LONG GROVE PCZBA
February 5, 2008
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Chairman Phillips, Charles Cohn, Mike Dvorak, Tobin Fraley, Robert Jenkins, Joe DiIorio, Wendy Parr and Jeff Kazmer.
Members Absent: Commissioner Rubin, Secretary Taylor
Also present: Village Planner/ Secretary Pro-Tem James Hogue, Village Superintendent Robert Block and Village Attorney Jon Furr
Also present in the audience: Village Trustee, Stephanie Hannon, and members of the public.
1. Call to Order: Chairman Phillips called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m.
2. Consideration and discussion of an application submitted by Sunset Grove, LLC for a special use permit authorizing the development of a planned unit development and all necessary departures and/or variances as part of the planned unit development process, which departures and/or variances may relate to, without limitation, buffer yard, landscaping, screening, yard and setback, signage, lighting, conservancy district, impervious surface area, and parking requirements; a special use permit authorizing the proposed planned unit development in a lowland conservancy district; a special use permit authorizing a manmade structure in the OS-P District; a preliminary planned unit development plat; and such other additional relief as may be necessary or appropriate under the Village of Long Grove Zoning Code.
Mr. Michael Firsel, petitioner and president of Midamerica Development Company presented an overview of the project. He appreciated the input he has received on the project to date and had his architects working to show a different perspective on the project. He presented a PowerPoint slide presentation and identified differences in the proposal which included a revised site plan, including a pedestrian path and increased landscaping.
Mr. Michael Fitzgerald, OKW Architects and principal Architect on the project, noted that roof plans had now been delineated on the site plan and outdoor seating areas had been included as well. He noted the building roof perspectives which illustrated the depth of the structures. He then presented and discussed a “3-D” building perspective of some of the main structures in the proposal noting some proposed “tweaks” to the structures.
Commissioner Fraley had a
question about the size of the trees which would be planted as those in the
perspective appeared too large and mature. Anna Suardini,
landscape architect on the project, indicated 3 inch caliper trees were
proposed at that location per the site plan.
Mr. Firsel
then present a rendering of the rear elevation of the grocery store and the
view as anticipated from
Mr. Firsel next presented a detail of the outdoor seating area proposed for Sunset Foods. Mr. Fitzgerald also noted the nature and use of the stone façade proposed for the Sunset structure.
Mr. Firsel commented on proposed Building “A” noting architectural features used to keep this building “unique” including awnings and metal roofs deigned to “break-up” the appearance of the structure. Mr. Fitzgerald further commented that as proposed the development tried to capture the essence of the architecture in the Village. He reiterated the architectural features of the structure noting the “depth and shadows” the awning and other features provided.
It was noted the fixture for outdoor lighting of the development would be consistent with the design standards proposed by the Hitchcock Design Group as part of the Downtown Master Plan and compatible with other Long Grove projects.
Discussion then turned to “Building B” which is anticipated to be a multi-tenant building. Stacking will provided for 10 cars for what is proposed to be a “Starbucks” drive-through. The structure will be a lighter color than “Building A” but consistent with the overall color scheme of the development. The architecture may vary slightly depending on the tenant mix of the structure. Mike Fitzgerald noted the roof brackets and trim details proposed for the structure.
A small outdoor seating (5 or 6 tables) is also proposed. This area will be landscaped as well.
Mr. Firsel indicated his hope that this project would set the standard in the area for which other developments would follow. He also commented on the proposed pharmacy building (now anticipated to be a CVS – not Walgreens) noting the structure will have a slightly different look but use the same basic materials as the rest of the development.
That concluded the presentation by Mr. Firsel and his consulting team. Chairman Phillips then asked it there were any questions from the PCZBA on the slide presentation.
Commission Jenkins had concern with the visual impact of the proposal given the topography of the site. Mr. Firsel responded that they are attempting to mitigate the visual impact of the development particularly as it effects the residences to the east. The site slopes from south to north and west to east. One part of the site will be lowered by 4 to 6 feet. The other will be raised in order to achieve a relatively flat site on which to build.
Anna Suardini, landscape architect on the project, commented that a retaining wall will be incorporated along the lowest part of the site.
Commissioner Jenkins then raised a concern about vehicular headlights, particularly truck headlights, shining onto the residential properties to the east. Mr. Firsel indicated landscaping and fencing should shield headlights from cars on site and that trees on this and surrounding properties should serve to mitigate lighting concerns generated by truck traffic.
Commissioner Jenkins then inquired about the existing trees on the south end (eastside) of the development. Mr. Firsel responded that these were not on the Sunset property. Survey markers on the Sunset property will illustrate this point. These trees will not be removed.
Mr. Fitzgerald then explained the site grading, retaining wall and landscaping at this location on the Sunset side of the property.
A question was raised concerning noise, particularly the sound from trucks making deliveries. It was noted that according to the sound study provided as part of the application, sound from delivery truck would carry no further than 70 to 80 feet from the source. Given the distance the existing residences (750’ to 800’ as previously testified to) sound should be no greater than what is experienced from the traffic on Route 83 presently.
Commissioner Parr had questions concerning the proposed retaining wall. Mr. Fitzgerald responded that the wall will be constructed of concrete with block face and be decorative in nature. An interlocking stone façade is contemplated. Ms. Parr suggested that specifications for the wall be included in the plans as the wall is not currently specified.
It was noted that this should be considered by the AB as part of their overall review of landscaping and site design.
Commissioner Parr asked if the retaining wall would block or interfere with the proposed sidewalk/ pathway along Rt. 83 and what the width of the “buffer” between the sidewalk and Rt. 83 would be.
Anna Suardini, commented that a retaining wall would not interfere with the sidewalk and that the width of the buffer between the sidewalk and Rt. 83 would be 2 to 3 feet at the least dimension of the curb edge to the sidewalk when fully built out. It was noted the site plan shows the full proposed expansion of Route 83.
Mr. Firsel noted the depth of the property limits the amount of buffer which could be placed on the site. Acceleration and deceleration lanes will encroach into the property 18’ to 20’ and will be done in accordance with IDOT recommendations. He noted sidewalks were placed as far to the east (into the site) as possible and IDOT opposes pedestrian crossing on Rt. 83 (a finding concurred with by his traffic engineer).
It was noted that a pathway connection in this area was anticipated by the Trail Committee and that a connection in this area was necessary to connect to the eastern side of the village. This was encouraged from the perspective of an overall Village wide pathway system.
The sidewalk/pathway is proposed to be constructed of asphalt. Mr. Firsel suggested crushed limestone instead of asphalt noting this item could be resolved at final plat approval.
Commissioner Di Iorio raised concerns about the use of stucco and cracking of the façade with this type of construction. Mr. Firsel responded that if the materials are installed properly that should not be a problem. He also noted façade materials will vary to break up the look of the building façade. Commissioner Di Iorio further questioned the wood columns shown on the building facades, the look of the retaining wall and the use of pavers for the walking path.
Mr. Firsel responded that he will check into materials to be used for the facade of the retaining wall. Furthermore he responded pavers are impossible to clear when it snows. He will look into stamped asphalt made to look like pavers however.
Commissioner Fraley questioned the fence on the east property line.
The discussion of building materials and details was then completed.
Attorney Furr then discussed the proposed conditions for the Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval Ordinace. He noted this was a work in progress and provided a framework for the approval of the proposal. He noted conditions were suggested as a part of this ordinance and could be modified based upon the discussions and presentations this evening.
Commissioner Parr had a concern with the lighting for the CVS store from 1:00 AM to 4:00 AM. As the draft ordinance allowed security lighting to be illuminated one hour after the closing of the restaurants at midnight only 3 hours of “dark” would occur on-site. There was discussion of modification of the hours for delivery from 4:00 AM to 7:00 AM.
It was suggested that a condition be placed on the development which allowed for an administrative control on noise complaints/issues.
John Cortesi, Sunset Foods, indicated that for their operation to be viable deliveries must be allowed between 4:00 and 8:00 AM.
Commissioner Jenkins suggested an increase in the height of the fence to deaden the sound of early morning deliveries.
Mr. Firsel responded that the sound study provided in the application indicated that noise generated on-site will be well below the EPA or any other standard with regard to sound emissions. He stated if noise is proven to be a nuisance the developer will correct the situation. He also agreed to the condition of administrative relief as part of the approval ordinance.
Commissioner Parr noted her concern regarding the lack of a sufficient buffer between Route 83 and the parking area.
Commissioner Jenkins questioned the need for the towers in the proposal.
Mr. Fitzgerald responded that the towers help to define and add uniqueness to the development. He noted the towers break up the monotony of the horizontal building and reduces the “strip center” look.
Commissioner Jenkins indicated he was opposed to the towers as they were not keeping within the Long Grove style of architecture. He preferred a look similar to the Mill Pond development.
Commissioner Cohn was also concerned with the look of the development not being in character with the Long Grove style. He indicated the development should be more pedestrian friendly noting that 10 drive-through lanes were proposed. Connecting walkways should be considered within the development.
Mr. Firsel indicated the configuration of the structures was not conducive to pedestrian walkways. He would consider using direction markings to guide pedestrian access in the development however.
Attorney Furr mentioned that limitations on the number of drive-through lanes was within the purview of the PCZBA and was an item spelled out in the proposed approval ordinance.
Mr. Firsel noted the pick-up area associated with the Sunset Foods store was not a drive through.
Commissioner Dvorak questioned why a meandering pathway could not be made part of this proposal. The development needs to be more pedestrian friendly; more pathways not parking needs to be in the development.
Commissioner Di Iorio asked if security cameras would be included in the parking lot. The answer to his questions was “yes” they would be.
Commissioner Fraley noted he was critical of the original architecture as proposed and appreciated the level of detail shown in the exhibits as presented this evening. He would like to see trees larger than a three (3”) inch caliper planted if at all possible.
With all of the information presented at this meeting Commissioner Parr made a motion to continue the discussion and deliberation on this proposal to the Special Meeting targeted for February 19th. That motion was seconded by Cohn. On a roll call vote; Commissioners Parr, Jenkins and Cohn; aye. Commissioners Fraley, Di Iorio, Dvorak, Kazmer and Phillips; nay. Motion fails; Commissioner Rubin absent.
Commissioner Di Iorio then made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fraley, to recommend that the Village Board approve the Preliminary PUD Plans submitted by the petitioner and grant the relief requested by the petitioner, subject to the conditions set forth in Section 6 of the draft ordinance as modified pursuant to tonight's discussion. On a roll call vote; Commissioners Fraley, Kazmer, Phillips, and Di Iorio; aye. Commissioners Dvorak, Parr, Jenkins and Cohn, nay. Tie vote, motion fails; Commissioner Rubin absent.
Chairman Phillips thanked the petitioners for their presentation and efforts.
3. Public Hearing; Consideration of a petition for variations of the front yard set-back requirement from the required 75 feet down to 63 feet and a side yard set-back requirement (north side) from the required 40 feet down to 32 feet within the R-2 District for the construction of an addition to an existing single family dwelling for property located at 2564 Lincoln Avenue, Submitted by Joe and Karen Fobbe.
Chairman Phillips swore in all witnesses who were to give testimony. Mr. Andrew Venemore, Airoom Architects, presented the petition on behalf of Joe and Karen Fobbe. They are the third owners of this residence and bought the structure in its current configuration.
He indicated family needs have spurred the request for the variations. The proposed kitchen addition requires no variations; however, the bedroom addition requires variation. He noted there are two non-conforming situations with regard to the front and side yard set-backs. The proposed second story bedroom addition will not encroach into the front and side yards any further than the existing first story of the residence and will match the existing degree of non-conformity. However, as this action serves to intensify the degree of non-conformity a variation of the front and side yard setbacks is required. He noted the current non-conformity had not been caused by the petitioner.
He then identified a number of existing non-conformities in the subdivision; many greater than the relief requested by the petitioner. He then provided testimony as to the “Standards for Hardship” indicating the request was not motivated by profit but that a reasonable rate of return would be anticipated by virtue of the improvement similar to any other improvement made to the property. The set-back issues were pre-existing and the petitioner requests no more encroachment than already exists. Adjacent neighbors were contacted and the petitioner had received no objections to the request (documentation of this was submitted by the Petitioner as “Exhibit 1”). He noted other conforming grade level alternatives were explored but the location of the septic field made these alternatives non-viable. He restated the homeowners’ intent to remain at this dwelling and the variation was requested to accommodate the needs of the family. That concluded petitioners’ testimony.
Commissioner Cohn noted that the request was minimal and would not cause any further encroachment than what already existed.
Commissioner Dvorak indicated the request appeared logical to meeting the petitioner’s needs.
There being no further discussion of the issue, the public hearing was then closed.
A motion was made by
Commissioner Parr, seconded by Commissioner Cohn, to recommend
that the Village Board approve the
variation request as submitted by the petitioner and grant the relief requested
by the petitioner. Furthermore, the Standards for Variation, as identified in
the Long Grove Village Code have been satisfied pursuant to the information submitted
with the petitioner’s application and the testimony and discussion tonight. On roll call vote, all aye; Commissioner Rubin absent.
Chairman Phillips asked Attorney Furr
to describe a point of order on the Sunset Grove application. Attorney Furr noted
that a tie vote results in failure of the motion. That
“default” recommendation could stand and be forwarded on to the Village Board
as such. However, if the Plan Commission wishes to reconsider its
denial, it can do so at the current meeting. The motion to reconsider can
include proposed conditions.
Trustee Stephanie Hannon indicated it is difficult for the
Village Board to interpret the actions of the Plan Commission without specific
reasons, deficiencies or suggested modifications on any specific petition. She
encouraged the Plan Commission to provide details of their concerns with this
(or any other) proposal in their recommendation to the Village Board.
The Plan Commission then discussed possible conditions for the
motion to reconsider. Commissioner Parr reiterated her concern regarding the
“congestion” on site and minimal amount of buffer along Route 83. Commissioner
Dvorak reiterated his concern that the development needed to be more pedestrian
friendly. Commissioner Jenkins opined that perhaps this proposal was not ready
to be presented to the Village Board.
After further discussion the PCZBA formulated following
conditions to be considered with this development;
A motion was made by Commissioner Dvorak; seconded by Commissioner Parr to reconsider the earlier motion on the Sunset Grove petition and recommend that the Village Board approve the Preliminary PUD Plans submitted by the petitioner and grant the relief requested by the petitioner, subject to the conditions as discussed. On a roll call vote; 8 ayes, no nays; Commissioner Rubin absent. Motion carried.
4. Adjournment:
Commissioner Dvorak made a motion to adjourn the meeting; second by Commissioner Cohn.
All ayes, no nays. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 11:06 p.m.
5. Next Regular Meeting – March 4,
2008 @ 8:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
James M.
Hogue
Village Planner/ PCZBA Secretary Pro-Tem