Loading...
1979-02-28 - Plan Commission - Minutes PUBLIC HEARING - RESIDENTIAL SETBACK ORDINANCE BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 1979 Chairman Genrich called the meeting to order at 7 :40 PM in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard. Commissioners Present: Chairman Genrich Mr. Shields Mr. Goldspiel Mr. Davis Mr. Kelly Commissioners Absent: Mrs. Sheldon Mr. Button Also Present: Mr. Bart Delany, Planning Coordinator Mr. Jim Truesdell, Staff Planner Mr. Gary Glover, Prospective Commissioner Chairman Genrich explained the purpose of this Public Hearing, and stated that this Ordinance is an Amendment to the Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance of 1961 as amended by Ordinance 77-23 concerning building setback lines . Mr. Genrich stated that this Ordinance relates to the fact that, in 1977, the Village changed the setback requirements in the residential zoning because $80,000 and $90 000 homes were being built on the same size lots that had originally $12,000 and $15,000 homes built on them. The Village was concerned that there was not adequate setback in the rear and side yards for much of the new construction. Mr. Genrich asked if there was anyone present from the Board of Zoning Appeals that would like to discuss this ordinance. Mr. Elliott Hartstein stated that John Quick had intended to be present because he has worked on this particular project for some time, but Mr. Hartstein stated that he would comment briefly on this subject. Mr. Hartstein stated that the rationale behind the ZBA proposal to the Village is simply that they felt that, when people moved into the Village of Buffalo Grove, their rear and side yard dimensions were clearly stipulated. With that understanding, many people bought a home thinking that they could easily, as their families expanded, put an addition on to that home within the existing laws of Buffalo Grove. However, the Village Board passed a zoning ordinance changing the rear yard requirements not only for homes to be built, but also �✓ for homes that are already built. In other words, after people had already moved into the Village and were aware of what they could or could not do within the boundries of Village ordinances, the Village changed that ordinance, so many people are in a situation where they cannot put up additions because of the setbacks being changed. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing February 28, 1979 - 2 - Mr. Hartstein stated that a 5 ' change in a rear yard setback could make a significant difference as to whether or not an addition could be built. The ZBA felt that it was unreasonable to change the rules of the game "mid-stream" ; they felt that any such ordinance should only be applied to homes built or building permits issued after that particular ordinance was passed. Mr. Hartstein stated that the map as outlined, in effect, includes nearly the entire Village ; he does not think that was the intent of the ZBA. They just felt that the rules should not be changed for those people already living in the Village at a given point in time . Chairman Genrich asked Mr. Delaney to identify the changes that were made in certain categories, so as to have larger yards . Mr. Delaney stated that the front setbacks remained the same in all zoning areas. The side yards remained the same , except for R-5 and R-6, which were changed from 12 ' to 14' in both cases. The rear setbacks remained the same for R-1 ; increased from 30 ' to 40 ' in R-2, R-3, and R-4; and increased from 30 ' to 35 ' in the R-5 and R-6 areas. Chairman Genrich explained that the setback means that the building cannot extend beyond that point. Chairman Genrich asked if there was anyone present who had been directly concerned with this, and who had had a problem getting a permit for an addition. Mr. Hartstein stated that this is a problem that people do not become aware of until they decide to put up an addition; they hire a contractor, and the contractor tells them that they cannot do this now because the rear yard has to be 40 ' instead of 30 ' . Therefore , an addition may not be built until a variance is obtained, and, depending upon the size of the lot, they may not even be allowed a variance. Mr. Al Foss , 160 Weidner Road, stated that he is a contractor, and has run into 5 or 6 people over the past year where 5 ' did make a difference. The people subsequently did not put on the additions because they were not aware of how to go about getting a variance . He said that people are not aware that there is a need for a variance until he asks to see the Flat of Survey, and tells them there is not enough room for the addition they are planning. Chairman Genrich explained that a homeowner can get a 1/3 variance by presenting it to the Village Board. He also said there is not much of an expense involved, and that it is just a matter of going before the Board and requesting the variance . Mr. Stan Nathanson, 520 Longwood Drive, asked why this change is being requested. He said there must have been a reason for the ordinance in the first place , and does not see why it should be changed now. He said that if someone wants a variance , all they have to do is request it. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing February 28, 1979 - 3 - Commissioner Shields stated that part of the reason for this ordinance was to prevent building large houses on small lots, which created drainage problems, among other things. Now the concern is that perhaps people on other lots are being restricted unnecessarily. Why should people living on a larger sized lot have to apply for a vari- ance when they already know that it is going to be approved. The purpose originally was to make it difficult for a developer to sub- divide and build houses covering the whole lot. Mrs . Rosalie Kaszubowski, 25 Crestview Terrace, asked if she under- stands correctly that the ordinance presently as written, the June 20, `., 1977 revision, has homes in the Village that are not within the setback and are now non-conforming uses , and if that person's home burns down, he would not be able to build the same size house again. Chairman Genrich said that could be possible if it doesn't meet the current requirements, but he said that, in general, it would be a house that has had an addition built on, and not the original home. Mr. John Quick of the Zoning Board of Appeals stated that they are one of the prime advocates of setbacks from what they originally had, and that they supported Ordinance 77-23 when it was originally passed. He said that the ZBA 's intent was for the ordinance to apply only to new subdivisions . In the new ordinance , there is a 40 ' setback, and most of the homes in Strathmore, which is R-4 where the primary problem exists, have setbacks in the area of between 30 ' and 50 ' . If the new ordinance applies to the R-4 Strathmore, virtually all room additions will require a variance, and, in fact, many homeowners will not be able to have a room addition in the rear at all because many homeowners have only a 30 ' setback, and even with a variation, they would only be able to get 1/3 of the 40 ' . Also, Mr. Quick stated that, as the ordinance now stands, if a home- owner's home burns down, and he has less than a 40 ' setback, he cannot rebuilt the same home , through an interpretation of the Village Attorney. In essence , the ZBA supports Ordinance 77-23, but they believe that a subdivision should be planned with these setbacks in mind, and not be applied to subdivisions where the ordinance was not a requirement when built. Commissioner Kelly asked if the original intent of the ZBA was not to take in as much area as is shown on the map displayed. Is it their desire to have this ordinance just apply to existing homes , because there is quite a bit of area that is not built on yet, and may be in the future. Mr. Quick stated that it was the intent of the ZBA to have the ordi- nance apply to those homes that were built after the date of the enactment of the ordinance, which was June 20 , 1977, and not have it apply to homes built prior to that date . Commissioner Goldspiel stated that the way the ordinance now reads, there would not be anything that would apply to the setback require- ments in Area A . In other words the entire zoning ordinance was amended originally and the old setbacks were wiped out. The new Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing February 28, 1979 - 4 - ordinance is saying, in essence, that homes within the A district of the map are exempt, but it does not say that the old setback requirements do apply. Chairman Genrich stated that he had talked with the Village Attorney, and that is a technicality which would be corrected. Commissioner Goldspiel said that there are some areas included in Area A which were not intended to be included, and he thinks the area needsredefining. He thinks , rather than to exempt 95% of the Village from the zoning ordinance, it would be better to zone areas differently, such as area R-4 and another area R-4A, which would alert people to the fact that there is a different requirement. Chairman Genrich said that he had discussed this possibility with the Village Attorney, and it would be possible to have a district zoned R-5A, for example, with the only distinction between that and R-5 being the zoning requirements. Commissioner Shields said that, instead of including everything within the red line shown on the map, it should only include those R-4 or R-5 areas concerned. They should eliminate the undeveloped area, and the PUD and other unnecessary areas that are now included. Mr. Shields feels that would be a better way of handling it, because some of the land shown in Area A is zoned for multi-family, but might not actually be built as multi-family, and, therefore, would not be subject to the new ordinance . Commissioner Goldspiel stated that the ordinance should leave things that are zoned, but not built, as they are , and then rezone areas which should be rezoned with the previous setback requirements. Chairman Genrich closed the Public Hearing at 8 :10 PM. Respectfully submitted, Janet Sirabian Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: Carl Genrich, Chairman Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing February 28, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING - RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ORDINANCE BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 1979 Chairman Genrich called the Public Hearing to order at 8 :10 PM in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard. Commissioners Present: Chairman Genrich Mr. Shields Mr. Goldspiel Mr. Davis Mr. Kelly Commissioners Absent: Mrs. Sheldon Mr. Button Also Present: Mr. Bart Delaney, Planning Coordinator Mr. Jim Truesdell, Staff Planner Mr. Gary Glover, Prospective Commissioner Chairman Genrich explained the purpose of this Public Hearing, and stated that this is an Ordinance amending the Village of Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance as amended concerning the parking and storage of vehicles other than passenger automobiles in residential districts . Mr. Delaney distributed copies of the Ordinance to those members of the audience requesting one . Mr. Bud Gibbs, 1140 Franklin Lane , explained that he had worked with Trustee Howard Mendenhall and other members of a committee who were interested in the question which is before the Commission tonight. Mr. Gibbs said that, generally, what was attempted to do was to set forth a platform or an opportunity for anyone who had any interest, either positive, negative, or neutral, in the handling, parking, etc . of recreational or commercial vehicles. They attempted to hold regular and constructive meetings. Many people in the audience tonight spent many hours working on this, and Mr. Gibbs wished to thank everyone who gave of their time to put this together. Mr. Gibbs stated that he had no recommendations to make ; he chaired the committee because he tried to serve as a neutral chairman to give everyone an opportunity to present their positions . Chairman Genrich asked if it was correct that the ordinance which the committee recommended to the Village Board was somewhat more restric- tive than the ordinance now before the Commission. Mr. Gibbs said that this is not the originally presented ordinance ; it is a much more lenient ordinance . Mr. Jerry Zingsheim, 293 Indian Hill Drive , stated that he was a member of that committee, and was probably the strongest proponent of tight laws concerning recreational vehicle parking in the area. After working on the committee for many months, and submitting a plan, he is rather shocked that it has been diluted as much as it has . Mr. Zingsheim stated that he doesn' t know what or where this happened. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing February 28, 1979 - 2 - Chairman Genrich stated that these changes were instructed by the Village Board. Mr. Stan Nathanson, 520 Longwood Drive , stated that all talk seems to be centered around recreational vehicles , and he feels the most important section of the ordinance is being passed over, and that is commercial vehicles . Everything is so well written on vans , recrea- tional vehicles , etc . , but there is only a small section pertaining to commercial vehicles, which states that a commercial vehicle may be parked as long as it is no more than 18' long, 7 ' high, and 8 ' wide . He doesn' t feel that anyone realizes what is being opened up by allowing commercial vehicles to be parked on property, and that if the section pertaining to commercial vehicles is passed, it will ruin the appearance of the Village . These size restrictions take in a lot of commercial vehicles, and he has presented evidence to the Village showing that this length can take in a tractor, a trailer, a dump truck, and both a 10 and 20 ton truck. He said that there is a section stating that a fence must be built around a recreational vehicle , but nothing stating that there must be a fence around a commercial vehicle. Mr. Don Hardt, 153 Selwyn Lane, said that his understanding of this ordinance was to come up with a compromise situation, because the existing ordinance is very strict, and, therefore, unenforceable. However, he feels that the proposed ordinance has gone completely the other way in being too lenient. He feels that allowing a 28 ' trailer or RV to be parked on a driveway is going against all setback requirements, the same way that building a 10 ' stockade fence up to the sidewalk would be going against the ordinance . Mr. Hardt is in agreement with the comments in Commissioner Sheldon's memo . He said that the RV owners have the majority of people at these meetings , but he said that whether there are 5 or 50 people representing the majority, a decision still has to be made . Mr. Hardt said that Mr. Nathanson's comments about commercial vehicles are correct, but if Mr. Nathanson is opposed to commercial vehicles because of aesthetics, he has to be totally opposed to RV 's because they are allowed an additional 10 ' and are allowed to park within 1 ' of the sidewalk. Mr. Hardt said that it is equivalent to putting up a permanent barricade, and he doesn't think it is fair to the neighbors . The Appearance Commission deals with setbacks, etc . , for people buying homes in the Village, but if they have a neighbor with an RV , these setback requirements are of small consequence . Mr. Hardt does not feel that this ordinance is being fair to the majority of the residents in the Village. Mr. Robert Brown, 1235 Dayton Road, stated that he moved into his home 3 months ago, and that subsequently people moved into the home next door with a 28 ' or 30 ' RV. He said he understands that the Grandfather Clause states that existing RV 's would not be included in this ordi- nance , and stated that it disturbs him because he feels that the exist- ing RV 's are as much of an eyesore as future RV 's. Mr. Brown suggested that perhaps present RV owners could be given 90 days to make other arrangements for storage of their vehicles. Mr. Brown is disturbed about the 28 ' length allowed for RV 's, because some lots are very small, and 28 ' would take up most of the driveway, thereby creating a wall between a homeowner and the street. He feels that this lowers the value of his property, and stated that he would not buy his present home if he saw a 28 ' RV in the driveway next door. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing February 28, 1979 - 3 - Mr. Ron Milewski, 1123 Beechwood, stated that he totally disagrees with Mr. Brown. He said that he likes Buffalo Grove because he can park his RV on his property, and he wants his neighbors to have RV 's because he wants good neighbors , and campers are good neighbors . Mr. Al Foss, 160 Weidner Road, said that he is the President of the Buffalo Grove Home and Recreational Vehicle Campers Association. He stated that there are a couple of areas that are not in the best interest of their organization, and he doesn' t feel that they are in the best interest of people who buy property in Buffalo Grove. Mr. Foss said that the State of Illinois defines the height and length of a vehicle to be driven on the highway, so he feels that those are the regulations which they should have to abide by. Mr. Foss stated that they appreciate the Grandfather Clause, but they feel this clause should follow the person. He said it seems illogical that you can own an RV while living in your present home , but not be able to move it across the street. Mr. Foss said that his association takes issue with the limit of one RV . They concur that it should not look like a parking lot, but if the size of the lot does allow both a boat and a trailer, there should be no reason not to have them. Mr. Foss said that they are fully in favor of the safety articles, and they should be strictly enforced, but they absolutely disagree with the other points mentioned. Mr. Foss said that there have been no complaints, and does not see the need for the RV ordinance. Mr. Gibbs said that the Village Board asked for a volunteer to rewrite an ordinance which was unenforceable into one which could be enforced. Mr. Gibbs said that there were many complaints to the Village Board about trucks being parked in residential zones, with tractors running 24 hours a day. Mr. Foss said that recreational vehicles have always been associated with residential areas , and asked what is the purpose of regulating them. Chairman Genrich said that there has been no regulation in the Village , and that he personally would live in Whippletree Village if he wanted to look at trailers all the time . He said that the trailers that are here now are in violation of the Village ordinance, so this would give the RV owners protection. Mr. Foss said that they are not objecting to the ordinance, but they would like to see the length regulations left to the State of Illinois . Commissioner Davis spoke to Mr. Foss about having more than one vehicle . Mr. Foss said that if people had more than one recreational vehicle, they would park them in such a manner as not to be an eyesore. Mr. Davis asked how they propose to do that, and Mr. Foss said that they would be glad to police the situation. Mr. Foss stated that he is not quite sure what constitutes an eyesore. Mr. Davis said it would be anything that is objectionable to your neighbor. Mr. Foss asked "objectionable by who standards, " and Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing February 28, 1979 - 4 - Mr. Davis answered "by that neighbor's standards. " Mr. Foss said that he sees many cars that are not in good repair parked in driveways, and he considers them an eyesore. Mr. Davis stated that he should complain to the Village about them. Mr. Foss said that the RV owners object to being allowed only one vehicle, because it is very possible that someone would want a boat, a motor home, and a couple of snowmobiles , and he said that a number that they could comfortably live with would be three vehicles. Mr. Davis stated that three vehicles would take up an entire driveway in certain areas , and asked if that would not be an eyesore . Mr. Foss answered "no" . Mr. Frederick Kreiter, 180 N. LaSalle, Chicago, asked to speak re- presenting his client, Mr. Walter Christen, 636 St. Mary's Parkway, Mr. Kreiter stated that he has dealt in some detail with recreational vehicles, in this area in particular. He has reviewed and dealt with the litigation of these ordinances , and it appears that this ordinance as drafted has been worked on a great deal, which shows that people have investigated and done a great deal of work rather than going out and copying another Village 's ordinance . He also commended the RV owners for approaching the matter in a calm manner. He feels that stating that the ordinance is too lenient is a misnomer. He said that people have the right to deal with property in such manner as to enjoy it to the utmost, but they do not have the right to infringe on the enjoyment of their neighbors . Mr. Kreiter said that, regarding aesthetics, what is offensive to one person is not necessarily offensive to another. He said that people move to Buffalo Grove with certain expectations as to how they can use their property, and they should be able to fulfill these expectations as long as they don' t bother anyone else in terms of safety or health. Mr. Kreiter said he thinks it is an excellent idea to have the rule that an RV must be at least 1 ' from the sidewalk, as it affords safety. However, if a person has a driveway that is 85' long, it shouldn' t matter if they use 45' to park an RV. If the lot is that large, it doesn' t inhibit the air and space of the property, it does not create a safety hazard, and it can' t be offensive because of aesthetics. Mr. Kreiter thinks the point regarding the number of vehicles can be easily resolved. One way would be the limitation on the length of the vehicle ; another way would be to allow people to park second recreational vehicles in a rear or side yard, but put some type of standard as to where they may be parked. Mr. Kreiter thinks the Grandfather Clause is good, but that it should follow the person and not the lot. He said that if a person wants to dispose of one vehicle , and purchase another of the same size, he should be allowed to do so. Mr. Kreiter said that when the ordinance is passed, real estate brokers should be advised of the law, so that people would be informed before they moved into the Village. Mr. Kreiter said he hopes the Village and the RV owners can come to an amicable solution so that it does not go into litigation, because then the only people that win are the lawyers . It could be declared Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing February 28, 1979 - 5 - unconstitutional on some legal technicality, and then it would have to be begun all over again. Commissioner Goldspiel said that the Supreme Court has said that municipalities can regulate aesthetics . Mr. Goldspiel also said that it is not feasible to relyon the real P estate brokers to keep people informed of all Village regulations . Mr. Goldspiel said that one of the basics of the zoning regulations is to protect air, space , and sunlight. If someone uses a side yard for a 10 ' tall trailer, it would amount to the same thin as building a permanent structure, which would not be allowed under the zoning regulations. Mr. Goldspiel also said that perhaps the length of the driveway should be considered. If one has a long driveway that might go the length of his property, perhaps it should be considered differently than one who just has a driveway from the house forward. Mr. Goldspiel also said that the Grandfather Caluse is based on an extension of the non-conforming use doctrine, and it would be a new concept in law to have the non-conforming use travel with the individual. Mr. Darrell Nelson, 992 Country Lane, stated that it is his understand- ing that the existing ordinance dates back to the late 1960 's . He regards the proposed ordinance as merely bringing the existing law up to date and in conformance with the realities of today. He feels that aesthetics are subjective . He personally objects to seeing 4 and 5 cars parked in a driveway. He said that, although the ordinance would prohibit major repairs on RV 's, there is nothing against major repairs on automobiles . Mr. Nelson also feels that, even if a vehicle con- forms to the 1 ' setback from the sidewalk, it should not block free and clear vision of a driver on the street. He is also in favor of the Grandfather Clause following the person, providing it conforms to the 1 ' setback from the sidewalk. Regarding Commissioner Sheldon's memo, Mr. Nelson feels that the objection to allowing large objects to be parked in a driveway is also purely subjective . Mr. Charles Wilhelm, 89 Glendale Road, read the following statement: "Dear Sirs and Madam: I have read, re-read, and closely scrutinized the proposed Ordinance and can only conclude that said Ordinance is not in the best interest of the citizens of the Village and thus not in the best interests of the Village . Further, I feel that adoption of this Ordinance will create a personal hardship to me and will deprive me of my constitutional rights. Specifically: I object to the opinion in the opening paragraph that prohibition of R .V.s as defined in the ordinance is de- trimental to safety and overcrowding and that their pro- hibition would add to the beauty and harmony of a neigh- borhood of homes. This is a biased, undocumented opinion and not supported by fact. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing February 28, 1979 - 6 - I object to the contention that it is in the best interests of Public Health, safety and Welfare to prohibit the parking of R .V .s in a residential zoning. This too is a biased, predjudiced opinion not supported by fact or documentation. 3.8-2 Commercial Vehicles I object to the prohibition of more than one commercial vehicle per residential lot because it creates an undue hardship to families employed in the building and service trades . 3.8-3 Parking or storage of R.V.s A. Standards 1 . I object to the prohibition of sleeping, as it is un- necessarily strict. 5. "No major repair" is too vague . B. 1 I object to the restriction of one R.V. per lot as being too restrictive, bearing in mind the Ordinance includes boats and snowmobiles which are normally towed by a motor home or truck camper. C . Size Restrictions a. The 28 foot length (Maximum) is too restrictive, Arbitrary and capricious and an infringement of my rights. 3.8-5 Exemptions I object to these provisions which permit the presently owned unit, but prohibit my freedom of choice to obtain a different or larger unit. 3.1 Use of Parking Facilities This section is unduly restrictive and has no proven or documented effect on the Public Health, Safety, Welfare, and Morals of the community. I request that this petition be included as an official, recorded document of this public hearing and transmitted with the minutes of this hearing to the Village Board. " Mrs. Rosalie Kaszubowski, 25 Crestview Terrace, also read the following statement, which she wished to have included in the minutes : "Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission: Although we have voiced our feelings on numerous occasions before the President and Board of Trustees concerning a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regulating parking, we wish to go on record before this Commission, as objectors to any ordinance which restricts a person's use of his pri- vate property, more specifically, the parking of a vehicle which is an extension of his home and family life. We feel it is clearly discriminatory to legislate against a recreational vehicle when derelict and junk cars are allowed to remain. There is no provision in the statute which grants a village authority to regulate recreational vehicles anymore than it can regulate cars. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing February 28, 1979 - 7 -- Any ordinance based on aesthetic reason alone is unconsti- tutional and invades property rights. There are many case law decisions which hold that aesthetic considerations do not afford sufficient basis for invasion of property rights . The State Statutes hold that zoning ordinances must have a real, substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare . There are further case law decisions which hold that use of property cannot be re- stricted or limited merely because neighboring property owners so desire or because they think it might protect the value of their residence . As long as there is not a danger to health and safety there is no moral justification to legislate against one 's use of his property or cause a hardship to a homeowner. What is aesthetic quality? There are many examples of what can be considered aesthetically displeasing. Large TV or CB antennas can be aesthetically displeasing, there is a development in the village which we think is architecturally and aesthetically displeasing, but that is our opinion and we respect the opinion of those who think otherwise. As we stated before, we purchased our home to enjoy the use of our property, raise children, have pets and not be subject to the whims of a landlord. Are we now going to be subjected to residing in a community where governmental agencies want to regulate everything, including family life. Yes, that is a step backwards . Respectfully submitted, Edward and Rosalie Kaszubowski" The original copies of the above statements are in the Plan Commission "Recreational Vehicle Ordinance" file . Mr. Jerry Zingsheim stated that other surrounding communities have RV ordinances, and does not see why Buffalo Grove should not also have one . Mr. Ron Gunther, 635 Thornwood Drive,stated that he moved from one house to another within the Village. He said he stayed in the Village because he had not so far had any problem in having his camper on his own property. He purchased his present home specifically with a 3 car width driveway for the purpose of having his trailer in front of his home. He purchased a new 24' camper, and before purchasing it, he went to each neighbor within 3 houses and asked if there were any objections. There were none . He has used his camper for many Scout outings. He does not like the ordinance ; he thinks it is unfair and unjust. Mrs . Shirley Biagini, 171 Raupp Boulevard, thinks it is difficult to define a thing of beauty. She and her husband own a large semi- trailer truck, and it is parked on the side of the house next to Buffalo Creek, so there is no home near it. She checked with her neighbors, and there were no complaints about the truck. She said she would rather move than get rid of the truck. She also feels that a person should be able to keep the vehicle they now own or replace it with the same size . Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing February 28, 1979 ------------ 1 - 8 - Mr. Arnold Krause , 627 Elmwood, owns a camper. Mr. Krause stated, that regarding commercial vehicles, this Village basically started out as a "blue collar" Village , and now people seem to look down at the "blue collar" worker. He does not see why a man who needs a truck for work should not be able to park it in his driveway. Are we going to take away a man's means of transportation for his livelihood? Mrs. Nancy Eumark, 497 Middlesex, asked if any members of the Commission owned a recreational vehicle . She stated that, to people who own RV 's, it is their kind of recreation and family atmosphere . She said that someone else may prefer to go to a Holiday Inn, but to RV owners, camping is a way of life . Mrs. Eumark stated that there are a large number of RV owners present because they have a large financial investment to protect, and a large family investment to protect. She said that those who are opposed may not be present because there may not be as many opposed as we think. Also, individuals who are opposed may not wish to make their feelings known because they care more about their neighbors, and may wish to live happily rather than complain. She said we all have to respect each other's wishes and lifestyles . Mr. Jim Ellis, 5 Red Oak Court, owns an RV, a boat, and drives a pick-up truck to work. The pick-up truck is his livelihood. He said he surveyed his neighbors, and all were in agreement that the ordinance should not be passed because it infringes on their rights . Even though they may not own RV 's now, they don't wish to think that they can' t have one if they so desire. Mr. John McGuire , 663 St. Mary's Parkway, thinks the ordinance is unconstitutional, and trying to take away his way of life . Commissioner Shields said that he has tried camping and likes it, but just because a camper can' t be parked in a driveway, doesn't mean a person can't own one . He personally feels that none should be allowed, but feels that if you own three RV 's, something certainly should be able to be parked inside the garage. Mrs. Eumark stated that if a pop-up camper is parked in a garage, it might be creating a bomb because of the possibility of the gas tanks springing a leak. Mr. Ellis said he keeps his camper in storage in the winter. Commissioner Shields stated that we have a proposed ordinance which does not seem to satisfy the people who want no RV 's, and does not seem to satisfy the people who do want them. Mr. Foss stated that we are very close to an agreement; the main problems seem to be length, the Grandfather Clause , and the number of vehicles . Mrs . Eumark stated that they store their trailer in a barn in the winter, but the barn collapsed from weight of the snow, so that does not necessarily mean that you have safeguarded your investment. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing February 28, 1979 - 9 - Mrs . Barbara Storter, 886 Cambridge Drive, said that she supports the wishes of people who wish to park a recreational vehicle in their driveway. She does not own an RV , but does own a boat, and said that it is difficult to find a place to put a boat in the summer because of the shortage of moorings on Lake Michigan. Mrs . Storter said that Buffalo Grove has a great variety of people , and they have found it to be a delightful mixture of people. She wants to live in a community where people have different interests . Their boat is stored in a barn during the winter. Dr. Barry Storter, 886 Cambridge Drive , said he also owns a van which is parked in his driveway because it will not fit in his garage . This van is his personal automobile, and is not licensed as an RV. He does not see how the Village can say it is a van when it is legally licensed as an automobile by the State. Commissioner Davis said that one way to determine whether or not it is an RV is if it has sleeping quarters, in which case it would be licensed as an RV. Dr. Storter said that his van has a couch where a person could sleep, but one could also sleep in the back seat of an automobile . Mr. Conrad Metcalf, 896 Cambridge Drive , has a Toyota truck with a permanent shell, and it must be registered as an RV even though it has no sleeping quarters or water. He checked with the State of Illinois regarding the licensing. He said he received a permit to make his driveway 3 car widths because he also purchased a 24' motor home, and also has the small truck which is licensed as an RV . Commissioner Davis said that he talked to the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of Illinois, and they informed him that it must have sleeping quarter area and water to be classified as an RV. Mr. Wilhelm clarified this by stating that there are 2 classifications for RV 's . Chairman Genrich stated that a decision would probably not be made on this Ordinance in the Commission's Special Meeting to follow after a short break. Chairman Genrich closed the Public Hearing at 9 :30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Janet Sirabian Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: Carl Genrich, Chairman Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing February 28, 1979 SPECIAL REGULAR MEE T I NG BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION Residential Setback Ordinance Recreational Vehicle Ordinance Arlington Heights Road Plat of Dedication FEBRUARY 28, 1979 Chairman Genrich called the meeting to order at 9 :45 PM in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard. Commissioners Present: Chairman Genrich Mr. Shields Mr. Goldspiel Mr. Davis Mr. Kelly Commissioners Absent: Mrs . Sheldon II Mr. Button Also Present: Mr. Bart Delaney, Planning Coordinator Mr. Jim Truesdell, Staff Planner Mr. GaryGlover, Prospective Commissioner P APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Shields made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 14, 1979 Special Meeting, subject to corrections. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. Corrections are as follows : Page 4; Paragraph 2 : The phrase "in defining vehicles" should be added to the end of the paragraph. Page 4; Paragraph 10 : The beginning of the first sentence should read : "Mr. Elliott Hartstein described the proposal by the ZBA and stated that the crux of this is not to change things in mid-stream; " Page 4; Paragraph 11 : The last half of the sentence should read: "and Mr. Hartstein said that they usually do want variances to add on to the back rather than to the front. " Page 4; Paragraph 13 : The following should be added on to the paragraph: "and this raises questions as to the legality of the proposal. Mr. Hartstein stated that the proposal as outlined on Exhibit A was broader than intended by the ZBA. " Page 4; Last Paragraph: The phrase "further into Strathmore Grove. " should be added to the sentence. Upon voice vote, the motion was unanimously approved. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Special Regular Meeting February 28, 1979 - 2 - VILLAGE CENTER COMMITTEE President Fabish appointed Carl Genrich as temporary chairman of the Village Center Committee, and as Chairman of the Plan Commission, Mr. Genrich wished to appoint Commissioner Shields and Commissioner Kelly as members of the Village Center Committee, for a period of one year. Chairman Genrich asked for, and received, the concurrence of the Plan Commission regarding these appointments . Chairman Genrich requested Mr. Delaney to mail copies of the Ordinance to all members of the Plan Commission. TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Commissioner Goldspiel stated that the Transportation Commission met Monday, February 26, 1979, and had liaisons from the RTA and the Lake County Planning Staff present. Mr. Goldspiel stated that Lake County is taking the position that they are opposed to the corridor concept for the regional plan which has been worked on. They do not believe the Milwaukee Railroad corridor will ever develop, and they said they are opposed to any new highway construction and are opposed to any new rail line construction, and that their transportation plan basically consists of widening existing roads. It was also stated that the Lake County planning only pertains to unincorporated portions of Lake County, so Mr. Goldspiel foresees problems pertaining to the Route 53 extension. Mr. Goldspiel said that if anything is to be done in Lake County, it looks as though it will have to be worked out with the communities rather than the Lake County Planning Staff. RESIDENTIAL SETBACK ORDINANCE Commissioner Goldspiel made the following points: 1 . The map should be redone so that it only includes areas which the ZBA and the Plan Commission feel should be included. He thinks the ordinance should be redrafted, and should include strictly single family, and not commercial. He thinks the staff should redefine the map area, and get input from the members of the ZBA. 2 . There should be separate zoning - anything built prior to 1977 should be rezoned R-5A, for example, with the only distinction being different setback requirements between that and R-5. 3. The staff should work with Bill Raysa in terms of the wording of the ordinance, regarding R-5 and R-5A, and the structure of the ordinance. Th&'ordinance as it now stands imposes no setback I 9 regulations on anything built prior to 1977. 4. As Area A on the map is redeveloped, it would not include any commercial or multi-family sections . 5. Check on the possibility of making changes just in the rear setbacks . Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Special Regular Meeting February 28, 1979 - 3 - Chairman Genrich polled the Commission to see if everyone was in agreement to proceed in this manner; the Commission was in agreement with Chairman Genrich. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ORDINANCE Chairman Genrich stated that he personally would prefer not to try and resolve this matter tonight, one reason being that he would like Commissioner Sheldon to be present. Chairman Genrich outlined the broad options to be considered. 1 . Approve the ordinance as is with some minor changes. 2 . Consideration of whether or not the November 30 draft might be a better approach. 3. Chairman Genrich discussed his memo to Bill Raysa, and the possi- bility that certain areas could be rezoned to allow RV parking. 4 . Not recommending a new ordinance at all, but enforcing the current ordinance. Commissioner Davis feels that commercial vehicles should be treated separately, that there should be a better definition of a vehicle, and that there should be a better definition of parking for commercial vehicles which are one 's livelihood and used for work. 3 '1 '�,� ; Chairman Genrich asked each Commission member to take the proposed ordinance , read it, make comments, and bring it to next week's meeting. He urged that everyone be prepared with ideas so that we do not start from scratch. Mr. Wilhelm said that the Commission is overlooking the possibility of recommending to the Board that they withdraw the proposed amendment. Commissioner Goldspiel responded that the Plan Commission must make some sort of a positive recommendation, or else they will lose their input on what is ultimately done. Mr. Earl Smithern, 1 Longwood Court, stated that we are very close to an agreement with the proposed ordinance . He said that there are very few people in the Village that are opposed to RV 's ; there has only been one registered complaint. He said the RV owners are not opposed to the ordinance, but there are a few points they wish changed. Mr. Smithern quoted from the Herald of November 10 : "Many acts a Village take are infringements of rights of individuals . " Mr. Smithern thinks that this is the crux of the whole thing. He said campers are a very family-oriented group, and they do not want people infringing on their rights. Mr. Smithern stated that what came out of the committee was not the opinion of the entire committee. Commissioner Goldspiel asked if there was a vote on the ordinance coming from the committee . Mr. Smithern said that it was basically 3-3, with staff members making it 5 or 6 to 3. Mrs . Kaszubowski said that the vote was not taken on the final draft which came out; it was basically a stalemate. She is on record as opposing this ordinance because it did not include all committee input. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Special Meeting Fehruanv_281_ 1979 - 4 - Commissioner Shields asked what the points of contention are, and Mr. Smithern stated that they are as follows : 1 . They want the sidewalk as the ruling body - the vehicle could be no closer than 1 ' inside the sidewalk. 2. The length of the vehicle. 3. The number of vehicles . 4. The Grandfather Clause should follow the person. Mr. Foss said that they not only want RV 's off of the sidewalks , but they want cars off the sidewalk also. Mr. Wilhelm said that his memo is negative, but there are also many positive points in the ordinance . They agree , for instance, that there should be no housekeeping in the trailers , but they do think that their children should be allowed to sleep in them, just as they would be allowed to sleep in a tent in the yards . Commissioner Shields suggested that the Commission review the minutes of this meeting and the Public Hearing, and formulate a motion to pass on to the Board when other members of the Commission are present. Mr. Wilhelm does not think the Commission should wait until each member is present. Mr. Shields said that he feels Commissioner Sheldon should be present because of her involvement with this ordinance . Mr. Shields also said he would like some time to digest what has been gone over tonight before making a recommendation. Commissioner Goldspiel said he thinks the Commission should consider this at the next meeting, regardless of who is present. Chairman Genrich said that this would be on next week's agenda. ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD DEDICATION Mr. Truesdell explained that this dedication is basically needed for the Arlington Heights Road improvement north of Lake-Cook Road. He said that the area north of Route 83 is needed to provide intersection adjustments, so that the road does not abruptly go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes . Commissioner Davis moved that the Commission forward to the Board of Trustees , with its approval, the Plat of Dedication of part of Arlington Heights Road, Plan Commission Exhibit #228-1 ; Commissioner Shields seconded the motion. Commissioner Goldspiel thought the terminology might be too restrictive . The motion was amended to have the following phrase added on: "subject to legal opinion of the language of the dedication as shown on the Plat. " Commissioner Shields seconded the amendment, and the motion was unani- mously approved by voice vote . A motion was made, seconded, and approved to adjourn at 10 :45 PM. Respectfully submitted, J et Sirabian APPROVED BY: Recording Secretary Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Special Meeting Carl Genrich, Chairman February 28, 1979