2019-08-21 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Packet
Meeting of the Village of Buffalo Grove
Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
August 21, 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 a Variation for an Electronic Sign for the Property at 601 Deerfield Parkway
(Trustee Weidenfeld) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
2. Consider a Variation for a Fence at 1052 Harvard Lane (Trustee Johnson) (Staff
Contact: Chris Stilling)
III. Regular Meeting
A. Other Matters for Discussion
B. Approval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Aug 7, 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 a llow 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: 8/16/2019 11:55 AM Page 1
Action Item : Consider a Variation for an Electronic Sign for the
Property at 601 Deerfield Parkway
Recommendation of Action
Staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions in the staff report.
The petitioner is proposing to replace an existing identification sign with a new identification sign with an
electronic message display along McHenry Road at the Fitness Center location between Deerfield
Parkway and McHenry Road. Pursuant to the Sign Code, all electronic message signs require a variation.
Additionally, in residential districts, only one identification sign is permitted and the maximum area is 16
square feet. The petitioner is seeking a variation to allow more than one identification sign and the
proposed sign exceeds the maximum area allowed.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report (DOCX)
Plan Set (PDF)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Weidenfeld Chris Stilling, Community Development
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
2.1
Packet Pg. 2
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2017
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 601 Deerfield Parkway
PETITIONER: Buffalo Grove Park District
PREPARED BY: Rati Akash, Village Planner
REQUEST: A variation to the Sign Code for an electronic message sign and
identification sign number and size in a residential district.
EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a Fitness Center Building and is
zoned R-E Single Family Residential
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2009 Comprehensive Plan calls for this property to be
a residential land use.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The petitioner is proposing to replace an existing identification sign with a new identification sign with an
electronic message display along McHenry Road at the Fitness Center location between Deerfield Parkway
and McHenry Road.
Pursuant to the Sign Code, all electronic message signs require a variation. Additionally, in residential
districts, only one identification sign is permitted and the maximum area is 16 square feet. The petitioner
is seeking a variation to allow more than one identification sign and the proposed sign exceeds the
maximum area allowed.
PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS
Existing Sign
Existing Sign
The existing identification sign received
a permit when it was constructed in
1998. However, there is no record of
any variaitons for the sign.
The existing sign has a brick base of a 3’-
2” inches in height which the main
center Buffalo Grove Fitness center sign
and 3 smaller signs doe the businesses
located in the building.
The existing sign measures 7’-10” in
overall height and 15’-4” in overall
width, with total sign area of 120 square feet, which includes the base.
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
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
6
0
1
D
e
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
)
Proposed sign
The proposed sign will be higher than
the existing sign by 1’11”. The brick
base of 3’-2” will remain. The overall
height of the sign will be increased to
9’-9” which meets Code.
The petitioner is rearranging parts
some of the cabinets and placing
them on one side.
The proposed electronic message
center sign panel is 8’3” wide by 4’5”
and would be 36.4 square feet in area.
This electronic message will be 10”
deep cabinet overall housing all the
featured components as listed in the
description provided by the
Petitioner.
Above and below the electronic message display are identification elements of the sign that are static.
The overall area of the sign (excluding the base) is approximately 100 square feet, with the electronic
portion approximately 63.4 square feet. Per the Sign Code, the maximum area of the identification
sign is 16 square feet area, and hence the proposed sign requires a variation.
Changeable Copy Standards
Section 14.20.070 of the Village of Buffalo Grove Sign Code sets forth certain
standards/requirements for electronic message signs.
The Petitioner has provided a letter to the Village acknowledging their intent to operate the sign
under the standards set forth in the Village of Buffalo Grove sign code.
Variation Requested
1. Section 14.16, pertaining to Residential Districts for the number and size of the signs.
There is more than one identification sign existing in the subject property, and the sign area of
the sign exceeds the maximum allowed 16 square for one identification sign. It should be noted
that staff does not have a record of any variations previously granted for the property.
2. Section 14.20, pertaining to Electronic Message Signs; for the purpose of allowing an electronic
message board sign.
Electronic display signs require a variation and must comply with the outlined requirements in the
electronic display sign Code.
Proposed Sign
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
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
6
0
1
D
e
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
)
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
Pursuant to Village Code, the surrounding property owners within 250’ were notified and a public hearing
sign was posted on the subject property. The posting of the public hearing sign and the mailed
notifications were completed within the prescribed timeframe as required. As of the date of this Staff
Report, the Village has received two calls from the surrounding properties but no concerns were raised.
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS
Village Department Comments
Engineering The Village Engineer has reviewed the sign location and does not have any concerns
with the proposed changes to this sign.
Forestry The Village Forester has reviewed the landscape around the ground sign and does
not have any concerns with the existing landscaping.
STANDARDS
The Planning & Zoning Commission is authorized to make a recommendation to the Village Board based
on the following criteria:
A. Except for Prohibited signs (Chapter 14.32), the Village Planning & Zoning Commission may
recommend approval or disapproval of a variance from the provisions or requirements of this
Title subject to the following:
1. The literal interpretation and strict application of the provisions and requirements of this Title
would cause undue and unnecessary hardships to the sign user because of unique or unusual
conditions pertaining to the specific building, parcel or property in question; and
2. The granting of the requested variance would not be materially detrimental to the property
owners in the vicinity; and
3. The unusual conditions applying to the specific property do not apply generally to other
properties in the Village; and
4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the purpose of this Title pursuant to
Section 14.04.020
B. Where there is insufficient evidence, in the opinion of the Planning & Zoning Commission, to
support a finding under subsection (A), but some hardship does exist, the Planning & Zoning
Commission may consider the requirement fulfilled if:
1. The proposed signage is of particularly good design and in particularly good taste; and
2. The entire site has been or will be particularly well landscaped.
The petitioner shall provide a response to the standards at the public hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed variation to allow an electronic message sign subject to the
following conditions:
1. The proposed sign shall substantially conform to the plans attached as part of the petition.
2. The sign shall be operated in conformance with all other standards set forth in Section 14.20.070
D of the Village of Buffalo Grove Sign Code.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony
concerning the variation. The PZC shall make a recommendation to the Village Board.
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
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
6
0
1
D
e
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 6
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
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
6
0
1
D
e
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
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
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
6
0
1
D
e
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
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
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
6
0
1
D
e
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
)
Updated: 8/16/2019 12:31 PM Page 1
Action Item : Consider a Variation for a Fence at 1052 Harvard Lane
Recommendation of Action
Staff recommends approval.
The Petitioner installed a six (6) foot solid wood fence in the rear yard. The Petitioner applied for a six (6)
foot shadowbox fence, but installed a six (6) foot solid fence instead which requires a variation. The
Petitioner is requesting to keep the six (6) solid fence in the rear yard. Pursuant to the fence Code any
fence greater than five (5) feet must be of an open design. As the Petitioner has installed a solid Fence
greater than five (5) feet, a variation is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report (DOCX)
Plan Set (PDF)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Johnson Chris Stilling, Community Development
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
2.2
Packet Pg. 9
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2019
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 1052 Harvard Lane
PETITIONER: Shirish Oza
PREPARED BY: Rati Akash, Village Planner
REQUEST: A variation for an existing six (6) foot solid fence installed in the
rear yard.
EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a single-family home currently
zoned R5A.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The approved Village Comprehensive Plan calls for this property
and the immediate neighborhood to be single family detached.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Petitioner installed a six (6) foot solid wood fence in the rear yard. The Petitioner applied for a six (6)
foot shadowbox fence, but installed a six (6) foot solid fence instead which requires a variation.
The Petitioner is requesting to keep the six (6) solid fence in the rear yard. Pursuant to the fence Code any
fence greater than five (5) feet must be of an open design. As the Petitioner has installed a solid Fence
greater than five (5) feet, a variation is required.
PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS
Project Timeline
In April 2019, a permit
application was received by
the Petitioner for a six (6) foot
shadow box wood fence.
A post-hole inspection was
conducted in May for the
fence.
In July, during the final
inspection it was found that
the Petitioner installed a six
(6) solid wood fence. The
fence inspection failed, and
Petitioner was requested to
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
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
cut the fence to a five (5) foot solid fence to comply with Code or apply for a fence variation. It was
then the Petitioner reached out to the Village to apply for fence variation to keep the six (6) solid
fence in the rear yard.
Fence location and type
The Petitioner is requesting to keep the existing six (6) foot solid fence on the west property line, and
two sides connecting the existing fences on the North and South to the building as shown in red in
the Staff Report of Image A.
The neighbor’s property located at 1062 Harvard Lane has an existing six (6) foot solid fence shown in
yellow in Image A. This fence will remain in the north property line of the rear yard of the subject
property.
The neighbor’s property located at 1042 Harvard Lane has an existing six (6) foot shadow-box fence
shown in blue in Image A. This fence will remain in the south property line of the rear yard of the
subject property.
The Petitioner has noted that the six (6) foot solid fence is for privacy.
The Petitioner has reached out to the adjoining neighbors and has received no objection letters from
them which is attached for your reference.
Other than the variation for the height, the proposed fence meets all outlined fence Code
requirements.
VARIATIONS REQUESTED
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 approved fence height variations in the rear yard:
Address Year
Approved
Approved
Fence Height Material and Type
5 Brucewood Ct 2019 6' Solid vinyl fence
460 Raphael 2019 6' Solid wood fence
605 Patton Dr 2019 6' Solid vinyl fence
466 Raphael Ave 2019 6' Solid vinyl fence
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 vinyl fence
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
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS
Village Department Comments
Engineering The Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed fence location and
does not have any engineering or line of sight concerns or objections
with the proposed location of this 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
completed within the prescribed timeframe as required. As of the date of this Staff Report, the Village has
received five calls inquiring about the fence variation, however no concerns were raised.
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
Village staff recommends approval for this variation to allow for an existing six (6) foot solid wood fence
installed in the rear yard of the subject property.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony
concerning the variation. The PZC shall make a final decision on whether or not to approve the variation.
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
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
2.2.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
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
2.2.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
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 15
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
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 16
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
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 17
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
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 18
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
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
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
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
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
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
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
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
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
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
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
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
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
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
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
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
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
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
1
0
5
2
H
a
r
v
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
)
08/7/2019
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, AUGUST 7, 2019
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 8:10 PM by Chairman Frank Cesario
Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
1. Consider a Variation for Fence at 5 Brucewood Court (Trustee Johnson) (Staff Contact:
Chris Stilling)
Mr. Antao was sworn in.
Mr. Antao described his request to have a six foot solid white vinyl fence in the rear yard
for safety and animal control purposes.
Com. Moodhe asked Mr. Antao about the fence in the rear yard behind the garage, as it
extends beyond the south portion of the fence in Image A in exhibit one.
Mr. Antao explained that the position of the south portion of the fence is to keep out the
animals that were making home under his garage. He wants to keep the wild animals
out of his yard for safety purposes.
Chairperson Cesario commented on the five foot fence gate that is not consistent with
the six foot white vinyl fence around the rest of the property.
Mr. Antao said he would do whatever the commissioners approved and recommended
he have for the gate. He said he would make the gate five foot or six foot, he has no
problem with either the five foot or six foot gate.
Deputy Village Manager Stilling explained the condition in the recommendation from
staff was for consistency purposes, however, the Village would work with him as the
gate currently meets Village code. Mr. Stilling proposed a new condition that if and
when the existing five foot solid fence connecting the house to the garage (shown in
yellow in Image A of the staff report) be replaced, it would be replaced with a six foot
white vinyl solid fence.
Com. Moodhe commented that the existing gate is in good condition and does not look
thrown together with the proposed six foot solid white vinyl fence.
Com. Au asked staff about whether the neighbors who have had six foot variations
approved were backing a street or backyards.
Associate Planner Rati Akash noted that the other variation approved in the
neighborhood backed up to other neighbors, similar to the petitioner’s request.
Neighbor Mr. Buttliere was sworn in.
Mr. Buttliere commented on the petitioner’s requests for a six foot white vinyl fence, and
has no issue with the request as he also experiences the same animal problems in his
yard. He thinks the fence looks nice and adds value to the area.
Chairperson Cesario entered the Village staff report as exhibit one.
The public hearing closed at 8:23 PM
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 27
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
u
g
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
)
08/7/2019
Com. Khan made a motion to approve the variation for a six foot solid white vinyl fence
subject to the following conditions
1. The fence shall be installed in accordance with the documents and plans submitted as
part of this petition
2. If and when the existing five foot solid fence connecting the house to the garage (shown
in yellow in Image A of the staff report) be replaced, it be replaced with a six foot white
vinyl solid fence.
Com. Moodhe seconded the motion.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Khan, Au, Richards
ABSENT: Matthew Cohn, Stephen Goldspiel, Mitchell Weinstein
2. Consider Approval of a Fence Variation for 460 Raphael Ave (Trustee Weidenfeld) (Staff
Contact: Chris Stilling)
Mr. Diaz and his son were sworn in.
Mr. Diaz noted that he was unaware that a permit was needed for the construction of
the fence and had installed the fence already. Mr. Diaz explained that he is now
requesting to keep the six foot solid fence in the rear yard.
Com. Moodhe asked about the level of the fence in the rear yard, noting that the height
of the fence changes throughout the length of the fence in the rear yard.
Mr. Diaz commented that the ground is uneven, so he had to cut the fence down in some
areas to keep the height at six feet.
Com. Au asked staff if any complaints had been made regarding the six foot solid fence.
Associate Planner, Rati Akash said there were two complaints. One that had been
addressed by the petitioners, and the other complaint was in regards to the height of the
fence.
Com. Khan asked the petitioners if they had used a contractor.
Mr. Diaz said he did it himself.
Staff noted that the fence meets all other requirements.
Chairperson Cesario asked if there were other fences in the neighborhood like the one
currently being requested.
Staff noted that there are other fences in the neighborhood that have been approved.
Chairperson Cesario entered the staff report as exhibit one.
The public hearing was closed at 8:38 PM
Com. Moodhe expressed more concern about the appearance of the fence and would
like to see adjustments be made considering the neighborhood has very few fences.
Chairperson Cesario expressed his opinion on the style of the fence and explained the
difference between styles of fencing, but is amenable to approve the variance.
Com. Au expressed her concern over the look of the fence.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 28
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
u
g
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
)
08/7/2019
Staff explained that the petitioner’s does have an odd yard and that the fence can
fluctuate to meet height requirements no matter the style of fence. There are also other
fences in town that fluctuate.
Com. Khan made a motion to approve the variation to all for an existing six foot solid
wood fence installed in the rear yard of the subject property.
Com. Richards seconded the motion.
RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 1]
AYES: Adam Moodhe, Frank Cesario, Zill Khan, Kevin Richards
NAYS: Amy Au
ABSENT: Matthew Cohn, Stephen Goldspiel, Mitchell Weinstein
3. Consider Approval of a Rezoning to B3 Planned Business Center District; a Special Use
for a Planned Unit Development; Approval to Allow for a Health Club Greater Than
10,000 Square Feet in Area as Part of the Planned Unit Development Request; and a
Preliminary Plan for the Property at 1 5-45 E Dundee Road, Buffalo Grove IL (Cambridge
Commons Shopping Center) (Trustee Weidenfeld) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
Lawrence Freedman, Ken Demuth and Nick Vittore were sworn in.
Mr. Freedman answered the questions that were brought up during the last public
hearing regarding the subject property including the expressed concerns over lighting,
drainage, and landscape. He noted that the plans have not changed since the last public
hearing. Additionally, the team accepts all of the Villages conditions.
Chairperson Cesario asked the developers to confirm that the traffic flow on pg. 36 of the
packet is the proposed site plan with the intended flow of traffic.
Mr. Demuth confirmed that the parking flow on pg. 36 of the packet is the proposed site
plan with the intended flow of traffic.
Chairperson Cesario asked about the parking at night when some of the lights may be
turned off or dimmed. He asked how they will work to deter parking in those areas and
keep the unlit areas safe.
Mr. Vittore said they intended to phase the lighting from east to west to keep people
from parking closest to the residential areas. He noted that they have worked with 24
hour fitness staff about where staff should be parking during night hours.
Com. Richards expressed safety concerns over the lights being turned off on the south
east side of the building.
Mr. Freedman said that there will still be security lights on the building so no safety
issues occur on that side of the building.
Mr. Vittore spoke to the directional lighting that their architects will be working on once
they move on and are granted approval. He is in agreement that there should be no dark
pockets where bad things can occur. Mr. Vittore also noted that he spoke with those at
Cambridge Commons and expressed their willingness to listen to their concerns over the
lighting and if at some point they wanted them on, they would listen.
Com. Au asked for a clarification on the direction of the parking flow that goes out to
Dundee Rd.
Mr. Freedman said they can take a look at the traffic that runs out to Dundee Rd.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 29
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
u
g
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
)
08/7/2019
Com. Moodhe suggested their engineers look into different lighting technology for
dimming as well as the different studies they can provide at different levels of dimness.
Com. Moodhe asked about the far East exit as well and expressed concerns over the
traffic that occurs on Dundee Rd, and whether they were going to make that exit a right
in right out.
Staff noted that it is not currently a right in right out at that exit.
Com. Khan asked if there would be any more impervious surfaces that would change the
direction of water flow.
Mr. Freedman noted the only change is to the side walk on the north side of the building.
However, they are only replacing what is existing. They are not changing the impervious
surfaces to the site.
Com. Cesario ask the developers if they were okay with the seven conditions attached to
the staff recommendation.
Mr. Freedman said yes, they are okay with the seven conditions attached to the staff
recommendation.
Chairperson Cesario entered the Village Staff report as exhibit one.
Mr. Sears was sworn in.
Mr. Sears expressed his concern over the landscape and requested the Village require a
landscape plan from the developers.
Ms. Gulda, a resident of Cambridge on the Lakes, is in favor of the plans and looks
forward to no longer driving past the empty lot. She believes it will add value to the
condos at Cambridge on the Lakes, as well as the area.
Mr. Zenda, a resident of Cambridge on the Lakes, is fully supportive of the petitioner’s
plans.
Mr. Freedman confirmed that they do have a landscape plan which is included in the
proposed site plan. Mr. Freedman said they would work with Cambridge on the Lakes to
coordinate and listen to their concerns.
The Public hearing closed at 9:06 PM.
Com Khan made a motion for the approval of (1) a rezoning to B3 Planned Business
Center District; (2) a special use for a Planned Unit Development; (3) approval to allow
for a Health Club greater than 10,000 square feet in area as part of the Planned Unit
Development request; and (4) a Preliminary Plan, 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 petitioner and 24 Hour Fitness develop a plan to ensure that parking during the
overnight hours is encouraged in the north parking lot area to minimize impacts on the
adjacent residential development to the east in a manner acceptable to the Village. This
can include signage and educational materials to clients.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the existing vehicle storage shall cease. In
the future, no offsite vehicle storage shall be permitted.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 30
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
u
g
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
)
08/7/2019
4. The approval of the health club shall solely be granted to 24 Hour Fitness. Any change
to the fitness user shall require the approval of the Village.
5. Future permitted and special uses on the property shall comply with the B3 Planned
Business Center District.
6. A photometric plan for parking lot lighting shall be provided in a manner acceptable to
the Village.
7. The existing landscaping along the eastern and southern portions of the property shall
be improved in a manner acceptable to the Village.
Com. Moodhe seconded the motion.
Com. Au noted that she likes the improvements and likes that there are not a lot of code
changes.
Chairperson Cesario commented on the light ask of the commissioners and appreciates
the developers working within the rules.
Com. Richards appreciates the willingness to work with the homeowners at Cambridge
Commons.
Com. Moodhe is happy to see the improvements to that area and likes seeing plans for
increased sidewalks as they promote a friendly atmosphere.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Khan, Au, Richards
ABSENT: Matthew Cohn, Stephen Goldspiel, Mitchell Weinstein
Regular Meeting
Other Matters for Discussion
Approval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Jul 17, 2019 7:30 PM
RESULT: ACCEPTED [4 TO 0]
AYES: Adam Moodhe, Frank Cesario, Amy Au, Kevin Richards
ABSTAIN: Zill Khan
ABSENT: Matthew Cohn, Stephen Goldspiel, Mitchell Weinstein
Chairman's Report
Chairperson Cesario recommended a change in the process for making sure they have enough
members for a meeting.
Committee and Liaison Reports
Chairperson Cesario talked about the COW meeting he attended on August 5th.
Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule
Deputy Village Manager spoke about the next agenda and the future items that will be coming to
the commissioners attention.
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
u
g
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
)
08/7/2019
Public Comments and Questions
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 PM
Chris Stilling
APPROVED BY ME THIS 7th DAY OF August , 2019
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
u
g
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
)