Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2014/09/10 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the September 10, 2014 Regular Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, September 10, 2014, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Chairman Michael Ley and Commissioners Guy Berg, Tim Henry, Lloyd Culbertson and John Anderson Commissioners absent: Commissioners Jeff Kuchman and Jim Carris 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. He noted that Commissioner Tim Henry was recently appointed to the Commission and welcomed him. 2. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of tentative approval of the Oak Knoll Woodlands Subdivision, a 16 – lot Planned Preservation Subdivision. The petition includes 1) a request for a zone change from R-5 to R-4, 2) application of the Planned Preservation and Historic Open Space Overlay District and 3) tentative subdivision plat approval. An associated Special Use Permit would be required as part of final approval of the plat of subdivision. Presented by: Richard M. Swanson, Developer Chairman Ley asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner and swore in all those intending to speak on behalf of the petition. Mr. Swanson presented the petition and reviewed basic information about the site that was presented at the earlier meeting. He stated that the site totals 29.67 acres and of that, 6.10 acres are wetlands. He stated that the existing man made pond, located in the northwest corner of the property, will be preserved and enhanced and noted that a detention pond will be constructed on the eastern portion of the property. He stated that 58 off site acres drain across the property to northeast, on to the golf course. He stated that the historic drainage pattern on the property will not be altered. He noted that he and his team of consultants listened to the public testimony presented at the May 14, 2014 public hearing and heard three primary concerns: density, drainage and traffic. He stated that each issue was reviewed again by his team and carefully analyzed based on factual information. He informed Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 2 of 23 the Commission that he made efforts to meet with the neighbors and tried to reach common ground. He stated that he has tried to keep the flow of information open and transparent. He stated that he received a copy of the independent engineering study completed by Christopher Burke Engineering on behalf of some of the neighbors and stated that his engineers reviewed the report, consulted with Burke Engineering and revised the plan as appropriate. He introduced the various consultants from his team that will speak to the issues raises at the last meeting. He stated that the allowable density on the site was determined consistent with the Code requirements and noted that the City in the past has encouraged conservation subdivisions so long as the development is consistent with the permitted underlying density. He stated that the Code requires that the density be determined through a technical analysis and development of a plan for a conventional subdivision. He stated that based on factual information, a conventional subdivision on this property could support 17 lots with a minimum lot size of an acre and a half. He stated that City engineering staff reviewed the conventional plan presented and concurred with the density analysis and found that the conventional plan for 17 lots could reasonably be achieved. He stated that all wetland and flood plain setbacks and buffers are met with the plan presented. He noted that the standards for zone changes were responded to in writing and included in the packet presented to the Commission. He stated that no variances are requested. He stated that the subdivision plat presented for tentative approval proposes 16 lots and explained that in response to comments at the last meeting, the average size of the lots has increased. He stated that a conservation area is part of the plan noting that the open space will be preserved and that requirements for ongoing maintenance will be established as part of the final plan. He stated that the nature trails have been modified to locate them more internal to the property and away from the perimeter of the site as requested by the neighbors. He introduced Joy Corona to review the drainage plan. Joy Corona, Bleck Engineering, reviewed her credentials and professional experience. She provided an overview of the existing drainage pattern in the area confirming that drainage from 58 off site acres flows on to the property from the south. She noted that the surrounding subdivisions were developed prior to the current ordinances and regulations and were not required to preserve wetlands, floodplain volumes or to provide on site detention as is required for the development now proposed. She noted that the existing drainage pattern will not be altered, noting that water will continue to flow across this property, on to the golf course and then east, under the railroad tracks, to the Middlefork. She reviewed the elevations of the site and the surrounding area noting the drainage patterns. She stated that stormwater flowing from the south will not be impeded by the proposed development. She reviewed the existing stormwater structures, pipes and inlets, and reviewed the proposed improvements. She stated that the proposed improvements take into account the suggestions made in the first letter from Burke Engineering on behalf of the neighboring properties. She noted that she coordinated with Burke Engineering after receiving the letter and noted that she has a long history of working Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 3 of 23 closely and cooperatively with Burke Engineering. She stated that the suggestions made by Burke were incorporated into the revised plans as now presented. She stated that the revised plans address and incorporate all of the recommendations in the Burke letter and noted that a second letter was submitted by Burke Engineering acknowledging the changes made. She noted that the detention pond proposed as part of the new development is oversized to provide additional benefit to the neighboring properties as suggested in the Burke letter. She stated that based on calculations, the detention pond could be 33% smaller, but is oversized to retain additional stormwater. She noted that the methodology used to determine the required size of the detention pond was supported by both Burke Engineering and the City Engineer. She added that as suggested by Burke Engineering, modifications were made to eliminate existing restrictions to provide further benefits to neighboring properties. She added that as proposed, 6 acre feet of flood plain storage, above and beyond what is required, is provided in the proposed development. She stated that the City Engineer found that the preliminary engineering plans provide sufficient detail to confirm that the proposed development will meet or exceed the requirements of the Watershed Development Ordinance. She acknowledged that additional computations will need to be provided during the development of the final plans and presented for review by the City Engineer. She stated that the plan as now presented complies with all of the recommendations made by Burke Engineering on behalf of the neighboring property owners and complies with all requirements of the applicable regulations and with the requirements of the City Engineer. Vince Mosca, Senior Ecologist with Hey and Associates, reviewed his credentials and professional experience. He reviewed the wetland delineation exhibit and noted that the Army Corps of Engineers determined that all of the wetlands on the site are isolated wetlands and therefore, under the jurisdiction of the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission and the City and not regulated by Federal authorities. He confirmed that there are approximately 6.1 acres of wetlands on the site and that only the easternmost wetland was determined to be of high quality due to the vegetative diversity in the area. He stated that with the proposed plan, 1.62 acres of wetland, mostly low quality, will be impacted. He stated that of the 1.62 acres of impacted wetland, .22 acres of high quality wetlands will be disturbed noting that this area is in the center of the property and disturbance is unavoidable. He stated that over 96 percent of the high quality wetlands on the site will be preserved. He stated that the plan provides a buffer in excess of the requirements of the applicable regulations. He stated that the existing wetlands will be enhanced on the site and that the detention pond that will be created will be naturalized noting that the enhancement and naturalization will both meet the requirements for on site mitigation of the wetlands being lost. He stated that any mitigation that cannot be done on the site will be achieved with off site mitigation within the Chicago River Watershed. Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 4 of 23 Mr. Swanson summarized the various issues raised noting that the proposed development site is downstream from all adjacent properties to the south. He stated that the preliminary engineering plans are designed to accommodate stormwater from off of the site and stormwater drainage generated by the new development. He stated that the preliminary engineering plans have been reviewed by the City Engineer and by Burke Engineering and found to meet or exceed all applicable requirements. He reviewed the wetlands to be mitigated and restored noting that his team has met with representatives of the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission and received support for the planning methodology used to develop the plans. He stated that the flood plain volume that will be provided on the site exceeds the requirements. He stated that the proposed density, 16 lots, is less than the allowable density demonstrated by the conventional subdivision plan and the density allowed by the Code. He stated that the conservation subdivision approach is a proven planning approach for creating desirable subdivisions that enhance the values of surrounding properties. He noted that a review of the LaSalle standards in support of the zone change was included in the Commission’s packet. He commented on the concerns that were raised about traffic noting that a second traffic analysis was conducted by the traffic consultants in response to the concerns about the timing of the first traffic study. He acknowledged that Conway Road has a rural character and noted that the current count of about 600 cars per day on the road would be increased by about 12 to 13 vehicles during peak hours, a minimal increase in overall traffic. He stated that concern was expressed about delays for existing traffic turning on to Waukegan and Everett Roads from the area. He stated that the additional traffic contributed by the proposed development will be minimal. He stated that the concerns about speeding and running stop signs on Conway and Oak Knoll are enforcement issues and not related to the new development. He acknowledged concerns about the single access proposed to the development from Oak Knoll noting that many neighborhoods in Lake Forest have only one road connection. He reiterated that the nature trails were moved away from the perimeters of the property in response to concerns from neighbors. He stated that the enhanced wetlands will benefit wildlife and that the well planned development will have a positive effect on the values of surrounding properties. He stated that the development is generally consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. He noted that he has architectural concepts available but acknowledged that architectural design is not part of the Plan Commission process. Ms. Czerniak reviewed the series of actions requested: a zone change, application of the Historic Residential and Open Space Preservation Overlay District, tentative subdivision plat approval and as part of the final approval process which would occur later, approval of the associated Special Use Permit for a Planned Preservation Subdivision. She noted that each aspect of the request is contingent on a positive recommendation on the previous aspect. She commented on the request for a zone change from R-5 to R-4 noting that the R-5 zoning district, in the case of most properties, is considered a holding district for properties annexed without a development plan. She noted that the exception is properties in the northwest Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 5 of 23 quadrant of the City which are adjacent to preserved open lands and land owned by the Forest Preserves District and areas where services are not available. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan designates the Oak Knoll Woodlands property as appropriate for R-4 zoning. She noted that a review of the criteria for evaluating the zone change request is provided in the staff report. She stated that the proposed zoning will be generally compatible with the surrounding areas, the pattern of development in the area and the existing uses. She stated that the request for application of the Historic Residential and Open Space Preservation District is consistent with the types of development the City has supported over the past 20 years. She explained that the overlay district was adopted in the 1980’s in reaction to the many conventional subdivisions that were occurring at that time. She noted that the overlay district was adopted to encourage preservation of open space, woodlands and wetlands by allowing lots smaller than the minimum lot size in the underlying zoning district to be created while still adhering to the density permitted by the zoning district. She noted that Lake Forest Open Lands was instrumental in adoption of Code language supporting conservation subdivisions. She noted that a letter from Lake Forest Open Lands was included in the Commission’s packet. She stated that the 30 acre parcel in this petition fits the characteristics for which the overlay district was intended. She clarified that the proposed subdivision does not request a density transfer from unbuildable portions of the property but instead, increases the amount of land on the property that will be preserved as open space by creating smaller lots which will benefit from the adjacent preserved open space. She clarified that the proposed density is not derived from portions of the property that are not developable. She stated that to demonstrate the density that could reasonably be achieved on a particular site, a plan for a conventional subdivision must be submitted for a technical review by the City Engineer. She stated that this requirement was met and that in reviewing the conventional plan, the City Engineer asked for additional information to demonstrate that the lots could reasonably be created without impacting unbuildable portions of the site. She stated that the City Engineer concluded that the conventional subdivision plan, as presented in the Commission’s packet, offers a subdivision layout that could reasonably be achieved on the site. She added that the conventional layout is not necessarily one that the City would encourage or support since it does not preserve natural resources on the property or create desirable lot configurations. She stated that the conventional subdivision plan establishes the maximum density for the site at 17 lots. She stated that tentative subdivision plat approval is the third component of the request and explained that subdivision approvals normally occur in two phases. She commented that tentative approval confirms that the overall configuration and density proposed appear consistent with the Code and that the preliminary engineering plans demonstrate that the plan can meet the technical requirements of the City and County. She stated that if tentative plat approval is granted, the developer has the certainty necessary to proceed with more in depth technical analysis, development of detailed landscape plans, and other detail aspects of the proposed development. She confirmed that the final plans must be submitted for further staff review and a recommendation on the final plans will be presented to the Plan Commission for Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 6 of 23 further public hearing and action including action on the Special Use Permit which could include specific conditions of approval. She stated that no variances are requested for this project. She suggested that the actions before the Commission be considered in sequence since each action is contingent on the preceding action. She noted that the City Engineer, Dan Strahan, is available to answer questions noting that he has spent a considerable amount of time reviewing and analyzing the materials submitted. She stated that the City Engineer supports the conclusions and findings of the traffic study and found the preliminary engineering plans to be workable. She stated that in response to public testimony at the last meeting, the Police Department reviewed accident rates in the neighborhood over the past 15 years and found that the rate of accidents in this area is low. She added that the Police Department concluded that nothing in their review called out this area as particularly dangerous or congested. She stated that the opinion was offered that 16 additional lots in this neighborhood will not over tax existing residential streets. She commented Conway Road, like some other roads in the community is rural in character. She stated that the discussion of whether these types of roads should be widened and improved with curbs, gutters and sidewalks is a larger policy issue for the City noting that there are neighborhood character considerations that come with those types of changes. She stated that the petitioner has met all of the requirements for tentative subdivision plat approval and the other requested actions. She stated that based on the staff review, the proposed development, in its tentative form, appears to conform to past approvals, applicable criteria and is consistent with past successful planned preservation subdivisions. She stated that it is not unusual to have a mix of lot sizes in a particular area noting that Lake Forest has developed in a manner that locates large lots in proximity to smaller lots. She stated that the subdivision appears consistent with past approvals. She stated that staff recommends approval of the zone change, application of the overlay district and tentative approval of the plat of subdivision. Chairman Ley noted that the Commission now has the opportunity to ask questions of the petitioner or staff. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Swanson reviewed the revised site plan identifying the areas of existing wetlands and pointing out the areas of lower and higher quality wetlands. He stated that the walking paths within the subdivision are intended for use by residents in the development and residents in nearby subdivisions. He noted that the paths will not connect to public walking trails since none are available in the area. He added that the trails will also provide easy access for maintenance of the wetland areas. He agreed that he would be open to considering increasing the setback on the lot proposed closest to the Sundberg’s lot to the south. He reviewed the site plan showing the areas proposed for tree preservation. He noted that much of the site is buckthorn but stated that the intention is to preserve significant trees where possible. Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 7 of 23 In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Swanson confirmed that the average lot size was increased in response to comments from the neighboring property owners. He reviewed the setbacks proposed on the plan noting that generally 40’ setbacks are proposed for the front and rear yards and 15’ setbacks are proposed for the side yards. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Dan Strahan, the City Engineer, confirmed that water flows from south to north across this property. He stated that the development as now proposed provides additional detention volume and provides a watershed benefit for the surrounding development. He reviewed a section of the detention pond. He stated that the additional volume provided as part of the new development should benefit the properties immediately downstream. In response to questions from Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Swanson stated that there is an over-abundance of buckthorn on the property. He noted that early in the process, he requested permission from the City to clear some of the buckthorn to get a better sense of the other vegetation on the site. He stated that in deference to the neighbors, the City requested that no removals occur until the tentative review process was completed. He acknowledged that in some cases, adjacent property owners might like to preserve the buckthorn as a screen. He stated that his preference would be to remove the buckthorn and replace it with a native species for consistency across the site. He stated however a willingness to discuss whether some buckthorn should remain as the detailed landscape plan is developed. He agreed that an appropriate landscape screen between the new development and adjacent properties is desirable. He noted that mature trees exist in some areas such as between the wetlands and neighboring properties and will provide a nice screen. He noted that some visibility between the existing and new development may exist. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson Mr. Swanson reviewed the changes made to the plan to achieve an increase in the lot sizes. He noted that initially, the preference was to have all half acre lots in the development in an effort to maximize the amount of open space that would be preserved on outlots. He stated that in response to the neighbors’ concerns about the lot sizes, one lot was removed from the proposed development and some of the preserved open space is now incorporated on to some of the lots as conservation areas. He stated that of the 30 acres, 11.68 acres will be developed and the rest of the site will be enhanced or preserved open space. He confirmed that from the earlier plan, there is a slight increase in the amount of land being impacted. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Corona explained that portions of some of the individual lots will be encumbered with protected open space and wetland buffers. She noted that in the earlier, smaller lot plan, all of these areas were on outlots. Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 8 of 23 In response to questions from Commissioner Henry, Mr. Mosca reviewed how the wetlands will be mitigated consistent with the County’s mitigation hierarchy. He stated that to the extent possible, mitigation will occur on site with any additional required mitigation occurring off site. He noted that mitigation on site through enhancements to existing wetlands and off site mitigation; both have economic impacts on the project. He acknowledged that on site mitigation is less expensive than off site mitigation. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson , Mr. Swanson stated that under the R-5 zoning, nine lots would be permitted on the site. He stated that under the R-4 zoning district, 17 lots would be permitted as determined by the conventional subdivision plan that was prepared. He noted that the R-5 district was applied to the property prior to a development plan being presented and is not consistent with the density of the surrounding area. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson , Ms. Czerniak confirmed that no density transfer from undevelopable portions of the property is proposed. She explained that under R-4 zoning district, if the entire property was developable, 21 lots would be permitted. She stated however that 21 lots is not being used as the basis for the density calculation, instead, 17 lots is being used because based on the conventional subdivision plan that was accepted by the City Engineer, only 17 lots could be achieved on the developable portion of the property. She stated that no density transfer is proposed from the undevelopable portion of the 30 acre parcel. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Strahan stated that he reviewed the two letters submitted by Burke Engineering on behalf of the neighbors. He stated that he concurs that there is surplus volume being proposed in the flood plain as part of the plan. He acknowledged that the details of that surplus volume will need to be worked out as the final engineering work is completed. He stated that the preliminary plan presented indicates that the development meets or exceeds all of the applicable requirements. He stated that any agreement to increase the size of the existing inlets in the adjacent subdivisions to facilitate movement of water away from the existing neighborhoods would be an agreement between the developer and the neighboring properties or Homeowners’ Associations. In response to questions from Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Swanson stated that the Homeowners’ Association that would be established with the new development would be responsible for the maintenance of the detention pond, open space and wetland areas. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the responsibility for maintenance for the open space areas would be documented on the plat of subdivision and in the Declaration of Covenants. Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 9 of 23 Commissioner Berg commented that the increase in the lot size borrows from the previously proposed preserved open space to enlarge the lots. He noted that in exchange, larger homes can be constructed on the larger lots. He expressed concern that by enlarging the lots, he would not want to see the development appear too dense. He cautioned that care should be taken not to create the impression of greater density. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that non- table land is counted at a reduced percentage toward the allowable house square footage. She confirmed that for Conway Farms, the developer elected to establish a more restrictive square footage limitation on the houses than required by the City Code. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited public comment and swore in all those intending to speak. Kyle Szymanczyk, 1485 Abington Cambs, stated that he tried to work with the petitioner to find middle ground on the proposal and stated appreciation for the efforts made. He stated his interest in a development that fits with the neighborhood and works for the developer and the City. He noted that he hired Burke Engineering to review the proposal and provided a memorandum from Burke Engineering to the Commission. He stated that the Burke memorandum speaks for itself and should not be interpreted by the petitioner. He stated that his main concern is density and the character of the lots in comparison to the surrounding development. He stated that the smallest lot in the existing neighborhood is 1.5 acres and noted that a 1.2 acre parcel is located on Leland Court. He noted other lot sizes in the area with the largest being 2.2 acres. He reviewed the lot sizes proposed in the new subdivision noting that the smallest lot is proposed at .55 acres. He stated that the small lots are not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He noted the wooded areas that are preserved on the existing lots in the neighborhood. He noted that the Stablewood Lane neighborhood has a different character than the Oak Knoll Drive neighborhood. He stated however that the proposed development is a continuation of the Oak Knoll neighborhood, not the Stablewood neighborhood and is inconsistent in character with the Oak Knoll neighborhood. He stated that the inconsistency in character is a major concern. He questioned how it was determined that 16 lots are permitted on the property. He stated that Burke Engineering stated that the buildable area on the site is 12.7 acres. He stated that he understands from real estate attorneys, civil engineers and wetlands experts that it would be challenging to build across this site. Lauren Sundberg, 530 Oak Knoll Drive, stated that her house is right next to the proposed development. She stated that she was an eminent domain attorney but is currently not practicing. She stated that she accepts that the property will be developed but objects to the proposed plan for a number of reasons. She thanked the Commissioners for driving through the neighborhood. She noted that she Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 10 of 23 submitted a letter to the Commission. She stated objection to the requested change from R-5 to R-4 zoning noting that the petitioner has no intention of developing 1-1/2 acre lots on the property but instead, much smaller lots. She stated that the reason R-4 zoning is requested is to maximize density on the site. She noted that Section 46- 23 of the City Code states that the Commission shall not recommend adoption of an amendment solely for the interest of the petitioner. She stated that her main objection is to the request for the overlay district. She stated that the issue is disagreement over what portion of the property is buildable. She noted that the Code states that the overlay district is intended to protect significant wetland, woodlands, meadows and other natural areas, but not intended to allow density transfers from areas of the property that are not buildable. She reviewed the definition of buildable area from the Code stating that it is the gross land area of a lot less all required set back areas and flood plain. She noted that the minimum buildable area is set forth in the design standards in the Code noting that the buildable area on a lot should not be less than 70% of the lot. She commented on the conventional subdivision plan noting that it was revised from the original plan presented and was submitted with an allowable lot density matrix that lists lots by number, gross square footage and provides the square footage of wetland and floodplain. She suggested that the 100’ wetland buffer should also be taken into account in determining the buildable area. She noted that she has repeatedly asked why the subdivision is not being accessed from Stablewood Lane and noted that the response was that Stablewood Lane is a private road. She stated that through the Freedom of Information process, she has reviewed the City files on the Stablewood Lane development and found considerable discussion about future access to Stablewood Lane and conditions that were proposed. She stated that the Lockett property, the parcel now proposed for subdivision, was required to be provided with access to Stablewood Lane. She noted that the plat of subdivision for the Stablewood development includes language about a future easement. She added that the City has a policy that supports the interconnection of streets. She noted that the record shows that there were several memos back and forth on the access discussion during the consideration of the Stablewood Lane development and noted that those memos talk about the importance of street interconnections. John Salcius, 1340 Abington Cambs Drive, stated that he has owned his property since 1999. He stated that his wife voiced her concerns about the development in May but he was not able to attend. He questioned the logic of the City staff report stating that it sounds like R-4 zoning is a given theoretically allowing 21 lots on the 30 acre parcel. He commented that the statement that the overall density of the proposed development will be less than the density of the surrounding developments because portions of the 30 acre parcel will preserved as open space is a mathematical concept, rather than a reality. He stated that the staff report disregards input from the residents. He stated that looking at the bigger picture of the proposed small lot development, in his opinion; the subdivision will look like a trailer park in comparison to the surrounding lots. He noted that the pond between him and his neighbors to the east empties into a culvert. He expressed concern Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 11 of 23 about destruction of the wetlands and commented that filling the site will put additional stress on the high quality wetlands. He asked that the Commission’s decision balance the profits for the developer with the quality of life for residents in this area. He asked that the Commission vote against the proposed development. He stated that 8 to 10 lots on the site will protect the wetlands, fit the neighborhood, maintain the quality of life for nearby residents and provide the City with revenues. He stated that the Commission’s decision, if not the best, will carry significant consequences. Ali Haghighat, 922 Oak Knoll Drive, stated that he is probably the person in the neighborhood who most recently developed his property with a demolition and construction of a replacement house. He noted that the process of gaining approval from the City was difficult and took considerable time and energy to comply with the City’s requirements. He stated that he is happy with the end product and commented that the City did the right thing in enforcing the criteria. He stated that he is not an expert on the criteria for the proposed project but noted that clearly, the neighbors are upset with what is proposed. He stated that the Commission needs to listen to the people. Peggy Talbot, 611 Oak Knoll Drive, stated that she has lived in her home for 7 years. She noted that both Mr. Szymanczyk and Ms. Sundberg submitted lengthy documents that identify questions that have come to light about the proposal. She stated that her family has many of the same concerns as those already voiced including the proposed density, the inconsistency with the surrounding development and character of neighborhood, the management of the wetlands, the impact to the surrounding infrastructure and the protection of the integrity of the area. She agreed with the questions raised about the density transfer proposed for the site. She stated that there is no question that the density is being shifted from one part of the site to the other. She stated that the questions raised represent a challenge with respect to whether the project can move forward with tentative approval. She stated that she does not think that the criteria have been satisfied. She noted that the preserved wooded areas in her neighborhood give a different sense of character than will occur with the proposed subdivision. She stated that if you ask residents in Conway Farms, they would not say that their neighborhoods draw from the character of the Oak Knoll and Abington Cambs neighborhoods. She agreed with the petitioner’s point that the 30 acre parcel was always intended to draw its character from Oak Knoll Drive and was intended to be an extension of that neighborhood. She stated that the issues of drainage, wetlands mitigation and stormwater have been well covered by others. She stated that the moment digging begins in the area, things will change. She noted that the area is an interconnected wetland basin, much broader than the Abington Cambs area. She stated that it is most concerning that the staff report indicates that after construction is complete; the Homeowners’ Association will be responsible for maintaining the stormwater system and wetlands. She stated she is not an expert in this area, but commented that suggests to her that the City does not trust that the system will work down the Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 12 of 23 road and does not want to be responsible for it. She stated that some serious issues need to be addressed and suggested that action on the petition be delayed. She stated that the impact on the streets will likely be greater than projected by the traffic study noting that her family of 6, with 4 teenage drivers, generates about 15 to 20 vehicle trips a day. She stated that families similar to hers may move into the new development. She stated that the Commission should consider how the subdivision will change over time as families grow up. She summarized her comments asking the Commission to delay tentative approval until the Commission is confident that all questions have been addressed. She suggested that if the market does not support larger lot sizes, then smaller lots, with open space between them, could be developed to lower the density and preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. She stated that the critical issues related to wetlands need to be addressed along with the issues on Conway Road. She stated that Conway Road is narrow and the accident reports probably do not reflect the times when cars have slid off the road. She stated that in the winter it is necessary to drive in the center of the road to avoid sliding off the road. Ms. Sudac, 1420 Abington Cambs, stated that wetlands are vital to wildlife and are part of a complex eco system. She reviewed the various benefits of wetlands. She stated that the concept of re-making a wetland is absurd and that the development will still be affecting this specialized area. She noted that a brand new detention pond will need to be created to replace what is lost. She stated that on site mitigation will result in the loss of woodland areas. She noted that the wetland buffer areas cannot be intruded upon. She noted that wetland mitigation credits are not currently available in Lake County and that the developer will need to pay money to the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission for mitigation. She stated that if flooding occurs, it will burden the property owners. She noted that if the wetlands are developed, the new properties will need to use clean drinking water for irrigation of lawns. She stated that the wetlands and animals will lose and the developers will win. Peter Frye 1375 Abington Cambs, stated that the idea that the proposed subdivision will be additive to property values in the neighborhood is laughable. He stated the smaller lots in this neighborhood will lower the property values. He stated that if the zoning is changed, the winners will be the petitioner and the County and City since more property taxes will be generated. He stated that the immediate neighbors will be the losers. Paul Sundberg, 530 Oak Knoll Drive, stated that he is an attorney. He stated that he does not know a lot about the process but stated that given the comments of others and his own reaction to the proposal, it is obvious that what is presented is a manipulation to allow a density transfer. He stated that the plan is totally inconsistent with the lot sizes in the neighborhood noting that his property is the smallest lot in the neighborhood at 1.52 acres. He stated that the petitioner proposes to stack a bunch of lots on the dry part of the property because the wet portion cannot be Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 13 of 23 developed. He stated that given the floodplain, wetlands and required buffer, the developable parcel is not 30 acres. He stated that the petitioner is trying to get more lots than is provided for under the ordinance. He stated that the density of the proposed development is the fundamental issue for his family. He stated that his family moved here a year ago and he stated his disappointment that he is not receiving support from the City. He stated that there is documented proof that this property has access from Stablewood Lane. Mark Remus, 1594 Coway Road, stated three areas of concern. He stated concern about traffic on Conway Road, both automobile and pedestrian traffic. He stated that Ridge and Telegraph Roads do not lead directly to the west Lake Forest train station and commercial areas. He stated that as the number of homes increase, the number of pedestrians on the road will increase. He stated that second, the homes proposed are inconsistent with the neighborhood. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan may support the change from R-4 to R-5, but not to smaller lots. He stated that the Comprehensive plan states that the new growth areas should be developed with a maximum density of 1.5 acres per lot. He suggested that the appropriate density for the property is somewhere between R-5 and R-4. He stated that his third point is that Mr. Swanson has lots of experience in this community and that he has never heard anyone say a bad word about him. He noted that Mr. Swanson hired Mr. Crook who was the Director of Community Development for the City for over 25 years and worked with Ms. Czerniak. He stated that if this group of insiders is able to come before this Commission and get a radical zoning change in the face of so much disagreement and dissent, it raises the appearance of impropriety and stated that it does not sit well with him and state his hope that it does not sit well with the Commission. Mark Pasquesi, 1073 Old Colony Road, Managing Broker for Berkshire Hathaway Home Services, stated that he is strongly in favor of the petition. He stated that the request for a change in zoning on this property from R-5 to R-4 is long overdue. He stated that the planned preservation overlay district is being applied precisely as it was intended to be. He offered his opinion from a real estate perspective stating that smaller homes, on smaller lots, will only enhance the value of the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that lots smaller than an acre and a half are sorely missing from the inventory of lots in Lake Forest. He stated that these lots are in extremely high demand and will directly benefit every homeowner in the area and every homeowner in Lake Forest. He noted that at a recent quarterly Real Estate meeting held by the City, realtors were asked “what do buyers want that Lake Forest does not currently offer?” He stated that the response was that buyers want new construction on smaller lots. He stated that the City should be much more willing to work with developers to simplify the approval process. He noted that other communities are more open to change and as a result, average sale prices are higher in other communities. He asked the Commission to take the first step in improving the Lake Forest approval process by approving the subdivisions on the agenda. He suggested that the entire approval process should be expedited. Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 14 of 23 Claire Tracy, 1391 Conway Road, stated that it is important to avoid bias in this discussion referring to the comments made by Mr. Remus and Mr. Pasquesi. She stated objection to the zone change request from R-5 to R-4 noting that acre and a half lots are not what is intended with this development. She stated that there are limited small lots in the community because of the efforts to protect Lake Forest, preserve the quality of life and preserve the community for future generations. Charlie Asfour, 1596 Conway Road, noted that his property is surrounded by the 30 acre parcel that is proposed for development. He stated that his family has owned the property for a year. He stated that the property is unique because despite the address on Conway Road, access to the property is from Stablewood lane through a series of easements. He explained that when he purchased the property, he began discussions with the petitioner stating that the discussions have been constructive and cordial and the petitioner has shown flexibility in the process. He stated that he is close to entering into an agreement with the petitioner that will address his concerns. He stated support for the zone change to R-4. He noted that his home takes its character from the properties on Stablewood Lane. He stated that he does not believe that the smaller lots or the number of lots will negatively impact his property. He stated support for the development as proposed subject to finalizing his agreement with the petitioner. Hal Frank, stated that he is an attorney representing the Asfours, on behalf of his clients, he expressed support for R-4 rezoning. He stated that his clients had some concerns initially, but noted that those are being addressed through a private agreement with the petitioner. He reiterated that the petitioner and his attorney have been open and cordial in the discussions in the interest of balancing the interests of the various parties. He commented on the materials presented by Ms. Sundberg noting that the City is not bound by comments that were made 20 years ago. He noted that the City must consider the circumstances that now exist and changes that have occurred. He noted that residents of Stablewood Lane have the right to express their opinion about use of the private road for access. He stated that he has reviewed the various documents and easements currently in place and has found no documents that obligate the City to approve a plan that requires a connection to Stablewood Lane. He stated that what is in the best interest of the City now, is not another development of 1-1/2 acre lots. Ron Lamb, 500 Stablewood Lane, stated that he submitted a letter to the Commission prior to the meeting. He stated support for the proposed development. He commended the passionate and spirited debate on this petition and the various positions expressed and stated that it is critical that all sides of the issue be represented. He acknowledged that each resident has the responsibility to think about their own property but stated that people should not lose sight of what it means to invite people to come to Lake Forest. He stated that although his neighborhood does not have trees like the Oak Knoll area, he does not feel that the character is different noting that both neighborhoods enjoy wonderful schools and Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 15 of 23 committed people. He stated that he is deeply insulted by the suggestion of impropriety in this process or by City staff. He applauded the Commissioners for the service they provide to the community. He stated that this development will be an improvement to the area. He noted that the experts are addressing the stormwater issues, both the petitioner’s experts and those brought in by the neighbors. He questioned whether another developer would bring as much care and commitment to the project as Mr. Swanson brings. He stated that since the last meeting, there seems to be a better sense of synergy developing around this project. He stated that from his perspective, Stablewood Lane could be used for access but noted that he cannot speak for the other residents or the Homeowners’ Association. He asked that the Commission grant tentative approval of the subdivision and allow the technical issues to be worked out through the development of final plans. Chairman Ley called for a 10 minute recess. Commissioner Anderson left the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Chairman Ley called the meeting back to order at 8:50 and invited any further public comment. Mark Sudac, 1420 Abington Cambs, stated that he is against the project as proposed. He questioned who would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the stormwater system and the wetland. He questioned how problems would be dealt with if the Homeowners’ Association is responsible for the maintenance. He questioned whether a Letter of Credit or an insurance policy would be required. He questioned whether the homeowners will be aware that they are responsible for the maintenance of these areas. He questioned whether eventually, the City would need to take over the responsibility. He asked that consideration be given to the long term and not to look at this development as a short term financial gain for the City. He stated that the proposed development does not make sense from environmental, neighborhood character or financial perspectives. Dave Carlson, 1566 Conway Road commented on traffic on Conway Road. He reviewed earlier discussions about street connections in the area noting that the connection of both Stablewood Lane and Tallgrass Lane through to Conway Road were discussed in the planning processes for the Conway Farms development. He noted that the City had two opportunities to provide additional street connections in the area and did not do so. He noted that the original location of a street connection from Conway Road to Tallgrass Lane is now a pedestrian path, instead of a street. He noted that at this point, the new development will need to accessed from Oak Knoll Drive because of past decisions that were made. He stated that at the time Conway Farms was developed, there was a commitment that all of the lots would be an acre and a half. He stated that commitment should be honored. Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 16 of 23 Chairman Ley noted that two requests to cross exam were received and invited the two requestors, Lauren Sundberg and Paul Sundberg, to proceed with cross examination. Mr. and Ms. Sundberg stated that they did not wish to cross exam. Chairman Ley stated that the opportunity for cross examination was offered and declined. He asked for staff response to public testimony. Hearing no further requests to speak from the public, Chairman Ley closed the public hearing. Ms. Czerniak asked whether, given the number of issues raised during public testimony, the Commission would prefer to continue the petition to allow time for staff to prepare a written response to the comments and questions raised. Chairman Ley stated that there are four or five issues that have come up that merit a staff response. He asked for the sense of the Commission on whether the Commissioners were prepared to act on the petition at this meeting or would prefer to continue the matter to allow the opportunity to receive responses to the testimony presented. Commissioner Berg stated support for continuing the matter to receive a response to public testimony. He stated that interesting input and information was presented and added that time is needed to digest the material. Commissioner Henry suggested that a special effort be made to focus on the new issues that were raised. He stated that the interest of the petitioner should be considered in further delaying a decision. Commissioner Culbertson suggested that the Commission identify any discussion points on which further information from staff is needed. He noted that the Commission could also identify any alternatives that should be studied. Chairman Ley reviewed the items he would like staff to address: density transfer, Stablewood Lane access, bike and pedestrian issues, the question of liability and responsibility for the wetland and stormwater drainage system. Commissioner Berg suggested that the responsibility issue would be addressed by specific covenants. Commissioner Culbertson asked for clarification with respect to the language in the Comprehensive Plan and the role it plays in guiding decisions on development. He suggested that clarification be provided on how buildable area is defined. Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 17 of 23 Commissioner Henry asked for clarification on the required buffer setbacks from high and low quality wetlands. He asked that information be provided on the role the Plan Commission plays in establishing limits to the square footage for the houses. Chairman Ley asked for a response to the testimony that the application of the overlay district is inappropriate for this property. He added that responses to any other issues identified by staff would also be appropriate to add. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, he invited a motion to continue the petition. Commissioner Culbertson made a motion to continue consideration of the petition. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Henry and was approved by the Commission in a 4 to 0 vote. Chairman Ley stated that consideration should be given to whether a special meeting could be scheduled to advance the time frame for further consideration of this petition. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that mailed notice of the meeting will be sent to neighboring property owners and those on the interested parties list. 3. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of a request for final approval of the Spiel Planned Preservation Subdivision and the associated Special Use Permit. Representative: Richard M. Swanson Chairman Ley asked for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest, hearing none, he swore in all those intending to speak on this petition and invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Swanson introduced the petition noting that final plat approval of the Spiel Subdivision is requested. He provided some background on the property noting that in 2012, the Spiels received tentative approval of the subdivision from the City Council. He stated that the conditions of tentative approval have been satisfied and the final plans presented to staff. He stated that his group has a contract to purchase the property from the Spiels. He noted that the Spiel family purchased the property in 1945 and built a home, designed by Stanley Anderson, in 1947. He stated that the house has been well cared for and the property has been in the Spiel family ownership for over 65 years. He reviewed the location of the property and the surrounding area. He stated that a 6-lot subdivision received tentative approval. He noted the location of the existing house and driveway and reviewed the natural features on the site: the heritage oak trees, the grove of spruce trees, the change in topography and the pond. He stated that the new, private road for the subdivision Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 18 of 23 will align with Red Fox Lane. He reviewed the flow of stormwater across the site noting that today, it flows in an uncontrolled manner from the northeast corner to the southwest corner of the property and he pointed out the existing manmade pond. He stated that the final engineering plans were prepared demonstrating that the water will continue to flow across the property, but in a more controlled manner, to the pond which will remain and be enhanced. He stated that all of the necessary approvals from outside agencies have been obtain. He stated that the existing topography of the site is being preserved to the extent possible. He described the outlot in the southwest corner of the property noting that no development will occur in this area and that the Homeowners’ Association will be responsible for maintenance of the pond and the overall outlot. He stated that as required by the conditions of tentative approval, all of the houses will be constructed with residential sprinkler systems. He reviewed the tree preservation plan and the planned landscape buffer areas. He stated that as a condition of tentative approval, a landscape buffer is provided along the east property line of Lots 1, 2 and 3. He stated that the buffer area will include preservation of existing vegetation and the planting of new vegetation. He stated that no structures will be permitted to be located in the buffer area. He stated that although no buffer area was required as part of the approvals along the north and west property lines, he reached out to neighbors in those areas to begin to discuss how the property lines might be treated. He noted that he was not part of the project at the time tentative approval was granted. He reviewed the site plan noting the bridges that will be constructed to work with the existing topography and natural features. He stated that native grasses are planned to enhance the area. He explained that a nature trail will be located on the outlot. He reviewed cross sections of the site at various locations and reviewed the proposed boardwalk and pond. Ms. Czerniak stated that this is a request for final approval of the Spiel Subdivision. She confirmed that the City Council granted tentative approval of the subdivision in 2012 after the plan was developed by the Spiels. She noted that considerable discussion occurred about the subdivision and the Plan Commission considered the subdivision over the course of two meetings. She stated that at the conclusion of the first meeting, the Commission continued consideration to allow further deliberation and study of whether 5 larger lots would be more appropriate on the site than 6 smaller lots. She noted that at the Commission concluded that 6 lots, ranging in size from an acre to over two acres, was appropriate and tentative approval was granted. She noted that a portion of the property, the southwest quadrant, is undevelopable, because of wetlands. She explained that to determine the allowable density on the site , a conventional subdivision plan was prepared by the petitioner and reviewed by staff. She stated that the conventional plan demonstrated that 6 lots could be supported on the property noting that this is a Planned Preservation Subdivision and is covered by the overlay district so flexibility in lot sizes is permitted so long as the underlying density is not exceeded. She reviewed the property noting that it is unique due to the grade change and the natural features. She stated that due to the significant grade change on the property, water Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 19 of 23 currently flows uncontrolled across the property from the northeast to the southwest and noted that the subdivision plan provides for detention of stormwater on the outlot located in the southwest corner of the lot. She stated that since tentative approval in 2012, the Spiels have obtained all of the necessary extensions from the City Council to maintain the validity of the tentative approval. She stated that from the start of the process, the Spiels stated the intention to market the property after obtaining tentative approval rather than develop the property themselves. She stated that the final plans presented meet the conditions of tentative approval. She stated that neighbors to the north and west have expressed an interest in assuring that there is an appropriate landscape buffer between their homes and the new development. She stated that in conjunction with the submittal of plans for residences on each of the new lots, a landscape plan will be required and particular attention can be paid to the outside perimeters of the lots. She stated that it will be important to review the landscape plan on the approved drainage plan to confirm that plantings do not interfere with the overland drainage flows. She stated that the detention pond and the outlot will be the responsibility of the Homeowners’ Association. She stated that the plat of subdivision will include a note providing the City with the ability to step in and conduct maintenance if the HOA is not fulfilling its obligations with respect to maintenance. She stated that if the City needed to conduct maintenance, the City would charge all costs, including overhead, back to the HOA. She stated that findings in support of final approval of the subdivision and the associated Special Use Permit are provided in the staff report. She noted that the recommendation is accompanied by suggested final conditions of approval. Chairman Ley invited questions from the Commissioners. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak stated that she cannot recall an instance in which the City needed to step in and conduct maintenance for a Homeowners’ Association. She stated that on a few occasions, the City has called issues to the attention of an HOA, but the issues were taken care of by the HOA and no further City action was required. She noted that Lake County has offered a seminar for members of HOAs to assist the groups in learning how to handle the various responsibilities associated with maintaining common areas including wetlands and detention ponds. She noted that on occasion, the City has received requests from HOAs asking that the City take over responsibility for private improvements and the City Council has consistently taken the position that private improvements and outlots must remain the responsibility of the HOAs. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Swanson reviewed the proposed limestone retaining wall at the entry to the development. He confirmed that the walls are functional, due to the topography. He confirmed that the intention is not to use the walls to call out the subdivision or create an entrance. He stated that it is intended as subtle wall. Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 20 of 23 In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak stated that she believes that Red Fox Lane is a public road. Commissioner Berg suggested that consideration be given to naming the private street Red Fox Circle In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Mr. Swanson confirmed that the final plat and the configuration of the outlot are consistent with the approved tentative plat. In response to questions from Commissioner Henry, Mr. Swanson clarified that neither play sets, nor pools can be located in the landscape buffer along the east property line. He stated that the buffer along the east property was established through the tentative approval process. He stated that although he was not part of that process, he understands that a landscape buffer was established in that location due to the unique relationship with the neighboring property to the east. He stated that the relationship with the properties to the north and west are different than what exists to the east. He added that there is a significant amount of landscaping in place to the north and west. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited public comments and swore in all those intended to speak on this matter. Don McCoy, 190 E. Westleigh Road, stated that he lives immediately to the west of the Spiel property. He noted that in earlier discussions, the Spiel’s engineer and attorney agreed to move the pathway away from his property line for his privacy. He asked that the path be located 50’ from his house noting that the impacts on his house are increased because the path is at a higher grade than his property. He requested that a screen of evergreen trees be added to screen his patio. He asked that no fence be permitted along the property line. He stated concern about the elevation of the pond and asked for assurance that the stormwater plan will work. He noted concern about culverts and the ditches in the area not being properly maintained. He questioned whether the downstream culverts and the swale are sufficiently sized to properly direct the water. He noted that all of the land between his house and Green Bay Road flows in his direction. He asked that work hours on the site be limited to between 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and that no work be permitted on Saturdays or Sundays. He asked that steps be taken to abate any dust generated by the construction. He stated that he believes that all of his concerns can be addressed. Ed Gillette, 266 Foster Place, stated that his property abuts the Spiel property to the north with about 80 % of the property line shared between the two. He stated that he has a 3-1/2 acre parcel and currently enjoys lots of privacy. He stated that today, a 20’ thick hedge runs the length of the Spiel property. He noted that in the winter, he sees fields and in the future, will see the new houses. He would like assurance that Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 21 of 23 the hedge will remain and that a landscape plan, showing additional plantings along the property line, will be developed. He stated that he was surprised to see the present plan which appears to indicate some removal of vegetation along the north property line. Howard Elias, 303 Butler, stated that his property abuts the northwest corner of the Spiel property. He noted that he wrote a letter in March, 2012, and requested that landscaping be provided along his property line. He suggested that a drainage swale is needed at the north end of the Spiel property to pick up water coming from the east. He noted that currently, water pools on his property, next to the driveway. He asked that the swale be extended to the north to prevent water from moving across his property. Mr. Anand, 320 E. Westleigh Road stated that he has lived to the east of the Spiel property for 19 years. He stated that in 2012, he testified that he would prefer 5 lots on the site, instead of 6, but understands that the 6-lot plan was approved. He asked that sufficient screening be provided along the side of his house. He stated concern that plants of sufficient size be located in the 50 foot buffer so they do not take 4 to 6 years to grow. He stated support for limited construction hours on the site. Chairman Ley invited a response to public testimony from City staff. Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that there was discussion about the perimeter landscaping on the site as part of the tentative approval process but noted those discussions focused on the east property line due to the fact that Lots 1, 2 and 3 all border the Anand property to the east. She stated however that landscape treatments along the north and west property lines can also be enhanced as landscape plans for individual lots are developed. She clarified that there was never an expectation that all views of the new residences would be eliminated from neighboring properties. She confirmed that both the preliminary and final engineering plans have been reviewed to verify that the stormwater flows across the property will be handled appropriately as the subdivision develops. She stated that the water will continue to flow across the site, but will be managed through the planned improvements on the site. She stated that the City has established construction hours which start at 7 a.m. and allow construction on the weekends. She noted that normally, special construction hours are not established for projects of this type. She stated that rather than curtail construction hours, often there is interest in seeing the project completed as quickly as possible. Chairman Ley suggested that a condition of final approval be added requiring that at the time plans for development of Lots 5 and 6 are submitted, a detailed landscape plan be required and that particular attention be paid to landscaping along the perimeter property lines. Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 22 of 23 In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Mr. Swanson stated that the path has been removed from the west side of the pond, near Mr. McCoy’s property. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson Mr. Bleck reviewed the location of the trail as now proposed. He confirmed that the path has been removed from the west side of the pond. He confirmed that stormwater moves from east to west across the property. He stated that there is currently a drainage issue on the Mr. McCoy’s property. He stated that currently, water flows across his front yard and down his driveway. He stated that a berm will be constructed and the water will be directed into a pipe and to a ditch along Westleigh Road. He stated that the planned improvements will definitely benefit the McCoy property. He reviewed the elevation of the berm and the McCoy property. He reviewed the current drainage pattern in the northwest corner of the property. He explained why a drainage swale is not needed in that area. He noted that once the property becomes developed, the water from the front of the properties will be directed out to the street. He stated that a small triangle of property will remain undisturbed at the northwest corner of the property and water flows will remain unchanged. He stated that to install a swale for that small area would require significant disruption of the trees and vegetation along the north property line. Chairman Ley clarified that the drainage that goes through the triangle area will be no different than what exists today. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Bleck confirmed that the water flows in that small area will not change. He stated that the neighbor is asking that water be re-directed from the existing direction of flow, to another area. Ms. Czerniak added that removal of the trees and vegetation would run counter to the desire for buffering along the property line. Commissioner Henry pointed out that at this point, the footprint of the house that will be located on the lot is unknown making it difficult to make decisions about whether it is appropriate to redirect existing drainage. Chairman Ley invited rebuttal to public testimony from the petitioner. Mr. Swanson stated that by removing the path on the west side of the pond, the privacy concerns for Mr. McCoy have been addressed. He stated that preserving the tree stand along the north and west property lines is important. He noted that as Lots 5 and 6 are developed, a drainage swale will be installed if needed. He stated however that the triangle area will not be disturbed. He stated that he is open to further discussion about landscaping along the north and west property lines. In response to questions from Commissioner Henry, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that as each lot is developed, grading and engineering plans will be required and reviewed Plan Commission Minutes – September 10, 2014 Page 23 of 23 by the City Engineer. She stated that if a problem is identified or if any inconsistencies with applicable requirements are found, the City Engineer will require the issue to be addressed before permits are issued for construction. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak explained that the plans for future houses on the lots could be referred to the Building Review Board depending on whether or not the applicable criteria are satisfied. She offered that a condition of approval could be added requiring that as plans come in for the development of Lots 5 and 6, a landscape plan for each would need to be presented detailing the landscaping proposed along the north and west property lines and the existing trees and vegetation that will remain. She confirmed that plantings approved in conjunction with the individual homes would be the responsibility of the property owners. She acknowledged that these plantings would be separate from the overall subdivision plantings that are required as part of the initial development. Mr. McCoy stated that voting on this petition is premature until he understands what is planned along his property line. Commissioner Culbertson noted that there is no longer a path located on the west side of the pond. Ms. Czerniak stated that staff will facilitate a meeting between the petitioner and Mr. McCoy to review the plans. Commissioner Culbertson made a motion to recommend final approval of the Spiel subdivision to the City Council subject to the conditions of approval as recommended in the staff report with the additional condition requiring enhanced landscaping along the north and west property lines at the time that plans are presented for homes on Lots 5 and 6. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Berg. The motion was approved by a 4 to 0 vote. 4. Additional information from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development