Loading...
2000-09-20 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 09/20/2000 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION September 20, 2000 VoiceStream Wireless, Proposed wireless communications tower (monopole of 140 feet) and equipment cabinet, the Cotey property northeast corner of Milwaukee Avenue/Estonian Lane,Approval of a Special Use and Preliminary Plan in the B-4 District—Workshop #2 Forum Properties, Proposed single-family development, northwest Corner of Park Avenue/Main Street (Schrems and Phillips parcels) Annexation with residential zoning and approval of a Preliminary Plan—Workshop #1 Vice Chairman Samuels 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: Vice Chairman Samuels Mr. Trilling Ms. Dunn Mr. Panitch Mr. Smith Commissioners absent: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Feldgreber Also present: Ms. Charity Sullivan, VoiceStream Wireless Mr. Lawrence Freedman, Ash, Anos, Freedman& Logan Mr. Same Grill, Forum Properties Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Richard Vane, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Trilling to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 16, 2000. Mr. Pfeil noted the need to insert the word "not" on page 3, paragraph 5. All Commissioners were in favor of the amended motion and the motion passed unanimously, with Commissioner Panitch abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Panitch attended the Village Board meeting on September 18, 2000 and stated the Board passed the following items: 1. Approval of revised construction plans for the Buffalo Grove Golf Course Maintenance Facility 2. Approval of the Starbucks store in the Shops at Aptakisic Creek at Buffalo Grove Road and Aptakisic Road 3. Approval of an antenna addition by Metricom to the wireless communications tower on Hastings Drive Commissioner Dunn stated she attended the special meeting of the Village Board on September 11, 2000 but nothing relating to the Plan Commission was discussed. VOICESTREAM WIRELESS, PROPOSED WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TOWER (MONOPOLE OF 140 FEET) AND EQUIPMENT CABINET, THE COTEY PROPERTY, NORTHEAST CORNER OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE/ESTONIAN LANE, APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE AND PRELIMINARY PLAN IN THE B-4 DISTRICT—WORKSHOP 92 Ms. Charity Sullivan stated that VoiceStream Wireless is a leader in digital PCS service in the western United States and it uses the format of global systems for mobile communications. It is somewhat a third generation cellular carrier. First generation would be Ameritech or Sprint. Primeco would be second generation and VoiceStream would be third generation. She stated VoiceStream is publicly traded on Nasdaq and they have recently purchased a license from the FCC to build their network in Chicago. Ms. Sullivan stated they are requesting a height and setback variance for a 140-foot monopole on the Cotey property. She noted revised dimensions for the distances from the property lines. She stated the dimensions on the revised plan states the distances from the pole to the respective property lines, whereas originally the plan showed distances as computed from the lease area to the property lines. The tower is 144 feet from Estonian Lane, 92 feet from the north property line, 385 feet from Milwaukee, 266 from the east property line and approximately 317 feet from the closest residence which is to the east. Ms. Sullivan reviewed the five items asked for by the Plan Commission at the first workshop: 1. The engineering plan has been submitted 2. Documented has been provided concerning all towers within a 1 '/z mile radius of the proposed site 3. Photos of from all residences adjacent to the site have been submitted 4. Trees are depicted on the plan Ms. Sullivan presented the sites which are within the 1 '/z mile radius and noted the Cubby Bear site is a Sprint tower and they are not able to negotiate with the landowner for ground space because there is not enough room at the Cubby Bear for parking and they are therefore not willing to give up any more ground space. Ms. Sullivan noted an AT& T pole is located in the Chelsea Office Park. This pole is not in an effective location for VoiceStream's coverage requirements. It is also too close to two sites VoiceStream is planning to the south. Ms. Sullivan noted the Ameritech site at Milwaukee and Lake Cook Road was rejected also because it is not in an effective coverage area and it also shadows the 120 sector they have. The next candidate is south of Aptakisic Road which is also too close to their existing sites. There is also a Cellular One site at Milwaukee and Lake Cook Road and was rejected because it was only 85 feet tall. Ms. Sullivan presented photos from the adjacent residences. The closest residence is 317 feet to the east. They took photos of the residences and then had a graphic artist put in the tower for a better understanding of what the view will look like. Vice Chairman Samuels asked if the ground site planned is sized sufficiently to handle both the needs of VoiceStream and other carriers. Ms. Sullivan stated their unit will only take up a 1Ox20-foot area, but their lease area is large enough to house other carriers who would be able to locate within the fence. Vice Chairman Samuels asked how often maintenance vehicles would be coming onto the property. Ms. Sullivan stated it is usually on an as needed basis, but generally it is once a month between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m. Vice Chairman Samuels asked if there is any noise associated with any of the maintenance. Ms. Sullivan stated no. The Commission agreed the project was ready to go forward to public hearing. FORUM PROPERTIES, PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARK AVENUE/MAIN STGREET (SCHREMS AND PHILLIPS PARCELS), ANNEXATION WITH RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN—WORKSHOP#1 Mr. Lawrence Freedman stated he is here on behalf of Forum Properties as the contract purchaser of the parcel at Park and Main Street. Mr. John Green stated the parcel is approximately 3.3 acres and trapezoidal in shape. It is at the north end of what is the Prairie View area. The parcel is abutted on the north by the Vernon Township Municipal complex, and the parking lot is immediately adjacent to this site on the north. On the west is R-2 single-family and on the south is R-3 single-family with four lots there. To the east is the Wisconsin Central/Metra rail line. The train station is about 1 toll/2 blocks south of this parcel. East of the railroad tracks is R-4 single-family. Mr. Green noted that at the time this plan was presented to the Village Board, two concepts were shown. One was a straight R-4 concept and the other was a concept based on historic Prairie View flavor. He noted both of these concepts were presented because the comprehensive plan made a specific point of referring to the redevelopment of Prairie View ultimately into the Village of Buffalo Grove. As such they felt it was important to develop plans and ideas that would bring the flavor of historic Prairie View forward. The Board looked at both plans and indicated their interest in moving forward on a concept that was more historically oriented. The plan they referred was 13 lots oriented around a detention area to the east. He noted they recommended a PUD be used as an instrument in this process because zoning alone does not give control over what the flavor and feel will ultimately be. The original plan referred by the Board has been revised into Concept Plan A which has gone from 13 lots to 12 lots. The minimum lot width is 60 feet instead of 50 feet. They have taken the spacing between the pads from 10 feet to 14 feet. You are therefore seeing a 40 x 50-foot deep building pad within the lots. Mr. Green stated the Board had also asked them to look at commercial viability on this parcel. A report has been included from the marketing group that looked at that aspect. The comprehensive plan had developed a layout for that commercial activity and had indicated that commercial activity should be primarily along Route 22 in the Prairie View area and could extend up to just south of the current train station. The report by the marketing group indicates that the greatest commercial opportunity is along Route 22 and the commercial opportunity is significantly diminished as you move north and they did not feel there was any business, retail or office opportunities for this parcel. He further noted the Village's transportation part of the comprehensive plan indicates that this part of Main Street is supposed to remain as a minor street and not a major collector street. Mr. Green stated they began to look at clustering the houses so that they read as small groupings rather than the linear feel and flavor of today's suburban living. Therefore they angled the road, curved it around, brought it back out and eliminated the original cul-de-sac. When they did that, the average lot size became bigger. On the new plan, nine of the twelve lots are 7,200 square feet or bigger. To create a historic feel or flavor they are talking about creating a model field that would have traditional exteriors as part of the program. Three examples of that look are the Victorian look, the traditional American farmhouse and a Dutch colonial. Mr. Green stated they have just received the topographical information and the tree survey has been done although nothing has been tagged or identified as yet. Mr. Green noted the lowest portion of the site is the northwest corner and the detention happens to layout at this lowest portion. There is about a 4-5 foot drop from the southeast to the northwest. There is also a nice stand of trees along the east border in the center third of the site. They hope to maintain this line which is a good screen. Commissioner Trilling stated he would like to have the lot delineation on the south side of Park Avenue shown for the next workshop. Also, do the same thing for the R-2 single family to the west of the site. Commissioner Trilling stated the three different styles shown all have garages on the front, which were not part of the streetscape in the 1920's or 1930's. He asked if there was any way of incorporating or making these garages more true to the times by either separating the garage from the house or making it somehow more similar to the historic streetscape. Mr. Green stated it could be done but he would not recommend it. He noted at the time they would use up their rear yards for the garage. He stated they would intend to blend the garage into the house and under the garage and even back within the house. They are also suggesting that there be only two car garages instead of three. Commissioner Trilling stated he is also concerned with the lot widths, which are very narrow. He noted the homes that are being mimicked have considerable lots. Mr. Green stated they have started by having six of the twelve lots as outside end lots and therefore these are much bigger and wider. The six lots in the middle are the 60-foot lots. Commissioner Trilling asked if there is any way to get more width to those lots. Commissioner Panitch asked if there was any consideration given to lowering the number of lots and not going with R-6. Mr. Green stated they did consider same and that is why they went from 13 to 12 lots. Commissioner Panitch asked if there are any home models where the garages will not be facing the street. Mr. Green stated he does not project that, although on Concept B there is the potential to have the garages off to the side on at least four of the homes. Commissioner Panitch stated he feels Concept B looks better at this point. The small street going with two access points is preferable. Commissioner Panitch noted the metro study stated the housing target is for first time buyers and mature households with senior citizens and moderate-income groups. If the floor plans are to be targeted toward seniors it may be a benefit to have a single story home on one or two of the lots. Mr. Green stated there would be a benefit to having a home with a master bedroom on the first floor and it is certainly something they are looking to developing. Commissioner Dunn stated she also prefers Concept Plan B because the street is a through street rather than a cul-de-sac. However, she agrees that there are too many houses packed into the plan. If the thought is to have houses clustered together, you can still have fewer houses and use the open space for a park or something similar. She further stated her first impression of the elevations was the garages. The idea of keeping the houses looking like historic Prairie View is a good idea, but the garages detract from that design. She noted alleys might be one way of going for this development. Mr. Green stated they did look into that possibility but in a parcel this small that opportunity really does not begin to exist. They would need to have the ability to have a couple of streets and the alley in the middle. Commissioner Dunn also stated she was wondering why there are no one-story homes if the market was for older people. Mr. Green stated on one story they would only be able to have about a 2,000 square foot footprint which is a very small home. However, they do have the ability to develop a master suite option, which is highly desirable today. Commissioner Smith asked what the price range will be. Mr. Green stated the marketing information has stated that in order to be affordable in Buffalo Grove, the target range is about $300,000. Commissioner Smith asked if there is any possibility of plans for commercial development. Mr. Green stated they would not take on a commercial development in this area. It is an inappropriate place for commercial as it is isolated, it is on a local street and it is not intended to draw a lot of traffic. It is also surrounded by residential. Commercial belongs further south, closer to Route 22. Commissioner Smith noted there is some commercial property there already. Mr. Green stated the commercial properties in the Comprehensive Plan still only come up to the train station. The existing commercial properties are neighborhood places only. Commissioner Samuels asked if any consideration had been given to a single lot P.U.D. with clustering, off street parking, and with common area and maintenance agreements. He stated there are lot of architectural embellishments to the proposed plan which can have a very nice feel but can become a maintenance headache. In a single-family development it depends on your neighbor and how he takes care of the property. He asked if this development might lend itself to a condo association type of development where there would be common maintenance of the land and exteriors. It would also allow the buildings to be placed closer together where the concern with sideyard requirements would not be an issue. You may also be able to side load garages by bringing narrower strips of paving coming around sides and facing the houses more towards each other. Mr. Freedman stated if exterior maintenance is a goal, they can structure in a common area sharing of all the exterior maintenance on individually owned lots. This can be done whether the plan is changed or not. It does, however, depend on how much of the market will be senior. Vice Chairman Samuels stated he does not think it makes a difference if it is seniors or not. When you get the embellishments on the exteriors as planned for this development it is an advantage to having some kind of common maintenance and keeping the site looking as if it was a planned development rather than having subsequent owners take it in the direction they want to go. Mr. Freedman stated you could have exterior criteria that have to meet the association approval. It can all be accomplished regardless of what the plan is. Mr. Green noted that in the Villas they developed ten exterior packages and these were the color schemes you can have. Vice Chairman Samuels noted that is good for the first buyer but he is concerned with subsequent owners. Mr. Green stated they would be looking to do as much maintenance free materials as possible which is more marketable today. Commissioner Samuels asked what would be wrong with a single development which can go to a zero lot line. Mr. Green stated this is something they can look at. Vice Chairman Samuels noted the detention areas shown between the two plans seem to be disproportionate. Mr. Green noted that Plan A has the detention on a lot of the higher areas so there is less storage capacity. Plan B has all the detention at the lowest area so it can be done more efficiently. Vice Chairman Samuels stated he would still like to see the site taken as a whole and see what can be done without the limitations that are imposed by lot size requirements. Mr. Green stated they will look at it from a layout standpoint and they will put that question to the marketing people and see what kind of information they return with. Mr. Vane stated the property flows from east to west and there are existing storm sewers. All seems to be in place and in good shape. Commissioner Trilling noted that if development is to continue as proposed, he would like to see one lot lost on the west and north side. This would add about 10 feet or so on each lot and puts the development in the realm of 75-foot lot widths. He also noted he would like to lose some of the garages off the individual structures and trying to put something together that is more cohesive. Mr. Green said he would evaluate alternatives to address these suggestions. Vice Chairman Samuels noted it might be a good idea to look at a shared driveway. Mr. Green stated that would be very difficult because inevitably someone parks on the driveway funny and you have a problem. Vice Chairman Samuels further noted he would hope that consideration be given to architecture on all four sides of the house and keeping the materials and architecture consistent. Mr. Green stated they need to create houses that have the feel and flavor of that period but are today's homes. Commissioner Trilling asked for more information on Forum Properties. Mr. Grill stated he has been in the construction business for about 15 years in different aspects. For the past 10 years he has had his own business mainly focusing on residential development. He noted he builds a lot of single family in-fill houses on the north shore and the city, he does some subdivisions such as this in Skokie, Glenview, and Glencoe. He stated he builds anywhere from 5-10 homes per year. They do not build huge subdivisions. Mr. Chris Walsh, 55 Park Avenue, stated this project is too many units for the size of the site. He noted he had been in front of the Plan Commission asking for R-3 with a variance and it was denied as too tight. Now R-6 is being requested and he cannot see how this is appropriate for the site or the neighborhood. Mr. George Tellez, 65 Park Avenue, stated he just moved to the area and the thing he liked most was the openness. He stated the area does not support a cluster of homes. Ms. Mary Daniel, 75 Park Avenue, stated the area does not support this kind of residential density. She agreed with Commissioner Dunn that the development should focus on smaller houses and provide an open area for a park. Also the prices mentioned do not fit into the area. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated October 4, 2000 is the next scheduled meeting date. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Trilling and carried unanimously to adjourn. Vice Chairman Samuels adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: MICHAEL SAMUELS, Vice Chair