Long Grove Plan Commission

April 20, 2004 Meeting Minutes

 

 

Chairman Present:  Fred Phillips.

 

Commissioners Present: Joseph Di Iorio, Nicholas Fasano, Camy Gould, Lisa Phillips and Karen Schultheis.

 

Commissioners Absent:  Ed Acuna, Michael Dvorak and Robert Jenkins.

 

Also Present: Superintendent Block, Village Attorney Vic Fillipini and Village Planner Edmond Cage.

 

1.         Call to Order

Chairman Fred Phillips called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m.

 

2.         Approval of March  2, 2004 Minutes

Commissioner Fasano motioned to table the March 2, 2004 minutes to the end of the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Lisa Phillips.  Ayes, all.  Nays, none, motion carried.

 

3.         Continued Public Hearing to Consider 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. 

Petitioner Rubin Anastacio and his representative Jeff Braiman were in attendance.  Mr. Braiman provided an introduction and an update to the petition.  Mr. Braiman raised some of the various site related issues regarding lot size reductions and proposed additional landscape plantings.  He explained that they will propose the construction of a berm on Lot 1 but no berm will be constructed on the other lot that is located along the Old McHenry Road frontage to maintain the preservation of the existing trees on this lot.  Another issue covered was inclusion of a path/trail within the proposed subdivision and Mr. Braiman stated they would meet all of the staff requirements for such a path/trail.  

 

Mr. Braiman distributed some example of the proposed elevations.  Commissioner Fasano made the comment that the Plan Commission had only just received the submitted materials for review.  Mr. Braiman stated that they will meet all of the Staff requirements.

 

Village Superintendent Block stated that the 35 foot height requirement is measured from the lowest part of the lot to the peak of the roof within this proposed subdivision which would be different from the regular 35 foot measurement to the median roof height per Village Code.  The intent was to reduce the overall height and bulk of the proposed residences.

 

Village Planner Cage read a letter from Barbara Turner for the record, regarding her concern for the wetland areas to the east of the property.  She believes that the minimum buffer should be 30 feet rather than the 20 feet shown on the plan and that this should be verified with Lake County. She would prefer a conservation easement be placed around the wetland.  Planner Cage confirmed that the petitioner has agreed to work with the Village Engineer and Lake County regarding this issue.

 

Village Attorney Fillipini  noted that changing the buffer distance will affect the site plan and is an important issue.

 

Commissioner Lisa Phillips referred a conversation she had with Lake County Stormwater Management regarding wetland buffers on this property.  She noted that permit engineer, Bob Gariner, indicated that the buffer should be 30-feet minimum and as much as 100-feet based on the possibility that the bordering ADID wetland actually extends into this site.  She said Mr.Gariner indicated that Lake County Stormwater Management needs to be involved before any decisions are made on this plan in regards to the wetland.  She feels that it would be irresponsible to recommend this plan to the Village Board before the wetland buffer is formally determined.   

 

Commissioner Di Iorio questioned the high water line in wetland areas – 716.0 and asked if 10,000 square feet septic area is recommended?  Mr. Anastacio said the septic areas were shown at 6,000 square feet in size as they are proposed to be Wisconsin mound septic systems.

 

Commissioner Gould commented that she also would like to know what the extent is of the wetland buffer.  She prefers the changes to the new elevations compared to the ones presented at the last meeting.  The proposed height and landscaping restrictions are good but the interior landscaping on the lot is important.  Commissioner Gould also would like to see the angle of houses on lots 1 and 2 to be side profile views from Old McHenry Road which would reduce the proposed residence impact on Old McHenry Road.  Mr. Anastacio assured her that they were planning on doing that.

 

Commissioner Di Iorio questioned the need for a big cul-de-sac this location and access for emergency vehicles was discussed.

 

Commissioner Schultheis expressed a concern on the wetland buffer and setbacks.  Village Planner Cage assured her that the Village Engineer would be involved in this process to ensure that this issue was addressed in a satisfactory manner.

 

Chairman Fred Phillips asked the audience for any comments on the proposed subdivision.

 

Marsha Wachs Damm, of 3378 RFD, expressed a concern for the character of the proposed subdivision to reflect the character of those residences already present that area.  She feels that landscaping is important.  She felt that a berm and the existing trees will provide privacy and shelter from the road and that will make the difference.  Landscaping along the proposed cul-de-sac to the north is important. 

 

Charlie Wachs, of 3376 RFD, concurred with Ms. Damm, but feels the height restriction of 35 feet is too much for this kind of development.  He thinks the height should be tied to the proposed house sizes.  The amount of landscaping should be increased dramatically with the proposed large homes.   He feels mature trees are important at this location.

 

William Honig, of 4323 RFD, commented that he appreciated the Plan Commission concern given to wetland preservation, however, he is still troubled by PUD variation. 

 

Commissioner Lisa Phillips stated that the 35 foot maximum height is a big concern and asked the petitioner what the average maximum height is in that area.  Mr. Anastacio stated that there are other houses in that area that are 30 to 35 feet in height.  Commissioner Lisa Phillips also indicated her concern that the benefits provided for a PUD are not clear and need to be realized if the petitioner is to be granted four building sites.  She stated that drainage from the proposed road to the wetland is a concern, does this need to be filtered? 

 

Superintendent Block added that filtering can be accomplished with the use of swales.

 

Chairman Fred Phillips asked staff to summarize the petition.  Village Planner Cage summarized the outstanding issues.  The PUD process allows an increase bonus density up to 15% if a number of public benefits are provided such as, walking paths or trails along the Old McHenry Road frontage and from Old McHenry to the interior of the property which would eventually link up with planned future trails.  The landscaping requirements required by the Village have been revised since the last meeting per the comments at the last meeting and petitioner has indicated they will meet those requirements to have a set number of plantings within a 100 foot stretch along Old McHenry in addition to a landscape plan that will go to the Architectural Board for review and approval.  The necessity for the proposed PUD is because one of the lots is less than the 3 acre minimum.  Village Planner Cage also mentioned that the PUD section and process is on the Village Code which is available online. 

 

Village Planner Cage also read the summary of the last Plan Commission meeting from the minutes.  The petitioner’s engineer was to review site plans to incorporate the comments made at the last meeting.  Some of those have been done.  One of the key elements is the wetlands.  Another item of concern was the location of some neighboring buildings and the petitioner had added the distance from that residence to the north of the property, but no others.   The path/trail location has been updated on the revised plan.  The plans are available for review within the Village Hall.  Elevations were still an issue. At the last Plan Commission meeting, the Commission felt that proposed elevations were not appropriate for this location and the petitioner has submitted some revised elevations. 

 

Mr. Braiman said they would resubmit the necessary documentation for the next Plan Commission meeting.

 

Discussion followed regarding the look and feel of the brick to be used and the need to comply with anti-monotony code.  Chairman Fred Phillips asked Mr. Anastacio to propose a percentage of brick to be used on the facades and to work with staff to create a solution that works for both groups.

 

Commissioner Gould motioned to continue this agenda item to the next available meeting with the note that elevation design concept one is preferred at this location, seconded by Commissioner Di Iorio.  All ayes, no nays.  Motion carried.

 

4.         Public Hearing to Consider a Request for the Approval of an Application under the Village of Long Grove Zoning Code to Amend an Existing Special Use Permit Approving a B-2 Commercial Planned Unit Development and any other Zoning Relief Necessary to Allow the Proposed Commercial Development of the Property Located at the Northwest Corner of Old McHenry Road and Route 22, Submitted by the Cloverleaf Group. 

Michael Bassofin and Bob Pugliese each gave a brief introduction to the petition.

 

Chairman Phillips asked Village Planner Cage for a review of the status of this petition. 

 

Village Planner Cage noted that the petition will go before the Architectural Board on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 for review of the preliminary landscape plan and the revised elevations, these were made in response to the Architectural Board’s initial comments on the proposed development.  This meeting will focus on the overall design of the proposed development, the elevations, landscaping and lighting will be discussed in detail at this meeting.  Other reviews of the plan were made by the Village’s new engineering firm, K-Plus Engineering, who are actively working with the petitioner in reviewing the preliminary engineering plans.   A more comprehensive review will be provided at later date.

 

Village Planner Cage noted that two reviews were submitted covering the sales tax revenue projection associated with this project.  One was submitted by Business Districts, Inc, by request of the Village and the other was submitted by the petitioner regarding the potential ranges of sales tax revenue.  These numbers could change depending on the overall square footage of the use and the particular types of use, but will provide a benefit to the Village.  AES Ecological Services, at the request of the Village submitted an environmental review regarding the wetlands to the north of the property. 

Village Planner Cage highlighted the key elements of the staff report on the proposed development which included signage, parking, buffer yard setbacks, scenic corridor relief and the number of drive-through lanes associated with the proposed bank use.  He explained that the submitted plan was a preliminary planned unit development plan that formulates the concept of this type of development at this location.  The petitioner would come back at a later date to provide final plans for a final planned unit development with the associated final engineering which would ensure that the specific plan would work at this location.  He noted that there are a number of conditions at the end of the staff report that are crucial to any approval of this project.  Village Planner Cage advised that copies of the staff report are available for public review at the Village Hall.

 

Commissioner Gould had concerns about parking, and would prefer fewer parking spaces at the proposed bank location in exchange for more trees.  She questioned the choice of a day care in the plans.  Mr. Bassofin answered that the day care use is not something the petitioner would prefer at this location, but indicated the Village encouraged this type of use prior to making their application.  A health care or home furnishing, or hardware retailer would be more appropriate due to the location and would now be pursued.

 

Commissioner Gould said the tax generating business is not the priority although consideration of non-sales tax business is important. Per the BDI report, she would like to take advantage of the benefits and revenue generated by a high scale retailer at this site, considering the future Kemper Lakes property development. 

 

Commissioner Gould asked Mr. Pugliese for clarification of his April 15th, 2004 letter which discussed the installation of the landscaping for this project.  Mr. Pugliese stated that the exterior and common area landscape plan and the bank landscaping would be installed after Village approval. They would not want to install the interior landscaping and then have to replace it if it were damaged during construction.  Perimeter landscaping will and can be initially installed. 

 

Commissioner Gould had concerns about the trees located within the Route 22 right-of-way and whether they needed to be removed.  Erin Herrera, the landscape consultant, responded that some trees will have to be removed with the roadway widening and the associated swales off of Route 22, but as many trees as possible will be protected, while remaining realistic. 

 

Commissioner Gould had some concerns about stormwater run-off and the overall grading of the site.  Village Planner Cage stated that the Village Engineer would be reviewing these issues in detail.

 

Commissioner Schultheis questioned the types of uses at location and how they were determined.  Mr. Bassofin stated that two drug store chains had rejected this site and a book store could not be accommodated at this location primarily because of curb cuts and ingress and egress restrictions.  The Petitioners are currently actively marketing this site.  

 

Commissioner Di Iorio asked that K-Plus Engineering take a close look at grading, drainage, run-off and the wetland concerns.  Mr. Mondiss addressed some of these concerns by reporting that all drainage goes into detention areas and filtered to the wetlands as well as having a substantial wetland buffer. 

 

Commissioner Fasano asked the question regarding shared parking and would it relieve some of the additional parking by the bank building.  Mr. Kidd answered that the Village Green concept used here should encourage walking at this location and that the parking plan was reviewed in great detail for this site plan.  It was felt that the present design was the most effective way to protect trees, wetlands, buffer areas and still produce an effective site and parking plan. 

 

Commissioner Fasano was interested in the potential of a fee payment in lieu for the non-commercial sales tax generating businesses at this location, and that was the main and only issue at this time to him.  Ms. Kading answered that this would be hard to achieve because this location is not a high visible retail site and that the petitioners do not want to exclude non sales tax generating businesses at this location.  Mr. Bassofin indicated that this site cannot incur such a cost on non sales tax generating businesses.  Village Attorney Fillipini clarified that this petition was submitted prior to the adoption of the moratorium on such uses.  He also stated that a lack of a real estate tax within the Village of Long Grove was a benefit for locating such a development within Long Grove and that maybe a threshold percentage could be an option.  Mr. Pugliese stated that the petitioner would have some problems with this concept because of the unique challenges of this site and because it is not a big square footage site.

 

Commissioner Lisa Phillips did not want such a proposed development to fail but would like to maximize the potential sales tax revenue generated at this location and not be a drain on Village provided services.  Mr. Pugliese answered that this location would only really require emergency services from the Village in regards to services as all the roads within the development are private.  Commissioner Fasano felt that it was important to pass this concern along to the Village Board for their future review.

 

Village Planner Cage confirmed that this is an issue and that the Village Board has similar concerns with this project at this time, he felt that the mixture of uses could and will be addressed at the Village Board level.   Chairman Fred Phillips stated that as a Plan Commission body, they should be concerned with land use and voice their concerns about revenue to the Village Board on this issue. 

 

Chairman Fred Phillips asked if there were any comments from the audience. 

 

Richard Koenig had some concerns with the plans for traffic flow.  Mr. Mondiss covered traffic flow issues and concerns regarding access and curb cuts.  The full access points will be located as far away from the intersection as possible with a left turn lane on Route 22 and right turn lane on Old McHenry Road and these were approved by Illinois Department of Transportation and Lake County Department of Transportation.  

 

Commissioner Di Iorio made a motion to recommend the approval of  preliminary planned unit development petition under the Village of Long Grove zoning code to amend an existing special use permit approving a B-2 commercial planned unit development to allow the proposed Long Grove Commons commercial development of the property located at the northwest corner of Old McHenry Road and Route 22 with associated outdoor dining uses and specific relief granted from the scenic corridor requirements, buffer yard requirements and conservancy encroachments with the conditions listed in staff report dated April 15th, 2004 and also with the conditions that the  engineering issues be resolved regarding grading, drainage and run-off in regards to wetland concerns, Commissioner Gould seconded.  Ayes, all.  Nays, none.  Motion carried.

 

5.  Public Hearing to Consider a Petition Approving the Final Planned Unit Development Plans (PUD) Associated with the Indian Valley Subdivision, a 113.57 Acre Subdivision Located on the West Side of Route 83, on the East Side of Diamond Lake Road and South of Route 45, Submitted by Concord Homes, Inc. 

Chairman Phillips swore in the presenters. 

 

Hal Francke, the attorney for Concord Homes, noted the preliminary PUD Plan was initially presented approximately two years ago.  He presented Village Planner Cage with the certified mailing return receipts for the public notices and affidavits. Mr. Francke introduced Jeff Hitz of Concord Homes, who was to cover the final PUD plans which have changed very little from the approved preliminary PUD plans. 

 

Village Planner Cage outlined Lane Kendig’s memorandum and Pat Bleck’s memorandum regarding this project essentially recommending approval with only a couple of outstanding issues. 

 

Village Attorney Filippini noted that the base flood elevation is the only main issue that remains outstanding although he thinks that there is a high level of confidence that the base flood elevation that has been used is accurate. 

 

Chairman Fred Phillips asked the public for comments. 

 

Margie Bell, of 6723 RFD, asked for clarification on the boundaries of the property and if the tree line along lots 75, 76 and 77 would remain?  Karl Krogstad, the landscape consultant for this project, indicated the evergreen plantings would be mainly located on the berm and that the existing tree line will be untouched as they are on a homeowner’s property and will provide approximately a 40 foot buffer.  He stated that the proposed berms would be approximately 4-5 feet high and the evergreens will range from 6-8 feet high from the top of the berm and there will be a swale to direct water from the berm into the stormwater management system.

 

Sue Smith, of 7011 RFD, had the same question as the previous one, but only referring to the northern property lines. Mr. Krogstad answered that there will be no berm at this location, however a new staggered row of evergreens will be planted. 

 

Bob Retzler, of 7003 RFD, had a question about a ditch located at the northeast corner.  Would the ditch be dammed?  Don Penne, the engineering consultant for this project, answered that no damming will occur at this location and that a storm sewer system will be in place to address water runoff.

 

Wyane Estes, of 7007 RFD, wanted to know about the size of the setback along the northern property line of the row of trees. Mr. Krogstad responded 10 feet away with 6-8 foot trees with grading in the conservancy. 

 

Sue Smith, asked how many trees would be preserved along the northern property lines?  Mr. Krogstad replied that the actual number is not available at this point.  The actual species will have to be looked at, however, the petitioner’s goal is to save as many trees as possible.  She also asked what the construction hours were.

 

Carolyn (last name unknown) of 7057 RFD, asked if the 5 models comply with the anti-monotony code.  Village Superintendent Block said the plans will comply with the anti-monotony Code and has already been reviewed by the Architectural Board.  In response to Sue Smith’s question about construction hours, Village Superintendent Block stated that construction hours by Village Code are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. 

 

Margie Bell wanted to know size and height of the homes.  Village Superintendent Block answered 28 feet to the mid-point of the roof, 4500-5500 square feet for home sizes.

 

Wayne Estes questioned the timeframe on the planting of trees.  Mr. Krogstad said the grading and construction of the homes will dictate when the plantings would take place.  Mr. Hitz has requested berm and planting approval from the Village and hopes to get a lot of plantings installed this fall.  Village Superintendent Block said Prairie Trails is a good example of this process and suggested residents take a look at this subdivision.  Plantings on individual lots occur through the certificate of occupancy process in association with a building permit.

 

Margie Bell asked what the phases are and when will they occur?  Mr. Hitz answered the 19 lots to the south will be first and the roads will go in at the same time.  Margie Bell also asked about which way the garages would face?  Village Superintendent answered that the garages are side-loading and the Maximum construction time will be approximately 2-3 years. 

 

Commissioner Gould had some concerns on the well house elevations.  Village Planner Cage answered that these elevations would be reviewed by the Architectural Board on 4/21/04.  She had some concerns on the streambed, Superintendent Block answered that this would be reviewed by Lake County Stormwater Management Commission.  She asked if the proposed signage would be reviewed by the Architectural Board and Village Planner Cage answered that this would.

 

Commissioner Gould asked if the emergency access to the south had been eliminated because that was a big concern to her.  Superintendent Block answered that yes it had been eliminated due to the Illinois Department of Transportation requirements.

 

Commissioner Gould referenced the Plan Commission conditions listed in the April 30, 2002 meeting minutes.

 

Commissioner Lisa Phillips had a concern about lots 73-80, whether there is a visual screen and no second floor decks.  Second floor decks/balconies are prohibited within this proposed subdivision and two entrances on ¼ acre lots are not permitted.  Such language must be indicated on the final plat.

 

Lee Bassett, noted that the Conservancy & Scenic Corridor Committee requested that the petitioner make the berm undulating as requested?  Mr. Hitz answered that the berm would be modified to meet this requirement and that there was no traffic light warranty at this location, yet.

 

Commissioner Gould motioned to approve the petition for the final planned unit development plans (PUD) associated with the Indian Valley Subdivision, a 113.57 acre subdivision located on the west side of Route 83, on the east side of Diamond Lake Road and south of Route 45 with the conditions that the engineering issues are resolved and that the conditions listed in the April 30, 2002 Plan Commission meeting minutes are complied with.  Commissioner Schultheis seconded.  Ayes, all except Commissioner Di Iorio who abstained.  Motion carried.

 

6.         Public Hearing to Consider a Petition Under the Village of Long Grove Zoning Code to Authorize a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Subdivision of the Existing One R1 Single Family Zoning Lots (Total Net Property Size of 11.9 Acres) into Seven Single Family Zoning Lots Proposed as the Orchards Subdivision, As Specified Within the 2002 Annexation Agreement (Average Net Lot Size of 1.2 Acres) Located at the Southeast Corner of Old McHenry Road and Route 22, Submitted by Mehran Farahmandpour.    

Mehran Farahmandpour, the petitioner, was sworn in for the public hearing. 

 

Mr. Farahmandpour gave an introduction to the project, which he is a neighbor of, he resides at 3866 RFD, which is directly south of the subject property.  Joe Gallo, who is the general contractor for this proposed project was present also. 

 

Mr. Farahmandpour provided some details on the proposed plans.  Berms would be constructed along the Route 22 and the Old McHenry Road frontage to buffer the property.  A 100 foot scenic corridor was illustrated on the submitted plans as well as the conservancy areas.  The existing silver birch and other trees are proposed to be transplanted elsewhere on this proposed subdivision.  The proposed residences would be in the range of 6,000 to 7,000 square foot in size at this location.

 

Mr. Farahmandpour thought it was appropriate for the Village to determine what zoning this property would have, whether it is R-2 or R-3 zoning, he would follow what the Village recommended on the zoning of the property.  Village Planner Cage suggested that the zoning at this location should really be R-3 which would accurately reflect the minimum lot sizes of one acre.

 

Village Attorney Filippini noted that the project would still go through the PUD process regardless of the previous annexation agreement.  He also noted that the annexation agreement specifies R-2 zoning for this property.  Chairman Fred Phillips stated that R-3 is the appropriate zoning for 1 acre lots at this location.

 

Commissioner Gould asked if setbacks are measured from centerline of the road or from property lines. 

 

Village Attorney Filippini noted that the road would be an easement, maintained by the home owners’ association.  Whether the road is included as part of the lots or not, is up to the Plan Commission to decide.

 

The key issues are whether the road is designated as part of the lots, the designated zoning, how the setback is described and measured from right-of-way line or the centerline of the road.  This issue was discussed last year by the Plan Commission and should be recorded in previous minutes.  A review of Plan Commission minutes on road easements and setback will be necessary.  One other issue was the septic requirements for a 40,000 square foot lot.

 

Mr. Farahmandpour stated that a sanitary sewer is not a cost effective option at this location.

 

Commissioner Lisa Phillips asked if the property to the east was a subdivision and could access be gained to Route 22?  Mr. Farahmandpour confirmed that it is Oakwood Estates and that no access to Route 22 will be permitted per the Illinois Department of Transportation. 

 

Mr. Farahmandpour asked who would be required to install the limestone pathway at this location.  Village Superintendent Block answered that the petitioner would have to install the pathway, as stated in the Old McHenry Trail Plan.  Superintendent Block also noted that the septic field encroachment into the scenic corridor will need to be reviewed and approved by the Conservancy and Scenic Corridor Committee.

 

Commissioner Lisa Phillips asked if the existing silver birch trees would survive relocation.  Mr. Farahmandpour answered ideally yes and everything possible would be done to save the trees at this location.

 

Commissioner Gould asked what types of landscaping will be required.  Mr. Farahmandpour answered that there  is no woodland conservancy at this location and that some trees will have to be relocated. 

 

Village Attorney Fillipini noted that an Illinois Department of Natural Resources review must take place for this proposed subdivision. 

 

Mr. Farahmandpour stated that the proposed berms will be approximately 8 feet in height.

 

Village Planner Cage said the road details and landscape plan will be reviewed by Village Staff. 

 

Commissioner Gould motioned this item to be continued to the next available meeting.  Commissioner Di Iorio seconded.  Ayes, all, No nays.  Motion carried.

 

7.                  Continued Public Hearing Regarding Non-Retail Uses in Commercial Districts within the Village of Long Grove and to Discuss a Comprehensive Evaluation and Amendment to the Use Regulations within the Commercial Districts in the Village of Long Grove. 

Village Attorney Fillipini outlined the process described in the April 14, 2004 memorandum from Village Attorney Tappendorf.

 

Commissioner Gould and Commissioner Lisa Phillips both had concerns with the permitted and special use lists.

 

Village Attorney Fillipini recommended that the Plan Commission should pick one of the three options listed in the memorandum or blend the three options whichever was more appropriate to the Plan Commission.  The key was to identifying the problem and then picking which option or blend of options that best addresses the concerns.  The Plan Commission members were to think about which option would be most appropriate for the next meeting.

 

Commissioner Schultheis motioned to continue this agenda item to the next available meeting, seconded by Commissioner Lisa Phillips.  All ayes, no nays.  Motion carried.

 

8.          Public Hearing for the Consideration of a Text Amendment to the Various Provisions of the Planned Unit Development Regulations of the Village of Long Grove Zoning Code, Including without Limitation Regulations Concerning Impact Fees and Security Deposits for Public Improvements.

Village Attorney Fillipini provided a description of the request for a text amendment.  This request was to essentially consolidate the references within the Village Code into one section and to clean-up the code so that there are no conflicts regarding impact fees and security deposits.

 

Commissioner Gould motioned to approve the proposed text amendment regarding impact fees and security deposits as outlined in the two April 8, 2004 memorandums from Village Attorney Tappendorf, Commissioner Fasano seconded, all ayes, no nays.  Motion carried.

 

9.         Approval of March 2, 2004 Minutes.

Commissioners Gould, Village Attorney Fillipini and Commissioner Lisa Phillips noted some changes to the March 2, 2004 draft minutes.  Commissioner Lisa Phillips motioned to approve the minutes with the noted changes, Commissioner Di Iorio seconded, all ayes, no nays.  Motion carried.

 

10.        Other Business

Commissioner Fasano updated the Plan Commission on the last Village Board Meeting and that the driveway ordinance had been approved and that petitions from the Valentino Winery and Gridleys could be coming before the Plan Commission in the future.

 

11. Adjournment:

                              Next Regular Meeting, Tuesday, May 4, 2004, 8:00pm 

 

Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Gould, seconded by Commissioner Schultheis.  Ayes, all.  Nays, none, motion carried.  Meeting adjourned at 12:59 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted by,

 

Edmond Cage

Village Planner

Village of Long Grove