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