Loading...
1971-04-14 - Plan Commission - Minutes r . i • V•ILLAG-E OF' ,. ' ", , BUFFALO GROVE ` � MG�d. - X� fi e, e VW. 60090 PUBLIC H2ARING - Stenholm Annexation - April 14, 1971 The Public Hearing was called to order at 8:00PM in the Village Hall ,' of Buffalo Grove, 50 Raupp Blvd. Commissioners Present: Hr. Genrich, Acting Chairman Mr. Guidotti Mr. Haarr Mr. Hoyt Mr. Fader Mr. Mendenhall Mr. Yost Mrs. Spence Mr. Margolin Absent: Mr. Berth, Mr, Gamm The Public Notice was read, announcing this hearing, as published in the BUFFALO GROVE HERALD Two items were accepted as exhibits: Site Plan - Exhibit A Architectural Rendering - 'Frhibit B Mr. Edward Levine, attorney for Arrol Lumber Co; petitioners 1 N. LaSalle St. Petitioners are requesting m zoning t operate a' Retail Hume Center. Petitioners are requesting the side requirements be waived on the east side of their lot* They would like to build up to the lot line. Mr. Daniel LaNthble, Architect, 4836 Main St. Skokie was sworn as a witness. The building to be <constructed would consist of two areas, a sales area and a warehouse. The front of the building would be 18ft. high and would be the office and sales area. The rear of the building would be 26ft. high and would be the warehpuse area. The building would be constructed along the east and south lot line. Parking would be provided for 55 cars and a loading dock would be constructed. Construction would be masonary facade, steel joist roof construction. Construction would be of non-combustable material. Mr. Rashkow, Vice President, Arrow Lumber Co. was sworn as a witness. The operation of the business would cater to the home owner and not the contractor and a large inventory of items would be stocked from lumber to small hardware. The Arrow Lumber Company operates a similiar business on the south side of Chicago. The company has been in business for 25 years. * add south side of lot 1 • VILLAGE OF GROVL 9ty ekd. Y _ eu# 2 W 2eisze, WI. 60090 Mr. Hoyt asked how big the lot was. Mr. Rashow answered the lot is lfz acres. Mr Hoyt then asked about the adjoining property, its zoning and present use. , Mrs. Berry, 3211 N. Betty Dr, Alington Hts was sworn as a witness to �✓ answer Mr. Hoyt's questions. She testified that the petitioner' s lot is on the corner of Three States Hwy. East of the lot is a home owned by Mr. Hinz who is going to request commercial zoning. His lot has a 100ft. frontage on Dundee Rd. The lot to the South East is owned by Mr. & Mrs. Simonson who would like sell their home and lot and have the property re-zoned commercial. The land behind the petitioner' s lot is vacant. The homes along Betty Dr, a street running along the petitioner's loft, are on h acre sites. Most of the land South of the petitioner' s lot is unincorporated. To the East of the lot is the Dunell Shopping Center. Betty Dr. is a blacktop road and all lots in the area have no sewers, they have private wells and septic tanks. Mr. Guidotti asked what the business furs would be. He was answered that the hours would be until 8:00M on Monday and Thursday, until 5:00PM all other days except Sundayn the hours would be from 10:OOAM until 2:00PM. Mr. Rashkow was asked if there would be a significant amount of dirt and dust generated by the operation of the business. He answered that the cutting operation would be inside the building and there would be a dust collecting system in the building. He also indicated that cutting would be minimal because most of the materials sold would be pre-cut to size. Hr. Levine was asked exactly what zoning was being requestedi He answered that the petition was left blank because the Village Attorney was not sure which zoning this business use would require. B4 was published for the hearing because of size requirements. The Chairman read into the record a letter from Mr. Simonson, a neighbor to the property (see above testimony) , objecting to the zoning. He stated that since the project was being built on his lot line he would no longer be able to sell his home and lot as a residential site. Since his property does not front on Dundee Rd. he was unsure whether his land would have commercial value. Mr. Dennis Hettler, attorney representing the Dunell Shopping Center and it' s tenant, Buffalo Grove Home Center, Inc spoke in objection. He stated this business was a serious and useless duplication of business services and might cause the economic failure of one existing business in Buffalo Grove. The Plan Commision has a responsibility to that business. Mr. Hettler was asked the size of the Buffalo Grove Home Center. He answered 2600ft. Mr. Raskow was asked wat the size of his business would be. He answered that the building wouldhave ground floor space of 18,000ft. and would VILLAGE OF _r,, BUFFALO GROVE P* Mace/0 X/vd. eVe#1,k Wv2keze, WI. 6'0090 have a mezzanine showroom for bathroom and kitchen improvements. Mr. Rashkow said he was unaware of the Dunell Center' s business and claimed his business is far more diversified and has a greater depth thean the Buffalo Grove Home Center' s operation. The two businesses could not really be compared. Mrs. Jeppe, 298 Dundee Pkwy, was sworn and testified that she has a home facing the petitioners property and his business would be a detriment to the residential environment of her street. Mary Adams, 284 Dundee Pkwy, was sworn and testified in agreement with Mrs. Jeppe. Mr.wouldorequirer1031parking the Cspaces. Petission itiod ner' s preliminary parking for 55 gars. Mr. LalToble said he did not know what zoning the project would fall under but he can plan 70-801pore spaces. Mr. Haarr told hv1rn he would need at least 75-imme- parking spaces. Mr. Haarr, addressing the Commission and petitioner, stated the sideyard requirement cannot be waived F w than tir3 and the petitioner would have to build the building s e a _t off the lot line. u Mr. Haarr, reading from _ '- . �� �= ._ • sns outlined set-back and parking requirements. Robert Stern, an agent of Quinlin & Tysan asked the Commission if the owners of adjacent lots could grant a waiver of the sideyard requirement. Mr. Genrich, acting chairman, answered thay could not, the ordinances would apply. The petitioner trstified that he would conform to sideyard and parking requirements by cutting down the size of his building and agreed to ammend his petition. Mr. Haarr suggested the Commission check with the Village Attorney as to whether the Plan Commission can accept the TIVirftW petition and ammend the subdivision regulations at this time. It was also decided to consult the Village attorney as to what zoning is required for this property. The Public Hearing was continued until April 28, 1971 to consider the above and to allow the petitioner time to make the necessary changes to his plans. The hearing adjourned at 9:40PM &L. kV/