Loading...
1982-09-29 - Plan Commission - Minutes PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION Zoning Ordinance Revision September 29, 1982 Chairman Shields called the Public Hearing to order in the Municipal Build- ing, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove at 7:38 P.M. Commissioners Present: Chairman Shields Mr. Goldspiel Mrs. Sheldon Mr. Davis Mr. Glover Mrs. Reid Mrs. Kaszubowski Mr. Goldberg Mr. Krug Commissioners Absent: None Also Present: Mr. Reinrich, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Quick, Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Stolman, Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Perlman, Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. W. Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. F. Hruby, Building and Zoning Mr. R. Burton, Resident Mr. S. Stone, Village Trustee Mr. D. DeLance, Park District Mr. J. Truesdell, Village Planner Chairman Shields read the notice of the public hearing as published in the newspapers and informed the audience the format the meeting would take. Mr. Truesdell briefly reviewed his September 9, 1982 memo to the Plan Commission. He stated that regarding accessory uses, point No. 1, he has recommended a minor language change to address the issue of more than one building in a PUD. There is an error in the table which sets forth all of the single family residential setbacks talking about minimum lot sizes. It gives the width at the property line and it should be at building setback line. It is not a change from the current ordinance. Then referring to his August 19, 1982 memo to the Plan Commission, point Number 9, he stated he has researched various other ordinances. Buffalo Grove's ordinance covering stacking spaces in a drive in bank is six. For a drive through restaurant this is a little shy. At one time there was a proposal for a Burger King that had stacking space for ten cars. He feels this would be adequate. Commissioner Goldspiel asked the Commission how they felt about the side yard minimum of 12. 5 feet at the building lot line in the new one acre lot zoning classification for residential estates. He felt there should be more room. - 2 - Commissioner Glover - There could be a forest of trees between two lots. We may want to have a twenty foot side yard and the next one could be a fourty foot yard. It does not bother him. After some discussion the Commission agreed with Commissioner Glover. Commissioner Goldspiel - When we previously discussed this ordinance I asked for information about the question of servicing the sewer and water for a property of this zoning area. Mr. Truesdell looked into this. Using a formula that gives a ratio of costs versus revenue he has gone into the revenues that could be expected with the one acre type lots and came out better for school districts, slightly better for the park district and slightly worse for the Village. It was not a large difference. Adding them all together and looking at the tax bill that the residents will receive there would be a positive benefit. Cook County works out better at present than Lake County. It would be a wash eventually. Commissioner Krug had listened to a program by the American Planning Association discussing accessory housing, that is taking a larger house and putting in efficiency apartments. Mr. Truesdell stated that could not be done with the current ordinance. Commissioner Krug noted that this is becoming more common in older areas and felt it should be given some consideration at a later date. Commissioner Goldspiel did not feel it would apply to Buffalo Grove's type of housing. Chairman Shields read a letter from the Home Builder's Association of Greater Chicago dated September 29, 1982 to Mr. Truesdell. They were asking for a thirty day delay before the Plan Commission makes a recommendation on this ordinance so that could have more time to review it. This letter, signed by Mr. Ives, was received by Mr. Truesdell at 4:30 P.M. on September 29, 1982. Mr. Baysa stated that this letter is not to be taken as a protest, is not signed by a resident of the Village and he understands that there has been no protest from a member of the Village regarding the ordinance now before the Commission. Mr. Burton questioned the definition of several types of dwellings. He read the definition of a manor home stating it could be considered a detached multi- family dwelling. Mr. Truesdell stated it would be considered a detached dwelling but he did not would be multi-family. What it is doingPa e 8 is giving examples feel it ou � g y that include various dwelling units. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing September 29, 1982 - 3 - Mr. Burton referred to the parking ratio stating there are various ratios for various types of housing. The parking for manor homes should say dwelling units. Mr. Truesdell will change the wording. Mr. Burton referred to floor area ratio stating the old ordinance mentioned Li attic space and the new ordinance does not. Mr. Truesdell noted that on Page 58, the bottom under footnotes, it discusses the floor area ratio. Mr. Burton stated that includes basements. The floor area ratio definition does not include basements. Mr. Truesdell will look into this. Mr. Burton then referred to Page 58 and asked if there are differences other than rear yard between R1, R1 A, R2, R2 A. Mr. Truesdell replied no. Mr. Burton referred to Page 35, Open Space Standards, under Sections B and C. On the surface this seems to be contradictory with Title 19. Mr. Truesdell stated he did not believe it is inconsistent with Title 19. It was meant to insure a certain amount of common open area and it is meant to compliment Title 19. Mr. Burton referred to Page 36, Paragraph C-1 and 2 questioning the wording. Mr. Truesdell will look into and change the wording. Moved by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Sheldon to adjourn the Public Hearing. The vote was unanimous. Chairman Shields adjourned the Public Hearing at 8:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ka hleen Comer Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: r Patrick Shields Chairman Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing September 29, 1982 SPECIAL MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION Zoning Ordinance Spoerlein Farm September 29, 1982 Chairman Shields called the Special Meeting to order in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove at 8:11 P.M. Commissioners Present: Chairman Shields Mr. Goldspiel Mrs. Sheldon Mr. Davis Mr. Glover Mrs. Reid Mrs. Kaszubowski Mr. Krug Mr. Goldberg Commissioners Absent: None Also Present: Mr. Mastandrea, Spoerlein Farm Developer Mr. R. Burton, Land Consultant, Spoerlein Farm Mr. Cothern, Mobile Oil Representative Mr. Baka, Resident Mr. Solanski, Resident Mr. W. Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. S. Stone, Village Trustee Mr. D. DeLance, Park District Mr. J. Truesdell, Village Planner Mr. R. Heinrich, Chairman Zoning Board of A ppeals APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Goldspiel, seconded by Commissioner Sheldon to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of September 1, 1982. Page 2, paragraph 4+ change "separately plotted" to "separate lots"; paragraph 10 add "proposed" after "have a"; page 5, paragraph 11 change "determined" to "suggested" and add after "re- view" "or different zoning"; page 6, paragraph 6 add after "considered" "in- cluding the cost of servicing average lots with sewer and water"; page 8, paragraph 3 change "gaming petition" to "permission". Approval was unanimous with Commissioner Kaszubowski abstaining. COMMUNICATIONS At the Village Board Meeting that Commissioner Kaszubowski attended the final plat for the Business Park in Lexington Glen was approved. In review of the last zoning ordinance minutes regarding fences between residential and commercial sites she noted it was to be left up to the discretion of the Appearance Comm- ission. Commissioner Kaszubowski stated there was a request by a resident who wanted to put up a fence in his own yard behind the early learning center - 2 - This would cause a twelve foot gap between fences. A situation like this is something to be aware of when the Commission asks commercial to put up fences well within their property line. The Commission is getting a referral of a revised plan of the Commons with the townhouses replaced by single family. Many of the trustees were adamant as to a strict time table for improve- ments being put in. The residents there have suffered for a long time with unfinished property. Chairman Shields read a letter from Mr. Balling to himself dated September 21st titled Plan Commission Referral-Amendment to PUD-Commons of Buffalo Grove. He also stated there is a referral of the Wag's Restaurant. Commissioner Goldspiel stated that during the train strike the North Suburban Mass Transit District and the RTA added service to the two local bus routes. They did a commendable job. ZONING ORDINANCE Mr. Truesdell stated that he did not think it would be a problem to wait until the next regular Plan Commission meeting to make a recommendation on the ord- inance. He has several points to look into. Commissioner Davis felt the recommendations made should be incorporated into the new ordinance so that the Commission can review it in detail before a vote is taken. Mr. Heinrich stated that since it is unlikely the Home Builder's Association will make any changes to Article XIII the Zoning Board of Appeals would go ahead and hold their hearing and make a recommendation. Commissioner Goldspiel is concerned about holding a special meeting for an association of interested parties and not having the public able to response. Mr. Raysa stated another public hearing on the ordinance would depend on how many changes are made to it. If the changes are minor, it would not be necessary. If the changes are major, it would call for another hearing. Mr. Heinrich felt the Home Builder's Association should have been present at this meeting. Mr. Raysa pointed out the last comprehensive review of the Zoning Ordinance was in 1961. The more input he can get the better. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Special Meeting September 29, 1982 - 3 - Commissioner Kaszubowski noted that after the Commission's review the ordinance goes to the Village Board. The Commission never sees a completed document. The ordinance will go for final typing before it goes to the Board, the Commission does not have a complete document in its possession. How can it be sure something is not left out. Commissioner Glover moved, with Commissioner Davis seconding, to table the Zoning Ordinance until the next scheduled Plan Commission meeting. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Goldspiel felt that there are two issues to be reviewed regarding the acreage zoning, is the 12. 5 foot side yard minimum sufficient and more detail of the financial impact of this zoning. The Commission was polled as to whether present ordinance recommendation of 12. 5 foot or 10% of the lot width on each side but not less than 25 Feet from behind should stand. AYES: Commissioners Sheldon, Glover, Reid, Kaszubowski, Goldberg NAYES: Commissioners Davis, Krug, Goldspiel ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The poll was favorable 5 - 3. It will remain the way it stands. Commissioner Goldspiel would appreciate a copy of the figures as to the impact of this kind of zoning on the water and sewer as to cost and how it effects the ultimate capacity in planning. Mr. Heinrich felt if you judged all developments with regard to financial impact you would have a community of all high rise buildings. THE VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Sheldon, Davis, Glover, Reid, Kaszubowski, Krug Goldberg NAYES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Goldspiel ABSENT: None The motion was favorable 7 - 0. The zoning ordinance will be tabled. Chairman Shields called a recess of the Special Meeting at 8:4+1 P.M. Chairman Shields reconvened the Special Meeting at 8:52 P.M. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Special Meeting September 29, 1982 - 4 - SPOERLEIN FARM Mr. Truesdell referred to a letter from the Park District to himself dated September 29, 1982 describing action taken by the Park Board from Mr. DeLance titled Spoerlein Farm. He referred to a memo dated September 23, 1982, submitted to the developer addressed to the Plan Commission titled Spoerlein Farm asking for additional information and reviewing the plan. Mr. Burton stated the previous plan, we felt, had answered many of the comments we received. We refined that plan taking into consideration the Plan Commission wanted no variations. We have come back with Design Study "N". The sixty foot right-of-way on the interior street is noted. The commercial layout has remained the same and the residential roadway has stayed the same. We have introduced some general curves to break up the straight roadway. Two dwelling units were lost bringing the total dwelling units to one hundred seventy-six. The setbacks from the perimeter are fifty feet at the closest point. Regarding the setback we have pulled the building back twenty-two feet so that it will not interfere with the evergreens as noted at the last meeting. The plan now has no variations to the best of my knowledge. We have provided some add- itional plan data as noted on the plan. Mr. Burton pointed out the buildings that would be one, two and a combination of one and two stories. It is their thought that the retail space would be the first floors and the office space would be the second. They would like some flexibility with that. They have talked with staff about the possibility of a restaurant with a liquor licence. They would like language put into the annexation agreement allowing that use. The parking for a restaurant would be more than for an office. They would have to take care of that. He showed a rendering of the back side of the residential buildings. He stated they are trying for a rustic/comtemporary approach. He then referred to the traffic analysis from Barton-Ashman dated September 17th to Mr. Burton from Mr. O'Hara titled Spoerlein Farm Traffic Appraisal. It referred to access on Arlington Heights and on Route 83 making storage there for one hundred feet for vehicle queue. They will get together with Barton-Ashman on this. The commercial should have provision for free movement in and out the cross lanes and be stop signed. They have no difficulty with that. He referred the service station requirement of only one access to Mr. Cothern. He stated their design is for one way in and one way out. It is a design that has worked very well for them and is a common traffic pattern. If this was changed they would have to redesign. Commissioner Goldspiel was concerned about the intersection at that point be- cause there is a four lane roadway narrowing down to two lanes. Mr. Cothern stated the normal traffic pattern is for in and out and they feel their customers would only be coming from one direction. They would not cross Buffalo Grove Plan Commission September 29, 1982 Special Meeting - 5 - over the traffic. Commissioner Goldspiel felt it would be better to group the exits nearer to Arlington Heights Road. Mr. Burton stated the Cost Benefit Analysis and Population Projections submitted to the Commission were based on the actual population figures for the first sixty units occupied at Chatham Manor. They are different from the Illinois Consulting Service. Impact on the elementary and high school districts was also included. At the time of its preparation they did not have mainten- ance costs from the park district. Mr. Burton then reviewed Mr. Truesdell's letter of September 23, 1982 to the Plan Commission titled Spoerlein Farm. Point 1 - No trouble providing this. Point 2 - No problem with providing handicap parking stalls. They can take care of that with the language in the annexation agreement. Point 3 - Previously reviewed Point 4 - Previously reviewed Point 5 - That is twelve feet between the drive and zoning line. However there is a sidewalk in between there. They can either enlarge that or move the sidewalk to the other side. Point 6 - Did not see that as a problem, it will be shown on the final plat. Point 7 - Will be provided. Point 8 - They responded to that particular point in a letter which the Plan Commission has received. The developer feels that they should not be required to correct errors because of lack of standard design in other subdivisions. They would be pleased to correct that side- walk but would expect to be reimbursed for it. Point 9 - In the Chatham Manor they went back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for permission to place monuments where they thought best. They were granted a variance but at the time the staff stated if this information were shown on the preliminary plat there would not have been an extra meeting. Their intention is to provide monuments at the entrances that are attractive. Point 10 - What he was referring to was the easement for the gas station. Mr. Burton has talked with Mr. Truesdell and he would be happy to get together with the school and park districts on this. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Special Meeting September 29, 1982 - 6 - In response to a question, Mr. Truesdell stated the sign code is not in the jurisdiction of the Plan Commission. Mr. Mastandrea stated they spent over $40,000.00 to dress up the entranceway of Chatham Manor. They felt it might be easier for everyone if it was handled now. Commissioner Davis could not understand why they have to talk to another board because there is a sign ordinance. Mr. Truesdell stated it would take an amendment to the sign code to change it. Commissioner Davis felt the placement of a monument in a new development should be handled by the Plan Commission. Commissioner Glover - We had a consensus at the last meeting that the commercial part of Plan "M" and the residential on Plan "L" was what the Commission wanted. He was disappointed with the residential design on Plan "N". In meeting the requirements part of the candy coating of the plan was lost. This development is not adjoining a large open area. We are being asked to annex a piece of property that he felt no other municipality would consider. He did not believe the density is in harmony with adjoining property. There are no amenities to go along with this density. Mr. Burton stated they thought the road layout on Design Study "M" was accept- able. This road design is the same as Design Study "M". Regarding density there are R-9 districts in the Village that go up to twenty to the acre. In comparing this to Chatham Manor the residential density of this is eleven point six less than Chatham which is eleven point eight. These calculations take into consideration the park area. The fifty foot setback was pointed out by the Plan Commission and the ordinance requirement would be fourty-four feet. We exceed that. Commissioner Goldspiel disagreed with Commissioner Glover. He felt this was a good plan. It is a greal improvement over the plan previous to this. He has a few concerns. He felt it met or exceeded the ordinance. The reason this plan looks crowded is the decision not to require park dedication. That leaves a tight package. This piece is not appropriate for single family and we have to come up with something that is compatible. Commissioner Davis felt the buildings along the eastern side should be cocked to give that area a little character but they will not be fifty feet then. Commissioner Sheldon stated she was looking at a plan that she felt the residents would not be happy with. Commissioner Goldberg was disturbed with the density. However if an ordinance is set up with minimum requirements, that is the way it will be built. The builder has conformed with our requirements. I do not feel the Commission Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Special Meeting September 29, 1982 - 7 - should make judgements on design. He felt a density requirement should be written into each zone. He was unhappy with the density in this plan. Mr. Truesdell stated the plan is the way it is because of input he gave the developer after the last Commission review. Mr. Mastandrea stated he has brought in thirteen or fourteen different plans. He is not sure anyone wants a development here. He has conformed with all points. He does not know what to do to please the Commission. Mr. Solanski stated the density was not settled at the last meeting. The consensus was the builder was going to come back with a plan with less density. It was his understanding that Plan "L" was it. He likes that plan. Commissioner Sheldon stated this plan does conform to the density that was suggested at the last meeting. Commissioner Kaszubowski stated the Commission likes the buildings staggered. It does not want variations but no one wants to tell the builder to reduce the number of buildings. Mr. Mastandrea noted he could not reduce the number of units. It is not economically feasible for him. Commissioner Goldspiel was concerned about the residents of the surrounding developments and those who will be living in this project. The commercial could be decreased and the residential increased. The fifty foot setback works very well. When you have two major state highways intersecting you are look- ing for a development on this order. Commissioner Krug stated that at the last meeting the Commission decided to combine the good points of Plans "L" and "M" and come up with a new plan. We are looking at the foot print in a one dimensional view. He felt it is a liveable plan. There will not be a solid brick wall facing the adjoining residences. The Commission was polled as to whether they accepted the concept on the preliminary development plan dated September 20, 1982. AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Davis, Reid, Kaszubowski, Krug, Goldberg NAYES: Commissioners Sheldon, Glover ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The poll was favorable 6 - 2. Commissioner Goldberg asked the developer what his plans are for berming the rear yards from the adjoining single family homes. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Special Meeting September 29, 1982 - 8 - Mr. Burton stated it would be a combination of earth berms and landscaping. When they are ready for the public hearing this material will be submitted to the Commission. Commissioner Davis stated the residents are looking for something to adequately screen their homes from this development. It should be bermed and landscaped with material that will remain throughout the year. Commissioner Davis moved, with Commissioner Krug seconding, that the Plan Commission move to a public hearing. Discussion Commissioner Glover pointed out a bike path should be noted on the plan. Mr. Baka felt there should be one more workshop before the public hearing to review the landscaping. Chairman Shields explained that that would be reviewed for the public hearing. This is the format the Commission follows. Commissioner Goldspiel stated it was suggested and agreed that the developer will meet with staff engineer regarding the driveway concerns pointed out in the traffic study. He felt the Commission should go with the Barton-Ashmen recommendation. Referring to the cost benefit analysis, Mr. Mastandrea pointed out in response to a question, that the materials of brick and stone are both contained on the front view of the buildings. The rendering presented at this meeting was of the rear view. They are interested in producing a high quality product. Mr. DeLance stated they have asked the developer to underdrain the northwest de- tention area and the land bill be useable when dry. It would be compatible with Bicentennial Park Commissioner Goldspiel pointed out that in the M. F. Pritchett study, on Page 6, it stated Buffalo Grove should issue revenue bonds to the builder. This is not going to be built this way. He also wondered if there was too much commer- cial in view of the market study. Mr. Mastandrea was concerned about the commercial until Mobile Oil came to him. Commissioner Goldspiel pointed out a building that he felt should be rotated to open up that section. VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Sheldon, Davis, Glover, Reid, Kaszubowski Krug, Goldberg There were no Nayes, Abstentions, or Absences. The motion passed 8 - 0. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Special Meeting September 29, 1982 • - 9 - In response to Mr. Solanski's question, Mr. Burton stated there is an eight foot bike path. FUTURE AGENDA There will be no meeting on October 6, 1982. On October 20, 1982 there will be a continued discussion of the Zoning Ordin- ance. Mr. Truesdell did not know when Wags or the Commons will be in for review. The Spoerlein Farm public hearing could possible be set for November 17, 1982 if all the material is in. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Sheldon, seconded by Commissioner Davis to adjourn the meeting. The vote was unanimous. Chairman Shields adjourned the meeting at 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 6,--7424-/ thleen Comer Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: _ T Patrick Shields Chairman Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Special Meeting September 29, 1982