2019-06-05 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda
Meeting of the Village of Buffalo Grove
Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
June 5, 2019 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 Multiple Variations for a Fence at 104 Sunridge Drive (Trustee Johnson) (Staff
Contact: Chris Stilling)
2. Consider an Amendment to Special Use Ordinance 1996-35, as Amended by Ordinance
2000-53 and Ordinance 2010-42 and Preliminary Plan Approval (Trustee Weidenfeld)
(Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
III. Regular Meeting
A. Other Matters for Discussion
B. Approval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Apr 17, 2019 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.
Updated: 5/31/2019 11:14 AM Page 1
Action Item : Consider Multiple Variations for a Fence at 104
Sunridge Drive
Recommendation of Action
Staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions in the attached staff report.
The Petitioner, Christopher Bock, originally submitted a building permit for a 6' high solid fence along the
interior side, rear and corner side yards. Following a meeting with staff, the petitioner subsequently
revised their plans to install a 5' high solid fence in the corner side yard along Fox Hill and a 6' high sol id
fence in the interior side and rear yards. Both requests require a variation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report (DOCX)
Plan Set (PDF)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Johnson Chris Stilling, Community Development
Wednesday, June 5, 2019
2.1
Packet Pg. 2
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 5, 2019
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 104 Sunridge Lane
PETITIONER: Christopher Bock
PREPARED BY: Rati Akash, Village Planner
REQUEST: A variation to Install a five (5) foot solid fence which encroaches
into the corner yard setback along Fox Hill Drive, and install
a six (6) foot solid fence in the rear yard and side yard of the
property.
EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a single-family home currently
zoned R6A.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The approved Village Comprehensive Plan calls for this property
and the immediate neighborhood to be single family detached.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Petitioner, Christopher Bock, originally submitted a building permit for a 6’ high solid fence along the
interior side, rear and corner side yards. Following a meeting with staff, the petitioner subsequently
revised their plans to install a 5’ high solid fence in the corner side yard along Fox Hill and a 6’ high solid
fence in the interior side and rear yards. Both requests require a variaton.
PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS
Highland Grove Subdivision
The subject property is a corner lot located in the
Highland Grove Subdivision. This subdivision is zoned
R6A.
Pursuant to the approving Ordinance, certain corner
lots were permitted to have a corner side yard setback
of 17’. Furthermore, the public sidewalks are located in
5’ wide easements on several lots, including the subject
property.
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
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
4
S
u
n
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
Property Background
The subject propery presently has no
fence in the corner yard setback. The
existing sideyard setback for the
property is 17’.
The existing home is setback 25’ from
the property line along Fox Hill,
however there is a sidewalk easement
of 5’ within the subject property along
Sunridge Lane and Fox Hill Drive in the
corner yard setback.
Requests for Corner Side Yard
The Petitioner is proposing to install a 5’
solid fence in the corner side yard. As
proposed, the fence would extend 16’
from the existing home and be setback
9’ from the property line. As noted
there is an existing 5’ sidewalk located
in an easement along Fox Hill Drive. Thus, the 5’ solid fence would be setback 4’ from the sidewalk.
Staff does have some concerns regarding the proposed solid fence in the corner side yard. Historically,
staff and the PZC have supported 5’ shadow box fences, which are more open in design, and maintain
a 5’ setback from the sidewalk.
Request for 6’ Solid in Interior Side and rear
The Petitioner is also proposing to install a 6’ solid fence setback 2’ away from the rear lot line. The
fence segment measures seventy 73’ in length. The rear of the property abuts park space and a public
path.
There is no fence separating the subject property
and the neighbor’s property on the north (102
Sunridge Lane). The Petitioner is proposing to install
6’ solid fence in the side yard which measures 56’ in
length. The second fence segment measures 6’ in
length runs perpendicular to the building edge
parallel to Sunrdige Lane.
Staff does have concerns regarding the fence and its
location where the public path and sidewalk
intersect. As proposed, there would be a 6’ high
fence along the rear, adjoining a 5’ high fence
potentially creating a line of site issue. Staff would
recommend that the fence be located outside of the
line of site as shown in the attached exhibit. The
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
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
4
S
u
n
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
fence should be angled so that it does not create a potential conflict.
Variations requested:
1. A corner side yard variation from Section 15.20.040.B from the Buffalo Grove fence code states
that Fences may be erected placed and maintained on corner lots to a height not to exceed six feet
above ground level. No such fence shall be located nearer to any street than the building setback
line.
2. A fence height variation from Section 15.20.090.C from the Buffalo Grove fence code states that
fencing material that is over five feet in height shall be of a design that is open so as to allow
visibility.
The following is a list of recently approved setback variations for corner side yard fences (highlighted
fences were of a solid or shadow box design):
Address Fence Height/Type Setback from property line
2044 Jordon Ter 3’ high open dog-ear fence 0” from the property line
1271 Radcliffe 4’ high chain-link (open) 1.5’ from the property line
2123 Sheridan 5’ high wrought-iron (open) 2’ from the property line
1309 Madison 4’ high open picket fence 16’ from the property line
1239 Devonshire 5’ high shadow box 4’ from the property line or 5’
from the sidewalk
2299 Avalon Dr 4’ high solid scalloped fence 1’ from the property line or 2’
from the sidewalk
1295 Euclid Ave 5’ high shadowbox fence 4’ from the property line or 5’
from the sidewalk
14 Chestnut Ct 5’ solid dog-ear fence 10’ from the property line or 11’
from the sidewalk
1403 Westchester Rd 5’ solid dog-ear fence 8’ from the property line or 9’
from the sidewalk
The following is a list of approved fence height variations in the rear yard:
Address Year
Approved
Approved Fence
Height Material and Type
23 Columbus Pkwy 2018 6' Solid wood fence
5 Cambridge Ct 2016 6' Solid vinyl fence
6 Strathmore 2015 6' Solid wood fence
7 Strathmore Ct 2015 6' Solid fence
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
Pursuant to Village Code, the contiguous property owners were notified and a public hearing sign was
posted on the subject property. The posting of the public hearing sign and the mailed notifications were
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
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
4
S
u
n
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
completed within the prescribed timeframe as required. As of the date of this Staff Report, the Village has
received two calls inquiring about the proposed fence variations, however no objections were expressed.
STANDARDS
The Planning & Zoning Commission is authorized to grant variations of the Fence Code based on the
following criteria:
1. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
2. The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood;
3. There are practical difficulties or particular hardships in carrying out the strict letter of this
Chapter which difficulties or hardships have not been created by the person presently having an
interest in the property; and,
4. The proposed variation will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare.
The petitioner has provided a written response to the standards for a variation which are included in
this packet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed fence located in the corner side yard shall be setback a minimum of 5’ from the
existing sidewalk and shall be of a shadow box or other open design.
2. The proposed fence location shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village. The fence
location at the southeast corner of the lot shall be revised so as not to create a line of site issue
as shown in the staff exhibit attached as part of this report.
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 variations.
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
4
S
u
n
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
4
S
u
n
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
4
S
u
n
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 9
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
4
S
u
n
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 10
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
4
S
u
n
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
4
S
u
n
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
4
S
u
n
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
4
S
u
n
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
4
S
u
n
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
Updated: 5/31/2019 2:09 PM Page 1
Action Item : Consider an Amendment to Special Use Ordinance
1996-35, as Amended by Ordinance 2000-53 and Ordinance 2010-42
and Preliminary Plan Approval
Recommendation of Action
Staff recommends approval, subject to the condition in the attached staff report.
In 1996, the Village approved Ordinance 96-35 approving a Combined Area Fire Training (CAFT) facility.
The purpose of site is to allow the Village of Buffalo Grove Fire Department, along with other fire
agencies, the opportunity to have a fire training facility. Subsequent from the original approvals, the
Village approved multiple amendments to the ordinance to allow for the construction of a temporary
classroom on the property. That temporary classroom building has since been removed. As a result, the
Village is seeking an amendment to allow the construction of a new permanent classroom and training
building on the property. Therefore, another amendment to the Ordinance is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report (DOCX)
Plan Set (PDF)
Ordinance 2010-42 (PDF)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Weidenfeld Chris Stilling, Community Development
Wednesday, June 5, 2019
2.2
Packet Pg. 15
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 5, 2019
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 851 Krause Drive
PETITIONER: Village of Buffalo Grove
PREPARED BY: Christopher Stilling, Director of Community Development
REQUEST: Petition for an amendment to Special Use Ordinance 1996-35,
as amended by Ordinance 2000-53 and Ordinance 2010-42
and Preliminary Plan Approval.
EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with an existing Fire Training Facility
and zoned I Industrial
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The approved Village Comprehensive Plan calls for this
property to be Public/Semi-Public
PROJECT BACKGROUND
In 1996, the Village approved Ordinance 96-35 approving a Combined Area Fire Training (CAFT)
facility. The purpose of site is to allow the Village of Buffalo Grove Fire Department, along with other
fire agencies, the opportunity to have a fire training facility. Subsequent from the original approvals,
the Village approved multiple amendments to the ordinance to allow for the construction of a
temporary classroom on the property. That temporary classroom building has since been removed.
As a result, the Village is seeking an amendment to allow the construction of a new permanent
classroom and training building on the property. Therefore, another amendment to the Ordinance is
required.
PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS
Zoning History
In 1996, the Village approved Ordinance 96-
35 approving a CAFT facility.
In 2000, Ordinance 2000-53 was approved,
allowing for the construction of a
temporary classroom on the property. The
original Ordinance allowed the structure to
remain in place for 10-years.
In 2010, the Village Board approved
Ordinance 2010-42 which granted a 10-
Old Aerial Showing Former Structure
2.2.a
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
.
9
6
-
3
5
,
a
s
A
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
a
N
e
w
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
8
5
1
K
r
a
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
year extension to allow the temporary classroom building to remain on the property.
In 2016, the Village demolished the existing temporary building due to deterioration.
Proposed Improvements
The existing CAFT property is 4.58 acres
in area.
The Village is seeking approval to
construct a new 3,070 square foot one-
story permanent training building on the
property.
The proposed structure will be located in
nearly the same location as the previous
temporary building.
The building would be setback from the
ROW as follows:
o +/- 70’ from Deerfield Road
o +/- 30’ from Krause Drive
As proposed, the structure would meet
all the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The Village will be adding one accessible
parking space.
The existing portion of the site would
remain unchanged. The existing training
tower and accompanying equipment
would also remain.
As noted, the structure would be one-
story in height and contain a large
classroom, offices, washrooms and
storage bay.
Furthermore, the proposed structure has
been designed to operate as a backup fire
station, if needed.
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS
Village Department Comments
Engineering The Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and has no
comments.
Fire Department The Fire Department has reviewed the proposed plans and does not
have any objections.
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
Pursuant to Village Code, the contiguous property owners were notified and a public hearing sign was
posted on the subject property. The posting of the public hearing sign and the mailed notifications
2.2.a
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
.
9
6
-
3
5
,
a
s
A
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
a
N
e
w
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
8
5
1
K
r
a
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
were completed within the prescribed timeframe as required. As of the date of this Staff Report, the
Village has not received any calls from the surrounding residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the amendment to Special Use Ordinance 1996-35, as amended by
Ordinance 2000-53 and Ordinance 2010-42 to allow for the construction of a new permanent training
building subject to the following condition:
1. The proposed development shall conform to the plans attached as part of this petition.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony
concerning the request. The PZC shall make a recommendation to the Village Board.
2.2.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
.
9
6
-
3
5
,
a
s
A
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
a
N
e
w
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
8
5
1
K
r
a
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
222 S MORGAN ST, SUITE 4B, CHICAGO, IL 60607
PHONE: 312.850.4970, WEBSITE: S222ARCH.COM
SK-00
PROJECT NUMBER: 19016
C.A.F.T.
851 KRAUSE DRIVE
BUFFALO GROVE, IL 60089
SCALE:SK-00
1 3D PERSPECTIVE 1
SCALE:SK-00
2 3D PERSPECTIVE 2
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
.
9
6
-
3
5
,
a
s
A
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
a
N
e
w
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
8
5
1
K
r
a
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
E
E
EXISTING TRAINING
STRUCTURE
STRIPING (TYP.)
PROPOSED TRAINING
BUILDING
(3,070 SQ FT)
C.A.F.T. PROPERTY
4.58 ACRES
ZONING: INDUSTRIAL
(SPECIAL USE)
EXISTING TRAINING TOWER
521.10'
517.47'
42
1
.
1
0
'
37
5
.
3
7
'
DEERFIELD PKWY
KR
A
U
S
E
D
R
25
'
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
25
'
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
25' SETBACK
50' SETBACK
NEW ACCESSIBLE
PARKING SPACE
NEW ASPHALT
5' CONCRETE SIDEWALK
STRIPING (TYP.)
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
STRIPING (TYP.)
GRAVEL AREA WITH RAILROAD TRACKS
AND TRENCH RESCUE SIMULATOR
EXTG CHAIN LINK FENCE
EXTG CHAIN LINK FENCE
EXTG CHAIN LINK FENCE
EX
T
G
C
H
A
I
N
L
I
N
K
F
E
N
C
E
STRIPING (TYP.)
CONC. PAD FOR HVAC
DRIP LINE (TYP.)
NEW CHAIN LINK FENCE
EXTG TORNADO SIREN
NEW CHAIN LINK
FENCE
12' WIDE
CONCRETE DRIVE
EXTG ASPHALT
EXTG ASPHALT
DETENTION POND
222 S MORGAN ST, SUITE 4B, CHICAGO, IL 60607
PHONE: 312.850.4970, WEBSITE: S222ARCH.COM
SK-01
PROJECT NUMBER: 19016
C.A.F.T.
851 KRAUSE DRIVE
BUFFALO GROVE, IL 60089
SCALE: 1" = 60'-0"SK-01
1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
.
9
6
-
3
5
,
a
s
A
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
a
N
e
w
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
8
5
1
K
r
a
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
KR
A
U
S
E
D
R
I
V
E
145 COMMERCE DRIVE, SUITE A
GRAYSLAKE, ILLINOIS 60030
phone (847) 223-4804
fax (847) 223-4864
email INFO@EEA-LTD.COM
ASSOCIATES, LTD.
ENGINEERING
ERIKSSON
Professional Design FirmLicense No. 184-003220
Expires: 04/30/2019
1
SITE PLAN
Sheet Title:
Sheet No:
Date:Checked By:Design By:
C ERIKSSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LTD., 2019
BU
F
F
A
L
O
G
R
O
V
E
C
O
M
B
I
N
E
D
AR
E
A
F
I
R
E
T
R
A
I
N
I
N
G
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y
BU
F
F
A
L
O
G
R
O
V
E
,
I
L
L
I
N
O
I
S
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
.
9
6
-
3
5
,
a
s
A
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
a
N
e
w
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
8
5
1
K
r
a
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
SK-05
2
SK-06
2
SK-05
1
SK-06
1
90'-0"14'-0"
6'
-
6
"
37
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
6
"
11
'
-
9
1
/
2
"
5
'
-
0
"
1
2
'
-
6
"
123 SF
MECHANICAL
ROOM
1
131 SF
OFFICE #1
2
159 SF
STORAGE
6
129 SF
OFFICE #2
9 130 SF
OFFICE #3
10
804 SF
STORAGE
11
232 SF
CORRIDOR
12 1034 SF
CLASSROOM
14
COVERED
PATIO
15
132 SF
COMMUNAL
UNISEX
BATHROOMS
17
35
'
-
9
1
/
2
"
66 SF
UNISEX
BATHROOM
1634 SF
JANITOR
18
222 S MORGAN ST, SUITE 4B, CHICAGO, IL 60607
PHONE: 312.850.4970, WEBSITE: S222ARCH.COM
SK-02
PROJECT NUMBER: 19016
C.A.F.T.
851 KRAUSE DRIVE
BUFFALO GROVE, IL 60089
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SK-02
1 FIRST FLOOR
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
.
9
6
-
3
5
,
a
s
A
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
a
N
e
w
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
8
5
1
K
r
a
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
SK-05
2
SK-06
2
SK-05
1
SK-06
1
STORAGE
11
MECHANICAL
ROOM
1
OFFICE #1
2
OFFICE #2
9
OFFICE #3
10
CORRIDOR
12
STORAGE
6
CLASSROOM
14
COVERED
PATIO
15
A.F.F.10'-0"
A.F.F.10'-0"
A.F.F.10'-0"
A.F.F.10'-0"
A.F.F.10'-0"A.F.F.10'-0"
A.F.F.10'-0"
UNISEX
BATHROOM
16
JANITOR
18
COMMUNAL
UNISEX
BATHROOMS
17
A.F.F.10'-0"
A.F.F.10'-0"
222 S MORGAN ST, SUITE 4B, CHICAGO, IL 60607
PHONE: 312.850.4970, WEBSITE: S222ARCH.COM
SK-03
PROJECT NUMBER: 19016
C.A.F.T.
851 KRAUSE DRIVE
BUFFALO GROVE, IL 60089
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SK-03
1 FIRST FLOOR
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
.
9
6
-
3
5
,
a
s
A
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
a
N
e
w
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
8
5
1
K
r
a
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
SK-05
2
SK-06
2
SK-05
1
SK-06
1
4"
/
1
'
-
0
"
4" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"
4"
/
1
'
-
0
"
4"
/
1
'
-
0
"
4"
/
1
'
-
0
"
4" / 1'-0"
4" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"
222 S MORGAN ST, SUITE 4B, CHICAGO, IL 60607
PHONE: 312.850.4970, WEBSITE: S222ARCH.COM
SK-04
PROJECT NUMBER: 19016
C.A.F.T.
851 KRAUSE DRIVE
BUFFALO GROVE, IL 60089
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SK-04
1 ROOF PLAN
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
.
9
6
-
3
5
,
a
s
A
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
a
N
e
w
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
8
5
1
K
r
a
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
FIRST FLOOR
EL.= 0"
B/ ROOF TRUSS
EL.= 10'-0"
B/ ROOF TRUSS (HIGH)
EL.= 13'-6"
FIRST FLOOR
EL.= 0"
B/ ROOF TRUSS
EL.= 10'-0"
B/ ROOF TRUSS (HIGH)
EL.= 13'-6"
12
'
-
0
"
222 S MORGAN ST, SUITE 4B, CHICAGO, IL 60607
PHONE: 312.850.4970, WEBSITE: S222ARCH.COM
SK-05
PROJECT NUMBER: 19016
C.A.F.T.
851 KRAUSE DRIVE
BUFFALO GROVE, IL 60089
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"SK-05
2 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"SK-05
1 SOUTH ELEVATION
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
.
9
6
-
3
5
,
a
s
A
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
a
N
e
w
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
8
5
1
K
r
a
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
FIRST FLOOR
EL.= 0"
B/ ROOF TRUSS
EL.= 10'-0"
B/ ROOF TRUSS (HIGH)
EL.= 13'-6"
ROOF PLAN
EL.= 22'-6"
FIRST FLOOR
EL.= 0"
B/ ROOF TRUSS
EL.= 10'-0"
B/ ROOF TRUSS (HIGH)
EL.= 13'-6"
ROOF PLAN
EL.= 22'-6"
222 S MORGAN ST, SUITE 4B, CHICAGO, IL 60607
PHONE: 312.850.4970, WEBSITE: S222ARCH.COM
SK-06
PROJECT NUMBER: 19016
C.A.F.T.
851 KRAUSE DRIVE
BUFFALO GROVE, IL 60089
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SK-06
1 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SK-06
2 WEST ELEVATION
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
.
9
6
-
3
5
,
a
s
A
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
a
N
e
w
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
8
5
1
K
r
a
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.2.c
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
1
0
-
4
2
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
.
9
6
-
3
5
,
a
s
A
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
a
N
e
w
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
8
5
1
K
r
a
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.2.c
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
1
0
-
4
2
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
.
9
6
-
3
5
,
a
s
A
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
a
N
e
w
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
8
5
1
K
r
a
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.2.c
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
1
0
-
4
2
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
.
9
6
-
3
5
,
a
s
A
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
a
N
e
w
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
8
5
1
K
r
a
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.2.c
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
1
0
-
4
2
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
.
9
6
-
3
5
,
a
s
A
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
a
N
e
w
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
8
5
1
K
r
a
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
)
04/17/2019
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, APRIL 17, 2019
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chairman Frank Cesario
Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
1.Consider a Variation to Replace an Existing Split Rail Fence in the Corner Side Yard at
1401 Rose Boulevard (Trustee Stein) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
Stuart and Peggy Cohn, 1401 Rose Boulevard, were present and sworn in.
Mr. Cohn explained that they have lived at this address for 26 years. They are requesting
to replace the existing 3 foot high split rail fence. The fence has been there for at least 27
years and is deteriorating. The fence will be replaced in the same location, on the east
side along Cameron Way.
Ch. Cesario confirmed with the Petitioner that the fence will be substantially the same
style fence in the same location. He asked staff if there have been any comments from
any of the neighbors. Ms. Akash responded no.
There were no comments or questions from the Commissioners. There were no
comments or questions from the audience.
Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated April 17, 2019 as Exhibit 1.
The public hearing was closed at 7:34 PM.
Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Khan, to approve the variation to replace
the existing split rail fence subject to the following condition:
1.The fence shall be installed in accordance with the documents and plans submitted as
part of the petition.
Com. Weinstein stated that he is in favor of the request.
Ch. Cesario agrees. The proposed fence is attractive, does not block visibility and is not
intrusive.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 31
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
A
p
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
04/17/2019
RESULT:APPROVED [6 TO 0]
MOVER:Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner
SECONDER:Zill Khan, Commissioner
AYES:Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein, Au
ABSTAIN:Adam Moodhe
EXCUSED:Scott Lesser
2.Consider a Variation for a RV (Boat) at 22 Columbus Parkway (Trustee Ottenheimer)
(Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
Mr. Leo Lopez, brother of Mr. Juan Lopez, and Mrs. Yadria Lopez, 22 Columbus
Parkway, were present and sworn in.
Mrs. Lopez stated that she lives at 22 Columbus Parkway and has lived there for the last
25 years.
Mr. Leo Lopez explained that the boat is parked in the same location it has been for the
last 10 years. Neighbors are present that support the request. The property is a pie-
shaped lot. The area is kept clean. His brother has good relations with the neighbors.
They will do what they can to make the boat less obtrusive. The boat has not been an
issue for the last 10 years. They have signed petitions from the neighbors. They are
willing to put in concrete and maybe modify the fence. They are asking for guidance from
the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC).
Ch. Cesario noted that there is reference to pavers being installed in the packet and now
the testimony is to install concrete. He asked if the Petitioner will install an acceptable
surface if the variation is granted. Mr. Leo Lopez responded yes. Ch. Cesario appreciates
that the Petitioner had talked to the neighbors and asked if the Petitioner had spoken to
the neighbor at 912 Prague Avenue. Mr. Leo Lopez responded yes, and stated that the
owner of 912 Prague Avenue was present. Ch. Cesario asked if the Petitioner will move
the boat slightly to comply with the recommendation of staff. Mr. Leo Lopez responded
that applying the hard surface would allow his brother to move the boat to the
recommended location. Ch. Cesario asked about screening and stated that it is a tall
boat, approximately 9 feet in height. Mr. Leo Lopez responded that he was not sure of the
exact height or about the type of screening that would be necessary. Ch. Cesario asked
how many times the boat is used each season. Mr. Leo Lopez stated about 4 times
during the summer. Ch. Cesario asked if the boat could be stored somewhere else. Mr.
Leo Lopez responded possibly.
Com. Moodhe stated that the boat is still being stored on the far side of the lot and
recommended installing taller shrubs closer to the fence. Mr. Leo Lopez responded that
they must be able to tow the boat out but could consider installing shrubs. Com. Moodhe
commented that it would be easier to pull the boat in and out of the driveway than the
current location. Mr. Leo Lopez stated that they will do what the Village tells them to do.
Com. Moodhe asked about storage of the boat during the off-season. Mr. Leo Lopez
responded that storage is possible. Com. Moodhe understands that there are other
properties with recreational vehicles (RV’s) but this boat needs to be addressed. He is
also concerned about coming to a conclusion without the Petitioner, Mr. Juan Lopez,
being present. Ch. Cesario advised that two parties were present that are authorized to
speak on behalf of the Petitioner, Mrs. Yadira Lopez and Mrs. Elisa Lopez, and asked
staff if the PZC could proceed. Mr. Brankin advised that the PZC can proceed, but shares
the same concerns as Com. Moodhe and would want the authorized representatives to
agree to any conclusion. Com. Moodhe asked staff about the timeline of this RV,
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 32
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
A
p
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
04/17/2019
specifically if it goes back to October, 2018. Mr. Stilling responded yes, it is difficult for the
Petitioner due to his work schedule.
Com. Khan is concerned about making any decision without speaking directly with the
authorized representatives.
Ms. Elisa Lopez, 22 Columbus Parkway, was present and sworn in. She is Mr. Juan
Lopez’s mother. She has lived with her son for the last 15 years. Her son has had the
boat for the last 10 years. They use the boat about 3 to 4 times during the summer. Her
son does not get much vacation time. It costs too much money to store the boat
somewhere else. She asked to be able to keep the boat on the property.
Com. Khan stated that the Petitioner is allowed to leave the boat on the property for part
of the year and asked if the boat could be stored off-site the rest of the year. Mrs. Yadira
Lopez asked about the dates the boat could stay on the property. Com. Khan advised the
dates run May 15th through September 30th. The other 6 to 6-1/2 months the Petitioner
could follow the Ordinance and the boat could be moved off-site. Com. Khan asked staff
about the current location of the boat. Mr. Stilling responded that currently the storage
requirements are not met, there is no hard surface. Com. Khan asked Mrs. Yadira Lopez
if they agree to move the boat off-site for storage and install a hard surface for the boat to
be located on during the allowable timeframe. Mrs. Yadira Lopez responded yes, they
can move the boat during the winter and install a hard surface.
Com. Weinstein stated that the property has tall shrubs all over except for where the boat
is parked. He believes the Petitioner could install taller shrubs both in front of and behind
the boat. Mrs. Yadira Lopez agreed to plant taller shrubs. Com. Weinstein asked staff if
there would be a front yard coverage issue to expand the driveway to park the boat on.
Mr. Stilling stated that he needs more information to determine but that it does not appear
that it would be an issue.
Ch. Cesario confirmed with the Petitioner’s representatives, Mrs. Yadira Lopez and Mrs.
Elisa Lopez, that they agree to store the boat off-site from October 1st through May 14th
every year and will install a hard surface to park the boat on during the allowable time
period.
Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated April 17, 2019 as Exhibit 1.
Mr. Rayo Krutoyarskiy, 912 Prague Avenue, was present and sworn in. Mr. Krutoyarskiy
stated that the Petitioner’s boat has been there since he moved in. They maintain the
boat and they are good neighbors. He does not have any issues with the boat. Storage
prices can be a lot for a middle class family to afford. The other neighbors agree.
Mr. Stilling asked Mr. Krutoyarskiy if he has a boat on his property. Mr. Krutoyarskiy
responded yes, for about 2 years. He had been storing it at a friend’s house, but the
friend is trying to sell his house and he had to bring the boat back to his property. He is
trying to find a place to store it.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 33
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
A
p
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
04/17/2019
Com. Moodhe asked Mr. Krutoyarskiy how big his boat is. Mr. Krutoyarskiy stated it is 26
feet. Com. Moodhe asked how long the boat has been on Mr. Krutoyarskiy’s property. Mr.
Krutoyarskiy responded about 2 to 2-1/2 weeks. When the Ordinance was approved, he
moved the boat but now he needs to find a new place. Com. Moodhe asked if he is trying
to help his neighbor find a place to store their boat too. Mr. Krutoyarskiy stated that he is
trying but is finding that it is expensive. His boat is 27 years old. Com. Moodhe asked
how many times Mr. Krutoyarskiy takes his boat out during the season. Mr. Krutoyarskiy
responded about 4 to 5 times last year. He is planning to get a slip for the boat. Storage
for the winter is a financial burden. He and his neighbor both bought their boats before
the current Ordinance was in effect.
Ch. Cesario appreciates the comments and asked for both to consider the regulations of
the Ordinance.
Mr. Metin Durmus, 920 Prague Avenue, was present and sworn in. Mr. Durmus stated
that Buffalo Grove took over that area in 2004. The Ordinance should not be an issue.
The whole subdivision is in need of re-grading. Shrubs take years to grow. He believes
that the Ordinance is bogus. You can’t find 10 foot tall shrubs. He understands the issue
with the easement but the boat does not bother anyone. The boat is not even parked on
the driveway. He has lived here since 1976. The Village is just trying to get money. They
should be able to park on their street anytime they want. He believes the Ordinance is a
disgrace.
Com. Goldspiel advised that the screening does not need to be taller than the boat, but
tall enough to take the majority of the view of it away. A small shrub will help. When the
area was incorporated, the residents wanted it. Mr. Durmus responded that the residents
did not want it.
There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were
no additional questions or comments from the audience.
The public hearing was closed at 8:13 PM.
Ch. Cesario confirmed that based on the agreement made by the Petitioner’s
representatives that the variance request is withdrawn. The boat will conform to the
Ordinance for the allowable timelines and an approved hard surface will be installed.
Therefore, no motion is in order.
Com. Moodhe asked staff about compliance. Mr. Stilling advised that staff will work with
the Petitioner to ensure compliance.
3.Consider a Variation for Two Ground Signs for Strathmore Square Shopping Center
Located at 1151-1165 Arlington Heights Road & 1170 - 1182 McHenry Road (Trustee
Ottenheimer) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
Ms. Pam Bennett, McKenzie Management, 2720 S. River Road, Des Plaines, IL was
present and sworn in.
Ms. Bennett explained that the retail center is comprised of 2 buildings, one along
Arlington Heights Road and one along McHenry Road. McKenzie Management has
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 34
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
A
p
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
04/17/2019
managed the center since 2012. Harris Bank occupies an outlot building on the corner.
They had looked at installing one ground sign, but due to visibility, they are asking for a
second ground sign.
Ch. Cesario confirmed with Ms. Bennett that the purpose of the second sign is for
identification. These are busy streets and the two buildings are disconnected. He also
confirmed that the tenant spaces are fully leased.
Mr. Stilling advised that staff supports the request and the size conforms to the Sign
Code requirements. Ms. Akash added that the Village received 2 calls inquiring about the
variation and there were no concerns expressed.
Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated April 17, 2019 as Exhibit 1.
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 8:20 PM.
Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Khan, to recommend to the Village Board
approval of the variation for two ground signs in the Strathmore Shopping Center which
runs along Arlington Heights Road and McHenry Road subject to the following condition:
1.The proposed ground signs must be installed in accordance with the documents and
plans submitted as part of this petition.
RESULT:RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
Next: 5/20/2019 7:30 PM
MOVER:Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner
SECONDER:Zill Khan, Commissioner
AYES:Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein, Au
EXCUSED:Scott Lesser
4.Consider an Amendment to Ordinance 1979-46 and 1980-51, as Amended by
Ordinances 1998-012, 1998-048 and 2000-1 for a New Medical Office Building and
Commercial Use in the B3 Planned Business District with Variations to the Buffalo Grove
Zoning Ordinance, Development Ordinance and Sign Code for the Property Located at
15 S McHenry Rd, 35 S. McHenry Rd and 125 E. Lake Cook Rd (Trustee Stein) (Staff
Contact: Chris Stilling)
Mr. Matt Campbell, MedProperties Group, 40 Skokie Boulevard, Northbrook, Illinois, was
present and sworn in. Also present were Mr. David Dastur, Jensen & Halstead, Ltd., 820
W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 850, Chicago, IL 60607; Mr. Stephen Corcoran, Eriksson
Engineering Associates, Ltd., 145 Commerce Drive, Suite A, Grayslake, IL 60030; Mr.
Michael Trippiedi, Trippiedi Design, 920 Sundew Court, Aurora, IL 60504; and Attorney
Harold Francke, Meltzer, Purtill & Stelle, LLC, 1515 East Woodfield Road, Schaumburg,
IL 60173 were present and sworn in.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 35
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
A
p
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
04/17/2019
Mr. Campbell reviewed the proposed project as detailed in the packet. He described the
phasing of the project, approximately 15 months from start to finish. He reviewed the site
development, project background and current status. They are proceeding with the
alternative plan. They are seeking four variations. He referred to Mr. Dastur for more
details.
Mr. Dastur reviewed the existing site. Some land was taken per eminent domain as part
of the Lake Cook Road improvement project. They will maintain the existing driveways
along Weiland Road and McHenry Road. The driveway on Lake Cook Road will be
moved west to accommodate the site improvements. He reviewed the proposed
renderings of the medical office building. This is the new look for all NCH outpatient
buildings. There are tall trees on the south of the property. The rendering has those trees
removed so you can see the proposed south elevation. He reviewed the services that will
be provided at the new medical outpatient building. He reviewed the requested variation
pertaining to setback, signs, parking counts and the tree replacement. They are seeking
a 46 foot setback in lieu of the required 64 foot. They are seeking a variation to allow 5
ground signs. The signs are needed for wayfinding. Three of the proposed NCH signs are
smaller than what is allowed by Code and the signs will be nicely landscaped.
Mr. Corcoran reviewed the requested variation for the parking. They are requesting 292
spaces in lieu of the required 353 spaces. He explained the reasoning for the request and
advised that the studies used to determine the proposed number is consistent with
today’s medical building occupancies.
Mr. Trippiedi reviewed the proposed tree replacement variation request to waive the fee.
He reviewed the proposed landscaping plan. The developer is proposing an approximate
$350,000.00 investment in the landscaping. He reviewed the tree preservation plan. He
stated that the Village Forrester has given affirmation that their situation is unprecedented
and understands that the tree removal is logical. Based on the site, they cannot replace
the removed trees.
Mr. Francke reviewed the standards and how the standards have been met in order for
the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) to grant relief. The property has unique
circumstances. It is surrounded on three sides by roadways and they lost some land. The
proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The
proposed project is not contrary to the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and Sign Code.
The proposed project will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Lastly,
the property cannot yield a reasonable return without allowing the proposed project.
Details of these can be found in the packet. They are also seeking to amend the PUD, for
which the standards have been met to amend. He stated that the standards to grant the
Sign Code variations have been met. He reviewed the request to waive the tree
replacement fee as required by Title 16 and presented 5 justifications.
Com. Au asked about the type of groundcover that will be used in the landscaping. Mr.
Trippiedi responded that perennials will be used since they come back every spring.
Ch. Cesario asked staff if approval will be subject to final engineering approval. Mr.
Stilling responded yes.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 36
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
A
p
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
04/17/2019
Com. Goldspiel asked about the current condition of the trees from the previous work on
the site. Mr. Trippiedi explained that the existing site was originally built in the 1970’s.
Com. Goldspiel asked if the existing trees will be protected if the project moves forward.
Mr. Trippiedi responded yes and described the techniques that would be used to protect
the existing trees. Com. Goldspiel wants to ensure the protection of the existing trees. Mr.
Trippiedi explained that they cannot protect the trees on the surplus lot. Com. Goldspiel
asked if the surplus lot is expected to be built on. Mr. Trippiedi responded that there is no
intent to develop the surplus lot. Mr. Campbell added that it is economically unfeasible to
build on that lot. Com. Goldspiel asked if there is any way to save more key trees. Mr.
Trippiedi explained that they are saving the majority of high-value trees. He described the
areas. Com. Goldspiel asked if the increased pavement will have an adverse effect on
the trees. Mr. Trippiedi responded no. Com. Goldspiel stated that the proposed retail
building is not the final footprint and asked if it is possible to save more trees. Mr.
Trippiedi explained that it is possible. The retail building will only require the removal of 4
trees. Mr. Campbell added that any retailer for the out lot will need to go through the
Village review and approval process. Com. Goldspiel asked about the parking analysis
under Table 3 on page 95. Mr. Corcoran explained that different studies were looked at
that takes into account different staff and patient numbers. They performed a secondary
check of the numbers. Com. Goldspiel advised that he has looked at this petition and
recalled his experience with parking for this type of use in the past and found that usually
the parking numbers fell short. He asked about the studies used for parking at the Busse
Center. Mr. Corcoran is not familiar with that building. He has completed studies for other
buildings with similar uses and the numbers are consistent. Mr. Dastur responded that
the Busse Center is actually on the hospital campus. The propped parking ratio is
consistent with the new outpatient building under construction in Kildeer and with the
existing outpatient building in Mount Prospect. He described the theory of a larger
building with less staff. Mr. Corcoran added that the immediate care portion of the
building needs less parking and utilizes more space with diagnostic equipment. Com.
Goldspiel asked what experience NCH has to ensure that the proposed parking numbers
are accurate. Mr. Corcoran described the method used to calculate the number of
required spaces. This is the same method used to calculate the proposed number of
parking stalls at the new outpatient building on Rand Road and the anticipated parking
turnover. Mr. Stilling added that the proposed parking is similar to the total number of
parking on the current site.
Com. Weinstein asked staff if the Petitioner is requesting a full waiver of the cash-in-lieu
of replacement. Mr. Stilling advised that staff is looking for the thoughts and comments
from the PZC. The Village Board will have the ultimate approval.
Mr. Francke understands staff’s concerns with setting a precedent. However, he had
identified a full list of unique circumstances. Mr. Stilling added that the proposed
landscaping plan is above and beyond what is required. Replacement of the removed
trees is not feasible. Staff will continue to work the Petitioner to address staff’s concerns.
Mr. Francke responded that the Petitioner has responded and addressed the hardship to
replace the trees removed. He referred to justification #4 in the packet.
Com. Cohn asked staff about the formula to monetize the loss of trees. Mr. Stilling
advised the Village Forrester determines the calculated cost and described the process.
Staff is hesitant to waive the fee. Com. Cohn asked about the value of the proposed site
work compared to what is being lost. Mr. Stilling responded that staff is looking for
thoughts from the PZC. Com. Cohn is not prepared to come up with a dollar amount. The
Village Forrester should determine the cost.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 37
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
A
p
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
04/17/2019
Com. Moodhe agrees with Com. Cohn. He also believes that the Lake Cook Road
expansion should be considered. He does not want to eliminate payment-in-lieu of
replacement. He confirmed with the Petitioner that the main proposed ground sign will be
12-1/2 feet tall. He asked the Petitioner to consider reducing the height of the additional
ground signs. He does not want the Petitioner to use the Lake Cook Corridor plan against
the Village. Mr. Dastur responded that the 10 foot tall ground signs were already
considerably reduced in height. Com. Moodhe does not see the need for a 10 foot tall
ground sign off Weiland Road and asked for a further reduction in height. Mr. Stilling
noted that the total number of ground signs being requested is partially due to the out lot.
If you take away the out lot, the Petitioner would still be allowed 3 ground signs. Com.
Moodhe understands but still would like to see the Petitioner reduce the height of the
signs.
Com. Cohn asked if there would be any special events that would take place that would
cause the parking to exceed the number of spaces. Mr. Dastur responded that the
proposed building will not have assembly or conference space. Com. Cohn asked if there
are any foreseeable issues with too little parking being provided. Mr. Corcoran responded
they do not anticipate any issues.
Ch. Cesario referred to Packet page 45. He believes that this is a nice proposal and an
improvement to the existing site. He is supportive of the request. The proposed setback
is similar to the existing building. The proposed landscaping and building elevations sell it
and create a buffer. He believes the setback would be sufficient. He also believes that the
proposed parking is adequate. He confirmed with the Petitioner that the numbers do not
include any parking for the proposed retail out lot building. He struggles with the three
proposed ground signs along Lake Cook Road. Five signs are a significant number of
signs. He asked what staff’s recommendation is. Mr. Stilling advised that staff would limit
the number to no more than 4 signs. Ch. Cesario advised the Petitioner to consider
allowing the PZC to vote for 4 signs. He commented that the Petitioner did a good job on
the proposed landscaping. The Development Ordinance, as written, makes sense. He
looked at the hardship presented. He is supportive of the project but recommends that
cash-in-lieu of replacement be retained. He asked the Petitioner what direction they
would like to take relative to the signs. Mr. Francke advised that he responded to the
comments and stated that the PZC is only a recommending body. He feels the Petitioner
has met the hardship requirements. He wants to proceed with the sign variation request
as presented. There has to be a balance between the requirements of the Development
Ordinance and the replacement cost of the lost trees. The Petitioner is trying to
accommodate the Village’s goals concerning the Lake Cook Road Corridor Plan. The
estimated cost to replace the trees is $176,000.00. The value of the proposed
landscaping is 3 times the normal cost at $359,000.00. He welcomes the PZC’s
recommendation but it is the Village Board that would ultimately approve the project. Ch.
Cesario advised that this project is a positive economic value to the Petitioner. Mr.
Francke responded that they had found an alternative way to achieve the storm water
management without having to remove additional trees within the surplus lot.
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 April 15, 2019 as Exhibit 1.
The public hearing was closed at 9:56 PM.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 38
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
A
p
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
04/17/2019
Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Cohn, to recommend to the Village Board
approval of the amendment to Ordinance 1979-46 and 1980-51, as amended by
Ordinances 1998-012, 1998-048 and 2000-1 for a new medical office building and
commercial use in the B3 Planned Business District with variations to the Buffalo Grove
Zoning Ordinance, 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.The final engineering plans shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village.
3.A final plat of subdivision shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village. The plat
shall include a cross access easements in a manner and form acceptable to the Village.
4.The final landscape plan shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village.
5.The future development of parcel B shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Village and in accordance with Village Code.
6.Future permitted and special uses on the Property shall comply with the B3 Planned
Business Center District.
Com. Weinstein believes that the Petitioner has met the standards for the recommended
variations.
Ch. Cesario is support of the motion.
AYES:7 - Au, Moodhe, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein, Cesario
NAYS:0 - None
ABSENT:0 - None
Motion passed.
Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Cohn, to recommend approval of a
variation to Chapter 14.16.060 of the Sign Code to allow for more than four ground signs,
as depicted on the Sign Plans for the Development.
Com. Cohn has no concerns regarding a fifth ground sign. The property is unique and he
is okay with it.
Com. Au has a bit of a concern. The fifth sign is logical. With the number of signs
proposed, the signs could be made smaller and shortened in height. The main sign is
proposed to be 12-1/2 feet tall, the other proposed signs are 10 feet. This could be
confusing to motorists trying to locate the property entrance.
Com. Moodhe agrees with Com. Au. The wayfinding signs could be smaller. He is okay
with the number of proposed signs.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 39
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
A
p
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
04/17/2019
Ch. Cesario agrees with both. If the signs are smaller, he would be okay with the number
of signs.
AYES:5 - Au, Moodhe, Cohn, Khan, Weinstein
NAYS:2 - Goldspiel, Cesario
ABSENT:0 - None
Motion passed.
Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Moodhe, to recommend approval of a
variation to Chapter 16.50.120 of the Development Ordinance regarding the replacement
of trees for the Development.
Com. Cohn does not support this request. Although he is not sure $359,000 is the correct
dollar amount, this is a natural resource issue. He does not support striking “cash-in-lieu
of”. Staff should determine an appropriate dollar figure.
Com. Khan is also not supportive. He agrees that staff should determine the right dollar
amount. The Village has lost a lot of trees in the last several years.
AYES:0 - None
NAYS:7 - Au, Moodhe, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein, Cesario
ABSENT:0 - None
Motion defeated.
Regular Meeting
Other Matters for Discussion
None.
Approval of Minutes
1.Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Apr 3, 2019 7:30 PM
Ch. Cesario noted there is a typographical error on page 132, last sentence. The
work should read "shift". Minutes of the April 3, 2019 regular meeting were
approved as amended.
RESULT:ACCEPTED AS AMENDED [6 TO 0]
MOVER:Adam Moodhe, Commissioner
SECONDER:Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner
AYES:Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein
ABSTAIN:Amy Au
EXCUSED:Scott Lesser
Chairman's Report
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 40
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
A
p
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
04/17/2019
Ch. Cesario acknowledged Trustee Berman's retirement. He also noted that the results of the
April 2, 2019 Consolidated Election should be certified the following week.
Committee and Liaison Reports
Com. Moodhe advised that he attended the April 15, 2019 Village Board meeting. Meridian
Middle School, Starbucks and the Prairie View Metra Station Area Plan were approved by the
Village Board.
Com. Weinstein is the liaison scheduled for the May 20, 2019 Village Board meeting.
Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule
Mr. Stilling advised that the May 1, 2019 regular meeting will most likely be cancelled. The next
meeting would be May 15, 2019.
The Village has released an RFP for Com Plan services.
Com. Moodhe stated that he will not be able to attend the May 15, 2019 PZC meeting.
Public Comments and Questions
None.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 PM
Chris Stilling
APPROVED BY ME THIS 17th DAY OF April , 2019
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 41
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
A
p
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)