2005-02-02 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission
Document Type: 0 A e
g nda 0 Minutes
Meeting ate: 02/02/2005
Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
February 2, 2005
Buffalo Grove Park District, Bison Park, 905 Dundee Road
Special Use concerning proposed cellular communications tower
Buffalo Grove Park District, Busch Grove Park, 801 McHenry Road
Special Use concerning proposed cellular communications tower
Buffalo Grove Park District, Rolling Hills North Park, 1951
Sheridan Road— Special Use concerning proposed cellular
Communications tower
Prestige Automobile Leasing, 88 Dundee Road—Rezoning to the
B-4 District and approval of a Preliminary Plan —Workshop #2
Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers,
Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois.
Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer
Mr. Samuels
Mr. Smith
Ms. Bocek
Ms. Kenski-Sroka
Mr. Khan
Mr. Teplinsky
Mr. Stark
Mr. Cohn
Commissioners absent: None
Also present: Mr. Marc Schwartz, Schwartz Wolf& Bernstein
Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd
Mr. Jeffrey Braiman, Village Trustee
Mr. Bruce Kahn, Village Trustee
Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to approve the
minutes of the regular meeting of December 15, 2004. All Commissioners were in favor of the
motion and the motion passed unanimously.
Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to approve the
minutes of the public hearing of January 5, 2005. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that Trustee
Kahn should be listed under the also present category. All Commissioners were in favor of the
amended motion and the motion passed unanimously with Chairman Ottenheimer abstaining.
Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to approve the
minutes of the regular meeting of January 5, 2005. Chairman Ottenheimer again noted that
Trustee Kahn should be added to the also present category. All commissioners were in favor of
the amended motion and the motion passed unanimously with Chairman Ottenheimer abstaining.
COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
Commissioner Cohn stated he attended the Village Board meeting on January 31, 2005 and there
were no referrals to the Plan Commission.
BUFFALO GROVE PARK DISTRICT, BISON PARK, 905 DUNDEE ROAD— SPECIAL USE
CONCERNING PROPOSED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval by
the Board of a Special Use in the R-1 District with the following variations: Zoning Ordinance —
Section 17.40.020.B. (to allow a heights of 80 feet instead of the standard maximum building
height of 35 feet) and Section 17.40.020.A. (to allow a setback of 16 feet instead of 80 feet from
the west property line and to allow a setback of 142 feet instead of 160 feet from the south
property line), to build a cellular communications antenna and tower of 80 feet in height and a
ground level equipment shelter on the property commonly known as Bison Park, pursuant to the
evidence submitted at the public hearing previously conducted.
Commissioner Teplinsky stated there were a lot of fundamental discussions during the public
hearing as to whether a cellular tower belongs in a park. It is his view that is not the central
question nor should it be relevant. Rather, the application is for a Special Use and the Special
Use criteria must be gone through. With respect to the Bison Park location there are few criteria
that seem to stick out more than others:
1. First is that the special use will serve the public convenience at the location of the subject
property; or the establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare.
Commissioner Teplinsky stated that the proposed use will not endanger the public health, safety,
morals, comfort, or general welfare at that location. But more importantly is the criteria that
states:
2. The location and size of the special use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved
in or conducted in connection with said special use, the size of the subject property in relation to
such special use, and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it shall be
such that it will be in harmony with the appropriate, orderly development of the district it is
located.
Commissioner Teplinsky stated he does not believe the Bison Park location and the proposed use
in that location is in harmony with the development of that particular district.
3. Furthermore, with respect to the criteria that the special use will not be injurious to the
use and enjoyment of that property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property for the
purposes already permitted in such zoning district, nor substantially diminish and impair other
property valuations with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Teplinsky stated given the proposed location and the proximity of that park to the
adjoining baseball field and residences, he feels the proposed use would be injurious to the
enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity and for those reasons with respect to the
Bison Park location he will not be voting in favor of the recommendation.
Commissioner Samuels stated there is something that will go forward through all three
considerations of the petitions which does have everything to do with the fact of these locations
being in a park. He noted he was not here when it was voted to modify the ordinance to allow
this type of development in the park. If he had been present he would not have voted against it.
Although the Village Board did enact the law he does not believe it was in the best interests of
the Village as a whole. Therefore, he believes in general regard to parks that this type of
development is the antithesis of what we have parks for. He feels a park is supposed to be a
respite from development where aesthetics are important almost to the point of being overriding.
When we do have development in the parks it is there fore a specific recreational purpose. When
we build buildings, put up lights and build facilities of any type, they are there to enhance the use
of the park for the people who go to the parks. These towers are nothing but a detriment to
anybody who is using the park and do not belong here. Specifically with respect to the proposal
for Bison Park he believes that the evidence failed to show that there was a lack of other
locations available. Specifically, there was evidence that this could be located even as close as
the school property or sites in Arlington Heights and any number of sites around here. To put
this into the park is wrong. He stated he does not believe the evidence showed a need for this
facility in this location in terms of the number of subscribers and percentage of complaints.
There were some bare bones evidence given of complaints within the area but they were not
specific and there was no causal effect given as far as the lack of an antenna in this location to
any of those complaints nor was there any specifics with regards to what each complaint was or
who registered it or when. He further noted he feels the petitioner failed to follow the ordinance
stated goal of providing capacity for multiple carriers in order to limit and reduce the amount of
these antennas overall. Further they failed to show a hardship or a need for variance as far as the
request for such a setback variance. Therefore he does not believe this motion deserves a
favorable recommendation.
Commissioner Bocek stated there are so many different factors that go into determining what
level of service there is going to be in different areas and the commission was also presented
with the benefit of having additional income given to the Park District but no specifics on
exactly that income was. The evidence provided relating to complaints did not have enough
information regarding what period of time they were, how many customers were involved and
where were the calls from. Based on these factors she does not feel there was sufficient evidence
given for the need for this particular use and she will be giving a negative recommendation.
Commissioner Cohn stated with respect to Bison Park he is not convinced the Park District
addressed the compatibility requirement of 17.34.040.H4 of the Telecommunications Ordinance.
Alternative tower design including camouflage and stealth techniques have not been adequately
considered or addressed. He is also not convinced the proposal for Bison Park satisfies the
Special Use requirement of 17.28.040.A3 and does believe the proposal is injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property for the
purposes already permitted in the zoning district. The use interferes with the aesthetic and
recreational enjoyment of the area and he will be voting no for Bison Park.
Commissioner Stark stated he based his decision on the plan itself. He stated he does not feel
this case has met the criteria of the Special Use and he will be voting no on this.
Commissioner Smith stated he commends the Park District for attempting to raise money in
different ways with the way the tax cap situation is. Regarding this proposal at Bison Park he
agrees with everything that has been said. He does not believe it meets the Special Use criteria
of being in harmony with the area nor does it meet the criteria as to being injurious to the area
around it. He stated he agrees that the Park District did not convince him the need was there for
this area and he will be voting no.
Commissioner Khan stated he agrees with Commissioner Smith's first comment. He also feels
that the lack of financial disclosure as to the monthly income from this proposal was not right.
He also will be voting no.
Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows:
AYES: None
NAPES: Ottenheimer, Samuels, Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark,
Cohn
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion failed 9 to 0.
Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Smith to direct Village staff
to prepare Findings of Fact for review and signature by the Chairman of the Plan Commission.
All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
BUFFALO GROVE PARK DISTRICT, BUSCH GROVE PARK, 801 MCHENRY ROAD —
SPECIAL USE CONCERNING PROPOSED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval by
the Village Board of a petitioner for Special Use in the R-E District with the following
variations: Zoning Ordinance — Section 17.40.020.B. (to allow a heights of 120 feet instead of
the standard maximum building height of 35 feet); Section 17.40.020.A. (allow a setback of 86
feet instead of 240 feet from the north property line (abutting a separate real estate parcel in
Busch Grove Park) and Section 17.34.040.H.7. (to allow lights for a playing field to be attached
to the tower) for the purpose of construction of a cellular communications antenna and tower of
120 feet in height and a ground level equipment shelter on the property commonly known as
Busch Grove Park, pursuant to the evidence and testimony given in the public hearing.
Commissioner Teplinsky stated that once again his deliberation is not based on an issue of
whether these things belong in parks or not. Nor is it based upon whether the Park District
presented evidence of how much money they would garner as a result of having these cell towers
up. In his view those are not relevant criteria in determining whether or not they are entitled to
the special use they are requesting. Specifically with request to the criteria, contrary to his
findings on Bison Park, he did see a need based on the coverage map for a cell tower in this
location. This is relevant to the issue of whether the proposed use there will serve the public
convenience with the public being the people who live in Buffalo Grove and drive through
Buffalo Grove. He further stated he does not view this tower as endangering the public health,
safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. He stated he also finds that because the cell tower
will be a replacement of an existing light standard that its proposed use is in harmony with the
existing area. He stated he does not believe the proposed will be injurious to the enjoyment of
the property in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, he will be in favor of the tower at Busch
Grove Park
Commissioner Smith stated he agrees 100 percent with Commissioner Teplinsky and stated this
location and use of a light standard is exactly where these type of towers should go.
Commissioner Cohn stated he still believes that the proposal is injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and he does believe the appearance does
have an interference with the aesthetic and recreational enjoyment of the area and does not
satisfy the requirement of a special use and will vote no.
Commissioner Bocek stated she does not feel the evidence provides proof of the need in this
park as well. We do not know how many T-Mobile customers are affected by the complaints
and will vote negatively on this motion.
Commissioner Samuels stated he agrees with Commission Cohn and does not believe that these
belong in parks.
Commissioner Stark stated once again he is not basing his decision on whether or not there is
sufficient coverage or whether T-Mobile's customers can get good reception. He is making his
decision strictly based on the plan. He stated he believes the Park District meets the criteria for a
special use in Busch Grove Park and he will support the motion.
Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows:
AYES: Smith, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Ottenheimer
NAPES: Samuels, Bocek, Cohn
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion passed 6 to 3.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to recommend
Village staff prepare Findings of Fact for review and signature by the Chairman of the Plan
Commission.
All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
BUFFALO GROVE PARK DISTRICT, ROLLING HILLS NORTH PARK, 1951 SHERIDAN
ROAD — SPECIAL USE CONCERNING PROPOSED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
TOWER
Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval to
the Village Board of the petition for a Special Use in the R-3 District with the following
variations: Zoning Ordinance — Section 17.40.020.B. (to allow a heights of 90 feet instead of the
standard maximum building height of 35 feet) and Section 17.40.020.A. (to allow a setback of 16
feet instead of 180 feet from the southwest property line (abutting Commonwealth Edison
electrical transmission lines), to construction a cellular communications antenna and tower of 90
feet in height and a ground level equipment shelter on the property commonly known as the
Rolling Hills North Park, pursuant to documents and testimony submitted at the public hearing.
Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated you cannot consider whether this is a park or not when
reviewing uses for a special use. This project meets criteria number #1 under a special use
permit. But when you go into some of the other points of the criteria such as whether it is in
harmony with the surroundings or appropriate and whether or not it is injurious to the use and
enjoyment of this property, the Park District has been unable to present cogent arguments to
support this plan. She stated she has not seen demonstrable need on the part of the Park District
to put this facility in and there appears to be no need. In this park it appears the tower would be
too close to the baseball fields and would absolutely impair the use of the property. Therefore
she will vote no.
Commissioner Teplinsky stated he did find he could not justify this location based on the
coverage exhibit which appeared adequate. He stated he cannot think of a reason why this
location would serve the public convenience and he sees no reason for the tower at this location.
However, the proposed structure was creative and compliments the Park District and Mr. Green
on the design. He stated it is not, however, in harmony with the location and the proposed use
will be injurious to the enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity at Rolling Hills and
will not support this motion.
Commissioner Stark stated the Park District holds public meetings wherein this matter has been
discussed for quite some time. It has also been in the newspapers several months ago and even
after that only one person from this area called for information. He noted that there had been a
comment about splitting the money with Com Ed if they shared their towers and stated that
would not work. He further noted the fencing and shrubbery around the maintenance building is
Village code and the Park District's plan did come up to Village code. He stated the coverage
here is good and he does not feel a tower is needed here and therefore will not support the
motion.
Commissioner Cohn stated he is not convinced the Park District has addressed the compatibility
requirement in the telecommunication ordinance. He also stated the alternative tower design
including camouflage and stealth techniques have not been adequate, considered or addressed.
He stated he is also not convinced that the proposal satisfies the special use requirement of
Section 17.28.040.A.3. and believes the proposal is injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property for the purposes already permitted in
the zoning district. The use interferes with the aesthetic and recreational enjoyment of the area
and he will vote no.
Commissioner Cohn noted that the perceptions left by the Park District were not good. Many
times the Park District left the impression that it was out of touch with the residents. Throughout
the hearing the Park District left an impression to many that it did not have an interest in talking
with the residents. A resident asked what was located in the area of Rolling Hills Park where the
proposed cell tower was planned. Mr. Green responded by saying nothing. The area of the
proposed cell tower is viewed by many residents as not "nothing" but rather as a patch of green
earth on the suburban landscape. It is viewed as public open space with intrinsic value and many
view having such spaces a purpose and intended function of a park. Having a Park District that
wants to put cell towers in this park and describes areas of its parks as nothing is just viewed by
many as hard to understand. That is not what the people at the Park District think but the
response to that question left a bad impression. The Park District had also left an impression that
it was not interested in talking to the public because the Park District only presented John Green,
thus limiting the cross-examination by the public only to him. Then during the closing comment
period a commission and the president of the Park District spoke. When they spoke they spoke
about how the Park District meetings were open and they valued input. From my perspective I
view that if the Park District was really interested in a dialogue with the residents, these two
people would have been presented as witnesses during the hearing and subject to
cross-examination. The appearance left was that the difficult questions from the public would be
addressed by John Green the architect while the commissioner and president would speak to the
public without taking questions during that portion of the hearing where they do not have to
respond to questions. At times he felt Mr. Green provided short and non-responsive answers to
questions from the residents.
Commissioner Cohn noted there is much controversy in the community surrounding the Park
District's desire to raise funds by leasing park space to the telecommunications companies but
most of the public debate thus far has occurred in the plan commission process. A proposal as
significant as this deserves to be openly debated and argued in a forum directed and hosted by
the elected representatives of the Park District. It is the Park District officials' burden to
understand what its residents want. If the residents do not come to its meetings, perhaps special
meetings should have been scheduled with notice to each resident near the three parks. The Park
District also sent out a survey months ago and perhaps a question or two could have been
presented to address this specific issue.
Commissioner Cohn stated this proposal was not politically ripe for a hearing before the Village
and he is not convinced the Park District had the backing of its constituents. It seems that with a
proposal such as this, the residents of Buffalo Grove deserve more due process from the
governmental unit responsible before it involves other entities such as the Plan Commission.
Commissioner Samuels stated he really believes that had these proposals been made by adjoining
landowners on private property next to the parks, the Park District would be here testifying in
opposition to the location of the cell towers on adjoining property because they would be
despoiling their parks. This does not belong in the parks.
Commissioner Smith stated that the Park District messed up on strategy as far as who spoke and
who did not. Perhaps that was the way it had to be and perhaps they could not reveal all the
information the commission wanted to hear. The strategy was not good and did not work.
However, that has no bearing on his decision. It all comes back to the special use criteria and
this one was somewhat difficult as he does believe this one is harmonious with the area because
there are Com Ed towers there. However, do we need to add more to it just because there are
already towers there. He stated he does not believe it is necessary to add more and there does
not appear to be a need for cell towers in this area and he will vote against it.
Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows:
AYES: None
NAPES: Samuels, Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Cohn,
Ottenheimer
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The motion failed 9 to 0.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to recommend to the
Village Board to direct Village staff to prepare Findings of Fact for review and signature by the
Chairman of the Plan Commission All commissioners were in favor of the motion and the
motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Schwartz. on behalf of the Park District, stated this forum is not the place to be attacking the
good intentions or the efforts of the Buffalo Grove Park District. He stated he feels everyone
should recognize that even though they spent more than ten hours working on this project in this
public setting, approximately 200 appeared. The Park District services over 43,000 people in
this community and he does not know if this is a majority of the people speaking about this
subject. This Commission needs to be very careful in how they represent their opinions and
what they say concerning the Park District because the Park District is here to serve 43,000 plus
people. They did everything they could for the best interests of those people. They held public
hearings and meetings and public testimony showed that no one showed up at the Park District.
This is not the forum for us to talk to the community on behalf of the Park District. This forum
is for us to talk to the Buffalo Grove Plan Commission about whether or this location we have
presented is proper. On behalf of the Park District he stated he truly takes offense to the
comments that were made.
PRESTIGE AUTOMOBILE LEASING, 88 DUNDEE ROAD — REZONING TO THE B-4
DISTRICT AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN—WORKSHOP 92
Mr. John Schiess stated one of the clarifications they were asked to do was to give the gross
square footage for the building which is 10,492 square feet. By that square footage the total
number of parking spaces required are 21. They have listed 10 customer spaces on the site plan
He stated he is not sure how that will be determined in terms of whether they are code compliant
for the number of parking spaces or not. He stated they have set up their site plan so as to
maximize the number of stacked parking spaces. The stacked parking spaces are directly related
to the operator's volume of business. The more cars that are allowed to be placed safely and
securely on the site has a direct correlation. So naturally they would like to maximize the
number of stacked parking spaces while also being code compliant.
Mr. Schiess noted another clarification relates to the number of full time employees. They
expect 15 full time employees and no part time employees once the facility is up and fully
operational.
Mr. Schiess stated there was a recommendation to either modify or change some of their
proposed grasscrete to something else. They also had a request to some excess paving on the
northwest/southeast corner. He stated they would be glad to consider that. Another
recommendation was some solid fence screening for the stacked cars. They have no objection to
that. He noted the Fire Department has recommended the first 20 feet of grasscrete to be 12 foot
blacktop due to the fire trucks entering and turnaround and they have no objection to that. The
Fire Department asks for the building to have an automatic sprinkler system and it is in their
plans. They are also recommending an additional fire hydrant at the back of the building. They
are not sure of the location but it is something they will comply with.
Mr. Bou-Saab stated they received a few comments regarding the preliminary traffic report they
conducted. They have some differences but believe they can provide the evidence based on the
documentation in their report. They did the manual traffic turning movement counts on both
intersections at Buffalo Grove Road and Dundee as well as Huntington Lane/Dundee. They
have found that the generated traffic from the proposed dealership will not be a major impact on
the two intersection AM/PM peak flows. However, they did find that the two intersections need
some improvements in timing to improve the level of service at the two intersections. They will
provide all this information in their updated traffic report addressing the Benes comments.
Mr. Schiess stated that between the receipt of the traffic consultant's comments and the next time
they appear before the commission, they will have worked out the differences between the
Village's traffic engineer relating to the points that are raised and Mr. Bou-Saab's traffic counts.
Commissioner Samuels noted their appears to be a degradation of service on Buffalo Grove
Road and Dundee Road from D to E both in the AM and PM peak hours. He asked if the future
conditions means adjusting for this development or does it refer to some other factor.
Mr. Bou-Saab stated the effect at the intersection for future conditions is that timing will
improve that condition and that needs to be discussed with IDOT but not much can be done to
improve it much. He noted the level of service is already at the edge between D and E. The
delay is so few seconds that adding these few more cars makes the change.
Commissioner Samuels asked how this can be improved.
Mr. Bou-Saab stated the timing sequence for the traffic signals, especially where we have the
delay can be adjusted by IDOT after approval and concurrence of the report to make sure that at
least the east/west traffic will have less seconds to hold which means there will be a longer green
light on Dundee.
Commissioner Samuels asked what is happening on Buffalo Grove Road at this time.
Mr. Bou-Saab stated they are going to go back and check the timing exactly and make a
recommendation to IDOT or the Village to improve these timings.
Commissioner Samuels stated he is trying to find out if Buffalo Grove Road is operating at C, D
or E levels at that same location.
Mr. Bou-Saab stated they are missing one piece of information as to the exact timing of the
signal change between green, yellow and red for the whole intersection. Because of that they
must monitor the timing of the signal changes to see where most of the delay is happening. They
believe from the initial traffic counts it is the east/west track that is causing the level of service to
go down. But a final analysis would include checking the exact existing timing of the signals at
the two intersections.
Mr. Bou-Saab noted the level of service at the whole intersection based on the turning movement
is D or C or E. When they get the timing of the signals they will know exactly where the most
delay is occurring. They believe from the numbers right now that is the east/west track.
Commissioner Samuels asked if the displays are permanent or to be pulled on and off nightly.
Mr. Schiess stated it will not be a daily shifting but rather a weekly shifting in order to keep
interest up in their displays.
Commissioner Samuels asked what the reason is then for the grasscrete as opposed to just a
regular paved surface.
Mr. Schiess stated they thought it was a better transition and blended in better with the site and
also because of the percolation it allows for water through the soil.
Commissioner Samuels noted that can be a maintenance issue.
Ms. Josephine Bellalta stated it can be a maintenance issue when it is very hot. Some of the
grass in between the spaces can get quite dry. There are several things that can be done. First,
an irrigation system which would not be cost effective for the client. Another is to use concrete
pavers that do not have the gaps but still allow for moisture to go through as opposed to a
bituminous pavement.
Commissioner Samuels stated that from a personal standpoint it would be preferable to have
pavers.
Commissioner Khan asked that the north/south Buffalo Grove Road leg be included in the future
traffic report. He also asked that the report include the capacity analysis. He noted there has
been no level of service analysis for the driveway and he is looking for an analysis of the gaps
since there are no signals at this location and the only time someone can make a left turn
movement going eastbound on Dundee is through the gaps.
Commissioner Khan noted the Village code calls for a 24 foot driveway and only a 21 foot
driveway is proposed. He stated he does not even feel a 24 foot driveway is sufficient here since
this is an uncontrolled intersection and you would not want someone coming out from the
parking lot who wants to go westbound behind someone who wants to go eastbound. He
suggests one lane going in and two lanes coming out for east and west turns. This way you will
increase the level of service on the driveway.
Mr. Bou-Saab stated it is a good idea and will check to see if IDOT will allow this. He noted the
use on this dealership does not create much volume and may not warrant a third lane.
Commissioner Khan asked where there will be so much stacked parking.
Mr. Schiess noted the spaces are not always filled. The cars are often jockeyed around. The
plan now shows 61 stacked spaces as opposed to the previous plan that had 64. It also does not
represent cars rather just available slots within that grid.
Commissioner Khan stated this site is more than one acre and Village code requires its own site
detention when a site is more than one acre. He stated in his mind this site is clearly a candidate
for on site detention.
Mr. Bou-Saab stated they have not had any direction to provide detention. However, at this
point he can only see providing detention if there would be any increase in the impervious area
from what exists. That would be a very fair compromise. However, they will discuss this with
the Village Engineer.
The Commission agreed that this project is ready for public hearing.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None
FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE
Mr. Pfeil stated the next meeting will be held on February 16, 2005.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None
STAFF REPORT—None
NEW BUSINESS—None
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Khan and carried
unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair