VILLAGE OF
LONG GROVE
Long Grove Plan Commission
September 4,
2007 Meeting Minutes
Commissioners Present: Jeff Kazmer, Wendy Parr, Shelly Rubin, Tobin Fraley, Charles Cohn
Chairman present: Fred Phillips
Also present: Village Planner James Hogue, Planning Commission Secretary Terri Taylor, Village Attorney Julie Tappendorf
Also present in the audience: Village President Maria Rodriguez, Village Trustee Ed Acuna and two members of the public.
Four audience members were sworn in.
Attorney Julie Tappendorf
began the discussion by reviewing the
Zoning Code Issues memorandum (dated July 12, 2007) that summarizes the issues
at hand and presents recommendations for further modifications to the Zoning
Code.
First topic reviewed in the memo was “Maximum Floor Area.” The issue of “too big, too close” was described as when larger homes on smaller lots are clustered together. The first recommendation for controlling this in the future is the “Consideration off Two Separate Formulae for Calculating Maximum Floor Area.” A current formula exists, but a second stricter formula could be added that would apply to any lot within a PUD that does not meet one or more of the setback requirements.
Discussion of topic ensued with clarification of the “lots under 1 acre” reference.
Attorney Tappendorf presented the second recommendation for control of “Maximum Floor Area”. The Village could “Consider Establishing Minimum Setbacks in PUDs”. By setting minimums, the village could only allow modifications presented by builders that would fall within an “absolute” setback minimum or other limitation.
A third recommendation was presented for control of “Maximum Floor Area”. The Village could “Consider Establishing Minimum Lot Area for Lots in PUDs”. Establishing this would prevent developers from requesting modifications that fell below the minimum area requirement.
Commissioner
Fraley looked to confirm that this concept would, in fact keep development in
Long Grove rather than pushing away potential developments to other
communities.
Discussion
moved on to the second topic of concern which is “Large Homes on Any Lot” and
how modifications could be made to control the bulk of large homes in general.
Areas for recommendation include: 1. Basements with Exposed Lower Levels, 2.
Habitable Attic Space, and 3. Exclusion of a Portion of Wetlands and
Conservancy Areas.
Attorney Tappendorf reviewed each topic as outlined in the
memorandum.
Recommendations
to change how various definitions of basements are distinguished was presented.
A new formula using the amount of exposed lower level would be used.
A
definition of “habitable attic space” was also presented due to a lack of prior
definition. A specific height would trigger the home to contain “habitable
attic space”.
Tom
Macintosh (2562 RFD) brought up his concern over potential attic remodels after
a home met zoning codes when it was originally built.
A third
recommendation regarding “Large homes on Any Lot” covered the “Exclusion of a
Portion of Wetlands and Conservancy Areas” when determining the maximum floor
area of a proposed home was discussed.
The new formula used would result in smaller homes with more non-buildable areas.
Trustee Acuna was concerned over the language regarding density
bonuses in the memo. Discussion with board ensued. He also had a question
regarding the amount of space being considered for the exposed basement.
Chairman Phillips points out
that an ultimate goal of all the recommendations is not to penalize PUDs with too many restrictions.
A final
topic was presented by Attorney Tappendorf regarding
the Public Assembly Regulations and the possibility of an institution parceling
out it’s facilities among multiple adjoining lots. An
amendment could be made to require a minimum distance between public assembly
uses on a block.
Many
questions and concerns over teardowns and remodels were brought up by board
members and clarifications by Attorney Tappendorf
were made throughout the presentation. Examples of how other suburban
communities have handled the issues were shared by her as well.
Many
members felt that it was important to consider how many existing homes would be
affected by all of these changes and that a review of existing setbacks, FAR’s and so forth would be necessary to be
able to determine the appropriate new zoning code recommendations. Village
President Maria Rodriguez indicated that continued discussion over these
issues was necessary and a new ordinace covering this topic would be brought to the
Village Board to discuss further and possibly refer back to the PCZBA for
additional consideration.
It was
also suggested that due to significant discussion over the amendment language
anticipated regarding the issues identified in the zoning code memorandum,
that additional amendments would be necessary before the new recommendations
could be approved. Commissioner Rubin asked that a committee be formed with
PCZBA and Village Trustees to discuss issues and amending language further
before bringing back to the PCZBA for a vote. All members approved the request.
Commissioner
Parr volunteered to serve on the committee. All Commissioners recommended that
Commissioner DiIorio also serve on the committee.
Chairman
Phillips made a motion; seconded by _______ to continue the public hearing
regarding the topics until the next meeting of the Planning Commission and
Board of Appeals on October 2, 2007. On a voice vote; all
aye.
Commissioner
Parr made a motion; seconded by_________ to approve the minutes from both
meetings. On a voice
vote; all aye.
Commissioner
Parr made a motion to adjourn; seconded by ___________ to adjourn the meeting. All ayes no nays. Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Chairman
Philips indicated that he would not be present at the next scheduled meeting.
He suggested that a Commissioner who had not yet served as a “Chairman Pro-Tem”
consider serving in his absence.
Respectfully
Submitted,
Terri
Taylor
Secretary,
Long
Grove PCZBA