Loading...
2001-04-18 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 04/18/2001 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION April 18, 2001 Belmont Village Subdivision—Final Plat Zaremba Subdivision (CVS Pharmacy)—Final Plat Buffalo Grove Business Park Resubdivision No. 1 (Chase Plaza) Final Plat Development Review Process —Discussion Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Mr. Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Trilling Ms. Dunn Mr. Feldgreber Mr. Panitch Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Commissioners absent: Ms. Kenski-Sroka Also present: Mr. Jeffrey Berman, Village Trustee Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Dunn to approve the minutes of the public hearing of March 21, 2001. Commissioner Trilling noted a grammatical error on page 3. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion as amended and the motion passed unanimously. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Dunn to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March 21, 2001. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Feldgreber stated he attended the board meeting on May 7, 2001 and noted they gave awards to the cheerleaders from Buffalo Grove high school and the Pom Pom squad from Stevenson high school. Also Dominicks requested a fuel center on the corner of Lake Cook and Arlington Heights Road in Chase Plaza. This will be referred to the Plan Commission in the near future. Commissioner Dunn stated she attended the Village Board meeting on April 2, 2001 where Mr. Pfeil's report was presented. BELMONT VILLAGE SUBDIVISION—FINAL PLAT Moved by Commissioner Feldgreber, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the Final Plan of Subdivision for the Belmont Village. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Trilling, Dunn, Feldgreber, Panitch, Smith, Bocek, Ottenheimer NAPES: None ABSTAIN: Samuels ABSENT: Kenski-Sroka The motion passed 7 to 0. ZAREMBA SUBDIVISION(CVS PHARMACY)—FINAL PLAT Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Feldgreber to approve the Zaremba Subdivision Final Plat of Subdivision. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Trilling, Dunn, Feldgreber, Panitch, Smith, Bocek, Ottenheimer NAPES: None ABSTAIN: Samuels ABSENT: Kenski-Sroka The motion passed 7 to 0. BUFFALO GROVE BUSINESS PARK RESUBDIVISION NO. 1 (CHASE PLAZA) — FINAL PLAT Moved by Commissioner Trilling, seconded by Commissioner Feldgreber to approve the Final Plat of Resubdivision for the Buffalo Grove Business Park. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Trilling, Dunn, Feldgreber, Panitch, Smith, Bocek, Ottenheimer NAPES: None ABSTAIN: Samuels ABSENT: Kenski-Sroka The motion passed 7 to 0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS—DISCUSSION Mr. Pfeil noted the Plan Commission has been handling aesthetic review since the summer of 1999 when the Appearance Commission was dissolved. Now that the Plan Commission has had some experience in aesthetic review, it is appropriate for the Commission to assess the process. The Commission may want to consider modifications to improve the overall review process, including aesthetic elements. Commissioner Feldgreber asked why plats come back to the Plan Commission. Mr. Pfeil stated approval of plats is a statutory requirement under State law. In the Buffalo Grove Development Ordinance the plat is a defined requirement. After approval of a preliminary plan and preliminary engineering plan, a development plan, development improvement agreement and final plat are submitted for review by the Village Engineer. The final plat is then forwarded to the Plan Commission. The Village Engineer is responsible for reviewing the plat and confirming that it meets the technical standards of the Development Ordinance and other applicable requirements. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if the Commissioners think that the current process of workshops and public hearings produces satisfactory results. Commissioner Bocek asked if it is legal requirement to allow a project to proceed to a public hearing. She noted that in some cases the Commission may determine in the workshop process that a project does not have enough positive aspects to proceed to a hearing. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that is a statutory requirement to allow a property owner the opportunity to complete the specified review process. A municipality that establishes a Plan Commission must allow petitioners to the opportunity for due process, including a public hearing. The Village Board is not required to concur with the recommendation of the Plan Commission, but the Board must act on the recommendation if a petitioner wants to complete the review process. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if it might be a good idea to structure the workshops discussion by focusing on one thematic item at a time before moving on to a new item as opposed to the current process with each commissioner asking a variety of questions at one time on all aspects of a project. Commissioner Feldgreber said it would depend on the complexity of the project. For some projects it would make the discussions much longer. Commissioner Samuels stated his first thought is everyone has their own approach to asking questions, some people may be very organized, while other people use a less structured approach. In a workshop a more open and free flowing discussion is beneficial since what one person says may trigger a question or thought from someone else. It might be appropriate in a public hearing where the commission has already heard the facts and this sort of procedure would bring more order making it easier for the public. Commissioner Bocek stated she has noticed that in some meetings there is a redundancy with some of the issues and if there were some sort of checklist to go by it would eliminate some of that. She suggested that a checklist of areas to be looked at might be a great help for some of the new members of the commission. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that he has also given some thought to using a checklist to as part of the review process. Commissioner Samuels commented that Mr. Pfeil's memos are a very good guide concerning a project and the memos usually identify the areas and issues that deserve some discussion. Commissioner Feldgreber asked where the Plan Commission's job stops. How far should the Commission go into their questioning process. How much of the engineering should be dealt with. He noted that sometimes he feels the commission is getting too deep into some issues. Commissioner Samuels agreed that some things are perhaps looked at too deeply. The building commissioner is in charge of compliance with appropriate building codes and is not necessary for the Plan Commission to consider building codes items. He further stated a builder has to comply with the ordinances and codes, and the Plan Commission should draw the line at asking questions that are more directed towards building code issues than to the use and zoning of the property. Chairman Ottenheimer noted it is his responsibility and prerogative as the Chair to re-direct the discussion if it wanders from issues that are pertinent to the Commission's review. He noted he is reluctant to cut-off discussion unless it is necessary in order to keep the meeting properly focused. Commissioner Trilling stated he feels the commission generally does a good job. The only time that they tend to go beyond pertinent discussion is perhaps best exemplified by the approach to stormwater detention. He noted the plan has to meet the detention requirements of Lake County and the Village, regardless of what the commission says. Therefore to start discussing detention requirements is immaterial. Commissioner Samuels stated some narrowing of the commission's focus is in order. Also, some questions concerning financials is inappropriate. There seems to be a notion that the Plan Commission does not want to allow a white elephant to be built in the community. However, nowhere does it state that the commission has a right to talk about the financial viability of a development. The petition must bring in evidence of highest and best use and whether they have the funding to ultimately build the project or not is not part of the Plan Commission's role. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if the same is true in asking for a developer donation. Commissioner Samuels stated he has no problem with any conditions on development. Mr. Pfeil noted that in the time frame when residential development was more significant as far as impacting the Village and other taxing bodies, fiscal impact analyses were required because it was very important that the Village achieve a balance of land uses, including commercial and industrial. School districts are greatly affected by large-scale residential developments so fiscal and demographic impacts are important in reviewing these types of developments. Commissioner Samuels noted he understood that element and it is still relevant. Balancing those elements of the Comprehensive Plan is an essential part of the commission's role. However, people at a hearing sometimes question the economic viability of a development, and this beyond the scope of the Plan Commission's responsibility. He asked at what point the Chairman of the Plan Commission has the right to advise the public that their point does not bear on the land use and zoning decision. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the chairman can intervene at any time but he feels that most of the time people just want to vent if they are against a development. Mr. Pfeil noted there are some cases in litigation concerning providing persons at a hearing adequate opportunity to ask questions. He noted Mr. Raysa would be providing direction to the Plan Commission concerning guidelines for cross-examination by the public. Chairman Ottenheimer noted certain municipalities have open pre-hearing workshops with the developers before they even do their formal workshop or public hearings. The purpose is to sit down with the developer to informally review the basic plan and note those areas that are of concern. Mr. Pfeil stated the Village Board wants to look at ways to modify the review process at the start of projects. One idea discussed by the staff is a development review committee that would look at projects before they are advanced for consideration by the Village Board as a whole. Commissioner Samuels noted the pre-application process before anything even gets to the formal Village Board level and stated the developer has some pretty good input at that point. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that perhaps it should be a function of everyone reviewing their packets and getting communication to Mr. Pfeil who then can relay the preliminary thoughts of the Plan Commission to the relevant parties so they can at least have an expectation of how to progress. Commissioner Samuels noted that developers would not see this process as enabling but something that just delays the process one more step. He would prefer to just go to workshop and work things out than have to go through something before it ever gets to the workshop meeting. Commissioner Panitch noted it is a good step for the developer to know where everyone stands prior to the first workshop. Mr. Pfeil stated most developers are knowledgeable about their legal rights and their goal is Village Board referral. He noted he feels this process needs to be improved on a staff basis and it may or may not include Plan Commission members in a development review committee format. Commissioner Trilling stated that the process must be made as streamlined as possible, but with no undue pressure on the Commission creating more work or time expended by the Commissioners. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that one of the disadvantages to such a system would be that if you only one or two select members of the Plan Commission for any particular project, they may not be representing the view of the whole. This would be a potential issue. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if enough information is being received initially from staff when going into the first workshop. Mr. Pfeil's memos are very informative but could the commission use more information or, if not sufficient, what kind of information can someone like Trustee Berman let us know. Commissioner Samuels stated the minutes from the Village Board are sparse at best. It is often extremely difficult to glean from the minutes what the sense of the Board is or what importance they put on comments that are made. It would be helpful to get a much clearer version of what went on at the Board level, whether it comes from the referral or staff informal discussions. He noted several instances where the Plan Commission has gone off in a direction where the Village Board is not interested. Trustee Berman stated the Board is trying to be more forthright and more open with comment pre-referral and trying to send stronger and clearer messages. Whether or not they are getting communicated to the Plan Commission is questionable. Trustee Berman noted that is why they have a Plan Commission member as a liaison to each Board meeting to help bring back that information and fill in the gaps in the written material. The first step is to make sure the Board is giving as much information on the project as possible and that is an ongoing process but one that the current Board does better than some in the past. Obviously the trustee liaison is there to try and help and the Plan Commission liaison to the Board needs to come back and convey more information about what is said. Chairman Ottenheimer noted there seems to be a general concensus that the Commission is not getting as much information as they would like to have initially. He asked what additional information the Commission would like to have. Commissioner Panitch stated he would like to know what the Board really wants. Commissioner Samuels noted the recent Dominick's development, which was referred to the Plan Commission and recommended for approval with a fuel center. The Board then approved the plan specifically without the fuel center and apparently never wanted the fuel center there. He stated the Plan Commission spent hours dissecting the plan to make it the best possible plan. Trustee Berman stated that is an inherent part of the system. When you have a recommending body and a separate body that is actually accountable to the public and has to make the final decision, that is what will happen. The developer also has a due process right to present their plan and to pursue the process. That developer went into it knowing that if they pursued the fuel center, it would probably not be passed. Commissioner Samuels noted you can get a developer to pull something at the commission level without having to wait to get to the Board level, if the Board communicates strongly enough to the commission what it desires. Commissioner Panitch stated the issue is really that the information from the Village Board to the Commission needs to be in a different format so that they really know the sentiments of the Board. Trustee Berman it has been discussed at the Board level about referring projects that the trustees cannot believe in. He noted that if the Board makes a referral, it should indicate to the commission that the board is determined, at least on its face, the plan is in keeping with the policy objectives of the Village and therefore the commission should take it at that level and assume that the policy determination has been made. Then it is the job of the Plan Commission to act on all the zoning, planning and site planning issues, to make the plan as good as possible to be returned to the Board. Commissioner Trilling stated the Board and the Plan Commission are allowed to change their mind. He noted that sometimes what he initially conceives a project to be and what it ultimately may be are two totally different things. Trustee Berman stated sometimes an idea or thought conceived at the Board level does not work. That is the kind of thing that is part of the process and is not the kind of thing that should serve as a mandate. Commissioner Samuels stated he agrees. However, he does not feel there is anything wrong with the Board somehow conveying that something is not going to work Commissioner Smith stated he, of course, would like to know how the Board feels and he will take that into consideration just as much as what the petitioner has to say. He will, however, listen to all of it but keep his mind open. He noted the Board would not influence how he will vote. Trustee Berman stated he agrees and that is what the Board wants; not nine puppets on the Plan Commission. He further noted the Board has made a commitment that when people have reservations about a project, pre-referral, will state them on the record so that the Plan Commission will know about them. He does feel that information needs to get to the Commission better. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he does not feel the Commission is giving enough attention to the appearance issues. He asked for feedback on this problem. He stated he feels the Commission does great site review planning and traffic planning, as well as an adequate job on landscaping. However, he is disappointed in the appearance review, which is usually left for the end of workshop sessions. He noted that he feels the Commission does not have to accept what the petitioner wants. Commissioner Samuels stated he fully agrees with Chairman Ottenheimer. He asked what authority the Plan Commission has and where the line must be drawn. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he feels the Commission has ultimate authority to make a recommendation. Commissioner Samuels stressed he would like to know how the Commission could say yes to the project but no to the building. Trustee Berman stated that is a separate aspect of the Commission's authority now. The Commission can now control not only the zoning and the use question, but also the aesthetics of a project. He further noted the Board is also learning as they go along and doing away with the Appearance Commission is still an ongoing process and one of the things the Board promised was to keep looking at it to make sure it is working. He also noted concern about whether or not the Commission needs more of an expert input, like the traffic engineer, who can give the Commission ideas relating to major projects going on in the Village. Commissioner Samuels asked if the Commission should consider bifurcating its approval process. Trustee Berman noted that would be more akin to what used to happen and part of the idea was to save people an extra trip. Whether or not that can be done, as a practical matter is an open question. Commissioner Samuels stated he feels that appearance issues should only become bifurcated when they become an issue. Mr. Pfeil stated there is an Appearance Plan and it was discussed by staff last year. What has not been done is to bring the Appearance Plan brought back to the Commission to complete the review and amendment process. Some decisions will need to be made concerning the content and the legal basis of the Appearance Plan. Adding graphics to illustrate design concepts and adding objective criteria are some of the additions that should be considered. Chairman Ottenheimer stressed that the Village needs to impress upon the developers that they need to give the Commission more than just a board of shingles and a sample of brick. Commissioner Panitch asked if there is someone on staff that can act as an expert on appearance issues and could guide the Commission. Mr. Pfeil stated the Village would probably have to hire outside expertise. Trustee Berman stated this is something that is seriously under consideration. Commissioner Bocek stated she does not feel signage is given enough attention. Chairman Ottenheimer stated signage is not really the Plan Commission's purview, belonging to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Ottenheimer brought up the issue of handicapped accessibility standards and issues. He noted that just because a project meets the code it does not mean it is the best for the project. Commissioner Samuels stated that is fine in terms of fine tuning but not in terms of wanting more than is required. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that until recently the Commission did not give specific emphasis to handicapped accessibility issues because it was assumed that the Village approved plans based on code requirements. There is flexibility in meeting code requirements, and this is one area that the Plan Commission can work with developers to make sure that accessible features are designed to be as useful as possible, not just to meet minimum standards. Commissioner Trilling stated he feels the only thing the Commission will be able to do is fine tune location of parking spaces. Commissioner Samuels stated that to make a recommendation is one thing but to hold up a development because we demand they have more than required by the code is a problem. Mr. Pfeil stated Ed Schar, the Village Building Commissioner, is helping the site plan review process with his recommendations concerning handicapped accessible parking, ramps and travel routes to building entrances. He noted that the Plan Commission has been trying to look more closely at design details such as sidewalks and ramps to make the facilities as useful as possible. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he feels the Commission just needs to become a little more aware of some of the issues. Trustee Berman cautioned that the Disabilities Commission is by its nature an advocacy group and to the extent they are asking for something beyond that which is required by code, it needs to be taken in that vein. It is advocacy and while it needs to be heard and taken account of, it cannot be taken as gospel. Commissioner Feldgreber suggested comments be received from the Disabilities Commission noting their review of a project and any comments they wished to make. Trustee Berman suggested that Chairman Ottenheimer note at the meetings that he has received a report from the Disabilities Commission Chairman who indicated the plan has been reviewed and is fine or needs to be fine-tuned further. Commissioner Smith noted that when a vote is taken and someone is against a project he would like to hear the reasons why, rather than just a no vote. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that by the time the Commission gets to a vote, everyone generally has a sense of who is for or against a project through the nature of the questions asked and the comments made. He stated Commissioner Smith's point is well taken. Commissioner Trilling stated comments should be offered prior to the vote when the regular meeting opens and everyone is discussing the project more. Chairman Ottenheimer agreed that comments should be made during general discussion and not when a vote is taken. Trustee Berman noted that the public hearing and vote is inherently a legal proceeding and in the event of litigation it is important to have an adequate record that due process was followed and that the Commission voted on a rational, reasonable and objective basis. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT -None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil noted the next meeting would be held on May 2, 2001. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS -None STAFF REPORT -None NEW BUSINESS -None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Trilling, seconded by Commissioner Feldgreber and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair