2016-04-20 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Packet
Meeting of the Village of Buffalo Grove
Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
April 20, 2016 at 7:30 PM
Fifty Raupp Blvd
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-2100
Phone: 847-459-2500
I. Call to Order
II. Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
1. O-2016-19 Consider a Variation to the Zoning Ordinance for a Setback Reduction for a
Garage Addition for the Property at 224 Stanton Ct (Trustee Berman)
2. Consider a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Small Cell Antennas
(Trustee Weidenfeld)
III. Regular Meeting
A. Other Matters for Discussion
1. Presentation from CMAP Regarding ON TO 2050 (Trustee Berman)
B. Approval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Mar 16, 2016 7:30 PM
C. Chairman's Report
D. Committee and Liaison Reports
E. Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule
F. Public Comments and Questions
IV. Adjournment
The Planning and Zoning Commission 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.
The Village of Buffalo Grove, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, r equests 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: 4/14/2016 9:22 AM Page 1
Ordinance No. O-2016-19 : Consider a Variation to the Zoning
Ordinance for a Setback Reduction for a Garage Addition for the
Property at 224 Stanton Ct
Recommendation of Action
Staff recommends approval of the variation.
The petitioner is seeking approval to construct an addition to the existing attached two car garage. The
proposed addition would encroach into the side yard setback . As a result, a variation is required.
AT TACHMENTS:
Staff Report - 224 Stanton Court West (DOCX)
Aerial Photo_224 Stanton Ct West (PDF)
Site Plan (PDF)
Garage Elevations_224 Stanton Ct West (PDF)
Petitioners Letter (PDF)
Architects Letter 2-11-2016 (PDF)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Berman Brian Sheehan, Community Development
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
HISTORY:
03/16/16 Planning and Zoning Commission TABLED
Next: 04/20/16
2.1
Packet Pg. 2
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2016 (Continued from March 16,2016)
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 224 Stanton Court West
PETITIONER: Barnet Fagel, Property Owner
PREPARED BY: Brian Sheehan, Building Commissioner
REQUEST: A variation to allow a garage addition to encroach into
the required side yard setback.
EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a single family home and
is zoned R3.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2009 Comprehensive Plan calls for this property to
be single family detached housing.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The current homeowner is seeking approval to construct an 18’8” addition to the existing attached two
car garage. The proposed addition would encroach into the side yard setback by 3.7 feet. As a result, a
variation to Section 17.40.020 of the Zoning Ordinance is required.
PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS
The proposed addition would be attached to the
northwest side of the home and the existing 2-car
garage would remain.
The proposed addition would match the existing
home in color and style.
During staff’s review, it was discovered that a shed
had been constructed on the easement of the
property. As a result, this petition was continued
to April 20th to determine if additional variations
are required. Subsequent to the issue being
identified, the homeowner obtained a permit and
re-located the shed which now meets all Village
codes.
Side Yard Setback Reduction
The R3 Zoning District requires a minimum 10% of the lot width on each side but not less than
16 feet combined.
Based upon the 10% minimum side yard requirement, the side yard setback is required to be
12.95 feet.
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 3
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
2
2
4
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
C
o
u
r
t
W
e
s
t
(
O
-
2
0
1
6
-
1
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
2
2
4
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
At its closest point, the proposed addition would be setback 9.25 feet from the side property
line, encroaching a distance of 3.7 feet into the required side yard setback. At the rear corner of
the garage, the garage would be 16 feet from the property line.
Based on staff’s review, the total area of encroachment is estimated at 32 square feet.
Please note that the architect has submitted a letter identifying slightly different setbacks (few
inches). Based on staff’s review, the setbacks identified in the report are based on the submitted
site plan. Staff suggests the PZC use the setbacks identified in the site plan since they are slightly
more conservative.
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, the Village has received two inquiries into the variance request. The neighbor immediately to
the north of this property expressed some concerns regarding this project and indicated that he would
be present at the Public Hearing to voice his concerns.
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS
Village Department Comments
Engineering The petitioner has provided a grading plan for review by the Village Engineer. The
Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed improvements and does not have any
engineering concerns with the proposed improvements.
STANDARDS
The Planning & Zoning Commission is authorized to grant variations to the regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance based upon findings of fact which are made based upon evidence presented at the hearing
that:
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 response (attached) to item number 2 (above) for the variation request
within his letter. During the public hearing, the petitioner should address item #3 above.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the minor encroachment into the side yard setback, staff recommends approval of the
variation based on the plans submitted.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony
concerning the variation. The PZC shall make a final decision on whether or not to approve the variation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Aerial photo of site
2. Site Plan
3. Building Elevations
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 4
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
2
2
4
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
C
o
u
r
t
W
e
s
t
(
O
-
2
0
1
6
-
1
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
2
2
4
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
4. Petitioners Letter
5. Architects letter
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
2
2
4
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
C
o
u
r
t
W
e
s
t
(
O
-
2
0
1
6
-
1
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
2
2
4
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
e
r
i
a
l
P
h
o
t
o
_
2
2
4
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
C
t
W
e
s
t
(
O
-
2
0
1
6
-
1
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
2
2
4
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
C
t
.
)
2.1.c
Packet Pg. 7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
(
O
-
2
0
1
6
-
1
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
2
2
4
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
C
t
.
)
2.1.d
Packet Pg. 8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
G
a
r
a
g
e
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
_
2
2
4
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
C
t
W
e
s
t
(
O
-
2
0
1
6
-
1
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
2
2
4
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
2.1.d
Packet Pg. 9
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
G
a
r
a
g
e
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
_
2
2
4
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
C
t
W
e
s
t
(
O
-
2
0
1
6
-
1
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
2
2
4
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 10
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
(
O
-
2
0
1
6
-
1
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
2
2
4
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
C
t
.
)
2.1.f
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
L
e
t
t
e
r
2
-
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
(
O
-
2
0
1
6
-
1
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
2
2
4
S
t
a
n
t
o
n
C
t
.
)
Updated: 4/14/2016 4:42 PM Page 1
Action Item : Consider a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Regarding Small Cell Antennas
Recommendation of Action
Staff recommends discussion and continuance to the May 4, 2016 PZC meeting.
Staff will be providing the PZC an overview of the draft regulations. Following the discussion, staff will be
requesting the item be continued to the May 4, 2016 PZC meeting to allow staff time to draft the final
regulations.
ATTACHMENTS:
PZC Workshop Memo Small Cell 4.14.16 (DOCX)
Staff Memo from 3.16.16 PZC Meeting (DOCX)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Weidenfeld Chris Stilling, Community Development
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
HISTORY:
03/16/16 Planning and Zoning Commission TABLED
Next: 04/20/16
2.2
Packet Pg. 12
Page 1 of 2
VILLAGE OF
BUFFALO GROVE
DATE: April 14, 2016
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC)
FROM: Nicole Woods, Village Planner and Chris Stilling, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Small Cell Regulations
Background
Small cellular antenna devices, commonly known as “small cells,” currently fall under the
classification of personal wireless communication facilities in the Village Code. However the existing
personal wireless communication facilities regulations do not best address the challenges or
opportunities associated with small cells. Consequently, staff and the PZC began to discuss best
practices for regulating small cells during the PZC Meeting on March 16th. The discussion centered
around the following key question: How can the Village enable small cellular antenna devices so that
the community can enjoy greater cellular service while protecting the community’s aesthetics and
general interest?
Proposed Small Cell Regulatory Framework: Objectives and Strategies
The discussion at the March 16th PZC Meeting coupled with an analysis of small cell ordinances in
other communities helped guide staff in creating a regulatory framework for small cells. The
proposed regulatory framework is organized into objectives and strategies as shown below. The
objectives describe intent while the strategies provide an approach as to how to achieve the each
objective.
Objective 1: Prioritize Village-owned properties and existing poles.
Strategy 1: Small cellular antenna devices shall be a permitted if they are installed on property
owned or occupied by the Village. Small cells are prohibited on any utility pole located on a lot that is
not owned or occupied by the Village unless the applicant is able to demonstrate that no such
Village-owned property is available.
Objective 2: Protect residential areas.
Strategy 2: Small cellular antenna devices shall not be located closer than 100 feet to any residential
building unless authorized in writing by the Village.
Objective 3: Prevent a concentration of small cells.
Strategy 3: A small cellular antenna device shall not be closer than 1,000 feet from another small
cellular antenna device. This distance may be decreased if the applicant is able to demonstrate the
need for a location closer to an existing small cell. No more than one antenna per pole shall be
permitted.
2.2.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
Z
C
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
M
e
m
o
S
m
a
l
l
C
e
l
l
4
.
1
4
.
1
6
(
1
4
9
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
T
e
x
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
R
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
S
m
a
l
l
C
e
l
l
Page 2 of 2
Objective 4: Ensure small cellular antenna devices are not aesthetically obtrusive and do not obstruct
lighting.
Strategy 4: Small cellular antenna devices shall not be greater than 7 square feet of surface area.
Omnidirectional or whip antennas may not extend more than 7 feet in height above any structure.
The size of all above ground equipment may not exceed 15 cubic feet. Antenna, equipment and
related equipment shall be a color that blends with the pole on which it is mounted. Any wiring on
the pole must be covered with appropriate cover or cable shield. Landscaping screening shall be
installed to minimize the visibility of the at grade equipment. Small cellular antenna devices must
minimally block light provided from streetlights.
Objective 5: Ensure small cellular antenna devices are maintained, removed, or transferred to a
different owner if the existing owner defaults.
Strategy 5: Successor issues would be detailed in the licensing agreement. If the cellular company
defaults, ownership for the small cells will default to the Village. As part of the licensing agreement,
the Village will require a cash bond. Monies from this bond will cover the maintenance or removal of
the small cells. The Village will be able to transfer ownership to a different cellular company if a
company expresses interest.
Action Requested
Staff is seeking feedback from the PZC on the regulatory framework for small cellular antenna
devices. In addition, staff is requesting PZC to continue to this item to the May 4th PZC staff meeting
to finalize draft regulations.
Attachments
1. PZC Staff Memo: Small Cell Regulations - March 16, 2016.
2.2.a
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
Z
C
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
M
e
m
o
S
m
a
l
l
C
e
l
l
4
.
1
4
.
1
6
(
1
4
9
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
T
e
x
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
R
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
S
m
a
l
l
C
e
l
l
Page 1 of 3
VILLAGE OF
BUFFALO GROVE
DATE: March 16, 2016
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC)
FROM: Nicole Woods, Village Planner and Chris Stilling, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Small Cell Regulations
Background
Cellular technology usage continues to expand rapidly. As this usage expands, the demand on the
cellular network, which provides phone service and digital data connections for smart phones,
tablets, and other devices, also increases. Consequently, cellular providers are looking to minimize
dead zones where service is limited, non-existent, or do not meet current demands. One strategy is
to supplement larger, wider-range equipment often featured on a specialized cell antenna or
municipal water tower, is to install small cellular antenna devices. These devices, commonly known
as “small cells” can be mounted on utility poles, light poles, buildings and other sound structures.
Recently, the Village has noted how other communities have created regulations specific for small
cells and generated revenues from licensing this equipment to be installed on Village-owned
property. This trend coupled with the numerous inquires Buffalo Grove has received from cellular
providers, has prompted staff to explore the challenges
and opportunities of allowing small cells in the Village.
The key question being: How can the Village enable
small cellular antenna devices so that the community
can enjoy greater cellular service while protecting the
community’s aesthetics and general interest?
Current Regulations
Currently small cells would fall under the classification of
personal wireless communication facilities in the Village
Code. However staff does not feel that the current
regulations for personal wireless communication facilities
best addresses the challenges or opportunities
associated with small cells. Consequently, staff begun to
research best practices for regulating small cells and
developed a set of proposed regulations.
Small Cell Research and Findings
Staff researched best practices for regulating small cells
by tapping into several resources including:
An Introduction to Small Cell Antennas by
Northwest Municipal Conference (2013).
Verizon small cell equipment (circled in
red) installed on a utility pole in
Hinsdale.
Staff Memo from 3/16/16
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
M
e
m
o
f
r
o
m
3
.
1
6
.
1
6
P
Z
C
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
1
4
9
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
T
e
x
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
R
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
S
m
a
l
l
C
e
l
l
Page 2 of 3
Northwest Municipal Conference Small Cell Survey.
Codes from nearby municipalities including: Hoffman Estates, Northbrook, Palatine, and
Glencoe. Staff was unable to find applicable codes from Glenview and Barrington.
An Introduction to Small Cell Antennas by Northwest Municipal Conference (2013) is a guide to help
communities navigate issues and concerns regarding small cell antenna equipment. It was developed
by a working group made up of attorneys, planners, village managers, engineers, and other key
stakeholders. The Northwest Municipal Conference Small Cell Survey examines issues of small cells
on public property and agreements with cellular providers.
Staff found that communities with more comprehensive small cell regulations managed this
equipment by regulating the following small cell issues:
General location (on Village/Park/public/utility-owned property)
Attachment to existing poles vs. new poles
Proximity to residential
Proximity to other personal wireless antennas
Number of small cell antennas on a pole or structure
Appearance (size, height, color) of small cell equipment
These issues were generally regulated through a combination of zoning measures such as permitted
uses, special uses (with additional restrictions), and general standards. Many communities also
generated revenue from small cells by requiring a license or fee for small cells located on Village-
owned property.
Recommended Small Cell Regulations
After reviewing several best practices, staff recommends that the Village consider the following
regulations. These regulations and measures closely align to Palatine’s code regarding small cells.
Small Cells shall be permitted uses on existing utility poles within public rights-of way and
within dedicated utility easements, subject to the following restrictions:
o Number limitation: No more than one small cell may be located on a single utility
pole.
o Separation and setback requirements: Small cells must be located on a structure
that is greater than 100 feet from a residential building and greater than 1,000
feet away from other small cells.
o Co-location limitation: Only one small cell shall be allowed on each pole for the
use of a single personal wireless services operator.
o Licensing: All small cells mounted on Village-owned infrastructure such as
streetlights, traffic signals towers, or buildings must be authorized by a license
agreement and fee between the owner and the Village.
o Height. A personal wireless telecommunication antenna shall not exceed more
than thirty five (35) feet above the ground level. The top of the highest point of
the antenna may not extend more than seven (7) feet above the highest point of
the support structure, and the combination of the height of the support
structure and the antenna extension shall not exceed thirty five (35) feet.
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
M
e
m
o
f
r
o
m
3
.
1
6
.
1
6
P
Z
C
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
1
4
9
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
T
e
x
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
R
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
S
m
a
l
l
C
e
l
l
Page 3 of 3
o Aesthetics. Small cell equipment will be subject to review by the Appearance
Review Team, which would examine the small cell equipment aesthetics to
ensure it blends in with the pole on which it is mounted.
Deviation from requirements requires the petition to request a variance, which must
include evidence that the proposed facility is necessary, is the least intrusive means of
doing so.
Action Requested
Staff is seeking feedback from the PZC on the overall direction of the recommended regulations and
requesting PZC to continue to this item to the March 16th PZC staff meeting.
Attachments
1. An Introduction to Small Cell Antennas by Northwest Municipal Conference (2013)
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
M
e
m
o
f
r
o
m
3
.
1
6
.
1
6
P
Z
C
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
1
4
9
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
T
e
x
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
R
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
S
m
a
l
l
C
e
l
l
Updated: 4/14/2016 11:17 AM Page 1
Information Item : Presentation from CMAP Regarding ON TO 2050
Recommendation of Action
Staff recommends discussion
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) has begun development of a new comprehensive plan
that will be the successor of GO TO 2040. ON TO 2050 will build on the previous plan's vision and major
policy objectives. Representative from the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning will be providing the
PZC a presentation on the upcoming On TO 2050.
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Berman Nicole Woods, Community Development
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
3.A.1
Packet Pg. 18
03/16/2016
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD,
BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2016
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 PM by Commissioner Eric Smith
Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
1.O-2016-19 Consider a Variation to the Zoning Ordinance for a Setback Reduction for a
Garage Addition for the Property at 224 Stanton Ct: Request to Continue to April 20,
2016 (Trustee Berman)
Moved by Com. Cesario, seconded by Com. Cohn, to continue the public hearing to the
April 20, 2016 regular meeting.
RESULT:TABLED [UNANIMOUS]
Next: 4/20/2016 7:30 PM
MOVER:Frank Cesario, Commissioner
SECONDER:Matthew Cohn, Commissioner
AYES:Smith, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan
ABSENT:Adam Moodhe, Scott Lesser, Ira Shapiro, Mitchell Weinstein
2.(ID # 1496) Ordinance Approving a Variation to the Sign Code for Culver's Restaurant
Located at 450 McHenry Road (Trustee Weidenfeld)
Mr. Kevin Weasler, CMCKS, LLC (Culvers Buffalo Grove, 450 McHenry Road and Mr.
Nick Mele, Priority Sign, 837 Riverfront Drive, Sheboygan, WI 53081, were present and
sworn in.
Mr. Weasler explained that as mandated by the corporate office, he has underground
required remodeling work the interior of the building. When the weather gets a little
warmer, he will begin the exterior renovations, which includes the replacement of the
current wall signs with the new branding standard. Mr. Mele is available to answer any
questions the Commission may have.
Com. Goldspiel asked if the signs will be replaced with similar signs. Mr. Mele stated that
there will not be any change to the overall colors of the wall signs, only a change to the
logo based on the new branding standard.
Com. Cesario confirmed with Mr. Mele that there will be a slight increase in the square
footage of the wall signs and asked him to elaborate. Mr. Mele explained that his sign
company has reached an agreement with Culver's corporate office to manufacture two
(2) different sign packages with the new branding standard; the SL30 and the SL45. The
proposed wall signs are the smaller, SL30 package. The limitation of two (2) sign
packages are for mass production and uniformity. Com. Cesario asked how much of an
increase the new signs will be over the existing. Mr. Mele responded that the increase is
less than ten (10) square feet and thought it may be closer to three (3) square feet. Com.
Cesario confirmed with Mr. Mele that it will be less than ten (10) square feet.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 19
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
M
a
r
1
6
,
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
)
03/16/2016
Mr. Mele added that the proposed signs meet the required criteria since there was a
variance granted previously; the new signs are an increase of less than ten (10 square
feet; and that the increase in square footage will not even be noticed by the public. The
signs will help beautify the building along with the interior and exterior renovations that
are being done.
Mr. Raysa inquired about the relationship between CMCKS, LLC and Culver's. Mr.
Weasler stated that previously he had a partner in his LLC. That partner left and now he
is a single owner of the LLC. Mr. Raysa requested that documentation be submitted
showing the relation between CMCKS, LLC and Culver's prior to the recommendation
being heard before the Village Board. He also inquired about the conditions of the
variation that were previously granted. Mr. Weasler stated the ground sign is not
internally illuminated. It does have external spotlights on it. Also, the signs are only
illuminated during his business hours so people know when he is open or closed. Mr.
Mele advised that they will be looking at changing the ground sign to the new branding
design in the next several months and will apply for the appropriate variations at that
time.
There were no additional questions from the Commissioners.
Ch. Smith entered the Staff Report dated March 16, 2016 as Exhibit 1.
The public hearing was closed at 7:51 PM.
Moved by Com. Cohn, seconded by Com. Cesario, to recommend to the Village Board to
approve the request made by Culver's/Kevin Weasler, 450 McHenry Road, for variation
to Section 14.16.030 and Section 14.20.070 of the Village of Buffalo Grove Sign Code in
order to exceed the maximum number of wall signs and to exceed the maximum height.
Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.40.010, Subsection B.
Com. Goldspiel feels that the criteria has been met and that the proposed signs are a
good design.
Com. Cesario recommended amending the motion to include that the recommendation is
subject to the Petitioner providing documentation showing the relation between CMCKS,
LLC and Culver's.
Moved by Com. Cohn to amend the motion, seconded by Com. Cesario.
RESULT:RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
Next: 4/18/2016 7:30 PM
AYES:Smith, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan
ABSENT:Adam Moodhe, Scott Lesser, Ira Shapiro, Mitchell Weinstein
3.Consider a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Small Cell Antennas:
Request to Continue to April 20, 2016 (Trustee Weidenfeld)
Moved by Com. Cesario, seconded by Com. Khan, to continue the public hearing to the
April 20, 2016 regular meeting.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 20
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
M
a
r
1
6
,
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
)
03/16/2016
RESULT:TABLED [UNANIMOUS]
Next: 4/20/2016 7:30 PM
MOVER:Frank Cesario, Commissioner
SECONDER:Zill Khan, Commissioner
AYES:Smith, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan
ABSENT:Adam Moodhe, Scott Lesser, Ira Shapiro, Mitchell Weinstein
Regular Meeting
Other Matters for Discussion
1.Staff Discussion Regarding Housing (Trustee Weidenfeld)
Ms. Woods explained that staff would like to discuss and bring the Commission
up to date on housing trends. Housing is an important component of the Village.
The majority (70%) of the housing units in Buffalo Grove are traditional single-
family units. However, reports are continuing to indicate that the country and
region's demographics are changing, and with that, the housing needs are also
changing. These demographics require the Village and all players in the
community planning and housing industries to explore the type of housing
suitable for the needs of our changing demographics. The issue of appropriate
housing for younger generations was specifically discussed in the Economic
Development Strategic Plan Market Assessment. The assessment provided
evidence of a jobs-housing mismatch in Buffalo Grove. A jobs-housing mismatch
refers to the phenomenon where homes conducive to workers' preferences and
affordability are situated far from their employment centers. Steering committee
members and stakeholders interviewed for the Market Assessment specifically
discussed this mismatch in terms of Generation Y (millennials). They expressed
that the emerging Generation Y workforce has the skills and aptitude needed to
help Buffalo Grove businesses grow, particularly the advanced manufacturing
companies, however they either prefer to not live in the suburbs or cannot find
housing options conducive to their needs. Research indicates that millennials
highly value walkability; bicycle and public transportation accessibility; mixed-
use, denser areas; and apartment living. Those millennials that do purchase
homes, prefer units that are smaller-both in square footage and bedrooms-than
in generations past. Buffalo Grove and other nearby communities have started to
implement and embrace such characteristics and amenities. Running parallel to
millennial housing matter is the issue of suitable housing for the ever-growing
senior demographic. This topic has been and continues to be discussed with the
Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative (NWSHC). The Collaborative, which
includes Arlington Heights, Mount Prospect, Rolling Meadow, Palatine, as well as
Buffalo Grove is deliberating how our sub region can provide housing, amenities,
and resources needed by seniors. Many of these sought-after amenities, are
strikingly similar to those desired by the younger demographics. Given the
upcoming opportunities to incorporate and develop land in Buffalo Grove, staff
would like to open a dialogue with the PZC regarding these issues in our
community and how we can best address them.
A video was presented and shown to the PZC. After the video, Ms. Woods asked
for ideas, comments or reactions from the PZC.
Com. Goldspiel stated that it has been a long time policy of the Plan
Commission, now the PZC, to provide housing to all members of the community
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 21
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
M
a
r
1
6
,
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
)
03/16/2016
and not just focus on one. He does not want to see older members of the
community leave. This concept would not be a major turnaround for the PZC.
The PZC is always looking at all aspects of a project that is brought before them.
Maybe the PZC needs to encourage smaller acre lots or maintenance free
communities. It is troubling to see that more than 70% of housing are single-
family. He asked Ms. Woods if that included both single family attached and
detached. Ms. Woods responded that the 70% includes both. He would like to
see the attached and detached numbers separated out.
Mr. Stilling added that staff wants to give the PZC an idea of why and how things
are changing, where patterns occur and buyers' interests and needs. The
metropolitan area cannot expand to the east due to the Lake; it can only grow to
the west and south and just a little to the north. Most people do not want to move
further out. Home builders, along with communities, are trying to identify trends.
We have to look at transportation and amenities as well as looking at millennials
and the aging population. These concepts are being introduced based upon an
upcoming development project, Didier. Traditionally, the Village would develop
land with a maximum of two units per acre. With this development, the Village will
need to be open to allowing possibly four units per acre.
Ch. Smith asked for some clarification on a recent Crain's article, which
discussed how quickly homes sell in Buffalo Grove. Mr. Stilling summarized the
article.
Ms. Woods added that things are changing. The Village needs to look at meeting
the needs not just for families but for the millennials and the aging community
and find ways to maintain sustainability.
Com. Cesario stated that it would make sense to see a denser development
along a major road, like Milwaukee Avenue. He is not uncomfortable with the
concept but would like to get a feel for it first. Mr. Stilling responded that
Waterbury was developed under a higher-density concept. It exemplifies how
higher density can be tastefully done.
Com. Goldspiel is confused about the high density concept. He does not want to
see 16 units per acre. He wants to keep the character of the Village with the
amenities. If the Village can make better use of the land, they can also make
better use of the amenities. More careful planning will need to be examined.
Mr. Stilling stated that the Village will see a more dense plan with the Didier
project. He is anticipating this project to go before the Board in April. It will be a
mix of town-homes and single-family homes. The Village is also looking at future
developments in Prairie View.
There was no further discussion.
Approval of Minutes
1.Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Mar 2, 2016 7:30 PM
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 22
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
M
a
r
1
6
,
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
)
03/16/2016
Com. Goldspiel stated that under the Starbucks Sign Code variation for 1205 W.
Dundee Road, Page 24, it should be amended to read as follows: "Com.
Goldspiel is concerned about the sign facing Arlington Heights Road and
suggested adding some sort of screening. The petitioner agreed to look at adding
screening."
RESULT:ACCEPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES:Smith, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan
ABSENT:Adam Moodhe, Scott Lesser, Ira Shapiro, Mitchell Weinstein
Chairman's Report
None.
Committee and Liaison Reports
None.
Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule
Mr. Stilling advised that the April 6, 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission regular meeting will be
cancelled. He will be in Springfield at that time.
Public Comments and Questions
None.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 PM
Chris Stilling Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY ME THIS 16th DAY OF March , 2016
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 23
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
M
a
r
1
6
,
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
)