2017-03-01 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda
Meeting of the Village of Buffalo Grove
Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
March 1, 2017 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. Consider an Amendment to Special Use Ordinance 2016-13 for No Escape Located at
1501 W Dundee Road (Trustee Weidenfeld) (Staff Contact: Brian Sheehan)
2. Consider a Re-Zoning to the R-9 Multiple-Family Dwelling District with a Special Use and
Variations (Trustee Weidenfeld) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
III. Regular Meeting
A. Other Matters for Discussion
1. Workshop #4- Proposed Residential Development at 16802 W Aptakisic
Road/Link Farm (Trustee Berman) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
B. Approval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Feb 15, 2017 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, 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.
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 1, 2017
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 1501 W Dundee; Suites 102, 103 & 104
PETITIONER: Max Geht and Mike Trayvas
PREPARED BY: Brian Sheehan, Building Commissioner
REQUEST: Petition to the Village of Buffalo Grove for a Special Use
Ordinance to allow an amusement establishment within the
B-3 Zoning District PUD.
EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with the existing Plaza Verde West
Shopping Center and is currently zoned B-3 Planned Unit
Development (PUD).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The approved Village Comprehensive Plan calls for this
property to be Commercial.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Currently the Petitioners, Max Geht and Mike Trayvas, are
co-owner’s of an existing approved Special Use amusement
establishment business, No Escape, located at 1501 West
Dundee Road, Suite 103, in the Plaza Verde West Shopping
Center. In 2016, the Village Board approved Ordinance
2016-13 granting a Special Use for an amusement
establishment in a 536 square foot tenant space. The
petitioners business has already grown and they are looking
to expand into an additional 1340 square feet. As a result,
an amendment to their Special Use is required.
PLANNING, ZONING, AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
ProposedExpansion
As previously explained, the concept is for the guests to
complete/solve a series of quests, tasks, challenges and
logical puzzles in order to “escape” from the room. Each session lasts 60 minutes and customers are
required to make reservations in advance. Hours of operation are expected to be 6PM to 10PM on
weekdays and 10AM to 10PM on weekends.
The proposed business is looking to expand into two existing Suites located directly across the hall
from their current use. The current space within Suite 103 is 536 square feet. Suite 1 02 is 804
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 2
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
7
:
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
1
6
-
1
3
f
o
r
N
o
E
s
c
a
p
e
L
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
1
5
0
1
W
D
u
n
d
e
e
R
o
a
d
)
square feet and Suite 104 is 536 square feet, bringing the total space being utilized to 1876 square
feet. The additional space will be used for the same intellectual, team building group exercise for
persons over the age of 12 as the current space is being used for, although it will allow for up to
three games to be played concurrently. Additionally, some of the new space will be used as a
reception and waiting area for their clients.
There is no food or drink that will be offered for sale and there is no music involved with the game
and loud noise/behavior is not allowed. The emergency means of egress will be maintained and
accessible at all times and 2-4 employees will be onsite at all times.
Existing Use and Surrounding Uses
The building and tenant space is located within the Plaza Verde West Shopping Center. This
property is zoned B-3 PUD and the existing uses are a mixture of retail, service and office. The
petitioners requested use is compatible with the adjacent uses and is consistent with the other
currently established uses in the B-3 Zoning District.
Parking
The parking analysis used the most stringent parking requirements for the entertainment use
group, or 1 parking space for every 2.5 seats. Based upon the owner’s information that at any one
time there will be a maximum of 40 persons occupying the business, 36 customers and 4
employees, the parking requirements for this use would be a total of 16 parking spaces. The Plaza
Verde West Shopping Center has 255 parking spaces allocated to the center as depicted on the
drawing above. Over the past year of operation of the business there have been no complaints or
parking issues at the center. Consequently, staff feels that parking will not be problematic with this
expansion.
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS
The Fire Department has reviewed the proposed plans and does not have any comments. As
previously noted, the emergency means of egress will be maintained and accessible at all times.
Furthermore, an employee will be observing at all times and be able to provide assistance when
requested.
STANDARDS
Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed use does require a Special Use in the “B-3”
Business District. The 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;
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;
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
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
7
:
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
1
6
-
1
3
f
o
r
N
o
E
s
c
a
p
e
L
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
1
5
0
1
W
D
u
n
d
e
e
R
o
a
d
)
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;
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;
5. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and/or other necessary facilities have been or will
be provided;
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.
Included in the petitioner’s information is a detailed response to the standards. Staff finds that the
petitioner has met the required standards for the special use.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
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 mailing of the
notifications were both completed within the required timeframe. As of the date of this report, the
Village has received several inquiries from adjacent property owners regarding the Public Hearing
sign. Once they were informed of the nature of the public hearing there were no concerns. No
other public comment have been received.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the amendment to Special use Ordinance 2016 -13 granting an
expansion for No Escape at 1501 W Dundee Road, Suites 102, 103 & 104 subject to the follow
conditions:
1. The special use as an amusement establishment is granted to Max Geht and Mike Trayvas and
said special use does not run with the land.
2. The special use granted to Max Geht and Mike Trayvas is assignable to subsequent
petitioners, seeking assignment of this special use as follows:
a. Upon application of a petitioner seeking assignment of this special use, the
Corporate Authorities, in their sole discretion, may refer said application of
assignment to the appropriate commission(s) for a public hearing or may hold a
public hearing at the Village Board.
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
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
7
:
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
1
6
-
1
3
f
o
r
N
o
E
s
c
a
p
e
L
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
1
5
0
1
W
D
u
n
d
e
e
R
o
a
d
)
b. Such assignment shall be valid only upon the adoption of a proper, valid and binding
ordinance by the Corporate Authorities granting said assignment, which may be
granted or denied for any reason.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony
and the PZC shall then make a recommendation to the Village Board.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Aerial
2. Petitioner Letter
3. Petitioner’s Response to Standards
4. Floor Plan of Suites 102 & 104
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
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
8
4
7
:
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
1
6
-
1
3
f
o
r
N
o
E
s
c
a
p
e
L
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
1
5
0
1
W
D
u
n
d
e
e
R
o
a
d
)
feet
meters
600
200
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
(
1
8
4
7
:
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
1
6
-
1
3
f
o
r
N
o
E
s
c
a
p
e
L
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
1
5
0
1
W
D
u
n
d
e
e
R
o
a
d
)
2.1.c
Packet Pg. 7
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
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
(
1
8
4
7
:
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
1
6
-
1
3
f
o
r
N
o
E
s
c
a
p
e
L
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
1
5
0
1
W
D
u
n
d
e
e
2.1.d
Packet Pg. 8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
l
o
o
r
P
l
a
n
(
1
8
4
7
:
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
1
6
-
1
3
f
o
r
N
o
E
s
c
a
p
e
L
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
1
5
0
1
W
D
u
n
d
e
e
R
o
a
d
)
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 1, 2016
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 16406 West Highway 22 and 22927 N. Prairie Road
PETITIONER: Joseph Christopoulos
JTW Prairie Landing LLC
PROPERTY OWNER: Larry and Jill Olsen and Daniel and Judith Roseman
PREPARED BY: Christopher Stilling, Director of Community Development
REQUEST: Petition to the Village of Buffalo Grove for a re-zoning to the R-9
Multiple-Family Dwelling District with a special use and
variations
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.
Currently, JTW Prairie Landing LLC is under contract to acquire the property and is proposing to develop
12 3-story townhomes on the property. The project requires a re-zoning to the R-9 Multiple-Family
Dwelling District with a special use for a Residential Planned Unit Development and approval of a
Preliminary Plan with the following variations:
Zoning Ordinance
1. Variation to Section 17.16.060 decreasing the minimum lot area for a property in the R-9
District; and
2. Variation to Section 17.28.050 reducing the required perimeter setback as depicted on the
Preliminary Plan; and
3. Variation to Section 17.40.050 decreasing the minimum front, side, corner side and rear yard
setbacks as depicted on the Preliminary Plan; and
4. Variation to Section 17.28.050 to allow for a density of 11.4 units per acre as depicted on the
Preliminary Plan.
2.2.a
Packet Pg. 9
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
.
2
4
.
1
7
(
1
8
4
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
R
e
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
R
-
9
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
Development Ordinance
1. A Variation to Section 16.50 reducing the minimum right-of-way and parkway requirements.
PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS
Site Layout
The proposed site is currently located at the terminus of Chelsey Street, within the existing
Noah’s Landing development to the north.
When the Noah’s Landing project was approved, it contemplated the future development of the
subject parcels. As a result, Chelsey Street terminated at the rear yard of the Roseman property.
The developer is seeking to extend the existing public street to serve the development. The
existing 52’ wide right-of-way previously approved as part of Noah’s Landing would be carried
through to the south.
While the right-of-way would not meet the minimum required 60’ width (52’ proposed), the
required 27’ wide pavement would be provided.
The road 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 development will consist of 7 townhomes on the west side of the newly extended Chelsey
Street and 5 townhome son the east.
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. Setbacks are as follows:
North lot line(west building)- 19’
North lot line(east building)- 7’ (adjacent to open space)
South lot line- 24’
East lot line- 20’(adjacent to existing pond)
West lot line- 36’
Since the last workshop, staff worked with the developer to address the side building elevations.
To enhance the appearance of the building, the developer added a 2’ bump out to the side
elevations to help breakup the mass of the structure.
Land Use & Density
The proposed use (single-family attached development) is suitable for the property given its
general compatibility with the surrounding uses.
Townhomes 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 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 more dense options could be
considered if the site’s planning and design are carefully executed.
2.2.a
Packet Pg. 10
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
.
2
4
.
1
7
(
1
8
4
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
R
e
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
R
-
9
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
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.
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 more dense multi-family development or a mixed-use development with
office and multiple-family units.
Parking
The Zoning Ordinance requires a parking ratio of 2 spaces/unit for townhomes. The petitioner’s
plans show each unit with a 2-car garage and 2 spaces in the driveway for an overall ratio of 4
spaces/unit.
The petitioner is also proposing 4 additional off-street parking spaces for guests or overflow
parking.
While on street parking directly in front of the units will not be allowed as it will block
driveways, it is possible that an additional 4-5 cars could park on the east side of the newly
extended Chelsey Street, south of Taylor.
In addition, public parking is available in the commuter spaces directly across Prairie during the
weekends and evenings.
Architecture/Landscaping
The petitioner has provided elevations showing a 3-story product that is 38’ high. Village Code
allows a height up to 45’. It should be noted that this product type is different from the adjacent
Noah’s Landing project which is 2 ½ stories and ranges from 32’-35’ high.
The proposed projects units are also smaller than the existing Noah’s Landing project.
Since the last workshop, staff worked with the developer to address the side building elevations.
To enhance the appearance of the building, the developer added a 2’ bump out to the side
elevations to help breakup the mass of the structure.
The developer will be providing colored renderings at the meeting.
Engineering
In terms of stormwater, the detention pond built and associated with the Noah’s Landing
development can potentially serve redevelopment on the subject site.
The development would connect to the existing stormsewer in Chelsey discharge into the
existing pond. The Village Attorney has confirmed that based on the original plans and
easements agreements established with the Noah’s Landing Development, the proposed
development may discharge their stormwater into the existing pond.
Sewer and water are available to the north within the Chelsey Street right-of-way.
Zoning & Development Ordinance Variations
The following is a summary of the variations associated with the development request:
1. Variation to Section 17.16.060 decreasing the minimum lot area for a property in the R-9 District
The Village’s zoning standards specify a minimum area of two acres for an area of R -9
zoning. The proposed plan would need zoning relief of the area requirements since the site
is slightly less than two acres.
2.2.a
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
.
2
4
.
1
7
(
1
8
4
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
R
e
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
R
-
9
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
2. Variation to Section 17.28.050 reducing the required perimeter setback as depicted on the
Preliminary Plan.
The PUD standards require a minimum perimeter setback of 35’ or height of the building
(whichever is greater). Setbacks are as follows:
North lot line(west building)- 19’
North lot line(east building)- 7’ (adjacent to open space)
South lot line- 24’
East lot line- 20’(adjacent to existing pond)
West lot line- 36’
3. Variation to Section 17.40.050 decreasing the minimum front, side, corner side and rear yard
setbacks as depicted on the Preliminary Plan.
The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front and corner side yard setback of 25’. The
front building setbacks from the proposed street would be 20’ from the sidewalk and 24’
from Route 22.
4. Variation to Section 17.28.050 to allow for a density of 11.4 units per acre as depicted on the
Preliminary Plan.
The PUD standards require densities to be consistent with surrounding land uses and not to
exceed 10 units/acre. The density of the development would be 11.4 units per acre. While
the Village’s Comprehensive Plan and Code calls for townhomes up to 10 units /acre, it does
state that more dense options may be considered. Based on the location of the site near a
transit facility, the proposed density is reasonable.
5. A Variation to Section 16.50.070 reducing the minimum right-of-way requirements for a
private street
The Development Ordinance requires a minimum right-of-way of 60’. The developer is
proposing a 52’ wide right-of-way, which is consistent with the Noah’s Landing
Development.
STANDARDS FOR VARIATION
The following standards for a variation should be addressed by the petitioner at the hearing
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.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
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 mailing of the
notifications were both completed within the required timeframe. As of the date of this Staff Report the
Village a few inquiries from nearby residents.
2.2.a
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
.
2
4
.
1
7
(
1
8
4
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
R
e
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
R
-
9
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a re-zoning to the R-9 Multiple-Family Dwelling District with a special use
for a Residential Planned Unit Development and approval of a Preliminary Plan with variations subject to
the following conditions:
1. The proposed development shall be developed in substantial conformance to the plans attached
as part of the petition.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, covenants and declarations shall be submitted in a
manner acceptable to the Village Attorney.
3. On street parking shall be prohibited in a manner acceptable to the Village. Proper signage shall
be provided by the developer.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony and
the PZC shall then make a recommendation to the Village Board.
2.2.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
.
2
4
.
1
7
(
1
8
4
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
R
e
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
R
-
9
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
Olson Property
Roseman Property
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
e
r
i
a
l
(
1
8
4
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
R
e
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
R
-
9
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
2.
2
.
c
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
5
Attachment: Plans (1849 : Consider a Re-Zoning to the R-9 Multiple-Family Dwelling District with a Special Use and Variations)
2.2.c
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
s
(
1
8
4
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
R
e
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
R
-
9
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
2.2.c
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
s
(
1
8
4
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
R
e
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
R
-
9
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
2.2.c
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
s
(
1
8
4
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
R
e
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
R
-
9
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
2.2.c
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
s
(
1
8
4
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
R
e
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
R
-
9
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
2.2.c
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
s
(
1
8
4
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
R
e
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
R
-
9
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
2.2.c
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
s
(
1
8
4
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
R
e
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
R
-
9
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
U
s
e
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
2.
2
.
c
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
2
Attachment: Plans (1849 : Consider a Re-Zoning to the R-9 Multiple-Family Dwelling District with a Special Use and Variations)
2.
2
.
c
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
3
Attachment: Plans (1849 : Consider a Re-Zoning to the R-9 Multiple-Family Dwelling District with a Special Use and Variations)
PD
F
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
de
s
k
P
D
F
PD
F
Wr
i
t
e
r
- Tr
i
a
l
::
ht
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
d
o
c
u
d
e
s
k
.
c
o
m
2.
2
.
c
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
4
Attachment: Plans (1849 : Consider a Re-Zoning to the R-9 Multiple-Family Dwelling District with a Special Use and Variations)
PD
F
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
de
s
k
P
D
F
PD
F
Wr
i
t
e
r
- Tr
i
a
l
::
ht
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
d
o
c
u
d
e
s
k
.
c
o
m
2.
2
.
c
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
5
Attachment: Plans (1849 : Consider a Re-Zoning to the R-9 Multiple-Family Dwelling District with a Special Use and Variations)
PD
F
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
de
s
k
P
D
F
PD
F
Wr
i
t
e
r
- Tr
i
a
l
::
ht
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
d
o
c
u
d
e
s
k
.
c
o
m
2.
2
.
c
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
6
Attachment: Plans (1849 : Consider a Re-Zoning to the R-9 Multiple-Family Dwelling District with a Special Use and Variations)
PD
F
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
de
s
k
P
D
F
PD
F
Wr
i
t
e
r
- Tr
i
a
l
::
ht
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
d
o
c
u
d
e
s
k
.
c
o
m
2.
2
.
c
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
7
Attachment: Plans (1849 : Consider a Re-Zoning to the R-9 Multiple-Family Dwelling District with a Special Use and Variations)
PD
F
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
de
s
k
P
D
F
PD
F
Wr
i
t
e
r
- Tr
i
a
l
::
ht
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
d
o
c
u
d
e
s
k
.
c
o
m
2.
2
.
c
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
8
Attachment: Plans (1849 : Consider a Re-Zoning to the R-9 Multiple-Family Dwelling District with a Special Use and Variations)
Page 1 of 1
VILLAGE OF
BUFFALO GROVE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 24, 2017
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Christopher Stilling, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Workshop Discussion #4 (Architecture)- Proposed 50 acre Residential
Development at 16802 W Aptakisic Road (Link Farm)
Background
K. Hovnanian Homes (KHov) is the contract purchaser of the unincorporated 50 acres located at
16802 W Aptakisic Road (Link Farm). KHov is finalizing their plans for a new residential
development on the property and is seeking some final comments from the Planning & Zoning
Commission (PZC) concerning architecture. The developer will provide the PZC with a
presentation of their architectural plans and elevations.
Proposed Plans
As previously discussed with the PZC, KHov (Developer) is proposing a residential development
consisting of a mix of single-family detached and single-family attached housing units. The
proposed development would be called “Link Crossing” and consist of a total of 214 units (4.28
units/acre) as follows:
70 clustered single-family detached (SFD) homes
73 2-story single-family attached (SFA) townhomes
71 3-story single-family attached (SFA) townhomes
Since the last workshop, the developer’s plans have remained fairly consistent with what had
previously been discussed with the PZC and staff estimates this project will come before the PZC
for the first public hearing on April 5th. Prior to the first public hearing, staff and the developer
are seeking comments from the PZC regarding the proposed architecture for the project.
Action Requested
Enclosed for the PZC’s review and comments are the developer’s architectural booklets for the
various product types. As shown, the developer is proposing 5 different model types for the
single family homes. This includes 2 types of ranch models (with a 3rd alternative for more
prominent elevations), a 1½ store “Cape Cod” model and 2 types of traditional “2 -story” models.
Each model will have 3 different elevations to choose from along with many other color options.
Specifically, the development team is seeking feedback concerning the use of materials along the
more prominent elevations. We are also seeking any comments from the PZC concerning the
elevations for the townhomes.
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
M
e
m
o
(
1
8
4
8
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
#
4
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
1
6
8
0
2
W
A
p
t
a
k
i
s
i
c
R
o
a
d
/
L
i
n
k
F
a
r
m
)
60' ROW
60' ROW
50' min60'
60'
80 '
80 '
50' min
2
5
'
m
i
n
60' ROW
30' min
20'
p
otential future
ROW acc
ess
50' min
60' ROW
p
ark
rowho
me - 3 story
creek to
remain
c
reekside
p
ath
buffalo grove road
b
rand
ywyn lane
meridian way
c
ourt a
court b
court c
c
ourt d
court e
ironwood
court
satinwo
od
terrace
chestnut terrace
emerg
ency
rowhome - 2 story
access
p
ark
c
hurc
hill
d
etention
naturalized
area
d
etention
naturalized
area
d
etention
naturalized
area
trail brid
g
e
'link crossing'
p
roject
entry sig
n
8' walk
in row
8' walk
in row
8' walk
in row
row d
ed
ic
ation
p
ark
existing
sing
le family
hoffman d
rive
o
live hill drive
meridian
middle school
jord
an terrace
p
raire g
rove
row d
edication
c
ourt f
5' walk
(concep
tual p
ark layout)
p
ark
25' front yard
30' front yard
50'
Ranch Zone
25' B to B
bike p
ath
b
ike path
b
ike path
bik
e p
ath
bik
e p
ath
p
ark d
istrict
lot
p
ark district
lot
p
ark d
istrict
lot
park district
lot
p
roject
entry sig
n
sing
le family
- cluster home
sing
le family - cluster home
27' b to b
rowhome - 2 story
rowhome - 3 story
20' access d
rive
p
otential
future access
R-6A Lot
R-9 Lot
R-9 Lot
R-6A Lo
t
20' landscape lot
20' land
scape lot
30' front yard
60 '
60'
ranch op
tion
50'
55'
25 '
12'
12'
6 '
covered p
orch zone
6'
lot line
internal
lot line
internal
ranch p
rivacy area
p
rivacy area
15 '
15 '5 '
20' shared
d
rive
40'
20'
40'
10 '
20 '
15' sid
e to sid
e (not shown)
20' shared d
rive
40'
40'
20'
20'
10 '
4' d
eep deck area
15' side to sid
e (not shown)
Site Layo
ut
Scale: 1"=
80'-0"
North
site
±
48.6
internal row
±
7.5
net site
±
41.1
area calcs
Site Data
g
ross density
4.4
residential units
sing
le family - cluster home
townhome - 2 story
rowhome - 3 story
214717073
p
arking
single family - cluster home
townhome - 2 story
rowhome - 3 story
140
146
140-
3332
-
72
total
208
313
250
ratio
2.93
4.47
3.42
gross site
±
50.0 ac
perimeter row
±
1.4 ac
site
±
48.6 ac
site d
ata
open sp
ace/det.
±
12.6 ac
-p
ercentage
26%
±
24.0
±
2.7
±
21.3
2.9
±
24.6
±
4.6
±
20.0
5.9
R-6a
R-9
total site
single family
multi-family
net density
5.2
3.3
7.2
garage
apron
off-street
on-street
b
uild
ing
coverag
e
18.6
assuming 100% largest footprint
70 @ 2780 sf
acacac
acacac
acacac
%
18.2
73 @ 1910 sf %
71 @ 780 sf
18.4
%
lot area
2,400
sf
na
-
- req
uired min.
- provided
±
7,400
sf
Sing
le Fam
ily Detail
Ro
who
m
e Detail
Scale: 1"=
40'-0"
Scale: 1"=
40'-0"
To
wnho
m
e Detail
Scale: 1"=
40'-0"
142
-
25
41
±
4,200
sf
g
ross
net
not incl ROW nor detn
3.A.1.b
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
(
1
8
4
8
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
#
4
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
1
6
8
0
2
W
A
p
t
a
k
i
s
i
c
R
o
a
d
/
L
i
n
k
F
a
r
m
)
3.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
(
1
8
4
8
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
#
4
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
1
6
8
0
2
W
A
p
t
a
k
i
s
i
c
R
o
a
d
/
L
i
n
k
F
a
r
m
)
3.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
(
1
8
4
8
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
#
4
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
1
6
8
0
2
W
A
p
t
a
k
i
s
i
c
R
o
a
d
/
L
i
n
k
F
a
r
m
)
3.A.1.c
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
(
1
8
4
8
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
#
4
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
1
6
8
0
2
W
A
p
t
a
k
i
s
i
c
R
o
a
d
/
L
i
n
k
F
a
r
m
)
RANCH #1
2,581 SQ. FT.
A
SIDE REAR
B C
3.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
H
o
m
e
s
(
1
8
4
8
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
#
4
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
1
6
8
0
2
W
A
p
t
a
k
i
s
i
c
R
o
a
d
/
L
i
n
k
F
a
r
m
)
RANCH #2
2,177 SQ. FT.
A
SIDE REAR
B C
3.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
H
o
m
e
s
(
1
8
4
8
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
#
4
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
1
6
8
0
2
W
A
p
t
a
k
i
s
i
c
R
o
a
d
/
L
i
n
k
F
a
r
m
)
CAPE COD
2,466 SQ. FT.
A
SIDE REAR
B C
3.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
H
o
m
e
s
(
1
8
4
8
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
#
4
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
1
6
8
0
2
W
A
p
t
a
k
i
s
i
c
R
o
a
d
/
L
i
n
k
F
a
r
m
)
TRADITIONAL 2-STORY #1
2,933 SQ. FT.
A
SIDE REAR
B C
3.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
H
o
m
e
s
(
1
8
4
8
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
#
4
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
1
6
8
0
2
W
A
p
t
a
k
i
s
i
c
R
o
a
d
/
L
i
n
k
F
a
r
m
)
TRADITIONAL 2-STORY #2
3,214 SQ. FT.
A
SIDE REAR
B C
3.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
H
o
m
e
s
(
1
8
4
8
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
#
4
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
1
6
8
0
2
W
A
p
t
a
k
i
s
i
c
R
o
a
d
/
L
i
n
k
F
a
r
m
)
RANCH #2 ALT.
2,177 SQ. FT.
A
SIDE REAR
B C
3.A.1.d
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
H
o
m
e
s
(
1
8
4
8
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
#
4
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
1
6
8
0
2
W
A
p
t
a
k
i
s
i
c
R
o
a
d
/
L
i
n
k
F
a
r
m
)
TWO STORY
TOWNHOMES
REAR SIDE
3.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
o
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
(
1
8
4
8
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
#
4
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
1
6
8
0
2
W
A
p
t
a
k
i
s
i
c
R
o
a
d
/
L
i
n
k
F
a
r
m
)
THREE STORY
TOWNHOMES
REAR SIDE
3.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
o
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
(
1
8
4
8
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
#
4
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
1
6
8
0
2
W
A
p
t
a
k
i
s
i
c
R
o
a
d
/
L
i
n
k
F
a
r
m
)
THREE STORY TOWNHOMES
STREET SIDE ELEVATION
REAR SIDE
3.A.1.e
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
o
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
(
1
8
4
8
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
#
4
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
1
6
8
0
2
W
A
p
t
a
k
i
s
i
c
R
o
a
d
/
L
i
n
k
F
a
r
m
)
02/15/2017
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, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Commissioner Eric Smith
Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
1.Consider a Special Use for a Recreational Use for the Property Located at 1455 Busch
Parkway (Trustee Berman) (Staff Contact: Brian Sheehan)
Mr. Elliott Hartstein, Attorney, Mr. Ronald Klein, Redline Athletics of Illinois, Jim Wolf, Redline
Athletics, and Ken Alberts, Architect, were present and sworn in.
Mr. Hartstein explained that this is a request for a Special Use. The proposal is to allow a
recreational use in the Industrial District to provide sports training to kids ranging in age from 8
to 18. Each session would be 90 minutes. The proposed hours at Monday through Thursday 2:00
PM to 8:00 or 9:00 PM; Friday 2:00 PM to 7:00 PM and Saturday and Sunday 9:00 AM to 4:00
PM with a possible time allotment for kids with special needs on Sundays. He and his client were
advised that staff is recommending to cap the number of occupants to 49 at any given time. They
feel that this number will hinder their ability to flourish and that his client, Mr. Klein would be
more comfortable limiting the total occupants to 65 at any given time with the ability for the
Village to reconsider this cap at a later date.
Mr. Hartstein reviewed how they meet the criteria to allow the Special Use. A large number of
area youth participate in sports and the facility will provide training for them. The proposed use
will be in harmony with the existing uses in the area. Current uses include gymnastics, martial
arts, a fitness center and Jump Zone. They will convert currently vacant space into usable space
that will be a compatible use. The site is setback from the roadway and will not affect the
surrounding corporate areas. A parking study was conducted by the landlord to show that there is
adequate parking available.
Mr. Klein explained that he was looking for a franchise and found this to be an excellent
opportunity. The target market age is 8 to 18 years old. He has been to three Redline locations.
There is no reservation required and the kids can come and go as they want. The sessions are 90
minutes. The facility promotes learning as well as fitness. The kids can train for any sport. They
would evaluate each individual’s performance, do simple exercises and conduct a Fusionetics
analysis, which is unique to Redline. They work to strengthen weak areas to help avoid injuries.
Redline has been around for about 10 years and have not had any parking issues at their existing
locations. He would like to start with a occupant cap of 65 rather than 49. Most parents will be
dropping their kids off. There is no set schedule and some kids will come in a car pool.
Mr. Wolf added for the older kids, they are usually teammates will train together so they will come
together in the same vehicle. For the non-driving participants, they anticipate that the drop
off/pick up process will be about 10-15 minutes. They have not had any parking issues at their
current locations. The parking study was done and showed ample parking available.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 43
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
F
e
b
1
5
,
2
0
1
7
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
02/15/2017
Mr. Alberts added that he calculated the maximum occupancy load based upon the current
International Building Code (IBC) which results in a 186 maximum for warehouse space and 9
occupants for office space. The proposed cap is a far cry from what the is allowed by Code. The
facility will be open later, when kids are out of school and will not affect the type hours of a
corporate office use.
Mr. Hartstein stated that they do not want to be put in a situation by having an occupant placed
upon them. His client would be comfortable with a minimum cap of 65 but does not believe that a
cap is even necessary.
Com. Au stated that they would be sharing space with Jump Zone and asking if they are targeting
the same demographics. Mr. Wolf believes that the uses would compliment each other and stated
that they are not competing with Jump Zone. Com. Au asked large groups and how the parking
with drop off and pick up would work at the same time. Mr. Wolf advised that the sessions every
hour with drop off and pick up at the top and bottom of the hour. Mr. Klein added that the
landlord conducted a two study of the parking and Saturdays are Jump Zone’s party days. He
does not see the parking as an issue, there is ample parking available.
Com. Cesario asked staff is they would be comfortable with an occupant cap of 65. Mr. Stilling
stated that the cap of 49 was determined based upon the documentation submitted to the Village.
Parking is based upon use, not occupancy. There is still 21,000-22,000 square feet of vacant space
that would remain at the location. The Village wanted a ceiling in place to evaluate. Com. Cesario
asked about the maximum occupancy at Jump Zone. Mr. Stilling is not sure but believes that there
are no more than 50 at any given time. Com. Cesario asked if there have been any additional
inquires about the Petition from the public. Mr. Stilling responded no. Com. Cesario asked Mr.
Klein if there will be locker rooms or showers. Mr. Klein responded no, kids would go home and
shower. He added that the vacant remaining unit is located on the opposite side of the building.
Mr. Hartstein added that this is the end unit furthest back from the road. Mr. Klein stated that he
would have the employees park the furthest from the building, adjacent to the retention pond. He
also advised that when the kids arrive they are anxious to start and do not require any changing
areas. Com. Cesario stated that there are a wide variety of sports training offered and asked the
Petitioner to walk thru diversity. Mr. Klein explained that the older kids typically mentor the
younger kids. They are begin with warm ups together, then they break out into their specific
training. Com. Cesario asked if any activities are planned to be conducted outside. Mr. Klein
replied no. Com. Cesario asked Mr. Klein if he would be comfortable with an occupant cap of 65.
Mr. Klein stated yes.
Com. Lesser believes that this is an appropriate use for the area. However, he is concerned with
parking and the safety in the parking lot when there are concurrent activities with Jump Zone. Mr.
Klein stated that from what he has seen, most parents do not drop off their kids at Jump Zone, they
go in and stay with them. They have several options to provide safety to their participants. The
sidewalk runs parallel to the building. Kids can be dropped off on the east side and go directly
into the building. They could put up signage in the parking lot directing parents where to drop off
and pick up. Mr. Wolf added that most parents wanted to stay when it was a baseball facility. This
is a training facility. Com. Lesser is still concerned about concurrent events and the activity it
would generate in the small parking lot. He is concerned with the quantity of parking available.
The landlord has only allocated 20 spaces for Petitioner. Mr. Klein responded that at every other
Redline location, parking was not an issue. Com. Lesser asked how many parking spaces are
allotted at the other facilities. Mr. Klein stated 10 to 11. Mr. Wolf added that the average number
of spaces used is 9.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 44
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
F
e
b
1
5
,
2
0
1
7
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
02/15/2017
Com. Goldspiel asked if the training is open to both boys and girls. Mr. Wolf responded yes. Com.
Goldspiel asked about the proportion of boys versus girls. Mr. Wolf believes it is about 44% to
55% but it depends on the region and the sport. Com. Goldspiel asked if their customers would
use the east sidewalk. Mr. Wolf stated yes. Com. Goldspiel asked about the lighting in the parking
lot.
Nick Panarese III, Van Vlissingen, was present and sworn in. Mr. Panarese advised that the
parking lot lighting is high pressure sodium lighting. They also have bollard lighting around the
building and along the sidewalk. Com. Goldspiel asked if the lighting goes completely around the
building. Mr. Panarese advised yes and added that they would not support the use if they felt it
was not appropriate. They conducted the two week parking study and believe that this proposed
facility works. Com. Goldspiel asked about the width of the drive aisle. Mr. Panarese is not sure of
the width but knows that two cars can pass each other going in the opposite direction with no
issues. Com. Goldspiel needs to be assured that there is enough lighting. Mr. Panarese responded
that they have a proactive maintenance schedule. Com. Goldspiel asked that someone take a look
at the lighting.
Com. Au asked if Redline’s parking study is available as she did not see it in the packet. Mr. Wolf
pointed out the there are an additional 22 parking spaces located adjacent to the retention pond.
Mr. Hartstein asked Mr. Wolf how many parking spaces are allotted at Redlines’ other locations.
Mr. Wolf is not sure but believes 8 to 10. Com. Lesser asked if that included staff. Mr. Wolf replied
no but believes that there are about 5 staff members there at a time.
There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners.
Ch. Smith entered the Staff Report as Exhibit 1.
Mr. Michael Gordon, a resident, was present and sworn in. Mr. Gordon is in support of the
Petition made by Redline. He works in the athletic field and sees a need for this. Redline would
attract more kids that want to be fit. He can see himself bringing his own children to the facility.
He believes that most parents would not stay while their kids are training and would just drop
them off and come back to pick them up.
Mr. Stilling confirmed with Mr. Klein that there would not be any locker rooms or showers.
Mr. Hartstein added that Mr. Klein has agreed to have his employees park in the additional
parking area next to the retention pond. This would mitigate the parking concerns.
Com. Au asked about the location of the entrance doors on the building. Mr. Stilling advised that
they would be using the east door. Com. Au asked if it is possible to move the door. Mr. Stilling
stated that he would leave that to the Petitioner and suggested they could install some additional
sidewalk. Mr. Wolf added that they will make something work. They could designate a drop
off/pick area.
Mr. Raysa suggested that the motion made be subject to Mr. Klein obtaining the assumed name
Redline Athlectics of Illinois. Mr. Klein advised that he has file for the assumed name with the
Secretary of State but has not yet seen it reflected on their website.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 45
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
F
e
b
1
5
,
2
0
1
7
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
02/15/2017
There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no
questions or comments from the audience.
The public hearing was closed at 8:32 PM.
Moved by Com. Cesario, seconded by Com. Khan, to recommend to the Village Board to approve
the request for a Special Use for a recreational facility located at 1455 Busch Parkway, subject to
the following conditions:
1.The special use as a recreational facility is granted to Rek Room Inc., D/B/A Redline Athletics of
Illinois (as ownership is currently constituted) and said special use does not run with the land.
2.The special use granted to Rek Room Inc., D/B/A Redline Athletics of Illinois (as ownership is
currently constituted) is assignable to subsequent petitioners, seeking assignment of this special
use as follows:
a.Upon application of a petitioner seeking assignment of this special use, the Village, in their sole
discretion, may refer said application of assignment to the appropriate commission(s) for a public
hearing or may hold a public hearing at the Village Board.
b.Such assignment shall be valid only upon the adoption of a proper, valid and binding ordinance
by the Corporate Authorities granting said assignment, which may be granted or denied for any
reason.
3.The maximum number of students and employees shall not exceed 65 persons. The maximum
occupancy may be increased upon the review and approval by the Village.
4.Provide to the Village’s satisfaction proof of the filing of the assumed name Redline Athletics of
Illinois.
Com. Au asked that a 5th condition be added in that they provide demonstration of designated drop
off/pick up area.
Com. Cesario amended the motion to include the 5th condition. Com. Khan seconded the
amendment.
Com. Goldspiel wants the site to be satisfactorily lit.
Com. Cesario believes this is a phenomenal use. He does not see that parking as a risk. If there
are 30 cars in the lot at any given time, he would be surprised. On safety, he does not see a heavy
risk. He is supportive.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 46
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
F
e
b
1
5
,
2
0
1
7
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
02/15/2017
Com. Lesser believes that this is an appropriate use for the zoning district. He also believes that
the parking and safety issues will be addressed appropriately. The landlord’s testimony has made
him more comfortable.
Com. Cohn likes the concept. He is not concerned and believes the Petitioner will remedy any
issues that arise.
RESULT:RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Frank Cesario, Commissioner
SECONDER:Zill Khan, Commissioner
AYES:Smith, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Au
ABSENT:Adam Moodhe, Mitchell Weinstein
Regular Meeting
Other Matters for Discussion
None.
Approval of Minutes
1.Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Feb 1, 2017 12:00 AM
Moved by Com. Lesser, seconded by Com. Khan, to approve the minutes of the
February 1, 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission regular meeting.
RESULT:ACCEPTED [6 TO 0]
AYES:Smith, Cesario, Cohn, Khan, Lesser, Au
ABSTAIN:Stephen Goldspiel
ABSENT:Adam Moodhe, Mitchell Weinstein
Chairman's Report
Ch. Smith congratulated the service award recipients at the Volunteer Reception held on Sunday,
February 12, 2017.
Com.. Goldspiel - 30 years
Com. Khan - 15 years
Com. Weinstein - 10 years
He thanked all the Commissioners for their service.
Committee and Liaison Reports
None.
Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 47
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
F
e
b
1
5
,
2
0
1
7
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
02/15/2017
Mr. Stilling reviewed the first public meeting on the Lake Cook Road Corridor Study.
Mr. Stilling advised that the next meeting, March 1st, the Commissioner will hear an amendment
to the Special Use approved for No Escape. The Olson property will have their public hearing.
Link Crossing will have one final workshop for aesthetics. The March 15th meeting agenda will
have the Link Crossing public hearing and a public hearing for the Goddard School.
Woodman's is looking to break ground this spring.
Public Comments and Questions
None.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 PM
Chris Stilling Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY ME THIS 15th DAY OF February , 2017
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 48
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
F
e
b
1
5
,
2
0
1
7
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)