Mr. Patterson made a motion to appoint Mr. Bisesi as Chairman Pro Temp. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rybarczyk. All were in favor; motion passed.

Transcription

1 Motion to Appoint Chairman Pro Temp City of Rolling Meadows Plan Commission City Council Chambers 7:30 PM APPROVED Mr. Patterson made a motion to appoint Mr. Bisesi as Chairman Pro Temp. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rybarczyk. All were in favor; motion passed. Motion to Open the Meeting Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi asked for a motion to open the meeting. Motion was made by Mr. Patterson and seconded by Mr. Rybarczyk. Ayes all, motion passed. Presiding: Chairman Pro Temp Jon Bisesi Present: Bisesi, Fink, Patterson, Leonard, O Brien, Rybarczyk Absent: Gercken, Fritz Also Present: Valerie J. Dehner, Community Development Director & Kathleen Sullivan, Secretary Call to Order Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm and declared a quorum. Approval of Minutes Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi asked for a motion to approve the minutes from May 5, The motion was made by Mr. O Brien and seconded by Mr. Patterson. Roll call vote on the minutes as presented: Yeas: (5) Patterson, Bisesi, Fink, Leonard, O Brien Abstain (1) Rybarczyk Absent (2) Gercken, Fritz Motion passed. Upcoming Public Hearings: Ms. Dehner stated that there is one application for next month s meeting on July 7, Special Use Permit Application and Amendment to Planned Unit Development for a drive-thru bank facility to be located at 3148 Kirchoff Road, Ben Franklin Bank of Illinois, Petitioner New Business:

2 1. 4-lot Single Family Residential Subdivision of property located at Fairfax Avenue, Palatine by Uma Bodapati, Owner/Petitioner Petitioner: Uma Bodapati, 1200 N. Chicago Ave, Arlington Heights Owner Fairfax Avenue, Palatine, IL was sworn in. Petitioner: Jesus Serrato, 3804 Pheasant Dr, Rolling Meadows, IL was sworn in. Petitioner: Ozzie Pastrana, Civil Works Consulting, 3343 N. Neva Ave Chicago, IL was sworn in. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi asked if the file was in order. Ms. Dehner explained that the file was in order and made part of the record. Mr. Serrato: We initially wanted to do five (5) lots. After consulting with the City we reduced it to four (4) lots to achieve more width and providing additional detention for the site. All four (4) lots are almost sixteen thousand 16,000 sq. feet-10,000 sq. feet is the required lot size in this zoning district. We want to comply with all the requirements as far as lot size and detention capacity for this site. Mr. Pastrana: We worked for over a year with the City Engineer to provide detention for the new development we are proposing, going from one (1) single-family home to four (4) new homes. Per the site plan we are providing detention at the rear of lots two (2) through four (4). That will accommodate the detention required for this proposed improvement. There is a significant amount of outside drainage that we are conveying in-between lots two (2) and three (3) with the emergency overflow swale. The rear yards are and will continue to be in the over land flood route for a significant area of the neighborhood. We worked with the City Engineer to optimize the best plan to make the detention a bit better overall than what is there now while accommodating the new development. Mr. Serrato: (Mr. Serrato refers to the architectural plans) This shows four (4) new homes which are a snapshot of what is in the portfolio-they are 3,000 to 3,800 sq. feet. The price point for these new homes is $600,000 to $750,000. They will have brick siding, lookouts, patios and decks. These are buyer specific so the drawings only reflect properties that have already been purchased in Palatine but we will be using similar models. (Mr. Pastrana refers to the site plan to shows the representation of the lots within the neighborhood). The lots are so large that we are way below what we could build there. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD: Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi: Does anyone have any questions? Mr. Patterson: Are you draining onto the property or off the property? Page 2

3 Mr. Pastrana: It will be onto the property and will be contained in the detention basin that is being proposed for the rear of the properties. Mr. Fink: Can you go over the flow pattern on how it would flow so we all understand? Mr. Pastrana: On your handout you will see a significant overall drainage. The overall drainage area heads down California Street, it will go down the other street to the west, and then it will head along Fairfax. Right now in existing conditions it just sheet flows across over the payment. There is an existing inlet that takes up some of it but for the 100 year storm the overflow sits in those rear yards and it overflows to Kirchoff and continues down the street. With our proposed conditions the same thing will happen-the overall drainage gets to Fairfax but because of the curb we are directing it into the area between lots two (2) and three (3). The 100 year storm will overflow on Fairfax, go to the overflow swale and get to the retention basin in the back. The ten (10) year event gets picked up in the storm sewer and sent to the rear of the retention area. Mr. Fink: Who is responsible to maintain that system, is it an association between the four (4) homes? Mr. Pastrana: Currently, it would be the responsibility of each homeowner to maintain their portion. There will be a storm water management easement back there. Mr. Fink: That is all I have for now. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi: Mr. Leonard. Mr. Leonard: For Lots Two (2), Three (3) and Four (4), will the new owners be notified they have to maintain that? Mr. Pastrana: Yes, it will be on the title policy. It will be an encumbrance on the property. Mr. Leonard: There has been a reoccurrence of the 100 year flood. That is a term that is no longer viable. In reality it is an every two (2) year flood plan. Just knowing how much water can sit there, which other way does that water flow when it gets to where it is going in the detention? Is there a storm drain? Mr. Pastrana: Yes, there is a storm drain. Mr. Leonard: Where does that storm drain head to? Mr. Pastrana: I believe it heads north towards Kirchoff, but I am not sure where it ultimately ends. Mr. Leonard: Does it drain out towards Kirchoff? Page 3

4 Mr. Pastrana: It continues north and will go downstream. The overflow will overflow at Kirchoff during the 100 year event. That is a storm that has one (1) percent probability of happening in any given year. We can have two 100-year storms in any given year. Mr. Leonard: Well, we have. It has been happening every year. Mr. Pastrana: The rear yards will have a one 1 and ½ (1½) to two (2) feet of standing water until the storm system can take the water out. If it goes over that, it will overtop at Kirchoff and head down the road. Mr. Leonard: What about the adjacent houses behind it? What happens to their backyards? Mr. Pastrana: It is a depressional area. Right now, under existing conditions, if there is a heavy rain, there will be standing water in the rear yards until the existing storm system can dry the area out. What is going to happen under proposed conditions is kind of the same thing except we are detaining some of the storm water (refers to site plan) in this rear yard before it goes over 740. The BFE for this area was 742, so when it first starts raining it will get captured by the detention basin. If it tops at 740 the area will flood a little bit until the storm sewer system can draw it down again. Mr. Leonard: How long will it take to drain? Mr. Pastrana: It shouldn t take more than 48 hours. Mr. Leonard: What happens in the 48 hours, should it stop. Kids can play in there. Is there something to prevent that? Mr. Serrato: It is private property, there shouldn t be kids playing in there. Mr. Leonard: I know it is private property. What if kids see a pond for forty-eight (48) hours and want to play in it, are there precautions? Mr. Serrato: The pond is only 3 feet deep at the deepest point. As a homeowner, you can put up a fence. If there was an issue with kids playing, the police should be notified. Mr. Leonard: You have taken precautious to alert the potential buyers that they are responsible for all of this? Mr. Pastrana: There is a write up on what can and can t be done to that easement. They can use the property but they cannot put up structures. Mr. Leonard: There are no plantings allowed that can block the waterway, correct? Mr. Pastrana: Correct. Page 4

5 Mr. O Brien: On the drawing you submitted, you have the retention pond with the hash marks through it and the sold black line at the back of the property lines. What is the distance from the back of the proposed development where the water is going to be going and the distance from the backyard of a Chas house to where that is? Mr. Pastrana: It is to the property line. That is where we start the slope. If anything, we are taking their water onto our property to contain it. Just like it is doing now. Once that fills up, then it goes back to the normal situation. Mr. O Brien: My concern is from your grading. I know you said the original was 742. Are these houses going to sit higher than those on Chas? You keep referring to the existing storm sewer. Will you be putting in more grade which would cause more water to go into an existing storm? Mr. Pastrana: Right, we are lowering the existing storm sewer inlet by one (1) foot. Mr. O Brien: Are you the builders? I know you mentioned properties in Palatine. Mr. Serrato: I am the builder and Mr. Pastrana is the developer. Mr. O Brien: Perfect. That is all I have. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi: Mr. Rybarczyk. Mr. Rybarczyk: I need some clarification. In a normal rain, this development will be taking the water from the other lots on Chas so they should be dryer than they are now. In the 100 year rain, it is going to flow as it is right now, regardless of if you are there or not. Mr. Serrato: Correct. Mr. Rybarczyk: Thanks, that is all I have. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi: The bulk of my questions have been answered. Does the Community Development Director or the City Engineer have anything they would like to add? Ms. Dehner: We do have our City Engineer here if anyone has any questions. The City Engineer has been working for over a year on this. On the resubdivision plat itself, additional language was added stating that each and every lot owner is to preserve and maintain this detention easement and that within this easement no one shall install trees, bushes, plantings, or do anything else that would impair the proper drainage or functionality of the detention facility. This is the standard for the homeowners to maintain it. There was the JIN Subdivision at Wilmette and California which is similar to this situation. They had some drainage issues and a detention area was prepared and it is working as it was proposed. We have been working diligently to get this to work. Just to point out, the detention area is going to be dug out deeper and the inlet will be lowered. Mr. Patterson: You are not raising you grade. So you are not going to affect more water moving? Page 5

6 Mr. Serrato: No. Mr. Leonard: Have soils test been taken? Mr. Serrato: Yes, we have done five (5) soil tests. We took soil testing for each home site. Part of the requirement for the City is to provide soil test for each individual property. Mr. Leonard: How were they? Mr. Serrato: We are not there yet. The five (5) tests that we took were good. Mr. Pastrana: There is about one (1) foot of top soil and it was stripped off and the clay underneath looked good. Mr. Leonard: You should always have soil boring test. Mr. Pastrana: We always do. The structural engineer won t design this foundation without one. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi opened for comments from the public. Eric Smith 2451 Chapman Court, Rolling Meadows, IL was sworn in Mr. Smith: Regarding the inlet you are going to be dropping in the front. If you look at the sewer there is an 8 inch pipe that goes into it. There is a water line about 2 inches below, so if you drop it one (1) foot, is that residual water going into the sewer system? If so, will it be pumped out from the sewer system into the catch basin? Is the retention pond going to be an actual pond or will it drain out? Mr. Pastrana: It drains out. (Referring to the site plan) There is a catch basin in the corner of your property and there is a pipe inlet that is about a foot higher. So it will be lowered and allow the water to go into it. Mr. Smith: Currently, there is water line that is 2 inches below. If you drop it one (1) foot, is that going below the current water level that is in the sewer drain? If it is residual water, it won t drain back out. Mr. Rybarczyk: Are you saying there is water constantly in there? Mr. Smith: If you look into the sewer system, there is water that is 2 inches below the pipe, so if you drop it a foot, it is four inches below where it is currently. Where is that water going to go? Mr. Leonard: Is that constant? Page 6

7 Mr. Smith: I don t look at it all the time. Does the system completely drain? The City put a corrugated pipe in about 3 years ago and it drained the pond. Mr. Pastrana: The pipe that is connected to the manhole, the whole thing is going to be dropped. Mr. Smith: I worry about the residual water. Does the system completely drain? The City doesn t have the money to drop the lines all the way through. Mr. Jungwirth: As I recall, the pipe was put in to match the existing grade. The pipe that empties the basin sits up a couple of inches from the bottom of the basin. The plastic pipe that was put in, they are going to remove that entirely and lay a flatter pipe that will drop the pond bottom about a foot. I will check into this, I believe the survey information is correct but I will look into it. Mr. Smith: The City sewer system is functioning properly should drain the whole thing dry, correct? Mr. Jungwirth: When you set the pipe into the wall of the basin, it doesn t sit at the true bottom, so you are left with a couple of inches that you cannot dry. I will be in town tomorrow for inspections, I can meet you out there tomorrow morning. Mr. Rybarczyk: Is it possible that it could have a blockage of sticks or leaves? Mr. Jungwirth: I will check into this, I believe the survey information is correct but I will look into it. Mr. Smith: My fear is the water is going to be pumped out and we will have a pond again. Mr. Jungwirth: I believe the design will function. I will stop out there and look at it. Mr. Rybarczyk: Are you changing the inlet of that pipe, or is the pipe on an angle that you only need to drop one end? Mr. Pastrana: We only need to drop the flared end section of the pipe that receives the water. Mr. Rybarczyk: You can still drop it and meet the slope necessary for a storm drain and it will be coming into the basin at the same spot. Mr. Pastrana: Yes, and we are going to put a larger pipe at the same spot with the proper flow. Mr. Stan Reynolds, 4551 Fairfax Ave, Rolling Meadows, IL was sworn in Mr. Reynolds: My primary concern is drainage. The area is a wet area with existing drainage issues. The rain water runs from Tall Trees Ct. which has no storm sewer system through the yards of homes on the south side of Fairfax Avenue and north across the street to the proposed development. During heavy rains the water flow is similar to living on the banks of a creek. The property proposed for the development is by this run off. The approved water way at the back of Tall Trees Court has Page 7

8 been landscaped out of existence by the property owners. My fear is that future owners of these proposed houses will result in the same non-enforcement by the City as what exists on Tall Trees Court. During the May 12 th meeting, the presenter stated the proposed four (4) home development would not make the existing water issues in the area any worse. However, a three (3) home development would provide greater pervious surface than a four (4) home development. Why be satisfied with not making the drainage any worse when there is an opportunity to improve the drainage. The second concern is the aesthetic of the neighborhood. Existing homes along Fairfax Avenue have 100 foot street frontages. The 100 foot street frontage is critical in maintaining the curb appeal which a three (3) home development would preserve. In conclusion, approve a three (3) house development of the property instead of four (4). Do not strive for the maximum tax dollars the City could acquire from a four house development. Rather consider the appearance of the neighbor and better control of water. Also, you show mat reinforcement between lot 2 and 3, can you explain mat reinforcement? Mr. Pastrana: It is turf reinforcement. There is a reinforcement mat underneath to prevent erosion of the side yard. It is a strong mat that holds the grass in place. We are improving the stormwater condition in this area; the volume we are providing is almost 1,000 cubic feet more than what is required. Mr. Reynolds: You mentioned in the first presentation, it won t be any worse. Mr. Pastrana: It won t be worse, it will be slightly better. Mr. Reynolds: We all know the problem, water. Ms. Dehner: The other thing that differentiates this from the Tall Trees Ct. situation is that there is going to be in a stormwater easement. If there are problems or homeowners don t take care of things despite our effort to contact them, the City would have the right to go in and correct the situation as a result of this easement. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi: Is that different than the Tall Trees example? Ms. Dehner: Yes. Mr. O Brien: If the new development wanted to put up a fence it would have to come before the City and that is when they would get the approval for the easement to make sure there is no blockage. Ms. Dehner: Exactly. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi: With the easement, you can go on at anytime, you don t have to notify anyone. Ms. Dehner: Right. Mr. Rybarceck: Valerie, does the City fine the homeowners for not taking care of it? Page 8

9 Ms. Dehner: They would reimburse the City for any expenses. Mr. Smith: You stated you are building up the lots two (2) to three (3) feet? What kind of run off will happen that may affect my yard? Mr. Pastrana: We are going to take the water and push it towards the front. Towards the storm sewer. Mr. Smith: The houses are going to sit higher than the street, so it will slope to the front? Is it going to slope between the two homes? Mr. Pastrana: Right now, the houses are going to drain from the front of the house to Fairfax and then the runoff will go down the curb lines between the two homes. It will get picked up in the storm sewer which will direct it to the detention basin in the back or overflow over the curb through the two homes depending how strong the storm is. Mr. Smith: Everything looks good on paper, practicality is something else. Is there a proposal that you thought of just in case the detention pond is not enough? Mr. Pastrana: The basin is actually overdesigned so it has more volume available. Mr. Smith: One hundred and twenty? Mr. Pastrana: You can not quantify it in those terms. If we got two (2) hundred-year storms back to back, everyone would be in trouble. Ms. Dehner: The detention pond has been overdesigned so it not only takes the existing conditions it also takes account for the four (4) proposed homes and then some. If it does overflow, it will continue to overflow the same way. Mr. Jungwirth: The lots on Chaz and Chapman have rear yard utility easements so if there is an obstruction the City has the authority to clear it. Mr. Patterson: I asked if you were raising the grade in the lots, you answered No I just heard during the meeting that you are raising it two (2) feet, please explain? Mr. Pastrana: We are raising the homes. The grade in the rear of the lot is staying the same. Mr. Patterson: So you are raising the grade one-half or one-third of the lot? Mr. Pastrana: Only on one-quarter (1/4) of the lot. Mr. Patterson: Are sewers that you are putting in across the front all going to the center section and shoot down it? Page 9

10 Mr. Serrato: There is an existing sewer that goes from the center of the property down on Fairfax and then goes back down to the corner. We are connecting the drain and putting it all underground to the existing water to take it all the way around. Mr. Andrew Maciuszak, 2460 Chas Drive, Rolling Meadows, IL was sworn in Mr. Maciuszak: After the trees were cut on the property, there is a lot more water near my property and my sump pump is going on all the time. I am worried about getting water in the basement. If they raise the property up, I may get water all the time. My backyard is behind the proposed building site. Mr. O Brien: Since they have removed those trees, you have taken on water in your basement? Mr. Maciuszak: No, I don t have water in my basement because my sump pump goes on. I am just worried when they put up the houses there will be water in my basement. Mr. O Brien: So your backyard is next to the proposed development? Mr. Maciuszak: Yes. Mr. Pastrana: (refers to site plan and is explaining the different retention areas) What I know about existing conditions is that there is a depressional area with an obstruction that holds some water during the heavier rains. What the proposed plan is going to do is remove that obstruction and bring it all into this area (referring to plan). You should see some improvement once this grading goes in. The purpose of this development is not to increase anyone s problems. We are trying to make it better and clean the area up so it drains faster to remove the water as quickly as possible. It should flow better once the grading is cleaned up. Mr. Maciuszak: I hope so. Mr. Leonard: What is the grading plan? You don t carry through on your plan, what is the existing grade to the rear and to the left? Mr. Pastrana: It will be 743. You can see a 744 at lot 5. It goes up from our property line. Mr. Leonard: You should indicate that on here. Mr. Pastrana: It continues upward. Mr. Leonard: There is not enough information on your handout that shows that. Mr. Pastrana: From the center of their homes drains toward our property from the rear and the center of the property from the front drains towards Chas. Page 10

11 With no further public comment, Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi closed that part of the meeting. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD: Mr. Leonard: There is a 100 feet set back and now they are moving up to a 30 foot? Ms. Dehner: No, the 100 feet referred to lot width. Some of the lots on the south side are wider than but not as deep as the proposed lots. These lots are going to be one in a half (1&1/2) times larger than what is required. Mr. O Brien: I was thinking along the same lines as the gentleman from the public who spoke. If you only built three (3) properties, would that change the overall flow? Would the same overall flow stay the same if you have four (4) homes? Mr. Pastrana: The design stays the same. There are a lot of safeguards in the design. Not only does it have more volume than what is required; we also assumed more impervious area than what we are actually using just in case homeowners want to add a patio. I can tell you this has been overdesigned by 10%, but once you get down to the actual numbers it is overdesigned by 20-30%. Chairman Pro Temp Jon Bisesi: I would like to have a motion to approve this. Mr. Rybarczyk: I will make a motion to approve the 4-lot Single Family Residential Subdivision of property located at Fairfax Avenue, Palatine. Chairman Pro Temp Jon Bisesi: We have a first by Mr. Leonard and seconded by Mr. Patterson. Is there any discussion on the motion? We will have a roll call vote. Mr. O Brien: As long as the Staff comments are included as we go forward. Chairman Pro Temp Jon Bisesi: Some attendees may be interested in what the Staff comments are: 1) Prior to recordation of the plat, the Developer is to complete and/or guarantee the completion of all required public improvements to the satisfaction of the City. 2) The project will not move forward without the final engineering being approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 3) The Petitioner/Owner shall try to retain any existing trees and plant additional trees-a minimum of 3 trees per lot each with no less then a three-inch diameter size class but not within the Detention Easement areas. These will be in addition to the parkway trees which will be required. There are some things that the Staff had recommended and we are also recommending be part of the motion. Any other discussion on the motion? We will have a roll call vote. Roll Call: Yeas (6) Mr. Rybarczyk Yes. Mr. O Brien Yes, you answered the questions that we was our concern was the drainage. It clearly appears that it is being accounted for and confirmed by the City Engineer. Mr. Leonard Yes, based on everything we just talked about, mostly the detention of water. Page 11

12 Mr. Fink Yes, they worked well with the City and did their due diligence. Mr. Patterson Yes, the concerns are being taken care of. Mr. Bisesi Yes, I believe they are working well with the City. We will try and make sure they take into account the residence concerns. Absent (2) Gercken, Fritz Nays (0) NONE Abstain (0) NONE MOTION PASSED New Business: 2. Special Use Permit for Personal Fitness Facility in M-1 District at 2255 Lois Drive by Ivan Rodriguez, Petitioner Chairman Bisesi asked if the file was in order. Ms. Dehner explained that the file was in order and made part of the record. Ms. Dehner reminded Mr. Rodriguez to supply her with the certified return receipt green cards. Petitioner: Ivan Rodriguez, 825 Rosedale Lane, Hoffman Estates, IL was sworn in. Chairman Pro Temp Jon Bisesi: Do you mind if the public notice is not read? Mr. Rodriguez: That is fine. Chairman Pro Temp Jon Bisesi requests a motion to waive the reading of the public notice. Mr. Patterson first, seconded by Mr. Mr. Rybarczyk. All Ayes Motion passes. Mr. Rodriguez: I am currently a business owner at another facility (5050 Newport Drive) and I am looking for a larger facility at the proposed location. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD: Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi: Mr. Patterson would you like to start the questioning? Mr. Patterson: I am assuming the space that you are looking at is completely stripped out. You are just using an open area, correct? Mr. Rodriquez: Yes. Mr. Patterson: What is your personnel limit? Page 12

13 Mr. Rodriquez: We are limited right now at twelve (12). Mr. Patterson: Three trainers and nine clients? Mr. Rodriquez: Yes. Mr. Patterson: You are only increasing by twenty-five percent? Mr. Rodriquez: Yes. With that many people training it gets a bit crowded that is why we are looking for a new space. Mr. Patterson: No more questions. Ms. Dehner: I would like to add that since they have been at their current location, the City has received no complaints regarding their operation. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: Chairman Pro Temp Jon Bisesi opened for comments from the public. With no further public comment, Chairman Bisesi closed that part of the meeting. Mr. Patterson: I will make the motion to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit for Personal Fitness Facility in M-1 District at 2255 Lois Drive subject to staff comments. Chairman Pro Temp Jon Bisesi: We have a first by Mr. Patterson and seconded by Mr. O Brien. We will have a roll call vote. Roll Call: Yeas (6) Mr. Patterson Yes, I am fine with him trying to do a better job. Mr. Fink Yes, I support his business growing. Mr. Leonard Yes, congratulations on being able to expand. Mr. O Brien Yes, congrats on the expansion, that is great to see. Mr. Rybarczyk- Yes. Mr. Bisesi Yes. Absent (2) Gercken, Fritz Nays (0) NONE Abstain (0) NONE MOTION PASSED Miscellaneous Business: Page 13

14 3. Text Amendment for Outdoor Used Car Lots as a Special Use in C-2 Commercial and M-1 Manufacturing Districts and associated regulations QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD: Ms. Dehner: You have before you the actual language that would be added to the City code. We have discussed this on two (2) separate occasions. I have made some changes based on our previous conversations on this topic. If there is a motion to approve this, I ask that this be presented AS-IS. I know there have been some concerns about allowing it in the commercial district. So, during the vote if that is one of your concerns can you vote yea or nay, if it is nay please give an explanation as to why? Mr. O Brien: Did I read this correctly that even if we do allow commercial we can restrict it by lot size, is that correct? If we give the OK for commercial or manufacture that it could be restricted. I thought I read in the Committee of the Whole notes that we could still limit it even if it is commercial space by only allowing an x number of square feet. Ms. Dehner: I don t know how we can do that. I know that at the last meeting we had talked about size given the fact that the 3975 Algonquin property was a ½ acre. I followed the direction of the Commission to take that part out and I am not really quite sure on how we can limit it by size. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi: Does anyone have any questions, Mr. Patterson? Mr. Patterson: I don t want a used car lot, but the City Council does. Valerie has done a good job putting this together. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi asked if there are any additional questions, there are no questions. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi: You have covered what we were trying to accomplish. I am trying to remember where all the C2 is located. I know it is Kirchoff, Algonquin and Plum Grove. Ms. Dehner: It was the direction of the City Council to allow it in C2 areas but not on Kirchoff or Plum Grove Rd, but rather Algonquin, Golf and Wilke corridors. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi: I just want to make sure someone can t challenge the zoning if they want it in the areas that are excluded. Ms. Dehner: It was in the discussion and the reason I thought was not to allow it in the downtown which would delete Kirchoff. Plum Grove was because of the small lot sizes. If someone really wants to seek it, they would have to seek a variation. It would have to go through the Plan Commission with the ultimate decision of the City Council. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi: I agree, Valerie has done a good job, short of the lot size. Page 14

15 Ms. Dehner: There was a comment at the City Council the pictures that I had included at the Plan Commission were not necessarily what they expect to see in Rolling Meadows. No matter how many regulations you have there are still people who will completely disregard those regulations. I don t care what community it is, there will be some who want a nice looking operation and others who have different standards. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi: I think this covers that from happening. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi: I would like a motion to approve Text Amendment for Outdoor Used Car Lots as a Special Use in C-2 Commercial and M-1 Manufacturing Districts and associated regulations. Mr. O Brien made the motion to approve Text Amendment for Outdoor Used Car Lots as a Special Use in C-2 Commercial and M-1 Manufacturing Districts and associated regulations and seconded by Mr. Rybarczyk Roll Call: Mr. Rybarczyk- No, I don t want to see that in the commercial area. I don t think it is a proper fit. Mr. O Brien-Yes, but with a caveat that we can work with the concern about the lot size. So that it is somehow justified just based on the notes from the City Council meeting if there is anything we can do about that. Mr. Leonard-No, I am having a difficult time with it being in the commercial sector. Mr. Fink- No, I am not comfortable with it being in the commercial area. Mr. Patterson- No, it doesn t belong in the commercial community. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi- Yes, I think we need to address this issue and I think this is a good start for what we are looking for. I know it doesn t meet all the concerns. I am comfortable with this and put my faith in the Council to address some of the other concerns. To not meet these regulations, one would have to seek a variance and would have to come before the Plan Commission. Yeas (2) Bisesi, O Brien Nays (4) Patterson, Fink, Leonard, Rybarczyk Absent (2) Gercken, Fritz Abstain (0) NONE MOTION DENIED. Reports: NONE Miscellaneous Business Ms. Dehner: Per your request, I have provided each of you with this year s Plan Commission log. Everything has been approved except for the text amendment adding the adult vocational services as a special use in M1. After the Plan Commission had denied it, the Petitioner voluntary withdrew the petition before it went to the City Council. I also have provided a recap in regards to development that is going on in the city. Page 15

16 Mr. O Brien: For the business we have next month-what location is the Rolling Meadows Shopping Center? Is that the old post office where they want to put the drive through? Ms. Dehner: Yes, at the end cap. Mr. O Brien: I know the last time we met there was some issue with the ice cream shop, there was something with the foundation, the general contractor and owner. Ms. Dehner: That is still being resolved, privately. Chairman Pro Temp Jon Bisesi: What is going on with the former Dominick s property? Ms. Dehner: The former Dominick s property has been cleaned up and we will be meeting with the owners this week. Mr. Rybarczyk: Due to the property being vacant, doesn t the landlord get a tax break due to no tenants? Doesn t he need to be diligent to find new tenants in order to qualify? Ms. Dehner: There are two different tax breaks. Mr. Rybarczyk: I am looking for the tax break that he would receive because it was run-down and vacant for a long time and unable to lease out and that is why there was a tax break. Ms. Dehner: I do believe he has been actively pursuing leasing out the property. They do have a new leasing manager who is supposed to deal with the property primarily as well as some of their other properties. He has been working on leasing it. Some of the people who have expressed interest in the site won t sign a lease until there are additional tenants. Cook County will give them a reduced assessment based on vacant property. The Cook County tax break the City of Rolling Meadows endorsed only comes into play if the property becomes 51% leased. Mr. O Brien: Since it has been sitting vacant for so long, would the City consider demolishing it? Would that be an incentive? Ms. Dehner: Surprisingly, the bones of the building are in decent shape. Mr. O Brien: Is it still up to code? Ms. Dehner: The Building Codes identify minimal requirements. As long as codes are being minimally maintained. There really would be no basis. Mr. O Brien: How many years has it been vacant, 10 years? Ms. Dehner: It was Page 16

17 Mr. Rybarczyk: Why can t the City pass a law that after so many years if they can t lease it, then tear it down. This building isn t working where it is at. Ms. Dehner: Keep in mind they haven t owned it for ten (10) years. The current owners have only owned it for over two (2) years. The prior property owner was still getting lease monies from Dominick s when it was vacant, so he chose not to do anything for five (5) years. Mr. Patterson: You can t force someone to tear down a building if it is being maintained to the minimum code. It doesn t matter if it is occupied or unoccupied, he owns it. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi: As long as they maintain the property. Chairman Pro Temp Bisesi: I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Adjournment A motion was made by Mr. Patterson and seconded by Mr. Rybarczyk; all in favor. The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was adjourned at 9:07p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathleen Sullivan Secretary Community Development Department Distribution: Mayor City Manager Plan Commissioners Community Development Department Clerk s Office Minutes approved at the September 1, 2015 Plan Commission meeting as written. Page 17