Long Grove Plan Commission
Chairman Present: Fred Phillips
Commissioners Present: Eduardo L. Acuna, Charles Cohn, Joseph Di Iorio, Michael A. Dvorak, Nicholas Fasano, Tobin Fraley, Robert Jenkins, and Shelly Rubin
Commissioners Absent: None
Also Present: Village Planner James Hogue, Plan Commission Secretary Wendy Parr, and Village Attorney Julie Tappendorf
1. Call to Order: Chairman Phillips called
the meeting to order at
2. Approval of Minutes:
Commissioner Acuna moved to table this agenda
item to later in the meeting. Fasano seconded the
motion. All Ayes. No Nays. The
motion carried.
3. Public Hearing: Consideration of variations of the setback
requirements for lots 1& 2 and minimum lots size requirements for lot 1,
and any other zoning relief within the proposed
Village Attorney Tappendorf summarized the nature of the petition. There are two parts to the application: Part one concerns the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on the requested variations from a 3 acre minimum lot size for proposed lot 1 and a variation of the front yard setback requirement for proposed lots 1 & 2. The second part of the application is for the Plan Commission to consider the request for approval of a 4 lot subdivision known as Hampton Estates.
Part 1 – Public Hearing on Variations (ZBA)
Commissioners Di Iorio and Jenkins do not sit on the Zoning Board of Appeals and did not participate in the first part of the hearing.
Chairman Phillips swore in all those present who planned to give testimony at the hearing.
Keith Lacey of Barrington Engineering Consultants provided background information about the property and the project, noting topography and wetlands. He stated that the main reason for the variation is to move the private driveway easement in order to preserve the established trees and to maintain the character of the property. The creek and wetlands will be in a deed restricted area which can never be touched. The new driveway will be large enough for emergency vehicles and the garbage truck.
Resident Marsha Wachs Gamm, 3378 RFD, owner of the property, stated that when she spoke with her brother, she understood that all property owners will use the new private drive. Chairman Phillips asked about the width of the old and new driveways. Lacey: Old – 10’, New – 22’.
Resident Connie Wachs stated that she cannot see any reason why an additional driveway needs to be built when the current driveway can be used.
Village
Planner Hogue read an email from Charles Wachs to
Commissioner Jenkins dated
“I have been trying to work out an agreement
with Don to grant him an easement to enter his property using part of my drive
in exchange for his granting an easement over his drive for all the homes beyond
ours so they will enter and exit their property using his drive instead of
passing in front of our house. This will
give the four homes he wants to build and the three homes that already exist
beyond our house a proper drive wide enough to pass and get fire and garbage in
and out and take all that traffic off of the one lane drive in front of our
house. We have not finalized that
agreement but he has said he would do it.
I have felt that a PUD would make more sense as it would allow him to
place the houses in the most logical places rather than the subdivision which
forces placement in order to provide the three acres for each needed. He however doesn’t seem to want to go that
route. I am not going to be in town for
this meeting but will ask Ella or Mother to try to attend. You might want to ask if they have the easement
situation worked out with the Wachs.”
Petitioner Don Silage of 4408 RFD stated that an agreement about the driveway has not yet been worked out.
Resident John Johnson of 3382 RFD stated that he owns the adjacent property and currently the garbage truck is backing in and out and destroying property. He suggested that there are other alternatives such as an existing road, not shown on the proposed drawing. Also, his legal property description shows an easement which will be cut off if the variance is granted and he wants to know how that can be done without his agreement.
Resident Barbara Turner of 3853 RFD stated that in 1980 the Village commissioned an inventory of lowlands and wetlands. This particular area was noted in the inventory as having a very high quality of vegetation and wildlife habitation which needs buffered areas. She stated that this development should be a straight subdivision rather than a PUD so that the lowland and wetland area will be permanently identified as conservancy area. Mr. Lacey stated that this area will be in a conservation easement.
Commissioner Rubin asked for additional information about the other driveway mentioned by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Lacey stated that it is a gravel road but there is a spite strip so he can not legally access that road. Mr. Silig stated that if the gravel road were to be used; there would not be a sufficient setback for lot #1. Commissioner Cohn questioned the setbacks for all of the lots. Mr. Lacey stated that they did not want to move the houses back because of the impact on the trees.
Resident Susan Lyons of 3385 RFD stated that she lives at the end of the current driveway and even if the driveway were 22’ wide, it still won’t be wide enough for the garbage truck to turn around. She also had a concern about drainage.
Mrs. Wachs stated that the driveway is very dangerous in places. She suggested that if the proposed driveway were angled more, it would be safer.
Commissioner
Dvorak asked Mr. Lacey why the road couldn’t be located where the road through
the property currently, or nudged farther to the northwestern edge. Mr. Lacey responded that issues with grade,
water detention, and building box placement on
There was a general discussion about the requested setback variance. Specifically, the zoning ordinance requires a 100’ setback for the front yard. Proposed lots 1 & 2 have 10’ setbacks and lots 3 & 4 have 50’ setbacks.
There was a general discussion about house size. According to the code, the petitioner could build 13,000 square feet houses. The petitioner stated that he has no objection to restricting the house size in writing. Commissioner Cohn pointed out that this petitions can not be finalized until the petitioner knows that he has access to the property.
Mrs. Wachs stated that all of the neighbors have said that they prefer to use the new road. Commissioner Acuna stated that he has no objection to the variances as long as all the neighbors are happy with the proposal. Commissioner Fasano wants all other points to be resolved as well as the preservation of the trees. Commissioner Fraley would like to see a report from an arborist to determine if the new road would end up killing the trees rather than preserving trees. Commissioner Cohn stated that the petition should be put off until all issues are resolved and suggested that the petitioner limit the building size so that the setbacks appear larger.
Mr. Johnson stated that he wants to see more than a 38’ setback. Commissioner Cohn pointed out that the Plan Commission has always given a great deal of consideration to the opinions of neighbors.
Commissioner Acuna
moved to continue the petition for the requested variations until the next
meeting on May 2, 2006. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Fasano. Discussion -
The commissioners listed items they will
need to see for the next meeting:
§
New
proposal on setbacks with smaller variance request
§
Feedback
from neighbors
§
Report
from arborist
§
Clarification
between the deeds, specifically referring to Mr. Johnson’s property
Roll call vote: Eduardo L. Acuna - Aye, Charles
Cohn - Aye, Michael A. Dvorak - Aye, Nicholas Fasano
- Aye, Tobin Fraley - Aye, Shelly Rubin
– Aye, and Fred Phillips – Aye. The motion carried.
Part 2 – Meeting to Consider approval of
the
Mr. Lacey summarized the project and the preservation of the wetlands through deed restricted covenants. He pointed out the storm water easements and rain gardens in the plan. Road runoff will either go into the ditches or into the storm water easements via conduit. Rain gardens are natural filtration areas created with vegetation controlled by both the subdivision and individual homeowners, as specified in covenants.
Commissioner Jenkins asked if septic fields are planned. Mr. Lacey stated that preliminary septic plans have been submitted to the county but have not yet been approved. Commissioner Jenkins asked about the 66’ right-of-way for the road to conform to the village code and if there could be a variance for this. Village Attorney Tappendorf suggested that both the Village Engineer and the Village Superintendent be consulted to verify if the 66’ right-of-way is necessary.
Commissioner Acuna
moved to continue the petition to the May 2nd meeting. Commissioner Fasano
seconded the motion. All Ayes, No
Nays. The motion carried.
4. Approval of minutes from March 21, 2006
meeting:
Commissioner Rubin moved to table the
minutes to the May 2nd meeting.
Commissioner Cohn seconded the motion.
All Ayes, No Nays. The motion
carried.
5. Workshop Session: Zoning Ordinance.
Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that chapter 11 may not take much time so that the Plan Commission can begin review of chapters 9, 10, and 11 at one meeting. Commissioner Cohn suggested that chapter 10 be shown to the Architectural Review Board. Village Planner Hogue will follow through with the suggestion. Chairman Phillips stated that neon signs need to be addressed. Commissioner Fraley suggested that it would be helpful if someone with the Architectural Review Board attend the meeting. Village Attorney Tappendorf then suggested that the Plan Commission review chapter 9 in May and chapters 10, 11, and 12 in June.
6. Other business:
Commissioner Fraley handed out a newsletter from The Trends Journal noting that Americans will be reducing house size in the future.
7. Adjournment
Commissioner Acuna moved to adjourn the
meeting. Commissioner Dvorak seconded
the motion. All ayes, no nays. The motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at
The next meeting is
Respectfully submitted,
Wendy Parr
Plan Commission Secretary