Loading...
1992-06-03 - Plan Commission - Minutes PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION June 3 , 1992 Rogers Center For Commerce - East Vice Chairman Goldspiel called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois and read the Notice of Public Hearing as published in the Buffalo Grove Daily Herald, explained the format of the meeting and swore in persons who were giving testimony at the public hearing. Commissioners present: Vice Chairman Goldspiel Mr. RJiodes Ms. Howard Mr. Rosenston Ms. Genell Mr. Samuels Commissioners absent: Chairman Silbernik Mr. Krug Also present: Mr. William Schmitz, Arthur J. Rogers & Co. Mr. Mark Poliak, The Brickman Group, Ltd. Ms. Kathi Rogers, Arthur J. Rogers & Co. Ms. Jeanne Rogers, Arthur J. Rogers & Co. Mr. Martin Kennelly, Arthur J. Rogers & Co. Mr. Charles Hendricks, Village Trustee Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioners at the public hearing: Exhibit A: Preliminary Plan dated May 15, 1992 Exhibit B: Preliminary Plan with landscaped areas depicted Exhibit C: Perspective drawing of typical building elevation Exhibit D: Landscape Plan dated May 20, 1992 Mr. William Schmitz stated that Arthur J. Rogers and Company is proposing to construct four one-story buildings on Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the Arbor Creek Business Centre. The 12 .25 acre site is located at the southeast corner of Barclay Boulevard and Aptakisic Road which is zoned Industrial. He stated that the four buildings would be leased to tenants in the range of 1, 500 square feet to Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Public Hearing-June 3, 1992-Page 1 6, 000 square feet and the buildings would range in size from 37, 000 square feet to 41, 000 square feet. He noted that the design of the development mirrors the Rogers Center project to the west although there have been some aesthetic improvements added such as gray limestone bands around the buildings. Mr. Schmitz further stated that the two retention ponds are located on outlots and would be considered part of the common area owned and maintained by the Arbor Creek Business Centre. Mr. Schmitz noted that the Preliminary Plan has been revised in response to Plan Commission comments at the last workshop. The parking area in the southwest corner of the site has been re- designed so that no parking spaces encroach in the 35-foot landscaped yard along Barclay Boulevard. Mr. Schmitz stated that a variation is still requested for the parking area in the northeastern area of the site. This parking area would be within fifteen feet of a property zoned residential by Lake County. He noted that they have obtained a letter from the owner of the residentially zone property indicating that it is being used to operate a business and the understanding is that Lincolnshire's planning concept for this area is office and industrial use. Mr. Schmitz further noted that the driveways line up with the driveways across the street for easier access to either development. Crosswalks have been added to ensure tenant safety and in response to Plan Commission comments. Mr. Mark Poliak of the Brickman Group stated that Arthur J. Rogers and Company is concerned with maintenance and the looks of the site in years to come. They are also very concerned in maintaining a good neighbor image. Mr. Poliak stated that Arthur J. Rogers has authorized the use of an irrigation system as well as a reforestation program to help conserve as many of the large trees as possible and the use of perennials which will cut the cost of maintenance and water. Mr. Poliak stated that some changes have been made to the landscape plan in response to the changes made in the Preliminary Plan. He stated that they have now added green space at the southwest corner of the property as well as changes to the south boundary which will have trees planted on the retention parcel with wetlands. The species and sizes of the trees will be varied in order to add interest to the site. Mr. Schmitz stated that another change made in response to Plan Commission comments includes the addition of parking lot islands between every 20 parking spaces and a one and one-half foot overhang for the spaces abutting the retention pond in the Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Public Hearing-June 3, 1992-Page 2 southeast corner of the site. Commissioner Rhodes asked where the sanitary sewer lines are located. Ms. Kathi Rogers stated that the sanitary lines run along Barclay Boulevard and join the lines across the street. Commissioner Rhodes asked if the Arbor Creek Association maintains the retention ponds. Ms. Kathi Rogers stated that Arthur J. Rogers and Company would probably ask the Arbor Creek Association if the Rogers Company could take care of the maintenance. Commissioner Rhodes asked what kind of landscaping is planned for the parking lot islands. Mr. Poliak stated that the islands would be planted with low two and three foot shrubs as well as perennials. Commissioner Rhodes asked when construction would begin and if all buildings would be constructed at the same time. Ms. Kathi Rogers stated that their target date is July 6th to begin construction, and that the entire development would be built at one time. Commissioner Howard stated that she sees no problem with a fifteen foot setback from the unincorporated residentially zoned property to the east because the house is in an area planned for industrial use and is being used for business purposes. Commissioner Rosenston asked if the sidewalk along the south edge of the property is on wetlands. Ms. Kathi Rogers stated that the sidewalk will be a nature trail to the north of the wetlands on the retention parcel. Commissioner Genell stated that she has been very interested in the tenant profiles and is very pleased with the information presented by Arthur J. Rogers and Company concerning how the space will be marketed and leased. Commissioner Goldspiel asked if it is correct that this develop- ment does not need a side yard on the south edge of the site for the service driveway. Mr. Pfeil stated that a fifteen foot building setback is required but the pavement can go up to the side and rear lot lines in the Industrial District if the site does not abut residentially zoned property. Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Public Hearing-June 3, 1992-Page 3 Commissioner Goldspiel asked if all utilities are present and if the stormwater detention is adequate for the site. Mr. Kuenkler stated that utilities and detention are sufficient for the site and a final engineering plan will be submitted for the building permit review. Mr. Raysa stated that any signs shown on the Preliminary Plan are not as yet approved and will need to be presented to the Appearance Commission. There being no further comments, Vice Chairman Goldspiel closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, e rding Secretary APPROVED BY: TPH N GOLDSPIEL, Vice Chairman Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Public Hearing-June 3, 1992-Page 4 REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION June 3, 1992 Rogers Center for Commerce - East Consideration of an Amendment to the Village Zoning Ordinance - Section 17.28.030.D. - Special Uses Busch Grove Professional Center - Final Plat of Subdivision Vice Chairman Goldspiel called the meeting to order at 8: 05 p.m. in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Vice Chairman Goldspiel Mr. Rhodes Ms. Howard Mr. Rosenston Ms. Genell Mr. Samuels Commissioners absent: Chairman Silbernik Mr. Krug Also present: Mr. William Schmitz, Arthur J. Rogers & Co. Mr. Mark Poliak, The Brickman Group, Ltd. Ms. Kathi Rogers, Arthur J. Rogers & Co. Ms. Jeanne Rogers, Arthur J. Rogers & Co. Mr. Martin Kennelly, Arthur J. Rogers & Co. Mr. Charles Hendricks, Village Trustee Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Genell, seconded by Commissioner Howard, to approve the minutes of the public hearing of May 20, 1992 and the minutes of the regular meeting of May 20, 1992. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion, and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Rosenston abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Howard reported on the Village Board meeting of May 18, 1992 stating: 1. Ordinance 92-45 concerning partisan elections was approved. This ordinance authorizes continuation of partisan elections Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 3, 1992-Page 1 in Village of Buffalo Grove and reinforces home rule authority. 2 . Ordinance 92-46 was approved concerning the Special Use in the Industrial District for the Buffalo Grove Gymnastics Training Center on Barclay Boulevard. There was some discussion regarding issuing a Special Use to individuals or the property in order to acquire more control over use of the property, particularly if new owners ever operate the business. Commissioner Genell reported on the meeting of the Lake County Regional Planning Commission stating that in response to a survey, county residents noted the major concern is the increase in property taxes; 55 percent of county residents feel that taxes are a very serious problem. The report also stated that there is a strong desire among residents to preserve open space; 50 percent of the respondents favor preserving open space by requiring developers to set aside land for green space even if it means increased home prices for consumers. Residents also approve of government purchase of open land which would mean a tax increase. The report further stated that traffic congestion is a real concern for residents with many approving the widening and improving of existing roads. New road construction is opposed. ROGERS CENTER FOR COMMERCE - EAST Moved by Commissioner Rhodes, seconded by Commissioner Genell, to recommend approval of the Rogers Center for Commerce - East (Arbor Creek Business Center) Barclay Boulevard/Aptakisic Road, Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plan in the Industrial District in accordance with petitioners' Exhibits A, B, C and D, including the 15-foot yard variation on the east property line. Commissioner Rhodes stated it is a pleasure to support a quality development such as this for Buffalo Grove. Vice Chairman Goldspiel stated that the variation that is being requested is acceptable because of the letter that was provided regarding the use of the adjacent property. Therefore the criteria for a variance have been met. Vice Chairman Goldspiel called for a vote on the motion and the vote was follows: AYES: Rhodes, Howard, Rosenston, Genell, Samuels, Goldspiel NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Silbernik, Krug The vote was 6 to 0 in favor of the motion. Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 3, 1992-Page 2 Moved by Commissioner Rhodes, seconded by Commissioner Genell to amend the order of the agenda to consider the plat for the Buffalo Grove Professional Center as the next item for discussion. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. BUSCH GROVE PROFESSIONAL CENTER - FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION Vice Chairman Goldspiel noted that there is a motion on the floor which had been tabled at the last meeting. Vice Chairman Goldspiel noted that there are differences in the plat being presented tonight from the plat which was presented at the previous meeting and asked that those differences be addressed. Mr. Kuenkler noted that the .building setback has now been adjusted to reflect a 30 foot setback from Busch Road and Route 83 instead of the 25 foot setback previously shown. He further noted that the stormwater detention basin and access will be addressed with easements so that Lots 1 and 2 will share the use and maintenance of these areas. Commissioner Genell inquired what constitutes a minor or major change for an approved site plan. Mr. Raysa stated that it is at the discretion of the Village Board as far as what is considered minor or major. On annexation agreements and PUDs the Village Manager has the authority to approve a two percent increase in building area as a minor change. Building area changes in excess of two percent are presented to the Village Board for determination of whether the change is major or minor. Major changes are usually returned to the Plan Commission for review. In the case of the proposed child care center on the Busch Grove Professional Center site, the Village Board determined that the increased building area is a minor change. Commissioner Genell stated that she had been informed that this is a major change from the plan approved by the Plan Commission. Commissioner Rosenston inquired if there is a definition in the ordinance concerning major and minor changes to a site plan. Mr. Raysa said that the Development Ordinance does not define major and minor changes, but the Village Board' s policy is that changes that are considered "major" are sent back to the Plan Commission for review. Mr. Raysa stated that his concern for cross easements had been addressed by Abbott's attorney, George Maurides g Mr. Maurides has drafted a cross easement agreement so that the detention area Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 3, 1992-Page 3 - I would be accessible to both lots with an agreement for the maintenance of the area. Access to the two lots is also addressed in the cross easement agreement. Mr. Raysa said he has reviewed the cross easements and finds them acceptable. Commissioner Samuels asked if this is the first time this plan has been presented as two lots. Mr. Raysa stated that if the question asks if this property can be sold as two separate lots, the answer is yes. He noted that the cross easements for the detention basin and for access obligate the two potential lot owners concerning the use and maintenance of these areas. Vice Chairman Goldspiel noted it is a bad practice to have the two lot issue come up after the Plan Commission has already reviewed the Preliminary Plan. Mr. Kuenkler stated that there had been no lot line shown on the Preliminary Plan, but he thinks the developer's intent has always been to plat two lots for the site. Vice Chairman Goldspiel noted that there has been no harm done but that in the future the Plan Commission should be made aware of this kind of situation. Vice Chairman Goldspiel also noted that in terms of future policy it may be advisable to develop a larger setback standard than 25 feet along major arterials. Vice Chairman Goldspiel also noted that on the previous plat there was a portion of the bikepath along Route 83 that was over the property line which did not now appear on the plat. Mr. Kuenkler stated that there is still a sidewalk easement along Route 83 which will have one or two feet of the sidewalk within the 30 foot building setback. Vice Chairman Goldspiel called for a vote on the motion to approve the plat and the vote was as follows: AYES: Goldspiel, Howard, Rosenston NAYES: Rhodes, Genell, Samuels ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Krug, Silbernik The vote was three "ayes" and three "nayes", so the motion to approve failed. Commissioner Rhodes stated that he is not happy with the minor change that was approved for the Preliminary Plan without review by the Plan Commission. Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 3, 1992-Page 4 Commissioner Genell stated that the concept for this site was poorly planned and that Buffalo Grove does not have to settle for second best. Commissioner Samuels said he is still very concerned that in approving a plat the Plan Commission is acting only as a "rubber stamp" and does not seem to have any authority over site planning items that may be pertinent to the plat. Vice Chairman Goldspiel stated that approving a plat is a very serious job and it is important to carefully review a plat. It is, however, different from approving a plan. It is fine to vote no on a plat if it is an inaccurate portrayal of the site plan. If the plat accurately portrays the site plan as approved by the Village Board and if it does meet the ordinances and plat requirements, then a yes vote would be proper. He indicated that if a Commissioner does not want to vote "yes" on a plat that meets the technical requirements of the ordinances, then a vote to abstain would be more appropriate that a "no" vote. Vice Chairman Goldspiel asked Mr. Raysa the status regarding voting on plats. He asked what was being voted on, the accuracy and compliance of the plat, or the approval or disapproval of the site plan. Mr. Raysa stated that the Commission' s role in approving a plat is to determine that the plat complies with applicable provisions of the Development and Zoning Ordinances and complies with the Preliminary Plan as approved by the Village Board. He noted that State statute requires Plan Commission review of plats. Commissioner Rosenston said he agrees that the Commission's job is to verify that the plat complies with the approved plan. The Commission's opinion concerning the approved site plan should not affect the technical review of the plat. Commissioner Rhodes made a motion to reconsider the vote to approve the plat. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Howard and was approved by a voice vote. The vote on reconsideration of the motion to approve the plat dated June 1, 1992 was as follows: AYES: Rhodes, Howard, Rosenston, Goldspiel NAYES: Genell ABSTAIN: Samuels ABSENT: Silbernik, Krug The motion to approve the plat passed by a vote of 4 to 1 with one abstention. Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 9 3, 1992-Page Page 5 CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE VILLAGE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 17.28.030.D. - SPECIAL USES WORKSHOP #2 Mr. Raysa, the Village Attorney, stated that he recommends that Section 17.28. 030.D. of the Zoning Ordinance which now reads as follows: After any special use is discontinued for more than one year, the special use shall be automatically revoked. be amended as follows: Whenever a special use has not been established on an approved site within two years of the date of the Corporate Authorities' acting to authorize the special use, or whenever a special use ceases to operate or is discontinued for a period of over one year, the Corporate Authorities may revoke the special use unless other provisions are made by the Corporate Authorities. Mr. Raysa noted that on several occasions he has used this section when he was involved in litigation and has been uncomfortable with the wording of this section. Therefore, he would recommend amending this section in order to avoid any problems in the future. Mr. Raysa stated that the simplest suggestion would be language to the effect that after any special use is discontinued for a period of a year, or after abandonment for a period of a year or if it is not ever started for a period of a year, it shall be automatically revoked. However, since the Village Board and Plan Commission have previously indicated that they don't favor automatic revocation, this language provides a different way of handling revocation and the language providing for two years has been used to allow some time and for starting a project. Vice Chairman Goldspiel noted that perhaps special uses related to land plans should be treated differently than those not related to any land plans. Mr. Raysa stated that would necessitate listing all of the special uses and what category they fall into. Commissioner Rosenston stated that the criteria that would be used �./ to delineate the one or two year status may not be fair in all cases. Commissioner Samuels commented that using two classes for special uses is valid, but he questioned whether or not the difference between one and two year terms is really significant. Commissioner Rosenston asked what the negative side would be to a Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 3, 1992-Page 6 straight two year period. Mr. Raysa stated that one negative condition would be a neighborhood changing and thereby needs of the community would also change. Commissioner Samuels noted that neighborhood changes do not occur very quickly and he did not see any need for a distinction in the terms. He stated that he feels a two year all around period is reasonable. Vice Chairman Goldspiel commented that neighborhood change may not be necessary to make a special use inappropriate; there may be situations when a special use is no longer needed at a particular site. Commissioner Genell stated that she too felt that a two year period would work out fine. Mr. Pfeil stated that he felt the language as drafted is workable. Vice Chairman Goldspiel called for a polling as to approval of language that calls for both one and two year distinctions or approval of a straight two year period for new uses only. Abandoned uses are to be one year only. The polling was as follows: One and two year times: Goldspiel, Howard Straight two year time: Rhodes, Rosenston, Genell, Samuels Mr. Raysa further stated that he would also like language added stating that if the special use is revoked the property reverts to its prior zoning. Vice Chairman Goldspiel asked for a polling on Mr. Raysa's recommendation. All Commissioners were in favor of adding this language to the section. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT - None STAFF REPORT Mr. Pfeil stated that the Department of Public Works will be grinding off the old pavement stripping on Busch Parkway as of June 1st. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Raysa stated that it had been his suggestion to add language Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 3, 1992-Page 7 to the ordinance approving the Buffalo Grove Gymnastics Center to the effect that as long as the current petitioners are the owners of the facility they continue to have the special use which would not be carried over if the operation sold. He stated that many Board members felt this language was too restrictive. Mr. Raysa stated that he has noted that many times both the Plan Commission and the Village Board tends to rely on the petitioners' representations and their good intentions. He noted therefore, that many times the special use may actually be granted to the petitioners rather than to the plan. Commissioner Samuels stated that granting a special use to a person rather than to a property violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Mr. Raysa noted that the Village Board wants the ordinance for the gymnastics center to address standards; these standards would apply to the property regardless of who owned the facility. Vice Chairman Goldspiel commented that if there is more than one property being used for a certain type of special use, such as for a home day care operation, then the Zoning Ordinance should have criteria that all petitioners must meet. Commissioner Howard stated that she has a problem with the Plan Commission or Board trying to regulate how a petitioner runs a gymnastics business. She stated that the Village should be careful not to over-regulate businesses. Commissioner Samuels stated that he can see some kind of bond or insurance requirement for uses such as a gymnastics center. Commissioner Rosenston stated that a special use should not be granted to the petitioner as a personal issue but rather to the property. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Rhodes, seconded by Commissioner Genell and unanimously carried to adjourn. Vice Chairman Goldspiel adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 3, 1992-Page 8 Respectfully sub 'tted, -4..4Fay Ru in, c rding Secretary APPROVED BY* STE HEN GO DSPIEL, Vice Chairman Li Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 3, 1992-Page 9