VILLAGE OF LONG GROVE
Long Grove Plan Commission
May 4, 2004 Meeting Minutes
Chairwoman
Pro-Tem Present: Camy Gould.
Commissioners Present: Ed Acuna,
Joseph Di Iorio, Michael Dvorak, Nicholas Fasano,
Robert Jenkins, Lisa Phillips and Karen Schultheis.
Chairman Absent: Chairman
Fred Phillips.
Also Present: Village Attorney Julie Tappendorf
and Village Planner
1.
Call to
Order
Commissioner Lisa Phillips
motioned to elect Commissioner Gould as Chairwoman Pro-Tem in the absence of
Chairman Fred Phillips, seconded by Commissioner Schultheis. Ayes, all. Nays, none, motion carried.
Chairwoman
Pro-Tem Gould called the meeting to order at 8:01 p.m.
2. Approval of April 20, 2004 Minutes
Commissioner Fasano motioned to table the April 20 2004 minutes to the
end of the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Dvorak. 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 Ruben Anastacio
and his representative Jeff Braiman were in
attendance. Mr. Braiman
provided a status update on the petition.
Mr. Braiman noted that Timothy Spies, the
project engineer, was not able to be present at the meeting to discuss the
submitted wetland report.
Chairwoman Pro-Tem Gould opened the public hearing to
the public for any comments and swore in attendees:
Charlie Wachs, of 3374 RFD,
stated that the landscaping requirements are inadequate. Village Planner Cage clarified the
landscaping requirements for this property and noted that the landscaping would
be reviewed by the Architectural Board.
Mr. Braiman indicated that the petitioner will
comply with these landscape requirements and the Architectural Board
requirements.
Charlie Wachs, of 3374 RFD,
asked about the proposed berm and its height and
effectiveness. Commissioner Jenkins also
had some questions about the berm and its height and overall
effectiveness.
Commissioner Acuna asked
about the wetland buffer acreage and should this area be taken out of proposed
lot 4. Village Attorney Julie Tappendorf answered that the base site area does not
include wetland area.
Commissioner Lisa Phillips asked if the petitioner had
contacted Lake County Stormwater Management
Commission about this issue as it had been requested at the last Plan
Commission meeting. Mr. Braiman answered that the project engineer was supposed to
do this but he was not present at the meeting.
Commissioner Lisa Phillips still had concerns with the
wetlands and urged the petitioner to contact
She also had a concern with the proposed building
facades. Mr. Anastacio
noted that they submitted a wetland report produced by their project engineer
which was included in the Plan Commission packets.
There was some discussion on the wetland size and
buffer and how this might change the submitted plans if the buffer size
changes. Commissioner Fasano still had concerns about the proposed elevations and
the proposed wetland buffer. Village
Attorney Julie Tappendorf noted that the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) would have to come back with a Planned Unit Development
amendment if the wetland buffer changed in size.
Commissioner Fasano had some
concerns on the bulk regulations. Mr. Braiman stated that they were willing to limit the bulk
sizes of the proposed residences to 10,000 square feet in total size. Commissioner Fasano
noted that this amount was different from what was presented at previous
meetings.
Commissioner Jenkins noted that the main question is
whether this property would be developed with three or four lots. Chairwoman Pro-Tem Gould noted it should be
reviewed as four lots since that’s what the petitioner was requesting.
Commissioner Jenkins still had a concern with the sizes
of the proposed residences.
Commissioner Schultheis had some questions on the height and measurements.
Village Attorney Tappendorf
outlined the preliminary and final PUD process.
Commissioner Di Iorio is concerned with the construction material details
at this location and noted that stone, stucco, cedar, face brick are all good
materials.
Commissioner Di Iorio asked if the petitioner agreed with the 35-foot peak
roof height. Mr. Anastacio
answered that they cannot comply with 35-foot height to the peak. Village
Planner Cage noted that the 35-foot peak roof height was agreed to by the
petitioner at the previous meetings and documented in the approved meeting
minutes.
Commissioner Lisa Phillips noted that she had a landscaping concern with the scale of
materials and that the existing trees should be preserved. She also asked that the PUD include a
restriction on any tree removal from lot 1 without returning to the Plan
Commission. Commissioner Lisa Phillips
also reminded the Plan Commission that the architecture and scale of the
proposed structures was most critical to neighbors and that the amount of
landscaping would mitigate inappropriately scaled structures. Mr. Braiman noted that the existing trees are within the scenic
corridor.
Commissioner Acuna had some
concerns with tree removal and overall look and size of the proposed
residences.
Village Planner Cage noted that any trees to be
removed must go through tree removal permit process.
Chairwoman Pro-Tem Gould asked if the petitioner would
commit to a 30-foot wetland buffer. Mr. Anastacio answered yes he would.
Charlie Wachs, of 3374 RFD,
had concerns with the septic system location, the wetland buffer and the PUD
should specify the house sizes now and not in the future.
Chairwoman Pro-Tem Gould noted that there still seemed
to be several unresolved issues and that it did not appear the petition would
receive a favorable recommendation based on these issues. She asked if, in light of this, the
petitioner wanted to go through the list item by item to see where consensus
might be reached and summarized the commission’s position on each of the
outstanding issues:
a)
The wetland issue
(minimum 30 foot buffer).
b)
The maximum house
size of 7,800 square feet.
c)
The building
materials should not exceed the use of 50% brick.
d)
The roof height
would be 35-feet height measured to the peak of the roof.
e)
No existing trees
to be removed or replaced.
f)
Landscaping
requirements to be reviewed by the Architectural Board.
Mr. Braiman asked for a
moment to convene with his client in private, following which Mr. Braiman indicated the following:
a) Materials – the petitioner accepted the
50% maximum brick percentage.
b)
Tree removal – if
any trees were to be removed the petitioner would go through the appropriate
process and get a tree removal permit.
c)
Wetland buffer –
the petitioner accepted the 30-foot wetland buffer.
d)
Proposed
residence size – the petitioner accepted the maximum 7,800 square feet.
e)
Proposed
residence height – the petitioner accepted the maximum roof height of 35-feet measured
to the peak of the roof for lots 1, 2, 3, and a maximum of 35-feet roof height
measured to the median roof height for lot 4.
Commissioner Di Iorio made a motion to approve the petition to authorize a
preliminary planned unit development (PUD) subdivision of the existing three R1
single family zoning lots into four single family zoning lots located at 3332
Old McHenry Road, with the conditions that the building materials be as
submitted in Mr. Braiman’s letter dated April 26,
2004, submitted by Anastacio & Company with the
conditions with a maximum of 50% of brick materials be used on the exterior of
the building facades, that if any trees were to be removed that tree removal
permits would have to applied for and approved, that the wetland buffer is
maintained at a minimum of 30-feet unless Lake County Stormwater
Management Commission or the Village Engineer finds that the wetland buffer has
to be more extensive and then the wetland buffer will reflect any additional
increase, that the maximum proposed residence size shall not exceed 7,800
square feet and that proposed lots 1, 2 and 3 proposed residences shall have a
maximum height of 35-feet measured to the roof peak and that proposed lot 4
proposed residences shall have a maximum height of 35-feet measured to the roof
median and the Architectural Board will review both the landscaping plans and
the residence elevations for this PUD prior to approval, seconded by
Commissioner Acuna. All ayes, no nays. Motion carried.
4. 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.
Petitioners
Mr. Farahmandpour and Joe Gallo were in
attendance. Mr. Farahmandpour
provided a status update on the petition and provided the last return mailing
receipt to Village Planner Cage for the public hearing notices.
Mr. Farahmandpour noted that a landscape plan has been
submitted and that the proposed cul-de-sac was illustrated as an outlot and the setbacks are
measured from the edge of the outlot. Mr. Farahmandpour
stated that there
are no minimum lot sizes required by
Village Planner Cage outlined
the Village Engineer’s concerns about the road outlot
width, it should be a minimum of 30-feet rather than the 22-feet illustrated on
the submitted plans. Mr. Farahmandpour answered that he would comply with this as long
as it does not change the size of the building box.
Village Attorney Tappendorf noted that the setbacks are measured at the
street line. She also noted that the
floor area ratio would be calculated based on the base site area, excluding
roadways, easements and water detention areas.
Mr. Farahmandpour noted that the proposed residences would be
approximately 6,000 to 7,000 square feet.
Commissioner Acuna asked if the lot sizes included the road outlot. Mr. Farahmandpour answered no, but the lot sizes do include the
scenic corridor areas.
Commissioner Lisa
Phillips had some concerns about the existing silver birch trees that were to
be relocated. Mr. Farahmandpour
stated that they will try and save as many silver birch trees as possible. Commissioner Lisa Phillips noted that if any
trees that are relocated die, then they must be replaced.
Chairwoman
Pro-Tem Gould noted that the septic field locations should be designated on the
plans.
Commissioner
Fasano noted that the trail location should be addressed
with Village staff.
Village
Attorney Tappendorf outlined the associated
annexation agreement that called for seven lots.
Commissioner Acuna wanted a reasonable basis for the desired percentage
of materials to remain consistent with preserving the rural atmosphere on
Commissioner Lisa
Phillips had received input from Old McHenry Road Home Owner Association
neighbors indicating their concern with potential monotonous brick homes at
this location.
Commissioners Dvorak
and Commissioner Jenkins favor the 50% brick limit. There was some further discussion on the
overall brick percentage.
Mr. Farahmandpour had some concerns with the proposed 35-foot
roof height measured to the peak of the roof.
Chairwoman Pro-Tem Gould
suggested that since this area was a little less sensitive than the previous
petition, although still an important entrance to the village, perhaps 65%
maximum brick might be more appropriate and noted that the petitioner would
have to comply with the existing anti-monotony code.
Chairwoman Pro-Tem Gould
asked the petitioner about the details of the proposed brick structure and the
8-foot high sign.
Commissioner Lisa
Phillips felt that the proposed sign and
structure does not fit into this area and requested that something more
consistent with other
Commissioner Jenkins
thought that the sign/monument is too commercial looking for this location.
Village Planner Cage
noted that there is a concern with the proposed sign and the associated
structure being located within the scenic corridor.
Commissioner Acuna noted that the sign is too high and should be one
sided.
Village Attorney Tappendorf noted that a 40 square foot sign would go before
the Architectural Board if located outside the scenic corridor.
Commissioner Acuna stated that the sign illustrated at the Route 22
corner should be eliminated.
Commissioner Lisa Phillips made a motion to approve
the petition to authorize a preliminary planned unit development (PUD) subdivision
of the existing one R1 single family zoning lot into seven R3 single family
zoning lots located at the Southeast corner of Old McHenry Road and Route 22, Submitted
by Mehran Farahmandpour
with the conditions that a maximum of 65% of brick materials be used on the
exterior of the building facades, that if any relocated trees die then they
would be replaced with like trees, that the maximum proposed residence size
shall not exceed 6,500 square feet and that all the proposed residences shall
have a maximum height of 35-feet measured to the roof peak, the associated
covenants and declarations are reviewed and approved by the Village Attorney,
that the Home Owner’s Association will own and maintain the outlot
that contains the access road, that the front yard setback is measured at
39-feet from the edge of the access road outlot, that
the engineering issues related to the access road are reviewed and approved
with the Village Engineer, that the septic fields are designated on the final
engineering plans, that the trails meet the 5-foot width and are reviewed and
approved by the Village Engineer at the time of the final PUD submittal, that
the landscape plans and the proposed residence elevations will be reviewed and
approved by the Architectural Board and that only one subdivision sign will be
permitted within the scenic corridor with the associated approvals from the
Conservancy and Scenic Corridor Committee, seconded by Commissioner Acuna. All ayes, no nays.
Motion carried.
5. 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.
Chairwoman Pro-Tem Gould indicated she had some
concerns with the use chart proposed by BDI and suggested that it might
simplify the discussion to disregard it for now. She also raised the possibility of making
non-commercial uses a special use village-wide.
Commissioner Acuna
suggested the Plan Commission come up with a number or percentage for
non-retail uses allowed within the Village.
Village Attorney Tappendorf
asked if the percentage would be village-wide or by zoning districts and what
are the existing percentages for the areas for retail, office areas, medical
and other uses.
Commissioner Acuna
suggested surveying the areas to come up with a percentage that would be
allowable and that he will survey the historic downtown area.
Chairwoman Pro-Tem Gould will survey the Route
83/Route 45 area and that maybe these types of users could pay a fee in lieu of,
which would be a good possibility.
Village Attorney Tappendorf
suggested that the Village Board could extend the temporary moratorium for 45
days, to allow time for the surveys and a percentage to be decided upon.
Commissioner Acuna motioned
to continue this agenda item to the next available meeting, seconded by
Commissioner Fasano.
All ayes, no nays. Motion carried.
6. Approval of April 20, 2004 Minutes
Chairwoman Pro-Tem Gould, Commissioner Di Iorio and Commissioner Lisa
Phillips noted some changes to the April 20, 2004 draft minutes. Commissioner Di Iorio motioned to approve the minutes with the noted
changes, Commissioner Schultheis seconded, all ayes,
no nays. Motion carried.
7. Other Business
Chairwoman Pro-Tem Gould updated the Plan Commission
on the last Village Board Meeting.
8.
Adjournment:
Next Regular Meeting, Tuesday, June 1, 2004,
8:00pm
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner
Acuna, seconded by Commissioner Jenkins. Ayes, all. Nays, none, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 12:12 a.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Village of Long Grove