Village of Lake Bluff Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals met April 18.
Here is the minutes provided by the Board:
1. Call to Order & Roll Call
Chair Kraus called to order the regular meeting of the Joint Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals (PCZBA) of the Village of Lake Bluff on Wednesday, April 18, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Village Hall Board Room (40 E. Center Avenue).
The following members were present:
Members: Leslie Bishop
David Burns
Mary Collins
Elliot Miller
Gary Peters
Steven Kraus, Chair
Also Present: Ben Schuster, Village Attorney
Jeff Hansen, Village Engineer
Glen Cole, Assistant to the Village Administrator (AVA)
John Scopelliti, Administrative Intern (AI)
2. Non-Agenda Items and Visitors (Public Comment Time)
Chair Kraus stated the PCZBA allocates 15 minutes during this item for those individuals who would like the opportunity to address the PCZBA on any matter not listed on the agenda. Each person addressing the PCZBA is asked to limit their comments to a maximum of three minutes.
There were no request to address the PCZBA.
3. Approval of the March 21, 2018 PCZBA Regular Meeting Minutes
Member Bishop moved to approve the March 21, 2018 PCZBA Regular Meeting Minutes as amended. Member Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.
4. Chair Kraus Administered the Oath to Those in the Audience
5. Continuation of a Public Hearing for 431 Green Bay Road
Chair Kraus said the petitioner has requested to continue the public until the May16, 2018 PCZBA Regular Meeting.
Member Miller moved to continue the public hearing to the May 16, 2018 meeting. Member Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.
6. A Public Hearing for 501 East Center Avenue and 517 East Center Avenue
Chair Kraus introduced the agenda item and requested an update from Staff.
AVA Cole provided background information regarding this item which included a preliminary workshop. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the four buildable lots located between 501 and 517 East Center Avenue to three buildable lots. AVA Cole commented on the subdivision specifications and noted the non-conforming conditions and requested variations must be addressed for the subdivision to proceed. AVA Cole said the proposed lot arrangements will result in three non-conforming conditions. The rear yard setback because garage is connected by a breezeway and floor area ration pre-date the subdivision. The corner lot side yard setback is created by the subdivision because it increases the width of the corner lot side yard. AVA Cole said the proposed subdivision complies with the standards and the remaining procedural documentation will be submitted prior to approval. Staff recommends the approval be conditioned with a drainage easement between the new designated Lots 2 and 3.
Chair Kraus opened the public hearing and invited the petitioner to the podium.
Mr. Brad Andersen provided background information on the property. He said none of the variations are the result of increased encroachments. Also, there will be no building at 501 East Center Avenue as a result of the proposal. He stated this is an existing non-conforming structure even with the additional 20 ft. and he believes it exceed the bulk regulations because of the attached garage. The plan is to create lots more conforming to the streetscape not add any additional square footage. Mr. Andersen said they will work with Staff on the drainage easement to ensure the language reflects a private drainage system, specifically for Lots 2 and 3, and not a public utility easement.
Chair Kraus asked if there were any concerns regarding the length/width of the drainage easement. Mr. Andersen said the concern would be what impact a driveway could have on the drainage easement.
In response to a question from Village Attorney Ben Schuster, AVA Cole said it is his understanding that some of the stormwater flows from properties not included in the plat.
Mr. Andersen expressed his concern regarding allowing the Village access to the storm sewer. There will be some normal flow, from south to the north, because Prospect Avenue is higher than Center Avenue. He does not want a catch basin installed on the back end of Prospect Avenue to drain through the property. Village Attorney Schuster explained how the catch basin language could be structured and reviewed driveway location alternatives. Mr. Andersen said there are no plans to build at this time and any proposed language can be addressed.
Chair Kraus asked for questions from the commissioners.
In response to a question from Member Peters, Mr. Andersen said there are some trees, mostly ash trees, located on the middle lot and one substantial tree but there are no plans to remove the existing trees.
Member Bishop commented on the removal of the trees located between the two houses noting it would change the streetscape. She asked if the applicant could be required to replant additional trees on the lot. Mr. Andersen said he will not agree to replant any additional trees above or beyond what is required by the tree preservation ordinance.
Member Bishop said she would be in favor of the language stating stormwater drainage should not be covered by any pervious surfaces such as a driveway or patio. Mr. Andersen said he does not want to be bound by that language but they’re willing to work with Staff. A discussion regarding driveway location followed.
In response to a comment from Member Collins, Mr. Andersen confirmed the side yard would be approximately 8.5 ft. wide. There would be no structure built, he can imagine a driveway in this area. He said if a driveway was built in the drainage area going from Center Avenue up toward Prospect Avenue it would evacuate, not absorb, the stormwater quicker.
AVA Cole said the combined side yard setback would be 8.5 ft. on each side and a typical driveway is approximately 10 ft. wide, he thinks a driveway is possible without compromising the building foot print.
In response to a question from Member Badger, Village Attorney Schuster reviewed the various stipulations for a drainage easement including paving over a drainage system.
Dave Andersen, owner of 517 Center Avenue, shared his view point regarding the driveway location. He thinks it would be optimal to have flexibility in the language that will not hinder future plans.
Chair Kraus said the idea is 10 ft. on the lot line, but not necessarily centered on the lot line, and this decision could be part of the building permit process.
In response to a question from Member Burns, Mr. Andersen said it is his understanding that the drainage easement was to get water from one area to another. AVA Cole said the drainage easement will approve plans where detention/retention ponds must not be kept to continue retaining stormwater.
Chair Kraus inquired of the 9.5 ft. separate parcel show on the plat. Mr. Andersen said he understands this was a separate parcel which was added to 517 Prospect Avenue from the adjacent property and it is their hope to combine the five pin numbers during the recording process. Village Attorney Schuster clarified that pin numbers represent the lot line.
Member Collins asked if the PCZBA should consider anything in the email presented regarding ownership. Village Attorney Schuster said there were a few issues raised regarding the pin numbers and tax histories which differs from ownership of property and the existing lots as subdivided. The properties can be broken into multiple pin numbers assigned by the County for tax purposes. It is his understanding that the application was submitted by the owners and there are no known issues.
Member Collins thanked the applicant for providing the aerial view of the neighboring lot lines.
As there were no public comments, Chair Kraus closed the public hearing.
Mr. Andersen stated the plan is to move forward with the subdivision, and submit all the required documentation, once the closing is done for the 20 ft. of property. Village Attorney Schuster said the draft resolution will be structured to reflect the applicants intended actions.
Member Badger made a motion to approve the preliminary and final plat of subdivision and requested variations with the following conditions (i) three additional certificates (Engineer, Village Engineer and Permission to Record) must be provided on the plat for recording and (ii) grant the Village a 10 ft. wide drainage easement (5 ft. on each side) on the line dividing Lot 2 and Lot 3. Member Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
Ayes: (7) Bishop, Peters, Collins, Badger, Miller, Burns and Chair Kraus
Nays: (0)
Absent: (0)
Chair Kraus announced the Village Board will be considering Advisory Board Membership changes at their upcoming meeting. He reviewed the proposed changes to the PCZBA which includes his reassignment as Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission and Member Peters as Chair of the PCZBA. He expressed his appreciation for having the chance to work with the PCZBA and noted he will be available, if needed, to provide input on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Member Peters commended Chair Kraus for his leadership during his term as Chair and said the PCZBA is fortunate that he is willing to continue working on the plan. He explained how the PCZBA would move forward with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
7. Comprehensive Plan Workshop (Economic Development and Review of Draft Goals, Objectives, Policies)
Chair Kraus began the discussion on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Plan) Economic Development policies by reading the introduction/background “Diversified commercial activity within the Village enhances the Lake Bluff experience, stimulates the growth of property values, and lessens the reliance on property taxes to fund necessary services and amenities. The Economic Development policies of the Village should encourage and support such activities that are in harmony with the underlying residential fabric of Lake Bluff.” He said for purposes of this document “commercial” is defined as activities which induces a wide variety of retail, service and light industrial uses that are not residential or open space in the Village. He reviewed the specific needs for each area:
• Central Business District (CBD) (i) boundaries and maps and (ii) inventory of CBD properties (commercial, residential, public and other vacant), uses and employment.
• Business Park (i) boundaries and maps, and (ii) inventories of commercial park properties (light industrial, retail, service and other or vacant), uses and employment.
• Creation of a third separate entity, Commercial Properties North of Route 176; East and West of Route 41 (i) boundaries and maps (including Village boundaries), (ii) inventory of properties (light industrial, retail, service, residential, and other or vacant), uses and employment with and outside of the Village, (iii) map of proposed reconfiguration of the Route 41 and Route 176 interchange.
• Statistics – Annual sales tax revenue by location, commercial category and historically.
• Lake Bluff economy overview – (i) job categories of businesses, (ii) market profile, (iii) average earnings by industry, (iv) age cohort demographics, and (v) work destination for residents.
AVA Cole said there are particular rules governing sales tax information and the plan must be structured in the proper manner to figure out what one individual is doing.
In response to a comment from Member Burns, Chair Kraus said “Situational Analysis” is located in each area of the Plan as a place holder description of narrative format for the vision of the Plan. He used the CBD transition as a scenario that would be included in the situational analysis area of the Plan.
Chair Kraus said each area needs goals, objectives and policies then he read the Economic Development Goal “Enhance the attractiveness and sense of place within the CBD through diversification of its commercial offerings and investment in its social/recreational options; maximize revenue opportunities through appropriate redevelopment of the Business Park and adjoining areas”.
Chair Kraus read Objective 1 – Ensure that the Village’s investments and regulations align with its economic development goals.
Chair Kraus read Policy 1.1 Use future public investments to build on the Village’s commercial success in demonstrated uses and sectors, including targeted public improvements, incentives, and partnerships:
• Engage in dialog with property owners, business owners, customers, and the Chamber of Commerce to develop policies that enhance commercial opportunities.
• Use incentives to attract and retain businesses consistent with the goals of this Plan.
• Continue to brand and promote Lake Bluff. Attract commercial activity through outreach to young families, recreational bicyclist, military visitors, and other purposeful visitors.
Chair Kraus read Policy 1.2 Review zoning regulations to determine their continuing applicability in stimulating commercial activity. Modernize these tools to promote predictability, flexibility, and speed for new development, while preserving a robust ability to shape development:
• Ensure that developers, advisory bodies, and the public at-large have a clear understanding of the expectations for the Village’s development process.
• Proactively improve the Village’s current permitted, special, and prohibited uses. Modify these regulations to signal interest in and promote desired uses in areas consistent with this Plan. Consolidate commercial use categories to reduce complexity.
• Unify commercial parking standards and apply them to all commercial sites in the Village.
Member Collins recommended striking commercial and have it read “unify parking standards.”
Chair Kraus read Policy 1.3 Maintain a current inventory of properties, structures and uses. Report periodically on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the mix of businesses. He understands an inventory could be difficult and suggested maybe a periodical reporting to the PCZBA.
Chair Kraus read Objective 2 CBD – Enhance the foundational role of the CBD in shaping the identity, character, scale, and community spirit of the Village. The intent is for the CBD to be the soul of the Village.
Chair Kraus read Policy 2.1 Recognize that the CBD is the Village focus; a gathering place and local destination; a valued lifestyle amenity; and a center for events that enhance our community spirit.
Chair Kraus read Policy 2.2 Encourage commercial and multi-family residential redevelopment through form controls including guidelines for site design, building architecture, streetscape, and public open spaces that strongly embrace the existing “Main Street” visual character and scale.
• Redevelop Block 2 (post office at the western end to the “H” shaped building at the eastern end of Scranton Avenue) using a Planned Commercial Development approach.
• Require appropriate transitions from commercial and multi-family properties to adjoining single family residences.
Member Miller recommended Block 3 be included in Policy 2.2.
Chair Kraus read Policy 2.3 Review zoning regulations and successful uses in the CBD. Reduce excessive special uses as a regulatory tool in this area, particularly for uses that have a history of success. The intent is not to create barriers for desired permitted uses such as coffee shops, fitness center in the CBD.
Chair Kraus read Policy 2.4 Enable and encourage the use of public and private spaces for community events. Coordinate event planning and publicity to maximize efficiency and minimize conflicts.
Chair Kraus read Objective 3 Business Park, enable orderly redevelopment in order to maximize commercial revenue opportunities to the Village.
Chair Kraus read Policy 3.1 Support existing light industrial businesses within the Business Park, and the daytime population they provide Lake Bluff retailers and restaurants.
• Partner with outside agencies to support workforce development, school-career connections, and other initiatives that support manufacturing in this area.
• Discourage development of warehousing and logistics uses in this area, except where a component of manufacturing facilities.
• Pursue the Transportation recommendations of this plan, which will, in this area:
• Improve “last mile” connectivity with Metra station.
• Support transportation of skilled labor from northeastern Lake County.
Member Bishop asked for clarification regarding discouraged development of warehousing and logistics. AVA Cole said the current Code treats the continuum of categories found in the light industrial area in the same manner. There could be an argument on why industrial spaces are considered a luxury in Lake Bluff when it make sense to pursue manufacturing uses as opposed to warehousing.
Member Badger said there are some relatively new warehouses in the industrial park with a high level of employees operating their call centers. He asked if “discourage redeveloping into warehousing” would be more appropriate. A discussion followed.
Chair Kraus read Policy 3.2 Re-evaluate the future form and use mix of the Business Park. Continue to support diversifying and increasing revenue to support Village functions.
• Support the increased blending of uses in this area as the market will support. Minimize conflicts among existing and new businesses through appropriate zoning, land use, site planning and other regulatory tools.
• Reevaluate required building and parking setbacks to improve redevelopment potential.
• Pursue the expansion of automobile sales along and adjacent to US Route 41.
• Enable and prefer retail redevelopment along high visibility thoroughfares and adjacent to existing retail traffic.
• Enable higher-density office and professional services to locate within the center of the Business Park.
• Study the feasibility of hotel properties in the vicinity of Waukegan Road.
Chair Kraus said the idea is to embrace and contribute to the success of businesses in the commercial park.
Member Collins asked if the 100 ft. setback along Waukegan Road should be preserved and if the loop should be connected. A discussion regarding setbacks followed. It was the consensus of the PCZBA to reword bullet #6 to read “study the feasibility of hotel properties and other multi- residential property in the vicinity of Waukegan Road”.
Member Bishop inquired of the “support the increased blending.” and asked if that bullet covers the possibility of having residential and retail in the Carriage Way area. Chair Kraus said he does not think so because the use has been defined as “commercial”. A discussion followed.
Chair Kraus read Objective 4 Route 41/Route 176 enable orderly redevelopment in conjunction with the interchange reconstruction so as to maximize commercial revenue opportunities for the Village.
Chair Kraus read Policy 4.1 Actively pursue this plan’s Annexation policies in this area; Policy 4.2 Expect and encourage changes in use (type and intensity) when the interchange development occurs. Ensure adequate Village services are available; and Policy 4.3 As the interchange reconstruction approaches, engage in a study of this area’s commercial revitalization and future annexation into the Village. A discussion followed.
AVA Cole reviewed the highlighted portions/changes in the draft Plan.
Chair Kraus read the Residential Environment goal, “Within the context of a substantially developed North Shore residential suburban community, encourage responsible maintenance, rehabilitation and redevelopment of the housing options within the Village.”
Chair Kraus read Objective 1 Preserve a high quality suburban residential community environment; Objective 2 Encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of historic structures within the Village; and Objective 3 Encourage the development of multi-family and other alterative housing options.
Chair Kraus asked Staff to review the highlighted portions in the policies for this area. AVA Cole explained the highlighted portion of Policy 1.5 regarding bulk restrictions. A discussion followed.
Member Miller said it is important to address the possibility of building in ravine areas.
Member Peters said Policy 1.5 line 1 should read “for possible application” and line 2 “options that may increase”.
A discussion ensued regarding new Policy 1.7 Formalize existing reviews and requirements for stormwater mitigation as a result of residential redevelopment. Chair Kraus recommended striking “existing reviews and” and considering using the word “prioritize”.
The discussion continued regarding Objective 2 Policies. Chair Kraus said “landmark-eligible properties” may not be the appropriate terminology and explained the concept associated with the policy.
Member Burns said one of the best uses for Policy 1.5 should be to allow “flexibility of the Village’s bulk restrictions” regarding preservation of historic homes.
Member Collins said the Plan should recognize that just about every home in Lake Bluff, except for the new homes, qualifies as historic structures. A discussion followed.
The discussion continued regarding Objective 3 Policies. AVA Cole reviewed the highlighted portions of the policies.
Mark Stolzenburg thanked the PCZBA for their work on the Plan. He said he currently lives in the R5 Zoning District, which has mixed housing stock. Mr. Stolzenburg asked what is meant by the use of the word “enable” in Policy 3.1. Chair Kraus said it is a statement of intent that the Village shall actively pursue appropriately scaled multi-family housing within the R-5 and CBD Zoning Districts. He said this is an identified need which the Village wants to happen.
Mr. Stolzenburg said if this is pursued the Village should also consider other areas where multi- family housing could be build. Chair Kraus said the word “enable” only applies to the existing R- 5 Zoning District. The other places identified as potential multi-family land use is an understanding that this may be an appropriate place where the Village might consider multi-family housing. A discussion regarding wording in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan followed.
Mr. Stolzenburg inquired of the intentions between Objective 1, 2 and 3 regarding preservation of historic structures. Chair Kraus said an older home may or may not fall under the criteria for historic preservation and he does not see conflict between the two objectives which works together.
Chair Kraus said he thought Mr. Stolzenburg’s objection would be to Policy 3.2 which the reality is that multi-family in R-5 Zoning districts structurally does not work. Mr. Stolzenburg asked why the phrase “financially feasible” was used. He thinks the term suggests that it is going to be a policy of the Village to ensure the developer can succeed and asked why the Plan will allow the market to dictate the development. Chair Kraus said the phrase “financially feasible” can be stricken from the draft.
In response to a comment from Mr. Stolzenburg regarding previously submitted document, AVA Cole stated the documents were not put together by the PCZBA but is a result of previous discussion and examples. A discussion followed.
Mr. Stolzenburg read from the Comprehensive Plan Workshop Housing, Draft 2017 Comprehensive Plan Compilation, Section 6.4 Multi-Family Housing Goals, Subsection 6.4.4 Encourage an appropriate number of multi-family units compatible with the predominantly single- family residential character of the Village disturbed in the August 15, 2017 PCZBA packet and questioned if that should be included in the draft. Mr. Stolzenburg said it is important that the Village protect property values and asked if the phrase “do no harm” should be added. Chair Kraus said that issue is addressed in Policy 3.4 Ensure that multi-family buildings complement adjacent commercial and residential structures in scale and style as well as the historical character of the Village. He thinks the intent there is that we do not want multi-family dominating a mixed streetscape for future multi-family residential housing. A discussion followed.
Member Collins said the policies seem to be mixed for the CBD and R5 Zoning Districts and questioned if there should be a separate goal for each respective area. Chair Kraus said further discussion is needed for Policy 3.4.
Chair Kraus commented on Policy 3.6 Evaluate the feasibility of multi-family residences and hotels west of Route 41. Following a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the PCZBA to reference what was being done in the commercial area.
Mr. Stolzenburg asked if the Plan is overly restrictive in regards to where multi-family homes are allowed. There are three locations identified for multi-family housing (west of Route 41, CBD and R-5District), there are no other locations within the Village identified as a potential area to explore multi-family housing. Chair Kraus said the section in Annexation and Development which identifies three additional areas for alternative housing types should be referenced in Policy 3.6.
Chair Kraus read the Connectivity/Transportation goal “Invest in and maintain a connected, pedestrian-friendly transportation system that (a) safely provides access to and within the Village, (b) encourages viable alternatives to reduce automobile traffic and support health and wellbeing, (c) serves the needs of all segments of the community and (d) integrates with regional transportation plans.
Chair Kraus read Objective 1 Provide safe and efficient vehicle access throughout the Village without significant expansion of automobile capacity; Objective 2 Facilitate ease of movement and improve connectivity through an expanded and integrated pedestrian/bicycle system; Objective 3 Support the regional expansion of mass transit alternatives to automobile transportation and Objective 4 Investigate alterative transit infrastructure.
Chair Kraus summarized the Policies associated with Objective 1 specifically Policy 1.8 Maintain the emergency crossing of the Union Pacific railroad tracks at Blodgett Avenue and Policy 1.9 Convert Sylvan Road to a one way street eastbound throughout its length.
Member Badger expressed his understanding that the plan was to speak with residents regarding Policy 1.9 and asked if the two way street was causing any issues. Chair Kraus said the eastbound is almost a one-way now because of erosion. It was the consensus of the PCZBA to consider converting Sylvan Road to a one-way street.
Chair Kraus summarized the Policies associated with Objective 2 and a discussion regarding bike paths followed.
Mr. Stolzenburg said he previously read that the Scranton Avenue bike path overpass was to be rebuilt. AVA Cole explained the structural and funding delays associated with the project. Chair Kraus said Policy 2.1 identifies all the major pedestrian and bicycle improvements. He noted the changes in Policy 2.3 regarding sidewalks prioritizing sidewalks in residential areas. A discussion followed.
Member Badger asked if the Business Park should be included in this Policy.
Member Collins said the streets in the Business Park are wide enough to support a paved bike lane.
Member Bishop said it is important to have sidewalk connectivity through the Village.
Member Miller recommended Policy 2.3 read “Prioritize the use of Village funds in location where there are no sidewalks or incomplete sidewalks”.
Chair Kraus commented on the new Policy 2.5 Cooperate with Lake Forest to study and improve bicycle and pedestrian connections between both communities.
Chair Kraus summarized the Policies associated with Objective 3 noting an additional comment to Policy 3.2 “for local community organizations.”
A discussion ensued regarding Objective 4, Policy 4.1 Evaluate the feasibility of a bike sharing system to link areas in the Village to neighboring communities, business and education centers. It was the consensus of the PCZBA to leave the Policy as written.
Prior to discussion of Annexation and Development Policies, AVA Cole informed the PCZBA on the updated maps provided at the dais for review.
Chair Kraus read the Annexation goal “The Village’s attitude towards future annexation should reflect the close social integration of Lake Bluff with its outlying areas, a mutual dependence on shared services, and the political, legal, financial, and physical obstacles to an expansion of the Village’s jurisdiction. Chair Kraus said this is not a goal and needs to be reworded using similar concepts.
Kate Briand thanked Chair Kraus and Member Collins for serving on the PCZBA. She commented on Policy 1.1 and expressed her belief that Shoreacres is currently on well water served by Naval Station Great Lakes. She inquired of the cost associated with connecting the services to the Village systems. Chair Kraus said the residential areas of Shoreacres are located within the Village and there should be a comment added to reflect that none of the Village resources should be taxed as a result of the annexation.
In response to a comment from Ms. Briand regarding availability of open space at Crabtree Farm, Chair Kraus said the Village would support the property owner’s decision to allow access to the conservancy areas.
Ms. Briand said it would be great to develop the parcel east of the Central Lake County Joint Action Water Agency. She expressed concern regarding marketing strategies and asked if there were marketing plans for the Business Park. Chair Kraus said Policy 1.1 in Economic Development addresses all the commercial areas in the Village. The Policy states “Use future public investments to build on the Village’s commercial success is demonstrated and sectors, including targeted public improvements, incentives, and partnerships.” A discussion followed.
Chair Kraus summarized the Policies associated with Annexation noting Policies 1.1 through 1.6 corresponds with the annexation map and asked that the color for Policy 1.5 be changed.
Chair Kraus summarized the Policies associated with development noting the changes to Policies 2.2 and 2.3, and said the PCZBA needs to determine if the Policies should remain in the Plan.
Chair Kraus said Lake Bluff as a community is defined by its open spaces and then he read the Open Space goal “Preserve, oversee, activate, and invest in the maintenance of natural areas within the Village, and coordinate with the Park District and other entities in meeting the recreational needs of Village residents.” Chair Kraus said the use of defined terms open space, parks and recreation systems and natural areas are used through the entire documents.
Chair Kraus read Objective 1 Actively manage the natural areas of the Village then summarized the Policies; Objective 2 Connect development with natural areas then summarized the Policy; Objective 3 Maintain and enhance the appearance of the Village then summarized the Policies; and commented on Objective 4 Working with the Lake Bluff Park District then summarized the Policies.
Chair Kraus said he is not sure if Objective 3 is in the right space and questioned where it should be incorporated. He said the Village infrastructure was discussed as planned and this as well as the care/maintenance of the Village needs to be in the Plan. A discussion regarding infrastructure followed.
AVA Cole said infrastructure is not a contemporary area especially for a Village of this size which is already built-out and developed. He said most towns incorporate infrastructures in its capital improvement plans but this could be included if needed. A discussion followed.
Member Peters reviewed the next step for the Plan which included a special meeting to review a final draft. He would like to continue aggressively addressing the Plan. Member Badger asked if there is a goal date to complete the Plan. A discussion followed.
Member Peters recommended conducting a special meeting within the next 6 weeks to work on an internal draft prior to conducting a public hearing. Village Attorney Schuster said a public hearing is required for the Plan and suggested various methods that could be pursued to obtain public comments. A discussion regarding the process followed.
Member Collins announced that she was not reappointed to the PCZBA.
Member Bishop announced that she has been reassigned to the Sustainability and Community Enhancement Committee.
Member Peters said he was surprised to hear about the transitions on the PCZBA.
Members Collins and Bishop said it has been a pleasure working with the commissioners.
8. RIO (Institutional Zoning) Workshop
Chair Kraus introduced the agenda item and said this will be on the May 2018 meeting for discuss with the newly appointed PCZBA.
Member Burns and AVA Cole reviewed the development process overview, changes to master plan, and development application without approved master plan flowcharts illustrating how the RIO process could work.
Village Attorney Schuster explained how the RIO conceptual process could be used in a broader scope. He said the plan seems complicated but once it is operational he thinks it will be something that is efficient, legally protective of the Village and provide more flexibility to applicants that do not fit within the current zoning variations. The most important things is that this will allow a way to look at whatever comes before the PCZBA, evaluate it in a whole realistically, and specifically in the details desired without having to apply standards for a special use or variation which often does not fit. This tool will give the PCZBA control without encountering a lawsuit or becoming burdened by the process.
Member Peters said the plan is to complete the RIO discussions this summer and Comprehensive Land Use Plan by fall 2018.
Chair Kraus said the minutes should reflect the consensus around the planned policies and objectives. Lastly, he said it has been an honor serving on the PCZBA.
9. Staff Report
AVA Cole had no report.
10. Adjournment
As there was no further business to come before the PCZBA, Member Burns moved to adjourn the meeting. Member Bishop seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
https://www.lakebluff.org/government/agendas-and-minutes?format=raw&task=download&fid=1766
Alerts Sign-up