2002-06-05 - Appearance Plan - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑Appearance Plan
Document Type: ❑A e
g nda 0 Minutes
Meeting ate: 06/05/2002
Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting
Appearance Plan Review
Plan Commission Sub-Committee - Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, June 5, 2002, 6:00 p.m.
Present:
Les Ottenheimer, Plan Commission Chair
Michael Samuels, Plan Commissioner
Denice Bocek, Plan Commissioner
Lori Marston, Consultant
William Raysa, Village Attorney
Bob Pfeil, Village Planner
Greg Summers, Associate Planner
Ghida S. Neukirch, Asst. Village Mgr.
cc: PC Trustee Liaisons DeAnn Glover, Chuck Johnson
Village Board / Plan Commission
Purpose
Several months ago, a staff team The staff team consists of Bill Balling, Bob Pfeil, Greg Summers, Ed
Schar, Ray Rigsby, Dick Kuenkler and myself. was created to review the 1972 Appearance Plan and
update the Plan as appropriate. Research was conducted on neighboring municipal plans, and
appearance guidelines and regulations. The Team agreed in order to have the most
comprehensive level of review, the following should be conducted:
a) Staff review and recommendation
b) Legal review
c) Consultant Review
d) Plan Commission + Trustee Liaisons to the PC
e) Village Board review and final consideration
The purpose of the most recent meeting was to review the Plan with a subcommittee of the Plan
Commission.
Please be advised that Laurie Marston and Bill Raysa conducted a joint workshop for the Plan
Commission and Zoning Board on April 26, 2000. The workshop addressed architectural and
appearance review. Another workshop was conducted on June 21, 2000 on the subject of
landscaping and tree preservation. Video copies from these workshops are available upon
request.
Consultant Laurie Marston and Legal Counsel Bill Raysa were present and provided the
following valuable recommendations and general information:
1) Recommendation to create a checklist to determine if the submitted plan meets the objective
items on the list, i.e. parking lots landscaped, monotony issue, screens for refuse, amount of drivet
used, etc.
2) Provide examples of projects to assist developers and architects —a "tour" of the community via
photographs or images.
3) Do not feel hesitant to raise the bar.
a) Marston indicated that the message will be relayed to the development community that Buffalo
Grove has a higher standard for development. There will be resistance, although the standards
will become better accepted within time.
b) It is important to send a message to the development community that the Village meets or
exceeds the public investment in right-of-ways, public buildings, and other Village property. This
identifies that we place the same demands or greater demands on ourselves as we do developers.
4) It is possible to have more specific regulations in the plan, for example, all commercial buildings
must be masonry or stone; use all natural materials, etc.
5) Caution was expressed regarding using one style throughout Buffalo Grove, i.e. "Prairie Style".
It is more advisable to restrict materials.
6) Address maintenance.
7) Do you want different standards for different zoning districts?
8) "Compatible" and other subjective words should be reviewed. Questions to consider:
a) Think about what is going on around the project —does the design make sense with the use?
b) How do the proposed height and mass of the proposed project compare with the neighboring
buildings?
c) What are the architectural styles and materials —do they blend with the neighborhood, or meet
the vision of the Plan Commission for the proposed development?
d) Will this proposed project attract other development?
e) Are the requests of the PC or ART reasonable or overly burdensome?
f) Is there a new material that can be introduced?
g) What is the down side to the Village if the developer walks away from the proposed project if
they can not meet the Village's expectations?
9) The Illinois Supreme Court has determined that aesthetics is a viable standard for zoning.
Municipal standards must be objective. For example, the Commission or ART can not say, "I want
a blue building versus red" without any standards/guidelines to support the reasoning.
Group Discussion:
1) Commissioner Bocek noted that importance of having consistent standards in place, i.e. one
development was approved with siding, whereas the Plan Commission required a brick facade for
another development.
2) The goal is "Beautification of Buffalo Grove".
3) The Committee reviewed the Appearance Review Team—ART process. This process should
be extremely beneficial to the development team and the Village. Minutes from all ART meetings
will be sent to the entire Commission so they have an understanding of the modifications that were
requested of the development team and what issues have been addressed.
4) The Committee discussed the possibility of two votes at the Commission—one for aesthetic
issues and one for zoning. It was agreed that one vote should be maintained for the entire project.
5) Developers and the Commission need to recognize that the review process will take longer
since appearance issues are handled at a Commission level. The ART process as detailed in the
plan will assist, although it is permissible to have an entire meeting dedicated to aesthetic issues.
6) There was discussion of the Riverwalk North proposed development. The Committee agreed
that standards must be in place so when phase two is ready to be developed, it will be consistent
with the neighboring area —thematic consistency.
7) Aesthetics are a critical component of the plan review and development process.
Next steps
It is anticipated that the subcommittee will meet a total of two to three times, then provide a report
and recommendation to the entire Plan Commission. A public hearing will be held, then the Plan
will be presented to the Village Board for final consideration.
Minutes from the Plan Commission Subcommittee will be provided to the entire Plan Commission
and the Village Board. Everyone is encouraged to provide comment at any time.
The next meeting will focus on reviewing specific elements within the draft Appearance Plan. Next
meeting —July 17, 2002, 6:00 p.m., Village Hall, Trustee Conference Room.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ghida S. Neukirch
Assistant Village Manager