Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2010/10/13 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the October 13, 2010 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, October 13, 2010, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Chairman Jack Reisenberg, Commissioners Tim Newman, Catherine Waldeck, Mike Adelman and Jeff Kuchman. Commission members absent: Commissioners Beth Miller and Mark Shaw Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff. Chairman Reisenberg introduced the members of the Commission and staff. 2. Approval of the minutes from the September 15, 2010 Plan Commission meeting. The minutes of the September 15, 2010 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Public Hearing and Action: Continued consideration of amendments to Chapter 38 of the City Code, Subdivisions. This is part of an ongoing effort by the Plan Commission to update and clarify various sections of the City Code pertaining to development. Chairman Reisenberg asked the Commission to identify any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from staff. Ms. Czerniak introduced this item noting that this is a continuation of the Commission’s work on the update of the Subdivision Chapter of the Code. She noted that from time to time Boards and Commissions review and update various chapters and sections of the Code and noted that the Commission has been reviewing the Subdivision Chapter for several months now. She stated that the Subdivision Chapter of the Code has not been updated in its entirety since 1946. She stated that based on the Commission’s review and comments on the proposed amendments to date, the Chapter has been revised to reflect the Commission’s discussions including modifications to wording and some re-ordering of some sections. She reminded the Commission that the overall amendments as proposed do not make substantive changes to the City’s subdivision process but instead, provides clarification, additional detail and expanded information in some areas where technical requirements have changed. She noted that in particular, clarification is provided on the process for requesting variances, the definition section is enhanced and the application requirements are included in the Code. She stated that adding application requirements to the Code is consistent with the approach taken by other Boards and Commissions. She stated that in other cases, this has worked well to set realistic expectations for petitioners and members of the public with to the materials required for subdivision of property. She pointed out that in response to several situations that have occurred in recent years, an amendment to allow the opportunity for a second extension of tentative approval is proposed. She pointed out that the public notice requirements are detailed in the Chapter and that the standards for subdivisions have been updated. She noted that the County requirements for wetlands and storm water management regulations did not exist when the Chapter was last Plan Commission Minutes – October 13, 2010 Page 2 of 4 amended and are now called out in the Chapter for clarification. She invited questions and comments from the Commissioners. In response to a question from Commissioner Newman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that staff from various departments and sections was consulted in drafting the amendments and in responding to the previous comments and suggestions from the Commission. She confirmed that the City Engineer and City Attorney were both involved in the process. She stated that the update is overdue and that although the Chapter may not be perfect, staff is comfortable with moving the current draft forward for final approval. She noted that with a wholesale update of the Chapter, it is likely that there may be some items that are missed or others that need to be tweaked once the Chapter is used a few times. She stated that future minor amendments to one or two sections can easily be brought before the Commission for review and public hearing as needed. She stated that the Chapter cannot be written to address every imaginable situation and reminded the Commission that the variance process is intended to allow the Plan Commission and City Council to approve variances if unique situations arise and if a proposed project is consistent with the intent of the overall City Code and applicable polices, and if the Commission and Council determine that a variance is in the best interest of the overall City. In response to a question from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak explained that once a tentative plat of subdivision is approved by the City Council, it is valid for 12-months. She noted that during that time, a final plat of subdivision and any other appropriate documentation needs to be presented to the Plan Commission for final consideration. She stated that with the proposed opportunity for an additional extension of tentative approval, a petitioner could request a 12-month extension of tentative approval from the City Council, twice. As a result, she explained that with Council approval, tentative approval of a subdivision could be extended for a period of up to 36 months before the tentative plat approval expires. Commissioner Adelman noted that he was not present at the last meeting and may have missed some previous discussion but questioned whether requests for extension of tentative approvals should come back before the Commission for discussion to allow the Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council on the request. He noted that there may be some changes that take place in the world that could affect a previous approval. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that if any changes are proposed by the petitioner after tentative plat approval, then an extension could not be requested, that matter would need to be brought back to the Commission for further review and public hearing. She explained that as part of the tentative approval process, the hard questions are asked and issues are resolved and usually no substantive changes occur between tentative approval and presentation of a final plat for consideration. She added that the final phase of the subdivision process provides the opportunity for confirmation that the final plans reflect the approvals granted during the tentative phase of the approvals. She confirmed that the subdivision plat and overall development as recommended by the Plan Commission, whether tentative or final, is presented to the City Council for action. Commissioner Adelman noted his experience that the changes to the stormwater management requirements impacted a previous project he was involved with over time requiring changes to the plat. Plan Commission Minutes – October 13, 2010 Page 3 of 4 Ms. Czerniak clarified that as written, a request for an extension of tentative approval could not involve any modifications to the plat. She noted that if modifications are requested, the plat would need to be reconsidered by the Plan Commission and could not simply be considered through a tentative approval extension request. In response to a question from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak stated that most requests for extensions are due to the need for time to align finances or due to current market conditions. She confirmed that the Letter of Credit and other financial guarantees are received after approval of the final plat of subdivision and before the City records the plat of subdivision. She confirmed that the financial guarantees are reviewed by the City Engineer and City Attorney. In response to a question from Commissioner Adelman, Commissioner Newman noted that the regulators will work to find a bank to take over Letters of Credit is a bank fails. In response to a question from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that impact fees are addressed in a separate section of the Code. The Commission pointed out some typos and formatting errors. Chairman Reisenberg invited public comment. Hearing none he invited a motion from the Commission. Commissioner Newman made a motion to recommend approval of amendments to Chapter 38, Subdivisions, to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Waldeck and was unanimously approved by the Commission. 4. Public testimony on non-agenda items. Richard Rielly, representing SBA Towers, requested that the Commission continue discussion of modifications to the City’s Wireless Ordinance. He stated that service in the area is decreasing and relief is needed to service the southeast quadrant of the city. He stated that the current Ordinance identifies the Barat property as an acceptable location for a new cell tower, but stated that other alternative locations should be considered. Ms. Czerniak stated that within the last 30 days the Ad Hoc Barat Advisory Committee met with Harris Bank. She stated that Harris Bank has not yet taken a position on whether or not they wish to retain the current designation on the site or have it removed. She explained that at this time, the City has received no applications either from a tower provider or from Harris Bank to amend the Wireless Ordinance. She confirmed that the City has contacted independent consultants to assist the City in review of any such requests once they are submitted. She recommended that Mr. Reilly submit a complete request for consideration of an amendment and all applicable fees it SBA desires consideration of an amendment to the City’s current Code requirements. She confirmed that the cost of the independent consultant’s review will be covered by the petitioner requesting an amendment. In response to questions from Chairman Reisenberg, Ms. Czerniak stated that the independent consultant will review the petition and provide input on various aspects of each request Plan Commission Minutes – October 13, 2010 Page 4 of 4 including, but not limited to, the need for additional coverage in the area, the opportunity for stealth installations, minimum height requirements, the state of the technology and how to achieve maximize coverage with minimal infrastructure if in fact a new installation is needed. She stated that when a request for amendment is filed, a deposit is required from the petitioner and then held in escrow and used to cover the costs of the consultants. She stated that any money remaining after the review is completed is returned to the petition. She confirmed that the consultant would be working under contract with the City. In response to a question from Commissioner Newman, Ms. Czerniak stated that the consultant will prepare a report which would be presented to the Commission. She stated that staff would base any recommendations on the report. She acknowledged that the consultant will bring a level of expertise to the review that the City does not have on staff. She added that during earlier discussions, the Plan Commission requested that an independent consultant be used for review of these types of requests. Dennis Meulemans, 1100 Sir William Lane, questioned what role the Plan Commission and City Council will play in the ongoing discussions of affordable housing and the Settler’s Green development. He stated that he thought those items would be discussed at this meeting. Chairman Reisenberg stated that the City Council is scheduled to have a discussion on affordable housing November 18th. He stated that the matter will be referred to the Plan Commission at the appropriate time. Ms. Czerniak stated that as of now, the City Council is scheduled to take action on the proposed financial term sheet for the Settler’s Green project at the next Council meeting. She explained that if the term sheet is approved, the matter will be forwarded to the Plan Commission for review of the technical issues of the proposed development and for consistency with zoning requirements. She stated that if the term sheet is not approved, the matter will not move forward to Plan Commission. In response to a question from Mr. Meulemans, Ms. Czerniak stated that written testimony can be provided to Community Development staff in advance of the Council meeting or public testimony can be presented to the Council at the meeting. In response to a question from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Council agendas and packets are available from City Hall and noted that the packets are available on the website the Friday before the meeting. 5. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak noted that at this time, there are no items scheduled for the November Plan Commission meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development