Loading...
2003-03-19 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 03/19/2003 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION March 19, 2003 Groundwork, Ltd., - Proposed office building on Lot 3 (part) of Covington Office Plaza, amendment of a Planned Development In the B-3 District, Dundee Road/Golfview Terrace Chairman Ottenheimer called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Chairman Ottenheimer 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. Commissioner present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. Lawrence Freedman, Ash, Anos, Freedman& Logan Mr. David Wytmar, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. John Green, Groundwork Planners Mr. Richard Vane, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit A: Lot 3 Overall Site Plan dated March 10, 2003 Exhibit B: Landscape Plan dated February 26, 2003 Exhibit C: Building Plan and Elevations dated March 10, 2003 Exhibit D: Site Zoning Information Sheet dated March 10, 2003 Exhibit E: Preliminary Site Plan dated March 10, 2003 Exhibit F: Building Material List dated February 26, 2003 Exhibit G: Preliminary Engineering Plan with Site Lighting dated March 10, 2003 Mr. Freedman stated Groundwork, Ltd. is the contract purchaser of the proposed future lot that was included in the recent approval and re-subdivision of the Fifth Third Bank site at the corner of Dundee and Golfview Terrace. It is proposed to develop this site with an office building and they are requesting two variations occasioned by the proximity of adjacent land zoned residential. These are technical variations, inasmuch as the residential property in question is not developed with residences, but is in fact developed with a church. Mr. David Wytmar stated the site is the last piece of the modified plan approved last year with the Fifth Third Bank directly to the east. The Covington Office Center immediately to the south and townhomes at the southern end of the overall lot. The landscape plan illustrates the requested variations. The first is to allow the building setback of 35 feet instead of 50 feet along the west property line, which is adjoining the church. The second is to waive the requirement for a 6-foot high fence along that same property line. The neighbor to the west, Kingwood United Methodist Church, has indicated they would prefer no fence as it would be the only fence along that entire property line. He noted they would rather spend the money on additional landscaping which everyone could enjoy. He further noted the landscaping they have provided is consistent with the landscaping that was provided for the Fifth Third Bank directly adjacent to them and will allow for some consistency. The materials used on the proposed building are also compatible with the other buildings on the site so that the entire site could be unified. Mr. Wytmar stated they have varied the roof lines, pulled in the walls at various points, provided clear massing at the entry and they have incorporated simple and effective elements such as clear story windows and architectural banding, all to remove the sense of boxiness from the project. Additionally, they have incorporated the refuse into the design and it is within the roof of the building, while still outside. Mr. Wytmar presented samples of the proposed brick and stone to be used. Commissioner Teplinsky noted there has been a great deal of discussion in the past involving the homeowner's concerns about drainage and water issues to the south. He asked for some brief discussion about the impact of the project on those issues. Mr. Freedman stated that at the time the bank and the townhomes to the south were approved, they designed a detention facility to accommodate not only that development and the existing office building, but also to accommodate the future development of this pad. He noted they did so by providing greater detention than previously existed. In fact, he noted they corrected a situation that had existed for a number of years. This project will absolutely not have any negative impact on the property to the south from the standpoint of drainage. Commissioner Bocek asked for a clarification in Mr. Pfeil's memo regarding the building commissioner's comments on the exterior wall openings on the north side. She asked if petitioner is planning on revising the north elevation further. Mr. Wytmar stated he has spoken to the building commissioner early and he was working off of the conceptual elevations. He noted he provided the commissioner with more detailed information and the commissioner then indicated that everything was fine. Mr. Pfeil stated that is correct and noted the building commissioner is now satisfied that based on the calculations provided by Mr. Wytmar the elevation is feasible as proposed. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the petitioner has provided comprehensive renderings and documentation in the packet of materials reviewed by the Plan Commission. He asked that these be entered into the record as exhibits. Mr. Pfeil asked the petitioner to identify the size of the actual brick to be used. Mr. Wytmar stated the brick will be modular and approximately 2 1/4" x 3" x 8". He further noted they would have accent pieces as well. Mr. Raysa asked to hear more testimony regarding the variations and the authority and standards for it. Mr. Freedman stated the nature of the variation is such that it would be a hardship to impose a requirement that is there to protect residential property when the residential property in this case is not developed with any residences, but it developed with a long term institutional use. Furthermore, there will be no negative impact on either the property values to the surrounding property or the community as a whole or health, public safety or welfare inasmuch there will be no impact in granting the suggested variation because there is no housing and particularly in this case as to one of the variations, it has been suggested by the one property owner of the residential property that it would, in fact, be aesthetically more pleasing to have the landscaping in lieu of having the fence. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 03/19/2003 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION March 19, 2003 Consideration of amendment to Chapter 2.22—Village Appearance Plan of the Buffalo Grove Municipal Code Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 8:04 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Chairman Ottenheimer 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 Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Commissioners absent: None Also present: Ms. Ghida Neukirk, Assistant Village Manager Ms. Laurie Marston, Laurie Marston Associates Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner Ms. Neukirk stated they first presented the comprehensive revisions to the appearance plan on February 19, 2003 and since that time they had sent the draft plan to 10 various professionals; property managers and owners, architects, developers and several other professionals. They received a very good response to the plan. Two conversations were held regarding the plan. All information was given to Laurie Marston who provided a summary of the general items of discussion. Ms. Marston stated the most important point is the issue of whether the plan is objective or restrictive. The plan is objective and should be. The fact that there are objective standards does not make it restrictive. How the plan is implemented is probably more important than the words on paper. Ms. Marston stated the issue of what the function of the appearance review team is, is very clear in the plan. Their role is to review not redo. They are responding to the drawings and other information by the architects and design professionals and applying the standards of the plan as opposed to putting themselves in a position of serving as the architects and design professionals. If they overstep that role there is an appeal process to the Village Manager or through the Plan Commission and ultimately to the Village Board. Ms. Marston stated there were a number of comments made in a couple of letters about potentially burdening the smaller projects such as a small business owner or a homeowner for projects that are not that involved. The plan makes a good distinction between the major and minor reviews. There are actually three different levels. The first level is the building commissioner's review and he may exempt or waive the process for truly routine projects and after that it goes to the next level which most project will probably fall into. The only time it goes to the higher, more involved and complex level is if the particular project requires a PUD, an amendment or a variation that by nature will require a review and a public hearing process. However, the plan as written will not cause the problems as expressed by the letters received. Ms. Marston stated the idea of having additional staff sit on the appearance review team has been addressed in the plan. There is general language in the plan that doesn't necessarily call out the other staff that might be involved. Ms. Marston stated one of the letter writers asked about meeting with the appearance review team and that is probably not necessary if their drawings are clear and communicate what their intent is. If staff denies that particular project, there is either the appeal to the Village Manager's office or it still is reviewed by the Plan Commission or the Zoning Board as the case may be. So having the staff meet with every applicant would actually slow down the process and would make it more expensive, particularly for smaller petitioners to go through. Ms. Marston noted one of the architects made a very good point about the section calling for architectural detailing. The plan encourages architectural detailing and there are certainly those big boring boxes with no architectural detailing that developers propose simply to save money or expedite the construction process versus the examples in the letter which were examples of simple designs that had a high quality to them and were simple and elegant designs that stood the test of time. The appearance review team will be able to distinguish between the big boxes that lack detail for money reasons versus those plans that come in with little architectural detailing because it is a part of the overall concept. Ms. Marston stated the issue of color was raised. Color is often is a contentious matter and an appearance review process. The staff has to exercise some discretion when they are faced with that. There are a variety of things that will impact whether the use of those bright colors is negative for the particular development or whether it has been treated well. It is something that must be handled with care because color is often an integral part of a corporation's identity. Ms. Marston noted screening of mechanical equipment was raised. You want to be sure rooftop mechanical equipment is screened so that it cannot be seen on adjacent streets, alleys, and sidewalks. However, there may be an occasion where there is a bridge overpass or something like that where you are looking down from a distance on the mechanical equipment and it may be seen in that particular circumstance. Therefore the change in language from all public ways to adjacent public ways may be something that could be considered. Ms. Marston stated the issue of materials is always one that people are concerned about. The language as written is very good as it lists a variety of materials that are encouraged. The only prohibition on material is using over 25% of EIFS, which is a very reasonable standard. Ms. Marston noted one of the writers addressed the maintenance of landscaping which is a very important point and is addressed elsewhere in the Municipal Code. The same letter writer also talked about the preservation of trees, which is also an important point, that is addressed in the Municipal Code. Another letter writer was concerned about signs and trees blocking signs. The appearance plan does allow the use of shrubs as well as trees. If the landscape plan is done correctly, the location of the trees should not block the signs on the buildings. In addition there are regulations in the sign ordinance that are not repeated here in the appearance plan. Obviously staff will be taking those requirements into consideration as they review the signage elements of each proposal. Ms. Marston stated the last item was about illumination, which is regulated under the zoning ordinance, and it does not have to be repeated in the plan. Commissioner Stark asked what EIFS is. Ms. Marston stated it is synthetic stucco. Commissioner Samuels stated there is some concern about the listing of materials, which was to be encouraged. There is some concern that the issue of whether a material was appropriate or not would get too narrowly interpreted by future iterations of the art or staff who did not go into the depth of analysis that the appearance sub-committee did at arriving at the listing of materials and thereby used as more of an exclusionary mechanism or to not accommodate newer materials for evolving technologies and materials as they come along. Ms. Marston stated his point about future staff and using the language restrictively rather than the way it is originally intended may or may not happen. Hopefully the institutional memory is passed on. Staff should allow the point about either a current material or a future material that is developed and is appropriate. The first section under building materials talks about durable quality and conducive to regular maintenance and upkeep. This is a very objective standard that the staff would have to consider. If the commission is concerned about that point you could simply add another sentence that says very clearly, "the following list (10-15 materials) is encouraged, however, there are other materials that may be appropriate in certain circumstances on certain buildings on certain sites." That is up to the commission to decide if they need to clarify that statement further. Commissioner Samuels stated the drafting sub-committee went over this point numerous times. He stated he thought it was helpful as a potential developer to have guidelines. But, he does understand that over time things can change. Mr. Raysa stated that he would go back to the minutes and his notes of the meetings at the appearance sub-committee, which is a record of a legislative history. So if there were an issue as far as interpretation of a specific section of the appearance plan he would go back to those minutes and notes. Commissioner Bocek stated it was not the intention of the appearance sub-committee to have an all-inclusive list of materials. The list created was to cover a broad range. At some point in the future the whole appearance plan will need updating anyway. She stated she has no issue with putting in a sentence that says this list is not intended to be all-inclusive. Mr. Pfeil stated the plan still has performance and goal oriented language about encouraging good design in the community. In that context there has to be some faith that future staff and future commissions will always be striving for the betterment of the community instead of excluding or prohibiting certain things. Also, the ART is not just staff. It does have representation from the commission and ZBA as appropriate. There would also be other involvement by the Village trustees. It is an inclusive process and he feels it will be a flexible and reasonable process. Mr. Raysa noted his agreement with Mr. Pfeil. He noted that specifically in Article 1D it says, "nothing contained in this plan shall be interpreted to constitute an endorsement or prohibition of any particular building material, construction method or product". There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 03/19/2003 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION March 19, 2003 Groundwork, Ltd., - Proposed office building on Lot 3 (part) of Covington Office Plaza, amendment of a Planned Development In the B-3 District, Dundee Road/Golfview Terrace Village Appearance Plan— Consideration of comprehensive Revision to Chapter 2.22 of the Municipal Code Village zoning procedures concerning public hearings and Findings of fact—Discussion with Village Attorney Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 7:55 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. Lawrence Freedman, Ash, Anos, Freedman& Logan Mr. David Wytmar, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. John Green, Groundwork Planners Mr. Richard Vane, Groundwork, Ltd. Ms. Ghida Neukirk, Assistant Village Manager Ms. Laurie Marston, Laurie Marston Associates Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Khan, seconded by Commissioner Teplinsky to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 5, 2003 for the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago. Commissioner Samuels noted a grammatical error on page 5, paragraph 6. All Commissioners were in favor of the amended motion and the motion passed unanimously. Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Bocek to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 5, 2003 for the Chicago Indoor Racing project. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS—None GROUNDWORK, LTD., PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING ON LOT 3 (PART) OF COVINGTON OFFICE PLAZA, AMENDMENT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE B-3 DISTRICT, DUNDEE ROAD/GOLFVIEW TERRACE Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval to the Village Board of the petition for an amendment of a Planned Unit Development in the B-3 District and approval of a Preliminary Plan with the following variations: ZONING ORDINANCE — 17.44.040.D.3. (to allow a building setback of 35 feet instead of 50 feet adjoining the residential property line to the west); Section 17.44.040.D.5.a. (to waive the requirement for construction of a screen six feet in height adjacent to a lot line in a residential district, pursuant to the documents admitted into evidence and the testimony supporting thereof produced at the public hearing. Commissioner Samuels stated the building is very nice and will be a welcome addition to the Dundee Road corridor. There are very minimal impacts on the site and he believes this project should go forward quickly. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Samuels, Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Ottenheimer NAPES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 8 to 0 Chairman Ottenheimer suspended the regular meeting at 8:03 p.m. Chairman Ottenheimer reconvened the regular meeting at 8:30 p.m. VILLAGE APPEARANCE PLAN — CONSIDERATION OF COMPREHENSIVE REVISION TO CHAPTER 2.22 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval to the Village Board with regard to consideration of amendment to Chapter 2.22 of the Village Appearance Plan of the Buffalo Grove Municipal Code, pursuant to the ordinance observed previously and introduced at the public hearing and the testimony in support thereof. Commissioner Smith stated he would like to thank all for the hours and hard work they put in on a very thorough job. He specifically wanted to thank the staff for involving the community in this process by sending out the information to the developers and other interested parties. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Samuels, Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Ottenheimer NAPES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 8 to 0. VILLAGE ZONING PROCEDURES CONCERNING PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FINDINGS OF ACT—DISCUSSION WITH VILLAGE ATTORNEY Mr. Raysa stated that because of the Klaeren and Gallik cases, the Village has set up an Integrated Management Team that includes staff members and himself who have been working on zoning procedures and fees and responses to the Illinois Supreme court case in Klaeren. That committee has finalized its work and a recommendation will be made to the Village Manager and to the Village Board. Mr. Raysa this was brought about by the Illinois Supreme Court in the Klaeren case and by the Illinois Appellate Court case in the Gallik case. Mr. Raysa reviewed the history of administrative hearings or matters and legislative matters. Administrative matters are sometimes called quasi-judicial. In the past most zoning decisions were called legislative decisions as opposed to administrative decisions or hearings. Those types of legislative decisions that were covered in regards to zoning covered special uses, rezoning, PUDs, text amendments, variations and planning of developments. This meant the elected officials of the municipality made those decisions. As a legislative decision the standards used by the corporate authorities were a little less precise than those used in some administrative hearings. They were the general concepts of public health and safety. Once that legislative decision was made at the elected officials level, if someone was did not like that decision, an appeal would be taken to the Circuit Court of Cook County and that appeal was known as de novo. De novo means that when the court heard that appeal, the court heard it new. The court then reviewed that decision by means of the LaSalle factors. What happened was that the developer and the Village and/or the objectors were able to bring in new testimony. That has changed now. When it was strictly a legislative decision in the old days, firstly you had the trial de novo; secondly the trial de novo was based on the eight part LaSalle factors. Then the decision of the legislative body was presumed to be valid. Therefore one of the first burdens the plaintiff had to overcome in the appeal to the Circuit Court was the presumption of validity that attached to the municipal denial of the ordinance. Mr. Raysa stated the administrative matter or decision, which is normally found at the Zoning Board of Appeals level. The distinction is the Zoning Board of Appeals in certain matters has the final decision authority. The ZBA in the Village of Buffalo Grove, in certain areas, such as signs and variations do have the final authority. In other cases the petitioner can go to the Village Board to appeal. But that final decision does not go to the court system de novo on an appeal. It goes as on the record. On the record means it is whatever was said at the public hearing. When that goes up for administrative review, that is the only thing that is introduced into evidence. Mr. Raysa stated the next step was the Klaeren case, which went all the way up to the Supreme Court, which said there was a denial of due process. The Klaeren case was a request for a special use and the Illinois Supreme Court said a special use effects an owner's property rights and the owner's interest in his property. Because it is a special use, it will become an administrative matter and therefore not legislative and therefore due process rights have to attach. This means any appeal is now on the record instead of de novo. The special use now will be on the record and is subject to administrative rights and the administration decision process. Mr. Raysa stated one of the issues once that decision was made brought in the right of cross-examination. Mr. Raysa stated Klaeren only talked about a special use, so what about all the other types of zoning or re-zoning? What about a text amendment or a map amendment or PUD? That question remains unanswered. He stated his suggestion to the Village is to allow the full due process rights to any zoning issue that you handle. Mr. Raysa noted one of the other issues the courts have not directed is what the scope of the review of the court is when it reviews the administrative decision. Is it the LaSalle factors? He noted it will probably be based upon administrative case law; are the findings of fact and the conclusions and recommendations of the Plan Commission supported by the evidence. What will happen is it will go back to the standards that are in the zoning ordinance. For example, there are six standards for a special use in the zoning ordinance. The Village must then ensure that those standards in the zoning ordinance are met. Commissioner Samuels asked what happens in a situation where the Village denies something when there is nobody objecting. He asked who will provide the evidence to the contrary that will enable the Village to deny a special use or any zoning change or hearing when there is nobody from the public making the case against the petitioner. Mr. Raysa stated when they are aware of something like that, municipal attorneys suggest to the Village that they hire the experts and the Village Attorney starts to put on Village expert witnesses to build the testimony for the Village to not recommend approval. Commissioner Samuels asked what happens when the Village is the petitioner and perhaps there is a political issue that divides the Village. Mr. Raysa stated the Village would have to make a calculated decision of what type of evidence to put on to make the record. Commissioner Samuels stated he has always felt that there is some conflict when the Village is the petitioner itself. Mr. Raysa stated he has always opinionated that the Village as a petitioner has the same duty as any developer. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that the Plan Commission has the same duty. When the Village is the petitioner, it may be somewhat awkward, but there is no true conflict. Mr. Raysa reviewed his letter of December 30, 2002 noting that one of the good things is that the statute of limitations is 35 days. If the Village denies something or grants something, an objector only has 35 days from the final decision to go to court under an administrative decision. If it was a legislative decision the statute of limitations can be anywhere from 2-10 years. The point though is that the administrative decision is solely on the record. In addition, the Plan Commission has to do findings of fact and conclusions within their recommendations. Chairman Ottenheimer stated it is important as Plan Commission members to give their opinions, but more specificity and particularity is necessary to be more of a finding and a conclusion. He asked if that is sufficient or if it will be necessary to have formal written findings and conclusions. Mr. Raysa stated it is his recommendation to do both. He stated you must do the written findings. After Klaeren it must be done that way for a special use and a variation. He noted he is recommending, notwithstanding Klaeren, it be done after a re-zoning. Chairman Ottenheimer asked how this would work logistically. Mr. Raysa stated both he and staff are recommending that the Plan Commission may be able to do this in two motions. The first motion would recommend approval or not of the project and the second motion would direct the Village staff to prepare, and the Plan Commission Chairman to execute findings of fact. Staff prepares the findings of fact and brings it to the Chairman and if acceptable they are signed and brought up to the Village Board. He stated they have not yet discussed what happens if the Plan Commission Chairman says they are unacceptable findings. Commissioner Samuels noted that it would be better to have the winning or losing side to prepare the findings and then the Plan Commission adopts them. That way there is no exposure. Mr. Raysa stated staff has discussed whether they will suggest to the petitioner to give us a draft of findings of fact and he has stated they will allow that. He stated they would accept petitioner's draft of findings of fact and put it in the Village's final findings of fact. This helps the Village timing wise. Developer's attorneys will get these findings of act out quickly. Mr. Raysa stated that Commissioner Samuels' thought that this is being turned into a courtroom. He stated that is not the case. As an administrative body you are not covered by the rules of evidence. The burden is now in regards to a public hearing is on the Plan Commission Chairman. Mr. Raysa stated the Chairman would not make a determination as to whether it is hearsay or not. The Chairman will be a determination as far as to whether it is relevant. The members of the Plan Commission will determine the credibility and the weight to give to the evidence. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if under Klaeren he now has the authority to stop someone and cut him off or does he have to let people go on forever. Mr. Raysa stated he does not have to let everyone go on at length. He noted that testimony is supposed to be relevant to the standards of the special use of the Village of Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance. They can be diplomatically cut off. He further suggested not putting time limits on testimony and just allowing a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Raysa noted that the special use factors would need to be spelled out in greater detail than many attorneys have been doing in the past. He further reviewed the format of the findings of fact. The first page will need to contain the standard information of names, addresses, legal descriptions and proposals. Then the next item will be the findings. All of this has been outlined in his letter of January 8, 2003. Mr. Raysa reviewed what a record is. The best means of providing an accurate public record is a court reporter. Also you can do a videotape or a bystander's report. A bystander's report is your best recollection of what happened. If the Village knows there will be a very contentious matter, he suggests getting a court reporter. Mr. Raysa noted the Village staff will be coming before the Village Board with zoning procedures, zoning rules, new zoning fees, recovery of costs of the Village Attorney and expert witnesses. There will also be new scripts and formats for the chairmen of the ZBA and the Plan Commission. Commissioner Samuels stated he was very troubled about continuances. He noted he is particularly troubled about a continuance to allow for hiring an attorney. Mr. Raysa noted that recently a continuance in another Village was denied due to the fact that the public hearing notice, given 15 days prior, specified that all exhibits are available at the Village Hall. Commissioner Samuels asked what circumstances might entitle a continuance. Mr. Raysa stated that would have to be handled on a case by case basis. Mr. Pfeil noted he was not sure they had resolved the sequence of the findings of fact as to whether it is something the Commission would have at the time of the hearing and then basically review when the hearing is concluded or if staff would prepare them and the Chairman would be asked to review and sign. Mr. Raysa stated his suggestion is that there be two motions. The first motion is either up or down and the second motion be to direct Village staff, Village attorney and Plan Commission Chairman to prepare findings of fact in compliance with the vote. Commissioner Samuels stated he strongly recommends that petitioners and objectors to prepare their own first and submit them with their facts. Mr. Raysa stated he has no problem with that. He stated he would state it that if the objector and/or the developer's attorney would like to submit findings of fact to the Village, we will truly appreciate it. Commissioner Samuels stated the petitioner should be doing it as part of their packet. Mr. Raysa stated his recommendation of findings of fact is to suggest draft findings of fact from both sides to be submitted to the Village and then do it through the two motions. Mr. Pfeil commented that this is an evolving process and modifications may be needed as the Village gains experience with the new procedures. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman Ottenheimer noted Mr. Ross Billiter has resigned his position on the Plan Commission. FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next regularly scheduled meeting is for April 2, 2003. However, that is spring break week and asked if that meeting should be cancelled. April 9, 2003 would be a special meeting and if needed, he would appreciate hearing whether there would be enough for a quorum. April 16, 2003 will probably need to be cancelled for a religious celebration. April 23, 2003 might need to be another special meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Bocek and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair