear 77 trees, which act as a barrier for Dundee Road traffic now. Mr. Dowd asked if this kind of development would have effected her decision to buy her property. Ms. Bernardi stated absolutely, she would never have bought the property. Mr. Dowd asked if she believes it will make it more difficult to sell her property both in terms of the timing of it and the value of her property if this development were allowed to go through. Ms. Bernardi stated yes. Chairman Ottenheimer swore in Mary Gerharz, 3320 Betty Drive. Mr. Dowd asked if she had made a phone call to Prestige Leasing in Glenview in the last month. Ms. Gerharz stated yes, and she spoke to Nathaniel whom she asked about possibly buying and leasing a vehicle, what his hours were and if they would do any oil changes or other repair work. She noted his response that they would do the work as they had a repair shop where the hours are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Citron asked Ms. Gerharz asked if she had asked Nathaniel where this repair shop was located. Ms. Gerharz said no, but he said they had a service department, which is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Dowd asked what Ms. Gerharz's son was told when he called Prestige with the same question. Ms. Gerharz stated a different gentlemen told her son they do not do any servicing or repairs and any car purchased or leased from them it would have to be taken to a dealer. Mr. Citron recalled Mr. Friedman and asked him if there is a repair shop in the Glenview operation, which does engine repairs or oil changes. Mr. Friedman stated no. Mr. Citron asked if he had any intention of establishing a repair shop at the proposed location. Mr. Friedman stated no. Mr. Citron asked what the hours of operation are in the Glenview facility. Mr. Friedman stated the hours are 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. Mr. Citron asked if those are the same hours previously stated to be maintained at the proposed location if approved. Mr. Friedman stated yes. Mr. Citron asked if he had a contract with another entity for repairs to his vehicles. Mr. Friedman stated yes. Mr. Citron asked if those repair shop hours are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Friedman stated yes. Mr. Dowd asked if the vehicles are dropped off at Prestige in Glenview and taken to the repair shop for the convenience of their customers. Mr. Friedman stated that usually a customer would take them to the repair shop themselves. Sometimes they may leave their car at Prestige to be taken in for repairs and they have employees who will take those cars to the service department. Chairman Ottenheimer stated they would now allow public comment and cross-examination. He noted cross examination, however, must be relevant to the subject matter of the petition and the right of cross examination only applies to those individuals who have already presented testimony. Mr. Gerald Scott, President of homeowners association of The Coves stated that based only on information presented at these meetings and workshops, it is apparent that this requested zoning change and project must be rejected because there is no valid reason to rezone both parcels to B-4 to accommodate the petitioner. The granting of spot zoning variations would be detrimental to the further development of the Village. It must be obvious to everyone that it just does not fit. The information reveals the following facts, inconsistencies and conflicts: 1. For the petitioner to criticize the Village for their failure to advice them that there is a minimum requirement of 4 acres necessary for B-4 zoning is absurd. If they had properly researched this project, they would never have made the request. 2. Their argument that this proposal represents the lesser of two evils is not a valid one. There is one more choice, which is rejecting their proposal completely and afterwards, have the Village Board consider the future conformance of a new proposed use commensurate with the existing zoning. 3. Mr. Friedman stated they expect to receive only one flat bed truck delivery of just four cars per week. If they expect to triple their business volume from $22,000,000 to the increased volume of$66,000,000, then simple logic says that a 60 percent rate of used car sales as presented means $40,000,000 in sales. Assuming the average price of a used car is $20,000 as they represented, it means approximately 2000 used cars sales per year, all sold off the used car lot. 2000 cars per year amounts to about 40 used cars per week. If their single weekly delivery of just one flatbed delivery of four cars, then how do the other 36 cars arrive on the lot. It is obvious the weekly delivery volume as stated was in error and it can be expected to have five weekly deliveries of eight cars on each tractor-trailer parked on Golfview Terrace. This is totally unacceptable. Mr. Marvin Streske, 556 Parkview Terrace, president of Covington Manor Association, noted that more than 60 percent of the proposed Prestige frontage is on either Golfview Terrace or Betty Drive, both of which are residential streets. He further noted that they presently have construction vehicles delivering cement, flatbed tractor trailer trucks delivering free formed wood walls and stringers, all while backed into the construction site at the Fifth Third Bank site, blocking Parkview Terrace or reducing it only one lane of traffic. The drivers of these rigs are not aware of the fact that there is no outlet at the rear of Parkview Terrace. Therefore these trailers are getting stuck in the cul-de-sacs. When they manage to turn around they have to pass through the construction area again and squeeze through the congestion of the other vehicles. In doing so they are breaking off the branches of the parkway trees on the south side of Parkview Terrace. On January 3, 2003 a water main was broken causing water to shoot into the air. The water was finally shut off, but unfortunately it also shut water off to building 1 of Covington Terrace. That left 8 families with no water for hours. He stated he offers this information only as testimony of what the residents of Covington Manor and The Coves have had to endure in regard to the last two Village plans. If the Commission approves this new plan, the problems will become unbearable not only with construction congestion, but auto deliveries upon completion. He stated once this new plan is approved, nothing would stop the use of the 60-foot auto carriers for deliveries. Bringing these trucks into a local residential neighborhood is not only foolish but also dangerous. There has never been a valid traffic study done in which the impact of the new bank and the 11 new townhomes were taken into consideration. In measuring Golfview Terrace at the location where the planned drive is to be put in and found it to be 32 feet wide from curb cut to curb cut. That is almost adjacent to the entrance of the office complex, which will also be the egress portion for Fifth Third Bank. He noted tractor-trailers would be forced to unload adjacent to the curb, which will then block one lane of Golfview Terrace. He noted there would be a total of 159 families that have no other way in or out of the neighborhood except through Golfview Terrace. If these families cannot get out, it creates a problem for emergency services getting in. Mr. Streske stated if the Village approves this plan it would appear the Village is more concerned with the need for tax revenue than they are about the security and welfare of its residents. Ms. Ruth Reynolds, 367 Parkview Terrace, noted her concern with the pictures that had been presented by the petitioner. These pictures are extremely misleading. They must have been taken earlier than the middle of December when construction was taking place. Also, the pictures depicting the neighborhood failed to show Covington Manor residences, The Coves, the Methodist Church, the Lutheran Church, and the fire department. She noted the implication of the testimony was that there are cars being sold in the area. Actually six or seven blocks away are car dealerships with no buildings across Dundee. She further noted Chatham residents had successfully discouraged a new car dealership development on the north side of Dundee Road a few years back. The result is four beautiful new condo buildings. Mr. Jerry Szklarzewski, 879 Beechwood Road, stated he is in support of this project. He noted he has personally known the petitioner for over 10 years and has done business with Prestige Leasing at the Glenview facility. He stated the petitioner is of good moral character, honest and of high integrity. He stated he always delivers on his pledges and usually exceeds expectations. He stated he has witnessed Prestige as a good neighbor to their community in Glenview. Buffalo Grove has grown but growth opportunities are limited as the Village matures and we must welcome and embrace businesses such as this that are willing to take the risk and relocate in our community while lending economic support which is vital and important by paying their fair share of taxes. As Buffalo Grove residents we must be mindful that the potential economic benefits of this new neighbor far outweigh any negative perceptions when you consider that residential tax contributions pale in comparison to the economic tax potential of a business such as this. It is important to note that every dollar this business contributes to the Village's tax base represents one dollar fewer that the residents will have to pay and he therefore feels this project should be supported. Ms. Eleanor Hesse, 787 Beechwood Dr., stated that the proposed development would have a domino effect when another developer asks for a zoning change next door to Prestige and this will bring down the residential quality of the neighborhood. She noted the applicant has no automatic legal right to a zoning change. Ms. Dolores Cavenaugh, 397 Covington Terrace stated she is opposed to the proposed development. She stated the placement of the right in, right out so close to the entrance of the one-story office building to the east is unsafe. The immediate area is primarily single family residential uses. The creation of a special use with high intensity lighting will destroy the single-family nature of the area and will create safety and welfare uses for neighbors. The existence of many automobiles on the lot may create a magnet for theft and vandalism that could extend to the residential homes. The site is too dense, does not have adequate pervious coverage and lacks any realistic look at how truck traffic will flow in and out of the site and ignores the basic fact that the dealership will use the adjacent residential roads for purposes they were not intended. This type of use should be located in a more commercial and traffic friendly environment, not crammed into a residential neighborhood. Ms. Sue McCosky, 383 Covington Terrace, noted that at a previous workshop it had been stated that this would not be a used car lot. Also, in Glenview the petitioners were rejected in their expansion to a 7,000 square foot building and tonight they are asking for a 14,000 square foot building. Mr. Citron stated inconsistencies pop up and get clarified. He noted the bulk of sales are new car sales instead of used car sales. The comment of an expansion to a 7,000 square foot building was actually a 7,000 square foot site. He stated they would not have gotten this far with the B-4 zoning unless the Village had indicated that it was the correct thing to ask for and they were allowed to ask for. Mr. Citron stated this is Dundee Road, which generally is commercial and specifically high intensity commercial. There are automobile dealers on Dundee and next door to them are residential uses in many situations. The residential in general on Dundee is higher intensity residential. There are some single-family homes left which are vestiges of when this was a rural area. The existing uses and zoning in nearby properties are consistent with what is being asked for. He further noted they are asking for a low impact automotive related use. Mr. Citron stated he believes the property values will not go down. He stated he believes the appraiser looked at one very finite area, which is two lots only. Those lots are already very near commercial zoning. This is not a rural area. You can hear the noise from Dundee at any of these houses. There is public gain here by serving the public. There is a tax benefit to the Village and it is a reason to look at this. Mr. Citron stated the zoning is appropriate for this use and this property is that the Village has already opined legislatively that you can have B-1 zoning and higher next to residential districts. That legislative act has already happened. There are some B-1 uses that are very intense. The point is that the Village Board has already opined that it is appropriate to have those types of uses in close proximity to residential uses. They did this by zoning the properties. If you look at the uses in the B-1 district that were already deemed appropriate in close proximity to residential and you look at the actual impact that has been put before this board, the proposed use impacts are less. We have already agreed that there will be no test-drives through the neighborhood. There would be no 60 foot trailer deliveries here as it would not fit. If there were a 39,000 square foot office building here there would most certainly be traffic tie-ups. Mr. Citron stated noise is a negative impact. There will be cars starting up but this development is smaller than a car dealership, and they only open at 10 a.m. The lot will need to be plowed but there are ways to deal with even that. Lighting is a real issue. They have designed lighting so that it does not shine all over and it can be done in a way to lower lighting during the night. Mr. Citron stated the piece of R-4 presently on the site is totally unsuitable for a house, as there is no water and sewer and should therefore be rezoned to B-1 because it should be part of the overall development. Mr. Citron stated there is a public need for the proposed use. He noted that the customers come from this area and tax benefits to the Village would accrue. As far as the LaSalle standards go, this development does well. Mr. Dowd stated the facts of the property are overwhelmingly against the introduction of this highly intensive business use in what is essentially a neighborhood setting. He noted their land planner had stated that in order to consider putting this use at this location you would have to disregard the careful, comprehensive planning the community has down and completely ignore the stated purposes in the zoning ordinances regarding location of business districts. To do so would involve an illegal spot zone. He therefore concluded it was spot zoning because the change in zoning is applicable to only a small area where the minimum area required by the zoning ordinance is 4 acres. The zoning change is also not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the subject property is being singled out for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area. They also found that the proposed use classification would benefit only the subject property owner and would be a detriment to the other property owners. It would involve an introduction into the area of the most intensive business district available and that would create negatives impacts on the surrounding properties. The petitioner is seeking to go from the least most intensive business use that has been legislated upon by the Village Authorities to one of the most intensive uses allowed in the Village. One of the reasons the petitioner wants to move out here is to double or triple his business, all of which will make this worse. Mr. Dowd stated the appraiser testified it is his opinion that it would be a minimum of 5-10 percent reduction in property values. Common sense tells you that this proposed use does not belong here and it will have a material adverse effect on the neighborhood. Some of the factors considered by the appraiser in making that conclusion are: 1. These houses will no longer front or adjoin residentially zoned property, but will not front and adjoin commercial property. 2. The character of the commercial development will change from being predominantly daytime hour office uses with limited traffic to a high-density commercial development that will have longer operating hours and weekend traffic and operations. 3. The change from office or residential uses that typically has relatively low amounts of lighting to commercial use. 4. The change from relatively few and small delivery trucks to large automobile tractor trailers. 5. The density of the development as proposed is significantly high and points to its high intensity. 6. The business operations would change to allow for exterior business operations or storage on movement of motor vehicles for sale or lease. In the R-1 district everything must be done inside. Mr. Dowd stated the site is just too small and creates bottlenecks to access and circulation. The ordinance requires a minimum of 4 acres for B-4 zoning. The ordinance also says if there is a similar use adjacent you can "borrow" from that use to make up the 4 acres. That is not present here. There is a B-3 across the street. Our opinion of similar use is not this. This development would be a grossly inappropriate intrusion of a high business use into a limited retail and residential district. It would be offensive and would have an adverse effect on the neighbors who live in the area. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully yours, 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: 01/15/2003 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION January 15, 2003 Prestige Leasing, 313 Dundee Road and 936 Betty Drive, Rezoning To the B-4 District and approval of a Preliminary Plan Noah's Landing First Resubdivision—Review of Plat Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 9:15 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Billiter Mr. Stark Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. Russell Shavitz, 3407 Betty Drive Mr. Bernard Citron, Schain, Burney, Ross & Citron, Ltd. Mr. Jamil Bou-Saab, Terra Engineering Ltd. Ms. Josephine Bellalta, Altamanu Mr. John C. Schiess, Architect Mr. Arthur Friedman, Prestige Leasing Mr. Igor Blumin, Elrod Realty Mr. Daniel J. Dowd, Dowd, Dowd& Mertes, Ltd. Mr. Jon Wildenberg, Rolf Campbell & Assoc. Mr. Mark Krause, MaRous & Company Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Ms. DeAnn Glover, Village Trustee Mr. Charles Johnson, Village Trustee Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to approve the minutes of the public hearing of December 4, 2002. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Samuels and Khan abstaining. Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Samuels to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 4, 2002. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Samuels and Khan abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Kenski-Sroka attended the Village Board meeting on January 6, 2003 noting two items were referred to the Plan Commission: 1. Minor change to a Special Use in the R-5 District for Safety Town 2. Proposal for the Chicago Indoor Racing facility to be constructed in the remodeled General Binding building PRESTIGE LEASING, 313 DUNDEE ROAD AND 936 BETTY DRIVE, REZONING TO THE B-4 DISTRICT AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval to the Village Board of a petition for re-zoning from the B-1 Business District and the R-4A Dwelling District to the B-4 Business District and approval of a Preliminary Plan with the following variation: ZONING ORDINANCE — Section 17.44.050.F. (to allow the landscaping within the 30-foot building setback along the Golfview Terrace right-of-way to be less than 25 feet in width, pursuant to the proposed Preliminary Plan) so that the petitioner can build the proposed automobile sales and leasing facility, including a 2-story building of 14, 524 square feet, pursuant to the exhibits introduced into evidence and the testimony of the witnesses appearing during the public hearing and subject to: 1. The use of delivery vehicles that are no longer than 40 feet 2. No test drives will occur that are not accompanied by a representative of the business and that they will not occur on the residential streets in the area Commissioner Smith stated this is a very good business and Buffalo Grove needs good businesses and increased tax revenues. He stated he does not give a lot of credence to the idea of loss of property values due to this development. Everyone says there will be a loss of property values when a development comes into their neighborhood. He stated it is his opinion, however, that this business does not blend into this neighborhood and would have a detrimental effect to the neighborhood in this instance. There is a reason why auto sales needs to be in the B-4 District and that is due to its intensity and the need for 4 acres. He further stated he does not feel the benefits do not outweigh the negatives in this case and he will not vote in favor of the proj ect. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated she agrees that Dundee Road is a commercial venue and there are numerous venues that would be appropriate for this location. However, she does not feel an auto leasing facility is appropriate at this location. She stated she is concerned with the traffic and the increased impervious surface that may add to the water problems existing in the Betty Drive area now. She also noted she is not particularly impressed with the real estate issue. She noted the math on the sales volumes would lead her to believe there is no reasonable way in which the number of cars to be sold can be delivered in the manner which has been proposed. Commissioner Teplinsky stated there are two issues for him. Mr. Krause testified there would be a negative impact but that impact was really based on commercial development in the area, not something peculiar to having this type of business in the area and he had hoped the evidence would point closer toward the particular uses being discussed. He noted he believes Dundee Road is a corridor and he also understands the residents' desire to have this particular property remain undeveloped. However, he is not convinced that the devaluation issue has been adequately proven or addressed. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he is concerned with the particular use. The lighting in the parking lot bothers him and he understands the design of the light is such that there will be no spillover. However, that is what the residents will be looking at. Also the delivery of vehicles could potentially be extremely disruptive. He also noted his concern that the traffic studies did not take into consideration the impact of the Fifth Third Bank and the additional townhome facilities that are being built to the west. He stated he realizes this use will be less intensive than many others, but the zoning designation of B-4 would remain on the property. Therefore he does not feel this is a proper site for this development. It is too small and too close to the neighboring developments. Commissioner Bocek stated rezoning the majority of the property to B-4 is a stretch, especially when you consider the size of the acreage required for B-4 as well as the intensity. She noted that if you add 43 additional cars that will be required during peak hour for Prestige to the existing traffic in that area, it is a substantial increase to the traffic count. She stated her other issue is regarding the use of the adjacent parcels as a part of the 4 acre requirement. She does not believe the surrounding developments are similar in their zoning or in their impact. Commissioner Stark stated he really does not feel traffic would have a great impact if this facility were to go in. However, looking at the site it is easy to see a facility like this does not belong on this site. Commissioner Khan stated he is familiar with this site and stated that posting signs of no parking and others would probably be ignored by truck drivers as would the thought that they would be coming only at specific times. There are some very difficult maneuvers on the site to endure and he therefore cannot recommend this project. Commissioner Billiter stated the water was a concern to him initially but he does not feel there will be any water from this site to add to residents' concerns. However, he has an issue with the zoning. The site currently only has 1.81 acres available. He tends to think the project is too large for such a small site. Additionally, he noted there is no way to get a 40-foot truck in or out of this site completely on this site only. This is a matter of ethics because you are talking about borrowing other streets that were never designed in principle for commercial trucks. These are residential streets. He further stated he has witnessed what the trucks do at the other dealerships on Dundee which is to back up the road constantly and have drivers coming out to stop traffic in order to get the trucks off their site. The turn is a nightmare into the Nissan facility and even with the 40-foot trucks they have gone over the curb countless times. The turn at this site is tighter, there is less adequate space to get on it and this will go into a subdivision street in order to get to the property. Therefore he will not be voting in favor of this project. Commissioner Samuels stated this is a business use on a business street. In terms of traffic, it probably has a less intensive traffic impact than most of the other uses that could be contemplated for this site. If there is a defect here, it is possibly in the way the zoning ordinances have contemplated these uses. The only reason B-4 is being asked for is because B-4 is the only zoning classification that we have in the Village to accommodate this use. He stated we should probably consider special uses that would permit this type of use within the lower districts because they can be evaluated for scale and the scale of this project is relatively small. It really makes no difference what use wants to come in here. The people who live in this area have problems and anything that gets built on this property will be perceived to be an aggravation of their problems. All in all this is a relatively small and light impact use and he will support the project. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Samuels NAPES: Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Billiter, Stark ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Ottenheimer The motion failed 8 to 1. NOAH'S LANDING FIRST RESUBDIVISION—REVIEW OF PLAT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Teplinsky to approve the Plat of Rresubdivision for Noah's Landing. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Billiter, Stark, Ottenheimer NAPES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Samuels The motion passed 8 to 0. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil noted the next meeting is scheduled for February 5, 2003. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Mr. Sherman stated he will be out of town for the Chicago Indoor Racing project and he hopes the Plan Commission will consider issues of air pollution and the concern with bringing in the most aggressive drivers in the Midwest to Buffalo Grove. STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Smith and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair