Loading...
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