PLAN COMMISSION 2010/04/14 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest
Plan Commission
Proceedings of the April 14, 2010 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, April 14, 2010, at
6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois.
Commission members present: Chairman Avery, Commissioners Mark Shaw, Robert Franksen,
Michael Adelman, Tim Newman, Jack Reisenberg and Catherine Waldeck.
Commission members absent: None
Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development and Megan C. O’Neill,
Assistant Planner
1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff.
Chairman Avery opened the meeting and introduced the members of the Commission and City staff.
2. Approval of the minutes from March 16, 2010 Plan Commission meeting.
The approval of the minutes was postponed.
3. Public Hearing and Action: Continued consideration of a possible amendment to Chapter
46 of the City Code, Personal Wireless Service Facilities Overlay District, to include a City
owned parcel, in the vicinity of Westleigh Road and Western Avenue, in the overlay district.
Inclusion in the overlay district would permit construction of a telecommunications tower on
the parcel subject to conditions and City approvals.
Chairman Avery asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts regarding this
item.
Several Commissioners said they received correspondence at their homes and stated that they
forwarded the documents to staff to assure that all members of the Commission received the same
documents and to assure that the correspondence is included as part of the record for this item.
Ms. Czerniak clarified the purpose of this agenda item noting previous amendments to the Personal
Wireless Service Facilities Overlay District. She stated that no specific proposal for a new wireless
installation is before the Commission for review at this time. She explained the current Overlay
District noting that a portion of Barat Campus is currently identified as a permitted site for a 110’
monopole. For the information of the Commission, Ms. Czerniak clarified the current state of Barat
Campus noting there is a Sheriff’s Sale of the property scheduled soon. She noted the concern of the
Council that a telecommunications tower at Barat Campus may add further challenges to the eventual
redevelopment of Barat Campus. She stated that there is a gap in coverage in southeast Lake Forest.
She noted that other locations in the vicinity of Barat Campus have been identified for consideration as
possible alternative sites. She stated that the Commission is in a proactive position on this matter and
can make a determination without the pressure of a potential installation or the times lines associated
with approving a specific petition. She provided some background on Federal laws and recommended
Plan Commission Minutes – April 14, 2010
Page 2 of 12
that the Commission give direction to staff to conduct further research on this matter and return it to
the Commission for further study. She noted that a consultant could be engaged to explore the
effectiveness of towers at various locations and various types of towers in an effort to determine the
most acceptable manner to allow the build out of telecommunications facilities in this part of the
community. She stated that many of the questions identified are those that were brought to the
Commission by the residents at the previous meeting.
In response to a question from Commissioner Waldeck, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City owns the
wooded property adjacent to the bike path and South Park, and adjacent to Barat Campus. She recalled
that this wooded property was discussed extensively during consideration of the Barat Woods
development and it was determined that there are wetlands on the parcel and that the parcel is a
significant natural area and should remain as open space.
In response to questions from Commissioner Newman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that through the
Overlay District, the characteristics of a tower or antenna on any particular site can be specified. She
stated that the current Code language allows the opportunity for more than one tower to be located in
the identified area on Barat Campus. She explained that Federal law allows municipalities to identify
permitted tower locations throughout the City and to establish requirements such as landscaping,
fencing and to require removal of towers when they are no longer needed. She stated that various
types of lease arrangements are possible and explained that leases are negotiated between the property
owner and the telecommunications provider or tower company. She confirmed that if a facility is
proposed on City-owned land, the City would have additional controls through the lease.
Chairman Avery clarified that the item before the Commission at this time is consideration of whether
the site currently identified in the Code is appropriate, or whether another site would better serve the
long term interest of the City. He discussed the staff recommendation noting that it incorporates an
earlier suggestion of a member of the public that the City consult an independent party to verify that a
need exists and if so, the options for addressing it.
Ms. Czerniak clarified that the Commission could decide that the current Code language is workable
and not recommend any changes. She stated that the staff recommendation is that further research be
conducted to allow the Commission to continue discussion of this topic once further information is
provided.
Chairman Avery cautioned that if the current Code language remains in place, a building permit could
be submitted for a tower or monopole on the Barat site without any further Plan Commission review.
In response to questions from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that a monopole is a
single column, normally with antenna arrays attached to it, as opposed to a tower made of structural
steel members.
In response to questions from Commissioner Franksen, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Commission
directed staff to look at alternative City owned locations in this area, other than the Western Avenue
and Westleigh Road site. She stated that staff was asked to explore the feasibility of locating a
monopole near the ComEd substation in this area. She stated that based on research to date, it may be
feasible to locate a tower at that site, on City owned property. She asked for Commission input on any
other potential sites in this area that should be considered.
Plan Commission Minutes – April 14, 2010
Page 3 of 12
In response to questions from Commissioner Reisenberg, Ms. Czerniak stated that several antennas are
currently located on the roof of Old Main. She explained that the Overlay District identifies Barat
Campus as an approved location both for roof top antennas and for a tower or monopole. She stated
that providers with antennas on top of Old Main have stated a need for increased antenna height to
provide better service in this area and providers who do not have antennas in this area have expressed
interest in locating here. She stated that when the City was developing the Code language for wireless
facilities in the late 90’s, the City worked with local institutions and approved antenna and tower sites
on properties with willing owners in the Overlay District. She noted that many community institutions
requested inclusion of their properties to allow them to gain revenue from property leases.
Chairman Avery clarified that the Barat site currently is a permitted site for a monopole or tower with
externally mounted antennas.
Ms. Czerniak confirmed that if the Commission determines that a better site exists, the Barat site
could be removed from the Overlay District.
In response to questions from Commissioner Newman, Ms. Czerniak stated that removing the
approved tower site from Barat Campus would not impact the existing roof top antennas.
Chairman Avery clarified that the City is prohibited from making decisions on telecommunication
facilities based on health issues and commented that the City’s consideration is preempted by the
Federal Government. He invited testimony from the public and requested that comments be focused
on the issues before the Commission for discussion. He swore in the members of the public intending
to speak.
Michael Williams, 428 Beverly Place, stated that he completed a Freedom of Information request and
obtained the information on which the City staff is basing this discussion. He commented that
misinformation is circulating and said that neither staff, the Commission, nor the neighbors are experts
on this topic. He stated that an independent third party consultant is important and asked the
Commission not to limit the questions the expert should answer. He stated that the City is not
qualified to ask questions of a third party consultant on a subject that staff knows nothing about. He
stated that a need for a tower in this area has not been established noting that the City could not
produce a list of residents who have complained about poor service. He pointed out that his phone
works fine in this area. He commented that the City is being “railroaded” by parties with vested
interests. He added that the City has not talked to telecommunication providers to determine what
revenues might be realized. He stated that there could be property value deterioration as a result of a
tower. He asked that the existing services and facilities be examined to determine if additional space is
even needed or whether current facilities can be adjusted. He added that new technologies exist and
should be explored. .
James Gavin, 440 Beverly Place, stated that he is a chemical engineer and explained
telecommunication technologies and provided technical background on how cell phones can operate
without a visible tower. He stated that the concept that providers rely on line of sight to provide
adequate service is out dated and misinformed. He stated that Lake Forest is meeting Federal
guidelines and the build out of wireless systems in the City is going well with towers at the height of
the tree tops meeting the needs of the community. He stated that several sites should be identified for
additional similar towers if it is determined they are needed. He questioned whether a 160’ tower is
appropriate within a residential neighborhood and added that there is no technical basis for a 160’
tower, only information provided by parties wishing to maximize service. He stated that the potential
for revenue for the City has led to discussion of this amendment. He added that the tower builder
Plan Commission Minutes – April 14, 2010
Page 4 of 12
receives more revenue if a higher tower is built and more providers locate on it. He stated that the
community has the right to consider aesthetics and can decide that more towers, at the height of the
tree tops, is better than a large tower that is visible to everyone. He urged the Commission to try to
identify as many sites as possible and to hold towers to a minimum height.
A resident on Beverly Place stated that the question is not if the tower is ugly or the value of the
properties surrounding the tower site, but instead the health impacts. She stated that towers should be
built in locations away from people.
Neva GaNun, 650 Northmoor Road, stated that health is an important issue despite the Federal
regulations. She stated that increased communication is needed between the City and the residents on
issues like this and she suggested that surveys be used instead of hearsay. She pointed out that the
antennas on Old Main are attached to the chimney, not to the roof, and as a result, are not visible from
the road. She stated that School District 115 has approved a new tower at West Campus. She
commented on the City’s residential design guidelines noting that they are intended to protect the
character of Lake Forest. She read from portion of the guidelines noting that mass, scale and height
are discussed in relation to community character.
Sandy GaNun, 650 Northmoor Road, noted that the Commission is being asked to make decisions
without adequate information. He stated that an outside party is needed to determine the
telecommunication needs of this community. He stated that he submitted a report to the Commission
in advance of the meeting. He suggested that it may be possible for existing sites to be enhanced to
improve service. He acknowledged that the City would prefer placing the facility on City owned
property and suggested that McCormick woods be considered as an alternative site. He discussed how
towers provide coverage and stated that the further away towers are located from residential areas, the
better. He stated that McCormick woods would be the least intrusive aesthetically on the residential
area.
Demetrius Keriocou, 454 Beverly Place, stated that he is a professor at Northwestern University, a
physician and a research scientist. He stated that the comment from staff that the City cannot consider
health concerns is disingenuous. He stated that based on the research of the group, the FCC requires
the City to make sure that that the emissions produced by cell phone towers fall within certain
regulations. He stated that there is a “dose-response” effect from radiation and efforts should focus on
limiting the amount of “dose” received. He stated that the potential impact on children is the greatest
and read from an article in Pediatrics Magazine noting that a copy of the article was submitted to the
Commission at the last meeting. He noted that it is inappropriate for a large tower to be proposed in a
residential neighborhood, near a school. He acknowledged that society cannot move backward and
that cell phones are in frequent use but suggested that other technologies be considered including the
Distributed Antenna System.
Georgia Keriocou, 454 Beverly Place, explained the Distributed Antenna System used in other
communities noting that coverage is provided and it is visually unobtrusive. She stated that each
installation emits much less radiation than a large tower. She proposed this option as a win-win
solution. She stated that the FCC does not make a blanket prohibition on a municipality’s ability to
address health concerns related to towers. She stated that she recently found a website, the Center for
Municipal Solutions, and said this group can provide information to the City. She noted that this group
starts from the position that construction of a tower is a last option. She discussed the distinction
between the providers and the tower builders noting that the providers only have standing and that no
tower should be constructed without committed providers. She stated that Lake Forest has no
Plan Commission Minutes – April 14, 2010
Page 5 of 12
obligation to provide service to other communities. She suggested that the providers or tower builders
be required to finance any third party review.
Patricia Reece, 625 Beverly Place, noted that the intersection of Westleigh Road and Western Avenue
is heavily wooded. She commented on the area known as the Beverly Oaks noting that years ago, the
City worked with residents to minimize development in this area to protect the woods and as a result,
eliminated the southern extension of Western Avenue. She stated that trees should not be removed to
allow a tower to be constructed. She stated that the City should not intensify the unattractiveness of
the ComEd substation. She stated that a tower in this area would be highly visible at an entrance point
to the community. She stated that McCormick Preserve would be out of the way, but would be close
to the Lake. She stated that a tower does not belong in any of these areas.
Chairman Avery noted that he received requests for cross examination and invited those submitting
such requests forward.
In response to questions from Mr. Gavin, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City does not own Barat
Campus. She stated that there is no formal request to remove the Barat site from the Overlay District
at this time, but recommended that if another site is identified as an appropriate location, consideration
should be given to removing the tower site on Barat Campus. She confirmed that it is her
understanding that the School District is in discussions with a telecommunications company regarding
a possible facility at West Campus. She confirmed that West Campus is not presently within the
Overlay District and would require an amendment to the Code. She stated that she is not aware of any
other active discussions.
In response to a question from Mr. Keriocou, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City has not conducted
a formal assessment of cell phone reception or a cost/benefit economic analysis to determine impacts
on property values or property taxes.
In response to a question from Mr. Williams, Ms. Czerniak stated that questions for a third party
consultant will be developed based on issues raised during public comments and based on direction
from the Plan Commission. She confirmed that Lake Forest has had discussions with other
municipalities about how they address the buildout of wireless facilities in their communities and noted
that in some areas, such as southwest Lake Forest, towers located outside of the City provide coverage.
In response to a question from Ms. Keriocou, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that FCC regulations require
municipalities to allow build-out of wireless facilities, but stated she is not aware of any requirement to
provide coverage for surrounding communities. She commented that municipalities cannot exclude a
particular provider. She responded that an application for a new tower has not been filed by any
company at this point and agreed that if an application is filed, the City would want confirmation of
providers locating on the tower.
In response to a question from Ms. Williams, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City Attorney has
provided direction to staff on this matter. She clarified that this discussion is an opportunity to look at
the ordinance pro-actively, or to decide to leave it alone.
In response to a question from Abby Fassnacht, 451 Beverly, Ms. Czerniak stated that the City has not
had any discussions about a lease for a tower on the City rights-of-way under discussion. As a result,
she stated that she does not have any information on potential revenues the City might receive.
Plan Commission Minutes – April 14, 2010
Page 6 of 12
Ms. Czerniak responded in general to public comments noting that the City has had discussions with
providers about the potential of a Distributed Antenna System. She stated that various locations for
antennas were identified, but noted that the company involved at that time determined that the heavy
tree cover would impact the viability of the system since the antennas would be located below the tree
tops in most cases. She stated that the City’s Code provisions for wireless facilities were based on a
Model Code used by many other communities. She stated that McCormick Nature Preserve was
considered as a possible site, but noted that the City in the past has worked to preserve parks and
natural areas. She stated that all correspondence received by the City as of 4:30 p.m. today was
distributed to the Commission prior to the meeting.
Chairman Avery invited questions from the Commission to staff.
In response to questions from Commissioner Newman, Ms. Czerniak clarified that at this time; the
Commission is considering whether the current Code language is appropriate, or whether it should be
changed. She confirmed that there is no proposal for a new tower before the Commission. She stated
that staff has heard clearly from the Commission concerns about the location, height and technology of
any new tower that might be proposed in the future.
Commissioner Newman noted a public comment suggesting that the City look at as many sites as
possible. He stated that the Commission should focus its study on appropriate locations for possible
cell towers. He stated his view that if City owned parcels are identified as possible sites for future
towers, as opposed to the Barat site, the City would have more control over discussions about those
future towers. He stated that in his opinion, more City control is better.
Chairman Avery stated that the question of whether a gap exists depends on the carrier. He stated that
the City cannot direct residents to specific providers. He stated support for seeking answers on
focused issues from an independent consultant.
In response to questions from Commissioner Waldeck, Ms. Czerniak explained that the height of a
tower at any particular location is controlled by the Code provisions.
Commissioner Adelman noted that the vast majority of people own a cell phone and as a result are
exposed to various forms of radiation on a daily basis.
In response to questions from Commissioner Reisenberg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that any request for
a tower, at a location that is not included in the existing Overlay District, would require Plan
Commission consideration, and City Council approval, of an amendment to the Code to add the
property to the Overlay District. She confirmed that to erect a tower on a site that is already authorized
for a tower by the Overlay District, only building permits would be required before the tower could be
installed. She stated that she believes that of the permitted tower sites, only the Barat site has not yet
been developed with a tower.
Commissioner Franksen commented that further consideration of the ComEd substation as a possible
location for a new tower appears to be a logical choice over either the Westleigh Road and Western
Avenue parcel or McCormick Nature Preserve. He recommended that the Plan Commission continue
this matter and direct staff to conduct further research on the effectiveness of a tower at this site and
the pros and cons of various tower heights and types.
Plan Commission Minutes – April 14, 2010
Page 7 of 12
Commissioner Adelman agreed that consideration should continue. He noted that in many areas,
wireless facilities are not even noticed until you become aware they are there. He stated that wireless
providers will not spend money to construct a tower needlessly. He stated continued support for the
Western Avenue and Westleigh Road site. He agreed that input from an independent party would be
worthwhile and that further information should be gathered on the feasibility of a Distributed Antenna
System.
Commissioner Reisenberg stated that this discussion was prompted by the change of ownership of
Barat and stated support for continued discussion due to the uncertainty of the future of Barat. He
stated support for removing the permitted tower site from Barat Campus even while Commission
discussion is ongoing. He agreed that an independent expert could offer valuable input. He stated
support for moving away from the Western Avenue and Westleigh Road site.
Chairman Avery stated that he would like to see the Commission, after being provided with additional
information, make a decision on which is the best site in this general area. He stated that having a site
selected, and appropriate criteria in place, would put the City in a stronger position than instituting a
moratorium. Based on a consensus of the Commission to continue discussion of this matter, he
requested a motion.
Commissioner Franksen made a motion to continue discussion of possible amendment to the City’s
Wireless Ordinance with the direction to staff to seek input from an independent consultant to
determine: 1) if there is a service gap in southeast Lake Forest, 2) to evaluate the feasibility and
effectiveness of a telecommunications tower near the ComEd substation (but not to the exclusion of
other City owned sites), 3) to get input on the appropriate height and tower mechanics that would
provide the most efficient coverage and service, 4) to get input on the pros and cons of internal and
external antennas, and 5) to evaluate the potential for alternative technologies and to report back to the
Plan Commission. He added that elimination of the Barat Campus tower site should be included when
this matter is returned to the Commission.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Newman and it was unanimously approved by the
Commission.
4. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of a zone change for Elawa Park, a City
Park located west of Jensen Drive and north of Elawa Farm, from R-5, residential, to OA,
Open Area, consistent with the zoning of parks throughout the City.
Owner: The City of Lake Forest
Chairman Avery introduced the item and asked the Commissioners for any conflicts of interest or Ex
Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from staff.
Ms. O’Neill introduced this item noting that the zone change request was initiated by the City Council
to provide Open Area zoning on Elawa Park, consistent with the zoning for other City parks. She
stated that Elawa Farm is separate and distinct from Elawa Park and will remain zoned R-5 and will
operate under a Special Use Permit. She explained that the longer term goal for this area is to work
with Lake Forest Open Land and the Lake County Forest Preserves District to rezone adjacent
properties in their ownership to Open Area as well.
Plan Commission Minutes – April 14, 2010
Page 8 of 12
Hearing no questions from the Commission, Chairman Avery opened the public hearing on this
matter, hearing no requests to speak; he returned the matter to the Commission for final comments.
Hearing none, he invited a motion.
Commissioner Franksen made a motion to recommend City Council approval of a zone change for
Elawa Park from R-5, residential, to OA, Open Area.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Waldeck and the motion was unanimously approved by
the Commission.
5. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to formally authorize the
adaptive reuse of Elawa Farm, an historic gentlemen’s farm, for community purposes. Elawa
Farm is located at 1401 W. Middlefork Drive.
Owner: The City of Lake Forest
Chairman Avery introduced the item and asked the Commissioners for any conflicts of interest or Ex
Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from staff.
Ms. Czerniak introduced the item noting that Elawa Farm is a community facility in a residential
zoning district and therefore requires a Special Use Permit. She noted that this petition is many years
in the making and is the result of the unique partnership that created the Middlefork Farm subdivision,
Elawa Farm, Elawa Park and adjacent preserved open spaces now owned by Lake Forest Open Lands
and the Lake County Forest Preserves District. She stated Elawa Farm is a unique facility, but is also
similar to other City owned facilities including Gorton Community Center, Ragdale and Grove School.
She briefly overviewed the role of Special Use Permits in Lake Forest noting that the residential
zoning has been preserved throughout most of the community and the special use process is used to
authorize a variety of non-residential uses in residential districts including churches, private clubs, the
hospital, the college and various City facilities. She re-iterated that Elawa Farm is separate and
distinct from Elawa Park. She stated that the Special Use Permit will regulate Elawa Farm, not Elawa
Park. She stated that the park operates under the regulations for all neighborhood parks as established
by the City Council based on recommendations from the Park and Recreation Board. She stated that
the conditions of approval for the Elawa Farm Special Use Permit, as currently recommended in the
staff report, are based on input received to date. She stated that as with all Special Use Permits, the
conditions attempt to balance a variety of interests. She acknowledged that as a result, no one party is
likely to be completely satisfied. She explained that as proposed, the Master Plan will be incorporated
into and adopted through the Special Use Permit consistent with the processes used for other
community facilities. She stated that by adopting the Master Plan through the Special Use Permit, it is
clearly established as the guiding document for the site and sets the framework for future decisions
about the site. She pointed out that the Master Plan can be revisited over time and modified as
determined to be appropriate through a public process.
Ms. O’Neill discussed the Elawa Farm Master Plan explaining that it was developed at the direction of
the City Manager in a process facilitated by the Community Development involving representatives
from the various parties having an interest in Elawa Farm. She stated that the preparation of this
document involved almost a year of work by the group. She stated that the Master Plan establishes a
vision for Elawa Farm and parameters for existing uses and future uses on the site. She described the
six distinct use areas of the farm and discussed how those areas relate to each other.
Plan Commission Minutes – April 14, 2010
Page 9 of 12
Ms. Czerniak reviewed the conditions as currently recommended in the staff report. She noted that
staff met with representatives of the Middlefork Farm Homeowners’ Association to explain the
Special Use Permit process and get input on issues that the neighbors would like to see addressed by
the permit. She added that more recently, staff has been contacted by Mr. Asmussen, President of the
Owners’ Association, and Mr. Licata, attorney representing the owners with a request to delay Plan
Commission action on this matter to allow further review by the residents and continued discussion
with staff. She stated staff support for continuation of the item to allow time for further discussions
with all interested parties. She commented that the conditions as proposed are more extensive than
those found in other Special Use Permits noting that these conditions benefit from experience that has
been gained at other sites. She noted that the conditions attempt to reasonably address concerns
without creating a situation that has no flexibility.
In response to questions from Commissioner Waldeck, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the full Master
Plan was included in the Commission’s packet. She noted that exterior lighting is addressed in the
Master Plan.
In response to questions from Commissioner Waldeck, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the maximum
capacity of Elawa Farm is determined by the Code. She pointed out that the conditions attempt to
emphasize that in considering requests for special events, the cumulative activities occurring at the
facility at any one time must be taken into account.
In response to questions from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Lake County
Forest Preserve District is a stakeholder at Elawa Farm. She noted that the Forest Preserve District
was involved in Middlefork Farm Subdivision early on and helped to make the overall development
possible. She confirmed that the Forest Preserve District is entitled to use the parking lot and could
apply for a permit to hold a special event at Elawa Farm consistent with the conditions and
requirements. She stated that Elawa Farm is intended as a Lake Forest community resource, but
acknowledged that forest preserve land accessed through Elawa Farm is open to the general public.
In response to questions from Commissioner Newman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that any cross walk on
Waukegan Road would need IDOT’s support and would need to meet IDOT standards.
In response to questions from Chairman Avery, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that arranging off site parking
would be the responsibility of individual parties. She noted that parking to date has occurred at the
hospital when needed.
Chairman Avery invited public comment. He swore in all those intending to speak on this issue.
Mr. Licata spoke representing the Middlefork Farm Home Owners’ Association and more specifically,
for the Board of the Association. He stated that the conditions of approval have not yet been
distributed to the entire neighborhood. He said that the Board is in concurrence with many of the
conditions in the staff report noting that the conditions to date represent a collaborative effort between
the City and residents. He stated that there are still some aspects of Elawa Farm and the conditions
that warrant further discussion. He stated that the concerns stem from a large wedding recently held at
Elawa Park. He noted that large events that extend into the evening hours and serve alcohol are the
major concern. He stated that there are relatively few items but they need further discussion. He
asked that the Commission postpone action on this item to allow further discussion. He recognized
Chairman Avery and Commissioner Franksen and thanked them for their service to the community
noting that even where there was disagreement; it was done without being disagreeable. He noted that
Plan Commission Minutes – April 14, 2010
Page 10 of 12
the comments offered by the Chairman and Commissioner Franksen were always insightful, respectful
and wise.
Dale Dolbroth, 1360 Middlefork Drive, noted that his home is directly across from Elawa Farm. He
stated that he is one of the original home owners in the subdivision and discussed the original mission
statement for the facility. He stated that the initial home owners contributed money to help preserve
Elawa Farm. He requested that the Special Use Permit limit private party rentals to no more than 4 per
year and establish an ending time of no later than 9 p.m. He asked that a prohibition on weddings be
included in the Special Use Permit. He stated that currently, the conditions would allow the operation
of a banquet hall type operation. He asked that the traffic patterns, safety and quietness of the
neighborhood be respected.
Teresa Dolbroth, 1360 Middlefork Drive, noted that she is home during the day and sees the activity at
Elawa Farm. She stated that the daytime activity is positive, but loud evening events change the
neighborhood character, especially when alcohol is involved.
Lydia Debonshire, 1022 Anynseley, noted that her second story windows overlook Elawa Farm. She
stated that she is on the Lake Forest Open Lands’ Board. She stated that weddings or large events
happen at night and noted that the set-up is disruptive and changes the character of the site. She
commented that in her opinion, additional parking is not needed since the existing lot is rarely full.
Ms. Czerniak clarified that the Master Plan identifies an appropriate location for future expansion of
the parking lot if the Council determines that additional parking is needed. She clarified that the
Special Use Permit will regulate activities at Elawa Farm, but not on the adjacent Forest Preserve or
Lake Forest Open Lands properties or at Elawa Park.
In response to questions from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that alcohol is not
permitted at the beach, but is permitted at other City parks and facilities through the issuance of a
special event permit and a liquor license.
Commissioner Franksen noted that alcohol is permitted by permit at parks and in neighborhoods for
block parties.
Commissioner Reisenberg noted that a great deal of work has been completed to date and encouraged
the parties to continue to work together. He suggested that the Homeowners’ Association attempt to
develop a single position that addresses the interests of the residents as well as respects the others’
interests.
Commissioner Franksen noted that prohibiting alcohol would eliminate some types of events. He
stated that Elawa Farm is a community asset and questioned whether prohibiting alcohol is necessary.
He acknowledged that sometimes loud parties happen in neighborhoods.
Commissioner Newman supported continuing this matter to allow further discussion. He stated that
prohibiting alcohol would limit the ability to have fundraising events but agreed that having this
facility operate as a commercial venue is not the intention.
Commissioner Waldeck noted that if amplified sound events are permitted 12 times per year, they are
likely to all occur during the summer months. She suggested that consideration be given to spacing
out events with amplified sound.
Plan Commission Minutes – April 14, 2010
Page 11 of 12
Chairman Avery cautioned the Commission on prohibiting specific types of activities noting that
events come in all different size and types. He stated support for generic parameters.
In response to questions from Commissioner Newman, Ms. Czerniak said that the regulations for
neighborhood parks are currently being reviewed by the Park and Recreation Board and noted that
those regulations are not under the purview of the Plan Commission.
Commissioner Franksen made a motion to continue this item.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reisenberg and was unanimously approved by the
Commission.
6. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of amendments to Chapter 38 of the City Code,
Subdivisions. The proposed amendments are intended to update and clarify the existing Code
provisions.
Ms. Czerniak noted that the Plan Commission is in the progress of reviewing the Subdivision Chapter
and preparing comprehensive recommendations for updating of the Chapter. She stated that this
provision in the Subdivision Chapter is being brought forward at this time at the request of the out
going Chairman to clarify and document existing practices.
Chairman Avery stated that due to the complexity of the items before the Commission, the work on
the full Subdivision Chapter is not yet completed. He noted that prior to his departure however; he
would like to move this provision forward to clearly codify current practices.
In response to questions from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak provided a theoretical example
of a petitioner wanting to submit multiple plans for Commission consideration.
Chairman Avery noted the problems and confusion created in the past when multiple plans are offered
for consideration. He noted that the Commission can always request input from another Board or
Commission, but commented that type of request for input is different from separate petitions being
filed with multiple Boards or Commissions.
In response to a question from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak explained that expending City
time and money to conduct a public review process when there are outstanding legal issues which
create uncertainty with respect to the property has not been an efficient process in the past.
Commissioner Franksen made a motion to recommend amendment to the Subdivision Chapter in a
manner consistent with the language presented in the staff report.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reisenberg and was unanimously approved by the
Commission.
7. Discussion: Incentives for residential development.
Background memo previously distributed to the Commission.
Chairman Avery stated that this item should be discussed at a future meeting but encouraged the
Commission to consider the long term and not react to short term issues.
Plan Commission Minutes – April 14, 2010
Page 12 of 12
Commissioner Reisenberg noted that the Commission should have an understanding of the financial
reasons for offering incentives as background information.
Commissioner Franksen commented that incentives to “prime the pump” for good, solid developments
should be encouraged but cautioned the Commission that the process should not be short changed and
that quality development, consistent with the traditions of Lake Forest, should be assured.
8. Public testimony on non-agenda items.
Chairman Avery noted that the Commission received correspondence on a non-agenda item relating to
affordable housing.
9. Additional information from staff.
Ms. Czerniak recognized and thanked Chairman Avery and Commissioner Franksen for their
commitment, time and insightful comments.
Commissioner Franksen stated that it has been an honor to serve with Chairman Avery and the other
Commissioners and stated his appreciation for the work of City staff.
Chairman Avery thanked the members of the Commission noting that he has enjoyed his six years on
the Commission. He personally thanked Commissioner Franksen for his diligence and insight in
articulating numerous motions and setting the stage for Commission action on many items over his six
year tenure. He also stated support for incoming Chairman Reisenberg noting that he brings a wealth
of experience, leadership and passion for maintaining and enhancing the character of Lake Forest. He
recognized the work of City staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine Czerniak
Director of Community Development