Long Grove Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals (PCZBA)

Meeting Minutes – May 4, 2010

 

Commissioners  Present: Fred Phillips, Chairman, Commissioners Jeff Kazmer, Mike Dvorak, Charles Cohn, Shelly Rubin, Wendy Parr, and Tobin Fraley.

 

Absent: Joe DiIorio

 

Also present: Secretary Craig Gertz, Village Planner James Hogue; Paula Kirlin, Village Attorney and members of the public.

 

1.      Call to Order: Chairman Phillips called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and introduced newly appointed PCZBA Secretary Mr. Craig Gertz.

 

2.      PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a request for a zoning map amendment  the HR zoning District a Special Use Permit for Preliminary PUD Plan/Plat approval and excavation of detention areas & filling of lowland conservancy areas to allow commercial redevelopment of the property under the “HR” District Regulations with an amendments to the “HR” District Regulations to allow a minimum lot size of 14 acres instead of the required 20 acres and increased lot coverage and variations on yard requirements in the “HR” District.

 

Chairman Phillips read the request into the record.

 

Village Planner Hogue explained the request, noting that this was a request for an amendment to an existing Planned Unit Development, with underlying R-2 Zoning, for approximately 14 acres of land located on the east side of State Route 53, north of Lake Cook Road and the existing Menard’s project, currently operated as Geimer Greenhouse.  The request involves a proposed Preliminary PUD would require: (a) a zoning map amendment from R-2 to HR; (b) an amendment to underlying zoning regulations to permit HR zoning for property less than 20 acres in size; and (c) certain variations from HR district requirements, including land use and special use standards, as part of the Preliminary PUD.  The proposed Preliminary PUD is generally in conformance with the Route 53/Lake Cook Road Subarea Plan of the Village Master Plan. The proposed Preliminary PUD contains generic building elevation, signage, lighting and landscaping plans (which require Architectural Committee review and approval), and any proposed plans for specific buildings or other improvements that the owner would want to construct would have to receive separate commission and Board of Trustees approval. 

The Commission then heard from Lawrence Dziurdizik, of Allen L. Kracower & Associates, Inc., on behalf with applicant Michael Burgmeier.  In presenting the proposed Preliminary PUD, Mr. Dziurdizik noted, among other things, that: 

 

·         Owner’s lease with Geimer Greenhouse was terminating in October, so ownership wanted to get a start on marketing for a change in use, including the engagement of a real estate broker and the development and submission of the Preliminary PUD.

·         The property is not suitable for residential use (as required by current zoning), especially since the trend for adjacent property use is for commercial purposes.

·         There has been no expressed interest for the purchase or lease of the property at this point.  Ownership may self-develop the project, enter into a joint venture with an experienced commercial developer for the project or sell the property to a third party developer.

·         The project is proposed to have seven lots, with approximately 100,000 sf of total building area allocated among single story buildings of between 6,500sf to 17,000 sf, plus a two story building of up to 42,000 sf.

·         Parking on each lot provides at least 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sf of building area, with two lots offering more than 8 spaces per 1,000 sf for potential restaurant uses.

·         Access to the project would be from two points of egress on State Route 53—the north providing full access, and the middle providing three-quarters access (i.e. no left turn out).  Ownership would also try to come to agreement for a connection with the Menard’s to the south.

·         The approximately one acre of wetlands within Army Corps jurisdiction would be minimally impacted.

·         Departures from applicable zoning regulations would include: certain reductions in side yard requirements within the project; reduction in the required scenic corridor easement from 100 feet to 60 to 70 feet (similar to the Menard’s project) due to the property’s irregular shape; a slight departure from floor area ratio requirements; a departure from impervious surface coverage requirements (55% instead of 40% required in HR districts); a text amendment to permit HR zoning for lots of less than 20 acres (as the subject property contains approximately 14.2 acres).

 

The Commission then heard from Mr. Bob Hamilton of Gewalt Hamilton Assoc. Inc., which serves as applicant’s traffic engineering consultant.  The traffic study assumed that the property would be developed as an approximately 100,000 sf community retail center, with some ancillary office or other non-retail uses.  Typically, this type of use has a limited radius of attraction of about 2 to 3 miles for most uses.  Given the low population density of Long Grove (basically north of the property), about 75% of the traffic would approach from the south of the property.  Subject to IDOT requirements, roadway improvements to State Route 53 relating to this project would be undertaken in stages.  No traffic signals or additional lane construction on State Route 53 would be permitted by IDOT until sufficient building and occupancy had been achieved at the project.  Upon full buildout of the project, with a traffic signal at the north entrance, levels of service on State Route 53 is project to be in the B to C grade level.

 

Chairman Phillips then solicited public testimony. 

 

Mr. Rick Virgl with Bluestone Management Services—also a representative of the applicant—indicated that he was familiar with the applicant’s other projects which were successful and that applicant was a local developer with a vested interest in the community, and not looking for a “quick buck.”

 

No other members of the public requested an opportunity to speak.

 

Commissioner Kazmer asked about possible encroachments onto the scenic corridor easement if State Route 53 were expanded to a 5 lane configuration along the north frontage of the property.  Applicant’s representative indicated that applicant anticipated no encroachment, though that would depend on negotiations with the landowners along the west side of State Route 53.

 

Commissioner Rubin inquired as to Menard’s reaction to the proposed project and the type of other projects that applicant had previously undertaken.  Village Planner Hogue indicated that Menard’s provided an essentially pro forma response and that it wanted to see same standards to which Menard’s is subject applied to this project.  Mr. Virgl indicated that applicant had previously undertaken mostly residential projects as well as some light industrial and business district projects, all within the northwest suburbs. 

 

Commissioner Parr asked about the setback requirements along the east side of the property and indicated that while the change in zoning was logical for this location, it was difficult for the commission to evaluate the Preliminary PUD, given the generic (as opposed to specific) plans that applicant had submitted.  Owner’s representative indicated that as specific land uses were determined, applicant would return for commission approval for the specific final plans.

 

Commissioner Rubin indicated that, historically, the Village has granted minimal setback relief    and not zero lot line setbacks, as requested by applicant. There was some discussion as to how such setback requirements could be modified.

 

Commissioner Dvorak asked about what conditions and limitations applied to the combination of separate lots as well as installation of traffic signals, and some discussion ensued with respect to these topics. 

 

Commissioner Fraley then raised some issues with respect to the standards relating to a special use permit and some concerns about the economic viability of the proposed project and the experience and capacity of the applicant to undertake the development, especially since one option discussed was the sale of the property to a third party developer.  Applicant’s representative responded that since commercial properties are not applicant’s expertise, applicant was looking to bring in a commercial partner, with applicant remaining in control, and that applicant’s goal was to lay the foundation for marketing the project in phases over a number of years.  Commissioner Fraley then reiterated that while the proposed plans are too preliminary, there seems to be a general consensus to approve the change in zoning.

 

Commissioner Cohn indicated that, like Commissioners Parr and Fraley, he saw no reason not to allow the property to be converted to HR zoning but that the proposed Preliminary PUD was very nebulous.  Commissioner Cohn also raised a number of questions regarding the existing and potential tenancy, discussions with Menard’s and similar retail projects in Long Grove that have significant vacancy.  Discussion ensued with respect to these topics.

 

Commissioner Rubin requested clarification as to what the commission was considering from a procedural standpoint and whether the change in zoning could be considered separately from the approval of the Preliminary PUD.  Village Planner Hogue and Village Attorney Kirlin responded that both sets of issues needed to be considered in tandem.

 

Commissioner Kazmer voiced his support for the change in zoning and indicated that he thought the proposed plan was good and consistent with the Menard’s project but was subject to high vacancy risk.

 

Some discussion followed with respect to potential alternative uses, such as light industrial and hotels, as well as the procedural requirements for the commission’s deliberation, including the need to approve setbacks and approved uses, as well as for input from the Architectural Commission and the CSC.

 

Further discussion involved the approved and restricted uses proposed by the applicant for the property.  Mr. Dziurdizik indicated that applicant’s proposal included uses that were approved by the Village with respect to the Menard’s PUD, plus additional proposed uses.

 

The members of the commission reached consensus with respect to the applicant’s proposed uses for the property, as follows:

 

·         B-1 Business District permitted uses—approved

·         B-2 Business District permitted uses—approved

·         O and OR Office District permitted uses—approved

·         Medical Office Buildings—approved

·         Scientific or Research Laboratories, with special use permit—approved

·         Home improvements stores—not approved

·         Outdoor dining, ancillary to a primary restaurant use, with special use permit—approved

·         Restaurants with a bar within its premises, with special use permit—approved

·         Fast Food Restaurants—approved, but only with special use permit

·         Garden Specialty Stores—approved, but only with special use permit

·         Hotels—approved, but only with special use permit

·         Auto dealers—approved, but only with special use permit

·         Warehouses—approved, but only with special use permit

·         Theaters—approved, but only with special use permit

·         Banks; provided that any drive through shall be subject to a special use permit—approved

·         Senior Housing, including assisted living and continuing care, with a special use permit—approved

·         Bed and Breakfast accommodations, with a special use permit—approved

·         Automotive Service Facility, with a special use permit—approved

·         Daycare Centers, with a special use permit—approved

·         Tanning Salons—approved, but only with special use permit

·         Animal Hospital and veterinary clinic, with a special use permit—approved

·         Convenience Retail Store and drive through accessory use—approved

·         Printing Shops—approved

·         Game Room, Restaurants, with a special use permit—approved

·         Car Wash—not approved

·         Grocery Retail—approved

·         Amusement Establishments, with a special use permit—approved

 

Chairman Phillips noted that numerous retail developments in the area have high vacancy but that if the applicant had sufficient resources in order to market the project, develop specific tenant plans and return to the Village for specific plan approval, then he would be okay with granting approval of the Preliminary PUD.

 

Commissioner Rubin moved to approve the requested change in zoning and the text amendment, but not to approve the setback variations reflected in the proposed Preliminary PUD.  Village Attorney Kirlin explained that the text amendment could be approved in one motion, but the zoning changes as well as the PUD plan (including setbacks) needed to be considered together in one motion.  Commissioner Rubin subsequently withdrew his motion.

 

A general discussion ensured regarding rear and side yard setback issues, with general agreement that there are some issues with applicant’s setback proposals, though the requested variations are not unprecedented. 

 

Chairman Phillips requested that staff put together a proposal for the commission’s review for the next scheduled meeting, addressing the matters and issues discussed among the commissioners as well as any actions taken by CSC and the Architectural Commission on the project application before the next commission meeting.  Village Planner Hogue suggested that such proposal could include possible concessions from the applicant in exchange for relief on the setback issues, including possible extension of the project’s bike and walking paths for future connection to the north of the property, native plantings requirements and landscape bufferings.

 

Commissioner Fraley moved to continue the public hearing and consideration of the applicant’s proposal until the next scheduled meeting of the commission,  June 1, 2010 at 7:00 PM.  Commissioner Kazmer seconded the motion.  On a voice vote; all ayes.

 

3.      Approval of Minutes; February 2, 2010

 

Commissioner Cohn made a motion to approve the February 2, 2010 meeting minutes as submitted; Commissioner Fraley seconded the motion; on a voice vote, all aye and no nays.  

 

4.      Other Business

 

Chairman Phillips discussed attendance by individual commissioners at Village Board of Trustees meetings on behalf of the PCZBA in accordance with the 2010 Village Board Attendance Roster that had been distributed to the commissioners.  Village Planner Hogue also updated the Commission as to potential petitions to be coming before the PCZBA.

 

5.      Adjournment

 

Commissioner Cohn made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Dvorak, on a voice vote; all ayes; no nays.  Meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m.

 

6.      Next Regular meeting June 1, 2010, 7 p.m.     

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

//s// Craig M. Gertz

 

PCZBA Secretary