VILLAGE OF LONG GROVE
Plan Commission
Special Meeting Minutes
1. Call To Order.
Chairman Borawski called the
meeting to order at
Commissioners Present: Chairman
Borawski, Ed Acuna, Joseph Di Iorio, Michael Dvorak,
Nicholas Fasano, Camy Gould,
Robert Jenkins, Fred Phillips, and Lisa Phillips.
Absent:
Also
Present: Village
Manager
2. Approval Meeting Minutes.
Since this was the first “Special” Meeting, there were no
minutes to approve.
3. Driveway
Plans and Specifications Review.
The Village Board requested that the
The Commission raised
comments/concerns, including: (1) the need for consolidating all references
concerning driveways into one section of the Village Code; (2) conflicting
sections in the Village Code limiting driveway outside of building pad; (3)
impact on the amount of impervious surface.
Following further discussion, the Commission directed Staff to prepare a
single ordinance addressing these issues including: (1) maximum 18 foot width outside
the buildable area, including decorative ribbons
along the edge; (2) maximum 28 foot width at the street apron to accommodate a
maximum 5' radius flare on both sides of the driveway; and (3) maximum 35 foot
driveway width at garage doors.
4. Low-level Illumination
of Subdivision Identification Signs.
The Village Board requested
that the
Village Manager Lothspeich noted that
Village Code currently prohibits the illumination of all signs within residential
zoning districts. The Village recently
received a request for a new subdivision identification sign with
illumination. Staff recommended that any
proposed changes be specifically limited to low-level/low wattage illumination to
limit the visual impact on neighboring properties and to eliminate the ability
to increase the level of illumination by increasing the light bulb
“wattage”. Village Manager Lothspeich noted
that all signs would continue to require the approval of the Architectural
Review Board.
The Commission raised comments/concerns,
including: (1) difficulty locating certain subdivisions or streets because they
are not illuminated; (2) Grandiose subdivision monuments’ negative impact on
the rural atmosphere; (3) need to adhere to restrictions to control light
pollution.
Following further discussion, it was the
consensus of the Commission to permit illumination of subdivision
identification signs in residential districts with the following limitations:
(1) low-level (need to define as wattage, low-voltage, etc.) with consideration
given to directional lighting; (2) special attention given to subdivision
monuments, wattage, and respect to neighbors.
The Commission also noted the preference that developers be required to
include the signage plans, including illumination, during the consideration of
the subdivision or PUD. Staff was
directed to draft a summation of the discussion.
5. Undeveloped Parcel Reviews.
Consideration of each vacant
parcel of land within and surrounding the Village. Chairman
Borawski summarized that the 34 parcels have been
before the Commission for over the past year with various commissioners,
present and past, providing reviews and recommendations for zoning, usage
(residential or commercial), along with input from the Park District.
The Commission reviewed the
following parcels:
Site #11 - Parcels #2 & #4
Parcel #4
The Commission raised comments/concerns, including: (1) the
preferred option would be for the property to be purchased by the Lake County Forest Preserve District for open space; (2) the
existing R1 (3 acre minimum) zoning classification needs to be complied with
the number of lots based upon the number of buildable
acres; (3) desire to protect the watershed on this property and the adjacent nature
preserve; (4) possibility of connecting to the adjoining nature preserve
through walking paths. Following further
discussion, the Commission requested that Village Planner
Parcel #2
The Commission raised comments/concerns, including: (1) the existing R2 (2 acre minimum) zoning
classification needs to be complied with the number of lots based upon the
number of buildable acres; (2) Route 22 vs. Old
McHenry access; (3) currently not part of a boundary agreement - could be
annexed; (4) develop separate from Parcel #4 but consider overall density, etc.
as one development; and (5) consider possible school uses.
Village Manager Lothspeich
mentioned that the fire protection districts are planning emergency warning
sirens, and suggested that the Commission consider this need as plans for
development are reviewed.
Undefined
The Commission raised comments/concerns, including: (1) the existing B2 zoning classification and PUD needs
to be strictly complied with; (2) any consideration of change of plans, the
second preference would be for the parcel to be developed as single-family
residential; and (3) public water/sewer specifications must be included in the
PUD.
6. Other Business.
Chairman Borawski
informed the Commission that Brett Zacher,
Commissioner Fasano
attended the February 11th
Chairman Borawski
thanked Commissioner Fasano for his report and
reminded the Commission if any of them could not attend the Village Board
meeting on their assigned dates, they should find a substitute.
7. Adjournment.
Commissioner Acuna moved, seconded
by Commissioner Dvorak, to adjourn the meeting.
All Ayes.
No Nays. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at
Respectively submitted,
Secretary Pro-Tem