Loading...
1970-10-21 - Plan Commission - Minutes r � VILLAGE OF CGROV'IC f1, RA74� d. R #do wwme, 9Z. 60090 BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION AGENDA - OCTOBER 21, 1970 8 P.M. OPEN MEETING ****** ROLL CALL • Approval of Minutes of Public Hearing October 7, 1970 Approval of Minutes of Meeting October 7, 1970 Communications Report of Officers & Committees • OLD BUSINESS '' BUffalo U tit ity,Company:-Xezonngquest Recommendations,RRRtl- .'Sg 2 41411. NEW BUSINESS ` TA, Sat • QUESTIONS DISCUSSION__FROM_ AUDILNCE r 4g 00- 'ram ADJOURNMENT 4 VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES OCT. 21, 1970 The meeting was called to order at 8 :00 P.M. on October 21, 1970. I ROLL CALL Present - J. Guidotti, W. Berth, C. Genrich, M. Hoyt, H. Mendenhall, L. Gamm, R. Heinrich, B. Spence, E. Fader, J. Yost, Mike Stearn (Hattis Engineers) Absent - S . Haarr II PAST MINUTES M. Hoyt moved that the minutes of the Public Hearing of October 7, 1970 be approved with a correction in the wording of paragraph 4 on page 3 noted on the face of the minutes. After seconded by J. Guidotti, the motion carried unanimously. On motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of October 7, 1970 were approved as written. III COMMUNICATIONS 1. Two communications from the Park District were received, read into the record and attached to the minutes . 2. It was announced that the Zoning Board of Appeals will meet October 31, 1970. IV REPORTS OF OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES 1. Village Board Report (a) The Sign Ordinance was amended. (b) The Plan Commission has been requested to examine an updating of the Building Code. A subcommittee of L. Gamm, J. Yost, E. Fader and J. Guidotti was appointed to perform the task. 2. The chairman announced that petitions for the Spring elections will be received by the Village Clerk from January 11, 1971 to February 15, 1971. V OLD BUSINESS 1. Rezoning of Sewage Treatment Plant land. On motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried, the rezoning re- quest was removed from table. H. Mendenhall then submitted his subcommittee report which was read into the record and is attached to these minutes . R. Heinrich moved that the Plan -2- Commission recommend that the Village Board not grant the petitioner 's request for the reason that such rezoning is not in the public interest. The motion was seconded and dis- cussion followed. The following reasons for turning down the rezoning request were advanced by the members of the Plan Commission. (a) The Park District indicated that it de- sired to study the possibility of acquiring the land for use as a Park site. (b) There was no competent evidence presented indicating that the existing single family residence zoning was inappropriate. (c) There was no competent evidence presented indicating that single family residences could not be built on the land. (d) There was not sufficient evidence presented to show that the character of the contiguous land had changed so greatly that a rezoning was required. (e) The petitioner himself presented no plans as to what he intended to build. (f) The petitioner introduced no competent evidence as to the impact of his rezoning request on the value of the surrounding land. (g) The petitioner introduced no evidence as to the impact of the rezoning on tax revenues and municipal services required. (h) The petitioner introduced no competent evidence as to how the construction of multi family dwellings would effect drainage and/or flooding in the area, even though the tract of land involved borders on Buffalo Creek. (i) Evidence introduced indicated that the best use for the land could be for parks as easily as for multi family use . (j ) There is already a great deal of land zoned \../ for apartment use in the village and still undeveloped. (k) Traditional planning principals call for multi family zoning in areas adjacent to commercial shopping and mass transportation facilities, and not adjacent to single family structures existing prior to the rezoning request. -3- (1) The petitioner indicated that after rezoning to R-9 is granted, he would probably sell the land or develop a plan and request planned unit special use development. How- ever, our current Special Use Planned Development Zoning District, by its own words, is inapplicable since it cannot be used to create more restrictive conditions than already exist in the zoning district to which it is to be applied. (m) Our current R-9 zoning district ordinance is basically unrestricted as to apartment height and density. There is a question existing as to the validity of imposing restrictions by covenants . The better approach would be to grant R-8 zoning which is approp- riately restricted and to which a special use planned development zoning could be validly attached if it were decided that multi family zoning was appropriate for the parcel of land involved. (n) For all of the foregoing reasons, the Plan Commission believes that the granting of the requested zoning change in its current form would not be in the best interests of the citizens of the Village. There followed a roll call vote. W. Berth abstained. All nine of the remaining commissioners voted in favor of recommend- ing disapproval of the requested zoning change. M. Hoyt then made the following statement. There has been much said about relying upon the good faith of developers who appear before the Plan Commission. It is my belief that the function of the Plan Commission does not include relying upon the good faith of any petitioners . Rather, the Plan Commission should be capable of making land use decisions in such a manner that the good faith of the petitioner is irrelevant with respect to how the land may be utilized now and in the future. If, in fact, good faith is demonstrated by the petitioner, than that is a welcome addition to the relationships between human beings, but again, it is not to be relied upon. Next on the agenda was the Plan Commission report relating to a resolution of the Metropolitan Sanitary District concerning regulation and control of storm drainage . The subcommittee of J. Guidotti and J. Yost submitted its report which is -4- attached hereto. Mr. Al Frank was then permitted to discuss the M.S .D. Resolution after which the commissioners discussed the issues presented. As a result of some of Mr. Frank ' s comments, some changes were made in the subcommittee ' s rec- ommendation and in its revised form, the Plan Commission �..i voted unanimously to submit the subcommittee report to the Village Board as the recommendation of the Plan Commission. The revised report is also hereby attached to the minutes . It was announced that a Public Hearing concerning a rezoning request for land adjoining the Ranch Mart would take place on November 18, 1970. It was also announced that the Plan Commission would meet in work shop session open to the public on November 11, 1970 to examine portions of the proposal and to familiarize itself with background material. There being no further business to come before the commission, the meeting adjourned at 10 :25 P.M. on motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried. Respectfully submitted, Merrill C. Hoyt, Secretary Appro ed: W. erth (Chairman)