1995-05-03 - Plan Commission - Minutes REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE P • COMMISSION
May 3, 1995
Zoning Ordinance - Section 17.64.040
concerning written protest
Zoning Ordinance - Chapter 17.64
concerning hearings by Village Board
Zoning Ordinance - Sections 17.36.020.A and 17.36.030.F
concerning handicapped accessible parking areas
Zoning Ordinance - Section 17.36.030.F
concerning driveway width in residential districts
Chairman Goldspiel 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: Chairman Goldspiel
Mr. Krug
Ms. Howard
Mr. Rosenston
Mr. Samuels
Mr. Lundine
Mr. Ottenheimer
Mr. Trilling
Commissioners absent: Mr. Berman
Also present: Mr. John Green, SDS Design
Mr. Kahen, Commission for Resisents with
Disabilities
Mr. Mark Spivak
Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney
Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer
Mr. John Marienthal, Village Trustee
Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Ottenheimer, seconded by Commissioner Krug
to approve the minutes of the public hearing and regular meeting
of April 5, 1995. Chairman Goldspiel noted the addition of
wordage on page five of the public hearing on the Olson and
Jespersen properties.
All Commissioners were in favor of the amended motion and the
motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Rosenston abstaining.
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-May 3, 1995-Page 1
COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
Commissioner Rosenston attended the Village Board meeting of April
3, 1995 and noted that annexation hearings concerning the Olson
and Jespersen properties were continued to May 15, 1995.
Commissioner Howard attended the Village Board meeting of April
17, 1995 stating the following items were approved by the Board:
1. Kingswood United Methodist Church expansion
2. St. Paul Federal Bank variation concerning stormwater
detention
ZONING ORDINANCE - SECTION 17.64.040 CONCERNING WRITTEN PROTEST
Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney, stated the Village Ordinance
in regard to written protest is somewhat different from State
statute. He stated because of the written protests received in
the last five years or so, there has been a question as to whether
the Village Ordinance or the State statute prevails. He stated it
is his opinion the Village Ordinance takes precedence as this is a
home rule municipality. Because of several differences between
the ordinance and the State statute, he stated he would like the
Plan Commission to review the subject for possible change.
Mr. Raysa reviewed the two distinctions between the Village
ordinance and the state statute. He stated the state statute
requires a favorable vote of 2/3rds of the trustees, meaning the
Village President cannot vote. He noted the definition of
corporate authorities includes six trustees and a Village
President and therefore by making our ordinance having 2/3rds of
the corporate authorities, versus the state statute of 2/3rds of
the trustees, the Village has increased the total number of
required votes.
Mr. Raysa stated the second issue concerns required notice. He
noted that Village ordinance does not include the phraseology
contained in the state statute requiring notice by certified
mailing to the applicant and the applicant's attorney of any
written protest. He suggested that this notice requirement should
be included in the ordinance.
Mr. Raysa stated he has also suggested three other changes:
1. change "clerk of the municipality" to Village Clerk"
2. change "favorable" vote to "affirmative" vote
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-May 3, 1995-Page 2
3. change "two-thirds of the alderman or trustees of the
municipality then holding office" to "two-thirds of the
Village trustees then holding office"
Mr. Raysa stated in regards to changing "favorable" vote to
"affirmative" vote, the difference is that an abstention would not
be counted as an affirmative vote.
'ti.J Commissioner Rosenston stated he is in favor of the mailed notice
requirement. He asked if the two-thirds vote is of the elected
trustees or of the trustees present at the time the vote is taken.
Mr. Raysa stated it is two-thirds of the trustees then holding
office.
Commissioner Rosenston asked if a vote would be delayed if there
were only three trustees and the Village President present.
Mr. Raysa stated that a vote to approve could not occur given that
circumstance. He noted that a matter could be tabled or continued
to a future agenda. He also noted that the chair could call for a
vote even if the number of trustees required for an approving vote
were not present.
Commissioner Rosenston noted that if only three trustees are
present the vote would fail.
Commissioner Samuels stated under present circumstances the
Village President votes to break a tie. He asked if the Village
President would now be absolutely precluded from participating in
these proceedings.
Mr. Raysa stated the Village President would specifically be
excluded from voting even in the case of a tie under this section.
He stated the Village President still has the general authority to
vote in other situations when there is a tie, a majority of the
trustees have voted in favor of an issue, where a state statute or
Village ordinance requires an extraordinary majority vote.
Commissioner Krug asked if there would be a quorum if there were
four trustees present with the Village President absent and one of
the trustees sits as president pro-tem.
Mr. Raysa stated that would still be quorum and noted he has
always recommended against a president pro-tem. A president pro-
' tem has all the power and authority of the Village president which
means he can sign ordinances, veto ordinances, etc. He stated he
recommends temporary chairman instead of president pro-tem and the
temporary chairman does not lose his right to vote as a trustee.
Commissioner Ottenheimer asked if the ordinance as presently
Buffalo Grove Plan Conn-Regular Meeting-May 3, 1995-Page 3
drafted is subject to a legitimate judicial attack because it
conflicts with the state statute.
Mr. Raysa stated without home rule it would be subject to judicial
attack. With home rule, the Village has the authority. He
further stated the only gray area is if a substantive due process
right given by state statute is being taken away.
Commissioner Ottenheimer noted his agreement with the addition of
notice by mail.
Commissioner Krug asked who would mail out the copies of the
petition.
Mr. Raysa stated the person who is doing the written protest would
have to mail out the copy.
Commissioner Krug asked how that person will know they must do
that.
Mr. Raysa stated he would know by reading both the village
ordinance and the state statute. He further stated the person
would already have had to read those sections in order to know how
to begin a writtenprotest and the requirements of a written
9 �
protest.
Commissioner Krug stated an attachment explaining the process for
a protest should be put in the notice of public hearing mailing to
adjoining property owners when zoning changes are requested.
Mr. Raysa stated he always refers people to the appropriate
section of the Village ordinance when he receives inquiries. He
noted it is not the village's role to provide legal advice to
persons wishing to submit a petition of objection.
Commissioner Krug stated it is not necessary to spell out
procedures, but a few lines advising individuals to contact the
Village regarding protests would be a good idea.
Mr. Pfeil stated the protest, even if it is a valid petition, is
not needed for the Plan Commission hearing but rather prior to
Village Board action. Therefore, people could be informed of the
ordinance at the public hearing before Village Board action on an
approving ordinance, and if property owners wished to file an
objection, they could review the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Commissioner Samuels noted that the notice of public hearing is
the petitioner's notice, and it should not be the petitioner's
responsibility to tell someone how to oppose the change that he is
requesting. In addition, with regards to the 20 frontage percent
requirement, that magnitude of opposition usually has knowledge
Buffalo Grove Plan Conn-Regular Meeting-May 3, 1995-Page 4
through legal representation of the requirements for a written
protest.
Commissioner Rosenston noted his agreement with Commissioner
Samuels. He stated the Village should not have the responsibility
for notification of any kind as the State statute is very
specific. He further stated being in agreement with state statute
would make everything simpler for everyone.
Chairman Goldspiel asked how the time frame will be affected if a
notice of written protest is agreed to and included in the
ordinance.
Mr. Raysa stated the state statute says a copy of the written
protest shall be served upon the petitioner and his attorney by
certified mail. As long as that service is obtained prior to a
Village Board vote on it, there is no time limit between the time
of that service and the time of the vote.
Chairman Goldspiel asked why the state statute requires service to
the owner and his attorney.
Mr. Raysa stated that Illinois law is unusual in this regard.
Chairman Goldspiel stated it would be a good idea to see an actual
draft of the ordinance to ensure that the language is carefully
crafted. He noted in some cases ownership of property is in blind
trusts, and notification may be difficult.
Commissioner Samuels noted the petitioner has to disclose
ownership of the property, so the identity for purposes of
notification shouldn't be an issue. If notice is sent to the
petitioner as disclosed in the petition submitted for Village
zoning approval, that would be good notice.
Commissioner Rosenston stated the petition very clearly states
"applicant" and he sees no reason to change anything and the
village and state should be under the same statute.
Commissioner Krug asked if service by certified mail includes
Federal Express and other messenger services.
Mr. Raysa stated his interpretation is notice would be by either
certified mail or personal service.
Commissioner Krug asked if personal service would include the
messenger services.
Mr. Raysa stated that messenger service is not generally
considered to be personal service.
Commissioner Samuels commented that electronic means of service
Buffalo Grove Plan Comn-Regular Meeting-May 3, 1995-Page 5
are just as reliable as personal service and delivery. He further
noted service should be specified to either the applicant or his
attorney and not both. He also noted any signed receipt by a
private carrier should be sufficient. He stated the important
thing is that actual notice be conveyed.
Commissioner Ottenheimer agreed the purpose of certified mail is
to ensure that the person for whom the notice is intended actually
receives that notice. Therefore, restricted delivery would be the
best method.
Commissioner Samuels noted the essence of the notice is the
affidavit which says the notice was sent by certified mail and
this affidavit is then the evidence of receipt. He noted there is
a difference between service of process and certified mail notice.
Commissioner Rosenston noted clarification is needed as to whether
the requirement is to show that the notice was actually mailed out
or was received.
Chairman Goldspiel noted the Commission was in agreement
regarding:
1. agreement with verbiage changes to the ordinance
2. agreement with changes to make it "two-thirds of the alderman
or trustees of the municipality then holding office" to "two-
thirds of the Village trustees then holding office"
3. agreement that notice be required to be served to the
petitioner
Commissioner Rosenston asked for clarification of the notice as to
whether it means the mailing or receipt of same.
Mr. Raysa said it is his opinion that the intent is that the
applicant received notice of the protest.
Commissioner Rosenston suggested drafting the ordinance to state
that notice is to be served on either the applicant or his
attorney and proof of receipt is obtained.
Mr. Raysa noted the state statute does not have return receipt
requested in it.
Commissioner Samuels stated once service is required, you will
have to deal with ducking service and this is the distinction
between notice and service. The person could avoid the notice
simply by ducking service. That is why the intent required by the
statute is notice. He stated the word "served" should be changed
to "notified" .
Buffalo Grove Plan Conn-Regular Meeting-May 3, 1995-Page 6
Chairman Goldspiel noted all Commissioners were in favor of
changing the affirmative vote of 2/3rds of the Corporate
Authorities to a favorable vote of 2/3rds (four) of the trustees.
ZONING ORDINANCE - CHAPTER 17.64 CONCERNING HEARINGS BY THE
VILLAGE BOARD
Mr. Raysa introduced the requested change to allow the Village
Board to hold a public hearing on matters, usually handled by the
Plan Commission. One example is when a zoning hearing is needed to
settle litigation. Another situation is if a variation is missed
in the notice for public hearing at the Plan Commission. A project
may have to go back to the Plan Commission for re-hearing if a
variation is not published. He stated he is suggesting that under
those types of scenarios, the public hearing could be held at the
Village Board.
Chairman Goldspiel noted that the ordinance could limit the
Boards's action to certain circumstances such as if there has
already been a hearing at the Plan Commission and some additions
are necessary. The important thing is to insure the public's right
to be heard.
Mr. Raysa stated the second reason for requesting the Village
Board be allowed to hold a public hearing is that sometimes when
litigation has ensued on a plan a variation or minor plan change
may be needed as part of the settlement agreement. A variation
requires a public hearing and the Village cannot ignore its own
ordinance and not hold a public hearing. Allowing a public hearing
at the Village Board level will therefore accommodate any missed
variances and any variances granted on a proposed plan through
means of a settlement agreement.
Commissioner Samuels stated it makes complete sense in the event
the Plan Commission has already had a public hearing on the
general issue involved, that the Board have the discretion as to
whether or not the issue be sent back to the Plan Commission for
further hearing or hold their own public hearing.
Commissioner Trilling stated a previously rejected plan by both
Plan Commission and Board goes to litigation and a negotiated
settlement is reached the plan would perhaps be better off coming
back to the Plan Commission for a public hearing since major
changes may have occurred.
Commissioner Krug noted this could also affect building and zoning
as changes to zoning ordinance could be made by the Village Board
without a return to either the Plan Commission or ZBA.
Commissioner Samuels stated if there is a pre-condition that the
Plan Commission and/or the ZBA has already held a public hearing
on the issue before the Village board has the discretion to hold a
public hearing, then the protection against any abuse is there.
Buffalo Grove Plan Conn-Regular Meeting-May 3, 1995-Page 7
Chairman Goldspiel noted the Commission's concurrence that the
ordinance be drafted to state that a public hearing must already
have been held by the Plan Commission or ZBA concerning a project
before the Village Board can hold a public hearing.
ZONING ORDINANCE - SECTIONS 17.36.020.a AND 17.36.030.F CONCERNING
HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREAS
Mr. Pfeil reviewed the recommendation for certain text changes to
the Zoning Ordinance concerning handicapped accessible parking
areas when they are to be modified or maintained. He noted the
ordinance is not specific and clear that it is an action requiring
Village approval. He noted there can be situations where a
parking lot might get resurfaced and restriped and has not been
completely brought up to code on accessibility and number of
handicapped spaces. He stated this is an attempt by the
Commission for Residents with Disabilities to have the Village
address this situation and perhaps have some kind of ordinance to
ensure that restriped and reconstructed parking lots will be
brought into compliance with applicable State accessibility code
issues.
Commissioner Rosenston noted this new language could possibly
engender an undo burden on a property owner by requiring major
improvements and expenditures when only basic maintenance is
needed.
Mr. Pfeil commented that the permit process would be very simple
if only a re-striping or re-sealing is needed.
Commissioner Rosenston asked if there are any ordinances now that
require a lot to be restriped because the lines have worn off.
Mr. Pfeil stated that is a property maintenance issue and the
Village does have the authority to require stall lines to be
visible and up to code.
Commissioner Rosenston noted concern with forcing major
expenditures upon a property owner who wishes to maintain his lot
and suddenly finds he must expend a great deal more than he has or
knew about to maintain his lot.
Mr. Pfeil stated that is a legitimate concern, however, the
Village's commitment is to work with property owners so as not to
create undo burdens while at the same time addressing the needs of
handicapped persons using the parking areas.
Commissioner Rosenston stated he is in favor of the proposed
amendments as a way of getting things upgraded. However, he would
like to see if there is a way to allow the restriping without 100
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-May 3, 1995-Page 8
it
percent compliance which would create a financial burden or
hardship. He asked if the State presently requires a lot be
brought up to handicapped compliance if you are merely restriping
a lot.
Commissioner Krug stated the State requires that you automatically
do so whether you are restriping or not.
Mr. Rick Kahen, of the Commission for Residents with Disabilities,
stated there are problems with some lots that have spaces for
handicapped accessibility that are not suitably located for
handicapped use. He noted the intent is to have the Village have
control concerning where accessible spaces are located when an
owner restripes or improves a parking lot.
Commissioner Krug asked if a fee will be attached to any required
permit for restriping and coating of lots.
Mr. Pfeil said there would probably be a nominal fee for basic
maintenance permits.
Commissioner Krug noted this is putting a great burden on a
property owner who is already in compliance and is doing his best
to maintain the property. He stated he does not want any kind of
permit fee.
Mr. Pfeil stated that the fee is not intended to be a revenue
generator, and the Village would not want to discourage property
maintenance with excessive fees and regulations. He noted that a
property owner applying for a re-striping or re-sealing would only
need to certify that no changes would be made to the type and
location of parking spaces, and the permit would be quickly
reviewed and issued.
Commissioner Ottenheimer stated if a lot is being redone it
certainly does need to be up to certification and needs to meet
the standards. However, rather than paying a fee each time a lot
is redone, he suggested that if the lot is not redone properly or
up to the standards, a fine be assessed at that time.
Commissioner Samuels noted agreement with Commissioner
Ottenheimer. He stated that a lot that has already been built is
required to be in compliance with ADA requirements under federal
law which usurps all other laws. Therefore, a permit requirement
will pose an undo burden on Village staff and on taxpayers and is
redundant.
Chairman Goldspiel noted the Disabilities Commission is also
concerned with parking lots that are technically in compliance but
may need more accessible locations for some of the handicapped
accessible parking spaces.
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-May 3, 1995-Page 9
Commissioner Rosenston stated there appears to be legislation in
place to cover this issue. However, the question seems to be more
of who will be the reviewing body to decide where the handicapped
parking spaces are to be located and other such issues. He noted
the further question is where does the existing legislation fall
short and how can this be covered and resolved.
Commissioner Samuels stated that on new construction plans, the
Plan Commission should ask for the recommendations of the
Commission for Residents with Disabilities on parking layouts and
curb ramps. In this way, the appropriate input would be received
and parking lots could be designed appropriately. He noted that he
has a problem with requiring a permit for basic maintenance of a
parking lot.
Commissioner Krug noted that when a new commercial development is
reviewed there is very little information concerning specific
tenants or stores. Therefore, the Commission follows the
recommendations of the staff, ordinance requirements and State
regulations to plan handicapped-accessible spaces.
Commissioner Trilling stated in new construction it is typically
the building department that accepts or rejects a plan for parking
lots, including the size and location of all spaces. He further
noted that a reconstruction usually requires compliance with state
and federal regulations. Restriping and seal coating usually does
not require any type of permit in most municipalities.
Commissioner Rosenston concurred with Commissioner Trilling
regarding new plans. He also agreed that new plans should make
use of input from the Commission for Residents with Disabilities.
He stated that as far as existing facilities, restriping should
not require a permit. He further noted that some parking lots
technically meet the requirements but are not easily accessible to
the handicapped and the Commission for Residents with Disabilities
needs to take a pro-active approach to contact property owners and
discuss solutions to the problems.
Mr. Pfeil commented that it is a better policy for the Village to
do an initial review on a project to ensure that basic re-striping
is done in compliance with regulations rather than going in after
the improvement is completed and citing a violation.
Mr. Green noted that as time goes by and the uses on a property
change, it may be necessary to modify a parking lot, and
compliance with ADA requirements should be part of this process.
Commissioner Samuels noted a maintenance issue is distinguished
from a building plan or renovation issue. If a renovation is to
be done a permit is necessary. However, basic maintenance should
not be held up while Village staff and the Commission for
Residents with Disabilities review the plan. He further noted that
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-May 3, 1995-Page 10
property owners could be given the opportunity for a voluntary
review by the Village concerning basic maintenance to make sure
that the parking lot meets accessibility requirements.
I'I The Commission concurred that the Village needs to provide
guidelines to property owners concerning the location of
handicapped accessible spaces and curb ramps.
`•/ Commissioner Samuels said he favors more study to determine when
to require a permit, but he does not favor permitting for routine
maintenance.
Commissioner Trilling stated that any modification to an existing
structure may cause changes to the parking lot which would need to
be addressed.
Moved by Commissioner Rosenston, seconded by Commissioner Samuels
for proposals from staff on how to handle permitting for
reconstruction, expansion or modification of existing parking
lots, specifically excluding maintenance, as well as guidelines to
be initiated to handle compliance issues.
Chairman Goldspiel called for a vote on the motion and the vote
was as follows:
AYES: Krug, Howard, Rosenston, Samuels, Lundine, Ottenheimer,
Trilling
NAYES: Goldspiel
ABSENT: Berman
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Goldspiel noted that his vote reflects his concern with
proper control over re-striping changes made to parking lots.
ZONING ORDINANCE - SECTION 17.36.030.F CONCERNING DRIVEWAY WIDTH
IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Commissioner Samuels stated he will not participate in any
discussion or vote on the issue as he is involved with one of the
purchasers of a home which is requesting a change in the
ordinance.
Mr. Pfeil stated there is a need to address the current standard
of the ordinance to accommodate some of the requests coming in now
for building permits. He stated the current standard in the Zoning
Ordinance limits the width of a three car driveway to 27 feet
which does not accommodate the width of some of the three car
garages now being designed.
Chairman Goldspiel asked if there is any particular reason for
garage doors becoming wider.
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-May 3, 1995-Page 11
Mr. Green reviewed the history of market trends, noting the
present desire of many home purchasers for three car garages with
extra width for opening car doors.
Commissioner Rosenston agreed with the popularity of three car
garages. He noted concern with the way some of these driveways
taper. He stated it may be better to concentrate more on percent
coverage than absolute width. He noted he would like to see the
driveways go from the outside to the outside of the garage doors
and straight down to the sidewalk apron.
Mr. Green stated he endorses tying driveway width to the concept
of percentages. He further noted this would allow for a great
deal more creativity with future construction.
Mr. Mark Spivak stated he has bought a home in Rolling Hills
subdivision and would like to extend the driveway width to the
outside of the garage. This would alleviate the problem of having
people walk on the grass. He noted this requires a wider driveway
width than the standard 27 foot requirement.
Commissioner Rosenston stated there does need to be a limit as to
how much area can be paved beyond the doors of a garage. He stated
he would be more comfortable if there is a dimension limit to how
much beyond the doors to go.
Chairman Goldspiel noted a possible problem with percentage is
that as lots get wider and wider or deeper and deeper, 40 percent
could be a lot of paving on some lots.
Mr. Green stated that as development progresses, houses on wider
lots can be set back farther which will allow room for much
greater creativity in driveway development. He noted it is
necessary to know what new designs are being proposed and then
plan for these new elements in the ordinance.
Commissioner Trillingnoted that at a certain length and width, a
9t
driveway needs to be looked at for overall appearance of the
property. He noted there should be a lot size limit in width and
depth when considering wider driveways.
Chairman Goldspiel asked if the ordinance could be conditioned by
having some of these larger sized garage situations require
special architectural treatment of the driveway.
Mr. Raysa said that it is difficult to develop standards to
address architectural treatment, and some property owners would
challenge vague ordinance requirements.
Commissioner Trilling noted the Village does not specify the use
of either asphalt or concrete.
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-May 3, 1995-Page 12
Chairman Goldspiel noted that a residential street is only 27 feet
wide, so the idea of allowing driveways wider than 27 feet on
private lots needs serious evaluation to ensure that overpaying is
not going to occur.
Commissioner Rosenston noted that Mr. Spivak's request is for a 32
foot driveway on a 90 foot lot. He indicated that this does not
seem to present a problem because the lot has sufficient width in
relation to the amount of pavement. However, the problem is to
come up with a percentage coverage for the property and possibly a
certain percentage of the lot frontage and the amount of allowable
I,I pavement beyond the garage door.
Mr. Green commented that three car garages are now very common on
li smaller lots, and the Village should also be looking at how three
car driveways can be accommodated on R-5 lots.
Commissioner Trilling suggested that coverage could be limited to
40 percent of the required front yard and the width of the paved
surface is not to exceed 40 percent of the lot frontage. The
paved area could be limited to not more than 12 inches beyond the
outside edge of the garage door.
Mr. Pfeil asked if there is any concensus among the Commission as
to what may be reasonable for the benefit of the Rolling Hills
owners present who are requesting 32 and 30-foot wide driveways.
Chairman Goldspiel said he would not want to give property owners
any direction to proceed with improvements that are not in
compliance with current ordinance requirements. He noted that the
issue of driveway taper still needs to be discussed.
Commissioner Rosenston said he is concerned with the appearance of
tapers on lots with fairly shallow front yard setbacks.
Chairman Goldspiel stated he is opposed to anything wider than 27
feet at the sidewalk.
Commissioner Rosenston stated Mr. Spivak's need for a 32 foot
driveway which will taper to 27 feet at the apron complies with
the 40 percent rule.
Douglas Colby said that he has a large lot in Rolling Hills and he
is planning a long driveway to accommodate the deep setback of his
home. He said he is concerned that the lot coverage standard may
limit the design of his driveway.
Chairman Goldspiel directed staff to assess the suggestions made
by the Commission concerning lot coverage, lot width, total
pavement width and other
they variables, and continue researching the
matter for further discussion by the Plan Commission.
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-May 3, 1995-Page 13
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT - None
FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE
Mr. Pfeil said that the next meeting will be May 17, 1995.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND OUESTIONS - None
STAFF REPORT - None
NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Samuels noted that the restricted parking for
Saggio's does not appear to be consistent with the campus parking
concept as planned at the time when the Village Hall expansion was
approved.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Rosenston, seconded by Commissioner Krug and
carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Goldspiel adjourned the
meeting at 11:40 p.m.
Resp tfully s itted,
Fay Rub'n, ecording Secretary
APPBoVED BY:
- ' ,I/V/2.S P N GOLDSPIEL, aChairman
/
Buffalo Grove Plan Conn-Regular Meeting-May 3, 1995-Page 14