2001-02-21 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission
Document Type: 0 A e
g nda 0 Minutes
Meeting ate: 02/21/2001
Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
February 21, 2001
Forum Properties single-family development,
Northwest corner of Park Avenue/Main Street,
Annexation with R-4 zoning and approval of a Preliminary
Plan for an eight-lot subdivision—Workshop #5
Vice Chairman Samuels 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: Mr. Samuels
Mr. Trilling
Ms. Dunn
Mr. Panitch
Ms. Kenski-Sroka
Ms. Bocek
Mr. Smith
Commissioners absent: Chairman Ottenheimer
Mr. Feldgreber
Also present: Mr. Lawrence Freedman, Ash, Anos, Freedman& Logan
Mr. Richard Vane, Groundwork, Ltd.
Mr. Sam Grill, Forum Properties
Mr. Jeffrey Berman, Village Trustee
Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Dunn to approve the
minutes of the regular meeting of February 7, 2001. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka noted a
necessary change on the first page to her name. All Commissioners were in favor of the
amended motion and the motion passed unanimously.
COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
Commissioner Trilling stated he did not attend the Village Board meeting on February 5, 2001,
as there was nothing on the agenda for the Plan Commission.
Commissioner Bocek stated she attended the Village Board meeting on February 20, 2001 where
the public hearing for the annexation agreement regarding a property on Prairie Road and Route
22 was continued to March 19, 2001 for an additional workshop.
Mr. Pfeil stated this is known as the Giometa property on Prairie Road just north of Route 22.
Previously, the Olson and Jesperson properties were annexed in 1994. The Giometa property is
directly north of Olson coming north from Route 22 and is across from Wilson Enterprises. The
reason the Plan Commission has not had this matter is because the premise is that it will be
annexed with Residential Estate zoning and there is no plan being proposed. Probably the
property will be marketed and possibly combined with property that fronts on Route 22. That
would obviously come to the Plan Commission when, and if an actual development plan is
proposed. The hearing was continued to March 19, 2001 just to complete the annexation
agreement and have ordinances on the agenda.
FORUM PROPERTIES, PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, NORTHWEST
CORNER OF PARK AVENUE/MAIN STREET, ANNEXATION WITH R-4 ZONING AND
APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR AN EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION —
WORKSHOP 95
Mr. Freedman stated they felt the Plan Commission was still uncomfortable with the proposed
concept at the last workshop meeting. Therefore, they decided rather than go to public hearing
on that plan, they would prefer to come back with a more traditional plan containing larger lots.
They felt that would address some of the concerns heard from the neighbors. He stated they
believe the houses would probably average 3,000 square feet. The prices will average in the low
$400,000.
Mr. Vane stated the plan contains eight lots in the R-4 zoning district. R-4 is a minimum of
8,750 square feet of lot space and all eight lots significantly exceed that size. This plan will be
very compatible with the area that is one of the concerns expressed by the Plan Commission.
They have tried to make this development match as close as possible the surrounding
environment.
Mr. Vane stated the one item they are asking for the Plan Commission's consideration is fencing.
Since this is an annexation, there is an opportunity for some special fencing along Main Street.
Main Street is currently used for commuter parking for the train station. Lot 6 with a rear yard
along Main Street would be allowed to put a fence basically right along Main Street, but that
fence could only extend to the north as far as the 30 foot setback. They are looking to have a
variation to be able to put a fence in a corner sideyard for lots 5, 6 and 8. They propose to line
up the fencing with the back of the house. He stated they would like the Plan Commission to
consider making this a recommendation as it goes to the Village Board.
Vice Chairman Samuels asked if the Village Engineer has seen the request for the fencing.
Mr. Pfeil stated he has not seen the request, as yet, however, they are aware that a variation was
requested.
Vice Chairman Samuels asked if any site line investigation has yet been done regarding that
request.
Mr. Vane stated there could be a site line question, but they would certainly defer to the Village
Engineer to make any adjustments to the fence location to accommodate those issues.
Vice Chairman Samuels asked what height would be requested.
Mr. Vane stated they would be asked for a 5-foot board on board fence.
Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked what type of fencing would be requested.
Mr. Vane stated board on board.
Commissioner Trilling requested the developer reconsider using a board on board fencing and
use something more attractive that might provide some sort of streetscape rather than something
that is so private. Something more open where people could plant landscaping along the fence
would be much more attractive.
Mr. Vane stated they were really looking more for the privacy element of the solid fence,
particularly in view of the commuter parking along Main Street.
Commissioner Panitch stated it was very commendable of the developer to seek out neighbor
input. He asked if the fence would be a homeowner option or a developer requirement.
Mr. Vane stated they are looking at it as a homeowner option.
Mr. Robert Daniel, 75 Park Avenue, stated his neighbors and he himself support the new plan
and feel it will fit in very well with the character of the area. No one has a problem with putting
a fence on Main Street to protect against the railroad track and the busy street. In fact, it will
probably add to the value of the homes there, which, in turn, will improve the value of their
homes. He stated they would like a couple of things ultimately addressed such as buried
electrical lines. Park Avenue is still a very dark street and could use some lighting.
The Plan Commission agreed that this matter should go to public hearing. Vice Chairman
Samuels noted he still wants to see the plan sent to the Village Engineer who will need to
comment on the site line issues and the fence height and appearance.
Commissioner Bocek noted that since the fence will be at the discretion of the homeowner, there
could be several different fences.
Mr. Freedman stated that since this is an annexation they could and would set up standards
relative to fencing.
Commissioner Bocek asked if there was a way to make the streetscape better looking with some
landscaping outside of the fencing, thereby allowing the homeowner to have their privacy as
well.
Vice Chairman Samuels stated they are not requiring the fence. However, if the fence is put up,
it would have to be of a certain style or not of a certain style. They could always put up
landscaping in lieu of a fence or in addition to the fence, depending on what they choose to do.
Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated she would have some safety concerns with some families
who purchase houses on those lots that front onto Main Street. A wrought iron fence would
make it possible for young children to get through and go into the street or train.
Commissioner Trilling noted there are code requirements for fencing that would handle that
issue.
Vice Chairman Samuels noted that he understands the petitioner's interest in privacy as opposed
to just defining the yards and he has no problem with that.
REVIEW OF PLAN COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT, MAY 2000-FEBRUARY 2001
Mr. Pfeil stated the time period will need to be adjusted as he just found out he was to have used
a calendar year. However, even going back to January, 2000 does not change the report very
much. The Matrix development on Arlid Road at Prairie Road would need to be added.
Mr. Pfeil stated he basically tried to capture the highlights of developments. He noted the cycle
and process is such that many of the same projects are handled at the same time in a series of
meetings. He noted he tried to pick out the main issues the Commission had to handle.
Moved by Commissioner Trilling, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the Plan
Commissioner Annual Report, subject to final adjustments by Mr. Pfeil.
Vice Chairman Samuels called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows:
AYES: Samuels, Trilling, Dunn, Panitch, Smith, Kenski-Sroka, Bocek
NAPES: None
ABSENT: Ottenheimer, Feldgreber
ABSTAIN: None
The motion passed 7 to 0.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None
FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE
Mr. Pfeil stated there is a meeting scheduled for March 7, 2001, but that may be cancelled, as
there is nothing definite on the agenda as yet.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None
STAFF REPORT—None
NEW BUSINESS -None
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Trilling, seconded by Commissioner Smith and carried unanimously to
adjourn. Vice Chairman Samuels adjourned the meeting at 8:09 p.m
Respectfully submitted,
Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
MICHAEL SAMUELS, Vice Chair