Long Grove Plan Commission

February 3, 2004 Meeting Minutes

 

Chairman present:  Fred Phillips.

 

Commissioners present: Ed Acuna, Michael Dvorak, Nicholas Fasano, Camy Gould, Robert Jenkins and Lisa Phillips.

 

Commissioners Absent:  Joseph Di Iorio

 

Also Present: Village Planner Edmond Cage and Village Attorney Tappendorf.

 

1.         CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Fred Phillips called the meeting to order at 8:04 p.m.

 

2.                  MINUTES OF January 6, 2003

There were some changes made to the draft meeting minutes from January 20, 2004.  Commissioner Gould motioned to approve the revised January 20, 2004 meeting minutes with the proposed changes, Commissioner Dvorak seconded.  Ayes, all.  Nays, none, motion carried.

 

3.                  Public Hearing for the Consideration of a Petition Under the Village of Long Grove Zoning Code to Authorize a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Subdivision of the Existing Three R1 Single Family Zoning Lots (Total Net Property Size of 11.9 acres)  into Four Single Family Zoning Lots (Average Net Lot Size of 2.9 acres) located at 3332 Old McHenry Road, Submitted by Anastacio & Company.

The public hearing was commenced by Chairman Fred Phillips at 8:12pm. 

 

Jeffrey Braiman, of 4256 Arlington Heights Road, was present to represent the petitioner, Ruben Anastacio, who was also present at the hearing.

 

Mr. Braiman gave a brief history on the property in question and noted that the property was over 12 acres in size until 0.75 acres was taken by eminent domain for the Old McHenry Road right-of-way.  The preliminary plan showed a 4-lot subdivision, that included 3 lots of 3 acres in size and one lot that was just under 3 acres in size.  The existing house at this location was to remain initially, while the other proposed homes were constructed, but could be replaced.  A scenic corridor and trail easement was shown on the preliminary plans. 

 

Mr. Braiman indicated that the petitioner was willing to go through either the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process or the Variance process for such a petition.

 

Commissioner Jenkins had a concern with the trail and its location.

 

Mr. Braiman stated that the petitioner would locate the trail wherever the Village thought most practical.

 

Village Planner Cage explained that the trail location was reviewed and recommended by the Trail Committee.

 

Commissioner Gould asked if the Village preferred the Variance or the PUD process?

 

Commissioner Lisa Phillips asked whether this petition met the PUD requirements.

 

Village Planner Cage stated that Village Staff would recommend the PUD process in this case and that the PUD requirements section would have to be reviewed for this petition to check compliance.

 

Commissioner Gould indicated that landscaping would be important to this petition via the PUD process.

 

Mr. Anastacio stated that the proposed single family homes would be in the region of 6,000 to 10,000 square feet in size.

 

Commissioner Lisa Phillips had some concerns with altering the character of Old McHenry Road and asked Village Attorney Tappendorf about possible tools for protection of historic areas.

 

Village Attorney Tappendorf answered that the PUD process provides the Village more control of the project in comparison to a Variance or a straight subdivision process and that some specific concerns could be conditioned through the PUD process.

 

Mr. Anastacio passed out some examples of houses he had constructed previously to the Plan Commission members.

 

Commissioner Gould recommended that the locations and distances of the surrounding properties and building locations be shown on the submitted plans.  She also asked if the Village generally allows septic areas outside of the building boxes?

 

Village Planner Cage answered that he had seen both examples, but that the most important issue is that the septic field is designated so that the potential affects on the lot can be seen.  The most common effect and concern of the septic field designation is on the existing trees on the lot.

 

Commissioner Fasano asked if the plan meets the requirements of the Village Code.

 

Village Planner Cage stated that a detailed Staff analysis would be needed to check this.

 

Commissioner Gould asked the petitioner if they would consider imposed conditions that would limit the impact of the development through the PUD process?  The overall concern was the visual impact of the proposed PUD.

 

Mr. Braiman responded that they would need to review what these conditions would be before they could answer this question.

 

Chairman Fred Phillips opened the public hearing to questions and comments from the public.

 

Barbara Turner, of 3853 RFD, stated that she had gone through a similar PUD process with her property and she had maintained character within her PUD.  She had some wetland, conservancy, scenic corridor and buffer concerns for this property and discussed the trail options, the preferred trail location here would be along the north side of the property.  Linking the trails to Kildeer School and Reed Turner Woodland is very important.  She also stated that the character of the proposed PUD is important, but some of the other concerns are more important.

 

Sharon Koenig, of 3337 RFD, noted that she had some of the same concerns as the Plan Commission members including character but that as the property is very open that maybe more tree plantings would be required at this location.

 

Constance Wachs, of 3378 RFD, had a concern with the number of houses at this location and the Village should maintain the 3 acre minimum lot size at this location.

 

Marsha Wachs Damm, of 3378 RFD, had a concern with the proposed street location to the north of the property and the Village should maintain the 3 acre minimum lot size at this location.

 

Patricia Fargo, of 3313 RFD, had a concern with the architectural design of the proposed single family residences and would like to see the architectural plans.

 

Commissioner Dvorak commented that the architectural plans for proposed lots 1 and 2 are important to the character of Old McHenry Road.

 

Village Planner Cage read a letter from Twin Orchards Country Club on this petition into the public record.

 

Commissioner Acuna had some concerns with the proposed 4-lot PUD, these concerns were mainly the character of the area and the environmental issues, if these concerns could be mitigated then he would have no major concerns with a 4-lot PUD subdivision.

 

Commissioner Lisa Phillips had major concerns with the character and heights of the proposed residences.  She felt that landscaping was important and that a picture view of the houses from Old McHenry Road would be important to the analysis of this petition.  She had a concern with the overall square footage of the proposed residences.

 

Commissioner Fasano felt that a 4-lot PUD subdivision could work at this location with some conditions and controls.  The key areas that would need to be addressed are the overall size, roof lines, height and character of the proposed residences, berms could be used to mitigate these concerns.  He would look to a Staff Review to outline code compliance for this petition.

 

Mr. Braiman stated that he would need the specifics on the materials and heights before the petitioner could agree to such conditions.

 

Commissioner Jenkins had an overall concern with the size of the proposed residences and is generally more comfortable with three lots than four lots.  Landscaping at this location is also very important.

 

Commissioner Dvorak has a concern with the proposed PUD access road not lining up with road entrance across Old McHenry Road and the driveway locations.

 

Commissioner Gould had the same concerns as the other Commissioners and added that the addition of one extra lot through the PUD process would trigger the need for additional landscaping.  She suggested that Village Staff could provide some reasonable roof heights.

 

Mr. Braiman noted that these proposed homes are not tract homes and are custom designed.

 

Chairman Fred Phillips noted that the Old McHenry Road character is important and this concern can be addressed through the PUD process.  

 

The public comment ended at 9:20pm.

 

Commissioner Gould made a motion to continue the public hearing to the next available Regular Plan Commission meeting on March 2, 2004, Commissioner Jenkins seconded.  Ayes, all.  Nayes, none, motion carried.

 

4.                  Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of an Ordinance Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on Non-Retail Uses in the Commercial Districts within the Village of Long Grove. The Contemplated Temporary Moratorium will Permit a Comprehensive Evaluation and Amendment to the Use Regulations within the Commercial Districts in the Village of Long Grove.

The public hearing was commenced by Chairman Fred Phillips at 9:25pm.

 

Village Attorney Tappendorf provided an introduction to the issue and the need for a public hearing on this issue.  The concept of such a moratorium was first discussed in the Business Districts, Inc (BDI) report and that the recommended maximum length of time would be a six month time period.  This time period can always be extended if required.  Such a moratorium would commence with the approval of the associated ordinance.

 

Village Planner Cage stated that the CloverLeaf Group petition, which was submitted prior to the initiation of the moratorium discussion, was exempt.  Copies of the BDI report would be made available to the Plan Commission for the next meeting for their review.

 

Commissioner Lisa Phillips asked if there are disadvantages for such a moratorium.

 

Village Attorney Tappendorf answered yes, sometimes and that a public hearing would be required to review the proposed text amendments.

 

Commissioner Acuna had some concerns on how this would affect a small office in the downtown area.

 

John Maguire, Executive Director of the Long Grove Community Development Corporation (CDC), was in the audience and explained the basis for the BDI report and the CDC role in it. 

 

Commissioner Gould stated that this issue related back to the fundamental question of whether Long Grove should be tourist based or resident based and that she had some reluctance to artificially controlling the market.  She asked whether it might be more beneficial to determine what percentage of development should be permitted as non-retail uses on commercial property.

 

Commissioner Acuna had a concern with losing downtown retail uses.  He also stated that the Plan Commission needs some direction from the Village Board on this subject and the ability to study this subject in more detail.

 

Commissioner Gould is in favor of revenue generating businesses but this subject needs to be studied in more detail.  She recommended that there should be two separate regulations for the historic downtown and the outlying areas and this should be studied in more detail.

 

Village Attorney Tappendorf noted that a moratorium can be designated by either district or area.

 

Commissioner Lisa Phillips recommended that specific guidelines are needed on this.

 

Commissioner Acuna stated that the basis of the discussion should be from unified data and a unified plan Village wide.

 

Commissioner Lisa Phillips noted that the discussion started with financial institutions and asked if religious institutions and not-for-profit organizations can be included.

 

Chairman Fred Phillips suggested that 90 days was an appropriate time-frame.

 

Commissioner Lisa Phillips made a motion to approve a temporary moratorium on non-retail uses in the Commercial Districts within the Village of Long Grove for a period of ninety (90) days, Commissioner Gould seconded.  Ayes, all.  Nayes, none, motion carried.

 

8.         Other Business.

There was some discussion on whether there was a need for the special meeting in February.  It was agreed that there was not a need for a special meeting in February.

 

Commissioner Jenkins made a motion to formally cancel the February 17, 2004 Special Plan Commission Meeting, Commissioner Acuna seconded.  Ayes, all.  Nayes, none, motion carried.

 

As a reminder, the public must be sworn in at Plan Commission public hearings.

 

9.         Adjournment:

                              Next Special Meeting, Tuesday, March 16, 2004, 8:00pm (if required)

                              Next Regular Meeting, Tuesday, April 6, 2004, 8:00pm

 

Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Acuna, seconded by Commissioner Dvorak.  Ayes, all.  Nays, none, motion carried.  Meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted by,

 

Edmond Cage

Village Planner

Village of Long Grove