Village of Long Grove

Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

March 6, 2001

Present: Chairman Young, Commissioners Tarnaris, Dean, Jenkins, Borawski, Phillips, Walter, Coffin and Di Iorio, Village Manager Doughty, Planner Kendig and Assistant to the Village Manager Johnson.

I. PUBLIC HEARING

A. B-1 Business Disttrict Amendments to the Code.

Public Hearing called to order by Chairman Young at 8:05 p.m. Village Manager Doughty read public notice and swore in all wishing to testify. Village Manager Doughty read the list of proposed uses to be added to the list of permitted or special uses under the Village Code. Chairman Young opened the floor for public comment.

-Karen Schmitt, 3453 RFD, and Excecutive Director of the CDC explains that in response to residents’, visitors’ and business’ input on how to make the Historic Business District more user friendly, this short list of additional uses had been identified as desirable and having immediate positive impact.

- Mel Towner, RFD, stated he didn’t think the list went far enough and expressed concern about parking, especially short term parking required for quick stops like a butcher shop.

- Jean Murphy, of the Historic Business District Property Owner’s Association stated she was in favor of uses on the list and expressed the hope it would be expanded. She said the downtown has been criticized for gift shops, but the uses currently allowed under Village Code are too restrictive.

-Barbara Turner, RFD, expressed favor for the list, but suggested that short-term or one-hour parking be made available.

With no further comments, Chairman Young closed the public hearing at 8:21 p.m.

II. MEETING GAVELED TO ORDER.

Meeting called to order by Chairman Young at 8:21 p.m.

III. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2001.

Commissioner Walter noted that the adjournment time under Item IX. should be 12:00 a.m. instead of p.m. Motion to accept the minutes of February 6, 2001 as corrected, made by Commissioner Walter, seconded by Commissioner Phillips. Ayes all. Motion carried.

IV. OLD BUSINESS.

A. Good Shepherd Church Annexation and Special Use.

Mr. Carl Kupfer of Infracon, and Charles Akers of AAA Church Building Services and K.C. Hahn were present on bahalf of the petitioners with a plan revised in response to Commissioner and resident comments. Mr. Akers reviewed the amended plan read aloud his letter of February 26, 2001 explaining those changes.

While noting that this was not a public hearing, Chairman Young invited public comment on the changes presented.

- Marcia Marshall, 4512 RFD, as the leader of the Long Grove Homeowner’s Coalition (“LGHC”), advised that the LGHC still had concerns about the revised plan: the size of the parking lot, the buildings having been reduced by only a few thousand square feet, the fact that the letter mentioned future growth, concerns about the traffic impact on nearby residents and rural roads and exasberation of existing safety problems with the school entrance, and the setting of precident for future development on large parcels within the Village. She requested that the Commission deny the petition on the basis that the proposal was innappropriate for the site and too intense even at the reduced scale.

- Michael Talbott, member of the Lake County Board, gave background on the County’s involvement with this matter. He advised that the revised plan submitted by the petitioners to the County in December 2000 lacked details and included the playing field, which was not an allowed use. Without details, he was unable to assess how the plan would compare whether developed under the County or Village. He advised the County was inb the process of updating its regional plan and that this land was currently identified as estated residential, meaning two-acre homesites. He noted that the road access issue was either up to the Village of Long Grove, if on Kruger, or Lake County Department of Transportaiton if on Gilmer. In response to questions from the audience, he advised that the amphitheatre would be considered a permissable accessory use; accessory uses may not exceed 1.5% of the principle building; and whether this plan exceeded the 25% land use under the County was hard to determine without extensive review because of the wetlands on the property.

- Pam Newton, member of the Lake County Board, thanked the petitioner for the revised plan and noted that the County, while being very liberal in its criteria, defined church as a worship center and explained that uses such as athletic fields were considered mixed uses not essential to church function and that other uses such as missionary retreat and day care were considered accessory uses. She encouraged the petitioners to to the lowest density possible and limit the uses. She and Mr. Talbott expressed thanks for the opportunity to allow the County to be involved.

-Barbara Beren, attorney representing the Long Grove Homeowner’s Coalition, stated that the LGHC was opposed to the old plan and to the new plan based on the density of land use and intensity of proposed use. Sjhe stated that the County zoning seemed more stringent and might lead to a smaller development. She stated this was a key parcel in the center of undeveloped land and would set a precedent for development of that other land. In the event the Village was inclined to approve this development, she urged that a detailed and restrictive annexation agreement be used. She also stated taht church activities were protected under the first amendment and that the Village could not look to control the programs, only the buildings and land use.

-Bobbie O’Reilly, RFD, expressed concern about the density and ascerbating the existing school problems and rejected the suggestion that the County should be entrusted with this project instead of our neighbors on the Plan Commissioners and Village Board.

- The Reverend Stanlley Davis, executive director of the Chicago and Northern Illinois Region of the National Conference for Community and Justice, commented that his mission was to fight bias, prejudice and racism and that fear of different beliefs was often behind these types of community conflicts. He stated that while there were some legitimate issues raised, this was not a strip mall or tavern, it was not a cult, but a mainstream church, it was not a Willow Creek, would not decrease property values and would be a fine assett to whatever community it ended up in.

-Al , 4536 RFD, stated that when he first heard that a church was proposed, he was fine with the idea. He has since come to question how 110 people can affort to buy this property and build structures beyond what they need. He stated it sounded more like a regional plan than a community curch. He questioned why support it if the majority of citizens surrounding the land are opposed to it.

-Joe Valenti, owner of the property to the south, commented that it was always intended to develop his land as residential. He stated that the south parking lot is too close to future resiidential use and asked that the Plan Commission be sensitive to future residential development by requiring major setbacks, berming and other screeninhg.

-Gina Katroki, 4551 RFD, stated that this was not a reliegious oissue. Thsi propsed use deviated from her vision of homes on that site when she moved in to her home.

-Susan Vanderbosch, , stated she had been a resident of Long Grove for 34 years and it saddened her that racism had been brought into the disfcussion. She did not believe it even crossed the minds of residents. She believed they had legitimate concerns. She urged that,l if annexed, very stringent restrictions be set that would not allow future expansion.

-The Reverend Arlene Kristopherson, explained that every congregatoin’s goal was to grow and expand. Because churches are built infrequently, projects are buildt for 20 year expansion. This plan takes into accoutn the future growth of the Asian community in Lake County.

With no further public comments, Chairman Young asked the members of the Plan Commission for thier comments.

Commissioner Di Iorio stated he had concerns, among them impact on Kruger road south to 22. He recommend no right turn be allowed if acess was on Kruger. He concurred with the deletion of the playing field and amphitheatre and recommended that the parking on the south side be relocated, perhaps eliminated with off-site parking used instead.

Commissoiner Walter gave comparisons of his own church and other local religious institutions with that proposed. He agreed that the parking lot and buildings on the southern border should be moved. He stated he would like to see elevations of the buildings as they would realistically look on the land; expressed the desire that it look more like a country church and less like the school; was in favor of removal of the amphitheatre; would like to see the school exit moved to align with Kruger more away from the curve; agreed with a detailed annexation agreement; and noted that this plan would appear to be less dense than if developed residential, would include a deeper buffer from the road and would generate fewer trips.

Commissioner Coffin state he agreed with Ms. O’Reilly about having the Village control this development instead of the County Board. He pointed out that he did not think Long Grove even had an annexation agreement that was not detailed. He suggested using dedicated open space as in the Fields to maintain the open land in this project. He preferred a Gilmer road access, and suggested that everyone involved use this opportunity to review the safety and access issues with the school. Suggested increased setbacks, berms, and landscaping to both the south and west borders. Was in favor of 500 or fewer seats in the sanctuary.

Commissioner Phillips said he appreciated the reduction of the project and noted that 85% open space was fantastic when compared to development as homes. The intersection was a major stumbling point and agreed it should be reviewed in unison with the svhool. He agreed that a PUD and a detailed annexation agrreement was necessary and that the southern border must be protected for future developmenht.

Commissioner Borawski also indicated a preference for a Gilmer road access and would prefer septic instead of sewer. He noted that the reason the church was drawn to the site was the rural atmosphere and stated the residents deserve protection of that same rural atmosphere they moved here for also. He agreed the architecture could be improved and was troubled by the accessory uses and buildings being greater than the church and that little effort had been made to use multi-use facilities to minimize land usage. He suggested the possibility of making one building larger and deleting another building. He was in favor of removal of the fountain, ampitheater, basketball/tennis and south parking lot area, two of the parsonages and moving the lawn equipment storage building to the caretaker’s house.

Commissioner Jenkins stated he resented the inference of racial bias in this matter and wondered why such heavy hitters from the church were coming for such a small congregation. He welcomed the idea of a small country church, but did not agree that the magnitute of buildings and use met that definition. He believed this project could and should be sclaed down and designed to fit Long Grove. He expressed agreement that a building should be removed and stated he would like to see elevations of how the buildings fit into the site.

Commissiooner Dean stated that he agreed Commissioner Borawski’s comments almost without exception. He asked on what terms sewer would be available to the site and questioned the pros and cons of sewer versus septic use and whether sewer would then have to be made available to development of the land to the south. He also questioned whether Gilmer access was realistic. He was also troubled by the size of the ancillary, accessory uses and buildings in relation to the worship area.

Commissioner Tarnaris also voiced opposition to the ancillary uses of the ampitheater, basketball/tennis area, but did not agree with removal of a building. He agreede that Long Grove, rather than the County, should set the standards for this developemtn. He also requested elevations and details on the buffer areas to the south and west.

Chairman Young agreed with minimizing the buildings as much as possible and was in favor of removal of the playing field, tennis/basketball area, two parsonages, amphitheater and chapel. He was in favor of Gilmer road access and limiting seating to 400. He was also in favor of requiring septic on the site.

There was then discussion about the various means, such as annexation agreements, special use ordinances and covenants and restricitons, to limit future growth and ensure non-development of the open land.

In addition to the list of possible conditions dated March 2, 200l, a majority of the Commissioners indicated a preference for:

-removal of the amphitheatre, fountain and chapel;

-deletion of the parking and tennis/basketball area to the south and installation of berming and/or additional plantings to protect the south and west borders;

- removal of the playing field, leaving some area for grass around the building and playground area, but naturalizing the area now designated as playing fields;

- removal of two of the parsonages;

- all wooded areas, wetlands, naturalized area and other open space would remain open and could never be built on;

- movign the tool shed to the custodian residence;

- use of a detailed annexation agreement, that would include all these conditions and conditions to protect the open spaces from fjurther development;

- the Commission would like to see realistic elevations of how the buildings sit on the land;

- the use of septic would be required;

- seating would be limited to 500;

- the Commission would prefer the building look more like a country church and less like the school buildings across the street;

- future phases, as outlined on the site plan and as #15 on the possible list of conditions dated 3/02/01 would be detleted; and

- acess should be on Gilmer road.

The petitoners stated they would consider these comments and respond at or before the next Plan Commission meeting.

B. B-1 Business District Amendments to the Code.

The Commissioners reviewed a list of 12 possible additional uses to be permitted in the Business District. Following discussion, motion to recommend that all 12 uses be added to the list of permitted and special uses and standards in the B-1 Historic Business District undre Sections 5-5-1 through 5-5-1-10 of the Village Code made by Commisisoner Dean, seconded by Commissioner Walter. Prior to a vote by the Comission, Commissioner Borawski moved to amend the list to delete Outdoor Seating for Food Serice and Restaurant with Pub or Tavern, stating he would prefer further discussion and review of those two proposed uses. The motion to amend was seconded by Commissioner Dean. Commissioners Tarnaris, Dean, Borawski and Coffin and Chairman Young voted aye. Commissioners Jenkins, Phillips, Walter and Di Iorio voted nay. Motion carried.

Village Manager Doughty suggested that each Commissioner contact him prior to the next meeting with their thoughts about the two uses that were deleted, which he would then compile and disseminate for review and discussion at the April meeting.

C. Conservancy Easement Buffers.

The Commissioner reviewed and discussed Planner Kendig’s memorandum dated January 22, 2001 regard Setbacks from Conservancy Areas.

Motion to hold a public heraing on April 3, 2001 to hear comment on an amendment to Section 5-10-7, Conservancy Easment Encroachments, of the Village Code to include setbacks or buffers from conservancy easements made by Commissioner Dean, seconded by Commissioner Walter. Ayes all. Motion carried.

V. NEW BUSINESS.

A. SprintCom., Nextel, Cingular & Missionary Alliance Church Special

Use Amendment.

Village Manager Doughty explained that an AT&T cellular tower and shelter building had been approved on the Missionerary Alliance Church property. In keeping with the Village’s desire that any additional cellular companies utilize existing towers, the petitionres were seeking to add additional platforms and a another shelter building at the base of the tower.

Michael J. McCrery, attorney with Richard Connor Riley & Associates, :L.L.C, Ms. Jeanette Ward and Abdeen Carillo representing SprintCom and Don Bach and Chuck Brown representing Nextel were present. Mr. McCrery presented maps showing cellular coverage gaps from each company and how those gaps would be improved with the proposed additional platforms. He advised that the AT&T platform was at 120 feet, they were proposing a platform at 105 feet to be used by both Sprint and Singular Wireless and a platform at 90 feet to be used by Nextel. The additional shelter to be used by Sprint, Singular Wireless and Nextel would be built of the same materials, including fence and loandscaping as the existing AT&T shelter.

Village Manager Doughty advised the Commission that a notice had been sent to surrounding property owners.

Commissoiner Walter noted that the specifications for the shelter building in the material provided were not the same as the AT&T shelter and suggested that be corrected.

Bobbie O’Riley, RFD commented that Sprint cellular service is incorrectly forwrading the taxes charged to Long Grove customers to Lake Zurich instead of to Long Grove. She stated that all other cellular companeis have been able to rectify their billing, and urged the Sprint representative present to address this problem.

Motion to hold a public hearing on April 3, 2001 at 8:00 p.m. At the Country Meadows School for the purpose of hearing the petition of Sprintcom., Nextell West Corp, Cingular Wireless and Missionary Alliance Church to amend the existing special use permit for a telecommunication tower and related facilities located at 5105 Arlington Heights Road made by Commissioner Coffin, seconded by Commissioner Phillips. Ayes all. Motion carried.

B. 2001 Zoning Map.

Village Manager Doughty advised the Commission that State Statutes require the Village to update the zoning map each year in March. He advised that there had been no development sor PUDs given final approval this year so the only changes from last year’s map were minor typos to street names and to the index.

Motion to recommend approval of the Zoning Map, effective as of March, 2001, made by Commissioner Phillips, seconded by Commissioner Di Iorio. Ayes all. Motion carried.

VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS - none.

VII. PLANNER’S REPORT - none.

VIII. ADMINISTRAATIVE REPORT - none.

IX. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING.

Motion to adjourn made by Commissioner Phillips, seconded by Commissioner Coffin. Ayes all. Meeting adjourned at 12:12 a.m March 7, 2001.

Respectfully submitted,

Camy Gould

Secretary