Plan Commission

APPROVED PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD The Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield held a Public Hearing at 7:30 P.M. on May 28, 2014 at the Village Hall, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim called the meeting to order. Present were: Mary Oppenheim, Chairman Pro Tem Bob Benton Larry Berg Jim Moyer Stuart Shayman Absent were: Alan Bromberg Elaine Jacoby Also present: Jeff Ryckaert, Principal Planner Dan Nakahara, Associate Planner Public Comment on a Non-Agenda Item There was no public comment. (1) Public Hearing on the Request for a Resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2 in the Contorer Resubdivsion to allow the northern lot line of Lot 2 to be moved seven (7) feet northward to create the reconfigured lots (Betty Contorer) Proof of notification was submitted and the Legal Notice was published in the Deerfield Review on May 7, 2015. Betty Contorer, 1521 Central Avenue, resident since 1972, is requesting to move the northern lot line of Lot 2 seven feet north. Mrs. Contorer explained that the front yard setback for these lots is 39 feet (Zoning Code states that the R-3 District requirement is 25’. The Zoning Ordinance has a provision that if 40% or more of the houses on a block have front yards of greater depth than required for the zoning district in which they are located, new buildings shall not be erected closer to the street than the average front yard established by the existing buildings. In this case, more than 40% of the houses on the block have front yards of greater depth than required, so the average of the front yard setbacks must be determined. The average front yard setback for this block is 39.12 feet.). She commented that builder have told her that the 39.12 feet front yard setback requirement makes it hard to put a standard house footprint on Lot 2 as it is currently configured. Builders have told Mrs. Contorer that moving the north Lot 2 line 7 feet north will make a difference. Moving the lot line will not affect the adjoining properties in any way nor will it affect the trees on the subject properties. Public Hearing May 28, 2015 Page 2 Chairman ProTem Oppenheim noted that the lot depth will require a variation but the lot depth variation was granted in the past when this property was first resubdivided. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim clarified that there will be no other variations at this time. Mrs. Contorer confirmed that there will be no other variations and commented that the lot depth variation is less than what was previously granted. Commissioner Berg asked if the home on Lot 1 was compliant with the front yard setback and if there will be changes to the rear deck. Mrs. Contorer noted that the existing home on Lot 1 is more than compliant, the rear deck was trimmed back 3 feet to meet the side yard setback requirement and she had the concrete patio trimmed to conform. Commissioner Shayman asked if the builders that she has talked with will seek other variations or if they will be able to work with the front yard setback. Mrs. Contorer commented that the builders need a little more width to be able to work with the front yard setback and moving the lot line north 7 feet will allow this. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim asked if she has talked to the neighbors about the resubdivision. Mrs. Contorer noted that she has talked with anyone who has come to talk to her about the resubdivision and there have not been any issues. (2) Public Hearing on the Request for Approval of Special Use for a Medical Cannabis Dispensary at 151 S. Pfingsten Road, Unit V (151 Pfingsten LLC and Greenhouse Group LLC) Proof of notification was submitted and the Legal Notice was published in the Deerfield Review on May 7, 2015. Lawrence Freedman, Attorney, Ash Anos Freedman and Logan, representing the petitioner stated that in 2013, the State of Illinois passed a law qualifying patients with debilitating medical conditions the right to medical use of cannabis. The law also authorizes medical cannabis dispensing organizations to dispense cannabis to qualifying patients. The law prohibits municipalities from completely prohibiting the location of distribution facilities but may enact reasonable zoning regulations for the facilities. Recently the Deerfield Village Board enacted a text amendment allowing medical cannabis facilities as a special use in the C-2 and I-2 zoning districts as well as meet the imposed state distance requirements. Mr. Freedman commented that the petitioner will be leasing a portion of the building at 151 S. Pfingsten Road in Unit V on the south side of Lake Cook Road in Northfield Township. The 4,103 square foot space will be used for the storage and dispensing of cannabis products pursuant to an authorization that the applicant has obtained from the State of Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. The facility will also provide wellness services. The proposed hours will typically be Monday through Saturday, 8:00AM – 7:00PM and Sunday, 10:00AM – 3:00PM. Only patients with a Public Hearing May 28, 2015 Page 3 State of Illinois Department of Health-issued card will be allowed to enter the facility. By law, each patient is limited to 2.5 ounces of medical cannabis every two weeks. The facility will be designed so that all cannabis products will be stored in a steel reinforced vault accessed by only 3 key employees. All deliveries will be conducted indoors in a secured area with the building door shut. Access into the facility will be limited to only patients with a state issued card, caregivers for the cardholders and employees. Employees will be well screened and trained. Mitch Kahn, 22 year Deerfield resident, along with Matt Darin, both principals in Greenhouse LLC and Deerfield residents, noted that they have authorization to open a medical cannabis dispensaries in Northfield Township. He commented that operating a medical cannabis dispensary is highly regulated from four different state agencies. Everything they are doing is regulated by these agencies. He commented that anyone receiving a card issued by the State Department of Health must specifically have one of 41 very serious medical conditions. Mr. Kahn went through, in detail, the floor plan of the proposed dispensary. Mr. Kahn referenced the proposed floor plan noting that patients will enter a vestibule area in the facility. Once in the vestibule area employees sitting behind bullet-proof glass will check in patients. This is a significant check point for the patients. The floor plan shows a vestibule area, wellness rooms, dispensary area, offices, utility room, employee area, bathrooms and restricted areas including the inventory area, loading area, storage, vault and trash enclosure. The facility will offer nutritional counseling, acupuncture, yoga, therapeutic massage and other wellness activities for patients who will have a state issued card. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim asked if they will be bringing in subcontractor to offer these wellness services. Mr. Kahn commented that they have three facilities (Mokena and Morris in addition to the proposed Deerfield location) and it is conceivable that that they will hire staff that will rotate among their three facilities. To start with, they will probably hire subcontractors for their wellness services who will go through the same extensive training and requirements that employees are subject to. He added that they any employee or subcontractor will not be able to enter the facility unless they have receive meet mandated state requirements to get an agent card issued from the state that allows them access in and out of the building. Commissioner Moyer asked if Mr. Kahn’s other two dispensaries are in operation and if they can only buy product from Illinois cultivators. Mr. Kahn noted that they are on the same timeline with their other locations as they are with this location. He commented that this is true with many of the operators since authorization was received in February of this year. Mr. Kahn stated that there were 20 cultivator licenses issued in Illinois and the Illinois dispensaries can only purchase their products from the Illinois cultivators and the Illinois cultivators can only sell to the Illinois dispensaries. Mr. Kahn commented that the patients will not be able to consume the products on site or in the parking lot nor will they be able to open their bags in the store once they are Public Hearing May 28, 2015 Page 4 purchased. State law only allows ingestion of product in their home. Mr. Kahn noted that their cannabis products will come to them prepackaged and the dispensary is not allowed to open the packages or repackage the cannabis. He again noted that the medical cannibas cannot be taken in the facility by patients or staff nor is it allowed in the parking lot. Commissioner Moyer asked what form will the cannabis will come in. Mr. Kahn noted that there are no restrictions from the state and the product offerings will be what the 20 cultivators produce. He noted a few types of offerings that the cultivators could produce but commented that this is an ever-changing field and evolving industry. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim clarified that there will be no processing of the product at this facility. Mr. Kahn confirmed that no processing of the product will take place in the dispensary and the only product that will be dispensed is what comes from the cultivators. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim clarified that only patients that register with their facility will be able to get product from their facility. Mr. Kahn noted that, currently as the law exists, patients are required to register with a dispensing organization and will only be able to access medical cannabis from that organization. Mr. Kahn said that in theory a patient could register with them and go to any one of their facilities. Mr. Kahn reiterated that only patients with cards issued from the State of Illinois Department of Health will be able to utilize the facility. Commissioner Moyer asked if patients will be able to use their card in another state. Mr. Kahn said, in theory, no, but he is not sure what the laws are in other states. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim commented that her understanding was that the intent of state law was to restrict patients to use the medication here. Commissioner Berg asked if the entry door will be locked. Mr. Kahn noted that this is still being discussed and it will depend on if they will have security personnel at the door or not, but there will be at least two security guards on site at all times during the operating hours. He added that no one will be able to enter the dispensary area from the vestibule unless they are buzzed in from inside. Mr. Kahn referenced the loading area that will be a secured, fully enclosed and restricted area in the principal structure. They will be following state required protocols from receiving cannabis and cannabis products to disposing of cannabis waste and cannabis products. Mr. Kahn noted that they will listen to their patients and adapt to their needs by possibly adjusting their hours of operation so that they can be accessible to their patients and providing services that they can utilize. Chairman Oppenheim asked if the services would be available by appointment. Mr. Kahn commented that initially that will be the case but envisions that there will be set times for their wellness services. He noted that currently there are 2,300 patients that have been granted the right to have a card and commented that the state’s initial projection was 75,000 when the program opened. Mr. Kahn commented that they expect it will be a slow progression because it is a new industry. The cannabis products will be stored in a secure vault at night and then stored in a secured inventory room during the day. Employees will be able to access the products Public Hearing May 28, 2015 Page 5 through a back loading shelf system which will keep the inventory secure until it is needed. One-on-one counseling will be available for all patients. Mr. Kahn commented that deliveries will be internal and believes this was critically important for their business. Their plan for internal deliveries exceeded the state requirements as the state did not require internal deliveries. Their delivery process will meet the requirements mandated by the state. Mr. Kahn noted that they will have advance notification of a delivery and deliveries will be met by security personnel outside and go through security protocol before entering the facility for unloading. Areas where medical cannibas will be stored will have high-tech security access systems and an extra layer of security. There will be a limited number of employees that will have access in the vault and inventory room. Commissioner Berg asked the cultivation facilities will be making the deliveries to the dispensaries. Mr. Kahn commented that the delivery process mandated by the state is controlled by the cultivators. Cultivators will either do the delivery themselves or hire a third party to do the deliveries. There is extensive planning on the routing of the deliveries. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim asked if the cultivators will be in alerting local authorities about their deliveries or if that is in their delivery plans. Mr. Kahn does not think that alerting local authorities on deliveries to this facility is in the cultivator’s plans unless local authorities want to be alerted. Mr. Kahn stated that they have met with the Chief of Police and have gone through the details of their security plan. Due to the sensitive nature of the security plan, details of the plan were not shared in this public forum. Mr. Kahn did comment that their security plan is far in excess of what the state requires. Commissioner Benton asked if someone were so inclined to get the product how will departing clients be protected once they leave the dispensary with their product. Mr. Kahn commented that there will be approximately 32 cameras in the facility. State mandates that every inch must be under camera surveillance at all times with the exception of washrooms. Camera recordings are kept for 90 days. Mr. Kahn also commented that there are approximately 2 cameras on each corner of the building and very sophisticated. He also commented that if a patient is uncomfortable or needs help getting to their car, he does expect to have someone able to help that client. Mr. Kahn noted that if a client needs help with watching their children while they are in the dispensary they will be able to provide some type of temporary childcare in these types of situations. No one under the age of 18 is allowed in the facility by state law. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim asked how the exterior of the building will be illuminated since they will be open in the evening. Mr. Kahn commented that the hours they will be open will vary depending on their customer needs. Mr. Kahn referenced the site plan and the subject property. He noted per the request of the Plan Commission, he has spoken to Jeff Bizar (Bizar Entertainment) and the owner of the karate studio, both of which are tenants in the same building that offer children’s programs. Mr. Kahn did not think that either tenant had an issue their plan and what they are proposing. Public Hearing May 28, 2015 Page 6 Mr. Kahn noted that one of the concerns that the Plan Commission had from the prefiling conference meeting was the lack of accessible parking near the subject property. Currently there is one accessible parking space in front of their unit and after talking with their landlord they have added two more accessible parking spaces in front of their unit. Mr. Kahn thinks this will be sufficient and their landlord will add more if it is necessary. In addition, Mr. Kahn went over their informal traffic and parking survey in which they took parking counts over a two week period at various times of the day. The petitioner intentionally counted parking at times that they thought there was peak times for programming. The petitioner concluded from their informal traffic and parking evaluation that there were between 80-100 open parking spaces each time they took a parking count. Mr. Freedman noted that in the submitted packet they addressed each of the special use standards as well as the additional standards applicable under the Village ordinance. Mr. Freedman asked the Plan Commission if they would like to discuss the standards and asked for it to submitted for public record. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim admitted the responses to the standards to be part of the public record. Mr. Kahn displayed early renderings of what their dispensary interior will look like. The rendering displayed wood floors and resembled a spa type interior. Commissioner Moyer asked about signage. Mr. Kahn noted that they plan to comply with the 10 square foot awning sign and to be consistent with the other awning signs on the building. The sign will not contain any images of marijuana or contain any text with the term “marijuana” or “cannibas”. The petitioner has not decided on a logo at this point but the sign will be consistent with an upscale spa or wellness facility. Mr. Kahn also commented that there will also be an etched sign on the front door. A discussion ensued that the dispensary will be a destination location. Commissioner Benton asked if there is any movement to put a directional sign at the development entrance because each company has an arrow directing customers to their location. Mr. Kahn commented that there is sign board that lists the tenants in the 151 Pfingsten building. He added that they would be in favor of adding a directional sign but they realize that they will have to discuss that with their landlord and eventually the Plan Commission. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim asked if this petitioner were to go to the Village Board of Trustees would then need more specifics on the awning sign before it can be approved. Mr. Ryckaert commented that it would be best if the signage would be finalized before it goes to the Board of Trustees but if not there would be some time to get if finalized between the readings of the ordinance meetings. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim commented that typically the Board likes to see the logo before the petition is approved. Mr. Kahn stated that the submitted sign plan is near being finalized with the exception of the font and logo. Mr. Ryckaert asked the petitioner if they would commit to the same awning color that currently exists. The petitioner is not proposing to deviate from the existing awnings. The petitioner will submit their logo as soon as they are able. Public Hearing May 28, 2015 Page 7 Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim asked how garbage will be handled. Mr. Kahn commented that all trash is kept inside of the facility and there is no cannibas product that will be disposed of. The only cannabis product that will be disposed of will be samples from the cultivator. State law requires samples to be disposed of 7 days after they are opened. No one will be able to sample the samples. The samples are for smell. The petitioner is working on trying to get the waste hauler to come inside to collect their garbage. They are still working out these details but there will never be cannabis waste sitting in garbage outside of the facility. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim asked how the products will be packaged and sealed. Mr. Kahn noted that the product will come from the cultivator in a sealed and prepackaged and leave the dispensary in the same way -sealed and prepackaged. Steve Woodall, owner of Crossfit Wilmette, which is located next door (east) to the subject property. The business is a fitness business and they have a lot of little children in their facility. Mr. Woodall is concerned about security and the potential for robbery of the subject property. He would like more information on the security of the building because they have 120 members that belong to their exercise facility. Mr. Woodall is a Deerfield resident. He is concerned that a potential robber could go through their shared wall to get to the dispensary. Mr. Woodall has other concerns but security is his main concern. He feels that this particular location makes it susceptible to being robbed. He feels that a dispensary location should be centrally located in the community or somewhere near the police department. Mr. Woodall commented that they have a kids programming in their facility and said that they are really busy between 5:30AM - 9:30AM. He noted that children come in to their facility after school and they are busy until 8:00PM. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim commented that the Village picked these types of locations for this type of business based on state distance requirements. She stated that there were very few locations that were left after meeting required distances from parks, schools and childcare facilities. The area that Mr. Woodall is suggesting for a dispensary would not be allowed in the center of the community because of the strict placement guidelines mandated by the state. Mr. Kahn stated that there will be full-time security personnel whenever they are open. The petitioner is still deciding if their security personnel will armed. He believes that they will not be armed. Mr. Kahn noted that any wall vibration will set off the alarm system and that they are exceeding the state requirements in security. Mr. Kahn offered to sit down and talk to Mr. Woodall and go through their security plan. Mr. Kahn apologized that they did not talk to the owners next door. He noted that the Deerfield Chief of Police is comfortable with the plan and they have offered to have police staff tour the dispensary when it is open. They believe that the Chief of Police will be instrumental in making security decisions for the facility. Mr. Kahn noted that, in general, the dispensary facilities around the country have actually decreased crime rates in those areas and the area around them because there is such a high level of Public Hearing May 28, 2015 Page 8 security around these areas. He commented that there have been incidents of Colorado dispensaries being held up due because of the large amounts of cash on-site. Mr. Kahn stated that they have developed a bank relationship and they are working out the specifics on the frequency of deposits. There will not be large amounts of cash nor will there be large volumes of inventory on site. Chairman Pro Tem noted that the average response time for the Deerfield Police is under 2 minutes. Mr. Kahn again noted that he and his partner are Deerfield residents and they are proud and comfortable of what they are doing and the security they have in place. They are excited that they will be able to offer a level of medication and help to people that don’t have it today. John Poulos, Crossfit Wilmette, asked if there have been changes to the general structure of their space. Mr. Kahn explained the changes to the loading area and noted that the shared metal door between their units will be sealed. Mr. Poulos commented that 2.5 ounces of Marijuana is a large amount of marijuana and he is concerned about “stoned” people driving through the parking lot. He feels that the affects on the brain from marijuana use is a real safety concern. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim clarified that we are not talking about stoned people driving around but sick people who are using the cannabis as medication. She also understands that some of the forms of cannibas does not contain quantities of THC which is the compound that gets one “high”. She also reiterated that state law does not allow anyone to ingest the cannibas in the facility or in the parking lot but only in their own home. She added that the Deerfild Chief of Police is comfortable with the security plan. She feels that Deerfield Police will be patrolling the area regularly to ensure that safety is maintained in the area. Commissioner Benton added that there are warning labels on prescription medications that warn against driving or operating a vehicle if certain medications are consumed. Commissioner Berg motioned to close the public hearing and Commissioner Moyer seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, Daniel Nakahara  APPROVED PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD The Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield held a Workshop Meeting at 7:30 P.M. on May 28, 2014 at the Village Hall, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim called the meeting to order. Present were: Mary Oppenheim, Chairman Pro Tem Bob Benton Larry Berg Jim Moyer Stuart Shayman Absent were: Alan Bromberg Elaine Jacoby Also present: Jeff Ryckaert, Principal Planner Dan Nakahara, Associate Planner (1a) Discussion of recommendation for a Resubdivision of the Contorer Subdivision The Commissioners did not have any issues with the petition and thought the request was straightforward. Commissioner Berg recommended to the approve the resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2 in the Contorer Resubdivsion to allow the northern lot line of Lot 2 to be moved seven (7) feet northward to create the reconfigured lots. Commissioner Benton seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Yes (5) Benton, Berg, Moyer, Shayman, Oppenheim Nays (0) None The recommendation will go to the Village Board of Trustees on June 15, 2015. (2a) Discussion of recommendation for the proposed Special Use for a Medical Cannabis Dispensary at 151 S. Pfingsten Road, Unit V. Commissioner Shayman felt that this was very well thought out plan but unfortunate that the petitioner had not contacted the CrossFit business prior to the meeting. He realizes that this is a new industry and felt that they have covered all their requirements. Commissioner Moyer agrees with Commissioner Shayman that the petitioner has done their homework and this business will continue to evolve. He believes that Deerfield Police will carefully monitor the area. He did not have any issues with this request. Workshop Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 2 Commissioner Benton commended the petitioners with talking with the Deerfield Police Department. He has been concerned from the beginning with being able to find a source of providing this substance to people who need it whose diseases or sicknesses can be ameliorated by use of it in whatever form. He noted that there are many ways to ingest the medical cannabis and being sympathetic is important. He believes the regulations will be critical and the petitioner is following all of the requirements. Commissioner Benton is in favor of recommending approval of this request. Commissioner Berg feels that Illinois has the most stringent standards in regulating this industry. He feels that the petitioner has not only met but has far exceeded the guidelines that Illinois has provided. He is impressed with their petitioner’s presentation and how they have been adaptive to their suggestions from the prefiling meeting to the public hearing even so far as to provide additional accessible parking spaces for now and future use. He feels it will be a work in progress and it will continue to evolve. Commissioner Berg feels that the petitioner has provided a good start and their plan will be adaptable for future use. He is in favor with recommending approval of the petitioner’s request. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim agrees with the Commissioners and personally feels good that the operators running this particular business are Deerfield residents. She feels this will enhance the safety and the adaptability of this business. She noted that the Plan Commission and Village have been talking about this for a very long time and a lot of the concerns have been thought through. She noted that people are on point to make sure that safety and everything else is ensured. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim is in favor of this petition and particularly liked the way the interior is laid out and secure. She feels that many of the issues that were concerns have been addressed. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim motioned to approve the Special Use for a Medical Cannabis Dispensary at 151 S. Pfingsten Road, Unit V. Commissioner Shayman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Yes (5) Benton, Berg, Moyer, Shayman, Oppenheim Nays (0) None Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim suggested that the petitioner sit down with their neighbors to address any concerns. She also suggested that they finalize their sign plan. She feels that the petitioner should get something in writing from the Chief of Police that he has reviewed their security plan and is fine with the plan prior to the Board of Trustees meeting. The recommendation will go to the Village Board of Trustees on June 15, 2015. Workshop Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 3 Prefiling Conference: Proposed resubdivision of 225 and 243 Wilmot Road Bob Schmude, Senior Project Manager, Atwell Engineering, representing Bluewater Capital thanked staff for providing background information on the site and help coordinating engineering and utilities with the Village. The petitioner is proposing an 8- lot resubdivision in the planned residential development district at the existing address 225 & 243 Wilmot Road. The property is located on Wilmot Road north of Laurel Avenue and south of Rosewood Avenue. 225 Wilmot Road is presently improved with the Congregational Church of Deerfield and 243 Wilmot Road is improved with a single family dwelling. Mr. Schmude noted that the planned residential development is a 16-block district with its own zoning requirements. The petitioner is proposing a cul-de-sac to service the 8 lots. The proposed road will be 28 feet wide with curb and gutter, sidewalks on each side and a terminus at the end. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim asked if the new road is near the old driveway for the church. Mr. Schmude noted that the proposed driveway is south of the existing church driveway and bisects the property. The road right-of-way is 60 feet wide and the cul-de-sac bulb right-of-way is 100 feet in diameter. The petitioner commented that they have simulated fire truck movement through the cul-de-sac to show ample room through their road and terminus. Deerfield Fire Marshal Brian McCarthy has reviewed the preliminary plan and turning movement simulation and is in support of the cul-de-sac size. Fire Marshal McCarthy requested prohibiting parking in the bulb of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Schmude commented that the owners are comfortable with the parking restriction. Mr. Schmude stated that the 8-lots exceed the minimum lot size (10,800 square feet) for the zoning district. The proposed lots range from 11,000-11650 square feet, are at least 75 feet wide by 150 feet deep, and are consistent with other lot sizes within the 16-block zoning district. The petitioner has worked with Village Engineering Department to determine the schematic layout of the Village utilities. Sanitary sewer will connect to Wilmot Road and the water main will connect at Wilmot Road. The Village Engineering Department has requested that the petitioner loop the water main through an easement and connect down to Laurel Avenue. The storm sewer will run east and west at the northern property line and then will run south with some catch basins provided in the road. The storm sewer will continue south into a larger east-west storm sewer that has been oversized to provide storm water detention for the subdivision. The larger storm sewer will be 36” in size and run towards Wilmot Road where it would combine with a smaller north/south storm sewer that picks up additional drainage from the road. The petitioner noted that they want to make sure the lots are graded nicely and uniform with no steep driveways, usable side yards, and have positive drainage. The storm sewers will be controlled with an outlet control structure near Lot 8 before it ties into the Wilmot Road storm sewer. The restrictors will be in the magnitude of a few 6” restrictors and will restrict the flow of storm water so that it is no greater than pre-development. There will Workshop Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 4 be public utility easements on all side and rear lots to accommodate electric, phone, and cable. The petitioner has completed a traffic evaluation done by KLOA Traffic Engineers. The evaluation concluded that the proposed 8-lot resubdivision will generate a low number of trips and will not have a significant impact on the operations of the area’s intersections. Mr. Schmude commented that there are two Walgreens Corporate Center intersections; one 280 feet north of Laurel Avenue and the other 410 north of Laurel Avenue. Mr. Schmude noted that the proposed road serving this subdivision is between the two Walgreens’ entrances. The traffic study determined that the traffic from the proposed access road will not conflict with the Walgreen’s intersections. The study also pointed out that adequate sight lines exist at the offset access locations to minimize conflicts for outbound movements from the proposed subdivision onto Wilmot Road. Mr. Schmude commented that they are aware of the tree preservation ordinance and have hired a certified arborist to classify and identify all of the trees on the subject site. He noted that the majority of the trees are on the perimeter of the site. He also noted that there is an existing line of trees between the church and the residential home which will be hard to preserve. He noted that most of those trees in this line are elms and a few ash trees. There are ninety trees on the site of 8 caliper inches or larger and they plan to preserve 45 of those trees. They plan to either incorporate the caliper inches back into the landscape or to provide the fee in lieu of the inability to replace the caliper inches. The petitioner is aware and plans to abide by the tree ordinance. Commissioner Benton noted that the petitioner should think about parking for guests of the homeowners in this subdivision. They may run into a problem if guests have no where to park since parking will not be allowed in the bulb and is prohibited on Wilmot Road. Mr. Schmude commented that they are planning for driveways to be 37’-40’ feet long with 2-car garages and to provide parking on the “stem” of the cul-de-sac. The petitioner feels that there will be ample parking for guests and residents. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim noted that this should be shown on the plan to show how many cars can be accommodated and where they will be accommodated. Commissioner Benton commented that parking should be noted on the stem to not interfere with the driveways. Commissioner Berg asked if there is a left turn lane to turn into this subdivision. Mr. Schmude noted there is no striped southbound left turn lane into the subdivision, but there are northbound left turn lanes going into the Walgreens driveway. Commissioner Shayman asked how the water main will run to Laurel Avenue noting that the main would go through Aspen Way. Mr. Schmude commented that there is an existing of right of way at the south east corner of the site in which the water line would go through to Laurel Avenue. The petitioner was given the option to connect to the north to Rosewood Avenue or south to Laurel Avenue. The petitioner chose to connect to the south because it was relatively free of trees and because there was a right of way adjacent to their site. The petitioner has discussed this with the Village Engineering Workshop Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 5 department and the Engineering Department is comfortable with this route. Regarding the storm sewer, Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim confirmed with the petitioner that they are confident that they will be able to collect all of the water that will be displaced from the new construction and not go through the adjacent properties to the south. Mr. Schmude stated that they are confident that their plan will improve the drainage on the site. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim also clarified that the traffic study looked at the Walgreens access drives and have determined that the additional traffic created by the new homes will not have an impact. Mr. Schmude confirmed this. Commissioner Shayman asked the petitioner if they will be able to capture the storm water between Lot 4 and Lot 5 because the natural grade drains to the east and the storm drain ends between Lot 3 and Lot 4. Mr. Schmude noted that where there are no storm sewers there will be mild swales that will direct the storm water to the storm sewer. Mr. Schmude explained the logistics of the drainage for Lot 4 and Lot 5 noting that they will have ample capacity to handle the water on the site. He added that the site is relatively flat and they will have good positive drainage on the lots. Commissioner Shayman asked for background on the Planned Residential Development District. Mr. Ryckaert explained that this area was laid out in 1924 with deep lots. No public sewer or water were provided for the area and streets accessing the interior of the blocks were not improved. In the 1960’s the Village passed some regulations to encourage the development of the Hovland area and provide improved roads and public utilities. This 16 block area has been subdivided and resubdivided many times under this planned residential development where the lots are a little smaller and done under the provisions as a special use. Mr. Ryckaert noted that the last resubdivision of any size was the Horwitch Subdivision in 2007 which was a cul-de- sac for two lots. There is a long history of this area being resubdivided under the planned residential development that allows a smaller lot size of 10,800 square feet than the regular R-1 lot size of 20,000 square feet. This area is zoned R-1 but is a planned residential development with setbacks and lot sizes which are less than those required in the underlying R-1 zoning district. Mr. Freedman added that the underlying Hovland Subdivsion that Mr. Ryckaert was referring established lots that were 120’wide by 300’ deep. Many of the lots were resubdivided starting in 1970s. Mr. Freedman noted various examples of resubdivisions similar to this proposal and very few of the original lots are left. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim asked if this proposal meets all of the requirements of the planned residential development. Mr. Ryckaert noted that the proposal meets all the Village’s requirements. He did comment that there is an existing 30’ building line on the west side of the property that will remain and does not get vacated with the resubdivision. Mr. Freedman stated that the corner side set back is 15’ and noted that the 30’ building line is on the original 1924 plat of subdivision. He noted that the petitioner has looked into this and believes that the building line has not been observed throughout this area, nor has it been vacated. Mr. Freedman commented that he spoke with Clint Case, Building and Code Enforcement Supervisor and Mr. Case said that he must abide by the building line as it is more restrictive. Mr. Freedman questioned why the Village has Workshop Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 6 not enforced this building line. He does not view this as an oversight because there have been numerous developments in which the building line had not been observed. His thought when talking to Mr. Case was that when these properties were resubdivided that either the Village took the position that building line had been abandoned and not enforced by surrounding areas or that it had been obviated by the resubdivision. He commented that Mr. Case thought this was possible. Mr. Case suggested that Mr. Freedman discuss this with the Village attorney. Mr. Freedman spoke with Village attorney Peter Coblentz and his thought was that the building line could have been abandoned or superceded by the resubdivision. Mr. Freedman believes that the building line is not applicable and they will look into this further and feels this is something they can address to the Village’s satisfaction. Mr. Freedman noted that this area in question is along the west boundary of the subject site. Mr. Freedman noted that even though the building line is recorded on the plat it does not seem applicable. He added that building lines in this area have been observed in some cases, but he can show that it has not been observed in many cases. Commissioner Berg asked if a legal opinion would be available for the public hearing. Mr. Freedman noted that staff would have to direct the Village attorney to look into it and Mr. Freedman requested that staff direct the Village attorney to follow up on this inquiry. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim suggested that there be follow-up on this subject and determine the historical precedent. Commissioner Berg suggested that the petitioner see if a southbound left turn lane can be added or if their traffic engineer will deem that a left turn lane is not be needed for the subdivision. Public Comment: James Herzberg, 1530 Laurel Avenue, commented that if this proposal is approved there will be construction on two sides of his home. Construction of the water main on the east side, and development construction to the rear of his property. Mr. Herzberg has two small children and this will be disruptive and impactful on his family. He feels that this proposal is more dense than anything in this area and is evident from aerial view of the area. Regarding the 15’ corner side yard, Mr. Herzberg feels that this distance of the existing adjacent homes’ from Wilmot Road should be taken into account. He noted that adjacent front yard setbacks to the homes to the north and south average 30’ from Wilmot Road. Mr. Herzberg feels the proposal is too dense and he is concerned about water runoff onto his property (his property is in the southeast corner of the proposed resubdivision which is the lowest part of the subject property). He feels the storm water from this development will impact his home and its foundation. Ray Goberville, 1540 Laurel Avenue, resents that the developer is putting in 8 homes on this site. He feels there will be no space between the homes compared to the surrounding area and this development will destroy the area. He also commented that this development will impact traffic in the morning with more vehicle traffic being added Workshop Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 7 to the already heavy Walgreens traffic on Wilmot Road. He also resents the fact that this increased traffic will create a problem for residents on Laurel Avenue trying to get onto Wilmot Road. Pat Goberville, 1540 Laurel Avenue, noted that there was a mention that the church parcel is flat. Mrs. Goberville commented that the site is not flat and slopes down and there is a gulley behind the property. She commented that whenever it rains, there is standing water behind their house on the east side. She said that when they had to grade their property they had to put in a berm so that their water would stay on their property. She would like to know if the builder will put in a berm so their water will stay on their property. She added that there are a lot of mosquitoes in the summer time because of the standing water. Randy Harlan, 1520 Laurel Avenue, lives in the home southeast of the subject site. Regarding the drainage that will go into the southeast right of way, they recently had $50K of foundation repair done to their home. They are deeply concerned about how putting in more drainage in the right of way will affect what they have repaired and how it will affect their home. He added that one of the reasons they purchased their home was because there was adjacent open space and the area was wooded. The site was zoned for a church and took solace that it would remain open. He is astounded that the developer will remove half of the trees on the property. With regard to the drainage that was discussed, he noted that there are drainage issues and they will get worse with this development. He does believe that this 8-lot resubdivision will be the densest in the South Park area. Mr. Harlan commented that there are a lot of trees on the right of way at the south east corner of the property and wants to know what will happen to those trees. He cannot imagine the developer putting in drain pipes in right of way without disrupting the tree system. Marcie Beitner, 1550 Laurel Avenue, corner of Laurel Avenue and Wilmot Road. Ms. Beitner is concerned about the traffic; she recently witnessed a traffic accident near her home on Wilmot Road. She feels the traffic is bad and will only get worse. She referenced the AMLI apartments on Lake Cook Road will only add to the increased traffic. Ms. Beitner’s children play on her property at the corner of Wilmot Road and Laurel Avenue is very concerned about their safety with the increased traffic from this development. She is not happy about possibility of having more traffic and less privacy with half of the trees being removed from the subject site. Tom Rowe, 1515 Rosewood, noted that there have been valid concerns that have been mentioned during this meeting. He commented that he only learned of this proposal earlier in the day. He wanted to especially emphasize that even though the lots meet the minimum lot size the lot sizes could also exceed the minimums in the R-1 zoning district if the developer chose to. He feels that each of the 8 lots being proposed is smaller than any of the lots that surround the subject site and asked what would be the size of the homes on these lots. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim noted that it was too early to tell what size these homes would be. Mr. Rowe noted that the 30’ building line Workshop Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 8 should be closely reviewed because if it is not observed then the new homes on the western lots would be a lot closer to Wilmot Road than the homes to the north and south. He suggested that the historical fabric should be observed and we can exceed minimums when it comes to lots sizes and setbacks. Commissioner Benton noted that when this proposals goes to for a public hearing, the property owners within 250 feet will be notified by certified mail a, public notice will be in the newspaper, a notice sign on the front lawn along Wilmot Road and all the information will be posted on our website. Chairman Pro Tem pointed out to the petitioner that there were concerns from adjacent neighbors regarding water issues and engineering. She noted that there are strict requirements that the Village looks at regarding storm water management and engineering and the more that the petitioner can address regarding these issues the better off they will be going forward. She also noted that the neighbors have voiced concerns about the trees, tree replacement and what is specifically being proposed in the tree plan. Chairman Pro Tem Oppenheim asked about the projected traffic and if the petitioner will look into the future projected traffic generated from the nearby AMLI apartment development and if there were any data on accidents in the area. She advised the petitioner to meet with the neighbors to discuss the development prior to the public hearing. Commissioner Benton added that whenever a property is improved, the development cannot make the surrounding water situation worse than currently exists and if and when plans are approved, the plans will be reviewed throughout the building process and if it is not done correctly it will have to be done again. Mr. Harlan, noted that this process failed because a new home that was built recently near the site made the water drainage worse than it was before it was constructed. Commissioner Benton commented that the property should be brought to the attention of the Village Engineering Department. Chairman Pro Tem mentioned that a letter was received by a resident voicing her opposition regarding this proposal. The resident was not able to make the meeting due to a prior commitment. There being no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Daniel Nakahara