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

September 2, 2008

Commissioners Present: Jeff Kazmer, Wendy Parr, Charles Cohn, Tobin Fraley, Bob Jenkins, Shelly Rubin, Mike Dvorak; Chairman Fred Phillips.

Absent: Joe DiIorio, Planning Commission Secretary Terri Taylor

Also present: Village Planner James Hogue; Village Attorney Jon Furr; and members of the public.

1. Call to Order: Chairman Phillips called the meeting to order at 8:03 p.m.

2. New Business: Consideration of a request by Mr. John Ullrich for final approval of plans and plats, as part of the final PUD approval, for nine (9), single family lots to be known as the Steeple View Estates PUD Subdivision and located on the south side of Route 53 and north of Manassas Lane, within the Village of Long Grove, Illinois.

Chairman Phillips read the request. Terry Van Alstine and Ralph Schmidt, consultants for the petitioner further explained and commented on the request.

Village Planner Hogue then reviewed his staff report noting that there are 3 items for PCZBA consideration: 1) the adequacy of the construction traffic management plan; 2) the setback relief requested and the amount of tree preservation proposed per the conceptual development plan, and 3) final engineering being approved by the Village Engineer.

He further noted the review of the proposal by the CSCC and suggested that the PCZBA accept the recommendations of the CSCC with regard to the conservancy areas, scenic corridor and final plat.

Village Attorney Furr noted a concern and suggested that the wetland buffer be contained within “Outlot A.” He indicated that this would have no effect on the FAR of the proposed structures as the preliminary approval ordinance was crafted with specific parameters for these lots which would essentially give “credit” (toward the total allowable FAR) for the entire lot as originally proposed. Additionally, a zero lot line provision was enacted for these lots. Inclusion of the buffer in “Outlot A” would not affect the building setback on these lots.

He also noted that the building box configuration needs to be better defined. Per the preliminary approval the building box area should be very specifically identified.

Mr. Schmidt noted the developer is not the builder and the exact placement of houses on the lots is unknown at this time. A larger building box gives greater flexibility in the placement of houses on the property.

Planner Hogue commented that as shown a structure could be placed anywhere within the building setback lines as identified on the plat. As shown additional trees may be lost during the construction process. He noted relief from some of the underlying R-2 zoning setback requirements was requested. Tree preservation was the rational for setback relief. The PCZBA needs to determine if tree preservation as shown warrants the relief of the setback requirements as requested.

The building setbacks as shown on the proposed final plat could represent the building boxes. However, often times in PUDs building boxes contain a smaller area than dictated by setback requirements. Planner Hogue urged the PCZBA to determine if the requirements of the preliminary approval ordinance had been satisfied.

Mr. Ullrich noted tree preservation was big motivation in the design of the development as proposed and the proposal tried to protect as many trees as possible.

Commissioner Parr suggested keeping the setbacks as they are and creating language in the final approval ordinance to provide some flexibility (minor variations) with regard to the placement of houses on the lots.

Commissioner Fraley noted an assessment of the placement of houses needed to be conducted on a lot by lot basis to provide a general sense on the placement of structures on the lots.

Commissioner Dvorak suggested being more specific (with regard to the building boxes) without being overly restrictive.

Attorney Furr noted that adjustments to the final approval ordinance could be drafted to allow for some flexibility.

Mr. Marshall Stanton, 1232 RFD, asked if the PCZBA had reviewed a plan which identified set-backs as defined per the underlying R-2 zoning district. Chairman Phillips responded that the PCZBA had not seen such a plan and further explained the flexibility of the PUD process with regard setbacks and other underlying zoning district requirements.

Setbacks, building boxes and the preservation of trees on site became a major topic for discussion.

The consensus of the PCZBA (as stated by Commissioner Cohn) was to 1) have the petitioner re-draw the building boxes on the plat to be no greater in size than what was previously submitted (i.e. building boxes to be drawn with the boundaries of the set-backs as submitted) with a priority being given to the tree preservation in the reconfiguration of the building boxes 2) modifications as suggested by the Village Attorney with regard to the wetland buffer be incorporated into the revisions 3) all work being done in the scenic corridor (pathway, berms, etc.) shall be reviewed and approved by the CSCC prior to any such improvements commencing in the scenic corridor.

This item was continued to the October 7^th regular PCZBA meeting.

3. Approval of Minutes August 5, 2008

Attorney Furr had minor corrections to the minutes. Commissioner Parr made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fraley to accept the August 5^th minutes as corrected. On a voice vote all aye; Commissioner Jenkins abstaining.

4. Other Business:

Village Planner Hogue stated that the October Meeting would likely be a busy meeting with the final approval of the Sunset Grove Project and Steeple View Estates being on the agenda. Potentially a third agenda item, a request for straight subdivision, may also be on that agenda.

5. Adjournment:

Commissioner Parr made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Dvorak. On a voice vote, all ayes; no nays. Meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

6. Next Regular meeting – October 7, 2008 @ 8 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

James M. Hogue

Village Planner