2022-11-02 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Packet m' Meetingof the Villa a of Buffalo Grove Fifty Blvd
g Buffalob u Grprove, IL 60089-2100
L u' Planning and Zoning Commission Phone:847-459-2500
Regular Meeting
November 2, 2022 at 7:30 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
1. Consider Variation Requests to the Fence Code, Pertaining to Residential Districts for the
Purpose of Installing a 3-Foot Open Style Fence and a 5-Foot Semi-Open Style Fence
that Extends Beyond the Front Line of the Building, Within 45 Feet of an Intersection and
Within the 4-Foot Required Corner Side Yard Setback for a Fence at 151 Weiland Road
(Trustee Pike) (Staff Contact: Kelly Purvis)
2. Petition to the Village of Buffalo Grove for an Amendment to the Restated Annexation
Agreement and Planned Unit Development Approved by Ordinance No. 2003-10, an
Amendment to the Preliminary Plan, and Approval of an Off-Street Parking Facility Use at
325 N Riverwalk Drive (Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff Contact: Kelly Purvis)
III. Regular Meeting
A. Other Matters for Discussion
B. Approval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting -Aug 17, 2022 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 Variation Requests to the Fence Code,
Pertaining to Residential Districts for the Purpose of Installing a 3-
Foot Open Style Fence and a 5-Foot Semi-Open Style Fence that
Extends Beyond the Front Line of the Building, Within 45 Feet of an
Intersection and Within the 4-Foot Required Corner Side Yard
Setback for a Fence at 151 Weiland Road
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Recommendation of Action
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions in the attached staff report.
The Petitioner is proposing to install a three (3)foot open style wood fence and a five (5)foot semi-open
style wood fence within the front yard and corner side yard of their property at 151 Weiland Road.The
height and placement of the fence require variations from the residential regulations of the fence code.
The Planning & Zoning Commission shall open the public hearing and take public testimony concerning
the variation requests. The Planning & Zoning Commission shall make the final decision on whether or
not to approve the requested variations.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Staff Report (PDF)
• Plan Set (PDF)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Pike Kelly Purvis, Community Development
Wednesday, November 2,
2022
Updated: 10/27/2022 10:45 AM Page 1
Packet Pg. 2
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE "
PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 2, 2022
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 151 Weiland Road, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 c�a
0
PETITIONER: Deepika Chandippa
c�
PREPARED BY: Andrew Binder,Associate Planner
LO
REQUEST: Variation to the Fence Code, Section 15.20, pertaining to
Residential Districts for the purpose of installing a 3-foot open f0
style fence and a 5-foot semi-open style fence that extends
beyond the front line of the building, within 45 feet of an o
J
intersection and within the 4-foot required corner side yard
setback for a fence at 151 Weiland Road.
a
0
L
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a single-family home currently
zoned R-1. i
0
w
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The approved Village Comprehensive Plan calls for this property
and the immediate neighborhood to be single-family detached. °
a
•L
ca
a�
c
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Petitioner is proposing to install a threej�
l � r
(3) foot open style wood fence and a five (5)
/ r°
semi-open style wood fence within the front
yard and corner side yard of their property at ' �f�%' �' � "�)il�` v�'° aCri
�N
151 Weiland Road, as shown in Figure 1.
9 r i ,
The subject property is a corner lot at the
intersection of Weiland Road and Armstrong �j `�" j c
Drive. South of the subject property is
ckel
Schwind Crossing, a commercial center 0
CL
located in Wheeling. t,prri Picket
PLANNING&ZONING ANALYSIS
co
• The Petitioner is proposing to place a 3-
foot open fence within the front and of
p Y E
the subject property that transitions to a ,rano5 , rni ,rvn E
5-foot semi-open fence within the corner i�� �'' � „ /i1r ;Wood cr,
side yard along Armstrong Drive. The F Q
igure 1:Fence Plan for 151 Weiland
proposed fence extends beyond the front
line of the building, which requires a
Packet Pg. 3
2.1.a
variation. Per the Fence Code, only ornamental-style fences may be placed within the front yard of
residential properties.
• The fence transitions to a 5-foot semi-open fence approximately 40 feet from the intersection of
Weiland Road and Armstrong Drive. The fence code requires that fences within 45 feet of an
intersection be no taller than 3 feet. Therefore, a variation from the fence code is also required due
to a portion of the 5-foot fence being located within 45 feet of the intersection.
• The 5-foot semi-open fence marked in red in Figure 1 requires a variation because the fence .6
encroaches into the required 4-foot setback for fences within the corner yard.The proposed fence
will be placed along the southern property line along Armstrong Drive. The fence will be setback LO
approx. 3 feet from the sidewalk.
d
• The Petitioner is requesting to place a fence within their property's front and corner side yard to
create a boundary to restrict access to their property.The Petitioner has indicated that their property �
has been vandalized recently.They believe the proposed fence will help to protect their property from
trespassers. In addition, the Petitioner has indicated that the proposed fence will help protect their Q,
child from Weiland Road, as it is a major roadway in the Village. a
m
Variations requested
L
1. A fence variation from Section 15.20.040.A of the Buffalo Grove fence code, which states: No
fence, other than an ornamental fence, shall be located nearer to the street than the front line of c
the building.
29
2. A fence variation from Section 15.20.040.A of the Buffalo Grove fence code, which states that
No fence may be erected to a height exceeding three feet above the street grade within forty-five >
a�
feet of the intersection of any curb lines or street lines projected. c
3. A fence variation from Section 15.20.040.13 of the Buffalo Grove fence code, which states that Ui
Fences may be erected,placed and maintained on a corner lot provided they maintain a minimum ,o
distance of four feet from the property line. y
as
Cr
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS
Village Department Comments ca
Engineering The Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed fence location and
does not have any engineering or line of sight concerns or objections
with the proposed location of this fence, as the fence does not exceed 0
U
3 feet in height within 20 feet of the corner of the property.
0
a
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
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
P 1 p p Y p g p g g to
completed within the prescribed timeframe as required.As of the date of this Staff Report,the Village has
received one call inquiring about the proposed fence variation, however no concerns were raised. m
E
s
STANDARDS ;a
The Planning & Zoning Commission is authorized to grant variations of the Fence Code based on the Q
following criteria:
1. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
Packet Pg. 4
2.1.a
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
Chapter which difficulties or hardships have not been created by the person presently having an
interest in the property; and,
4. The proposed variation will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare.
0
The petitioner has provided a written response to the variation standards included in this packet.
c
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Village staff recommends approval of the variations for the 3-foot open style fence and a 5-foot semi-
open style that extends beyond the front line of the building,within 45 feet of an intersection, and within LO
the 4-foot required corner side yard setback at 151 Weiland Road, subject to the conditions in the
Suggested PZC Motion listed below, based on the following reasons:
d
ca
U
o A 6-foot solid fence is permitted per the fence code if a residential property abuts a busy 0
roadway, a park, a non-residentially zoned property, etc. Staff believes this request is a similar
case as the subject property fronts Weiland Road and the proposed fence will help reduce the
Q.
visibility and create a boundary between Armstrong Drive and the adjacent commercial building 0-
located to the south of the property.
o There is a stop sign at Weiland Road and Armstrong Drive intersection. Cars heading westbound
L
on Armstrong Drive will be coming to a complete stop and should not have a sight-line issue as
the proposed open-style fence will not exceed 3 feet in height below the height of the stop sign.
Engineering staff have no concerns about sight-line issues. w
•L
�a
ACTION REQUESTED >
The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony c
concerning the variation requests.The PZC shall make the final decision on whether or not to approve the �0
requested variations. o
w
N
SUGGESTED PZC MOTIONCr
3
The PZC moves to grant variations to Section 15.20 of the Buffalo Grove Fence Code to allow a 3-foot open
style fence and a 5-foot semi-open style that extends beyond the front line of the building, within 45 feet ca
L
of an intersection and within the 4-foot required corner side yard setback at 151 Weiland Road, provided
the fence shall be installed in accordance with the documents and plans submitted as part of this petition.
0
U
Attachments:
• Narrative Description &Supporting Documents 0
a
• Response to Variation Standards X
• Plat of Survey with Proposed Fence (in Red)
• Photos of the Property in
c
m
E
s
�a
Q
Packet Pg. 5
2.1.b
October 7, 2022
Planning & Zoning Commission
Village of Buffalo Grove
IL 60089
co
a
Dear Planning & Zoning Commission
co
We are residents of 151 Weiland Road Buffalo Grove. Our home is a corner lot on Armstrong
LO
Rd and the busy Weiland Road intersection. Our younger son has special needs and is non-
verbal. He is a very curious kid but does not understand, nor perceive dangers around him
cu
because of significant development delays. We wanted to put the fence together, so he is
a
secure when outdoors. When we purchased the property, we were not aware of an -'
y,
impending expansion on Weiland and felt the environment safe enough. However, with the
CL
expansion, and the addition of a new pedestrian path that goes around our property, a
cu
security has become a problem for us. We have had several instances of trespassers on our
side, and front yard.There were folks picking from our fruit trees (after multiple polite requests
not to do so), teenagers making out in our lawn, vandals who scratched off the opaque a
co
privacy lining on our bathroom windows, etc., I have both pictures and videos to prove the
some if needed.
c
cu
U-
Our fencing proposal will use 5' spaced picket on the back of the property, 5' board on .°
board on side and/#' foot I=fence on the corner.The proposal follows the style
Cr
guides recommended by the Village Office and will be performed by Fencing Solutions who
is authorized to perform such work in Buffalo Grove. We are open to adjusting the style and
cu
height of the fencing to match the aesthetics of our immediate neighborhood. All we seek is M
a boundary to secure our property in a very busy area and to keep our son safe. v
cu
Sincerely,
co
a.
� U
Deepika Chandippa 2
Q
Packet Pg. 6
2.1.b
VILLAGEOff' ,
During your testimony at the Public Hearing,you need to testify and present your case for the variance .�
being requested. During your testimony you need to affirmatively address the four(4) standards listed o
below:
c
co
The Planning&Zoning Commission is authorized to grant variations to the regulations of the Fence Code
based upon findings of fact which are made based upon the evidence presented at the hearing that:
sn
1.The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; ti
co
Your Evidentiary Statement:We are residents of 151 Weiland Road Buffalo Grove.Our home is a corner lot on +;
Armstrong Rd and the busy Weiland road intersection.Our younger son has special needs and is non-verbal.He is a very curious v
kid but does not understand,nor perceive dangers around him because of significant development delays.We wanted to put J
the fence together,so he is secure when outdoors. When we purchased the property,we were not aware of an impending >%
expansion on Weiland and felt the environment safe enough.However,with the expansion,and the addition of a new
pedestrian path that goes around our property,security has become a problem for us.We have had several instances of CL
trespassers on our side,and front yard.There were folks picking from our fruit trees(after multiple polite requests not to do 2
so),teenagers making out in our lawn,vandals who scratched off the opaque privacy lining on our bathroom windows,etc.,I CL
cu
have both pictures and videos to prove the same if needed.
2.The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood;
vi
c
0
Your Evidentiary Statement:Our permit for fencing will follow the style guides recommended by the Village Office and
will be performed by Fencing Solutions who is authorized to perform such work in Buffalo Grove.We are open to adjusting the �.
style and height of the fencing to match the aesthetics of our immediate neighborhood.All we seek is a boundary to secure our >
property in a very busy area.
U
C
3.There are practical difficulties or particular hardships in carrying out the strict letter of this Chapter Ui
which difficulties or hardships have not been created by the person presently having an interest in the o
property;and,
cu
Your Evidentiary Statement:Our property is close to many favored spots forfamilies and teenagers duringwarm days. d
While most folks are courteous and respect private property boundaries during their walks,there are alwaysthose who are IX
ignorant,and a few who are troublesome.As stated earlier we no longer feel safe being a parent of kid with special needs. M
Vandalism on our property is a recurrent concern.We are fortunate to have a set of mature trees out front that guards access,
however the side yard and the Weiland/Armstrong intersection corner is open.Our proposal is to secure the same.
c
0
U
4 The proposed variation will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare.
Your Evidentiary Statement:Our property being a corner lot, we are acutely aware of the needs of passing motorists coo
and their safety.Thwiootfence on the corner per our proposal allows for direct line of sight for motorists at the intersection CL
and does not impede their visibility.
cu
E
U
t0
Q
Packet Pg. 7
2.1.b
rr,,/f /G,,r,<„ „c „,:r, ,ro it ,, ,.,,, r/,: // �� //�� � /� / ;✓�r /,/� r
/;r,
i.,;
,rr,,
..r,,, ", r rii,r< //i
i / /r /
„✓ r, r r / r
i i/ %.,
„ ��i�, ,rr
r"
/rrr",. `r, r,,,,ar„
r/%�..., ,G ,,,,.c r. r '�„
,;, ,i/, r; //,
r / wall,
NO,�
/ymo
-
ri r f /.cr,
�-
..
/ // ri � ✓., rrr, �' �, r /�/i !i! � 1. r r �l/ / r /r r r ri r
a r l r /i ,n„• r � vie ✓r, � � / /
✓/�� r r. / <r r r / /or ,., r r ✓ ,., r r /
r ✓ rr � // r / /r ri" ,, LO
C.
C.
cr
a
I,Yiiir+y/ 1 f�,fit, �
t0
�'r U
r
u
�� U1
r �
r CL
j
E
/ U
rf Q
1
i
Packet Pg. $
"MMI 1121".a",mli¢'arrvlran�rc�¢N�nYh
pUepllaM 656 le pa;eoa-1 Aljedaad ay;JOI sualle'JeA aoua:j aal;senball a aaplsuao) jas ueld luauay�e d
All
IIJ
I�
fr
1
M
+i
IJ m
w
!�'� i�,�✓ '" + " r � i' lid ��,
J� m
r
r
h
i
puspl!aM 65 ls,r o pa;s� �-ii(�
ff ljada,ad 044 Jo} suollalJan aoua:j,aol isanbaly s jap!suoo) IOS uald :luGw43ellV
Arm/ r r,
//%//
cw 351igg
wx
/ 1
r
� nil
r
i I r
gr
r �
i
f ( �
I
r i �11
r Pm r�
P a sv
I%� � w: i 1 aJ✓r
luau I�I�`'vY J/ '� �� II,, ��s �' f✓ ,��i ` � �' n,
i
pUepl!aM 6s 6 le pa;eaa A( aadaa a as suai eije aqua as senba a as isua
� � d W� � � A � .�� �i p o) ja5 Weld IuauaWael��
CV
• // /�� � �r ��.w � � r!r 1/ N//�,/ % �/ //r /r/� r�i/�rtl < 'yU, ill
CL
i/
U �. � / v �� wY� �lF / 1""�/ 'yy'� „arm q/mh/✓ r,nd q�M�v�'�fi�k
� 1%r�/,,,�����!°;� ,�� / yr 11 A/a �'�r i ,�ti ri��h✓r z'(�>k/ mr V `,�y 'i�rr.J'w.
/ r / u, r G� r'j'��'Gei rya✓r�w°w �+ e� ?q�r^�
rN
U� J � ' % lii��J'`/Gr°y� 'w�✓�jn �! r"� �� r qm rJ^�`m il/
' s 'ri ilk! J//I yl � � N,' J✓� i ,.�'i >,r.
I W mw,� r /9 af/ran///�/ da&��v y rq I'r"/q '!','r Y wr✓ �'
�.� i r� _ r ,/j��D�/l� g�r�✓r/ wr/y/� r� ��H� ''a �.u�`
lu YI � /i r /ll'6�/✓ �rw✓r4 m !�u �q�i � �'� ���� ryu r.
r
l� / 11 I r r/r 9��U J/� q%q^"Ilj w �y i^'Im` ✓ it Jry��l�rm m�p�'.
"��j ✓ / / f / j11 �%(, ✓i���i�y�rll�m^� ,yv� �,�� � rt p„,^h�)""„'" ""�,�!
'll � III
i
Ali i� � I IIIIII
�./, � 9/4 �W(I IIII I �I f ;r�r�11'� m if r �1��'��^aq ry1��'�✓'�pw'� radl'� '"��w�,�' 'I�w
I'll III u '�I II
/ � IIIVVI
x , s ,r �/� /,�p`r r r m �f r "d�2'"»T"�' 1✓WOE
l r II r / �1�✓1 f,pf i��� yam q,",Wrd ,�ry M � SY r W'
;� /, � r/ � / ' % �� , /,� �/ �,l 1��,'1�'a"Mdl�y/0���!✓l°'%y,,������'a��'""w�fi ,"'�d dw"i„rw'
f / /r � ;G G %�, 1 IJry//,<,P c Y, ✓ q f5' P �ry)� '�! !H j�"
r
I
f �If6�
fi s � f9
r �
W t��
W
l I I lip I �t
I I I i I
I uu
/ � ,Ilil I III
�w.
ulu ,
P rf r
r%
/M
pUepllaM 656 le pa;eoa-1 Aljedaad ay;JOI sualle'JeA aoua:j aal;senball a aaplsuao) ;aS ueld :;uewgoelld
C*4
", /,....
� r
j/ �
a
J
a
Ma
/
//i
1J
f; f
x � F
l
I
f"
a
/ 1
2.1.b
LO
/
r
rr r o
/ r r
r
rrr CL
r riorri ����/ ri rr roil
CL
cr
1J/y ' CL
r
i E
L)
Q
f/r/rrr ,
l'
Packet Pg. 13
pUepl!em 656 le pa;eoa-i Aljedaad ay;JOI sualle'JeA eoueq aal;senball a aaplsuao) Ias ueld Iuauay�e d
m b
C4
a
w
U
of
a
r
,
r /ir
/ r /
i
i
� /f
/rrrr/ r
I �
f
pUepl!eM 656 le pejeoa-1 Aljedaad ay;JOI sualle'JeA eoua:j aal;senball a aaplsuao) ;aS ueld :;uewgoel d
C14 a
w
U
of
a
l
�r
r
/
N2, I r /
ri
/l
/
� I
i
,7
/ f/ / V
�I
NO
1 l
/
r
0 9
i f r,
/
xl a
rf /
f
1 , I
I
1
,
i�
r/ /%f��//0 /✓r� r✓hill li ra+ 7�
///�yl,✓h'l fF/!�lprvh�,�
�b%h
2.2
......................................... � ...............................
� m
Action Item : Petition to the Village of Buffalo Grove for an
Amendment to the Restated Annexation Agreement and Planned
Unit Development Approved by Ordinance No. 2003-10, an
Amendment to the Preliminary Plan, and Approval of an Off-Street
Parking Facility Use at 325 N Riverwalk Drive
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Recommendation of Action
Staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions in the attached staff report.
Mike Rolfs of Hamilton Partners is requesting an amendment to the Restated Annexation Agreement
and the Planned Unit Development that was approved by Ordinance No. 2003-10, and an Amendment
to the Preliminary Plan to construct a 360-space off-street parking lot on the property. The off-street
parking lot would be constructed in lieu of the 8-story office building and the 4-story parking structure
that were previously approved. The proposed off-street surface parking lot will supplement the parking
for the CVS/Caremark offices located within Riverwalk I & II Office Towers directly south of the site at
2100- 2150 Lake Cook Road.
The Planning&Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony
concerning the requests.The PZC shall make a recommendation to the Village Board.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Staff Report (DOCX)
• Plan Set (PDF)
• Public Comment (PDF)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Ottenheimer Kelly Purvis, Community Development
Wednesday, November 2,
2022
Updated: 10/27/2022 11:00 AM Page 1
Packet Pg. 16
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE "
PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 2, 2022 M
m
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 325 N Riverwalk Drive, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 >_
PETITIONER: Mike Rolfs, Hamilton Partners LO
N
CO)
PREPARED BY: Kelly Purvis, Deputy Director of Community Development
Andrew Binder,Associate Planner 0
J
C
REQUEST: Petition to the Village of Buffalo Grove for an amendment to the L
Restated Annexation Agreement and Planned Unit Development a
approved by Ordinance No. 2003-10, an Amendment to the
Preliminary Plan,and approval of an off-street parking facility use
at 325 N Riverwalk Drive. w
EXISTING LAND USE 0
AND ZONING: The property is zoned MUPD: Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development district and is currently vacant.
w
0
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Village Comprehensive Plan calls for this property to be an c
office use.
0
w
c
0
U
PROJECT BACKGROUND c
The property located at 325 N. Riverwalk Drive Q
was annexed into the Village of Buffalo Grove on
July 2, 1990. In February of 2003, through the c
adoption of Ordinance No. 2003-010 (attached),
the Village Board approved the restated d
annexation agreement for a 15-acre site, r a
0
commonly known as the Riverwalk North c
0
Property(the entire site outlined in red and blue . �k� ��r�mo- i�.���r, ��u� �n ( ,
in Figure 1),which included the subject property °
... —
(just the portion outlined in blue). The plan ........°,, �,� � r �� ...... ..... ..... ... w
included an eight-story office building of not 0
more than 158,000 square feet, a four-story
pra�yu� S�iw&akwerti:'�maagaeu^�gr .�
parking structure,a six-story hotel with not more 0
CL
than 160 suites and a six-story residential ,,, ��r aCD
building with not more than 90 dwelling units.
An alternate site plan for a second residential
taawaew�tkCN �°`^�
building of six-stories and 90 dwelling units
instead of the eight-story office building and
parking structure was also approved. The multi- s
family residential building, Riverwalk Place Figure 1. U
apartments, was the only part of the plan that a
was actually constructed.
Packet Pg. 17
2.2.a
Mike Rolfs of Hamilton Partners is requesting an amendment to the Restated Annexation Agreement and
the Planned Unit Development that was approved by Ordinance No. 2003-10, and an Amendment to the
�a
Preliminary Plan to construct a 360-space off-street parking lot on the property. The off-street parking lot
would be constructed in lieu of the 8-story office building and the 4-story parking structure that were
previously approved. The proposed off-street surface parking lot will supplement the parking for the
CVS/Caremark offices located within Riverwalk I& II Office Towers directly south of the site at 2100-2150 z
Ln
Lake Cook Road. N
M
The petitioner's narrative statement indicates that CVS/Caremark has signed a land lease on the property o
and has the option to request Hamilton Partners construct the surface parking lot to accommodate their
anticipated future need for parking at the office complex. They are watching post-Covid trends closely Y
before they elect to have the parking lot constructed. To allow the parking lot to be constructed a
expeditiously, upon request of CVS/Caremark to do so, Hamilton is requesting the necessary approvals to
move forward with construction at this time. L
Cn
PLANNING&ZONING ANALYSIS O
Use&Setbacks 3
as
• Accessory parking facilities provided -- ---- •-- z
J
elsewhere than on the same zoning lot Ali" o
as the principal use are permitted in 0
the MUPD District. �.
• Off-street parking facilities must be q .• _ did" +,
setback from the property line at least ' c
as far as the front yard setback c0i
required for the district. With the `O" c
property being located in the MUPD Q
District, the front yard setback
requirement is 25 feet. The site plan y
41s(Figure 2) shows a setback of 26 feet �� t 0
from the property lines adjacent toCL
}'
Riverwalk Drive and N Riverwalk Drive.
0
Access&Circulation 1.+ " °
is
L
• Two access drives are proposed for the
new parking lot. One access drive will y
be located at the northwest end of the Figure 2 0
site along N Riverwalk Drive and the v
other will be located at the southeast part of the site on Riverwalk Drive.
0
• Two-way circulation is proposed throughout the parking lot. m
w
Parking Lot Dimensions N
• All proposed parking stall, drive aisle and access drive dimensions are in compliance with the };
Village requirements for off-street parking facilities. 0
1=
ADA Compliance
• With the addition of 360 new parking stalls to serve the office use, a higher number of ADA a
Packet Pg. 18
2.2.a
accessible parking stalls may need to be provided.
• Staff has included a suggested condition of approval that the parking nearest to the office
buildings at 2100-2150 Lake Cook Road be evaluated and if need be, adjusted to accommodate
�a
the additional ADA stalls, prior to issuance of a building permit to construct the new off-street
parking facility. >
• During final engineering review, the pedestrian crossing proposed on Riverwalk Drive will also be
evaluated for ADA compliance. Z
LO
N
M
Landscaping a
• The petitioner has provided a 0
landscape plan (Figure 3) showing new
landscaping proposed throughout the �e
�J L
site. a
• Compliant landscape islands and
parking lot screening are proposed. Cn
«
The screening along the north property
boundary is between 6-8 feet in O
height. LOT 4
➢l , z
• The landscaping includes a mixture of
shade trees ornamental trees and
/ m 1 0
evergreen trees. ✓ . � � �'` o
Lighting
Ground mounted pole lighting will be
J J
used to illuminate the site. " �, v
• The footcandle level at the property . . ............................................................ 0
line will not exceed .5, which complies Figure 3. Q
with village requirements.
N
_
Bike Path
• The existing bike path located on the east side of the property will be retained with an easement. a
4-
0
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS c
Village Department Comments to
L
Engineering The Village Engineer has reviewed the plans and does not have any
concerns. y
Fire Department The Fire Department has reviewed the proposed plans and does not 0
U
have any concerns.
t=
Forestry The Village Forester has reviewed the landscape plan and does not 0
CL
have any concerns.
w
�a
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS N
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
completed within the prescribed timeframe as required. As of the date of this Staff Report, the Village
received several inquiries from nearby residents about the proposed improvements. Most of the residents
were curious about what was going to be constructed on the lot. Some expressed concerns about the site a
Packet Pg. 19
2.2.a
being developed as a parking lot. One public comment was received by mail and has been attached for
the PZC's review.
Ta
STANDARDS
A positive recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission in and of itself indicates that the >
Commission, based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, has found that the planned unit 0�
development meets the general standards set forth below. Written findings of fact are not required. Z
Ln
N
M
1. The PUD has the minimum areas asset forth in Section 17.16.060 of the Village Code;
0
J
2. The uses permitted in such development are not of such a nature or so located as to exercise an
undue detrimental influence or effect upon the surrounding neighborhood; Y
L
a
3. The plan effectively treats the developmental possibilities of the subject property, making
appropriate provision for the preservation of streams, wooded areas, scenic views, floodplain
areas, and similar physical features; Cn
w
O
4. All requirements pertaining to commercial, residential, institutional or other uses established in 3
as
the planned unit development conform to the requirements for each individual classification as Z
c�
established elsewhere in the Zoning Code, except as may be specifically varied for the property o
planning of the planned unit development; c
5. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine that the area and width of the lot shall be
sufficient for the proposed use, and the that the development of the property in the proposed
manner creates no outlots which will be difficult to develop in an appropriate manner. �j
3
The petitioner's responses to standards 1-4 are attached. 0Q
0
STAFF RECOMMENDATION =
Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Restated Annexation Agreement and Planned 0
Unit Development approved by Ordinance No. 2003-10, an Amendment to the Preliminary Plan, and a
approval of an off-street parking facility use at 325 N Riverwalk Drive, subject to the conditions listed in -
the PZC motion below, due to the following reasons: c
ca
1. The off-street parking lot is a permitted use in the district;
2. The off-street parking lot complies with all requirements of the Buffalo Grove Zoning Code;
3. The site has been vacant and undeveloped since at least 1990 when the Village annexed it; 0
U
4. Given the location, berms and proposed landscaping, the parking lot will be well screened;
5. The parking lot will serve a productive use for an existing nearby office with an estimated 1,250 0
a
employees.
w
ACTION REQUESTED N
The Planning&Zoning Commission (PZC)shall open the public hearing and take public testimony
concerning the requests.The PZC shall make a recommendation to the Village Board.
U
Suggested PZC Motion a
The PZC recommends approval of the Amendment to the Restated Annexation Agreement and Planned
Packet Pg. 20
2.2.a
Unit Development approved by Ordinance No. 2003-10, an Amendment to the Preliminary Plan, and
approval of an off-street parking facility use at 325 N Riverwalk Drive, subject to the following conditions:
M
1. The proposed development shall be developed in substantial conformance to the plans P
attached. >
2. The Petitioner shall comply with all applicable Village codes, regulations, and policies. z
Ln
N
M
3. Any incidental or directional signage proposed will be reviewed by Village staff.
0
J
4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for construction of the new off-street parking
facility, the total parking count for the office uses will be reviewed and accommodations shall be Y
made to the parking lot at 2100- 2150 Lake Cook Road in compliance with the Illinois a
Accessibility Code (regarding the number of accessible parking spaces and location of the
accessible spaces).
U)
ATTACHMENTS O
• Petitioner's Narrative Statement 3
a�
• Engineering Response Letter z�
• Proposed Site Plan o
• Landscape Plan r_
0
• Photometric Plan
• Response to PUD Standards
• Public Comment
0
U
3
0
Q
0
N
C
O
G1
a
4-
0
c
0
ca
L
.y
0
U
0
CL
m
w
ca
N
c
t
�a
Q
Packet Pg. 21
2.2.b
HAMILTON
PARTNERS
HAMILTON PARTNERS, INC.
1130 Lake Cook Road,#190
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 -le
P(847)459-9225
F(847)459-8918 at
it
CVS Parking Lot Riverwalk North �
N
Hamilton Partners is requesting approval to build a surface parking lot containing approximately c
360 parking spaces for use by CVS/Caremark to supplement their existing parking spaces located 0
within the Riverwalk I&II office towers directly south of the site. The parking lot would be
developed on the lot previously approved by the Village for an 8-story office building of about
cc
165,000 SF with approximately 617 parking spaces located a parking deck and surface parking
lot. a,
cu
CVS/Caremark has signed a land lease on the property and has the option to request Hamilton
Partners construct the surface parking lot to accommodate their anticipated future need for parking 0
at the office complex. CVS/Caremark, as with most all institutional office occupiers, is eyeing
post-COVID occupancy trends carefully before they elect to have the parking lot constructed. cc
Recently, CVS/Caremark vacated about 270,000 SF of office space in the Caremark Towers o
located off Sanders Rd and the tollway in Northbrook.They have not reduced their employee count o
as part of this process and plan on accommodating their employee base in a new lease for 52,000
SF at a building on the Allstate campus in Northbrook plus backfilling the remainder into the
Riverwalk Office complex. They currently have access to 714 parking spaces in the Riverwalk II c
parking garage but anticipate an employee count of up to as many as 1,250 people assuming 0
occupancy standards return to pre-COVID levels. This is the reason they have negotiated to have c
the surface parking lot constructed if needed in the future. Q
a
To allow expeditious development of the proposed parking lot,Hamilton Partners is looking to get
the approvals necessary to build it in the event we receive notice from CVS to do so. We do not
want to prepare final plans and engineering for the work until we receive notice to proceed but ,
would like to have all the necessary upfront approvals for the use on the site so we can proceed
expeditiously if notified to move forward. r-
a
We thank you in advance for your consideration of this request and look forward to further
discussions to move this forward. °
c
a
U
cu
U1
c
co
tt
c
cu
E
U
t0
Q
Packet Pg. 22
975E. 22w Street, Suite 4UO
Wheaton, IL6O189
63048O7889
Engineering, � � »-~ ««wxm/ �m�/-e��i�--��� cemm
.�. .��.. .~~~~" "" "��� =_^_�� www.rwg-engineering.com
.
s*m�=" + m�mmW Con=m� + »n�"=m�em
F|LE:S3S'OOS-2O
�
�
February 9, 2O2I um
�
�
0
-j
PROPOSED RVVERWALK NORTH LOT 4PARKING FACILITY
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
FUTURE FINAL ENGINEERING CRITERIA CL
cc
As of this date we have completed a preliminary site plan for an approximately 360 stall surface parking lot on Lot 4 at 0
R|venwa|k North. |n the near future |t|s anticipated that we will be authorized to proceed with final engineering and �
construction permit drawings,which will include starting with an updated property boundar«�opo�raphic/udUtysurv�y ��
' � m
to be accomplished by Edward J Molloy and Associates Surveyors. With that document in our possession we will then be ~-
ready to perform detailed geometry and grading/utility design. -
As a surface parking lot, no sanitary sewer design will be needed,and with watermain existing on Riverwalk Drive on the
west and south side of the lot little if any watermain extensions will be required. Lot 4 was originally anticipated to be
developed with a building and parking field,for which stormwater management and detention was provided years ago. o
Calculations will be performed to confirm the proposed development intensity aligns with what was anticipated,and -
parking lot storm sewer drainage will be designed to connect tothe exisdngoutfa||system which will route site 2
stormvva1er runoff to the existing stormvvater detention facilities. <
0
CL
CL
Packet Pg. 23
�
()lle-9A!M'N SZE;e 10-1 F)uPlJ8d PWIS-MO maN e to uo!lonilsuoo moliV of suO!I!;ad 10 uO!IeJaP!suOO) PS ueld:luatU43ePv
NYld DIIS AdVNIWI]ldd 373
4 111
........................ A1111DVA DNI>I'dVd-t,101 H.L'dON>I'IVM'd]Al'd a
Hi'dON)iIVM'dgAl'd-S'd]Ni'dVd NOiIIWVH
-------------
R 11 1 111"1 MIM HTH
jj
I-�fl
WN
Al
i
r 6`
e N
� o
F
w v
r�
m
�p.
r iiffVV�xx��AA
M
\ I
�V
m
r
KE-
� E
Ln
1r
/i 44
s-
i CL
CL
5 urcaa ad � o � h
a
N E v
u- 4
C N A (�
m N N ° - O
D (41ex—d'N SZE W lol 6-'Mled I—IR-HO—N a to—1-1-3 MOIIV of S1011110d to uogeJaPISUOO)PS eeld:luow4oeHV ry
a
a'
I�VIIIIIII�III IIII III III INIII IIII�IIVIIIIIIIII IIUIIIIIIINIIIII S1N:ale-6 AMPeJ BUIMJed t 10-1 u)JON
SNOI1tlOIlddV%OOR2 pary�aa40 �
swawwo� oleo n W.IR of:A-l—a u:PoN�JeNUOAIN
c
c t
3 I1�LLI
MO Z M
N:X
4
9p'ti�l pa4 pSdM E R+t,m b C5
Iie F I II I
IIIII/� )IIFy LIL JI
e e e e o - - e - - e .. e � ._
W
v 6
JIII N IIIIII/ 11II yIIIIII
Eery
J3rrr",E"
J. xIF
o
o T Q
P N M
Ea—�
. - -
,
❑❑
>>
Z Z y
r _ a
IILLIII IIIL III` III 7 tl
�I.`-I
r
IL _
E E 3
m
£
r-
J �� E oaLLo
Ea�E
y m
C� e F� Pe✓��.� = yl �
UJU
m,la _yZ `a`v
3w �U5
•6 a -
N
N v
E_ E
10 =
C - -a
E 9£
J O W M
E c
o E v
2.2.b
Response to PUD Standards:
M
1. The PUD has the minimum areas as set forth in Section 17.16.060 of the Village Code;
Response: The MUPD District does not have a minimum area requirement in Section 17.16.060 of
the Village Code.The Riverwalk North Property does meet the minimum area requirement for the LO
MUPD District outlined in Section 17.50.040. M
�a
2. The uses permitted in such development are not of such a nature or so located as to exercise an 0
undue detrimental influence or effect upon the surrounding neighborhood;
c
L
Response: The use proposed is consistent with the current approved use for the site and with the a
proposed setbacks and landscape buffers will not have any detrimental influence on the
surrounding area which consists of high-rise office buildings and commercial uses primarily gas
stations and a proposed new car wash. w
O
3. The plan effectively treats the developmental possibilities of the subject property, making z
appropriate provision for the preservation of streams, wooded areas, scenic views, floodplain
areas, and similar physical features; o
c
O
Response: The proposed use will not block or interfere with any view corridors and will include
appropriate landscape buffers and will not impact the adjacent Des Plaines River open space areas.
The existing walking/bike path will be relocated to allow continued access to the adjacent Lake
0
County Forest Preserve Trail. v
3
0
4. All requirements pertaining to commercial, residential, institutional or other uses established in Q
the planned unit development conform to the requirements for each individual classification as
established elsewhere in the Zoning Code, except as may be specifically varied for the proper c
planning of the planned unit development;
d
a
Response:The use is permitted in the district and no zoning variations are being requested. -
c
0
ca
L
.y
C
O
U
d
c
co
a.
c
m
1=
Q
Packet Pg. 27
2,2.c
Kell Purvis
From: Nicole Woods
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2022 7:39 AM
To: Kelly Purvis
Subject: Fwd: Public hearing near Riverwalk Drive
it
z
LO
N
co
Nicole Woods, AICP J
Director of Community Development a,
Village of Buffalo Grove
cc
a
Begin forwarded message:
cu
From: Wendy
Date: October 28, 2022 at 7:37:25 AM CDT 0
O
To: Nicole Woods<NWoods@vbg.org>
Subject: Re: Public hearing near Riverwalk Drive z
cc
More thought. The sign is hidden. How can people have a voice when it is hidden and no one sees or 0
understands what it is about.
U
Best, Wendy-sent from my iPhone
a
U
3
a
On Oct 28, 2022,at 7:22 AM,Wendy 4 wrote: Q
a
c
Hi Nicole, o
cu
a.
Sorry to bother you but I am not familiar with the public hearing process. There is a sign a
up by Riverwalk Drive. I have heard there is to be a parking structure built. I think many o
would be opposed to such an eye sore and building on more natural land that is so very o
precious for conservation. In the changing work climate,workers are seeking the ability
in fact demanding remote work. We need more parking? That does not align with
where things are at today. Is anyone using what they have? Those structures are °�
full? They can't add on to what is already built?!?!? There are other nearby areas that
the land has already been built up and then abandoned. I just can't understand or
support this in any way. Please, how do we stop using up the few slices of natural land E
left? The area will lose the beauty and be so much less attractive looking like one big v
strip mall that has trouble leasing the space or we continue to have a Walgreens or 9
Walmart on every single corner. Sorry, I feel so strongly about protecting what little
land we have that isn't built on. Please consider this. o'
4i
c
cu
E
Regards, U
co
Wendy ► Q
Packet Pg. 28
3.B.1
08/17/2022
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, AUGUST 17, 2022
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chairman Frank Cesario
Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
1. Consider Variations from the Buffalo Grove Fence Code to Allow the Construction of a 6- y
Foot Semi-Open Style Fence Within 45 Feet of an Intersection Encroaching into the
Required Side Yard Setback (Trustee Johnson) (Staff Contact: Kelly Purvis)
Mr. Binder provided background information on the subject property.
0
Mr. Varghese provided additional detail regarding his fence, replacing from a 5"to 6"
0
solid privacy fence. Specified the increased traffic. a
a
Chairperson Cesario reviewed the variations in front of the commission for approval, a
going over the specifications. Mr. Cesario asked how many complaints he has received
a
from his current fence, coy
Mr. Varghese said many complaints of the bad fence. Com. Moodhe asked staff for N
address clarification. o
N
Village Attorney Brankin said it was posted with the proper address and the sign and
notices were posted properly as well.
Com. Moodhe asked if staff had received any calls. Mr. Binder said no. c
The Village Staff report was entered exhibit one.
Mr. Varghese thanked the commission for their time. The public hearing closed at 7:40
PM.
ci
Com Weinstein made a motion to grant variations to Section 15.20 of the Buffalo Grove
Fence Code to allow the installation of a 6-foot semi-open fence on the property at 401 C
Claret Drive that exceeds the maximum height of a corner yard fence, encroaches into U
the corner side yard setback along Vintage Lane, and is within 45 feet of the intersection a
N
of Checker Road and Vintage Lane,provided the fence shall be installed in accordance
with the documents and plans submitted as part of this petition.
Com. Richards seconded the motion.
Com. Moodhe spoke in favor of the motion. Com. Worlikar spoke in favor of the motion.
Com. Weinstein spoke in favor of the motion.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Moodhe, Spunt, Cesario, Weinstein, Au, Richards, Worlikar, Davis
ABSENT: Zill Khan
2. Consider Variations from the Buffalo Grove Fence Code to Allow the Construction of a 6-
Foot Privacy Fence Along the Interior Side Yard and Extending Beyond the Front Line of
the Building at 1131 Twisted Oak Lane (Trustee Pike) (Staff Contact: Kelly Purvis)
Mr. Binder provided a background on the subject property.
Packet Pg. 29
3.B.1
08/17/2022
Mr. Gillick provided additional background on the requested 6"solid fence. He explained
that the ditch and the unsightly vegetation is what they would like to screen.
Com.Au referenced packet page 28 and asked how tall the fence in the neighboring
yard.
Mr. Binder said he does not know.
Com Au asked if staff knows if there is a variation in the neighborhood like the one being
proposed.
Mr. Binder said he would need to look it up to verify.
Com.Au asked why 6 , if 5"is permitted.
3
The petitioner said the foliage is unsightly and would prefer 6".
Com. Moodhe referenced packet page 30. He asked if the petitioner installed the c
seawall.
0
Mr. Gillick said yes. Q.
a
Com. Moodhe asked whose vegetation it is. Mr. Gillick said it is his neighbors. a
Com. Moodhe asked if he knew the last time staff was out to clear vegetation. Mr. Gillick as
said he did not know.
ti
Com. Moodhe referenced packet page 31. N
N
O
Com. Moodhe asked if he has any pictures of the other side of the creek. Mr. Gillick said N
no.
ti
a�
Chairperson Cesario asked if staff is okay with the angle of the fence. Mr. Binder said he Q
will not know until the permit is submitted. o
N
Chairperson Cesario asked if there will need to be access to the creek that would be °1
blocked with the fence.
Mr. Binder said no. 6
c
Ms. Purvis explained the post hole inspection will also make sure the fence is structural
Q.
secure. a)
U
Chairperson Cesario asked if there were any calls. Mr. Binder said no. a
N
Com. Spunt asked if there will be any access.
c
Mr. Gillick said he may put one.
Com. Worlikar asked how far forward the fence will go in the front. Mr. Binder explained
the picture of the front view.
Mr. Gillick said the fence will be exactly where the existing fence is.
Com Weinstein said the only real footprint change is the height of the fence. The staff
report was entered as exhibit one.
MR. Gillick thanked the Commission for their time. The public hearing closed at 8:04 pm
Com. Weinstein made a motion to grant variations to Section 15.20 of the Buffalo Grove
Fence Code to allow a 6-foot solid privacy fence along the interior side yard and
extending beyond the front line of the building at 1131 Twisted Oak Lane, provided the
Packet Pg. 30
3.B.1
08/17/2022
fence shall be installed in accordance with the documents and plans submitted as part of
this petition.
Com. Moodhe seconded the motion.
Com. Weinstein spoke in favor of the motion. Com. Moodhe spoke in favor of the
motion. Com. Spunt spoke in favor of the motion.
Chairperson Cesario spoke in favor of the motion.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Moodhe, Spunt, Cesario, Weinstein, Au, Richards, Worlikar, Davis
ABSENT: Zill Khan
N
3. Consideration of an Amendment to Ordinance No. 2019-042 and an Amendment to the
Preliminary Plan, Approval of a Veterinary Hospital Use, and Variations from the Sign c
Code Related to the Number and Size of Wall Signs Proposed, All to Allow the
Construction of a 2-Tenant Commercial Building on 41 S. McHenry Road (Trustee o
Ottenheimer) (Staff Contact: Kelly Purvis)
Ms. Purvis provided a background of the NCH property and outlot. a
a
Mr. Goltz briefly reviewed the variations for the tenants of the outlot building and the a
new additions.
a
Com. Spunt asked if there is proper entrance signage?
ti
Mr. Goltz said the entrance signage is posted on the doors. Com. Spunt asked if there are N
any drive-throughs. N
Ms. Purvis said no drive-throughs are being proposed. Com.Au asked staff what signage
would be permitted.
Q
Ms. Purvis explained what signage is permitted for the zoning. She explained three wall c
signs are permitted, but technically with the way the building is permitted, there would
be 8 wall signs. 3
c
Com.Au asked if the flames themselves meet the criteria.
ci
Ms. Purvis said the flames would be permitted.
CL
Com. Worlikar asked about the south elevations that were part of the staff report. Ms. aa)
Purvis explained why the proposed pictures are different. a
Com. Worlikar asked if there will be directional signs.
Mr. Goltz said the proposed is a monument sign, which will provide direction.
Chairperson Cesario noted the conditions regarding directional signs in the
recommended approval.
Com. Moodhe asked staff about the suggested motion.
Ms. Purvis explained why there are modifications for veterinary hospital.
Com. Moodhe asked what the square footage is of the signage. He suggested that staff
get ahead and look at sizes.
Ms. Purvis said 250 square feet for wild fork signage.
Com. Weinstein asked if the petitioner is familiar with signage on other wild fork
buildings. He asked if the signage would be permitted if it were on a canopy.
Packet Pg. 31
3.B.1
08/17/2022
Ms. Purvis said yes, it would be.
Mr. Goltz said that there are no canopies on any of their other buildings. He explained
how the look of no canopy gives an elevated look.
Com.Au asked if they could put the signage on the canopy.
Ms. Purvis confirmed with wild fork that the signage is flush will the wall. Com.Au asked
what the Village defines as a canopy.
Ms. Purvis provided the definition of a canopy.
Chairperson Cesario asked if it was going to be 24 hours for the veterinary hospital. Ms.
Purvis said yes, it is 24 hours. y
d
Ms. Purvis explained that Commissioners could remove the three signs for the 3
c
recommended motion.
Com. Moodhe asked how far back the building is from the corner. Mr. Goltz said 25 feet.
ca
Com. Moodhe believes traffic would not be able to see that signage with how busy it is. o
Com. Richards spoke in favor of the signage over the signage at their other locations. C
Com. Davis spoke in favor of the signage as presented and commenting that it looks
modern. a
0
M
Com. Spunt said that the signage with the words is too cluttered. Chairperson Cesario
would like to make the motion as presented. N
(D
Com.Au said she feels very strongly against the string of wording on the building. N
ti
However, she like the rest of the package. Her sole concern is the length of the signage
and the repetitive words.
Q
Chairperson Cesario asked if they could split the motion. Village Attorney, Mr. Brankin c
said it is one applicant.
Mr. Goltz explained the signage again and the purpose of the signage.
Mr. Brankin explained that the applicant will work with staff to reduce the signage. Mr.
Goltz said he would be happy to go back to the tenants.
Q.
Com. Davis said if it was a canopy they would not be here. Ms. Purvis said correct. a)
U
U
The Village staff report was entered exhibit one. The public hearing closed at 8:51 pm. Q
N
G1
Com. Weinstein made a recommendation The PZC recommends approval of amendment
to Ordinance No. 2019-042 and an amendment to the Preliminary Plan, approval of a
Veterinary Hospital use, and Variations from the Sign Code for the number and size of
wall signs proposed for the Wild Fork tenant space, all to accommodate the construction
of a new 2-tenant commercial building at 41 S. McHenry Road, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The proposed development shall be developed in substantial conformance with
the plans attached as part of the petition.
2. The Final Engineering plans shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the
Village.
3. Any directional or incidental signage added to the sign package shall be
reviewed administratively by staff.
Packet Pg. 32
3.B.1
08/17/2022
Com. Richards seconded the motion.
Chaiperson Cesario said it was a great discussion. Overall, he spoke in favor of the
motion as proposed. He would also be in favor if the words were reduced.
Com. Weinstein said he is not a fan of that particular signage but would like to see
something different.
Com. Moodhe said he would like if they worked with staff to reduce the number of words
because he real likes the rest of the package.
RESULT: APPROVED [7 TO 0]
AYES: Moodhe, Spunt, Cesario, Au, Richards, Worlikar, Davis
ABSENT: Zill Khan
d
RECUSED: Mitchell Weinstein
Regular Meeting 0
Other Matters for Discussion °
a
a
Approval of Minutes -July 20, 2022 Meeting
a
a
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Jul 20, 2022 7:30 PM o
M
RESULT: ACCEPTED [7 TO 0] N
AYES: Moodhe, Spunt, Cesario, Weinstein, Au, Richards, Davis c
ABSTAIN: Neil Worlikar 0'
ABSENT: Zill Khan
a�
Chairman's Report a
0
0
Chairperson Cesario spoke about the board meeting he attended and the proposed
improvements that are coming to the PZC in the future for Mike Rylko Park. _
Committee and Liaison Reports
c
Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule Q-
a)
U
U
Ms. Purvis said there is nothing on the future agenda schedule at this time. a
N
a1
Public Comments and Questions c
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM
Action Items
Kelly Purvis
APPROVED BY ME THIS 17th DAY OF August , 2022
Packet Pg. 33