2018-03-07 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Packet
Meeting of the Village of Buffalo Grove
Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
March 7, 2018 at 7:30 PM
Fifty Raupp Blvd
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-2100
Phone: 847-459-2500
I. Call to Order
II. Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
1. Consider an Amendment to Ordinance 2008-007 and Variation for an Electronic Message
Sign at 1701 Leider Lane (Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
2. Consider a Variation for a Fence in the Corner Side Yard at 2299 Avalon Drive (Trustee
Stein) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
III. Regular Meeting
A. Other Matters for Discussion
B. Approval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Feb 7, 2018 7:30 PM
C. Chairman's Report
D. Committee and Liaison Reports
E. Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule
F. Public Comments and Questions
IV. Adjournment
The Planning and Zoning Commission will make every effort to accommodate all items on the
agenda by 10:30 p.m. The Board, does, however, reserve the right to defer consideration of
matters to another meeting should the discussion run past 10:30 p.m.
The Village of Buffalo Grove, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that
persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or
participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities,
contact the ADA Coordinator at 459-2525 to allow the Village to make reasonable
accommodations for those persons.
Updated: 3/2/2018 8:44 AM Page 1
Action Item : Consider an Amendment to Ordinance 2008-007 and
Variation for an Electronic Message Sign at 1701 Leider Lane
Recommendation of Action
Staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions in the attached staff report.
The petitioner, James Cruz for Leider Greenhouses, is requesting a variation to allow the modification of
the existing ground sign at 1701 Leider Lane. As part of the original construction of the Peerless Bridge
property at the 1701 Leider Lane site, Ordinance 2008 -007 approved a variation for an off premise
ground sign for Leider Greenhouses that included a manual changeable copy panel. Leider Greenhouses
is requesting an amendment to the Ordinance to allow the manual changeable copy potion of the ground
sign to be replaced with an LED digital display. The requested modifications will not change the location
or size of the existing sign. As electronic copy change signs require a variation, an amendment to the
original Ordinance and a variation are required.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report (DOCX)
Sign Drawings (PDF)
Sign Location (PDF)
Applicants Letter (PDF)
Letter acknowledging sign standards (PDF)
Authorization Letter (PDF)
Property Owner Letter (PDF)
Ordinance 2008-007 (PDF)
14.20.070 Electronic message sign standards (PDF)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Ottenheimer Chris Stilling, Community Development
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
2.1
Packet Pg. 2
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 7, 2018
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 1701 Leider Lane
PETITIONER: James Cruz on behalf of Leider Greenhouses
PREPARED BY: Brian Sheehan, Building Commissioner
REQUEST: Request to amend Ordinance 2008-007 allowing a variation to
the sign code in order to replace the manual changeable copy
portion of the off premise ground sign to an LED Display.
EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a warehouse building and is
zoned industrial (I).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2009 Comprehensive Plan calls for this property to be
an Industrial land use.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The petitioner, James Cruz for Leider Greenhouses, is requesting a variation to allow the modification of
the existing ground sign at 1701 Leider Lane. As part of the original construction of the Peerless Bridge
property at the 1701 Leider Lane site, Ordinance 2008-007 approved a variation for an off premise
ground sign for Leider Greenhouses that included a manual changeable copy panel. Leider Greenhouses
is requesting an amendment to the Ordinance to allow the manual changeable copy potion of the
ground sign to be replaced with an LED digital display. The requested modifications will not change the
location or size of the existing sign. As electronic copy change signs require a variation, an amendment
to the original Ordinance and a variaiiton are required.
PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS
The petitioner proposes to make the following
modifications to the current ground sign as
depicted in the “Proposed” Sign:
Sign Design
The proposed panel modifications will
not change the overall sign size or
structure.
The total height of the proposed sign
will remain at approximately 11 feet
from grade.
The proposed sign area will remain
essentially the same.
The existing manual portion of the sign
is 117” x 38” and the proposed LED digital display will be 108” x 30”. As a result of the changes,
new electronic sign will be slightly smaller.
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 3
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
2
2
3
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
t
1
7
0
1
L
e
i
d
e
r
L
N
)
Location
The sign location would remain the same location on the 1701 Leider Lane property at the
southeast corner of Leider Lane and Aptakisic Road. As this is an off-premise sign, the existing
property owner for 1701 Leider Lane and provided the necessary authorization for the new
electronic message sign.
Changeable Copy Standards
Section 14.20.070 of the Village of Buffalo Grove Sign Code sets forth certain
standards/requirements for electronic message signs.
The Petitioner has provided a letter to the Village acknowledging their intent to operate the sign
under the standards set forth in the Village of Buffalo Grove sign code with the exception of a
request to be allowed to use a uniform text size and color with different back ground colors.
Staff has no objections to the request.
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
The property has been posted with the public hearing notice and the adjacent property owners have
been notified as required. To date, staff has not received any calls inquiring as to the nature of the
public hearing. No public comments concerning this variance request have been received.
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS
Village Department Comments
Engineering The Village Engineer has reviewed the sign location and does not have any
concerns with the proposed changes to this sign.
STANDARDS
The Planning & Zoning Commission is authorized to make a recommendation to the Village Board based
on the following criteria:
A. Except for Prohibited signs (Chapter 14.32), the Village Planning & Zoning Commission may
recommend approval or disapproval of a variance from the provisions or requirements of this
Title subject to the following:
1. The literal interpretation and strict application of the provisions and requirements of this
Title would cause undue and unnecessary hardships to the sign user because of unique or
unusual conditions pertaining to the specific building, parcel or property in question; and
2. The granting of the requested variance would not be materially detrimental to the property
owners in the vicinity; and
3. The unusual conditions applying to the specific property do not apply generally to other
properties in the Village; and
4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the purpose of this Title pursuant to
Section 14.04.020
B. Where there is insufficient evidence, in the opinion of the Planning & Zoning Commission, to
support a finding under subsection (A), but some hardship does exist, the Planning & Zoning
Commission may consider the requirement fulfilled if:
1. The proposed signage is of particularly good design and in particularly good taste; and
2. The entire site has been or will be particularly well landscaped.
The petitioner shall provide a response to the criteria during the public hearing.
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 4
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
2
2
3
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
t
1
7
0
1
L
e
i
d
e
r
L
N
)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the amendment to Ordinance 2008-007 and a variation to allow an
electronic message sign subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed sign shall substantially conform to the plans attached as part of the petition.
2. With the exception to Section 14.20.070 D.1.c. for background colors only, the sign shall be
operated in conformance with all other standards set forth in Section 14.20.070 D of the Village
of Buffalo Grove Sign Code.
3. With the exception to the changes proposed to the sign as part of this petition, the sign shall
conform to the conditions established in Ordinance 2008-007.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony
concerning the variation. The PZC shall make a recommendation to the Village Board.
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
2
2
3
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
t
1
7
0
1
L
e
i
d
e
r
L
N
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
i
g
n
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
(
2
2
3
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
t
1
7
0
1
L
e
i
d
e
r
L
N
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
i
g
n
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
(
2
2
3
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
t
1
7
0
1
L
e
i
d
e
r
L
N
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
i
g
n
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
(
2
2
3
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
t
1
7
0
1
L
e
i
d
e
r
L
N
)
2.1.c
Packet Pg. 9
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
i
g
n
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
2
2
3
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
t
1
7
0
1
L
e
i
d
e
r
L
N
)
2.1.d
Packet Pg. 10
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
L
e
t
t
e
r
(
2
2
3
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
t
1
7
0
1
L
e
i
d
e
r
L
N
)
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
e
t
t
e
r
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
i
n
g
s
i
g
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
(
2
2
3
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
2.1.f
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
L
e
t
t
e
r
(
2
2
3
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
t
1
7
0
1
L
e
i
d
e
r
L
N
)
1 S 450 Summit Avenue
Suite 330
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
February 15, 2018
Julie Kamka,
Deputy Village Clerk
Village of Buffalo Grove
50 Raupp Blvd.
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
Re: Leider Greenhouse sign
Dear Ms. Kamka:
Leider Land Investors, LLC is the owner of the land where the Leider Greenhouses road sign is located.
This entity is controlled by Pritzker Realty Group, LLC. On behalf of the Pritzker Realty Group and
Leider Lane Investors, I grant permission to Leider Greenhouses to upgrade their current sign display to
an electronic message board display.
Sincerely,
Pritzker Realty Group
Katie Michel
Vice President
2.1.g
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
L
e
t
t
e
r
(
2
2
3
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
t
1
7
0
1
L
e
i
d
e
r
2.1.h
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
(
2
2
3
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
t
1
7
0
1
L
e
i
d
e
r
L
N
)
2.1.h
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
(
2
2
3
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
t
1
7
0
1
L
e
i
d
e
r
L
N
)
14.20.70 - Electronic message signs.
D. Electronic message signs for ground or wall signs are allowed only by variation.
Ground and wall electronic message signs shall conform to the following
requirements:
1. Messages and Text.
a. Shall be limited to a display of on-premises activity only, plus date, time,
temperature, and community event information.
b. Transition from one message to another shall be instantaneous, without
movement or other transition effects between messages.
c. Text shall be uniform in color, appearance, and a maximum of 9.25 inch
character text any one time.
d. Messages, including single and multiple lines of text, shall not change
more frequently than once every 20 seconds.
2. Display and Brightness.
a. Signs shall not display any video, animation or moving pictures or
simulate any movement or the optical illusion of movement of any part
of the sign text, design or pictorial segment, including the movement of
any illumination or the flashing or varying of light intensity.
b. The Electronic message sign shall be equipped with both a programmed
dimming sequence as well as an additional overriding mechanical
photocell that adjusts the brightness of the display to the ambient light
at all times of day. Such programming and mechanical equipment shall
be set so that the Electronic message sign, at night or in overcast
conditions, will be no more than forty percent of the daytime brightness
level.
3. Operation and Use.
a. Signs shall be extinguished at the close of business to which the
Electronic message sign relates.
b. Sign shall be equipped to override commercial messages for emergency
situations such as an "Amber Alert" or other such acute public emergencies. The
owner of the Electronic Message Sign shall cooperate with the Village of Buffalo
Grove in order to allow the Village of Buffalo Grove to exercise its override authority.
2.1.i
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
4
.
2
0
.
0
7
0
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
s
i
g
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
(
2
2
3
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
4. Location and Design.
a. For Leider Greenhouse electronic signThe sign shall be located in a
landscape area that has been integrated into the overall site design
and approved by the Village of Buffalo Grove.
b. Signs shall be mounted in a monument-style base that is at least as wide
as the sign face, a minimum of 2 feet in height, and composed of a
natural masonry finish such as brick or stone matching the principal
building. Alternative materials consistent with the principal building may
be considered by the Village.
c. Each sign face shall be antiglare and shall not exceed a total of 25
square feet. The square footage of each face shall be included in the
calculation of the total area of all signage allowed for the property.
2.1.i
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
4
.
2
0
.
0
7
0
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
s
i
g
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
(
2
2
3
8
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
7
a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
Updated: 3/2/2018 1:29 PM Page 1
Action Item : Consider a Variation for a Fence in the Corner Side
Yard at 2299 Avalon Drive
Recommendation of Action
Village staff does not recommend approval of this variation application as submitted. Since the petitioner
is proposing a 5' high solid fence, staff believes that the fence should be setback approximately 10' from
the sidewalk.
The Petitioner is proposing to install a five (5) foot high white PVC fence that encroaches into the thirty
(30) foot required corner side yard setback. As a result, a variation is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report (DOCX)
Application and letter (PDF)
Photo of Fencing (PDF)
Plat (PDF)
Response to Standards (PDF)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Stein Chris Stilling, Community Development
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
2.2
Packet Pg. 18
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 7, 2018
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 2299 Avalon Drive
PETITIONER: Santosh Singh & Mahendra Singh
PREPARED BY: Brian Sheehan, Building Commissioner
REQUEST: A variation to install a fence that would be located within the
corner side yard setback area.
EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a single family home currently
zoned R4
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The approved Village Comprehensive Plan calls for this property
and the immediate neighborhood to be single family detached
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Petitioner is proposing to install a five (5) foot high solid white PVC fence that encroaches into the
thirty (30) foot required corner side yard setback. Section 15.20.040.B. of the Village Fence Code
regulates fences on corner lots as follows:
Fences may be erected, placed and maintained on corner lots to a height not to e xceed six feet
above ground level. No such fence shall be located nearer to any street than the building setback
line.
In this case, the building setback line for the required corner side yard setback along Avalon Drive is 30
feet. As a result, a variation is required.
PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS
The petitioner is proposing a five (5)
foot high PVC fence which would
extend into the corner side yard
setback along Avalon Drive.
The fence would run along the
property line parallel to the sidewalk
maintaining a two (2) foot separation
from the sidewalk and continue to
the rear property line in line with the
existing three (3) foot fence on the
neighboring property to the east.
The fence on the neighboring
property was installed prior to the
Fence Code being amended.
2.2.a
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
2
2
3
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
2
2
9
9
A
v
a
l
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
)
The following is a list of recently approved setback variations for fences:
Address Fence Height/Type Setback from sidewalk
1271 Radcliffe 4’ high chain-link (open) 2.5’ from the sidewalk
2123 Sheridan 5’ high wrought-iron (open) 3’ from the sidewalk
1309 Madison 4’ high open picket fence 17’ from the sidewalk
1239 Devonshire 5’ high shadow box 5’ from the sidewalk
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS
Village Department Comments
Engineering The Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed fence location and
does not have any engineering or line of sight concerns or objections
with the proposed location of this fence.
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
Pursuant to Village Code, the contiguous property owners were notified and a public hearing sign was
posted on the subject property. The posting of the public hearing sign and the mailed notifications were
completed within the prescribed timeframe as required. As of the date of this staff report, the Village
has received one call objecting to the location of the fence within the building setback.
STANDARDS
The Planning & Zoning Commission is authorized to grant variations of the Fence Code based on the
following criteria:
1. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
2. The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood;
3. There are practical difficulties or particular hardships in carrying out the strict letter of this
Chapter which difficulties or hardships have not been created by the person presently having an
interest in the property; and,
4. The proposed variation will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare.
Petitioners Response to the Variation Standards:
The petitioner has provided a written response to the standards for a variation which are included in this
packet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Village staff does not recommend approval of this variation application as submitted. Since the
petitioner is proposing a 5’ high solid white fence, staff believes that the fence should be setback
approximately 10’ from the sidewalk. While the Village has approved fences up to or near the sidewalk,
those fences were of a more open design (wrought iron, chain-link, shadow box or open picket style) or
4’ high.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony
concerning the variation. The PZC shall make a final decision on whether or not to approve the variation.
2.2.a
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
2
2
3
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
2
2
9
9
A
v
a
l
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
l
e
t
t
e
r
(
2
2
3
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
2
2
9
9
A
v
a
l
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
l
e
t
t
e
r
(
2
2
3
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
2
2
9
9
A
v
a
l
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.2.b
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
l
e
t
t
e
r
(
2
2
3
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
2
2
9
9
A
v
a
l
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.2.c
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
h
o
t
o
o
f
F
e
n
c
i
n
g
(
2
2
3
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
2
2
9
9
A
v
a
l
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.2.d
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
t
(
2
2
3
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
2
2
9
9
A
v
a
l
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
)
2.2.e
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
(
2
2
3
9
:
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
F
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
a
t
2
2
9
9
A
v
a
l
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
)
02/7/2018
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 has worked with staff to come to a mutually agreed upon size but has
been unable to. He needs to get relief tonight as Amita Health feels the sign would
provide safe wayfinding for their patients. They are open to any options that staff and/or
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
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 27
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
F
e
b
7
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
02/7/2018
lighting within. The absolute minimum size for the “Medical Group” portion to be
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 the
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
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 28
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
F
e
b
7
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
02/7/2018
variations would still be required. Mr. Sheehan stated that variations would still be
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 from 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 Planning & 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.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 29
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
F
e
b
7
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
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
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 30
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
F
e
b
7
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
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. This study is part of the
Comprehensive Plan update.
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 modify 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 the 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
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 31
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
F
e
b
7
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
02/7/2018
on the Titanic when the PZC kept saying they needed a new boat. The developer’s final plans
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
issue denovo in 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 and 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 petitioner’s
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 sick of it. 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
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 32
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
F
e
b
7
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
02/7/2018
re-open the public hearing on the Didier Farms 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 formation 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 are
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.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 33
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
F
e
b
7
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
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
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 34
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
F
e
b
7
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
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 project. 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 material 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 member 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 something about it.
Ch. Cesario stated that one of the elements he has always appreciated about the PZC is the
diversity of opinions and the welcomeness of that diversity. The fact that sometimes the
Commissioners disagree strengthens everything that comes 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
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 35
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
F
e
b
7
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
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
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 36
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
F
e
b
7
,
2
0
1
8
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)