Loading...
2013-08-21 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 08/21/2013 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAIN COMMISSION August 21, 2013 Brandt property, 508 Cameron Way -Variation of Development Ordinance concerning width of driveway apron in the public parkway Chairman Smith called the hearing to order at 7:00 pm in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Chairman Smith read the Notice of Public Hearing as published in the Buffalo Grove Daily Herald, explained the procedure to be followed for the public hearing, and swore in all persons who wished to give testimony. Commissioners present: Chairman Smith Mr. Khan Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Mr. Weinstein Mr. Matthews Commissioners absent: Ms. Johnson Mr. Goldspiel Also present: Mr. Ken Brandt Ms. Marla Brandt Ms. Beverly Sussman, Village Trustee Mr. Andy Stein, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Jeff Stein, Village Attorney Mr. Brian Sheehan, Building and Zoning Commissioner Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit 1: Various driveway photos presented by petitioners Exhibit 2: Memo from Robert Pfeil to the Plan Commission dated august 15, 2013 Ms. Brandt stated the reason they wanted to do the brick in the first place was because they have four cars in their household and they had put in an extra piece of driveway. Their kids were constantly running over that piece and they also have underground sprinklers. On that little triangle of grass they were constantly running over it and breaking sprinkler heads and ruining the grass. Therefore they thought it would look nicer with the brick there. Ms. Brandt stated they went to a brick company in Des Plaines and picked out a brick and they approved it to be done in one single layer on the right side of the driveway. Usually when they were working on the driveway she was home and present but unfortunately on this particular morning everyone was gone and she had to take her daughter to the emergency room. She did call the brick company to tell them she would not be home but they assured her they were sending their best person to do the job. When she returned from the hospital she was immediately told they had not been approved. She realized they had put down the double brick which they had not requested and further noticed the bricks they put down were larger than the ones they thought they were getting. Mr. Brandt stated they had thought of this project as beautification for the property. What ended up happening was that their initial approval permit had them within the correct dimensions and they were law abiding citizens. It became clear to them after the fact that even though it looked wonderful it was not within the limits of the law. Mr. Brandt stated it looks great and it should not have happened but their neighbor to the left has bushes covering their back yard and there is no one near them to really see this. Ms. Brandt apologized noting this is not what they intended to do as they actually wanted to be in compliance which is why they got the permit in the first place. She stated this would be a hardship for them to have to redo. Mr. Brandt showed photos of four other properties in their neighborhood that all look the same as what they now have and stated he doubts any of them had permits when they did it. Commissioner Stark what the contractor's reaction was when he was notified of the error. Mr. Brandt stated everything looks great but you did not get approved. He was not at all concerned. Ms. Brandt stated he did not really say much of anything to them about the problem. Commissioner Cohn asked the petitioners if they asked the contractor to repair the problem at his cost. Ms. Brandt stated the contractor stated it would be at their own cost. Mr. Brandt stated they had paid for the job up front and they did not realize they had not been approved. Commissioner Khan noted the driveway had already been done and this was just the brick work because the kids were driving over the grassy area and damaging the sprinkler system. Commissioner Khan noted that for this work they had applied for a permit. Mr. Brandt stated they had two permits. The first permit was for the driveway extension and also the sidewalk leading up to the front door redone as there were some loose bricks. This was approved without any problem. Then they had another inspector out to look at the rest of the driveway and the apron. Commissioner Khan stated when the inspector came out to make sure work was done according to the permit he found out the driveway part between the garage and the sidewalk is larger than what is permitted and also the part that is sidewalk in the street is larger than what is permitted. Mr. Brandt stated he thinks the problem is actually where the apron meets the sidewalk there is an additional 12 inches beyond where it should be. It related generally to the decorative ribbon that they put to balance out the driveway on either side. The contractor was only supposed to do a single layer and turned in such a way on its side. When the contractor came out he stated he did not think it would look right and so he then made the adjustment. Mr. Brandt stated he called them about replacing a few of the bricks where were not looking good but have received no return call from the contractor. Commissioner Weinstein asked how long the petitioners have lived in the Village Ms. Brandt stated 21 years. Commissioner Weinstein asked if there had been any other permits or issues in all that time. Ms. Brandt noted they have had other permits for an addition to their house and never had any complaints. Commissioner Weinstein asked how much it would cost to repair this job to get it into compliance. Mr. Brandt stated it is the labor that is so very expensive not the brick. Commissioner Matthews asked who the contractor was who is not responding to the petitioners' concerns. Mr. Brandt stated he did receive an email in which he said he would drop by when he is in the area to look at the few bricks in question. Commissioner Matthews noted it should really be the contractor's cost to correct the issue. Mr. Brandt stated the project did come out very nice and they are hoping the Village will grant the variance. The sprinkler system has been replaced and they would charge them to remove the system again and it would all be very costly. Trustee Stein noted the discussion has been about one foot but he sees it as one foot 10 inches at the street over 4 inches at the sidewalk on the apron side but 1 '/2 feet over at the house side. He asked Mr. Sheehan if he was involved at all in the permitting process. Mr. Sheehan stated he reviewed the permit application with Mr. Brandt. The original drawing for the permit application was similar to what ended up being built, and he was advised that apron was wider than the ordinance standard. Subsequently the drawing was modified to narrow the apron to the proper dimensions of 21 feet at the curb, 24 at both sides of the sidewalk. However, when the Village inspector checked the construction for the final inspection, he found that the driveway apron was built wider than the ordinance standard. Mr. Brandt confirmed that the drawing for the permit application was revised to comply with the ordinance standard for the apron width. Ms. Brandt stated they called the contractor back and stated they need to be in compliance. She further noted they have lived in the Village for 21 years and have had numerous permits without any problems in the past. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Smith closed the public hearing at 7:55 pm. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ERIC SMITH, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 08/21/2013 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION August 21, 2013 Brandt property, 508 Cameron Way -Variation of Development Ordinance concerning width of driveway apron in the public parkway Regulation of medical marijuana facilities -Workshop #1 Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 7:55 pm in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Smith Mr. Khan Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Mr. Weinstein Mr. Matthews Commissioners absent: Ms. Johnson Mr. Goldspiel Also present: Mr. Ken Brandt Ms. Marla Brandt Ms. Beverly Sussman, Village Trustee Mr. Andy Stein, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Jeff Stein, Village Attorney Mr. Brian Sheehan, Building & Zoning Commissioner Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Weinstein, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to approve the minutes of the public hearing minutes on Body Impact of August 7, 2013. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Khan, Stark and Matthews abstaining. Moved by Commissioner Weinstein, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 7, 2013. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Khan, Stark and Matthews abstaining. Commissioner Weinstein noted another set of public hearing minutes needed approval. Moved by Commissioner Weinstein, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to approve the public hearing minutes for Torah Academy of August 21, 2013. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Khan, Stark and Matthews abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Khan attended the Village Board meeting on August 19, 2013 and stated there was a referral to the Plan Commission for a proposed 41 lot single family development on Prairie Road north of Aptakisic Road. BRANDT PROPERTY, 508 CAMERON WAY - VARIATION OF DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE CONCERNING WIDTH OF DRIVEWAY APRON IN THE PUBLIC PARKWAY Moved by Commissioner Weinstein, seconded by Commissioner Stark to recommend approval to the Board of the petition for variation of Section 16.50.080.A.2.b of the Village Development ordinance concerning the width of a driveway apron in the public parkway for the property at 508 Cameron Way. Commissioner Khan noted this is a difficult case as the construction of the apron beyond the ordinance standard was not the fault of the petitioners. But he must weigh between the ordinance on the books and the fact that similar issues in the past have occurred where he has voted to maintain the ordinance standard, and therefore he will be voting against this petition. Commissioner Cohn commented that he expressed his distaste on previous occasions for these "after the fact" variation issues concerning driveway aprons. He wishes there was a better way to resolve these non-compliance issues than having the Plan Commission conduct hearings. It would be better for staff to handle these issues at some level. Nevertheless, after weighing and balancing all the issues here, he leans in favor of the petitioners. It's a very unfortunate situation involving issues with the contractor. He noted that no one in the neighborhood is being hurt by granting the variation to allow the apron to remain as constructed, and he will be voting in favor of the petitioners. Commissioner Matthews said he has concerns similar to Commissioner Khan concerning compliance with the ordinance standard. This is not a problem created by the petitioners but the contractor. But it is still the responsibility of the petitioners to conform to the ordinance. He asked how much time the petitioners would have to fix the situation. Mr. Sheehan stated there is no specific time period, but they are given ample time to conform. Commissioner Matthews stated he would like to see some consistency with people who come before the Board with these kinds of issues. Commissioner Weinstein stated he generally agrees with Commissioner Cohn and will be siding with the petitioners. He stated for him it comes down to the fact that they came in asking for permits so they could do things the right way and how the situation was caused is not the important thing. There are a number of people who could have easily come in and gotten a permit and been in compliance and then have the bricklayer come back a few days later to widen the driveway and the Village knows nothing about it. When a petitioner comes and presents a compelling case it just makes sense to grant a variance. Commissioner Cohn noted in answer to Commissioner Matthew's desire for consistency that there have been two other such cases, both with compelling cases, and in both cases the Commission recommended that the variances be granted. Chairman Smith stated he totally agrees with Commissioners Cohn and Weinstein but he would like to see if there is some kind of red flag that can be put on this contractor to avoid issues with other properties in the future. Mr. Sheehan stated all contractors are registered with the Village and he can get in touch with the contractor and discuss what happened. Chairman Smith stated he would like that. Commissioner Matthews suggested delaying this matter until Mr. Sheehan has made contact with the contractor. Chairman Smith stated a motion would be necessary to delay action by the Commission. Moved by Commissioner Matthews to delay this matter until staff has reviewed the situation with the contractor. There was no second and the motion failed. Mr. Raysa noted that the Plan Commission's role is to make a recommendation to the Village Board. So if it is a negative recommendation and the petitioner wants to appeal the negative recommendation it would go to the Village Board. Mr. Pfeil noted that normally an ordinance approving this type of Development Ordinance variation would be prepared for consideration by the Village Board, even if the Plan Commission recommendation is to deny the variation. The Zoning Board of Appeals has an appeal process set forth in the Zoning Ordinance to address situations where the recommendation is to deny a variation. Chairman Smith noted that the motion to be voted on is a recommendation to approve the variation of the Development Ordinance. AYES: Stark, Cohn, Weinstein, Smith NAYS: Khan, Matthews ABSENT: Johnson, Goldspiel ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 4 to 2. REGULATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES -WORKSHOP #1 Mr. Jeff Stein of Tressler, who works as an attorney for the Village with William Raysa, reviewed the issue of medical cannabis and how it relates to zoning as well as possible locations within the Village. Specifically, there are three departments in the State that have regulatory control over both types of facilities: dispensing facilities and cultivating facilities. The departments of health, agriculture and financial and professional regulation each have separate controls and a little crossover as far as the statute is concerned. Those departments will create their own administrative rules. The Illinois police will also have a major role in the enforcement and security of the buildings and how the product is transferred and managed. Mr. Stein stated the State has authorized 22 medical cannabis cultivation centers and that is one per Illinois State Police district. In Buffalo Grove is within two State Police districts; one in Cook County district and in the DuPage/Lake district. So there is a potential for two dispensaries in the Village. Mr. Stein stated the second aspect is there will be 60 dispensing organizations and the statute notes they must be geographically dispersed throughout the State. But the specific parameters of where and how that will be decided is not known yet. The departments are charged with determining where those licenses will be allowed. The Department of Agriculture will determine the locations where the cultivation centers will be allowed. The Department of Professional and Financial Regulation will determine where the dispensaries are located. They will also determine the health regulation and taxing aspects. Mr. Stein noted that even though Buffalo Grove is a home rule community, the Village must still abide by not only the statute but the administrative rules that are created. The rules have not been developed, but the statute will take effect on January 1, 2014. Mr. Stein has discussed zoning issues with Mr. Pfeil and Mr. Raysa to provide guidance for the Plan Commission. State law requires that municipalities allow them somewhere within their boundaries, and zoning regulations have to be "reasonable." The limitations on locations set forth in the law, require dispensaries to be separated by 1,000 feet from the property line of parks, schools, daycare centers, day care homes, group day care homes, any type of child care facility and residentially zoned areas. Dispensaries have a separation requirement of 2,500 feet from these types of uses. In assessing the distance parameters for Buffalo Grove, the permissible areas will be confined to some business and industrial areas. Mr. Stein suggested that one approach for the Village's zoning regulations would be allowing medical marijuana facilities as special uses in the Industrial District. Commissioner Stark asked if it is possible to have both a cultivating and dispensing center in the Village. Mr. Stein stated that is correct. Commissioner Stark asked if a center is located within the yellow area outlined in Mr. Pfeil's memo and someone wants to open a day care center 500 feet from it after the fact, what is the rule. Mr. Stein stated the statute states "those that are in existence" at this time. If there is an existing daycare, a medical marijuana facility would not be allowed if it could not meet separation requirement. If a daycare center comes in after a medical marijuana facility is built, the facility could remain in operation. Commissioner Stark noted that on the maps handed out by Mr. Pfeil there have been several special uses given within this district for recreational facilities. Mr. Pfeil noted that the most recent approval was at 1624 Barclay, but it is not child-oriented. He commented that Xtreme Trampoline is closer to the area where facilities may be allowed, but it is not a school or daycare center. Commissioner Matthews asked if the growing facilities will be totally enclosed or open. Mr. Stein responded it will depend on what the Department of Agriculture decides. What is addressed by the statute is that it has to be a completely secured area. So if there is an open field area there will clearly be some kind of fencing and guards. Commissioner Matthews asked why if this is considered medical it is not distributed by something like a CVS. Mr. Stein stated he cannot answer that. The medical aspect of this is clearly defined by the statute and they are allowing special licensing. Commissioner Cohn noted the Village has had a proliferation of children's facilities in the Industrial District. He stated that according to the Illinois statute itself it appears to him we could be distributing medical marijuana in proximity to those facilities and it would be legal. Mr. Stein stated that sounds right although Xtreme Trampoline would not qualify as one of the restricted areas. There is a very lengthy list of restricted areas but they are more towards day care facilities, schools and parks but not necessarily recreational uses. Commissioner Cohn asked if we can go beyond what State law says and add a certain class of facilities that are similar to the type the State did for the Village of Buffalo Grove. Mr. Stein stated the only thing we are allowed to do is reasonable zoning restrictions. Commissioner Cohn said that because we have allowed child friendly recreational uses in the industrial district we have to allow marijuana distribution in proximity to those kinds of facilities. Mr. Stein stated we have been given a pass by the statute to say that you can have reasonable zoning restrictions and the way we have interpreted that is by zoning district and making it essentially a special use. The language in the statute is very broad. Commissioner Cohn stated that maybe it is time to interpret the language the way we want to interpret it and make some new case law if that is what is needed. His recommendation would be that we should have a record of how we interpret reasonable zoning districts, explain how we came up with that analysis, put something in our own ordinance about these recreational uses that don't quite fit into the statute and be somewhat aggressive. Mr. Stein stated that is one way to go if the Commission decides to do that. However, he noted he believes it is challengeable. Commissioner Cohn stated he feels that if someone wants to sue the Village for doing that and we lose, the State will have to look back and wonder if that is really what they wanted and perhaps fix the statute. Mr. Stein stated that was a very fair assessment. Commissioner Weinstein stated he generally agrees with what Commissioner Cohn was suggesting but we might have to wait until the regulations are promulgated. They may expand on some of their regulations. But we can at least consider putting in something that expands the definition to buffer for recreation facilities. He noted that the terminology in the proposed ordinance should be carefully drafted concerning the use of"registered" and "medical cannabis." Mr. Stein noted that these terms are used throughout the statute. Commissioner Matthews asked if there are any other restrictions on what can be sold by the dispensing facilities. Mr. Stein stated no, that is solely for cannabis and there will not be any other prescription drugs there, or anything else. Chairman Smith asked if the dispensing facilities would be considered retail. Mr. Stein stated it does touch other taxes. Chairman Smith noted we do not allow retail in the Industrial District. Mr. Stein noted it could be approved as a special use. Commissioner Stark asked who would come after us if we did approve an unreasonable zoning area. Mr. Stein stated it could be the State. But someone who wants a spot and it is no more than 500 feet away from something like Xtreme Trampoline, Buffalo Grove does not have the authority to do that and they would sue for an injunction. Commissioner Stark asked if it is perhaps more sensible to wait until the entire statute recommendations are out instead of doing anything by January 1=`when the statute begins. Mr. Stein stated he and Mr. Pfeil agree that it does make sense to have areas ready now because without making this a special use in a specific zoning district it opens up the entire map that Mr. Pfeil passed out which includes the B-4 and B-3 Districts. If we don't want to allow B-4 or B-3 we would have to restrict it now with the potential of also coming back making other changes if the Department of Agriculture requires it. Commissioner Weinstein noted there are 22 cultivation centers authorized so it is entirely possible that no one will apply here. Mr. Stein noted there are 82 possible locations throughout the entire state of Illinois and essentially one location in this entire area, so it may not be likely that a facility will be in the Village, but we must prepare for the possibility. Commissioner Cohn stated we are already making a reasonable zoning restriction as to containing it to the Industrial District. The next leap potentially is further limiting it to certain places within the Industrial District by virtue of certain non-industrial uses that are already there. He said this is moving down the path of creating further restrictions that may be judged as being reasonable zoning regulations, and presents the possibility of a lawsuit from someone who says they were not allowed in. He suggested an approach that allows an opportunity for the facilities, but keep it as narrow as can be justified. Mr. Stein noted it is somewhat similar to adult uses, which are allowed in a specific portion of the Industrial District. He said the adult uses are more clear cut, since the First Amendment and Supreme Court case law have shaped how local governments can regulate this use. You have to allow it somewhere within the municipality. Commissioner Cohn noted that a medical marijuana facility will be coming to the Plan Commission as a special use petition. One of the criteria of the special use is whether it is in conformance with surrounding uses and the safety and welfare of the community. Therefore it seems that on a case specific special zoning use we can reject one of these because of the existence of other uses. That would be a much safer argument going to a court saying we have gone through an entire process and these are reasons specifically why we do not feel it would work. Mr. Pfeil asked if it is the consensus that on balance it may be better to proceed with a zoning text amendment sooner rather than later, knowing that we might have to modify it if state agencies develop rules that conflict with the zoning regulations. Consensus was to move forward in the next 2 to 3 months with review of a zoning text amendment for public consideration. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT- None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil said the next regular meeting is scheduled for September 4`h but it is Rosh Hashanah, so the meeting will be canceled. The next meeting date is September 18, 2013. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS - None STAFF REPORT- None NEW BUSINESS - None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Weinstein, seconded by Commissioner Stark and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:40 pm. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ERIC SMITH , Chair