Long Grove Plan Commission

March 7, 2006 Meeting Minutes

                                                                                                                            

 

Chairman Present:  Fred Phillips

 

Commissioners Present:  Eduardo L. Acuna, Charles Cohn, Joe Di Iorio, Michael A. Dvorak, Tobin Fraley, Robert Jenkins, and Shelly Rubin (arrived at 8:04 P.M.)

 

Absent – Nicholas Fasano

 

Also Present:  Village Planner James Hogue, Village Clerk Schultheis (acting as secretary in place of Plan Commission Secretary Wendy Parr), and Village Attorney Julie Tappendorf

 

 

1.    Call to Order: Chairman Fred Phillips called the meeting to order at 8:03 p.m.

 

 

2.      Approval of Minutes:  Commissioner Acuna moved to table this agenda item to later in the meeting.  Commissioner Dvorak seconded the motion.  All Ayes.  No Nays.  The motion carried 6 – 0 (Commissioner Fasano absent; Commissioner Rubin not present for the vote)

 

 

3.      Public Hearing: (Continued from 1/17/06 meeting) Consideration of a request by David and Dorie Atkinson for variation of the front yard setback requirement within the R-1 Single Family Residence District from the required 100 feet down to 25 feet for property commonly known as 3717 Spring Valley.  Continued until May 2, 2006 meeting

 

 

4.      Public Hearing: (Continued from the 2/7 Meeting) Consideration of a request by Avis Land Long Grove LLC, for a Special Use Permit for a 10-lot Planned Unit Development Subdivision on 22.5 acres of property commonly known as 5168 Aptakisic Road.

Chairman Phillips swore in all those present who planned to speak before the Commission. 

 

On behalf of the petitioner, Glen Christensen of Manhard Consulting said that:

§ the subdivision has been reduced to nine lots, because “former” lot #8 was too tight on conservancy soil.  This reduced the density of the subdivision housing. 

§ the setbacks have a minimum of 40’. 

§ Hedgerow plant materials in the southern portion of the subdivision included a thirty foot tree protection zone that will maintain the hedgerow except for the pipe in the detention area.

§ To provide privacy, additional plantings will be made in lots #2 - #7.  They will include (on a per house basis): four evergreens (six foot each); two ornaments (eight foot each); and three shade trees (three inch diameter each).

§ A trail system will go between the wetland, and will include a wood chip path

§ All building boxes are to be within twenty feet of the conservancy.

§ A letter from the School District indicated that there would be bus service.

 

Village Planner Hogue stated that the density had been decreased.  He pointed out that the subdivision regulations regarding the 33,000 square foot minimum had been met by all but three of the lots.  Village Planner Hogue noted that the Village Engineer thought that the submittal looked good and that there was a need for minor adjustments.

 

Chris Jones, of the Briarcrest subdivision, that at the last meeting there had been mention of a sewer back-up plan. Glen Christensen replied that there was no sewer system, but that there was a septic system.

 

Dee McLaughlin wanted to know how many of these new type of septic systems existed in Lake County.  Glen Christensen replied that these septic fields have been around for twenty years, and allow the fields to be maintained without the homeowners having to worry about the upkeep. 

 

Mr. Christensen said that the house sizes will comply with regulations.  The petitioner, Mr. Loeb, said that they were entitled to 8,800 square feet of coverage including garage and basement (of that, about 5,000 square feet was for a two-storey house), but the average will be about 7,500 square feet.

 

Martin Lopez of Buffalo Grove asked about the berm.  Mr. Christensen said that a berm would wipe out the aesthetic affects of the plant life by destroying it; because berms kill trees.

 

Eric Scott, 940 Knollwood Drive, Buffalo Grove, wanted to know exactly what was planned by the petitioner by “additional brush.”  Mr. Christensen reiterated the details of the 30-foot tree protection zone.  He concluded that the landscaping game plan of the petitioner was threefold: protection/replacement/additional plantings.

 

Mr. Scott wanted further clarification as to whether this would be a uniform tree line.  Mr. Christensen answered that the tree coverage was on a per property basis, and that the landscaping would be worked into the design of each lot.  Chairman Phillips added that he individual owners would also be supplementing the landscaping with their own plantings. 

 

Ilene Dorman, 805 Kingbridge, Buffalo Grove, stated that large trees had been destroyed by lightning.  Glen Christensen replied that an assessment would be made regarding the trees that had been destroyed, and that there was also indication of Dutch Elm disease in the subdivision.  He promised that the area would be cleaned up.

 

Marsha Marshall of Long Grove stated her concern that homeowners might not be willing to supplement the landscaping.  Glen Christensen retorted that there would be covenants and ordinances that would force the homeowners to augment the landscaping.

 

Marsha Marshall wanted Mr. Christensen to repeat his plans for the landscaping that abutted to Buffalo Grove.  Mr. Christensen repeated the information regarding the tree protection zone and the compliance with the 40-foot setbacks.

 

Heidi Krug-Meyers, 960 Knollwood, Buffalo Grove, claimed that there were dead trees on the property next to hers. She wanted them to be removed.  Mr. Christensen said that they would be removed once the petitioner was given access to the property.

 

Vernandine Martlock, 3458 RFD, Long Grove, wanted to know what type of species the three-inch trees would be.  Mr. Christensen let her know that they would be native species.

 

Kevin Thomas of the Briarcrest subdivision said that he believes that the plans for the new subdivision are well thought out and the best that could be hoped for; and he believed that the Commission should vote to approve them.

 

Heidi Krug-Myers said that she wanted the size of the homes to be limited.  Chairman Phillips said that there is an automatic limit based upon rules and regulations.  Village Counsel Tappendorf said that the range in size depends upon the lot size.

 

Vernadine Martlock said that a PUD meant that the petitioner is responsible for giving something back to the Village.  Glen Christensen stated that the piece of ground that was taken is being preserved with open spaces, a scenic corridor within Aptakisic; and that school bus stop accommodations had been made.  He said that the design of the subdivision is innovative.

 

Ellen Kohr of 950 Knollwood, Buffalo Grove, said that she felt like the houses that were being built were right on top of the Buffalo Grove homes.

 

Commissioner Dvorak said that he seconded Commissioner Fasano’s written suggestion that the pathway system be continued around Eastgate to the end of the property line.

 

Commissioner Fraley stated that the Buffalo Grove residents were concerned about visual issues, and that they wanted a berm.  He suggested a five-foot berm.  Glen Christensen commented that a berm incorporates a certain depth – with the setback constraints, the berm would create drainage issues; and water would be retained on the properties.  He added that water flowed from Buffalo Grove to Eastgate; and that because Buffalo Grove designers created this water flow issue that is what the Eastgate subdivision must now accommodate.  Therefore, a berm is not practical.

 

Heidi Krug-Myers said that she was worried about Lot #3 blocking her view.  Mr. Loeb commented that there was no way that residents will not see some glimpse of each other’s houses, because this is a neighborhood, not a forest.  He also added that a berm would not only be less practical, but would also be less attractive than trees.

 

Commissioner Jenkins said that this had the potential to be a good project, but he did not think that it is the correct location.  He also believes that the berm should be extended.  Commissioner Jenkins believes that the proposed homes are too large. 

 

Commissioner Di Iorio said that he is comfortable with the size.  He would like to see shake roofs on the homes.  He believes that a berm would not work because it would have to be about 50-60 feet wide in order to accommodate the needed height.

 

Commissioner Rubin believes that the entrance where school children would be picked up and dropped off is dangerous.  Mr. Loeb said that it was safer to have a bus stop on a Main Road, as opposed to enter and exit from a side road.

 

Commissioner Acuna wants to make certain that the pipe would be shifted to accommodate the drainage.  Mr. Christensen said that the pipe would be shifted.  Commissioner Acuna said that some of the detention ponds were within the buffer for the wetlands.  Mr. Loeb said that they were allowed to go into the buffer up to 25-feet.  He added that there was not a detention wall, just a dirt slope.

 

Commissioner Acuna also wants to alert the petitioner not to get mulch from New Orleans as there was a rumor that it is carrying termites.

 

Commissioner Acuna wants to see the addition of more trees.  He said that he agreed with Commissioner Jenkins that the houses should not be larger than 6,000 square feet.

 

Commissioner Acuna moved to approve the Avis Land Long Grove request for a Special Use Permit for a 9-lot Planned Unit Development Subdivision on 22.5 acres of property commonly known as 5168 Aptakisic Road contingent of the following conditions: Lots #2 - #7 to have additional trees per lot; limiting each house to 35-feet maximum height; no FLOOR AREA RATIO greater than 6,000 square feet (as Long Grove recognizes FLOOR AREA RATIO) and shake roofs (based upon Architectural Board review); seconded by Commissioner Cohn.

 

Commissioner Cohn states that this is a transitional area and that the planting should be increased because the homes are clustered (unlike Bridlewood).

 

Commissioner Di Iorio restated his opposition to limiting home size.

 

Voice Vote:  Ayes by Commissioners Cohn, Acuna, Dvorak and Fraley.  Nays by Commissioners Jenkins, Rubin and Di Iorio.  Motion carries 4 – 3 (Commissioner Fasano was absent)

 

 

5.      Approval of the January 17, 2006 Meeting Minutes.

 

Commissioner Di Iorio moved to accept the February 7, 2006 minutes, as corrected.   Commissioner Cohn seconded the motion.  All Ayes.  No Nayes.  The motion carried (7 -0, Commissioner Fasano was absent).


 

 

6.      Workshop Session:  Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. 

Village Counsel Tappendorf said that she hoped to get through Chapters 3-4-5-6 of the Code.  In Chapter Three there were not any policy changes.

 

Commissioner Fraley wanted an explanation regarding the difference between growing crops and gardens. Village Counsel Tappendorf explained that your residence cannot have a dual principal purpose, so that crops were agricultural, commercial use of the property.  Gardens are for family use. 

 

Commissioner Cohn suggested the addition of the word “commercial” to the definition to get rid of any ambiguity.  Village Counsel Tappendorf said that it would be added.

 

Village Counsel Tappendorf said that the new code documentation will have cross referencing in each section to avoid repetition in each chapter.

 

Village Counsel Tappendorf went on to the next topic, which included Special Uses.  Commissioner Acuna wanted to know if recreational clubs should specify actual, permitted uses.  Counsel Tappendorf replied that it was much more preferable to state only what was permitted and not what was restricted otherwise the Village would be open to a myriad of interpretations of what petitioners thought was not restricted.

 

Counsel Tappendorf said that Personal Wire Services antennas do not require special use permits (i.e., cell towers).  Commissioner Di Iorio wanted to know about a big tower.  Counsel Tappendorf noted that that was different; because cell towers, while regulated, must be allowed.

 

Counsel Tappendorf said that anti-monotony code is part of the Zoning Board code; but Commissioner Cohn believes that it really is part of the Architectural Board’s expertise, and should be reviewed by them.

 

Commissioner Fraley wanted to know what is usually sent to the Architectural Board.  Counsel Tappendorf said that while the anti-monotony code is always in effect, everything is not sent to the AB for review. Where there are not PUD’s, Superintendent Block is often the decision-maker.

 

Counsel Tappendorf warned that changes could be made to how homes are reviewed but that would lead to challenges and lawsuits.  She alerted the Commissioners to the fact that municipalities almost always lose legal issues that pertain to discretion and standards.

 

Regarding Maximum height of roofs, Commissioner Acuna said that the Commission wanted to change the 35-foot from midpoint to maximum height.

 

Commissioner Acuna wanted to discuss buildable land versus measurable land. He wanted to see house sizes determined by buildable land measurements, not actual land size. 

 

Counsel Tappendorf said that that would be very restrictive, but that it could be done to reduce the Floor Area Ratio.  She said that if wetlands and conservancy were excluded, it could cut buildable sizes 50%.  However, Counsel Tappendorf said that this could encourage something even worse.  In order to get around the proposed restrictions, petitioners might just set up straight subdivisions – in this case, the Commission would be rewarding petitioners that were not giving back anything to the Village and clustering homes.

 

Commissioner Acuna wanted to see the Floor Area Ratio and buildable area sizes changed.

 

Counsel Tappendorf worried that a reduction might not work with someone who was on existing wetland, who would no longer be able to build a house under the proposed reductions.  This would force the Village to buy the land.

 

Commissioner Fraley stated that the Village is running out of space.  There will be smaller homes built because there is no longer unlimited space.

 

Counsel Tappendorf cautioned against a general rule on lowered home size, because she feared that the Village would expose itself to lawsuits because of previously purchased property that would become un-buildable if the new proposed reductions were enforced.

 

Chairman Phillips said that the code changes would hopefully be completed by the beginning of 2007.  He told the Board that there would be a special meeting on March 21, 2006 in regards to the Code Changes.

 

No Motions were made.  No action was taken.

 

7.      Adjournment

 

Commissioner Fraley moved to adjourn the meeting.  Commissioner Cohn seconded the motion. All ayes, no nays, one abstain.  (Motion carried 6-0, with Commissioner Jenkins abstaining).

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:12 P.M.

 

There is a Special Meeting on March 21, 2006.

The next regularly scheduled meeting is April 4, 2006.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

Karen Schultheis

Village Clerk