Long Grove Plan Commission
May 2, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Chairman Present: Fred Phillips
Commissioners Present: Eduardo L. Acuna, Charles Cohn, Michael A. Dvorak, Nicholas Fasano, Tobin Fraley, Robert Jenkins, and Shelly Rubin
Commissioners Absent: Joseph Di Iorio
Also Present: Village Engineer Joe Chiczewski, 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
Chairman Phillips swore in all those present who may testify during this hearing.
2.
A. Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing
(Continued from 4/4 meeting) Consideration of variation of the setback requirements
for lots 1 & 2 and minimum lots size requirements for lot 1, and any other
zoning relief within the proposed Hampton Estates subdivision and zoned under
the R-1 district classifications within the Village of Long Grove, Illinois.
This discussion was for Zoning Board of
Approval members only and Robert Jenkins did not participate in this portion of
the meeting as he is not a member of the ZBA.
Petitioner Mr. Don Sillig provided an update from the last meeting. He stated that he has met with the neighbors of Hampton Estates since the last meeting. One of their requirements was a boulevard, which the plan now includes. He also manipulated the storm water detention area to increase the set-backs. He has met with Mr. Wachs. He has met with the Long Grove Fire Marshal about the road width and 20’ is acceptable with him.
Mr. Keith Lacy of Barrington Engineering Consultants spoke before the ZBA regarding the setbacks. He stated that the planned setbacks for lots # 1 & 2 are now 50’ and did not change the building pads on the other lots, which are now shown on the drawing. He also took the building setback line off the right-of-way. He said that he has now addressed the concerns of neighbors and pushed the entrance 4-5’ west and added a boulevard.
Resident Christine Johnson of 3382 RFD and lives adjacent to the property in question wants to know why the road can not go straight from Old McHenry so the fire trucks can’t go straight vs. making so many turns. Mr. Lacy stated that the road was planned in this fashion due to the grade; if the roads were straight, too much fill would be required and trees would need to be removed. John Johnston (3382 RFD) and Christine Johnson stated that there are no trees in that area. Commissioner Dvorak suggested putting the road on the left side of lot #1 to relieve the sharp turns.
Resident Sonia Deyrmenjian, 3384 RFD stated that she also thinks the road should be on the left side. Mr. Lacy stated that it is not an environmentally viable option because of the grade and the requirements of the water detention area. Also he stated the trees would need to be removed. The neighbors disagreed.
Village Engineer Joe Chiczewski stated that there were several concerns that need to be addressed: 1 – access for emergency vehicles, and 2 – the median, as planned, is not an adequate width for anything of substance to grow, and 3 – a turn around area must be in the plan, per village ordinance. He also stated that the water detention area could be moved from its present planned location.
There were no more comments from Commissioners or the audience.
Village Planner Hogue provided a recap of updates made since the last hearing:
§ The spite strip issue has not yet been resolved
§ The Village Engineer assessed the pavement width issue and found 22’ to be acceptable; however the 4’ median was of concern, as well as accommodation for emergency vehicles at the entrance, curve and end.
§ The concern about setbacks has been addressed
§ Building footprints have been added to the plat
§ An Arborist has provided a report
Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that the Village will not record a final
plat until the subdivision has access to
Resident Charles Wachs, 3376 RFD, has easements / access to Old McHenry. Currently the easement is a one lane road. The agreement with the Petitioner is that the existing three houses will obtain access over the new road to take traffic off of his road. The residents would need to give up their easements over the one lane road. Mrs. Johnston objected because she doesn’t care for the new road plan due to the road grade. Mrs. Deyrmenjian stated that if there is going to be a change then she wants a change for the better; a road with fewer curves.
Commissioner Acuna asked Mr. Lacy if the only problem with alternative road plans was earth leveling. Mr. Lacy stated that the detention pond is also a problem and if the road is moved, there won’t be a large enough lot (lot #1) to build on. The problem is a 14’ grade that will be in front of the house.
Commissioner Rubin asked the Village Attorney if it was the commission’s roll to plan the road. Village Attorney Tappendorf stated it was up to the Plan Commission to determine if the road as presented by the petitioner was in an appropriate location, but not to design the road.
Commissioner Cohn stated that is seems that the neighbors have leverage and suggested that we hold this issue over until they work out the road issue. Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that the Village has little authority to hold back an issue based on private issues between neighbors and that the final plat requires final approval by the Plan Commission.
Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that this hearing is for a preliminary approval and at the final approval the position, if the road is an issue and would require a major change then the plan would require re-approval by the Plan Commission.
Mr. Don Sillig stated that he has met with the neighbors and he put the boulevard in that they requested and at the time there was no mention of the road change. He doesn’t know what else he can do to make the neighbors happy. He is restricted by the topography and the road access issue is between him and Charlie. Mrs. Johnston stated that they did discuss the road issue during their meeting. Mrs. Deyrmenjian stated that she was not at the meeting.
Chairman Phillips asked Petitioner Sillig if he wanted to move forward with his petition and he said yes.
Commissioner Fasano
made 3 motions:
1 – Approve the variation to change the
setbacks on lot #1 from 100’ to 50’
2 - Approve the variation to change the
setbacks on lot #2 from 100’ to 50’
3 – Approve the variation to approve the
area for lot #1 to an area less than 3 acres to 2.42 acres.
Seconds:
There
was no second on the first motion.
Motion
2 was seconded by Commissioner Rubin.
Motion
3 was also seconded by Commissioner Rubin.
Voting
on the motions were Zoning Board of Appeals members: Eduardo L. Acuna, Charles Cohn, Michael A. Dvorak, Nicholas Fasano, Tobin Fraley, and Shelly Rubin
Votes:
Motion
#2: All ayes, no nays, the motion
carried.
Motion
#3: Hand vote: 4 ayes, 2 nays, the motion carried.
There was a general discussion regarding the failure of the first motion to get seconded. Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that the effect of no second on no motion is to be a negative recommendation to the Village Board.
Commissioner Acuna wanted the minutes to
reflect that motion #1 was not seconded because the road has dangerous spots
and some of the neighbors objected to it.
Resident Mrs. Deyrmenjian stated that the objection to the road was due to the combination of the two curves and it would be much safer if the road were straight. Resident Mr. Deyrmenjian stated that the third turn in the current road is also dangerous and danger will increase with additional residents. Mr. Lacy stated that the plan will improve that turn because that section now has a median and is wider.
Chairman Phillips closed the public hearing for the Zoning Board of Approval.
B. Plan Commission: Consideration of the preliminary plat for the
Commissioner Robert Jenkins joined the meeting
Commissioner Fasano requested that Village Attorney Tappendorf summarize the nature of the petition. Village Attorney Tappendorf explained the reasons for parts A & B.
Commissioner Fasano stated that he is OK with 4 lots on this land. Commissioner Acuna stated that he can’t vote to approve this part of the petition because the proposal includes the road plan that the ZBA did not like. Commissioner Cohn suggested that we ask the petitioner whether or not they want to proceed.
There was a general discussion regarding the petitioner’s options. The petitioner wanted to proceed.
Commissioner Acuna
moved to deny approval of the preliminary plat.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Dvorak. Roll Call Vote:
Cohn – Y, Acuna –
Y, Dvorak – Y, Fasano – N, Fraley – Y, Jenkins – Y,
Rubin – N
The motion carried 5 to 2.
3. Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing; (Continued from 1/17/06 meeting) consideration of a request by David & Dorie Atkinson for variation of the front yard set-back requirement within the R-1 Single Family Residence District form the required 100 feet down to 25 feet for property commonly known as 3717 Spring Valley.
The petitioner withdrew their petition and this matter is, therefore, concluded.
4. Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing; Consideration of a request by Ted & Tia Lazakis for variation of the set-back requirement within the R-1 PUD District to allow the construction of an in-ground swimming pool beyond the rear setback line and to be located 273 feet from the rear lot line (267 feet to concrete deck). (Discussion by Zoning Board of Appeals members only)
Commissioner Jenkins left the meeting as he is a Plan Commission member only.
Chairman Phillips swore in all those present who planned to testify.
Petitioner Ted Lazakis of 3723 RFD reviewed the plan for the pool, the
subdivision plat, easements, septic plan, and water detention areas. Between the time the
original plat was approved and the house was built,
Commissioner Acuna stated that if
Commissioner Rubin asked the petitioner if there are other pool location options. The petitioner stated that all other pool locations would require some kind of variance.
Commissioner Acuna
moved to recommend approval of a 24’ variation from the rear building box line
for the proposed pool.
Neighbor Becky Duffy of 3725 RFD stated that she supports the petition and the plan has the least impact.
Commissioner Rubin asked if there have been any letters from neighbors. Petitioner Lazakis stated that there has not been any letters.
Commissioner Fasano seconded the motion. All ayes. No nayes. The motion carried.
5. Approval of minutes;
Commissioner Rubin moved to postpone approval of the minutes until the
next meeting. Commissioner Acuna seconded the motion.
All ayes. No nayes. The motion carried.
6. Other Business; Workshop Session.
There was a general discussion about the work left to be done and the consensus was that a special meeting would be used for a workshop session.
7. Adjournment;
Commissioner Acuna moved to adjourn the
meeting. Commissioner Cohn seconded the
motion. All ayes.
No nays. The motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at
8. Next Meeting –
Next Regular Meeting –
Respectfully submitted,
Wendy Parr
Plan Commission Secretary