Loading...
1986-10-15 - Plan Commission - Minutes REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION 1 Dominion Subdivision Lot 2 Cotey/Necker Property October 15, 1986 1 Chairman Sheldon called the regular meeting to order at 10:30 P.M. in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners Present: Chairman Sheldon Mr. Goldspiel Mr. Davis Mr. Krug Mr. Musfeldt Ms. Kaszubowski Mr. Rhodes Commissioners Absent: Mr. Gal Mr. Katz Also Present: Mr. J. Soltan, Architect, Dominion Mr. J. A. Rice, Developer, Dominion Mr. J. E. Cotey, Developer, Cotey/Necker Property Mr. M. Conzelman, Attorney, Cotey/Necker Mr. R. Hamilton, Engineer, Cotey/Necker Mr. W. Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. J. Biederwolf, Village Civil Engineer Mr. G. Glover, Village Trustee Mr. J. Truesdell, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Goldspiel, seconded by Commissioner Rhodes, to approve the Special Meeting minutes of September 24, 1986. Approval was unanimous in favor with Commissioners Davis, Musfeldt and Kaszubowski abstaining and the motion passed. Moved by Commissioner Goldspiel, seconded by Commissioner Rhodes, to approve the Regular Meeting minutes of October 1, 1986. Approval was unanimous in favor with Commissioners Musfeldt and Kaszubowski abstaining and the motion passed. Moved by Commissioner Goldspiel, seconded by Commissioner Rhodes, to approve the Public Hearing Meeting minutes of October 1, 1986. Approval was unani- mous in favor with Commissioners Musfeldt and Kaszubowski abstaining and the motion passed. COMMITTEE & LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Musfeldt attended the October 6, 1986 Village Board meeting which was a public hearing on the tax increment financing for the Town Center. No vote was taken as it was the first step. The special use for Congregation B'Nai Shalom was approved. DOMINION SUBDIVISION LOT II Moved by Commissioner Goldspiel, seconded by Commissioner Davis that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board approval of the site plan for one story retail on the Grove Retail Center as shown on the site plan dated September 4, 1986 and the engineering drawing dated September 16, 1986 revised October 7, 1986 subject to: 1. Provision of a fire hydrant at the northwest corner of the site with adequate curbed area next to the last parking stall for this purpose. 2. Provision of a curb along the west property line. 3. A variation be provided to allow the building within 25' of the setback from high water in the detention basin. Discussion: The motion was amended at the suggestion of Mr. Raysa, by Commissioners Goldspiel and Davis concurring, that the variations of the Development Ordinance Section 16.10.050 be added and that Item 2 of the motion be subject to review by the Village Engineer so that overland water passage is not impeded. Commissioner Goldspiel felt this was a big improvement over the first plans proposed and it is a desirable plan. Commissioner Krug was concerned with the 6" curb along the west property causing detention problems. AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Davis, Krug, Musfeldt, Kaszubowski and Rhodes NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Gal and Katz The motion unanimously passed. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting III October 15, 1986 - Page 2 COTEY/NECKER PROPERTY Moved by Commissioner Goldspiel, seconded by Commissioner Rhodes that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board annexation of the Cotey/Necker parcel together with approval of the plan as shown on drawing labeled Geomet- rics dated July 24, 1986 revised October 13, 1986 and the engineering drawing dated July 24, 1986 revised October 13, 1986 subject to: 1. Variation of the basin side slope to allow construction of a detention basin as shown in Engineering drawing and details. 2. Variation of the minimum size of the B-3 area on the Necker parcel. 3. With no other variations being recommended. Discussion: Commissioner Davis stated the issue is the building. The neighbors do not want a building in this location. Milwaukee Avenue has several restaurants near this site which were not shown on the developer's plan. The developer did not have a rendering of what the building will look like (which he stated he had not yet received) and no landscaping plan was presented. He was concerned that the developer did not meet with the surrounding homeowners. He could not vote on this plan because of the material he felt was not presented. Commissioner Goldspiel felt the use is in accordance with the uses of the adjacent parcels, this is a desirable commercial development, the property immediately to the north is provided for, the property on Estonian Lane will be buffered by landscaping and is in excess of 200' from other buildings, the improvements on Estonian Lane (bringing it up to Village standards) would be of benefit to residents, the southeast residential impact will be minimal, the detention/retention was addressed by testimony and will not cause a detriment to the surrounding property. Commissioner Rhodes felt this was a good use for the site. Mr. Raysa noted that in Mr. Kuenkler's October 8, 1986 memo to the Plan Commission titled Cotey/Necker referred to a plan dated October 8, 1986 and the date should be October 7, 1986. Mr. Truesdell noted his memo of October 10, 1986 to the Commission titled Cotey/Necker Property Public Hearing carries the same date and should be October 7, 1986. The motion was amended by Commissioner Goldspiel with Commissioner Rhodes concurring at the suggestion of Mr. Raysa to include the conditions for variation of the Development Ordinance Section 16.10.050 and the Zoning Ordinance of 17.52.070 for points 1 and 2 respectively. Mr. Raysa stated, in response to a question from the floor, that the Villages of Buffalo Grove and Riverwoods presently have a mile and half jurisdiction over this piece. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting October 15, 1986 - Page 3 AYES: Goldspiel, Musfeldt, Kaszubowski and Rhodes NAYES: Davis and Krug ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Gal and Katz The motion passed 4 - 2. Commissioner Krug noted that the notice of the public hearing states that all documents are on file in the Village office and since two documents were �•/ presented at the meeting, neither the Commission or the public had time to review them. He felt he could not vote positively on this plan because of this fact. Commissioner Goldspiel noted that the Appearance Commission should pay close attention to the screening along the property lines. OLD FARM VILLAGE UNIT VII - PLAT OF SUBDIVISION Moved by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Kaszubowski that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board approval of the final plat of subdivision of Old Farm Village Unit VII dated September 8, 1986 revised September 25, 1986 Discussion: The motion was amended by Commissioner Goldspiel, with Commissioners Davis and Kaszubowski concurring, to read subject to "the boundary lines being indicated by a solid line". AYES: Goldspiel, Davis, Musfeldt, Krug, Rhodes and Kaszubowski, NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Gal and Katz The motion unanimously carried STAFF REPORT Mr. Truesdell referred to his memo of October 10, 1986 to the Plan Commission titled Village Platting Ordinance. The Commission concurred that it was easier to determine a plat with angles rather than bearings. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman Sheldon read a letter from Mr. Shifrin dated October 14, 1986 to the Commission regarding the recent flooding and the fact that Buffalo Grove did not experience the problems their neighbors did. Respectfully submitted, Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting October 15, 1986 - Page 4 ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Krug, and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting. Chairman Sheldon adjourned the meeting at 11:22 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ‘01e,/%1!0" Kathleen Comer Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: 440-44E- Barbara Sheldon Chairman Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting October 15, 1986 - Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION SUBJECT: Petition to the Village of Buffalo Grove for Preliminary Plan approval in the B-2 Zoning District with variations to the following Sections of the Development Ordinance: 16.50.040.C.3. - Detention Basin Side Slope; 16.50.040.D. - Structure Clearance Requirements. (Dominion Subdivision Lot 2) October 15, 1986 Chairman Sheldon called the public hearing to order at 7:39 P.M. in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners Present: Chairman Sheldon Mr. Goldspiel - arrived at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Davis Mr. Krug Mr. Musfeldt Ms. Kaszubowski Mr. Rhodes Commissioners Absent: Mr. Gal Mr. Katz Also Present: Mr. R. Lestico, Engineer, Dominion Mr. J. Soltan, Architect, Dominion Mr. J. A. Rice, Developer, Dominion Mr. G. Glover, Village Trustee Mr. W. Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. M. Biederwolf, Village Civil Engineer Mr. J. Truesdell, Village Planner Chairman Sheldon noted that a member of the audience was recording the meeting and asked that speakers talk loud enough to be heard. Chairman Sheldon read the notice of the public hearing as published in the Buffalo Grove Herald and informed the audience of the format the meeting would take. She then swore in Messrs. Lestico, Soltan and Rice. The exhibits the developer used were those listed in Mr. Truesdell's memo of October 10, 1986 to the Plan Commission titled Dominion Subdivision Lot 2 Public Hearing. Mr. Rice stated they have: a. reduced the size of the building, b. moved the handicapped parking, c. there is sidewalk in front of the building, d. detention is approved by the Village Engineer with the appropriate slope, e. engineering plans show surrounding buildings and detention, f. the green space is shown on the plan. They believe they have met all of the requests of the Commission. He further stated there is a fire hydrant in front of the Schwinn Bike Shop and in front of the savings and loan. Another hydrant in front of their site would be 3 hydrants for 3 buildings. Mr. Truesdell explained that the Deputy Fire Marshal felt a hydrant should be in the northwest corner of this building to facilitate fire protection. The Village Engineer felt that the detention basin setback would be sufficient and the side slope variation has been eliminated. The slope is provided for at 6:1. Mr. Lestico reviewed the detention. The water that drains overland onto their site is provided for in their detention design. Mr. Raysa stated the site plan on Mr. Truesdell's memo of September 4, 1986 stated there were 2 pages of 2 and in fact page 1 is missing. This is the Grove Retail Center that covers Dominion Subdivision Lot 2. There is a Dominion Subdividion Lot 2 but this is Dominion Resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2. Chairman Sheldon closed the public hearing at 7:48 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Comer Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: Barbara Sheldon Chairman Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing - 1 October 15, 1986 - Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION SUBJECT: To consider zoning in the B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts in the Village of Buffalo Grove and Preliminary Plan Approval. The following variations are also being considered: Zoning Ordinance - Section 17.16.060 Minimum Areas for Zoning Districts (B-3) ; Section 17.44.050.G.2. Distance from residential district boundary (B-4) ; Section 17.36.040.F.4. Parking requirements (B-4) . Development Ordinance - Section 16.50.080.A.1. Sidewalks; Section 16.50.040.C.3. Detention basin side slopes. (Cotey/Necker Property) October 15, 1986 Chairman Sheldon called the public hearing to order at 7:49 P.M. in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners Present: Chairman Sheldon Mr. Goldspiel Mr. Davis Mr. Krug Mr. Musfeldt Ms. Kaszubowski Mr. Rhodes Commissioners Absent: Mr. Gal Mr. Katz Also Present: Mr. J. E. Cotey, Developer, Cotey/Necker Property Mr. M. Conzelman, Attorney, Cotey/Necker Mr. R. Hamilton, Engineer, Cotey/Necker Mr. C. Smith, Riverwoods Village President Ms. C. Cundiff, Riverwoods Village Trustee Ms. S. Dejoke, Lake County Department of Planning Ms. P. Russel, 16 Chicory, Riverwoods Mr. & Mrs. J. McCulloud, Box Trail Lane, Riverwoods Ms. Simone, Riverwoods Resident Ms. A. & Mr. Posniak, 10 Columbine Mr. D. Dominick, Meadowlake Resident Mr. M. Goldstein, Riverwoods Resident Mr. L. Bar, Meadowlake Resident Mr. D. Crayton, Meadowlake Resident Ms. R. Uller, Buffalo Grove Resident Ms. D. Belcore, 75 Trail Lane Mr. Mr. J. Foolage, Riverwoods Trustee Mr. J. Tompke, Meadowlake Resident Ms. L. Farr, 5 Columbine Mr. G. Glover, Village Trustee Mr. W. Raysa, Village Attorney iI Mr. M. Biederwolf, Village Civil Engineer Mr. J. Truesdell, Village Planner The exhibits the petitioner used were Geometric Drawing dated October 7, 1986 revised October 13, 1986 and Engineering drawing dated August 14, 1986 revised October 13, 1986 and Flood Plain Development Cross Section dated October 15, 1986. Chairman Sheldon read the notice of the public hearing as published in the Buffalo Grove Herald and informed the audience of the format the meeting would take. She then swore in Messrs. Cotey and Hamilton. Mr. Cotey stated they are in the office furniture business in the Northbrook area presently and have been in business since 1947. They are proposing to move their business to Buffalo Grove on a piece of property on the east side of Milwaukee Avenue. He then reviewed several elevations of the buildings and an aerial view of the building looking down on it. They have approximately 44 employees including 12 salesmen on the street. They have 1 large truck and 2 small vans that operate from the site and will be garaged in the warehouse overnight. Eighty percent of their business is done in large volume with deliveries made directly to the customers from the manufacturer. A normal day would have 7 deliveries including mail. They do not have more than 1 or 2 customers a day on site. They specialize in Steelcase furniture and feel they will have $9,000,000.00 in business this year which should increase at a rate of one million a year. Mr. Hamilton passed out a revised engineering plan answering the questions in Mr. Kuenkler's memo to Mr. Truesdell of October 8, 1986 titled Cotey/Necker. Mr. Hamilton stated the variations for the side slope on the drainage still exists. They have increased the size of the side yard and added parking across the front of the building. The plan has been revised to accommodate the turns on Milwaukee Avenue. They deleted a sidewalk between the parking and face of the building. There are no variations on the side yard and no height problems. Parking is in accordance with the Buffalo Grove Ordinance. He reviewed the engineering plan. The sidewalks are on Estonian Lane and Milwaukee Avenue. The fire hydrant is located as you enter Estonian Lane. The building is 2.5' above the 100 year flood or record as is the parking lot. There is no detention in the parking lot. He then passed out a typical flood plain cross section which he reviewed. They are in the flood fringe which serves as a storage area in flood situations. If they deleted all of the storm water in the flood fringe the river would rise 1/10th of a foot. They have moved the compensatory storage closer to the Des Plaines River rather than near Milwaukee Avenue as it is now. The compensatory storage is 7.4 acre feet and an additional .79 acre feet is being provided for in storm water detention below. Their hydraulic system will operate the same as it operates on site today. If all of Buffalo Grove and Lake County were built there would not be any problem with their detention. The plans are in complete compliance with Buffalo Grove's 1974 Flood Plain Ordinance. The sanitary waste will go to the Buffalo Grove system. They have no setback variations. The building complies with the zoning regulations as in the B-4 District. The retaining wall will require a variation for the 6:1 slope The purpose of the variation is so that the storm water basin can be built. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing - 2 October 15, 1986 - Pa e2 g Trip generations are based on the number of trips per square foot on the 2 types of uses. The general office will generate, assuming it is all office, and the warehouse, that could be any kind of warehouse, in the morning out bound during peak hours 28 cars and in bound 36. In the afternoon in bound movements will be 8 and out bound will be 34. Thirty percent of the loads will require the use of the left turn bay. It will increase the volume of traffic on Estonian from the driveway forward. There is no ingress/egress on Milwaukee Avenue at all. Mr. Conzelman presented an exhibit showing the 2 pieces of property i.e. Cotey and Necker broken out (which Mr. Conzelman kept) . He stated that: 1. The 5' sidewalk on Milwaukee Avenue is provided for. 2. The pavement markings are shown on the engineering drawing along Milwaukee Avenue. 3. The right-of-way is 51' and shown on the plan. 4. They have made provisions for the drain tile behind the proposed retaining wall. 5. They will provide a decorative fence and landscaping along the top of the slope. The plan leaves the water control the same as it is today. Estonian Lane will be brought up to Village standards. The detention will reduce the moisture content of the adjacent property. Mr. Truesdell stated the Necker property has no current plan and the water treatment does not have to be addressed. Mr. Cotey stated north of the site there is a home and a nursery, south is the Necker property and further south on Milwaukee is commercial, west of the site on Milwaukee is industrial. Milwaukee Avenue is a high volume commercial area. The oral traffic report was based on traffic generated by the site. Approximately 20% of the merchandise is shipped from their site. They will occupy the entire building. They do not deal in used furniture. They have 3 docks, one of which will contain garbage compactor. There will not be permanent water in the basin, only during a storm. Milwaukee Avenue meets the Village's right-of-way in this area. Mr. Conzelman stated Mr. Necker has 4.2 acres of land and the Ordinance requires 5 acres for B-3 zoning. This is a variation. He does not plan to make any changes on his site. The Necker site is not being proposed for development. They are only seeking the side slope in the detention. Ms. Simone stated the volume of traffic for the Estonian house is very light. Mr. Smith, requested the dimension for the warehouse, office, parking and factor of imperviousness (the site would be 25% to 30%) . Based on the building size, the county is more restrictive regarding square footage because septic is required. Ms. Cundiff inquired about the setbacks and detention. Ms. Dejoke briefly reviewed the history of the site when it was presented to the County. In order to obtain a conditional use permit, which this site Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing - 2 October 15, 1986 - Pag e3 needed in the County, the developer had to comply with 11 points of their flood plain ordinance and had yet tocomply with 3 points at the point of their last discussion. The petitioner is showing 644.7 and IDOT and FEMA require 642.7 water storage. Ms. Russell stated the detention system is similar to the one in her development and it did not work during the recent rain storm. She felt the appearance of the warehouse dock view would effect several homes. Mr. Hamilton stated the docks face the Necker property and do not affect the residential property. Mr. McCulloud was concerned with the loading dock. Mr. Cotey would be happy to meet with the residents of the surrounding area and discuss the plan with them. Ms. Simone was concerned with the direction of the water flow onto her property and pointed out that part of the parcel is completely encompassed by residential. Mr. Hamilton stated the water flow would not be changed from the present flow area. Ms. Posniak was concerned with the detention. Mr. Dominick was concerned with the size of the building. Mr. Goldstein was concerned with the traffic and screening. Mr. Hamilton stated they would comply with the Village of Buffalo Grove's screening requirements. Mr. Bar was concerned with commercial near his home and the impact it would have on his property. Mr. Crayton inquired if the developer had approached Riverwoods for Annexation and was concerned with a commercial development near his home. Mr. Cotey noted that he had approached both the County and Riverwoods both of which required septic and that is why he approached Buffalo Grove. Buffalo Grove has sewer and water. Ms. Uller was concerned with future development in this particular area. Mr. Polleck was concerned with commercial being so close to his home. Ms. Belcore was concerned with commercial near her home and the detention. Mr. Foolage was concerned with the traffic from the site. Mr. Tompke was concerned with commercial near his home and the detention. Mr. Posnial was concerned with the detention. Ms. McCulloud was concerned with the annexation process. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing - 2 October 15, 1986 - Pag e4 Ms. Farr was concerned with the impact of the site on its neighbors. Chairman Sheldon closed the public hearing at 10:21 P.M. Respectfully submitted, IZA‘414144()666 Kathleen Comer Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: (///9 ---A.I' d4f''4' °I1V/1------ Barbara Sheldon Chairman Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing - 2 i October 15, 1986 - Pag e5 FINDINGS OF FACT ZONING ORDINANCE VARIATIONS COTEY/NECKER PROPERTY The Plan Commission has reviewed the request for zoning variations for the subject property as submitted on a plan dated 4-2-86 and finds the following: �� 1) Since the B-3 zoning district requires 5 acres as stipulated in Section ' -' 17.60.060 and the existing parcel is 4.2 acres with no ability for expan- sion, it has been determined that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under th conditions allowed by the regulations of the zoning district in which it is located. 2) The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances since he is unable to increase the size of his property. 3) The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood since its existing zoning in Lake County is for a commercial use. /. VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION r"IN RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY PROJECT: PLAT OF SUBDIVISION - OLD FARM VILLAGE UNIT IV MEETING DATE: October 15, 1986 MOVED BY: Commissioner Davis SECONDED BY: Commissioner Kaszubowski Moved by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Kaszubowski that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board approval of the final plat of subdivision of Old Farm Village Unit IV dated September 8, 1986 revised September 25, 1986 subject to the boundary lines indicated by a solid line. AYES: Goldspiel, Davis, Musfeldt, Krug, Rhodes and Kaszubowski, NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Gal and Katz The motion unanimously carried FINDINGS OF FACT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE VARIATIONS COTEY/NECKER PROPERTY The Plan Commission has reviewed the request for a Development Ordinance variation for the subject property as submitted on a plan dated 10-13-86 and finds the following: A variation to Section 16.50.040.C.3. to vary the detention basin side slope from 6 to 1 to 2 to 1 would cause unnecessary hardship because of topographical conditions and flood plain conditions peculiar to the site. Also, the basin will not be. publicly maintained. Said variance may be made without destroying the intent of the Development Ordinance. VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY PROJECT: COTEY/NECKER PROPERTY MEETING DATE: October 15, 1986 MOVED BY: Commissioner Goldspiel SECONDED BY: Commissioner Rhodes Moved by Commissioner Goldspiel, seconded by Commissioner Rhodes that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board annexation of the Cotey/Necker parcel together with approval of the plan as shown on drawing labeled Geometrics dated July 24, 1986 revised October 13, 1986 and the Engineering drawing dated July 24, 1986 revised October 13, 1986 subject to: 1. Variation of the basin side slope to allow construction of a detention basin as shown in Engineering drawing and details, Section 16.10.050 of the Development Ordinance. 2. Variation of the minimum size of the B-3 area on the Necker parcel Section 17.52.070 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. With no other variations being recommended. AYES: Goldspiel, Musfeldt, Kaszubowski and Rhodes NAYES: Davis and Krug ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Gal and Katz The motion passed 4 - 2.