Loading...
1997-06-04 - Plan Commission - Minutes REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION June 4, 1997 Zoning Ordinance, proposed amendments to regulations concerning outdoor display and sale of merchandise, including propane, in Business Districts—Workshop#2 Zoning Ordinance,discussion of regulations concerning antennas and cellular towers—Workshop#1 Chairman Goldspiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard,Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Goldspiel Mr. Krug Ms. Howard Mr. Samuels Mr. Berman Mr. Trilling Mr. Ottenheimer Mr. Moons Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. William Reid, Village Trustee Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Krug, seconded by Commissioner Samuels to approve the minutes of the public hearing and regular meeting of May 7, 1997. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Moons abstaining. Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Krug to approve the minutes of the special meeting of April 23, 1997. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Moons abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Trilling attended the Village Board meeting on June 2, 1997 and he indicated Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 4, 1997-Page 1 nothing relevant to the Plan Commission was discussed. ZONING ORDINANCE, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS CONCERNING OUTDOOR DISPLAY AND SALE OF MERCHANDISE_INCLUDING PROPANE,IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS --WORKSHOP#2 Mr. Pfeil noted that Frank Hruby,the Director of Building and Zoning,has made recommendations as set forth in his memo dated May 13. 1997 that need to be reviewed by the Plan Commission. Mr. Hruby reiterates that outdoor sales or display of merchandise and materials is not permitted in the B-1 and B-2 Districts. The B-3 allows temporary and seasonal display of merchandise. Mr. Hruby's recommendation is to be make B-3 as restrictive as B-1 and B-2 with no outdoor sales and display. Businesses in the B-3 District would have to make a request to the Village Board for the right to display specific items outside of a building. Chairman Goldspiel asked what the difference is between Mr. Hruby's proposal and what exists now. Mr. Pfeil noted Mr. Hruby's proposal is more restrictive. The current B-3 regulations allow "temporary"outside display of merchandise for immediate sale. Trustee Reid stated the difference seems to be in the interpretation that was made by the Building and Zoning Department. Materials may be kept in an open area for immediate sale or temporary display. That was the basis on which they approved the storage of the propane tanks at Mark Drugs. The immediate sale or temporary display has been there for over a year. The intent originally was for sidewalk sales, special promotions and things of that sort instead of permanent sales. Commissioner Berman stated he sees no reason to go in the direction of Mr. Hruby's proposal. He noted the ordinance should be clarified to specify what is meant by seasonal and temporary or immediate sale. There is no reason to add another layer of red tape and bureaucracy to those commercial establishments in the B-3 District who are trying to compete and sell their products. There do not seem to be any problems or concerns with the outdoor displays other than the propane display. Commissioner Berman further noted he would like the ordinance to be more specific on the distinction between temporary and seasonal. Commissioner Samuels stated it may be the most reasonable approach to issue a permit which will have a start and stop date. He stated he is not in favor of allowing carte blanche outdoor display in the B-3 District. Commissioner Moons asked for examples of B-3 zoned areas. Mr. Pfeil noted several areas on the map that are in the B-3 District such as Woodland Commons, Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 4, 1997-Page 2 Sporlein, Strathmore, Plaza Verde, and Grove Point and various other areas. Commissioner Moons noted he would like to see some consistency in the B-2 and B-3 District without getting too intrusive and having to come to the Corporate Authorities every time you want to put something outside. Commissioner Samuels stated the intent behind the ordinance is to allow outdoor display on an occasional basis as opposed to a permanent. He noted that permanent outdoor displays seem to be used more regularly now by businesses. He noted there should be consistency throughout the districts except where totally prohibited. Commissioner Ottenheimer agreed that definitions need to be tightened up. He also noted concern with applications for a permit noting this puts the burden on the Corporate Authorities to look at each particular permit which will create problems unless permits are extremely specific. Commissioner Samuels agreed with Commissioner Ottenheimer and noted that by putting a simple time defining period on the permit, the product will not matter. Trustee Reid stated part of the problem in the current ordinance is the term"immediate sale." The intent of the ordinance was for a temporary display. The idea was to prevent shopping centers from becoming cluttered with permanent outdoor displays by restricting them to temporary displays. Commissioner Berman stated he sees no reasons for a permit. A tight ordinance that specifies specific periods of time and clarifies what temporary display means will be sufficient. A permitting process is not necessary to achieve the goals if the ordinance is drafted properly. Trustee Reid noted a compromise may be achieved by requiring a temporary display over and above three days to get a permit with a time certain. In this way a one or two day sidewalk sale would be unhindered and would not create a burden for the merchant. Chairman Goldspiel noted that there should be some language included that any kind of outdoor sale is not to obstruct pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Krug asked how existing businesses would be affected by any change in the ordinance. Chairman Goldspiel stated one of the objectives is to affect certain things that business are doing now. Commissioner Trilling noted he rarely sees abuses. He has not seen anything that is negative in aesthetics, and the display of merchandise is usually a convenience for customers. He noted the only instances where control might be necessary is something that relates to safety. He stated that Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 4, 1997-Page 3 clarifying the language to be more easily understood would be a good idea. He also would like to see consistency between the B-2 and B-3 Districts. Chairman Goldspiel enumerated the following items which need to be addressed: 1. Clarification of the ordinance, particularly terms such as"temporary"and"immediate" 2. Consistency between the B-2 and B-3 Districts 3. Inclusive language to prevent obstructions for pedestrians and vehicular traffic 4. 3-day non-permit requirement for outdoor sales or displays Commissioner Berman noted 3 days may be too short and suggested one week for non-permit requirement. He suggested language needs to be drafted for the length of time for the permit itself and the length of time between the expiration of one permit and the beginning of the next one. Commissioner Moons sees too much red tape involved with permits, particularly since you cannot dictate what is to be put outside and the amount of time between permits is a difficult question. Commissioner Berman noted it may be better to say permits shall not be issued covering more than X number of days in any given month and X number of days in any given year. That would force the vendor to choose his days. Chairman Goldspiel asked if there are any examples of ordinances from neighboring communities that deal with these issues. Mr. Pfeil stated he will check this out. Commissioner Berman noted there are not that many businesses in the Village and therefore it is relatively easy to be attuned to abusers. A restriction could be put in the ordinance stating you may not put out a temporary display for more than 7 days in a row and X number of days in a month or year. If the ordinance is then abused, there would be a stiff monetary fine from the Village. Commissioner Krug noted it may be worthwhile to look at this problem as a licensing issue rather than a zoning issue. Commissioner Samuels stated the difficulty is pining down specific language to deal with an unspecific situation. It is important to site by example in the ordinance so that there is a clear cut picture of what is expected. Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 4, 1997-Page 4 Trustee Reid stated the Board is looking for clarification, not regulation. The current language stating"...kept and displayed in an open area for immediate sale or temporary display"is the basis of the confusion which has resulted. The vagueness of this language has lead to an interpretation by the Building and Zoning staff that propane storage is a seasonal display. Once the seasonal display language was applied to the propane tanks the issue became clouded. The Board is looking for a clarification that would prevent this from occurring in the future. Underlying everything is the desire to keep the shopping centers uncluttered. `./ Chairman Goldspiel noted that it seems the Plan Commission has now done what has been requested by the Board through the discussion of temporary and occasional and the two tiered time period. He noted that the Commission is perhaps far enough along to ask that a draft of an ordinance amendment be prepared that would meet the criteria. Commissioner Samuels stated if this is the case, he will withdraw his suggestion to operate on a permit system. Mr. Pfeil asked if there is any concern about hazardous material and should it perhaps be limited to certain types of businesses or locations, or is meeting the time requirements and safety provisions adequate to preclude any type of product sold. Trustee Reid stated he has confidence in the Fire Department making sure that any hazardous materials are adequately provided for. ZONING ORDINANCE, DISCUSSION OF REGULATIONS CONCERNING ANTENNAS AND CELLULAR TOWERS --WORKSHOP #1 Chairman Goldspiel noted there has been previous discussion on this matter in the context of a particular application. He noted there is an example in the Wilmette ordinance and there is some material suggesting setbacks equal to antenna height is the way to go. Commissioner Samuels asked if there is any existing ordinance. Chairman Goldspiel stated there is currently a Special Use permitting process. Commissioner Samuels noted it is easy to differentiate between the Residential Estate District and other Residential Districts. Mr. Pfeil noted it is a use that can be approved roved as a Special Use in all of the zoningdistricts under P the current Zoning Ordinance. One of the issues involved is to determine whether or not there should be some districts where towers are not permitted. Chairman Goldspiel noted one of the suggestions in the materials was that towers can be a permitted use in some districts while in other districts a special use process is required. He pointed Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 4, 1997-Page 5 out that it is necessary to focus in on what restrictions to place on what types of antennas. Commissioner Samuels noted it is also important to focus in on the nature of the facility. There may also be legitimate issues concerning public health and safety. Chairman Goldspiel noted the federal statute precludes local governments from regulating towers in terms of health and safety issues. Commissioner Berman noted the easiest way to deal with any public objections concerning health and safety issues is to note that federal law does not allow communities to regulate health and safety aspects of towers. If an expert states it meets federal requirements, a local government could not deny an application based on health and safety reasons. Commissioner Samuels noted the only real issues to be dealt with are the safety of the tower structure itself in relation to adjacent properties and the aesthetics. Commissioner Moons noted the best procedures is to keep what currently exists. That procedure is to go through a Special Use process which gives the Village better control. Chairman Goldspiel asked if a special use process such as the one currently in existence in the Village is good enough. Mr. Pfeil stated it is sufficient in that a special use procedure is defensible if the process is done in a timely manner. He noted that the ordinance does not have specific standards for items such as required setbacks in every district, and uniform standards that would be applicable in all districts should probably be developed, depending on the zoning that abuts the tower site. Commissioner Berman stated that a municipality opens itself up to attack and problems if they do not take an extra step in clarifying specific ordinances and regulations and also clarifying the fact that they are not doing some of the things prohibited in the Telecommunications Act. He stated he is not sure that it is in the best interests of the community to have a special use available in certain residential districts. He noted it would be better to steer the industry toward the commercial and industrial districts which would then offer enough sites that the Village would be served by the telecommunications industry without being overly restrictive and facing problems with residents. Chairman Goldspiel noted it is possible to put something in the ordinance to encourage sharing of towers. Commissioner Samuels noted it is not always a good idea to force sharing of towers. Commissioner Berman stated it would also be a good idea to put in specific criteria for judging the aesthetics and suitability of height. There must be standards in place. Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 4, 1997-Page 6 Commissioner Samuels noted this conversation leads back to the fact that a case by case basis of a special use is the way to go in this issue. However, any discussion on the health and safety issues is to be precluded once the project has been deemed to meet federal standards. Commissioner Berman further noted every denial needs to be done on a written record and have a written transcript. He stated he would like an opinion from the Village attorney as to whether the minutes is sufficient to cover this requirement. `./ Chairman Goldspiel asked that the Village Attorney be consulted as to whether maintaining the special use process is sufficient under the act. Chairman Goldspiel summarized the possible ordinance revisions as follows: 1. Excluding anything specified by federal law 2. Including everything as specified by federal law 3. Traditional zoning and building matters, other than the health of the electromagnetic radiation, still apply in reviewing the other criteria of the special use process Chairman Goldspiel asked if there should be any concern with whip antennas. Mr. Pfeil noted the ordinance is fairly clear with free standing structures but is somewhat unclear when applied to existing buildings. He stated he will ask the Building and Zoning staff to offer an opinion on that issue. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman Goldspiel noted he will be attending a meeting on June 13, 1997 that President Mathias has scheduled with representatives from the Dunlo Highlands Association to discuss drainage problems and possible solutions. FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil noted there will be a regular meeting on June 18, 1997 concerning the Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS -None STAFF REPORT -None NEW BUSINESS -None Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 4, 1997-Page 7 ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Krug, seconded by Commissioner Howard and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Goldspiel adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Respe ly submitt , Fay ubin, ec rding Secretary APPROVED BY: Js HEN GOL SPIEL Chair Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-June 4, 1997-Page 8