Village of Long Grove

Plan Commission

Meeting Minutes

April 3, 2001

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

Absent: Commissioner Tarnaris

I. PUBLIC HEARING

A. Sprint, Nextel, Cingular Wireless and Missionary Alliance Church Cell

Tower Special Use Amendment.

Public Hearing called to order by Chairman Young at 8:04 p.m. Village Manager Doughty read public notice and swore in all wishing to testify.

Mr. Michael J. McCrery, attorney with Richard Connor Riley & Associates, representing Sprint, Nextel and Singular Wireless gave the audience a presentation of the plan to add two additional platforms to and a second shelter building at the base of an existing AT&T cellular tower located on the Missionary Alliance Church property. Mr. McCrery advised there were 45,000 new cellular users every day, with seven million calls to 911 emergency services made from cellular phones in 1999. He presented maps showing gaps in existing coverage from each company and others showing how those gaps would be improved with the proposed platforms. He noted that the proposal was in keeping with the Village of Long Grove’s desire to minimize separate towers and asked that the Plan Commission approved this special use amendment.

- Resident Ostick, 5109 RFD, stated he lives north of the church and opposed the original tower. He thinks it’s ugly and not in keeping with its surroundings. He questioned the height of the tower and size of the shelter building, whether the signals would interfere with the two buildings Buffalo Grove is considering behind the nearby bank and asked about wind safety.

Resident Elaine Gifford questioned why underground facilities were not used instead of towers.

In response to questions from the Commissioners and audience members, the petitioners advised: the tower would remain the same height at 120 feet, with the additional platforms placed below the existing AT&T platform (one at 105 feet, one 90 feet); the additional shelter would be approximately 10’x 30’ positioned at right angle to the existing building and fenced and landscaped in the same way; the tower will not interfere with surrounding buildings and vice versa; these platforms will meet the standard projected needs of these companies for the next five years; in the event this technology becomes obsolete and is not used for one year, they would agree to remove the additional platforms and shelter building (since the existing tower and shelter building belong to AT&T, they cannot agree to remove those); satellite technology does not work in urban areas because the “line of sight” is blocked by buildings, trees and other structures; the total power output from Sprint’s 100 watts, Nextel’s 150 watts and Cingular’s 130 watts would “max out” the tower; the “trees” used to camouflage towers in other parts of the country would look out of place here; cellular companies do not go underground because the cellular electric and radio equipment is much more delicate and susceptible to water damage and interference than the mechanical equipment buried by phone companies.

Village Manager Doughty advised the audience that by federal law, municipalities cannot use zoning or other means to prevent cellular towers, but can only set reasonable standards.

With no further comments, Chairman Young closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.

II. MEETING GAVELED TO ORDER.

Meeting called to order by Chairman Young at 8:40 p.m.

III. MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2001.

Correction: Krueger Road is incorrectly spelled as “Kruger” on pages 2 and 4 of the minutes. Motion to accept the minutes of March 6, 2001 as corrected, made by Commissioner Walter, seconded by Commissioner Borawski. Ayes all. Motion carried.

IV. OLD BUSINESS.

A. Good Shepherd Church Annexation and Special Use.

Mr. Kenneth Shepro, attorney with Alteimer & Gray, Mr. Carl Kupfer of Infracon and K.C. Hahn were present on behalf of the petitioners.

Mr. Shepro read off each item on the possible list of conditions from the memorandum dated March 3, 2001 and indicated which items the petitioners could agree to and which items needed further discussion. The Commissioners and petitioners then discussed the open items:

- 1.B. The petitioner requested that they be allowed two buildings designated as single family residences, as defined and restricted under Village Code, which would allow them flexibility to use one as a caretaker home or both as parsonages. The building designated for lawn equipment would be moved and attached to one of the residences. Setbacks on residences to respect adjacent land.

- 1.E. The petitioners want the area designated “playing fields” to be an open grass area for play. They would agree to no permanent striping or markings. Commissioners expressed their concerns that the land be permanently unbuildable and not used for parking or carnivals or similar activities. Village Manager Doughty suggested that an easement would allow an open area for non-organized activities, but not allow structures or other use without Village permission. Some Commissioners expressed a desire for this land to mirror the Fields of Long Grove land on the other side of Krueger Road. Planner Kendig pointed out that the berming was intended to screen the buildings and would block the view of the field anyway. There was discussion about moving the grass area south in the event road access was moved to Gilmer.

- 1.G. The petitioners would prefer to keep the one row of parking spaces to the south of the building, agreeing to remove those spaces designated “basketball and tennis” (it was estimated this put the paving 100 feet from the southern property line). They would also agree to put plantings against the building in order to help hide the open spots not screened by the forest to the south.

- 1.H. The petitioners expressed concern that a conservancy easement designation would prevent them from putting in walking paths. They agreed to designating this area the same way as the playing field area.

- 4. The petitioners requested they be allowed to use shallow wells for water (one for each residence and one for church building use) stating the water used by the church would be minimal and certainly less than if the site was developed as homes. The petitioners agreed to irrigate outside areas using pond water and not well water.

- 5. It was noted that day care should be excluded from the Metro Transportation Group Traffic study dated 7.5.00

- 6. The petitioners expressed concern that events such as funerals, over which they had no control, would require Village approval under this condition and questioned what defined “major”. Commissioners expressed concern about the number of cycles of uses in one day. After discussion, it was agreed that the condition would be amended to be applicable only to other than religious events and that “major” would be considered an event that anticipated used of more than 50 percent of the parking spaces.

- 7. This condition would also be amended so that events other than religious events and events that would anticipate use of more than 50 percent of the parking spaces would require special approval..

- 9. It was noted that the sign could be faced on both sides.

- 10. The petitioners expressed concern that they not be forced to put the path through areas that didn’t make sense, such as on or over the berm, and suggested that the path be placed in the right of way along N. Krueger and Gilmer roads. The petitioners were advised that the Commission would need to approve the path and encouraged to seek the help of Planner Kendig in determining placement of the path.

- 11. It was noted that this condition was subject to third party approval.

- 13. In the event the main entrance is on N. Krueger Road, the petitioners would agree to restrict exit traffic to northbound only, with no right turn southbound on N. Krueger Road.

- 14. The petitioners requested this condition be amended to read 75 feet above grade, saying there may have been misunderstanding between above grade and from the roof of the building. The Commission reserved judgment until they could see elevations and comparisons to other steeple heights within the Village. It was agreed that no lights, signs, electronic bells or signals or other items or devices would be allowed on the steeple.

- 15.A. The petitioners requested the seating be increased to 600, noting that the square footage of the building was the same as with 500 seats. Following discussion, an informal survey was taken among the Commissioners with Commissioners Dean, Jenkins, Coffin and Borowski in favor of 500 seats and Commissioners Phillips, Di Iorio and Walter and Chairman Young in favor of 600 seats. Not seeing a way to resolve the division and in the interest of moving on, the Commission noted this was a condition requiring further discussion. Attorney for the petitioner suggested that the petition be sent on to the Village Board with a note of the division of consensus on this issue and let the Board decide.

- 15.D. and 15.E. These would be amended to be two single family units not restricted or designated as to usage, except under Village Code.

-15.G. The petitioners requested up to two years to install landscaping and pathways and agreed to a completion bond to ensure fulfillment of this obligation.

- 16. This condition would be amended to no more than 75 feet, subject to approval.

-17. The petitioners noted that in previous discussions the percentage had been rounded off, but the actual number was closer to 20 percent than 15 percent and asked that this condition be amended to 20 percent maximum impervious surface.

-18. This condition should be changed to read “on-street” parking.

-19. The petitioners asked that this be amended to read except as may be required for safety reasons.

-20. The petitioners expressed concern that the single family residences not be overly burdened by this condition, citing porch lights as an example.

-21. Funerals would be excluded from this requirement.

In addition to the above, the following conditions would be added:

- the petitioner needs to submit information on the proposed playground equipment;

- the BBQ should be moved from the south lot area to prevent parties from disturbing future residents to the south; and

- the petitioner agreed that cell towers would be prohibited on the site.

The petitioner noted that most of the items had been agreed to and requested that the Commission make a motion to approve the petition subject to final approval of all outstanding materials to be submitted at the next meeting, stating they wanted to be sure of approval before committing to this time and expense.

Motion to accept the petition of Good Shepherd United Methodist Church dated March 6, 2001, with the conditions set forth in the document dated March 13, 2001, both as revised at this meeting and subject to receipt and final approval of all documents set forth in those revisions, including elevations, made by Commissioner Walter, seconded by Commissioner Di Iorio.

Discussion followed with some members of the Commission expressing qualms about approving a plan with such relevant items outstanding.

Commissioner Walter withdrew his motion.

Chairman Young, asked that the Commission give the petitioners some direction by indicating their position on the petition. Commissioners Di Iorio, Coffin, Walter and Phillips indicated they were generally in favor of the petition. Commissioners Borawski, Jenkins and Dean and Chairman Young indicated they were not in favor of the petition.

Commissioner Borawski asked to explain his disfavor and advised he continued to be concerned about the total square footage of accessory uses. He noted that the size of the sanctuary had been reduced, but the other buildings had not been rationarily reduced. He stated he would prefer that buildings be combined and be multi-use to reduce the total square footage.

Commissioner Dean stated that despite the best efforts to negotiate, he thought the project was still too large and that the potential for use, growth and impact on the periphery of the Village was too great. He also expressed concern about the precedent of allowing multi-buildings and multi-uses and about the Village’s limited ability to set desired limits within the law or language. He noted that the process was not always efficient and that it had taken awhile to get to the petitioner’s final plan, about which he still had concerns.

Commissioner Jenkins stated his disapproved was based on the visual scale of the project. He would prefer that it look more like a country church.

The petitioners noted the comments of the Commissioners.

B. Sprint, Nextel, Cingular Wireless and Missionary Alliance Church Cell Tower Special Use Amendment - Recommendation.

Motion to recommend an amendment to the Missionary Alliance Church special use for a telecommunications tower as presented in the petition of SprintCom, Nextel West Corp., Cingular Wireless and Missionary Alliance Church and in accordance with the findings form dated April 3, 2001, with the additional condition that the roof of the proposed shelter building be of the same material type and color as the existing AT&T shelter building on the site and that the structures will be removed by the petitioners in the event they are not used for one year made by Commissioner Walter, seconded by Commissioner Phillips. All Ayes. Motion carried.

Mr. McClery also reported that the issue of SprintCom incorrectly forwarding taxes to Lake Zurich for Long Grove customers was being addressed to the satisfaction of Ms. O’Reilly, who had raised the issue at the last meeting.

C. Conservancy Easement Buffers.

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

Motion to hold a public hearing on May 1, 2001 to hear comment on an amendment to Section 5-10-7, Conservancy Easement 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.

In light of the late hour, Commissioner Dean suggested that item V.B. Jay’s Camp be moved up before the Historic Business District discussion and thanked the petitioners for their patience.

B. Jay’s Camp Annexation, Zoning and Special Use Petition - Discussion.

Mr. Jeffrey Randall, attorney with Robbins, Salomon & Patt and Mr. Jay Silverman were present to present the request for annexation of approximately 11.88 acres located northeast of the intersection of Route 22 and Old McHenry Road. Mr. Randall explained that the property has been operated for over 27 years as a children’s day camp from June 1st through August 31st, with corproate picnics during the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends from June 1st through November 30th.

Commissioner Dean noted that that the proposed zoning of B-2 was improvised 12 years ago to accommodate existing businesses when property at Routes 83 and 45 was annexed and included uses that may not be desirable to either the Village or neighbors for this location and questioned whether it was prudent to use B-2 zoning in this instance.

Discussion followed on the specific uses listed under B-2 zoning, existing and proposed development in the area and the desirability of annexing this property. Commissioner Dean suggested that consideration of this petition include discussion of whether the use of B-2 zoning, as drafted, was acceptable and that neighbors of the property be advised of the specifics of the proposed zoning. He also suggested that the petitioners be put on notice that the proposed zoning is under review and may be altered.

Motion to hold a public hearing on May 1, 2001 for the purpose of hearing the petition of Jay’s Camp annexation, zoning, special use and to review an amendment to the Village Code concerning language outlining a special use for a private camp made by Commissioner Borawski, seconded by Commissioner Phillips. Ayes all. Motion carried.

A. B-1 Historic Business District Regulations - Discussion.

Ms. Karen Schmitt, Executive Director of the Community Development Corporation (the “CDC”) was present to discuss the memo dated March 20, 2001 regarding proposed additional permitted uses in the B-1 Historic Business District.

The Commission discussed outdoor dining, including: a suggestion that the Village experiment for a season to see what works and what problems there are; that annual licenses be required, which would be unrenewable in the event of problems; that use of restaurant names on cups and napkins be required for waste contro; and that outdoor dining areas should be enclosed with gates or landscaping for both ambiance and refuse control.

Motion to hold a public hearing on May 1, 2001 for the purpose of hearing comment on the proposal to amend the Village code as to the B-1 Historic Business District regulations to allow outdoor dining as set forth in the proposal dated March 20, 2001 with the additional requirement that cups, plates, napkins and similar items used for outdoor dining bear the name of the respective merchant made by Commissioner Di Iorio, seconded by Commissioner Coffin. Ayes all. Motion carried.

Ms. Schmitt then explained the reasoning behind the request for a restaurant with tavern/pub, stating that without the ability to serve alcohol, which many patrons want with dinner, restaurants are limited to serving lunch. She also advised there were two possible buildings available for this type of use and that timing was important.

Discussion followed. Commissioner Dean suggested that it would be helpful to have a draft ordinance for both restaurant with tavern/pub and carryout deli businesses before the Commissioners at the next meeting as there were a lot of guidelines and issues to be considered and resolved. Commissioner Borawski asked about the ratio of tavern space to restaurant space. Commissioner Walter suggested that guidelines pertaining to the proposed carryout deli business include the requirement that all plates, cups, napkins and packages be identified with the restaurant's name.

Motion to table further consideration of adding Restaurant with Tavern/Pub and Carryout Deli Businesses to uses allowed in the B-1 Historic Business District made by Commissioner Dean, seconded by Commissioner Walter. Ayes all. Motion carried.

VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS.

Village Manager Doughty advised that although it was not on the agenda, Village Engineer Bleck had recommended approval of the Royal Melbourne Phase II per his letter of February 28, 2001. He explained that the Rob Robinson park, currently an outlot, was being added as part of the Royal Melbourne PUD.

Motion to recommend approval of the Final Plat for the Royal Melbourne Phase II as recommended by Village Engineer Bleck in his letter dated February 28, 2001 made by Commissioner Dean, seconded by Commissioner Di Iorio. Ayes all. Motion carried.

VII. PLANNER’S REPORT - none.

VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT - none.

IX. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING.

Motion to adjourn made by Commissioner Walter, seconded by Commissioner Di Iorio. Ayes all. Meeting adjourned at 11:46 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Camy Gould

Secretary