The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-02-03 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Packet Meeting of the Village of Buffalo Grove Planning and Zoning Comission Regular Meeting February 3, 2016 at 7:30 PM Fifty Raupp Blvd Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-2100 Phone: 847-459-2500 I. Call to Order II. Public Hearings 1. Public Hearing- 1167 Green Knolls Driveway Variation (Jeffrey Berman) 2. (ID # 1439) Public Hearing- Consider a Special Use and Variation for a Telecommunications Tower (David Weidenfeld) 3. Public Hearing- Consider an Amendment to Section 17.52 of the Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance (David Weidenfeld) III. Regular Meeting A. Matters for Discussion 1. Preliminary Plan Approval for 850 Asbury (Jeffrey Berman) 2. Preliminary Plan Approval for an 12 Unit Townhome Development – Workshop #2 (David Weidenfeld) B. Approval of Minutes 1. Planning and Zoning Comission - Regular Meeting - Jan 20, 2016 7:30 PM C. Chairman's Report D. Committee and Liaison Reports E. Future Agenda Schedule F. Public Comments and Questions G. Staff Report IV. Adjournment The Village Board will make every effort to accommodate all items on the agenda by 10:30 p.m. The Board, does, however, reserve the right to defer consideration of matters to another meeting should the discussion run past 10:30 p.m. V. Ordinances VI. Action Items The Village of Buffalo Grove, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities, contact the ADA Coordinator at 459-2525 to allow the Village to make reasonable accommodations for those persons. Updated: 1/29/2016 3:14 PM Page 1 Action Item : Public Hearing- 1167 Green Knolls Driveway Variation Recommendation of Action Based upon staff’s review of the submitted information, staff believes that the petitioner has not adequately addressed the standards for the variation based on the information provided in staff's memo. The petitioner is requesting a variation to increase the maximum allowed front yard coverage for a driveway. Further information can be found in the attached staff memo. ATTACHMENTS:  Staff Report (DOCX)  Location Map (PDF)  Aerial Photo (PDF)  Application (PDF)  Plat of Survey/Site Plan (PDF)  Driveway details (PDF)  Petitioners Letter (PDF)  Response to Standards (PDF)  Petitioners Photo's Driveway expansions (PDF)  Objectors Letter (PDF)  Objectors Petition (PDF)  Staff sketch 1.29.16 (PDF) Trustee Liaison Staff Contact Trustee Berman Chris Stilling, Building & Zoning Wednesday, February 3, 2016 2.A Packet Pg. 2 VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: February 3, 2016 SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 1167 Green Knolls Drive PETITIONER: Steve Rybin PREPARED BY: Christopher Stilling, Director of Community Development REQUEST: A variation to allow a driveway expansion to exceed the 40% maximum front yard coverage. EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a single family home currently zoned R5A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Single family detached. PROJECT BACKGROUND The petitioner is proposing to expand their existing driveway to allow for additional vehicle parking. Pursuant to Village Code, the maximum allowed coverage for a driveway in the front yard is 40%. This coverage is based upon the required setback (25’) and the lot width. Based on the petitioner’s property configuration, it has a total front yard area of 1,437.5 square feet. Therefore a maximum 40% coverage of 575 square feet is allowed (driveway and walkway). The petitioner’s proposed plans show a total coverage of 690 square feet (48% coverage). As a result, a variation of 8% or 115 square feet is required. PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS  The proposed driveway expansion would be attached to the southeast side of the driveway on the house side of the public sidewalk.  The R5A Zoning District requires a minimum 25 foot front yard setback and the lot is 51.19 feet in width at the front property line. The lot width increases from the front to the rear of the lot, making the total required front yard 1437.5 square feet.  The proposed driveway would be located in the existing easement and it would be 2.A.a Packet Pg. 3 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) setback approximately 2-3 feet from the southern property line.  As proposed, the total impervious coverage would be approximately 690 square feet, or 115 square feet over the maximum allowed. The following is a breakdown of the proposed driveway square footage: Existing Driveway: 490 SF Existing Walkway: 30 SF Expanded Driveway Area: 170 SF Total: 690 SF  The following is a list of driveway coverage variations approved since 2004: Property Address Date Amount Exceeded Justification 4 Fabish Drive 9/21/2015 227 SF The existing public sidewalk was on the lot and represented 260 SF of coverage. Had this sidewalk been located in the public ROW, a variation would not have been required. 411 Marvin’s 9/21/2015 90 SF The variation was approved to accommodate access to rear garage addition. Most of the homes in this neighborhood had expanded driveways to accommodate 3-car garages. 2229 Avalon 7/7/2014 145 SF The existing driveway exceeded Code. The variation was granted to allow a replacement (“as-is”). 13 Chevy Chase 7/15/2013 40 SF The existing driveway exceeded Code. The variation was granted to allow a replacement (“as-is”). 1220 Lockwood 3/8/2010 90 SF The variation was granted to allow additional driveway space to accommodate access to the vehicle. 1540 Bunescu 1/5/2004 63.7 SF The existing driveway exceeded Code. The variation was granted to allow a replacement (“as-is”). DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS Engineering As part of the public hearing process, the adjacent homeowner to the south raised a concern regarding drainage. Upon review, the Village Engineer notes that both properties were designed and built with a high point in the middle of the lots. Drainage from this high point is designed to head both west to the street and east to the park. As long as the proposed driveway maintains their 2.A.a Packet Pg. 4 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) existing drainage pattern, the Village Engineer does not object to the proposed expansion. The Village Engineer notes that there may have been some settlement between the two houses and some minor grading may be needed to restore the drainage pattern. If the project were to be approved, the Village Engineer recommends that the existing drainage pattern be returned to the originally approved condition. Furthermore, the existing drainage pattern shall not be impeded and shall be maintained at all times so as not to cause an adverse impact on the neighboring property. SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS Pursuant to Village Code, the contiguous property owners were notified and a public hearing sign was posted on the subject property. The posting of the public hearing sign and the mailed notifications were completed within the prescribed timeframe as required. As of the date of this Staff Report, the Village of Buffalo Grove has received a written objection from the neighbors to the south and has also received a petition objecting to the variance signed by eleven (11) neighbors. STANDARDS The Planning & Zoning Commission is authorized to make a recommendation to the Village Board based upon any evidence presented at the hearing and the following criteria: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations of the zoning district in which it is located except in the case of residential zoning districts; 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; 3. The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The petitioner has provided a written response to the above standards for the variation (attached). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon staff’s review of the submitted information, staff believes that the petitioner has not adequately addressed the standards for the variation for the following reasons: 1. Staff believes that the plight of the homeowner is not unique from other properties within the approved subdivision. Specifically, the minimum lot width in the R5A District is 60’ at the front building line and a typical lot in the Green Knolls Subdivision Unit #1 is approximately 50’-63’ wide at the street (plat attached). Based on this typical lot dimension for the subdivision, staff estimates that the average lot in the subdivision has approximately 575-630 square feet of allowable lot coverage for a driveway and sidewalk. The petitioner is proposing 690 square feet. Staff finds that the homeowner’s lot configuration is not unique to the neighborhood. 2. Although the petitioner provided photos of other properties with expanded driveways, staff has found that those driveways met Village Code. Staff believes the petitioner could still expand their driveway to accommodate 3 vehicles in the driveway and still meet Village Code (please see attached plan staff). Based on this sketch, it appears that a total of 5 passenger vehicles could be kept on the property (2 in the garage and 3 in the driveway). 2.A.a Packet Pg. 5 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) ACTION REQUESTED The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony concerning the variation. The PZC shall make a recommendation to the Village Board. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photo of Site 3. Application for Variation 4. Plat of Survey/Site Plan 5. Driveway Details 6. Petitioners Letter 7. Petitioners Responses to the Standards for Variation 8. Petitioner photos of other driveway expansions 9. Objector Letter 10. Objector’s Petition 11. Staff Sketch 2.A.a Packet Pg. 6 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) Page 1 of 1 12/17/2015https://apps.gisconsortium.org/arcgisoutput/_ags_39e027ea-e433-4b17-a0c8-ced772d0aa... 2.A.b Packet Pg. 7 At t a c h m e n t : L o c a t i o n M a p ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) feet meters 200 80 2.A.c Packet Pg. 8 At t a c h m e n t : A e r i a l P h o t o ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) 2.A.d Packet Pg. 9 At t a c h m e n t : A p p l i c a t i o n ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) 2.A.e Packet Pg. 10 At t a c h m e n t : P l a t o f S u r v e y / S i t e P l a n ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) 2.A.f Packet Pg. 11 At t a c h m e n t : D r i v e w a y d e t a i l s ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) 2.A.f Packet Pg. 12 At t a c h m e n t : D r i v e w a y d e t a i l s ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) 2.A.g Packet Pg. 13 At t a c h m e n t : P e t i t i o n e r s L e t t e r ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) 2.A.h Packet Pg. 14 At t a c h m e n t : R e s p o n s e t o S t a n d a r d s ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) 1167 Green Knolls 2.A.i Packet Pg. 15 At t a c h m e n t : P e t i t i o n e r s P h o t o ' s D r i v e w a y e x p a n s i o n s ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s 761 Thompson Blvd, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 2. A . i Pa c k e t P g . 1 6 Attachment: Petitioners Photo's Driveway expansions (1440 : Public Hearing- 1167 Green Knolls Driveway Variation) 765 Chaucer Way, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 2. A . i Pa c k e t P g . 1 7 Attachment: Petitioners Photo's Driveway expansions (1440 : Public Hearing- 1167 Green Knolls Driveway Variation) 1351 Kent Ln, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 2. A . i Pa c k e t P g . 1 8 Attachment: Petitioners Photo's Driveway expansions (1440 : Public Hearing- 1167 Green Knolls Driveway Variation) 1007 Chaucer Way, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 2. A . i Pa c k e t P g . 1 9 Attachment: Petitioners Photo's Driveway expansions (1440 : Public Hearing- 1167 Green Knolls Driveway Variation) 1018 Chaucer Way, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 1363 Green Knolls Dr, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 2. A . i Pa c k e t P g . 2 0 Attachment: Petitioners Photo's Driveway expansions (1440 : Public Hearing- 1167 Green Knolls Driveway Variation) 508 Cameron Way, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 2. A . i Pa c k e t P g . 2 1 Attachment: Petitioners Photo's Driveway expansions (1440 : Public Hearing- 1167 Green Knolls Driveway Variation) 410 Lamont Terrace, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 2. A . i Pa c k e t P g . 2 2 Attachment: Petitioners Photo's Driveway expansions (1440 : Public Hearing- 1167 Green Knolls Driveway Variation) 433 Ronnie Dr, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 1451 Brandywyn Ln, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 2. A . i Pa c k e t P g . 2 3 Attachment: Petitioners Photo's Driveway expansions (1440 : Public Hearing- 1167 Green Knolls Driveway Variation) 1431 Brandywyn Ln, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 2. A . i Pa c k e t P g . 2 4 Attachment: Petitioners Photo's Driveway expansions (1440 : Public Hearing- 1167 Green Knolls Driveway Variation) 2.A.j Packet Pg. 25 At t a c h m e n t : O b j e c t o r s L e t t e r ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) 2.A.j Packet Pg. 26 At t a c h m e n t : O b j e c t o r s L e t t e r ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) 2.A.j Packet Pg. 27 At t a c h m e n t : O b j e c t o r s L e t t e r ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) 2.A.k Packet Pg. 28 At t a c h m e n t : O b j e c t o r s P e t i t i o n ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) 2.A.k Packet Pg. 29 At t a c h m e n t : O b j e c t o r s P e t i t i o n ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) 2.A.k Packet Pg. 30 At t a c h m e n t : O b j e c t o r s P e t i t i o n ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) 2.A.l Packet Pg. 31 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f s k e t c h 1 . 2 9 . 1 6 ( 1 4 4 0 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - 1 1 6 7 G r e e n K n o l l s D r i v e w a y V a r i a t i o n ) Updated: 1/29/2016 3:28 PM Page 1 Ordinance No. : Public Hearing- Consider a Special Use and Variation for a Telecommunications Tower Recommendation of Action Staff recommends approval of the special use and variations to replace an existing telecommunications tower for NWCDS. Northwest Central Dispatch Systems, which provides emergency dispatch services to multiple communities and agencies, is proposing to replace their existing telecommunications tower and equipment/building on the subject property. The proposed new tower and equipment/building will be the same size, height and in the same location as the existing facilities. ATTACHMENTS:  Staff Report (DOCX)  Location Map (PDF)  Aerial Photo (PDF)  Petitioner Application (PDF)  Petitioner's Letter (PDF)  Vernon Township Letter (PDF)  Plat of Survey (PDF)  Tower Details (PDF)  Ordinance 1989-81 (PDF) Trustee Liaison Staff Contact Trustee Weidenfeld Brian Sheehan, Community Development Wednesday, February 3, 2016 2.B Packet Pg. 32 VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: February 3, 2016 SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 2950 North Main Street PETITIONER: John Ferraro Northwest Central Dispatch Systems PREPARED BY: Brian Sheehan, Building Commissioner REQUEST: A special use in the R-7 Zoning District for a telecommunications tower with the following variations: 1. A variation to Section 17.32.030.B. of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a telecommunications tower to have a height greater than 60 feet; and 2. A variation to Section 17.40.030.B of the Zoning Ordinance reducing the minimum required setbacks for a telecommunications tower. EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a single-story building and existing telecommunications tower in the “R-7” Residential Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2009 Village Comprehensive Plan calls for this property to be Public/semi-public. PROJECT BACKGROUND On November 6, 1989, the Village of Buffalo Grove Village Board approved Ordinance 1989-81 annexing the Vernon Township properties. This ordinance included a special use for the existing telecommunications tower for Northwest Central Dispatch System (NWCDS). The tower was in place prior to the 1989 annexation. Northwest Central Dispatch Systems, which provides emergency dispatch services to multiple communities and agencies, is proposing to replace their existing telecommunications tower and equipment/building on the subject property. The proposed new tower and equipment/building will be the same size, height and in the same location as the existing facilities. PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS The following is an analysis of their request: Tower Location 2.B.a Packet Pg. 33 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r )  The proposed telecommunications tower will be located in the same location as the existing telecommunications tower that is currently on the site.  The existing tower has been in place for approximately 30 years and accommodates emergency dispatch services equipment to multiple communities and agencies. The existing tower was previously approved by the Village Board in 1989 as part of an annexation agreement. Relocating the tower to another location would not be feasible as many of the participating agencies communication strategies are based upon the tower in this exact location.  The proposed telecommunications tower will be the same height (approximately 180’) as the existing telecommunications tower that is currently on the site. The existing equipment would be replaced, however the new equipment would also be the same size and in the same location as existing equipment/buildings currently on the site.  The tower would be setback as follows: North Lot Line (park)- 20.59’ South Lot Line (residential)- 52.45’ West Lot Line (park)- 88.11’ East Lot Line (Main St.)- 527.92’  Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, a tower must be setback a distance equal to twice the height of the tower (360’). As shown, a variation is required.  The tower is setback approximately 160-170’ from the nearest home to the southwest.  The tower is approximately 180’ high. Pursuant to the zoning Ordinance, non-commercial towers in residential district shall not exceed 60’ in height. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS Village Department Comments Engineering The Village Engineer has reviewed the plans and does not have any engineering concerns with the proposed improvements. SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS Pursuant to Village Code, the surrounding property owners within 250’ were notified and a public hearing sign was posted on the subject property. The posting of the public hearing sign and the mailed notifications were completed within the prescribed timeframe as required. As of the date of this Staff Report, staff has received 1 inquiry from an adjacent neighbor seeking copies of the plan. STANDARDS Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, the replacement tower requires a Special Use in the “R-7” Residential Zoning District. Therefore, following criteria shall be met: 1. The special use will serve the public convenience at the location of the subject property; or the establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare; Response: The height and location of the tower is necessary to accommodate communications equipment for emergency services to the region. As such, the tower serves the interest of the public. 2.B.a Packet Pg. 34 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2. The location and size of the special use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved in or conducted in connection with said special use, the size of the subject property in relation to such special use, and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it shall be such that it will be in harmony with the appropriate, orderly development of the district in which it is located; Response: The existing tower has been in place for approximately 30 years, prior to the surrounding homes being constructed. 3. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property for the purposes already permitted in such zoning district, nor substantially diminish and impair other property valuations with the neighborhood; Response: The existing tower has been in place for approximately 30 years and was granted approval as a special use by the Village Board in 1989. 4. The nature, location and size of the buildings or structures involved with the establishment of the special use will not impede, substantially hinder or discourage the development and use of adjacent land and buildings in accord with the zoning district within which they lie; Response: The existing tower has been in place for approximately 30 years, prior to the surrounding homes being constructed. 5. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and/or other necessary facilities have been or will be provided; Response: Since the tower is existing, adequate infrastructure is already in place. 6. Parking areas shall be of adequate size for the particular special use, which areas shall be properly located and suitably screened from adjoining residential uses, and the entrance and exit driveways to and from these parking areas shall be designed so as to prevent traffic hazards, eliminate nuisance and minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Response: The existing tower generates minimal traffic and/or parking. The following is a response to the standards for a variation: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations of the zoning district in which it is located except in the case of residential zoning districts; Response: The existing tower has been in place for approximately 30 years and was granted approval as a special use by the Village Board in 1989. The height is necessary to accommodate multiple agencies communications equipment. 2.B.a Packet Pg. 35 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; Response: The height and location of the tower is necessary to accommodate communications equipment for multiple emergency services. As such, the tower serves the interest of the public. 3. The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Response: The existing tower has been in place for approximately 30 years, prior to the surrounding homes being constructed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the special use and variations to replace an existing telecommunications tower for NWCDS. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony concerning the special use and accompanying variations. The PZC shall make a recommendation to the Village Board concerning the request. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. Aerial 3. Petition for a special use 4. Petitioner’s letter 5. Vernon Township Letter 6. Plat of Survey 7. Telecommunications Tower Details 8. Ordinance 89-81 2.B.a Packet Pg. 36 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.b Packet Pg. 37 At t a c h m e n t : L o c a t i o n M a p ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.c Packet Pg. 38 At t a c h m e n t : A e r i a l P h o t o ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.d Packet Pg. 39 At t a c h m e n t : P e t i t i o n e r A p p l i c a t i o n ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.d Packet Pg. 40 At t a c h m e n t : P e t i t i o n e r A p p l i c a t i o n ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.d Packet Pg. 41 At t a c h m e n t : P e t i t i o n e r A p p l i c a t i o n ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.e Packet Pg. 42 At t a c h m e n t : P e t i t i o n e r ' s L e t t e r ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.f Packet Pg. 43 At t a c h m e n t : V e r n o n T o w n s h i p L e t t e r ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.g Packet Pg. 44 At t a c h m e n t : P l a t o f S u r v e y ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.g Packet Pg. 45 At t a c h m e n t : P l a t o f S u r v e y ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.h Packet Pg. 46 At t a c h m e n t : T o w e r D e t a i l s ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.h Packet Pg. 47 At t a c h m e n t : T o w e r D e t a i l s ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.h Packet Pg. 48 At t a c h m e n t : T o w e r D e t a i l s ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.h Packet Pg. 49 At t a c h m e n t : T o w e r D e t a i l s ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.h Packet Pg. 50 At t a c h m e n t : T o w e r D e t a i l s ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 51 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 52 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 53 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 54 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 55 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 56 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 57 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 58 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 59 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 60 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 61 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 62 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 63 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 64 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 65 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 66 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) 2.B.i Packet Pg. 67 At t a c h m e n t : O r d i n a n c e 1 9 8 9 - 8 1 ( 1 4 3 9 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a S p e c i a l U s e a n d V a r i a t i o n f o r a T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s T o w e r ) Updated: 1/29/2016 3:28 PM Page 1 Action Item : Public Hearing- Consider an Amendment to Section 17.52 of the Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance Recommendation of Action Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Village staff is requesting an amendment to Section 17.52.090 of the Zoning Ordinance concerning Appeals to Corporate Authorities. Specifically, staff is proposing an amendment clarifying the fifteen day filing period for a written objection to any final action taken by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Additional information can be found in the attached staff report. ATTACHMENTS:  staff report (DOCX) Trustee Liaison Staff Contact Trustee Weidenfeld Chris Stilling, Building & Zoning Wednesday, February 3, 2016 2.C Packet Pg. 68 VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: February 3, 2016 PETITIONER: Village of Buffalo Grove PREPARED BY: Christopher Stilling, Director of Community Development REQUEST: Consider an amendment to Section 17.52 of the Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance BACKGROUND Village staff is requesting an amendment to Section 17.52.090 of the Zoning Ordinance concerning Appeals to Corporate Authorities. Specifically, staff is proposing an amendment clarifying the fifteen day filing period for a written objection to any final action taken by the Planning & Zoning Commission. PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS In 2014, the Village approved a comprehensive amendment to the Zoning Ordinance combining the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and the Plan Commission into the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC). As part of those amendments, authority was given to the PZC to approve certain variations as outlined in Section 17.52.040 Authorized variations—Zoning Board of Appeals, which were previously authorized to the ZBA. Upon review of the Zoning Ordinance, both staff and the Village Attorney noticed some discrepancies with Section 17.52.090 of the Village Code. Specifically, Section 17.52.090 outlines provisions to allow objectors to appeal any decision by the PZC. However, it is unclear if the appeals apply to recommendations and decisions by the PZC or only final decisions by the PZC, as authorized in Section 17.52.040 Authorized variations—Zoning Board of Appeals. As a result, staff is suggesting the following changes: 17.52.090 - Appeals to Corporate Authorities. If any property owner(s) notified pursuant to 17.64.030 or any other property owner(s) residing within the Village who appeared and objected at the public hearing, including the applicant, has an objection to any final action taken by the Planning & Zoning Commission, as outlined in Section 17.52.040, the property owner(s) may file a written objection petition within fifteen days of final action of the Board Planning & Zoning Commission with the Zoning Administrator. The objections shall be set for a hearing before the Corporate Authorities as it shall select, and then ten days written notice shall be given the objector. The Corporate Authorities may approve, overrule or modify the decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission. However, no decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission may be overruled or modified unless it receives a vote of the majority of the Corporate Authorities. The proposed amendments better clarify that any appeal is only applicable to variations granted by the PZC as established pursuant to Section 17.52.040 of the Zoning Ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. 2.C.a Packet Pg. 69 At t a c h m e n t : s t a f f r e p o r t ( 1 4 2 8 : P u b l i c H e a r i n g - C o n s i d e r a n A m e n d m e n t t o S e c t i o n 1 7 . 5 2 o f t h e B u f f a l o G r o v e Z o n i n g O r d i n a n c e ) Updated: 1/25/2016 3:22 PM Page 1 Action Item : Preliminary Plan Approval for 850 Asbury Recommendation of Action Staff recommends approval. Ridgeline Property Group is seeking preliminary plan approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) to develop a new 157,500 square foot industrial building at 850 Asbury. The site is currently improved with an existing 55,000 building that is vacant. The developer will demolish the existing building and construct a new warehouse/office facility and associated infrastructure and landscapi ng. No user has been identified at this time. As the proposed plan complies with all applicable ordinances, a public hearing is not warranted. However, preliminary plan approval is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. ATTACHMENTS:  staff report (DOCX)  Aerial (PDF)  Site Plan (PDF)  Building Elevations (PDF)  Building Rendering (PDF)  Utility Plan (PDF)  Grading Plan (PDF)  Landscape Plan (PDF) Trustee Liaison Staff Contact Trustee Berman Chris Stilling, Building & Zoning Wednesday, February 3, 2016 3.A.1 Packet Pg. 70 VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: February 3, 2016 SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 850 Asbury PETITIONER: Ridgeline Property Group PREPARED BY: Christopher Stilling, Director of Community Development REQUEST: Petition to the Village of Buffalo Grove for preliminary plan approval for a 157,500 square foot industrial building. EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a vacant 55,000 square foot industrial building COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The approved Village Comprehensive Plan calls for this property to be Industrial. PROJECT BACKGROUND Ridgeline Property Group is seeking preliminary plan approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) to develop a new 157,500 square foot industrial building at 850 Asbury. The site is currently improved with an existing 55,000 building that is vacant. The developer will demolish the existing building and construct a new warehouse/office facility and associated infrastructure and landscaping. No user has been identified at this time. As the proposed plan complies with all applicable ordinances, a public hearing is not warranted. However, preliminary plan approval is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS The following is a summary outlining compliance with the Village Code: Zoning The proposed development fulfills the dimensional requirements in the Industrial District as shown below. Industrial District Dimensional Requirements Vs Proposed Development at 850 Asbury I District Requirements Proposed Development Se t b a c k s Front 42 ft. (Min) 50 ft. at the closest point Side 20 ft. (Min) 41 ft. at the closest point Rear 20 ft. (Min) 195 ft. at the closest point Building Height 4 Stories or 50 ft (whichever is less) Avg. 36 ft. (42 ft. at front parapet) FAR 0.8 (Max) 0.31 Surrounding Land Uses The proposed development is consistent with the other industrial uses and development within the Corporate Grove industrial park, all of which is zoned Industrial. 3.A.1.a Packet Pg. 71 At t a c h m e n t : s t a f f r e p o r t ( 1 4 2 6 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r 8 5 0 A s b u r y ) Proposed Infrastructure and Facilities Vehicular Accessibility & Parking The petitioner proposes two (2) main vehicular points of access onto Asbury for the development. The existing building also had two (2) access points. The new building would be accessible from all sides and the Fire Department has approved the new layout and design. The proposed development includes a total of 173 parking spaces. While the industrial parking requirement cannot directly be addressed at this time because it is based on total number of employees, the requirement is likely to be satisfied as 173 spaces would accommodate 259 employees. When a final user is identified, further review and analysis will be completed. Stormwater/Wetlands Stormwater is being provided by two (2) detention ponds located to the east and west of the site. All required stormwater is being provided and the proposed project would comply with both the Village’s Development Ordinance and the Lake County Watershed Development Ordinance. The northern portion of the site does contain wetlands. The proposed development would comply with the necessary wetland buffers as required by the County. Landscaping The applicant has provided a preliminary landscape plan for the overall site. The plan includes landscaping around the new building as well as within the parking lot. Additional tree plantings will be required as part of the final landscape plan. Staff will be working with the developer on revisions to the final plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. Elevations/Signage The proposed new building would be single story and have an average height of approximately 36 feet. At its highest point at the front entry, the building’s parapet will be 42 feet high. The material of the building would consist of pre-cast materials. Signage for the building has not been identified yet since there is no user; however they fully intend to meet Village Code. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS Village Department Comments Engineering The Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and has no specific comments regarding the preliminary plans. The Village Engineer does note that the Developer still needs to complete final engineering. Fire Department The Fire Department has reviewed the proposed plans and does not have any objections. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial 2. Site Plan 3. Building Elevations 4. Architectural Rendering 5. Utility Plan 6. Grading Plan 7. Landscape Plan 3.A.1.a Packet Pg. 72 At t a c h m e n t : s t a f f r e p o r t ( 1 4 2 6 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r 8 5 0 A s b u r y ) 3.A.1.b Packet Pg. 73 At t a c h m e n t : A e r i a l ( 1 4 2 6 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r 8 5 0 A s b u r y ) 3 2 ' DETENTION DETENTION 1 7 D O C K S A T 1 2 ' ASBURY DRIVE19 D O C K S A T 1 2 ' D . I . D . D . I . D . D . I . D . D . I . D . P A R K I N G ±1 5 7 ,5 0 0 S .F . 1 7 3 C A R S LINE OF WETLANDS 4 4 ' 1 0 .5 ' 6 4 0 ' 1 1 .7 ' 3 5 ' 2 8 . 5 ' 1 3 0 ' 2 5 0 ' 1 0 . 5 ' 41 ' 50' 1 8 ' 2 6 ' 3 6 ' 2 6 ' 3 6 ' 9 '-0 " SITE AREA (±11.82 AC.)514,963 S.F. CAR PARKING PROVIDED 173 STALLS CLEAR HEIGHT 32 FT. CLEAR PARKING BUILDING AREA DRIVE IN OVERHEAD DOORS 4 DOORS TOTAL EXTERIOR DOCKS 36 DOCKS 46,450 S.F. 157,500 S.F. BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS. NEW OFFICE/WAREHOUSE CONCEPTUAL NEW FACILITY FOR: 01-12-2016ARF/JCW SITE PLAN 30' 60' 120'0 10' DETENTION (±1.07 AC.) 3. A . 1 . c Pa c k e t P g . 7 4 Attachment: Site Plan (1426 : Preliminary Plan Approval for 850 Asbury) 3.A.1.d Packet Pg. 75 At t a c h m e n t : B u i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s ( 1 4 2 6 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r 8 5 0 A s b u r y ) 3.A.1.e Packet Pg. 76 At t a c h m e n t : B u i l d i n g R e n d e r i n g ( 1 4 2 6 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r 8 5 0 A s b u r y ) RIDGELINE BUFFALO GROVE, IL © NORTH P REL IMINARY U TILITY P LAN C6.0 UTILITY LEGEND 3.A.1.f Packet Pg. 77 At t a c h m e n t : U t i l i t y P l a n ( 1 4 2 6 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r 8 5 0 A s b u r y ) F F =6 6 6 .0 0 D . I . D . D . I . D . D . I . D . D . I . D . D O C K S A T 1 2 ' DRIVE ASBURY D O C K S A T 1 2 ' ±1 5 7 ,5 0 0 S .F . RIDGELINE BUFFALO GROVE, IL © NORTH P REL IMINARY GRADING P LAN C5.0 3.A.1.g Packet Pg. 78 At t a c h m e n t : G r a d i n g P l a n ( 1 4 2 6 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r 8 5 0 A s b u r y ) F F =6 6 6 .0 0 D . I . D . D . I . D . D . I . D . D . I . D . D O C K S A T 1 2 ' DRIVE ASBURY D O C K S A T 1 2 ' ±1 5 7 ,5 0 0 S .F . RIDGELINE BUFFALO GROVE, IL © NORTH P REL IMINARY LANDS CAPE P LAN L1.0 3.A.1.h Packet Pg. 79 At t a c h m e n t : L a n d s c a p e P l a n ( 1 4 2 6 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r 8 5 0 A s b u r y ) Updated: 1/29/2016 2:25 PM Page 1 Information Item : Preliminary Plan Approval for an 12 Unit Townhome Development – Workshop #2 Recommendation of Action Both Staff and the developer are seeking the Planning and Zoning Commission comments regarding the proposed concept plan. The Olson and Roseman parties are interested in developing their combined three parcels and are working with a prospective developer, JCJ Homes Inc., on a concept for the site. This petitioner did present a similar project to PZC in September, 2015. However the proposed plan in September precluded the Rosman property and featured a new one-way road that directly connects Half Day Road, the proposed development, and Prairie Road. Prior to processing with a formal application, the property owner and developer are seeking feedback regarding their revised concept plan. ATTACHMENTS:  Staff Report (DOCX)  Site Plan (PDF)  Site Plan over Aerial (PDF)  09.01.15 Staff Report and Site Plan (PDF)  Noah's Landing Outlot Concept Sketch (PDF)  PZC Minutes 09.01.15 - Regular Meeting (PDF) Trustee Liaison Staff Contact Trustee Weidenfeld Nicole Woods, Community Development Wednesday, February 3, 2016 3.A.2 Packet Pg. 80 VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: February 3, 2015 SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 16406 West Highway 22 and 22927 N. Prairie Road PETITIONER: Joseph Christopoulos JCJ Homes Inc. PROPERTY OWNER: Larry and Jill Olsen and Daniel and Judith Roseman PREPARED BY: Nicole Woods, Village Planner REQUEST: Preliminary Plan Approval for an 12 unit townhome development – Workshop #2 EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: Vacant. R-E Zoning District (One-family dwelling district) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2009 Village Comprehensive Plan calls the property to be a planned development with a density of ten units to the acre. PROJECT BACKGROUND The northwest corner of Prairie and Half Day Road intersection includes Noah’s Landing development as well as three other contiguous parcels. Two of the parcels (16406 West Highway 22 and 22927 N. Prairie Road) are owned by Larry and Jill Olson and are not developed. The third parcel, which is 2601 Prairie Road, is owned by the Daniel and Judith Roseman and is occupied by a single-family home. All three parcels total to 1.05 acres. All three parcels were annexed into the Village in 1995 via an annexation agreement, which has since expired. The Olson and Roseman parties are interested in developing their combined three parcels and are working with a prospective developer, JCJ Homes Inc., on a concept for the site. This petitioner did present a similar project to PZC in September, 2015. However the proposed plan in September precluded the Rosman property and featured a new one-way road that directly connects Half Day Road, the proposed development, and Prairie Road. Prior to processing with a formal application, the property owner and developer are seeking feedback regarding their revised concept plan. PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS Summary of the September 1, 2015 Workshop On September 1, 2016, the petitioner provided a concept plan for review by the PZC (staff report and old site plan are attached). While both staff and the PZC conceptually supported the idea of townhomes at the corner, significant concern was raised about the developer’s site plan. The proposed plan showed a traditional townhome design, however they were proposing significant reductions in setbacks. The majority of the PZC also expressed concern about the access and orientation of the units as the rear of 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 81 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) the townhomes were very close to the intersection. The PZC suggested that the developer revise their plan to increase their setbacks. Revised Plan Subsequent to the September 1, 2015 workshop, the petitioner has significantly revised their site plan to address many of the concerns raised by both staff and the PZC. The revised plan proposes twelve (12) single-family attached developments (townhomes). The seven units on the west side of the site will be 24 feet by 37 feet, while the 5 units on the east side of the site will be 22 feet by 37 feet. As noted in the petitioner’s narrative, the townhomes are planned to be two-stories with three bedrooms, two and a half baths, and attached front-loading garages. They are designed to be 32 feet tall and constructed of a combination of masonry and siding. The starting price points for these units would be $399,000. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses and Developments, Comprehensive Plan and Other Plans The proposed use (single-family attached development) is suitable for the property given its general compatibility with the surrounding uses, the Comprehensive Plan, and other plans. Single-family attached developments are located to the north and east of the property (Noah’s Landing), south of the property (Waterbury Place), and the west of the property (Woodlands at Fioria). The Northern Central Service Train line and parking lot, as well as other industrial uses are also west of the subject site. The proposed use is also compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, which calls for this property to be part of a Planned Development with a density of ten units to the acre. The proposed development would be approximately 11.4 units to the acre. The plan notes that townhomes are the preferable housing option, but other options could be considered if the site’s planning and design are carefully executed. Single-family attached units were also shown for the Olson and Roseman properties on a outlot concept sketch that was part of the Noah’s Landing project that was approved by the Board in 2002 (attached). The Village of Buffalo Grove Transit Station Area Plan, which was never formally adopted but considered a guide for development in the Buffalo Grove and Prairie View Metra areas, calls for the subject site to be a multi-family development or a mixed-use development with office and multiple-family units. Zoning The subject property is currently zoned R-E, which is a one-family dwelling district. However a more appropriate zoning for both proposed site plan alternatives is the R-9 with a Residential Planned Unit of Development. Under this type of zoning, the petitioner would have to seek some variations, especially in terms of setbacks. Setbacks would be as follows: North lot line(west building)- 20.5’ North lot line(east building)- 12’ (adjacent to open space) South lot line- 30’ East lot line- 20’(adjacent to existing pond) West lot line- 35’ A preliminary analysis of both site plans suggests that some setback reductions are required. Staff does not view the current variations as problematic. Additional variations may be required upon a complete submittal. 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 82 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) Access and Infrastructure The concept plan proposes extending Chelsey Street to the south part of the site with a partial “hammerhead” at the terminus. This extension would serve the townhomes and enable residents to access Prairie and Half Day Roads via Chelsey Street and Taylor Court. The “hammerhead” would also allow garbage trucks and village vehicles the ability to turnaround. The Village’s Fire and Public Works Departments have reviewed the plan and have no major concerns. The Public Works Department notes that the southern guest parking location at the turnaround may need to be removed for more effective snow plow removal. In terms of stormwater, preliminary analysis indicates that the detention pond built and associated with the Noah’s Landing development can potentially serve redevelopment on the subject site. However, a through analysis and report by the developer’s engineer will be required as part of a complete submittal. Sewer and water are available to the north within the Chelsey Street right-of-way. Building Elevations The petitioner has not provided elevations at the time of the staff report, however some maybe provided at the PZC meeting. Staff recommends the use of high-quality, natural materials such as stone and brick. ACTION REQUESTED Both Staff and the developer are seeking the Planning and Zoning Commission comments regarding the proposed concept plan. ATTACHMENTS 1) Aerial 2) Site Plan 3) September 1, 2015 Staff Report and Site Plan 4) Noah’s Landing Outlot Concept Sketch 5) Minutes from the September 1, 2015 PZC meeting 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 83 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) 3. A . 2 . b Pa c k e t P g . 8 4 Attachment: Site Plan (1441 : Preliminary Plan Approval for an 12 Unit Townhome Development ? Workshop #2) 3. A . 2 . c Pa c k e t P g . 8 5 Attachment: Site Plan over Aerial (1441 : Preliminary Plan Approval for an 12 Unit Townhome Development ? Workshop #2) 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 86 At t a c h m e n t : 0 9 . 0 1 . 1 5 S t a f f R e p o r t a n d S i t e P l a n ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 87 At t a c h m e n t : 0 9 . 0 1 . 1 5 S t a f f R e p o r t a n d S i t e P l a n ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 88 At t a c h m e n t : 0 9 . 0 1 . 1 5 S t a f f R e p o r t a n d S i t e P l a n ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 89 At t a c h m e n t : 0 9 . 0 1 . 1 5 S t a f f R e p o r t a n d S i t e P l a n ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 90 At t a c h m e n t : 0 9 . 0 1 . 1 5 S t a f f R e p o r t a n d S i t e P l a n ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) 3.A.2.d Packet Pg. 91 At t a c h m e n t : 0 9 . 0 1 . 1 5 S t a f f R e p o r t a n d S i t e P l a n ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) 3.A.2.e Packet Pg. 92 At t a c h m e n t : N o a h ' s L a n d i n g O u t l o t C o n c e p t S k e t c h ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) Buffalo Grove Planning & Zoning Commission – Regular Meeting –September 1, 2015 Page 1 Village of Buffalo Grove Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Date: September 1, 2015 Location: Village Hall Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 7:38pm in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Lesser, Shapiro, Weinstein, and Chairman Smith Absent: Commissioners Khan and Moodhe Also Present: Mr. David Weidenfeld, Village Trustee; Mr. Brian Sheehan, Village Building Commissioner; Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney; Ms. Nicole Woods, Village Planner; Mr. Christopher Stilling, Community Development Director. Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes – August 5, 2015 Commissioner Cesario moved to approve the regular meeting minutes from August 5, 2015. Commissioner Weinstein seconded the motion. Aye: Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Lesser, Weinstein Nay: None Abstain: Smith, Shapiro The motion carried 5:0:2. Public Hearing – August 5, 2015 Commissioner Shapiro moved to approve the public hearing minutes from August 5, 2015 (310 W Half Day Road). Commissioner Weinstein seconded the motion. Commissioner Goldspiel said that there was an amended copy of minutes. Ms. Woods explained that this was for the last paragraph of page 5 and a typographic error on the last sentence of page 8. Commissioner Cesario said that on the third paragraph of page 6, it stated that Inland did not dispute the breach but proposed a remedy. He suggested this be changed to “the lease contained a remedy”. In the second to last sentence of the same paragraph, he thought “He read a Supreme Court ruling on a similar case” be changed to “what he claimed to be a similar case”. 3.A.2.f Packet Pg. 93 At t a c h m e n t : P Z C M i n u t e s 0 9 . 0 1 . 1 5 - R e g u l a r M e e t i n g ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) Buffalo Grove Planning & Zoning Commission – Regular Meeting –September 1, 2015 Page 2 Commissioner Cohn said that in the seventh paragraph of page 8, the fourth sentence should read: “He said that if this was a breach of contract, this was a fact to consider.” Aye: Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Lesser, Weinstein Nay: None Abstain: Smith, Shapiro The motion carried 5:0:2. Committee and Liaison Reports None Matters for Discussion 6 Strathmore Court Commissioner Weinstein moved to approve the petition to the Village of Buffalo Grove for variation to the Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a six (6) foot solid privacy fence along the rear property line at 6 Strathmore Court, Buffalo Grove, IL. Commissioner Cohn seconded the motion. Commissioner Goldspiel said that he supported the motion as this was compatible with the changes in the area. Aye: Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Lesser, Shapiro, Weinstein, Smith Nay: None Abstain: None The motion carried 7:0:0. 4 Fabish Drive Commissioner Weinstein moved to recommend approval to the Village Board for a variation to Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.36.030.F, pertaining to Design and Maintenance; and a variation to Development Ordinance, Section 16.50.080.A.2, pertaining to Driveway Aprons at 4 Fabish Drive, for: 1) The purpose of allowing the improved and paved impervious surfaces to exceed the forty (40) percent front yard coverage limitation; and 2) The purpose of allowing the existing driveway apron width to be a maximum of twenty-three (23) feet measured at the curb. Commissioner Cesario seconded the motion. Commissioner Goldspiel said that this was appropriate and was an unusual situation. He hoped that the Village would not repeat the situation with the sidewalk in the easement. Commissioner Weinstein supported the motion not because of the amount of cars but because it did not alter the neighborhood. Commissioner Goldspiel agreed that a large amount of cars was not unusual. 3.A.2.f Packet Pg. 94 At t a c h m e n t : P Z C M i n u t e s 0 9 . 0 1 . 1 5 - R e g u l a r M e e t i n g ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) Buffalo Grove Planning & Zoning Commission – Regular Meeting –September 1, 2015 Page 3 Aye: Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Lesser, Shapiro, Weinstein, Smith Nay: None Abstain: None The motion carried 7:0:0. 51 Raupp Blvd Commissioner Weinstein moved to approve the petition to the Village of Buffalo Grove for an amendment to an existing Special Use for the Village of Buffalo Grove public service center at 51 Raupp Boulevard in the R-8 Multiple-Family Dwelling District to allow for a new salt storage building with the following variations: 1) A variation to Section 17.32.020 of the Village of Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the size and location of an accessory structure (salt storage building); and 2) A variation to Section 17.32.030 of the Village of Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance increasing the maximum allowed height of an accessory structure (salt storage building). With the condition that the Village consider incorporating architectural design elements into the design of the structure to minimize the industrial appearance. Commissioner Cesario seconded the motion. Commissioner Cesario said that does not prefer a tall building like this, however, with the building being on the municipal campus and separated from the neighboring property via mature trees, he approved. He said that he could not disregard with the need for this for public safety. Aye: Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Lesser, Shapiro, Weinstein, Smith Nay: None Abstain: None The motion carried 7:0:0. 16406 Half Day Road and 22927 Prairie Road Joe Christopoulos of JCJ Homes said that they began meeting with Village staff about a month ago regarding his concept. It was requested that they bring the concept before the commission to see if the petitioner was on the right path. This was a two parcel property that was to be combined and is currently zoned RE (Residential Estate). Mr. Christopoulos presented two alternative site plans (Site Plan A and Site Plan B). Both plans proposed the same number and type of units and only varied in site layout. The plans proposed eight two-story, three bedroom townhomes with an attached garage. The target price for these homes would be $399,000. These parcels were originally planned to be mixed use with water, gas, and other utilities available to the property. He reviewed the details of the detention area to the east which was originally calculated to include this 3.A.2.f Packet Pg. 95 At t a c h m e n t : P Z C M i n u t e s 0 9 . 0 1 . 1 5 - R e g u l a r M e e t i n g ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) Buffalo Grove Planning & Zoning Commission – Regular Meeting –September 1, 2015 Page 4 property. However, additional engineering would be obtained to confirm this. Before engineering, landscaping, or more was work was performed, the petitioner wanted the commission’s input. He noted that this property was currently vacant. Commissioner Shapiro asked if this was an intersection that did not allow a left turn onto 22 and asked about access to the property. Mr. Christopoulos said that there was no left turn and there is some concern about this, but the plan shows an additional access point at Prairie Road. Commissioner Shapiro agreed that there should be two access points and said that he liked Site Plan B. Commissioner Cesario said that the original thought with this corner was to include the third parcel and asked how this might happen in the future. Mr. Christopoulos said that he approached the owners of the third parcel, and at this time it was not feasible to buy the property. In the future, Commissioner Cesario asked how it could be integrated; Mr. Christopoulos said that the road could be connected to that property in the future. Commissioner Cesario liked Site Plan B as well as two buildings allowed for a softer corner and a better setback. There was some concern about how a shared driveway would work in this situation. He liked the one-way street and parking options. Mr. Christopoulos agreed and said that this would be difficult traffic anyway. There was some discussion regarding future zoning variances needed. Commissioner Goldspiel liked the idea of mixed-use commercial in this area rather than more intense residential. With the missing setbacks and the traffic situation, he felt that this plan would be very difficult. Mr. Christopoulos noted that this would still be a traffic problem even with mixed-use. Commissioner Goldspiel thought that the possibility of a traffic signal might be available if another use was implemented. However, with how close this was to the intersection, he felt the project was too difficult. The petitioner said that any commercial that was put in here would probably add more traffic than with the residents proposed. Commissioner Goldspiel asked if the street needed to be 27 feet as a one-way street. Mr. Stilling said that this was preferred but could be narrower; he said that there were some concerns about the setback. Mr. Christopoulos said that to be a viable and productive parcel, eight residences were preferred. Mr. Stilling said that the transit study done by the Village was never formally adopted. There was also some discussion regarding retail on the first floor, and possible condominiums above. Jill Olsen (current owner) said that she had been trying to sell the property. Commissioner Goldspiel asked if there was a way to connect this internally with the surrounding properties. There was some discussion regarding the road connecting to the neighboring property in the future. Ms. Woods said that there were two types of development types to be considered. The first would more of a traditional, suburban, single family attached home development type that continued the Noah’s Landing layout. These types of homes were oriented inward and setbacks are a key issue. The other type of development is more inline with 3.A.2.f Packet Pg. 96 At t a c h m e n t : P Z C M i n u t e s 0 9 . 0 1 . 1 5 - R e g u l a r M e e t i n g ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) Buffalo Grove Planning & Zoning Commission – Regular Meeting –September 1, 2015 Page 5 traditional transit-orietned-development is one that faces the street.She asked for commission feedback on this and wanted input on how to connect this to the surrounding areas. The Village Engineer had concerns about access as well. Commissioner Lesser was looking at the property as it was now. His perspective was that he did not see this as anything other than what was proposed. He did not want more density, and he was worried about a higher density residential or commercial developing on this property. He was certain that this could be worked out with adjustments on setbacks, landscaping, etc. It was noted that this was likely the softest use that could be proposed. Commissioner Weinstein did not like the commercial or high density possibilities for this property. He felt that the it would be best if the property blended in with the neighboring Noah’s Landing property. He also wanted to see how Chelsey Street would connect for the future. Both site plans had a building on the east side with setbacks that were acceptable to him, but the buildings on the west side seemed very close to the street on both proposals. Given the constraints of the property, he felt this was the best that could be done. He noted that this was the same problem that Noah’s Landing currently had. There was some discussion regarding the inability to purchase the third parcel at this time. Commissioner Cesario suggested that if Site Plan B could combine Buildings 1 and 2 on a curvature that might allow the building to be further from the street. He said that the development made sense for what was there. There were relatively dense residential units on Northwest Highway near the train station; this was consistent with that type of plan. This was a softening of the higher density, and there were assets associated with it. Commissioner Shapiro asked if this development would be allowed to have a curb cut onto Route 22 or if access would only be allowed on Prairie Road. Mr. Stilling said that he did not think that an access to Route 22 would be allowed through IDOT. Mr. Stilling reiterated that the traditional versus neo-traditional designs were being discussed. He referenced the buildings on Northwest Highway by Arlington Race Track. There was some discussion regarding this design of these buildings. Mr. Stilling asked for input on the setback issues. The expectations had been for 25-foot setbacks on the traditional design. He agreed about connecting this to Chelsey Road in the future. Mr. Christopoulos felt that this type of plan would work best. Chairman Smith asked what the Transit-Oriented Development plan had come up with on this property. Mr. Stilling said that the Village would be in favor of a nicer street wall if setbacks were being given up. Ms. Woods said that the transit-oriented development was built around train stations to build higher and denser development around the station within a 10- minute walk. 3.A.2.f Packet Pg. 97 At t a c h m e n t : P Z C M i n u t e s 0 9 . 0 1 . 1 5 - R e g u l a r M e e t i n g ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) Buffalo Grove Planning & Zoning Commission – Regular Meeting –September 1, 2015 Page 6 Chairman Smith said that he did not agree with this development as it was and wanted to understand the vision for the area. Mr. Christopoulos asked if the Village had interest in purchasing this property to put in what was planned. Commissioner Cohn agreed that the plan did not work for him. When talking about transit-oriented development, he was worried about taking away from the original concept as it would be difficult to get back to it. Commissioner Goldspiel said that the first thing to do might be to see if access to Route 22 would even be possible. The petitioner said that if this plan was not acceptable at all, it was not feasible to spend the money to go to IDOT and see about this. Mr. Stilling said that this was a big conversation that needed to be had at the Village level – particularly in the Prairie View area. He was not in favor of this as it was but could come up with some designs to go back to the owner. This would allow future petitioners to know what was acceptable. Commissioner Cohn asked the Village to go to IDOT for options, and Mr. Stilling agreed. The commission was in agreement on this. Mr. Christopoulos asked for a poll on the commissioner’s feelings on this project. Commissioner Lesser said that he would entertain the project with some adjustments. Commissioner Shapiro wanted to look at the overall plan before developing the parcels. Mr. Stilling said that they needed to take the Roseman property into consideration. Commissioner Cohn and Goldspiel were not in favor of the development. Chairman Smith was not in favor of the development. Commissioner Cesario said that he could be supportive of the development with some adjustments. He felt that there might be a better way to provide the buffer. He was amenable and liked the idea of thinking this through more as it was a tough corner. Commissioner Weinstein said that he could be supportive of the plan, but he felt that a stronger recommendation from this commission would be helpful to the Village Board. He was open to exploring the front-facing buildings and the transit-oriented development. Mr. Christopoulos thanked the commission for its time and suggestions. Chairman Report None Future Agenda Schedule Mr. Stilling said that the next meeting on the September 16 included three public hearings: Sky Fitness, a planned unit development amendment for a new sign, and a 3.A.2.f Packet Pg. 98 At t a c h m e n t : P Z C M i n u t e s 0 9 . 0 1 . 1 5 - R e g u l a r M e e t i n g ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) Buffalo Grove Planning & Zoning Commission – Regular Meeting –September 1, 2015 Page 7 variation for Bucky’s sign amendment. There would be one or two concept reviews as well. Easton Townhomes was also coming forward for final plat review. Public Comment and Questions None Staff Report Mr. Stilling said that new agenda software was going to be utilized for public meetings. He noted that currently the public hearings were first, and the meetings went back and forth between public hearing and regular meeting. If the commission preferred, he suggested hearing the items in the public hearing followed by an immediate vote. Then, the administrative items could follow. New Business None Adjournment At 9:28pm, Commissioner Cesario moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Cohn seconded the motion. Aye: Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Lesser, Shapiro, Weinstein, Smith Nay: None Abstain: None The motion carried 7:0:0. Respectfully submitted, Laura Griffith Recording Secretary Karick & Associates 3.A.2.f Packet Pg. 99 At t a c h m e n t : P Z C M i n u t e s 0 9 . 0 1 . 1 5 - R e g u l a r M e e t i n g ( 1 4 4 1 : P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n A p p r o v a l f o r a n 1 2 U n i t T o w n h o m e D e v e l o p m e n t ? W o r k s h o p # 2 ) 01/20/2016 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2016 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:32 PM by Commissioner Eric Smith Public Hearings 1.Public Hearing- Electronic Cigarette and Tobacco Stores (David Weidenfeld) Ms. Woods provided an overview of the research that staff has conducted, which is detailed in the Staff memo dated January 15, 2016. E-Cigarette/Vape Stores Most communities allow the retail sale of e-cigarette/vape stores in their community. In doing so, they generally apply the same standards that are administered to tobacco shops. Should the Village proceed with this approach and amend our definition of Tobacco Shops to include the retail sale of ecigarette/vape stores, we need to review whether or not we should consider tightening our standards on tobacco shops. For example, perhaps tobacco shops and e-cigarette/vape stores should be considered special uses, not permitted uses. This argument would put Buffalo Grove in the minority of communities that consider these specific establishments to be special uses. Another example of tightening the standards could be to distance these uses from schools. However, the distance standards observed amongst other communities is minimal (100- 150 feet) and would not impact any existing vacant commercial space in the Village. E- cigarette/vape stores often like to have seating for consumers to sample e/cigarettes/vape products. This sampling is intended to be an accessory use of the store. As noted above, most communities do not permit sampling as this type of activity may lead to a vape lounge or a vape lounge environment. Some of these communities include the phrase “retail-sales only” to prevent this type sampling from occurring. Other communities that allow sampling, issue licenses to permit sampling at a specific establishment. Vape Lounges Overall, communities have tighter restrictions on vape lounges than the retail sale of ecigarette/vape stores. Most communities do not address this specific use and thereby prohibit vape lounges as a use in their municipalities. Currently, smoking establishments such as cigar lounges, hookah lounges and other onsite smoking venues are not allowed in Buffalo Grove. This restriction has been established as part of Buffalo Grove’s own Clean Air Ordinance adopted in 2006 (attached). However, our current Clean Air Ordinance does not address vaping. Staff is looking for direction from the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) on whether or not to recommend retail only e-cigarette/vape stores be allowed as a Permitted Use or as a Special Use in the Business Districts as well as determine a satisfactory distance standard. This matter will be discussed at the Village's Health Commission meeting on February 10, 2016 and they would make a recommendation to the Village Board. He anticipates this matter to be brought before the Village Board on February 22, 2016. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 100 Mi n u t e s A c c e p t a n c e : M i n u t e s o f J a n 2 0 , 2 0 1 6 7 : 3 0 P M ( A p p r o v a l o f M i n u t e s ) 01/20/2016 Mr. Stilling added that the Village's current Clean Air Ordinance does not prohibit vape lounges and sampling. Com. Cersario asked if the Village is looking to treat these retail stores similar to tobacco stores. Ms. Woods responded yes. Com. Cesario confirmed with Ms. Woods that the Village is looking to prohibit vape lounges as well as sampling. Com. Lesser stated that he would advocate for tighter restrictions and further distance requirements from schools. Mr. Stilling responded that he is looking for direction from the PZC. Specifically, should the Village allow the retail stores as a Permitted Use as well as setting the distance requirement. Currently, alcohol sales are not allowed within 100 feet of schools. Com. Lesser stated that this is a new product which is marketed towards minors. He would like to see Buffalo Grove take the lead on more restrictive regulations. Com. Moodhe asked if this would open the door to allow hookah lounges as well. Mr. Stilling stated that the Village would have to be consistent across the board with similar uses. Com. Moodhe asked if existing tobacco stores would be grandfathered if this type of use was permitted as a Special Use. Mr. Stilling responded that existing tobacco stores would be considered a legal non-conforming use. However, certain events could then require them to have to apply for a Special Use. Com. Moodhe asked if amending the Village's current Clean Air Ordinance could meet the objective. Mr. Stilling responded that it could. Com. Moodhe asked about the State regulations. Mr. Stilling advised that the State is vague on a definition and the Village currently does not define tobacco stores. Com. Cesario stated that based on the results of the communities survey, the Village would not gain anything by making the retail shops a Special Use and that these should not be treated differently than alcohol or tobacco stores. Ch. Smith agrees with Com. Cesario. Com. Goldspiel asked about the differences between the shops and lounges. Mr. Stilling described the difference between the retail stores with accessories and vape shops with sampling and vape lounges. Com. Goldspiel stated that he agrees with the staff analysis on all three. A distance requirements should be set. He asked about age limitations. Mr. Stilling responded that he will look to the Village Board to set the age limitation. The State requirements are that you cannot buy the products if you are under the age of 18. However, you can consume the products if you are under 18. He would like the Village Board to set a minimum age restriction for both at 18. Mr. Stilling advised that the Village's Health Commission is scheduled to meet to discuss this issue on February 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM. He recommends that one or two PZC Commissioners be present at the Health Commission meeting. He will do some more research concerning the distance requirements and have that information available at the Health Commission meeting. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 101 Mi n u t e s A c c e p t a n c e : M i n u t e s o f J a n 2 0 , 2 0 1 6 7 : 3 0 P M ( A p p r o v a l o f M i n u t e s ) 01/20/2016 RESULT:TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 2/17/2016 7:30 PM MOVER:Adam Moodhe, Commissioner SECONDER:Frank Cesario, Commissioner AYES:Smith, Moodhe, Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein ABSENT:Matthew Cohn, Ira Shapiro Regular Meeting Approval of Minutes 1.Planning and Zoning Comission - Regular Meeting - Jan 6, 2016 7:30 PM Com. Cesario asked that the Pledge of Allagence be removed from the minutes. RESULT:ACCEPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER:Scott Lesser, Commissioner SECONDER:Zill Khan, Commissioner AYES:Smith, Moodhe, Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein ABSENT:Matthew Cohn, Ira Shapiro Matters for Discussion 1.Workshop Discussion- Proposed Retail Development at 20914 & 20929 N Milwaukee (David Weidenfeld) Mr. Stilling reviewed the proposed project. MJK Real Estate Holding Company, LLC (MJK) is the contract purchaser of the unincorporated 1.5 acre property currently improved with the existing PJ's Restaurant and the former McDonalds (recently demolished). MJK is finalizing their plans for a new 12,000 square foot retail development split between two (2) buildings and is seeking comments from the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) prior to completing their full application for a public hearing. This item had been heard before the Village Board on January 4, 2016 and was referred to the PZC. The memorandum dated January 15, 2016 provides a brief summary of their project. Mr. Jeffrey Silverman, MJK Real Estate Holding Company, LLC, introduced himself and gave a brief history of his experience with commercial development and his most recent projects in Highland Park and Libertyville. He is looking to break ground this spring. Com. Goldspiel asked about the access off Milwaukee Avenue, specifically for north-bound traffic. Mr. Silverman stated that McDonalds had been located there for many years and did not have any access issues. He will have a traffic study conducted to alleviate any traffic concerns the Village may have. Mr. Stilling advised that Milwaukee Avenue will change in the future and a long term solution will be a safer solution. Com. Goldspiel asked how the proposed sign will fit in. Mr. Stilling stated that Milwaukee Avenue will eventually be almost an 8 lane cross-section. He believes that there will be balance between the aesthetics. Com. Goldspiel has some concerns with the residential area to the west. He does not believe the landscaping as depicted will be adequate. Mr. Stilling stated that there could be more landscaping, or possibly an 8 foot high barrier fence. The Village is still working with the developer to finalize the proposal. Mr. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 102 Mi n u t e s A c c e p t a n c e : M i n u t e s o f J a n 2 0 , 2 0 1 6 7 : 3 0 P M ( A p p r o v a l o f M i n u t e s ) 01/20/2016 Silverman stated that he has included 6 foot to 7 foot high solid wood fences with evergreens at other developments. Com. Goldspiel stated that berms are effective at cutting down noise. He asked about the elevation of the property. Mr. Stilling responded that the land is relatively flat and drains to the southwest. The Village is in the process of updating the stormwater management regulations to make them consistent with the County. Com. Kahn asked why this developer needs the Village. Mr. Stilling stated that the property to the north is annexed into the Village and the developer needs cross access to that property to meet their needs. Once the Berenesa property is developed, access will be allowed to that property to serve the needs of the customers. Com. Kahn asked a procedural question about adopting a stormwater Ordinance. Mr. Stilling will refer this question to the Village Engineer. Com. Kahn asked Mr. Silverman if the project is connected to the Lake County stormwater system, would a lift station still be required to be installed. Mr. Curtis Smithson, Smithson & Associates, Civil Engineer, advised that a lift station would not be required and explained the reasons why it would not. Com. Kahn confirmed that the proposed development would be 1.5 acres and asked about on-site detention requirements. Mr. Smithson explained that the building elevation would meet the County and FEMA floodplain requirements but they have to meet one of the on site detention requirements, one of which could include underground storage. Com. Kahn asked if any variations to the Development Ordinance would be required. Mr. Stilling stated that variances for stormwater detention and floodplain elevations would be sought. Com. Lesser believes that access to the property to the north is critical for this project to be successful. He asked Mr. Silverman about his long term investment history and about his intentions for this property. Mr. Silverman responded that he has developed approximately 30 properties over the years and he intends to retain this property after development. Com. Lesser asked what materials are proposed to be used in the construction of the buildings. Mr. Orlando Vivacqua, Soos & Associates, Architect, advised that the proposed building materials will be masonry brick. Com. Lesser asked if any split face block would be used. Mr. Vivacqua advised that sometimes they use split face block but these buildings are proposed to be masonry brick. Com. Lesser asked if the parcels will have a Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA). Mr. Silverman stated that the buildings will have equal rights. Mr. Stilling advised that staff is working with the Developer to determine if consolidating the parcels into one parcel would make more sense. Com. Lesser stated that a REA would still be required for the property to the north. Mr. Stilling is aware but they are still working with IDOT. Com. Moodhe asked about the height of the McDonalds ground sign. Mr. Stilling advised that sign was 35 feet high. Com. Moodhe asked about burying the overhead electrical lines on the property during development. Mr. Stilling stated that ComEd will not bury lines piecemeal and that they may have some policy to maintain overhead electrical lines for easy access. Com. Moodhe asked about the Village's stormwater regulations compared to both Cook and Lake Counties regulations. Mr. Stilling explained the differences. Com. Moodhe asked about access to the property without Berenesa Plaza being yet developed. Mr. Silverman responded that Milwaukee Avenue will not change until there are developments on all the corners at Milwaukee Avenue and Deerfield Parkway. Com. Moodhe inquired about landscaping and fencing along the west property line of the development. He also asked staff to look at possibly annexing the properties to the south of the proposed development as well. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 103 Mi n u t e s A c c e p t a n c e : M i n u t e s o f J a n 2 0 , 2 0 1 6 7 : 3 0 P M ( A p p r o v a l o f M i n u t e s ) 01/20/2016 Com. Cesario asked about the height of the proposed buildings compared to the height of the proposed ground sign. Mr. Vivacqua stated that the building heights have not yet been finalized but they will be approximately 23 feet to 24 feet in height. The ground sign is proposed to be 25 feet in height. Com. Cesario stated that he is not concerned about the barrier to the west. He also agrees with the traffic flow as proposed. Com. Goldspiel asked if the property is located in a floodplain. Mr. Smithson stated that the majority of the proposed buildings will be located in the floodplain. They will provide the required fill for both the buildings and the parking lot. Com. Goldspiel stated that he is sensitive to the neighboring residential properties and is concerned about this development being located in the floodplain. Mr. Smithson explained the different options they have to accomplish meeting the floodplain requirements. Com. Goldspiel asked what would happen if there is a flood. Mr. Smithson stated that the water would pool around the building. Com. Goldspiel stated that he finds this very troubling. Com. Kahn confirmed with Mr. Smithson that the buildings would meet the floodplain requirements. Mr. Smithson added that they would be improving the condition for the residents to the west. Mr. Stilling advised that if the project moves forward, the Village Engineer will be involved and will look to improve the condition from what currently exists. Com. Moodhe recalled that the County had done some improvements in that area to alleviate flooding. Mr. Sheehan stated that the County did do some improvements but sometimes they still have problems. Com. Goldspiel stated it is a problem to use a floodplain for a parking lot and he believes it is a bad idea. Ch. Smith thanked the PZC for their comments. Mr. Stilling advised that they are hoping for the public hearing to take place either February 21, 2016 or March 2, 2016. Chairman's Report None. Committee and Liaison Reports None. Future Agenda Schedule Mr. Stilling advised that the February 3, 2016 will be a full agenda including the following: 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 104 Mi n u t e s A c c e p t a n c e : M i n u t e s o f J a n 2 0 , 2 0 1 6 7 : 3 0 P M ( A p p r o v a l o f M i n u t e s ) 01/20/2016 - Northwest Central Dispatch Systems, 2950 N. Main Street - Special Use and Variations to replace the existing communications tower and equipment building; - 1167 Green Knolls Drive - Driveway variation; - 850 Asbury Drive - Preliminary Plan Review, no variations are required; - Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, amending the objection period. This is due to the modified Village Board schedule; and - Olson Property - Workshop on proposed residential development. Public Comments and Questions None. Staff Report None. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM Chris Stilling Director of Community Development APPROVED BY ME THIS 20th DAY OF January , 2016 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 105 Mi n u t e s A c c e p t a n c e : M i n u t e s o f J a n 2 0 , 2 0 1 6 7 : 3 0 P M ( A p p r o v a l o f M i n u t e s )