Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2016/02/10 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the February 10, 2016 Meeting A meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, February 10, 2016, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Acting Chairman Kehr, Commissioners Guy Berg, Tim Henry and Michael Freeman Commissioners absent: Chairman Ley and Commissioners Lloyd Culbertson and Jeff Kuchman Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff. Acting Chairman Kehr introduced the members of the Commission and City staff. She stated that the intent of the Commission at this meeting is to listen to the presentation and all public comment. She stated that the Commission will not make a decision on this matter at this meeting and noted that all testimony will be carefully considered. She introduced the agenda item. 2. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for approval of the tentative and final plat of subdivision for the proposed Estate Lane Planned Preservation Subdivision and an associated Special Use Permit. A 3-lot single family residential subdivision is proposed for property located on the southwest corner of Estate Lane East and Oak Knoll Drive. Property Owner: Marlin Ventures, LLC (Paul Lopata, Steven Brown and Ed Yawitz) Representatives: Craig Krandel, Timm and Garfinkel, LLC Bleck Engineering Acting Chairman Kehr asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, she swore in all those intending to speak on this matter and invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Krandel , attorney for the petitioner introduced a representative of the property ownership and members of the project team noting that they are available to answer questions. He acknowledged that the staff report called out a number of issues and stated the petitioner’s intent to work through those items prior to the next meeting. He acknowledged that many residents are in attendance and have issues and concerns about the proposed subdivision. He stated that the petitioners understand that any Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 Page 2 of 16 time development is proposed in an established neighborhood, residents have concerns. He stated that it is the developer’s intention to try to work through as many issues as possible and to be good neighbors. He stated that some of the correspondence implies that the petitioners received preferential treatment from staff or appointed or elected officials. He clarified that no special treatment was requested or received. He stated that the petitioners have followed all of the rules and requirements and have worked with City staff throughout the process as is the normal practice when developments are proposed. He presented a zoning map of the area noting that the property proposed for subdivision is zoned R-2. He stated that the property was purchased by Marlin Ventures in May, 2015, after the development opportunity was brought to the attention of the partnership by Mr. Friedman who today, is the project manager. He stated that the owners have prepared plans for a 3-lot subdivision in conformance with the R-2 zoning. He noted that there has been much discussion about whether the size of lots proposed is consistent with the size of lots in the surrounding neighborhood and reviewed a plan pointing out similarly sized lots in the immediate area. He noted that previous subdivisions occurred in this area creating similarly sized lots. He stated that the alternative plans presented were analyzed carefully to confirm that the requirements of the R-2 zoning district are met. He stated that the proposed subdivision was initially presented to the Commission in June, 2015 and at that time, the majority of the Commission voted to recommend approval of the request. He noted however that the petitioners agreed to step back, do further study and consider opportunities to respond to the concerns raised at the meeting. He added that since that time, staff identified that the property is in the Historic Residential and Open Space Preservation District which provides the flexibility to configure lots in an optimum manner after demonstrating that through a conventional plan, all of the requirements of the underlying zoning district are satisfied. He noted that at the June meeting, the Commission asked whether the petitioner had communicated with the neighboring residents. He stated that the petitioners sent a notice to the neighboring properties prior to the June meeting and after the June meeting, followed up by sending another letter to the residents who spoke at that meeting providing additional information and offering to meet or talk with the neighbors. He stated that contact information for the developer was provided, but no contacts were received from the neighbors. He added that notice of this meeting was also sent out. He reiterated that the petitioners understand and appreciate the issues and concerns and stated that efforts have been made to be responsive however; he stated that the main objection from the neighbors is that three lots, rather than two lots, are proposed. He stated that no variances are requested and the requirements of the R-2 zoning district are met. He introduced the project engineer. Joy Corona, Bleck Engineering, reviewed the existing drainage patterns on and around the property proposed for subdivision. She noted that a portion of the property proposed for subdivision drains to the north, to Oak Knoll Drive and a pond located to the northwest of the site. She stated that the drainage patterns on the property will be maintained. She stated that at the direction of the City Engineer, a study was Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 Page 3 of 16 conducted to determine whether the drainage patterns should be changed to direct the runoff from more of the site to the north. She explained that the results of the study showed that the existing storm system to the north does not have the capacity to support a change in the existing drainage pattern. She reiterated that as a result, the existing drainage patterns will be maintained on the property with no change in the amount of land area that drains is each direction from what exists today. She reviewed the proposed storm sewer improvements on the site and the best management practices that will be incorporated into development of the site. She reviewed the location of the proposed new drainage pipe, infiltration trench and inlets that will be installed along the west property line to handle runoff from the development site as well as from the upstream properties to the west. She added that a bioswale is proposed to intercept and reduce runoff and improve water quality prior to run off. She noted that the petitioner is proposing to incorporate a requirement for the use of permeable hardscape for patios and walkways to allow infiltration and to further reduce runoff. She explained that the base of those areas will be stone to provide for infiltration and storage. Mr. Krandel concluded the petitioner’s opening statement by reiterating that no variances are requested and that three lots can be achieved on the site in full compliance with the R-2 zoning district requirements. He added that part of the reason for the three lot proposal, rather than a two lot proposal is that the real estate market has changed and supports the creation of smaller lots. He stated that there appears to be enough larger lots in the community to meet the demand. He stated that the proposed subdivision is an appropriate use of the property. Ms. Czerniak reviewed the background of the petition. She confirmed that the petition was before the Commission last June and that approval was recommended, in a split vote. She stated that after that meeting, in consultation with the petitioner, there was agreement to not move forward with the subdivision at that time, but instead, for the petitioner and staff to do some further study. She stated that the petition now presented is a new petition and restarts the Commission’s review process. She noted that the earlier staff report incorrectly stated that the property proposed for subdivision is not in the Historic Residential Open Space Overlay District. She stated that the property is within the overlay district and that the staff report accurately reflects that point. She stated that the underlying and controlling zoning district is R-2 which carries with it various requirements including a minimum lot size, minimum lot width, setback requirements and various other provisions. She explained that the petitioner has submitted information demonstrating that three lots can be configured on the property in compliance with all of the applicable requirements. She stated that in the case of this petition, two alternatives were submitted; both demonstrating that three lots can be configured on the property in compliance with the R-2 zoning requirements. She noted that a compliance table is provided on each of the alternatives included in the Commission’s packet. She stated that various staff have reviewed the alternative plats and confirmed that the requirements of the R-2 district are satisfied. She explained that Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 Page 4 of 16 in the case of a subdivision, where no variances are requested, the City does not have the discretion to require that the number of lots be reduced below that permitted by the zoning district. She provided background on the Historic Residential and Open Space Preservation overlay district stating that it was established in the 1980’s when many subdivisions, including many in this area, were occurring. She explained that the overlay district was created to provide flexibility from the strict requirements of the underlying zoning district for the purpose of preserving historic or natural resources, open space and the overall character of a particular area while adhering to the density permitted by the underlying district. She noted that one of the plats in the Commission’s packet takes advantage of the overlay district by adjusting the lot configurations to provide a slightly larger buildable area on Lot 2, the corner lot, on which significant trees are located along the north property line. She explained that corner lots are impacted more significantly by setbacks because there is a street on two sides of the lot. She stated however that the changes between the various plats are minimal and asked for Commission direction on which plat presents the best lot configuration. She stated that the primary question raised by the neighbors is whether three lots are permissible on the property. She stated that based on a thorough review, staff finds that three lots can be created on the property in conformance with the R-2 zoning. She recommended that given the level of interest from the neighbors, the consideration of the petition should be continued at the end of this meeting to allow further consideration and response to public testimony. She stated that staff has paid careful attention to the various concerns and questions from the neighbors and acknowledged that the initial staff analysis is not always correct and if errors are found, corrections or modifications are made based on input from the neighbors. She noted that three recommendations are offered in the staff report with respect to the final plat of subdivision. She stated that a tree preservation area is recommended along the north property line of Lot 2. She explained that as pointed out by some neighbors, Estate Lane East used to be the driveway for the main Lasker Estate house. She stated that at one time, it was lined with large trees but over time, as subdivisions occurred in the area, and new homes were built, most of the trees were lost. She stated that a few of the last remaining trees are located in the area proposed for protection. She noted that the staff report also recommends that the new driveway for Lot 2 be off of Oak Knoll Drive to avoid impacts to the remaining trees. Finally, she noted that an increased rear yard setback, over and above that required in the R-2 zoning district, is recommended for Lot 3 recognizing the proposed stormsewer improvements along the west property line and to protect a significant tree in that area. Mr. Strahan, City Engineer, stated that Ms. Corona summarized the drainage issues thoroughly. He added that as City Engineer, he is obligated to review development proposals to assure that all of the requirements of the Lake County Watershed Development Ordinance are satisfied. He noted that the Ordinance includes quantitative standards and thresholds for determining when on site detention is required. He stated that the proposed development does not require on site detention. He stated that the proposed development will add .22 acres of new impervious surface Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 Page 5 of 16 to the site. He noted that the developer is proposing improvements over and above what is required by the Ordinance. He stated that although not required by the Ordinance, the petitioner is proposing a bioswale and infiltration trench along the west and south property lines which will reduce overall runoff from the site. He stated that the planned improvements will benefit upstream properties and benefit water quality. He added that the developer also proposes to limit the hardscape on the site through the use of pervious material for walkways and patios which again, goes beyond the requirements of the Ordinance. He confirmed that a study was conducted to determine whether drainage from a portion of the site should be redirected to the north and stated that the findings determined that approach was not workable due to the capacity of the sewer to the north. He stated that existing drainage patterns will be maintained on the property. Acting Chairman Kehr invited questions or requests for clarification from the Commission to the petitioner or staff. In response to questions from Commissioner Henry, Mr. Strahan reviewed the existing storm sewer system along Oak Knoll Drive noting that the pipe extending to the north is 12”. He pointed out the location where the stormsewer heads to the west from Oak Knoll Drive noting that at that point, the pipe is upsized to 21”. He stated that he does not know the age of the various pipes. He confirmed that the 12” pipe does not have the capacity to allow a change in the existing drainage patterns in the area. In response to questions from Commissioner Henry, Ms. Czerniak explained that the latest plat proposes a minimal shift in the proposed property lines, less than two feet, and results in a slightly larger buildable area on Lot 2 due to the larger setbacks for the corner parcel and results in Lot 3 becoming slightly larger than in the earlier plats. In response to questions from Commissioner Henry, Mr. Krandel explained that the latest plat was prepared to take advantage of the flexibility offered by the overlay district. He acknowledged that the adjustment is minor and stated that the petitioner is willing to accept direction from the Commission on which plat should be presented for final consideration. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Strahan confirmed that the proposed improvements will result in an improvement over existing drainage conditions for the upstream properties. He explained that the proposed improvements will allow infiltration and more control of the runoff from the property than occurs today. He noted that a low lying area at the west end of the proposed Lot 3 does not drain at all currently. He stated that this condition will be helped by the proposed improvements. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Mr. Strahan reviewed the under the current drainage patterns, noting that a portion of the site proposed for Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 Page 6 of 16 development drains to the north. He stated that the plan proposes no change to the acreage that drains to the north and to the south. He stated that altering existing drainage patterns is not advisable and stated that the plan as presented maintains the existing drainage patterns in the area. In response to a question from Commissioner Freeman, Mr. Krandel confirmed that the developer is willing to comply with the staff recommendation and increase the rear yard setback on Lot 3. In response to questions from Acting Chairman Kehr, Ms. Corona reviewed the location of the proposed new storm sewer along the west property line. She confirmed that the entire pipe will be new. She stated that the capacity of the new pipe will be much larger than the existing, non-functioning pipe located on the property. She explained that the new pipe will have perforations as well as inlets to maximize the opportunity for runoff to enter the stormsewer system. She noted that currently, water is flowing overland to the south instead of into a stormsewer. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Code requires driveway approaches to be located a minimum distance of 20’ from a corner when measured from the extended lot lines. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the proposed tree preservation area would push the driveway 30’ from the north property line, beyond the 20’ minimum requirement. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the demolition of the existing house will be part of the subdivision approval since the house as it exists extends across the proposed property line. She stated that the existing house is not historically significant. She confirmed that new homes would need to comply with the City’s design criteria and commented that since the new homes will be infill development in an established neighborhood, Building Review Board consideration would be appropriate. She added that if desired, the Board can include a condition requiring Building Review Board consideration. Commissioner Berg stated support for a condition requiring Building Review Board consideration. He pointed out that the staff report recommends increasing the rear yard setback for Lot 3 beyond the distance required in the R-2 zoning district. Acting Chairman Kehr invited public comments. Ed Wolkenmuth , 1436 S. Estate Lane, stated that he is new to the neighborhood and lives on the west side of Estate Lane, just south of the Lasker Estate house. He stated that during the past spring and summer his property flooded despite work done to improve the drainage on the property. He stated that it appears that the slope of the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 Page 7 of 16 land from the Lasker Estate to his house is the same as the slope of the proposed Lot 3. He stated concern about water flowing to the south of the proposed development noting that water will come off of the roofs of the new houses. He acknowledged that a new drainage system is proposed along the west property line, but noted that it ties into an existing storm sewer system that extends to the south. He noted that the pipes extend south and then to the west across Estate Lane noting the location of a catch basin to the south of his property. He stated that the water draining from the original Lasker Estate on to the northeastern portion of his property has gotten worse over time to the point where he put in his own drain system to replace the old drain tiles in the area and move water away from his house. He noted that on the property proposed for development, there are old drain tiles that are obstructed with roots adding that the old drain tile extends to the south, toward the stormsewer near his property. He stated that some further investigation is needed in the area south of the property proposed for development. He questioned whether increased runoff from the roof of the new home on Lot 3 will put too much pressure on the stormsewers located to the south of the property proposed for development. Julianne Steele, 1436 S. Estate Lane, stated that she came to this area in 1968 and that her mother in law owned the property since 1965. She stated that she is well aware of the drainage situation on the property and on surrounding properties. She stated that in 1931, Mr. Lasker engaged a prominent landscaper who encouraged Mr. Lasker to think in fractions of miles, not yards, when considering landscaping for the site. She expressed concern that those in the area are now thinking in terms of feet. She stated that residents in the area are blessed because the original planning for the Lasker Estate was done on a large scale. She stated that everyone should be good stewards of the land. She stated that her family purchased 1438 S. Estate Lane, the original lounge and cocktail building for the Lasker Estate and noted that two cabanas area also located on the property. She noted concern that if the property now proposed for development can be subdivided, future subdivisions may be proposed in the area noting that the Lasker Estate property is 7-1/2 acres and that a neighboring property is 1- 3/4 acres. She acknowledged that the petitioner showed other homes of similar sizes that exist in the neighborhood, but pointed out that those resulted from subdivisions of land that occurred in the 1980’s. She asked the Commissioners to be good stewards of the land. John Madigan, 1393 S. Estate Lane, stated that he lives across the street from Julianne Steele. He thanked June Steele for the historical document on the Lasker Estate and the history of the neighborhood that she transcribed. He noted that at one time, there were 17 Adler designed buildings in the area and about 12 of those are still standing which is likely the reason that this area is in the overlay district. He noted that the proposed subdivision is in the middle of this area. He stated that he has a number of concerns about the proposed subdivision with drainage being a primary concern. He asked that the petitioner put up the image showing the existing drain tiles and reviewed the locations of the existing lines and noted areas where water pools today. He stated that Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 Page 8 of 16 the existing drain tile line was likely constructed 50 to 60 years ago and stated that it is not working very well. He noted that the proposed plan locates the new sewer on the west property line and expressed concern that instead of water pooling in the middle of the parcel, it will now pool near the west property line. He stated that water flows on to and off of the property have not been discussed or quantitatively analyzed. He stated that by using downstream capacity, neighboring properties on Estate Lane may lose access to the sewer. He stated that with respect to the proposed lots; the neighbors wrote a letter after the last meeting which citing a number of concerns. He questioned whether the proposed lots meet the lot to depth ratio established in the Code and questioned the use of a diagonal line to achieve compliance with the Code. He stated that the petitioner is struggling to fit three lots on a parcel that is too small for three lots. He stated that there are numerous other areas of concern noting that it is his understanding that objective evidence is required with respect to property values. He pointed out that the largest tree on the property shows as untagged on the tree survey; he questioned why the tree was not identified. He stated that he does not understand how changing the property from one house to three houses preserves open space or upholds the character of the historic district. Ellen Stoehr, 1309 Estate Lane East, stated that she lives at the end of the cul-de-sac. She stated that she drives through the intersection of Oak Knoll Drive and Estate Lane East frequently. She stated that her main concern is the potential for additional subdivisions in the neighborhood. She stated that further subdivision is not in keeping with the historic character of the neighborhood or with the character of the Lasker Country Estate. She pointed out that the new houses will be right on top of each other and will not have yards. Mike Kammmer, 1361 Estate Lane East, stated that he is speaking on behalf of his mother who lives as 1361 Estate Lane East. He noted that the neighbors received little more than a week’s notice of the meeting and commented that considerable new material was presented. He stated support for continuing the matter to a future meeting. He added that many neighbors are out of town and not able to be at the meeting. He noted that a number of plats were presented creating confusion. He stated that many neighbors are concerned about the impact of the proposed development on property values in the neighborhood. He stated that his mother has been a realtor in the town for 25 years and that in her opinion, building a house within 24 feet of an existing house, on a small street, will have a negative impact on the value of the existing house. He stated that the house at 1364 Estate Lane East will be impacted in this way. He stated that the Laters live at 1364 Estate Lane East and moved to the area for open space and the rural character. He stated that currently, the Laters have excellent sightlines to the east, directly from their kitchen, family room and upstairs bedrooms. He stated that if the subdivision is approved, those sightlines will be ruined with a new house just 24 feet away. He added that allowing subdivision of the property will reduce the value of homes in the area by adding to the existing inventory of homes for sale. He stated that Lake Forest has an unhealthy trend of unsold homes, one of the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 Page 9 of 16 highest among Chicago suburbs. He stated concern about drainage noting that he met with the City Engineer and the Superintendent of Engineering to discuss his concerns. He stated that as others have pointed out, there is an old stormwater collection pipe that bisects the existing property from north to south. He stated that the improvements proposed as part of the subdivision will cap off the existing pipe and construct a new pipe and infiltration trench along the west and south sides of the property. He stated that the improvements will tie into a very old pipe to the south which has not been investigated. He stated that it appears that the developer did not take into account the fact that properties to the west of the parcel proposed for development flow on to the site because it is the low point in the neighborhood. He stated the many of the old sewer lines in the area are broken due to the subsidence of land or are blocked by tree roots. He stated that it is very likely that downstream properties could be impacted. He asked that this issue be given further consideration. Paul Later, 1362 Estate Lane East, stated that he lives in the house directly west of the proposed Lot 1. He stated that although there are other small lots and homes in the neighborhood, they were designed to be next to each other. He stated that his house was designed with windows on the east elevation which will directly face the new house if the proposed subdivision is approved. He stated that as a result, his home will have an urban feel, looking into someone’s home. He questioned how the proposed development will impact the value of this home since his privacy will be impacted. He stated that based on the information presented, it appears difficult to make three lots work on the property. He pointed out that the configuration of the lots has changed from the plans presented in June. He noted concern that the proposed new stormsewer along the west property line will impact trees because a trench will need to be dug. He stated that two lots should be proposed because it is so difficult to make three lots work without impacting his property. Julie Later, 1362 Estate Lane East stated that she lives in the house to the west of the proposed development and explained that her family was only in Lake Forest for a year when the discussion started about this subdivision. She stated that today, she cannot see other homes from her windows due to trees on the property proposed for development. She stated that the entire east side of her home is filled with trees. She stated that she cannot envision how two houses will fit side by side on the property, to the east of her home. She stated that if two lots were proposed, the neighbors would not have commented. She stated that creating three lots on the property is excessive. She stated that they have made many improvements to their home and would like to get a return on their investment. She stated that if a new house is built very close to their home, if will impact the value of their home. She asked that the Commission reason with the developer and consider a two lot subdivision. Lisa Connelly, 1445 Oak Knoll Drive, stated that her home is generally across the street from the proposed subdivision. She noted that she reviewed special uses on the City’s web page and found that none of the information applies in this case. She questioned Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 Page 10 of 16 what criteria will be used for review of the request. She stated that there is an empty lot to the north of her house in the Biltmore Subdivision that has been for sale for a while. She stated that if three houses are developed as proposed, with driveways to Oak Knoll Drive, the value of her home will be impacted. She noted that there are several lots with development potential in this area. She stated that there would be no opposition to this request if two lots were proposed explaining that this is not a NIMBY situation, but a density situation. She stated that there is always water or ice on her sidewalk. She stated that this is a wet area and cannot support three additional homes. She discussed the common areas which must be maintained by property owners in the Biltmore Subdivision and explained that her landscapers mow both sides of the street south to Old Mill Road. She stated that the City’s Code Enforcement Officer confirmed that the common area is the responsibility of the Biltmore Homeowners’ Association. She questioned how driveways for the new homes can be connected to Oak Knoll Drive. James Bisiorek, 1341 Estate Lane stated that he lives at the corner of Estate Lane and Estate Lane East. He asked the Commissioners to drive down his street and see the wonderful spacing of homes that exists today. He questioned why the Commission would want to change the existing conditions. He questioned whether the price of the new homes would be less than other homes in the neighborhood noting that if the new homes sell for less, the values in the neighborhood will be brought down. Roger Owen, 1468 S. Estate Lane, stated that he has been a resident of the area for 42 years. He stated that Lot 3 will drain to the south, into a 1930’s sewer. He noted that south Estate Lane, from Estate Lane East to Old Mill Road, does not have any storm sewers or curbs and the water flows down the hill. He recalled that the existing sewers were checked by the City a number of years ago and at that time he was told that the drain tiles were crushed. He stated that the manholes fill up in about 10 minutes during a heavy rain and water runs over the surface. He pointed out a swale along 1467 Estate Lane noting that a river flows through that area, downhill, and ends up near the house behind him. He questioned what the construction of additional homes will do to help the current drainage situation adding that more water will be forced into sewers that do not work. He stated that there are no City sewers in the area. He stated that the lot proposed for development is the only lot zoned R-2 in the area south of Estate Lane East. He stated that the neighborhood used to have a country feel. He stated that the most significant problem is the lack of sewers. He stated that the proposed development will not help this issue. Ms. Blatchford, 1411 S. Estate Lane, stated that it would be ridiculous to squeeze three houses on to the tiny lot. She stated that she could live with two homes on the lot, but just barely. She stated that she agrees with the comments of previous speakers. George Spertzel, 1523 S. Estate Lane, stated that his property backs up to Oak Knoll Drive. He noted that the lot size comparison chart presented by the staff does not Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 Page 11 of 16 include his property and instead cites the sizes of the lots to the north. He pointed out that to the south of the property, the lots are larger. He stated that three houses on this property is an overreach. He stated that two lots would barely be appropriate or consistent with the neighboring properties. He stated that the property should not just be compared with the properties to the north. Acting Chairman Kehr, hearing no further requests to speak, noted that two requests to cross examine the petitioner were received. She invited Mr. Madigan to pose questions to the petitioner or staff. In response to questions from Mr. Madigan, Ms. Corona, Bleck Engineering, reviewed the boundary of the watershed and confirmed that the capacity of the existing storm sewer to the north of the property is undersized for the existing tributary area. She confirmed that the size of the drainage areas is being maintained although the boundaries will be slightly shifted. She stated that with the proposed development will add approximately 9,000 square feet of impervious area to the site. In response to questions from Mr. Madigan, Mr. Krandel confirmed that after the Commission meeting in June, a letter signed by Mr. Friedman was sent to the neighbors who spoke at that meeting and provided contact information for the developer. Acting Chairman Kehr invited Mr. Kammerer to pose questions to the petitioner or staff. In response to a question from Mr. Kammerer, Ms. Czerniak stated that the City does not have the discretion to require a reduced number of lots if the requirements of the Code are satisfied. She stated that if a variance is requested, the City has some discretion. Mr. Kammerer disagreed with staff’s statement and stated that he believes that the City, as a home rule community, does have the discretion to require a two lot subdivision in lieu of a three lot subdivision. He encouraged further investigation of the extent of the City’s discretion. He stated that the Commissioners may have some misunderstanding about the drainage flows in the area. He noted that everything to the north of the existing house flows north, but the rest of the site, from the mid-point of the existing house, flows south. In response to questions from Mr. Kammerer, Mr. Ells, the City’s Engineering Superintendent, confirmed that he met with some neighbors on the site and confirmed that some investigation has been done by the petitioner and the City on the private sewer lines. He stated that further investigation is underway, but is not yet completed. He stated that efforts are being made to locate the manholes. Acting Chairman Kehr invited questions from Ms. Connelly to the petitioner or staff. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 Page 12 of 16 In response to questions from Ms. Connelly, Ms. Czerniak explained that subdivisions in the overlay district must be considered through the special use process. She noted that this process allows conditions of approval to be documented as part of the approving ordinance if determined to be appropriate. She stated that a standard subdivision is acted on by the City Council by a simple motion. She stated that confusion may stem from the fact that non-residential uses such as churches, schools and private clubs are also considered through a special use process. She explained that the special use process is the mechanism used to approve subdivisions in the overlay district because that process allows for conditions to be included in the approval process. Ms. Connelly questioned whether it is consistent with the intent of the Code to turn one lot into three in the historic district. In response to questions from Ms. Connelly, Ms. Czerniak stated that the applicable criteria will be reviewed as part of the final staff report. She confirmed that the Oak Knoll Drive right-of-way, adjacent to the property proposed for development, is public right-of-way, not privately owned. Hearing no further questions from those who registered to cross examine the petitioner and staff, Acting Chairman Kehr invited staff response to public testimony. Ms. Czerniak clarified that notice was mailed out by the City on January 27th, to 37 neighboring properties. She reviewed the roles of the underlying zoning and the overlay district. She explained that the property is in the R-2 underlying zoning district noting that district has various requirements including a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, a minimum lot frontage of 100 feet and various other provisions. She explained that once sanitary sewers were extended into this area, land in the area was subdivided creating lots as authorized by the R-2 zoning district to the north, east and west of the property now proposed for subdivision. She stated that the parcel now proposed for subdivision remained in the ownership of a single family and remained intact while subdivisions were occurring around it. She explained that staff requested that the petitioner prepare the different plat configurations to clearly demonstrate whether three lots can be achieved on the property consistent with the applicable Code provisions. She clarified that the Code does not prohibit diagonal property lines and pointed out that many lots have diagonal lines. She stated that diagonal lines are not considered irregular lines. She spoke to the overlay district explaining that the district was created in the 1980’s and was applied to areas of large estates, wetlands and significant woodlands to provide flexibility from the standard subdivision requirements. She agreed that the overlay district was applied to this area because of the history of the area as the Lasker Estate. She stated that the overlay district provides the opportunity for flexibility with respect to lot size, shape and setbacks, but does not allow increased density and does not give the City the ability to reduce density below that permitted by the underlying zoning district. She stated that she is aware of past discussions of establishing a Local Historic District in this area to provide more protection for the historic structures but Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 Page 13 of 16 stated that the area is not currently designated as a Local Historic District. She added that designation, if it were in place, would not affect the density permitted by the underlying zoning district. She stated that a tree survey was submitted and reviewed by the City Arborist in conjunction with his inspection of the site. She noted that a tree preservation area is recommended along the north property line of Lot 2 and an increased rear yard setback is proposed on Lot 3 both for the purpose of protecting the significant trees on the site. She stated that the untagged trees noted on the survey will be further evaluated. Mr. Strahan, City Engineer, stated that leading up to the meeting, he received comments from property owners upstream of the property. He stated that based on public testimony, he is interested in hearing more from the downstream property owners and investigating that area to understand whether there are maintenance issues and whether the proposed development will exacerbate existing conditions. Acting Chairman Kehr invited petitioner rebuttal to public testimony. Mr. Krandel thanked the neighbors for their comments and stated that the petitioner will continue to work to respond to the issues as appropriate. He pointed out that an analysis of the lot to depth ratio was included in the Commission’s packet. Acting Chairman Kehr asked for final questions from the Commission to the petitioner or staff. Commissioner Berg asked that for the next meeting, a map be prepared to show the proposed lots in the context of the larger neighborhood. He acknowledged that the R- 2 zoning district ends just south of the property proposed for subdivision. He asked that further study be conducted on the drainage in the area and that information on the location of existing and proposed drain lines on and off the site be provided. Acting Chairman Kehr agreed that the drainage in the area should be studied further in response to concerns from neighboring property owners about the proposed development will exacerbate drainage problems that exist today. She questioned how much responsibility falls on the petitioner to solve the existing problems in the larger area. She also asked for information on how the proposed subdivision could help to alleviate existing problems. She acknowledged that some drainage issues in the area may fall outside of the responsibilities of the petitioner for the current request. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, she invited Commission discussion and comment and encouraged the Commissioners to identify any particular areas where further information would be helpful. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Acting Chairman Kehr stated that testimony at the next meeting would be welcomed on new information that is Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 Page 14 of 16 presented. She stated that repeating the testimony presented to date will not be necessary. Commissioner Henry asked that the final plat on which action is requested be presented for Commission consideration at the next meeting. He asked that the final plat reflect the setbacks and buildable area as proposed. Commissioner Freeman stated his appreciation for all of the comments offered by the neighbors. He stated that he also appreciates the sensitivity to the density that is proposed. He agreed with Commissioner Berg that a context map, showing the proposed lots in relation to the larger area, would be helpful. He acknowledged that the area to the south is zoned R-4 but stated that it will be helpful to see the larger context. He stated that the R-2 zoning in this area has been in place for over 50 years and noted that the overlay district does not change what is permitted by the zoning laws. He stated that the Plan Commission is charged with making a recommendation based on whether or not a subdivision meets the zoning requirements. He stated that the role of the Commission is limited despite the fact that he is sympathetic to the concerns of residents about change in the area. He noted that when the concerns have to do with sightlines that are impacted by changes on a property owned by someone else, the Commission’s does not have the ability to address that concern. He suggested that residents and property owners, and the City, may want to consider looking at the zoning patterns in the area and the potential for future development. He stated however that changing the property rights of a petitioner who has owned the property since 2015 is not within the Commission’s purview. He noted that the overlay district simply provides additional flexibility within the provisions of the underlying district, if, in the opinion of the City, flexibility makes sense in an effort to preserve trees or conform the buildable area to others nearby. He stated that the minor change proposed on the most recently developed plat provides a bit larger buildable area for the corner lot and changes the lot to depth ratio slightly on Lot 3. He said that the staff recommendation to increase the size of the rear yard setback for Lot 3 is reasonable along with establishing a tree preservation area on Lot 2. He stated that his understanding is that multiple plats were prepared and presented by the petitioner in response to staff’s challenge to prove the ability to achieve three lots on the parcel in conformance with the R-2 zoning. He stated that the plats prove that three lots can be achieved. He suggested that the final plat should maximize the tree preservation benefit. He stated that he is interested to see the results of the further investigation that is being conducted with respect to the stormsewers downstream. He encouraged consideration of connecting the downspouts of the new homes to the stormsewer if feasible to further reduce overland flows. Commissioner Berg stated that his initial sentiment was that the proposed subdivision is viable. He acknowledged that the lots to the south are larger, but noted that they are zoned R-4. He noted that the existing lot to the west is the same width as the proposed Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 Page 15 of 16 lots. He stated that his primary concern is drainage in light of the additional information presented from residents in the area. Acting Chairman Kehr noted that different plats were presented to the Commission demonstrating that three lots can be achieved in compliance with the R-2 zoning district. She stated that no variance requested. She noted that the petitioner has presented information demonstrating that the existing house is not historically significant and observed that many homes in the area are not related to the Lasker Estate and have no historic significance. She stated concern about the drainage and recommended that City staff require measures as part of this subdivision that may be appropriate to ameliorate the drainage concerns. She stated an understanding that there are drainage issues in the area now, but stated that steps should be taken to assure that the proposed development does not worsen the situation. She thanked everyone present for the civil discussion and acknowledged that this is an emotional issue and for some it is perceived as a financial issue. She asked the petitioner and staff to review the concerns that were raised and asked that future testimony be limited to comments on new information. She invited a motion from the Commission. Commissioner Henry made a motion to continue consideration of the petition. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Freeman. Acting Chairman Kehr invited discussion of the motion. Commissioner Freeman asked that the motion be amended to include direction to the petitioner and staff to incorporate the recommendations in the staff report into the final plan. He added that the motion should identify plat C as the plan preferred by the Commission. He suggested that the motion also direct the City Engineer to continue to work on understanding and addressing drainage issues downstream. He added that the motion should also direct staff to develop final conditions of approval for consideration by the Commission at the next meeting. In response to a suggestion by Acting Chairman Kehr, Commissioner Freeman acknowledged that if a reconfiguration of the lots is determined to be necessary by the City Engineer to address drainage issues, those changes should be incorporated into the materials submitted to the Commission for final consideration. Commissioner Henry, the maker of the original motion, accepted the amendments as requested by Commissioner Freeman. Commissioner Freeman seconded the amended motion and the motion was approved by a vote of 4 to 0. 3. Additional public comment on non-agenda items Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 Page 16 of 16 No additional testimony was presented on non-agenda items. 4. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development