Loading...
2018-08-15 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Minutes08/15/2018 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, AUGUST 15, 2018 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:34 PM by Chairman Frank Cesario Public Hearings/Items For Consideration 1. Consider a Variation to the Sign Code for 3 Replacement Signs at the Courtyards at the Woodlands Development (Trustee Stein) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Maria Besbeas, Association Board President, 29 Willow Parkway, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089, and Beth Black, Property Manager, 2522 Live Oak Lane, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089, were present and sworn in. Ms. Besbeas explained that the Homeowner’s Association is looking to replace two identification signs at Half Day Road and Willow Parkway and add an additional sign at Buffalo Grove Road and Brandywyn Lane. They do not have the amount of space needed to meet the setback requirement for the two signs at Willow Parkway and Half Day Road. The third sign is being requested because the property is separated by the golf course. Ch. Cesario advised that the Petitioner discussed the signs at the previous Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) meeting and asked if there were any changes made to the proposed signs. Ms. Besbeas advised that there have not been any changes to the proposed signs. Com. Khan asked why the Petitioner is requesting two signs at Half Day Road and Willow Parkway. Ms. Besbeas explained that there is a narrow area between the sidewalk and fencing. If they placed the sign parallel to the roadway, the sign would not be seen. The proposed signs will be angled so traffic coming eastbound would see the sign on the southeast corner and traffic coming westbound would see the sign on the southwest corner. There were two signs at this intersection previously and those signs were angled as well. Com. Khan stated that the Petitioner is also asking for a variance for a six foot high sign that would be twenty-four square feet in area. The Code allows for a thirty-two square foot sign. He asked the Petitioner if they would consider a five foot high sign. Ms. Besbeas responded that they could consider a five foot high sign. However the fence is six feet high and they would like the signs to be visible with the fence and landscaping. Com. Weinstein stated the Petitioner is asking for the signs to be one foot higher but less square feet in area. He asked the Petitioner if each sign would be twenty -four square feet. Ms. Besbeas responded yes. Com. Weinstein asked if the signs would be placed in the same location as the previous signs. Ms. Besbeas explained that the proposed signs would be located further from the sidewalk than the old signs. Com. Weinstein asked the Petitioner to describe the proposed landscaping. Ms. Besbeas described the landscaping as shown on page 15 of the packet. 08/15/2018 Ch. Cesario confirmed with the Petitioner that the seven previous signs for the development are being replaced with only three signs. Com. Goldspiel stated that in the past, the Village did not allow subdivision identification signs once a development was fully built out. He asked if this property was fully developed. Ms. Besbeas stated that the property is completely built out. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated August 15, 2018 as Exhibit 1. The public hearing was closed at 7:47 PM Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Khan, to make a positive recommendation to the Village Board to approve the three new subdivision identification signs, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed signs shall be constructed in accordance to the plans attached as part of the petition. 2. The landscape plan shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village Forrester. Com. Moodhe believes that reducing the number of signs down to three is reasonable. This development is spread out and identification is needed. Ch. Cesario believes that the signs are not excessive in size and are visually pleasing. He is not as concerned with having two signs at the same intersection. He is supportive of the request. RESULT: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] Next: 9/17/2018 7:30 PM MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner SECONDER: Zill Khan, Commissioner AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein ABSENT: Matthew Cohn, Scott Lesser, Amy Au 2. Consider a Variation to the RV Regulations, Section 17.36 of the Zoning Ordinance, for the Property at 15 Chevy Chase Drive (Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Sue Wiebe, 15 Chevy Chase Drive, Buffalo Grove IL 60089 and Rochelle Stein, 17 Chevy Chase Drive, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089, were present and sworn in. Ms. Wiebe explained that she is requesting a variation to allow her to keep her boat parked on her driveway. Ms. Wiebe advised she has a packet for the Commissioners which includes photographs and letters from her neighbors. Her situat ion is unique. She 08/15/2018 did not purchase her home in Buffalo Grove. Her property was annexed into the Village. When she purchased her home, these regulations were not in place. She does not have the side yard acreage to store the boat next to her house. The boa t is not at the front of the driveway but along the side of the that her husband had built out for the boat. They have had a boat of some sort there for the past thirty years. The area is off to the side and slopes down and is naturally hidden. They have a dded landscaping to help hide the boat. Her situation is also unique since she does not have residential properties across the street from her house. The boat is pretty much hidden from view except from one neighbor’s house, Rochelle’s house. Ms. Wiebe dis tributed a packet to the Commissioners, which includes photographs and letters from her neighbors. Ms. Wiebe described the photographs in the packet. A couple years ago she did plant a row of lilac bushes, so going west on Chevy Chase Drive you do not even see the boat. You can see the boat going east from 17 Chevy Chase Drive. The bushes really hide the boat and blends in very well. She reviewed the statements from her neighbors that are included in the packet, except for her neighbor at 17 Chevy Chase Drive, who is present. She has spoken with her other neighbors and those neighbors did not have any issues. She has lived here for thirty years and has not had a single complaint. Com. Goldspiel believes what was done here was what the Village was hoping for with the Ordinance. It’s nicely screened. It is a relatively small boat. He believes it works. Com. Khan stated he has been on the PZC for almost twenty years. This subject has come up off and on. The Village Board had asked staff to research the surrounding communities. Staff then presented the draft regulations to the PZC. After a few modifications, the PZC made a recommendation to the Village Board, who then approved the regulations by Ordinance. He has lived in the Village for twenty -four years and has a neighbor who has a boat. During the course of a year, he only sees the boat for several hours for cleaning and then his neighbor takes it somewhere. Sometimes he parks it in the garage, sometimes he takes it to the marina and sometimes he stores it nearby. Com. Khan cited the second “Whereas” clause of the Ordinance, which states in part, “the Village has received several complaints from residents concerned that the Village’s parking regulations for recreational vehicles (“RV”) are too permissive;” This Ordinance is very new. He has been in a dilemma since he read the request. This is the first request coming before the PZC. Ordinances are passed to be followed. If the PZC establishes a precedent, then the Village is back to square one. He is still think ing through the request and will withhold his comments until he hears from the other Commissioners. Ch. Cesario stated that he attended the Village Board meeting that ultimately passed the Ordinance. The verbiage that was used by the Village Trustees at t hat meeting was that this is new. They wanted the PZC to be gentle and to take care of where the Ordinance does and does not work. He believes Com. Khan raises a valid point concerning precedent. The PZC grants variances when the circumstance is such that it is different from the intention of the law. He believes that this request is the poster child of the intent. It is not the eyesore condition that is the intention of the ordnance. He appreciates that the Petitioner spoke to her neighbors before coming before the PZC. He believes the landscaping and other elements for a boat that does not come close to the sidewalk and moves regularly is the poster child of warranting a variance. Com. Weinstein cited the three criteria standards that are to be met in order for the PZC to grant a variance. The first is not applicable in this request. The two standards that must be met concerning this request is that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and the variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. He has heard testimony that addresses the third but not the second. He asked the 08/15/2018 Petitioner to explain the unique circumstances. Ms. Wiebe explained that she looked at trying to place the boat on the side of her house in order to comply with the Ordinance. However, she does not have the room due to the shape of her lot. She did not move into Buffalo Grove, her property was annexed. She has no desire to decrease someone else’s property value. If any of her neighbors had told her that they did not like the boat, she would have taken that seriously. She does not have any neighbors across the street from her house. The boat is properly dressed, it’s not collecting water and it is something that she uses. When driving around and seeing other boats, she realizes that her boat is small and is housed in an inconspicuous place. Com. Weinstein asked about the neighbors. Ms. Wiebe responded that she did not get a chance to speak with one neighbor further down the street and one house is vacant. Com. Weinstein confirmed that the Petitioner has not received any negative feedback from the neighbors she has spoken to. Ms. Wiebe stated that is correct. Com. Weinstein asked staff is any inquiries have been received. Mr. Stilling responded no. Com. Moodhe stated that he looked at the property. The property sneaks up on you before you realize the boat is there. He suggested the Petitioner use a green or brown cover for the boat to help it blend in. Ms. Wiebe agreed that it would. Blue was the color they had available when she purchased the cover. Com. Khan asked if the Petitioner has ever considered parking the boat and trailer in the garage. Ms. Wiebe responded that the boat and trailer are too long for the garage. The depth of the garage is not enough, the height is okay but the trailer is too long. Com. Khan stated that he is aware of a storage location on Campus Drive in Arlington Heights and asked if the issue was finding a place to store the boat off site. Ms. Wiebe responded that she does not know where Campus Drive is located. Sometimes she comes back late with the boat and such off site storage is inconvenient. In addition, it would be a significant added expense to her to store the boat off-site. Com. Weinstein asked staff if the variance is approved, would it run with the land. Mr. Stilling advised that it would be for the property, based off the exhibits submitted as part of the petition. A condition can be added and worded in a way to limit the size and length of the boat and trailer. Com. Weinstein is concerned about future recreational vehicles on this property if approved. Com. Moodhe asked staff if the variance would run with the land. Mr. Stilling responded that it could run with the land. Com. Moodhe asked Mr. Stilling if the variance can be conditioned to not be transferrable or become moot if the Petitioner gets a different boat. Mr. Stilling advised that the variance can be conditioned to be limited to the Petitioner for the long-term storage of the boat and if the recreational vehicle changes the Petitioner would need to come back to the PZC. Com. Moodhe asked if it can be handled similar to child daycare homes and that are re-reviewed every couple of years. Mr. Stilling recalls that during the development of the regulations, everyone wanted these variation requests to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. He recommended to the Commissioners exercising caution so as to not have too many conditions. Com. Goldspiel asked the Petitioner to describe the boat and trailer. Ms. Wiebe explained that the boat is an outboard speed boat that is seventeen feet long without the motor placed on a twenty-four foot long trailer. Com. Goldspiel asked how often the boat is taken out. Ms. Wiebe explained that she has not taken the boat out yet this season but will have it out next weekend and in September. It depends on her schedule. Com. Goldspiel asked if the size of the boat and trailer should be noted in the motion. Mr. 08/15/2018 Stilling advised that since this is the first RV variation request, the PZC should make some solid findings that are specific to this request. Other RV variation requests may be for different parts of the regulations. Com. Moodhe believes that there are unique circumstances as the subdivision was completely built out when the property was annexed into the Village. The Petitioner has stated that they cannot locate the boat and trailer in the rear or side yard due to the size of the side yards and no access to the rear. The boat is already screened as the regulations require. The Petitioner had already spoken to the neighbors and has provided their statements. Com. Goldspiel suggested some possible findings in that the boat fits entirely on a solid surface, does not infringe on the sidewalk, it is screened and that it is not visually disruptive to the neighborhood. Ch. Cesario suggested that the findings include that the boat also moves regularly. Mr. Stilling recommended citing the unique circumstance specific to this property and this petition. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated August 15, 2018 as Exhibit 1 and the packet submitted by the Petitioner as Exhibit 2. Ms. Stein stated that she has lived just to the west of the Petitioner for over thirty years. There has always been a boat on their driveway. This is not a large boat, it is concealed, it is covered, it is maintained, it is not touching the sidewalk, it is used and no one can really see it. The neighbors have never complained about it. She has seen other recreational vehicles in neighborhoods that are enormous boats and big RV’s that are hideous. The boat and trailer are not noticeable. She does not have any issues with allowing the boat and trailer to be stored in the driveway. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. The public hearing was closed at 8:23 PM. Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Moodhe, to grant the variation to the RV regulations, Section 17.36.030 of the Zoning Ordinance for the property at 15 Chevy Chase Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variation applies to a boat and trailer that has a size and shape reasonably consistent with the boat and trailer presented in the materials. 2. The variation does not run with the land. 08/15/2018 Com. Weinstein stated that he added the condition of the variation not running with the land despite what Mr. Stilling had requested of the PZC. This is brand new. He does not know who the next petitioner will be and does not know how those neighbors are going to react. He does not know what the next boat will be like even with the language about being reasonably consistent. Let the next resident come before the PZC with their own request. That is he reasoning behind the conditions added. There is no precedent so the PZC is working from scratch. Based on the testimony that he has heard and considered, the boat has good screening and is not readily visible. The homeowner has no access to side yards. The neighbors have come out in support of the request. This was a subdivision that was annexed with different building standards making this a unique situation. With these circumstances and the stated conditions, he believes that the petition should be granted. Mr. Stilling recommended that the motion reflect that the variation is for the storage of the boat and trailer outside the timeframe only and not for any other of the regulations. Ch. Cesario stated that this is the first variation request under the new regulations. He thought to himself, what is the standard? The things move, unlike changes to a home or changes to a structure. These things inherently get replaced and moved and even landscaping changes over time. So what should be used as a benchmark? This request is all of those things. This is the true poster child of what the PZC should be granting a variation for. It is a challenge as the PZC struggled a little with the language. He likes the conditions added by Com. Weinstein, they cleanly communicate those concerns. This should be the standard. A variance is being granted for this kind of RV in this type of circumstance. He is supportive of the request. Com. Moodhe would like to see any future variations be granted just for that particular vehicle and not be transferrable with the property. Fences and additions are fixed objects. This is a movable object. He believes that setting that particular precedent right now is something to look back on and that this is not something that should transfer with the property. This case is unique and he believes this does fit into the variation aspect of the Ordinance. RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 1] MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner SECONDER: Adam Moodhe, Commissioner AYES: Adam Moodhe, Frank Cesario, Stephen Goldspiel, Mitchell Weinstein NAYS: Zill Khan ABSENT: Matthew Cohn, Scott Lesser, Amy Au Regular Meeting Other Matters for Discussion None. Approval of Minutes 1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Jul 18, 2018 7:30 PM Moved by Com. Moodhe, seconded by Com. Weinstein, to approve the minutes of the July 18, 2018 regular meeting as submitted. 08/15/2018 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Adam Moodhe, Commissioner SECONDER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein ABSENT: Matthew Cohn, Scott Lesser, Amy Au Chairman's Report None. Committee and Liaison Reports None. Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule Mr. Stilling advised that subsequent to the last PZC meeting, Bucky's, 10 W. Dundee Road, reduced the size of the proposed ground sign to 80 square feet. The sign will be presented to the Village Board on August 20, 2018 for a variation for the setback only. Ch. Cesario advised that Com. Weinstein is the PZC liaison scheduled to attend that Village Board meeting and he will try to attend as well. Mr. Stilling advised that three item s are tentative for the September 5th PZC meeting: 185 Milwaukee Avenue, True North Energy; 2044 Jordan Terrace for a Fence Code variation; and 355 Hastings Drive for outside storage. Also Link Crossing could possible have their Final Plat ready. Com. Moodhe advised that he will be unable to attend September 19, 2018 PZC meeting. Public Comments and Questions None. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 PM Chris Stilling APPROVED BY ME THIS 15th DAY OF August , 2018