2001-06-06 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission
Document Type: 0 A e
g nda 0 Minutes
Meeting ate: 06/06/2001
Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
June 6, 2001
Development Ordinance (Section 16.50.080.A.2.b.) and Zoning Ordinance
(Section 17.36.030.f.4.b.), consideration of amendments concerning
driveway width and driveway apron width
Zoning Ordinance, consideration of amendments to Section 17.36.040
Concerning parking requirements and Chapter 17.44—
Business Districts, B-1 through B-4
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. Trilling
Ms. Dunn
Mr. Feldgreber
Mr. Panitch
Mr. Smith
Ms. Kenski-Sroka
Ms. Bocek
Commissioners absent: None
Also present: Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
Mr. Jeffrey Berman, Village Trustee
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Trilling, seconded by Commissioner Dunn to approve the minutes of
the regular meeting of April 18, 2001. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the
motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Kenski-Sroka abstaining.
COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
Commissioner Trilling stated he attended the Village Board meeting on June 4, 2001 where the
following items were discussed:
1. The Arboretum Golf Course maintenance building project is moving ahead
2. Referral of the issue relative to family community residences in the Village. This would
relate to people who are in need of assistance due to disabilities and are in need of group homes
to facilitate their livelihood.
Commissioner Trilling noted they are asking for approval of up to six residents and two staff
people in a group residence. Presently the ordinance is written allowing only up to six people,
including staff.
Mr. Pfeil commented that Federal fair housing regulations mandate that local zoning regulations
cannot treat a group of persons with developmental disabilities differently than other families in
terms of their right to reside in a dwelling unit. He noted the Village Attorney is reviewing the
considerable data presented by Mr. Brian Rubin and should be available to the Commission for
briefing.
Commissioner Trilling noted that apparently under the American with Disabilities Act, the
Village does not have the authority to tell them where they can be located and where they cannot
locate.
3. Proposal by Jacobs Homes for a multi-family development near Route 22 and Prairie
Road
Commissioner Samuels stated he attended the Village Board meeting of May 21, 2001 where the
Board referred the driveway ordinance change.
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (SECTION 16.50.080.A.2.B.) AND ZONING ORDINANCE
(SECTION 17.36.030.F.4.B), CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS CONCERNING
DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND DRIVEWAY APRON WIDTH
Mr. Pfeil stated the changes to driveway apron widths was initiated at the board level by one
particular property, but the Board feels there may be a number of properties that this amendment
could address and benefit. The current Development Ordinance regulations for driveway apron
width and the Zoning Ordinance allow for a two-car garage and an 18-foot driveway at the
property line. For types of construction that would be larger than a standard two-car garage, a
driveway and apron wider than 18 feet would be needed. It might be up in the 22-foot range for
a newer type of two-car garage with nine-foot doors and perhaps spacing in between the doors
and some side on the garage beyond the doors. Basically, the request is to amend the Ordinances
to allow some appropriate number such as 22 feet for driveway and apron width.
Commissioner Samuels stated he would like to see driveway and apron widths of this type
treated as variances. He stated he has reservations about increasing the width, since tapering can
be used in many situations. If curbs cuts continue to get larger, more and more off street parking
is being taken away and there could be insufficient parking in some areas due to the increased
driveway widths.
Mr. Pfeil noted that three-car garages are allowed full 27-feet and this would obviously be less
than that. He said that there does not appear to be any specific information concerning how
many two-car driveways larger than 18 feet in width may be requested.
Commissioner Samuels noted that 18 feet at the property line is sufficient for someone to get out
of their driveway. A foot wider on either side at the house where the driveway hits the garage
door would be fine. Then taper to the 18 feet which should be sufficient, especially with the
flare at the end of the driveway. He said that by going to 22 feet, the curb cut will bring it up to
25 to 26 feet, which does not seem necessary.
Chairman Ottenheimer noted the ordinance would certainly apply to new construction and a
number of remodeled homes.
Commissioner Samuels asked why the resident on Horatio Boulevard in Prairie View needs
approval by the Village for the proposed apron.
Mr. Pfeil said that Horatio Boulevard is fully within the Village, so the apron is located on
Village right-of-way even though the driveway and house are unincorporated. The Village
requires a permit to construct the apron and to access a Village street. The design for the
driveway apron must comply with the standards of the Village Development Ordinance.
Commissioner Trilling asked if there is any way to make this a variance only for this particular
property.
Mr. Pfeil replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Trilling stated he does not want to make 22 feet the standard width for two-car
driveways.
Commissioner Samuels stated he does not see why there should be a distinction in the amount of
driveway between a big or small two-car garage, especially when someone who does have a
two-car garage has to put the third space on while tapering severely to comply with the
ordinance.
Chairman Ottenheimer noted that the Commission has not been presented with a request for a
variance. The current request is to consider amendment of the Development Ordinance and
Zoning Ordinance concerning a standard that would apply generally to properties in the same
situation.
Trustee Berman stated this item was originally discussed relative to a variation versus an
ordinance text amendment. He stated in his opinion it is not good policy to amend statutes to
address a single person's unique, isolated issue, which is really a variance. He noted the Plan
Commission does have the authority to hear and recommend a variance. As part of a rejection of
the text amendment, if chosen, the Commission could recommend a variance after a hearing to
address the person's unique circumstances.
Commissioner Samuels agreed with Trustee Berman.
Commissioner Trilling noted that the Zoning Ordinance limits impervious surface in a front yard
to 40 percent of the required yard area, and this is another reason that a general text amendment
is not advisable.
The consensus of the Plan Commission is not to move forward with any text amendments.
Commissioner Samuels noted in support of the Commission's feelings that it is generally not a
good policy to amend an ordinance on the basis of the request of an individual who is claiming a
hardship. The ordinance is meant to apply to the overall community. If the ordinance standards
are valid, an amendment should not be used to address an individual property owner's difficulty
in meeting the standards. When text amendments are considered there may be other issues that
should be included within the discussion, and the current request is very narrow in scope. In
summary, it is probably best to leave the ordinance in its current form unless a more
comprehensive proposal for amendments is ready for review and discussion.
ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.36.040
CONCERNING PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 17.44 — BUSINESS
DISTGRICTS, B-I THROUGH B-4
Mr. Pfeil reviewed the memo of June 4, 2001 noting the two main points are the revised
standards for parking and a conceptual discussion of outdoor storage for businesses of seasonal
or temporary merchandise.
Mr. Pfeil noted the table of proposed parking standards was reviewed last year, without many
changes. The auto graveyard use was eliminated. These standards came from research and
discussion over some period of time and most of these proposed standards can be tied to various
ordinances that are fairly recent. Therefore, the Zoning Ordinance Review Sub-committee
(ZORS) believes there is a good methodology to support these recommendations. In the
residential category, a standard is being added requiring guest or visitor parking at 0.3 spaces per
unit for residences other than single-family detached. The revisions also upgrade the standard for
assisted living units. The parking standard for manufacturing and warehouse uses is more
specific. For example, an office component to a manufacturing or industrial use is calculated
separately based on the floor area of the office use.
Mr. Pfeil noted there is a significant change in the parking standards for retail businesses and
shopping centers. For shopping centers that are large, the standard of 1 parking space per 220
square feet of floor area would be retained. For centers that are smaller, the more stringent
standard of 1 space per 200 square feet is recommended. He noted that a more stringent standard
of 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet is recommended for convenience stores, which reflects current
practice in a number of ordinances. The proposed standards address restaurants, including a
parking requirement for outdoor dining areas. The stacking space dimension for fast-food
restaurants drive-through lanes is specified as 22 feet in length.
Mr. Pfeil noted that the method for calculating public assembly uses and schools and child
daycare centers is more fully specified in the proposed revisions. The current standard does not
adequately address actual conditions for peak periods, so the new standard correlates required
parking to the number of teachers and the student enrollment rather than just the square footage
of a building. For certain type of offices such as real estate agents, a more stringent standard is
recommended based on the employment level.
Mr. Pfeil noted that the changes proposed in the entertainment and cultural uses now use "rated
design capacity," which correlates to the number of persons or seats in a facility.
Mr. Pfeil noted there are some recommended changes for public open space uses. A standard is
also recommended for health and fitness club facilities.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked if the definition of parking referred to regular parking and not
special events parking.
Mr. Pfeil stated that was correct and noted the proposed changes did not contemplate valet
parking or queued parking.
Commissioner Feldgreber noted that cellular communication facilities should have a minimum
of one space. Most of these sites have no employees, but service vehicles should have a paved
space instead of just pulling up on the grass.
Commissioner Trilling noted under restaurants and fast food, further clarification might be in
order to specify that although there may be three drive through windows, there is still only one
stacking lane. Also, he noted that there is 1 space per 3 seats for churches and synagogues based
on the rate of design capacity, plus 50 percent of the spaces otherwise required for accessory
uses. He noted that it might be beneficial to find out whether school is actually in session when
services are actually occurring on an ongoing basis in order to determine any parking
requirements. He asked how the accessory uses would be evaluated in a chapel, church,
synagogue or temple.
Trustee Berman stated the proposal calls for 1 space per employee and one per two classrooms.
This would not be a driving force in the calculation for parking.
Commissioner Samuels asked what kind of data was used for the parking standards for real
estate offices. He stated he would like to look at tying the figure to either desks or employees.
He noted that beauty shops and day spas also seem to generate tremendous amounts of long-term
parking and needs to be looked into.
Mr. Pfeil reviewed the previous changes in outdoor storage uses. He noted that several years ago
propane sales were of great concern to the Trustees and specific requirements were added to the
ordinance concerning the types of businesses that are allowed to store and sell propane. At the
same time outdoor display of merchandise was discussed. This issue needs to be re-visited, and
updated standards need to be developed.
Mr. Pfeil noted that the current B-3 regulations allow "temporary display of merchandise." In
the B-1 and B-2 Districts uses are required to be in an enclosed building which clearly is not the
practice at various gas stations. New standards are needed to provide uniformity in terms of
what can be stored outside and to allow for effective administration of the regulations.
Chairman Ottenheimer stated that as a general rule he does not like the way out outdoor storage
looks, but looking at some businesses, like Zimmerman's Hardware, it does seem natural to put
propane tanks or seasonal items out for display. He does not care for the large pallets and
banners in front of gas stations, but it could be said that it is an accessory to a permitted or
special use.
Commissioner Panitch stated he likes the 10 percent rule used in Libertyville and the maximum
height of five feet for propane tanks. He stated he likes these guidelines for certain specific
issues.
Commissioner Samuels asked if it is proper for the Commission to address maintenance and
appearance of these areas in the ordinance. He asked if there is an objective standard that can be
delineated. He noted that he does not know if the objection is so much to the existence of the
storage, but how well it is maintained and policed.
Mr. Pfeil stated that generally property maintenance is relevant and the Village has the right to
regulate properties for the public good. He stated he would ask the Village Attorney and Mr.
Schar for additional comments.
Commissioner Samuels stated he realized some of these are permitted uses, which would be a
difficult to regulate. He further noted that the language stating "not interfering with parking"
should also have "nor sidewalk accesses" added to the language. Pedestrian should not be forced
off of the curb or sidewalk area in front of a store into the parking lot because of stored goods
blocking the sidewalk.
Commissioner Panitch asked if the word"temporary" could be defined.
Mr. Pfeil stated the staff recommendation is to use the concept of "seasonal" rather than
"temporary."
Commissioner Panitch asked what items are under discussion. He asked if these are saleable
entities or are these outdoor storage of excess inventory.
Mr. Pfeil stated he believes the intent of the ordinance in the B-1, B-2 and B-3 Districts is that
items should be sold and carried off the premises. In the B-4 district there is the additional aspect
of allowing materials to be stored.
Commissioner Trilling stated the issues to be resolved are:
1. Stacking items neatly
2. Stacking items in a safe manner
3. Protection of items out in the open to prevent deterioration and promote attractiveness
4. No obstruction of the path of egress or the line of sight for pedestrians and motorists
Mr. Pfeil commented that he and Mr. Schar believe this type of merchandise display should be
adjacent to a building, and items should not be allowed at the perimeter of a property or on
islands in a parking lot. There might also be some parameters as to how much of linear footage
of the building could have things in front as well as some parameters as to the permissible size of
the area allowed for displaying items.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked who would enforce the ordinance.
Mr. Pfeil stated the Building Department is proactive and Mr. Schar's philosophy is to advise
businesses if they are not in compliance with applicable standards. Mr. Schar will enforce the
standards, but enforcement is more effective if there are clear standards and regulations set forth
in Village ordinances.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None
FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE
Mr. Pfeil stated the next meeting would be June 20, 2001.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None
STAFF REPORT—None
NEW BUSINESS—None
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Feldgreber, seconded by Commissioner Dunn and carried unanimously
to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair