Loading...
2000-02-16 - Plan Commission - Minutes REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION February 16, 2000 Matrix development, Proposed three-lot subdivision, 1801 Prairie Road (Formerly 22095 N.),Rezoning from the Residential Estate District to the R-3 District and approval of a Preliminary Plan - Workshop #1 Zoning Ordinance, proposed amendments to Section 17.36.040 concerning parking requirements and Chapter 17.44. -Business Districts, B-1 through B-4--Workshop #1 Plan Commission Annual Report,May 1999-February 2000 --Review Chairman Goldspiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Goldspiel Mr. Samuels Ms. Dunn Mr. Feldgreber Mr. Johnson Mr. Panitch Mr. Smith Commissioners absent: Mr. Trilling Mr. Ottenheimer Also present: Mr. Steven Goodman Mr. Carey Chickerneo Trustee Marienthal Trustee Berman Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES -None COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Mr. Pfeil stated Commissioner Trilling attended the board meeting on February 7, 2000 and noted the project at 1801 Prairie Road was reviewed and referred to the Plan Commission. The Cotey property with a proposal for a monopole antenna was not referred pending further Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16,2000-Page 1 information to the board. MATRIX DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED THREE-LOT SUBDIVISION. 1801 PRAIRIE ROAD (FORMERLY 22095 n.). REZONING FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO THE R-3 DISTRICT AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN -- WORKSHOP #1 Mr. Chickerneo stated they are proposing to subdivide the property at the northeast corner of Arlyd and Prairie into 3 lots with an R-3 zoning. Two lots would be facing onto Arlyd Road side and the other lot would face onto Prairie Road. He stated they propose to use the existing curb cut off of Prairie Road for one lot and add two more curb cuts onto Arlyd Road for the other two lots. He stated that an additional 20 feet along Prairie Road will be dedicated right-of-way, as well as an additional 5 feet along Arlyd Road. The three lots are fairly consistent with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of size and dimension. The proposed configuration would require a variation for lot width on Lot 1 which faces Prairie. This lot is exceptionally deep and a variation can be justified. Mr. Chickerneo stated they have not yet done a formal engineering plan. There are some willow trees on the perimeter of the lot that the Village Forester would like to use as a training exercise in tree removal for his forestry personnel. Most of the existing trees on the property will be maintained as part of the proposed building plan. Chairman Goldspiel noted that Mr. Pfeil's memo indicates that there is also a sideyard variation. Mr. Chickerneo noted that goes in conjunction with the fact that once you reduce the lot width you need a setback variance. It ends up being 14 feet combined instead of 16 feet that would be required. Once you limit the lot size you will end up with the setbacks being the same. Commissioner Johnson asked noted the lot requiring the variation appears to look cramped and asked if the property line could be moved a few feet south,making the northernmost lot conforming and then requiring rear yard variations for the southern lots. Mr. Chickerneo noted the reason they proposed this particular configuration is that it allows Lots 2 and 3 to be perfectly standard lots. They have very little flexibility with the additional 5 foot dedication on Arlyd Road. Lot 3 just complies with the lot area requirement and they did not want to create a more variations. The fact that this lot faces onto Prairie and because it is exceptionally deep so while you are creating a variation in terms of side yard, your building area on this lot is much bigger than the other two. They felt it was more consistent in terms of what Arlyd would look like as it gets developed in the future and more consistent in terms of the same size homes in the Mirielle subdivision. Chairman Goldspiel asked what kind and size of product would be built here. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16, 2000-Page 2 i Mr. Chickerneo stated the housing they are proposing is very similar and very consistent with the housing in that general area. They will be ranging from 2,500 to 3,400 square feet, very similar to the Mirielle homes and the other two subdivided lots they recently started. Commissioner Samuels inquired about the status of the parcel immediately to the north which will be left between this parcel and the stormwater facility. The proposed house on Prairie would be the only house on Prairie on that block. Mr. Chickerneo noted they felt this lot was appropriate for the side yard setback because it is next to the stormwater area so there will not be another house to the north. From a dimensional and aesthetic standpoint, the house will appear in conformity with the rest of the area. Commissioner Samuels noted that leaving that one house along out on Prairie does not seem ideal. Commissioner Samuels asked if there is a plan for what happens in the area adjacent to the Prairie/Weiland Road extension, assuming that necessary right-of-way is acquired. Mr. Pfeil stated the comprehensive plan indicates single-family land use for the area west of Pet Lane, but the plan does not include a layout for future residential lots. Commissioner Feldgreber asked what the status is on the lot east of Lot 3. Mr. Chickemeo stated he believes there is a house east of Lot 3. He further stated they had approached the owner of that house who does not appear ready or willing to sell at any time soon as they have just improved the home. Commissioner Feldgreber noted Lot 3 seems to be somewhat tight. Mr. Chickerneo noted Lot 3 actually has larger dimensions than lots in the Mirielle Phase 2 neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson noted there are several homes facing Prairie on the other side of Prairie Road. Chairman Goldspiel asked how close the Mirielle stormwater area comes to the lot line on the boundary of Lot 1. Mr. Chickemeo noted it is a substantial distance from the lot line and does not present a problem in terms of any kind of hazard or flooding. Chairman Goldspiel noted Arlyd Road is not constructed to Village standards, and he asked what the policy would be with dealing with that. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16, 2000-Page 3 Mr. Pfeil stated the Village Engineer is trying to identify practical ways to get the street upgraded but as long as most of it is not in the Village, it may be that the current developer would do a sidewalk and related drainage improvements and make a pro-rated cash payment that the Village could use to rebuild the street in the future. Chairman Goldspiel asked if there are any issues regarding supplying water and sewer. Mr. Chickerneo stated that sanitary sewer is adjacent to the site. Water would be extended from "Rebecca Drive" about 700 feet to the north. He stated they would like to incorporate some recapture agreement so that if the rest of Arlyd Road does annex to the Village, they can recapture costs from other properties connecting to the water main. Chairman Goldspiel asked if there is sufficient water pressure for fire service. Mr. Pfeil stated the Village Engineer has discussed this with the Deputy Fire Marshall and they have not identified any constraints at this point. Mr. ChickerneoVillage.noted that a fire hydrant will be installed as required by the Commissioner Samuels noted that "Rebecca Drive," as referred to by the petitioner, is actually "Olive Hill Drive." Commissioner Panitch asked if the Village Forester would provide a tree survey. Mr. Pfeil stated Mr. Goodman would provide a survey and the Village Forester will review it and comment about any trees that he believes are significant and should be preserved. Chairman Goldspiel asked if Lot 1 were developed under R-4 instead of R-3, what if anything would that do to the buildable envelope. Mr. Pfeil stated it would be the same building envelope. He asked if the developer could clarify concerning the size of building envelope is actually needed for each of the three proposed lots. Mr. Chickerneo noted that if Lot 1 is an R-4 lot and the other two lots are R-3. it would appear to be a spot zoning, which is generally not acceptable to municipalities. Chairman Goldspiel stated he wanted to make sure this development is not going any lower than R-4 lot standards. Mr. Pfeil noted a 70 foot width is the R-4 minimum standard. Mr. Goodman noted they originally were going to propose Lot 1 as an R-4 and Lots 2 and 3 as Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16,2000-Page 4 R-3 because Lot 1 is contiguous to Mirielle Phase 2,which is R-4. The R-3 area of Old Farm Village is across Aptakisic Road to the south. Commissioner Samuels noted that even if all the land along the north side of Arlyd Road were developed, there is no room to run a road there and still have a lot on either side. Therefore Arlyd Road would be a natural division for R-4. This would have everything north of Arlyd R-4 and everything south of Arlyd as R-3. Trustee Marienthal noted the Board has always looked at that site as being R-3 and that is why the Board wants this development to be R-3. Chairman Goldspiel noted there are two problems here. The Village has had a long-standing policy discouraging variances on new construction. In addition, the current request would be allowing variances to essentially allow an R-4 lot to be classified as R-3. Commissioner Samuels suggested that Lots 2 and 3 as well as Lot 1, be R-4, although these lots would be much larger than the minimum R-4 standards. Trustee Marienthal noted the Board would prefer everything along Arlyd Road to be R-3 and not R-4 and not becoming a precedent in that neighborhood. Trustee Berman noted that the Weiland Road extension could be looked at as dividing line with R-4 being north of the right of way for the Weiland extension and R-3 to the south. The interesting question is whether or not it would be theoretically possible to overlay a decent R-3 development in that area south of the right of way which is now the Pet Motel and tree holding area of the Rolling Hills nursery. Trustee Marienthal noted the Pet Motel at this time is not looking to come into the Village as it was previously as it has been purchased by a corporation. Chairman Goldspiel noted that a small area plan is needed to make sure that the roadways, utilities and lot sizes and configurations are sensible. He suggested that alternate layouts for R-4 and R-3 lots north of Arlyd Road be analyzed. The area south of Arlyd Road would be shown with an R-3 configuration. Mr. Chickerneo noted that whether it is R-3 or R-4 makes no difference to them. However, the current owner of the property (the Village)has strongly urged that the property stay R-3. Trustee Berman noted the Village owns the property and the Board was asked whether they prefer R-3 zoning. The rationale for R-3 zoning was that the board would prefer not to set an R-4 precedent for the area south of the Weiland right of way. However, the Board is open to the Plan Commission doing its job and treating this plan like any other development. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16, 2000-Page 5 Commissioner Samuels questioned which is the worse precedent to set: to have a zoning split with R-3 and R-4 lots in the area or to grant variances allowing a lot to be classified as R-3 when it is really an R-4 lot in terms of width and side yards. Mr. Chickerneo noted that Lot 1 would be very deep with a lot area well in excess of the R-4 minimum. In addition, the lot is adjacent to stormwater area, so the narrower side yard would not be discernible or cause any aesthetic problems with crowding adjacent properties. Chairman Goldspiel asked if there is any margin in the Mirielle stormwater facility that would allow some property to be added to Lot 1. Mr. Pfeil stated he believes the stormwater area was not over-sized, but he would ask Mr. Kuenkler to confirm whether or not there is any excess property that could be added to Lot 1. Commissioner Panitch asked if there has been any discussion of development for the area between Aptakisic and Arlyd Road. Mr. Pfeil stated the Village has inquired of a few owners in the area if they are interested in annexing to the Village, but so far no one has requested annexation. The Village assumes that in time developers will acquire some of the properties and request annexation. Trustee Marienthal noted that at this point the unincorporated lots are on septic and wells. The availability of Village water and sanitary sewer service will be an incentive for owners to either annex and connect the existing homes or to cooperate with redevelop plans for the area. Chairman Goldspiel stated it would be a good idea to see how both the R-3 and R-4 would fit in on the north side of Arlyd. He further noted that the analysis of existing property lines and existing structures that are unlikely to be removed might show whether R-3 or R-4 is the preferable zoning. Mr. Chickerneo stated that once Matrix stubs in sewer and water to the area, a failed septic field or water problems would be much easier for property owners to fix if Village sewer and water are available. In that regard it is probably safe to assume that the development of the Matrix property may create a chain reaction to annex into Village, if for no other reason than to take advantage of utilities. Mr. Chickerneo further noted that the Plan Commission does not appear to object to the basic proposal for re-platting for additional lots. The discussion taking place is more of a philosophical one based on what the Village wants to do in terms of R-3 or R-4. He commented that he would appreciate it if they could conclude the workshop with an indication from the Commission that there is a consensus that the subdivision plan in itself is appropriate with the understanding that the R-3/R-4 issue has to be resolved. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16, 2000-Page 6 Chairman Goldspiel asked if there was an possibility of slightly flaring Lot 1 into Lot 2 thereby changing the building envelope slightly so that there would be a little more yard in one part. There is a lot of extra square footage but there is no extra depth on Lot 2. Mr. Chickerneo stated the problem then is the buildable area, because of the corner, is relatively small on Lot 2. You have 3,700 square feet of buildable lot area and the proposal is to place a 2,500 to 3,500 square foot home there. In that range, altering the lot lines and setbacks would mean either a variation or limiting the building area to a fairly small area of the lot. He said that the developer would not want to plat lots with an usual configuration since the rest of the area is very standard in terms of lot shapes. Commissioner Johnson noted the way the development is configured now it is really a semantic question as to whether it is R-3 with a variance or R-4 without. If there are other pieces of property available that can be acquired in the area, that is somewhat of a question outside of the scope of what is being asked from the Plan Commission. Therefore, he does not see what can be gained from having another workshop unless there is some other type of configuration that can be proposed that solves all of these problems. Chairman Goldspiel noted that the Village will own the stormwater parcel to the north of Lot 1 and if there is room to squeeze a small piece out of this parcel to make Lot 1 wider, it would solve the lot width problem. Mr. Chickerneo noted that in the event that this lot expansion is feasible,they could place some provision in the approval process that if, and when, the Village is able to acquire the adjacent property and if they could, by mutual agreement,allow the developer to acquire a sufficient amount of property to remove the variation, they would do so. Commissioner Johnson noted he favors a public hearing on this matter. He noted the public hearing could be published in the alternative which would be satisfactory. All Commissioners agreed and the matter was referred for public hearing. ZONING ORDINANCE, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.36.040 CONCERNING PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 17.44. - BUSINESS DISTRICTS, B-1 THROUGH B-4 -- WORKSHOP #1 Mr. Pfeil noted that the "purpose"language of the Business Districts should either be discussed tonight or at a future workshop to make sure that the intent of the business districts is articulated appropriately based on the proposed revisions. Mr. Pfeil reviewed the text of the Business Districts, noting the present language and the proposed new language. Mr. Pfeil noted that there are several proposed changes to the current B-1 District. Banks and Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16,2000-Page 7 1 financial institutions have been further defined and articulated to allow financial uses as permitted uses but specifically not allowing short term loan operations as permitted uses. Short- term loan operations would be shifted to the special use section. He commented that"day spa" has been added to the beauty shop category to address those types of uses where certain massage type activities would occur, but"massage parlors"would not be allowed. Commissioner Samuels asked if barber shops and beauty shops should perhaps be combined as there is no reason to distinguish between them in a business or zoning classification. Mr. Pfeil stated that is a possibility. Commissioner Johnson noted it is not necessary to make a change. 1 Mr. Pfeil noted another change is a more inclusive description of clothing stores as a permitted use. "Department store"has been removed as a use in the B-1 District. Chairman Goldspiel asked why"department store"was taken out of B-1. 1 Mr. Pfeil stated it seemed out of scale for typical neighborhood commercial districts and was more appropriate for B-2 or B-3. The Village will use B-3 zoning for new developments or substantial redevelopment of existing commercial properties. Chairman Goldspiel noted the B-3 ordinance includes those things that are in B-1. Mr. Pfeil noted both B-1 and B-2 uses are included uses in B-3. Commissioner Feldgreber noted"hobby shop"has been left in the B-1 district and some of these stores are extremely large. If"department store"was removed merely due to size, then this is something to consider also. Mr. Pfeil noted that in a proposal of that scale, it would either be on property that has not been zoned yet or it would be a substantial redevelopment of a property that would probably be a B-3 planned business center use. Chairman Goldspiel noted he is sensing a major change in the structure of the B-1 District. It used to be that B-1 was considered to be the highest quality type of business area. Now it appears that B-1 is being structured to be a district for smaller types of business uses. Mr. Pfeil stated he did not think the Zoning Ordinance Review Sub-committee (ZORS)was intending to affect the quality of uses allowed in the B-1 District. He noted they were trying to focus it on limited and more neighborhood oriented uses and put larger and more intensive commercial developments into B-2 or B-3. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16, 2000-Page 8 j Chairman Goldspiel noted there are still the vestiges of cumulative zoning where there are the highest uses on down in the current ordinance. The new proposal is getting away from that and is separating out the smaller type of uses. In any case there is some kind of change going on in the proposal for B-1 that has not been articulated. Mr. Pfeil noted he believes that there would be very little new B-1 in the Village and the intent is clearly to use B-3 as a primary zoning tool for any new developments and some redevelopments. The concept to use P.U.D. zoning to draft specific ordinances for particular properties. Chairman Goldspiel noted this may go back to the "purpose" of Business Districts and should perhaps be reflected there. Mr. Pfeil suggested that the discussion for the first workshop should focus on conceptual issues. and more detailed discussion of specific points could be covered at future workshop. Commissioner Johnson asked if it would be safe to say that B-1 would generally be a single site, free standing or small location type issue. Mr. Pfeil concurred with Commissioner Johnson's assessment of the B-1 District. Commissioner Johnson asked if the B-1 could be considered a transitional stage from another adjacent zone over to B-3 or is it more consistent with a residential nearby use. Mr. Pfeil stated the original intent of B-1 was to allow limited retail and service uses that would be compatible with residential neighborhoods. Chairman Goldspiel stated he always thought B-1 was conceptualized to be the higher and less intrusive uses. Commissioner Johnson noted that would be consistent with either conformity to, or transition from, a residential use where where the intent is have non-obtrusive commercial uses. Chairman Goldspiel stated the transitioning really came about for the B-3 because B-3 gave more plan flexibility. Mr. Pfeil noted the B-3 district also has language that allows the Village to limit a P.U.D. for a property to "compatible"uses. A particular property would not necessarily be allowed to have all B-1 and B-2 uses. Chairman Goldspiel asked if there are any uses being eliminated which currently exist in B-1. Mr. Pfeil said that he would review the proposed changes and confirm if any current B-1 uses are being eliminated. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16,2000-Page 9 Commissioner Johnson noted the zoning district has to bear a rational relationship to whatever purpose is trying to be achieved. Therefore, it may be more important to go back and look at the "purpose" language concerning the intent for each business district. Chairman Goldspiel noted the landscaped setback along street frontages in the Business Districts is being changed from 12 feet to 15 feet which is a very good idea. He asked if there is a change in terms a one-acre parcel minimum in the B-3 District. Mr. Pfeil stated there is no minimum lot area now in the B-3 District. There is also no limit on floor area(F.A.R.) or building height. The idea of a one-acre lot size is to address situations where a site does not have the 5-acre minimum area required for a free-standing area of B-3 zoning. Chairman Goldspiel asked why hardware stores are being pulled out of B-1 if B-1 is considered to be a more local type of district. Mr. Pfeil noted that hardware stores would become a special use in B-1. Chairman Goldspiel asked if that is because of the problems of storing certain materials. Mr. Pfeil stated it relates to the fact that the scale can be somewhat different now as pointed out by Commissioner Feldgreber, and that there might be storage issues that could be better handled as a special use in the B-1 District. Chairman Goldspiel noted he is confused by the standards for car rental operations. This use is in B-2 but B-4 also allows rental of vehicles and equipment. Mr. Pfeil noted the intent of the B-4 is to allow larger scale and heavier types of rental operations and the B-2 is meant to be restricted to only motor vehicle rentals. Chairman Goldspiel noted the standards for car rentals need to be thought about. If there is a car rental facility in B-2, it should be noted if they are to be allowed to have a big parking lot with a car wash and gas area or will it just be a store front. Mr. Pfeil stated the intent is to allow store front use but only if there was a clear business plan showing where related maintenance operations would be located. Some activities might be off- site. If there is on-site maintenance, the Village would review the proposal before allowing the operation in the B-2 or B-3 District. Chairman Goldspiel noted that needs to be clarified. Chairman Goldspiel asked how funeral homes would be treated and how the parking requirement would work. He noted previous discussion on funeral home development had centered on Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16,2000-Page 10 queuing and processions and wondered if that might need some attention. Mr. Pfeil noted that under the parking requirement the the intent is to have a standard that addresses the maximum"person load"of the facility which correlates to the Building Code and life-safety codes for occupancy of the building. He noted it could be added into the parking standard that adequate areas for funeral procession or formation must be available. Chairman Goldspiel stated he believes there could be some language saying they need to have a plan for off street marshaling of the funeral procession. Commissioner Samuels noted that these issues probably warrant putting funeral homes into the special use category. Commissioner Johnson noted that Commissioner Samuels' point is well taken and funeral homes should probably be a special use. Commissioner Johnson noted the proposed text for automobile renting and leasing states"subject to Village approval of arrangements for maintenance, etc." He stated the specific language will lead to some disputes and it should be mandated that approval will be from staff or perhaps even make it a special use. He noted this is really the same concept as a funeral home because if there are to be some specific standards applied to the use,then it should be a special use as opposed to a permitted use. Commissioner Panitch noted that a lot of businesses are"multi-use" and almost any business can be said to be multi-use because business owners are blending and trying to capture a bit more of various market segments. Therefore, if you put everything into B-3 and put everything under a special use category, you are eliminating B-1 and B-2. Commissioner Samuels noted you do not want to put everything into a special use category because you will be discouraging business activities and possible expansions. The Village wants businesses to flourish, but within the framework of appropriate locations and use regulations. However, there are differences in regulating a use such as a funeral home as opposed other types of uses that don't have similar impacts Commissioner Samuels noted that uses such as pharmacies have language governing drive- throughs as a special use, and he suggested that drive-throughs be allowed as a special use for other types of businesses. Then the ordinance wouldn't have to be amended every time a different type of use requests a drive-through facility as an adjunct to a retail business. Commissioner Feldgreber noted that was an excellent idea. Chairman Goldspiel asked about eliminating residential in commercial areas. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16, 2000-Page 11 Commissioner Johnson noted it tends to diminish the appearance and value of the business aspect of the use. Commissioner Samuels stated it is more of a recognition of the way that Buffalo Grove and the retail use has developed which is inconsistent. Mr. Pfeil noted the way the ordinance is currently structured, it pertains to apartments over shops. Clearly there has not been that pattern of development in Buffalo Grove. The ZORS committee felt there would be very few instances where that application would make sense in Buffalo Grove's context. There really are no older commercial areas where this type of second story residential would fit in. Prairie View is perhaps an area where that kind of development could be contemplated, but it is not in the Village yet and will probably require special zoning tools to manage redevelopment of the area when the time comes. Chairman Goldspiel asked what would happen if someone wants to build a 10-story apartment building in the Town Center with a convenience store on the first floor. Mr. Pfeil stated in the B-5 district there is a lot of flexibility, including mixed-uses. Commissioner Johnson noted there is some flexibility under the B-3 district to allow for such mixed commercial/residential uses. Commissioner Samuels stated the ZORS committee did not see any current or future business uses where such a mix would be applicable except for the B-5 district which is why they decided to acknowledge that fact. Commissioner Johnson stated it is not wise planning to foreclose something from ever happening in the Village. The theory being that flexibility in a zoning code is favorable and therefore, if there is going to be such a mixed use, it must be possible under one of the zoning codes. Commissioner Dunn stated a mixed use with residential and commercial as far as a planning concept is a nice idea and it addresses perceived issues such as transportation congestion and air pollution, and she feels it should not be eliminated from the ordinance just because we cannot imagine where it could happen. Therefore, she would not like to see the apartment over store concept removed altogether, but instead that it be regulated as a special type of approval. Commissioner Johnson stated that is the concept under the existing B-3 district. If a planned business/residential development were proposed it would, of necessity, be in the B-3 district or B-5 district because it requires additional planning. Chairman Goldspiel stated perhaps the ordinance should also state there may be other places for B-5 type of mixed uses other than just the Town Center. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16, 2000-Page 12 Commissioner Feldgreber noted the auto graveyard/dump/landfill use requires 2 parking spaces per employee. Mr. Pfeil stated this is an existing standard, and he is not sure about the rationale for the number of required parking spaces for this use. Commissioner Samuels stated landfills could be eliminated as a use allowed in the Village. Mr. Pfeil noted if there are no feasible locations for these uses in the Village, they can be removed from the Ordinance. Commissioner Samuels stated he would prefer to remove landfills and related uses from the Ordinance. Chairman Goldspiel asked why there is a change in school parking requirements. Trustee Berman noted there are parents going in and out and working in the classes on a daily basis and parking facilities are needed for those people in addition to the employee parking. Chairman Goldspiel noted the schools have generally provided more parking spaces than the Ordinance requires and the schools have also generally held themselves as not being subject to local zoning regulations. Trustee Berman noted that there are some situations when certain schools are required to go through a zoning approval process, and the Village should have an applicable parking standard. Chairman Goldspiel asked if everyone was in agreement with the proposed change of use in the parking requirement which makes sure that new uses have the required amount of parking. Trustee Berman noted this was the foundation on which the entire parking and zoning review was based. It is critical in addressing the existing problems in many of the shopping centers in town and preventing new problems. There have been tremendous changes in the tenant mix of shopping centers, and the current parking standard doesn't adequately address some of the tenant mixes that are now occurring. Commission Johnson asked how it would be determined what parking would be required for a particular"manner of operation." Commissioner Samuels noted the question is whether the use has changed or the scope. So, if a restaurant was 1,000 square feet and is being expanded to 3,000 square feet,the scope has changed. If it was a shoe store and now it is a restaurant, the use has changed. Commissioner Johnson noted the phrase"manner of operation" does not lend itself to a good Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16,2000-Page 13 1 definition. Chairman Goldspiel noted another phrase, "rated capacity,"used in several uses and asked what that was all about. Trustee Berman noted the idea is that some uses,although the numbers are readily available based on square footage, there is a capacity for a great deal more people and that higher number needs to be looked into. Chairman Goldspiel asked what rated capacity as used in this draft ordinance means. Commissioner Samuels noted in the case of a restaurant it would typically be seating. Mr. Pfeil stated he believes the building and life safety codes would need to be employed to understand the maximum capacity the particular space could hold in terms of the number of persons. There are probably situations where the amount of parking on the property is not going to be adequate for the level of occupancy of a facility such as a funeral home. The design capacity approach addresses the peak conditions that may occur on a property in terms of parking demand. Chairman Goldspiel suggested the words"design capacity"need to be better defined so that people will know exactly what that is. Trustee Berman noted there are number of these things that have been discussed for redefinition in the ordinance to clear up such issues. Chairman Goldspiel asked how much difference these changes would make if applied to all the uses we now have. In other words, how much of what we have would be non-conforming or conforming. Mr. Pfeil stated he would have to do an analysis to address this question. But any new restaurant that comes in after the Ordinance is enacted would be a special use. Certain types of larger office facilities would become special uses in shopping center locations which is another primary change. Trustee Berman noted that what will be seen is a material impact on the way the shopping centers are tenanted in the sense that because of the more rigid parking requirements you would not see a retail center flip substantially to service type operations such as real estate offices. doctors offices, etc. because there simply would not be enough parking in those facilities to allow them to completely change over. Restaurant uses will also be subject to great deal more scrutiny in terms of the parking ability. Commissioner Samuels noted the specific answer to the Chairman's question has to do with what Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16, 2000-Page 14 was discussed at Plaza Verde in the retenanting of the center. A developer proposing redevelopment of a shopping center would have to show that the applicable parking standard would be met based on the tenant mix. As tenants change, new or expanded uses would be reviewed in terms of parking demand. Commissioner Feldgreber asked how bars and nightclubs are handled since there are occasions when there are more people in a facility than is allowed by code. Trustee Berman noted parking is based on rated design capacity or square footage, whichever is greater. Therefore, if the rated capacity is higher than the number that would have come out of the old formula based on square footage, you are getting better parking situations than under the old ordinance. It does not address the situation where someone jams their premises with more than the rated capacity and effectively violates the law and puts everyone in jeopardy. Commissioner Samuels noted the ordinance is also not requiring parking on a one to one basis with rated capacity; it uses a percentage of rated capacity. This ordinance is not designed to take into account, for example a church or temple,where you know that on several days per year the parking requirements are going to be exceeded. Trustee Berman noted the reason for using a percentage is that there is usually more than one person in a vehicle traveling to certain types of uses. Commissioner Feldgreber noted in some strip centers with night time activity and heavy parking demand at night there might be a need for special parking rules. Chairman Goldspiel noted that brings in the concept of shared parking. Mr. Pfeil noted shared parking would still be permitted, and he stated that part of the idea is that when certain operations are made special uses, the property owner will try to achieve a tenant mix that will be compatible in terms of parking demand. Parking demand for various uses fluctuates over the course of a day, and the theory is that the different uses will have different peak parking demands. The Village can be a partner in working with shopping centers to make sure that there is a compatible tenant mix and a stable retail tax base in shopping centers rather than allowing a conversion to primarily service uses. To some extent it is necessary to trust that most shopping center managers want a tenant mix that works in terms of community needs and parking demand. Special uses can help in achieving an appropriate tenant mix in a shopping center, including a balanced parking demand. Trustee Berman noted they have not taken out the concept of shared parking and in most of the centers they have looked at the concept of shared parking so that they know where one use generates peak parking at one time of the day and one at another, the spaces are basically being counted twice. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16,2000-Page 15 Chairman Goldspiel noted it might be a good idea to highlight that by putting that into the general section in the beginning of the proposed ordinance. Chairman Goldspiel asked if there is a danger here of overparking if rated design language is used. Commissioner Johnson stated he feels you should go for the maximum because you never know when or what use will require more parking. Trustee Berman further noted the current owners of a facility may be limiting their numbers, but if the building is sold, the circumstances can change quickly. Mr. Pfeil commented that there are a number of issues that will need to be researched, and another workshop would be advisable concerning the Business Districts and parking requirements. PLAN COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT, MAY 1999-FEBRUARY 2000 --REVIEW The Commission discussed the report and concurred that it is acceptable. Mr. Pfeil commented that one reason that most projects are recommended for approval by the Plan Commission is that the workshop process is very effective in improving development plans and making them acceptable to the Commission. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT-None 1 FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil said that the next meeting is scheduled for March 1, 2000. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS -None STAFF REPORT NEW BUSINESS -None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Dunn and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Goldspiel adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16,2000-Page 16 Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: STEPHEN GOLDSPIEL, Chair 1 Buffalo Grove Plan Commission-Regular Meeting-February 16,2000-Page 17