Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2016/04/21 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the April 21, 2016 Meeting A meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Thursday, April 21, 2016, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Chairman Ley, Commissioners Jeff Kuchman, Lloyd Culbertson, Rosemary Kehr and Michael Freeman Commissioners absent: Commissioners Guy Berg and Tim Henry Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff. Chairman Ley introduced the members of the Commission and City staff. 2. Consideration of the minutes from the February 10, 2016 meeting. The minutes of the February 10, 2016 meeting were approved with a request from Chairman Ley that staff double check the addresses of those who presented testimony. Chairman Ley introduced the agenda item. 3. Public Hearing – Continued consideration of a request for approval of the tentative and final plat of subdivision for the proposed Estate Lane Planned Preservation Subdivision and the 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 Chairman Ley asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he swore in all those intending to speak on this matter and invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Krandel , attorney for the petitioner, noted that at the end of the Commission’s meeting in February, the Commission requested some additional information relating to drainage and asked for clarification on which version of the plat is presented for consideration. He stated that work has been done to further address drainage from the site. He noted that the three plats presented to the Commission in February were very Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 2 of 19 similar and stated that the preferred plat is now presented to the Commission for approval. He stated that as noted by the Commission at the meeting in February, the property has been zoned R-2 for more than 50 years. He stated that no variances are requested and stated that the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the Code. He introduced the property owners and noted that various consultants are available to answer questions. He introduced Joy Corona, from Bleck Engineering, to review the modifications made to the proposed drainage improvements since the last meeting. Joy Corona, Bleck Engineering, stated that at the last meeting, she presented an overview of drainage in the area. She stated that most of the property proposed for subdivision drains to the south and a small portion of the property drains to the north and east. She reviewed that earlier in the public review process, City staff requested that a study be under taken to determine whether drainage from more of site could be directed to the north however, she noted that through the study, it was determined that draining more of the site to the north was not practical due to capacity constraints. She stated that no change to the drainage areas on the property is proposed. She noted that at the last meeting, the Commission requested information about drainage from upstream properties. She noted that documentation was presented showing the one acre, upstream, off site area that drains on to the property proposed for subdivision. She explained consistent with what occurs now, the drainage from the one acre upstream properties will combine with drainage from the site and will continues to flow to the south. She stated that there is an existing depressional area on the property and noted that the contour of that area extends on to the property to the west. She stated that currently, there are no storm sewers or structures to drain this depressional area. She explained that this area fills with stormwater and over tops naturally today and the overflows runs to the south. She stated that the developer proposes to construct a new storm sewer in this area, along the west property line, with several inlets and open grates to allow water from the depressional area to enter the storm sewer system. She stated that a perforated storm sewer pipe is proposed, in an infiltration trench. She explained that the trench will be four feet deep and will be filled with stone and will hold water in the voids between the stones. She explained that stormwater will flow south from the pipe and infiltration channel, as it does now. She stated that there is a defined channel on the property to the south to direct the water in the event that the stormsewer pipes are not functioning properly. She stated that the City has investigated the stormsewer to the south and completed some clearing of the private line. She reviewed that the proposed development will result in additional impervious surface totaling .22 acres. She reviewed that the infiltration trench, which will be filled with stone, was extended a sufficient distance to contain all of the runoff resulting from the increased impervious surface on the site. She presented an illustration of the proposed infiltration trench pointing out the stone, perforated pipe and amended soil which will allow water to infiltrate to the stone. She explained that the drainage plan presented at the last meeting had a bio-swale in place of a portion of the pipe and infiltration trench. She stated that the bio-swale was removed and replaced with the pipe and infiltration Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 3 of 19 trench to assure that during a 100-year storm, the amount of runoff from the property would be no greater than it is today. She stated that the plan presented far exceeds the Watershed Development Ordinance standards but noted that the developer wanted to be sensitive to the downstream concerns. She stated that the developer is maximizing the opportunity to retain water on the site even though the development is not large enough to require any on site retention. She reviewed a sheet of calculations that was submitted to the City Engineer. She noted that to the north, the volume of runoff will be decreased by 114 cubic feet in a 100-year storm event. She explained that to the south, the volume of runoff is reduced by 10 cubic feet in a 100-year storm event and she pointed out that during a two-year storm event, the volume of runoff to the south will be reduced by 688 cubic feet. She emphasized that during smaller storm events the downstream properties will have a significant benefit from the planned improvements and during heavier storms, there will be no increase over the runoff that exists today. She stated that the developer has worked to address upstream and downstream concerns related to the proposed development. Mr. Krandel stated that the project team is available to answer questions. He stated that the developer is seeking to be a good neighbor and has gone above and beyond what is required from a drainage perspective. Ms. Czerniak stated that this subdivision was first presented to the Commission 10 months ago and since that time; the City Attorney, City Engineer and Community Development staff have reviewed and re-reviewed the materials submitted by the developer to confirm and re-confirm that all applicable requirements are satisfied. She stated that the developer submitted more than one plat demonstrating that three lots can be configured on the property, in full conformance with the subdivision requirements. She stated that because of the concerns and questions raised, a memorandum from the City Attorney was included in the Commission’s packet. She clarified that if the requirements of the zoning district are met, the City cannot arbitrarily require the number of lots to be reduced. She noted that the property is located in the Historic Residential and Open Space Preservation Overlay District which allows for some flexibility in lot configuration while adhering to the underlying zoning. She stated that the plat proposed for approval takes advantage of the flexibility offered by the overlay district to configure the corner lot in a way that provides the optimum buildable area recognizing the greater impact setbacks have on corner lots. She confirmed that as explained by Ms. Corona, over the last 30 days, the drainage plan was modified to eliminate any increase in runoff from the property over what exists today and noted that the plan in fact reduces the volume of runoff under certain conditions. She reiterated that there will be no increase in the volume of stormwater runoff as a result of the development of the property. She stated that staff has worked with the petitioner to address many of the concerns and questions raised by the neighbor. She noted that a tree preservation area is recommended. She stated that the staff report includes a recommendation for approval of the subdivision. She stated that more detailed engineering work has been completed for this project than would normally be Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 4 of 19 completed at this point in the process. She clarified that a final review of engineering plans will occur after final approval of the subdivision is granted, and prior to the issuance of permits for work on the site. She stated in addition to the five conditions of approval of the subdivision recommended in the staff report, there are two general recommendations offered to the Commission in response to discussions to date. She stated that one of the general recommendations suggests that the City consider accepting the private stormsewers located to the south of the property proposed for development if the owners of the properties on which the lines are located grant easements to the City. She stated that ultimately, the City Council will decide whether the City should make this offer and whether the private lines should be cleaned and lined prior to acceptance. She pointed out that in response to previous Commission discussion and public comment, a recommendation is offered for Commission consideration relating to questions about the appropriateness of the zoning pattern in the area. She noted that some suggestions were made that the zoning in this area is haphazard. She reviewed a zoning map of the area and noted that the zoning appears to be very intentional with the area of the main Lasker Estate zoned for larger lots than the surrounding area. She pointed out that the surrounding areas are for the most part already subdivided and developed concurrent with the existing zoning. She clarified that the last two recommendations are separate from the approval of the subdivision and are suggestions for how the Commission might want to convey these broader concerns that were raised to the City Council. In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Mr. Krandel stated that the developer has no immediate plans to demolish the existing house. He stated that if the subdivision is approved, a marketing plan and timeline for demolition and the construction of the improvements will be developed. In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Ms. Czerniak explained that the intention of the condition relating to demolition of the house is that before permits are issued for any new houses, on any of the three lots, the existing house must be demolished and the site restored. She agreed to review the language of the condition to be sure that it clearly reflects the intent. In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Mr. Strahan confirmed that under Illinois drainage law, upstream property owners have the right to require downstream property owners to maintain a drain tile or pipe that accepts water from upstream properties. He stated that he is not aware of any fines that would be accessed. In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Mr. Strahan reviewed the private lines located to the south of the property proposed for subdivision. He stated that there is a 15” drain tile that runs east/west. He stated that City crews were recently able to televise and clean this pipe. He stated that there is also a 12” drain tile that runs north/south and said that the City crews were not able to access this line without setting up equipment on private property however, they were able to determine that the pipe Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 5 of 19 is in fair condition, but needs cleaning. He stated that the private lines appear to cross four private properties. He stated that he is not aware of any contact made with those property owners to date to educate them that they are responsible for keeping those lines open and functional. Commissioner Kehr encouraged that steps be taken to educate the property owners about their responsibilities with respect to the private lines. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that a determination of whether the City should accept the private lines, if the property owners are willing to grant an easement, will be the Council’s decision. She clarified that the subdivision plat presented for approval takes advantage of the flexibility offered by the Historic Residential and Open Space Preservation Overlay District to improve upon the configuration of the lots. She stated that the difference between the plat presented and the two plats that fully conform to the regulations of the R-2 district is very slight. She stated that the optimum plan is presented for approval based on the discussion and direction of the Commission at the last meeting. She confirmed that the plat presented for approval is clearly labeled and is included in the Commission’s packet. She confirmed that the City does not have the ability to require a reduction in the number of lots if the plat is in full conformance with the Code requirements. She reiterated that downstream properties are required to accept runoff from upstream properties and stated that as now proposed, the subdivision and development of the property will not result in an increase in the volume of runoff over current levels. She stated that the drainage improvements proposed as part of the subdivision go over and above all applicable requirements. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited public comment. He asked that public testimony not repeat comments presented to the Commission at previous meetings on this matter but instead, focus on the new information submitted. Mike Kammerer, stated that the 1361 Estate Lane East property has been in his family for 50 years. He offered comments from a neighboring property owner, Jackie Blatchford, who lives to the south of the property that is proposed for development noting that she was unable to attend the meeting. He stated that Ms. Blatchford has concerns about the developer’s plan to direct stormwater runoff from the development into a 100 year old pipe on her property noting that there is not now and has never been an easement through her property for stormwater. He stated that Ms. Blatchford understands that the developer is claiming an historic right to use the stormsewer line on her property which has not been maintained and is in no condition to serve as a modern stormsewer. He noted that Ms. Blatchford observed that when it rains, surface water collects in the low spots on her property and then settles into the ground and added that the properties in this area are large enough and provide enough open space so trenches and bioswales have never been needed to handle storm water. He stated that it is his understanding Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 6 of 19 that the developer originally intended to connect the new development to a stormsewer to the north, but was unable to do so due to insufficient capacity in that system . He stated that the developer should consider scaling back the development to one or maybe two lots, rather than three as proposed. He stated that with one or two lots, the stormsewer to the north may be adequate to allow water from the site to be re- directed to the north. He noted that Ms. Blatchford stated that the City has never contacted her about the stormsewer issue but noted that a City crew dug a hole on her property without cleaning it up. He said that Ms. Blatchford does not authorize any work on her property. He stated that today, there is no drainage problem on the property that is proposed for development because it has more than enough capacity to handle all of the storm water that flows on to it and, it has access to stormsewers to the north. He stated however that residents on south Estate Lane experience occasional floods because the City has never built adequate storm sewers in the area. He stated that additional water from the development should not be directed to the south and instead, the City should give priority to solving the problems of the existing residents in that area rather than allow further development. He noted that there are small vernal pools on the property proposed for development and noted that those pools provide habitat for birds and animals. He said that once the area is disturbed by bulldozers, the habitat cannot be replaced. He stated that it is ironic that on the eve of Earth Day, the City is considering a plan that will destroy natural habitat. John Madigan, 1393 S. Estate Lane, stated that the project is not as simple as it seems. He stated that he has heard that runoff from the property will not increase but stated that he has not heard the assumptions on which that statement is made. He stated that he has been in constant contact with the City, but still has no understanding of the basis for that statement. He stated a serious concern about impacting the rights of neighbors noting that he is not simply speaking about Ms. Blatchford who will be impacted if she is required to grant an easement through the midst of her two acre property or maintain the stormsewer line on her property to support the proposed development. He pointed out that at the same time, the developer is seeking to eliminate precisely the same stormsewer line which runs through the center of the property proposed for development because it is not functional. He questioned how the rights of the upstream properties are being addressed and questioned whether the upstream properties have a right to tie into the line proposed for removal. He stated that he had an opportunity to briefly talk with a City engineering representative and learned that there are open drains on East Lane East that connect to a stormsewer which flows to the north. He stated that old drain tiles are cobwebbed throughout the properties in this area because they were installed to serve the Lasker Estate. He said today that no one knows how the drain tiles function. He reiterated that the developer wants to remove the old drain tile on the property proposed for development and put an extensive line along the west property line, with right angles, which will pull water from the north and direct it to the south. He stated that this is a complicated little development with multiple ramifications. He stated that he has been in contact with City engineering staff and stated that they have been cooperative to the extent that they could be, but Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 7 of 19 noted that the neighbors do not have enough information to understand the development. He asked that the matter be continued to allow the neighbors to conduct an independent drainage review. He asked the Commission to look at the graphic representing the new homes on the site and stated that the new homes will appear more dense than homes in the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that a number of neighbors share his concerns. He commented on the conditions of approval as recommended in the staff report noting that there is uncertainty about whether and where inlets would be installed in the new stormsewer line along the west property line. He stated with that uncertainty, it is unclear whether the water from his property will be properly handled. He expressed concern about tree protection noting that the trees in his yard may be impacted by the major excavation that will be needed to install the new pipe and trench. He expressed concern that the excavation will be within the critical root zone of some of the trees. He stated that this project has been pushed through without any time for consideration by the neighbors. Deborah Saran, 1355 Estate Lane East, thanked the Commissioners for their service. She stated that sometimes the review process goes awry and stated that she believes that has occurred in this case. She said that she has lived in her house since 2012 and has had no drainage issues near her home but stated that she has noticed standing water on nearby properties and on the road. She said that she has also noticed water pooling on the property proposed for development but stated that it drains away because the site is unencumbered by hard surfaces. She stated that in her opinion, there are three issues that need to be considered before approving the subdivision. She stated that first, if there is pooling water with one home on the site, what will occur if there are three homes on the site. She stated that she can only imagine that the water problem will be worse. She stated that second, consideration should be given to whether the proposed use of existing drain tiles, which have not been maintained, will be sufficient to form the basis for the drainage system for the property. She stated that the infrastructure in this area is old and not adequate to support existing development, much less new development. She stated that her third concern is that approval of the subdivision as presented, without significant infrastructure improvements, will set a dangerous precedent for the City. She noted that other communities require significant infrastructure in conjunction with new development such as underground storage facilities. She stated that she has seen City crews in her neighborhood making repairs to the old pipes which are undersized for the area. She stated that she learned from a Lake County representative that Lake Forest will soon need to remedy its old infrastructure. She stated that the most concerning part of the process is the rush to make a decision on this petition. She urged the Commission to postpone a decision to allow the neighbors to prepare their own drainage report and their own case in the face of damage to their property by the City and the developer. She stated that the infrastructure in the area is already inadequate. She stated that additional measures should be taken to protect the important historic character of the area. She stated that the development that is proposed is not in keeping with the neighborhood. She noted that just to the south, there are large homes on one and a half acre lots and noted that Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 8 of 19 those properties were required to provide an on site detention pond. She stated that sometimes there is the legal thing to do, and sometimes, there is the right thing to do; she said that her hope is that the City does the right thing and says no to the project. She said that the project will compromise one of the most significant historic homes in the City. Paul Later, 1362 Estate Lane East, said that he understands some of the calculations presented by the engineers but expressed concern that some important issues are being glossed over. He questioned whether the calculations include the current drainage that is flowing on to the site in addition runoff that will result from the proposed increase in impervious surface. He stated that he does not believe that the current drainage in the area is fully understood. He noted that there is a drain tile in his backyard that goes to the existing pipe on the property proposed for development and an easement that is proposed to be eliminated. He acknowledged that the proposed trench is sized to account for the increase in impervious surface on the site but stated that he does not believe that the engineers have any idea of how much water is running on to the site from his back yard. He stated that he is unsure whether his property will continue to drain on to the site. He stated that the new pipe as proposed, will tie in to the drain tile in Ms. Blatchford’s yard noting that currently, water flows in a slow trickle on to her property. He questioned what will happen when suddenly, a rush of water drains on to her property. He stated that the lot will be de-nuded as a result of the extensive excavation process that will be needed to install the new stormsewer. He stated that the excavation will kill the trees on both sides of the property line. He added that the drainage pattern will be changed which will also impact trees. He stated that the proposed development is more complicated than it seems and should not be rubber stamped. He stated that it appears that all efforts are made to support the developer rather than looking at the petition more skeptically. Hearing no further requests from the public to speak, Chairman Ley noted that several people have registered for an opportunity to cross examine other parties. Chairman Ley invited cross examination by Mr. Kammerer. Mr. Kammerer passed on the opportunity to cross examine. Chairman Ley invited cross examination by Ms. Saran. Ms. Saran passed on the opportunity to cross examine. Chairman Ley invited cross examination by Ms. Peck. In response to questions from Martha Peck, 1341 S. Estate Lane, Ms. Corona explained how water currently flows off the site noting that as a result of the proposed improvements, there will be no increase in the amount of water leaving the site. She Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 9 of 19 reviewed the computations used to determine the volume of runoff from the entire drainage area. She said that the storage volume in the stormwater drainage system that is proposed exceeds the calculated change in run off volume that will occur as a result of development of the site. She clarified that the existing runoff from the site will not be eliminated but noted that when it rains, a portion of the water will continue to run off the property, a portion of the water will soak into the site and a portion will flow into the void spaces in the trench. She stated that the calculations show that the improvements proposed for the site will result in a decrease in runoff from the site of 10 cubic feet. In response to a request from Chairman Ley, Ms. Corona reviewed the existing drainage pattern on the site. She reviewed the portions of the site that flow in each direction. She stated that the final grade proposed for the site will maintain the existing drainage patterns. She stated that only very minor changes in the grade will occur as part of the development of each individual lot. Chairman Ley invited cross examination by Mr. Bisiorek. In response to questions from James Bisiorek, 1341 S. Estate Lane, Mr. Krandel stated that the investment made by the developer will result in homes of equal or greater value as other homes in the neighborhood. He stated that at this point, the developer cannot know exactly what the sale price of the homes will be. He stated that the new homes will be reviewed by the Building Review Board to assure that the homes meet certain standards. He estimated that the homes may sell generally for about 1.5 million dollars. In response to questions from Mr. Bisiorek, Ms. Corona explained that the roof of the existing house is relatively l arge. She confirmed that the allowed house sizes were factored into the runoff calculations. She noted that only a portion of each of the new roofs, about two thirds, will drain to the south. In response to an earlier question, she confirmed that no mass grading is proposed for the site as part of the original development, but stated that minor grading will occur with each new home. Chairman Ley invited cross examination by Mr. Madigan. Mr. Madigan passed on the opportunity to cross examine. Ms. Saran asked to be recognized. Chairman Ley recognized Ms. Saran and invited cross examination from her. In response to questions from Ms. Saran, Ms. Corona confirmed that the proposed development is significantly under the threshold for a separate detention pond. She stated that the proposed development will result in .22 acres of new impervious surface. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 10 of 19 She explained that the amount of impervious surface would need to be more than tripled to reach the threshold at which a detention pond would be required. Mr. Madigan asked to be recognized. Chairman Ley recognized Mr. Madigan and invited cross examination from him. In response to questions from Mr. Madigan, Ms. Corona explained that the volume of drainage from the site is measured using a factor called a curve number. She explained that the curve number takes into account the absorption rate of the soil and the amount of impervious surface. She stated that the calculation factors in soil type and ground cover and a number of other factors and, she stated that various engineering formulas are applied. She stated that an actual physical measurement of water running on the site was not taken adding that in her 20 years as an engineer, she has never seen that approach used to calculate runoff volumes. Hearing no further requests from the public to speak, Chairman Ley invited staff response to public testimony. Ms. Czerniak emphasized that after the last Plan Commission meeting; staff encouraged the petitioner to pursue further drainage improvements, beyond those required, in an effort to achieve a plan in which there is no additional runoff as a result of the new development. She stated that in her experience, the City will not likely force a resident to grant an easement but noted that if so directed by the City Council, staff will contact the property owners to educate them on the responsibilities related to the private stormsewer line and to discuss options that could allow the City to work with the property owners to improve the functionality of the stormsewer system in this area. She stated that water is flowing south from this property and from the upstream properties now and as previously noted, the volume of that runoff will not change. She reiterated that downstream properties are required to accept water from upstream properties. She stated that this project has been methodically considered and extensive study has been completed. She stated that the petitioners were asked to provide additional information on several occasions. She stated that there are not voluminous engineering plans for this project because they are not required due to the limited scope of the project. She stated that the plans and calculations were made available to the neighbors as requested. She stated that most of the subdivision activity in this area, with the exception of the more recent Biltmore Subdivision, occurred prior to the current stormwater regulations. She acknowledged that stormwater runs across properties as it does in other areas of the City. In response to a question from Commissioner Kehr, Ms. Corona explained that the existing drainage easement will be relocated near the west property line and a new storm sewer will be installed. She confirmed that the proposed improvements are Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 11 of 19 designed to accept drainage from the two upstream properties to the west and will create no impediment to runoff from upstream properties. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Corona confirmed that the current easement to which runoff from Mr. Later’s property drains will be abandoned. She explained that a new easement will be created over the new receiving stormsewer to accommodate runoff from Mr. Later’s and the other upstream property. Mr. Later asked to be recognized. Chairman Ley recognized Mr. Later and invited him to come forward with his question. In response to a question from Mr. Later, Ms. Corona explained that the stormsewer capacity maintains the existing subsurface drainage volume and the volume of the void spaces in the trench is calculated separately, and is in addition to the volume of the pipe. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Corona confirmed that the proposed development will not exacerbate the current conditions or back water up on to upstream properties. She confirmed that the proposed improvements will improve conditions for the upstream and downstream properties. Chairman Ley invited a response to public testimony from the petitioner. In response to public testimony, Mr. Krandel stated that the petitioner’s team has worked closely with the City staff and has listened and responded to the neighbors. He acknowledged that there are drainage concerns that go beyond the site that is proposed for development. He stated that downstream, properties must allow water from upstream properties to pass through. He noted that the City has identified the potential for the City to accept the private, downstream sections of pipe with the cooperation of the property owners. He acknowledged that the property owners on which the private storm sewer is located may not want to provide an easement to the City which would allow the City to take over responsibility for the pipe. He stated that the petitioner has taken steps to eliminate any increase in runoff from the site. He added that vegetation planted as part of the new development will further help to reduce runoff from what exists today. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Mr. Krandel confirmed that the petitioner is agreeable to planting replacement vegetation on the site. Mr. Kammerer asked to be recognized. Chairman Ley agreed to allow one further comment. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 12 of 19 In response to comments by Mr. Kammerer, Ms. Corona explained that the Watershed Development Ordinance and Illinois Drainage law address both subsurface drainage tile systems and surface water runoff. She stated that she was part of the Lake County Technical Advisory Committee and participated in all but one of the Ordinance revisions. She stated that the revisions specifically added language requiring direct connection to existing subsurface drainage pipes to minimize overland surface drainage and nuisance flooding to the extent possible. She stated that if the capacity of the subsurface pipes is exceeded, water then flows overland. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Corona stated that typically, if a downstream property owner refuses to accept water from upstream properties, the matter is addressed by individual property owners, not a municipality. She stated that a property owner can take the matter to court to require a downstream property owner to maintain a drain line. She explained however that in this case, if someone completely blocked off the drainage pipes downstream, the water would follow the defined overland drainage channel located on the properties to the south. In response to Commissioner Kuchman, Ms. Corona confirmed that less water will be sent to the south than flows in that direction today. She described how the infiltration trench works explaining that the four to five foot deep trench will be filled with rocks. She stated that there will be spaces between the rocks, voids, which will hold water. She explained that the typical State standard of porosity is 36 percent based on the type of stone that will be used. She stated that 36% of the trench will hold water. She explained that calculations were done to determine how long the trench would need to be to fully handle the increased runoff as calculated from the curve number. She stated that in the calculations, a depth of four feet was used for the trench however, in some areas, the trench will be five feet deep which will provide additional storage capacity beyond the capacity reflected by the calculations. Mr. Madigan asked to be recognized. Chairmen Ley agreed to allow one further comment from Mr. Madigan. Mr. Madigan stated that the explanation offered by Ms. Corona is helpful. He stated that he does not doubt the integrity of the calculations. He stated however that the reality of this property, where the water pools and how water enters the property, is not being considered. He stated that in his observation, some of the old drain tile lines act as sponges and take water. He stated that base calculations are not enough in this situation because of the undulating nature of the property and the large area of pooling. He stated that the drain tiles from the Lasker Estate are unmapped and as a result, the proposed subdivision has real ramifications for the neighboring properties. He asked for additional time for the neighbors to look into the situation. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 13 of 19 At the request of Chairman Ley, Ms. Corona responded to Mr. Madigan’s comments. She stated that flows from upstream properties will be accepted into the new drainage structure. She acknowledged that there are a myriad of subsurface drain tiles in this area and stated that because of that, the City required the developer to hire a subsurface drainage investigator to investigate and map the drain tiles on the site and entering the site. She stated that the drain tiles are reflected on the plans submitted to the City. She presented a map of the drain tiles and indicated the drain tile extending from Mr. Later’s noting its connection to the pipe that is currently not functioning to its full capacity. She stated that the drain tile from Mr. Later’s property will be connected into the new stormsewer that will be installed which is larger and has more capacity than the existing drain tile. She stated that the new stormsewer will have perforations in the pipe to allow water to access the porous area in the trench. In response to a question from a member of the public, and at the request of Chairman Ley, Ms. Corona confirmed that the trench will be four feet wide. She stated that the area will be less prone to mosquitos since the water will be directed into the pipe and trench, rather than pooling on the surface as occurs today. Chairman Ley invited a comment from Ms. Czerniak. Ms. Czerniak pointed out that if the subdivision is approved, the final engineering plan will be subject to further review by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits authorizing work on the site. She offered that the neighbors could provide comments relating to the drainage to the City and state that the comments would be considered by the City Engineer during the final review of the plans. She stated that the petitioner has detailed the engineering plans to a greater extent than would normally be done at this point in the process. She stated that it is appropriate and consistent with standard practice to conduct the final review of the engineering plans after approval of the development by the City Council. In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Mr. Strahan reviewed the process and criteria he followed in evaluating the project. He explained that he reviewed the proposed improvements and the calculations based on the Watershed Development Ordinance. He stated that the project is below the threshold for which on site detention is required. He stated that the project conforms to Illinois drainage laws by not only accepting runoff from upstream properties, but improving the condition for upstream properties. Based on concerns raised by downstream property owners, the petitioner took the extra step of calculating the volume of the infiltration trench. He stated that it is a benefit to the area that an infiltration trench has been added to the project and a greater benefit now that the trench has been expanded. He stated that the new storm sewer pipe and the infiltration trench provide storage for more than the additional runoff that will be generated by the development during a 100-year storm event. He stated that the benefit to the downstream properties will be even greater during smaller storm events. He stated that he has no concerns about the adequacy of the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 14 of 19 stormwater plan. He stated that three minor details were identified on the plans and stated that those can be easily addressed when the plans are finalized. He stated that the minor details include a separation distance between the stormsewer and water main, the specific size of stone that will be used to fill the trench and adequate documentation to vacate the existing easement and establish the new easement. In response to a question from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City’s Certified Arborist has visited the site several times and reviewed the tree survey. She stated that based on his evaluation, one significant tree, on the development site, will likely be impacted by construction of the trench but other trees in the area will only be minimally impacted due to the alignment and shallowness of the trench and its distance from the trees. She added that the City Arborist acknowledged that some lower quality trees will be impacted by the trench. Ms. Madigan asked to be recognized. Chairman Ley agreed to allow Ms. Madigan to comment. Jennifer Madigan, 1393 S. Estate Lane stated that they do not have any uncharitable feelings toward the builders and hope that they do well, but not at her expense. She stated that the trench will kill the largest trees on her property, located along the west side of the trench. She stated that there is nothing that can be done to keep her trees alive. She stated that the trees are about 10 feet from the property line but noted that the canopies extend over the property line along with the critical root zone. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak stated that the City Arborist has walked the area where the trench is proposed and stated the trench will have limited impact on off site trees due to its alignment in relation to the trees. She stated that as appropriate, measures can be taken to minimize any impact. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Ms. Czerniak stated that if the neighboring trees are impacted, there could be a requirement for inch for inch replacement. She stated that the four foot wide trench, on one side of the trees, will have much less of an impact than many trees experience on other construction sites. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited Commission comments and deliberations. Commissioner Kehr commented that the review process for this petition has been extensive occurring over a 10 month period. She stated that there has been no rush to judgement. She stated that many people have spent time confirming that the petition meets or exceeds the applicable requirements. She stated that ts appears that the area may see some improvement with respect to drainage as a result of the project. She stated that there does not appear to be any reason not to grant the petitioners Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 15 of 19 request noting that the zoning requirements are met and the drainage requirements, exceeded. She added that a condition is recommended that will require that each new house is reviewed by the Building Review Board along with the landscaping. She noted that the petitioner has agreed to limit the amount of impervious surfaces. She stated that she appreciates the public testimony commenting that the testimony has identified some issues in the larger area that appear to exist whether the property is developed or not. She stated that there appears to be some opportunity for improvements in area. She stated that during her time on the Zoning Board of Appeals, her experience is that the City Arborist is very careful to assure the preservation of significant trees. Chairman Ley commended the neighbors who testified noting that the testimony was sincere and complied with the Commission’s request to not be duplicative and to speak to the new information presented. He stated that this is a difficult issue and stated that initially, he was not inclined to support the petition hoping that the issue of lot sizes could be resolved with the neighbors. He stated however that at this point in the process, he is prepared to support the petition. He noted that the Commission is required to uphold the rules and regulations of the City and the City Zoning Code. He stated that for the Commission to recommend something other than approval of the three lots as proposed would not be defensible. He stated that the engineering work has been exemplary. He stated that going forward, the neighbors will have adequate time to bring in a third party engineer to review the information presented and provide comments to the City engineer prior to the issuance of permits for work on the site. He stated that this petition has been under review for 10 months and has not been fast tracked. He suggested to the Commission that a condition be added directing the Building Review Board to assure that adequate landscape screening is provided along the west property line of Lot 1. He pointed out that like the property to the west of Lot 1, the proposed lots will have 100 feet of frontage. He stated that this subdivision is authorized under the same provisions that made it possible for the Kammerers to subdivide their lot creating the parcel that is now owned by the Laters. He stated that approval of the subdivision now before the Commission is consistent with the approvals of prior subdivisions in the area. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited a motion. Commissioner Freeman made a motion to recommend approval of the tentative and final plat of subdivision for the 3–lot Estate Lane Planned Preservation Subdivision through a Special Use Permit based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the five conditions, and eleven subparts, presented in the staff report and with the addition of the following conditions. Additional Condition #1 - As part of the review of the final engineering plans, after City Council approval and before the issuance of permits authorizing work on the site; the City Engineer shall consider, as part of the review, any and all independent Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 16 of 19 engineering reports offered by the neighboring property owners. City staff shall make copies of the final engineering plans, including specifications on the location of the infiltration trench, available to the neighboring property owners and to all parties who provided testimony during the 10-month public hearing process. Neighboring property owners shall have 14 days to provide comments or reports relating to the engineering plans to the City. Additional Condition #2 – As part of the review and approval of construction plans for new houses on Lots 1 and 3, the City Arborist and City Engineer are directed to review the plans for compliance with the tree preservation provisions in the Code and to assure that replanting occurs as determined to be necessary to re-establish a comparable vegetative buffer similar in density and absorption ability to the existing line of vegetation along the west property line. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kuchman. In response to a request from Commissioner Kehr, Commissioner Freeman amended the motion to include incorporation of the broader recommendations offered in the staff report. (Detailed below.) He stated that the recommendations are not part of the approval of the subdivision, but are general recommendations presented for the City Council’s consideration as a follow up to the information presented to the Commission during the review process. Chairman Ley suggested an amendment to the motion to add wording to the conditions to speak specifically to preservation of trees during construction of the trench and replacement of adequate screening along the west property line as the property is developed. Commissioner Freeman, the maker of the motion and Commissioner Kuchman who seconded the motion, accepted the amendments and reviewed the final conditions, in total, presented for Commission action: 1. The final plat of subdivision shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Director of Community Development. The following special notes shall appear on the plat of subdivision: a. All properties shall be permitted only one curb cut. b. The driveway for Lot 2 is permitted on Estate Lane East only if it is wholly located in the foot print of the existing driveway and no further excavation is required. Alternatively, the driveway from Lot 2 shall be located on Oak Knoll Drive, outside of the Tree Preservation Area. c. The three new residences shall be subject to review by the Building Review Board. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 17 of 19 2. The final drainage and grading plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and shall be in conformance with all applicable provisions of the Lake County Watershed Development Ordinance, Illinois drainage laws and applicable City requirements. a. The final drainage improvements shall include a new pipe and an infiltration trench as reflected on the plans presented for final approval subject to final approval by the City Engineer. b. The existing drain tile on the property shall be abandoned. c. If consistent with good engineering practices, one or more inlets shall be installed in the new pipe to aid in the acceptance of greater flows from upstream properties to the west. d. All drainage improvements reflected on the approved drainage plan shall be completed and will be subject to inspection and approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits for any new homes. e. All patios and sidewalks shall be pervious. f. During installation of the stormsewer, tree protection fencing shall be installed to limit the area impacted by the construction and protect trees and vegetation in the area. 3. As part of the review of the final engineering plans, after City Council approval and before the issuance of permits authorizing work on the site; the City Engineer shall consider, as part of the review, any and all independent engineering reports offered by the neighboring property owners. City staff shall make copies of the final engineering plans, including specifications on the location of the infiltration trench, available to the neighboring property owners and to all parties who provided testimony during the 10-month public hearing process. Neighboring property owners shall have 14 days to provide comments or reports relating to the engineering plans to the City. 4. The existing house shall be demolished and the site restored to the satisfaction of the City prior to the sale of any lots or the issuance of a building permit for a new house on any lot. Until the house is demolished, the site must be maintained in conformance with the Code requirements for vacant properties. Once a demolition permit is issued, work must begin within 30 days and must be diligently pursued to completion, including restoration of the site unless construction of a new home on the site begins immediately after demolition. 5. Construction access for Lots 2 and 3, including access for demolition of the house on Lot 2, shall be from Oak Knoll Drive. The Tree Preservation area shall be fenced for protection during both demolition and construction. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 18 of 19 a. If it is determined that the existing driveway on Lot 2 cannot be reused for access to the new residence, removal of the driveway shall proceed in a manner as directed by the City’s Certified Arborist. b. If the existing driveway on Lot 2 is removed, a planting plan shall be submitted and will be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Certified Arborist to assure replanting of the area consistent with the Estate Lane East streetscape. 6. In addition to protection of the significant trees located along the northern boundary of Lot 2, tree protection measures shall be taken on other areas of the site, prior to and during construction, specifically along the infiltration trench both on and off the subject property, as directed by the City’s Certified Arborist. In particular, special measures shall be taken to protect the following trees: #’s 6, 7, 22, 24, 100, 105 and 195 (previously labeled untagged) and trees on neighboring properties along the infiltration trench. 7. As part of the review and approval of construction plans for new houses on Lots 1 and 3, the City Arborist, City Engineer and Building Review Board are directed to review the plans for compliance with the tree preservation provisions in the Code and to assure that replanting occurs as determined to be necessary to re-establish a comparable vegetative buffer similar in density and absorption ability to the existing line of vegetation along the west property line. The following general recommendations, not specific to the Estate Lane Planned Preservation Subdivision, are also included in the motion for Council consideration. A. Offer guidance and information to property owners in the area about the responsibilities of downstream properties to accept water from upstream properties and to maintain stormsewer structures in good working condition and, offer information to support the repair and lining of existing private sewers. B. Consider whether it is appropriate for the City to accept the private storm sewer lines located between the Estate Lane Subdivision and the public storm sewer located downstream under the condition that easements must be granted to the City by the owners of those properties after the private lines are cleaned, lined or otherwise repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. C. Review the pattern of zoning in the area taking into account the potential for future development under the established zoning, the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – April 21, 2016 Page 19 of 19 availability and capacity of existing infrastructure, opportunities for infrastructure upgrades, the history of zoning and development in the area, the character of the neighborhood, private property development rights and input from directly affected property owners and from residents in the general area. The Commission approved the motion by a vote of 5 to 0. 4. Additional public comment on non-agenda items No additional testimony was presented on non-agenda items. 5. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak briefed the Commission on an upcoming discussion about short-term rentals. The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development