Loading...
2018-02-07 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Minutes02/7/2018 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2018 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:32 PM by Chairman Frank Cesario Public Hearings/Items For Consideration 1. Sign Variation for 600 W Lake Cook (Amita Health Medical Group) (Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Mr. Garry Potts II, Professional Permits, 58171 Dragonfly Court, Osceola, IN 46561, was present and sworn in. Mr. Potts II is the owner of Professional Permits and is representing the building owner, Mr. Glazer and Amita Health Medical Group, the tenant. Amita Health is requesting a variance to install a 46.1 square foot illuminated wall sign on the north elevation of the multi-tenant building at 600 Lake Cook Road. The Sign Code prohibits both a wall and ground sign at this building. The proposed sign will help assist the public in locating the medical office. Amita Health has received feedback from its patients indicating they did not know which building or tenant space to go to. The proposed wall sign will not have a negative effect since it faces the golf course. The literal interpretation and strict enforcement of the Code would create a practical difficulty by reducing the wayfinding of the general public as they search for the business. During the winter months it gets dark early and the sign will help assist clients in locating the office. This is especially true when traveling from the east off Weidner Road, on the campus access road. He ran directions with Google Maps and found that the directions are not accurate and take people to the wrong location. An internally illuminated wall sign would assist customers in locating the business. Although as mentioned in the Staff Report that staff may support a sign 10-15 square feet in size, this would result in individual character font sizes that would be too small to incorporate LED illumination. They believe an illuminated sign would help provide safe wayfinding of the medical office location while following the intent of the Code. If you consider the negative space within the sign and only measure the Amita Health and Medical Group letters separately, the total square footage would be 26.3 square feet. He needs to get zoning relief tonight as Amita Health feels the sign would provide safe wayfinding for their patients. They are open to any options that staff and/o r the Commission may present. Com. Weinstein asked Mr. Potts II to explain the difference in the square footage between the 26.3 square feet and the 46.1 square feet. Mr. Potts II stated that the Code measures the entire box area of length times the width to determine sign area. If you measure the individual letters, “Amita” by itself; “Health” by itself; “Medical” by itself; and “Group” by itself, the sign is actually 26.3 square feet. There is a lot of empty space in the calculation made by the Code. Com. Weinstein asked how many square feet Amita is by itself. Mr. Potts II responded that Amita by itself is 18.6 square feet. Com. Weinstein asked if “Amita” by itself would be enough to satisfy all the issues. Mr. Potts II advised that it would not. He asked his client the same and their corporate name is Amita Health Medical Group and they insist their full name is on the sign. Com. Weinstein confirmed with Mr. Potts II that if he were to go smaller, as staff recommends, the sign would not be large enough to illuminate. Mr. Potts II stated that it correct. On a 15 square foot sign, the “Medical Group” portion would be about 2.5 inches tall and would be too small to put LED lighting within. The absolute minimum size for the “Medical Group” portion to be 02/7/2018 illuminated is 4-11/16 inches tall. Com. Weinstein confirmed that there are two variations being requested; the first the wall sign as it would be a second sign, and second for the size. If the size was kept down to 36.33 square feet, a variation would not be required. Mr. Sheehan stated that there are three different variations being requested. The overall square footage is one issue, but also they are only allowed one third the length of the frontage of the tenant space, which would only allow 5.99 feet in total length. And the height is 50% of the height of the lintel to the top of the building which would be approximately 3 feet in height. Staff discussed the Sign Code as it relates to frontage. Mr. Stilling explained that if this were a multi-tenant building in the B Zoning District, the sign could be up to 33 square feet. Com. Weinstein asked Mr. Potts II to review the criteria standards. Mr. Potts II reviewed the criteria; 1) They believe not granting a variance would cause undue hardship because it would reduce the wayfinding of the general public. 2) The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the property owners in the vicinity because the sign would be facing the rear of the property. The sign would not be seen from Lake Cook Road. 3) They have a unique situation where all the entrances to the building are off west bound Lake Cook Road, which is a divided road and directions are not clear. Instead of making a left at Weidner Road and taking patients to the access road, directions take you past to the next intersection where you have to make a U-turn. 4) They feel that this is the minimum relief needed for the general public to have safe wayfinding. The vinyl door signage is okay during the day, but at night it is not visible and you cannot tell the office entrance location. Com. Weinstein asked what the smallest square footage sign they would consider knowing the staff recommendation. Mr. Potts II advised that the proposed sign is their standard corporate sign used. He did ask Amita Health what the minimum size is that could be used in order to keep the sign illuminated and that would be an 18.2 square foot sign. Mr. Potts II distributed a revised sign rendering depicting an illuminated wall sign at 18.2 square feet in overall size. The size of the lettering for Amita would be 15-1/ inches tall and the Medical Group letters would be 4-11/16 inches tall. That is the absolute smallest sign that would allow for internal LED illumination. Com. Weinstein asked if the 18.2 square feet is based upon th e Village’s sign area calculation. Mr. Potts II responded yes. Com. Au asked if the proposed wall sign is the standard layout for Amita Health Medical Group. Mr. Potts II replied that this appears to be the standard layout with the stacked letter set. Com. Au asked if it would be possible to stack each word one above the other in a block as opposed to the two lines. Mr. Potts II responded that Amita Health does not do that. Com. Goldspiel stated that this sign would not be visible from Lake Cook Road or the access drive from Lake Cook Road. And there is nothing behind the building. The parking lot is narrow and there is not enough space to back up and see the whole sign. It seems to be too big of a sign for the small building and the low parapet height. It would throw the whole building out of balance. He does not understand why a big sign looking out onto nothing would be a help to anyone in finding the building because you would have to be in the parking lot in order to see the sign. Mr. Potts II asked if Com. Goldspiel was speaking to the original proposed sign or the revised sign drawing that was just distributed to the Commission. Com. Goldspiel asked if the revised drawing is now what is being proposed. Mr. Potts II advised that the revised drawing is as close as they can get to what staff recommended while still allowing the sign to be illuminated. Mr. Sheehan advised that staff would be supportive of the revised sign at 18.2 square feet. Mr. Stilling provided a photograph of the NorthShore Medical Group wall sign that is similar in size to what staff had recommended. Com. Goldspiel stated that if the Amita Health sign would be similar in size to the NorthShore Medical Group sign, he would not have an issue with it. But if it were to be as originally proposed, he would have a big issue with it. Com. Goldspiel asked about size requirements based on Code with staff. He also asked what variations would still be required. Mr. Sheehan stated that variations would still be 02/7/2018 required. Com. Goldspiel asked Mr. Potts II if the white letters of Medical Group portion of the sign would be white when illuminated. Mr. Potts II advised yes. Com. Goldspiel confirmed with staff that the revised proposed wall sign would need a variance because it is an additional sign and asked if any other variations would be required. Mr. Sheehan responded that it would need a variance for size as well. Com. Goldspiel asked the opinion of staff about the internally illuminated sign as opposed to a flood lit sign. Mr. Sheehan responded that staff has no opinion but believes that Petitioner’s testimony indicated that the vinyl lettering on the doors do not help patients find the location at night. Com. Goldspiel stated that the sign would not be visible to anyone driving and they would have to be in the parking lot behind the building to see it. It would not be visible from the west side of the building or the south side of the building or the east side of the building. Mr. Sheehan stated that this building is rear loading so people come in fr om the rear. The sign would not be visible from the right-of-way. Mr. Potts II added that at night, the sign would be visible from the access road used from Weidner Road. Com. Goldspiel stated that the visibility would depend on the location of the sign on the building. This sign seems to be located towards the middle of the building. Mr. Potts II stated that as you come around the corner of the access road, the sign would be visible. Ch. Cesario confirmed with Mr. Potts II that the request before the Plan ning & Zoning Commission now is the revised wall sign with a total area of 18.2 square feet. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Ch. Cesaro entered the Staff Report dated February 7, 2018 as Exhibit 1 and the revised sign drawing depicting the total square footage of the proposed wall sign to be 18.2 square feet as Exhibit 2. The public hearing was closed at 7:59 PM. Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Khan, to recommend to the Village Board to approve the proposed sign variation to allow a wall sign in the O&R Zoning District in accordance with the dimensions of the sign set forth in Exhibit 2 for the property located at 600 Lake Cook Road. Com. Weinstein thanked the Petitioner for providing a proposal that alleviated the concerns of staff and the Commission and he is in favor of the request. Ch. Cesario stated that the purpose of the sign has been demonstrated to be identification and safety. The revised size is consistent with the building structure with those goals as stated. He is supportive of adding a sign under variation for those purposes and for the size as discussed. Com. Goldspiel asked how many tenants are in the building. Mr. Sheehan advised that there are four tenants in the building. Com. Goldspiel asked about the other tenants wanting a sign as well. Mr. Sheehan advised that they would have to apply for a variation. 02/7/2018 RESULT: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] Next: 2/26/2018 7:30 PM MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner SECONDER: Zill Khan, Commissioner AYES: Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein, Au ABSENT: Adam Moodhe Regular Meeting Other Matters for Discussion 1. Village Zoning Map – Annual Update (Trustee Stein) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Mr. Stilling advised that the updated map reflects the re-zoning and recent annexation changes. The updated Zoning Map will be brought to the Village Board for adoption. Com. Goldspiel requested a full size copy of the map. Com. Cohn confirmed that the updated Map reflects the zoning for the Link Crossing development. Mr. Stilling confirmed the updated map does. Approval of Minutes 1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Jan 17, 2018 7:30 PM Moved by Com. Lesser, seconded by Com. Khan, to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission regular meeting as submitted. RESULT: ACCEPTED [5 TO 0] MOVER: Scott Lesser, Commissioner SECONDER: Zill Khan, Commissioner AYES: Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein ABSTAIN: Frank Cesario, Amy Au ABSENT: Adam Moodhe Chairman's Report Ch. Cesario advised that he has seen repeatedly comments that pertain to the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) and he wants to share them with the Commission. The most recent is the January 22, 2018 Village Board meeting where there are a number of comments, all of which reflected that this Commission, in the view of the commenter, did it right. That people felt that there were heard, the evidence was flushed out well, that the process was effective, regardless of the outcome of any meeting. He has heard those comments a lot and he feels that the Commissioners, who have given their time and effort to our Village should hear them and understand that their efforts are appreciated. Committee and Liaison Reports 02/7/2018 None. Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule Mr. Stilling advised that the February 21, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting will be cancelled. Mr. Stilling advised that the tablets are in and just getting software installed from IT. Mr. Stilling advised that there will be a few items on the March 7, 2018 PZC agenda. A paper copy of the packet will be distributed in addition to the electronic packet. Mrs. Woods added that IT will provide training for any IT issues with the tablets. Mr. Stilling advised that the Volunteer Reception has been moved to March 4, 2018 but will still be held at the Wild Buffalo. Invitations should be going out shortly. Mr. Stilling advised that Link Crossing was approved by the Village Board on January 22, 2018. There was a slight reduction in the total number of units and there were some conditions added to the Declaration regarding rentals units. Com. Lesser asked how the rentals at Link Crossing will be policed. Mr. Stilling responded through the HOA. Com. Khan advised that the Declaration limits the number of rentals to no more than 15%. How does the Village ensure that does not get changed. Mr. Stilling advised that the Village would have to approve any changes to the Declaration. Mr. Stilling advised that at the February 5, 2018 Committee of the Whole meeting, staff introduced Ratio, the consultant for the Prairie View area study. Mr. Stilling reviewed the proposed RV regulations and advised that the proposed changes will be reviewed at the February 26, 2018 Village Board meeting. Public Comments and Questions Com. Cohn wanted to comment on Link Crossing and the Village Board’s unanimous vote, in spite of the PZC’s 6 -2 negative recommendation. It’s nice to know that people approve of what the PZC is doing. But does it really matter? The PZC had 18 months to 2 years of hearings, workshops and public meetings about the Didier Farms development with extensive public participation. The PZC made recommendations along the way to the developer to m odify the plans, reduce the density, be more consistent with surrounding neighborhoods, be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and have higher percentages of single family homes. The PZC told the developer why the PZC felt the way they did along th e way, as did the residents that showed up and participated. The residents that participated did so respectfully. The developer would consistently return to the PZC with revised plans that always fell short of what was asked for. He would characterize the work of the developer as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic when the PZC kept saying they needed a new boat. The developer’s final plans 02/7/2018 ultimately fell short of what was asked for. The developer’s plans had little support from the PZC as well as the public. While he understands that generally the public that shows up at these meetings opposes plans as opposed to supporting them, there was virtually no public support. He believes that the opinion of the public that the PZC heard generally reflected the view of the public at large. The final plans were rejected by the PZC with a strong majority negative vote of 6 -2. The Village Board, at their public hearing, had roughly 90 minutes of public hearing, maybe up to 2 hours, and they ultimately approved the plan unanimously. The Village Board looked at the issues its 90 minute hearing. He knows that the Village Board members said that they read the PZC minutes, but from his view it was clear that the Board members really did not hear and experience or appreciate what the PZC heard and what happened at the PZC in all of the meetings. The extent of public participation that the PZC had was not replicated for the Village Board. The PZC members did not speak at the Village Board meeting. He feels the PZC members should have been sought out to speak at the meeting by the Village Board and by staff in advance of the meeting. Had he known, and believed for a moment, that a 6-2 negative vote would be undone with so little process and debate at the Village Board an d treated like a brand new hearing, he would have shown up at the Village Board meeting. He also believes that the public did not understand that their efforts could be undone by the Village Board with so little debate. The amount of public participation at the Village Board would have been more extensive if the public really knew that the Village Board was inclined to undo what the PZC came up with. The Village Board never explained why it reached a radically different result than the PZC. There were no significant new facts. The numbers dropped a little bit from 192 to 187 and they moved a few things around, but there were no new facts given to the Board. Absent there were no new facts and given that the PZC voted with such an overwhelming majority, the Board should have made a decision consistent with the PZC. If the Board is going to go against what the PZC recommended, it needs to explain and rationalize its decision and what it was that was distinguishing and what new facts were relevant and why it believed that the PZC reached the wrong result. He thinks that the Board in its action delegitimized, at some level, the PZC and our local government processes. The PZC is really just a waste of time if everyone knows that the Board will do what it wants anyway. The public will begin to ask what is the point of showing up and participating at the PZC - they have no real power - it’s the Board that matters. And petitioners will just bide their time to get through the PZC process, but in the end will need to work over the Board members and staff and persuade them because they are the ones that really matter. When the Board does not defer to a 6-2 negative opinion, after having in front of them no new significant facts, and it does not explain itself, and has a 90 minute hearing that is far more limited than what happened in the 18 months to 2 years of fact finding that the PZC conducted and the PZC made a thoughtful recommendation, people get cynical. Our local democracy has failed to render a decision consistent with what people want. People look at the way Village staff conducts themselves at the public hearings. If he were a participant of the public hearing, he would believe that it appeared that the fix was in. He had a member of the public approach him and asked him if Village Planner, Chris Stilling was an employee of the developer. He understands that point of view because Chris Stilling acted, jumped in and answered questions asked of the developer in many instances during the meetings instead of letting the develop answer the questions that were presented to the developer and keep the burden on the developer to prove their own case. He understands there was an effort to be helpful, but it had an appearance of bias. He watched the video of the Board meeting and he does not recall Village staff ever fully explaining the position of the PZC. It appeared that Village staff just wanted the plan approved. The whole thing bothers him and he is still contemplating resigning from the PZC after 15 years of service but he is not sure he wants to do that and would rather not. What he wants to do, if he could, would be to a make a motion to move that the PZC make an advisory recommendation to the Village Board to re-open the public hearing on the Didier Farms 02/7/2018 annexation in order for the Board to 1) Receive additional information, participation and testimony from the residents who, in his opinion, would show up and speak if they believed and knew in advance that, with such a strong negative recommendation from the PZC, that it could have been rejected by the Board and to receive testimony from PZC members; 2) For the Board to ask questions of those testifying and have a more robust hearing since the Board seems to be taking on a stronger finder of fact type of roll in this case then is customary for matters that are typically referred to the PZC; 3) The Board should re-vote on the matter after the additional hearing; 4) If after the re-vote, the Board continues to decline to follow the PZC, then the Board should issue a brief report or statement explaining any significant new facts or circumstances that it found compelling enough to cause it to choose not to follow the recommendation of the PZC. Com. Cohn asked Mr. Raysa if he could make a motion to make an advisory recommendation. Mr. Raysa advised that this matter is not listed on the agenda and an item must be on the agenda in order for a motion to be made. Com. Lesser stated that if Com. Cohn were to be making that advisory motion, he would second it. Mr. Raysa’s recommendation would be to include this item on a future agenda. Ch. Cesario stated that the matter can be discussed as a matter of general discussion. Com. Goldspiel stated that there were some procedures that the PZC used to have that might help in this situation. One, the PZC would have a representative at each Village Board meeting from the Plan Commission and that representative was charged with presenting the view of the Plan Commission to the Village Board. That representative would present the view of the Plan Commission whether or not he/she agreed with the recommendation of the Plan Commission, to let the view Village Board know, and question, what the Plan Commission did and why. He believes that the PZC is missing out by not having a representative at the Village Board meetings. There are PZC liaisons assigned but their duties are not clear. He believes that it is unlikely that the Village Board will re-open the public hearing. The PZC needs to realize that the PZC does have a lot of input into the form ation of what goes before the Village Board. It is true that the Village Board can vote for, or against, what the PZC recommends, but the PZC has a lot of ability to work on shaping the project with the developer and staff. He would not characterize what the PZC is doing as ineffective if the Village Board goes another way. The Village Board is elected by the public and the PZC is appointed by the Board. The PZC needs to realize that what they are doing is important regardless of whether the vote comes out that way or not. Also, the PZC has more time than the Village Board to spend on projects. However, he does believe that the PZC is missing out by not having a representative at the Village Board meeting where a recommendation will be considered and have the representative charged with the responsibility to present the view of the PZC and be available for questions from the Board. 02/7/2018 Com. Weinstein stated that the PZC does have liaisons to the Village Board meetings, however he does not know if anyone was present at this Board meeting or not. The last meeting he was scheduled to attend there was nothing on the agenda from the PZC. Had he been assigned to that Board meeting, he would have attended. Being an attorney, he understands that trial court judges’ decisions are routinely rejected by appellate court judges. That does not necessarily mean that anything was done wrong or right. Sometimes judges just come up with different arguments or thoughts. He thought it would have been nice to get an explanation. While he was one of the two that voted to recommend the project, he believes that this is the first time since he has been on the PZC that the Board rejected a recommendation and thinks that is a good track record. He hopes that Com. Cohn does not resign from the PZC. If the PZC was constantly getting rejected or overturned, then he would agree with Com. Cohn on what is the point. Com. Cohn added that the liaison attendance at the Board meetings is important. He thinks that in this instance Village staff and the Trustees should have made an extra effort and reached out to the PZC members that wanted to be there, and would have been there and at least give some inclination that maybe the PZC recommendation is in jeopardy. Someone from the public had contacted him and couldn’t imagine that what the PZC came up with would not be followed. The liaison process does need to be improved to ensure that there is a PZC member at the Board meetings. He thinks that a lack of an explanation maybe is what set him off the most because in his opinion he did not see anything except that the Board felt differently. It wasn’t the slight modification to the plan by dropping a few units off. It was basically the same proposal with a few tweaks. When the Board goes so far against the PZC recommendation they have a duty to explain why. They cannot just do it. It strikes him as arbitrary and he thinks that the Board has done damage in the eyes of the community. The community members that look at the process look at the PZC as not a meaningful thing to come to because they just need to plead their case to the Board. He knows that is the perception in the community and that is the procedural damage that is most troublesome and that will have to be corrected. Com. Au feels that, to some extent, the PZC should have taken more responsibility to ensure a specific outcome. Being previously on the ZBA, she feels that the ZBA action got turned over more often than the Plan Commission did. As a ZBA member, if you wanted to ensure that your voice was heard, you attended the Board meeting. It wasn’t a requirement but there were some ZBA members that made sure that if there was a chance to be overturned, they were heard. While she respects that there should have been more explanation from the Board itself before overturning the PZC’s recommendation, she believes that the PZC members have a duty to voice their opinions to make sure they are heard. The PZC explains to Petitioners that the PZC decision is a recommendation and the Board can still decide a different way. Com. Goldspiel asked Mr. Raysa if there is a different vote requirement at the Board for a negative recommendation. Mr. Stilling advised that a super-majority vote is required, so in this instance, it needed 5 of 7 affirmative votes to pass. In this case, President Sussman did vote and it was approved 6 to 0. Com. Goldspiel stated that the PZC vote did have an impact on the vote at the Board level. It may not have been much of an impact, but it was an impact. He would hope 02/7/2018 that, in the future, staff could notify the liaison that is scheduled to attend the Board meeting so that the liaison can prepare to represent the PZC. He believes there is more that the PZC can do to be heard on these issues. Com. Lesser stated that previously he served on the ZBA. It has been almost 20 years and he agrees with some of the things that Com. Au stated. There were occasions when the Board would turn over a ZBA decision. The ZBA was never happy about those, but those were often small, minor things like a fence that was rejected or a sign. The petitioners always had the right to appeal to the Board. This, to him, is quite different. This is a significant project, probably the last project of this scope and scale that will occur in Buffalo Grove as a residential pr oject. The PZC devoted a great deal of time and effort to questioning and cross examining the petitioner and, as stated by Com. Goldspiel, the Board does not have the time to do the work that the PZC did for 2 years. He is also very, very upset with how this was handled and he agrees with essentially everything Com. Cohn had said. The PZC deserves an explanation. He believes the Board does not feel, and technically they do not have to, provide an explanation. There were no new facts presented. The petitioner presented essentially the same plan, over and over again. Having spent half of his career in the development industry it was the Ali rope a dope. The PZC told the developer over and over again what to change and they did not make those changes. They were ultimately playing to the Village Board. It is disappointing to him that the Board did not see through that. Had the Board been at the PZC meetings they would have seen the public’s reaction and how the process was handled by the PZC. He respects each mem ber of the PZC and believes the PZC takes their role seriously and all try to do the best they can. He wants to articulate how frustrated and disappointed he is with this outcome and how it was handled. He wishes it was different and wishes he could do som ething about it. Ch. Cesario stated that one of the elements he has always appreciated about the PZC is the diversity of opinions and the welcomed nature of that diversity. The fact that sometimes the Commissioners disagree strengthens everything that com es before the PZC and that is something that he looks forward to. The decorum and respect that the Commissioners show to each other is a big deal and makes serving an enjoyable thing to do and volunteer for. Com. Khan asked Mr. Stilling if Link Crossing was a public hearing before the Village Board. Mr. Stilling responded that it is required to hold a public hearing for the annexation. Com. Khan asked if all the participants of the PZC public hearing attended the Village Board public hearing. Mr. Stilling believes that approximately 15 people spoke at the Board public hearing. However there were about 25-30 people in attendance. He saw familiar faces from the public hearing process here. Com. Khan stated that he is not sure which PZC liaison was assigned for that Village Board meeting, but he recalls that when he would attend the Village Board meetings he would be very particular because a Village Board packet would be delivered to him at home so he would never forget to attend. And if he could not attend, he would contact another Commissioner to switch with them. In the past when he attended Board meetings as a representative of the PZC he never got up and spoke about the subject matter unless he was specifically asked by the Board. Even if he was present for the Link Crossing public hearing, he would not have gotten up and spoke to represent the PZC. He would have spoken as a resident. He is not sure if the PZC liaison present requires an invitation from the Board to speak about a subject matter. When he heard what 02/7/2018 happened he told himself that he did everything he was supposed to do. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. The PZC are appointed members, the Board are the elected members. There have not been many projects that went before the Board where the Board had overruled a recommendation. He can only recall one other time since he has been on the Plan Commission and PZC. He respects the Board’s decision. Com. Goldspiel stated that there is one more thing that the PZC can do to be more effective, back in the day when a motion was made and voted on, the Commissioners would state their reasons why they voted the way they did. Because if the Village Board is reading the minutes and the PZC votes without expressing their reasons then the Board will not know. He believes that the PZC opinions are to be recorded in the minutes and then reviewed by the Board so that the Board knows. The PZC should make a statement for or against any project that is being voted on. Com. Cohn agrees with Ch. Cesario’s comments about the respectful nature of the PZC. It has always been that way for the 15 years he has served and still is that way today and he appreciates that. This was a helpful discussion. He asked how to communicate the PZC’s views to the Board. He wants to ensure that the Board hears and understands the opinions that were expressed. Com. Cohn was advised that he could attend a Village Board meeting and speak during the Public Comments section, since the matter would not be on the agenda. Mr. Raysa advised that any Commission members that wished to express their feelings to the Village Board would be doing so as a resident and not a representative of the PZC. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:51 PM Chris Stilling Director of Community Development APPROVED BY ME THIS 7th DAY OF February , 2018