2016-02-03 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Minutes02/3/2016
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, FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Commissioner Eric Smith
Public Hearings
A. Consider an Ordinance Granting a Variation for a Driveway at 1167 Green Knolls (TBD)
(Jeffrey Berman)
Present and sworn in were Steven Rybin, Petitioner; Jeffrey Braiman, Attorney; Mark and
Bonnie Zuckerman; and Richard Heinrich.
Mr. Rybin explained that he has petitioned the Village to grant a variation to allow him to
expand his driveway with a third parking spot. His children will be driving in five to six
years and he will need the additional parking space. His driveway needs to be replaced
now so he wanted to complete the expansion with the driveway replacement. This way
the expansion will not look different due to the color of the concrete. He cont inued to
explain there are many driveway expansions in the neighborhood. He has seen the
objection from his neighbors about the extension devaluing their property and he has
prepared a response to that. He added an addition to his home a couple years which has
increased the property values and improved the aesthetics of the neighborhood. He
intends on living at the property for a long time.
Co. Weinstein stated that he has read the staff report and a variation would not be
required if the expansion was six foot wide instead of eight foot wide. Mr. Rybin
responded that he needs a minimum of a seven foot wide expansion to make it work. He
read staff's suggestion of turning the walk around the corner and to reduce the taper.
However, that is not consistent with what is in the neighborhood.
Com. Khan asked how many cars he has now. Mr. Rybin stated that he currently has two
cars and one motorcycle. During the winter both cars and the motorcycle are parking in
the garage. During riding season, one car is kept out of the garage to make room for
easy access in and out of the motorcycle. Com. Khan confirmed with Mr. Rybin that he
may have a total of four cars in five to six years. He asked if the expansion would still
encroach into the easement if it were six feet w ide. Mr. Rybin stated that it would by
approximately one foot. Com. Khan discussed additional parking options on the driveway.
Mr. Rybin stated that the cars would block the sidewalk if parked tandem on the
driveway. Com. Khan stated that it would not be difficult for people to walk around the
back ends of the cars on the apron or the street.
Com. Cesario asked if Mr. Rybin has considered a compromise with the neighbors. Mr.
Rybin stated yes but he has not talked to them.
Com. Goldspiel stated that the car mirrors could overhang the grass. Mr. Rybin
responded that there would not be enough room for the mirrors to pass each other
without hitting one another. Com. Goldspiel confirmed that the expansion would encroach
02/3/2016
into the easement and if the utilities need access, they could remove the expansion at
any time. Mr. Rybin stated that he understands that and there are no utilities currently in
the easement.
Com. Moodhe asked what would happen to the existing basketball hoop. Mr. Rybin
stated that it would be removed. Com. Moodhe asked why a six foot expansion would not
work. Mr. Rybin stated that it would be too tight pulling cars in and out of the driveway.
Com. Moodhe asked how wide the existing driveway is. Mr. Rybin responded eighteen
feet. Mr. Stilling added that the driveway would be twenty six feet at it's widest point with
an eight foot expansion but would maintain eighteen feet at the sidewalk. Com. Moodhe
believes the six foot expansion will work and urged Mr. Rybin to consider it.
Com. Lesser asked if Mr. Rybin has considered folding his mirrors in. Mr. Rybin stated
his car mirrors do not fold in. Com. Lesser believes that Mr. Rybin is not trying to find
common ground and believes the objective could be reached with a six foot expansion.
He does not see a hardship or unique circumstances that are required in order to grant
the variance. Mr. Rybin responded that he would agree to a seven foot wide expansion.
Com. Cesario again asked about parking the parks tandem in the driveway. Mr. Rybin
believes that would cause a safety hazard.
Com. Khan believes this matter could have been resolved by talking the neighbors about
the project. He asked if there are parking restriction on the street. Mr. Rybin responded
no, just the Village-wide overnight parking restriction. Com. Khan believes that there is
not a need for the variance at this time when the children are five to six years away from
driving. Mr. Rybin disagrees and believes that the aesthetics of the color of the concrete
will be affected.
Com. Shapiro asked staff about the width of previously approved expansions. Mr.
Sheehan responded that it varied based upon the unique circumstances. Examples were
provided in the packet. Mr. Stilling described a few previously approved expansions.
Com. Moodhe described the circumstances of his neighbor with five cars and a single car
driveway. They made it work without an expansion. Mr. Rybin stated that it is not safe to
block the sidewalk.
Com. Goldspiel stated that Mr. Rybin's concern about the concrete color is unwarranted.
It will all fade eventually.
There were no additional comments from the Commissioners at this time.
Ch. Smith entered the staff report as Exhibit 1 and the Addendum as Exhibit 2.
Mr. Richard Heinrich stated that he has lived about 500 feet on the opposite side of the
street from Mr. Rybin since 1979. He has the same model house on the same style lot.
He has five cars on his driveway and does not have an expansion. He does not see a
02/3/2016
current hardship. The proposed expansion would directly affect the neighbors. He does
not see the need to grant the variance and he urges the Commission to deny the request.
Mr. Jeffrey Braiman represents Mr. And Mrs. Zuckerman. The request is a matter of
convenience for Mr. Rybin. The aesthetics would alter the value of his client's home and
the character of the neighborhood. They have provided a letter from a local realtor, Andy
Hausmann, detailing the negative effect the expansion would have on his client's
property. There are no unique circumstances. The Ordinance is in place to make sure
that there is not an over-abundance of concrete. The current driveway is twenty six feet
long and could handle four cars on the driveway without a problem. Mr. Rybin has failed
to meet the established criteria and he urges the Commission to vote against the request.
Com. Weinstein stated that he did some research of his own concerning the letter
prepared by the realtor. He contacted a broker and an appraiser. Both stated that the
letter was a joke and he was told that a neighb oring driveway would have no affect on a
properties value. He asked Mr. Braiman if his clients would object if Mr. Rybin expanded
the driveway by one foot. Mr. Braiman responded that they most likely would. However,
Mr. Rybin is asking for eight feet. The expansion may have an affect on any future
potential buyers of his client's home.. Com. Weinstein stated that communication is a
two-way street. Mr. Braiman added that it would be ideal for neighbors to talk, but that
doesn't always solve issues.
Mr. Rybin rebutted that he believes that some of the statements made by Mr. Braiman
are not truthful. There are other driveways that are close tot he property line; one is on
his street. He would like the request for the expansion to be approved. It would not
devalue other properties. His addition added value to the neighborhood.
There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. There were no
additional comments from staff.
The public hearing was closed at 8:22 PM.
Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Cesario, to recommend to the Village
Board to grant the request made by Steve Rybin, 1167 Green Knolls Drive, for variation
to Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.36.030.F, pertaining to Design and Maintenance, for a
driveway to exceed the forty (40) percent front yard coverage limitation.
Com. Cesario stated that he believes that by approving the request, the criteria
established in the Code would disappear and the standard rule would no longer apply. He
does not believe this request meets the criteria he would be against it.
Com. Goldspiel does not believe that the color of the concrete or future drivers warrant
allowing this request.
Com. Lesser does not believe that Mr. Rybin has met the criteria and that the intent can
be accomplishment within the limits of the Code.
02/3/2016
RESULT: REFERRED [0 TO 9]
Next: 2/22/2016 7:30 PM
MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner
SECONDER: Frank Cesario, Commissioner
NAYS: Smith, Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Shapiro,
Weinstein
B. O-2016-3 An Ordinance Considering Approving a Special Use and Variation for a
Tower at 2950 N Main St (David Weidenfeld)
Mr. John Ferraro, Northwest Central Dispatch Systems; Ben Beckstrom, 2861
Whispering Oaks Drive; Mike, @Properties; and Pat McCune, 2851 Whispering Oaks
Drive, were present and sworn in.
Mr. Ferraro explained that Northwest Central Dispatch Systems is the 911 call center for
Buffalo Grove and several other surrounding communities. They are a government entity.
They are looking to replace this existing communication tower. This tower is over thirty
years old. This tower is one of thirteen communication towers that are used together for
emergency communications. To relocate the tower to another location would throw off all
the communications and could create gaps with Police and Fire communications. He has
a study conducted by a structural engineer that recommends that this tower be replaced.
Com. Goldspiel asked Mr. Ferraro about how the tower will be different from the existing
tower. Mr. Ferraro stated that it will be the same as the existing tower, just a new one
moving a few feet from the current location. The tower needs to be kept operational
during the transition from one to another. Com. Goldspiel asked if the appearance of the
tower will be different. Mr. Ferraro responded no.
Com. Lesser asked to confirm the age of the existing tower. Mr. Ferraro stated that it is at
least thirty years old, it may be older. Com. Lesser asked Mr. Ferraro if based on the
technology of today if the tower could be reduced in height. Mr. Ferraro stated that he is
not sure and leaves that determination to the engineers. Several antennas from the
existing tower will be relocated to the new tower.
Com. Moodhe asked about the dimensions of the base of tower. Mr. Stilling stat ed that
the is anywhere from ten to fifteen feet. Com. Moodhe believes that the base is close to
the dimensions of the base of the tower here at Village Hall. He asked Mr. Ferraro if there
will be any increase in the number of antennas located on the tower. Mr. Ferraro
responded no. This tower is part of a thirteen tower system that allows for the emergency
response communications for multiple communities. The replacement of the tower, along
with the equipment upgrades made in 2012, will also fill gaps in c ommunication with Lake
County agencies as well. Federal guidelines required the equipment upgrades in 2012.
This is also part of a bigger system within the state. Specific tower locations were
measured to fill in coverage gaps.
Com. Shapiro confirmed with Mr. Ferraro that the replacement tower will be equipped
with the antennas from the existing tower. Mr. Ferraro stated that they are only replacing
the tower due to it's age.
02/3/2016
Mr. Stilling advised that the tower serves our community as well as others. The Village
Board approved a Special Use for the tower when the property was annexed in 1989.
The tower was existing when the property was annexed.
Ch. Smith asked Mr. Ferraro how many feet the tower location will be moving. Mr.
Ferraro stated he is not sure but it is not moving by much.
Ch. Smith entered the Staff Report as Exhibit 1.
There were no additional questions from the Commissioners at this time.
Mr. Ben Beckstrom urged the Commission to look at having the tower moved to a
different location, away from the residential properties. The microwave technology today
could allow the antennas to be re-directed to still communicate effectively. He moved into
his home five and a half years ago. He was not concerned with the tower. However, he
did market his home for sale and the fear of cell towers impacted potential buyers. So
they took their home off the market and decided to stay. He is concerned that the cellular
antennas will be included on the tower. He wants to exhaust all of his options to remove
the tower from the backyards of the residential properties. The tower is currently located
in the park behind their homes. He asked if the tower and/or equipment will be moving
closer to the residential properties.
Mike with @Properties advised that he was listing agent for Mr. Beckstrom. When the
house listed, it was priced with the effect of the tower. He stated that potential buyers are
not going for the tower look in a backyard. He also urged the Village to look at relocating
the tower to a different site. When the home was listed, they had 43 showings and only 1
offer, which was eventually withdrawn due to the tower. 23 comments that were returned
indicated they were not interested because of the tower.
Com. Shapiro asked Mr. Ferraro how far the tower could be moved without impacting the
communications. Mr. Ferraro stated that he would need more studies to be completed to
determine that. He stated that the microwaves could be re-directed but the receiver
equipment is necessary for the communications.
Com. Lesser confirmed with Mr. Ferraro that there is no equipment currently on the tower
other than public safety equipment. Mr. Ferraro confirmed that is correct.
Com. Cesario asked if the tower would be moving close or further from the homes. Mr.
Ferraro is not sure. Com. Cesario asked how far the tower is located now from the
closest home. Mr. Stilling stated that the Plat of Survey included in the packet show a
distance of 52.45 feet to the nearest property line. There is approximately another 30 feet
to the house. Com. Cesario asked how urgent the need is to replace the tower.
Tomorrow? Three months? A year? Mr. Ferraro responded that the structural engineer
recommended replacement. He understands that this type of process takes time.
There were no additional questions or comments from the audience.
02/3/2016
The public hearing was closed at 8:58 PM.
Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Cesario, to recommend to the Village
Board to grant the Petition by Northwest Central Dispatch Systems for a Special Use in
the R-7 District for a telecommunications tower with the following variations: 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 A variation to Section 17.40.030.B of the Zoning
Ordinance reducing the minimum required setbacks for a telecommunications tower
located at 2950 N. Main Street.
Com. Cesario stated that the purpose of the tower is to enhance public safety. The
purpose of the variance is to replace an aging tower and related equipment building, like
for like. This is for the public's safety.
RESULT: REFERRED [UNANIMOUS]
Next: 2/22/2016 7:30 PM
MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner
SECONDER: Frank Cesario, Commissioner
AYES: Smith, Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Shapiro,
Weinstein
C. (ID # 1428) Consider an Ordinance Approving an Amendment to Section 17.52 of the
Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance (David Weidenfeld)
Mr. Stilling explained that staff is requesting an amendment to Section 17.52 of t he
Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance clarifying the fifteen day filing period for a written
objection to any final action taken by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Upon review of
the Zoning Ordinance, both staff and the Village Attorney noticed some discrepa ncies
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 PCZ. However, it is unclear if
the appeals apply to recommendations and decisions by the PZC or only fina l decisions
by the PZC. As authorized in Section 17.52.040, Authorized Variations. As a result staff is
recommended the changes.
In addition, the Village Board has moved to a new Board meeting schedule and it was
unclear how items would be affected by the existing language.
Ch. Smith entered the Staff Report as Exhibit 1.
Mr. Raysa suggested the following language change "within 15 calendar days" in the final
draft.
There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no
questions or comments from the audience.
The public hearing was closed at 9:03 PM.
02/3/2016
Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Cesario, to recommend to the Village
Board to grant the Petition by the Village of Buffalo Grove for an amendment to Zoning
Ordinance, Section 17.52.090.
RESULT: REFERRED [UNANIMOUS]
Next: 2/22/2016 7:30 PM
MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner
SECONDER: Frank Cesario, Commissioner
AYES: Smith, Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Shapiro,
Weinstein
Regular Meeting
Matters for Discussion
1. (ID # 1426) Preliminary Plan Approval for 850 Asbury (Jeffrey Berman)
Mr. Stilling reviewed the proposed project as detailed in the staff report. 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
square foot 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. 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.
Mr. Pete Harmon, Ridgeline Property Group and Mr. Jamie Putman, Engineer,
were present. Mr. Harmon explained that the market is right for this project. Ten
(10) to twenty (20) percent of the building will be office space. They are looking to
obtain the demolition permit within the next forty five (45) days. The materials are
on order. Expected delivery would be in December.
Com. Goldspiel asked if the property is located in a floodplain. Mr. Putman
responded that a portion of the property is located in the floodplain. They will not
be impacting the wetlands and they will provide detention for what has not
already been provided for. Com. Goldspiel confirmed that there will be thirty six
(36) loading docks. He also inquired if there is enough radius to turn trucks. Mr.
Harmon responded that they have worked everything out with both the Fire
Department and Engineering Department.
Com. Cesario confirmed that any dumpsters would be located in the back by the
loading docks.
02/3/2016
Com. Goldspiel asked if the finished building will match the appearance of the
renderings provided. Mr. Harmon responded that the finished building will match
the renderings very closely. Com. Goldspiel asked what the primary use of the
building will be. Mr. Harmon responded that they do not know yet since they do
not have a prospective tenant as of yet. They are trying to capture what's in the
market.
Com. Lesser confirmed with Mr. Stilling that the proposed building meets the
zoning requirements for the zoning district.
Com. Moodhe stated that it is a nice building and a unique property. He asked if
there will be enough parking. Mr. Harman stated that approximately thirty (30)
percent of the site will be utilized for parking.
There were no additional comments or questions from the Commissioners.
Moved By Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Cesario, to recommend to the
Village Board to approve the Petition by Ridgeline Property Group for Preliminary
Plan approval for 850 Asbury Drive.
RESULT: REFERRED [UNANIMOUS]
Next: 2/22/2016 7:30 PM
MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner
SECONDER: Frank Cesario, Commissioner
AYES: Smith, Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Shapiro,
Weinstein
2. Preliminary Plan Approval for an 12 Unit Townhome Development – Workshop
#2 (David Weidenfeld)
Ms. Woods reviewed the proposed development as detailed in the staff report.
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 Lar ry
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
Roseman property and featured a new one-way road that directly connects Half
Day Road, the proposed development, and Prairie Road. Prior to proce ssing with
a formal application, the property owner and developer are seeking feedback
regarding their revised concept plan. The proposed development would include
twelve (12) single family-attached units. The subject property is currently zoned
R-E, which is a one-family dwelling district. However, R-9 would be the
appropriate zoning with reduced setbacks. Staff does not see the reduced
setbacks as problematic. The concept plan proposes extending Chelsey Street to
the south part of the site with a partial “hammerhead” at the terminus. In terms of
stormwater, preliminary analysis indicates that the detention pond built and
02/3/2016
associated with the Noah’s Landing development can potentially serve
redevelopment on the subject site.
Mr. Joseph Christopoulos, JCJ Homes and Mr. Scott Simon, Land Technology,
were present to answer questions.
Com. Lesser asked about the height of the Noah's Landing town homes. Mr.
Christopoulos was not sure but advised that these town homes would look
different than Noah's Landing.
Com. Cesario advised that there will be questions with regards to parking on the
site but he believes that this proposal looks great.
Com. Goldspiel asked about the type of residents they are looking to attract. Mr.
Christopoulos responded that there could be different types of residents based
upon the amenities in the area; Stevenson High School, the commuter station,
and possibly retirees. Com. Goldspiel asked for Mr. Christopoulos to provide
more visibility to the street due to all the garage doors. He wo uld also like to
know about the proposed drainage for the property. Mr. Simon advised that when
Noah's Landing was constructed, it had already accounted for half of this
property and then over-sized it. He believes Noah's Landing was designed to
handle the drainage for this entire site. Com. Goldspiel stated that the area is
lacking open space.
Com. Weinstein stated that the southern unit on the west looks as if it is running
into the turn radius. Mr. Simon responded that they may need to remove that
guest parking spot.
Com. Moodhe stated that the proposal fits in with the overall Comprehensive
Plan.
Com. Goldspiel asked how wide the street will be and if guests could utilize
parking on the street. Mr. Stilling responded that the street is proposed at tw enty
seven (27) feet wide. They are looking to allow as much parking as possible, but
the Village is hesitant to allow parking on the street. The proposal does meet the
current code as far as required parking. The goal is to get four (4) guest parking
spaces. Com. Goldspiel suggested widening a portion of the street to allow for on
street parking.
Com. Moodhe asked about the parking situation in the driveways. Mr.
Christopoulos stated that four (4) cars could park on the driveway and two (2)
cars in each garage.
Com. Cohn stated that if on street parking were to be allowed that it should not
be at allowed the end of the street.
Ch. Smith stated that he appreciates the improvements.
02/3/2016
There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners.
Ap proval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Comission - Regular Meeting - Jan 20, 2016 7:30 PM
RESULT: ACCEPTED [6 TO 0]
MOVER: Adam Moodhe, Commissioner
SECONDER: Zill Khan, Commissioner
AYES: Smith, Moodhe, Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser
ABSTAIN: Matthew Cohn, Ira Shapiro, Mitchell Weinstein
Chairman's Report
None.
Committee and Liaison Reports
None.
Future Agenda Schedule
Mr. Stilling advised that the adoption of the 2016 Zoning Map and the public hearing regarding e -
cigarettes will be on the upcoming February 17, 2016 meeting agenda. He also reminded the
Commission that the Health Commission will be meeting on February 10, 2016 and will discuss e-
cigarettes. He asked for one (1) or two (2) Commissioners to attend that meeting.
Public Comments and Questions
None.
Staff Report
None.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:49 PM
Chris Stilling Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY ME THIS 3rd DAY OF February , 2016