2021-03-03 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Packet m' Meetingof the Village of Buffalo Grove Fifty Raupp Blvd
g Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-2100
L u' Planning and Zoning Commission Phone:847-459-2500
Regular Meeting
March 3, 2021 at 7:30 PM
I. Call to Order
2. Open Meetings Act Compliance
Pursuant to orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this Public Hearing is
closed to in-person, public attendance. The hearing is being held via Zoom web
conference meeting, which permits the public to fully participate in the virtual Public
Hearing via Zoom on a computer, tablet or phone. Details on how to access and
participate in this online virtual hearing are available below. More information
pertaining to the meeting information and links to the virtual meeting can be found at
<h ttps.Ilus02web.zoom.us/i/87183202857>.
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
<h ttps.Ilus02web.zoom.us/i/87183202857>
OrWhone one-tap:
US:+13126266799„87183202857# or+19294362866„87183202857
Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US:+1 312 626 6799 or+1 929 436 2866 or+1 301 715 8592 or+1 253 215 8782 or+1 346 248
7799 or+1 669 900 6833
Webinar ID:8718320 2857
International numbers available:<https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kbXgM2EHVd>
II. Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
1. Consider a Variation to Allow for a Rear Yard Addition Encroaching into the Minimum
Separation Required Between the Principal Structure and the Detached Garage at 489
Bernard Drive. (Trustee Johnson) (Staff Contact: Rati Akash)
III. Regular Meeting
A. Other Matters for Discussion
B. Approval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Feb 3, 2021 7:30 PM
C. Chairman's Report
D. Committee and Liaison Reports
E. Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule
F. Public Comments and Questions
IV. Adjournment
The Planning and Zoning Commission will make every effort to accommodate all items on the
agenda by 10:30 p.m. The Board, does, however, reserve the right to defer consideration of
matters to another meeting should the discussion run past 10:30 p.m.
The Village of Buffalo Grove, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that
persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or
participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities,
contact the ADA Coordinator at 459-2525 to allow the Village to make reasonable
accommodations for those persons.
2.1
......................................... � ...............................
� m
Action Item : Consider a Variation to Allow for a Rear Yard Addition
Encroaching into the Minimum Separation Required Between the
Principal Structure and the Detached Garage at 489 Bernard Drive.
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Recommendation of Action
Staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions in the attached staff report.
The Petitioner is seeking to construct a room addition in the rear yard of their property at 489 Bernard
Drive. The Petitioner is requesting a variation to the Zoning Code, Section 17.32 to allow for the rear yard
addition to encroach into the minimum 10 foot separation required between the principal structure and the
detached garage.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Staff Report (DOCX)
• Plan Set (PDF)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Johnson Rati Akash, Community Development
Wednesday, March 3, 2021
Updated: 2/26/2021 12:41 PM Pagel
Packet Pg. 3
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE "
PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Cr
MEETING DATE: March 3, 2021
c
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 489 Bernard Drive °
�a
CL
L
ca
PETITIONER: Robert Flubacker Architects, on behalf of the homeowners 4)
Debra and Lawrence Andres N
E
PREPARED BY: Rati Akash,Village Planner E
REQUEST: Variations for a rear yard addition encroaching into the minimum s
separation required between the principal structure and the o
detached garage.
a�
c
EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a single-family home currently U
zoned R6-A. °L
V
W
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The approved Village Comprehensive Plan calls for this property r_
and the immediate neighborhood to be single-family detached. °
Q
L
PROJECT BACKGROUND
L
The Petitioner is seeking to construct a room addition in the rear yard
of the subject property. The Petitioner is requesting for a variation to � y �d °
L
the Zoning Code,Section 17.32; pertaining to Residential Districts;for
a rear yard addition encroaching into the minimum separation o
required between the principal structure and the detached garage. Q
O
c
O
PLANNING&ZONING ANALYSIS
L
• The proposed addition will be located in the rear yard of the
subject property as shown in the Plat of survey.
.N
c
• This proposed rear yard addition measures approximately U
264 square feet in area.
O
a
• The rear yard comprises of a detached garage which is located
15'from the existing principal building. w
w �
• The proposed rear yard addition will encroach 3'-11" into
required 10' setback between the detached garage and the
E
principal building. s
ca
a
Packet Pg. 4
2.1.a
• This proposed rear yard addition meets all
the other requirements with building
setbacks and height.
E �
• In the past, the PZC has typically approved o
additions up to a 5' separation from the
principal structure and the detached garage. j j C a
In this case, with the proposed addition, the
minimum separation between the principal t.
structure and the detached garage will be 6 - i .! c
1 which is greater than 5 separation which , � k
is typically approved. 12
1 c
Variations requested y
Section 17.32.020.B pertaining to Residential f
Districts;for a rear yard addition encroaching into o
the minimum separation required between the
principal structure and the detached garage. " w
c
0
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS Q
L
M
Village Department Comments
Engineering The Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed rearyard addition,and
does not have any engineering concerns with the location of the
proposed additions. c
w
3
0
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS Q
0
Pursuant to Village Code, the contiguous property owners were notified and a public hearing sign was
posted on the subject property. The posting of the public hearing sign and the mailed notifications were o
completed within the prescribed timeframe as required.As of the date of this Staff Report,the Village has
received two calls inquiring about the proposed additions variation, however no objections were >
expressed.
i
d
STANDARDS c
The Planning & Zoning Commission is authorized to grant variations of the Zoning Code based on the v
following criteria:
0
a
1. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
2. The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood;
3. There are practical difficulties or particular hardships in carrying out the strict letter of this in
Chapter which difficulties or hardships have not been created by the person presently having an
d
interest in the property; and, E
4. The proposed variation will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare.
a
Packet Pg. 5
2.1.a
The petitioner has provided a written response to the standards for a variation which are included in
this packet.
a
a�
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Village staff recommends approval for the purpose of constructing a rear yard addition which encroaches o
T-11" into the required 10' setback between the principal building and the detached garage, provided:
a
1) The proposed rear yard addition shall be installed in accordance with the documents and plans N
submitted as part of this petition.
E
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony d
concerning the variation.The PZC shall make a final decision on whether or not to approve the variation. s
0
c
Suggested PZC Motion
PZC moves to grant, a variation to Section 17.32 for a rear yard addition encroaching 3'-11" into the
required 10'setback between the principal building and the detached garage provided that the rear yard o
addition shall be installed in accordance with the documents and plans submitted as part of this petition.
c
w
c
0
Q
L
L
Nd
LL
L
O
W
3
0
a
0
c
0
ca
•L
ca
�a
L
d
.N
C
O
U
0
w
�a
N
c
d
E
t
v
a
Packet Pg. 6
2.1.b
February 23, 2021
MMM Cr
C
®■ Village of Buffalo Grove
MM
Department of Building and Zoning c
50 Raupp Blvd.
i H� I Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 (.
d
f I'C[I C f [ (�`l Dear Planning & Zoning Commission,
I am requesting the following variances, for 489 Bernard Dr., from the Village of
Buffalo Grove Municipal Code, Chapter 17, in order to:
as
s
Construct a one-story addition to the existing house encroaching 3'-
11" into the required 10 foot separation between the primary
building and a detached garage, leaving a 6'-l" remaining
separation. [Section 17.32.020-(B)] o
L
V
The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; w
c
u o
Due to the proximity of the detached garage to the house (14'-7"
apart) the addition of a much needed dining area and mud room a
expansion of living space would not be practical without T.
poq,hing H 116001o01 encroaching in to the required 10 foot separation. The 10 foot
separation requirement for the garage makes planning an addition M
to the existing home difficult and impractical.
L
W
The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood: �
0
Through significant improvements, updates and exterior a
enhancements the property will increase in value substantially
V, 70d 10104 FAN" which will remain consistent with other new projects in the
neighborhood. The improved property will fit well within the
surrounding neighborhood while also lending a uniqueness to the >
property.
u kallu&qlnoO.com
There are practical difficulties or particular hardships in carrying out the strict c
letter of this Chapter which difficulties or hardships have not been created by the �?
person presently having an interest in the property; and,
CO
c
A. The existing home does not have a functional dining area easily a
accessible to the kitchen or a mud room at the rear of the house,
which is the family's primarily used entrance, being readily
accessible from the existing detached garage.
B. The existing detached garage was originally constructed at a
location forward of the minimum required rear setback placing it a
closer to the home than necessary under code requirements. This
complicates any addition to the home within the setback
Packet Pg. 7
parameters of this particular lot and the zoning ordinance.
The proposed variation will not be detrimental to the public health safety and
(D
welfare.
0
The proposed variation would not have a detrimental effect on
public health and safety. The proposed home living space addition
CL
0
is well within the required minimum side and rear setbacks as well W
as being under the code allowed maximum building height and E
would have thus minimal aesthetic impact on the neighboring E
properties. The proposed addition is consistent with other nearby
homes and therefore does not diminish the value of those
neighboring properties and does not endanger or impair public
0
health, safety and welfare.
If you have any questions on the above information,please contact me.
U
M
P
Sincerely,
ROBERT FLUBACKER ARCHITECTS, LTD.
./Jose0f,Sprenger
V Project Manag;r
as
O
.2
0
0
ca
ca
O
a.
E
Packet Pg. 8
..........
f I
1ffn1 nv Uui[
i I j
i n, i f
1 A i i I
0 1 1 t V
.0
U)
Ai
p
LU
.0
G.6'
�15
0
.............
.0
U)
ry
a.
1� P li
3
ANTON N)Awio ,5
0� M, Vp
5-2810 0
n,1)r)
Na f
M LINK;
rd 1; "t—m,p W
Packet Pg.9
........
2.1.b
489 BERNARD DR.
APPLICATION FOR VARIATION
I am requesting the following variance, for 489 Bernard Drive, from the Village of Buffalo
Grove Municipal Code, Chapter 17, in order to:
0
Construct a one-story addition to the existing house encroaching 3'-11" into the
CL
required 10 foot separation between the primary building and a detached garage,
leaving a 6'-1" remaining separation. [Section 17.32.020-(B)] E
E
RESPONSE TO STANDARDS c
1. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
0
Due to the proximity of the detached garage to the house (14'-T apart) the ,
addition of a much needed dining area and mud room expansion of living space
would not be practical without encroaching in to the required 10 foot separation. U
The 10 foot separation requirement for the garage makes planning an addition to P
the existing home difficult and impractical. w
a
0
2. The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; *=
Through significant improvements, updates and exterior enhancements the
property will increase in value substantially which will remain consistent with
other new projects in the neighborhood. The improved property will fit well within
the surrounding neighborhood while also lending a uniqueness to the property.
L
3. There are practical difficulties or particular hardships in carrying out the strict letter of
this Chapter which difficulties or hardships have not been created by the person presently _o
having an interest in the property; and, Q
0
A. The existing home does not have a functional dining area easily accessible to 0
the kitchen or a mud room at the rear of the house, which is the family's primarily
used entrance, being readily accessible from the existing detached garage. >
B. The existing detached garage was originally constructed at a location forward i
of the minimum required rear setback placing it closer to the home than M
necessary under code requirements. This complicates any addition to the home c
within the setback parameters of this particular lot and the zoning ordinance.
0
4. The proposed variation will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare. co
c
The proposed variation would not have a detrimental effect on public health and a
safety. The proposed home living space addition is well within the required
minimum side and rear setbacks as well as being under the code allowed s
maximum building height and would have thus minimal aesthetic impact on the o
neighboring properties. The proposed addition is consistent with other nearby a
homes and therefore does not diminish the value of those neighboring properties
and does not endanger or impair public health, safety and welfare.
Packet Pg. 10
9IONIlII'3AON9 Olv=wng v
r T I®■® z W D " �m 'NO ONVNN99 694 e o Q
®®®o s m ,c m 3ON341S3H S3UGNV 3Hl go o = Q
f[m 6 m NOd NOIllaaV ONV 6NW1tlN31'IV
OO'OLu
U -
W
- I o
2
w w �wwo
z�= o
��a�waaoa�ow3 a
o
m�p
roa _ I
0
�I -
�
ooM
W
Noy w w
w o-
_ - a CO
Z , -
LL
O J a I cc
z W
oW Z Q W o f aaw
of New m ow � waaa
-
a 0 Z Q >
oZWzo _
6 - _ <8� -
nd
Cl) CD
V 222
ZO W W o a spec ere
00
OaC 't L.L
el! ~
QuLLLLLLa LLLLLLLLLL..,.,.,..... ��sss�sss s ����000k oaa _
ES
___
«LL«<..«mmammm M�-mo7��.,.,.,.,00000a000sw�.... ...
Q U
9[oNlll]'3AON9 Oltldd 9 v
r T I®■®�z U D " m 'a0 021VNY39 694o
e o r
F 3ON341S3H S3UGNV 3Hlo
®®® NOd NOIlI00tl ONY 6NWlVN2.L Itl
w -
o
ol
i -
Y -
O
f _ _
0000000
ugwg�m
'� o0
9IONIlII'3AON9 olv=wng v
r T I®■® z W 'NO oNVNN39 694 eo r
®®®� s m ,c m 3ON341S3H S3UGNV 3H1 N Q
f[m 6 m NOd NOIllootl oNY 6NW1tlN31'IV
ioo'OU
10
IH
77)
o
--
_
I � oo ❑
II w�
I =
oo'ou — — - — — - —
�I =
a
---
-----
1 :.
a �
o
i
9IONIlII'3AON9 Olv=wng v
r T I®■® z W D " �m 'NO ONVNN39 694 eo (V
®®®o s m ,c m 3ON341S3H S3UGNV 3H1 N o = Q
f[m 6 z m NOd NOIllaaV ONY 6NW1tlN2.L IV
w
EEEHI
Mom
z
O
�wwu wwa
Iu L I—I�
Yly
wCl7
J
6
September 29, 2O3D
Village of Buffalo Gove
Planning and Zoning Commission C
�
To Whom it May Concern,
We hereby authorize Robert Flubacker&Associates, Ltd. and their agents to act as our agent and to ��
represent us in all matters related to our proposed plans to remodel and add to our property at 489 0
Bernard Dr, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089,especially including any actions related to village zoning variations
and pernniiapprnvai ��
�
|f you have any questions or concerns please contact us.
c
_
Sincerely,
LUU
-- ~iowrence (Larry)
Debra /0ebbie\ Andres ' Andres
/847\858-2004 (847)858-2005
debbie@ondresmedicaiconn ,^
0
m
Packet Pg. 15
�
w:'r miowr��wriwaiauw ri»mr�a�urxi,�nuaamrwiaowvrronmrri�vroru�omwwwnum V -:*7i i�rdH ,
mnwuinrvaauu�u�uvi a ni 1 mu
rl s "o•Wt �� ���
�oil " 0l
OTC
r'
/ ,'/
�`�' 'i"ViINIVOIDr /
r* n
Ilk
r
4 I
r Y Air
JI
fis
n
f
/i
J
r
a r
f r r
in
rr / 01
yr
I
I
4 ,
"^f.. H;!f'1.AN
/r V
zz
k
w�l,
1
4�
br
r�
t Y
Y
`vmM. °,.
l '
ti Y
k. 1:
v4
r �
III
° r
bf
w )
f
� H
A lrimiii�iiii�ii, _ �uw� n �nww e�vrmmnnl u�io iio�i�i�iiiin✓irai oi/�oex:�riii,�iiiiiiiiii�i.,,
w
ill V
9�
1/
h /
3.B.1
02/3/2021
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD,
BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2021
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by
2. Open Meetings Act Compliance
Pursuant to orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this Public Hearing is
closed to in-person, public attendance. The hearing is being held via Zoom web y
conference meeting, which permits the public to fully participate in the virtual Public 3
Hearing via Zoom on a computer, tablet or phone. Details on how to access and
participate in this online virtual hearing are available below. More information
pertaining to the meeting information and links to the virtual meeting can be found at:
To
0
i
Q
<h ttps://us02 web.zoom.usA186868567548>: Q'
Q
When:Feb 3, 2021 07:30 PM Central Time(US and Canada) a
Topic:PZC M
ti
Please click the link below to join the webinar: N
0
<h ttps://us02 web.zoom.us/i/86858567548> N
ri
m
U_
Or iPhone one-tap: o
N
US:+13126266799„86868567548# or+13017158592„86868567548# °1
c
Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): Q,
a)
US:+1 312 626 6799 or+1 301 715 8592 or+1 929 436 2866 or+1 346 248 7799 or+1 a
669 900 6833 or+1 253 215 8782 y
a�
Webinar ID:868 6856 7548
c
International numbers available: <https.11us02web.zoom.us/a/keyPBGe1FD>
Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
1. Consider a Variation to the Fence Code to Replace an Existing Fence with a 6 Foot Solid
Fence Installed in the Rear Yard at 677 Aspen Drive. (Trustee Weidenfeld) (Staff
Contact: Nicole Woods)
Village PlonnerAkash introduced the fence variation for 677 Aspen Drive.
Mr. Deahl described the petition for a variation requesting a six foot solid white vinyl
fence installed. The petitioner explained their unique circumstances and the location of
their house.
Packet Pg. 19
3.B.1
02/3/2021
Ms. Basham,fence contractor, spoke briefly on the selection of the fence and the
selected fence style.
Com. Goldspiel asked the petitioner about the material of the fence expressing his
concerns for the potential glare from the sun.
Ms. Basham, responded that the fence does have a little glare, but it does fade over time
with the age of the fence. She noted that this particular fence is certagrain white which
will help to reduce the glare that might come from glossier, smooth style white vinyl.
Chairperson Cesario asked staff if they had received any phone calls regarding the
petition at the subject property.
Ms.Akosh responded that no neighbors have called. She also noted that Paul has spoken d
to some of them and they are in support of the fence. 3
c
Chairperson Cesario asked the petitioner if he had talked to the neighbor behind him.
0
Mr. Deahl responded that he has talked to them and they are in favor of a new fence.
Com. Moodhe asked if the current side fences were his old fence, and if they would be
a
coming down. Q-
a
Mr. Deahl responded that they are his and most of it would be coming down. He
explained that the portion that would not be coming down is the portion that is c
embedded in his neighbor's concrete slab.
Com. Moodhe referenced image number 4729 and 4733. c
N
Com. Weinstein asked for clarification on the slope of the property referenced on packet ri
page 8.
U-
Mr. Deahl responded that it is a significant slope. 0
N
Com. Weinstein asked if there were other six foot solid fences in the neighborhood. °1
c
Mr. Deahl responded he was currently unaware of the height of the fences in his g
neighborhood.
Com. Weinstein argued that he thinks a five foot fence would offer privacy and would
CL
keep people from cutting though the petitioner's yard. However, the slope of the yard aa)
U
does offer a unique circumstance. U
a
Ms. Basham commented on the slope of the subject property in relation to the six foot
solid fence.
c
Com.Au asked the petitioner for clarification on how people are cutting though the
subject property.
Mr. Deahl responded that people used to use the gate, but has since secured that after
having children. He noted that know people just jump his fence.
Com.Au asked if the petitioner would do a shadow box fence.
Mr. Deahl said he likes the solid style because then there is no way someone can try and
climb it.
Com. Worlikor asked for clarification on the slope and the height of the fence.
Packet Pg. 20
3.B.1
02/3/2021
Com. Moodhe asked the petitioner if they had looked at a semi-private fence when
deciding a fence style.
Ms. Basham commented on material of the fence the petitioner wanted and noted that
certagrain does not come in semi-privacy.
Chairperson Cesario entered the staff report as exhibit one and the photos as exhibit
two.
Chairperson Cesario asked the petitioners if they had anything they wanted to say in
closing.
Mr. Deahl and Ms. Basham thanked the petitioners for their time.
N
The public hearing was closed at 8:01 pm.
3
Com. Weinstein made a motion to grant a variation to section 15.20 of the Buffalo Grove E
Zoning Code to allow for a six foot solid fence to be installed for the property at 677 c
Aspen Drive;provided the fence be constructed in accordance with the documents and To
plans submitted as part of this petition. o
a
Com. Richards seconded the motion. Q-
Q
Chairperson Cesario spoke in favor of the motion given the slope and topography of the 2
subject property. c
M
Com Weinstein spoke in favor of the motion given the slope of the property and the cut
through that is occurring. c
N
Com. Moodhe spoke in favor of the motion and understands the location of where the ri
subject property is located.
U_
Com. Worlikar spoke in favor of the motion. c
(n
Com. Goldspiel noted his concern for the glare and hopes the certagrain style helps. 3
c
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] g
AYES: Moodhe, Spunt, Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein, Au, Richards,
Worlikar
c
R
2. Consider a Variation to Allow a Three Season Room Encroach into the Side Yard Q-
a)
Setback at 891 Dunham Lane. (Trustee Johnson) (Staff Contact: Nicole Woods) U
Q
Village PlannerAkash introduced the variation for a three-season porch that encroaches
into the side yard at 891 Dunham lane. Ms. Akash noted that there is no residence on the
west side.
Mr. Vaysberg described his petition for a three-season porch noting the angle of the
house on the property which is skewed.
Chairperson Cesario referenced packet page 12, image A. and asked the petitioner is
that is a good representation of his property.
Mr. Vaysberg responded yes.
Chairperson Cesario commented that the slope leads up to the Raupp Museum.
Mr. Vaysberg responded yes.
Com Au noted that she does know Diana Vaysberg, but it will not affect her decision or
opinion on the variation request at the subject property.
Packet Pg. 21
3.B.1
02/3/2021
Com. Richards asked for clarification on the current patio and the new three-season
room as it relates to the encroachment.
Ms.Akash provided clarification on the encroachment of the three-season room.
Com. Goldspiel asked about the property to the west.
Ms.Akash responded that the property to the west is Park District property.
Com. Goldspiel commented on the unique situation at the subject property.
Com. Richards asked if the Park District had any comments on the variation.
Ms.Akash said she has not heard back from them, and took that as no objection.
Chairperson Cesario asked staff if any other neighbors has contacted the Village
regarding the variation.
Ms. Akash said there was one call, but they had no concerns. o
Chairperson Cesario entered the staff report as exhibit one. >
0
Chairperson Cesario asked if the petitioner if they had anything they wanted to say in a
closing. a
Mr. Vaysberg thanked the Commissioners for their time. 2
a
0
The public hearing closed at 8:16 pm <?
ti
Com. Weinstein made a motion to grant a variation to Section 17.40 of the Buffalo N
Grove Zoning Code to allow for a proposed three-season porch in the side yard which N
encroaches approximately into the 2.6 foot required side yard setback on the subject
property;provided the three-season porch shall be constructed in accordance with the
U_
documents and plans submitted as part of this petition. c
N
a1
7
Com. Richards seconded the motion.
Com. Moodhe spoke in favor of the motion.
c
Chairperson Cesario spoke in favor of the motion.
Q.
a)
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] U
AYES: Moodhe, Spunt, Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein, Au, Richards, a
U!
Worlikar
c
Regular Meeting
Other Matters for Discussion
Deputy Community Development Director introduced the workshop for the subject property at
700 E. Lake Cook Road which first came to the PZC on October 7, 2020. She noted that since
then,the development team has a revised site and concept plan based on the feedback received
by the PZC the first time.
Mr. MacKinnon,from Bluestone, spoke briefly about the work the development team has been
doing with Cook County DOT regarding the right in right out access on Lake Cook Rd, a concern
Packet Pg. 22
3.B.1
02/3/2021
brought to their attention on October 7, 2020, in addition to the work the teams has done to
eliminating a number of drive lanes and moving the car wash.
Com Moodhe asked if anything was decided on the self-storage place.
Mr. MacKinnon said they were still evaluating it, but have received several inquiries for several
different uses. Currently their focus is on the front of the property.
Com. Moodhe commented on the changes they have made to the site and concept plan, noting
that they really did take into account everything the PZC Commission had suggested for a
number of areas.Additionally, he spoke in favor of the new layout.
Com. Moodhe asked if there is a pass through from the backside.
3
Mr. MacKinnon responded that Le Parc will be a private road in the rear.
Com. Richards ask if it would be a through way. 0
co
Mr. MacKinnon responded no as of now. o
a
Com. Spunt asked about the changes to the car wash. a
Mr. MacKinnon spoke briefly about the car wash changes. a
0
Com. Spunt asked if the car wash was brushless.
Mr. MacKinnon responded the trend is to go back to the brushes. o
N
Com.Au asked if the car wash had an emergency exit.
m
Mr. MacKinnon responded there is an escape lane prior to getting into the car wash. 4-
0
N
Com.Au asked how the merging occurs from the two lanes to one lane for the car wash.
c
Mr. MacKinnon responded that the electronic arms at the pay station help with the merging of g
the vehicles from two lanes to one. ai
c
Com. Goldspiel asked about the boxes located next to the convenience store. Q.
a)
Mr. MacKinnon responded that one is the garbage and the other is the electrical box. a
U!
Com. Goldspiel asked about the space between the gas pumps.
c
Mr. MacKinnon responded that there is sufficient space for turning.
Com. Goldspiel commented on the site and concept plan as a significant improvement.
Com. Worlikar asked if there was access from hasting.
Mr. MacKinnon responded no.
Com. Worlikar asked if Lake County DOT was making any changes to Lexington and Armstrong.
Mr. MacKinnon responded that there are no changes to Lexington, but they are working on
longer deceleration lanes on Lake Cook more than they have already.
Com. Spunt asked why the car wash was put in the middle.
Packet Pg. 23
3.B.1
02/3/2021
Mr. MacKinnon responded that the synergy between the buildings it what promoted the car
wash location.
Com. Moodhe asked how far back the building will be in comparison with the building that is
currently there.
Mr. MacKinnon responded 50 to 60 feet.
Com. Moodhe asked if all there sections will have their own pin numbers.
Mr. MacKinnon responded yes.
Com. Moodhe asked about the parking lot to the east of the subject property. y
d
Mr. MacKinnon responded that it is separate ownership.
Com. Moodhe asked if the parking lot and the green space part of the same property. c
Mr. MacKinnon responded yes. c
i
Com. Weinstein asked about what was going to be located near the entrance of the car wash. C
Mr. MacKinnon responded that those are underground storage tanks.
a
Com. Weinstein asked if there will be employees at the car wash.
ti
Mr. MacKinnon responded yes, 2 to 3. N
0
N
Com. Weinstein asked if there were going to be twelve separate vacuums at the carwash. ri
Mr. MacKinnon responded yes. U-
4-
0
Com. Weinstein asked about the parking spaces at the car wash for the vacuums. y
a�
Mr. MacKinnon responded the parking spaces are wide enough.
Chairperson Cesario summarized the changes that have been made from the prior plans. He
noted this plan is much better proposal.
Q.
Com. Goldspiel asked about water conservation and how it will be handled. U
a
Mr. MacKinnon explained how the water is used at the car wash, but they have not worked yet
on the detention for the property.
1. Workshop- Proposed Redevelopment of 700 E Lake Cook Road (Trustee
Weidenfeld) (Staff Contact: Nicole Woods)
Approval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Jan 6, 2021 7:30 PM
RESULT: ACCEPTED [8 TO 0]
AYES: Moodhe, Spunt, Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein, Au, Richards
ABSTAIN: Neil Worlikar
Chairman's Report
Packet Pg. 24
3.B.1
02/3/2021
Committee and Liaison Reports
Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule
Village Planner Akash provided a brief update on future agenda items.
Deputy Community Development Director Woods spoke briefly on upcoming training for the
Commissioners.
Public Comments and Questions
Adjournment y
The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 PM °1
3
c
Action Items c
�o
O
Chris Stilling a
Q
a
APPROVED BY ME THIS 3rd DAY OF February , 2021 M
ti
N
(D
N
M
O
LL
4-
O
N
G1
7
C
d
V
C
R
Q
a)
V
V
Q
0
G1
7
C
Packet Pg. 25