1992-07-15 - Plan Commission - Minutes PUBLIC HEARING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
July 15, 1992
Amendment to the Village Zoning Ordinance
Section 17.28.030.D - Special Uses
Vice Chairman Goldspiel called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m.
in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove,
Illinois and read the Notice of Public Hearing as published in the
Buffalo Grove Daily Herald, explained the format of the meeting
and swore in persons who were giving testimony at the public
hearing.
Commissioners present: Chairman Silbernik
Mr. Goldspiel
Mr. Rhodes
Ms. Howard
Mr. Rosenston
Mr. Samuels
Commissioners absent: Mr. Krug
Ms. Genell
Also present: Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney
Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer
Mr. Charles Hendricks, Village Trustee
Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
Mr. Raysa stated that the reason for the proposed revision to
Section 17 .28. 030.D was due to certain arguments made on behalf of
developers when the Village has been in court regarding
abandonment or cessation. The Zoning Ordinance which now reads,
"After any special use is discontinued for more than one year, the
special use shall be automatically revoked", led to arguments by
several plaintiffs that you cannot discontinue a special use if
you never started a special use. In order to answer such an
argument in the future, staff has proposed that the Zoning
Ordinance be amended to read as follows:
Whenever a special use has not been established on an
approved site within two (2) years of the date of the
Corporate Authorities acting to authorize the special
use, or whenever a special use ceases to operate or is
discontinued for a period of over one (1) year, the Corporate
Authorities may revoke the special use unless other
provisions are made by the Corporate Authorities.
If a rezoning was granted at the time of approval of the
special use and if the special use is revoked, the
property shall revert to the previous zoning classifi-
i
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Public Hearing-July 15, 1992-Page 1
cation or such other zoning classification as the
Corporate Authorities deem appropriate.
Mr. Raysa further stated that the two year period refers to two
years from the date a PUD ordinance or special use ordinance is
passed. He further stated that a one year period of time is
placed on an existing special use which ceases to operate or is
discontinued. In that instance the Corporate Authorities may
revoke the special use unless other provisions are made by the
Corporate Authorities. Mr. Raysa stated that this may add some
extra work for the Village staff. The proposed language gives the
Corporate Authorities the right to revoke the special use but does
not make revocation automatic. He noted that the Corporate
Authorities would also have the latitude to extend the special use
if so warranted.
Mr. Raysa also stated that the proposed amendment to the zoning
P P
ordinance states that if rezoning was granted at the time of
approval of the special use and if the special use is revoked, the
property shall revert to the previous zoning classification or
such other zoning classification as the Corporate Authorities deem
appropriate. This is consistent with current case law and also
allows the Corporate Authorities to change the zoning due to any
change in circumstances.
Mr. Pfeil concurred with Mr. Raysa stating that the proposed
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the
Development Ordinance and ties the ordinances together concerning
the length of time that an approved plan stays in effect.
Commissioner Rhodes asked if it would be better to specify a time
limit to the section of the amendment which reads " . . .the
Corporate Authorities may revoke the special use unless other
provisions are made by the Corporate Authorities. "
Mr. Raysa recommended against any kind of time limit on the
Corporate Authorities. He stated that it was very difficult to
try to anticipate all the factual circumstances that might happen
as far as an extension of a special use.
Commissioner Howard asked how soon after approval of this
amendment a data base would be in place to monitor special uses.
Mr. Pfeil stated that a data base already exists, and that it
would not be difficult to develop a more sophisticated system to
track approved plans and special uses.
Commissioner Samuels asked if by using the word "may" without any
criteria the Village was open to challenges on the basis of an
arbitrary decision. He further stated that the word "shall" would
make it mandatory to revoke and give no possibility of challenges.
He further noted that as an act of the Corporate Authorities, a
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Public Hearing-July 15, 1992-Page 2
great deal more work and burden is placed on the Village which
could be avoided by using the word "shall, " which puts the burden
on property owners and developers holding special uses.
Mr. Raysa stated that he agrees that an argument could be raised
as to discrimination, equal protection and equal treatment.
However, he noted that he feels the Village would treat all people
fairly. He said if the Village acted to revoke a special use the
action would be based on valid reasons.
Mr. Raysa further stated that the word "may" was chosen after
careful review of various other zoning ordinances as well as
giving the Village the right to take first action.
Mr. Pfeil stated that it is the staff's thinking that each
circumstance is unique and has certain facts that cannot be
foreseen. He noted that staff wanted to give the Village
discretion to sort out these facts on a case by case basis.
Commissioner Samuels stated that he feels it would be an easier
position for the Village to be in if the developer was required to
come to the Village and ask for whatever he needed.
Commissioner Goldspiel inquired if the Village should have the
power to keep the plan in force in an instance where a piece of
property is locked into a very desirable PUD even if the property
owner wanted to let the zoning revert.
Commissioner Samuels stated that typically the underlying zoning
that is being granted with the special use is the one that is
desirable for the developer and therefore it is unlikely that a
developer would want the PUD to be revoked and the zoning revert
to the previous classification.
Mr. Raysa stated the word "may" is also premised on the fact that
economic conditions can delay the implementation or completion of
a special use. If revocation is automatic, the approval for these
projects would lapse unless the developers requested an extension.
Commissioner Rosenston inquired when the clock starts on the
matter of discontinuation.
Mr. Raysa stated that this will be a factual matter of proof. The
clock would start on the actual day of discontinuance.
Commissioner Rosenston inquired if the Village has an obligation
to notify the holder of any such special use of said
discontinuation.
Mr. Raysa stated that the owner must know and be aware of the
ordinance and the Village would not be required to notify any
holder of a special use.
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Public Hearing-July 15, 1992-Page 3
Commissioner Rosenston asked if any kind of public hearing would
be required for the elimination of a special use or the rezoning
of a property to a district other than the original zoning before
the special use.
Mr. Raysa stated that no public hearing would be required for the
elimination of a special use. However, if the zoning was not to
revert to its initial zoning, then a public hearing may be
required.
Commissioner Rosenston stated that he would prefer to have a
public hearing requirement both for revocation of a special use
and if a property is not reverting to the original zoning.
Commissioner Rosenston stated that if the word "may" is to be
used, the holder of a special use will not necessarily expend the
energy to request any kind of extension if the Village, for
whatever reason, failed to take action. He stated that some time
limit may be a good idea and stated that using the word "shall"
revert unless the petitioner requests an extension is perhaps a
better approach.
Commissioner Samuels stated that in the case where the word "may"
is used and the Village has taken no action for quite some time
and the developer has expended various sums of money, the estoppel
argument could be used by the developer against the Village.
Mr. Raysa stated that the very act of expending substantial sums
of money would be an estoppel defense. If money is being expended
then some sort of attempt to complete the development is being
made and permits would probably be applied for by the developer.
Commissioner Goldspiel concurred with the need for a public
hearing if the Village were to seek different zoning after a
reversion of a special use.
Commissioner Goldspiel inquired who would make the finding of fact
concerning when a cessation of a special use has occurred.
Mr. Raysa stated that staff would try to determine when operation
ceased through letters, interviews and various other
investigation. If there is a question as to the date of cessation
then the Village Manager would bring the matter to the Village
Board.
There being no further comments, Chairman Silbernik closed the
public hearing at 8: 15 p.m.
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Public Hearing-July 15, 1992-Page 4
Respectfully submi ed,
Fay Rubin, cdrding Secretary
APPROV
TIN SILBERNIK, Chairman
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Public Hearing-July 15, 1992-Page 5
REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
July 15, 1992
Amendment to the Village Zoning Ordinance
Section 17.28. 030.D - Special Uses
Deerfield Bakery, Buffalo Grove Road/Checker Road
Proposed Plan Change Concerning Trash Storage
Barclay Station - Final Plat of Subdivision
Rogers Centre for Commerce East
Final Plat of Subdivision
Commissioners present: Chairman Silbernik
Mr. Goldspiel
Mr. Rhodes
Ms. Howard
Mr. Rosenston
Mr. Samuels
Commissioners absent: Mr. Krug
Ms. Genell
Also present: Mr. Kurt Schmitt, Deerfield Bakery
Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney
Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer
Mr. Charles Hendricks, Village Trustee
Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
Chairman Silbernik called the meeting to order at 8 : 15 p.m. in the
Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Rhodes, to
approve the minutes of the public hearing of June 3 , 1992 . All
Commissioners were in favor of the motion, and the motion passed
unanimously with Chairman Silbernik abstaining. Moved by
Commissioner Rosenston, seconded by Commissioner Rhodes to approve
the minutes of the regular meeting of June 3 , 1992 . Commissioner
Goldspiel noted a revision to page two, paragraph three to correct
the last sentence as follows: " . . . including the 15-foot yard
variation on the east property line. " A correction was also
called for on page four, paragraph four substituting the word
"plan" for the word "play" . All Commissioners were in favor of
the amended motion and the motion passed unanimously with Chairman
Silbernik abstaining.
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-July 15, 1992-Page 1
COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
Commissioner Goldspiel reported on the Village Boarding meeting of
July 6, 1992 stating:
1. The annexation agreement for Depot Place was continued to
July 20, 1992 to resolve certain outstanding issues.
2 . The ordinance amending a Special Use in the Industrial
District regarding the Buffalo Grove Gymnastics Training
Center was approved. The amendments add certain agreed upon
standards for the gymnastics center.
3 . An ordinance was adopted amending the Municipal Code by
requiring commercial day care centers to be licensed by the
State of Illinois; this would make commercial day care
centers meet the same requirements as the residential day
care centers.
4 . Plans for modifications to buildings on the Village Campus
for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
will be referred to the Plan Commission.
AMENDMENT TO THE VILLAGE ZONING ORDINANCE - SECTION 17. 28 . 030.D
SPECIAL USES
Moved by Commissioner Goldspiel, seconded by Commissioner Rhodes,
that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board an
amendment to Section 17.28. 030.D, Special Uses, of the Zoning
Ordinance as presented in Mr. Pfeil' s memo dated June 25, 1992 .
Commissioner Samuels stated that the motion should add the
requirement for a public hearing if the underlying zoning is to be
changed to a different classification than what was on the
property prior to zoning for the special use. He suggested the
following text be added to the end of the last sentence of the
proposed amendment:
" . . . in which case compliance shall be had with
Chapter 17. 64 of the Zoning Ordinance. "
Chairman Silbernik suggested that the language to be added to the
last sentence could read as follows:
. . . in which case a public hearing shall be held. "
Commissioner Samuels agreed to accept Chairman Silbernik' s
proposed language change.
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-July 15, 1992-Page 2
•
Commissioner Samuels further suggested the addition of the
following language to the first sentence of the proposed amendment
concerning revocation of a special use:
" . . .one (1) year, the special use shall be deemed
revoked unless an extension thereof is requested by
either the holder of the special use or the Corporate
Authorities before the expiration of the special use. "
Commissioner Rosenston stated some concern with the one year
cessation or discontinuance term which may not be noticed by the
Village.
Commissioner Samuels stated that the special use would
automatically be revoked if a use is discontinued, and the Village
would need to collect evidence of the discontinuance if a
revocation is challenged by .a property owner.
Commissioners Goldspiel and Rhodes accepted the amendments to the
motion.
Commissioner Rosenston inquired if the granting of an extension of
a special use for a new development would be confined to another
two year period and the extension of a discontinuation of a
special use would be confined to another one year period.
Mr. Raysa stated that is correct, but he noted that if the
V original special use was issued for a period of longer than two
years, the extension could be made for the longer period allowed
in the initial approval.
Chairman Silbernik called for a vote on the motion and the vote
was as follows:
AYES: Goldspiel, Rhodes, Howard, Rosenston, Samuels, Silbernik
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Krug, Genell
The vote was 6 to 0 in favor of the motion.
Commissioner Rosenston commented that the Commission's minutes
should clearly reflect the discussion concerning the time period
of extensions so that there would not be any misunderstandings by
petitioners in the future. He noted that the Commission's position
is that a special use approval can be extended for a period of two
years unless the original ordinance made some other provision. He
said a special use that is subject to the discontinuance
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance could be extended for a period
of one year.
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-July 15, 1992-Page 3
...•••
..i
DEERFIELD BAKERY, BUFFALO GROVE ROAD/CHECKER ROAD --PROPOSED
PLAN CHANGE CONCERNING TRASH STORAGE -- WORKSHOP #1
Mr. Schmitt of the Deerfield Bakery stated that their original
intention was to have the dumpster installed on the inside of the
building, particularly for security purposes. Unfortunately, an
error was made in calculating the necessary measurements to allow
a dumpster to pull up to the building, pull out the dumpster and
load onto their trucks. This will not work as the dumpsters
require the building dumpster to be rolled out to the truck so
that the trash can be loaded onto the trucks. Therefore, the next
best solution is daily trash pickup with an six cubic yard outdoor
trash area facing the rear of Town Center. The dumpster will be
fenced on the north and south sides and the top will be uncovered.
Commissioner Rhodes noted his concern for the amount of trash to
be generated and inquired if. a larger trash area is perhaps
needed.
Mr. Schmitt stated that a six yard trash area will be sufficient
particularly since the next step they are contemplating is the
addition of a trash compactor inside the building.
Commissioner Samuels inquired if any parking spaces would be lost
due to this change in the plan.
Mr. Schmitt stated that no parking spaces would be lost.
Commissioner Rosenston stated that he would like to have the
hauler check the area out and ascertain that there is sufficient
room for their trucks to maneuver and pick up trash.
Commissioner Rosenston further stated his preference to have the
entire trash area enclosed and fenced on all sides.
Mr. Schmitt stated he had no objection to adding a gate on the
east side of the trash area, although such fences rarely hold up
well with the amount of abuse that they receive.
Commissioner Goldspiel inquired if the Village health officer had
any views on the proper disposal of this kind of waste material.
Mr. Pfeil stated that he talked to the Director of Building and
Zoning concerning the Health Officer' s comments concerning the
outdoor trash enclosure. The Health Officer has indicated that the
outside facility is acceptable if it is properly managed and waste
properly disposed of in a timely manner.
All Commissioners agreed that since the only unresolved issue is a
letter from the proposed waste hauler stating that waste disposal
at this location will be possible, then such a letter may be
submitted to Mr. Pfeil and a vote can be taken at this time.
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-July 15, 1992-Page 4
Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Howard, to
recommend approval of the proposed plan change subject to
providing staff with sufficient information from the waste hauler
that a truck will be able to service the area as designed and
subject to the provision of a gate enclosing the trash area.
Chairman Silbernik called for a vote on the motion and the vote
was as follows:
AYES: Goldspiel, Rhodes, Howard, Rosenston, Samuels,
Silbernik
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Krug, Genell
The vote was 6 to 0 in favor of the motion.
BARCLAY STATION - FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION
Moved by Commissioner Rhodes, seconded by Commissioner Rosenston
that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board adoption
of the Final Plat of Subdivision of Barclay Station in accordance
with the three page plat dated July 8, 1992 .
Commissioner Goldspiel stated the motion should be subject to the
addition of the bikepath easement along the north line of Lot 3 .
Mr. Kuenkler noted there is a revised plat dated July 14, 1992
showing the bikepath easement.
Moved by Commissioner Goldspiel, to amend the motion to include
the bikepath easement as noted on the mylar dated July 14 , 1992 .
Commissioner Rhodes and Commissioner Rosenston accepted the
amendment.
Commissioner Goldspiel asked if the plat had been reviewed and
found to be in accordance with the approved plan and actively
portrays the dimensions indicated. He further noted that the
scale of the plat appears to be smaller than what is allowed by
the Development Ordinance.
Mr. Kuenkler stated that the plat had been reviewed and found to
be in accordance with the approved plan. He stated that the scale
on the plat is different on the separate sheets.
Commissioner Goldspiel stated that since the Development Ordinance
requires the plat to have a scale of not less than one inch to one
hundred feet, and the plat shows a scale of 1: 150, then a fourth
sheet should be added to the plat in order to comply with the
ordinance.
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-July 15, 1992-Page 5
Moved by Commissioner Goldspiel to amend the motion subject to
provision of a sheet showing the eastern portion of the plat at a
scale of 1: 100.
The amendment was accepted by Commissioner Rhodes and Commissioner
Rosenston.
Chairman Silbernik called for a vote on the motion and the vote
was as follows:
AYES: Goldspiel, Rhodes, Howard, Rosenston, Samuels,
Silbernik
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Krug, Genell
ROGERS CENTRE FOR COMMERCE EAST -FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION
Moved by Commissioner Rhodes, seconded by Commissioner Rosenston
that the Plan Commissioner recommend to the Village Board approval
of the Rogers Center For Commerce East, Final Plat of Subdivision
in accordance with the surveyor's plat dated June 29, 1992.
Chairman Silbernik called for a vote on the motion and the vote
was as follows:
AYES: Goldspiel, Rhodes, Howard, Rosenston, Samuels, Silbernik
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Krug, Genell
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
Chairman Silbernik noted that a decision on a new member for the
Plan Commission would be made by the end of the week.
FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE
Mr. Pfeil stated there would be a meeting on August 5, 1992 .
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
A resident of the Pekara Subdivision asked for an explanation of
the access road between Barclay Station and Pekara Drive, and she
raised concerns about the flooding that occurs in the Pekara
Subdivision.
Commissioner Goldspiel explained that the site plan provides for
an emergency access to Pekara Drive to provide essential services
when the subdivision cannot be reached from Milwaukee Avenue. He
noted that this access from Barclay Station is not for everyday
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-July 15, 1992-Page 6
I
i
traffic, and it will not have an adverse impact on the Pekara
Subdivision. In fact the access was provided as a service to
residents of the Pekara Subdivision. He commented that the
engineering plans for Barclay Station were thoroughly reviewed
during the Plan Commission's public hearing process, and the
Commission received testimony that the development would not
increase flooding problems in the Pekara Subdivision.
STAFF REPORT
Commissioner Samuels inquired if there has been any progress on
the realignment of Prairie Road and Port Clinton Road near the
proposed Edward Schwartz development.
Mr. Pfeil stated that the Village staff is doing further research
concerning the realignment, `and that Mr. Schwartz is probably
waiting for this information to be presented before he tries to
proceed with his subdivision approval.
NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Rosenston stated that something needs to be done with
the microphones used for cable presentation of the Village Board
meetings as it is impossible for people viewing the cable
broadcast at home to hear what is being said.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Rhodes, seconded by Commissioner Rosenston
and unanimously carried to adjourn. Chairman Silbernik adjourned
the meeting at 9: 35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
A' '
Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary
APPROV D •
L./
MARTIN SILBERNIK, Chairman
Buffalo Grove Plan Comm-Regular Meeting-July 15, 1992-Page e 7
g