Loading...
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