VILLAGE of SUGAR GROVE

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Irv Ochsenschlager at 6:04 p.m. in the Village Board Room.

Plan Commission/ZBA members present

Steve Benesch, Bob Dray, Irv Ochsenschlager, Ryan Reuland, Brian Schiber, Ed Saloga

Quorum established

Also present

Brent Eichelberger, Village Administrator, Scott Buening, Community Development Director, John Houseal, Planning Consultant, Dave Burroughs, Engineering Consultant, Nancy Zak, Recording Secretary.

Planned Development Amendment, Preliminary and Final Plat (Olympia Investments II, LLC)

The Petitioner requested the public hearing on this matter be continued to the March 17, 2004 Plan Commission/ZBA meeting. The request was granted.

Sign Setback Variance (Castle Bank National Association)

Chairman Ochsenschlager swore in those giving testimony.

The Petitioner requests a Variance to reduce the front yard setback of a proposed freestanding sign from 20 feet to 4 feet.

Presentation:

Natalie Grindle, representing Castle Bank, stated the freestanding sign along Galena Boulevard that was erected at the time the building was constructed was substantially damaged a few years ago. The Bank would like to fully replace the existing sign with a new sign. The original sign is located approximately four feet from the front property line, and was allowed by the previous zoning ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance was subsequently amended, and now requires a setback of 20 feet for the proposed 20-foot high sign. The existing sign is considered a legal non-conforming sign and could remain until removed or destroyed. The Bank would like to place the new sign on the existing sign foundation and utilize the existing electrical connections. Doing so would require the setback variance.

Public Comment

No one rose to speak in favor or opposition to the Variance request nor was any response from the public received by the Village.

Chairman Ochsenschlager closed the public hearing at 6:08 p.m.

Those giving testimony were sworn in by Chairman Ochsenschlager.

Eric Honea of Honea Construction presented his request for a Variance for a 5.22 foot reduction to the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 24.88 feet. The lot was granted a building permit for a single-family residence. The application indicated that the home would be approximately 24 feet from the rear (west) property line. This was not caught as an error on the site plan until after the foundation was constructed. Staff found the error when the spot survey was submitted for review. Thus Honea has applied for this Variance.

Mr. Phillip questioned if the front yard was actually Cornwall Circle and thought the distances were all off. It was his opinion what was indicated on the Foundation Plan as the back was really the side of the house. Vivian Porretto of 720 Cornwall Circle, thought what was designated as the Back of the house was really the side. The setback is 11' to 19' short of the required 30' leaving no room for a patio or grill. She had submitted a letter of objection to the petition dated February 17, 2004 , marked as "Exhibit A". In part, the letter states that the Planning Commission/ZBA not recommend granting of the Petitioner's request. That a mistake made by the Village does not demand granting the variance.

A letter dated February 16, 2004, marked as "Exhibit B", was received from Mark Gehl, President, on behalf of the Windstone Community Association, in opposition to the Variance. In part the letter states that although this home has a Cornwall Circle address, the home's front door is on Queensgate. It is a side yard not rear yard variance. Allowing the variance would jeopardize the property values of the development. It is their belief if the Commission recommends granting the variance request, it will send a message and set a precedent with the construction community.

Buening stated that Cornwall Circle, adjoining the shorter dimension of the lot according to the Zoning Ordinance designation is indeed the front yard.

Honea stated if the Variance is not granted and if the house must be rebuilt, the resulting new setbacks would be worse. He would be forced to have a smaller footprint for the house. Also, if the house had to be torn down and could not be rebuilt, the neighbors would be looking at an unfinished home during the long process of litigation. He felt, even with the variance, there would be room for a patio. In response to one of the public comments that the distances were "all off", he said he had a licensed professional surveyor measure the property and setbacks Rear Yard Setback Variance Cornwell Circle continued  and they are accurate. He introduced "Exhibit C", the Site Plan for the property.

Chairman Ochsenschlager closed the hearing at 6:26 p.m.

Buening told the Commission/ZBA that staff recommends a recommendation of approval for the variance for the hardship was caused by the Village.

Schiber noted this was the second Village error that necessitated a petition for variance in the last three meetings. He expressed disappointment in Staff not picking these things up.

Annexation, Rezoning, Planned Development and Preliminary Plat of Subdivision

(Vanguard Homes, LLC)

Commissioner Saloga recused himself from participation in the hearing because of his personal interest in the project..

The hearing was opened at 6:35 p.m.

The Petitioner is requesting:

Annexation from unincorporated Kane County into the Village of Sugar Grove.

Approval of an Annexation Agreement for the proposed Hannaford Farm Subdivision.

Zoning changes from Kane County F-Farming District to Village of Sugar Grove zoning R1-Low Density Residential District.

Approval of a Planned Unit Development for the Hannaford Farm development, including a subdivision for 139 single-family residential lots.

Approval of a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision and Preliminary Engineering for the Hannaford Farm Subdivision.

Jim Saloga, Attorney representing the developers, led the presentation. The property in question is a 122 acre parcel on the north side of Merrill Road, west of Bliss Woods Club, units 1 & 2. The low density residential project is planned to be developed in two phases, the southern portion being phase one. The proposed development has 139 lots averaging 16,850 square feet in area and no lot would have  an area less than 15,000 square feet. 40%, or more of the site, is devoted to open space.

Ed Saloga, the builder, stated they have been a family business for three generations.

They have built in Sugar Grove and the Fox Valley area. They have won numerous awards as one of the best builders in the Midwest. The homes they are proposing for Hannaford will be high-end, starting at $500,000. Many lots will be a half-acre in size. The property backs up to green space and has buffering to keep the integrity of the forest preserve it adjoins. The homes will give current Sugar Grove residents who wish to move up the opportunity to do so and remain in the Village. The homes will be custom built with the use of brick and stone and be subject to a special architectural review, especially the homes along Merrill Road. They are proposing to repair and enhance the existing barn structure helping to maintain the rural/estate character of the area.

Ted McKeown asked what the barn would become? Saloga answered, for now, it would be used as storage for the HOA's use. Only the exterior would be renovated.

A number of questions and comments revolved around the increased traffic that the development would generate on Merrill, Bliss and Windsor. J. Saloga stated that Denny Road would be the primary road. There would be three access points into and out of the proposed development. One access point being at Merrill Road at Hannaford Drive and Wheat Field Avenue and one access onto Denny Road (Redbud Lane). They plan to keep the area rural in character. Merrill and Bliss are in the County's jurisdiction. The builders have agreed to a cash contribution towards improvement of those roads. Upon annexation of the property, Merrill and Windsor will become Village roads. Buening interjected that the County passed an ordinance mandating the collection of impact fees. Fees for the improvement of roads within the proposed project area are anticipated to be put to use within five years.

Robert Randy asked what improvements were going to be made at Merrill and Bliss? J. Saloga said the County decides that. As developers, they will make a contribution toward whatever development the County decides upon.

Mike Lebart asked to be shown the location of Denny Road as related to this development. J. Saloga said it would connect to the east to Bliss Woods. Buening said Denny was dedicated up to the project's property line.

Dennis Wallace, resident of Bliss Woods, questioned if a certain line on the plat was a pedestrian path. It was not, answered J. Saloga. It is just a line.

Steve Borgin, of Bliss Road, asked how Denny Road would go through Bliss Woods. J. Saloga said where the surface ends, that will eventually connect. The proposed development connects to existing Bliss Woods subdivision to the east by an extension of Willow Street.

Mark Chaney asked if developments have been proposed for this site previously? J. Saloga said yes, previously proposals made by other developers have come to the Village for consideration, but were turned down. Chaney asked what was different about the development being proposed at this time? E. Saloga told him the lots are bigger, the homes are larger and will be custom built, the density is lower than what others had proposed, and there is more green space in the current plan. The development is being modeled after Foxmill in St. Charles.

Melissa Chaney questioned if there would be berming along the treeline? J. Saloga told her the Village requires a tree survey. The Developer cannot take down trees without approval from the Village. There will not be a berm, for trees and berms are not compatible.

Harry Clark asked for information on the rear yard setbacks. J. Saloga told him they would be asking for variances on rear yard setbacks. Clark then asked if the side yards would line up with the existing yards in Bliss Woods? J. Saloga responded, no they would not for the lot sizes are different. When the subject of fences came up, Lunn, President of Redbud Properties, said they would have a say on the fencing that would be allowed in the development.

Bryan Rose asked when the traffic flow would be addressed. Buening responded that would be a matter decided at the Village Board level and he could address his concerns then.

A gentleman questioned how far the homes would be set back from Merrill Road? E. Saloga stated the closest point would be 150' plus setbacks.

Joann Roff said she was disappointed in the placement of the houses against Bliss Woods. E. Saloga said there will be 30 to 40 homes that back up to Bliss Woods nicely.

Mr. Connor, Mr. Bilski and another member of the public said they liked the plan currently being proposed. It is better than previous developers' proposals. They expressed their opinion the Village was fortunate in having E. Saloga develop the site. Mr. Laback liked the plan and felt Saloga does a good job. His only worry was managing the traffic. The traffic situation at Merrill and Bliss is dangerous.

With no further public comments, J. Saloga told the Commission/ZBA they were hopeful that a recommendation would be made that evening.

The public hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m.

Schiber asked what kind of improvements are expected on Merrill Road? J. Saloga said they plan to preserve it as a rural type road. Burroughs said they should provide core samples.

Houseal suggested the pedestrian path on the north side of the development be developed on the subject property so people can make use of it without going out of the residential area.

Schiber noted there were numerous outstanding issues listed by Village Staff. He suggested the matter be continued to the next meeting so staff would have ample time to resolve those issues with the developer. Lunn said of the 40 items EEI listed, all were addressed and the plans have been changed accordingly.

Benesch asked Buening if by the next meeting the outstanding issues could be handled. Buening responded he believed that most would be resolved.

Chairman Ochsenschlager then called a five-minute recess at 7:25 p.m.

The meeting was reconvened at 7:34 p.m.

Planned Development Preliminary and Final Plat and Special Uses

SE Corner IL Route 47 and Park Avenue (Waterford Real Estate Development, et al.) Continued. New Public Notice issued

The plans have not changed since the petition was last heard in June, 2003. Due to the long time lapse, the Petitioner posted new signs, published a new legal notice and mailed new notices to surrounding property owners.

The Public Hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. Those giving testimony were sworn in by Chairman Ochsenschlager.

Tracy Kasson, Attorney representing the Petitioner stated the property located at the Southeast corner of Il. Route 47 and Park Avenue was 32.66 acres in size. A list of exhibits submitted to the Village are as follows:

Affidavit of Publication

Affidavit of Mailing

Use List

Deviation List

Wetland Report dated 12/4/00 prepared by ENCAP

Traffic Report dated 10/29/02 by Gewalt Hamilton

Soils Report dated 10/23/00 prepared by Terracon

Preliminary/Final Site PUD Plan – April 18,2003

Preliminary Landscape Plan – April 18, 2003

Final Landscape Plan

Final Plat of Resubdivision – April 14, 2003

Jewel/Osco elevation with wall signage – February 20, 2003

Jewel Fuel Express elevation with wall signage – October 1, 2002

Lot 10 building elevation with signage – October 1, 2002

In-Line shops elevation with signage – October 1, 2002

Ground sign elevations – October 1, 2003

Pedestrian Access Exhibit - April 18, 2003

Final Lot Approval – April 18, 2003

Preliminary/final Engineering

State/Federal historical and environmental letters

State or local roadway letters

Trend of Development Map

Special Use and PUD Standards

Several consultants and principles representing the proposed Sugar Grove Center were present to give further information or answer questions. Kasson told the Commission/ZBA they were before them seeking Preliminary and Final Planned Development approval on lots 1, 2, 5, 10, 14 and 15, including several variances to the subdivision and zoning ordinances; Preliminary Planned Development approval on lots 3, 4 , 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 – 13, including several variances to the subdivision and zoning ordinances; Approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat of Sugar Grove Subdivision;

and approval as permitted uses a number of special uses.

The first phase of the development would consist of:

the Jewel/Osco building, 61,628 S.F., with a drive-thru window on Lot 1 and possibly Lot 2,

the Jewel Express fuel center and mini-mart on Lot 5.

The freestanding strip center on Galena ,Lot 10

The detention area, Lot 14

The shops connected to the Jewel/Osco building ,Lots 15 and possibly Lot 2.

This first phase of development would consist of 109,242 S.F. retail area.

They seek a Preliminary PUD approval on the remainder of the lots.

Peter Theodore, Architect, reviewed the plans for building and parking setbacks from Route 47 (which deviate from Staff recommendations) , Park Avenue and Galena Boulevard as well as interior setbacks, again which may not meet Zoning Ordinance setbacks. There will be trees planted in the interior of the development in the parking lot and green space is planned in the upper right section of the plan.

Uses proposed are B-3 or less intensive uses and fall within the Comprehensive Plan dictates. In regard to elevations, the buildings will be brick and stone with a limited use of dryvit. 85% of the front of the Jewel/Osco building will be transparent and be of a pedestrian friendly design. Parking is planned at a 4:1 parking ratio. The landscaping will have an irrigation system and would be well maintained.

The development, Theodore went on to say, will not produce noise or noxious fumes. The trash would be self-contained, fed from the inside of the store. All other dumpsters would be within masonry enclosures.

In regard to signage, the general guidelines used for all shops and the Jewel would be controlled in letter height. The monument signage on Route 47 would be large and of masonry and identify the major tenants. The fuel center would have a low ground signage. Park Avenue would have low ground signage identifying the uses. Capitol and Park, would support small signage. Galena Boulevard is planned to be the main entry, also with major signage. Outlots 6, 7, 8 will have low ground signs.

Delivery truck circulation will be served by Capitol Drive which will enter at that point.. Access to the fuel center will be restricted with right in, right out only.

Parking lot standards in regards to lighting would consist of no-glare box lighting with the light focused on the property. They are aware of problems of lighting on the gas station site. The lighting level should not be a problem for it would be tucked into the canopy.

The project ,Theodore stated, fits in with the trend of development and character of the area. There is not expectation of any disturbance or bad effects the development would have on the neighborhood. All the proposed and special uses are consistent with the Corridor Plan.

The Landscape Architect for the project was given the floor and stated the landscape plan for the site is consistent with the Village Ordinance. Trees will be 3" diameter. The setbacks on the site and berming will provide a buffered transition between the site and neighboring properties. A variety of trees are planned, including oaks, maple, ash, ironwood and ornamentals. Evergreens; fir and Colorado Spruce will be a major element in the landscaping. The large detention area will be planted with native grasses and forbes. Within the parking lots shrubs and ornamental grasses will be planted.

There will be a pedestrian circulation system with a series of sidewalks and a bikepath adjacent to Route 47. 30% of the site will be green space. Berming will be next to the residential development. On Capitol Drive, adjacent to residential the berm will be

3 1/2 ' high, on the West side of Capitol it will be 4 ½'. Along the East property line,

2 ½'. Berms will be supplanted with a combination of trees.

The project Engineer spoke to the site utility plan. A 12" watermain is located within Park Avenue adjacent to the site. The development will be connected to an existing sanitary sewer along Capitol Drive adjacent to the Waterford Townhouse development. The mains will be extended to service all lots in the site.

Stormwater management plans accommodate the Kane County Stormwater Ordinance. Stormwater detention would be provided on Lot 14 on the east side of Capitol Drive. The rate of release from the detention area is now slower than previously calculated. It will be a dry bottom detention. The on-site utilities will be underground. There will be

some wetland mitigation for approximately 1 ½ acres. The plan has been reviewed by EEI and from an engineering standpoint they are well on their way.

Bonnie Clock, the traffic consultant, stated site access will be from Route 47, Park Avenue extended. IDOT has given approval to the concept. Plans are to construct improvements to Route 47 and Galena Boulevard where they intersect with Park Avenue and Capitol Drive. The Park Avenue/Route 47 improvements will include left turn lanes onto both side of Park Avenue. This will provide access into the development from southbound Route 47, and will also allow access onto the west side of Park Avenue from northbound Route 47. There will be three access drives at Park, one access from Capitol and one access at Galena. There will be one right-in, right-out on Route 47. Numerous off-site improvements would be constructed.

Regarding truck access to the site, from 88, 47 north and south, Route 30 and Route 56 from the south, trucks will travel east on Galena and enter off Capitol Drive from North Park. There will be signage instructing trucks not to travel into the local neighborhood. All proposed plans meet IDOT standards. The stacking for the car wash is adequate.

Bob Nelson, one of the Sugar Grove Center property owners, stated the Sugar Grove community needs a grocery store. The Community will be benefited by the road improvements in addition. The development will generate tax dollars. The property as it currently stands generates $25,000. in property tax. When the center is fully built out, 24 to 25 million dollars property tax dollars will be generated. The development doesn’t generate school children. They hope to break ground soon, depending upon Village approval. The full build out will take from seven to ten years.

Jim Hornecker, the Real Estate Manager for the Jewel-Osco aspect of the development stated the Village needs a grocery store with monitory development and the increase in population currently happening and expected in the future. The project is in a good location. As far as traffic concerns, they can be met and dealt with. They expect the creation of hiring of 100 full-time employees. They are looking forward to developing in Sugar Grove.

Chairman Ochsenschlager noted Buening has in hand Exhibits 1 through 23 that represent part of the Petitioner’s presentation.

Public Comment:

Perry Clark, Executive Director of Sugar Grove Economic Development Commission encouraged start up of the development. The Village needs the commercial growth and sales tax. He suggested trucks do deliveries during non-rush hours.

Tom Moser questioned if IDOT improvements would be done in conjunction with the development. Clock indicated lanes would have to be added for access into the project.

He was concerned that traffic would go through the residential neighborhood.

Susan Moser too was concerned that traffic, not only truck traffic, but patrons of the development would cut through their residential neighborhood. She questioned if access to Capitol could be stopped.

Nancy McCulley said the landscaping and proposed architecture was beautiful, but she too was worried about traffic cut throughs in the neighborhood. She asked what was planned for Lots 12 and13. Horneker told her, those would not be one of the first to be developed and there are no specific plans for them now.

Some of the public expressed concerns about the lighting and possible glare emanating from the development. Kasson responded that the lighting would be controlled by Village regulations and they were sensitive to lighting and glare not being a disturbance. Lighting on the signage was also a public concern. Kasson stated the signage will not be glaring, there will be no raceway lighting nor strobe lights.

A public comment complimented the greenery planned for Route 47 stating it made the appearance of the shopping center attractive.

Kasson thanked the public and Village Staff for their input. They are eager to start. The development conforms to the existing Comprehensive Plan.

Plan Commission/ZBA Discussion and questions:

Benesch suggested the hearing be continued. Saloga said he was ready to vote on the Petition that night. Dray questioned if there would be seasonal outdoor product sales in parts of the parking lot. Hornecker said there would be outdoor sales at the south end of the parking lot.

The subject of a connection between the Jewel/Osco site and Castle Bank came up. Buening stated there has been discussion between the two entities and they have agreed upon a connection with each party having a share in responsibility of its construction and maintenance.

Benesch questioned if the Jewel/Osco parties would be contributing to signalization needed. Buening said, that issue has not been discussed at this point in time.

Benesch questioned why the plans show two different styles of parking; straight in and angled? Theodore responded with shopping carts and the intense uses, angled parking is more convenient for the grocery store. Benesch also had comment about the parking aisles allowing cars to travel through from both directions. It was his opinion the one way aisles were safer and more convenient to get in and out of parking.

Schiber had concerns about the type of median planned on Capitol. If the median were raised rather than painted controlling the right in only, it would be more effective. Kasson said they could do a raised median.

Schiber thought he’d like to see a more decorative lighting than the shoe-box lighting proposed. Theodore said the decorative styles are inefficient and cost prohibitive. With shoe box lighting there is more control of light spillage. Schiber asked if there would be outdoor music. Theodore responded, no. Schiber asked if the association would maintain the common areas and landscaping? Buening stated that was one of the conditions placed on the development was that a property association be formed to manage all the common areas.

Benesch asked what the purpose of the curb cut on Lot 3 was? The Petitioner stated use of that lot will have to come in for approval.

Saloga stated he was in favor of as many access points as possible. He liked the concept of the unified architectural theme and the materials they plan to use on the construction of the buildings.

Schiber asked Village Engineer Burroughs if there were any serious problems that have to be resolved to gain his approval? Burroughs answered there were not, only small issues.

Benesch asked about the size of the trees planned for the parking lot islands. In some shopping centers they are of a size that block drivers’ view. The Petitioner stated the plantings in the islands will be ground materials that are 18 to 24" in height.

Chairman Ochsenschlager introduced a letter into the hearing, labeled "Exhibit 24", that was received from Mark Hyde of 272-A Whitfield Drive disputing two of the uses proposed by the developer, those being "taverns"and "package liquor sales". His concern is that a tavern would become a beacon to certain elements of society not compatible to the surrounding area. There would be a higher volume of drunken drivers and an unnecessary burden on the Village Police Force. Kasson indicated they could drop the tavern use. However, package liquor sales would be needed for the Jewel/Osco as well as some of the other uses.

The public hearing was then closed at 9:16 p.m.

Discussion on the motion. Dray questioned Buening as to why he recommended elimination of Lot 11. Buening said he was against pigeonholeing a lot. This lot would not be functional, it close to the roadway and not a true outlot. It’s out of place.

VOTE ON THE MOTION:

Findings of Fact

The Plan Commission/ZBA reviewed the Findings of Fact prepared by Planning Consultant Houseal regarding the Commission/ZBA recommendation on the Stillwater Subdivision petition.

James White, Attorney for the Petitioner, having reviewed those draft Findings of Fact, wrote a letter, dated February 17, 2004, to the Commission in which he relates the Petitioner’s position that the proposed findings are insufficient under the Village’s ordinance and contrary to the Plan Commission’s split vote. The Petitioner submitted a Findings of Fact prepared by their attorney and indicated they should be adopted by the Plan Commission in place of the Village consultant’s findings of fact.

A lengthy discussion followed which addressed both findings after which the Commission members made the decision to adopt the Findings of Fact prepared by the Village planning consultant.

The wording change is noted in bold underline.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Sugar Grove Planning Commission with its 6 to 0 vote against the Stillwater development as proposed, finds all or part of the following with regard to the proposed Stillwater Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission was split (3 in favor and 3 against) regarding the issue of supporting a change to the Comprehensive Plan’s land use designation of the Subject Property. The Planning Commission finds:

Comprehensive Plan: The proposed planned unit development does not conform to the land uses, intent, and spirit of the Comprehensive Plan and other objectives established for the Village. The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property primarily for "Business Park" and "Office" uses, with other areas designated for "Institutional"and "Open Space" uses. A small portion of the area east of Municipal Drive is designated for "Low Density Residential" uses. The proposed development is primarily residential in nature, not business park/office. The proposed development does not provide a public regional/community-wide park/recreational amenity, the proposed development places higher

density residential in an area designated for low-density residential. Further, the proposed planned unit development would not be as economically advantageous to the Village as the Comprehensive Plan designation would be.

Compatibility: The residential component of the proposed planned unit development is not compatible with the adjacent airport use; the proposed commercial component is not compatible when adjacent to an existing single-family residential use; and the proposed townhome/villa area is not compatible with the existing adjacent single-family neighborhood to the east.

General Site Design: Several changes are needed to satisfactorily address issues related to the proposed site plan, including: Commercial areas should be larger and located along Route 30; commercial uses should not be located adjacent to existing single-family homes; the townhome/villas component should not be located adjacent to the existing single-family neighborhood; insufficient off-street parking is provided for the townhome/villas areas; and the overall layout of townhome and villa clusters needs to be improved.

Public Streets: The proposed street layout for the townhome and villa area east of Municipal Drive is not consistent with the Village’s objective of eliminating cul-de-sacs.

Vehicular Access: Individual townhome and villa driveway access need to be redesigned.

Allowable Deck Height (Neumann Homes)

Neumann Homes had previously requested an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding rear yard deck heights in the R-2 District. The Village Board was not receptive to changing the Ordinance for the entire Village. It was felt amending the Walnut Woods Planned Development would be the best procedure to follow. This would affect this subdivision only, and would not be applicable to other subdivisions.

The amendment is considered a Minor Amendment to the Planned Development. The amendment needs only an informal review and recommendation by the Plan Commission, then approval by the Village Board. The Village Board expressed several conditions and limitations they would like considered as part of this amendment.

After review and discussion of the proposed amendment, the Plan Commission made the following motion:

Staff recommends limiting the deck encroachments to those lots that the developer anticipates would have walk out or look out basements. This would include only the following lots: 6-8, 10, 50, 51, 54-58, 60, 64-67, 92, 101, 105 in Unit 1, and Lots 127-147, 166, 176, 177, 210, 211, 225, and 226.

Along with the Village Board conditions as follows:

Decks cannot exceed 15 feet above the grade below the deck.

Landings are required for stairs on decks that exceed six (6) feet in height.

Stairs off a landing must change direction by at least 90 degrees.

Additional landscaping needs to be proposed for the area off Route 56 to screen the existing and proposed homes/decks off the highway.

Drawings need to be submitted on how the proposed decks would appear.

 

6. NEW BUSINESS: None

(Subdivision Ordinance Changes)

A MOTION WAS MADE BY BENESCH, SECONDED BY SALOGA THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy Zak

Recording Secretary

     Home •   Contact us