VILLAGE OF LONG GROVE
Long Grove Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals (LGPCZBA)

May 6, 2008

 

Commissioners Present: Jeff Kazmer, Shelly Rubin , Charles Cohn, Wendy Parr, Tobin Fraley, Mike Dvorak, Bob Jenkins, Joe DiIorio

 

Absent: Fred Phillips

 

Also present: Village Planner James Hogue; Planning Commission Secretary Terri Taylor; Village Attorney Jon Furr; and members of the public.

 

  1. Call to Order: Commissioner Dvorak called the meeting to order at 8:03 p.m.

 

Village Planner Hogue explained that because Chairman Phillips was absent, there was a need for a Chairman Pro-Tem for the meeting. Commissioner Kazmer made a motion for Commissioner Dvorak to act as Chairman Pro-Tem during tonight’s meeting. Commissioner DiIorio seconded the motion. On a voice vote; all ayes.

 

2.      Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for an amendment to a previously approved special use permit and/or additional relief necessary and/or appropriate under the zoning code to allow co-location of additional antennas on an existing monopole telecommunications tower at 5105 Arlington Heights Road and zoned under the R-2 zoning district classification as submitted by Cricket Communications. (Discussion by full PCZBA).

 

After reading the first Public Hearing item on the agenda, Chairman Pro-Tem Dvorak swore in the audience.

 

Village Planner Hogue provided history regarding the existing monopole tower. In 1999 a special use permit was granted to construct the tower. In 2005 the permit was amended to allow a total of four antennas. He noted three items/conditions for the PCZBA to consider: 1. The proposal be in conformance with the site plan and specifications as submitted with the application; 2. The height of the equipment structure be not greater than 15 feet; 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant supply documentation indiating the existing monopole structure can support an additional antenna.

 

Dennis Schermerhorn, representing Cricket Communications explained that Cricket is a wireless communications company similar to AT&T or Verizon. They currently serve the South & Southwest U.S.

 

Satish Patel, engineer for Cricket stated that Cricket has made it their policy to utilize existing towers whenever possible.

 

Rick Rubinstein, Manassas Drive, asked if adding this antenna would limit any other future needs for the tower.

 

Mr. Schermerhorn answered “yes”, stating that the tower can only structurally hold so many antennas.

 

Planner Hogue explained that the Village Policy prefers the use of existing towers before building new towers.

 

Commissioner Kazmer asked about some miscellaneous items that appeared in the photos. The items appear to belong to the adjacent property owners who would need to remove the items.

 

Commissioners Rubin and Parr asked for a description of the “unstaffed cabinets/shelter”. Commissioner Parr wanted to know what would be stored inside the cabinets.

 

Mr. Patel and Mr. Schermerhorn responded about batteries being stored in the cabinets and that the cabinets provide safety/protection that any potential leakage would make it into the ground below.

 

Commissioner DiIorio asked how the pole would be reinforced.

 

Mr. Patel responded that structural plates and bolting would be used.

 

Commissioner DiIorio also asked about the possibility of camouflaging the area.

 

Mr. Schermerhorn stated that the best option would be fir trees, however as technology improves over time, the size of these poles and antennas will eventually get smaller which could happen before the landscaping could provide shelter.

 

Commissioner Parr made a motion to recommend the approval of the special use permit as described in the application with the three (3) conditions outlined previously by Village Planner Hogue. Commissioner Kazmer seconded the motion. On a voice vote; all ayes.

 

3.      PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a petition for variation of the side yard set-back requirement (south side) from the required 40 feet down to 26.06 feet within the R-2 District for the construction of an addition (garage) to an existing single family dwelling for property located at 2542 Shenandoah Avenue. Submitted by Kris and Anna Wiatr. (Discussion by ZBA members only).

 

The petitioner was currently absent from the meeting. Therefore this Public Hearing could not yet take place. Commissioner Parr made a motion to move this Public Hearing (agenda item #3) until after the third Public Hearing (agenda item #4) of the meeting. Commissioner Rubin seconded the motion. On a voice vote; all ayes.

 

4.      PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a request for a special use permit to allow a planned uni development/subdivision of up to 10 units on 18.16 acres of property to be known as Long Grove Country Club Estates Unit Number Ten and/or additional relief necessary and/or appropriate under the zoning code to allow a planned unit development of up to 10 units on property currently zoned under the R-2 zoning district classification within the Village of Long Grove, Illinois on property located 1128 RFD on the south side o Route 53 and north of Manassas Lane, submitted by Mr. John Ullrich. (Discussion by full PCZBA).

 

A number of people came in to the meeting after it began so Chairman Pro-Tem Dvorak again swore in the audience.

 

The petitioner John Ullrich introduced himself. Terry Van Alstine and Ralph Schmidt, Heritage Land Consultants also introduced themselves to the audience. Mr. Van Alstein briefly described the property location. The property is approximately 18 acres and currently has three residences located there. There is currently one access point via a shared driveway to Rte. 53. The PUD would have a new road built with access via Manassas. The average lot area would be over 1 acre. He described their plan as one which is trying to create something that fits well within the current area. They are also planning to save as many trees as possible and Mr. Ullrich has had a tree survey completed for the property to identify and record the existing trees. They have also planned to save and improved the wetland area which will also provide a buffer area between the homes and Rte. 53.

 

Chairman Pro-Tem Dvorak requested that the audience provide comments and questions. It was determined that the public would speak first and that the petitioner would then respond to most questions after the public comments.

 

Ralph Nixalian, Manassas resident asked the petitioner about their plans for the construction entrance.

 

Mr. Van Alstine stated that the plan is to use the existing access via Rte. 53. However, he claimed that there is no way to eliminate construction traffic on Manassas once the new road is built.

 

Rick Rubinstein, Manassas resident asked if there was a way to document what kind of traffic could go on each road.

 

Mr. Ullrich explained that the road would be built first with all construction traffic utilizing the Rte. 53 access. Once the road is completed, individual home construction traffic would then use the Manassas Lane access.

 

Mr. Nixalian asked to see the document from IDOT that denies the PUD the ability for the private road to have access directly to Rte. 53. He also asked for them to describe how the sanitary system would connect.

 

Mr. Schmidt stated they had not yet received a response from the county.

 

Mr. Rubinstein stated that they did not want their lives to be disrupted by this project. He would also like to see the sewer brought back to Manassas. He stated that a barrier to the new homes should be added to help preserve the natural feel that currently exists.

 

Carolyn Stanton, 1232 Manassas stated that her property is next to the area for development. She has two small kids and is concerned about the new traffic that will be brought into this area by the addition of these new homes. She asked if these 9 new homes would be added to their Homeowners Association (HOA).

 

Mr. Van Alstine responded that the homes could be added, but that would have to be agreed upon by Mr. Ullrich and the current HOA.

 

Mr. Ullrich said he was not planning to have a separate special façade created. He then also explained some details related to the sewer placement.

 

John Marshall, 1234 Manassas resident wanted to know what they plan to do with the 8” drainage pipe.

 

Mr. Ullrich said they met with the Hillside Country Club regarding relocating the pipe and creating catchbasins.

 

Mr. Rubinstein stated that a lot of water sits in this area after heavy rains.

 

Larry Fleming, 1231 Manassas, asked about the schedule and average cost for building the new homes.

 

Mr. Ullrich responded that they are ready to move forward with the road development, but that the lot sales may be slow and that there is no way to predict the timing of sales and home building at this time.

 

Mr. Fleming asked why this PUD qualifies for the density bonus. He feels that a natural berm is necessary to block the view of these new homes for homeowners on Manassas.

 

Tammy Gould, 2230 RFD, is the president of the Country Club Estates (CCE) HOA. She spoke about several issues. She spoke about concern with the entire plan because it protects the existing parcel of land and home, but negatively affects the existing property owners in CCE. She felt that the density bonus is unwarranted and needs to be earned by the petitioner.  She also stated that the CCE HOA would not be interested in adding this subdivision into their HOA. She also stated that the current sewer has a limited capacity and feels the petitioner should not be given access to it.

 

Mr. Fleming expressed concerns about traffic. Is there any other way to improve access to this site? Perhaps talk to politicians?

 

Mr. Marshall asked Village Planner Hogue if this PUD could really be added to Country Club Estates. Mr. Hogue provided some history about the CCE subdivision.

 

Jerry Stern, Mannasas asked whether the petitioner has permission to have access via Manassas and wanted to know more about IDOT’s denial for access to the new road via Rte. 53.

 

Mr. Rubinstein questioned Mr. Van Alstein about his statement regarding how Manassas was originally planned to have additional access.

 

Marshall Stanton, 1232 Manassas wanted to know if there was any proof that this was planned. He also stated that he does not want the burden of additional traffic near his home. Also wants to know what the current residents would be getting out of this plan.

 

Ann Stern, Mannasas resident wanted to know which home was to be torn down.

 

Nancy Selesky, Mannasas resident asked who would be paying to maintain the new road.

 

The petitioner now began responding to the public comments and questions.

 

Mr. Van Altstein addressed various topics:

A.     Desire of residents for this to be redesigned – stated that great effort was made to save trees

B.     Natural habitat concerns – wetland system is planned to be larger and of higher quality that current area

C.     Construction traffic – for building of the homes, traffic will need to enter via Manassas because no other option will be available

D.     Grant Place road access – probably would not sole the problem, those residents would most likely object to the project too

 

Mr. Schmidt addressed various topics:

A.     Environmental issues – if road access were to be from Rte. 53, there would be more pavement in total, more hazards to the wetland area and a less desirable engineering plan

B.     Maintenance funds – will depend upon the status of this PUD as private or public

C.     Schaffer Road traffic / signal – IDOT likes to minimize points of access on Rte. 53

D.     Sewer access – the county is responsible for giving permission to access

 

Mr. Ullrich clarified that the plan will be to keep two existing homes and to build eight new homes on the property.

 

Mr. Schmidt clarified an issue that came up regarding drain tiles. He said that state laws manage the design and development of these to ensure proper drainage.

 

Mr. Rubinstein asked if drainage from Hillcrest Country Club golf course would enter this property.

 

Village Attorney Furr responded by stating that it is still very early in the stages of this process and topics such as drainage will eventually be reviewed by the Village Engineers.

 

Mr. Schmidt addressed the use of signs for safety related to traffic. He also spoke about adding a berm which he said villages generally don’t like and would have to approve.

 

Ms. Stanton asked how long the project would take.

 

Mr. Schmidt stated that the road construction usually takes about 3 – 4 months. Building of the houses is a separate issue because the properties will be sold individually with construction of each home following its own schedule.

 

Ms. Gould asked a question about what is considered buildable versus unbuildable land.

 

Village Planner Hogue and Attorney Furr described the process for how this is determined.

 

Mr. Rubinstein asked the PCZBA to request the petitioner to make an impact statement regarding how this project affects the current neighboring property owners.

 

Mr. Stern would like to see a drawing of nine lots.

 

Ms. Stern asked about the possibility of a traffic light somewhere.

 

Attorney Furr addressed the amount of lots in the proposal, explaining that the density bonus provisions of the Zoning Code do not allow more than nine lots on this site. Having nine lots total would be acceptable by zoning code.

 

Mr. Schmidt stated that the lots were configured in the current design so the historic farmhouse could be saved.

 

At this time Chairman Pro-Tem Dvorak asked the Commissioners for their comments.

 

Commissioner Cohn expressed concerns about the calculations for lot sizes and agreed that granting the density bonus is discrescionary and that he felt no compelling reason to grant one in this case. He said he did not like an earlier comment, which appeared to threaten the preservation of the farmhouse. He asked if traffic studies had yet been completed (Petitioner immediately responded “no” because they were awaiting initial approval of the proposal). He stated that he feels adding more homes in this area will only add to the current traffic concerns.

 

Commissioner Jenkins agreed with the need to reduce the number of lots to nine. He also suggested the petitioner consider the possibility of creating road access via the Hillcrest driveway – if the Country Club would consider relocating the access point.

 

General discussion took place regarding Commissioner Jenkins’ suggestion.

 

John, Hillcrest Country Club, said he would consider the relocation of the driveway, however he would likely not contribute money to the project.

 

Chairman Pro-Tem Dvorak commented about Commissioner Jenkins’ idea about shared drive at Hillcrest stating that he thought it was a good idea. He also said he agreed with other commissioners that the property should be on septic and felt there would need to be a better reason to grant the density bonus. He too said he did not like an earlier comment, which appeared to threaten the preservation of the farmhouse.

 

Commissioner DiIorio expressed concerns about traffic and the possibility of a traffic light. He asked if they considered a right in, right out to get the Rte. 53 access. He asked if they considered donating the farmhouse to the Village Historical Society. He recommended mound septic systems for the homes and would very much like to see they save as many trees as they can.

 

Commissioner Parr asked the petitioner to explain how they would approach a straight subdivision proposal if the PUD were not to be approved.

 

Mr. Schmidt stated that they would most likely provide less improvements to the wetland areas.

 

Commissioner Parr asked about averaging of lot sizes and Village Planner Hogue explained the language as it reads in the code.

 

Commissioner Rubin asked if they had considered adding a public space such as a playground to the proposal.

 

Commissioner Kazmer said he agreed with the other commissioners about concerns, specifically the need to reduce to nine lots and the use of septic. He asked that the petitioner ask IDOT again for access via Rte. 53.

 

General discussion took place.

Because it was getting late, Chairman Pro-Tem Dvorak suggested a commissioner motion to continue this Public Hearing. Commissioner DiIorio made a motion to continue this Public Hearing until the next regular meeting on June 3; Commissioner Rubin seconded the motion; on a voice vote, all ayes.

 

The petitioner was abesrnt for Public Hearing (agenda item #3). Therefore, a motion was needed to continue this item to the next scheduled meeting. Commissioner DiIorio made a motion to continue this Public Hearing until the next regular meeting on June 3; Commissioner Rubin seconded the motion; on a voice vote, all ayes.

 

 

5.      Approval of Minutes; February 19th and March 4th & 18th 2008 and April 1 & 15, 2008.

 

The February 19 and March 4 minutes were approved at the April 15 meeting.

 

Commissioner Parr made a motion to move the approval of the March 18, 2008 minutes to the next regular meeting on June 3; Commissioner Cohn seconded the motion. On a voice vote, all ayes.

 

April 1 & April 15 minutes were not yet transcribed for review at the time of this meeting.

 

  1. Other Business:

 

No other business to discuss.

 

  1. Adjournment:

 

Commissioner Rubin made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Commissioner Dvorak. On a voice vote, all ayes; no nays. Meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.

 

  1. Next Regular meeting – June 3, 2008, 8 p.m.

           

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Terri Taylor; Secretary, Long Grove PCZBA