2002-06-05 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission
Document Type: 0 A e
g nda 0 Minutes
Meeting ate: 06/05/2002
Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
June 5, 2002
Riverwalk North, east of Milwaukee Avenue north of Riverwalk
Drive—Amendment of a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and
Preliminary Plan in the B-3 District—Workshop #3
Aldrich property, 16226 W. Aptakisic Road,Annexation with
Business zoning—Workshop #1
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.
Commissioner present: Chairman Ottenheimer
Mr. Samuels
Mr. Smith
Ms. Bocek
Ms. Kenski-Sroka
Mr. Khan
Commissioners absent: Ms. Dunn
Mr. Panitch
Also present: Mr. Timothy Beechick, Hamilton Partners
Mr. Michael Werthmann, Kenig Lindgren O'Hara Aboona
Mr. Hugh Loftus, Cowhey Gudmundson Leder Ltd.
Mr. David Olsen, The Jenkins Group
Ms. Susan Aldrich
Mr. Adrian Aldrich
Mr. Charles Johnson, Village Trustee
Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Khan, seconded by Commission Smith to approve the minutes of the
regular meeting of March 20, 2002. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the
motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Khan abstaining.
Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commission Smith to approve the minutes of
the public hearing and regular meeting of May 1, 2002. 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 June 3, 2002 where
appointments of three new Plan Commissioners was announced. In addition there was
discussion regarding additional landscaping around the Route 83 overpass.
Commissioner Samuels stated he attended the Village Board meeting on May 20, 2002 when the
Cosmic Zone project was approved. In addition there was a referral of the Aldrich property to
the Plan Commission.
RIVERWALK NORTH, EAST OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE NORTH OF RIVERWALK
DRIVE — AMENDMENT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) AND
PRELIMINARY PLAN IN THE B-3 DISTRICT—WORKSHOP 93
Mr. Beechick reviewed the 1990 plan at the time the Riverwalk North parcel was zoned for
office development. There is an existing subdivision plat filed with the County that includes
right of way in certain areas of the property. At the time the law was such that any time right of
way was vacated, property owners on either side of the right of way would be able to gain half of
that right of way for their own account. That has changed since 1990. Now all of the right of
way can stay with the property owner and they can use the additional area. Maintaining the right
of way on the eastern edge of the property can now be accomplished.
Mr. Beechick further stated the building setback from the east property line is 25 feet but the
parking setback has changed from 1 foot to 15 feet. This is in conjunction with the fact that they
no longer need to maintain half of the right of way area. The width of the bikepath has increased
from 8 feet to 10 feet. The parking lot at the restaurant site has been reconfigured and is shaped
differently from the last plan. They were able to find space for three more parking stalls in the
new plan. He noted they would need a variation on the north property line once this property is
annexed because the building rests very closely to Cy's Crab House restaurant.
Mr. Beechick reviewed a list of the required variations they will be asking for. He noted many
of the variations have already been implemented in the Riverwalk development and were part of
the P.U.D. process.
Mr. Beechick noted the Village ordinance requires detailed grading drawings indicating the
elevation of the top of all building foundations and ground floor elevations, lot corners, change
of grade and other topographical indications. They are suggesting with this type of development
that detailed grading plans will be provided at the time of each individual building submittal for
final approval. They will provide a conceptual grading plan at this point and at a meeting with
Village staff the Village engineer did not have a problem with this approach.
Mr. Beechick stated the concrete sidewalks per the development ordinance shall be provided on
both sides of all public and private streets and located 1 foot from the property line. They are
requesting to construct a sidewalk along only one side of the proposed North Riverwalk Drive
public right of way. This would be adjacent to the curb line. The existing layout in Riverwalk
allows for a carriage walk, which shows a sidewalk adjacent to the existing curb line of the
street. This provides for more landscaped area and more efficiency in overall planning. It will
allow for a bike trail on the east side of the development and pedestrian systems crossing through
the development. Therefore, they believe that the sidewalk on one side of the proposed public
street will be adequate to service pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Loftus noted the Village code calls for either an open water detention basin or a dry basin
that 2:1 slopes in an underdrained area for the stormwater detention facility at the north end of
the site. He stated they are requesting to provide a wetland type facility. In discussing this with
the Village Engineer he stated that is consistent with the Lake County stormwater ordinance for
best management practices and he has no opposition to that. The second request relates to
elevation of the stormwater structures such as inlets, catch basins and rims. Village code
requires that they be a minimum of 1 foot above the base flood elevation. There are three points
in the site where they are able to elevate those structures above the base flood but they cannot
get them a full foot above the base flood elevation.
Mr. Beechick stated the development ordinance within business developments calls for an 80
foot wide right of way with a 47 foot back to back pavement section from curb to curb. He
stated they are proposing that the North Riverwalk Drive public street that would be constructed
within the development have a 66 foot right of way with a pavement width within that 66 foot
right of way would be 40 feet back to back from curb to curb. The rationale for that is that there
would be no parking allowed on this street so that width of pavement does not have to
accommodate parking on the street. This also provides more room for the landscaping cushion
that they would like to see adjacent to the public right of way and green space. It is consistent
with what is present in the existing Riverwalk development to the north.
Mr. Beechick further stated the ordinance requires offstreet bikepaths to be constructed of 4
inches of class I asphalt surface course. There are areas, particularly at the office building or
multi-family residential where they may want to mix in a segment of that trail system that might
have a different material that would tie in with the common area elements that are integrated
within that specific building development on the site plan. Therefore they are requesting that
they be allowed the option of including a portion of the bike trail to have a different type of
building material.
Mr. Beechick stated the next variation deals with poles for street lighting. There is a specific
specification within the development ordinance for street poles and lighting. Their plan would
call for a more customized light pole, which is consistent with the light pole they have at the
current Riverwalk development. He noted they would like to keep that same style and carry it
through into Riverwalk North. They would also enter into an agreement where they would
maintain the light poles as they are not the typical poles the Village is accustomed to
maintaining.
Mr. Beechick noted the ordinance requires trees for parkways and other public areas are to be
planted not less than 40 feet apart and not less than 1 per lot. They are requesting to plant the
required number of trees but in clusters or groupings. He noted their proposed landscape plan
for parkway areas is much denser in the amount of plantings that would be included in the right
of way.
Mr. Beechick stated under the zoning ordinance parking spaces shall be designed in accordance
with the parking dimensions. This requires all parking stalls to be 9 feet wide by 18 '/z feet long
with 26-foot aisles between stall lines. They are requesting a reduction in the size of parking
stalls to 8 feet 6 inches in width by 18 feet in length with 24-foot aisles. These stalls would
apply only to areas where they have structured parking or parking underneath the multi-family
residential building.
Commissioner Samuels stated spaces are getting tighter these days due to bigger cars and he
wonders if it is well advised to continue to use the smaller spaces and to have a variance.
Mr. Beechick stated he could check the logs at the Riverwalk development to see if there have
been continual concerns on the part of tenants in the building as it relates to the parking stalls. In
particular Allstate Insurance was very much a part of the design of the second building. They
are very astute as to the size of parking stalls and the need for in and out movements and
adequate spacing and they did not object to the sizing of the stalls.
Commissioner Samuels noted that this is not the sort of thing that employees are likely to talk
about and he has concerns with the smaller stalls. He noted that he just generally has a hard time
reducing the size of parking spaces.
Commissioner Kenski-Sroka noted that she concurs with Commissioner Samuels' comments.
She noted she too has been in to many small parking spaces with no maneuverability.
Mr. Beechick stated that any surface parking stalls shown on the plan would be conforming to
the zoning ordinance in size.
Mr. Beechick noted the next item states that no building or structure shall be erected or
maintained within 50 feet of any residential property line. For any structure in excess of
forty-five feet in height above grade, said setback shall be increased 2 feet in width for every 1
foot in building height above 45 feet. He stated there really wouldn't be a variation required in
this instance upon their establishment of the special type of zoning classification for this
particular development. As a result they will not be formally requesting a variation for this
particular matter.
Mr. Beechick noted the next ordinance states no building or structure shall be erected or
maintained within 25 feet of the right of way of any street, the 25 foot strip shall be landscaped.
He stated their request for building setbacks along the existing and proposed right of ways within
the development shall be 25 and not less than 15 feet of the required building shall be landscaped
with the exception of the paving required for ingress and egress. Building setbacks along right
of ways fronting the Des Plaines River shall be 10 feet for office and multi-family buildings and
1 foot for structured parking facilities. However, that has now changed.
Mr. Olsen noted a variation will still be required because a portion of the ordinance requires that
at no time shall a building be constructed at a distance from the right of way less than equal to its
height. They are therefore requesting the establishment of a 25-foot common right of way along
Riverwalk Drive and North Riverwalk Drive.
Mr. Beechick stated the next item relates to the discussion of establishing a zoning classification
of this type of mixed-use development and really deals with the density issue on multi-family
residential. He stated they will hold off on making a presentation on this item until the Village
establishes the terms and conditions of the zoning class.
Mr. Beechick reviewed the conceptual landscaping plan noting they attempted to address only
the common area or public right of way landscaping. They do not show any landscaping detail
for any of the buildings as those would have to be addressed each time they come back to the
Plan Commission seeking approval for that particular proposed building development.
Mr. Beechick noted they are addressing the perimeter of the site, the landscaping along North
Riverwalk Drive and the existing Riverwalk Drive that impacts this parcel of property as well as
the landscaping design for the area, which is the detention basin. The plan is denser than what
the ordinance calls for relative to the amount of trees to be planted. This layout is consistent
with what they did at the existing Riverwalk development where you have cluster planting.
Mr. Michael Werthmann stated they have only provided a preliminary analysis and are
proceeding to produce a final more comprehensive traffic study. At this time the study has
focused mainly on the two main access points to the existing Riverwalk development at
Milwaukee Avenue and Riverwalk Drive and the right in only entrance at Riverwalk and the off
ramp from Lake Cook Road. They have done new traffic counts and based their analysis on
those new traffic counts.
Mr. Werthmann noted the main difference between the approved development and the
development that is proposed is the 160-room hotel, the 90-unit apartment complex and the
restaurant facility. Previously a 150,000 square foot office building was approved on this site.
They have looked at what additional traffic would be generated from these new uses and then
they put all the traffic on to see how it would operate. The trip generation from the restaurant
and hotel will be reduced due to the fact that they will be part of an office complex of over
650,000 square feet. Many of the hotel patrons and the restaurant patrons will be generated from
existing traffic at the office complex, which helps reduce the impact. Another factor reducing
the impact is that the apartment units, hotel and restaurants all have reverse flows than that of the
existing office complex. Therefore, while this will generate some additional traffic, the flow is
counter to those that are existing. This development will generate approximately 220-250
additional trips compared to the 150,000 square foot office building, which was previously
approved for the site. Over 60 percent of those trips are the counterflow trips. Since the
approval of the office building in 1990 there have been significant improvements to the regional
roadway system.
Mr. Werthmann stated the intersection leading to the two site access drives is operating at a level
B or C at this time in peak hours. With the additional traffic that will be generated from this
development, it will continue to operate at the same level of service. The reason for that is that
this is a very highly designed intersection, which has significant capacity.
Mr. Werthmann stated the main road serving the development would be North Riverwalk Drive,
which will extend from Riverwalk Drive north to the property line and hopefully in the future
will extend out to Milwaukee Road providing an additional access to the whole development.
They will also have a right in, right out access off of Milwaukee Road.
Commissioner Samuels noted the Lake Cook intersection operates well, but one block north
traffic comes to a dead halt through at least Deerfield Road. Therefore his concern is what
happens to the overall system which will continue to be overburdened. The rest of the
infrastructure cannot even handle the traffic existing now. He asked if there has been any traffic
study between Inverrary and Deerfield Road on Milwaukee Avenue.
Mr. Werthmann stated they have not looked at that intersection. The backups that occur here are
due to the fact that you are tapering down from 3 northbound lanes. Looking at the traffic here,
only about 20-25 percent of the traffic is generated to or from the north on Lake Cook Road.
The additional traffic to be added to that is insignificant. He stated he would be looking at this
problem.
Commissioner Samuels noted they are looking to develop the property to a significantly more
intense use than what is approved. It is not just an internal roadway problem, but what happens
to those vehicles once they are out on the roadways. He noted he would like to see an analysis
of what some of the other intersections are like up to and including Deerfield Parkway.
Mr. Beechick stated one of the items previously raised by the Plan Commission was what kind of
building elevations can be expected on the residential property. He presented some examples of
other developments from Evanston, Highland Park and Deerfield. These design elements are
primarily brick, pre-cast or limestone trim, detailed balconies and very noticeable main entry
designs. The main entries are elaborate due to the fact that these buildings have elevators and
there is a common entry and common lobby for all the apartments. He stated this is the type of
level they need to achieve in order for this project to work.
Chairman Ottenheimer stated one of the things that are going to be expected in the future by the
Plan Commission is more depth and detail of what the elevations and materials of the other
buildings will be. He noted the Commission does not want to go through a process of approving
the site plan and then appearing towards the end with an elevation that is disliked. This is a new
function for the Plan Commission and this means they will need more than just an example of
the type of building to be used. This applies for all of the uses for this site.
Mr. Beechick stated this is a unique spot for residential and he feels it is just a matter of finding
out what the right compromise is as they go through the approval process.
Commissioner Samuels stated it is probably necessary to have a building style design set up and
the user should know in advance that this is the style that will be used instead of having a
corporate user come in who wants to put their footprint down.
Mr. Beechick stated that becomes an issue of desirability and there are certain limitations that
any mainline hotel operator will have relative to delivering the final end product. He noted a
Hilton franchisee is very interested in the hotel site would mimic the design of a Hilton Garden
Inn that is located at Barrington Road and I-90. This is a mainly brick building with some
pre-cast trim and a pitched roof.
Commissioner Samuels stated he is only trying to get a plan that has some overall consistency as
opposed to a hodgepodge of looks.
Me. Bill Johnson noted the consistently high quality of development by Hamilton Partners over
the years has created a comfortable partnership for them and they will continue to go along with
them.
Chairman Ottenheimer asked what an overlay district is which was noted in Mr. Pfeil's memo.
Mr. Pfeil stated it is necessary to assess what the possibility or probability that other developers
might look at other sites up and down Milwaukee Avenue corridor or Aptakisic Road or
anywhere else in the Village for this scale of residential which is not typical for Buffalo Grove.
An assessment should be made concerning the probable demand for this type of housing in the
Village, and then appropriate locations could be identified. One way of handling this would be to
add a Special Use to the B-3 District. However, there are a lot of B-3 districts in the Village and
theoretically a shopping center could be removed and multi-family development could be
proposed in its place.
Mr. Pfeil stated the overlay concept would define certain parameters and certain locations, a
corridor perhaps, where an overlay would be permissible. The size, acreage, mix of uses
proposed for a site are all things to look at for possible components of an overlay district. He
noted the Village does not want to encourage single, isolated buildings for this scale of
residential development. Larger residential buildings should be part of a planned development
with linkages to other land uses, transportation services and open space. Appropriate and feasible
locations should be identified. The overlay concept would only be achievable in certain
geographic areas that are defined in the controlling ordinance.
Commissioner Samuels asked if an actual mixed use district with the same criteria or standards
has been discussed and just calling that a new zoning entity within the Village.
Mr. Pfeil stated it would be more of something that would be petitioned for and applied to
certain property if the property met those parameters. This might be a mixed-use type of zone.
He stated the concept of mixed use is fundamental and it has to be more than just a tall
residential building. Implementing this type of development on particular properties involves
urban design and establishing visual relationships among the various buildings in a development.
Commissioner Samuels noted he would be more interested in a breakdown of the variances in
terms of what variances are being asked for as a result of the desire to have a more intense use
than was previously approved for the property, versus those that are merely designed to be
consistent with others throughout the Riverwalk development.
ALDRICH PROPERTY, 16226 W. APTAKISIC ROAD, ANNEXATION WITH BUSINESS
ZONING—WORKSHOP#1
Ms. Susan Aldrich stated they have lived in the community for 33 years and owned their
landscaping business at this site for the past 9 years. She stated there have never been any
complaints from any neighbor and they are very concerned with their appearance. She noted
they heavily buffer their site and most people do not even know they are running a landscaping
business there. She noted they are surrounded mostly by business properties. Three of these are
across the street. There are two B-1 zones and one Industrial zone.
Ms. Aldrich stated the County has advised them that they are operating their business without the
correct zoning. They stated this site needed to be light industrial, which is the only zoning in
Lake County, which allows for a landscaping business. They made application with the County,
which was supportive of that move. However, they were advised that Buffalo Grove was going
to state they were not in favor of that zoning. They have been working with staff on a plan for
annexation to come into Buffalo Grove. She noted it is their intention to strictly continue their
business. They do not plan on changing the nature of their business or the site. They just want
to continue as they have been.
Chairman Ottenheimer noted a concern with the B-1 zoning because of the outdoor storage
provision. He asked if the outdoor shed would remain or if they would be requesting a variance.
Ms. Aldrich stated outdoor storage is the nature of their property. They have their plants and
supplies delivered that are used throughout the year.
Mr. Pfeil stated the structures are permissible but the issue is the outdoor storage of nursery
stock and landscape materials. If the Village is going to annex the property, an appropriate
zoning classification must be determined. The annexation agreement could grant 13-1 zoning but
also allow outside storage for this particular business. In the future, this would not necessarily
be a right enjoyed by this property if the use changes.
Chairman Ottenheimer stated the annexation agreement could be appropriately drafted to allow
that if the use does change, it cannot be used as an outdoor storage facility and similarly
someone down the way in a B-1 District cannot suddenly decide to store anything outside unless
it is a necessary and integral part of their business.
Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked if outdoor storage will continue to be allowed if the business
is sold as a going concern.
Chairman Ottenheimer stated yes.
Commissioner Samuels if there are any existing businesses in the Village that are comparable.
He noted that through the annexation agreement you can restrict uses so that even with a B-4
zoning you could go down the list of permitted uses in B-4 and strike those that would be
inappropriate. He asked if this would be a better way of handling this than to give the site a B-1
zoning with a variance.
Mr. Pfeil stated that the B-1 classification is a more conservative approach. The B-4 would work
for this use, but it would allow many intensive uses if the current owner were to redevelop the
site or if the property is sold for a different use.
Commissioner Samuels stated he has no objection to either zone. But to create a zoning that
requires a variance is not that desirable a way of handling things. He stated he would rather have
a restrictive look at the proper zoning for the property.
Ms. Aldrich noted the reason they asked for B-1 was that they had consulted with a number of
planners and they had stated that was the most appropriate because of the size of the property
which is only 1.1 acres. B-4 zoning usually deals with larger pieces of property. Any of the
zonings that you choose would all have to have some variance. Therefore B-1 seemed to be the
most appropriate.
Commissioner Samuels stated if a variance is required even with the B-4 zoning then he would
take back his request.
Mr. Pfeil stated that the variance could be avoided with the B-4. Zoning Ordinance requires a
minimum area of 4 acres for a B-4 District, but the intent is avoid spot zoning and to establish a
free-standing commercial district of reasonable size if there is other commercial zoning abutting
it. There is also a provision in the Zoning Ordinance that allows adjacent areas of Business
zoning to be added to achieve the minimum zoning area set forth in the Ordinance. The Aldrich
property from B-1 and B-4 property. The overall area of Business zoning exceeds the minimum
acreage requirement, so a variation is not needed.
Mr. Pfeil stated that whatever zoning is granted on this property there is a strong probability that
other owners of properties in the immediate area might find it desirable to annex and request the
same zoning. He further noted that Pet Lane is the demarcation line in the Village's planning for
this area. To the west of Pet Lane, residential land use is the recommended designation on the
1998 Comprehensive Plan with commercial use designated east of Pet Lane. He noted the
Village would probably need to be proactive to protect the area designated for residential
development from commercial development.
Chairman Ottenheimer noted a public hearing is in order
Mr. Charles Johnson noted that the Aldriches are his clients and he represents them before the
County Zoning Board of Appeals. He did, however, recuse himself from the Village Board level
and will continue to so recuse himself.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
Chairman Ottenheimer congratulated Commissioner Smith on his appointment as secretary of
the Plan Commission. He also welcomed Mr. Zil Khan as a new Commissioner and noted two
other Commissioners had been appointed.
FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE
Mr. Pfeil stated the next meeting would be held on June 19, 2002.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None
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 9:33 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair