Loading...
1973-11-14 - Plan Commission - Minutes WORKSHOP SESSION BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION Heitkotter Property November!%, 1973 Chairman, Carl Genrich, called the meeting to order at 8:20 P.M. , November 14, 1973, in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard. Commissioners Present: Mr. Genrich, Chairman Mr. Keister Mr. Haarr Mr. Mendenhall Mr. Harris Mr. Shields Also Present: Mr. Balling, Administrative Assistant - Buffalo Grove HEITKOTTER-BRODNAN PETITION FOR ANNEXATION Mr. William J. Moore, Attorney was present in this regard. Commissioner Harris raised the question with Chairman Genrich if Mr. Raysa, Municipal Attorney, had reviewed the zoning options. Chairman Genrich replied that Mr. Raysa had said that an R-1 residential district with Planned Unit Development to provide for the commercial could be utilized as a zoning classification for this parcel . Mr. Moore stated that zoning classification was not a concern with his client as much as it was with the residents adjacent to his parcel . He stated his main interest to be in any classification which would allow the combination of single family residency and operation of a retail florist from the barn (out building) on the property. Mr. Moore submitted a plat of survey which was recorded as Exhibit A. A lengthy discussion followed concerning the identification of this document. It was decided this survey with modifications ascribed and initialed would be accepted as a preliminary site layout plan. Commissioner Haarr stated that the zoning for the parcel should be an R-1 residential district PUD with a special use permit. Paragraph 1 of the subject annexation agreement should so state. Chairman Genrich suggested that the special use permit should provide for a retail florist in the out building and use of the existing residential use as the residence. Mr. Moore concurred and noted that Paragraph 1 of the said annexation agreement should refer to a retail florist business use and an R-1 residential zoning district classification. Mr. Moore also requested that the Village Attorney come up with the proper terminology for the zoning classification. Commissioner Haarr suggested that Paragraph 8 of the subject annexation agree- ment should state that the plat will be accepted as Exhibit A subject to removal of the southeast driveway and the placement of screening along the southeast lots abutting the residential properties, and that the petitioner should submit a full plan with these changes shown. Mr. Moore agreed to this. Commissioner Mendenhall requested that there be a five year limit in which time the petitioner would be required to install a sidewalk along Route 83 in accord- ance with Village specifications if requested. Mr. Moore agreed, stating that the five year period would be from the date of the execution of the annexation agreement. Plan Commission Page 2 11/14/73 There being no further discussion at this point Commissioner Haarr made the motion that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board to approve the annexation of the property known as the Heitkotter parcel with an R-1 residential zoning classification with a Special Use Permit of general development with a single family density range of one dwelling unit for every four and 2 acres provided and a business use for operating a retail florist. In addition to his motion, Commissioner Haarr noted that the special use permit should be carefully written by the Village Board to protect all residents and insure that the only commercial use will be that of a retail florist, located in the out building or barn of the property. Commissioner Mendenhall seconded the motion and asked why the motion was so elaborate. Commissioner Haarr replied that the complexity of the motion was required to insure the protection of residential proerties adjacent to the subject property. He further stated that he does not wish to lose the protection of a Special Use Permit and controls of same. Commissioner Shields noted that the Special Use Permit should refer to one dwelling unit for residential use and one barn and an accessory building for commercial use. It was decided that the barn as a retail florist facility and the house as a residence be tied to Exhibit A and classified as a Planned Development. Commissioner Mendenhall requested that Paragraph 3 be deleted from the annexation agreement. There was no opposition to this request. Mr. Moore asked if the R-1 41 acres to one unit residential classification was not overly penalizing to Mr. Brodnan. He requested that no more control be made of him in an R-1 zoning classification and in any other property owner in the Village. Commissioner Harris stated that the Special Use Permit should be tied to Exhibit A rather than the gross acreage on the parcel . Commissioner Mendenhall concurred and withdrew his second to the motion. Commissioner Haarr stated that the 41/2 to 1 R-1 classification could be bending the intent of the zoning ordinance but not the intent of the Special Use Permit which stated that there will be no housing or structures added which deviate from the plan as noted in Exhibit A. Commissioner Shields then seconded the motion. Mr. W. E. Slattery voiced a question from the audience request*ag that the commercial zoning be tied to the out building or barn. Commissioner Harris agreed with the use of the barn for the retail florist, but feels that the 1 to 41/2 acre residential home density is too extreme and is not in the purvue of the zoning ordinance. Subsequently, he could not support the motion. There being no further questions, the Plan Commission voted on the motion. HAARR - Yes MENDENHALL - No HARRIS - No SHIELDS - Yes KEISTER - Yes The motion carried 3 to 2. Commissioner Harris stated that he would like to speak on behalf of himself and Commissioner Mendenhall . He stated that his "no" vote submitted was based on an objection to the motion, specifically the overly restrictive residential densities and not the intent of the project or the intended use of the land. Both he and Commissioner Mendenhall support the use of the land as proposed in the subject annexation agreement. Neither could concur with Page 3 Plan Commission 11/14/73 the motion based on the overly restrictive density. Commissioner Mendenhall concurred that his "no" vote resulted from the motion providing unreasonable residential zoning, and notin opposition to the project. Chairman Genrich requested that the minutes and the report to the Village Board so reflect this comment. BROZIO-HINZE PROPERTY Present in this regard was Mr. Jack Whisler representing Mr. Ernest Brozio, owner of the subject property. Mr. Whisler presented the Plan Commission with the preliminary architectural rendering of the building for the proposed B-1 use for the subject property. The exhibit was received unidentified. Mr. Whisler stated that the front of the building would be some sort of finished stone face with a wood mansard style roof. Substantial glass would be integrated into the front of the building. Commissioner Haarr inquired as to what the siding material on the remaining three sides would be. Mr. Whisler stated that there would be a face brick to the east and the south and west were unknown at this time, although he would insure that no concrete or cinder block would be used on those sides. There was considerable discussion related to the architectural renderings as submitted. Chairman Genrich stated the desire to have this site occupied by a building that would be an asset to the community and that the annexation agreement for this property gives the Plan Commission approval power over any new construction. Commissioner Mendenhall stated that the zoning district classification of B-1 does not give the Plan Commission the prerogrative to turn down a business use based on their evaluation of the structure. Chairman Genrich stated, however, that he was in touch with Mr. Raysa who was of the impression that the Plan Commission did have the prerogative of site review and could exercise it to turn down any request for this site based on the provisions of the annexation agreement. Commissioner Haar concurred with Commissioner Mendenhall but stated that when the B-1 classification was permitted for the residential type structure he did not envision the business use as presented by Mr.Whisler. Commissioner Haarr stated that to build in the original site planwas now unrealistic given the demolition of the previously existing structure. Commissioner Harris stated that the building was torn down without approval of the Plan Commission and any consideration of alternative uses should have been addressed prior to the demolition of the said structure. Mr. Whisler disagreed and said that he feels that the B-1 zoning classification would be upheld if submitted to a court test. He additionally stated that he would submit the question to arbitration in the courts if the B-1 use, as presented, was not favorably considered by the Plan Commission. Commissioner Harris disagreed and said that the B-1 classification was granted with respect to the residential structure and the use of that structure was the only reason for granting the B-1 classification. Mr. Whisler stated that he feels that the B-1 use and the structure as presented does fit with the other commercial properties on Dundee Road, namely the Bowling Alley, Dunell Shopping Center and the Arco Car Wash. He further stated the Plan Commission is not in position to deny Brozio/Hinze property the B-1 use as permitted. Plan Commission Page 4 11/14/73 Commissioner Shields disagreed, as did Chairman Genrich, stating that it was not illogical to reject speculative buildings based on this site plan. He said the Plan Commission was interested in finding creativity in architecture and development and not duplication of prior mistakes, noting that past experiences on Dundee Road should not be used as mitigating evidence to support a continuation of the same type of structure. Mr.Whisler stated that the structure as presented was attractive, the retail use was proper for the market needs at the time and he further stated that despite the efforts of the Plan Commission, Dundee Road will not be the most beautiful street in the northwest suburbs and there will be very little difference when one travels between Wheeling, Arlington Heights and Buffalo Grove. Chairman Genrich asked for a straw vote to poll the board if they further favored more discussion. A "yes" vote would mean that the project should be discussed further as proposed. A "no" vote would mean that the Plan Commission is not in agreement with the basic intent or design of the building. The poll showed the following results: HAARR - Yes MENDENHALL - Yes HARRIS - NO SHIELDS - No KEISTER - No Commissioner Harris stated that the use was not the highest and best use in the village standards. It might have been economically feasible, but offers no esthetic amenity to the Village. Mr. Whisler stated that the use was the highest and best as presented in economic terms and would be substantiated by the court. Chairman Genrich stated that the Plan Commission probably has a responsibility to submit two or three alternative options to Mr. Whisler for the design of his project, but also stated that Mr. Whisler still has the option to go before the Village Board. There was further discussion considering the highest and best use of the parcel ; the Plan Commission supporting the view that the development be considered in terms of the highest and best use to the community (esthetics, quality, etc.) and Mr. Whisler supporting the view that the highest and best use in merely an economic consideration. Commissioner Shields then submitted an alternative for what he felt was the highest and best use of the parcel . He felt that the property should be designed to reflect a commercial use in a residential type structure. He continued to say that when the B-1 zoning was given, there was no intent that it would not be capable of generating "the dollars" or traffic as anticipated with the current proposal . Chairman Genrich said that another alternative would be some form of !, professional use. A one to three story structure with low traffic generation. L Mr. Genrich further stated that the Plan Commission is not in favor of an additional store front on Dundee Road. Mr. Whisler stated that he was still uncertain of what the intent of the Plan Commission was. Commissioner Haarr requested that the Plan Commission state with specificity what their dislike was based upon. After further discussion the Plan Commission conveyed to Mr. Whisler that it was not so much the retail use which violated the intent of the Plan Commission, as much as it was the appearance of the structure itself (that being an almost exact duplica- tion of the Dunell Center) . 1 Plan Commission Page 5 11/14/73 Commissioner Shields requested that the building be reduced by 25% and make it look like an entity rather than part of or an end of a commercial strip. Commissioner Haarr suggested that the front of the buildings be staggered in a row house type arrangement to improve the appearance. Commissioner Harris recommended that the structure itself have a center court cutting down on the amounts of glass and placing doors and windows in a mini-court arrangement. Mr. Whisler stated that he was not against any of these alternatives, but that they would make leasing more difficult. In summary, Commissioner Haarr stated that the Plan Commission was not against the retail use, but they were against the style of the building. The Plan Commission should furnish Mr. Whisler with sufficient detail so he may go back to his architect for sketches and renderings. A summary of the requests included a breaking of the front line of the building, indenting and breaking the height of-the roof line and a reduction of the window amount. Chairman Genrich requested that Mr. Whisler obtain three to four alternative site renderings and sketches and return to the Plan Commission for their review. The Plan Commission then turned to review and discuss the report to the Plan Commission prepared by William Balling, dated November 12, 1973, concerning the Brozio/Hinze property. Mr. Whisler made the following point by point responses to the suggestions of the preliminary plan recommendations as submitted in the subject report. 1 . Mr. Whisler was in agreement that the concrete sidewalk should be constructed along Dundee Road and Betty Drive. 2. Concerning parking, Mr. Whisler was against elevating the building for parking due to cost and economics relating to the size of the parcel . He felt that the parking could be reduced to some degree in front of the property. 3. Regarding the traffic flow, he felt that the one-way drives were proper, but the entrance to the building should be the front and the exit should be to Betty Drive. 4. Concerning storm water detention, he was in agreement with the underground detention proposal . 5. Concerning building materials, he was in favor of a finished look on all four sides and assured the Plan Commission that no cinder block or concrete block would be installed. 6. Concerning the store frontage, he agreed that the dual frontage was a reasonable alternative for the parcel . 7. Concerning ground level signs, he disagrees with the use of a ground level sign because of possible vandalism due to the proximity of the ground level sign to the sidewalk. 8. Regarding dumpsters and refuse, he agreed in concept to screen the refuse receptacle, but had reservation on using several small receptacles rather than a large metal container. Plan Commission Page 6 11/14/73 9. Regarding landscaping in the front parkway, he was in agree- ment with the exception of a reduction in the size of the green belt and re- moval of one tree to the front of the property. 10. Regarding screening around the property, he disagreed because of the business uses adjacent to the property. 11 . Regarding sodding, he was in agreement with same. There being no further questions, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 11 :40 P.M. Respectfully submitted • 67 Wi lam R. a in , al ag A m, sst. Acting Recording Secr tary Approved: Carl Genrich, Chairman 1i ah