1971-04-28 - Plan Commission - Minutes T ILLAGL OF ' _", , BUFFALO GROVL
""9//y a 0, eJhi. 1 " Xet#14 V zw, WI. 00090
PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE PLAN COMMISSION - Stenholm Annexation,
Continuation; April 28, 1971
The Public Hearing was called to order at 8:00PM in the Village Hall
of Buffalo Grovel 50 Raupp Blvd.
Commissioners present: Mr,. Hoyt; Chairman Mr. Fader
Mrt Genrich Mry Yost
Mr. Guidotti Mrs. Spence
Mrt Mendenhall
Mr. HaarY
Commissioners absent: Mr. Margolin Mrt Gam
The Plan Commission discussed side-yard requirements pertaining to
the property in questions It was noted Cook County Zoning Ordinances
required loft until 1960; when the Ordinance was ammended to 1.5ftit
It was noted the adjoining property was zoned prior to 1960w It was
also noted surrounding property adjoining petitioner's property km is
equivalent to R-1 as defined in Buffalo Grove Ordinances. Buffalo
Grove Ordinances require a side-yard of 10% of the width of the adjoining
property. The adjoining properties are plotted in lOOft width; therefore;,
a loft side-yard is requiredt The Ordinance allows, however, a 1/3
Variance and this would permit a 62/3ft sideyard, north/south, west/easti
Mrt Hoyt asked the petitioner if he would move his building off the
lot pm line to allow 6 2/3ft between building and lot lines.
Mrs; Levine attorney for the petitioner; answered that the petitioner
is agreeable to the 6 2/3ft side-yard around the buildingt
mrt Hoyt asked if the petitioner realized this would make his building
smaller;
Mr. Levine answered that he did and that the petitioner's architect
would prepare a new site plan'
It was noted that the petitioners were requesting B-1 zoning:
Mrs Simonson; an adjoining property owner submitted a sketch to the
Commission illustrating his house and lot in relation to the petitioner's
property; He stated that the closer the building was placed to his
house the worse it would be for him He obleeted to the 6 2/3ft side-
yard and asked that the side-yard be held to loft. He thought that
the petitioner should not benefit from a variance but that the surrounding
property owners should benefit: He is now selling his property; after
20 years of residence because of the proposed developementt Mr. Simonson's
sketch was entered as Exhibit 00:
MrT Genrich noted that the Village of Buffalo Grove is usually forced
by circumstance into making piecemeal land use decisions* He wanted
to know whether an honest effort had been made by the petitioners to
organize and acquire the lots in the area to offer Buffalo Grove a
unified and complete land package for annexation*
Mrs Berry; a realtor with Quinlan and Tyson efforts had been made
since last October? unsuccessfully: She detailed these efforts:
Mrt Genrich again noted that he would hate to see this area developed
• one piece at a time:
It was noted that most of the land along Dundee Rd was already zoned
commercial and annexed into Buffalo Grove•. Mrs. Berry wondered why we
would refuse this annexation in light of the above=.
Mr Jeppel 298 Dundee Pkwy objected the the proposed commercial use.
He thought the area would be residencial when he bought his house and
is tired of fighting commercial zoning`. Mr Jeppe does not object to
annexation of this property with residencial zoning:`
There then followed a discussion about noise emanating from the property;
It was pointed out that the relatively small saws utilized by this type
od business would be located irr the rear of the building; enclosed by
masonary walls; as required by building codes, and this would eliminate
any offensive noise and particularyl to property owners north of Dundee
Road:
Mr Haarr questioned the number of parking spaces provided:
Mr. Levine indicated all parking requirements of the Village would be met:
The petitioner was asked if he was willing to move his building loft off
the property line: He answered not He would loose too much retail selling
space to make his business profitable:
After some further discussion concerning: variance to sideyard requirementst
land use in the area" noise abatement in light of the fact that there
is only one single family residence within 100ft of the propertyt building
structure and plant building construction - masonary, me: Hoyt noted
the cbmmission had listened to all concerned persons and Raft, nobody
further stepped forward tb testify: On motion duly made nd seconded and
unanimously carried the Public Hearing was adjourned at 9:20PM
Respectfully'_submitted;
Evan D: Fader Secretary Attest: ��`��"' Lz��/,
Merrill Hoyt, Chairman