Long Grove Plan Commission
Chairman Present:
Fred Phillips
Commissioners Present: Eduardo L. Acuna, Charles Cohn, Joe Di Iorio, Nicholas
Fasano, Tobin Fraley, Robert Jenkins, and Shelly Rubin
Commissioners Absent: Michael A.
Dvorak
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.
PLAN COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration
of a request for 1) a 31 unit PUD / subdivision to be known as Sanctuary Creek
(includes six - 2 unit duplex structures); 2) a modification from the required
100’ scenic corridor easement along the proposed Route 53 extension right-of-way
(NE side of the property), 3) a text amendment to the Village Zoning
Regulations to allow attached single family (duplex units) within the
development to be located on Midlothian Road and to permit a greater density
than that currently authorized by the PUD regulations or to create a new denser
zoning district. Discussion by full PC ZBA.
Chairman Phillips swore in
all those present to provide honest testimony.
Village Planner Hogue
provided a summary of the petition per the briefing notes. The petition includes a request to amend the
existing approved PUD for Indian Creek Club.
The developer proposes to construct 31 units on the 14 acre parcel, with
12 of the 31 units proposed to be duplex units.
The Zoning Code currently does not authorize this type of dense
development and a text amendment is, therefore, required. Furthermore, this density is substantially
greater than that anticipated under the PUD approved in 1990. The Comprehensive Plan for the Village references
this area as part of the “Long Grove Station Sub-Area”. Under the Comprehensive Plan for this
sub-area, some higher density development is anticipated for this area but only
if the train station is constructed. There
has been no commitment from Metra to construct this train station. If the train station does not become a
reality, the Comprehensive Plan states that this area, of which the property is
a part, is to be developed as one to two acre zoning. The Comprehensive Plan also discourages
piecemeal development of this area.
As proposed, the development
would be served by sewer. However, the
County's sewer system is currently at capacity.
The Village understands that
Petitioner Mehran
Farahmandpour, the developer of the project, stated that he works and lives in
the Village and has a vested interest in what goes on in the Village. He acknowledged that the proposal was for a
dense development. He summarized the
petition and made the following points:
1.
There are few parcels in the Village with sanitary water and sewer.
2.
Indian Creek Club 5, just to the south, has the same density as the
proposal and the parcel is surrounded by parcels with similar densities.
3.
If the train station goes in, there would be the same amount of density.
4.
The parcel is the furthest parcel north in Long Grove. Most villages apply a transitional density
development along their borders.
5.
Affordable housing – Long Grove is required to comply with the Affordable
Housing Act. This is one of the few
parcels suitable for affordable housing.
Mr. Farahmandpour further stated
that he needs the single family homes to afford the duplexes. He stated that for every affordable housing
duplex unit, he needs at least 3 extra market-rate duplex units. He stated that the affordable housing units
were requested by the Village and if the Village does not approve these units,
he would request approval for 25 market-rate units on this property. All of the
relevant departments have been contacted. The homes will be clustered and the
plan calls for open space and trees around the edges of the parcel.
Chairman Phillips requested
comments from the audience.
Bill Jacobs, 8116 RFD wanted
to know if the parcel goes all the way to the railroad tracks. Mr. Farahmandpour stated that it does not go
all of the way to the railroad track and to the Indian Creek subdivision. (Plats were posted in the room for the
audience to view). Mr. Jacobs also
wanted to know the price of homes. Mr.
Farahmandpour stated that the market-rate duplexes would be priced at $450,000
each and the single family homes would be priced at $850,000 each.
Charlie Wachs, 3376 RFD
wanted to know if this project is part of the railroad station parcel. Chairman Phillips stated yes, it was intended
to develop in the Long Grove Station sub-area according to the Comprehensive
Plan.
Jack Cassidy, 8136 RFD
stated that the hearing notification sign was only 2’ x 2’ which was too
small. He also had a concern about the
connection to
Chairman Phillips stated
that notice of this public hearing was done in accordance with required
procedures.
Mark Cannon, 8108 RFD wanted
to know the distance to
Tom Peterson, 8028 RFD
stated that he finds it hard to believe that affordable housing starts at
$450,000 and wanted to know what train line the station is on. Chairman Phillips – EJ &E.
Mr. Cassidy stated that he
prefers plan A with 25 market- rate units.
The neighbors bought their homes based on the property being developed
with single family homes and are disturbed by the plan for duplexes.
Chris White, 8040 RFD wanted
to see the layout of homes on the parcel.
Mr. Farahmandpour reviewed the plans.
Mark Cannon wanted to know
what easement rights would be granted to the small parcel owned by Hawthorne
Woods. Chris White responded that he
thought there were potential rights through Indian Creek over the railroad
tracks.
Mr. Peterson wanted to know
the Village’s motivation to consider the plan for affordable housing. Village Attorney Tappendorf explained that
the state recently adopted an affordable housing act. She explained that in 2009, developers of
affordable housing developments that meet the statutory definition of
"affordable" will have an opportunity to appeal adverse municipal
decisions on affordable housing developments.
In this case, however, the proposal does not meet the statutory definition
of an affordable housing development. Mr. Farahmandpour stated that 3 units
will be sold for $185,000.
Scott Marx, 8122 RFD wanted
to know if some units will be physically different. Mr. Farahmandpour- the outside will look the
same.
Walter Truet, 8135 RFD
wanted to know what selling 3 units for $185,000 does for the overall value of
the other units. Mr. Farahmandpour
discussed the impact.
Dave Coving, 8017 RFD wanted
to know how affordable housing is managed.
Mr. Farahmandpour stated that there are guidelines. A covenant would restrict the sales price and
unit rental. Buyers must meet income
guidelines.
Scott Marx asked if the
village has done any studies on the impact of affordable housing on existing
home values. Chairman Phillips stated that
the Village has not. Village Attorney
Tappendorf stated that the state goal is for every community to have 10%
affordable housing. Long Grove needs approximately
100 more units and this proposal would appear to include three of the required
units.
Sarah Rubin, 4808 RFD wanted
to know if this is a maintenance free subdivision. Housh Khoshbin, the developer, stated that
the subdivision is maintenance free like Sanctuary Point, across the street
from Kelly’s Camp.
Camy Gould, 2213 RFD wanted
to know how this project fits in with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that staff
has reviewed this issue. If the train
station goes in, the Comprehensive Plan would seem to allow somewhat denser
development but the two were to be developed together. In considering this petition, the Plan Commission
will consider whether it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Code.
Housh Khoshbin, the
developer, stated that one benefit of this development is for people who want
to downsize because the property is maintenance free.
Mr. White asked about the
state affordable housing law. Village
Attorney Tappendorf stated that beginning in 2009, the state can overturn the
village’s decision if the development meets all of the statutory requirements,
including that it contains at least 20% affordable units. The developer would be required to establish
that the development meets the statutory definition of affordable housing
development and that the Village’s denial was based on the inclusion of
affordable housing units in the development.
Chris White stated that he was concerned that the Village would lose
control over the process. Village
Attorney Tappendorf stated that there is a risk starting in 2009, but only if
the development meets the statutory standards and the denial was based on the
affordable housing component.
Commissioner Rubin asked if
the Plan Commission has ever recommended to the Village Board a text amendment that
would allow denser development than currently allowed by the Zoning Code. Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that she
is not aware of any such recommendation.
Commissioner Acuna reviewed
the standards for granting the requested zoning relief and stated that the
current petition does not meet any of the standards. He stated that he is not opposed to affordable
housing but is concerned about creating a new zoning district that would
authorize far denser development than currently allowed in the Village. While he acknowledged that a denser development
may be appropriate near the train station, since the train station is not
definite he does not know why the Plan Commission would be compelled to approve
this project as proposed.
Commissioner Cohn stated
that the timing for this project does not seem to make sense if the train
station does not appear to be definite. He
also favored a greater setback from the proposed Route 53 right of way. Mr. Farahmandpour stated that the proposed
right-a-way already includes a setback. Commissioner
Cohn further stated that he is not opposed to affordable housing, but the
denser development is not appropriate without the train station. Finally, he stated that this petition does
not meet the Zoning Code standards for granting zoning relief.
Commissioner Jenkins stated
that if this petition were approved, it would alter the whole master plan and
asked how long a parcel should be held hostage to a plan. Commissioner Acuna stated that the parcel is
not held hostage because anyone can develop the parcel as R-2 today.
Village Attorney Tappendorf
stated that the PCZBA can consider two different options for authorizing denser
development for this parcel: The board
can create a new denser zoning district or amend the PUD regulations to allow
for a larger density bonus, as currently only 15% greater density is allowed
pursuant to a PUD.
Commissioner Fasano asked
the developer if they could develop the parcel as R-2. Mr. Farahmandpour stated that it would not be
economically feasible for him to do so because nearby
Commissioner Acuna asked if
this original 400 acre PUD has already been developed. Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that only
a small portion has been developed. Commissioner
Acuna further stated that if the Village were getting a significant number of
affordable housing units, then a Zoning Code amendment may be justified;
however, a text amendment is not justified for only 3 affordable housing units.
Commissioner Fasano asked if
sewer and water is available to the undeveloped portion of the 400 acres. Village Planner Hogue will obtain this
information. Commissioner Fasano asked
if lack of sewer capacity would prevent affordable housing. Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that the
denser development proposed by the petitioner was unlikely to be allowed by the
County if septic were proposed.
Mr. Lacy, architect for the
petitioner stated that there is currently a sewer capacity issue but it is
being addressed by the County. He
understood that additional sewer capacity would be available in 2008.
Commissioner Fasano stated
that he would not like to see a new zoning district at this time and that this
parcel is more appropriately developed in the R-2 district, as currently zoned.
Commissioner Jenkins stated
that the Plan Commission needs to address this petition relative to the issue
of open space and he does not know why this petition should be approved as
there is no significant open space proposed.
Commissioner Di Iorio asked
the developer if they considered doing something like the Mini Fields of Long
Grove. Mr. Farahmandpour stated that
density is the issue and it is not economically affordable.
Commissioner Fasano stated
that it is important that development be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and the Zoning Code this proposal is not.
Commissioner Acuna agreed with Commissioner Fasano and further stated
that it is not appropriate to allow greater density bonuses than currently
allowed without substantial benefit to the Village. He stated that he would be more likely to
favor a proposal that included 100% affordable housing units as that would
better justify the clear departure from the Village's current zoning,
recognizing that this was unpopular.
Commissioner Fraley stated
that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code were written in order for Long
Grove to be different but if changes are made, then Long Grove will become more
like surrounding communities and will not be a preferred place to live. He stated that he is not in favor of amending
the Zoning Code and setting a precedent for far denser development in Long
Grove. He pointed out to the audience
that past meeting minutes posted on the Village web site have discussed the affordable
housing issue.
Commissioner Rubin asked the
developer what he will do if the petition is denied. Mr. Farahmandpour stated that he will build
25 homes. Village Attorney Tappendorf
pointed out that only 7 or 8 units would be allowed on the property as
currently zoned, not 25, and the developer would need to request a text
amendment and other zoning relief to authorize 25 units on this parcel, whether
any were affordable or not.
Commissioner Cohn stated
that he likes the idea of affordable housing but this plan only offers 3 units which
are not enough. Also, he stated that he
thinks this is an effort to set a precedent for high density, high end housing. He stated that a small affordable housing
component is not sufficient to justify the many additional units proposed by
the petitioner.
Mr. Farahmandpour stated
that he would take out the affordable housing units if the Village did not want
them but he needed the higher density for this development because (1) sewer
and water are available (2) it's in a transition area of the Village and (3)
the Comprehensive Plan allows it.
Village Attorney Tappendorf pointed out that the PCZBA member’s comments
demonstrated that the members were not concerned with the affordable housing
component, but the overall density of the proposed development.
Camy Gould stated that
having sewer and water available does not guaranty dense development, nor does
the Comprehensive Plan. The Village has
historically approved denser development only if development provides great
benefit to the Village in the areas of wetland and tree protection or other
community benefits.
Commissioner Acuna moved to recommend denial of (1) the proposed
preliminary plan for the planned unit subdivision known as Sanctuary Creek, (2)
the proposed text amendment to the Zoning Code to allow denser development than
that currently authorized pursuant to a PUD, and (3) a modification from the
scenic corridor easement requirements.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fraley. Role call vote: Acuna – Y, Fasano – Y, Rubin – Y, Di Iorio –
Y, Jenkins – Y, Fraley – Y, Cohn – Y.
The motion carried.
3. Plan
Commission Public Hearing: Consideration of a petition for an amendment to the
Village code for the Village of Long Grove, Title 5, Zoning Regulations
concerning the calculation of floor area for basements in commercial structures
in the business districts within the Village of Long Grove, Illinois. Discussion
by full PCZBA.
Chairman Phillips swore in
all those present to provide honest testimony.
Village Planner Hogue
provided background about the issue. The
petitioner plans to demolish a single family dwelling and replace it with a
commercial structure. The petitioner
plans to use the basement for storage.
Without the basement, the structure would contain 6,952 square
feet. The basement adds an additional
7,093 square feet which is not permissible under the current FAR
requirements. FAR variations are not among
the list of authorized variations therefore, the petitioner is seeking an
amendment to the Village Code. There are
three options for discussion: 1 – status
quo, 2 – adding a text amendment to allow basement areas used exclusively for
storage and are not accessible to the public, or 3 – eliminate all reference to
basements and FAR. He stated that option
2 makes the most sense.
Commissioner Di Iorio
questioned how basements were handled in downtown. Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that floor
area is regulated for bulk and use reasons and if the space is used for a
business then additional parking and other services are required. The intensity of use is different with a
business then with a residence. If the
basement is allowed for storage then enforcement could be an issue but a covenant
can be required.
Commissioner Fasano wanted
to know where the property is located.
The petitioner, Andrew Rubin, stated it is at Route 83 near Cutlers
Hardware.
Commissioner Acuna voiced a
concern that a text amendment to the code would allow existing buildings to put
on additions to their buildings if their basements only counted storage.
Village Attorney Tappendorf
stated that the PCZBA might consider allowing this type of relief only pursuant
to a SUP and only in the B-2 district.
Commissioner Di Iorio stated
that he would not think that many existing businesses would add to their
buildings because there are many limitations, including economic. Village Attorney Tappendorf proposed a text
amendment to authorize relief from the floor area restrictions for basements
used solely for storage purposes in the B-2 district.
Sarah Rubin, owner of the property
stated that because of the cost of the land, the trends indicate that small
businesses also want storage which is a good benefit to offer.
Commissioner Fasano agreed
to a SUP but wants it specific to the property.
Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that there must be a text amendment
to allow a SUP.
Commissioner Di Iorio moved to amend the Village Code to allow a SUP for
relief from the floor area calculation in the B-2 district. Also, the motion requires the petitioner to
sign a covenant that the basement only be used for on-premise tenant
storage. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Jenkins. Ayes – 6, Nays – 1. The motion carried.
At the next regular meeting
the property-specific SUP will be considered.
The application for the SUP was not available tonight as it had not been
noticed for this hearing. Village
Attorney Tappendorf recommends that the Plan Commission send the text amendment
and SUP to the Village Board at the same time.
4. Plan Commission
Workshop Session.
This agenda item was tabled
5. Approval of
Minutes:
Commissioner Rubin asked if
changes to the minutes could be sent directly to the secretary. The consensus was that all minor changes
should be sent directly to the secretary prior to the meeting. Any substantive changes must be approved by
the board. Approval of the minutes was
deferred to the next meeting.
6. Other
Business:
There
was a general discussion about the workshop and it was decided to have a
special meeting
7. Adjournment:
Commissioner Rubin moved to adjourn the
meeting. Commissioner Cohn seconded the
motion. All ayes. No nays. The motion carried.
The
meeting was adjourned at
8. Next Special
Meeting –
Respectfully submitted,
Wendy Parr
Plan Commission Secretary