Village of Long Grove

Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

August 7, 2001

Present: Chairman Young, Commissioners Lisa Phillips, Gould, Jenkins, Borawski, and Walter, Assistant to the Village Manager Johnson and Planner Kendig

Absent: Commissioners Coffin, Fred Phillips and Di Iorio and Village Manager Doughty

Note: In the absence of a new Plan Commission Secretary having been appointed, Commissioner Gould was appointed Acting Secretary.

I. PUBLIC HEARING.

Public Hearing called to order by Chairman Young at 8:02 p.m. Assistant to the Village Manager Johnson read public notice and swore in all wishing to testify.

Presenting the petition were Messrs. Joseph E. Valenti, of Valenti Builders, Inc., Frank Salathe of JenLand Design, Inc., landscape architecture, Jim Frane of Manhard Consulting and John Talthe of OKW Architecture. Receipts for the certified mail of notice to adjacent homeowners were given to Ms. Johnson. Mr. Salathe presented a description of the site and surrounding area, map of conservancy soils, wetland and minor drainage divides and the proposed site and landscape plans. Details of the proposal included: of the 120.54 acres, approximately 39 were wetland, leaving 80.8 as buildable; 62 homes were proposed with an average lot size of 36,000 square feet; the homes would use community well and sanitary sewer; the plan provided for open space along N. Krueger to mirror the Fields; all home sites abutted open space; wetlands and trees had been preserved as much as possible; and a trail system and community feature area had been included. Mr. Salathe also advised that upon further review, several areas designated as detention and retention in the plan submitted in the binder and been deemed unnecessary and had been removed.

- Resident Lenore Simmons asked questions related to water for the development.

- Resident Joe Barry asked at what depth the community well(s) would be drilled and suggested that the trail system be looped within the development and connected to White Oaks.

- Resident Susan Elbert expressed concern about connecting the path to Marilyn Court, near her home.

- Resident Frank Torchia asked how many trees would be lost, expressed concern about drainage along the south tree line into White Oaks and objected to the density of the plan, especially near White Oaks

- Pamela Newton, District 18 representative, Lake County Board, asked if the developers were aware of Lake County’s new isolated wetland ordinance penalizing mitigation and impact and asked for clarification as to why some stormwater management areas had been removed from the plan.

- Jim Schlester, owner of the undeveloped property to the west asked if the sanitary sewer connection would be stubbed and oversized so that he could have access to the sewer line for his property.

- Dave Bendoff, representing the White Oaks HOA, stated the rural residential character in the area should be maintained, but that setbacks and septic were not mutually exclusive. He suggested fewer lots, said the request for sewer was not justified and expressed concern about having two classes of ownership in the Village, those with septic and those with sewer. He also advised that White Oaks homeowners were opposed to connecting this development to Pamela Court.

- Resident Lisa Nora of White Oaks stated she was opposed to access to Pamela Court.

- Resident Gene Carr questioned the capacity of the lift station for sanitary sewer.

- Resident Jerry Cole noted there was only one entrance/exit while the Fields, with 57 lots, and White Oaks, with 66 lots, each had two and wondered if two access points wouldn’t be better for the safety and convenience of the residents.

- Resident Marcia Marshall, on behalf of the Long Grove Homeowner’s Coalition, thanked Mr. Valenti for the early look at the plan he had provided residents, but that now that they’d had a chance to consider the details there were concerns: who would develop the property; Planner Kendig’s memo of July 2, 2001 indicated a septic plan with 60 homes was possible and this proposed sewer plan only provided 4.6% more open space; the request for sewer was not based on any evidence of compelling need and that granting sewer to this development would make it unreasonable to deny sewer to the possible Good Shepherd property, where septic was important to limiting growth.

- Resident Steven Pack commented that the density looked okay in the plan, but questioned the spacing between homes as he did not like the closeness of the homes at the Preserves, for example.

In response to these comments and questions, the petitioners advised: the development would be served by one or two community wells dug to the St. Petersburg aquifer at about 800-900 feet which would not affect the shallow aquifer used by nearby homes; there was capacity on the lift station for the proposed number of homes; they were aware of the new Lake County wetland ordinance, but did not expect to impact any wetlands and that the land planner had prepared the initial plans indicating mitigation areas that were not required so had been removed; the paths were put in at the request of the Village and they were open to working on the location; the fire department would need to determine if the proposed one access was sufficient or if a second access or connection to Pamela Court was necessary; who would develop the property had not been decided, but it would most likely be a mixture of Valenti, individuals and other builders developing a few lots; the side yard setbacks on the smaller 26,000 square foot lots would be 50-feet combined, with 20-feet minimum.

With regard to the septic/sewer issue, Mr. Valenti commented they believed that with sewer the quality of the development was better, the value was better, that mounds were not consistent with the development and that it allowed a more open corridor and the ability to landscape naturally.

With no further comments, Chairman Young closed the public hearing at 9:02 p.m.

II. MEETING GAVELED TO ORDER.

Meeting called to order by Chairman Young at 9:02 p.m.

III. MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2001.

Motion to accept the minutes of July 9, 2001, as presented, made by Commissioner Lisa Phillips, seconded by Commissioner Gould. Ayes all. Motion carried.

IV. OLD BUSINESS.

A. Good Shepherd Church Annexation and Special Use.

Chairman Young explained that the Village had received a letter dated August 6, 2001 from Kenneth Shepro, attorney representing Good Shepherd United Methodist Church, advising that the list of conditions submitted for clarification by Village Manager Doughty on July 10, 2001 were acceptable with three exceptions, which were read aloud for the benefit of those present.

Noting that two of the conditions the Church would not agree to were the most important to the Village’s ability to limit future growth and activities, motion to deny the petition of Good Shepherd United Methodist Church, as submitted, made by Commissioner Gould, seconded by Commissioner Lisa Phillips. Commissioners Lisa Phillips, Gould, Jenkins, Borawski, Walter and Chairman Young voted aye in a roll call vote. Commissioners Fred Phillips, Coffin and Di Iorio absent. No nays. Motion carried.

B. Valenti’s Long Grove Woods Phase II Annexation and Planned Unit Development.

At Chairman Young’s request, Planner Kendig reviewed the points in his memo dated August 3, 2001, and stated that in his opinion the plan was excellent; that preservation along Krueger Road was the most critical factor; he believed size and age were more of a factor than septic/sewer with regard to value; he would recommend a much more extensive trail system; he was concerned about the detention area shown in the woods to the south; while the landscaping was generally good, this development should be subject to the new landscape regulations being considered by the Commission and trees should be added to the open areas between houses. He recommended using natural drainage on the site; a tree row and berm along N. Krueger Road; and development of a maintenance plan for the natural areas with specific requirements to eradicate undesirable plants. In response to concerns about the size of homes on the smaller lots, he hoped to discuss modification of the current regulations later in the meeting and recommended that any modification be applicable to this development. He recommended that the project be granted preliminary approval.

Commissioner Lisa Phillips commented that without compelling need, which had not been demonstrated, sanitary sewer was not justified. She recommended honoring the Comprehensive Plan’s emphasis on using septic and expressed concern about the slippery slope issue, evidenced by Mr. Schlester’s desire to attach his adjacent property to the sewer line in this development. She noted that this plan used 80% of the buildable land on the site. She expressed concern about the apparent prohibition in the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R’s) against composting, which Long Grove encourages; asked about the use of cottonwoods in the landscaping plan; and suggested charting the home sites to ensure the size of homes fit the lots.

She also suggested that the Village’s trail system be reconsidered in light of resident’s concerns.

Commissioner Gould commented that under Village policy adopted in 1999, sanitary sewer could be approved for exceptional plans that benefited the Village, but that lots less than one acre should be considered only in special circumstances. In order to determine whether sanitary sewer would result in the better development, the Commission still needed to see a “best” septic plan, using septic as the driving factor instead of the scenic corridor and expressed the opinion that with the treed berm recommended by the Village Planner abutting the lots, the proposed setback from Krueger could be reduced. She commented that with so few trees on the property, effort should be made to preserve even those not considered valuable; expressed concern about the single entrance for emergency and school bus access; noted that the Village Board passed along a recommendation for a tot lot, which appeared to have been changed to a porch attached to the well house; asked staff to advise if the development schedule set forth under Section 6 of the binder material dated July 30, 2001 was acceptable; asked if the conditions of the Lake County Soil & Water, Natural Resources Agency had been met by this plan and whether there was a Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan in place to protect nearby wetlands; and noted that the Lake County Soil survey seemed to indicate more soil identified as unsuitable/problematic than the survey submitted by petitioners.

Commissioner Jenkins commented that he was open to either septic or sewer on this site, but would like to see a septic driven plan. He also asked about a supplemental entrance for emergency access and expressed concern about scale, noting that the homes in the Fields were built to fit the smaller lots and were almost invisible through the trees, whereas large homes built here would look like more dense surrounding suburbs instead of Long Grove. He expressed a preference for open space woven in between lots or smaller homes in such a congested layout.

Commissioner Borawski asked about beefing up the southern border with evergreens for winter screening; thought the project seemed dense, especially the lower north, west and southern edges; was not sure why this development qualified for a 5% bonus; expressed concern over the potential size of the homes and suggested setting limits to make them proportional with the size of the lots; he asked about possibly restricting sprinkling systems to planting beds in the covenants; he would like to see the trail system meander through the development rather than be a straight line up the border and did not see safety concerns with trails; he had no problem with either septic or sewer, noting it was a Pandora’s box, but said he has not seen any creativity from this developer with regard to a septic plan.

Commissioner Walter commented that the proposed plan was substantially better than the first plan presented, but could be made substantially better still. He recommended not comparing subdivision to subdivision, but using what worked and learning from those that didn’t. He liked the idea of paths throughout the Village connecting subdivisions and was not aware of evidence of safety problems with paths in any other community; he suggested that the School District be contacted to see if they had any concerns about bus access; suggested that a way to limit house size was to use the setbacks required under R-2 zoning instead of the smaller setbacks proposed; said that septic was ecologically more in keeping with the Village’s overall philosophy and that the Commission was due a plan that showed a serious effort at use of septic; noted that the soil map in the petition indicated that approximately ten lots, and some road areas, were located on soil rated severe for water problems; and noted that the Commission needed to resolve some questions regarding unbuildable land when determining how many lots could be developed on a site.

Planner Kendig pointed out that for years developers were given a 15% bonus and that sewer had already been approved in various subdivisions. He also advised that the Lake County soil surveys were notoriously broad, while petitioners’ surveys were bored closer and more precise.

Mr. Valenti responded that a septic plan had been provided at the last meeting, followed by a straw poll with five Commissioners citing the scenic corridor as the most important factor and four citing septic. He also noted the difference of opinion with regard to trails and said it was difficult to know how he was to proceed under these circumstances. He stated he would agree to anti-monotony conditions, but was concerned that the housing standard revisions being proposed were too limiting. Following further discussion, he stated the first plan submitted should be considered their best septic plan as the lots were large enough for septic.

Mr. Valenti indicated he would amend the CC&R’s to allow composting; check with the Fire Department about a second access; had no problem including a tot lot; would maintain the common areas before turning over to the HOA; had a soil control plan; would work with Planner Kendig on landscape changes; would agree to preserve as many trees as possible; and was open to a trail system on the site, if that’s what the Village wanted. He stated he could not agree at this time to be subject to revisions of the landscape, housing design, and bulk standards being discussed, not knowing what those changes might be.

Chairman Young asked that the Commissioners call him prior to the next meeting regarding their views on the open issues: sewer or septic; limiting home sizes; whether the bonus was justified; and the proposed development schedule.

C. Subdivision Landscape Standards.

The Commission reviewed Planner Kendig’s proposed revisions to the Subdivision Landscape Regulations dated August 1, 2001. Discussion followed, including the recommendation that a required maintenance plan for the developer be added to #4. and that 6-4-4 C 6(c) should be changed to 6-4-4 C 9(c).

Motion to notice a public hearing on September 4, 2001 for the purpose of considering revisions to the Subdivision Landscape Regulations made by Commissioner Borawski, seconded by Commissioner Jenkins. Ayes all. Motion carried.

D. Housing Design Standards.

The Commission reviewed Planner Kendig’s proposed Housing Design Standards. Discussion followed, including whether regulating design resulted in better houses or stifled creativity and that decks and porches should be required to fit with the architectural style of the building. Mr. Valenti and John Talther, architect with OKW commented that in their opinion, items D. and E. were good criteria, but items A., B., C. and F. were unnecessary and/or problematic for developers. This item was set for further review in connection with review of the bulk, FAR and height standards and Mr. Talther agreed to meet with Planner Kendig to offer his suggestions.

E. Undeveloped Land Map.

It was noted that two Commissioners had not been assigned any parcels to review so staff was asked to redistribute the list.

IV. NEW BUSINESS - none.

V. COMMITTEE REPORTS.

Commissioner Gould asked that Commissioners contact her if they had any comments, questions or concerns regarding water resources, conservation or possible restrictions and indicated her report should be completed in a couple of months.

VII. PLANNER’S REPORT - none.

VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT - none.

IX. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING.

Motion to adjourn made by Commissioner Jenkins, seconded by Commissioner Borawski. Ayes all. Meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Camy Gould

Acting Secretary