VILLAGE OF SUGAR GROVE

Plan Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), Chairman Irv Ochsenschlager called the regular meeting of the Sugar Grove Plan Commission/ZBA to order at 6:02 p.m. the Village Board Room.

Plan Commission/ZBA members present:

Brian Schiber, Bob Dray, Irv Ochsenschlager, Ryan Reuland, Andy Konovodoff

Steve Benesch and Ed Saloga arrived after roll call.

Quorum present

Also present:

Scott Buening, Community Development Director, Mike Ferencak, Planner, Steven Andersson, Village Attorney, Mike Hoffman, Planning Consultant Teska Associates, Nancy Zak, Recording Secretary

Petition 04-013: Settler's Ridge (Continued):

Annexation, Subdivision, Rezoning to Planned Development District (PDD)

Richard Young, Kimball Hill Homes, Petitioner)

Petition 04-014: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (Continued):

To create a Planned Development District

The Public Hearing had been continued to the October 20^th Plan Commission/ZBA meeting. The hearing was re-opened at 6:05 p.m. A quorum of Plan Commission/ZBA members was established.

Citizen Kent Rothrock, of 157 Buckingham, asked if the water retention basins were included in the open space percentage? He also was concerned that with the water sites, Canada Geese would flock to them, and wander into peoples' yard creating a nuisance. Richard Young, Director of Land Acquisition and Land Entitlement for Kimball Hill, responded, yes, that the retention basins were included in the open space calculations.

As far as the Geese, Young said the pond edges would be planted with native grasses, which discourages the Geese from coming to the ponds. The grasses can provide cover  for predators and the Geese tend to avoid these areas. Most Geese are drawn to ponds where the surrounding area is planted as manicured lawns.

Rothrock thought the 8' berm between Route 56 and the proposed development was not an adequate height to serve as a physical barrier. Young pointed out that the 8' figure was an approximation and that there would be planting materials on top of that that would make the barrier still higher. Young stated it was not an ideal situation, but they would do the best they could to screen homes from Route 56.

John Magerko of 138 Neil Road had a comment regarding the 30' strip of land between Terry Drive and Neil Road and Neil Road and Joy Street. He thought that strip did not adequately blend the existing residential area with the proposed development. Young, agreed, and said the developer hopes to reach an agreement with the Village to alter that land in the final engineering phase working with the Village's consulting engineers, E.E.I. He said no matter what was done with this strip, it would remain a marker between the two developments. Buening stated the Village would cooperate with the developer regarding this issue. The Village doesn't want to create poor drainage. The area in question is comprised of two different parcels. The area at Neil Road and Monna Street is owned by the Village. The other parcel is owned by a third party. The Village would consider turning over its parcel to the Settlers Ridge Homeowners Association to maintain.

Another member of the public questioned the direction the new homes would face between Neil Road and Monna Street. His concern was that those homes might be adversely affected by the drainage and water problems from the land's natural flow. Buening answered that the engineering would take care of the drainage situation. Bob Gudmundson, of Cowhey, Gudmundson and Leder, civil engineering consultant for the developer, stated the elevation of the homes would be such as to take in consideration of drainage. There also will be swales and a stormsewer in the rear yards of the homes in this area.

Randall Arndt, the developer's conservation consultant, stated the whole concept of the Settlers Ridge development was focused around conservation development and design.

A great deal of thought was given to the best place to put the ponds. Geese do not like tall grasses where predators hide. The land as it stands is tile drained in its pre-agriculture stage. The plans for the development bring with it improvements for drainage, but the intent is to bring back things that were on the site before the 19^th Century. The design encourages connections throughout the open space. There would be links to path and bikeways, which is unique in terms of open space. The pathways throughout the development are anticipated to be completed within ten years. Pedestrians would be able to walk to schools, shops and other public areas within the development.

Commissioner Dray, asked if the ponds were not aerated, what would keep them from becoming stagnant? Gudmundson explained that the ponds are designed with a tiered effect, with one pond draining into the next keeping the water moving, thus avoiding stagnation. Commissioner Schiber stated the Village would be making a big mistake if it doesn't require aeration of the ponds.

Chairman Ochsenschlager then asked if there was any public or Plan Commission/ZBA comments regarding the Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance creating a Planned Development District?

With no questions or comments regarding the Text Amendment being voiced, Chairman Ochsenschlager closed the Public Hearing at 6:26 p.m.

Schiber had, since the last meeting on this, put together a list of issues and concerns he had about the Settlers Ridge development. He said, although the developer did respond to his comments, there still were several issues that were responded to that he was still not satisfied with.

He stated if the Village were concerned with commercial development, why would it use prime commercial land for the future well and tower site. The Village and School District would miss out by using this land for the tower that could be commercial. Commissioner Dray was in agreement with Schiber. Young said by siting the water tower there, only one or two acres would be lost to commercial. Those acres of commercial can be made up by other parts in the plans. Chuck Hanlon, of Land Vision, Land Planning consultant to the developer, stated that the footprint of the water tower/well site could be smaller and that there was no reason to waste land for commercial development. Dray said they should take up as small a space as is possible. Schiber also felt putting a water tower and well site at that spot, on a corner that is very visible, would be aesthetically undesirable.

Regarding Schiber's comment about access points to the commercial parcel, Buening stated that IDOT agreed to an access road into the DeBartello property. It is still a possibility to have an access easement to get to the commercial site.

Schiber said he would like to see something mapped out better defining the potential uses on the commercial lot (Parcel #1).

Schiber said that the street names in the proposed development should reflect the names of the true Sugar Grove settlers and have some consistency. Young stated the names chosen do represent people and events of the Sugar Grove community related to the history of the area. The Northwest corner of the plan shows street names of four people. They will be happy to work with the Village on the names. There are still four streets whose names are not locked in stone. Dray pointed out that the street Goldenrod and others have the same name as some streets in Aurora. Schriber said all streets should be consistent for emergency purposes. Buening said the street names would be reviewed.

Regarding the private residential alleys, Schiber thought they should be a minimum structural number of 3.0 to accommodate delivery and garbage trucks.

Schiber believes that both Gordon Road and Prairie Street should have curb and gutter cross sections. Arndt interjected that they wish to keep part of Prairie Street as a rural cross section and Gordon would link with Prairie.

In regard to the ornamental lights in the development, Schiber indicated they should be maintained by the Homeowners Association rather than the Village. Buening stated the Village Board and Staff are going to adopt a standard for ornamental lights within the Village.

In respect to the number of bridges within the development, Schiber said there were a lot of them. He questioned if the Village would be accepting maintenance of all the bridges. In addition will the bridges be pedestrian friendly? Gordon Road and the Gordon Road overpass, Buening said may be taken over by either Aurora or the County. Schiber asked if the County had given any indication it would accept Gordon Road. Buening said the County has had no comment initially, but then gave consideration of swapping a piece of road. There will be more to discuss with the County on this matter.

Schiber noted that the plans had numerous gaps in the sidewalks/paths along the interior roadways. Some only have a walk on one side. Young agreed, saying he too thought sidewalks should be constructed on both sides of all right-of-ways.

Schiber also commented on the lack of detail on the south parcel. He was reluctant to recommend approval of anything in the south side without the same details presented in the northern portion. Buening stated there would be another public hearing focusing upon the south portion at a later date. What the Plan Commission/ZBA is being asked to vote on at this point in time is the Preliminary Plat for the north half of this PDD, the concept plan to the south end of the property. The intent is that when they decide they are going to proceed with the south half of the property, they would publish a public notice and come back to the Plan Commission to process the south half. There would be that opportunity for public input and discussion.

Reuland asked if there was going to be a clubhouse and pool in the south portion of the plan? Young responded that there would only be a pool facility. Young said as far as other facilities are concerned in the south portion, the developer would like to get feed back from the Park District to know what it wants.

Dray expressed concerns about the possibility of lighting the athletic fields in the large park area in the north section. The lighting is a distraction to the neighbors. He said the Park District may want lights, perhaps not now, but in five or ten years from now they may want lights installed. Dray asked Buening if there was any way the Village could put a deed restriction on that property so that it will not be lighted? Buening the Commission could make a recommendation that those parks not be lighted and it could be incorporated in the PDD. Dray asked, if the Village doesn't do anything, if the Park District would have to come in the Village if they decide they want to light those fields. Buening responded that the Village does not at present have any restriction on park lighting. There's nothing that would prevent them from lighting any park in the Village. Young indicated they want to give some restrictions on lighting and that is something still to be studied. It is a marketing concern for the developer when the homes that butt up to the park are being sold. The developer would want a clear understanding of what the Park District sees for those areas. Dray said he would like to see something in place that that area not be lighted.

Dray asked who is the architectural reviewer for the homes going up in Settlers Ridge?

Young said the reviewers would be internal to Kimball Hills Homes. Buening said the Village Board did not want to be responsible for orchestrating the architectural review. As Young said, they would have their own architectural review committee internally. Dray felt the architectural review seemed loose, and would like to have somebody representing the Village on the review committee. Buening said there was a possibility that the Village could hire someone to stand in for the Village on the architectural review. Andersson had concerns if the architectural standards adopted could be enforceable. Elevations showing height limitations could be attached to the standards.

Reuland brought up the subject of brick crosswalks within the development or stamped asphalt, particularly in the central park area. Buening said the crosswalks in the Hannaford Farm development are planned to have a concrete frame with bricks laid in. The Public Works Department was in favor of that. He assumes Public Works would be agreeable to brick crosswalks in the Settlers' Ridge development. Stamped asphalt poses maintenance problems. Young stated in their final landscape design they would have more detail so they would consider the brick crosswalks.

Konovodoff noticed on Exhibit G, page 3 the characteristics of the historical details were mentioned, but when will the Plan Commission/ZBA see the actual elevation styling the developer is proposing? Young stated, at the time of the final plat. They are now working with architects on different elements of the 13 or 14 different product lines.

Dray said that on Page 21, of the attachment to the annexation agreement reference is made to a $1,500. per unit tap on fee. Young said that figure was incorrect, the credit will actually be fore the full $4,638. per unit. Andersson stated the annexation agreement is going through revision. What the Commission has before it is the developer's first draft.

Dray also had a question about the mention of construction trailers, storage trailers that would be used by sub-contractors. He asked if there was a way those could be placed in an area that's not visible to current or new homeowners so they are not an eyesore? Young responded, absolutely yes. It's not only in the Village's interest but also the developer's benefit from a marketing standpoint to make sure those trailer are screened as best as can be.

Dray went on to some explanation of the fees required and the times they are to be collected. Young answered that some of the fees are required at permit time and some at plat, according to the Village Code. They are trying to reflect the Village Code. Buening said the fees are still subject to significant revisions.

Dray asked if Staff could also respond to Schiber's comments and issues in a written report? Buening said Staff could try. In regard to the first of his issues, parcels at the end of Terry Drive, Monna Street, and Neil Road, they are owned by the Village and a third party. Most likely, the Village has a right to put easements and utility drainage easement through, so modifications to those areas can be made to accommodate any drainage issues as needed. Buening said he hadn't discussed this issue with the Public Works Department or been given direction whether the Village has any desire to continue to own those. If the Homeowners Association wanted to take those over as part of the development, he believes the Village would consider it.

Regarding access points into the Commercial parcel, Buening stated that there is adequate access into that development site.

Speaking to issue 22 on Schiber's list, Buening said the Village has discussed with the developer providing an offsite watermain connection to the Mallard Point subdivision to provide a true loop and an alternate feed supply for Mallard Point. That is a concern the Village has as well. The Village doesn't want to keep that on a dead end any longer than it has to. Staff has talked with the developer about potentially doing that as part of this phase or early in the second phase.

Dray asked if the Plan Commission/ZBA would have the opportunity to revisit the architectural guidelines? His concern was the guest builders. He did not like to leave the review to be a subjective decision by the developer. Andersson suggested that if the Plan Commission/ZBA wanted to revisit the architectural guidelines, it should be within the body of the annexation agreement. Forward that as one of your recommendations of something the Village Board should consider.

Reuland asked Young if the prospect of a water park would affect the Settlers Ridge development? Young responded that he didn't think that would have a tremendous effect one way or another. There is a great deal of distance between the residences and where the water park would be.

Dray brought up still another concern.; the stop sign at Cross Street and frontage road. Although not the developer's concern, something needs to be addressed. Buening said that concern could be part of the Plan Commission/ZBA's recommendation. On a positive note, Dray continued, he thinks the Settler's Ridge plan is one of the best he has seen. He liked the land plan and the architectural guidelines. He complimented the developer on doing a good job.

(Note: Commissioner Saloga was not as yet present to cast a vote on this issue)

(Note: Commissioner Saloga was not present as yet to cast his vote on the motion.)

(Nick Bumba, Nick's Custom Furniture, Petitioner

Chairman Ochsenschlager opened the public hearing at 7:47 P.M. Quorum of Plan Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) was present.

Ochsenschlager read the Petitioner's request:

The Petitioner is seeking a Text Amendment to the Sugar Grove Zoning Ordinance to allow Display, Sale, and Repair of New or Used Furniture as a Special use in the M-1 Limited Manufacturing District.  Special Use in the M-1 Limited Manufacturing District for display, sale, and repair of new or used furniture or furnishings, and including any preparation or repair work conducted as an accessory use, pursuant to Section 11-10-2-B M-1 Limited Manufacturing District: Special Uses of the Sugar Grove Zoning Ordinance.

Those intending to give testimony were sworn in by Chairman Ochsenschlager

Jamie White, Attorney representing the Petitioner, stated his client wished to open a furniture store in Sugar Grove. However, nothing ideal in the way of a location was available for a retail furniture outlet. The Petitioner has rented space in a building in an M-1 District (760 Heartland Drive, Unit 6) but the zoning district doesn't allow for the extended use the Petitioner needs nor does the zoning ordinance provide for a Special Use.

White stated the notice for the public hearing had been published, a sign was posted on the property and notice having been mailed to surrounding property owners was verified.

White stated the Petitioner's business would bring in retail sales tax to the Village. The property is designated as Business Park. He said the Petitioner was requesting a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow display, sale and repair of new or used furniture as a Special Use in the M-1 District, and then the Special Use to conduct his business. White referred to the Staff Recommendation, in particular the conditions of approval. One of the conditions limited the Special Use to Unit 6 of 760 Heartland Drive, and states that it cannot be expanded unless the Special Use is amended. White took exception to this condition, saying the Petitioner may want to expand or switch the location of his business anywhere in the building and this condition would inhibit that. Another of the conditions White focused upon was that of paving with asphalt or concrete the area located at the south end of the building. This area would not be used and therefore, the Petitioner felt it should not have to be paved.

Public Comment:

There was no public comment either in favor or opposition to the Petitioner's request from anyone in the audience. Staff had received no inquiries from the public regarding this proposal.

Chairman Ochsenschlager closed the public hearing at 7:59 P.M.

Dray questioned if all the other units in that building were filled? Ferencak said, no some were empty in the building.

Buening said the condition recommended by Staff regarding limiting the business to Unit 6 of the building only was based upon concerns that should the retail business prosper and expand, and the Petitioner wanted to relocate to another unit, it is possible the parking requirements would be higher and Staff would want the opportunity to review that. Currently the Unit the Petitioner's business occupies meets parking space requirements.

After some discussion, the Plan Commission/ZBA felt the Petitioner's argument about the two Staff conditions, as mentioned above, had merit and agreed to reword those conditions.

With no further discussion a motion of recommendation was in order.

Shari Neeley, John Clare Ltd., Petitioner

The Petitioner requested a continuance of the Public Hearing. The reason being the litigation still pending regarding the subject property has not come to a conclusion.

The Plan Commission/ZBA granted the request for a continuance.

Gary Berman, Sun Space Design, William and Doris Houghtaling Petitioners

The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Ochsenschlager at 8:11 P.M.

Plan Commission/ZBA quorum was present.

The Petitioners' request is for a Variance to permit a rear yard building setback of 28.36 feet instead of the minimum required 30 feet. The current zoning on the subject property is R-2 Single-Family Detached Residential District.

This lot was developed as part of the Walnut Woods Unit 1 Subdivision. The lots along McDole Drive are generally shorter in depth than many of the other lots in the Walnut Woods subdivision due to the park area that was placed behind them.

Those intending to give testimony were sworn in by Chairman Ochsenschlager.

Doris Houghtaling stated that her husband, William suffers from serious back trouble. They wish to construct a 12' x 22' seasonal modular aluminum sunroom. As an addition to their home, which would include a portable exercise, swim spa for therapeutic use.

A letter written by Stephen Baldwin, M.D. of Edward Medical Group dated September 29, 2004 was submitted as evidence. In it Dr. Baldwin stated that Mr. Houghtaling was under care for chronic back pain. He had undergone evaluation and treatment… He continues to be symptomatic despite treatment. He would benefit from whirlpool type therapy and swimming exercises for his chronic back discomfort.

Also submitted with the application for a Variance was a Diagnostic Imaging report from the Gabilan Radiology Medical Group, of Hazel Hawkins Memorial Hospital indicating Mr. Houghtaling had advanced degenerative disc changes in the lower lumbar spine.

There was no public comment given at the hearing either in favor or opposition to the Petitioner's request for a Variance. Staff had no input from the public regarding the proposal at this time.

Schiber questioned if the addition had to be 12' x 22'? Berman stated the addition did have to be at least this dimension. Anything smaller would pose a clearance safety issue.

Konovodoff expressed his opinion that he did not want to set a precedent by recommending approval of this variance. Mr. Houghtaling responded that there are no homes behind theirs. There is a slew behind his home. The ten lots along this slew are not allowed to have a pool.

With no further comments or questions forthcoming, Chairman Ochsenschlager then closed the Public Hearing at 8:16 P.M.

Konovodoff again stated he is opposed to recommending that the Variance be granted because he believed it would set a precedent. Schiber was in agreement with Konovodoff. Buening stated unique circumstances existed in this petition for a variance. Reuland stated Variance requests are acted upon on a case by case basis where individual circumstances are taken into consideration. Benesch said there was a conservation easement and a public park behind the Houghtaling home. Buening said the Village presently owns the park, but the Village would like the Park District to take over ownership.

The final draft of the Comprehensive Plan has been completed. The Steering Committee voted to move the document forward. The draft of the Plan will be distributed widely to other government bodies. A special meeting to review the plan has been scheduled for December 1, 2004, 6:00 P.M. at the Village Hall. The Comprehensive Plan would be the only item on the agenda. Should it appear that there would be a crowd in attendance, the meeting would be continued to another meeting place.

The Phase 1 Final Plat was approved by the Village Board at its October 19, 2004 meeting. Denny Road would be dedicated through the property and the Village would work with the developer in accomplishing that.

The Village Board approved of this Special Use and work has begun on the building permit process and FAA issues.

The Village Board approved this amendment. All banks will be a Special Use.

The Village Board had no specific consensus at this time. A hearing will be scheduled for the annexation agreement of this property.

Board has decided masonry mailboxes would be allowed. New regulations regarding their construction, limiting size and scope are being written.

Schiber said he had read in a local newspaper that the Village of Sugar Grove won the lawsuit related to the noise of the music at Rich's Chicago West. Buening said the judge upheld the Village's noise ordinance. The restaurant is scheduled to reopen November 11.

Benesch questioned Buening if he had talked to IDOT about the signalization at this intersection. Buening said IDOT found nothing conclusive regarding the situation. He will keep on it. IDOT can regulate the signal timing at different times during the day.

Respectfully submitted, 

Nancy Zak, Recording Secretary